Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 08-02; LA COSTA OAKS NORTH 3.2 CHILDCARE FACILITY; ROUGH GRADING AND "STORMTRAP" PLAN REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION OF CONFORMANCE; 2009-03-06enginiieriisg &eolecbnical applications consul/anti March 6, 2009 No. GD492.1 GLEN WOOD DEVELOPMENT COM 100 West Broadway Suite 1100 Glendale, CA 91210 Attention: Dave Scott RECORD COPY It 07 InitaJ Date - SUBJECT: ROUGH GRADING AND "StormTrap" PLAN REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION OF CONFORMANCE FOR PROPOSED TUTOR TIME LEARNING CENTER 2201 RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA References; Rough Grading Plan - La Costa Oaks North 3.2, DWG, No. 462.A, Carlsbad, CA, by Hunsaker & Associates, dated Mardi S. 2009. "StonnTrap Precast Concrete Modular Water Management System- La Costa Oaks North 3.2, DM3. No. 462.A, Carlsbad, CA, Sheets 1 through 11,' by Hunsaker & Associates, dated Mardi 5, 2009. Dear Mr. Scott, In accordance with your request, and with the City of Carlsbad building requirements, we are submitting this Certification of Conformance as follows: This letter will advise you that we have reviewed the Plans by Hunsaker & Associates (references I and 2, above) and verify that the Plans conform with the specifications outlined in the Soils Reports by EGA Consultants dated October 12, 2007, and November 26, 2008. The proposed JStormTrapH underground infiltration system shall be located in the parking area approximately 65 feet from the proposed Tutor Time building. Based on the findings of our geotechnical investigation, the on-site earthworks, grading/backfill, and installation of the "Storm Trap" system will not impact the geologic stability/safety of the subject or surrounding sites. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, EGA Consultants, LLC 4Ynav6 k 14s, Woi° CEG 2124 DAVID k WORTFINGTON, CEG 2124 Principal Engineering Geologist Cop4es (1) Addressee OF C (5) Hunaaker & Asoc. .Atbi: David BIa1ô FE 9797 Waplos at San Diego, CA 92121 375-C Monte Vista Avenue-Cos ta Mesa, CA 92627 (949) 642..9309 • VAX (949) 642-1290 ,uI..lI-IrckIry -1IVI r)c7T7e.0C4..c 70C'T C007il'fl1Cfl EGA Consultan Cu OtE I :-/\7,l?j L P) FAX SHEET To; MIKE MESRI, S Fax it! 9S8-459-:428 Subjt PROJECT MEMORANDUM: S15113MIC FAWMETERS FOR PROPOSED TUTOR 11M LEARNING CENTER LOCATED AT 2001 RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD CARISBAfl. CALIFORNIA hate; 13/26108 J, iurli'dirig th is cover stiect. Rc[crcncc. .-C.1fidme 10 5nuI 1pørt Clued 8131'01 by Ocuivn, Inc Yut PRMod TLui tnic t.carmtg Ccnii Located al No,Ih irfr of San CiIIO Road mid ILi of Rivehiu Situ T-c IniiJ C1tuu. iorüa. by VCA Co,.jItajuu, dazed 10112/07. PrAjei.? Menuo- Plcar.c hccrporatc the Inilowlng sptcLticathn'i for the sito devIopme.tii: R;eó on Chapter 14 of the 2007 CBG (ASCE 7 SL-ndard). the folIowin; parameters rnrj be cnscrcd: 200! CAC SeLsn,ii Design ?ar,ineers SITE ADDRESS: 2201 RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, CARLSDA() CA______ Sue I.ongitud_(flccirndl_Degrees) I F!Z'.15 - Sim l.atitude(Decnnai Dcrc) 33.101.5 Site Crass Defmitort (Table 161.b.2) 0 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2.s PBriod, S 1.076 Mapped 5pivtraI Response Ac leration ;al Is Peric1d. S fl 4O6 Short Perlcd Site Coeffk2nt at 0 2 Period, F 1.069 Long Period Site Coefficient at is Penod. F, 1.594 Adjusted Speotsal Response ACCeraIILn at 0.2$ Peilod, %SMS 1.151 Mjutod Spcctral Response Accckration at 1 sPeriod. SM1 0.647 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period. t3 0.767 L)osgn Spectral Rvsponse Accleraon at IS Pricd, SDI 0,431 fhLs memo should be considered an Addendum to the orlcjlnal Soils Report by EGA Consullants dated iDf17I)7. We appccciat.o tlis opportunity to provide our prokssonuI Im JhLh desk of. DavId A. Worinlntgtovt, CEG 24 31 C MQr%tu Vi3tu Ave Cot' MGSa, CA 92627 C WOØd flt.vs' Atri nave Scnt GA ConiiltnLs, LLG CA 949) 6424309 ei'gineeri1g Leo lee/mica! a/frlüaiios:i consultants UPDAiEiO'SOILSREPORT DATED 8/3101 byGEOCON, INC. FOR PROPOSED TUTOR TIME LEARNING CENTER LOCATED AT NORTH SIDE OF SAN ELIJO ROAD ANDEAsTOF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Presented to: GLENWOOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 100 West Broadway Suite'990 Glendale, CA 91210 Attention: Joe Wilson Prepared by: EGA Consultants 375 Monte Vista AvenUe, Suite Costa Mesa, CA 92627 October 12, 2007 Project No. G0492.1 375-C Monte Vista Avenue • CostaMcsa,CA 92627 (949)64293O9• FAX (949) 642-1290 dnineering geolecbnieal applicalions co ii: u/i a nit GLEN WOOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY October 12, 2007 100 West Broadway Suite 990 Project No. GD492.1 Glendale, CA 91210 Attention: Mr. Joe Wilson Subject: UPDATE TO SOILS REPORT DATED 813101 by GEOCON, INC. FOR PROPOSED TUTOR TIME LEARNING CENTER LOCATED AT NORTH SIDE OF SAN ELIJO ROAD AND EAST OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA References: I. "Geotechnical Investigation, Villages of La Costa. The Oaks, Carlsbad, Calirornia," Project No. 06105-12- 04, by OEOCON, Inc., dated August 3,2001. 2. "Final Report of Testing and Observation Services Performed During Site Grading, Villages of La Costa. The Oaks North Neighborhood 3.1,, Carlsbad,'Olifornia," Project No. 06105.52-20, by GEOCON, Inc., dated July 12, 2007. Dear Mr. Wilson, In accordance with your request, we have completed our geotechnical investigation of the subject site The site area is known as the "Community Facilities" area within Neighborhood 3.2" located within the Villages of La Costa. This investigation was performed to determine the updated geotechnical conditions at the subject sheet-graded site. Our investigation consisted of document review, confirmatory borings, laboratory testing, geotechnical analysis of field and laboratory data, and the preparation of this report. We have reviewed the above-referenced Preliminary Soils reports and find them to be in general conformance with UBC and City requirements. Further, the preliminary site Grading Plans by Hunsaker & Assoc., were reviewed and we find them to be in conformance with the Soils Reports and are approved for construction. The plans by Hunsaker were approved by the City of Carlsbad on April 10, 2006. The soil conditions, soils values and applicable construction specifications outlined in the referenced Soils Reports remain valid. All recommendations outlined in the Soils Report should be followed during the earthworks and construction phases. In case of conflict, the specifications outlined in this Report, dated October 12, 2007, shall supersede those presented in reports by others. This opportunity to be of service is Very truly yours, EGA Consultants, LLC DAVID A. WORTHINGTON, CE Principal Engineering Geologist any questions, -please call. (Ddk f WodIt1fltO AV - * N&CES * CERIF I,4GINEERUG / % n No.C58364 I,, GEOt.OGIST 00 OFC UL DURAND R4 Sr. Project Engineer V*~J Cces: (5) Addrnuee 375-C Monte Vista Avenue *Cos tit Mesa, CA 92627 .(949) 642-9309 • FA October 12, 2007 Project No. G0492.1 UPDATE TO SOILS REPORT DATED 813101 by GEOCON, INC. FOR PROPOSED TUTOR TIME LEARNING CENTER LOCATED AT NORTH SIDE OF SAN ELIJO ROAD AND EAST OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Associated References: "Geotechnical Investigation, Villages of La Costa - The Oaks, Carlsbad, California,"PoJect No. 06105-12-04, by GEOCON, Inc., dated August 3, 2001. "Final Report of Testing and Observation Services Performed During Site Grading, Villages of La Costa - The Oaks North Neighborhood 3.2, , Carlsbad, California,w Project No. 06105-52-20, by GEOCON, Inc., dated July 12, 2007, INTRODUCTION In response to your request and in accordance with the City and County building requirements, we have completed a Geotechnical Update Report at the subject site. The site area is known as the uC,mUnjty Facilities" area within "Neighborhood 3.2" located within the Villages of La Costa, Carlsbad, California. This investigation was performed to determine the updated geotechnical conditions at the subject sheet- graded site. The base map (Figure 2) used for this report was obtained from the Grading Plan by Hunsaker & Assoc. which were approved by the City of Carlsbad on April 10, 2006. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate and update the existing geotechnical conditions at the subject site and provide recommendations and geotechnical para- meters for site development, earthwork, and foundation and slab design for the proposed construction. In case of conflict, the specifications outlined in this Geotechnical Update Report shall supersede those presented in prior reports referenced above. The soil conditions, soils values and applicable construction specifications outlined in the referenced Soils Reports by GEOCON, Inc. 'Geocon") remain valid. All recommendations outlined In the Soils Reports by Geocon should be followed during the earthworks and construction phases, with the following update: QLEN%VOOlflmvki.. CO. PmposiI Tulur rin - Lkanchc' Santa Fe Rd. & San £lljo CaIshd, (.A (irn1IhnLciI Update. Ootobcr U. 2007 lelsm lclty The seismic hazards most likely to Impact the subject site Is ground shaking following a large earthquake on the Rose Canyon, Newport-Inglewood (offshore), or Elsinore-Julian faults. The UBC Seismic Source Type, fault distances, probable magnitudes, and horizontal accelerations are listed as follows: Hill ZUjf Lfl ..... 9.... N. Rose Canyon 13 km southwest 6.9 0.29 g's - (B) Newport- 20 Km southwest 6.9 0.2 g's Inglewood (B) Elsinore- 42 km northeast 7.1 -. 0.150 Julian (A) The maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration on the site is estimated to be less than 0.29, based on a maximum probable earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault. The site Is underlain by engineered fill and granitic rock which are characterized by silty clayey sands and cobbles. For design purposes, two-thirds of the maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration may be assumed for the repeatable ground acceleration. The effects of seismic shaking can be mitigated by adhering to the 2001 Uniform Building Code (UBC) or the standards of care established by the Structural Engineers Association of California. With respect to this hazard, the site is comparable to others in this general area in similar geologic settings. Based on our review of the"Seismic Zone Map," published by the California Department of Mines and Geology in conjunction with Special Publication 117, there are no earthquake landslide zones on or adjacent to the site. The proposed development shall be designed in accordance with seismic considerations contained in the 2001 UBC and the City of Carlsbad requirements. Based on Section 1629 of the 2001 UBC and on Maps of Known Active Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada (ICBO, 1998, reference No. 6), the following parameters may be considered: (1I.E\WOOJ.) DVEL. CO. VTnpocd Tutor 7irnc Rancho Santa !e Rd. & Sin 1'Jij, Crsbad. CA (ècetcchnlcal Update October 12. 2007 Based on the Seismic zone Map of the United States (Figure 18-2), the site Is located In Zone 4. Based on Table 16-I, the Seismic Zone Factor (Z) for the site is 0,40. The Soil Profile Type of the native soils may be considered SD based on Table 16-J. The governing Seismic Source Type Is B. Based on Tables 16-S and 16-T, the Near-Source Factors N. and N, are 1 and iQ respectively. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is a located along the east side of Ranch Santa Fe Road, approximately 400 feet north of San Elijo Road, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. The site area is known as the "Community Facilities" area within "Neighborhood 3.2" located within the Villages of La Costa. The lot is bound by golf course to the north and east and newly graded commercial/storage pads to the south. On-going construction of terraced, residential tract homes ("Villages of La Costa") located further west of Rancho Santa Fe Road, was observed during the time of our fieldwork. The grading and fill compaction was performed under observations and testing by Geocon, Inc. during the period of March 20., 2006 through September 25, 2006. A copy of the field density test locations by Geocon, is presented as Figure 2, herein. Current Site Use Currently, no standing structures exist within the limits of the proposed grading. The graded lot is currently dirt- and gravel-covered and free of construction debris or stockpiles. A temporary chain-linked fenced storage area was observed in the central portion of the site. At the time of our fieldwork, the enclosed storage area is gravel covered and was vacant with the exception of one recreational motor boat. An approximate 51/2 ft. deep temporary earthen retention basin is located in the north-central portion of the lot (see contours shown in Figure 2, attached). Proposed Development Preliminary build plans were not available during the writing of this report. Based on our conversations representatives of Glenwood Development, the proposed lot development consists of the construction of a Tutor Time learning facility, associated parking and landscaped areas. GLENWC)03) l)IVII.. CO. Piupd Lut,w T,nic. RKncbO a"1 Fc IN. & Son Elijo Cizbth4 (.A ri,ImiI IJpdac thd,,bT 12.2007 The proposed site development will consist of the aforementioned building which shall consist of wood or steel-frame construction or building materials of similar type and load. The building foundations will consist of continuous spread and isolated footings. Loads on the footings are unknown, but are expected to be Less than 2,000 pounds per square foot (pst) on the continuous footings and 2,500 psf on the Isolated footings. If actual loads exceed these assumed values, we should be contacted to evaluate whether revisions of this report are necessary. It is our understanding that the grade of the site is not expected to vary significantly, with maximum regrades consisting of approximately 2 foot in the building areas. Also anticipated is the construction of the attendant utilities, drainage systems and associated landscape improvements. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our subsurface exploration consisted of the excavation of five (5) confirmatory borings (B-I through B-5) to a maximum depth of 5 feet below grade (b.g.). Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained for laboratory testing. The geologic logs of the soil borings are included In Appendix A. The borings were continuously logged by a representative of our firm who obtained soil samples for geotechnical laboratory analysis. The approximate location of the boring is shown on Figure 2, Plot Plan. Geotechnical soil samples were obtained using a modified California sampler filled with 2 % Inch diameter, 1-inch tail brass rings. Bulk samples were obtained by collecting representative bore hole cuttings. Locations of geotechnical samples and other data are presented on the boring log in Appendix A. The soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Classifications are shown on the boring log included in Appendix A. LABORAIQRY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples obtained during our confirmatory boring (B-i). The following tests were performed: (3L04W000DtVfl1.. CO. Pn,poscd TuLur Tini - Kuruho SUrILII Fo Rd. & Sn FIIJo Carlsbad. CA Ccehriicd Updiit October 12, 211Q1 * Dry Density and Moisture Content (ASTM: D 2216) * Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM: D 1557) * Direct Shear (ASTM 03080) Expansion Index (UBC Standard No. 29-2) * Sulfate Content (CA 417) * Grain Size Distribution (ASTM D 422) Geotechnical test results are included in Appendix B, herein. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The site soil and geologic conditions are as follows: Seepage and Groundwater According to a United States Geological Survey (USGS) Map of the San Marcos Quadrangle the site is approximately 380 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Based on our review of hydrogeologic records, we estimate that the regional groundwater table Is at depths greater than 50 feet below the subject site. Faulting A review of available geologic records indicates that no active faults cross the subject property (reference No. 6). Liquefaction - Liquefaction of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion in response to - earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose, granular sandy soils are susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of lock, gravels, CIJNWOCN) IWVKI .CO. Prnpii.td TutoT linic - Rancho Santa Pc Rd. & Sack Elijo (zirlsbml, CA (.¼o1ccbucsJ Update O;tobcr 12.2001 clays, and sifts are not significantly affected by vibratory motion. Uquefaction is generally known to occur only in saturated or near saturated granular soils at depths shallower than approximately 50 feet. The soils beneath the site primarily consist of sandy, engineered fill and massive granitic rock. Due to the fill and bedrock densities, and to the depth to groundwater (greater than 50 feet), it Is our opinion, that the risk of liquefaction is nil. Based on our investigation and our professional experience, no additional measures for mitigation of liquefaction are warranted. Other Geologic Hazards Other geologic hazards such as expansive clays and landsliding do not appear to be evident at the subject site. EiitP1Nc Subsurface Soils Based on our site-specific document review, and confirmed by our test borings, the site is underlain by engineered fill, and bedrock as follows: Engineered Fill The existing, certified pad was created by placing approximately 2 to 4 feet of engineered fill soils. The fill soils consist generally of light to olive brown, dry to moist, dense, silty clayey sands with occasional rock fragments. Reports by Geocon, Inc. certify that the fill was placed in 4- to 8-inch lifts, moisture- conditioned, and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. Reportedly, compaction was achieved via earth scrapers, bulldozers, and water trucks. Native Granitic Rock (Ke) Underlying the fill materials are Cretaceous-age plutonic rocks. The granitic materials are part of the Escondido Creek Granodlonite, which consist of dense to very dense, massive (no apparent bedding) bedrock which becomes less weathered with depth. The expansion potential of the fill and native soils was determined to be low (Expansion Index of 32) when exposed to an increase in moisture content. (iLEii.WOOD DT- VI!I. CO. Ptopod Tutar j j - Ritnchn Sunto Yc Rd & .'an Elijo CajlSbAd,CA GeoteIuiihal i.:pdrnc Octuhr 12, 20()1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our geotechnical update of the site, our review of available reports and literature and our experience, it is our opinion that the proposed development of the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. There appear to be no significant geotechnical constraints on-site that cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design, and utilization of sound construction practices. The engineering properties of the compacted fill and native materials, and surface drainage offer favorable conditions for site development The soil conditions, soils values and applicable construction specifications outlined in the referenced Soils Reports by Geocon, Inc. remain valid. In case of conflict, the specifications outlined In this Geotechnical Update Report shall supersede those presented in prior reports by Geocon, Inc. The following sections discuss the principle geotechnical concerns which should be considered for proper site development. Earthwork With the exception of the approximate 5Y2 ft. deep temporary retention basin in the north-central portion of the lot, the building pad for the future Tutor Time facility, has been graded to within 2 feet of finish pad elevation. The grading and full compaction was performed under observations and testing by Geocon, inc. during the period of March 20., 2006 through September 25, 2006. A copy of the field density test locations by Geocon, is presented as Figure 2, herein. Since the pad is not protected from erosion, and Is exposed to weather, we estimate that the maximum depth of over excavation and recompaction (i.e. "scarifying and re-dressing"), within the building pad will be on the order of two feet. Areas to receive exterior improvements (including asphalt, concrete flatwork, curbs, gutters, and landscape areas) may be re-graded in the upper one foot. However, it is possible that deeper pockets of weathered or eroded full exist at the site. Therefore, it is essential that on site geotechnical observations be provided to insure that all undocumented fill is removed and recompacted during earthwork construction. The actual depth of removal and reconipaction should be determined by the geotechnical engineer or his designated representative at the time of re-grading. (ii INWOOD DENT.-L. CO. roposcd Tutoi Time - Thai ,cliu Sunii Fe Rd. & Sall 1Iijo cazIsbd. CA GcotcchniceL l:pd.d OcLober 12, 2007 Prior to earthwork or construction operations, the site should be cleared of surface structures and subsurface obstructions and stripped of any vegetation In the areas proposed for development. The majority of this work has been done during the mass and precise grading operation completed In the month of September, 2006. llfl The on-site soils are suitable for reuse as compacted liii, provided they are free of organic materials, debris, and oversize material. After removal of any loose, compressible soils, all areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to at least 2 percent over optimum moisture conditions and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM: 0 1557). If necessary, import soils for near-surface fills should be predominately granular1 possess a low or very low expansion potential, and be approved by the geotechnical engineer. Lift thicknesses will be dependent on the size and type of equipment used. in general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 6 inches. Placement and compaction of fill should be in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. We recommend that fill soils be placed at moisture contents at least 2 percent over optimum (based onASTM: D 1557). We recommend that oversize materials (materials over 6 inches) should they be encountered, be stockpiled and removed from the site. However, based on the recent grading, the occurrence of significant oversized materials is not anticipated. Trench Excavations and Backfill Shallow excavations of up to 10 feet at the project site can be excavated with a moderate effort using conventional construction equipment in good operating condition- Based upon the granular nature of the subsurface soils and to satisfy OSHA requirements for workmen's safety, it will be necessary to shore excava- tions deeper than 5 feet, or slope back the sides of the excavation at an inclination of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) if workers are to enter such excavations. The geotechnical consultant should be present during the excavation phase of the project-lo observe.the soil conditions and make additional recommendations if necessary. (JINWOODDIWCLCO. Propocd Tutor Time - RuicIiu Santa Fe Xi Vidn lIsjc Carlsbad. CA colthiiul Lpdale October 12, 2O7 The on-site soils may be used as trench backfill provided they are screened of rock sizes over 10 inches in dimension and organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 6 Inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 00 percent relative compaction (ASTM: D 1557). Geoteohnical Parameters The following Geotechnical parameters may used in the design of the proposed structure Foundation Design Structures on properly compacted fill may be supported by conventional, continuous or isolated spread footings. Footings should be a minimum of 18 inches deep by 15 inches wide. At this depth footings founded in fill materials may be designed for an allowable banng value of 2000 and 2500 psf (for dead- plus-live load) for continuous wall and isolated spread footings, respectively. These values may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration, including wind or seismic forces. We recommend that a minimum Type U concrete be used for the footing pour. Continuous perimeter footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches and be reinforced with (minimum) No. 5 rebar (two at the top and two at the bottom). Reinforcement requirements may be increased if recommended by the project structural engineer. In no case should they be decreased from the previous recommendations. Sulfate Content The results of our laboratory testing indicates that the soluble sulfate content of the on-site soils likely to come in contact with concrete is negligible to moderate, based on the UBC classification. Type If cement is therefore recommended for use in concrete in contact with the on-site soils. The maximum water to cement ratio, by weight shall be 0.50 (reference; 2001 UBC, Volume 2). Lateral Load Resistance Lateral load resistance may be derived from passive resistance along the vertical sides of the footings and friction acting at the base of the footings. Footings founded in till materials may be designed for a passive lateral bearing pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. A coefficient of friction against CU1!NWOUI JMVH. CO. 1'iipccd Timc - Itancho Salila Pc Rd. & San Etijo Ca1I5 had. C.A. (icotcclin(cnl Update Octobc: 12,2007 10 sliding between concrete and soil of 0.35 may be assumed. Friction and passive resistance may be combined without reduction. We recommend that the first foot of soil be neglected in the passive resistance calculations if the ground surface Is not protected from erosion or disturbance by a slab, pavement or other confining condition, Slabs-on-grade Interior concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 4 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 18 inches on center in both directions. The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid-center in the slab. interior slabs shall be underlain by 2 inches of sand over a 10 mil plastic sheeting, with all laps sealed, over 2 Inches of non-expansive materials. The mix design shall reflect a water-to-cement ratio not greater than 0.5. For floor slabs to receive VCT, the general standard of practice dictates that one month of curing/drying time should be allowed for each inch of slab thickness (i.e. a 4-inch thick slab would require 4 months of curing time prior to laying all floor coverings). Exterior slabs shall conform to the requirements for interior slabs except that the moisture barrier may be omitted, and the rebar may be replaced by 6 x 6 #10 WWF. Some slab cracking due to shrinkage should be anticipated. The potential for the slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios. The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. We recommend that a sllpsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if crack-sensitive flooring is planned directly on concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed In accordance with structural considerations. A/C Pavement Subbase Our investigation generally revealed that the subject subbase material is predominantly fine to coarse-grained silty sand and sandy slit with a low expansion potential. Asphaltic concrete (AC) and Class II rock base should conform to, and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications. We assume that Class II base with a minimum R-value of 78 will be used. C,I.)!N WOOl) 1)EVEL. Co. Piuipod Tutor Tlmc . Rffidla SnnLa re, Rd. & Sun flLjio CHthhd. CA (icoteclinlcat Update Octobc: 12.2007 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM DESiGN SECTIONS LOCATION DESIGN TRAFFIC ASPHALTIC CLASS II INDEX CONCRETE AGGREGATE BASE Car Traffic Parking 4.0-5.0 3.5" 4.0 Areas Heavy Truck Traffic 5.0-6.0 3.5" Ur Aisles Trash Pads 5.0.6.0 6.0° (Concrete) 4.0" Drive-Thru 6.0-6.0 6.0" (Concrete) 4.0" (if applicable) The minimum section of 6 inches concrete over 6 inches Class II Base Material applies to the site approaches. If off-site (surrounding roadways) work Is anticipated, the Minimum Design Section shall conform with either the City or Caltrans specifications, depending on jurisdiction. Prior to placing pavement sections, the subbase soil should have a relative compaction of at least 90 percent, based on ASTM: D 1557. We also recommend that the base course be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM: D 1557). If pavement areas are planned adjacent to landscaped areas, we recommend that the amount of irrigation be kept to a minimum to reduce the possible adverse effects of water on pavement subgrade. Continuous sections of rigid concrete pavement should be constructed in an approximately 12 foot or less grid system. All longitudinal or transverse control joints should be constructed by saw-cutting, hand forming, or placing a pre- molded filler such as zip strips. Expansion joints should be used to isolate fixed objects abutting within the pavement area. Joints should run continuously and extend through integral curbs and thickened edges. We recommend that joint layout be adjusted to coincide with the corner of objects and structures. Surface Drainage Surface drainage shall be controlled at all times. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from structures and toward the ULtNWOOD DEW L. Co. Pspocd Tutor Timm - Riucho Saida ['c Rd. & Siri IIjo Caj1sbad,CA Geixechnicul I!pdnle OibcrIl7.OQ7 12 Street or suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to the structures. Area drains should be provided for planter areas and drainage shall be directed away from the top of slopes. PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING It IS recommended that no clearing of the site or any grading operation be performed without the presence of a representative of this office. An on site pre-grading meeting should be arranged between the soils engineer and the grading contractor prior to any construction. OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING DURING CONSTRUCTION The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of EGA Consultants. We recommend that all foundation excavations and grading operations be observed by a representative of this firm to ensure that construction is performed in accordance with the specifications outlined in this report. SEASONAL LIMITATIONS No fill shall be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. Where the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until moisture conditions are considered favorable by the soils engineer. LIMITATIONS The geotechnical services described herein have been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical engineering profession practicing contemporaneously under similar conditions in the subject locality. Under no circumstance is any warranty, expressed or implied, made in connection with the providing of services described herein. Data, Interpretations, and recommendations presented herein are based solely on Information available to this office at the time work was performed. EGA Consultants will not be responsible for other parties' interpretations or use of the information developed in this report. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of EGA Consultants. We recommend that all foundation excavations and grading operations be observed by a representative of this firm to ensure that construction is performed in accordance with the specifications outlined in this report. 0IJ.NW001) L)hVLL I'Topocd Tutor fkuc. Rancho Sulm Ec Rd. & San Eijo Cii ris bad, CA (kotchnicaL Updak Occobci J 2, 2007 13 We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of others. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. (U.IN WOOl) DiVEL. CO. l'rulxlsd Tutor limo Rancho Santa Vc RS. & San Elljo Carlsbad. CA (icotcchnkal tJJ.ate Ocobcr 12, 2007 14 REFERENCE "USGS Topographic maps, 7.5 minute quadrangle, San Marcos Quadrangle" dated 1967, photorevised 1980. "Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet," Compilation by Thomas H. Rogers, 1965, fifth printing 1985. "Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in CalifornFa," by Roger W. Reensfelder, dated 1974. "Contour Map Showing Minimum Depth to Groundwater, Upper Santa Aria River Valley, California, 1973-1979", by Scott E. Carson and Jonathan C. Matti, U.S. Geologic Survey, dated 1985. "Earthquake Accelerations - All Faults - Soil," by Boore, Joyner and Fumal, dated 1997. "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," prepared by California Department of Conservation DMsion of Mines and Geology, published by International Conference of Building Officials, dated February, 1998. "Geotechnical Investigation, Villages of La Costa - The Oaks, Carlsbad, California," Project No. 06105-12-04, by GEOCONS Inc., dated August 3, 2001. "Final Report of Testing and Observation Services Performed During Site Grading, Villages of La Costa - The Oaks North Neighborhood 3.2, , Carlsbad, Califomia" Project No. 06105-52-20, by GEOCON, Inc., dated July 12, 2007. c,LrNWOOJ, IVII. (X.). Prupwed Iutr 1 ,rnc- Rancho 5n1a To Rd. & San Elijo CiiiIbud, CA (i1cImicAL 1.pda1 O4ohcII2.2OO7 Is EGA SITE LOCATION MAP Project No: Q.42.1 consultants I SAN ELIJO RD & SANTA FE RD Date: October 2Q07 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Figure No: I J.— 7. - -- I; / :/1' I 1W 91i-'I'\' 1.Tt - •,•-:.- .--:- ://. ''c.r"' oo CL W4 OF* ol NUaCAM N / .. '7 r/ 'j ' [Nei J5.Frwa &. 01 IF [f': ( ) I I I ~~;e NJ % .3 C— wilt - '1"pi I( , - x Qt 04 LEG2Jf - • - l\ - - • - OEOTECHHICAtORtNG :' " . '' +fr,ecAooNsuLTaNr I; :- • \ ( QCf.cOMPACrE0F1U. Qucco If v N . QPcf ft gw jq • I ' 9.O• < - Qpf .-PREvOU3LYPUIFIU. 3YO1MS (DVed iem :...VI I -'.• .fr . -' / , Iv I "•- - 4' — - AYabbI 101 qvw3 - ' - 2- (Dctia Thete Bwtud} .APPROc. LOCATION OF GEO-GIC GOPJT OOftad Whom buftM 122 • LOCA11O1OF ]NP LAC D4SITY TEST FG....1nIh Qmde EGA PLOT PLAN Protect No: D492.1 consultants SAN ELLJO ROAD & RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD Date: 0*ober, 200 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Figure No: 2 APPENDIX A GEOLOGIC LOG LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 1 of Job Number: 00492.1 Boring No: B-I Projoct: Proposed Tutor Time Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Boring Location: Soo Figure 2 Carlsbad, CA Date Started: 9/2112007 Rig: Mob. Date Completed: 9/211007 C:nd Elnv, 38011. above MSL - Sanlpla Typo if. . - Dreot Shear 7 a N p4e £IJ SnSone Tablo - - - !OILDI!5rRIPTtPr - - fjJ: Light brown, dry, loose to med. dense, 1 ) silly sand, micaceous, mottled. Al 6, olive brown 9.9 32 33 294 5 / slightly moist med. Dense silty clayey sand, 13.7 110.0 will subangular roc.k frags to2'mot1Iod. - 8.3 BEDRQçK (Ke): Orange-brown to yellow- = brown, very dense slighiiy moist, grantIc Rk. slightly fractured. No bedding. Some FeO2. Becomes massive, more consolidated with depth. Total Depth: 5 feet at Relusal 10- No Groundwater Encountered No Caving Backfihled arid compacLed 9/21107 15 20. 25 - 30 35 40 f Fguie EGA Consultants . I B-ifl - LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet I oil Job Number: GD492.1 Boring No: B-2 Project: Proposed Tutor Time - Rancho Santa Pu Rd. Boring Location: See Figure 2 Carlsbad. CA Located Inside retention basin Date Started: 9121/2007 . Rig: Mob, DatuCiplotod: 9/2112007 3B9j ft. Above MSL - Grnd SrnpIe ,,, x Droc1 Typo S'R Shear U. -ampla U . ' IZ m Sriclercfsplit Spoon So 2 Static Water SOIL DESCRIPTION - - - - FILL: Light brown, dry, loose to med. dense, - 1 silly sand, micaceous, mottled. At 6", Wive brown 32 33 294 slightly moist, mad. Dense silty clayey sand 12.1 121.8 j with 5ubangular rock frags to 2, mottled. - 4.1 - -- - - - / BEDROCK (Ka): Orange-brown to yellow- 5 / brown. very dense, slightly moist, granitic Rk. slightly fractured. No bedding. Some Fe02. 9.0 Becomes massive, more consolidated with depth. Total Depth: 8 feet at Re1usl 10 No Groundwater Encountered No Cvinj Bacictilled and Compacted 0121107 15 20 25 30. 35 - 40 Fgum EGA Consultants B-2 LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 1 of Job Number: GD492,1 Boring No: 13-3 Projoct: Proposed Tutor Tune - Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Boring Location: See FIgure 2 Carlsbad, CA Date Slanted: 9121/2007 Rig: Mob. Date Cpletod: 0121/2007 Gfnd Elev. appiro30 IL. above MSL - aamle Direct Typo S TTube' : Shear V.0 z m WM Sample y nr3p ljcWiIr Sarro g - - - soiL DscRiPnION SM - - E[L.L,: Light brown, My, loose to med. dense, 1 silty sand, micaceous, moWed. At 6N, olive brown 32 33 294 / slightly moist, med. Dense silty dayey sand, 12.1 o.e 125.5 41.9 / with subangular rock frags to 2, mottled. - - - - OM 11.! - - / - BEDROCK (Ke): Orange-brown to yellow- - s brown, very dense, slightly moist, granitic Rk. - - - - - slightly fractured. No bedding. Some FeO2. Becomes massive, moro consolidated with dcpLh. Total Depth: 5 foot at Rolusal 10 No Groundwater Encountered No Caving Oackrilled and Compacted 9(21(07 15 20 25 30 35 4° Figure E - EGA Consiiltats LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING - Slieel I of I Job Numbei: GD492.1 Boring No: 6.4 Projeci: Proposed Tutor Tirna- Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Boring Location: See Figure 2 Carlsbad, CA Date Slartod: 9/2112007 Rio: Mob. Dale Completed: 9/2112007 Grnd Elev. approx.38O ft. above MSL Sample Direct rype Th1nW&I Vr 25RIruIJ . Shear U. Tube S*mle WMer 121 m a 90 - = - SOIL DESCRIPTI01t -- - sm fJ,LigIit brown, diy, loose to med. dense, ) silty sand, micaceous, mowed. At 6", olive brown 17.3 32 33 294 f slightly moist, med. Dense silty clayey sand, 12.9 / with subangular rock frags to 2", mottled. — 21.2 104.0 = BEDROCK (Ke): Orange-brown to yellow- - 15.5 drown, very dense, slightly moist. granitic Rk. — slightly fractured. No bedding. Some Fe02. Becomes massive, more consolidated with depth. Total Depth: S feet at Refusal 10 . No Groundwater Encountered No Caving Backlilled and cornpacled 9121107 15 20. 25 30 35 40 = = __________ = = • = = 11= j = Figura - EGA Consullants - -- B-4 LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 1 of I Job Number: G0492.1 Borh'lcl No: B-5 Project- Proposed Tutor Time - Raneho Santa Fe Rd. Boring Location: See Figure 2 Carlsbad, CA Dale Stalled: 9121/2007 Rig: Mob. Date.' Completed: 9/21/2007 Grnd tov. appr .350 It. above MS( - Sample tCL (flr1 Type Tube CL • Thin Wall Sample 13 xShe*u rh V WeilSpoon Sample C3 a DESCRIPTION - - - fJJ: Light brown, dry, loose to med. dense, 1 j siHy sand, micar.eous, mottled. At 6", olive brown 5.3 32 33 294 / slightly moist, med. Dense silly clayoy sand, / with subangular rock frags to 2", mottled. - BEDROCK ft): Orange-brown to yellow- brown, very dense, slightly moist, gfanhtic Rk. sllghlly fractured. No bedding. Some FeO2. Becomes massive, more consolidated with depth. Total Depth: 5 feet at Refusal 10. No Groundwater Encountered No Caving Backfilled and Compacted 9/21/07 15 20, 25. 30 35 40 = = = = = Fgurii B-S - EGA Consultants - APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS F.GA Cousullant October 12, 2007 315-C Monte Vista Avenue Project No. 314-118-12 Costa Mesa, California 92627 Attention; Mr. David Worthington, C.E.O. Subjeci: Laboratory Test Resulis Tutor Time Car11,ad, ('atikrnia Dear Mr. Worthington: Neblcrt &. Associates. Inc. performed the requested laboratory tcstc on soil spccinlens dclivcrcxL to our office for the subject project. The results of these tests are iuc1udcd as an attachrncit to this report. We appreciate the opportunity of providing our services to you on this project. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, NEJJLETT & ASSOCIATES, INC. LvLCMd By:- CC 273o 11 Vj 'ancsh" (Jdnehw Laboratory Supervisor ROE 2736, Reg. Expires Todd I) Fg Senior Project Lninccr Attachment: l.aLoratory Te.L Results Distribution: Addressee (2 copies) File: 314-I1 1- L2ega' tutortime_carisbad 4oc P.O. Box 1159 Huntington Reach, CA 92647 4911 Warner Avenue, Suite 218 !lunthzgkm Reach' CA '92649 • tel (714) 840-8286 fax (714) 840-979 Fr' :4 flGA ConuLuinis OcLobLr l2 2007 LabonitoyTtst Results Procct No. 314-118-12 Tutor Ti me 1'age 2 o14 Carlthad, California LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Summarized below are the ue.uIis of requested laboratory lesting on sa mples submitted lo our offk. Dry Density and Moisture Content Tabulated below are Ihe requeIed results of field dry derisily and moisture contems of Ijnc1Lslur1)cd soils samples retained in 2 3/8-inch inside diameter by one-inch height rings. Moisture only resulLs were obtained from small bulk £ampk.s. TABLE I Sample Idcntiflcatiit Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) 9.9 R-1 @P 1.5' * 110.0 13.7 B-l(3' *8.3 R2Cth 2' 121.6 12.1 B-23' 4.] 11-20 6-8' * 9.0 fl-3 2' 99.8 12.1 13-4® 1.5' * 17.3 II-4@2' I3-4@3' 104.() 21.2 B-4@ 3.5' 15.5 13-50 IS 1. 8.3 NoLc: (*) dermtes Small bulk snrnplc br moisture conrnt ciing only NrblitI & Axxocu2e.r [X)A Consultants Laboratory Test Rrsults rictor nic CnrIsbad1 California October t 2, 2007 Project No, 314-I IK-12 Page 3 of 4 Sieve Analysis A sieve analysis test was performed on bulk soil sample identi fled 13-3(4' 0-1 This test was performed in iiccordance with ASTM: D'122 and Ihe results are shown graphically on Plate B - I. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content A maximum dry density and optun)unn moisture content Lest was performed on the requested bulk soil sample in accordance with ASTM: L) 1557. The results are shown below: Sample Tdentifictiori Maximum Dry Density (pci) Optimum Moisture Content (%) 8-3@ 0-3' 125.5 1 L5 Direct Shear Direct shear tests were performed on relatively undisturbcd ring samples, identified as I3-l@ 2 feeL with a direct shear rnchine of the strain-controlled type. The controlled rate of strain is 0.005 inch per minute. The samples wcrc soaked in a confined state prior to shearing. Then the samples where sheared under varied loads ranging from 1.0 k.-;f to 4.0 W. The test results are plotted on Plate 8-2. Sulfate Content A selected bulk sample was tested for soiuhlc su1ttre content in accordance with Hach procedure. The Lest result is shown below: Sample Identilkation Water Soluble Sulfate In Soil Sulfate Exposure (Pcrcintage by weight(%) UBC Table 19-A4) R-1@ 0-4' 0.068 Negligible Web/el: & Asiat IiGA Consultants Lubornory Test RiuIt Tutor Time Carl shad1 Califamia October 12, 2007 Prcfrjcci No. 314-i 18-12 Page 4or4 Expansion Index A bulk soil sumple was tested for cxparisccm potential following the. ASTM: D4929 Test Procedure.. Test results are presented below. Sample Identification Expansion Index Expansion Potential (UBC_18.1-B) B-JfO-4' 32 I..uw Nebleit & Ax.vx:ic.c - - - __________ - - . -- - - - a - - - S.,a U.S - - - - -- - S- - - - - = - - --:::- -=- -. r.---• ____ _____ ________ _____-_____ ----- :i----- " 1! -I - - - - - - - - - a- - - - - a- - - - - -,.--.--------- - -- - - LC Li ga a arm _________ I Elm =.== =a--_ --== _:==-== - ___-== 4.000 3,750 3,500 3,250 3.000 2,750 U. 2,500 Ui 2,250 U) 2,000 ( 1,750 w I ED 1.500- 1.250 1,000 750 500 250 0 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Undisturbed :. ..:... :. ••: I•l•8:....... . :••.•: i•:> '.c •.; . c• i.i.• *.:• I•l•l••)•:•••l• i.l•.'':: .: ...........•.. . .... .- ... •• ................ . u•i•i••>•:•c•c•i• .3.,.: •'• c-•:••:•< '3•I •:••:• '.•i•i••:••:••:•• . ............. .............. .. .........I•8•I•••:••l• 4. 4 ;.;44.:. .:.i.i••:.....:•I• :•• ••<•4••:••:• ••;.-:•-,•,•:.... . . ;1iIIII 4.4-1-8-4-I- .i...i--8-8-I.-8----l-l::I:!:I: :ii:ti::: S ::i:::ti 1::II83t;c-4•-l4 1 : ' . i :•' i••l••:•< . .. ..................... II! I S ....:••:•3•l•:•: 4. 35 IS 1 4 4 I 'II !. 4.!.•.............•,:•:•:• •• :c'!'! ....-.... <•;..:-4•;•i ............. ...I.:.....:.<.<•I............... r . .. ................ I , a . ......... ... 41 :-<-<I•:1 ;.:.........: : :• lIl ••: : :i :•: : : !: : :••<•l•l•:•••:....•. : ................... .. .. ..:•!•I•I-:...... <•i•'•I•l•:...:•I•I•:•-•:••:•' 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3.000 3,500 4,000 NORMAL STRESS, PSF EGA © Tutor Time. Carlsbad CA -. - j COHESION 294 psr. I FRICTION ANGLE 33.0 degrees symbol baring depth (It.) &ymbol bo.'ffig depth (ft.) U-i 2.0 DIRECT SHEAR TEST .H41 1 NEBLEIT & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4911 WAR'4ERAVFNtTh.UITC 218 ILJNTIWGTON BEACH, CA. 921:149 /14 840-0266 P.N. 314-118-12 DATE 10111 PLATE B..2 APPENDIX C GENERAL EARTHWORKS AND GRADING GUIDELINES GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES A] C4 Zj1iI These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for grading and earthwork including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrairis, and excavations. The recommendations contained In the geotechnical report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and should supersede the provisions contained herein in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. EAR1]WORK OBSERVATION A,Q TESTING Prior to commencement of grading. a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. The consultant is to provide adequate testing and observation so that he may determine that the work was accomplished as specified. It should be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him appraised of work schedules and changes so that the consultant may schedule his personnel accordingly. The contractor is to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, and these specifications. If in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions are resulting In a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the consultant may reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. Maximum dry density tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials Test Method ASTM: 1)1557-78. Ill. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED Clearing and Grubbing: All brush, vegetation, and debris should be removed and otherwise disposed of. Processing: The existing ground which is evaluated to be satisfactory for support of fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface Is reasonably uniform and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. OvereKcavation; Soft, dry, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately Improve the condition, should be over excavated down to firm ground, approved by the consultant Molstu(e Conditioning; Over excavated and processed soils shoLild be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. (C EWOOD DrVEL. (1.). Proposcd '1 uuor'I ime - Rancho SriLa Fe Pd. & Suu Eijo Carlsbad. CA G;otclmiciI t.'pdi&te Ckiobcr 12,21J07 5, Recompactlon Over excavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground should be benched. The lowest bench should be a minimum 0115 feet wide, and at least 2 feet deep, expose firm material, and be approved by the consultant Other benches should be excavated in firm material for a minimum width of 4 feet. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or otherwise over excavated when considered necessary by the consultant. Approval: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe-of-fill benches should be approved by the consultant prior to fill placement. IV. FIL.L MATERIAL General: Material to be placed as fill should be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be approved by the consultant Soils of Poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed in areas designated by the consultant or mixed with other soils until suitable to serve as satisfactory lID material. Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other Irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches. should not be burled or placed in fill, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are speciflcaliy approved by the consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material Is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade or within the range of futue utilities or underground construction, unless specifically approved by the consultant. import: If importing of fill material is necessary for grading, the import material should be approved by the geotechnicat consultant V. FILL PIACEMF.NT AND COMPACTION Fill Lifts- Approved 1111 material should be placed In areas prepared to receive fill in near- horizontal layers not exceeding 6 inches In compacted thickness. The consultant may approve thicker lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and should be thoroughly mixed during spreading to attain unifonnity of material and moisture in each layer. Fill Moisture: Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed. and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification at blended with drier material. Moisture- conditioning and mixing of Nil layers should continue until the fill material is at a uniform moisture content at or near optimum. Compaction of Fill: After oath layer has been evenly spread, moisture-conditioned, and mixed, It should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efflcienvy achieve the specified degree of compaction. 4 Fill Slopes; Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at frequent increments of 2 to 3 feet in fill elevation gain, or by oilier methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the slope out to the slope face shell be at least 90 percent. QLENWOOJ) DiWflL.. Co. Proposed rutcsrriuc - R.nhu Simla Rd & Sui Wijo Cad (A Geol-mulmicat 1:pIc (kiuber i, 7007 S. Coniractlon Testing: Field tests to check the fill moisture and degree of compaction will be performed by the consultant, The location and frequency of tests should be at the consul1ans discretion. In general, the tests should be taken at an interval not exceeding 2 reeL In vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of embankment. VI. B Jit$TsLLATI ON Subdniin systems, if required, should be installed In approved ground and should not be changed or modified without the approval of the consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend and upon approval, direct changes in subdrain line, grade, or material. Vii. EXCAVATION excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading. It directed by the consultant, further excavation or overexcavatlon and refilling of cut areas should be performed. andlor remedial grading of cut slopes performed. Where till-over-cut slopes are to be graded , unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be made and approved by the consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. OLNW(xD LMYI.. CO. PupO,,cd Tutor rime - Rmarho Suri& Fr, Rd. & San LiiJo Carlsbad. CA CicuumhnIeFd L'pdit flcLubet 12.2001 3 RECEIVED MAR 06 2009 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT