Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 89-19; BROCATO; Planning CommissionYCI - (O7 S. 98 SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY June 30, 1989 Odinark & Thelan/Davidson Companies, Partnership 3200 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101 San Diego, California 92103 Attention: Mr. John Thelan Job No. 04-8005-001-00-01 Log No. 9-1810 SUBJECT: ADDENDUM GRADING PLAN REVIEW Broccato at Batiquitos Shores Revised, CT89-19 Carlsbad, California Gentlemen: As you requested, we have reviewed our geotechnical recoinendations for your site with reference to the grading plan dated June 20, 1989 prepared by O'Day Consultants. The basis for the recommendations is our report titled PRELIMINARY GE0TECICAL REPORT, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Site, Batiquitos Drive, Carlsbad, California, Job No. 25052-00, dated May 21, 1986. The report was prepared for a previous client who has granted permission for the information to be released to you. In general, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development,, provided that the geotechnicai constraints discussed in the above report are considered in the grading of the site. The condition which should most greatly affect the proposed development is the presence of up to approximately 95 feet of relatively compressible alluvium in the valley floor. The recommendations outlined in the report remain applicable except for the 491lowing revisions: 1. Alluvium and colluvium above the water table should be removed and recompacted. The depth of removal may be estimated from the boring data contained on Plate 1 of A SUBSIDIARY OF THE IRVINE CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 9240 TRADE PLACE, SUITE 100 • SAN DIEGO, CA 92126 • (619)536-1102 • FAX: (619) 536-1306 TM Odmark & Thelan/Davidson Job No. 04-8005-001-00-01 Companies, Partnership Log No. 9-1810 June 30, 1989 Page 2 the report. The minimum acceptable removal is five feet • beneath the bottom of footings near the lagoon. The maximum removal is expected to be approximately 17 feet at the north boundary of the site. Removal excavation should be terminated before the subgrade becomes unstable near the water table in order to minimize the amount of subgrade stabilization. Depths to the water table may vary from those observed in 1986. 2. A minimum of three settlement monuments should be placed at the prepared surface of the alluvium, the pipe extended to the surface as fill is placed, and levels shot by the project surveyor. Construction of improvements should begin only after primary settlement is complete. A drawing of a typical settlement monument is attached herein. We appreciate this opportunity to be of professional service. If you have questions or need more information, please call the undersigned at your convenience. Very Truly Yours, SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. PL'.'r 4 1k, R,0~~ Raymond H. Masson Project Engineer ;/-7• ony F. Belfast, P.E. C 40333 Registration Expires: 3-31-91 Principal Engineer AFB/cf bs ZAP F. Attachments: Settlement Monument Drawing cc: O'Day Consultants HO. C 040333 ______ ________ _______ ..........______- ;•:- - - PIPE CAP r 1-4 INCHES llt'j '-NAT1VE SOIL USE LIGHT - WEIGHT (EXAMPLE-POwDER- 318' TO 1 CRUSHED ROCK-.._. r..0 PUFF) STYLE EQUIPMENT 1: PVC PIPE SLEEVE. 21/2' 13:. 10 4' DIAMETER - •;. -STANDARD 3/4'STEEL. PIPE •. ,j•.... STANDARD 3/4' PIPE CONNECTORS__Y:.!. •• . -. 8'x 18' STEEL PLATE WITH COUPLER WELDED TO PLATE : • INSTALl. AS INDICATED AT LOCATIONS RECOMMENDED BY GEOTECHNICAL. CONSULTANT. DO NOT INSTALL WITHIN 20-28 FEET OF SLOPES • PIPE BROUGHT UP WITH FILL. IN 5 FOOT SECTIONS • AFTER 24 HOURS SURVEY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS TO 0.01/FOOT • SURVEY VERTICAL ELEVATIONS PER SOILS ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATION • SURVEY HORIZONTAL LOCATION EVERY MONTH TO 0.01 FOOT • VARIATION IN THE ABOVE RECOMMENDATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SUBJECT TO REMJEW BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT DEEP SETTLEMENT MONUMENT DETAIL JOB NO. DATE: FIGURE: 04-8005-001-00-01 - JUNE 1989 1 1 -. a a-i - , ICG incorporated San Diego County Office: 9240 Trade Place, April 6, 1990 Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92126 619/536-1102 fax: 619/536-4306 Odinark & Thelan/Davidson Job No. 04 -8005-003 -00 -OOR Corporate Office: Companies, Partnership Log No. 0-1424 5 Mason 3200 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101 Irvine, CA92718 San Diego, California 92103 714/951-8686 fax: 714/951-6813 Attention: Mr. John Thelan Inland Empire Office: l906 Orange lreeLane, SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR Suite 240 Redlands, CA 92374 Broccato at Batiquitos Shores 714/792-4222 Revised CT89-19 fax:714/798-1844 Car1sbad, ornia Orange County Office: 15 Mason REFERENCES: (1) Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Irvine, CA 92718 714/951-8686 Proposed Multi-Family Residential Site, fax: 714/951-7969 Batiquitos Drive, Carlsbad, California, San Diego Soils Engineering, Inc., May 21, 1986, Job No. 25052-00 (2) Addendum Grading Plan Review, Broccato at Batiquitos Shores Revised, CT89-19, Carlsbad, California, ICG Incorporated, June 30, 1989, Job No. 04-8005-001-00-01 (3) Preliminary Foundation and Overexcavation Recommendations, Broccato at Batiquitos Shores Revised CT89-19, Carlsbad, California, ICG Incorporated, March 14, 1990, Job No. 04-8005- 001-00-01 Gentlemen: As requested by you and O'Day Consultants, we have reviewed the comments on the Draft EIR submitted by various parties. The purpose of this report is to provide responses to geotechnical questions, based on clarification of previous reports or on further analysis. Note that Reference 1 was issued over three years ago, and that we therefore reserve the right to update recommendations contained therein. / Geoechnical Services Construction Inspection and Testing Odinark & Thelan/Davidson Companies Job No. 04-8005-003-00-ocR Partnership Log No. 0-1424 April 6, 1990 Page 2 MEMO TO PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER 1. Drainage Section 6.6 of Reference 1 states that, "the ground surface around structures should be graded so that surface water will be carried quickly away from the building without ponding." The geotechnical concern is that water should be carried away from the building to avoid saturation of the foundation and slab area. Our review of the proposed grading plans indicates that the area between the sides of the structure and the property line, and the area within 10 feet of the structure from the rear of the structure will have a minimum of 2% crossfall, and that the swales around the structure will have a minimum of 1% grade. In our opinion, these gradients satisfy the intent of our recommendations, and are within the current standards of practice. Densely or heavily landscaped areas (as opposed to lawns) retard the flow of water, and should be sloped at 5 percent or greater. To our knowledge, such heavily landscaped areas are not planned adjacent to structures. 2A. Slope Stability Grading for proposed Lots 54, 55, and 59 through 63 will remove material from the toe area of the natural slopes bounding the site on the west. Analysis of the graded slopes using the STABL5 computer program with the modified Bishop option was used to calculate the factor of safety against gross sliding of the slope. Shear strength parameters used for the Santiago Formation sandstones were: cohesion, 250 pounds per square foot, and angle of internal friction, 33 degrees. A seismic acceleration was included in the analysis. Odanark & Thelan/Davidson Companies Job No. 04-8005-003-00--OOR Partnership Log No. 0-1424 April 6, 1990 Page 3 The seismic force is included as an additional static lateral force. According to our calculation, the factor of safety against gross sliding is in excess of 1.5, which is the commonly used minimum factor of safety for permanent slopes. Therefore, in our opinion, the proposed grading does not create a credible risk of sliding of the existing slopes. 23. Seismicity As described in the previous section, in our opinion, seismically induced slope failures are not a credible risk at this site. The potential for liquefaction was discussed in Section 5.2.2 of Reference 1. Some degree of liquefaction of the alluvial soil below the water table is likely in the event of a strong earthquake. If the recommendations contained in Reference 1 are implemented, the proposed structures will rest on a minimum of 5 feet of compacted fill beneath the footings (plus 2 feet between the bottom of footings and grade). The vertical stress induced in the alluvium by the light structures planned for the site will be negligible due to the stress-spreading effect of the compacted soil mat. Therefore, the kind of serious structural damage sustained during strong earthquakes by heavy structures constructed directly on liquefiable soils should not be a risk at this project. The compacted soil mat should limit the effect of liquefaction of the underlying alluvium, due to a strong earthquake, to relatively uniform settlement of the ground surface, amounting to several inches. Odinark & Thelan/Davidson Companies Job No. 04-8005-003-00-OOR Partnership Log No. 0-1424 April 6, 1990 Page 4 Rose Canyon Fault Since the issuance of Reference 1, evidence of recent seismic activity on the Rose Canyon fault has been discovered. The following paragraphs explain the new findings. The discovery of apparently active fault features have raised questions concerning the activity of the Rose Canyon fault zone. The Rose Canyon fault zone consists of numerous subparallel on-shore and off-shore fault traces which together form a northwesterly-trending zone. The total length of the known on-shore fault traces is 7.5 miles. Combined with suspected off-shore traces the total length of the fault zone is approximately 55 to 62 miles. Numerous authors (Corey 1954; Emery, 1960; Moore, 1972; Moore and Kennedy, 1970; Wiegand, 1970, Kennedy, 1975; Legg, 1974; Kennedy and Legg, 1979) have suggested that the Rose Canyon fault is the mid- portion of the Newport-Inglewood fault system to the north and the San Miguel fault to the south in Baja California. The relationship of the Rose Canyon fault zone to the Newport- Inglewood and San Miguel faults has an important implication in that both the Newport-Inglewood and San Miguel faults have experienced major earthquakes (Magnitude 6 to 7) during historical times. As yet, their structural continuity has not been thoroughly investigated but the possibility that they are related cannot be finally dismissed. At least ten earthquake epicenters (between 1939 and 1974 are believed to be associated with the Rose Canyon fault zone in the south San Diego Bay region. A swarm of small earthquakes that occurred in San Diego Bay in 1986 may also be attributed to the Rose Canyon fault. Although the earthquakes were small and not capable of causing serious damage, they do suggest possible seismic activity on the Rose Canyon fault zone. ___ ................. _---.. - Odinark & Thelan/Davidson Companies Job No. 04-8005-003--00-OOR Partnership Log No. 0-1424 April 6, 1990 Page 5 Recent work on the Rose Canyon fault zone has shown that strands within the zone may be active. A single trace has been shown to possibly offset topsoil in one location and appears to have created topographic features common in active faulting (off-set drainages, pressure ridges, enclosed depressions and fault scarps). The age of the most recent movement, the fault's recurrence interval (expected period between major earthquake events), the relationship between the active trace and other faults within the fault zone have not yet been established. As a result, the impact on seismic safety is not known. The degree of the hazard may not be determined for years. It is presently the City of San Diego's opinion not to make changes to their design requirements. It should be noted that the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) could establish Alquist-Priolo Studies Zones along the fault at any time. Upgrading the San Diego area from seismic risk zone 3 to seismic risk zone 4 would likely follow designation of Special Studies Zones by the State of California. We have reviewed the existing information available regarding the fault and conclude that a magnitude 7.0 earthquake is an appropriate maximum credible event for a 20 mile rupture length (offshore La Jolla to Coronado Bridge) for the Rose Canyon fault. A maximum probable event of magnitude 6.5 is hypothesized for the same fault. The maximum probable earthquake is defined as that earthquake having a probability of 80 percent of not being exceeded in 100 years. We recommend using this event in structural design. Estimating the distance of the Rose Canyon fault from the site as 5 miles (offshore), the potential peak acceleration from the maximum probable event would be approximately 0.45 g. Odmark & Thelan/Davidson Companies Job No. 04-8005-003-00--OOR Partnership Log No. 0-1424 April 6, 1990 Page 6 Despite the recently discovered data, the body of evidence indicates that the rate of strain accumulation and resulting recurrence interval of the Rose Canyon fault are so long (Artim and Elden Mills, 1982) that the effects of more active faults, (Coronado Banks and Elsinore faults) are a much higher risk. As previously stated, design of proposed structures should be in accordance with guidelines of the Structural Engineers Association of California and the requirements of the governing agency. 2D.1 Settlement The discussion of settlements contained in Section 6.5 of Reference 1 considers the effects of various depths of fill placed over deep alluvial deposits. The calculated settlement of the alluvium caused by a 30 foot deep fill is approximately 11 inches. As noted in the same section, construction of buildings should not commence until settlement monument data indicates that primary settlement is essentially complete. We anticipate that the majority of settlement will occur during construction. 2D.2 Seismic Hazard for Lots below Western Slo p es See Seismic section above, page 3. 2D.3 Drainae See Drainage section above, page 2. S.LL---- • -V -- ........ Odmark & Thelan/Davidson Companies Job No. 04-8005-003-00-OOR Partnership Log No. 0-1424 April 6, 1990 Page 7 2D.4 Suitability of Alluvial and Colluvial Soils as Fill As stated in Section 6.1 and Section 6.3 of Reference 1, the on-site alluvial and colluvial soils are suitable for use in compacted fills. 2D.5 Transition Lots Lots located over transitions from cut to fill or over varying fill depths have been identified and recommendations have been supplied for remedial grading, in accordance with local practice. The results are reported in Reference 3. 2D.6 Surcharging Based on experience with similar sites in San Diego County, in our opinion, the program of monitoring the settlement of proposed fills is sufficient. We do not recommend surcharging at this site. Construction of settlement sensitive structures will be delayed until primary consolidation of the underlying alluvium is complete. BATIOUITOS LAGOON FOUNDATION 5.1.1 Seismicity Discussion of the Rose Canyon fault is contained above (page 3). The effects of liquefaction were quantified on page 3 of this report, in the seismic section. The recommendation to provide a compacted soil mat at least 5 feet thick (beneath footings) was reviewed above in paragraph 2B, page 3. Odmark & Thelan/Davidson Companies Job No. 04-8005-003-00-OoR Partnership Log No. 0-1424 April 6, 1990 Page 8 SHORELINE STUDY CENTER 5-3 4 Co11uviu Removal and recompaction of colluvial soil is addressed in Section 6.2.2 of Reference 1. The report calls for removal to bedrock and replacement to the desired finish grade with an engineered fill. 5-3 5 Settlement Engineered construction on sites underlain by compressible alluvium is common practice in San Diego County and elsewhere. Our recommendation for this project is to delay construction of homes until primary settlement is completed, in accordance with local practice. Remaining settlement should be within tolerable limits for the structures proposed. 5-3 Table 5-1 Rose Canyon Fault Discussion of this fault is contained in an earlier section of this report (see page 3). 5-6 6 Terrace Escarpments The project is sited in a valley and adjacent side slopes. Terrace deposits were mapped on several hillside locations above the 100 foot contour, however, no escarpments are proposed for development, to our knowledge. The terrace deposits are suitable for use in fills. M. Odmark & Thelan/Davidson Companies Job No. 04-8005-003-00-OCR Partnership Log No. 0-1424 April 6, 1990 Page 9 5-10 2, 5-6 6 Liquefaction See earlier section on seismicity, page 3. 5-11 6 Removal of Alluvium Reference 1, Section 6.2.2 recommends removal and recompaction of alluvium and colluvium to bedrock except in the deep alluvium areas where a 5 foot thick compacted soil mat beneath building footings is considered adequate. Considering the 2 foot depth of footings, the total thickness of the compacted soil mat is 7 feet. Based on water table elevations observed in our borings and review of the proposed grading plan, we anticipate that the compacted soil mat can be constructed above the water table. If removals do penetrate saturated soil, one of the common stabilization techniques will be used prior to fill placement. 5-12-3 Reinforcement of Footings The grading plan dated 2-22-90 was reviewed by ICG Incorporated in order to recommend remedial grading for transition lots (see previous section), and to recommend extra reinforcement where needed. The results are contained in Reference 3. The reinforcement recommended consists of 24- inch deep footings, two No. 4 reinforcing bars at top and bottom of footing/stem wall, and slabs reinforced with No. 3 bars at 18 inches on centers both ways. The purpose of the recommendations is to mitigate distress from expected minor settlements which may continue over time for lots on alluvium or transitions from shallow to deep fill. such recommendations are typical for San Diego County. •• • --. •.---- Odinark & Thal an/ Davidson Companies Job No. 04-8005-003-00-QOR Partnership Log No. 0-1424 April 6, 1990 Page 10 5-20 5 Groundwater The highest water levels within the proposed building areas observed in our borings were 4 and 5 feet, below existing grade in borings 3 and 4. If you should have questions after reviewing our recommendations, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Sincerely yours, ICG Incorporated Anthony . Belfast, P.E. C 40333 Registration Expires: 3-31-91 Vice President, Principal Engineer tO. C O.0333 AFB/pb/lh A Distribution: (2) Addressee (4) O'Day Consultants - q A9 C:~ % URBAN SYSTEMS Is ZONE COMPLIANCE AND ANALYSIS FOR BROCCATO AT BATIQUITOS SHORES PREPARED FOR - ODMARX AND THELAN June 6, 1989 URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING Consultants to Business and Government 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 San Diego, California 92123 (619) 560-4911 (p I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROPOSED PROJECT .......................4 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................6 PROJECT IMPACTS/ZONE COMPLIANCE ...............• 10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................14 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE -1 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6 PROJECT LOCATION ................ CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN .............. CIRCULATION - MASTER PLAN EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ......... EXISTING ADT (1989) FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE 19 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING AREAS 3 5 7 8 9 11 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION ..........12 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A-i 1989 YEARLY TRAFFIC MONITORING ANALYSIS FOR AVIAR.A/FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 19 APPENDIX A-2 LETTER TO MR. STEVEN JANTZ, CITY OF CARLSBAD ii mi BROCCATO AT BATIQUITOS SHORES COMPLIANCE AND TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION Odmark and Thelan retained Urban Systems Associates, Inc. (Urban Systems) to conduct an impact and zone plan compliance analysis for their proposed Broccato at Batiquitos Shores project in Carlsbad. The proposed project is located within Facilities Management Zone (FMZ) 19, just east of Interstate 5 off of Batiquitos Drive south of Poinsettia Lane. See Figure 1. Local Facilities Management Plans are required to be prepared in compliance with the City Growth Management Plan. These plans are consistent with and implement the City wide Facility and Improvement Plan. After preparation of FMZ's, they are updated periodically on approximately an annual basis. Updates are prepared for the purpose of assuring that adequate public facilities continue to be available as development occurs within FMZ's. This project and zone compliance analysis has been prepared so that the - proposed project can be demonstrated to be consistent with and implements both phasing and land use intensity aspects of the adopted Zone 19 plan. In addition to this introduction, the following sections of this report include a description of the proposed project, a summary of existing conditions, in particular existing traffic counts, project traffic 001489 1 - batshor/18A - - Batiquitos Shores Urban Systems Associates, Inc. June 6, 1989 generation impacts, an evaluation of zone plan compliance and a summary of findings and recommendations. - 001489 - 2 batshor/18A " vp \ 029 H. - . I 32 •----------L ------- C. - I 27 L / ::- .5, I.'--- I ------------ cc- AfRpOnr fl IBM - — •.. 2- rTco V M ' \ S ii •3\ --Nff - C.S-.. . - I MIOLtO Vt LAS WAS * I — -1L.t – — - 'rrii I sso°'4 I J I \\ I \\ 4 SAN DIEGO ck —t I' - .\\\ \LtA\ __J_ \\ \ \ \-Th• f I \ Ponto I . CARLSBAD CITY S 34 1 3. k 1&r\ — pool PALOMAR \ \\ \\\1II6o4(\ I \ \•\ D. Of Ws / \ tt nto'co - 7,•_ 6/89 FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION BROCCATO AT BATIQUITOS SHORES URBAN SYSTEMS --3- 001489 Batiquitos Shores June 6, 1989 Urban Systems Associates, Inc. PROPOSED PROJECT The project proposes development of 73 graded lots of at least 7,500 square feet, plus four custom home sites for a total of 77 lots. All units will be for single family residential homes. Figure 2 shows the conceptual site plan for the proposed project. As can be observed from the figure, the four custom home sites are located just to the north of the intersection of proposed Batiquitos Lane and existing Batiquitos Drive. All other lots are located off of cul-de-sac streets from Batiquitos Drive, except for 11 lots north of proposed Batiquitos Drive and 10 lots along Batiquitos Lane. 001489 4 batshor/18A / ;4 •/ ,/ :- 4 .•, / Cl fl4V r,•• \ \API44\\tV\ s(U 11 /\\\\\\\\ \\:\ LV'A. LIf _J ) LJ j r-7. /: \ \\\ \\ •\ 7i7 44j4 N\ 7 ( S. '4 j .- \vtV .-.---------'--- • 'cY/ ).)_ _\1 r c 1t •) )1J1 /LIr/ _) '. • ( \, \•\ •[i . - - — \\•\S\ III - 001489 r-c-77 ii1i Of r1 : ; / ! 0 .5. . I • ••." T1 I_ N . Q UI S j A (14 • .-;: FIGURE 2 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN BROCCATO AT BATIQUITOS SHORES URBAN SYSTEMS' Batiquitos Shores Urban Systems Associates, Inc... June 6, 1989 EXISTING CONDITIONS As previously mentioned, the proposed project is located on a cul-de- sac street southerly of proposed Batiquitos Drive. Figure 3 shows the FNZ buildout street designations. As can be observed, the existing portions of Batiquitos Drive southerly of Poinsettia Lane are built as a secondary arterial with 64 feet curb to curb within an 84 foot right- of-way. Just south and- east of the Zone 19 boundary, the buildout street classification changes to a controlled collector with 48 feet curb to curb within a 68 foot right-of-way. Existing average daily traffic flows for the area are shown on Figures 4 and S. As can be observed from Figure 5, west of the project area I- 5 carries about 133,000 cars per day. Figure 5 also shows that Batiquitos Drive carries about 2,000 ADT and Poinsettia Lane westerly of Batiquitos Drive carries 4,800 and between 1-5 and Paseo Del Norte about 13,200 ADT. 001489 - 6 - - batshor/18A - 0I I I PALOMAR Fo a LANE I - ---'b I - '0 4 0/17.11 4 z I \ I t 4 o - C) • - (O. 4w 4 soon 12.0 vp o / i 1.3 -0 ZONE 19 -i! 0 ) C. 4 I 0/5 P 0 SATIQUITOS LAGOON & 0• LEGEND EXIETING PROPOSED I MAJOR ARTERIAL - 102 P/W -..mm SECONDARY ARTERIAL - 102 P1W SECONDARY ARTERIAL - 64' P/W — — — — — - CONTROLLED COLLECTOR - 6E R/W COLLECTOR - 50' P1W - - - - 43.2 *01 - AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS /54.6 (AOTS IN THOUSANDS) - - SUILDOUT STREET DESIGNATIONS AND ESTIMATED TRAFFIC SOURCE: VTN 6/89 FIGURE 3 CIRCULATION - MASTER PLAN BROCCATO'AT BATIQUITOS SHORES URBAN SYSTEMS- - - 7 - 1001489 FIGURE 4 EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 6/89 BROCCATO AT BATIQUITOS SHORES URBAN SYSTEMS - -B- 0014890P FIGURE 5 - EXISTING ADT (1989) (IN THOUSANDS) - BROCCATO AT BATIOUITOS SHORES URBAN SYSTEMS r 6/89 001489 - -9- - Batiquitos Shores June 6, 1989 Urban Systems Associates, Inc. PROJECT IMPACTS/ZONE COMPLIANCE The FMZ 19 (9-1-87) Transportation Phasing Analysis called for 322 condominium units to be built on the project site. Figure 6 shows the FMZ 19 planning areas and Table 1 shows the year and amount of development assumed to occur. As can be observed from Figure 6, the proposed project is designated - sub-area 34. For sub-area 34, Table 1 shows that development for the project area assumed to occur in two equal increments, ie., 161 units in 1990 (sub-area 34A) and 161 units in 1992 (sub-area 34B). A total of 2,576 average daily trips (ADT) was assumed to be generated from the project area. The actual project proposes the development of only 77 single family residential units. These units could be expected to generate 770 ADT or only 30 percent of that assumed in the adopted Zone 19 plan. Based on the reduction of traffic from 2,576 to 770 the proposed project will generate reduced impacts from those assumed in the FNZ 19 plan and - transportation phasing analysis. With regard to when the impacts occur, again, impacts are reduced. The project if built and sold out in 1990 would generate 770 ADT. In the Zone Plan Transportation Phasing Analysis (see Table 1), 1,288 ADT were assumed to be generated from the project area. This represents a reduction of about 40 percent. 001489 10 - batshor/18A -' - LANE B - CtlNCfPttIat Pt &IPWCt £B1 a tTIr -ALGA ROAD ft PRO JEC AREA as I It 'ft II r7, 318 cv - NO SCALE I \.,.- 6/89 FIGURE 6 - FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE 19 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING AREAS BROCCATO AT BATIQUITOS SHORES URBANSYSTEMS - - 11 - 001489 -- I TABLE 1 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION Plan- ing Total External Phase Area Land Use Intensity Trip Rate Trips Trips 1988 1A E. Nine - Golf Course 1/2 Course 600/Course 300 300 6 School 12.4 AC 60/AC 744 3721 8 Single Family Dwelling 75 DV 10/DU 750 750 9A Multi-Family Dwelling 64 DV 8/DU 512 512 10 Sports Complex 8.2 AC 200/AC 1640 1640 31 Open Space ---- 3946 3574 1989 lB W. Nine - Golf Course 1/2 Course ,600/ Course 300 300 2A Hotel - Main 280 Rooms 10/Rooms 2800 2240 2 9B Multi-Family Dwelling 36 DV 8/DO 288 288 13A Single Family Dwelling 42 DV 10/DU 420 420 14 Single Family Dwelling 52 DV 10/DU 520 5-20 16 Multi-Family Dwelling 121 DU 8/DO 968 968 33A Park 14.5 AC 50/AC 725 363 1 6021 5099 1990 11 Restaurants 20 KSF lOO/KSF 2000 8002 138 Single Family Dwelling 30 DO 10/DO 300 300 27 Single Family Dwelling 54 DV lO/DV 540 540 28 Single Family Dwelling 74 DV 10/DO 740 740 30 Multi-Family Dwelling 135 DV 8/DV 1080 1080 1-34A Multi-Family Dwelling 161 DV 8/DO 1288 1288 5948 4748 <I w I 1991 - 3 Single Family Dwelling 27 DV 10/DO 270 270 I 4 Single Family Dwelling 103 DV 10/DU 1030 1030 7A Multi-Family Dwelling 120 DV 8/DO 960 960 o J 12A Multi-Family Dwelling 176 DV 8/DU 1408 1408 3668 3668 -o CC 1992 2B Hotel - Rema-inder 280 Rooms 10/Rooms 2800 22402 12B Multi-Family Dwelling 175 DV 8/DU 1400 1400 29 Single Family Dwelling 89 DV 10/DO 890 890 34B Multi-Family Dwelling 161 DU 8/DO 1288 1288 6378 5818 1993 5 Multi-Family Dwelling - 189 DU 8/DO 1512 1512 78 Multi-Family Dwelling 120 DO 8/DO 960 960 23A Neigh. Comm. 7.0 AC 1200/AC 8400 42002 24A Single Family Dwelling 101 flU JO/DO 1010 1.012 11882 76P,Z SOURCE: FMZ 19 PLAN BROCCATO AT BATIQUITOS SHORES URBAN SYSTEMS - 12 - 6/89 001489 Batiquitos Shores Urban Systems Associates, Inc. June 6, 1989 Since the preparation of the F.N.Z. 19 phasing plan, the 1989 annual monitoring analysis for Zone 19 has been prepared. (See Appendix A). The purpose of the annual zone plan monitoring is to confirm that the actual transportation system improvements per the adopted Zone 19 plan are adequate. As can be observed from Tables 5 and 6 of the report (Appendix A), the street segments and intersections that are projected to be impacted in the year 1990 will be operating at acceptable levels of service. 001489 13 batshor/18A 9) Batiquitos Shores Urban Systems Associates, Inc. June 6, 1989 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This analysis was initiated to determine if the proposed project was consistent with the intensity and phasing of the adopted FMZ 19 plan. With regard to intensity of use, we found that traffic would be reduced from a total of 2,576 ADT to only 770 ADT. This represents a 70 percent reduction in traffic generation. With regard to when impacts from the project area will occur, it was determined that project impacts would occur at the same time as was assumed in the zone plan. Due to the reduction in ADT, however, it is expected that project impacts in 1990 would be reduced about 40 percent from that assumed in the zone plan. - Due to reductions in both the total traffic generated and reduced traffic impact in 1990, the project can be constructed in accord with the mitigation requirements of the adopted zone plan for the year 1990. No further street improvements will be required other than the construction of the project 40/60 local street and to proposed Batiquitos Drive within the project area, as required by the City Engineer. 001489 14 batshor/18A 9 APPENDIX A-i • THE FOLLOWING APPENDIX A-i IS THE "1989 - YEARLY TRAFFIC MONITORING ANALYSIS FOR AVIARA/FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 19" PREPARED FOR HILLMAN PROPERTIES, INC DATED JUNE 1, 1989 IT CONTAINS 45 PAGES •BROCCATO AT BATIQUITOS SHORES URBAN SYSTEMS 6/89 001489 1989 - YEARLY TRAFFIC MONITORING ANALYSIS FOR AVIARA/PACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 19 - PREPARED FOR HILLMAN PROPERTIES, INC. I June 1, 1989 URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING Consultants to Business and Government 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 San Diego, California 92123 (619) 560-4911 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • 3. 1989 EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • • • • 3 1990 PHASING WITHIN ZONE 19 AND TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . 9 1990 PHASE I TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT . . . . . . . . ... . 13 IMPACT AND MITIGATION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . ........ . . . . . . 20 i 0 ~ FIGURE 3. FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 - FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6 LIST OF FIGURES EXISTING -ADT (1989) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 PHASE 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES . . . . . . . . 5 FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE 19 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING AREAS 10 PHASE 1 + EXISTING + 3% YEARLY INCREASE, 1990 ADT . . 14 1990 FMZ 19 - A.M. PEAK HOUR TRIP ASSIGNMENT . . . . 15 1990 FMZ 19 - P.M. PEAK HOUR ASSIGNMENT . . . . . . . . 16 LIST OF TABLES - - TABLE 1 IMPACTED STREET SEGMENT LEVELS 'OF SERVICE . . . 6 TABLE 2 1989 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE . . 8 TABLE 3 PHASE I LAND USE -AND TRIP GENERATION . . . . . 11 TABLE 4 PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION ............... 12 TABLE 5 IMPACTED STREET SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE . . . 18 TABLE 6 1990 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE . . . . . . 19 ii 07-- APPENDIX A 1989 EXISTING INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUMES & LOS CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . .21-30 APPENDIX B 1990 LA COSTA PEAK HOUR DIVERSION. . . . . .31 APPENDIX C 1990 + 3% GROWTH INTERSECTION LOS CALCULATIONS . . . ... . . . . . . . . .32-4L n iii 0~-3 1989 YEARLY TRAFFIC MONITORING ANALYSIS FOR AVIARA/FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 19 INTRODUCTION Urban Systems Associates, Inc. (Urban Systems) was retained by Hillman Properties to conduct the transportation analysis for the yearly traffic monitoring required by the Facilities Management Zone 19 Plan. The purpose of this yearly traffic monitoring is to confirm that the transportation system improvements recommended in the currently approved Zone 19 plan are still appropriate based on updated existing conditions. This analysis is based on 1989 existing traffic at intersections and street segments identified as being impacted by Zone 19 traffic. Background traffic growth of three percent and Zone 19 Phase I traffic are then added to existing conditions to project the 1990 traffic volumes. These 1989 existing and 1990 projected traffic volumes are then used to analyze the impacted location according to the City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program Guidelines and Instructions for the Preparation of Local Facilities Management Plan Transportation Impact Studies, dated February 9, 1989. The impacted locations are analyzed for compliance to the Growth Management Program's acceptable levels of service criteria, and mitigation measures are recommended if the performance standards are not complied with. 009085D 1 avia89/18C 9 Aviara 1989 Traffic Monitoring Urban Systems Associates, Inc. June 1, 1989 - This Urban Systems report, analyzing Zone 19 existing and year 1990 conditions, is divided into the following sections: * 1989 Existing Conditions * 1990 Phasing and Trip Generation.Within Zone 19 * Phase I Trip Distribution and Assignment • Impact and Mitigation Analysis • Conclusions and Recommendations 009085D 2 avia89/18d • Avjara 1989 Traffic Monitoring Urban Systems Associates, Inc. June 1, 1989 Figure 1 shows the existing street system adjacent to Zone 19. Updated traffic counts were conducted by Urban Systems for those intersections and street segments immediately adjacent to or within Zone 19. The City of Carlsbad Engineering Department has also conducted updated traffic counts, which have also been used for this analysis to supplement Urban Systems' data where appropriate. Figure 3. shows the updated average daily' traffic volumes on street r segments adjacent to Zone 19. Figure 2 is the Zone 19 Phase I trip distribution percentages which shows those locations to be impacted by twenty percent or more of Phase I traffic. These trip distribution percentages are taken from Urban System's Revised September 1, 1987, Transportation Phasing Analysis for Pacific Rim and Facilities Management Zone 19 Plan. Table 3. lists the impacted street segments for Phase I and shows the existing street classification, volume, capacity, volume to capacity ratio, and level of service (LOS). As shown in this table, all street segments that will be impacted by Zone 19 Phase I traffic in 1990 are currently operating at acceptable levels of service and therefore do not require street improvements before Zone 19 Phase I traffic is added. 009085D 3 avia89/18C( SOURCE: - - USA XXXX - SANDAG XXXX CITY OF CARLSBAD XXXX CALTRANS XXXX * ADT ESTIMATE FROM PEAK HOUR COUNTS NO SCALE /89 FM FIGURE 1 EXISTING ADT (1989) (IN THOUSANDS) 19/1989 YEARLY MONITORING -IJF?BAN SYSTEMS- 00908 CAMINOVIDA Rb -rmw-lx, -12~- NO SCALE qI f 5/89 FIGURE 2 PHASE 1 TRIP - DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING URBAN SYSTEMS -5- 009085D - 9 TABLE 1- IMPACTED STREET SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE (METHOD #1 ANALYSIS) LOCATION ALGA ROAD: Poinsettia Ln. - Pacific Rim Dr. Pacific Rim Dr. - EL Camino Real BATIQUITOS DR: Poinsettia Ln. - Pacific Rim Dr. EL CAMINO REAL: - Alga Rd. - Camino Vida Robles Alga Rd. - La Costa Ave. PACIFIC RIM DR: Batiquitos Dr. - Alga Rd. POINSETTIA LANE: Alga Rd. - Batiquitos Dr. Batiquitos Dr. - Paseo Del Norte Paseo Del Norte - 1-5 LEGEND: ARTERIAL CLASSIFICATION 6 PA (N) = 6 Lane Primary Arterial 6 PA (Y) = 6 Lane Prime Arterial 4 MA (N) = 4 Lane Major Arterial 4 SA = 4 Lane Secondary Arterial 4 C (Y) = 4 Lane Collector 2 C (Y) = 2 Lane Collector 2 C (N) = 2 Lane Collector 2 L = 2 Lane Local EXISTING 1989 CLASS. VOLUME CAPACITY V/C L.O.S. - - NOT BUILT ----------- 4 SA L4 33.3 0.04 A 4 C (Y) 2.0 27.8 0.07 A 4 MA (N) 21.1 44.5 0.47 B 4 MA (N) 27.3 44.5 0.61 A NOT BUILT ----------- NOT BUILT ----------- 4 MA (N) 4.8 44.5 0.11 A 4 MA (N) 13.2 44.5 0.30 A 5/89 FM? I 90A PC LOS: A 0.00 - 0.60 B 0.61 - 0.70 C 0.71 - 0.80 0 0.81 - 0.90 E 0.91 - 1.00 F NOT MEANINGFUL FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING URBAN SYSTEMS - 6 - 009085 Aviara 1989 Traffic Monitoring Urban Systems Associates, Inc. Ju -ie 1, 1989 Appendix A includes the peak hour volume counts at intersections to be impacted by Zone 19 Phase I traffic. Also included are level of service calculations for these impacted intersections. The currently signalized intersections have been analyzed for LOS by using the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) method of LOS determination recommended in the City Guidelines. The LOS at unsignalized intersections has been determined using methods shown in the - 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, - Chapter 10, Unsignalized Intersections. The LOS ICU calculations and worksheets for unsignalized intersections are also included in Appendix A. Table 2 lists the intersections to be impacted by Zone 19 Phase I traffic and the existing levels of service during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. As shown, all intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service and therefore do not require street improvements before Zone 19 Phase I traffic is added in 1990. 009085D 7 avia89/18C 0 TABLE 2 1989 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - LOCATION 1989 AN A EXISTING PM B - 1-5/POINSETTIA LN. S/B OFF-ON RAMP 1-5/POINSETTIA LN. -N/B OFF-ON RAMP A B POINSETTIA LN./PASEO DEL NORTE A A POINSETTIA LN./BATIQUITOS DR. A A ALGA RD./EL CAMINO REAL A B EL CAMINO REAL/CANINO VIDA ROBLES A A EL CANINO REAL/LA COSTA AV. B B IA,FMZ 19/1989 YEARLY MONITORING URBAN SYSTEMS 5/89 009085D FM21906.PC Avaara 1989 Traffic Monitoring Urban Systems Associates, Inc. June 1, 1989 1990 PHASING WITHIN ZONE 19 AND TRIP GENERATION Figure 3 shows the planning areas within Zone 19 that are projected to be developed with Phase I and add traffic to the existing street system in 1990. Table 3 lists the Phase land use and trip generation. The trip generation rates used are taken from Urban Systems' previously approved Zone 19 transportation analysis. Table 4 lists the A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip generation for Zone 19 Phase I land use. - - The average daily and peak hour traffic generation from these tables is distributed and assigned to the street system and shown in the following section of this report. 009085D 9 avia89/18C 9 ) I '---I NO SCALE ql 5/89 SOURCE: HILLMAN FIGURE 3 FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE 19 CONCEPTUAL PLANNING -AREAS FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING URBANSYSTEMS - - 009085 - 10 f' TABLE 3 - I PHASE I LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION YEAR PLANNING AREA LAND USE INTENSITY EXTERNAL TRIP RATE EXTERNAL RATE 1990 1 GOLF COURSE 1.0 COURSE 600/COURSE 600 3 SF0 - 27.0 DU. 10/DU. 270 4A SFD 75.0 DU. ' l0/DU. 750 5A MFD 80.0 DU. 8/DU. 640 6 SCHOOL 12.4 AC. 30/AC. 372 TA PiFD 128.0 DU. 8/DU. 1,024 BA SFD 60.0 DU. 10/DU. 600 9A MFD 45.0 DU. 8/0th 360 10 SPORTS COMPLEX 8.2 AC. 200/AC. 1,640 34A MFD 66.0 DL). 8/DU. 528 TOTAL: 6,784 19/1989 YEARLY MONITORING it 5/89 URBAN SYSTEMS t 9080077;66 FMZI9OLPC 11 - TABLE 4 PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION YEAR LAND USE 1990 GOLF COURSE TRIP AM IN/OUT ENDS * RATIO 600 T 36 8:2 - IN - OUT - IN/OUT % RATIO* V 54 3:7 IN OUT 29 7 16 38 SF0 270 8 22 2:8 5 17 10 27 7:3 19 8 SF0 750 8 60 2:8 12 48 10 75 7:3 52 23 MFD 640 8 51 2:8 10 41 10 64 7:3 45 19 SCHOOL 372 26 97 6:4 58 39 5 19 3:7 6 13 MFD 1,024 8 82 2:8 16 66 10 102 7:3 72 31 SF0 600 8 48 2:8 10 38 10 60 7:3 42 18 NFD 360 8 29 2:8 - 6 23 10 36 7:3 25 11 SPORTS COMPLEX 1,640 6 98 8:2 79 19 9 148 3:7 44 103 MFD 528 8 42 2:8 8 34 10 53 7:3 37 16 TOTAL TOTAL 233 332 358 280 - DLLJt(Lt: bANWAU 19/1989 YEARLY MONITORING URBANSYSTEMS OO9O86b- 5/89 FM71902.PC - 12 Aviara 1989 Traffic Monitoring Urban Systems Associates, Inc. June 1, 1989 The average daily traffic generated from the Zone 19 Phase I land use from Table 3 was distributed to the street system according to the trip distribution percentages previously shown in Figure 2. The assignment of this traffic is shown in Figure 4. The Zone 19 Phase I traffic is shown added to existing traffic volumes increased by three percent yearly to project regional background growth as required by the City's Guidelines. The total traffic volume projected for 1990 is also shown in Figure 4. As shown, with Zone 19 Phase I, the connection of Alga Road between El Camino Real and Poinsettia Lane will be completed. Once the connection is made, traffic will divert from La Costa Avenue to this alternate street connection between Interstate 5 and El Camino Real. In order to account for this diversion of traffic an adjustment in daily traffic volumes must be made for those street segments affected. Figure 4 volumes include the daily traffic diversion, while Appendix B shows the peak hour La Costa Avenue traffic diversion for the year 1990. Figures 5 and 6 show the A.M. and P.M., respectively, peak hour trip assignment to the impacted intersections. These peak hour volumes were added to the La Costa Avenue peak hour diversion included in Appendix B and added to existing peak hour traffic volumes increased three percent each year to account for regional growth. VV 009085D 13 avia89/18C J 11.4 CAMINO Vfl)A h0I3LL 8: 6 , j LEGEND: NO SCALE XXXX =PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC XXXX PROJECT PLUS EXISTING PLUS 3% YEARLY INCREASE (INCLUDES 3,500 ADT DIVERTED FROM LA COSTA AVE.) FIGURE 4 PHASE I + EXISTING +- 3% YEARLY INCREASE 1990 ADT 5/89 FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING -"URBAN SYSTEMS - 14 009085Ltt-' - 47 I, CAMJNO VIVA kOULl. 7 I 66 NO SCALE FIGURE 5 - 1990 FMZ 19 - AM PEAK HOUR TRIP ASSIGNMENT (IN THOUSANDS) FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING 5/89 -URBAN SYSTEMS 009085 so N -15 - 5/ 00- 72 • ___ CAMINO VIVA HOB LL - Le 56 Aviara 1989 Traffic Monitoring June 1, 1989 - Urban Systems Associates, Inc. The average daily traffic volumes at impacted street segments for the year 1990 shown in Figure 4 are listed in Table S. The street classification, volume, capacity, volume to capacity ratio, and level of service are also listed. As shown, the impacted street segments are projected to operate within the City Guideline's performance standard through the year 1990 without mitigation improvements. - Table 6 lists the intersections to be impacted by twenty percent or more of Zone 19 Phase I traffic in the year 1990. The level of service - calculations are included in Appendix C. The resulting LOS listed in Table 6 shows that all impacted intersections will operate within the City Guideline's performance standard through the year 1990 without mitigation improvements. 009085D 17 avia89/18C (~§) TABLE 5 IMPACTED STREET SEGMENT LEVELS OF 'SERVICE (METHOD #1 ANALYSIS) VOLUME/CAPACITY 1990 EXISTING 1989 WITHOUT MITIGATION LOCAT ION CLASS. VOLUME CAPACITY V/C L.O.S. CLASS. VOLUME CAPACITY V/C L.O.S. ALGA ROAD: Poinsettia In. - Pacific Rim Dr. NOT BUILT 4 SA 7.2 33.3 0.22 A Pacific Rim Dr. - El Camino Real 4 SA 1.4 33.3 0.04 A 4 SA 6.6 33.3 0.20 A BATIOUITOS DR: Poinsettia In. - Pacific Rim Dr. 4 C (T) 2.0 27.8 0.07 A 4 C (Y) 2.5 27.8 0.09 A 4 MA (N) 23.3 44.5 0.52 A 4 MA (N) 27.8 44.5 0.62 B 2 C (Y) 3.8 16.7 0.23 A 4 MA (H) '7.2 44.5 0.16 A 4 MA (M) 13.2 44.5 0.30 A 4 MA (N) 20.8 44.5 0.47 A EL CAMINO REAL: Alga Rd. - Camino Vida Robles Alga Rd. - La Costa Ave. PACIFIC RIM DR: Batiquitos Dr. - Alga Rd. POINSETTIA LANE: Alga Rd. - Ratiquitos Dr. Ratiquitos Dr. - Paseo Del Norte Paseo Del Norte - 1-5 4 MA (N) 21.1 44.5 0.47 B 4 MA (N) 27.3 44.5 0.61 A NOT BUILT ----------- NOT BUILT ----------- 4 MA (N) 4.8 44.5 0.11 A 4 MA (N) 13.2 44.5 0.30 A i ~; MZ9O4.PC LEGEND: ARTERIAL CLASSIFICATION 6 PA (N) = 6 Lane Primary Arterial 6 PA (T) = 6 Lane Prime Arterial 4 MA (N) = 4 Lane Major Arterial 4 SA = 4 Lane Secondary Arterial 4 C (T) = 6 Lane Collector 2 C (T) = 2 Lane Collector 2 C (N) = 2 Lane Collector 2L = 2 Lane Local LOS: A 0.00 - 0.60 8 0.61 - 070 C 0.71 - 0.80 D 0.81 - 0.90 E 0.91 - 1.00 F NOT MEANINGFUL FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING URBAN SYSTEMS 0090850 TABLE 6 1.990 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE LOCATION 1989 AN A EXISTING PM B WITOUT MITIGATION 1990 AN C PM C 1-5/POINSETTIA LN. S/B OFF-ON RAMP 1-5/POINSETTIA LN. N/B OFF-ON RAMP A B B D POINSETTIA LN./PASEO DEL NORTE A A C C POINSETTIA LN./BATIQUITOS DR. A - A B B ALGA RD./EL CAMINO REAL A B A C EL CAMINO REAL/CAMINO VIDA ROBLES A A B B EL CAMINO REAL/LA COSTA AV. B B A A FMZ 19/1989 YEARLY MONITORING 5/89 OO9OB5D URBAN SYSTEMS 4 FMZIO5.PC -19 - Aviara 1989 Traffic Monitoring Urban Systems Associates, Inc. June 1, 1989 This study was initiated to conduct the yearly monitoring of existing conditions adjacent to Facilities Management Zone 19 and identify needed improvements to conform to the City's Growth Management Program Guidelines for level of service at impacted locations. Based - on the analysis in this report - it can be concluded that those street segments and intersections that are projected to be impacted by Zone 19 Phase I traffic in the year 1990 are currently operating at r acceptable levels of service and do not require mitigating street improvements. This study was also initiated to verify the street improvements needed to accommodate Zone 19 Phase I traffic. Based on the results of this analysis, it can be concluded that the street segments and intersections projected to be impacted by Zone 19 Phase I traffic in the year 1990 will operate at acceptable levels of service through the year 1990 without the need for mitigating street improvements. 009085D 20 avia89/1899 - PAC;L I of 10 APPENDIX A 1989 EXISTING INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUMES & LOS CALCULATIONS M' FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING VI' URBAN SYSTEMS 0090115e ! / i -21 - JL in rbf ILU I1. lLU All. A ICU Alt. 8 ICU Alt. C IT[!L11 141rj14' U I!1ii i4&EII.4E L!i PM. PEA& tSfl(- r.. 37 9 5-6:3 ICU Alt. 8 ICU Alt. C Move Cipicity ICU Move Capacity ICU Move capacity ICU E'Si1tG I A. M. PE -- 74-S —S:4 M. 72-7F 2c O.S. Mltlitln L.O.P. L.O.S. I. .0.8. MIligillon Ml$lstlon URBAN SYSTEMS FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORI URBAN SYSTEMS L.O.S. L.O.S. Mltl.jIon - URBAN SYSTEMS /9ç 0090850 PAGE 3 of 10 -_r-!./L L!ac ,— v_. 11 i . i . v-"1 V., -- --- - i61'1 77 _fV4 Illy 14 43.L cCR.0) SooD two R CL. Gave. •3(' _Yep o-lXSr4) Las A ' f,7t1AL rt- Cc"4'i 5s) #ss) w4 LZ-Sla (1-15-17601 L0570 L_c) tv4cAcrçLO (4,_i%dtL%) ___ e'r low - 4E6WM 42.0 VfK io)OLrbauv& (c,-t L-. = sn) VA L%A&5 14 iø4PCj rM c..., ko A . i.s - -. Lz S 13. SO -+4E)+.&b=.56 LD. A LA, 4- L-03- ..- L.o= FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING URBAN SYSTEMS - 23 - 5/89 ff~WF U ICU Alt. A itti Alt. 1 ICU Alt. C I - FI1L4hh14 • 1fTT1L2..II 141114 III" M. mmmmmm S.O.S. A L.O.S. " IIlIipa*Io, MItPD.tlofl I4lttpstlon EC' zrn N C. I J -Th li 430 -T:30'. DD F.. 'e. 364 NW ir ICU Alt. A ICU Alt. S ICU Alt. C LOS. A .O.S. LOS. . IlipsIlon MltIstlevi 'i-.-- •IDDA&1 ev raac Mo,. Capacity ICU Move Capacity ICU Move capacity ICU AI B4d1 Ism s1 Moo- aN ____ rdThL •-c1 ____ ______ ___ - ______ ___ -v F" -- IJflLP1VV F.' vm.' FMZ 191 1989 YEARLY MONITORING URBAN SYSTEMS- 0090850 PA 4/tf8cl '.M. (rn_ct 1) ICU Alt. C ICU kit. A ltD Alt. I ICU Alt. C ICU 'it. A r Ily itu A,,. I move Capacity ICU Itov. Capacity ICU Move Icapselly ICU J.., _In -7 iS° ..—' .— ri± WI tk#COD .1t - Move Capacity ICU Move CapacIty ICU Move Capacity ICU : .1i4 •tt ____ ______ ____ ____ ______ ___ Ism, XL k -_7+ 414 ji, OS. L.O.I. LOU. 1.0.1. LOS. Mi,,,sflo AN SYSTEMS - URBAN SYSTEMS II Itltlç*jl MItlçetlo, I LOU. MItlistlon FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING 5/89 URBAN SYSTEMS 0090850 ICU kit. A ICU Alt. C NZilly ICy Alt. I ejA. Pc.& NJ a-. icu Alt. A ICU Alt. It ICU Alt. C We,. capacity ICU Move Capacity ICU Move Capacity ICU L ----- Ivr. IOt, •F- 4', ____ ____ ______ ____ ____ _______ .s4 - Move Capacity ICU move Capacity ICU Move Capacity ICU i ite 33 Is ° i.coo ..- LOB. $. L.O.B. I .O. ' °' L.O.B. LOB. LOB. IlItIDItIon MItiB.tlo URBAN SYSTEMS (\_ MIIp.tIe, URBAN SYSTEMS FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING p URBAN SYSTEMS- 5/89 0090850 vu: 79- p.3u4fl ,o7 4 Los C,l,iO?4 icu At. * Itt) All. I ICU Alt. C 'lrLM P4W$ _a.ISL -t fio.7 LOS =L I,lW" sx ICU *11. A itu All. 1 ICU Mt. C C, ri -1 0 -s 0 ES1i C rn P.M. 4(A& oop- A/ii /e -I 5T9 L,L11141T]IU L1I •fTTI [fiji I4[IJ11J IFtTILflj .i r41]1.1 F.R. 77 IrxTF!ijz 4EFJ•L.L 1rtTh [fLI I 141T114' L!z.ImIT1I4 1 WARiI ra LOS. M Ills a Uo ,, ,O.S. LOS. L.O.S .O•S. ttlp*lln Ullipatlon _,) 1PI,tliiatl ltlSalon URBAN SYSTEMS URBAN SYSTEMS FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING URBAN SYSTEMS-- 5/e9 0090850 r") co ecu Au. c ecu *,, H -11-- ICU Alt. * lAiflhl vue £ ,ppRoc4 Voiuu t 44 'Lin - x* C3 / Dc r"LOO —gjii tLos Cz It ICU t. A A MU Alt. * MPft6AtuUoLuMcj sm I- - 4 -700 sI 4 4 - o1lt ' It7I. Ouvi ICU hi A 7:Q.'— 8100 A- /i/ a c I L / xI smNc p,.e. sn)- 6:a P". 4./1 '/9 - LP 'I 5 -UI-3 — 1'- - •L!iLlrT14111111114!lIIl • TrTI[J1 ii U] L4 _____________ 'L, O.S. AkMltlallo LOS. L.O.I. Illtl•tli Mltlmtle •LL1. 1411] 14' Li .1T411]1I' L!zITr1IE]Ut1.IJIl L.U.. A .U.. LOS. .WalIlIaII•p lII5 l lle n Mitigation -IrnpaAp vrue FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING URBAN SYSTEMS 0090850 PAGE 9 of 10 L.1/X S &-raw %PJ1 (it 4t.- ci4rrp. VA s- -- - - Jv V1 V4 VV dq - - - P's tit L 179 190 61tCAL CA tA D:rWLr_ LE.V qmom Mf: !.V4 4 V,2- LT) A'& 4ciifcJ 44b )_4) r' çp_.jm f'iWTTA 4' %Ff 64- V 44JVfP J)_tve At-. Los A 3. =- • 53 L cS 1A - ¶ ' LCIS , 4 _Rt'7T 4 w c AA V FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING • 5/89 URBAN SYSTEMS- 009085 -29 - I 1.O.S. P MI Igo tIon L.O.S. L.O.S. t.o.s. i.o.. L.O.S. Mitigation Mitigation _/ \0 Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation URBAN SYSTEMS URBAN SYSTEMS FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING URBAN SYSTEMS 00 0090850 mm .rrZIL,LII.IaIIIuIIIi1i1JIIIILfrriIL!L1I 1L1[4Irl mmmmmm wA tWmImmmmmmm Move Cpaclty (CU Move Cepaclty (CU Move 1Cepeclty (CU .157 -o 2 C) 0 0 Ui t I I 1 -7,y1oAA II I s 44/'C/BI oUUTrIe L of- (CU Alt. C Is-J - K ±iJ4 ioJ - ICU Alt. A (CU Alt. C s INIIl'bl z IN -, - (CU Alt. B SToP IZ1L1I±I z Ti (CU All. B CF E366 APPENDIX B 1990 LA COSTA 1990 PEAK HOUR LA COSTA AVENUE DIVERSION Ui - 1eq0 Li'. Ce.-r. vsi Itb. PA& 5ai A.D- .j - U f .qsc17: 103 IM . vc, •1° 1 4I1 rt f —, ('qç z CrA ttsoN AS i1 fl. . 4400 —j -- - CO31A_p..V co FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING URBAN SYSTEMS 5/ rq 0090850 I PAGL I of 1 APPENDIX C 1990+ 3% GROWTH INTERSECTION LOS CALCULATIONS FMZ 1911989 VEARL y MONITORING URBAN SYSTEMS- 00908 -32 - —4- EX ST1 P4 G ICU Alt. C I L*J F 4/ Vs9 C —J I ilj )u 11151 tcu hit. A j4qVICU Alt. 1 ICU Alt. C vq capacity Nova Capacity ICU Mcvi Capacity ICU ______ ________ SL 4. _____ ______ •Z- ______ _________ _____ / JOM1W. IS 'coo bTL .(131 / [.0.1. L.O.It. WPtP.atPon MIiitiitIrr' IIPRW VTIM ezi qe' ICU Alt. A 19CIVItU *ii. It Capacity IC)V Move Capacity ICU Vovs Capacity ICU 4" ±i 340o - / 4 13041oo 400 .31 J ____ t I Ib / •4 j ____ ______ ax ____ ____ ______ ____ _____ ________ _____ _____ Tic' •I 0 iw. _____ ________ s-cl 1c11. ,t J5 [.0.5. I4itIiatlo mitigation NliI.Iie - ft C, ri - ••• IS Ill.? fl WV C V C 4 1.. FYI C FMZ 1.911989 YEARLY MONITORING URBAN SYSTFMS -- .iJo 009085D qo % s.-r Mi pJ'. ce -7: IT e:ILA.pA. ICU Flt. C w 4L D rL .jpJl rjl e IWO. L Cr ,)4.1 • L 4 —I —lf tj €ICU kit. A qqo itu Alt. Capacity ICJI/ move Capacity ICU Mo,, C.paclty ICU £\ -1" -7 /• l 173 V., %S __________ • tO _______ __________ • _______ 10 S•%•__ E43- 4)*O4.Oc'\ •— •. t - ,ø° • ____ _______ / rcrp_ ILL f9qO ++-L& -r vt9j%4J -4--. !J0 p.,-,. c At& 4-4S — c4S p.M- •T lit 7c _,-7l,,,7 _snc1I j lis I ctget 'Cu Mu. All. P ICU *1, r Capacity ICq D);: Move Capacity CU Move capacity ICU 2A di t .1' 1.11 1*144 ToTI.L LOS. fi i.o.u. LOS. A LOS. M It Ic a I Ic Mltletlen wl,le.tlø tJRN SYSTEMS URBAN SYSTEMS — FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING IIPRAM V±'TM 0 I •Sfl SW S % S &SWN - ______________________________________________________________ 5/89 009085D URBAN SYSTEMS - 5/89 - 0090850 01 I I 21 t'Is.I( I R. /WNI I L VNo- °/b4-La, Coi-A .4.. E<..-ri '4G. 4/6/& 7•4— 8.4SAJJ. 11 ICU Alt. A 1q9'ottIJ Alt. ICU Alt. C • LJ - 2o-. 4øO k. 3g4o 464 DD 9 +Ap___ — CD ft v Alt. A - %99OItu Alt. It eii &to , j\. mpuetiy IC)/ Move Capacity ICU Move Capacity scu 'M L ,1.1 Ib • I'll _____ • 111 q st ____ ____ ______ 2- , 3o , stv"s l empocity 1116 ICA Move Capacity ICU wave Capacity ICU J2_ 1400 ____ / ••) 97 10 202. L41 413 . / AL -ST-L 74 ,L A LOS. I L.o.. Iio.s. C LOS. ltIpalIbI VlIlsiP01 ____•_•) MlIIpfJ ttlsi URBAN SYSTEMS uRBAN SYSTEMS FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING U) -v C, r 0 0 w fcq 4-7,,+ + cp -7.ov ..e:ooA.PA. .3 1* - : -, C4p.pfPat1l, £ r' You...F5 STCc sue c:t1 M I 70/30-rr o[1 flo4 %,tø•:.L .. - I LJ%O F ICU *11. A ICU All. I ICU Alt. C .ij.i.rri.i.i' • 'rrriii.i.i L.fTTILLJ -_ LOS. L.O.S. If. Mltlp.jln I4l?lp*ttyi Iiltlpatln IIDRA&t CVCTCAfte FMZ 1911989 YEA URBAN SYSTEMS 5/89 - 7 a r ICU LII. A ICU All. 1 • 'FTU[rLI •1 11!.I4. Liii UL4IlJI ILrLzi -- - -- _ *IIO L II OU. tlP IIltlsI URBAN YTFU MONITORING 51tP - Ill/v tell age a. 0 T7 0090850 "**N ~Lz •bWio'J± FXI STM A • 7:— 8 100M cw #7rg=TA 3ELS10 ey y9 I -77 ~AFVRoAca VOLUMES: I U) 1 I D- )cs1vp 1U Alt. 1 ICU lilt. C 1411jH! I rni L!Z.IIIT1I1JH LTITIL!LJ ii1HI II _ VA VA L.U.5.P . LOS. ltlatlbfl - MPt Igo Ile i IPDDA& vcrra.r FMZ 1911989 YEA URBAN SYSTEMS 5/89 I- .c_A*PftoAt.0 Uci.ui a,? 1 — 4 7iDDLM j• UULvP i:llti4 Lc.SH. C itu Aft. I IfII 11111111 VA j.V.U. LOS. ItIllg. IIRRA& eVr.,e MONITORING 0090850 C, 0 * PAGE 7 of 10 Ic.iO43% 4- L bv4'o.J L&ui. oF f0 usrA = -5 p— IL D4- C c 6Aiçtt2 t -% Ø. 64 16 VA I - V4_J r - - ...z cq(ciJD)r.sv.,c) . S40V1 1110 VF*k cc -,ib.cs — tL3) ,J, . Cap C'.iJ4 , V4V - - - P- AP foT'i7.*L SID VI&A fj,4(VfI 44bUc' )LOS S (.4r 4 2.034 &4() :~^J)= 573 44 .) 440 VO 44b -lø All = Lc C - s%'Jv4.4t.tsrzSA7_w./b4 vW 2 -r 4 A'ufi.a-'e LoA4Lb4LøLC.t .54II+.-1 =47 4- La S, 4Lø C 1.0+ I. =- 0. ?O :1::) FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING URBAN SYSTEMS 009086D - 3(3 - AU. A Ui I ' 'T" I - - :%S f.P- I I IJN 1)1 ICU Alt. B ICU All. C - .1.117 sroP 1 qo+, •1- '5flG+ LMsTi FAt' bU ( ) 1 f+71 IGIJ AU!. A ICU Alt. B ICU Alt. C [!i.i..iiizrJ_L.I.I. IIlrIThL!LIiIIIIIJ IrTThL1]l!iF]L4IWl VAN •rrrILFT 14111 1'I' EA UI - rII =mmmrAAmm1m _ __ A m-~=W,mmm,m =MWA MMWIMM _____ UI UI o S. L.O.S. 1.0.5 C %'ltltlen MIIUQPIIOfl Miti g ation _,) \PMllV.11or - Mitigation qlIullon URBAN SYSTEMS URBAN SYSTEMS - FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING C) f'l 0 -S UHI5AN SYtM— 0090850 5/89 - II PAGE 9 of 10 to 4 + Lr C, bW6L&" P LCVf.L OF o%Mr ( V p.".. C *A P, f y fl_ 10 l"% 1"•• VI. '1 L lc - VP" All 12-L 2N 3h4 4i_4' L.41_•c4fl•gt.f' - ----- .---.---------- ---- ---- - -- fki.r 9TO v f&!!c) 2r!psi 230. X. 4 s 1 i i c 2 .) s4 or Vf41 C* ffoffi-Sr % j_Eyr_('.wscrraArD s•-e D' -(Mp:__..__• -------- - .- - ---I j 4t 4-?iv,ti fP' - tt 4 L. 4jcx -44 !) - .s.siz) L.o S - - - .------ ------ __.ASSIC,J.V1AL.MF5LOSA'y C+4 _*tô L A 4 4, P tAL05 A 4 LD - ii -7/ f/89 FMZ 19/1989 YEARLY MONITORING URBAN SYSTEMS- 009086D 4. Mlllatlor L.O.B. i.o.. I t.o•• MIIIQaIIOn Mitigation MItI.tio, URBAN SYSTEMS FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING URBAN SYSTEMS w' 141rJ141 •-Ii.i FA Ar A A__ MmmirAmmWAmm VA __ -.I 1 • ' — - - - 4- Move capacity ICU Move C.PSCIIY l94 ' Move Capacity ic.ó' 7 1 wm 4 L4 + EXSThG.. —8:+s A.M. 4/6/E 1 -I 1fl IN TThii Pe JI" 4 Iy. tn ror +2.0 22 Aws - MR ICU Alt. B I CU Alt. B ,.0 P%II. l%I nil. L.O.e. LOB 1 11 NItlg1tlon - URBAN SYSTEMS 0090850 ,.I., - J..0 0%11. APPENDIX A-2 THE FOLLOWING APPENDIX A-2 IS A LETTER TO MR. STEVEN JANTZ, CITY OF CARLSBAD DATED JUNE 12, 1989 ITCONTAINS 4 PAGES BROCCATO AT BATIQUITOS SHORES 6/89 URBAN SYSTEMS OOU89 URBAN SYSTEMS ASScLiATES, INC. ( Irport8lioI; planning it Iretlic engineering consuIIant, to business and government 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 June 12, 1989 San Diego, CA 92123 (619)560-4911 telephone (619)560-9734 facsimile Mr. Steven .Jantz, Associate Civil Engineer City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Dear Steve: As you requested Friday, Urban Systems is providing additional analysis to supplement the 1989 - Yearly Traffic Monitoring Analysis for Aviara/Facilities Management_ Zone 19 prepared by Urban Systems, dated June 1, 1989. Specifically, we have included an analysis of 1989 existing peak hour conditions at the El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road intersection and a link analysis of El Camino Real between Palomar Airport Road and Camino Vida Roble compared to the projected 1990 conditions including Phase I of F.M.Z. 19. Attachment I shows the 1989 existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour level of service calculations at the Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real intersection. As shown, the peak hour levels of service are at C" for the AM. and at for the P.M. peak hour, acceptable levels of service according to City guidelines. Therefore, no street improvements - are needed at this intersection before the traffic from Phase I of F.M.Z. 19, as listed in the yearly monitoring report, is added- Attachment 2 shows the projected year 1990 volumes and level of service for the Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real intersection. As shown, the level of service is projected to be at RB during the A.M. peak hour and at level C" during the P.M. peak hour. The improvement in level of service from 1989 existing levels is due to the diversion Of approach traffic from Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real to the College Boulevard link between Palomar Airport Road and El Camino REal which is planned for opening in February, 1990. Based on these projected acceptable 1990 levels of service, no additional intersection improvements are needed after F.M.Z. 19 1990 traffic is added. The average daily traffic volume on the street segment of El Camino Real between Palomar Airport Road and Camino Vida Roble is currently approximately 20,000 vehicles per day, derived from the P.M. peak hour volume on the south leg of the Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real intersection, which is assumed to be 10 percent of ADT. The projected year 1990 ADT is 22,000 vehicles per day with three percent yearly growth and twenty percent of F.M.Z. 19 Phase I traffic added to existing. Both existing and projected year 1993 ADT volumes are within the acceptable capacity at LOS for a four lane major arterial as listed in Table I of the City guidelines. Therefore, in accordance with these guidelines, no street segment improvements are currently needed and none will be needed to accommodate the year 1990 traffic including F.M.Z. 19 Phase I traffic. Attachment 3 includes Table I from the guidelines. Please give me or Andy a call if you have any questions regarding this additional evaluation. Sincerely, Sam P. Kab 11 Senior Project Manager cc: Paul Kiukas avia2/lM' (P ATTACHMENT 1 ç.' vn 4 I q AJ pAl& 3Io,4c 7o(,-8:OO A.P%. P.M. ?A t*t.. .5-/I •t .4'.4c-s4s P.pA. (Afl..*' r.y srft % __fM.ouA.a. AWL lk,!LUM r 11\1 r1 ICU kit. A Itti Alt. P ICU Alt. C ICU kit. A ttu Alt. P ,Cu All. C Meyu Csl,.elty ICU Itov. Cep.city ICU I4ov• Capacity ICU - 7I - Irva •1. a' - •S _____ _______ ____ ____ 41 I L.O.I. 7j7 L.O.S. L.O.S. I w'uatio I1t t i p.i witlestleft IIbbA&I £t,erri.r Move Capacity ICU Move, Capacity ICU Moys Capicity ICU L t14 j vt414' &4oO - a— I L.ø.S. LO itiçatleS. L.O.$. I*n IIDAM eveTaa FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING 6/89 URBAN SYSTEMS- 0090850 ATTACHMENT 2 1181 YJSTIt4apt.uS :t• PLuS .% yQIO"T$ A. 444 s!iiA.A. %I.ft1Lt.. 11 44B 1 i I CqQ %IVI W*VTi'tG plus Pl.LAS Di.s 1% VN L$JTS' P.M . WflS Lf(.*. 2 _ M-11V ki Ij'tr Pt- - ICU 'it. A 1tu Alt. 1 ICU Alt. C ICU Alt. A .ICU Alt. 1 ,CU Alt. C WTPCt CoLL tkJti4 (c,LLcG flWtuPJ Nova Capacity ICU áys Capacity ICU move Copecityl ICU •__ t C) 4— 4— c'n ___ 4 % 44 t'ia#$ll .1_I I I a4 I4S46P -- Sl t*TUc,IT .m$.j*toM Wn %L I$Io. wove Capacity ICU Mov• Capacity ICU Nova Capacity ICU L ____ • ...1. '. . tV .i Jai- to A— .*— 3400 •101jW. —,— — I.O.U. P, LOU. L.O.S. C I.O.U. ItttiQatleI Mitigation li$•tin MitI.tIi,, VItl,tIt _,) Nitliat URBAN SYSTEMS - URBAN SYSTEMS FMZ 1°/1989 YEARLY MONITORING '4- URBAN SYSTEMS- 0090850 ATTACHMENT 3 TABLE 1 ARTERIAL SXIN2 CAPAC1TUS* crw OF CARLSBAD ATZIYPJUkL LThK AUP LTNK AUP IK AD? WK AD? LIM AD? CLASSIFICAMCIN MF])I (L)S Al (106 B) Um El 6 lANE PRIM ARERThL NO YES 40,000 46,670 53,340 60,000 66,670 6 lANE WIME AR1ThL SOME YES 33,340 38,890 44,450 50,000 55,560 4 LANE N%7M ARTERIAL no YES 22,000 26,670 31,120 35,60 40,000 44,450 4 LANE S1R( ARTERIAL SOME / YES 20,000 23,240 26,670 30,000 33,340 4 LANE WU1XIt! YES NO 16,670 19,450 22,220 25,000 27,780 2 LANE COLUMM NO NO 13,340 15,560 17,780 20,000 22,230 2 LANE COUIrM YES / 10,000 11,670 13,340 15,000 16,670 2 LANE LOCAL YES m 6,675 7,785 8,900 10,000 11,120 * & represent ma,dnum capacity allCMed for the identified level of service. YEAR 1990 LINK VOLUME ON EL CAMINO REAL BETWEEN PA.R. AND CAMINO VIDA ROBLE SOURCE: CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, GUIDELINES FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDIES, FEBRUARY 9, 1988 FMZ 1911989 YEARLY MONITORING URBAN SYSTEMS 6/89 0090850 .4 'p88 May 21, 1986 P. G. Spanos Construction, Inc. 9449 Friars Road San Diego, California 92108 Attention: Mr. Bob Wunsch SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY Job No. 25052-00 Log No. 4085 C ~ rg"J' I I SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY GEOTECENICAL REPORT Proposed Multi-Family Residential Site Batiquitos Drive - Carlsbad, California Gentlemen: As requested we have completed a geotechnical investigation for the site of the proposed multi-family residential project. We are presenting herein our findings and recommendations. In general, it our opinion that the site is suitable for the pro- posed development, provided that the geotechnical constraints are considered in the project design. The conditions which should most greatly affect the proposed development include up to approximately 95 feet of relatively compressible alluviul soils which exist in the valley bottom. Our recommendations for this condition and others are included in the body of this report. It is emphasized tha this report is preliminary in nature. Actual foundation recommendations and earthwork and grading recommen- dations will depend greatly on the final building locations and the grading proposed. Further exploration, analysis, and recommen- dations may be warranted based on a grading plan review by the geotechnical consultant. SUBSIDIARY OF IRVINE CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 6455 NANCY RIDGE DRIVE • SUITE 200 • SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 • (619) 587-0250 A. G. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Proposed Development We have been provided with a 1" = 200' scale site plan dated March 12, 1986, prepared by Pepper, Inness and Associates. We understand that a 398 unit condominium and townhouse complex is proposed for the site. The residential units will be 2-3 story wood frame struc- tures. A single story recreational center will be included. We understand that all structures will have an on-grade slab. At the time of our investigation a grading plan had not yet been developed. The geotech- nical map, attached as Plate No. 1, is based on the plan provided to us. 1.2 Scope of Services The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the surface and subsurface soil and geologic conditions at the site, and based on conditions encountered, provide preliminary recommendations pertaining to the geotech- nical aspects of site development. The conclusions and recommendations included herein are based on an analy- sis of the data obtained from our field explorations, laboratory testing program, and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions in the area. We have relied on a previous preliminary geotechnical investigation on the site, performed by San Diego Soils Engineering, Inc. in February of 1981. During that investigation, eight borings and 13 test pits were excavated across the site. P. G. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 3 The scope of this investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, obtaining representative samples, laboratory testing, analysis of field and laboratory data, and a review of geologic literature. Specifically, the intent of the study is to: 1.2.1 Review the available existing geologic, soils engineering, and seismological reports pertaining to the project area; 1.2.2 Explore the subsurface conditions to the depth expected to be influenced by the proposed construction; 1.2.3 Evaluate by laboratory and field tests the general engineering properties of various strata which could influence the development; 1.2.4 Define the general geology of the site, including geologic hazards which could have an effect on site development; 1.2.5 Develop preliminary geotechnical criteria for site grading and earthwork; 1.2.6 Identify potential construction difficulties and provide recommendations concerning these problems; 1.2.7 Provide preliminary recommendations for appropriate foundation systems for the antici- pated types of structures, and provide preliminary criteria for foundation design. A. G. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 4 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located in a northerly trending tribu- tary canyon of the Batiquitos Lagoon. It is approximately 0.75 of a mile southeast of the intersection of Poinsettia Lane and 1-5. Batiquitos Drive bisects the center of the property in a north/south direction. The Location Map, pro- vided on the following Figure 1, shows the site vicinity. Topographically, the site consists of a central flat bot- tomed valley with adjacent moderate to steep side slopes. The canyon is deeply incised at its northern reaches and broadens rapidly as it approached the lagoon. The valley sidewalls are capped generally by flat, terraced areas. The slopes are generally 25% or steeper in the higher areas. The maximum relief on the site is approximately 150 feet, ranging from sea level at the southwest corner, to an eleva- tion of approximately 150 feet at the northeast corner. Surface drainage is generally southeast and southwest ulti- mately to the lagoon. Drainage is accomplished by a con- centrated flow in various ravines of the valley sidewalls by sheet flow around the side slopes and valley bottom. An existing single and a small corral tion of the site. the southern porti with a moderate to vegetation. story residence, associated outbuildings presently exist near the northeast per- A stand of Eucalyptus trees is present in n of the site, and the slopes are covered heavy growth of chapparral type . ..". 'I - . -r- •1 1 -' . • II . . . .;. - It-' .• . iJflIt 1 27 Trailer Park ft \ ) I •X - I I Ponto I I I " j L4GOON BAIQUITOS -- 33 \ -• 'r--- - ., . L.4COSTA • Roadsidd Il tL=. • I l. V \ t•44- . 0-1 VT -• .•t - . . - _______________ • ( .•%.•••.- •-.'.: :. .. - • . r I, .: .• •-'• . • I • • . - ..•.. I. - --Watë IT f I\ Tank . II % . . • --- II I •• • SAI4F w I \ 4 Leucadia 8M 4çaA\ 4 S SA Al \ \ -- It LAc U a ___ .• Adapted from U.S.G.S. 7.5' Encinitas ¶—.....,_j--L.°° 4000 Quadrangle, 1975 SCALE IN FEET LOCATION MAP JOB NO.: 25052-00 71E: MAY 1986 1FIGURE: SAN DIEGO SOILS. ENGINEERING. INC. • .- ---:.-. .- - •,- ..I -- A. G. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 5 3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION 3.1 Field Exploration A field exploration was performed on April 2, 1986 and consisted of a site reconnaissance by our geotechnical personnel, and the drilling of two exploration borings. The borings were drilled within the alluvial valley in order to explore the nature and depths of the alluvial soils within the valley. Information on various other areas of the site was obtained from a review of the previous inv3scigation, which was performed by this firm. Locations of explorations were marked in the field by pacing and further accuracy as far as actual boring locations is not implied. Eight-inch diameter borings were drilled using a hollow stem continuous flight auger to depths ranging from approximately 68 to 73 feet below existing grade. Samples were obtained using a modified California Sampler with 2.5 inch sample liners. Logs describing the subsurface conditions encountered are presented in the attached Figures 4-through 7. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Plate No. 1. Appendix A includes explora- tion logs from our previous investigation on the site, which was performed February of 1981. The lines defining the change between soils types and rock types on the boring logs determined by inter- polation between sample locations and are therefore approximations. The transition between soil types may be abrupt or it may be gradual. 069 1 A. G. Spanos-Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 -May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 6 3.2 Laboratory Testing Program Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to determine their relative engineering proper- ties. Tests were performed in accordance with the test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials, or other accepted standards. 3.2.1 In-Situ Moisture/Density The in-place moisture content and dry unit weight of representative samples were determined using relatively undisturbed samples from the liner rings of a Modified California Sampler. Dry Unit weight and moisture content of selected samples are shown on the attached boring logs. 3.2.2 Grain Size Analysis Grain Size Analyses of selected samples were performed to supplement the visual classifica- tions of the materials encountered, using the Unified Soil Classification system. Particle Size Analyses were performed on selected repre- sentative samples in accordance with ASTM D 422. The results are shown on the attached Figures 8 and 9. 3.2.3 Consolidation Tests Consolidation tests were performed on represen- tative samples obtained using a modified California Sampler with 2.5 ID liner rings. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D A. G. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 7 2435, using computerized, automated data acquisition and reduction equipment. The results of the tests provided on the attached Figures 10-15. 4.0 SITE GEOLOGY The project site is located in the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province of California, and is underlain by Tertiary Age sedimentary deposits. Bedrock at the site con- sists of the Eocene Santiago Formation, which is exposed locally in the valley side slopes and is covered by up to approximately 60 feet of alluvium at the valley bottom. At higher portions of the site, Quaternary marine terrace deposits cap the Santiago Formation. The lateral extent of the various geologic units is shown on the attached Plate 1. A brief description of these units follows. 4.1 Colluvium (Map Symbol Qcol) Colluvial soils are those which have been washed down the slope areas of the site, chiefly by the action of gravity. Colluvium encountered generally consists of brown and yellow-brown silty, fine to medium-grain sand. Colluvium is generally porous and loose. The depth of colluvial soils across the site is quite variable, ranging in depth from 1 to 3 feet on the steep and moderate slopes to up to approximately 10 feet on the more gentle slopes. Because of their loose nature, colluvial soils are generally not considered suitable for the support of structural loads, or fill which will in turn support structural loads. The colluviuni is variable and compressible, creating the potential for adverse total and/or differential settlements. A. G. .Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 8 4.2 Alluvium (Map Symbol Qal) Alluvial soils are those which have been deposited in the valley bottom chiefly by the action of flowing water. Up to 56 feet of alluvium was encountered in our recent explorations, tip to 95 fleet of alluvium was encountered in previous explorations. The alluvium generally consist of daric brown to brown, silty, fine sand is generally loose to medium dense. Our findings indicate that placement of fill or struc- tural loads on the alluvium will result in settlement. The magnitude of the settlement will depend on the foundation loading conditions and upon the amount of fill placed during grading. However, because of the granular nature of the alluvium, the majority of ttle settlement is expected to take place rapidly, and most likely, during construction. 4.3 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol Tsa) The Santiago Formation consists predominantly of massive to thin-bedded, dense, fine-grained sandstone which is poorly to moderatley cemented. Interbeds and lenses of claystone and siltstone are also present within the sandstone. The Santiago Formation occurs very near the surface on the steeper portions of the site and is covered by colluvium and/or alluvium on the flatter portions of the site. In general, the Santiago Formation is considered to be suitable for the direct support of foundations or structural fills. The material generally breaks down into a product suitable for use as a structural fill t. G. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, .1986 tog No. 4085 Page 9 and is generally non-expansive. Although it may be subject to erosion, it generally performs well in both cut and fill slopes. 4.4 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol Qt) Higher elevation of the site (above approximately 120 to 130 feet), are capped with marine terrace deposits consisting of brown to red-brown sandstone. The sandstones are generally moderately cemented. Because they occur on the very steep hillsides, they should not influence the proposed structures, which are planned for the lower elevations. 4.5 Groundwater Groundwater should be anticipated at relatively shallow depths in the alluvium that covers the entire valley bottom. The depth to free groundwater should oe expected to be seasonally variable and also subject to variations resulting from the tidal fluctuations in the nearby lagoon. At the time of our exploration, ground- water was encountered at a depth of approximately 12 feet in Boring #1 and 15 feet in Boring #2. If deep cuts are proposed within the alluvial areas, ground- water seepage conditions can be expected. In addition, sidewall instability of trenches excavated to depths in excess of 7 to 10 feet in the alluvial areas is liicely. A.G. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 10 5.0 SEISMICITY 5.1 Regional Seismicity The site can be considered a seismically active area, as can all of Southern California. There are, however, no active faults on or adjacent to the site. Seismic risk is considered low to moderate as compared to some areas of Southern California. Seismic hazards within the site can be attributed to ground shaking resulting from events on distant, active faults. Listed on Table I are the active and poten- tially active faults in the areas which can signifi- cantly affect the site. Figure 2 shows the geographic relationsxiip of the site to these faults. 5.2 Earthquake Effects 5.2.1 Earthquake accelerations We tias'e reviewed the probable earthquake acce- lerac.ions at the site and in our opinion, ror the intended use, the most significant event is a 7.0 Magnitude event on the Elsinore Fault Zone. The accelerations produced at the site by such an event would exceed those of events on any other known fault. Such events could pro- duce a peak bedrock accelerations on the order or 0.18g at the subject site with duration of strong shaking exceeding 30 seconds. Repeatable ground accelerations are estimated to be on the . - __ •-..;;. _______ - --------- I \\\ IC —.1I I II. I I •.•-_ 1 --fail I• 14 14 •l p 14c41471*4 fl&p,4. 14441 444*4444. III, CAt3T**IlII,,*tIuG*•VW,flI*N4 .40(4*! REGIONAL FAULT MAP JOB.1O. 25052-00 May, 1986 2 SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, IN C. A. G. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 .May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 11 TABLE 1 SEISMICITY FOR MAJOR FAULTS MAXIMUM ESTIMATED REPEATABLE DISTANCE PROBABLE PEAK BEDROCK HIGH BEDROCK FAULT FROM SITE EARTHQUAKE' ACCELERATIO142 ACCELERATIONS 3 Elsinore 26 Miles NE 7.0 0.18g 0.18g Newport- 33 Miles NW 6.5 0.08g 0.08g Inglewood San Jacinto 47 Miles NE 7.5 0.12g 0.12g San Andreas 65 Miles NE 8.0 0.08g 0.08g Coronado Ban.Ks 23 Miles W 6.5 0.14g 0.09g 1. Seismic Safety Study City o.f San Diego (June 1983) & Bonnilla (1970) 2. Seed and Idriss (1983) 3. Ploessel & Slosson (1974) 4. Potentially Active A. G. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 12 order of 0.18g. Design of structures should comply with the requirements of the governing jurisdictions and standard practices of the Structural Engineers Association of California. 5.2.2 Liquefaction Liquefaction occurs when a soil loses its strength due to cyclic loading such as may be caused by an earttiquaice. According the Seed and Idriss, recognized authorities in the field of dynamic soil behavior including liquefaction, conditions most likely to result in soil liquefaction are as follows: 1. High intensity and long duration of ground motion resulting from an earthquaie; 2. High groundwater table; 3. Loose, uniformly graded, fine-grained sandy soils. All three of the foregoing conditions exist in the low-lying portion of the site which is underlain by recent alluvium. (Generally, that part of the site at elevation of 20 or lower.) In this portion of the site, the potential for liquefaction is considered high. The remainder of the alluvium filled canyon would probably have a low to moderate liquefac- tion potential. - --. _______ ---- --- ------------.--- .---- ----- ---------- -- k. G. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 13 The liquefaction potential for the higher por- tions of the site is negligible to nonexistant since these areas are underlain by sedimentary rock and terrace deposits. The effects of soil liquefaction at the site should be reduced to acceptable levels by the site preparation and grading recommendations provided in ensuing portions of this report. The recommendations will result in a mat of uni- formly compacted fill beneath structures which should mitigate the effects of liquefaction on the relatively light structures planned for the site. 5.2.3 Settlement Seismically induced densification of the underlying soils and consequent surface settle- ment is considered unlikely in those portions of the site underlain by bedrock, but a possibility in the lower portion of the site, underlain by alluvium or colluvium. As discussed under "Liquefaction," site preparation recommendations should also reduce the effects of any seismi- cally induced settlements for light structures. 5.2.4 Lurching and Shallow Ground Rupture Breaking of the ground because of active faulting is not likely to occur on the site due to the absence of active faulting. Cracking due to shaking from distant events is always a possibi- lity but is not considered likely. 3)1 A. G. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 14 5.2.5 Tsunamis and Seicties Low-lying coastal areas of San Diego County, south of Oceanside, are considered to be areas which could be influenced by a tsunami. Although the direct impact of a tsunami is limited, when associated with high flood tides, some coastal inundation is possible. Since the subject site is located inland from the shore- line it is unlikely that a tsunami would si.gnif- cantly affect the site. The lower portion of the subject site is subject to inundation by seiches because of is low ele- vation above the water level in the lagoon. 1c is unliicely that a seiche, caused by a major earthquake, would damage the lower elevations of the site. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 15 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 General Discussion No geotechnical conditions were apparent on this site which would technically preclude the development as proposed. However, subsurface conditions were encoun- tered which should be mitigated through special site preparation, and/or foundation design. These site con- ditions generally involve the loose nature of both the on-site colluvial and alluvial soils and high ground- water levels within the alluvial valley. These con- ditions create the potential for foundation settlements and, during a major earthquake event, soil liquefac- tion. Mitigative measures include: 1) the complete. removal and recompaction of the alluvial and colluvial soils, 2) the partial removal and recompaction of the alluvium in the main valley, and 3) a heavily rein- forced foundation system for structures planned in the area of alluvium. The Geotechnical Map (Plate 1 ) approximately delineates the lateral extent of each of these soil conditions. This report is preliminary. All of our recommendations are very highly dependent on the actual grading necessary for site development. At this point in time, such information is not available to us. The prelimi- nary grading plan should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant. It is possible that the grading proposed will war --ant further exploratin and analysis of site conditions. Final design of struc- tures should be based upon an as-built geotechnical report, which is the product of grading plan review and observation and testing by the Geotechnical Consultant during earthwork construction. 61 Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 16 62 Grading and 'EartiworJc 6.2.1. General All earthwork and grading for site development should be accomplished in accordance with the attached earthworic and grading recommendations (Appendix B) and Chapter 70 of the UBC. All special site preparation recommendations pre- sented in the following paragraphs will super- cede those in the attached earthwork and grading recommendations. 6.2.2 Site Preparation The plan provided to us indicates that the pro- posed buildings will be located essentially either in areas underlain by colluviuin or allu- vium. The areas of shallow bedrock generally occur on the very steep hillsides and few struc- tures are planned for these areas. Special site preparation is recommended before the fills are placed, or structures, pavements and slabs are built. We recommend that all colluvial and alluvial soils in areas.which will support structures or structural fill ze totally removed to the depth at which bedrock is encountered. Our prelimi- nary estimate is that from 2 to 15.feet of colluvium/alluvium removal will be necessary. The actual depth oc removal should be determined in the field during grading by our field repre- sentative. After the removals are made, the Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 tog No. 4085 Page 17 area may be brought to the desired finish grade using compacted fill, placed as recommended in Appendix B. In the main valley, where total removal is not feasible, we recommend that at least 5 feet of existing alluvium be removed prior to placing any till. If structures will be built near the existing grade with little or no fill added, we recommend that the alluvium, within the depth of at least 5 feet below the bottom of all foun- dations, be removed and replaced in accordance with the compaction recommendations in appendix B. The depth of alluvium removal should be determined in the field during grading by our field representative. It is possible, during periods of high groundwater, that unstable bot- tom conditions may occur. Recommendations for stabilizing these conditions should be provided in the field by the Geotechnicaj. Consultant if and when such conditions occur. 6.3 Compacted Fill We anticipate that materials derived from on-site cuts will be suitable for re-use as compacted fills. We further anticipate that use of these materials will result in building sites which are essentially non- expansive. Details of fill placement are presented in Appendix B. In general, all fill should be compacted to at least 90% of modified proctor density (STM: D 1557) at approximate moisture content. Sufficient observation and testing should be performed by the A. G. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 18 Geocechnical Consultant in order that an opinion can be formed as to whether the compaction recommendations have been complied with. 6.4 Slope Stability • For planning purposes, cut or fill slopes having a slope ratio of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) should be stable with regard to deep-seated failures to slope height of up to approximately 30 feet. However, the on-site materials should be considered highly erodable when subjected to concentrated runoff, either from rainfall or , irrigation. It is important that the slo- pes be properly landscaped to decrease erosion and that drainage be controlled so that water does not flow in an uncontrolled manner over the face of slopes. 6.5 Settlement Considerations Significant settlements of the, alluvial materials in the main valley can be expected if fill is placed in the areas. The following Table II presents the esti- mated settlements for various depths of fill placed. Although these settlements are significant, we antici- pate that the majority of settlement will occur during construction. We recommend that settlement monitors be placed in the alluvial area during earthwork, and that they be monitored as earthwork progresses. This will allow the Geotechnical Consultant to reasonably verify that primary settlements have occurred before construc- A: G. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 19 tion of the buildings commences. Specific details for placement and monitoring of settlement monuments should be provided following review of the proposed grading plan by the Geoteclinical Consultant. If our site pre- paration recommendations are complied with, all building pads should contain at least 5 feet of uni- formly compacted fill below the bottoms of foundations. This should minimize settlements which may result strictly due to the foundation loading. TABLE II ESTIMATED TOTAL SETTLEMENT Depth of Fill Total Over Alluvium Settlement 5 Feet 3-Inches 10 Feet 5-Inches 15 Feet 7-Inches • 20 Feet 8-Inches 30 Feet 11-Inches G. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 20 6.6 Site Drainage Performance of slopes and foundations is highly depen- dent upon maintaining adequate surface drainage both during and after construction. The ground surface around structures should be graded so that-surface water will be carried quicicly away from the building without ponding. Minimum gradient within ten feet of the building- will depend upon surface landscaping. In general, paved or lawn areas should have a minimum gra- dient of 2%, while heavily landscaped areas should have a minimum gradient of 6%. Roof drains should be carried across all bacicfilled areas and discharged at least ten feet away from the structure. Planters should be constructed so that moisture is not allowed to seep into the foundation areas beneath slabs and pavements. Water should not be allowed to pond behind slope areas nor flow in an uncontrolled manner over the face of slopes. The geotechnical consultant should review the grading plan to determine if additional measures such as(row ditches, or drains benched into the slope are war anted. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 21 6.7 Foundations and Slabs 6.7.1 General The following foundation recommendations are provided for planning purposes only. actual recommendations will be greatly influenced by the grading which is done on the sight. In general, we anticipate two foundation design conditions. One for the buildings underlain by alluvium/colluvium, which has been removed and recompacted, and the other for structures which will be underlain by deep alluvium. Foundation recommendations provided do not supercede more restrictive criteria which may be provided by the structural engineer. 6.7.2 areas of Complete Removal of Alluvium/Colluvium In areas in which colluvial and alluvial soils have been completely removed and replaced as a uniformly compacted fill, a conventional shallow foundation system can be used. Such foundations may be designed for the maximum allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf for dead and live loads. Bearing capacity may be increased by one third for wind or seismic loading. Footings should be at least 12 inches wide, and should extend at least 12 inches below lowest adjacent finish grade. Continuous footings should be continuously reinforced with at least one #4 bar placed at the top and the bottom of the footing. 4.,,G. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 22 6.7.3 Deep Alluvial Areas Foundations for buildings which are founded over the deep alluvium should be supported on a more heavily reinforced shallow foundation system. Foundations may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf for dead and live load. The bearing capacity may be increased by one third for wind or seismic loading. Foundations should be at least 12 inches wide and should extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent finish grade. Continuous footings should be continuously reinforced with at least two #4 bars placed at both the top of the stem wall and the bottom of the footing. 6.7.4 Transition Lots Construction of buildings directly over a tran- sition between bedrocic and fill soil is not recommended because of the potential for adverse differential movement. If construction on such transitions becomes necessary, special site pre- paration and/or foundation design may be warranted. Such determination should be made upon grading plan review. 6.7.5 Lateral Load Resistance Resistance to lateral loads may be provided by passive pressure against the vertical faces of the foundations or walls and by the frictional resistance between concrete and soil. Passive A.. G. Spanos Construction, Inc. Job No. 25052-00 May 21, 1986 Log No. 4085 Page 23 pressure for the prevailing soil condition may be considered to be 300 lbs per cubic foot. The coefecient of friction for soil to concrete may be assumed to be 0.4. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the latter should be reduced by one third. 6.7.5 Foundation Setbacics Footings adjacent to slopes should be deepened or set back so that a minimum horizontal distance from the slope face to the outside bot- tom corner of the footing is maintained equal to the height of the slope divided by two. The minimum setbacic should be five feet and the maximum setbacic should be ten feet. 6.7.7 Slabs We recommend that residential slabs be constructed a minimum of four inches in actual thickness. In addition they should be rein- forced with at least 6X6-10" X 10" welded wire mesh placed at mid-height of the slab. A moisture barrier system for interior slabs is advised. We recommend at least four inches of crushed rock or clean washed sand as a capillary break. If a moisture barrier membrane is used. We recommend that it be overlain by at least two inches of sand to decrease the liklihood of concrete curing problems. ... G. Spo&Cozstruction, Inc. Job NO. 25052-00 - May 21, 1986 .. . Log No. 4085 Page 24 •:: • •t---Z 7.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION : -- ----- Our investigation was perrormed using the degree oc care and "or - -. . - - •..:-_ sJc1L dinarily exercised , under si.xiui.ar circumstances, by Z:: . -' _ -. .- reputable Soils Engineers and Geologists practi.cing i.ii thi.s ..,.Or similar locallt3.es. No other waranty, expressed or -c iø- •- - -- - . .inp1ied i.smade as to the conclusions and professona]. advice I nc1uded in this report. - - ' - .' w - - - - - -F .,- •t -- '-. - 1 ,_ _ ::- -.- - :. .•. .,. .,; .. , ... .1.. :;: . - The samples taken and used for testing .'and -the'observations made arebelieved representatieofTh.te conditions, however so.1 and geologic conditions can vary significantly .,. .. - between bärings and surface otcros. 1' - As in:inostinaor projects, conditions revealed byexcavaon _ -- :maybeatvariaace with preli.minary fi.nd.ngs. I th.s -occurs the changed conditions—must be evaluated by the .- ProjectSo].s Engineer and Geo1ogi.stand designs adjusted as ---.- requi -ed ora1ternate designs recommended.' ... irt: -?1T :- ' -- This report is issued with the understandi.ngthat it -is. the - : _r - - - . - c, ••__ .. ., .- -.. - - .réspônsibilicy of-the owner, oro.Uiiis representative, to ' ensure that the inrormationand recommendations 'contained :__ - - •.- - -.- -----: - : -. - " -;.- .: '-heren are brought to the attenti.on of the architect and ..' engineer the project andincorporated .ntothe plans, . * -.. ------.- - —. '- - ---::- - T;j- - necessary steps are taKen to see that the contractor - i_- - and subcontractors carry, out such recoinmendati.ons in the .:. .. ... .. ... -. ......' .... -., ......... .. .. .. rs - The findings of this report are valid as off,the presenc ., - date. However, changes in..the coxidi.tionsof a property can .- - - - .ç$ -heth - - - --occur wx.th the passage of time, wer they be due to - - - - - - - - .4. - - natural processes or he worics of man on this or..adjacent - - - — _______ . - ---. - _---- .---- -.--------:.,- .... -.kx -I -; I;-- -. Ai G. Spaiios Construction, Inc. ---Job No 25052-00 12 - U1 41 J.YOO r-.:-.......... . - .. .Log No. 4085 31• Page25 T - properti.es. In addi..tion, changes inapp1icab1e oc —appropriate- standards may occur, whether they result from - legislation or the Ei76ideningoknowledqe. ccordi.ngly, findi.ngs oEthi.s report maybe iàvalidated wholly or - .- * - - : '- - - . -: - -.•- - partiallybychanges outsi.de our control: Therefore, this -. report isir.su review adshould be udated'after a period ofthree years. The opportunity tobe of continued professional service is appre: ciated. If yci have anyquestions, pleasdo nothesi.tte to call the undersigned at our office. Verytruly yours, - - All SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, I NC IM,"- - ZF ! Anthony. : e1 . Miller R.C.E. 2811C - Project Engineer - Expiraion'Date• 3431-90 .:. ' • •. - -- -7T2 ; ....• - .Reviewed by: - ç.t ME ° 2io; VAINIC -Chief Geologist- Expi t 63086 - I AFB:MJM:WLV:m Attachments Platel Geotechnical Map Figure ljtocation Map. - -Ffgure 2,Regional Fault Map -f - Figure 3, Key to-Boring _Logs - Figures 4-7,.Boring Logs ?- - - Figures 8-15, taboratoryTest Data - -s Appendix A, Exploration Logs - xroniprevius work -' Appendix B, Grading., and Earthwork Recommendations Distri.butLon:(6Addressee. PRIMARY DIVISIONS GROUP SECONDARY DIVISIONS SYM. GRAVELS CLEAN AvE1..s GW ______ graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. MOM THAN HALF (LESS THAN 5% FINES) GP Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, CF-COARSE ________________ ______ little or no fines. GM ______ S1ty grayels, gravel-sand-slit mixtures, °" astic fines. o g FRACTION IS LARGER THAN NO•4S1EVE FINES GC Clayey gravels,gravel-sand-ciay mixtures. __________________ _________________ ________ ___ ______ P lastic Tines. SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW '' graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. LU MORETHAN HALF OF COARSE (LESS THAN 5% F1ES) SP Of1 y2rad.d sands or gravelly sands, little or SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plaslc fines. o :- o SMALLER THAN NO, 4 SIEVE SANDS WITH FlEE SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. • SILTS AND CLAYS ML ______ inorganic slits and very tine sands, rock flour silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity. CL Inorganic clays of low to nu.dMam plasticity, gravelly • UOL LIMIT LESS THAN 50% _____ Cl*$, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. CL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. 2 - SILTS- AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts cac.ous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty &ous, elastic silts. • c CH ___ Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. _________________________ LU UOL Ll8T THAN ________________ OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. orginic sifts. __________________ HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt I Peat and other highly organic soils. DEFINITION OF TERMS - U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE - CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 200 40 10 4.- 3/4a 3a 12' SILTS AND CLAYS SAND FINE MEDIUM COARSE GRAIN SIZES GRAVEL FINE I COARSE [COBBLES [BC SANDS,GRAVELS AND NON-PLASTICS SILTS BLOWS/FOOT' VERY LOOSE 0 - 4 LOOSE 4 - 10 MEDIUM DENSE 10-30 DENSE 30 -50 VERY DENSE OVER 50 CLAYS AND PLASTIC STRENGTh 1 BLOWS/Fool! VERY SOFT 0 - 1/4 0 - 2 SOFT 1/4 1/2 2 FIRM 1/2 -1 4— 8.-.. STIFF 1 - 2 8 - 16: VERY STIFF - 2 -4 16 - HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY t?4*)er of blows of 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2 inch O.D.(1-3/8 inch LDJ spMt spoon (ASTM 0-1586). 1Unconfined compressive strength in tons/sq. ft. as determined by laboratory testing or approximated by the standard penetration test (ASTM 0-1588), pocket penetrometer, torvane, or visual observation. • KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2487) 1408 NO:DATE FIGURE: 25052-00 - •- •-- May1986 ..-..-.-:__...- •. - -. -. - -• ...SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERINlNC. ". - DATE OBSERVED: 4/2/R6 METHOD OF DRILLING: R" HCLTfl7 STEM AUCR 140 lbs. 30 inch dron LOGGED By: _R.G. GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Map - I 8 W . BORING NO._1 0 SOIL TEST W < O DESCRIPTION 0 -SP - .... PILUVIUM: Dark brn SAND, moist, very - - -. ...... loose :----:-----.--- -•---••-- ---• ----• -- - ;P 5 Dark brown SAND, wet, very loose, with - • light brn siltstone inclusions - • 1 14 Dark brown sandy CLAY, wet soft - -. 15- . . • . . SC 12 20.2109.E Light brown clayey SAND, wet, loose Consolidation 20- .. . • . . . -- .i: i.ii: - 12 . . .--- particle Size .ñalysis 25- . ... 13 20.106.. . . Consolidation 30- . SM .5 Gray brzn silty-SAND, wet, loose . Particle Size . --- -•- - -: --- -- ---- - .-----,-..... Mvsis 35. . -. ••.. • - ...--- - :---- ..- ... . - -, .-.-- 40- - . .. -. ........ L.. 2 JOB NO.2505200 J - LOG-OF--BORING .- lFR4 - e- '- EEL DATE OBSERVED: 4/2/86 METHOD OF DRILLING: BU HOLLOW STMFLIGHTUGER 140 i,c 'p TMP- nr LOGGED BY: R.G.GROUND ELEVATION:_1 20:±LOCATION: U- p- 0 40- 05 - 0 U. -O OW r <5i- Ui - 03 w >.U. CL UJ 0 BORING NO. 1 (CONTINUED) DESCRIPTION SOIL TEST - P — 27 — — — 17.5 L16.4 --. Light brown medium SAND, wet, medium - so1idation dense 46- -' M/ Brown silty SAND with interbedded gree 13>< — sandy CLAY, wet, loose - - BEDROCK: SANTIAGO FORMATION 50- L 56 Green CLAYSTONE, slightly moist, hard • -- - 55- - :: - - - - -• - - - CL 62 - - fractured - - -.----- Green silty CLAYSTONE, slightly moist, - - >< hard, brown mottling -- -- - - - 60- -- - - - - - - CL Green CLAYSTONE, slightly moist, hard - 36)< 65- - CL Green CLAYSTONE,sliqhtiv moist, hard -- 66 • TOTAL DEPTH, 68' - - - -; 70- SATURATION AT 7' -. - • STANDING WATER AT 38' CAVING AT 12' -. - - - BACKFILLED 4/2/86 - -- 75- -- - - -- - ------- - ,--• • - - -- ---- - rit"i N0 250 - - 520OE LOGOF-BORING ----_•- VIGUR&5 AN IJ$V VJ 1F'.. - - - - t - - - - - - - _ ME DATE OBSERVED: 4/2/86 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER 140 lbs 30 INCH DROP LOGGED BY: R.G.GROUND ELEVATION: _135± LOCATION: _See Map - w >U. BORING NO. 2 U. U. - SOIL TEST - • .J DESCRIPTION 0 0 SP — — — — — ALLUVIUM: Dark brown medium SAND, moist, loose 5 SP 17 Light brown medium to coarse SAND, moist medium dense .1 10- - . Sp 12 Light brown medium SAND, wet, medium • . dense .. . 15- @12' sample disturbed i: No sample retrieved . . . .. 20- - . . . -i-.. • . . • - . - sp 17.8 L12. C Light brown medium SAND, wet ; medium COflsOlidat3.Ofl 12 7 — . dense . 25- 1 No sample retrieved 30- . •. . - -,, IE 19-3 109-7 Light brown medium SAND with inter- Csolidatim so . . bedded clayey SAND, wet, medium dense . 35- 0 - Light brown medium_sArD,. wet, medium dense - 40- -- - •-•- •. 39'-40'dri11ed-harder-, possibly clay .• i 0-25052-0 -•- LOG OF-BORING .-• .. DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC :: "•€i:::: - - * DATE OBSERVED:____________________ METHOD OF DRILLiNG:_C" -IOLLQ Ti:! FL:C!!T AJGR 140 lbs. 30 iCH DC LOGGED BY: GROUND ELEVATION: 133± LOCATION: SE .L'\p 40e 9 U. — I- 0 LL. 63 — a to UJ 1-2 — UJ. CL 00 0) — CO Uj — 00 LU — BORING NO. _2 (CONTINUED) DESCRIPTION SOIL TEST -Sp/ 11 21.1 .03. Light brown medium. SAND with inter- CMSOlidaticn. — -SC bedded clayey SAIZD, wet, medium dens 45- - - SP Light brown medium SAND, wet, dense 3Z ~ 50- -. 40 No sample retrieved . BEDROcK:SAITIAGC FO ' MTIOM: CL 3c Gray sandy CLAYSTONE, moist, very - •:-- - .: stiff :- — 60- - - - ML 60 Gray/green clayey SILTSTONE, moist — hard, iron stains . - - -- CL Green CLASTOE, rohard, very 32 7 • . fractured, brown mottling - 70- . . Green CLAYSTON, .Lt, hard fractur . CL 9' d, brown mottling -- - - TOTAL DEPTH 73 --_._ S WATER AT 15 .. .• . . .. 75- NO CAVING 3AC(FILLD 4/2/56 - - - - 80- -- - -----• '----- •--• -----•---••-•••--------------- ---- -- -V- JOB NO-2 5o52oOI - -LOG OF BORING _-. fFIGURE. 7 - •- :_SS_• -; •.:Z --• - -. -.-- C. fijLI;lt TL - III I I ____ !!Uiar.aRIIIIIIIa • • ____ aaiurnuma miii aniiirniu________ iiim________ inuia________ s liii IUII1IlIt1 uaiimiiim __ __ UIIR ___ ---IIIIUIIUIIIIIIIU 111111$ ____ 1J__U1111 11111 liii mis miii iiinnuauiiius lull. __ __ '1iui __minmim-- _ iiiuinis---iauiiuis __ iiuuuls_________ 11111 hiS iiiuiirn •viiiiiiss __ 1111115 _____I ____ IAN _ --flhIItN---NIhiLlIlN______ Hull--- I 11111 mis LEI iiiiss_______ ____ liii US 1111115 Nhill5 hullS ____ 11111 Ihll—I----IIIIUIIU__5hih,Ihl5_______ I 111111115 ---1111115__5l1L1115 111111 _ s lihilIlhiR I I1II1IIU 5ihhlill5_ 1111111 'I $1 flLII uI1 I ii GRAVEL SAND SILT f CLAY COARSE MEDIUM 1 FINE BORING NO. DEPTH (FEET) SYMBOL LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX CLASSIFICATION' 22 SM ALLUVIUM 81LTY SAND WITH CLAY 1 .. C.- 0 w z 31 0 I. ('I o (ft 100 '43 I L 0 o 90 80 70 rn 60 C) 0 I- ITI 60 Fi cf M 40 30 'y Z(I) 20 m 0 0 CO 10 0 tj CO m 0 00 - m In CD :m v-..t. 2 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE MEDIUM FINE SIEVE SIZES-U.S. STANDARD PARTICLE SIZE-MILLIMETERS BORING NO. DEPTH (FEET) SYMBOL LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX CLASSIFICATION BORING NO. DEPTH (FEET) SYMBOL EXPLANATION FIELD MOISTURE ---------SAMPLE SATURATED REBOUND ii 4.0 Lu 2.0 2.0 4.0 :::_••iit .• 10.0 12.0 -----.- . -----..- ___ 0 - 14.0 -----... 16.0 _______ - - - - - . - - - - - . . • -:- - - - - 18.0 20•0 . . 0 0.000 0 0 000 0 0 000 0. ©: Q •0.0OO 0:. 0 0"00 - c o • • - - ;.NORMAL LOAD (PSF) 1 -:f. •• • JOB NO.25052_001 LOAD CONSOLIDATION TEST . . 25 SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGiNEERING, INC. - BORING NO. DEPTH (FEET) SYMBOL EXPLANATION . •1 42 FIELD MOISTURE - SAMPLE. SATURATED REBOUND I 2.0 4 2.0 --6$ 8.0 a10.0 :. 0 12.0 14.0 16.0 V 20. .0 0 LLH ! I -•-.:-,---- - ,--'- NORMAL LOAD (PSF) JOB NO.: 2505200 LOAD CONSOLIDATION TEST-'- . V . SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. - - :-'- --.-- z 0 CL x UI z 0 -4 0 0 0 0 I NORMAL LOAD (PSF) -.--- [JOB 25052 .00 LOAD-- CONSOLIDATION . TEST - ,-.SAN DIEGO SOILS E 5. •0 - ••. - . -. ...- . . - . ---' -- - ... - -. A-312 - _•,_ .- - -- - - -_.--.- -- ----. -- FIGURE1 a NGINEERING, INC. 1 • P I - - JOB NO- I'ThI[.1 1*EI P • •I - C EXPLANATION —.—& —I1IYI.1fbtL;J LD SAMPLE SATURATED —;44:[.1IJI. • . I!IIIIIF-mulIIlII1 _ I!I1IIII •IIIIffI___-__1111111 T1111111 1111111 :1IIIIII1 iiiIIIIIII _IIIIIII ---1111111 mill 1111 t-IIIIIII TIIIII1I zIIIIIII IIIIIOL I&;I$I1IIIII -_-1111111 •iiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiii 1II1II11 "11111111 4!IIIII • P "IiIiiIIUiIEiII ul_lIllIll : iuiiioi _ 1111110 "1111111 I!IIIIll1 1111111111 -IIl1III -1111111 -11OIIOIUIIIIIIII •iiiiiiiiiiiio iiiioi '111111 •' --imp • •'• •-• •.: - • •-•-• _••4 -• •-- '- _•$••.._ - _____ ___ —FIELD II.1fitIJ;l I— SAMPLE I.YtII;1W4.! REBOUND - _- -- -. -- ___ I1I1IIH'IIIII1_A1.'IUIII ____IhIIIIF-'-IIIIIII__-11111111 1111111___1I11II11 :1111111 1111111- 1111111'-_.IIIII11 1111111 "IIIIIII-JIIIIIII 'h"IIiiI1I_ -iIOhII1i_111111111 I- -III1IiiIIII1OL 1MI111H IhlIIIIIi_!'IIIIIII!IIIWI NINE Ii qb iIIIOIIIIIO__1IIIIlI1 _____II1II11u.IIIIII1uIa 111111111 III1IIr—TIIII1I7JIIIIIIII 11111111- -1IIIIIii 1puIiiiii z 0 z CL x UJ 2. 2. 4.( . S.0 z 0 10. co 0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 ____o 0 0 0 0 0.- 0...0..-0 0 0.. 0- 0 0 0 C C 0- O 0 -0 •t0' C..:- 0.0 C l' 0. ' C C Q• 0 -0.- o o cil - NORMAL LOAD (PSF) —. - ii:- - eL JOB NO.:25052-00 - LOAD CONSOLIDATION TEST I..14*:. -'.... DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC _____ 0 120 14.0 - - - - - ---. - - 18.0 qw to ..Q0-00 NORMAL LOAD (PSF) :---- JOB NO.: 25052-00. :.- LOAD CONSOLIDATION TEST ................................ . SAN DIEGO SOILS EN III III III III I" UI UI III III Ill 0 • ;-e.-' URE5l 2.0 4.0 8.0 10.0 NE11111111111101 imillillimmi 131111111mll tIflhIIII -1 !!UIIII _ BQRING NO. DEPTH (FEET) SYMBOL 2 42 6.0 EXPLANATION - FIELD MOISTURE -TT SAMPLE SATURATED REBOUND 'I'll 0 I $1 £ t(I 4fr1 • . a 3 I 3 11 1 :; '. •..'.••j ., . H 'C • •"• • -C • ••• • • • •• •:. '" :1 • :- • .• • •1..t , ,•• . .• .. ' • •• , .• . •C• 3 CC r - C, . • -- . • • 1. • •.. 1- • . IC', • - • - I , C C 1C1 II I C I C C 1 W AS 11 C l ''C : "':-', ,, • , •., :"i ''''': '' • •'-'• TO to •' •' 0 Ass &11 C C C C C C C I C , I ,,,C j C .1 C I 1 1 C ' C C I C C C C •-- -,-- '..: '. - . - .. C ' IC iCC 3 #1 C C ' C r 3 ,I3C C 4C 4 II I ' C IC331 C C 31 C I C C I 3C C C.• •,!CC., ;ii.CC'.'•:.'c !.' .. - - ::!'': " ;,' •::,:E ,,.,,,(,', Wig Qa- no C C 1 3 •;C,I C r C $ I I C C C C C I y C C C C C C II • 'C Ch C C C 1 C -- • ",,3 'C C', 1,,,,' C ------------' - .' - -' ' C ' C''. • •-----• C - ','"','i I 1) C! I C' 1 IçII 4 3 C C C C CC'C C 'C C 1 4 C) J'C 3 -• -. --C,-1 ', C • - • ,, ,, '-' , C, , - 3, - • - , •_._ - C • . . 1\'l. . .: . .f\11 . .. •. NA ..•.. UNDISTURBED I'4 _________________ • V'J • SAMPLE. t BULK SAMPLE ... .............k. - - - - F- 0 ol,( 0 0 a 0 a DEPTH (FEET) CLASSIFICATION ci D BLOWS/FOOT •: jj L '. .r ...- . :i MOISTURE CONTENTM 2 Ln •;' , . r r-i r 3• :t3 tO j 1 1 '\ 3 ," 1 IN PLACE DRY : . • • . I- .. 3 . . : .1. - . . DENSITY (PCF) m • . . ., I, • 3 . . . - . • . •. . '- •3 3• I •3I3gt , f.) Ui Y )1 ' '1 1 Al ' : ! • •, -.. I•j .. .....i.j3 ,.• .......... :• '. 3S • II ...'.. to ' , . • . ••• P /3•• 3: ! j • • ,' . • I.— X ID T' j D ID ( ' •1 II CD 0 L co m •r . tl• : . A I 3 j 3 3 i , 3 3 , II- :i i—i :3 3 II - r3'•11 } 3.' 1 (I) i ) r —I I L • cl ' w ~ I G) f 43•4 :I3j 13!:i*\ (i '1 ç e i i 3 ( t l r g rt •;3t 4 3 f fri3 , ' 3 •' :' ' V ' ? , ' w pj 1 kI•3 ?; F3 I-h ' 3 t a-' i" 1 fi " 4 k4 • p, / ;c i 3 1< I ; c . :: ID H . 3ç fr I P — . ..' .......:' . . : •-;"ç : g . ... - .. : M ' '3 ! , 1 A , ; . g -si ; 3I . 3J4 ft 1 / 1 33 3 3 ft I II• (D (Ia D 9 rn 1 jlt 3/3 r ltl •3• a 0 3 3 33 1 A. ir; rt k, mil 0 •:gj& • '•'4? ': • •.•. ': • . 1i4t .. • ;•. H b ,, . . . • . . — : • •' • ':1 ' •. . . •.• •. .... •: •' •' - I—I Ii E1 r 3 3 2 •, . , •.• -- •., .• .. .F a a 3 L I / k 1 1 4 1 r 4 I q 1 • .-l•.31y I I 1 3 j — — DATE OBSERVED: _102880 METHOD OF DRILLING: _5" Rotary Wash 14fl 1h Hrnmer LOGGED BY: _KS GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnical Man z 2 LU LU 0 OW W .3 a. BORING NO 1 U. - U. - a. UJ (CONTINUED) z 1­2 Co 2 UJ SOILTEST a. LU c < o j z - M Oz 20 .3, DESCRIPTION .4 0 LU 40__2__.__ 45- CL 5 26.9 90 Dark green sandy CLAY; firm, saturated CONSOLIDATION SIEVE HYDROMETER 50- sp 55- 15 NR Green clean medium SAND; medium dense, SIEVE saturated HYDROMETER 60- 65- 70- 75- 24 21.S 104 Light green-white fine SAND; medium SIEVE dense, wet HYDROMETER 80- JOB NO. SD1092-OO I - LOG OF BORiNG IFIGURE SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. -... .,... ...... DATE OBSERVED: 10-28-80 METHOD OF DRILLING: _5" Rotary _Wash 140 1. nmr LOGGED By: KS GROUND ELEVATION: 81± LOCATION: See Geotechnical Nap LU 0 LU —ã Uj cc BORING NO. 1 &' Q - t2 z uj (CONTINUED) I u co 0) SOIL TEST d1 Q in M Z W c z O DESCRIPTION 0 .. IX Light green medium fine SAND, clean, SP medium dense, moist, traces of orange 85 staining - 65 22.7 103 90- 95 — — — — — — .0" 20.4 106 Total Depth 95' Water at 2' No Caving 100 N.R. - No Sample Recovered Lithologic descriptions were determined from undisturbed samples 105- hO- 115- 120- SD1092-09J — LOG OF BORING 6 SAN DIEGO SOILS E INC. tot • DATE OBSERVED: 11-3-80 METHOD OF DRILLING: _24" Bucket Aucer LOGED BY:_JFK GROUND ELEVATION: ------ 100 lb.. T(fly 55'- - LOCATION: See Geotechrjcaj Map • Ui 2 - O I - aR 2 Uj !zo mj a. a. BORING NO. L. c U. - U. CO ° ' SOIL TEST o < . z Oz O - Z DESCRIPTION : • SM ALLtJVIUi: Brown silty SAND; moist, MAXIMUM DENSITY • loose-,medium dense DIRECT SHEAR (remolded) SIEVE HYDROI1ETER 5- EXPANSION - P6" NR SULFATE I— - ?8"28.6 99 1 Color change to light brown silty SIEVE 1 I SAND I HYDROMETER I I i P 29.2 94 20- • Total Depth 19' Water at 17' Caving at 18' - 19' P - Push 25- N.R. - No Sarnle Recovery 130 135 L 01 I I I•I I I I [JOB NO.: SD1092-00 LOG OF BORING IE 7 SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. • DATE OBSERVED:-- 11-4-80 METHOD OF DRILLING: 24" Bucket Auaer • * 1500_1b._Kelly LOGGED BY: P.3. GROUND ELEVATION: _15'-LOCATION:-_ See Geotechnjcal Mao •i: 0 0 LU w .J - U. w 'U < L. X.J e. BORING NO. 3 - CO < o IR z ul = a, SOIL TEST - Q. 'U CO c 0 .. 13 co z O O IL Z DESCRIPTION -L .2... = a, •o _ - ________________________________________________ - Sp ALLUVIUM: Brown SPND; wet, loose P 6 11 18.6 109 - P 24.0104 10- Total Depth 8' Water at 5' Caving at 4' • P-Push 15- 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- JOB NO SD109200 LOG OF BORING - FIGURE 8 SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. FANS - . - - -_------- V. -_- - - .- ..- - - . - DATE OBSERVED: _11-4-nfl METHOD OF DRILLING: 24" neket Auger 1500 lb. Klly LOGGED BY: P.S.GROUND ELEVATION:_' _LOCATION:_SeeGeotechnicalMa 0 w BORING NO. 4 < o a. Lt.Q U. LU - a.< U. 03 03 Co LU SOIL TEST 2< t- CL 03 o a a, ' < .. 2o Z DESCRIPTION 0 .- -0- •-- — — __________________________________________ ___________________ - 8? - FILL: Brown gravelly SAND; moist to - wet, uncompacted with asphalt chunks SP ALLtJVItJM: Brown SAND; wet, loose - 5- — with roots NR P I P 16.9 10- Total Deth 9' • Seepage at 4' Caving 0' - 8' N.R. - No Sample Recovered 15- P-Push 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- JOB NO SD1092-00 LOG OF BORING 9 SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. IN DATE OBSERVED: 11-4-80 METHOD OF DRILLING: 24" Bucket Auger 1500 lb. Kelly LOGGED BY: _ GROUND ELEVATION:_20'LOCATION:_See Geotechnical Map 1-0 Ui - - 0 UI w BORING NO. U. - - U. - . < JZZ 0> _____ U. CO - 2 < CO 0,UJ <. SOIl. TEST 0. W C/) < 0 - O'1 Z - z ' -o 9L Z DESCRIPTION 0 0 ,X\ ALLUVIUM: Light brown SAND; d.—.,r to MAXIMUM DENSITY - wet, loose to medium dense DIRECT SHEAR - (remolded) 6" >< 12.7 100 81EV HYDROMETER EANS ION DIRECT SHEAR (undisturbed) Total Depth 7' Seepage 5' 7' Caving 0' - 6' 115 11KII 135 JJOB NO.: sD1092-00I LOG OF BORING Iio I rI - - • UBSERVED: METHOD OF DRILLING:_ 24" Bucket Auger + 1500 lb. Kelly • D BY: _P.B. GROUND ELEVATION: 381- LOCATION: See Geotechnjca]. Na 1- Ui 0 0 Ui MW 2 BORING NO._6 U. U. U) -J q ui • CI) - SOIL TEST Q 0 -J z -J OZ °-z DESCRIPTION EW - SP )< ALLtJVItM: Reddish to light brown MAXIMUM DENSITY - SAND; dry, loose DIRECT SHEAR - 8 3' moist and mediva dense (remolded) 3"X 5.8 107 SIEVE HYDROMETER P6" 8.4 109 EXPANSION - 1 10- '3" 6.9 102 2 8 12' shell fragments I @ 18' wet P W 20.8106 20' seepage J. Total Depth 22' I Minor seepage at 20' 251 Caving 10- 21' -I P - Push 3 JOB NO.: sD1092-00 LOG OF BORING - I01GUR 11 , • SAN DIEG? SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. DATE OBSERVED: _11-11-•80 METHOD OF DRILLING: -9" Rota; Wash 14fl 11-) Tmir LOGGED BY: _PB GROUND ELEVATION: 15' LOCATION: See Geotechnical Mao ------ w 0 1-0 W IU - w < 0 w BORING NO. _7 U. U- U- CO - - Q3 SOIL TEST Q) I-. < 0 • Z o f Z O DESCRIPTION 0 - Q _o_ - S M ALLUVIUM: Brown silty SAND; dry to - wet, loose to medium dense 5- CL 10- - 3 24.6 98 Brown sandy CLAY, saturated, soft, CONSOLIDATION trace of organics 15- - SP 20- 17.4 114 Light medium brown SAND; saturated, medium dense 25- 13 18.0 105 30- 11 19.5 106 8 30' brown 35- 11 18.4 109 40- JOB NO.: SD1092-00 ] LOG OF BORING IH0 12 SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 0 DATE OBSERVED:__ 11-11-80 METHOD OF DRILLING: _5 ' Rotary Wash 140 lb. Hamer LO.äGED BY: GROUND ELEVATION: 15't LOCATION- See Geotechnica.L Nap Uj BORING NO. 7 U- 3 U- - Q. _ (CONTINUED) - U- CO SOIL TEST a. 0' 0 Ø z OZ O 0' a. DESCRIPTION W 0 .< -Z ...a 40- -- - - - - 9 20.9109 Sp 45- 50- - 10 Brown SAND; saturated, medium dense 55- 8 58' hard lens, 3" thick 60- 10 21.1 108 85- 70- 22 20.0 108 8 70' dense 75- 80- I I I I I I JOB NO. sD1092-00E - LOG OF BORING IFIGURE.- SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. DATE OBSERVED: _11-11-80 METHOD OF DRILLING: _5" Rotary Wash lLtfl 1 In Thnim LOGGED BY: PB GROUND ELEVATION: _l5 LOCATION: _See Geotechnical Map 2 i-a w - >-U. lu 0 Ow Ca W _J CL waR cr O BORING NO. 7 I' — U. 0 (CONTINUED) SOIL TEST Q3 o I- W o < o ao z ..a Oz o 0 -z DESCRIPTION a .- Uj at 80- SP 30 X - 19.5 104 85- WEATHERED BEDROCK: Brown to olive sandy CLAY 90- 30 20.7104 1 F7 BEDROCK: Santiago Formation, dark gray to medium brown SILTSTONE; moist, very stiff to hard 95- 8" >< - • — 21.5 109 Total Depth 96' Water at 5' - 8' • No Caving 100- M.R. - No Sample Recovered Lithologic descriptions were - determined by undisturbed samples 105- 110- 9JO - B NO SD1092-00 LOG OF BORING IF10UR14 SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING INC. 11-11-80 DATE OBSERVED: METHOD OF DRILLING: 5" Rota Wash 140 lb. Hammer LOGGED BY: 23 GROUND ELEVATION:_13 '_LOCATION:_ See GeotechnicalMac Lu w o p < '- 0 o Lu w - - LU >. U. Q oa. BORING NO. 8 L . - U. - Q. < Z J) - U. Q) COj3W <. SOIL TEST < o .i 2< Sco Z a 0 Oz 20 CL Z DESCRIPTION Q -J M M M C) SP : Brown S?, wet, loose ALLtJVItJM ND 5- 10- 15- Z 8 :9.9 131 20- 25- CL 30- 13 20.9 124 Dark gray sandy CLAY; saturated, soft 35- L4 0-, NO.: r JJ _rn f( OF BORING - I FIGUR—OB 1 SAN DI . , ..-- . '.. .. EGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. (9) DATE OBSERVED: 11-11-80 METHOD OF DRILLING: 5" Rotar Wash 140 lb. Hammer LOGGED BY: PB_GROUND ELEVATION: _13 '-LOCATION:_ See Geote-hnica1Man BORING NO. 8 U- 0 - U- U) D LLJ >. (CONTINUED) - SOIL TEST I- 0. W (1) < 0 . Co Z z - Z DESCRIPTION 0 145 19.411131 Brown sandy CLAY, soft BEDROCK: Santiago Formation, olive 11 CLAY; stiff 23.3 106 170 75- 50 17 Olive CLAY; moist, stiff with chunks s it • - 114 ofgypsum - Total Death 76' Water at 0' - 5' - No Caving - Lithologic descriptions were 80- determined from undisturbed samples - JOB NO.SD1092_00 1 - LOG OF BORING IFIGURE 16 SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC 0 16 sput 42 165 DATE OBSERVED: 12-17-80 METHOD OF EXCAVATION: 24" Eackhoe LOGGED ev: 30'± _KS GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnica3. Ma - u .j TEST PIT NO. _ (- ..J .-U') -' SOIL TEST u,a__ 5 7- -z '- z DESCRIPTION cn OC-,.w • ___ TOPSOIL: Silty fine SAND; with organics, -SP loose, dry ALLUVIUM: Yellow-brown fine 'medium SAND; • moist, loose 5- to - Total Depth 9' -J No Water I No Caving TEST PIT NO. _2 GROUND ELEVATION 45'± DESCRIPTION S I I I TOPSOIL: Light brown silty fine SAND; dry, loose BEDROCK: Santiago Formation, grey-white medium fine SANDSTONE; moist dense with red staining. Total Depth 8' No Water No Caving JOB N0 SD1092-00 J LOG OF TEST PITS FIGURE17 DE OBSERVED: 112-17-80 - METHOD OF EXCAVATION: 24" Backhoe LOGGED sv: KS GROUND ELEVATION: 50 't ---..,—LOCATION: SeeGeotechnicalMap- a TEST PIT NO. 3 - UJ _Lj z SOIL TEST DESCRIPTION Z< I M in M QOZILi - BEDROCK: Santiago Formation, greenish gray white, fine- medium SANDSTONE; moist dense, with red staining • - - - - - Top 1' fractured with roots Refusal Total Total Depth 3.5' No Water • No Caving 10- IS- - - - - - TEST PIT NO. 4 GROUND ELEVATION55' DESCRIPTION •0 - - BEDROCK: Santiago Formation, light green fine medium SANDSTONE; moist, dense Top 1' fractured with roots 5- Total Depth 4' No Water - No Caving 10- 15- J9NOQgQQ - LOG OF TEST PITS FIGUR:j DATE OBSERVED: 12-17-80 __________________ METHOD OF EXCAVATION: 24" Backhoe LOGGED BY: KS GROUND ELEVATION: 48'f LOCATION See Geotechnical map Li _j TEST PIT PIT NO . U CC _cJ) a- SOIL TEST a. DESCRIPTION Z< = 00 z Li Ism I I I ALLUVIUM: Light brown silty medium SAND dry to moist, loose with organics 5 @ 7' Wet Total Depth 12' No Water No Caving TEST PIT NO. 6 GROUND ELEVATION 125' DESCRIPTION SP TOPSOIL: Light red-brown fine medium SAND; dry, loose TERRACEDEPOSITS: Light red silty SAND; moist, loose to medium dense 15 WEATHEREDBEDROCK: Gray and red mottled silty SAND; moist, medium dense lIE'] BEDROCK: Santiago Formation, yellow- gray fine medium SANDSTONE; moist, medium dense, with red staining 15 1 Total Depth 12' 1 No Water I No Caving JOB Na sD1092-OO LOG OF TEST PITS FIGURE: 19 7)1 ________ _________ • - -'-e--'-----'-------------'------------ - _._._ - • -- DATE OBSERVED: _12-17-80 METHOD OF EXCAVATION: _24" Eackhoe LOG•GED sv: KS GROUND ELEVATION: 133 LOCATION See Geotechnical Map 4' Ui TEST PIT NO.__ Q_ SOIL TEST DESCRIPTION Cfl Z < OO -,u.i I I TERRACE DEPOSITS: Red fine medium SAND ; moist, loose tomedium dense 5 @ 6' dense, coarser grained Total Depth 12' No Water No Caving If TEST PIT NO._8 GROUND ELEVATION 72't DESCRIPTION • TOPSOIL: Light brown fine medium SAND • BEDROCK: Santiago Formation, gray white SANDSTONE; moist, medium dense to dense @ 3' very thin horizontal bedding, 2" thick Total Depth 6. No Water No Caving 15 I 1 I I I I I I I [JOB No: SD1092-00 I LOG OF TEST PITS FGUR 20 DATE OBSERVED: 12-17-80 METHOD. OF EXCAVATION: 24" Backhoe LOGGED BY: KS GROUND ELEVATION: 65'-LOCATION: See Geotechnicalmar) - a U W TEST PIT NO. 9 ____ a- I-_i cna- (I, SOIL TEST CL LLI . - z a- z DESCRIPTION Z< OC.w SN TOPSOIL: Light brown silty, fine SAND; - dry, loose with roots BEDROCK: Santiago Formation, greenish - gray-white, medium fine SANDSTONE; moist, dense -I Total Depth 7.5' 10— No Water No Caving TEST PIT NO. 10 GROUND ELEVATION 33'f DESCRIPTION SM I TOPSOIL: Brown silty SAND, loose, moist COLLUVIUM: Light brown medium fine SAND; SP moist, medium dense p 5 I @ 9' wet, loose J Total Depth 12' No Water No Caving I iaoo LOG OF TEST PITS J FIGuRE:2 -- / 'DATE OBSERVED: 12-17-80 METHOD OF EXCAVATION: 24" Backhoe + LOGGED s: KS GROUND ELEVATION: i" LOCATION: See Geotechnical Map - ' -; •LLJ TEST PIT NO. 11 ____ a, G • SOIL TEST a. 252 5 - z a.. z DESCRIPTION - SP I I TOPSOIL: Light red-brown, fine SAND; dry to moist, loose 1 SP COLLtJVIUM: Red and brown mottled fine5 medium SAND; moist, loose @ 11' medium dense Total Depth 13' No Water No Caving TEST PIT NO. 12 GROUND ELEVATION 40' DESCRIPTION SP FILL: Gray white medium SAND; moist, uncompacted ALLUVIUM: Dark brown, silty fine SAND; SM with organics, moist to wet, loose 5 Total Depth 7.5' No Water No Caving IS J08 Na LOG OF TEST PITS FIGURE' 22 (--- ---'-,--',. - 12-17-80 24t1 Backhoe DATE OBSERvED:__________________ METhOD OF EXCAVATION. LOGGED BY GROUND ELEVATION: 52't -LOCATION* See Geotechnica].Mao IE - -J ____ TEST PIT NO. 13 Ln 6j - Z SOIL TEST CL • (1) <Ll a. U, - — Z a. Z DESCRIPTION 0 0 z LiCt SM - --- .L'WliJ WOS g loose with organics • WEATHEREDBEDROCK: Brown and gray mottled fineSAND;moist, loose, fractured • BEDROCK: Santiago Formation, light greenish-white, medium fine SANDSTONE; moist, loose to dense Total Depth 9' No Water No Caving '5 TEST PIT NO._____ DESCRIPTION 5 Es IS OSNO. SD1092-00 LOG OF TEST PITS FIGURE. - 23 .Ce-i <r r- - - -- - -- -.-- - -_-;-.-__ - - --- - - --• -_v_- 5 IRS APPENDIX B STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS APPENDIX STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 GENERAL ............... . . . . . 1 2. DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 1 3. OBLIGATIONS OFPARTIES S 4. SITE PREPARATION . .............. 6 5. SITE PROTECTION . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 7 6. EXCAVATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 9 6.1 UNSUITABLE MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2 CUT SLOPES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.3 PAD AREAS . .......... . . . . . . 10 7. COMPACTED FILL ... ...... 10 7.1 PLACEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.2 MOISTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.3 FILL MATERIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.4 FILL SLOPES 15 7.5 OFF-SITE FILL ............... 17 8. DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . 18 9. STAKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10. SLOPE MAINTENANCE ............... 19 10.1 LANDSCAPE PLANTS . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 19 10.2 IRRIGATION . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 10.3 MAINTENANCE ............... 20 10.4 REPAIRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 11. TRENCH BACKFILL ................ 20 12. STATUS OF GRADING...... . . . . . . . . . . 22 ..T ,... - .• T ,.. .-. .. . ... ... j.:_.. -II STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS 1. 1.1 The guidelines contained herein and the standard details attached hereto represent this firm's standard recommendations for grading and other associated operations on construction projects. These guidelines should be considered a portion of the project specifi- cations. 1.2 All plates attached hereto shall be considered as part of these guidelines. 1.3 The Contractor should not vary from these guidelines without prior recommendation by the Geotechnical Consultant and the approval of the Client or his authorized representative. Recommendation by the Geotechnical Consultant and/or Client should not be considered to preclude requirements for approval by the controlling agency prior to the execution of any changes. 1.4 These Standard Grading Guidelines and Standard Details may be modified and/or superseded by recommendations contained in the text of the preliminary geotechriical report and/or.subsequent reports. 1.5 If disputes arise out of the interpretation of these grading guidelines or standard details, the Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the governing interpretation. 2. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 2.1 ALLUVIUM -- Unconsolidated detrital deposits resulting from flow of water, including sediments deposited in river beds, canyons, flood plains, lakes, fans at the foot of slopes and estuaries. 2.2 AS-GRADED (AS-BUILT) -- The surface and subsurface conditions at completion of grading. 2.3 BACKCUT -- A temporary construction slope at the rear of earth retaining structures such as buttresses, shear keys, stabilization fills or retaining walls. 2.4 BACKDRAIN -- Generally a pipe and gravel or similar drainage system placed behind earth retaining structures such buttresses, stabilization fills, and retaining walls. 2.5 BEDROCK -- A more or less solid, relatively undisturbed rock in place either at the surface or beneath superficial deposits of soil. • Standard Guidelines Page 2 for Grading Projects 2.6 BENCH -- A relatively level step and near vertical rise excavated into sloping ground on which fill is to be placed. 2.7 BORROW (Import) -- Any fill material hauled to the project site from off-site areas. 2.8 BUTTRESS FILL -- A fill mass, the configuration of which is designed by engineering calculations to retain slope conditions containing adverse geologic features. A buttress is generally specified by minimum key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A buttress normally contains a backdrainage system. 2.9 CIVIL ENGINEER -- The Registered Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topographic conditions. 2.10 CLIENT -- The Developer or his authorized represen- tative who is chiefly in charge of the project. He shall have the responsibility .of reviewing the findings and recommendations made by the Geotechnical Consultant and shall authorize the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. 2.11 COLLUVIUM -- Generally loose deposits usually found near the base of slopes and brought there chiefly by gravity through slow continuous downhill creep (also see Slope Wash). 2.12 COMPACTION -- Is the densification of a fill by mechanical means. 2.13 CONTRACTOR -- A person or company under contract or otherwise retained by the Client to perform demoli- tion, grading and other site improvements. 2.14 DEBRIS -- All products of clearing, grubbing, demoli- tion, contaminated soil material unsuitable for reuse as compacted fill and/or any other material so designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. 2.15 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST -- A Geologist holding a valid certificate of registration in the specialty of Engineering Geology. 2.16 ENGINEERED FILL -- A fill of which the Geotechnical Consultant or his representative, during grading, has .1 .. ........ -.,. - Standard Guidelines Page 3 for Grading Projects made sufficient tests to enable him to conclude that the fill has been placed in substantial compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant and the governing agency requirements. 2.17 EROSION -- The wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind, water, and/or ice. 2.18 EXCAVATION -- The mechanical removal of earth materials. 2.19 EXISTING GRADE -- The ground surface configuration prior to grading. 2.20 FILL -- Any deposits of soil, rock, soil-rock blends or other similar materials placed by man. 2.21 FINISH GRADE -- The ground surface configuration at which time the surface elevations conform to the approved plan. 2.22 GEOFABRIC -- Any engineering textile utilized in geotechnical applications including subgrade stabilization and filtering. 2.23 GEOLOGIST -- A representative of the Geotechnical Consultant educated and trained in the field of geology. 2.24 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT -- The Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology consulting firm retained to provide technical services for the project. For the purpose of these specifications, observations by the Geotechnical Consultant include observations by the Soil Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering Geologist and those performed by persons employed by and responsible to the Geotechnical Consultants. 2.25 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER -- A licensed Civil Engineer who applies scientific methods, engineering principles and professional experience to the acquisition, interpre- tation and use of knowledge of materials of the earth's crust for the evaluation of engineering problems. Geotechriical Engineering encompasses many of the engineering aspects of soil mechanics, rock mechanics, geology, geophysics, hydrology and related sciences. 2.26 GRADING -- Any operation consisting of excavation, Standard Guidelines Page 4 for Gading Projects filling or combinations thereof and associated operations. 2.27 LANDSLIDE DEBRIS -- Material, generally porous and of low density, produced from instability of natural of man-made slopes. 2.28 MAXIMUM DENSITY -- Standard laboratory test for maximum dry unit weight. Unless otherwise specified, the maximum dry unit weight shall be determined in accordance with ASTM Method of Test D 1557-78. 2.29 OPTIMUM MOISTURE -- Test moisture content at the maximum density. - 2.30 RELATIVE COMPACTION -- The degree of compaction (expressed as a percentage) of dry unit weight of a material as compared to the maximum dry unit weight of the material. 2.31 ROUGH GRADE --The ground surface configuration at which time the surface elevations approximately conform to the approved plan. 2.32 SITE -- The particular parcel of land where grading is being performed. 2.33 SHEAR KEY -- Similar to buttress, however, it is generally constructed by excavating a slot within a natural slope in order to stabilize the upper portion of the slope without grading encroaching into the lower portion of the slope. 2.34 SLOPE -- Is an inclined ground surface the steepness of which is generally specified as a ratio of horizontal: vertical (e.g., 2:1). 2.35 SLOPE WASH -- Soil and/or rock material that has been transported down a slope by mass wasting assisted by runoff water not confined by channels (also see Colluvium). 2.36 SOIL -- Naturally occurring deposits of sand, silt, clay, etc., or combinations thereof. 2.37 SOIL ENGINEER -- Licensed Civil Engineer experienced -in soil mechanics (also see Geotechnical Engineer). 2.38 STABILIZATION FILL -- A fill mass, the configuration of which is typically related to slope height and is - --- ---.--- Standard Guidelines Page 5 for Grading Projects specified by the standards of practice for enhancing the stability of locally adverse conditions. A stabilization fill is normally specified by minimum key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A stabilization fill may or may not have a backdrainage system specified. 2.39 StJBDRAIN -- Generally a pipe and gravel or similar drainage system placed beneath a fill in the alignment of canyons or former drainage channels. 2.40 SLOUGH -- Loose, noncompacted fill material generated during grading operations. 2.41 TAILINGS -- Nonengineered fill which accumulates on or adjacent to equipment haul-roads. 2.42 TERRACE -- Relatively level step constructed in the face of graded slope surface for drainage control and maintenance purposes. 2.43 TOPSOIL -- The presumably fertile upper zone of soil which is usually darker in color and loose. 2.44 WINDROW -- A string of large rock buried within engineered fill in accordance with guidelines set forth by the Geotechnical Consultant. 3. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES 3.1 The Geotechnical Consultant should provide observation and testing services and should make evaluations in order to advise the Client on geotechnical matters. The Geotechnical Consultant should report his findings and recommendations to the Client or his authorized representative. 3.2 The Client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his authorized representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his authorized representative should remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. !C~Mf]*' Standard Guidelines Page 6 for:Grading Projects 3.3 The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading and other associated operations on construction projects, including but not limited to, earthwork in accordance with the project plans, specifications and controlling agency requirements. During grading, the Contractor or his authorized representative should remain on-site. Overnight and on days off, the Contractor should remain accessible. 4. -SITE PREPARATION 4.1 The Client, prior to any site preparation or grading, should arrange and attend a- meeting among the Grading Contractor, the Design Engineer, the Geotechnical • Consultant, representatives of the appropriate governing authorities as well as any other concerned • parties. All parties should be given at least 48 hours notice. 4.2 Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, roots of trees and otherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of all proposed excavation and fill areas. 4.3 Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations, reservoirs, utilities (including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, etc.) and other man-made surface and subsurface improvements from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities should include proper capping and/or re-routing pipe- lines at the project perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the requirements of the governing authorities and the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant at the time of demolition. 4.4 Trees, plants or man-made improvements not planned to be removed or demolished should be protected by the Contractor from damage or injury. 4.5 Debris generated during ;learing, grubbing and/or demolition operations should be wasted from areas to be graded and disposed off-site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be performed under the observation of the Geotechnical Consultant. ____ • --------------- --- Standard Guidelines Page 7 for-'Grading Projects 4.6 The Client or Contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, during and/or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The appropriate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with grading operations. 5. SITE PROTECTION 5.1 Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the responsibility of the Contractor. Unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed- upon among the concerned parties, completion of a portion of the project should not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the requirements for site protection until such time as the entire project is complete as identified by the Geotechnical Consultant, the Client and the regulating agencies. 5.2 The Contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the Geotechnica3. Consultant pertaining to temporary exca- vations (e.g., backcuts) are made in consideration of stability of the completed project and, therefore, should not be considered to preclude the respon- sibilities of the Contractor. Recommendations by the Geotechnical Consultant should not be considered to preclude more restrictive requirements by the regulating agencies. 5.3 Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall. 5.4 During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting should be kept reasonably accessible to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated. Where necessary during periods of rainfall, the Contractor should install checkdams, desilting basins, riprap, sand bags or other devices or methods necessary to control erosion and provide safe conditions. Standard Guidelines for"Grading Projects Page 8 5.5 During periods of rainfall, the Geotechnical Consultant should be kept informed by the Contractor as to the nature of remedial or preventative work being performed (e.g., pumping, placement of sandbags or plastic sheeting, other labor, dozing, etc.). 5.6 Following periods of rainfall, the Contractor should contact the Geotechnical Consultant and arrange a walk-over of the site in order to visually assess rain related damage. The Geotechnical Consultant may also recommend excavations and testing in order to aid in his assessments. At the request of the Geotechnical Consultant, the Contractor shall make excavations in order to evaluate the extent of rain related damage. 5.7 Rain related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, satura- tion, swelling, structural distress and other adverse conditions identified by the Geotechnical Consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as Unsuitable Materials and should be subject to over- excavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 5.8 Relatively level areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0-foot, should be overexcavated to unaffected, competent material. Where less than 1.0-foot in depth, unsuitable materials may be processed in-place to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, then thoroughly recompacted in accordance with the appli- cable specifications. If the desired results are not achieved, the affected materials should be over- excavated, then replaced in accordance with the applicable specifications. 5.9 In slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0-foot, they should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1.0-foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture conditioning in-place, o1lowed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein may be attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the slope repair Standard Guidelines Page 9 for' Grading Projects recommendations herein. As field conditions dictate, other slope repair procedures may be recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 6. EXCAVATIONS 6.1 UNSUITABLE MATERIALS 6.1.1 Materials which are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. tJnsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to, dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible natural sails and fractured, weathered, soft bedrock and nonengineered or otherwise deleterious fill materials. 6.1.2 Material identified by the Geotechnical Consultant as unsatisfactory due to its moisture conditions should be overexcavated, watered or dried, as needed, and thoroughly blended to a uniform near optimum moisture condition (as per guidelines reference 7.2.1) prior to placement as compacted fill. 6.2 CUT SLOPES 6.2.1 Unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechriical Consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). 6.2.2 If excavations for cut slopes expose loose, cohesionless, significantly fractured or other- wise unsuitable material, overexcavation and replacement of the unsuitable materials with a compacted stabilization fill should be accomplished as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Unless otherwise specified by the Geotechnica]. Consultant, stabilization fill construction should conform to the requirements of the Standard Details. 6.2.3 The Geotechnical Consultant should review cut slopes during excavation. The Geotechnical Consultant should be notified by the contractor prior to beginning slope excavations. 6.2.4 If, during the course of grading, adverse or potentially adverse geotechnical conditions are 9) - - - -. I - -.- •- -L - _________________ Standard Guidelines Page 10 for 'Grading Projects encountered which were not anticipated in the preliminary report, the Geotechnical Consultant should explore, analyze and make recommendations to treat these problems. 6.2.5 When cut slopes are made in the direction of the prevailing drainage, a non-erodible diversion swale (brow ditch) should be provided at the top-of-cut. 6.3 PAD AREAS 6.3.1 All lot pad areas, including side yard terraces, above stabilization fills or buttresses should be overexcavated to provide for a minimum of 3-feet (refer to Standard Details) of compacted fill over the entire pad area. Pad areas with both fill and cut materials exposed and pad areas containing both very shallow (less than 3-feet) and deeper fill should be overexcavated to provide for a uniform compacted fill blanket with a minimum of 3-feet in thickness (refer to Standard Details). Cut areas exposing signifi- cantly varying material types should also be overexcavated to provide for at least a 3-foot thick compacted fill blanket. Geotechnical conditions may require greater depth of over- excavation. The actual depth should be delineated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 6.3.2 For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and/or an appropriate pad gradient. A gradient in soil areas away from the top-of-slopes of 2 percent or greater is recommended. 7. COMPACTED FILL All fill materials should be compacted as specified below or by other methods specifically recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Unless otherwise specified, the minimum degree of compaction (relative compaction) should be 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. 7.1 PLACEMENT 7.1.1 Prior to placement of compacted fill, the Contractor should request a review by the 0 Standard Guidelines Page 11 for 'Grading Projects Geotechnical Consultant of the exposed ground surface. Unless otherwise recommended, the exposed ground surface should then be scarified (6-inches minimum), watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, then thoroughly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density. The review by the Geotechnical Consultant should not be considered to preclude requirement of inspection and approval by the governing agency. 7.1.2 Compacted fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding 8-inches in loose thickness -- - - prior to compaction. Each lift should be watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to achieve near optimum moisture conditions then thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. 7.1.3 The Contractor should have suitable and sufficient mechanical compaction equipment and watering apparatus on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed in consideration of moisture retention properties of the materials. If necessary, excavation equipment should be "Shut down" temporarily in order to permit proper compaction of fills. Earth moving equip- ment should only be considered a supplement and not substituted for conventional compaction equipment. 7.1.4 When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal: vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least 6-foot wide benches and a minimum of 4-feet of vertical bench height within the firm natural ground, firm bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area subsequent to keying and benching until the area has been reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Material generated by the benching operation should be moved sufficiently away from the bench area to allow for the recommended review of the horizontal Stahdard Guidelines Page 12 fort Grading Projects bench prior to placement of fill. Typical keying and benching details have been included within the accompanying Standard Details. 7.1.5 Within a single fill area where grading proce- dures dictate two or more-separate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as above described. At least a 3-foot vertical bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved compacted fill prior to placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in at least 3-foot vertical ..izements until the desired finished grades are achieved. 7.1.6 Fill should be tested for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing should con- form to ASTM Method of Test D 1556-64, D 2922-78 and/or D 2937-71. Tests should be provided for about every two vertical feet or 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Actual test interval may vary as field conditions dictate. Fill found not to be in conformance with the grading recom- mendations should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.1.7 The Contractor should assist the Geotechnical Consultant and/or his representative by digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. 7.1.8 As recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant, the Contractor should "shut down" or remove grading equipment from an area being tested. 7.1.9 The Geotechnical Consultant should maintain a plan with estimated locations of field tests. Unless the client provides for actual surveying of test locations, the estimated locations by the Geotechnical Consultant should only be considered rough estimates and should not be utilized for the purpose of preparing cross sections showing test locations or in any case for the purpose of after-the-fact evaluating of the sequence of fill placement. .6 Standard Guidelines Page 13 for'Grading Projects 7.2 MOISTURE 7.2.1 For field testing purposes, "near optimum" moisture will vary with material type and other factors including compaction procedure. "Near optimum" may be specifically recommended in Preliminary Investigation Reports and/or may be evaluated during grading. 7.2.2 Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other grading delay, the exposed surface or previously compacted fill should be processed by scarification, watered or dried as needed, €horoughly blended optimum moisture conditions, then recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Where wet or other dry or other unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than one foot, the unsuitable materials should be overexcavated.. 7.2.3 Following a period of flooding, rainfall or overwatering by other means, no additional fill should be placed until damage assessments have been made and remedial grading performed as described under Section 5.6 herein. 7.3 FILL MATERIAL 7.3.1 Excavated on-site materials which are acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant may be utilized as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are removed prior to placement. 7.3.2 Where import materials are required for use on-site, the Geotechnical Consultant should be notified at least 72 hours in advance of importing, in order to sample and test materials from proposed borrow sites. No import materials should be delivered for use on-site without prior sampling and testing by Geo technical Consultant. 7.3.3 Where oversized rock or similar irreducible material is generated during grading, it is recommended, where practical, to waste such material off-site or on-site in areas - Standard Guidelines Page 14 for -Grading Projects designated as "nonstructural rock disposal areas". Rock placed in disposal areas should be placed with sufficient fines to fill voids. The rock should be compacted in lifts to an unyielding condition. The disposal area should be covered with at least three feet of compacted fill which is free of oversized material. The upper three feet should be placed in accordance with the guidelines for compacted fill herein. 7.3.4 Rocks 12 inches in maximum dimension and smaller may be utilized within the compacted fill, provided they are placed- in such a manner that nesting of the rock is avoided. Fill should be placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. The amount of rock should not- exceed 40 percent by dry weight passing the 3/4-inch sieve size. The 12-inch and 40 percent recommendations herein may vary as field conditions dictate. 7.3.5 During the course of grading operations, rocks or similar irreducible materials greater than 12-inches maximum dimension (oversized material) may be generated. These rocks should not be placed within the compacted fill unless placed as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.3.6 Where rocks or similar irreducible materials of greater than 12 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill, special handling in accordance with the accompanying Standard Details is recommended. Rocks greater than four feet should be broken down or disposed off-site. Rocks up to four feet maximum dimension should be placed below the upper 10 feet of any fill and should not be closer than 20-feet to any slope face. These recommendations could vary as locations of improvents dictate. Where practical, oversized material should not be placed below areas where structures or deep utilities are proposed. Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a clean, overexcavated or unyielding compacted fill or firm natural Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 15 ground surface. Select native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroghly flooded over and around all windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material should be staggered so that sucessive strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane. 7.3.7 It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rock as field conditions dictate and as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant at the time of placement. 7.3.8 Material that is considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Consultant should not be utilized in the compacted fill. 7.3.9 During grading operations, placing and mixing the materials from the cut and/or borrow areas may result in soil mixtures which possess unique physical properties. Testing may be required of samples obtained directly from the fill areas in order to verify conformance with the specifications. Processing of these additional samples may take two or more working days. The Contractor may elect to move the operation to other areas within the project, or may continue placing compacted fill pending laboratory and field test results. Should he elect the second alternative, fill placed is done so at the Contractor's risk. 7.3.10 Any fill placed in areas not previously reviewed and evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant, and/or in other areas, without prior notification to the Geotechnica3. Consultant may require removal and recompaction at the Contractor's expense. Determination of overexcavations should be made upon review of field conditions by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.4 FILL SLOPES 7.4.1 Unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). • - ••.• ___________________________ •--- ••- • Standard Guidelines Page 16 forGrading Projects 7.4.2 Except as specifically recommended otherwise or as otherwise provided for in these grading guidelines (Reference 7.4.3), compacted fill slopes should be overbuilt and cut back to grade, exposing the firm, compacted fill inner core The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the desired results are not achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the guidelines of the Geotechnical Consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased until the desired compacted slope surface condition is achieved. Care should be taken by the Contractor to provide thorough mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface. 7.4.3 Although no construction procedure produces a slope free from risk of future movement, overfilling and cutting back of slope to a compacted inner core is, given no other constraints, the most desirable procedure. Other constraints, however, must often be considered. These constraints may include property line situations, access, the critical nature of the development and cost. Where such constraints are identified, slope face compaction may be attempted by conventional construction procedures including backrolling techniques upon specific recommendation by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a second best alternative for slopes of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, slope construction may be attempted as outlined herein. Fill placement should proceed in thin lifts, i.e., six to eight inch loose thickness). Each lift should be moisture conditioned and thoroughly compacted. The desired moisture condition should be maintained and/or re-established, where necessary, during the period between successive lifts. Selected lifts should be tested to ascertain that desired compaction is being achieved. Care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer edge of the slope. Each lift should extend horizontally to the desired finished slope surface or more as needed to ultimately establish desired grades. Grade during Standard Guidelines Page 17 for Grading Projects construction should not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It may be helpful to elevate slightly the outer edge of the slope. Slough resulting from the placement of individual lifts should not be allowed to drift down over previous lifts. At intervals not exceeding four feet in vertical slope height or the capability of available equipment, whichever is less, fill slopes should be thoroughly backrolled utilizing a conventional sheepsfoot-type roller. Care should be taken to maintain the desired moisture conditions and/or re-establishing same as needed prior to backrolling. Upon achieving final grade, the- - slopes should again be moisture conditioned and thoroughly backrolled. The use of a side-boom roller will probably be necessary and vibratory methods are strongly recommended. Without delay, so as to avoid (if possible) further moisture conditioning, the slopes should then be grid-rolled to achieve a relatively smooth surface and uniformly compact conditon. In order to monitor slope construction procedures, moisture and density tests will be taken at regular intervals. Failure to achieve the desired results will likely result in a recommendation by the Geotechnical Consultant to overexcavate the slope surfaces followed by reconstruction of the slopes utilizing overfilling and cutting back procedures and/or further attempt at the conventional backrolling approach. Other recommendations may also be provided which would be commensurate with field conditions. 7.4.4 Where placement of fill above a natural slope or above a cut slope is proposed, the fill slope configuration as presented in the accompanying Standard Details should be adopted. 7.4.5 For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and pad gradients of at least 2 percent in soil areas. 0:701 AM - - - - -- -;: --- - Standard Guidelines Page 18 forGrading Projects 7.5 OFF-SITE FILL 7.5.1 Off-site fill should be treated in the same manner as recommended in these specifications for site preparation, excavation, drains, compaction, etc. 7.5.2 Off-site canyon fill should be placed in preparation for future additional fill, as shown in the accompanying Standard Details. 7.5.3 Off-site fill subdrains temporarily terminated (up canyon) should be surveyed for future relocation and connection. 8. DRAINAGE 8.1 Canyon subdrain systems specified by the Geotechnical Consultant should be installed in accordance with the Standard Details. 8.2 Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilizations or sidehill masses, should be installed in accordance with the specifications of the accompanying Standard Details. 8.3 Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and areas of structures to suitable disposal areas via non-erodible devices (i.e., gutters, downspouts, concrete swales). 8.4 For drainage over soil areas immediately away from structures (i.e., within four feet), a minimum of 4 percent gradient should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 percent should be maintained over soil areas. Pad drainage may be reduced to at least 1 percent for projects where no slopes exist, either natural or man-made, of greater than 10-feet in height and where no slopes are planned, either natural or man-made, steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical slope ratio). 8.5 Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of the project. Property owners should be made aware that altering drainage patterns can be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance. 9. STAKING 9.1 In all fill areas, the fill should be compacted prior to the placement of the skates. This particularly is Stàxdard Guidelines Page 19 for Grading Projects important on fill slopes. Slope stakes should not be placed until the slope is thoroughly compacted (backrolled). If stakes must be placed prior to the completion of compaction procedures, it must be recognized that they will be removed and/or demolished at such time as compaction procedures resume. 9.2 In order to allow for remedial grading operations, which could include overexcavations or slope stabilization, appropriate staking offsets should be provided. For finished slope and stabilization backcut areas, we recommend at least a 10-foot setback from proposed toes and tops-of-cut. 10. SLOPE MAINTENANCE 10.1 LANDSCAPE PLANTS In order to enhance surf icial slope stability, slope planting should be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope planting should consist of deep-rooting vegetation requiring little watering. Plants native to the southern California area and plants relative to native plants are generally desirable. Plants native to other semi-arid and arid areas may also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect would be the test party to consult regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration. 10.2 IRRIGATION 10.2.1 Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces, not placed in trenches excavated into slope faces. 10.2.2 Slope irrigation should be minimized. If automatic timing devices are utilized on irrigation systems, provisions should be made for interrupting normal irrigation during periods of rainfall. 10.2.3 Though not a requirement, consideration should be given to the installation of near-surface moisture monitoring control devices. Such devices can aid in the maintenance of relatively uniform, and reasonably constant moisture conditions. 10.2.4 Property owners should be made aware that overwatering of slopes is detrimental to slope stability. Standard Guidelines Page 20 for Grading Projects 10.3 MAINTENANCE 10.3.1 Periodic inspections of landscaped slope areas should be planned and appropriate measures should be taken to control weeds and enhance growth of the landscape plants. Some areas may require occasional replanting and/or reseeding. 10.3.2 Terrace drains and downdrains should be periodically inspected and maintained free of debris. Damage to drainage improvements should be repaired immediately. 10.3.3 Property owners should be made aware that burrowing animals can be detrimental to slope stability. A preventative program should be established to control burrowing animals. 10.3.4 As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand, to protect all slope areas from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period of time prior to landscape planting. 10 4 REPAIRS 10.4.1 If slope failures occur, the Geotechnical Consultant should be contacted for a field review of site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair. 10.4.2 If slope failures occur as a result of exposure to periods of heavy rainfall, the failure area and currently unaffected areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to protect against additional saturation. 10.4.3 In the accompanying Standard Details, appropriate repair procedures are illustrated for superficial slope failures (i.e., occurring typically within the outer one foot to three feet of a slope face). 11. TRENCH BACKFILL 11.1 Utility trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction should Stridard Guidelines Page 21 forGrading Projects be a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. 11.2 As an alternative, granular material (sand equivalent greater than 30) may be thoroughly jetted in-place. Jetting should only be considered to apply to trenches no greater than two feet in width and four feet in depth. Following jetting operations, trench backf ill should be thoroughly mechanically compacted and/or wheel-rolled from the surface. 11.3 Backfill of exterior and interior trenches extending below a 1:1 projection from the outer edge of foundations should be mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. 11.4 Within slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches up to one foot wide and two feet deep may be backfilled with sand and consolidated by jetting, flooding or by mechanical means. If on-site materials are utilized, they should be wheel-rolled, tamped or otherwise compacted to a firm condition. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on review of backfill operations during construction. 11.5 If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, the Contractor may elect the utilization of light weight mechanical compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean, granular material, which should be thoroughly jetted in-place above the conduit, prior to initiating mechanical compaction procedures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate upon review by the Geotechnical Consultant at the time of construction. 11.6 In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by the Geotechnical Consultant. 11.7 Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not recommended in slope areas unless provisions are made for a drainage system to mitigate the potential build-up of seepage forces. - 'Standard Guidelines Page 22 for 'Grading Projects 12. STATUS OF GRADING Prior to proceeding with any grading operation, the Geotechnical Consultant should. be notified at least two working days in advance in order to schedule the necessary observation and testing services. 12.1 Prior to any significant expansion or cut back in the grading operation, the Geotechnical Consultant should be provided with adequate notice (i.e., two days) in order to make appropriate adjustments in observation and testing services. 12.2 Following completion of grading operations and/or between phases of a grading operation, the Geotechnical Consultant should be provided with at least two working days notice in advance of commencement of additional grading operations. - V 7 1 3 V V Vk2V I4 ,V -I - S - V -V -VI V V-V •-VV--V-: '1-: '- 3VV1 V I / 1 V -t 2 f-4 : V — V V V .-.-, - . - -. .- . . .'' , . . ,.. -' , J ' . I;• , TI 4 "+ --,. F •'- " •_' •-' .." . £ ' . , .'. -. .7. .. ,, . . •'r : ' i & t f , : S t/ , • , c c . 4 . - , c ' 4 t I? : t I ( L: - - L . p •: . r . • r , .- •e :; . : . r , I •' J . - -t '- -c-- ?- i• I • r :, , , , .,... c ) .•:r , . .. ' f t I > , 4 <; • 4( c A_ t - : :, ,. -. f;• .. ' :i ! ' . . . , . '. . y 4 s ? ' ,<4 , ! : • j • ' i r 3 I - 4 T V : V V V VVV * i r I -V-1 -;;4 V2 1V V V dV6v I I Ti&EDAVDSgN •j4 c 32OVEàtir It V1 V 1 V 1 V1 1 V : J1V I V U %V ,. IV: J IVV V I I-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Aerial Photograph 2. Opportunities and Constraints Map 3. Project Features and Regulatory Compliance 4. Site Plan 5. Habitat Enhancement Plan 6. Architectural Elevations 7. Street Scene 8. Letters of Support 9. Chronology of Meetings I I I I AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH Li Li I Li I [11 I Li I Li I I I H 11 P1 I I AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH I BROCCA To at Batiquftos Shores is located on 40.9 acres situated north of I Batiquitos Lagoon on the east side of Interstate 5 in the City of Carlsbad, California. The site is bound on the north by Spinnaker Hill, a development of single family homes, and on the west by Sea Cliff townhomes. Future single family detached homes are proposed in the Aviara Master Plan for the area east of BROCCATO. I The area of development will be located in the north-south trending valley. Moderately steep slopes along the eastern and western edges of the property will provide a permanent, natural open space buffer between BROCCATO and the surrounding homes. I r LI I I I 11 I I I I ~ j; ~l 01,00W041-, V IA * . ••-:; 4 ( 11L L IL \ 1 II \ I F. BATIQUITOS LAGOON 11 I I I I I I I I I I Ll I I dVViSINIV}LLSNO3 QNV S311INftWOddO I I I I d I i . I I OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS MAP The first step in planning BROCCA TO at Batiquitos Shores was the preparation of an opportunities and constraints analysis. The analysis took into consideration physical features, surrounding land uses, government regulations, as well as input from surrounding neighbors. I Opportunities offered by the site include the lagoon views, the setting and the availability of public facilities. Constraints that needed to be dealt with I included preservation of views from existing homes, preservation of the - wetland and wetland buffer, steep slopes, soils and drainage, and noise. Many of these constraints were turned into opportunities, for example, the I wetland buffer was used to provide a public access trail and the steep slopes will provide a permanent, open space buffer between the proposed and surrounding homes. project I The exhibit opposite was used for discussions with various neighbors of the site, regulatory agencies and advisory bodies prior to preparation of any site plan design. I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 30 BUILDING SETBACK ALONG PACIFIC RIM DRIVE WETLANDS AREA - WETLANDS • # L TRANSITION AREA - - NATURE TRAIL I 0 TO 25% SLOPE (UNDISTURBED) 25 TO 40% SLOPES SLOPES 40% AND ABOVE 4 gloglu •111111i DEVELOPABLE AREAS CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME WETLANDS SUFFER OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAiNTS MAP AT©© _ft RYW' 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SDG&E EASEMENT SEWAGE PUMP STATION CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME WETLANDS BOUNDARY I I I I I I U. I I I I I I I I I . I I I PROJECT FEATURES and REGULATORY CONFORMANCE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY OF PROJECT FEATURES 7 Common Open Space Lots: * Total of 18.34 acres to be preserved and maintained by the homeowners' association. * Provision of public access to Batiquitos Lagoon including public parking and 10' wide public access trail. * Permanent desiltation basin located at the southern end of the property will reduce siltation into Batiquitos lagoon to below pre-development levels. * Habitat Enhancement Plan provides for the preservation, enhancement and creation of coastal sage scrub habitat. 72 Residential Lots: * Lots range in size from 7,675 square feet to over 19,000 square feet. * Average lot size equals 10,690 square feet. * Average distance between buildings (side-to-side) equals 22.4 feet. * Average usable backyard of 26.6 feet. * Project is composed of 16 single-story homes and 56 two-story homes. * Project proposes less than 60% of the 125 units allowed per the Growth Management Control Point for this property. Extensive Review by Neighbors, Advisory and Regulatory Bodies: * City staff * Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation * Spinnaker Hill Association * California Coastal Commission * Sea Cliff Association * California Dept. of Fish & Game * Southwest Quadrant Coalition I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REGULATORY COMPLIANCE * Project complies with the Carlsbad General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance and Growth Management Ordinance. * Grading conforms to Hillside Development Regulations. * Project complies with the Local Coastal Program. * preservation of wetland * preservation of wetland buffer * provision of public parking lot * provision of lagoon access trail * encroachment onto slopes covered with sensitive vegetation kept to a minimum * preservation of eucalyptus' grove * complies with density distribution requirements * Project adheres to Architectural Guidelines. * Project complies with all Open Space policies and regulations * Project complies with Administrative Policy 17 (Noise Policy) LI I LI LI I SITE PLAN I I I Li I I H I El p LI H I I I H I SITE PLAN I BROCCATO at Batiquitos Shores is comprised of 7 common open space lots totalling 18.34 acres and 72 residential lots. The residential lots range from 7,675 square feet to over 19,000 square feet; the average lot size equals 10,690 square feet. The site plan demonstrates how the project has been designed to correspond I with the existing topography and setting. Short, terraced cul-de-sacs were used to minimize changes in the natural landform. Broccatp Lane will provide public access to Batiquitos Lagoon. Parking spaces will be constructed at the south end of.Broccato Lane for the general public. The 10 foot public trail has been designed in coordination with the trail system to the east. A permanent desiltation basin has been incorporated in the project and will reduce siltation into the lagoon to below pre-development levels. 1 U I I I I I I H1 T - & - I I I •1 I 'L L I - I I I 1' I I I I I I I I I BROCCATO 1 H \ I I 1 1 I T II S II I) H S C. T. 89-19 i f 5 I i LANDSCAPE ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN FLORIA COURT 0. NEU I .H1 A DRIVI 7t • A'C \. ,Ilk ; OWNER& DEVELOPER: co CONCEPTUAL OESCN MO LAIC PIA?*OC 6T CUOHOPIUCON AND PPOCESSflG PT I I VICINITY MAP U U I I I HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PLAN I I LI I I I I I I I I I I I HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PLAN I There are a total of 15.6 acres of coastal sage scrub presently on the site; some of which has been previously disturbed by pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The implementation of the Habitat Enhancement Plan will result in .a final coastal sage scrub habitat area larger than the existing area. I The Habitat Enhancement Plan is comprised of the following five treatment types: I * Fire/Habitat Buffer I This area will function as a fire and coastal sage scrub habitat buffer. Within the 30 feet closest to the homes, fire retardant and low fuel plants shall be used. * New Coastal Sage Scrub This area will occur on graded areas and will create new coastal sage scrub habitat. The species which were chosen for this treatment area occur within the existing coastal sage scrub habitat, are readily available and are easily grown. * Wetland Buffer No encroachment into the wetland or wetland buffer is proposed. This area will function as a buffer around the wetland habitat. Only native species will be used in this treatment area. * Enhanced Coastal Sage Scrub The northern area of the property has been heavily disturbed by I pedestrian and off-road vehicle traffic and is of poor biological quality. Native species that occur within the coastal sage scrub habitat will be planted to upgrade and enhance this disturbed area. * Thinned Coastal Sage I. This area will serve as a fire management zone in the area between 30 and 60 feet from structures. The treatment will consist of thinning native species to reduce combustibility while still maintaining visual and biological integrity. Thinning will be accomplished by hand pruning dead and woody growth from the large shrubs per specified I guidelines. L I I I BROCCATO I II I I Is 'stilt It I C. T. 89-19 HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PLAN 0 RAT IOU TOS DRIVE COLPT v3 ELINA co - - I - 1TTT \i S '\i -• LL \C' "- CAW UC - - £ - CO wETCA,o Bocw-- 0 1 ) N FEET - -i- - FIRE HABITAT BUFFER NEW COASTAL SAGE SCRUB WETLAND BUFFER ENHANCED COASTAL SAGE SCRUB OWNER & DEVELOPER: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN *101 *10 Pt*PICIGBV - c000wIon ABC PROCESSEIG ST I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PEW STATION PROPOSED PIES STATION THINNED COASTAL SAGE 44 -S 35 I VICINITY MAP TYPICAL SEC1YOII C s' - SEPT 21,1190 I [1 I I I ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS I I I I I I 71 Li H I Li 71 I I I I I ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS I Extensive attention to detail was incorporated in the California Traditional homes designed for BROCCATO. These homes were designed by Architects Lorimer-Case, a nationally recognized architectural firm and winner of the I 1989 National Association of Home Builders' Project of the Year award. The California Traditional style incorporates the use of hip roofs to allow a lower profile. In addition, side-to-side framing was used to eliminate large, blank wall surfaces. Both of these structural features contribute to a varied and subdued roofscape. Muted roof tiles and soft colors were selected to blend in with the site's surroundings and location. Other architectural amenities include the use of various window shapes and I sizes, french doors, arched entry ways and stone features including columns and window surrounds. Four-sided architecture ensures an attractive view regardless of the viewpoint. I I I I I I I I • ;4 - -4 - .- - ------•------------ -- -J -ia •g' ' .. - 41, pp Wppp : I OOPP7 LI LI F H I STREETSCENE LI I I H I I H Li I I I I I I I I I STREET SCENE I The architectural detail of the project is exemplified in the following street scene. Given the nature of the project and the use of short, terraced cul-de- sacs, the project is devoid of long rows of closely spaced houses. The longest cul-de-sac is Angelina Court which serves fourteen homes. The average distance between buildings in the project exceeds 22 feet. I I I I I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PLAN IA PLAN 4C PLAN 3B• LOT 2 toT 3 LOT 4 SCALL IIE.I-0 LOT 4 ((r1i SCALE: M w-cmcm DAVIDSON IOQM CM,1 AT IATIQUITOS SHORES ODMARK & THELAN 0 COMMUNITIES [I] I L [1 I I LETTERS OF SUPPORT I I I H I I LI I H I H I LI I I H I H LETTERS OF SUPPORT I The Odmark & Thelan and Davidson Communities Partnership began seeking input from surrounding neighbors in March of 1989, prior to project design. Since that time, the applicant has met with surrounding property owners on I over two dozen occasions. The final project reflects many of the ideas and concerns discussed as reflected in the following letters of support. I I I I I I I H I H L I I I Fi ji 1 LII LI J - -'-- _J-- - .-- - - - - SPINNAKER HILL HOMEOWNERS October 6, 1990 Carlsbad Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: Agenda of October 17, 1990 / I Broccato at Batiquitos Shores I Dear Members of the Planning Commission: We represent the residents who live directly adjacent to the referenced project as well as many of the residents in the 300 homes that comprise the Spinnaker Hill subdivision. The purpose of this letter is to reaffirm our support for the I project as proposed. A copy of our previous letter of support is attached hereto. We believe that the project, as currently proposed, conforms to our earlier letter. The developers have met with us on many occasions, commencing March 16, 1989 to seek our input and keep us updated on revisions to the project. Additionally, consistent with their commitment, the developer has prepared a plan for off-site landscaping of unfinished portions of Batiquitos Drive adjacent to Spinnaker Hill. Their cooperation in this regard exemplifies their approach as good neighbors to the surrounding properties. We urge you to support the project as proposed. Very truly yours, SPINNAKER HILL HOMEOWNERS I I I I I I I L i ' I Spinnaker Hill Homeowners To ll 13 13-2, 1989 I Mr. Michael Holzmiller Planning Director City of Carlsbad I 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 I Re: Broccato at Batiquitos Shores Dear Mr. Holzmiller: I As a follow up to our letter of May 1, 1989, this serves as an update and summary of discussions to date with Odmark & Thelan and Davidson Communities, the developer of the referenced I project: The residents of Spinnaker Hill have met with the developer and I their consultants on March 11, March 16, and March 18, 1989 to discuss constraints and opportunities for development of the property. On April 29, May 20, and May 25, 1989 we met to review their conceptual site plan and issues of specific concern to our I neighborhood. Issues discussed at these meetings included: compatibility of lot I size and architecture with Spinnaker Hill; maintenance of common areas by a master association; access to the lagoon; improvements to Batiquitos Drive north of the project, including enhanced I landscaping; open space preservation; quality of landscaping particularly along public rights-of-way; quality of architecture and design of the homes; setback / buffer to maintain privacy I between the project and Spinnaker Hill homes above it. We find the single family nature of the project, the size of the I lots proposed (7,500 sq.ft. and larger), the proposed density, and the design of the homes to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. I The developer has advised us that the following matters can be incorporated into the plans in order to address our concerns: I a. The grading plan will be designed in a way to: i) maintain a vertical distance of approximately 28 - 30 ft. between the adjacent house pads of Spinnaker Hill and the proposed house I pads within the Broccato project, except for Lot #81 which will be designed to maintain a vertical distance of approximately 24 ft and on which a single story house is proposed; ii) maintain a relatively flat (4:1 slopes or I less) horizontal distance of approximately 15 ft. to 25 ft. between said Spinnaker Hill lots and the lots below. We believe these measures are important to afford privacy I between the respective homes. I Spinnaker Hill H L I I I b. The homes to be built on lots indicated as numbers 70.71.72. and 73 on the site plan dated June 12. 1989 will be single story. I C. Landscaping and appropriate irrigation systems for said buffer areas and slopes will be installed consistant with I conceptual landscape drawing (Sheet 4) dated June 12, 1989. d. Muted colors will be used for the roof materials and exterior of the homes. I e. A plan will be developed for the landscaping of the unfinished portions of Bataquitos Drive south of Poinsettia Lane I between the City of Carlsbad, Hillman Properties, and Odmark & Thelan and Davidson Communities. f. Adequate street lighting will be provided along Bataquitos I Drive within the project boundries. g. Two story houses adjacent to Spinnaker Hill properties I will be 26-27 feet from the grade to the highest peak and the single story houso(lot 81) will be 22 feet from the grade to the highest peak. h. Property owners adjacent to Spinnaker Hill will be required to keep tree tops from exceeding the height of the I roof peak by CC&Fts mandated by the developer. Based upon the inclusion of the above matters in the plans, we I would like to express our support for the Site Development Plan and Preliminary Landscape Plan dated June 12, 1989 and proposed architectural elevations and floor plans. I We appreciate the efforts of the developer to obtain our input and incorporate our ideas into the project and believe the project as currently proposed will be a positive addition to the I neighborhood. We further believe that the position of the undersigned is representative of the majority of the Spinnaker Hill homeowners affected by the Broccato project. I Very truly yours. Li I LII I 1 5, October 1990 H Mr. Michael Holtzmiller I Planning Director City Of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, Ca. 92009-4859 I Dear Mr. Holtzmiller, This letter is to advise you that representatives of Odmark & Thelan have met with members of our community on a number of occasions to brief us on the progress of the Brocccato project. We are quite pleased that they have kept us abreast of changes in I design of the project and have cheerfully accepted our input. We wish to state for the record that the Board of Directors of the I Sea Cliff Homeowners Association has no objections to the latest project design as presented to our Public Affairs Committee in September. I Sincerely, I Mona Reasons I President Sea Cliff Homeowners Association I I I I I I H H CHRONOLOGY OF MEETINGS I [1 I I H H H I I I Li I I I CHRONOLOGY OF MEETINGS, page one 2/27/89 Meeting with Michael Holzmiller & Gary Wayne of Carlsbad Planning Department 2/24/89 Meeting with Deborah Lee & Adam Birnbaum of California Coastal Commission 3/1/89 Meeting with Larry Clemens & Peggy Collins of Hillman Properties 3/11/89 Meeting with Tom and Cindy Ward (Spinnaker Hill homeowners) 3/15/89 Meeting with Gary Wayne, Bob Wojcik, Clyde: Wickham of City of Carlsbad 3/16/89 Meeting with Spinnaker Hill Homeowners Association 3/18/89 Meeting with Spinnaker Hill homeowners 3/22/89 Meeting with Sea Cliff homeowners 3/23/89 Meeting with Lee & Webb of California Coastal Commission 4/3/89 Presentation to Southwest Carlsbad Homeowners Associations Coalition 4/3/89 Meeting with Holzmiller, Wayne, Hubbs of City of Carlsbad 4/4/89 Meeting with Clemens, Klukas & engineers of Hillman Properties 4/10/89 Meeting with Spinnaker Hill homeowners 4/12/89 Meeting with Blair, Kirby & consultants for School District 4/12/89 Mello Roos District hearing at School District 4/29/89 Meeting with Spinnaker Hill homeowners 5/1/89 Presentation to Southwest Carlsbad Homeowners Associations Coalition 5/1/89 Meeting with Sea Cliff homeowners 5/2/89 Meeting with Wayne of City of Carlsbad 5/10/89 Meeting with Clemens & consultants for Hillman Properties 5/11/89 Meeting with Lee & Webb of California Coastal Commission 5/20/89 Meeting with Spinnaker Hill homeowners I I I U I Fi H I I I I I I H H I I I H I I CHRONOLOGY OF MEETINGS, page two 5/22/89 Presentation to Sea Cliff Board of Directors 5/25/89 Meeting with Spinnaker Hill homeowners 6/15/89 Meeting with Wayne & DeCerbo of City of Carlsbad 7/10/89 Presentations to Southwest Carlsbad Homeowners Associations Coalition 7/26/89 Meeting with Decerbo & Wickham of City of Carlsbad 7/31/89 Meeting with Lee of California Coastal Commission 8/1/89 Meeting with Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation 8/4/89 Meeting with Clemens & Klukas of Hillman Properties 8/15/89 Meeting with DeCerbo & Wickham of City of Carlsbad, Lee & Webb of California Coastal Commission, Terry Stewart of Dept. of Fish & Game, Mig Chaney of Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation (Chairperson, Trail Committee) 8/29/89 Field visit with Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation Trail Committee & Webb of California Coastal Commission 9/14/89 Field visit with Webb of California Coastal Commission and Stewart of Dept. of Fish & Game 9/23/89 Presentation at Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation annual meeting 10/11/89 Meeting with Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation Trail Committee 11/7/89 Meeting with Clemens & Collins of Hillman Properties 11/7/89 Meeting with Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation 11/8/89 Meeting with Spinnaker Hill homeowners 11/13/89 Meeting with Sea Cliff subcommittee 11/21/89 Meeting with Wayne & DeCerbo of City of Carlsbad 11/22/89 Meeting with Lee & Webb of California Coastal Commission 12/8/89 Meeting with Wayne and DeCerbo of City of Carlsbad 12/9/89 Meeting with Spinnaker Hill homeowners 12/11/89 Meeting with Sea Cliff Subcommittee I I I I I I El Ii LI I I I I I I I I I CHRONOLOGY OF MEETINGS, page three 12/20/89 Meeting with DeCerbo of Cit y of Carlsbad 1/3/90 Meeting with DeCerbo & Wickham of City of Carlsbad 1/23/90 Meeting with Stewart of Dept. of Fish & Game, Webb of Coastal Commission and consultants 2/5/90 Meeting with Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation 2/22/90 Meeting with Decerbo & Wickham of City of Carlsbad 2/24/90 Meeting with Spinnaker Hill homeowners 3/8/90 Presentation to SCAN (a newly formed group which is an off- shoot of the Southwest Carlsbad Homeowners Association Coalition) 3/19/90 Meeting with Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation 4/9/90 Presentation to Sea Cliff Subcommittee 4/16/90 Meeting with Gary Wayne & Chris DeCerbo of City of Carlsbad 5/23/90 Meeting with Committee of Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation 5/25/90 Meeting with Gary Wayne & Chris DeCerbo of City of Carlsbad 6/5/90 Meeting with Chris DeCerbo of City of Carlsbad 7/31/90 Meeting with Marty Orenyak, Dave Hauser, Gary Wayne and Chris DeCerbo 8/21/90 Meeting with Chris DeCerbo & Dave Hauser 8/22/90 Meeting with Cam Patterson & Paul Webb to review project revisions 9/10/90 Meeting with Sea Cliff Public Affairs Committee to review project revisions 9/11/90 Meeting with Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation Subcommittee to review project revisions 10/1/90 Presentation to Southwest Carlsbad Homeowners Associations Coalition re: project revisions 10/1/90 Presentation to Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation re: project revisions 10/6/90 Meeting with Spinnaker Hill Homeowners re: project revisions I I I H H I I I I d I I I I H I I / • I 4. • I lb CI!1P AMURCA$ ?rTI. IN5JCANGI •. •I IVY COMY p.o poa 01 CAN pqtoo, c - Th' map mey or rney xn be o the land depicted **rn. rio* i.ly up t for o** th* \•:. \ -. i 14.02 AC w N P. N O the 9eMeI Ic.lr t the ce! or pce4s depicted. Firs* Amwican Till expressly c*edaáme for alloqe4 bit or demege e4ndr maN from , \__.-4-- ____-- • J4 I AMA ¶4 ¶ I S 3J3 AC. 12 è3L ci \ 3•7 /1 1: 1.10 AC. " 2S.SZA LOT 4 — — — H SI-ill 3 / / BATIQL)ITOS LAGOON '5 \ — fe iirr, ino Acerecurper DDrr rnv SEC 33 - T12S-R4 - NE 1/4 ROS 1676. 6269Y O774 D, Z14 ..17 SH-r;I0F 3 \ . d - . I 3 z . - , -r•j c•.: DAtSY AV . if the land -3epicted hereon, should not rely upon it for ' iy purpose other than orientation ' 1 . \ -,. the genera' Cation of the pdr:eI / ., -.---- - 2 eIs depicted First American 46 J - - - - itJe esIy disclaims any tiab,Ii 1 70 t ®/ . i 2ç which S.UOAC ' 40.oO. . , 10. AC. /*\ . - I -- vQ_o_ 7 r 1O-6AC. II.95AC. 'M .* - _ p 'V 44 _ 30 6i r Or •/?. C.- ,.' SEC 28- T;2S-R4 - EI'2 & POP SW 14 PUS 6269,10774,12541 . N r..\ \ so4'iØ'W 1 •; 935 PC. 141 NZ47E G4 I_) E DETAILA I ;?" 303r4rW L.Io •. 130 AC. - - 7.13 AC. ;8. AC 'SddT u w I., 1.65 AC .Ce * . - ZO.00A (Sal - 7.50 PC. . 2.I6AC ... I 3' —i O3Ct i7c2 54s R$ zip ? 271,5.e1 33.1 0 <I 01 ZI () SHT. 2 SHT.3 SH.2 a 0 -- z - I. POINSETTIA LN. U a ROSE DR. A.N7 '47'E - 11a43 - B. R2&I6 - 39.93 C. Na( VIE —4o.9 D. R=26&16 - 3993 'S fT. NO SCALE - DETAIL 'A'.. - r( en ((lIfp$Ty ASSFS%OQ'c L iAp or 7 lu Dr. 17 - I nc I MAPPFO FOR ASSESSMFNT PuRpne-Fr, ONLY iri nrncriiui..u. IBOIHhII Ii!HHhI ,o9k, OGEflflHIUHhIIIHhI y -- --- O,.. . . . 214 -36 it H . . ,____••••. I OF 2 1 '-1001 . f5•\ •;3-; I . "This map may or may not be a '' " 96djb survey of the lend cIed hereon. I I c c:\ You should not rely upon it for . ' . any purpose other than orientation . •:: • to the general location of the parcel 2 ' '' ° . P 01 ';- •:• - • or parcels depicted. First American . . Title expressly disclaims any liability ' @ " so, 61 , result frr,m reliance upon this map." 94 )I• "- <' 47'8( CHANGES ,93 AO . / 98 • • 1hf/14'4!W OLD I NM JYF4 CUT 60 23 .10 . ® $&.ø 01 106 107 •" ':" = ®99o, 4: . . : I7POR 1 . 100 ' . 104 . . *jS1ERP'h 47 '• IoI 10 103 - t_ . 16 7 'o 4.75 (_••'\ 7 41):B,o -: . - - - - -toz 60 215 21 - '___.) 363 3 ® t' . uc 26 01% s '5 ®24 . '4,u 28!IO2t PL. : 0 .,g is.?i \._$' •It, •;: i*." •%77 7 5 105 1'." 30 29 - ' 32.52 (Th /0.30 22 32 ® 31 . @ .'' 1.11 4•° o 061 1. P. ®® '0 \ ' \720 - -- 90.20 21 1,., ' i -' 21.co J• 91 - - - - - II IVY øj! ,si 109.70 *t-7 3 660 1 1'_- T. /05 -L' ® /53 ®: . :: 71 364 go 90 .33 t 74 f-____?7.Oii - I POR 13 680p;' .I. . - - @67 1 /® "' hI 75 •!t 89 ® 66 • •00 o 4'$gg JV l •. 0 8t 39 0 •' ' o: 7*6 G? 88 /072S 0j, 0 MO•53'_- F' 4jaj o'.e , 36 o 65 • . 87 . . I 10 fo40 (___••\ . . jr I . SHT 2 . MAP 8405 - CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 73-39 UNIT NO. 2 % •: •L . MAP'8404 - CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 73 -39 UNIT NO. I Jiv : SPITI SEC 28-112S-R4W—POR. SW /4 OFN.E.I/4 WWI I 411111111VOt 140 PS 214 PS 38 — —.(- I2,9 O/4 /5e1 '3 24 365 PRIMROSE in 0 7 "o co 22 (Th - 4. C) y 35 66 co ,t 60 I 79.72 f6r- 65 y eI I TI r 64I 60 WAY as 56. 48 72 72 /2 54.88 28, 7Z \./45 30.9/ I s.i7 41 42 43 44 45 f 0.30 ,00.53 74.40 72 72/5 79.08 75 1 CHANGES 1TMJ mmmmmm IMMIMM _ - __ - U IMEMME IMEMEM - Um __ - U MEEMEM wwrurs /7 81.02 13 vo 50 14.1 20 1O,. I II 13 °h 51 • f'ó 'JO.44 I 11 2 /12 2 102 Lu 18 52 14.41 7_9 th >. Ck fo —v 16 60 PIC 214-36 SHT2OF2 I"= 00' .P/660l27 6 D7 cri ! !;6':::7 377 AC. N0°28 17 E - ~NOACCESS fO°28'/7"E \ -' Jo 02 BATIUIT0S (LAGOON) S HI I SH 2 T — MAP 8405 CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 73 39 UNIT NO. 2 I c. I2jQ7 . MAP 8404— CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 7339 UNIT NO. I PG SEC. 28—TI2S--R4W —FOR. SW 1/4 OF NE 114 SAN DIEGO COUNTY £S$(SSORS NAP OK 214 31E SHT 2 - MAPPED FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY 0 10 ,X UI 214 -39 1 .0 3 100 1) SHT I 143 . ICHA\j5 34•47, OLDjEV /fYCUT ..4a•z ;,_w Iv 1 -331771177 1 •4'-7 t e n •-- 142 141 SI-IT 2 '. _J HO ru S 0 3 i v8,oi w 140 149 74 30 #/ c3t38k k n St 'S 'S..- - Q 1l I_ - - A, a oj a . 5 o0 70 70 7/ - 6.356T J I, "I ll fl - i57_y I 1' 121 120 It o N Q N V.0 0 139 6 "11 " P .1 119 H8 117 II 5 114 13 112 Ill 4 39 4 I.O7AC. 0 A' so 4 17-1-SO "S 124 . 22 IF 16 70 - 70 - - 57.30 , 59 65 q, 'S 0 - 138 .41 BEGONIA a, COURT esJ ? — A1 0 S 5 ,o is 6,.so 70 46 ,ao 80 70 6 __ ' 123 70 45 65 is -40 40 Ix Sc., ,3a.tloo '® J25 126 127 128 129 130 131 32 133 134 35 136 137 -j I' j 10 y 152 104 ( 65 7045 s so ô no 7o45 0-9-90 143 - PROM" AVSIAH T!7t M*uWICI Sri tvc COCANT S.4I1 P.O. PDX SAN 515.0, s* ma Th1S map may, or may not be a survey of the lend depicted hrsesi. You should not rely upon It for S HI I any purpose other than orientation to In..tnn of the csattal a, SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSORS MAP - - 1OOK214 PAGE 39 MAPPED FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY or parcels depicted. First American This expressly disclaim. arty IisbHPIy for alleged loss or damage w+4th may teeimh from reliance upon 11i. map 'This pt 10 for tour .14 in iocstlzt4 Jcrir - lsrd with r,f.r,scs to .trw.t.a a.-i ct.r par- eels . tdUl. tb!. p1st 1s b.U.v,d to be cot- - tect • the Company .c5t. .o It at lit7 f or any los. Occurtt c4 by rW Of "llence Q. r.. MAP 8453 - CARLSBAD TRACT — NO. 73 -39 - UNIT NO. 3 _ IMI a ko VIEW r1rs,r iri A/F9i')7'W (\J2,)SI-1T I 70 75— as 7L,04 l 7 -* /0/ 75'' •1—•I '4 /—..' 2 I® /. $226 218 219 220 221 222 224 / 225 /223/ jff 242 j, .q 7 67,r 4 21 ,_I - ( 'i ,o ' 227 'S B3.37 d A. 116 do 2; 4 4 l" 100• 3-22 -77... CHANGES BLt( OLD NEW YR CUT l2 1-47 7i7 23 /- (I \ çP CD C3 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSEISORS MAP V()')K 2 14 JAGI 42 MMII V 10P A;I YMI NT rJpIO,I ONLY \ L)& TULIP I I I I I i 210 2 'S ® \ WAY - 'a 02.43 _______. I This p1st 1s for your ii 1OCftttrt5 7o - lard vth ruf.r,rc's to streets arm c4? ps- b esis. ii1• this p1st is b.1isv, to rect, the Cpary iita Usi,Ity for 181 ' loss oceurri r. by r.a.s of rU —. e.. 8 — 179 60 P'V *.WSAN VtV..* 1P1u5 AMOS _4I*-Y •'"' CP.p s* nii TIFI.O ccr , j cj '80 V. 0, so s •" oito. 'This rnst' ,n,y or may not be i ..- To ASE.SSMF(i ti,. ;d depicted h.r.oii. . Sr VIEcQ oouy :s .37 MO 50 7 gI,otjld riot reY tipori h - JLLLAP1 ASSESSOR a"ptirpols oph.c th.n ort.ntslot #0 location of 31 to general F.ri' fr,m.rlcafl . p,sil dhcl.Irnu any flsb)INy %, alleged love or d.ma0 wI$ât m.y ,.,wl? fio.ri ,sllsocs vpon $I MAP 8453—CARLSBAD TRACT —N0 73-39 —UNIT NO.3 214 -48 SHT 10F2 100' ED 6c CHANGE S BLK OLD NEWfrRCUT 481 VA I52lr1 ,O3 4.42 I VAL 1-541 SI-+1T2 251 277/ I•SS1 ( Ir ,14.,4 1k ,s • 434 5 46Ø2 3 ( 41.1 I _ 47 n 37 . 21721E SHT.2 © 22 SHT. 2 90 DETAIL A —NO SCALE .70 0. SLO 27 J1 54 S6 57 3 e 59 60 27 3L30 U 61 62 6 65 66 \ 12 () i 5 64 6 i 69 i 18 19 o , -; j4 7.63 343 )13 ..1 4j I * Z07 I OR. 80 A & 80 IjNDER 1LOT ON PG AS SHT 2 I1T 47.7, 'T - AO s$o 26 i i 32 30 227 33 ,jv /4L 32. Pf.3rr 27 POR. 301 () RERE"NDER OF LOT 301 SHOWN ON PG47 SSI& 12 C-7• I 2~0 i 1 9 21 .11 ' 1j3-'7•\ - 28 SEE DETAILBX DETAILB"— NO SCAL 154 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOPS MAP A 0 OLrr ir- , SEE DETAIL"A - OZ6_ 46 C37 67 13 39 42 141 000,00-00 MAP 7996 - CARLSBAD TRACT 73-24 1 214-48 S-IT. 2 OF 2 **4N EèNGES BLK OLDNEW F CUT *81 5 /04 VA /-75 6 - co/g/ 8O#8/ 57 /4/7 ' SHT.2 SHT . I d' * JJi I j J 3 74 75 76 77 7 79 :: /$k;43 As- Full 81 . -3•. .' .J 44_3 37.S3 Z-- -!V?A I A 12 '-- • . •1 : ,,, • , 4,7 -'•--'z'C- 0 (3 84 , : 301 . 72 ® *93 ' " 66 67 p m . ! 2 f ' '! 4Ka 71 65 63 86 60 4 8 (p .- 2 " \&75- .-so . ,t, ! •) F . • . 1.ip 'I 87 • i SHTI ;:? cD 88r%;: I / 2-55 254 1 37tf . 1 ®53 ' %. ' $b8 I :: 277 ' ' 4 , / ° • gi' 250 ; . 4 251 .', 252 2I PAR I Lits 3.03i6C. I • ',, 70 . ,s ---------------------- : • ' &,' . . - . , ;i.o (rITE @: - 266 K 13 41 oc 112 37 Is 110 35 34 33' No d5 27 2e 25 100 99 98 97 96 9 Z7 31.60 79 - e FREEW4y w PM 1391 f I. 1-5 ACCESS SAN DIEGO COUNTY MAP 7996 -CARL.SBAD TRACT 73-24 BOOK .1.1141-PKE48_SHT 20F2 MAPPED FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY