HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS 08-03; NOLAN DEVELOPMENT; PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION; 2008-01-17C E O T E K
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
7 O 1Gb
CeoTek, Inc.
1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A Vista, CA
(760) 599-0509 (760) 599-0593 F,
Frank and Joann Nolan Trust
7331 Las Brisas Court
Carlsbad, California 92009
92081-8505
www.geotekusa.com
20 January 17, 2008
P3-0100408-SD
Subject: Proposal for Geoteclmical Evaluation
Proposed Single-Family Residential Development at 7331 Las Brisas Court
Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Frank and Joann Nolan:
In accordance with the request of Yvette Hermann of bHa, Inc, we are pleased to submit our
proposal to perform a Geotechnical Evaluation for the proposed two single family residence at
the subject project. This proposal has been prepared based upon the information provided by
you, a site reconnaissance on January 15, 2008 and our general experience in the area with this
type of project.
Site and Project Description
The subject property is located at 7331 Las Brisas Court, in the City of Carlsbad, California.
Legally described as residential lot 389 of Carlsbad Tract No. 72-20, Unit 3, Map No.7950, APN
223-211-18. The property is bound by lot 388 to the north, lot 390 to the east, SDG&E easement
to the south and Piragua Street to the west.
A single family residence occupies the eastern, 0.483 acres, portion of the 1.06 acre pie shaped
lot, at an existing pad at elevation of approximately 435 feet. A 30 to 50 foot downward
ascending slope defines the western terminus of the developed portion of the property.
It is our understanding that proposed site development includes splitting the lot into 2 parcels for
the construction of an additional single family residence. Parcel 2 will consist of the western
approximately 0.580 acres of the lot and is the subject of this evaluation. Based on our
observations, review of published geologic maps and our experience in the area, the site appears
to be underlain documented and undocumented fill and by the Jurassic--aged, Undifferentiated
Santiago Peak Volcanics.
Based on the review of preliminary grading plans prepared by bHa, Inc., print date January 10,
2008, it is proposed to grade Parcel 2 with adjacent multi-level building pads requiring
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN TRUST January 17, 2008
Proposal for Geotechnical Evaluation P3-0100408
7331 Las Brisas Court, Carlsbad, California Page 2 of 3
maximum cuts and fills on the order of up to 8 feet. A 5 foot high retaining wall will be
constructed along the northern/eastern perimeter of the upper pad. A 2 foot maximum height
retaining wall is proposed along the southern alignment of the proposed driveway from Piragua
Street. The existing sewer line running southeast to northwest through the proposed building
site will be abandoned and relocated.
Foundation plans are unavailable at this time. However, it is anticipated that the proposed single
family residence, to be constructed on the upper pad, will be a 2-story wood frame structure to
be founded on a conventional slab on grade shallow foundation system. At the present time, no
structures or improvement are proposed for the lower pad.
Scope of Work and Fee Schedule
The purpose of this study would be to evaluate geologic and geotechnical conditions at the
property to aid in the design and construction of the proposed development. Scope of the
preliminary geotechnical evaluation would consist of the following:
Collect and review available pertinent reports, published geologic maps, aerial
photographs, and other literature pertaining to the project.
Site mark out for digalert.
Excavate 6 to 8 exploratory trenches using a rubber tire backhoe (maximum of one day
for field exploration). An engineer or a geologist from our firm will log the excavations
and collect soil samples for use in laboratory testing. The trenches will be located in
readily accessible areas.
Perform laboratory tests on selected soil samples which may include: moistures,
expansion index, sulfate, pH & resistivity, chloride, atterberg limits, and maximum
density.
Preparation of a final report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations
relative to foundation design and earthwork construction.
The total anticipated fees for this geotechnical evaluation is $4,500. A retainer fee of $1,500 is
requested to partially cover the costs for mobilization and initial field work.
It is important to realize that costs are limited to the stated scope. This cost estimate does not
include any fault trenching, environmental testing or assessment, construction-related services,
additional meetings, or consultations that may be requested. Services beyond those outlined in
this proposal and requested/authorized by the client or his representative, or required by
regulatory agencies, would be invoiced at our prevailing hourly rates. We would provide these
services on an hourly basis within the terms and conditions agreed to herein. Our 2007 Fee
Schedule is attached.
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN TRUST January 17, 2008
Proposal for Geotechnical Evaluation P3-0100408
7331 Las Brisas Court, Carlsbad, California Page 3 of 3
Time Schedule
It is anticipated that our final report will be submitted within approximately 4 to 5 weeks after
written authorization and the requested retainer is received, assuming no delays due to
availability of exploration equipment, site accessibility, and/or inclement weather. It is
anticipated that the field phase of the study will commence within 5 working days of
authorization allowing for scheduling and clearance with Underground Service Alert (USA).
Closure
We will not be responsible for damage to exiting site features if they are not shown accurately
on the plans or delineated in the field by the client. In addition, some disturbance to the ground
surface and vegetation may occur as a result of accessing the desired locations of subsurface
exploration. Although we will be careful to limit the extent of such occurrences, they cannot be
avoided and this proposal does not include any costs to regrade, landscape or otherwise repair
disturbed areas.
We appreciate the opportunity of submitting this proposal and have included a contract for the
scope of services. Should you desire us to proceed, please sign and return one copy of the
enclosed "Work Authorization and Agreement" form to our office along with the requested
retainer fee. This proposal is valid up to 45 days from this date.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoTek, Inc.
Timothy E. etca , CEG
Principal Geologist
Distribution: PDF copy to Yvette Herman at yhermann@bhaincsd.com
Enclosure: Work Authorization Agreement
2007 Fee Schedule
G:\Proposals\2008 PROPOSALS\300W3-0100408_LasBrisasCt_Nolan'geo.doc
,GE rake A. Drake,
Engineer
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
Field Supervisor
Senior Soils Technician (w/ nuclear gage)
Engineering Soils Technician (w/ nuclear gage)
Certified Welding Inspector
Field Concrete Technicians-ACT-1
ICC Special Inspector-RC, M, PT, F
UT, PT, MT Weld Examination
$87.00
$77.00
$72.00
$74.00
$53.00
$67.00
$87.00
2007 FEE SCHEDULE
PROFESSIONAL STAFF FIELD AND SUPPORT PERSONNEL
(Rates per hour unless otherwise noted)
Principal Engineers/Geologists $168.00
Project Manager $139.00
Project Engineer/Geologist $128.00
Engineers/Geologists $118.00
Expert Witness/Deposition (4 hr mm) $275.00
Drafting $56.00
Office Services $46.00
OTHER FEES AND EXPENSES
(Rates per hour unless otherwise noted and are in addition to hourly personnel rates)
Copies-Report/letters (per copy) $35.00 Rebar Locator
Copies-Wet Signed Reports (per copy) $100.00 Nuclear Densometer
Torque Wrench $25.00 Asphalt/Concrete Coring
Anchor Bolt Pull Test Equipment $45.00 Photo-Ionization Detector
Schmidt Hammer $25.00 XRF Analyzer, per week
Floor Flatness $45.00 Outside Services
$45.00
$8.00
$75.00
$25.00
$300.00
Cost Plus 20%
LABORATORY RATES
(All rates are per test or sample unless otherwise noted)
Atterberg Limits $108.00
Shrinkage Limits $26.00
Specific Gravity $62.00
Sieve (wet) $103.00
Sieve (dry) $77.00
Hydrometer $149.00
Sand Equivalent $118.00
Swell in-situ $77.00
Expansion Index $149.00
Moisture/density (Proctor) $180.00
Proctor Check Point $77.00
Mortar Compression 2x4 Cylinder UBC $28.00
Asphalt Extraction & Gradation $252.00
Fractured Faces $67.00
PH Test $67.00
LA Abrasion $190.00
Solubility $57.00
Flexural Beam $37.00
Fireproofing Density $41.00
R-Value $293.00
Unconfined $190.00
Consolidation -in situ $267.00
Consolidation -remolded $278.00
Direct Shear-in situ $180.00
Direct Shear-remolded $190.00
Moisture/density (set of rings) $36.00
Permeability - falling head $206.00
Permeability- con. head $360.00
Masonry Prism, half size 8x8x16 $98.00
Concrete Cylinders Compression (each) $28.00
Roofing Tile Absorption, set of 5 $206.00
Asphalt Core Density $52.00
Organic Content $72.00
Soluble Sulfates (Sulfate content of soil) $72.00
Marshall $199.00
Asphalt Stability, Flow, Unit Wt. $185.00
Grout Compression UBC $28.00
Soil Resistivity and pH $51.00
Notes
A minimum charge of 4 working hours per trip will be assessed for all services, 2 hours for inspections cancelled on site.
A minimum charge of 8 hours will apply for field assignments of 4.5 to 8 hours.
24 hours notice is requested to schedule or cancel personnel.
All rates are per hour unless otherwise noted. Rates are subject to change.
Overtime Rates for hourly personnel and for all fieldwork billed at the above times 1.5.
Rates for Sundays, holidays and over 12 hours per day billed at 2.0 times the above.
Rates for most frequent services are presented. Rates for additional services available upon request.
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
GeoTek, Inc.! GeoTek Insite
PROJECT INFORMATION
Work Authorization And Agreement
Date: January 17,
2008
Proposed Single-Family Residential Development at 7331 Las Brisas Court P30100408- Project Name: Proposal No: SD
Project Location: Carlsbad, California Project No:
Scope of Services: Scope is outlined in text of proposal. Services not outlined in the proposal or in this Agreement, are not included
in the scope of this contract and will be invoiced separately as Additional Services (as provided in Paragraph 4
below). All services, including any Additional Services, are subject to the Terms and Conditions below.
Fee Estimate: $4,500.00 Retainer: $1,500.00 COD:
Reimbursable Expenses not in fee Estimate:
CLIENT INFORMATION
Name: Frank and Joann Nolan Trust
Attention: C/0 Yvette Herman of bHa, Inc. Email: yherman@bhaincsd.com
Address 1: 7331 Las Brisas Cour Phone Number: Ext:
Address2: Cell Phone: 760-798-1819
City: Carlsbad State: CA Zip: 92009 Fax Number:
BILLING I BUDGET SET-UP (GeoTek Internal use oily)
3i113ng 3illing 113illing BMing Billing Elfflirig
q1 p_ Phase Budget - Ph. 3udget Type - Group Pbue Budget Type
GEO GEO $4,500.00 2
Billing Type: 1 - Time & Materials to Budget 2 - Specified Fee 3 - Fixed Fee 4 - Phased Fixed Fee 5 —unit Cost 6- Other.
Job Initiation I PM: I Lisa Guertin I STP: Tim Metcalfe
Approval I CM/Dept Mgr: I John Drake I Prject Coordinator: Lisa Guertin
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
AGREEMENT. This Work Authorization and Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") is made by and between Client, as identified above,
and GeoTek, Inc., a Nevada Corporation ("GeoTek"). Client retains GeoTek to render certain professional services as outlined in GeoTek"s proposal
P30100408SD, dated January 17, 2008, as may be amended in accordance with the terms of this Agreement from time to time (Services") and
GeoTek is willing to provide the Services for consideration and upon the terms hereinafter stated.
PRICING/QUOTATIONS. Unless otherwise specified, Client shall pay GeoTek its standard rates for the Services and any Additional
Services (as defined below) and products provided subject to changes in pricing from time to time. Any quotation shall be good for a period of thirty
(30) days from the date of the quotation. If the quotation is in the form of an estimate, the fees and expenses shown are estimates only. The actual
fees and expenses shall be shown when the final invoice is tendered.
BILLING AND PAYMENT: Invoices will be submitted on a progress basis for all Services performed during the term of the project. All
invoices are due and payable upon receipt. Any and all invoices or any portion thereof, outstanding after thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at 1.5%
per month but in no event more than the maximum rate permissible by law from the original date of the invoice until paid.
CHANGE ORDERS. Client acknowledges that it is impossible to predict with certainty what changes to the Services will be necessary as
requirements for changes come from many sources beyond GeoTek's control. In the event changes become necessary, any services that are not
specifically set forth in either GeoTek's proposal or this Agreement but are requested by Client, its agents, representatives, or designees, either
verbally or in writing, shall be considered "Additional Services". Should Client, its agents, representatives, or designees request any Additional
Services, GeoTek will issue Client a Change Order for Additional Services ("Change Order") confirming Client's authorization to proceed with such
Additional Services. Within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt of a Change Order, Client must notify GeoTek of any disagreements with or
amendments to any of the terms of the Change Order. Client's failure to provide GeoTek with such timely notice shall constitute acceptance of the
terms of the Change Order and Client shall be responsible for all additional charges, costs, fees and expenses incurred by GeoTek for such
Additional Services. Due to the need for rapid decisions, fax transmissions and email are acceptable modes of confirmation. The Terms and
Conditions of this Agreement and the most current fee schedule shall apply to all Additional Services.
RIGHT OF ENTRY.
a) Client hereby grants GeoTek the right of entry to the job site to permit GeoTek to perform the work under this Agreement. Client warrants that it
has the authority to grant such right of entry.
Rev 1/06 Pagel of 3
GeoTek, Inc.! GeoTek Insite Work Authorization And Agreement
b) Client acknowledges that excavations or other destructive testing may be required to perform portions of the Services. Excavations will be
backfilled in a prudent manner but cannot be returned to the previous condition. Further, damage to landscaping or natural vegetation may result.
Client shall indemnify and hold GeoTek harmless from any and all damages to persons or property caused by or to GeoTek or third parties resulting
from the study.
6) PERFORMANCE.
a) Governmental rules and regulations are subject to interpretations. GeoTek will prepare all reports with a view toward complying with
governmental rules and regulations, but no guarantee is given that any or all reports will be approved by the applicable governmental agency.
c) GeoTek is relying entirely on plans and maps given to GeoTek by the Client or Clients agents, representatives or designees. Client shall
indemnify and hold GeoTek harmless from any and all damages to person or property caused by or to GeoTek or third parties resulting from
undisclosed underground conditions or errors or inaccuracy of plans, maps or any other information provided by the Client or Client's agents,
representatives or designees to GeoTek.
d) GeoTek will not be responsible for delays or its failure to perform as a result of inclement weather, accidents, acts of God, public insurrection,
war, labor difficulties, riots, interference by governmental agencies, or any other act reasonably beyond GeoTek's control.
e) Client shall disclose in writing to GeoTek any and all known or suspected hazardous or toxic conditions or materials present at the job site and
shall indemnify, defend and hold GeoTek harmless from and against any and all liability, costs, attorneys or expert fees or damage to person or
property arising from hazardous or toxic conditions or materials present at the job site.
7) HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: GeoTek is not a generator, transporter and does not store or dispose of hazardous waste or non hazardous
waste. Client will be responsible for the proper management, storage and disposal of hazardous waste or non hazardous waste present on the site
and that may be encountered whether or not identified during GeoTek's evaluation.
8) PROFESSIONAL OPINION. GeoTek's professional services will be performed, findings obtained, and recommendations prepared in
accordance with generally accepted engineering practices in effect at the time and place the services are performed. The professional opinions of
GeoTek will be based upon conditions revealed at exploration locations and reconnaissance of surrounding terrain or through research efforts. The
services on any given site are limited. It is agreed that GeoTek is not responsible for the affect that unknowns such as acts of others on adjacent
properties, variables of nature including, but not limited to, earthquakes, the works of man, Acts of God, and other variables beyond the control of
GeoTek may have on any opinion rendered hereunder. No opinions of any kind are given by GeoTek except those expressly stated in GeoTek's
written reports. GeoTek does not warrant (either expressed or implied) or guarantee any of its recommendations, opinions or Services.
9) INSURANCE. GeoTek maintains worker's compensation and public liability insurance policies for bodily injury and property damage.
Certificates of insurance will be furnished upon request. With regard to property claims, GeoTek shall not be responsible for damage beyond those
amounts paid under the policies. GeoTek shall not be responsible for any consequential, lost profits, business interruption, or other damages
claimed by Client. Requests for waivers of subrogation or other endorsements are subject to a 5% fee surcharge.
10) INDEMNIFICATION and LIMITATION OF LIABILITY:
GeoTek agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law and subject to the Limitations herein, to indemnify Client against damages, liability and
reasonable costs arising from the negligent acts of GeoTek in the performance of its Services under this Agreement, to the extent that a court of
competent jurisdiction determines that GeoTek is responsible for such damages, liability and reasonable costs on a comparative basis of fault and
responsibility between GeoTek and Client. GeoTek shall not be obligated to indemnify Client for the Client's own negligence.
Client acknowledges that it is aware of the risks involved in construction, limitations inherent to the contract Services, and variations that can
exist from the conditions identified. Client agrees to limit any liability, claim for damages to person or property, attorneys fees, expert fees or other
costs of defense, or expenses (collectively "Claims") to be levied against GeoTek arising out of or relating to any design defect, error, omission,
professional negligence or other promise of GeoTek (collectively "Liabilities") to the lesser of $1,000,000 or five (5) times the amount of GeoTek's
fees paid under the Agreement. This limitation shall apply regardless of the cause of action or legal theory pled or asserted. The fee charged Client
for the Services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement has been established with regard to the legal effect of this Limitation of Liability section.
Increased limits of liability can be negotiated for an increased fee.
Except for work performed or provided by those subcontractors or subconsultants retained directly by GeoTek for whom GeoTek is legally
liable, GeoTek assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing, design(s) or recommendations performed or provided by others including,
without limitation, other contractors, subcontractors, or consultants of any tier.
The parties understand and agree that Client's sole and exclusive claim, demand, suit, judgment and/or remedy for any claims arising from or in
any way related to the performance of the Services provided under this Agreement shall be directed and/or asserted only against GeoTek and not
against any of GeoTek's shareholders, engineers, employees, officers, or directors.
11) DISPUTE RESOLUTION: In an effort to resolve any conflicts that arise during the design and construction of the project or following the
completion of the project the Client and GeoTek agree that all disputes between them arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the project shall
be submitted to non binding mediation unless the parties mutually agree otherwise.
12) JOBSITE SAFETY. Neither the professional activities of GeoTek nor the presence of GeoTek or its employees and subconsultants at a
construction/project site, shall relieve the General Contractor of its obligations, duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, construction
means, methods, sequence, techniques or procedures necessary for performing, superintending and coordinating the Work in accordance with the
contract documents and any health or safety precautions required by any regulatory agencies. GeoTek and its personnel have no authority to
exercise any control over any construction contractor or its employees in connection with their work or any health or safety programs or procedures.
The Client agrees that the General Contractor shall be solely responsible for Jobsite safety, and warrants that this intent shall be carried out in the
Rev 1/06 Page 2 of 3
GeoTek, Inc.! GeoTek Insite Work Authorization And Agreement
Client's contract with the General Contractor. The Client also agrees that the Client, GeoTek and GeoTek's subconsultants shall be indemnified by
the General Contractor and shall be made additionally insured under the General Contractors policies of general liability insurance.
13) OWNERSHIP OF INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE. All reports, drawings, specifications, computer files, field data, notes and other
documents and instruments prepared by GeoTek as instruments of service shall remain the property of GeoTek. GeoTek shall retain all common
law, statutory and other reserved rights, thereto. All documents prepared by GeoTek under this Agreement for a particular project are not intended
and not represented to be suitable for reuse by Client or others on any other project. Any such reuse without written authorization from GeoTek shall
be without liability to GeoTek and Client agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless GeoTek from and against any and all losses, claims,
damages and expenses (including attorney's fees) arising out of or resulting therefrom.
14) TERMINATION.
a) In the event of termination of this Agreement by either party for any reason, the Client shall within fifteen (15) calendar days of termination pay
GeoTek for all Services rendered and all reimbursable costs incurred by GeoTek up to the date of termination, in accordance with the payment
provisions of this Agreement.
b) The Client may terminate this Agreement for the Client's convenience and without cause upon giving GeoTek not less than seven (7) calendar
days written notice.
c) Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause upon giving the other party not less than seven (7) calendar days written notice for any of
the following reasons:
Failure by the other party to materially perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and through no fault of the terminating party;
Assignment of this Agreement or transfer of the Project by either party to any other entity without the prior written consent of the other party;
Material changes in the conditions under which this Agreement was entered into, the scope of Services or the nature of the Project, and the
failure of the parties to reach agreement on the compensation and schedule adjustments necessitated by such changes.
d) In the event of any termination that is not the fault of GeoTek, the Client shall pay GeoTek, in addition to payment for services rendered and
reimbursable costs incurred, for all expenses reasonably incurred by GeoTek in connection with the orderly termination of this Agreement, including
but not limited to demobilization, reassignment of personnel, associated overhead costs and all other expenses directly resulting from the
termination.
15) SUSPENSION OF SERVICES.
If the Project or GeoTek's Services are suspended by the Client for more than thirty (30) calendar days, consecutive or in the aggregate, over the
term of this Agreement, GeoTek shall be compensated for all Services performed and reimbursable expenses incurred prior to the receipt of notice
of suspension. In addition, upon resumption of Services, the Client shall compensate GeoTek for expenses incurred as a result of the suspension
and resumption of its Services, and GeoTek's schedule and fees for the remainder of the Project shall be equitably adjusted.
If GeoTek's Services are suspended for more than ninety (90) days, consecutive or in the aggregate, GeoTek may terminate this Agreement upon
giving not less than five (5) calendar days written notice to the Client.
If the Client is in breach of the payment terms or otherwise is in breach of this Agreement, GeoTek may, at its sole discretion, suspend
performance of services and/or withhold any and all reports and work product. In the event GeoTek suspends performance and/or withholds reports
and work product pursuant to this provision, GeoTek shall not be in default of this Agreement and GeoTek shall have no liability to the Client. Client
agrees to make no claim against GeoTek for any delay or damage as a result of such suspension and/or withholding of reports and work product and
agrees to defend and indemnify GeoTek from and against any and all claims for damages including, without limitation, claims for delay, lost profit,
business interruption, consequential or any other damages resulting from the suspension of services and/or withholding of any report and work
product. Upon receipt of payment in full of all outstanding sums due from the Client, or curing of such other breach which caused GeoTek to suspend
Services and/or withhold reports and work product, GeoTek shall resume Services and/or provide Client with the applicable reports and work product
and there shall be an equitable adjustment to the remaining project schedule and fees as a result of the suspension.
16) MISCELLANEOUS.
All terms of this Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the law of the State in which the Services are provided. Diversity of the
parties shall not determine jurisdiction.
No provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted for or against any party because that party or its legal representative drafted the provision.
In the event that legal action is taken to enforce the terms of this agreement or resolve a dispute the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable
attorney's fees and costs incurred. Except as specifically provided herein, no addition(s) to or modification(s) of this Agreement shall be binding on
either party unless made in writing and executed by GeoTek and Client.
Failure by a party to exercise any right, remedy, or option in this Agreement or delay by a party in exercising the same will not operate as a waiver.
No waiver will be effective unless it is in writing.
By signing below, the parties accept the services outlined in the proposal, the rates indicated on any attached
fee schedule, and all the terms and conditions contained within each of the three (3) pages of this Agreement.
CLIENT'S Authorized Signature of Acceptance: GeoTek. Authorized Signature of Acceptance:
By: By:
Signature Signature
Title: Title:
Rev 1/06 Page 3 of 3
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
FOR
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
7331 LAS BRISAS COURT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RECETTRD
MAR O52OO
ENGINEERING
PREPARED FOR DEPARTMENT
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN TRUST
7331 LA BRISAS COURT
LA COSTA AREA, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009
PREPARED BY
GEOTEK, INC.
1384 POINSETTIA AVENUE, SUITE A
VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92081
PROJECT No.: 3281SD3 FEBRUARY 252008
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
GeoTek, Inc.
1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A,Vista, CA 92081-8505
760-599-0509 Office 760-599-0593 Fax www.geotekusa.com
February 25, 2008
Project No.: 3281 SD3
Frank and Joann Nolan Trust
7331 Las Brisas Court
Carlsbad, California 92009
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Residential Development
7331 Las Brisas Court
Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Frank and Joann Nolan:
As requested and authorized, GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek) has performed a preliminary
geotechnical evaluation for the proposed parcel map split and additional residential
development located at 7331 Las Brisas Court in the area of La Costa in the City of Carlsbad,
California. This report presents the results of our evaluation, a discussion of our findings,
and provides geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and construction. In our
opinion, the proposed development of the site appears to be feasible from a geotechnical
viewpoint, provided that the recommendations included herein are incorporated into the design
and construction phases of the project.
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please
do not hesitate to call our office.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoTek, Inc.
VESSI
No' 000285 ))g
OF C.td
*
A.
GE 285 Exp. 3/31/08
Senior Engineer
14-RD. 4/30/08
(5) Addressee
(1) PDF via email to Yvette Herman of bHa at yhermann@bhaincsd.com
(1) PDF via email to Eric Farmer of bHa at efarmer@bhaincsd.com
JD/TMIIg
G:\Projects\Projects 3000 to 3999\Projects 3250 to 3299\3281S133 Nolan Res_LaBrisas\3281_GeoRpt-JADtem.doc
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN TRUST Project No.: 3281SD3 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation February.25, 2008
Proposed Residential Development Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ........................................................................ . ................................. 1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 1
I 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..............................................................................................................................2
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ...........................................................................2
I 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION ......................................................................................................................................2
3.2 LABORATORY TESTING ...................................................................................................................................3
I 4.0 GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 3
4.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................................3
- 4. 1.1 Topsoil ..................................... . ............................................................................................................ 3
I 4.1.2 Residual Soil........................................................................................................................................3
4.2 SURFACE AND GROUND WATER.....................................................................................................................4
4.3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY............................................................................................................................4
I
4.4 FLOOD PLAIN REVIEW, TSUNAMIS, AND SEICHES ..........................................................................................5
4.5 OTHER GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS .....................................................................................................5
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 5
I 5.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................................
5.2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ..............................................................................................................................6
5.3 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS .....................................................................................................................6
5.3.1 Site Clearing ........................................................................................................................................ 6
5.3.2 Remedial Grading................................................................................................................................6
5.3.3 Remedial Grading - Paving/Hardscape Area.....................................................................................7
5.3.4 Fill and Backfill Soils (Import)............................................................................................................7 I 5.3.5 Excavation Characteristics..................................................................................................................8
S. 3.6 Soil Balancing ....................................................................................................................................... 8
5.4 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................................................9
I 5.4.1 Seismic Design Parameters ...............................................................................................................Jo
5.4.2 Foundation Set Backs ......................................................................... ............................................... 10
5.4.3 Slab-on-Grade ................................................................................................................................... JO
I 5.4.4 Subgrade Moisture.............................................................................................................................11
5.4.5 Soil Corrosivity..................................................................................................................................11
5.5 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION..........................................................................................................................12
5.5.1 General...............................................................................................................................................12 I 5.5.2 Cement Type.......................................................................................................................................12
5.5.3 Concrete Flalwork ................................................................................................................. .............. 12
5.6 SLOPE STABILITY .........................................................................................................................................12
5.7 I RETAINING WALLS .......................................................................................................................................13
5. 7. 1 General ............................................................................................................................................... 13
5.8 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................................14
I 5.8.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting ............................................................................................... 14
5.8.2 Drainage............................................................................................................................................14
5.9 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................15
6.0 INTENT I LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 16
7.0 SELECTED REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................17
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
Fi&riK AND JOAN NOLAN TRUST Project No.: 3281 SD3
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation February 25, 2008
Proposed Residential Development Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENCLOSURES
Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Site Plan— Preliminary Grading Plan - Geotechnical Map
Appendix A - Logs of Exploratory Trench
Appendix B - Results of Laboratory Testing
Appendix C - General Grading Guidelines for Earthwork Construction
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL j MATERIALS
FRANK AND JoANN NOLAN TRUST Project No.: 3281 SD3
Preliminary Geotecimical Evaluation February 25, 2008
I Proposed Residential Development Page 1
1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
I The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface and subsurface soil and geologic
conditions at the site and based on our analysis of data obtained, provide recommendations
for the development of Parcel 2 of the Tentative Parcel Map proposed. Tasks/services
I performed during the course of our geotechnical evaluation include the following:
I . Research and, 'review of available geologic data and general information pertinent to
the site.
I . Site exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of five
exploratory trenches.
I . Laboratory testing on representative samples collected during the field evaluation.
. Review and evaluation of site seismicity.
I . Geotechnical evaluation of field and laboratory data.
I
. Compilation of this geoteci-mical report which presents our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations for site development.
I 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
I The subject property is located at 7331 Las Brisas Court, Carlsbad, California, see Figure 1,
Vicinity Map. Legally described as Lot 389, Carlsbad Tract No. 72-20, Unit 3, Map No.7950,
APN 223-211-18. The property is bound by Lot 388 to the north, Lot 390 to the east, SDG&E
I easement to the south and Piragua Street to the west.
A single family residence occupies the eastern, 0.483 acres, portion of the 1.06 acre
I irregularly shaped lot, at an existing pad at elevation of approximately 435 feet msl. A 30 to
50 foot descending slope defines the western terminus of the developed portion of the
I property.
I GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANN NoLAN TRUST Project No.: 3281 SD3
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation February 25, 2008
Proposed Residential Development Page 2
2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
As proposed, site development includes splitting the lot into two (2) parcels. Parcel 1 consists
of the existing developed area as discussed above and Parcel 2 consisting of the western
approximately 0.580 acres of the lot, the subject of this study, see Figure 2, Site Plan.
I Review of a Tentative Parcel Map including preliminary grading plans prepared by bHa, Inc.,
indicates Parcel 2 will be graded to construct a two (2) level building pad. The upper pad is be
at elevation 407 and the lower pad at 403 feet mslrequiring cuts and fill placement of up to 8
I feet. A 5 foot high masonry retaining wall is planned along the northern/eastern perimeter of
the upper pad. A 3 to 6 foot high 2h: I cut slope to the top of this retaining wall is proposed.
I The lower pad is bounded by a 3 to. 11 foot high 2h:lv descending fill slope along the
northern and western sides. A 2 foot maximum height masonry retaining wall is proposed
along the southern alignment of a proposed concrete driveway from Piragua Street. An
I existing sewer line, running southeast to northwest through the proposed building site, is to be
abandoned and relocated.
I It is our understanding that a single family residence is planned on the upper pad and the
lower pad will be yard area. The locations of the proposed structure(s) or improvements
I within the limits of the upper pad are unknown at this time. It is anticipated that the residence
will be a 2-story wood frame structure founded on a shallow foundation system with slab on
grade floors.. The garage may be attached or a stand alone structure.
I
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
1 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
I Our field exploration, performed on January 29, 2008, consisted of excavating five (5)
exploratory trenches at the approximate locations as shown on Figure 2, Site Plan.
Exploratory trenches were excavated utilizing a rubber tired Case Super L backhoe equipped
I with a 24" wide bucket. Trench excavations were extended to depths ranging from 4 to 6 feet
below existing grades where practical refusal on bedrock was experienced. Locations of
I exploratory trenches were based on elements of proposed site development and equipment
accessibility considerations. A geologist from our firm visually examined, collected
representative samples of soils encountered and logged the excavations. Logs of exploratory
I trenches and additional information regarding field sampling and testing procedures are
included in Appendix A.
I
1 GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN TRUST Project No.: 3281 SD3
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation February 25, 2008
I Proposed Residential Development Page 3
3.2 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed on selected representative samples of the prevailing soils
I encountered during our field exploration. The purpose of laboratory testing was to confirm
field classification of the soil materials and to evaluate physical properties of the soils
I
encountered for use in the engineering design and analysis. Results of the laboratory testing.
program along with a brief description and relevant information regarding testing procedures
I
are included in Appendix B.
4.0 GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS
I
I
4.1 GENERAL
A brief description of the earth materials encountered is presented in the following sections.
More detailed descriptions of these materials are provided on the exploratory excavation logs
I included in Appendix A. Based on our review of published geologic maps and confirmed by
our field exploration, the site is mantled by topsoil and residual soils which are in turn
I underlain to the depth explored by weathered Jurassic Undifferentiated Santiago Peak
Volcanics. Scattered piles of soil and debris were encountered along the western property line
and near the center of the lot, and may be spoils associated with grading of the dirt access
I road through the property to SDG&E's easement south of the property.
I
4.1.1 Topsoil
A thin layer, up to 1.5 feet, of topsoil was encountered in our exploratory excavations. Topsoil
I was found to consist of reddish brown, moist to wet, loose clayey fine sands to sandy clays.
These soils possess moderate to high expansion characteristics and will require migration
I
.during site grading.
4.1.2 Residual Soil
I A layer of residual soil was encountered in exploratory trenches 1-4 underlying the topsoil
layer and extending to a maximum depth of 3.5 feet below existing site grade at exploratory
I . trench 3. These materials were generally found to consist of red-brown, moist to saturated
silty clay and clayey sand with scattered roots and angular rock. Expansion Index (El) testing
was performed on a representative sample of the residual soils,[Thdicating a very high]
I rexpansion potential (EI>13O) with a plastic limit of 40 (test results are included in Appendix
B). As with site topsoil, residual soils will require mitigation during site grading.
I
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND J0ANN NoLAN TRUST Project No.: 3281 SD3
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation February 25, 2008
I Proposed Residential Development Page 4
4.1.3 Santiago Peak Volcanics
Jurassic-aged metavolcanic bedrock underlies the site. The Santiago Peak Volcanics are
classified as completely to slightly weathered, with some fracturing and jointing in a
northwest and northeast trends within the depth excavated (maximum of 6 feet). Fractures
I were found to be weathered to varying degrees. Metavolcanic rocks breaks down to red-
brown to yellow-brown silty highly expansive clay extending to 5 feet below existing site
grades. Partially exposed boulders with encountered in trench sidewalls and bottoms and
I should be anticipated throughout site grading operations.
1 4.2 SURFACE AND GROUND WATER
No surface water flow or ponding was observed at the site at time of the field exploration.
I The site drainage should be reviewed and designed by the project civil engineer. Positive site
drainage will be imperative in site development with expansive site soils.
Groundwater was not encountered in any of our exploratory excavations. Seepage of runoff
water was noted within the sidewalls of the trenches due to an exceptional wet weather
I during our evaluation. No natural groundwater condition is known to be present which would
impact site development. However, changes in groundwater or localized seepage conditions
I can occur due to variations in rainfall, irrigation practices, and other factors not evident at the
time of this evaluation.
I 4.3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
' The site is situated within Seismic Zone 4 (as designated by California Building Code). No
active or potentially active fault is known to exist. at this site, or were there indications of
I
active faulting observed during our subsurface exploration at the site.
The computer program EQFAULT (Blake, 2000a) was used to approximate the distance to
I known late Quaternary faults. The Rose Canyon Fault, located approximately 7.3 miles west
of the site, is considered to represent the highest risk to generate ground shaking.
I Seismically resistant structural design in accordance with local building ordinances should be
followed during the design of all structures. The California Building Code (CBC) has been
I developed to reduce the potential for structural damage. However, some level of damage as
the result of ground shaking generated by nearby earthquakes is considered likely in this
general area.
I
1 GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK itlNl) JoArm NOLAN TRUST Project No.: 3281 SD3
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation February 25, 2008
I Proposed Residential Development Page 5
I 4.4 FLOOD PLAIN REVIEW, TSUNAMIS, AND SEIcms
We have reviewed flood plain maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
I (FEMA) and provided by the SanGIS regional geographic database at http://www.sangis.org.
The Flood Zone data became effective June 19, 1997, and applies to cities in San Diego
I
County as well as unincorporated areas According to SanGis FEMA Map Panel 1053F of
2375, the proposed development will be located within 'Other', which is area determined
I
outside 500-year flood zone.
Given the distance between the subject site and the coast, and the site's elevation of
approximately 390 to 415 feet msl, damage due to tsunamis is considered negligible. There
I does not appear to be any open or confined bodies of water up-gradient from the site.
Therefore, the possibility of earthquke-induced flooding due to seiches is considered
I negligible.
4.5 OTHER GEOTECIINICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Liquefaction potential is considered to be low due to the relatively dense nature of the
I bedrock.
Dynamic settlement is not expected to be a concern due to the relatively dense nature
I of the underlying bedrock and prevailing soils conditions.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I 5.1 GENERAL
I Development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint provided
that the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into project design and
construction. Existing near surface soils and the upper weathered zone of the Santiago Peak
Volcanics were found to possess high to very high expansion potential and will require
mitigation during grading operation as discussed below. Although, no structures or
I
improvement are presently proposed for the lower building pad, we are assuming future
construction may occur. As such, the term "building pad" as used in the following sections
I
shall be inclusive of both the proposed upper and lower pads.
The expansive soils are problematic with respect to foundation design and other
improvements. They also tend to be less desirable for slope construction. The currently
I GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN TRUST Project No.: 3281 SD3
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation February 25, 2008
I Proposed Residential Development Page 6
I proposed As proposed there is approximately 250 cubic yards of cut excavation and 650 cy
of fill needed thus requiring about 400 cy of import material for site balancing.. Removal of
the topsoil and residual soil may generate approximately 2500 cy of the highly expansive
I material.
I 5.2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
I
Fill slopes constructed of the onsite clay materials should not exceed 5 feet in height or they
should be designed at gradients of 2'/2 (h) to 1 (v) or flatter.
I The cut slope at the south side of the building pad should be at gradients of 2'/2 (h) to 1 (v) or
flatter.
5.3 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS
I Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the appropriate grading
ordinances of the City of Carlsbad and recommendations presented hereinafter. The Grading
I
Guidelines included in Appendix C outline general procedures and do not anticipate all site-
specific situations and have been included to supplement recommendation of this report. In
the event of conflict, recommendations presented in the text of this report shall supersede
I those contained in Appendix C.
5.3.1 Site Clearing
— In all areas of planned grading and/or improvements, the site should be cleared of
vegetation, roots and debris, and properly/legally disposed of offsite. Any
I cavities/holes resulting from site clearing attributed to removal of trees or demolition
of the existing structures and/or improvements should be filled with properly
compacted earth materials.
I
5.3.2 Remedial Grading
Existing topsoil, residual soils and near surface highly weathered Santiago Peak
I
Volcanics possess high to very high expansion potential detrimental to support of
proposed structures and improvement. Where not removed by proposed grading, these
materials should be completely removed and replaced with select materials. Based on
I results of our subsurface exploration, we estimate the approximate depth of removal
to range from 4 to 5 feet below existing site grades.
I
1 GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
I Fiwx tri JoAx'N NOLAN TRUST Project No.: 3281 SD3
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation February 25, 2008
I Proposed Residential Development Page 7
These expansive materials should be disposed of off-site or may be re-used as fill soil
I
within site areas provided they are not placed within 10 feet horizontally of slope
faces exceeding gradients of 21/2 (h) to 1 (v).and no higher than five (5) feet below
I
finished pad grades.
As an alternative, if blended with less expansive materials to reduce the El to <91,
I materials may then be placed as fill soils to a maximum elevation 3 feet from finish
grade.
I Following removal of the nears surface expansive soils and/or soils and rock to depths
required to allow for construction of a minimum 5 foot thick select material cap,
I which ever is deeper, the bottom of the resulting excavation(s) should be observed by
a representative of GeoTek to check that the highly expansive materials have been
I
adequately removed. It should be understood that localized deeper removals may be
needed based on observations of our field representative.
I Excavation bottoms should be scarified a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture
conditioned to optimum moisture or slightly above and recompacted to a minimum of
I
90 percent relative compaction as determined in accordance with laboratory test
method ASTM D1557 (latest edition) prior to the placement of fill. Overexcavated
areas should then be filled with suitable import (EI<50) materials in accordance with
I Appendix C until design finish grades are reached. Remedial earthwork should extend
laterally from the outside edge of the proposed fill areas to a minimum distance of
- five (5) feet..
5.3.3 Remedial Grading - PavinglHardscape Area
Remedial grading as discussed above shall be performed to provide a minimum three
(3) foot thick uniformly compacted select fill mat for support of paving and hardscape.
Remedial grading should extend a minimum of three feet beyond the outside edge of
paving and hardscape.
5.3.4 Fill and Backfill Soils (Import)
All fill soils within the upper five feet of finished building pads, the upper three feet
I below pavements and hardscape areas and retaining wall backfill shall be granular
with a maximum EI<50 and approved by GeoTek, Inc. prior to delivery to the site.
I
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANN NoLAN TRUST Project No.: 3281 SD3
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation February 25, 2008
I Proposed Residential Development Page 8
I All fill soils and backfill materials shall be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8
inches in loose thickness, moisture conditioned to optimum moisture or slightly above
and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined in
I accordance with laboratory test method ASTM D 15 57 (latest edition).
I
5.3.5 Excavation Characteristics
Practical refusal of exploratory trenching equipment was experienced at depths
I ranging from 4 to 6 feet below existing grades in metavolcanic bedrock and/or
boulders. As such, it is our opinion, near surface soils and highly weather bedrock
should be rippable with conventional earthmoving equipment in good operating
I condition. Deeper excavations within the underlying metavolcanic rock are likely to
encounter harder, less weathered zones requiring heavy-duty grading equipment and
are likely to generate large size boulders/rocks.
All temporary excavations for grading purposes and installation of underground
I utilities should be constructed in accordance with OSHA guidelines. Temporary
excavations within the bedrock material should be stable at 1:1 inclinations for cuts
I
less than 10 feet in height.
5.3.6 Soil Balancing
I Several factors will impact earthwork balancing on the site, including shrinkage,
bulking, subsidence, trench spoils from utilities and footing excavations, amount of
1 oversized material, and final pavement section thickness as well as the accuracy of
topography.
I Shrinkage, bulking and subsidence are primarily dependent upon the relationship of
in-situ density verses compactive effort achieved during construction. For preliminary
I planning purposes, a shrinkage factor of 10 to 15 percent may be applied for the soil
materials and a hulking factor of 5 to 10 percent may be assumed for bedrock
'
materials,
The above estimates are intended as an aid for project engineers in determining
I earthwork quantities. It is recommended that site development be planned to include
an area that could be raised or lowered to accommodate final site balancing.
I GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOAINNOLANTRUST Project No.: 3281SD3
Preliminary Geotecimical Evaluation February 25, 2008
I Proposed Residential Development Page 9
5.4 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Design recommendations for conventional shallow foundation system presented herein
I assume remedial and site grading has been performed in accordance with the
recommendations of this report. Design recommendations assume bearing materials will
consist of select engineered fill soils (import) with a maximum expansion potential (EI<50).
The proposed residential structure may be supported on conventional continuous and isolated
I spread footings bearing on properly compacted engineered fill. Foundations supporting the
proposed two story structures should be constructed with an embedment of at least 18 inches
below adjacent finish grade. Continuous strip footings should have a minimum width of 15
I inches and isolated spread (column) footings should have minimum dimensions of 24" x 24".
Continuous footings supporting single-story structures should have minimum width and
I embedment of 12 inches and 15 inches, respectively.
Footings with the above minimum dimensions may be designed for an allowable soil bearing
I value of 3,000 psf. when considering dead plus live loads. This value may be increased by
one-third for loads of short duration, such as wind and seismic forces.
Minimum reinforcement should consist of two No. 4 rebars, one top and one bottom for strip
footing and four No. 4 rebars 12 inch on center in two directions for spread footings, based on
I geotechnical considerations. Actual foundation reinforcement should be determined by the
project Structural Engineer based on calculated loading conditions
I The passive soil resistance against foundations poured neat in engineered fills and or properly
compacted backfill may be computed as an equivalent fluid pressure having a density of 250
1 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 3,500 psf. A coefficient of friction of
0.35 between soil and concrete of may be used with dead load forces against sliding. When
I
combining passive pressure and frictional sliding resistance, the passive pressure component
should be reduced by one-third.
I In order to help reduce the potential for misalignment of proposed garage door openings, we
recommend that foundations be continuous across the garage door opening.
Based on the above design recommendations and site preparation as discussed in section 5.2,
the total settlement is expected to be less than 1 inch based on the proposed loading
conditions. It is anticipated that the majority of the settlement will occur during construction.
Differential settlement is expected to be less than one-half of the total settlement.
1 GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JoANN NOLAN TRUST Project No.: 3281 SD3
I
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation February 25, 2008
Proposed Residential Development Page 10
I 5.4.1 Seismic Design Parameters
The site is located at approximately 3 3.0888 Latitude and 117.2353 Longitude. Site
I spectral accelerations (Ss and Si), for 0.2 and 1.0 second periods and 2 percent
probability of exceedance in 50 years (MCE) for a Class "B" site, was determined
' from the USGS Website, Earthquake Hazards Program, Interpolated Probabilistic
Ground Motion for the Conterminous 48 States by Latitude/Longitude, 2002 Data.
The results are presented in the following table:•
SITE SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 1.113g
Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Si 0.419g
Site Coefficient for Site Class "B", Fa 1.0
Site Coefficient for Site Class "B", Fv 1.0
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral
Response Acceleration Parameter at 0.2 Second, 1.113g
SMS I
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral
Response Acceleration Parameter at 1 second, 0.419g
SM1
Design Spectral Response Acceleration 0.742g . g Parameter for 0.2 Second, SDs
Design Spectral Response Acceleration 0.279g g Parameter for 1.0 Second, SDI
.
5.4.2 Foundation Set Backs
Where applicable, the following setbacks should apply to all foundations. Any
I improvements not conforming to these setbacks may be subject to excessive lateral
movements and/or differential settlements:
I . The bottom of all footings for structures near retaining walls and/or lower
level subterranean structures should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1
projection upward from the bottom inside edge of the wall stem.
. The bottom of any adjacent existing foundations for structures should be
deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom of
I the nearest excavation.
5.4.3 Slab-on-Grade
I Interior building slabs should be designed by the project structural engineer for the
anticipated loading and should conform to the requirements of the 2007 CBC and with
I
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANIN NOLAN TRUST Project No.: 3281 SD3
I
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation February 25, 2008
Proposed Residential Development Page 11
I recommendations contained in current ACT Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab
Construction (ACI 302.1R-04). We recommend building slabs be a minimum of 5
inches in thickness and be reinforced based on a geotechnical standpoint with at No. 4
I bars spaced 18 inches on center, each way. Slab reinforcing should be designed by the
project Structural Engineer based on calculated loading conditions.
To decrease the likelihood of problems related to damp slabs, suitable moisture
protection measures should be used where moisture sensitive floor coverings or other
I factors warrant.
I A commonly used moisture protection in southern California consists of placing ±2
inches of clean sand (SE> 30) on properly prepared subgrade soils covered by at least
10 mil plastic sheeting, with 2 inches of clean sand placed over the plastic to aid in
I curing of the concrete floor slab. If this method is used, then it should be noted that
moisture migration levels through a concrete floor slab are still possible and may be
' excessive for some applications, particularly for sheet vinyl, wood flooring, vinyl tiles,
or carpeting with impermeable backing that use water soluble adhesives.
5.4.4 Subgrade Moisture
The subgrade should be properly moisture conditioned prior to placing concrete. The
moisture content of subgrade soils should be at least optimum moisture to a minimum
depth of 12 inches below finish pad grade for the anticipated as graded select fill soils.
Our representative should check moisture content prior to placing the vapor retarding
barrier and reinforcing steel. If the subgrade is not reasonably sealed within 24 hours
by placing the vapor barrier or concrete., or the. concrete is not poured within 96 hours
of testing, the moisture tests should be considered invalid unless evaluated otherwise
by this office. The foundation contractor should be responsible to request additional
verification/testing
5.4.5 Soil Corrosivity
The soil pH and resistivity of imported fill should be checked as part of the evaluation
of the materials prior to delivery relative to corrosive conditions to buried metallic
elements. Based on test results, a corrosion engineer may need to be consulted to
provide recommendations for proper protection of buried metal pipes at this site.
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOAINNOLANTRUST Project No.: 3281SD3
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation February 25, 2008
Proposed Residential Development Page 12
5.5 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
5.5.1 General
Concrete construction should follow the 2007 CBC and ACT guidelines regarding
design, placement and curing of the concrete. If desired, we could provide quality
control testing of the concrete during construction.
5.5.2 Cement Type
Soluble sulfate and chloride content of imported fill should be checked as part of the
evaluation of the materials prior to delivery. It is recommended that fill soils possess a
water soluble sulfate content of less than 0.10 percent by weight, which is considered
negligible as per Table 19-A-4 of the 2007 CBC. The structural engineer should
evaluate the laboratory test results in conjunction with the 2007 CBC to specify a
suitable cement type.
5.5.3 Concrete Flatwork
Exterior concrete flatwork (patios, walkways, driveways, etc.) is often some of the
I most visible aspects of site development. They are typically given the least level of
quality control, being considered "non-structural" components. Cracking of these
features is fairly common due to various factors. While cracking is not usually
I detrimental, it is unsightly. We suggest that the same standards of care be applied to
these features as to the structure itself.
One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened joints for
cracking to occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply
I provide a relief point for stresses that develop. These joints are widely accepted
means to control cracks but are not always effective. However, control joints are more
I effective, the more closely spaced they are. Control joints should be provided in
accordance with ACT Guidelines.
5.6 SLOPE STABILITY
I If native soils are used to construct slopes it is recommended that slope be designed at 2.5h to
lv or flatter. If select materials are used then proposed 2h: lv fill slopes constructed with
select engineered fill soils in accordance with the grading requirements presented in this
I report will have calculated factors of safety in excess of 1.5 for maximum slope heights up to
15 feet.
I
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JoA.rr' NOLAN TRUST Project No.: 3281 SD3
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation February 25, 2008
Proposed Residential Development Page 13
It is our opinion that shallow fill slope stability will possess a factor of safety of at least 1.50
for slopes constructed of select materials in accordance with grading recommendation
presented herein.
5.7 RETAINING WALLS
I
I
I
I
I
5.7.1 General
Recommendations presented herein may apply to typical masonry or concrete vertical
retaining walls as shown on the plan. Additional review and recommendations should
be requested for other or higher walls.
Assuming site preparation has been performed in accordance with recommendations
presented herein, foundations supporting retaining walls embedded a minimum of 12
inches into engineered fill materials may be designed using an allowable bearing
capacity of 3,500 psf. An increase of one-third may be applied when considering
short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). The passive earth pressure may be
computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 psf per foot of depth, to a
maximum earth pressure of 3,500 psf. A coefficient of friction between soil and
concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive
pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced
by one-third.
An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal active
pressure against the wall. The appropriate fluid unit weights are given in the table
below for specific slope gradients of retained materials. These may be applied to
walls up to 3 feet high and to the planned 5 feet high wall on the upper pad as bedrock
should be exposed in the wall cut. Additional recommendations may be warranted for
any other walls.
ACTiVE EARTH PRESSURES
Surface Slope of Retained Materials
(H:V)
Equivalent Fluid Pressure
(PCF)
Level 35
2:1 55
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
I
I
I
I
I
FRANK ANDJOANT'NOLANTRUST Project No.: 3281SD3
Preliminary Geotecimical Evaluation February 25, 2008 I Proposed Residential Development Page 14
The above equivalent fluid weights do not include other superimposed loading
conditions such as expansive soil, vehicular traffic, structures, seismic conditions or
adverse geologic conditions. ' Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain
system to prevent build up of hydrostatic pressures. Back drains should consist of a 4-
inch diameter perforated collector pipe (Schedule 40) embedded in a minimum of one
cubic foot per lineal foot of 3/8 to one inch clean crushed rock or equivalent, which
should be wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent). The drain I system should be connected to a suitable outlet. A minimuth of two outlets should be
provided for each drain section (maximum section length of 200 feet).
Walls from 2 to 4 feet in height may be drained using localized gravel packs (e.g.
approximately 1.5 cubic feet of gravel in a woven plastic bag) behind weep holes at
10 feet maximum horizontal spacing. Weep holes should be provided or the head
joints omitted in the first course of block extended above the ground surface.
However, nuisance water may still collect in front of wall.
5.8 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
5.8.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting
Overwatering should be avoided. The soils should be maintained in a solid to semi-
solid state as defined by the materials Atterberg Limits. Care should be taken when
adding soil amendments to avoid excessive watering. Leaching as a method of soil
preparation prior to planting is not recommended.
It is common for planting to be placed adjacent to structures in planter or lawn areas.
This will result in the introduction of water into the ground adjacent to the foundation.
This type of landscaping should be avoided. If used, then extreme care should be
exercised with regard to the irrigation and drainage in these areas. Waterproofing of
the foundation and/or subdrains may be warranted and advisable. We could discuss
these issues, if desired, when plans are made available.
5.8.2 Drainage
The need to maintain proper surface drainage and subsurface systems cannot be
overly emphasized. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN TRUST Project No.: 3281 SD3
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation February 25, 2008
Proposed Residential Development Page 15
I should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond or seep into the
ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward approved area(s).
I 5.9 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
I We recommend that site grading, specifications, and foundation plans be reviewed by this
office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this
report. We also recommend that GeoTek representatives be present during site grading and
I foundation construction to check for proper implementation of the geotechnical
recommendations. These representatives should perform at least the following duties:
Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of unsuitable
materials.
Observe and/or test bottom of removals prior to fill placement.
I . Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement, and collect
soil samples for laboratory testing where necessary.
I . Observe the fill for uniformity during placement including utility trenches. Provide
field density tests to assess relative compaction.
I . Observe and probe foundation materials to check suitability of bearing materials and
proper footing dimensions.
I . Observe wall backfill operations.
Following observation of site construction we could provide a report summarizing
I observation and testing results intended to comply with requirements of the governmental
agencies having jurisdiction. We recommend that these agencies be notified prior to
commencement of construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained.
I
I
I
I
I GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
Project No.: 3281SD3
Preliminary Geotechriical Evaluation February 25, 2008
Proposed Residential Development Page 16
I 6.0 INTENT / LIMITATIONS
I It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and construction of the proposed
development. Implementation of the advice presented in this report is intended to reduce risk
associated with construction of the projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical
I advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of the project or
guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after
I construction.
The scope of our evaluation is limited to the area explored, which is shown on Figure 2 - Site
I Plan. This evaluation does not and should in no way be construed to encompass any areas
beyond the specific area of the proposed construction as indicated to us by the client. Further,
I no evaluation of any existing site improvements is included. The scope is based on our
understanding of the project and the client's needs, and geotechnical engineering standards
normally used on similar projects in this region.
The materials observed on the project site appear to be representative of the area; however,
soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or
conditions exposed during site construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal
changes or other factors. GeoTek, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing
or recommendations performed or provided by others.
Since our recommendations are based the site conditions observed and encountered, and
laboratory testing, our conclusion and recommendations are professional opinions that are
limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to
allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been
derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or
implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time.
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN TRUST Project No.: 3281 SD3
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation February 25, 2008
Proposed Residential Development Page 17
7.0 SELECTED REFERENCES
ASTM, 2000, "Soil and Rock: American Society for Testing and Materials," vol. 4.08 for ASTM test methods D-420 to D-
4914, 153 standards, 1,026 pages; and vol. 4.09 for ASTM test method D-4943 to highest number.
Blake, 1., 2000a, "EQFAULT, version 3.00," a Computer Program for Deterministic Estimation of Maximum Earthquake
Event and Peak Ground Acceleration.
Blake, T., 2000, "FRJSKSP, version 4.00," a Computer Program for Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and
Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources.
Bowles, J., 1982, "Foundation Analysis and Design," McGraw-Hill, Third Edition,
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2001 "California Building code," 3 volumes.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in
California," Special Publication 117.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California
and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: International Conference of Building Officials.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1996, Open-File Report 96-02, Geologic Map of the Northwestern Part
of Sand Diego County, Oceanside, San Luis Rey, and San Marcos 7.5 Quadrangles
Geolek, Inc., In-house proprietary information.
Ishihara, K., 1985, "Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes," Proceedings of the Eleventh International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, CA, Volume 1.
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, TM., 1982, "Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes," Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute.
US Army Corps of Engineers, No. 9, "Settlement Analysis," Technical Guidelines, ASCE Press, 1994
USGS Website, Earthquake Hazards Program, Interpolated Probabilistic Ground Motion for the Conterminous 48 States by
Latitude/Longitude, 2002 Data.
Youd, T. Leslie and Idriss, Izzmat M., 1997, Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance
of Soils, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022.
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
y --:• ':'• - . :•
MAL --
-:
!.-).. '.:i•.• •.. fr:)•.
..... -.-...'..J :
d . Approximate
Site
. ',-.
.-. . •. , !_oC3tcufl .*.
!I....,
.. ..
3%,
".4 - .
'a
--
.-
1-. — --
-
4L : P :' 'b - .• . -.
:I ¶? r
..I4
Or ; i. b. •. . • t .. . -,
Source: Goode Earth.
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN TRUST N
7331 La Brisas Court Site
Figure 1 Proposed Residential Development
La Costa Area, Carlsbad, California Vicinity
Map 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A
PN: 3281SD3 II February 2008 Vista, California 92081-8505
rl)
0
--I
0
-
0
N)
Santiago Peak Volcanics
o — '- —
—
—.— .-
-
-
ci)
- rS1 .
c
C.)
—
C
— o - Cd C)
C ~jr •) -
C
0
CT
m - ri 0 cq
UO
29
WE
:
\\%[
°11 ) \\
:
•i
1u
N. Y-10 ED
/
:JL
p, perm-t4
_-'_,,/
-- - -'-- ,/ ,
.-, -------.i ' Lt..j kZI - - 7 k7L_1 /
tr
/ T----c ---7--' /
<-7K
RZ
ZcL- - ---- -------.-
\-----:--- - ''
— ----:: -— —:
, 21\1
---- '
L
— - - — - •/-_)
- '---
- I —
- -. .-I_.'..... . '- ..
. '? -• -
/
)
: ----- —---- -
—
—-----'— —
:1i IJLL4 V" L "k/ S S S s~
-
.- '. --. .. •1 •-- I
,* ., •-. /1 -------
1/
I- -1:
\ç2 •• JL*4o_L\ -,'
>• 'c; .W .. •---.— I
-I- .& .p•.• •: •• -.------.-. LW -.
Qk
--
I - - - - 1-
Li ----.
-
I .....
.1 --
----
-
--
-
-
. y_ •:LQAllI •_
7/
- -•. ---•-•------.-- •.. --' •---- - . .•.- 4_'_' . - - .----.
---_. o—i - • .
Li
S.-' •.•
—-
----s I •... _.- . I
—
- .-.- -.
'I
—a-----
APPENDIX A
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY TRENCHES
(Trenches T-1 to T-5)
Proposed Residential Development
Carlsbad, California
Project No.: 32815D3
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
Fiw'x AND JOAN NOLAN TRUST APPENDIX A
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation February 25, 2008
Proposed Residential Development Page A-i
LEGEND TO FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING
A - FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
The SPT is performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1586. The SPT sampler is typically
driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30
inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring.
The split-barrel sampler has an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 1-3/8
inches. The samples of earth materials collected in the sampler are typically classified in the field,
bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for further testing.
Modified Split-Barrel Sampler (Ring)
The Ring sampler is driven into the ground in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3550. The
sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside
diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sampler is -typically driven into the ground 12 or 18
inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded
for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The samples are removed from the
sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.
Large Bulk Samples
I These samples are normally over 20 pounds in weight, of earth materials collected from the field by
means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings.
I
Small Bulk Samples
These samples are normally less than 5 pounds in weight of earth materials collected from the field by
means of the split spoon sampler, hand digging or exploratory cuttings and placed in moisture
resistant containers. These samples are primarily used for determining natural moisture content and
I classification indices.
I B - BORING LOG LEGEND
The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and
rock on the logs of borings:
I SOILS
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
f-c Fine to coarse
I f-rn Fine to medium
GEOLOGIC
Attitudes Bedding: strike/dip
I J: Attitudes Joint: strike/dip
Contact line
Dashed line denotes USCS material change
Solid Line denotes unit / formational change
Thick solid line denotes end of boring
(Additional denotations and symbols are provided on the logs of borings)
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
PROJECT NO.: 3281-SD3 LOGGED BY: LG
PROJECT NAME: Las Brisas/Nolan Residence EQUIPMENT: 580 Case Super L
CLIENT: Nolan Trust DATE: 1/29/2008
LOCATION: See Site Plan ELEVATION: - ± 414 feet
- SAMPLES - Laboratory Testing
0 -
TRENCH NO.: T-1
EE
(I) 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
-
0)
SC Topsoil
'., Red-brown, moist to wet, loose, clayey fine to medium SAND with rock Ti-i
Residual Soil
X CH Red-brown, moist to wet, soft silty CLAY with sand & rock fragments;
T1-2 -. cobble & boulder size - angular
- El, AL, SA
Santiago Peak Volcanics
CH Highly weathered; breaks into yellow, wet, soft, silty CLAY; with rock
fragments
>< T1-3 Highly to moderately weathered; Some fracturing; Blocky; angular -
cobble & boulder size; water seepage along fractures; fractures
northwest; fractures filled with Clay
Moderately weathered; less fractured rock at bottom of trench
- -
-TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET-
.trending
No groundwater encountered
Trench backfilled with excavation spoils'
Practical refusal on metamorphic rock
10
15
1Sample Type: Small Plastic Bag --- Chunk Sample '--- Large Bulk Sample ZZ7 ---Water Table
CD Laboratory Testing: AL = Atterberg Limits El = Expansion index MD = Maximum Density SA = Sieve Analysis LU SR = Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH = Shear Testing RV = R-Value Test CO = Consolidation
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
PROJECT NO.: 3281-SD3 LOGGED BY: LG
PROJECT NAME: Las Brisas/Nolan Residence EQUIPMENT: 580 Case Super L
CLIENT: Nolan Trust DATE: 1/29/2008
LOCATION: See Site Plan ELEVATION: ± 408 feet
• SAMPLES - 0
Laboratory Testing
TRENCH NO.: T-2
0 CL
0 E (OZ
__________________________________ a 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Topsoil
T2-1 SC Red-brown, moist to wet, loose, clayey fine to medium SAND with
rock; roothairs
• T2-2 Residual Soil
CH Red-brown, wet, soft silty CLAY; root hairs; gravel
)< T2-3 Santiago Peak Volcanics
CL-CH Highly weathered; breaks into yellow, moist, silty CLAY and clayey
T2-4 GRAVEL
Moderately to slightly weathered; breaks into cobble size angular
rock; some fracturing
- -
-TRENCH TERMINATED AT 5 FEET-
No groundwater encountered
Trench backfilled with excavation spoils'
Practical refusal on metamorphic rock
10
15
Sample Type: EL--Small Plastic Bag --- Chunk Sample '--- Large Bulk Sample ---Water Table
Laboratory Testing: AL = Atterberg Limits El = Expansion Index MD = Maximum Density SA = Sieve Analysis
LLI SR = Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH = Shear Testing RV R-Value Test CO Consolidation
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
PROJECT NO.:
PROJECT NAME:
CLIENT:
LOCATION:
328 1-SD3
Las Brisas/Nolan Residence
Nolan Trust
See Site Plan
LOGGED BY: LG
EQUIPMENT: Case Super L
DATE: 1/29/2008
ELEVATION: ± 406 feet
- SAMPLES -
Laboratory Testing
0
TRENCH NO.: T-3
- .5 EE (0 0 CL -C
0 E (5 (')Z 0 (0 ---- -
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
-
(0
13-1 Topsoil
T3-2 SC Grey-brown, moist to wet, clayey fine to medium SAND with root v
hairs & rock
T3-3 Residual Soil
SM-ML Red-brown, moist, stiff, sandy SILT to silty SAND with clay and gravel
T3-4 CL Red-brown, moist, stiff, sandy CLAY with gravel and boulder size =
rocks
Santiago-Peak Volcanics
-
Moderately weathered; breaks into highly fractured rock; angular
- -
5-
-TRENCH TERMINATED AT 4 FEET-
No groundwater encountered
Trench backfilled with excavation spoils
Practical refusal on metamorphic rock
10
15
1Sample Type: EL-- Small Plastic Bag --- Chunk Sample '--- Large Bulk Sample :. ---Water Table
0 Laboratory Testing: AL = Atterberg Limits El = Expansion Index MD = Maximum Density SA = Sieve Analysis
i SR = Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH = Shear Testing RV = R-value Test CO = Consolidation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
LOGGED BY: LG
EQUIPMENT: 580 Case Super L
DATE: 1/29/2008
ELEVATION: - ± 400 feet
- SAMPLES - 0
Laboratory
--
Testing
L .0
TRENCH NO.: T-4
EE WQ .0
O .
-
co
co __________________________________ 0
5
MATERIALDESCRIPTIONANDCOMMENTS
-
Topsoil
• T4-1 CH Brown,wet,soft,sandyCLAYwithangularrock -
ResidualSoil
CH Red-brown, wet, soft sandy CLAY with gravel
Santiago Peak Volcanics
Highly weathered; fractured; Iron staining; breaks into yellow sandy
T4-2 clayey GRAVEL; trench belling due to boulder size rock
- ______ _____
Slightlyweatheredrock;notfractured - -
- -TRENCH TERMINATED AT 5 FEET-
No groundwater encountered
Trench backfilled with excavation spoils
-
Practical refusal on metamorphic rock
10
15
Sample Type: _El---_ Small Plastic Bag _--- ChunkSample _'--- Large Bulk Sample .--- Water Table
LU
CD LaboratoryTesting: AL = Atterberg Limits El = Expansion Index MID = Maximum Density SA = Sieve Analysis
SR = Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH = Shear Testing RV = R-Value Test CO = Consolidation
PROJECT NO.: 328 1-SD3
PROJECT NAME: Las Brisas/Nolan Residence
CLIENT: Nolan Trust
LOCATION: See Site Plan
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
PROJECT NO.:
PROJECT NAME
CLIENT:
LOCATION:
328 1-SD3
Las Brisas/Nolan Residence
Nolan Trust
See Site Plan
LOGGED BY: LG
EQUIPMENT: Case Super L
DATE: 1/29/2008
ELEVATION: ± 398 feet
— SAMPLES - Laboratory
--
Testing
0
"a>
TRENCH NO.: T-5
— I- o. EE °)
o-
CL -c
0 E Ca
(OZ 0 U)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Topsoil
CH Yellow-brown, wet to saturated, soft sandy CLAY
T5-1 Santiago Peak Volcanics
• SC Completely weathered; breaks into yellow, dry to moist, fine to coarse
T5-2 SAND with rock V
• boulders: 26"x12'x9"
Highly weathered; less fractured
-TRENCH TERMINATED AT 4 FEET-
5, No groundwater encountered
Trench backfilled with excavation spoils
Practical refusal on metamorphic rock
10
15
Sample Type: LI--- Small Plastic Bag --- Chunk Sample '--- Large Bulk Sample ---Water Table
0 Laboratory Testing: AL = Atterberg Limits El = Expansion Index MD = Maximum Density SA = Sieve Analysis
SR = Sulfate/Resistivity Test SR = Shear Testing RV = R-Value Test CO = Consolidation
APPENDIX B
RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING
Proposed Residential Development
Carlsbad, California
Project No.: 3281SD3
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN TRUST APPENDIX B
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation February 25, 2008
I Proposed Residential Development Page B-i
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
I Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM
Test Method D2487). Soil classifications are shown on the logs of exploratory borings in
Appendix A.
I Grain size distribution (particle size analysis) was performed on selected samples in general
accordance with ASTM D422. Results of the grain size analysis are included herein (see
I it 1ethd1D47 AS &l classifications are shown on the logs of exploratory borings in
Appendix A.
I
Atterberg Limits
Liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index were determined in general accordance with
ASTM Test Method D4318. Results are shown on the logs of exploratory trenches in
I
Appendix A
Sulfate Content
Analysis to determine the water-soluble sulfate content was in general accordance with
I California Test No. 417. Results of the testing are included herein.
I pH and Resistivity
To assess the potential for reactivity with buried metal pipe and below grade ferrous
materials, selected soil samples were tested for pH and resistivity in general accordance with
I the laboratory procedures outlined in Caltrans test method 643. The tests results are included
herein.
I Chloride
Water soluble chloride testing was performed on a representative near-surface sample.
Chloride content was estimated in general accordance with the Ca•itans Test MethOd 422.
I Results of the testing indicated water soluble chloride content of less than 0.01 percent by
weight.
I Expansion Index
Expansion Index testing was performed on a representative near-surface samples. Testing was
I
performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829. The results indicate an
Expansion Index El =166 for the soils tested. This is considered a very high potential for
expansion in accordance with Table 18-I-B of the 2007 CBC.
Moisture-Density Relations
Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples collected during the subsurface
exploration. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for
representative soil types were determined in general accordance with test method ASTM
D1557. Test results are presented in Appendix A.
I GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
MAXIMUM DENSITY CURVE
Curve No.: A
Project No.: 328 1-SD3 Date: 2/4/08
Project: Nolan Residense
Location:
Elev./Depth:
Remarks:
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Description: Reddish brown silty clay
Classifications - USCS: AASHTO:
Nat. Moist. = Sp.G. =
Liquid Limit = Plasticity Index =
%>318in.= % %<No.200
TEST RESULTS
a.
ci)
140
130
120
100
90 90
=
-
Maximum
Optimum
dry
moisture
density 115 pcf
= 16.5 %
Test specification:
- ASTM D 1557-00 Method B Modified
\
100% SATURATION CURVES FOR SPEC. GRAy. EQUAL TO:
28 27 26
----- -
-S..
-..c
.% - --
= = = =
- L - - - - - -
--
-
-
--
---
--
-
110--,
-
.%.
--- %. -
80 -70
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Water content, %
Plate
GnTk Inc
U
I
U
U
I
11
I
I
U
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
READINGS_______
DATE TIME READING
2/5/2008 11:20 0.170
2/5/2008 11:30 0.169
2/512008 11:31 0.172
2/5/2008 11:36 0.185
2/512008 1:10 0.270
2/6/2008 8:00 0.326
Initial
10 mm/Dry
1 mm/Wet
5 mm/Wet
Random
Final
FINAL MOISTURE
vVelgllt of wet sample
& tare
VVelgflt 01 dry sample
& tare
1
Tare % Moisture
163.1 142.2 18.5 16.9%
- - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EXPANSION INDEX TEST
(ASTM D4829)
Project Name: Nolan Residence Tested! Checked By: NT Lab No 2810
Project Number: 3281-SD3 Date Tested: 215/2008
Sample Source: T1@2'
Sample Description: brown silty clay
Ring Id12 Ring Dia. 4 Ring 1'
Loading weight: 5516. grams
DENSITY DETERMINATION
Weight of compacted sample & ring 734.3
Weight of ring 371.4
Net weight of sample 362.9
Wet Density, lb (C*0.3016) 109.5
Dry Density, lb / ft3 (D/1 .F) 93.6
SATURATION DETERMINATION
Moisture Content, %
(E*F)
(E1167.232)
(1.-H)
(62.4*1) -
(GIJ)- L % Saturation
16.9
1582.3
:0.56
0.44
27.5
57.6
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
EXPANSION INDEX= 166
-
(Q50% SATURATION)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
60
50
w 40 0 Z
20
10
10 30 50 70 0 iO
LIQUID LIMIT
65
66 --
::
_63
UJ 62 —Nç------- -
861 -----
60
59
58 N
57
seL 0 20 25 30- - - - IN 40
NUMBER OF BLOWS
- MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL P1 %<#40 %<#200 USCS
Reddish brown silty clay 60 20 40
Project No. 328 1-SD3 Client: Nolan Trust Remarks:
Project: Nolan Residense
Source: T1@2' Sample No.: T1@2
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
GeoTek, Inc. Plate
Dashed line indicates .the approximate
- upper limit boundary for natural soils
- c'
30 7 7
OL MH OH or
I
100
90
80
70
LU 60
I U.-
F—z 50
LL, I LLJ
c
40
30
20
1:
Particle Size Distribution Report
specification: none
500 100 10 1 0.11 0.01 0.001
% COBBLES
I .
I
I
GRAIN SIZE - mm
%GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY
13.4 30.3 54.3
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
#4 98.0,
#8. 95.2
#16 93.0 #30 92.0 #50 91.0
#100 88.4
#200 84.6
Soil Description
Brown silty clay
Atterbera Limits
PL= 20 LL= 60 ' ' P1= 40
Coefficients
D85= 0.0767 D60= 0.0135 D50= 0.0017
D30= 015= . , Dio= CU= cc-
- .
Classification
USCS= CH AASHTO= A-7-6(36)
Remarks
*
I none
Sample No.: T2@3
Location:
I
GeoTek
Source of Sample:
Client: Nolan Trust
, I nc. Project: Nolan Residense
Project No: ' 328 1-SD3
Date: 02/05/08
Elev./Depth:
Plate
100
90
80
70
3C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Particle Size Distribution Report
L— - -
-
20
1c
~dffl ~~,W
500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
% COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY
12.2 84.6 :J
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
#4 96.8
#8 95.7
#16 95.1
#30 94.2
#50 92.7
#100 89.1
#200 . 84.6
none
Sample No.: T1@2 Source of Sample: T1@2' Date: 02/06/2008
Location: Elev./Depth:
Client: Nolan Trust
GeoTek, Inc. Project: Nolan Residense
Project No: 3281-SD3 Plate
Soil Description
Reddish brown silty clay
Atterbera Limits
PL= 20 LL= 60 P1= 40
Coefficients
D85= 0.0797 D60= D50=
D30= 015= D10=
cu= cc=
Classification
USCS= CH AASHTO A-7-6(36)
Remarks
LABORATORY REPORT
I Telephone (619) 425-1993 Fax 425-7917 Established 1928
CLARKSON LABORATORY AND SUPPLY INC.
I
350 Trousdale Dr. Chula Vista, Ca. 91910 www.clarksonlab.com
ANALYTICAL AND CONSULTING CHEMISTS
Date: February 8, 2008
I Purchase Order Number: 1189
Sales Order Number: 91684
Account Number: GEOT
I To:
* -------------------------------------------------*
GeoTek, Inc.
I
1384 Poinsetta Avenue, Suite A
Vista, CA 92083
.Attention: David Cliff
I Laboratory Number: S03072 Customers Phone: 760-599-0509
Fax: 760-599-0593
Sample Designation:
I * --------------------------------------------------
one soil sample received on 2/5/08, taken on
from Job#3281-SD3 marked as Lab#2810.
I Analysis By California Test 643, Department of Transportation
Division of Construction, Method for Estimating the Service Life of
Steel Culverts.
pH 7.0
I Water Added (ml) Resistivity (ohm-cm)
I
I
LI
I
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
16 years to perforation for a 16 gauge metal culvert.
21 years to perforation for a 14 gauge metal culvert.
29 years to perforation for a 12 gauge metal culvert.
37 years to perforation for a 10 gauge metal culvert.
45 years to perforation for a 8 gauge metal culvert.
6200
3200
1400
780
620
500
500
560
580
I Water Soluble Sulfate Calif. Test 417 0.006%
Water Soluble Chloride Calif. Test 422 0.019%
I
Laura Torres
LT/rm I
APPENDIX C
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES
FOR EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION
Proposed Residential Development
Carlsbad, California
Project No.: 328 1SD3
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN APPENDIX C
Proposed Residential Development • Project No.: 328 ISD3
7331 Las Brisas Court, Vista, California Page 1
GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES
Guidelines presented herein are intended to address general construction procedures for earthwork
construction. Specific situations and conditions often arise which cannot reasonably be discussed in
general guidelines, when anticipated these are discussed in the text of the report. Often unanticipated
conditions are encountered which may necessitate modification or changes to these guidelines. It is our
hope that these will assist the contractor to more efficiently complete the project by providing a
reasonable understanding of the procedures that would be expected during earthwork and the testing and
observation used to evaluate those procedures.
General
Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of governing agencies, Chapters 18
and 33 of the Uniform Building Code and the guidelines presented below.
Preconstruction Meeting
A preconstruction meeting should be held prior to site earthwork. Any questions the contractor has
regarding our recommendations, general site conditions, apparent discrepancies between reported and
actual conditions and/or differences in procedures the contractor intends to use should be brought up at
that meeting. The contractor (including the main onsite representative) should review our report and
these guidelines in advance of the meeting. Any comments the contractor may have regarding these
guidelines should be brought up at that meeting.
Grading Observation and Testing
I I. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by our representative during grading.
Verbal communication during the course of each day will be used to inform the contractor of test
results. The Contractor should receive a copy of the "Daily Field Report" indicating results of
I field density tests that day. If our representative does not provide the contractor with these
reports, our office should be notified.
Testing and observation procedures are, by their nature, specific to the work or area observed and
I location of the tests taken, variability may occur in other locations. The contractor is responsible
for the uniformity of the grading operations, our observations and test results are intended to
evaluate the contractor's overall level of efforts during grading. The contractor's personnel are
I the only individuals participating in all aspect of site work. Compaction testing and observation
should not be considered as relieving the contractor's responsibility to properly compact the fill.
Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed
I by our representative prior to placing any fill. It will be the Contractor's responsibility to notify
our representative or office when such areas are ready for observation.
Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as considered warranted by this
I firm.
In general, density tests would be made at maximum intervals of two feet of fill height or every
1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and size of the
I fill. More frequent testing may be performed. In any case, an adequate number of field density
tests should be made to evaluate the required compaction and moisture content is generally being
obtained.
I GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
I
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN APPENDIX C
Proposed Residential Development Project No. :3281SD3
7331 Las Brisas Court, Vista, California Page 2
6. Laboratory testing to support field test procedures will be performed, as considered warranted,
based on conditions encountered (e.g. change of material sources, types, etc.) Every effort will be
made to process samples in the laboratory as quickly as possible and in progress construction
projects are our first priority. However, laboratory workloads may cause in delays and some soils
may require a minimum of 48 to 72 hours to complete test procedures. Whenever possible,
our representative(s) should be informed in advance of operational changes that might result in
different source areas for materials.
7. Procedures for testing of fill slopes are as follows:
Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill
three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope.
If a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be
employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer
six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being
achieved.
8. Finish grade testing of slopes and pad surfaces should be performed after construction is
complete.
Site Clearing
All vegetation, and other deleterious materials, should be removed from the site. If material is not
immediately removed from the site it should be stockpiled in a designated area(s) well outside of
all current work areas and delineated with flagging or other means. Site clearing should be
performed in advance of any grading in a specific area.
Efforts should be made by the contractor to remove all organic or other deleterious material from
the fill, as even the most diligent efforts may result in the incorporation of some materials. This
is especially important when grading is occurring near the natural grade. All equipment
operators should be aware of these efforts. Laborers may be required as root pickers.
Nonorganic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas provided the procedures used
are observed and found acceptable by our representative. Typical procedures are similar to those
indicated on Plate G-4.
Treatment of Existing Ground
Following site clearing, all surficial deposits of alluvium and colluvium as well as weathered or
creep effected bedrock, should be removed (see Plates G-1, G-2 and G-3) unless otherwise
specifically indicated in the text of this report.
In some cases, removal may be recommended to a specified depth (e.g. flat sites where partial
alluvial removals may be sufficient) the contractor should not exceed these depths unless
directed otherwise by our representative.
Groundwater existing in alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than
indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months.
Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches,
moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards.
Exploratory back hoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated
and filled with compacted fill if they can be located.
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN APPENDIX C
Proposed Residential Development Project No. :3281SD3
7331 Las Brisas Court, Vista, California Page 3
Subdrainage
Subdrainage systems should be provided in canyon bottoms prior to placing fill, and behind
buttress and stabilization fills and in other areas indicated in the report. Subdrains should
conform to schematic diagrams G-1 and G-5, and be acceptable to our representative.
For canyon subdrains, runs less than 500 feet may use six-inch pipe. Typically, runs in excess of
500 feet should have the lower end as eight-inch minimum.
Filter material should be clean, 1/2 to 1-inch gravel wrapped in a suitable filter fabric. Class 2
permeable filter material per California Department of Transportation Standards tested by this
office to verify its suitability, may be used without filter fabric. A sample of the material should
be provided to the Soils Engineer by the contractor at least two working days before it is
delivered to the site. The filter should be clean with a wide range of sizes.
Approximate delineation of anticipated subdrain locations may be offered at 40-scale plan review
stage. During grading, this office would evaluate the necessity of placing additional drains.
All subdrainage systems should be observed by our representative during construction and prior
to covering with compacted fill.
Subdrains should outlet into storm drains where possible. Outlets should be located and
protected. The need for backflow preventers should be assessed during construction.
Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project surveyors.
Fill Placement
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however,
some special processing or handling may be required (see text of report).
2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned,
processed, and compacted in thin lifts six (6) to eight (8) inches in compacted thickness to obtain
a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a nearly horizontal plane,
unless otherwise found acceptable by our representative.
3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that recommended by this firm , the
Contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following:
Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be
evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-watering of cut or removal areas
should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or
dry surficial soils. The ability of the contractor to obtain the proper moisture content will
control production rates.
Each six-inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry
density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental
agency. In most cases, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D-1557,
4. Rock fragments less than eight inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided:
They are not placed in concentrated pockets;
There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks;
C) The distribution of the rocks is observed by and acceptable to our representative.
5. Rocks exceeding eight (8) inches in diameter should be taken off site, broken into smaller
fragments, or placed in accordance with recommendations of this firm in areas designated
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN APPENDIX C
Proposed Residential Development Project No. :3281SD3
7331 Las Brisas Court, Vista, California Page 4
I suitable for rock disposal (See Plate G-4). On projects where significant large quantities of
oversized materials are anticipated, alternate guidelines for placement may be included. If
significant oversize materials are encountered during construction, these guidelines should be
I requested.
6. In clay soil dry or large chunks or blocks are common; if in excess of eight (8) inches minimum
dimension then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable
I methods should be used to break up blocks. When dry they should be moisture conditioned to
provide a uniform condition with the surrounding fill.
I Slope Construction
1. The Contractor should obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished
slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back
I to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment.
2. Slopes trimmed to the compacted core should be overbuilt by at least three (3) feet with
compaction efforts out to the edge of the false slope. Failure to properly compact the outer edge
I results in trimming not exposing the compacted core and additional compaction after trimming
may be necessary.
3. If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods then the slope construction
I should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil
should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades.
Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes
I should be back rolled or otherwise compacted at approximately every 4 feet vertically as the
slope is built.
4. Corners and bends in slopes should have special attention during construction as these are the
most difficult areas to obtain proper compaction.
5. Cut slopes should be cut to the finished surface, excessive undercutting and smoothing of the
I
face with fill may necessitate stabilization.
Keyways, Buttress and Stabilization Fills
I 1.
Keyways are needed to provide support for fill slope and various corrective procedures.
Side-hill fills should have an equipment-width key at their toe excavated through all surficial soil
and into competent material and tilted back into the hill (Plates G-2, G-3). As the fill is elevated,
I
it should be benched through surficial soil and slopewash, and into competent bedrock or other
material deemed suitable by our representatives (See Plates G-1, G-2, and G-3).
2. Fill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner:
All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the cut-fill
I interface.
A key at least one (1) equipment width wide (or as needed for compaction) and tipped at
I
least one (1) foot into slope should be excavated into competent materials and observed
by our representative.
C) The cut portion of the slope should be excavated prior to fill placement to evaluate if
stabilization is necessary, the contractor should be responsible for any additional
I earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut excavation.
(See Plate G-3 for schematic details.)
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN APPENDIX C
Proposed Residential Development Project No. :3281SD3
7331 Las Brisas Court, Vista, California Page 5
Daylight cut lots above descending natural slopes may require removal and replacement of the
outer portion of the lot. A schematic diagram for this condition is presented on Plate G-2.
A basal key is needed for fill slopes extending over natural slopes. A schematic diagram for this
condition is presented on Plate G-2.
All fill slopes should be provided with a key unless within the body of a larger overall fill mass.
I Please refer to Plate G-3, for specific guidelines.
Anticipated buttress and stabilization fills are discussed in the text of the report. The need to stabilize
I other proposed cut slopes will be evaluated during construction. Plate G-5 is shows a schematic of
buttress construction.
I
1. All backcuts should be excavated at gradients of 1:1 or flatter. The backcut configuration should
be determined based on the design, exposed conditions and need to maintain a minimum fill
width and provide working room for the equipment.
I
2. On longer slopes backcuts and keyways should be excavated in maximum 250 feet long segment.
The specific configurations will be determined during construction.
All keys should be a minimum of two (2) feet deep at the toe and slope toward the heel at least
I
one foot or two (2%) percent whichever is greater.
Subdrains are to be placed for all stabilization slopes exceeding 10 feet in height. Lower slopes
are subject-to review. Drains may be required. Guidelines for subdrains are presented on Plate
I G5.
Benching of backcuts during fill placement is required.
I Lot Capping
1. When practical, the upper three (3) feet of material placed below finish grade should be
comprised of the least expansive material available. Preferably, highly and very highly expansive
I materials should not be used. We will attempt to offer advise based on visual evaluations of the
materials during grading, but it must be realized that laboratory testing is needed to evaluate the
expansive potential of soil. Minimally, this testing takes two (2) to four (4) days to complete.
I 2. Transition lots (cut and fill) both per plan and those created by remedial grading (e.g. lots above
stabilization fills, along daylight lines, above natural slope, etc.) should be capped with a three
foot thick compacted fill blanket.
3. Cut pads should be observed by our representative(s) to evaluate the need for overexcavation and
replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water infiltration into highly fractured
bedrock or other permeable zones, and/or due to differing expansive potential of materials
I .beneath a structure. The overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation
may be recommended in some cases.
ROCK PLACEMENT AND ROCK FILL GUIDELINES
It is anticipated that large quantities of oversize material would be generated during grading. It's likely
that such materials may require special handling for burial. Although alternatives may be developed in
the field, the following methods of rock disposal are recommended on a preliminary basis.
I
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN APPENDIX C
Proposed Residential Development Project No. :3281SD3
7331 Las Brisas Court, Vista, California Page 6
Limited Larger Rock
When materials encountered are principally soil with limited quantities of larger rock fragments or
boulders, placement in windrows is recommended. The following procedures should be applied:
1. Oversize rock (greater than 8 inch) should be placed in windrows.
Windrows are rows of single file rocks placed to avoid nesting or clusters of rock.
Each adjacent rock should be approximately the same size (within -one foot in
diameter).
C) The maximum rock size allowed in windrows is four feet
2. A minimum vertical distance of three feet between lifts should be maintained. Also, the
windrows should be offset from lift to lift. Rock windrows should not be closer than 15 feet to
the face of fill slopes and sufficient space must be maintained for proper slope construction (see
Plate G-4).
3. Rocks greater than eight inches in diameter should not be placed within seven feet of the finished
subgrade for a roadway or pads and should be held below the depth of the lowest utility. This
will allow easier trenching for utility lines.
4. Rocks greater than four feet in diameter should be broken down, if possible, or they may be
placed in a dozer trench. Each trench should be excavated into the compacted fill a minimum of
one foot deeper than the largest diameter of rock.
The rock should be placed in the trench and granular fill materials (SE>30) should be
flooded into the trench to fill voids around the rock.
The over size rock trenches should be no closer together than 15 feet from any slope
face.
C) Trenches at higher elevation should be staggered and there should be a minimum of four
feet of compacted fill between the top of the one trench and the bottom of the next higher
trench.
d) It would be necessary to verify 90 percent relative compaction in these pits. A 24 to 72
hour delay to allow for water dissipation should be anticipated prior to additional fill
placement.
Structural Rock Fills
If the materials generated for placement in structural fills contains a significant percentage of material
more than six (6) inch in one dimension, then placement using conventional soil fill methods with
isolated windrows would not be feasible. In such cases the following could be considered.
Mixes of large of rock or boulders may be placed as rock fill. They should be below the .depth of
all utilities both on pads and in roadways and below any proposed swimming pools or other
excavations. If these fills are placed within seven (7) feet of finished grade they may effect
foundation design.
Rock fills are required to be placed in horizontal layers that should not exceed two feet in
thickness, or the maximum rock size present, which ever is less. All rocks exceeding two feet
should be broken down to a smaller size, windrowed (see above), or disposed of in non-structural
fill areas. Localized larger rock up to 3 feet in largest dimension may be placed in rock fill as
follows:
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN APPENDIX C
Proposed Residential Development Project No. .3281SD3
7331 Las Brisas Court, Vista, California Page 7
I a) individual rocks are placed in a given lift so as to be roughly 50% exposed above the
typical surface of the fill,
b) loaded rock trucks or alternate compactors are worked around the rock on all sides to the
I satisfaction of the soil engineer,
C) the portion of the rock above grade is covered with a second lift.
3. Material placed in each lift should be well graded. No unfilled spaces (voids) should be
I permitted in the rock fill.
Compaction procedures:
I Compaction of rock fills is largely procedural. The following procedures have been found to generally
produce satisfactory compaction.
I
I. Provisions for routing of construction traffic over the fill should be implemented.
a) Placement should be by rock trucks crossing the lift being placed and dumping at its
edge.
I
b) The trucks should be routed so that each pass across the fill is via a different path and
that all areas are uniformly traversed.
C) The dumped piles should be knocked down and spread by a large dozer (D-8 or larger
suggested). (Water should be applied before and during spreading.)
I 2. Rock fill should be generously watered (sluiced)
a) Water should be applied by water trucks to the:
I
i) dump piles,
front face of the lift being placed and,
surface of the fill prior to compaction.
I
b) No material should be placed without adequate water.
C) The number of water trucks and water supply should be sufficient to provide constant
water.
d) Rock fill placement should be suspended when water trucks are unavailable:
I . i) for more than 5 minutes straight, or,
ii) for more than 10 minutes/hour.
I
3. In addition to the truck pattern and at the discretion of the soil engineer, large, rubber tired
compactors may be required.
The need for this equipment will depend largely on the ability of the operators to provide
I
. complete and uniform coverage by wheel rolling with the trucks.
Other large compactors will also be considered by the soil engineer provided that
required compaction is achieved.
I 4. Placement and compaction of the rock fill is largely procedural. Observation by trenching should
be made to check:
a) the general segregation of rock size,
I b) for any unfilled spaces between the large blocks, and
C) the matrix compaction and moisture content.
5. Test fills may be required to evaluate relative compaction of finer grained zones or as deemed
I appropriate by the soil engineer.
a) A lift should be constructed by the methods proposed as proposed
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN APPENDIX C
Proposed Residential Development Project No. :3281SD3
7331 Las Brisas Court, Vista, California Page 8
Frequency of the test trenching is to be at the discretion of the soil engineer.
Control areas may be used to evaluate the contractors procedures.
A minimum horizontal distance of 15 feet should be maintained from the face of the rock fill and
any finish slope face. At least the outer 15 feet should be built of conventional fill materials.
Piping Potential and Filter Blankets:
Where conventional fill is placed over rock fill, the potential for piping (migration) of the fine grained
material from the conventional fill into rock fills will need to be addressed.
The potential for particle migration is related to the grain size comparisons of the materials present and in
contact with each other. Provided that 15 percent of the finer soil is larger than the effective pore size of
the coarse soil, then particle migration is substantially mitigated. This can be accomplished with a well-
graded matrix material for the rock fill and a zone of fill similar to the matrix above it. The specific
gradation of the fill materials placed during grading must be known to evaluate the need for any type of
filter that may be necessary to cap the rock fills. This, unfortunately, can only be accurately determined
during construction.
In the event that poorly graded matrix is used in the rock fills, properly graded filter blankets 2 to 3 feet
thick separating rock fills and conventional fill may be needed. As an alternative, use of two layers of
filter fabric (Mirafi 700 x or equivalent) could be employed on top of the rock fill. In order to mitigate
excess puncturing, the surface of the rock fill should be well broken down and smoothed prior to placing
the filter fabric. The first layer of the fabric may then be placed and covered with relatively permeable
fill material (with respect to overlying material) 1 to 2 feet thick. The relative permeable material should
be compacted to fill standards. The second layer of fabric should be placed and conventional fill
placement continued.
I Subdrainage
Rock fill areas should be tied to a subdrainage system. If conventional fill is placed that separates the
I
rock from the main canyon subdrain then a secondary system should be installed. A system consisting of
an adequately graded base (3 to 4 percent to the lower side) with a collector system and outlets may
suffice.
I Additionally, at approximately every 25 foot vertical interval, a collector system with outlets should be
placed at the interface of the rock fill and the conventional fill blanketing a fill slope
I Monitoring
Depending upon the depth of the rock fill and other factors, monitoring for settlement of the fill areas
I
.may be needed following completion of grading. Typically, if rock fill depths exceed 40 feet, monitoring
would be recommend prior to construction of any settlement sensitive improvements. Delays of 3 to 6
months or longer can be expected prior to the start of construction.
I UTILITY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL
Utility trench excavation and backfill is the contractors responsibility. The geotechnical consultant
I typically provides periodic observation and testing of these operations. While, efforts are made to make
sufficient observations and tests to verify that the contractors' methods and procedures are adequate to
I
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
I
I
I
I
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN APPENDIX C
Proposed Residential Development Project No. :3281SD3
7331 Las Brisas Court, Vista, California Page 9
achieve proper compaction, it is typically impractical to observe all backfill procedures. As such, it is
critical that the contractor use consistent backfill procedures.
Compaction methods vary for trench compaction and experience indicates many methods can be
successful. However, procedures that "worked" on previous projects may or may not prove effective on a
given site. The contractor(s) should outline the procedures proposed, so that we may discuss them prior
to construction. We will offer comments based on our knowledge of site conditions and experience.
1. Utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas, in streets and beneath flat work or hardscape
should be brought to at least optimum moisture and compacted to at least 90 percent of the
laboratory standard. Soil should be moisture conditioned prior to placing the trench.
2. Flooding and jetting are not typically recommended or acceptable for native soils. Flooding or
jetting may be used with select sand having a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or higher. This is
typically limited to the following uses:
shallow (12 + inches) under slab interior trenches and,
as bedding in pipe zone.
The water should be allowed to dissipate prior to pouring slabs or completing trench compaction.
3. Care should be taken not to place soils at high moisture content within the upper three feet of the
trench backfill in street areas, as overly wet soils may impact subgrade preparation. Moisture
may be reduced to 2% below optimum moisture in areas to be paved within the upper three feet
below sub grade.
4. Sand backfill should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area extending
below a 1:1 projection from the outside bottom edge of a footing, unless it is similar to the
surrounding soil.
5. Trench compaction testing is generally at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Testing
frequency will be based on trench depth and the contractors procedures. A probing rod would be
used to assess the consistency of compaction between tested areas and untested areas. If zones
are found that are considered less compact than other areas, this would be brought to the
contractors attention.
JOB SAFETY
General
I Personnel -safety is a primary concern on all job sites. The following summaries our safety
considerations for use by all our employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground personnel
are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading construction projects. The company
I
recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that job site safety is the contractor's
responsibility. However, it is, imperative that all personnel be safety conscious to avoid accidents and
potential injury.
I In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following
precautions are to be implemented for the safety of our field personnel on grading and construction
I
projects.
1. Safety Meetings: Our field personnel are directed to attend the contractor's regularly scheduled
safety meetings.
I
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
I
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN APPENDIX C
Proposed Residential Development Project No. .3281SD3
7331 Las Brisas Court, Vista, California Page 10
U 2. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by our personnel while on the job
site.
3. Safety Flags: Safety flags are provided to our field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle
I when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits.
In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above,
I
we request that it be brought to the attention of our office.
Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance
The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. The primary concern is the technician's
I safety. However, it is necessary to take sufficient tests at various locations to obtain a representative
sampling of the fill. As such, efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors
authorized representatives (e.g. dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.), and to select
I locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferable outside of current traffic. The
contractors authorized representative should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period.
Again, safety is the paramount concern.
Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic. The
technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates that the
fill be maintained in a drivable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may opt to park a piece of
equipment in front of test pits, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access.
A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits (see diagram below) No grading
equipment should enter this zone during the test procedure. The zone should extend outward to the sides
approximately 50 feet from the center of the test pit and 100 feet in the direction of traffic flow. This
zone is established both for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test
results.
TEST PIT SAFETY PLAN
Test Pit Spoil
pile
SIDE VIEW
50 ft Zone of Traffic Direction Non-Encroachment
Vehicle Test Pit Spoil parked here - - pile
[
looftZoneof
Non-Encroachment 50ftZoneof
Non-Encroachment
PLAN VIEW
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOAN4 NOLAN APPENDIX C
Proposed Residential Development Project No. :3281SD3
7331 Las Brisas Court, Vista, California Page 11
Slope Tests
When taking slope tests, the technician should park their vehicle directly above or below the test location
on the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation
distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during testing.
The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following
testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location.
Trench Safety:
It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is
needed. Trenches for all utilities should be excavated in accordance with CAL-OSHA and any other
applicable safety standards. Safe conditions will be required to enable compaction testing of the trench
backfill.
All utility trench excavations in excess of 5 feet deep, which a person enters, are to be shored or laid
I
back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with OSHA standards. Our personnel are directed
not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment.
I
Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation which;
is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back,
exit points or ladders are not provide,
I
3. displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the
trench, or
4. displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth.
If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy
requires that the soil technician withdraws and notifies their supervisor. The contractors representative
will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or
other reasons is subject to reprocessing and/or removal.
Procedures
In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's
failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is directed to inform both the developer's and
contractor's representatives. If the condition is not rectified, the technician is required, by company
policy, to immediately withdraw and notify their supervisor. The contractor's representative will then be
contacted in an effort to effect a solution. No further testing will be performed until the situation is
rectified. Any fill placed in the interim can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing,
recompaction or removal.
In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety
guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to technicians attention and notify our project
manager or office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors' representative
and the field technician(s) is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety program and
safety in general.
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN APPENDIX C
Proposed Residential Development Project No. :3281SD3
7331 Las Brisas Court, Vista, California Page 12
The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will
serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of non-
encroachment.
The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at, the contractor's safety meetings. This will
serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of non-
encroachment.
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
FINISH GRADE /
a
BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT TO BE AT
LEAST 1.5 TIMES THE WIDTH OF
COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES
6" PERFORATED PIPE IN 9 CUBIC FEET
PER LINEAL FOOT CLEAN GRAVEL
WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC
TYPICAL CANYON
CLEANOUT
I GeoTek Insite, Inc. I PLATE G - 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN Project No.: 3281SD3
Proposed Residential Development February 25, 2008
7331 Las Brisas, Carlsbad, California Page 1 of 5
ALTERNATE
NI .T
HIH GRADE
". ORIGINAL GROUND -
- I
rATEP' L /
4 F1 LOOSE SURFACE MATERIALS rIThBLE ICAL ::................::..............:./ MATERIAL
CONSTRUCT BENCHES
WHERE SLOPE EXCEEDS 5:1
ALTERNATE
KIL •. .:• .: ::.:. ::.:: ::..::: .,. :: . :: :.:::.::,: ..a - - -
OOSESUPFACEMPTERIAL
J ATERIAL
TYPICAL
WHERE SLOPE EXCEEDS :1
BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT TO BE AT
LEAST 1 .5 TIMES THE WIDTH OF
COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
3' 6" PERFORATED PIPE IN 9 CUBIC FEET PER
I C LINEAL FOOT CLEAN GRAVEL WITH FILTER
FABRIC TO COVER SURFACE OR COMPLETE —3' -I. WRAP PER FE1LD CONDITIONS
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN ProjectNo.: 3281SD3
- Proposed Residential Development February 25, 2008
7331 Las Brisas, Carlsbad, California Page 2 of 5
TYPICAL FILL SLOPE OVER
NATURAL DESCENDING SLOPE
FINISH GRADE
S-MIN 36
COMPCTED FILL SLOPE FILL CAP
S •:--:T-•-.•_____.._..•.
Z, Z111*11 Z" iOOr--lLL
SLOPE PER
JECT
BEDROCK REMOVALAT
PRO
1111Z "I z
"ZZZZI"""",ZIZZIz""Izllllzlzzlzzzllz"Z"IZZIZZZIZIIZZZ ..
BEDROCK
2 MIII4lzlzlzzl
zz
-- I.
MIINIMUM Th FT CLEAR ZZ
: OR 1.5 EQUIPMENT
WIDTHS FOR zz
DAYLIGHT CUT AREA OVER
NATURAL DESCENDING SLOPE
I
STRUCTURAL
SETBACK WITHOUT
CORRECTIVE WORK DAYLIGHT CUT!
LINE PER PLAN]
PROJECT
REMOVAL AT
I 'I-FINISH OR
1 TO 1
MIN. 36
I COMPACTED FILL /
I
BEDROCK
MuuI15 CLEAR ::
1.5 EQUIPMENT WIDTHS
I FOR COMPACTION
I • TREATMENT ABOVE
STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES NATURAL SLOPES
I
I QeoTek Irisite, Inc. I PLATE G - 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN Project No.: 3281SD3
Proposed Residential Development February 25, 2008
7331 Las Brisas, Carlsbad, California Page 3 of 5
I TYPICAL FILL SLOPE OVER
PROPOSED CUT SLOPE.
I .. TOE OF FILL .
i
SLOPE PER FILL 9C PE77
TOE OF FILL SLOPE
PLAN
AFTER REMOVAL OF V .OPSOIL
UNSUITABLE M.AThRL'.LS '. . .. . . . -
I - COLLUVIUM
1,41INIMILIM 15 FT OR 1,5
DR EQUIPMENT WIDTHS FOR -BEDROCK(
- . ........................
. /. .
I 4UTiLOPE
COMPACTION DENSE
TYPICAL FILL SLOPE
SLOPE MINIMUM MINIMUM
:. HEIGHT KEY WIDTH KEY DEPTH
I
. ................. ................ 10 10 15
5 15 2 20 15 2.5
..: .: ... .................... : 25 15 3
>25 SEE TEXT
CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH SOIL
ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
I MINTh4UM CDMACTED FILL EOAFED
TO PROVIDE L&TL SUPPORT
E?CCAVAT EY IF WIDTH OR DEPTh
BEDROCK OR
SUITABLE DENSE
LE TAN HEcED IN ThEL E
I • COMMON FILL
STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES SLOPE KEYS
I GeoTek Ins jte, Inc.
FRANK AND JOANN NOLAN Project No.: 3281SD3
Proposed Residential Development February 25, 2008
7331 Las Brisas, Carlsbad, California Page 4 of 5
CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW
,
-FINISH GRADE
- SEE 'OTE FILL SLOPE
3' NIIIIN
STAGGER ROWS MIIN .. :
HOIZONTALLV
------------
MINIMUM 15 FT CLEAR OR 1.5
EQUIPMENT WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION
PLAN VIEW
FILL SLOPE
MIINIMUM 15 FT CLEAR OR 1.5
EQUIPMENT WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION PLACE ROCKS END TO END.
DO NOT PILE OR STACK.
tIII j jIiI' , •
!I '
MIINIMUM 15 rT CLEAR OR 1.5 SOIL TO BE PLACED AROUND AND OVER ROCKS
EQUIPMENT WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION AND FLOODED INTO VDS.COMPACT AROUND
I AND OVER'EACH WINDROW
Ii
im MR, lVa QIn Fl~
w WOE "
NOTES:
MINIMUM SOIL FILL OVER WINDROWS SHOULD BE 7 FEET AND SUFFICIENT FOR FUTURE EXCAVATIONS (e.g. SWIMMIING POOLS) TO
AVOID ROCKS,
0
MAXIMUM ROCK SIZE IN WINDROWS IS 4 FEET MINIMUM DIAMETER.
SOIL AROUND WINDROWS TO BE SANDY MATERIAL SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE BY SOIL ENGINEER
ALL SPACING AND CLEARANCES MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW FOR PROPER COMPACTION.
ROCK BURIAL
STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES • DETAILS
GeoTek Insite, Inc. PLATE G-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FRAM( AND JOANN NOLAN ProjectNo.: 3281SD3
Proposed Residential Development February 25, 2008
7331 Las Brisas, Carlsbad, California Page 5 of 5
GRADE TO DRAIN
TERRACE DRAIN AS
REQUIRED
*
KY TO FALL TO HEU
MINIMUM
I KEY TO BE MINIMUM
/ 2 FT DEEP OR PER
KEY TO BE MINIMUM 15 FT PLUS WIDTH
REPORT
(OFTERRACE DRAINS OR1.5EQUIPMENT
WIDTH USED FOR COMPACTION
2% MINIMUM FALL
4 DIAMETER PERFORATED
DRAIN PIPE PVC SCH. 40 OR 4'DIAMETER SOLID OUTLET
EQUIVALENT IN 6 CUBIC FT LATERALS TO SLOPE FACE OR
DRAIN ROCK WRAPPED IN STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AT
FILTER FABRIC MAXIMUM 100 Fl INTERVALS
NOTE: ADDITIONAL BACKDRAINS MAY BE RECOMMENDED
BUTTRESS AND
STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES STABILIZATION SLOPES
L _ GeoTeklnsite, Inc.