50
May 5,2006
Project No. 2006-081
MJ. Peter Khe-w15918 Country Squire DrivePoway, California 92064
GEOTECHNICAL REPORTPROPOSED 17-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
PAP"-AT(WAY.IL.ofo.J''O-J'J' .AJJ!U..... 'OJ'e CALIFORNIA
In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoLogic Associates (GLA), has conducteda geotechnical investigation for the proposed 17-unit residential development to be constructedon Bear Valley Park\vay near Boyle Avenue Escondido, California (Figure 1, Vicinity ~Y1ap).
Based on the it is our improvements arefeasible from a geotechnical perspective provided the recommendations presented, herein, areincorporated into the design and construction of the project. The accompanYing report providesgeotechnical conclusions and recommendations relative to the proposed residential development.
We appreciate this opportunity toplease do not hesitate to contact the ~~-n,rlAV"C'1
If you any questions regarding this
Associates
Addressee
~~'~"'~'.. ' ranzone, GE 21Supervising ....... vv "...'V.lJJLL.l ....U..l ......,'....1"->',.........,'..,...
Distribution: (4)
1Figure 2Figure 3Appendix
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix
Vicinity Map
Site Plan with Pit Locations
Map
Test LogsLaboratory Testing and
Seismic Analysis
Slope Stability Analysis
Results
27
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed residential
development to be constructed along Bear Valley Parkway near the intersection with Boyle
Avenue in Escondido, California (Figure 1). The proposed development will include
construction of one or two/three two-story residential buildings consisting of 17 total units, a
roadway for site access, driveways, underground utilities, and other site improvements. The site
is currently vacant. Grading plans the were prepared by Yen & Associates, Inc.
This investigation was performed accordance with
Our scope of services specifically included:
GLA's proposal dated April 3, 2006.
Review of available pertinent, published and unpublished geotechnical literature and maps.
Field reconnaissance of the existing onsite geologic/geotechnical conditions.
Subsurface exploration by a geologist consisting of the excavation, logging, sampling,
and of 16 test pits across the to depths ofup to 10.5 below existing grade.
samples ULJ'oU.AAH.,J'Ul.
corrosivity assessments
Analysis laboratory testing.
Preparation presenting our findings, and geotechnical
recommendations with respect to the proposed site improvements.
....e-v ...uu, .... A.ssociates
2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
2.1 Document Review
Available geologic and geotechnical literature pertaining to the project site and surrounding areas
was reviewed. These documents included published topographic maps, geologic maps, and
reports. Specific documents reviewed are referenced in Section 8.0.
2.2 Site Reconnaissance
A GLA geologist visited the site to observe and map geologic conditions. Surface conditions
were noted, including the geologic and topographic setting, surface soils and related
conditions. The exploratory test pit locations were selected as well.
Subsurface exploration consisted of excavation of 16 exploratory test pits with a Deere
backhoe. The test pits were excavated across the site to provide estimates on rock rippability and
depth of removals during grading. Test were advanced until practical was reached on
or to competent alluvial materials/weathered materials were test pits
were to 3 11
test pits were backfilled with spoils to a representative
VL:>..LA..... ,.......... locations test pits are Dn~sente:a
a
the test
"'.." .... 1,...,.....-111·,.......... test was ..-.0..·+""............. ",.n
representative who also logged test pits and obtained samples
....L v and laboratory testing. Disturbed (bulk) samples were obtained
visual observation testing in the laboratory.
Subsurface materials were visually classified the field in accordance with standard engineering
and geologic practices. Soil samples were classified Unified Soil Classification
explained Appendix Details subsurface exploration exploratory test are
presented Appendix A.
Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were performed to
testing program was to
geotechnical parameters for Anllrln.e>A-rU41
specific project. Tests selected
2-
C:\Active\]rojects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Final Report\Khew GeotechReport.doc
samples retrieved from the test pits included expansion index testing and corrosivity assessments
(including soluble sulfate, pH, and minimum resistivity). The results of the tests are summarized
in Appendix
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 Site Location Surface Conditions
The project site is located across Bear Valley Parkway 1634 to 1660 Bear Valley Parkway
in Escondido, California (Figure 1). The site is bounded by Bear Valley to the west,
a church complex to the north, and by single-family residences to the east and site is
currently vacant and vegetated with grasses, shrubs, and scattered trees.
Site surface elevations range from approximately 706 above mean sea (MSL) at
southwestern comer to 780 feet above mean sea level in the north central portion of the site
adjacent to Church property (based on a topographic 2005). The site
slopes gently to the south-southwest eventually flowing to Lake Hodges. Surface runoff
generated onsite during rainy periods is likely to drain as sheet flow from the higher to the lower
portions of the site, generally in a south-southwestern direction.
anThe proposed 1-n1·nrn."up·n-lP-ntCl ,nro·!nrla r>'.....nc'~..... ·.r>1"1IAn
interior street, landscape areas, rt""t-""nt-1nn basin, rtr'Jl~n<:.....a. 1..-n,n-rn.'ua.11"'n""nt-",
underground ...."AJ, .. " .. '"UI
subject site is located a central mountain-valley area
Geomorphic Province of California. This area extends from the coastal plain to
the Elsinore fault zone. Escondido area is characterized by low rolling separated by
intermediate to broad valleys. general, this area is underlain by Cretaceous-aged igneous and
metamorphic rock (basement complex). valleys are filled alluvium, slopewash deposits
(colluvium) and residual soil (highly weathered in-place bedrock).
project area is located
granitic basement rock.
the broad to narrow San Bernardo Valley deeply .I.........'A ........' ......
drainage flows south into Lake Hodges.
project site is underlain by Quaternary colluvium/alluvium deposited on
erosional surface of the crystalline basement rock. granitic rocks are generally mapped as
3-
C:\Active'-Projects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Final Report\Khew GeotechReport.doc
Associates
the Southern California Batholith. The batholithic rock intrusion occurred in several episodes,
producing igneous bodies of slightly different composition (plutons).
Quaternary colluvium/alluvial deposits were encountered at the existing grade all test
The uppermost colluvial/alluvial deposits are relatively loose. The underlying alluvium can be
subdivided into two layers. The uppermost alluvium was encountered to an approximate depth
of 3 to 5 feet. This alluvium is described as reddish brown, loose, moist to dry, fine silty sand
with a trace ofclay. This alluvium was underlain by a more dense alluvial deposits that consisted
ofa reddish brown, moist, medium dense to dense, to medium silty sand with a trace of clay.
The alluvial materials on northern portion of the site (higher elevations) were observed to
have cobbles to boulders to 24 inches in diameter. Expansion index testing of these soils
generally indicated that alluvial soils have a very expansion potential (Appendix
The Cretaceous Granitic Rocks were encountered in the deeper test pits. When encountered, the
backboe dug to refiJ.sal to estimate the rippability site materials.
The granodiorite rock was encountered various stages ofweathering. The rock was described
as fine- to medium-grained, highly weathered (weathered to a silty sand residual soil) to intact
rock. The intact rock was mostly encountered at the higher elevations of the (Test
TP-6, 3, and 5). Refusal was encountered this material£'I ..........0..,.1" to test on
the test pits
......... I-'L ........... backhoe refusal).
additional information is indicated regarding conditions encountered
depth to of rock, depth
Groundwater was not encountered any of the exploratory test It should noted thedepths to groundwater observed in the test pits represent the temporary ground\vater levels prior
to backfilling, and should not be considered as the stable groundwater table.
levels in test pits are anticipated to vary seasonally. groundwater levels observed during the
investigation are also test logs
for the building foundation is not anticipated to encounter groundwater, and groundwater is not
considered to be a factor in the design and construction of the at-grade residential structures.
Faulting
discussion faults on site is ~?"<='TQ/"'<:>r11 a discussion California legislation
4-
C:\Active'-Projects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Final Report\Khew GeotechReport.doc
Associates
earthquake
policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults. By definition
of the California Geological Survey, an active fault is a fault that has had surface displacement
within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The state geologist has defined a potentially
active fault as any fault considered to have been active during Quaternary time (last 1,600,000
years). This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist
Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972 and as subsequently revised 1975, 1985, 1990,
1992, and 1994. The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development and certain
habitable structures do not occur across the traces of active faults. The subject site is not
included within any Earthquake Zones as created by the Alquist-Priolo Act.
Our review of available geologic literature (Section 8.0) indicates that there are no known major
or active faults on or the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest active regional faults are
Julian segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone, the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, and the Newport-
Inglewood Fault (offshore) the located approximately 1 17.6, and 22.3 miles from the
respectively.
4.2 Seismicity
The site can be considered to lie within a seismically active region, as can all of Southern
California. From a detenninistic standpoint, Table 1 identifies potential seismic events that....n.rrnp<rI''U ...a+.""......£:>rI to as .U.iU,,t"'iJlJlltY-JlJlJ.
event.
Table 1c· ......... L Active Faults (Blake, 2004a 2004c)"'il~.~.un rac:<fI "
Fault Zone IDistanceMaximum Earthquake Event Design Earthquake (CBC, 2001 )
(Seismic Source) I to Site Moment Peak Horizontal Peak Horizontal Ground(miles) Magnitude Ground Acceleration (gl Acceleration (g)
F 1 :'>i· II ti-Jl 1 7.1 0.15
Rose Canyon 17.6 7.2 O. 0.28
Newport-Inglewood 22.3 1 o.(Offshore)
The maximum earthquake is defined by the State of California as the " earthquake that
appears capable of occurring under presently tectonic
seismic parameters included in Table 1 are the distances to the causative
5-
C:\Active\]rojects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Final Report\Khew GeotechReport.doc
...... v..., ..... 'V'-!ic Associates
magnitudes (Mw), and expected ground accelerations, which were determined with EQFAULT
software (Blake, 2004a).
As indicated in Table 1, the Elsinore-Julian and the Rose Canyon Fault are the active faults
considered to have the most significant effect at the site from a design standpoint. The maximum
earthquakes from these faults have a 7.1 to 7.2 moment magnitude, generating a peak horizontal
ground acceleration of 0.15g at the project site. Secondary effects associated with severe ground
shaking following a relatively large earthquake on a regional fault that may affect the site include
ground lurching and shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction and dynamic settlement, seiches
and tsunamis. secondary effects of seismic shaking are discussed following
sections.
From a probabilistic standpoint, the design ground motion (per CBC, 20011UBC, 1997) is
defined as the ground motion having a 10 percent probability of exceedance 50 years (475-year
return period), ground motion is referred to as the design earthquake. design
earthquake ground motion at the site is predicted to be 0.28g. effect of seismic shaking may
be mitigated by adhering to the California Building Code and state-of-the-art seismic design
parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. The site is located within
Seismic Zone 4 (lCBO, 1997, Figure 16-2).
Soil lurching
waves.
vary appreciably
significant since a
nature are
structures.
large , " ... at the
soil parameters in accordance 20011UBC, 1997 are as
Seismic Zone = 4 (Figure 1997 UBC)Soil Profile Type = Sc (Table 1 1997 UBC)Slip Rate (Elsinore Fault), SR, (Table 16-U) =Seismic Source Type (Table 16-U) =
Na = Nv = 1.0 (Table 16-S 16-T)
6-
C:\Active'-Projects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Final Report\Khew GeotechReport.doc
year (CDMG, 1996)
Associates
4.2.3 Historical Seismicity
The historic record of earthquakes in southern California for the past 200 years has been
reasonably well established. More accurate instrumental measurements have been available
since 1933. Based on recorded earthquake magnitudes and locations, the area may be vulnerable
to moderate seismic ground shaking during the design life ofthe project (Appendix C).
4.2.4 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose shear strength for short periods of time during
an earthquake, which may result in very large total and/or differential settlements for structures
founded on liquefying soils. In order for the potential effects of liquefaction to be manifested at
the ground surface, the soils generally have to be granular, loose to medium dense, saturated
relatively near the ground surface, and must be subjected to a sufficient magnitude and duration
of shaking.
Due to the lack of a near-surface groundwater table, and dense nature of the site soils, the
potential for large-scale liquefaction effects to the proposed surface improvements is low. It
should also be understood that much of Southern California is an area ofmoderate to high
seismic risk and is not generally considered economically feasible to build structures totally
resistant to earthquake related hazards. However, current state-of-the-art standards for design
and construction are intended to reduce the potential for major structural damage.
4.2.5 Ground Surface Rupture
Since no active faults are known to transect the site, ground surface rupture as a result ofmovement along known faults is considered unlikely.
4.2.6 Landslides
The site is located in a very gently sloping area and the underlying soil materials are very
competent rock. Accordingly, the potential for landslides or other slope instability problems is
considered low.
4.2.7 Tsunamis and Seiches
Given the large distance away from the nearest large body of water and the elevation of the site,
the potential for a tsunami (tidal wave) or seiche is very low.
-7-
C:\Active'--ProjectsI200612006-081 Khew Bear ValleyIFinal ReportlKhew GeotechReport.doc
Geologic Associates
4.2.8 Expansive Soils and Alluvium
Samples of the near-surface fill soils were collected in Test Pits TP-2, TP-9, and 1 for
expansion index testing. The results indicate that the expansion potential of the near surface
soils is in the very low range (based on ASTM D4829) across the site. The expansion test results
are presented in Appendix Samples of the alluvial soils were evaluated to have a low to
moderate hydrocollapse potential under loading of the proposed fill soils.
-8-
C:\Active,,-Projects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Final Report\Khew GeotechReport.doc
Associates
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our geotechnical review of the site, it is our opinion that the proposed
development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the following conclusions and
recommendations are incorporated into the project plans and specifications.
The following is a summary of the geotechnical factors that may affect development site.
It is anticipated that the proposed structures may be founded on compacted fill soils using
conventional spread footings with a slab-on-grade floor. Import are assumed to be of
very low expansion potential and should be tested to be conformance with this assumption.
In general, the existing onsite soils appear to be suitable material for structural fill
construction provided they are relatively free organic material, debris, and rock fragments
larger than 6 inches. The alluvial/colluvial near existing grade should be removed,
moisture-conditioned, and recolnpacted prior to the placement of additional fill soils or
building improvements. Removals are estimated to range up to 10+ feet in the deepest areas
of the site. Localized removals may be deeper. Recommended removal depths may be
discerned by review of the test logs Appendix B.
area
The elevations on the area 4-7) are
underlain by relatively ron..rnnl::>'tP1'"l"t rock material. The cut slope this area is proposed at an
inclination 1 to vertical) to a of approximately feet.
were only to to a depth 3 to 5
pits adjacent to area 4, 5, 7)
proposed Excavation proposed cut
...........n1-n"r.... breaking, and/or blasting.
Based on our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, the grade alluvial soils are
generally considered to have a very low expansion potential and a negligible potential for
sulfate attack on concrete (Appendix B). The onsite soils are considered to have a
potential corrosion to buried uncoated conduits.
site is not in an area ofknown active faults. potential for geologic hazards to
significantly affect the proposed construction is very low. The design earthquake, having a
10 percent probability ofbeing exceeded in 50 years, is expected to produce a peak ground
surface acceleration at the of 0.28g.
9
C:\Active\]rojects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Val1ey\Final Report\Khew GeotechReport.doc
~vVm..V'-lIV Associates
Groundwater was not encountered in the test trenches across the site. Groundwater is not
anticipated to be encountered during site grading and construction. Groundwater is not
expected to significantly impact the at-grade proposed development provided the
recommendations regarding drainage outlined in this report are implemented. Seepage may
be encountered in certain areas of the site after periods ofprecipitation, especially along the
interface between the fill soils and the underlying granitic rock.
C:\Active\]rojects\2006\2006-081 Knew Bear Valley\Final Report\Khew GeotechReport.doc
,..,.OVIl-VUlv Associates
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General Earthwork
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the project specifications and the following
recommendations.
6.1.1 Site Preparation
Prior to grading, the site should be cleared of existing surface and subsurface obstructions.
Vegetation, oversize material, and should be off Holes
removal ofburied obstructions such as foundations or below-grade structures extend below
finished site grades should be filled with properly compacted soil under the observation and
testing of the geotechnical engineer.
Removals
Since the existing alluvial/colluvial soils were observed to be locally dry and/or loose and
susceptible to hydrocolIapse (settlement upon application ofwater) under the weight of the
proposed fill load, we recommend that the alluvium/colluvium materials completely
moisture-conditioned, and recompacted to the placement structural or the proposed
site improvements. Deeper moisture-conditioning and recompaction may necessary
construction is performed during the dryer of the or if localized loose areas are
encountered. recommended depth is to range up to 10+ across
may be locally deeper. The should of 10 feet beyond
proposed building pad but not less than depth of depth
removal (or depth of the aHuviumlcolluvium) may be test-n......Qn/"l~v B.
Excavation/removal bottoms should firm and competent weathered rock
proof-rolled and observed by a geotechnical engineer. Removals the area
basin may be limited to 5 feet below existing grade.
should
detention
Overexcavation of cut lots which expose during mass-grading a rYl1n11'"1rU11'Y11
3 feet) is recommended to reduce the transition from cut to fill immediately below the proposed
structures and to reduce the potential for braking or footing excavation into rock with
light-duty construction equipment.
C:\Active\]rojects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Final Report\Khew GeotechReport.doc
6.1.3 Structural Fills
The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic
material and debris. Material greater than 6 inches in maximum size should not be placed within
5 feet of the pad grade. Asphalt concrete and concrete should not be placed in structural fills.
The area to receive fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near
optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on
Modified Proctor, ASTM DI557). Fill soils should be placed at a minimum of90 percent
relative compaction (based on Modified Proctor, ASTM D1557) near optimum moisture content.
optimum thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and
size of compaction equipment used. general, should be placed uniform lifts not
exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Since a significant quantity of rock materials is anticipated to
be generated from the proposed cut slope, rocks may be buried in the deeper removal areas on the
site provided they are buried under the observation and testing geotechnical engineer a
minimum of 5 below grade (preferably street area).
hnported fill soils (approximately 41,000 cubic yards) are anticipated at the These soils
should be tested by the geotechnical consultant prior to site delivery for conformance to
above recommendations. Fills placed within 5 feet pad grade should consist of soils
with an expansion potential less than based on Standard 18-2 D4829)a size 2 ~ ..... .n .... aCl
onsite generally as they are screened
and other material over 6 inches in and organic matter. Trench backfill should
compacted in lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical
means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM 1557).
Foundation Design
Compacted fill soils ofvery low expansion potential (less than 20 ASTM D4829) are
anticipated at proposed pad grade. for design purposes, we provide following
foundation design parameters based on a low expansion p...., .. ..., .
Footings bearing properly compacted fill should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below the
lowest adjacent compacted soil grade. At a depth of 18 inches, footings may designed using
an allowable soil-bearing value of2,000 pounds per square foot (pst). At a of 24 1n0lh&:l>C1
C:\Active\]rojects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Final Report\Khew GeotechReport.doc
Associates
an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psfmay be used. These values may be increased by one
third for loads of short duration including wind or seismic forces.
Wall and isolated-spread footings shall have a minimum base dimension no less than 12 inches
and 24 inches, respectively and should be reinforced in accordance with recommendations of
the structural engineer and the latest edition of the California Building Code.
Footings should be reinforced with four No.5 rebars; two near the top and two near the bottom
of the footing. founded near the top of slopes, footings, as well as retaining structures should
have a minimum 10-foot setback (measured horizontally) from base of the footing to
daylight.
Our preliminary foundation design recommendations are summarized in Table 2 below:
ContinuousFootings:
Minimum Depth:
Minimum Width:
Reinforcement:
Slope Setback:
18 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade (minimum)
12 inches
Four No.5 rebars (2 near top and 2 near bottom)
I 10-foot minimum
IsolatedFootings:
Allowable Bearing Capacity:Minimum
Minimum Width:
Reinforcement:
Slope Setback:
2,000 psf(at 18 inches deep), 2,50018 inches below lowest adjacent soil
24 inches
Per structural engineer
10-foot minimum
Allowable Bearing Ca acHy:Minimum Thickness:
sf (at 24 inches dee ), may
Slab-on-GradeFloor:
DesignSettlement
Minimum Reinforcement: No.3 rebars at 18 inches on center (each way)
See Section 6.4
Floor slabs (excluding those subject to truck loading) should have a minimum thickness
inches. Reinforcement should ofNo. 3 bars at 18 inches on center (each way). We
emphasize that it is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the slab reinforcement
C:\Active'-Projects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Final Report\Khew GeotechReport.doc
Associates
placed at slab mid-height. Slabs should be underlain by a 4-inch layer of sand (SE minimum of
30) to aid in concrete curing and to act as a capillary break, which is underlain by a 6-mil (or
heavier) moisture barrier. The moisture barrier should be underlain by an additional2-inch layer
of clean sand to protect the moisture barrier. All penetrations through the moisture barrier and
laps should be sealed. Our experience indicates that use of reinforcement in slabs and
foundations can generally reduce the potential for drying and shrinkage cracking. However,
some cracking should be expected as the concrete cures. Minor cracking is considered normal;
however, it is often aggravated by a high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the
time ofplacement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry, and/or
windy weather conditions during placement curing. Cracking to temperature and
moisture fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low slump concrete (not exceeding 4
inches at the time ofplacement) can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. Moisture
barriers can retard, but not eliminate vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the
slab.
We recommend that the floor-covering contractor test the moisture vapor flux rate prior to
attempting application ofmoisture-sensitive flooring. 'Breathable' floor covering or special slab
sealants should be considered vapor rates are high. Floor covering manufacturers
should be consulted for specific recommendations. If tile or other crack or movement-sensitive
flooring is planned, a slipsheet should be used. material should be used
crack-sensitive flooring concrete joints.
The upper
and exterior
inches of subgrade soils underlying conventionally foundation C'''u,~'h::."n1lC'
orn:r""...'V" should near moisttlre content prior to 1J......,vv............,..... of the
moisture barrier and slab concrete.
The recommended allowable bearing capacity is generally based on a
(static) is likely to approximately
occumng after application of the loads.
static settlement of 1total ",,,,,1"'t"I.o.1t"ln.o.'I'"Ilt-
C:\Active\]rojects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Final Report\Khew GeotechReport.doc
Associates
6.5 Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance
Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The
magnitude of these pressures depends on the a...mount of deformation that the wall can \vithstand
under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be
designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength
of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be
designed for' at rest' conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance
developed by the soil is the 'passive' resistance.
For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure each cas.e for walls founded
above the static ground water table (with level backfill) and backfilled with onsite or import soils
of very low expansion potential (less than 20 per ASTM D4829) is presented in the following
table:
j - ._........ -~"'"'='--~"-.-~"~
Equivalent Fluid Weight (pct)
Condition Level 2:1 Slope
Active 35 55
At-Rest 55 65
Passive 350 (Maximum of 3 kst) -
The above values assume conditions. conditions than those
are pressure values should on an case
basis by geotechnical surcharge load a restrained or unrestrained
resulting from automobile traffic may be assumed to equivalent to a uniform pressure
psfwhich is addition to equivalent fluid pressures given above. All retaining wall
structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and waterproofing. Wall backfill should
be compacted by mechanical methods to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on
Test Method Dl
Wall footing design and setbacks should be performed accordance with previous
foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations.
Soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can obtained from the passive
pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of0.35 may
be used at the concrete and soil interface. These values may be increased by one-third for loads
of short duration including wind or seismic loads.
C:\Active'-Projects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Final Report\Khew GeotechReport.doc
Associates
The total resistance may be taken as the sum of the frictional and passive resistance provided that
the passive portion does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance.
Keystone-type segmented wall design parameters are provided as follows:
Retained and foundation soil friction = 30 degrees
Retained and foundation cohesion = 100 psf
Allowable bearing capacity (see Section 6.2)
Wall drainage (in accordance with the manufacture's design details including a perforated
wall drain attached to a suitable outlet)
Wall backcut to be accordance with OSHA requirements
6.6 Slope Stability Analysis
The proposed 30-foot high cut slope northeast of Lots 4-6 was analyzed for static stability using a
computer program called SLOPE/W. The engineering properties were
chosen based on laboratory testing results of similar materials, experience with similar types of
materials, and professional judgement. The values are provided below:
Slo
Type
Weathered Granitic Rock
geologic cross section was """-' .......u ............ ..., ...""....
location of Section A-A' is shown on
The approximatecross "-'P-£'T' £1...... is presented
analysis proposed cut at an 2: 1 to vertical) a
static factor of safety of 2.4 which is excess of the minimum factor of safety of 1.5 by
the City ofEscondido for static slope stability. Analysis of the slope with a horizontal design
earthquake acceleration of O.28g Yields a factor of safety of 1.4 indicates u.......~"-f ....·u.t-v
stability under design earthquake event).
The cut slope should be geologically logged by a representative of the geotechnical consultant
during grading so that adverse geotechnical conditions are not encountered during grading that
may cause surficial slope instability. Care should during excavation to not overcut
C:\Active\]rojects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Final Report\K.hew GeotechReport.doc
....~ .......... '-' .... ,V Associates
or overblast the cut slope to cause areas of instability or areas where fill soils are needed to be
compacted on weathered granitic rock to achieve the design slope grades.
6.7 Preliminary Pavement Design
The R-value test result from the test pit in the area of the proposed subgrade indicated an R-value
of 54 (Appendix B). For preliminary design purposes, we have utilized a design R-value of 40
for the proposes pavement subgrade soils based on our experience, laboratory test results,
knowledge of soils in the project area, and the fact that import soils ofunknown R-value win
needed to imported onto the site. All imported soils should have a minimum R-Value of 40
(based on Test 301).
It is recommended that representative samples ofactual subgrade materials be obtained after
pavement subgrade is cut and tested to provide the final pavement The project architect
should review the provided traffic indices prior to fmal design.
Utilizing the design procedures outlined in the current Caltrans Highway Design Manual and a
design R-value of 40, we provide the following preliminary pavement sections for planning
purposes. project civil engineer/architect should determine the appropriate traffic AAAU......n..
We present the preliminary sections based on 3 traffic indices as follows:
3.0 inches
3.0 inches
inches
3.5 inches
4.0 inches
5.0 inches
6.0 inches
traffic of4.5 is typically used for parking areas for passenger vehicles with an average
daily traffic index of less than 200 vehicles. A traffic index of 5.0 is similar to a cul-de-sac or
local street with an average daily traffic of less than 1,200 passenger vehicles with minor truck
traffic. A traffic index of 6.0 is similar to a local collector street with an average daily traffic of
up to 2,500 vehicles per day moderate small truck traffic and delivery truck "................. ...,.
C:\Active\]rojects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Final Report\Khew GeotechReport.docAssociates
For delivery areas, trash areas, and truck traffic areas utilized by the delivery trucks, we
recommend a minimum section of6 inches of Portland cement concrete (P.C.C.) over 2 inches of
Class 2 aggregate base. The P.C.C. in the above pavement sections should be provided with
appropriate steel reinforcement and crack-control joints as designed by the structural
engineer. If sawcuts are used, they should be a minimum depth of 1/3 the slab thickness and
made within 8 hours of concrete placement. We recommend that sections be as nearly square as
possible. A concrete mix with a minimum 28-day strength of3,250 psi should be utilized.
Asphalt Concrete (A.C.), P.C.C., and Class 2 base materials should conform to and be placed
accordance with the latest revision of the California Department ofTransportation Standard
Specifications (Caltrans) and American Institute (ACI) codes. accordance with the
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction "Greenbook", the upper 6 inches of
subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557 prior to placement of aggregate base. The base
layer should be cOfnpacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM
Method D1557. Untreated Class 2 aggregate base (not processed miscellaneous base)
should meet the four criteria of Section 26-1.02A of the most recent Caltrans specifications and
the Greenbook standards. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to the Greenbook
standards of95 percent of Hveem density (Section 302-5.6.2).
We recommend that the curbs, gutters, sidewalks designed by the or
structural engineer. We suggest at appropriate intervals, as det:errUl11led
or structure engineer, be considered. also suggest welded-wire and a
'1IYI1rl1rnn1'Y'1 thickness of4 slabs. Ifpavement areas are adjacent to landscape
areas, we recommend steps be taken to subgrade soils from becoming saturated.
"'-''U' .......,.. '"'' .. ''''' swales should be designed roadway or parking areas subject to surface
6.8 Soil Corrosivity
general, soil environments that are to concrete have high of
sulfates and/or pH values of less than Table 1 ofUBC, 1997 provides specific
guidelines for the concrete mix-design soluble sulfate content exceeds 1
-n&»""I"&»1'''i-t by weight or 1000 ppm. The of our laboratory tests on representative soils from
the indicated a soluble sulfate content of29 to 33 ppm indicating that concrete should be
.....""" ....,.._ ..""'..... in accordance with the Negligible Category of Table 19-A-4 ofUBC, 1997.
test results also indicate a minimum resistivity of 8,300 to 10,150 ohm-em, is
considered to present a low corrosion potential to buried metals. The test results are provided in
C:\Active'--Projects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Final Report\Khew GeotechReport.docAssociates
Appendix B.
For the appropriate evaluation and mitigation design for other substances with potential influence
from corrosive soils, a corrosion engineer may be consulted. These other substances include (but
are not necessarily limited to) buried copper tubing, aluminum elements in close vicinity of soils,
or stucco finish that can be potentially influenced.
7.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION, LIMITATIONS, AND PLAN REVIEW
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based part upon data that were
obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests. The
nature of many sites is such differing geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within
sman distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and
do occur over time. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented this
report can be relied upon only if GLA has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions
..... ""'..........F, grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings
are representative for the site. In addition, we recommend that this office have an opportunity to
review the final grading and foundation plans in order to provide additional site-specific
recommendations.
than those or
parties or other
.L ....""..,..v ............. advise or data
report not prepared for use parties or nr'-",Por>TCl
described above. It may not contain sufficient .n-t·Ar1.....
report has prepared accordance generally accepted ge()techll1cal
lULl...........""""" no other warranties, or implied, as to
C:\Active\.Projects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Final Report\Khew GeotechReport.doc
Associates
8.0 REFERENCES
Bill Yen & Associates, 2006, City of Escondido Tentative Tract Map, Sheet 1
dated March 8,2005, revised September 9,2005.
W00435,
..............,......""'. Thomas F., 2004a, EQFAULT,
Acceleration from Digitized Faults.
3.00, Deterministic Estimation
Blake, Thomas F., 2004b, EQSEARCH, Version 3.00, Estimation of Peak
California Earthquake Catalogs.
Blake, Thomas F., 2004c, FRISKSP, 4.00, Probabilistic Earthquake
Using Multiple Forms of Ground-Motion-Attenuation Relationships.
Analysis
CDMG, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic
Report No. 96-08.
Assessment for the State
Hart, W., and Bryant, W. A., 1997, Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps: Special
Publication 42.
...............Jl ....... .." 1997, ............ ,.1.......'-A. Building
Maps
Database,
Escondido
1.0, USGS.
U. Geological Survey (USGS), 1968, 7 'li- Topographic Series, Escondido
Quadrangle, photorevised 1968, Photorevised 1975, map scale 1:24,000.
C:\Active\]rojects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Final Report\Khew GeotechReport.doc
Associates
REFERENCE: U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Topographic Series, Escondido, 1968, photorevised 1975.
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1 INCH;;;: 4,400 FEET
1
VICINITY MAP
17 LOT SUBDIVISIONBEAR VALLEY PARKWAY
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA
I Project No, 2006-081
lYPE: JDEERE 410E BACKHOE-24 INCH BUCKET I ElEV.: ±711' MSl IT.P. No.: TP-1
,-: ";',
o ..... "" SM AlLUVIUM:RED BROWN. DRY TO MOIST. LOOSE, FINE SILTY SAND, TRACE OF CLAY, SOME ORGANICS INTHE UPPER FEW INCHES.
2.5- ~:
_I;;,'
I- ;. ,"
5- 1-";' .;
f- 'l; -f--- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
'\ ,," SM BROWN TO TAN, DRY TO MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE. FINE TO MEDIUM SILTY SANDI- ' , " TRACE OF CLAY.\-- 'i 'I ••
1-, '"
1.5 - f- : ,"".
I- ',~ ,"
..... : 1
..... ' If-,,'
10- l--' tl
':,'.
f-
I-I I
f- I-~ ...JZI.aJ
1.aJ~I.aJ m -0
~ 2 £;
!~~~!5...: :;)
i!=t:i.... Z I.aJZ O~
1Il~ ...J I.aJ fr;~ !;( W!=OZ Q. ...J
~~20~
Q.0 :::e(l)
U~ ;:)U
WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK:GRAY TO BROWN. DRY. DENSE TO VERY DENSE. FINE TO COARSE-GRAINED WEATHEREDGRANITIC ROCK, SOME MICA.
vNOTES:1. TOTAL DEPTH OF TEST PIT 10.5 FEET.2. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED I3. NO CAVING ENCOUNTERED, UPPER 3 FEET LOOSE.4. TEST PIT BACKFILLED ON APRIL 13. 2006. LOWER 6 FEET COMPACTED WITH BUCKET.
PROJECT: KHEW PROPERTY-BEAR VALlEY PARKWAY. ESCONDIDO.CA
LOGGED BY: I DATE: I JOB NO.:J G FRANZONE 4/1 5/2006 2006-081
T.P. No.: TP-2ElEV.:
BROWN TO TAN. DRY TO MOIST. MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE. FINE TO MEDIUM SILTY SAND WITHTRACE OF CLAY.
•••@3 FEET: BECOMES MEDIUM DENSE. POROUS.
5
2.5
BULK 1
lYPE: JDEERE 410E BACKHOE-24 INCH BUCKET
ALLUVIUM:RED BROWN. DRY TO MOIST, LOOSE. FINE SILTY SAND. TRACE OF CLAY. SOME ORGANICS INTHE UPPER FEW INCHES.
. ,,', '
7..5 " ~: 't
' ....,::
10
~ ...JZI.aJ I.aJ
1.aJ~~
en~ ~o
a Q2 (1)<Ct': & :::l
i!=t:i;:)1- Z a::: O~\i)ffi I.aJ w W!=...J w fr;~ !;(~~
Q. ...J -(I)
~Q.
0 :::l!! ~5u~ ;:)U
WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK:GRAY TO BROWN. DRY. DENSE TO VERY DENSE. FINE TO COARSE-GRAINED WEATHEREDGRANITIC ROCK. SOME MICA.
TYPE: JOEERE 410E BACKHOE-24 INCH BUCKET I ElEV.: ±720' MSL IT.P. No.: TP-3
BULK 1 U _ ,,"" " SM AlLUVIUM:RED BROWN. DRY TO MOIST. LOOSE. FINE SILTY SAND. TRACE OF CLAY.
--
't. ",2.5- -
"- "
-' :.'"- ,"
I-
5- r-.'~ -,. ,
r-I- .,'; :
I- ' "J',, .-
r-" , /.
--------- --- ---RED BROWN. DRY TO MOiST. MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE. FINE TO MEDIUM SILTY SAND.Of CLAY.
7.5l-
i-
,....
-10- ,....
--
I I I I --
Q:
!.oJ !.oJw~ CD
~2: ::.!~ ...... :>
~t;jliifS t.&Jz
5!Z ...I t.&J ~~a. ...I:::l!O
~a. 0u~
1\ WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK:TAN TO BROWN. DRY. VERY DENSE. FINE TO COARSE-GRAINED WEATHERED ROCK. BREAKS
J-AP_AR_T_U_ND...,;E_R_S_TR_O_N_G_F_IN_G_ER_PR_E_SS_U_R_E.__A"\;---------------1v
NOTES:1. TOTAL DEPTH Of TEST PIT = 7.5 fEET.2. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED3. NO CAVING ENCOUNTERED.
I 4. TEST PIT BACKFILLED ON APRil 13. 2006. BOTTOM 5 fEET COMPACTED WITH BUCKET.
...JZ
3! CSQ
adg ~8 :==:P=R:OJ::EC:T:::K:H:f)N:=:P=R:O=P:ERlY:==-:B:EAR===V.=~:lEY:=:P:AA::KW=='AV:.::ES:C:O:N:D:ID:O:.=C:A:===:W::::E W!= I I~~ ~~ LOGGED BY: DATE: JOB NO.:
=>d J G FRANZONE 4/13/2006 2006-081
TYPE: JDEERE 410E BACKHOE-24 iNCH BUCKET ElEV.: T.P. No.: TP=4
WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK:TAN TO BROWN. VERY DENSE. WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK IN THE UPPER 3 FEET. GRADING TO
INTACT GRANITIC ROCK:MODERATELY TO SUGHTlY WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK. FRACTURE/JOINT SPACINGAPPROXIMATELY 1 TO 2 FEET ON CENTER. P CTICAl BACKHOE REFUSAl AT 3 FEET.
NOTES:1. TOTAL DEPTH OF TEST PIT = 3.0 FEET.2. PRACTICAL REFUSAL WITH BACKHOE AT 3.0 FEET.3. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED4. NO CAVING ENCOUNTERED.5. TEST PIT BACKFILLED ON APRIL 13. 2006.
7.5
10
...JZ
w M !.&J~
oQ~
...J tn!.;(IX: •::x:: I- ~o
~8 z o~!.&J I:i:~ 1.1.1 wl:!::...I !.&J~B!Z a. ...I 1.1.1 .... -Vl
28 ~0.. 0 :::::i! ~~~ =>0
TYPE: JDEERE 410E BACKHOE-24 INCH BUCKET I ElEV.: ±770' MSL IT.P. No.: TP-5u SM COLLUVIUM:-
-: .RED BROWN, DRY TO MOIST, LOOSE, FINE SILlY SAND WITH COBBLES AND BOULDERS TO 18+
- INCHES..: ~. .
+ WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK:2.5- - /- TAN TO BROWN, DRY, VERY DENSE, INTACT ROCK, fRACTURE!JOINT SPACING AT ONE TO 2+ fEET ON CENTER. INTACT BOULDER ON SOUTH SIDE AND BOTTOM OF TRENCH (5 fEET IN-
- + DIAMETER), NORTH SIDE OF TRENCH IN WEATHERED ROCK..+
5I- + +
AV
I- NOTES:I- 1. TOTAL DEPTH Of TEST PIT = 5 FEET.I- 2. PRACTiCAl REfUSAl WITH BACKHOE AT 5 fEET.i- 3. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
7.5- I-4. NO CAVING ENCOUNTERED.
I-5. TEST PIT BACKFILLED ON APRIL 13, 2006.
l-
i-
I-
10 - -'-
:--
I I I - I I I-a:: ....JZw
w~w l:tl -0
~ ::E ~ ~o g~gj ...... ::>~t:i PROJECT: KHEW PROPERTY-BEAR VAllEY PARKWAY. ESCONDIDO. CAz ffi§j o~ln~ w
...J W fb~w!:: LOGGED BY: I DATE: I JOB NO.:5!Z a. ...J ~~-(I')
::EO~
a. 0 ~S 4/3/20060~ J G FRANZONE 2006-081::>0
WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK:TAN TO BROWN. DRY, VERY SPACING AT 2 TO FEETON CENTER. BOULDERS TO 24
TYPE: JDEERE 410E BACKHOE-24 INCH BUCKET £LEV.: T.P. No.: TP-6
SM COLLUVIUM:RED BROWN DRY TO MOIST LOOSE FINE SILTY SAND WITH COBBLES TO 8+ INCHES.
5-#1-...;-:--+--1----------------"'\1---------------1
7.5
10
NOTES:1. TOTAl DEPTH OF rEST PIT = 5 FEET.2. PRACTiCAl REFUSAl WITH BACKHOE AT 5 FEET.3. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED4. NO CAVING ENCOUNTERED.5. TEST PIT BACKFILLED ON APRIL 13. 2006.
0:: ....JZ
w~w ~
~oQ
~ ::E ?1! (I')~a:: • £ ~t:i ESCONDIDO, CA~i5 a:: o~w w5 .... ct ~ fb~ ~
w!::JOB NO.:-(I')
::I~~ ~5..u
~0 2006-081::>0
TYPE: JDEERE 410E BACKHOE-24 INCH BUCKET I ElEV.: ±754' MSL IT.P. No.: TP-7u SM COLLUVIUM:-.
-: .RED BROWN. DRY TO MOIST. LOOSE. FINE SILTY SAND.
-.:", .
_: .'
2.5-....
-- ....
-+ WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK:I-++5- i- TAN. DRY. VERY DENSE. FINE TO COARSE-GRAINED WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK. SLIGHTLY
I- + WEATHERED.
I- + 05 FEET: MODERATELY WEATHERED•i- .+
I 1-+ I06 FEET: MODERATELY TO SLIGHTlY WEATHERED.7.5- ~ ++
.... + I .- f
.A
v
NOTES:10 1. TOTAL DEPTH Of TEST PIT = 9 FEET.
2. PRACTICAL REFUSAl TO BACKHOE AT 9 fEET.- 3. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
I I I I - I I4. NO CAVING ENCOUNTERED.
I- 5. TEST PIT BACKFILLED ON APRIL 13. 2006.
0:: .... 2:w I.a.I
1.a.I~ m~ a Q
~ :::E ...J0:: • :::;:)
jEGj ~itIl!;;( PROJECT: KHEW PROPERTY-BEAR VAllEY PARKWAY. ESCONDIDO, CA::::>1- Z o~I-Z l.aJ(f)W ...J l.aJ Q.~ wI:: LOGGED BY: I DATE: I JOB NO.~a!Z a.. ...J !;;(>- -tilw~5::18 ~
a.. 0 ::Ern~ =>0 J G FRANZONE 4/13/2006 2006-081
TYPE: JDEERE 410E BACKHOE-24 INCH BUCKET I ElEV.: ±738' MSL IT.P. No.: TP-Bu -' :. ALLUVIUM:' '
- ...... ,'. RED BROWN. DRY TO MOIST. LOOSE. FINE SILTY SAND. TRACE OF CLAY. ORGANICS IN UPPER.. . 12 INCHES._.. .
i- .'2.5- i-
:,.' I--- -I- 1------- ------- --
I-.~ " SM RED BROWN. DRY TO MOIST. MEDiUM DENSE TO DENSE. FINE TO MEDIUM SilTY SAND. TRACE I....' ::' OF CLAY.- ... .,,':
- ... £.
5- - " .....:.- "; { ".:- :,. ,',
-. " "
". I
- '.'
7.5- I-.' .:iV WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK:
I- -. TAN. DRY. VERY DENSE. FINE TO COARSE-GRAINED WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK, SLIGHTlYWEATHERED. ....
vI- NOTES:- 1. TOTAl DEPTH OF TEST PIT = 8.5 FEET.
10- - 2. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED- 3. NO CAVING ENCOUNTERED.- 4. TEST PIT BACKFILLED ON APRil 13. 2006, BOTTOM 5 FEET COMPACTED WITH BUCKET.--
0:: .... 2:
w~I.a.I -0
~ ~
~~~~0:: •
jEGj PROJECT: KHEW PROPERTY-BEAR VALLEY PARKWAY, ESCONDIDO, CA~!Z l.aJ o~
;~ tr fu~ !« wI::IM~l='n BY: I DATE~ I JOB NO.:-til
~ 0 ::::E ~~ J G FRANZONE V· '12006 2006-081=>0
'TYPE: JDEERE 410E BACKHOE-24 INCH BUCKET I ELEV.: ±731' MSl IT.P. No.: TP-9
BULK 1u SM ALLUVIUM:1-.
I- . RED BROWN, DRY TO MOIST, LOOSE, fiNE SILTY SAND.
l-.: ~. .
_:
2.5-....
-- ,": -,
-f- 1\
WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK:
S- f-TAN, DRY. VERY DENSE, FINE TO COARSE-GRAINED WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK. SLIGHTLY
r- WEATHERED.
r- v
r-NOTES:
f-1. TOTAL DEPTH OF TEST PiT := 4 FEET.2. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
7.5- - 3. NO CAVING ENCOUNTERED.I- 4. TEST PIT BACKFILLED ON APRIL 13, 2006.I-
--
10- ..-l- I-
I I - I-
l:t: ...JZW
w~W lD -0
~ 2 ~
ii ~!;i~...: ::J
i!:~PROJECT: KHEW PROPERTY-BEAR VAlLEY PARKWAY, ESCONDIDO. CAz i o~li;ts w W!:!::
I I JOB NO••...J W Cl..~ LOGGED BY: DATE:a!Z Q. ...J -VlW
~520~
Q. 0 4/13/2006u~ J G FRANZONE 2006-081=>u
'TYPE: JDEERE 410E BACKHOE-24 INCH BUCKET ElEV.:
SM ALLUVIUM:RED BROWN. DRY TO MOIST. LOOSE. FINE SILTY SAND, TRACE OF CLAY. ORGANICS.
RED BROWN. DRY TO MOIST. MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE. FINE TO MEDIUM SILTY SAND. TRACEOF CL"Y.
NOTES:1. TOTAl DEPTH OF TEST PIT := 4 FEET.2. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED3. NO CAVING ENCOUNTERED.4. TEST PIT BACKFILLED ON APRIL 13. 2006.
10
l:t: .... Zw~
w ~~ 5 Q
~ 2 ~ Ul5l:t: • ::J :I:1:';j~8 z a::w Ii:W W:::e S~.....
~;~
Q. W ..... ~ -Ul~.
Q. ~~~
0=>u
TYPE: JDEERE 410E BACKHOE-24 INCH BUCKET I ElEV.: ±732' MSL IT.P. No.: TP-11
BULK 1u SM AlLUVIUM:1-.
l-RED BROWN, DRY TO MOIST, LOOSE, FINE SILTY SAND, POROUS, TRACE OF CLAY AND
. .ORGANICS.
I-.:-, .
I- :
2.5- l-
I- '~ :: - ---- ------------- RED BROWN, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, FINE TO MEDiUM SILTY SAND.
..j.+ WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK:5- 1-
~TAN, DRY, VERY DENSE, FINE TO COARSE-GRAINED HIGHLY TO MODERATELY WEATHERED
- GRANITIC ROCK..A
.... V
- NOTES:1. TOTAL DEPTH OF rEST PIT := 4.5 FEET.- 2. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED
7.5- - 3. NO CAVING ENCOUNTERED.- 4. TEST PIT BACKFILLED ON APRIL 13, 2006.---
10- -- I- II I - I-
0::...I Z
W W
w~~
CD~ ~o
5 Q::Ii tIl~
~..: ::> lEt.:; PROJECT: KHEW PROPERTY-BEAR VAllEY PARKWAY, ESCONDIDO, CAzf:5~ o~... z lAJ(l)W ..J W frjli w!:!::
LOGGED BY: I DATE: I JOB NO••6~ a. -' <li;~~::!o
~a. 0 ::::e
4/13/2006(.)
~ J G FRANZONE 2006-081::::>u
lYPE: JDEERE 410E BACKHOE-24 INCH BUCKET ElEV.: ±731' MSL T.P. No.: TP-1
7.5
10
. , ~; .
" I,
SM AlLUVIUM:RED BROWN, DRY TO MOIST, LOOSE. FINE SILTY SAND. TRACE OF CLAY.
RED BROWN. DRY TO MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE. FINE TO MEDIUM SILTY SAND.
@9 FEET: MODERATELY WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK.
NOTES:1. TOTAl DEPTH OF TEST PIT = 9 FEET.2. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED3. NO CAVING ENCOUNTERED.4. TEST PIT BACKFILLED ON APRil 13, 2006.
0::...I Z
w~W ~
~ 5 Q~ :::E 3! til<0:: • ::> lEt.:;~ffi z 0:: o~w w
5~..J
~ ~Ii < w!:!::a. -til
28 ! a. 0 :z ~~~ ::::>u
TYPE: JDEERE 410E BACKHOE-24 INCH BUCKET I ElEV.: ±757' MSl IT.P. No.: TP-13u .. COLLUVIUM:,..- •.
,..- .. , ... RED BROWN, DRY TO MOIST. LOOSE, FINE SILTY SAND WITH COBBLES AND BOULDERS TO 18+INCHES.
+ WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK:- +2.5- - 04- TA~~ TO BROWN. DRY, VERY Dn~SE, MODERATElY TO SLIGHTLY WEATHERED ROCK, REFUSAL"+
A
V
- NOTES:- 1. TOTAL DEPTH OF TEST PIT = 3 FEET.- 2. PRACTICAl REFUSAl WITH BACKHOE AT 3 FEET.
5- - 3. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED- 4. NO CAVING ENCOUNTERED.- 5. TEST PIT BACKFILLED ON APRIL 13. 2006.,..-,..-
7.5 ,..-
I-
,..-
i-
-10 - ,...
-
I-- I I-
0:: ...... 2:W w
w~ !D -0
~ :2 ~ ~6 fi1~ PROJECT: KHEW PROPERtY-BEAR VALlEY PARKWAY, ESCONDIDO, CA0:: • :::;,~w
:::;, .... z et::m oSJ.... z WlII W ...I w ll.l:::! W::::t W!:!:: LOGGED BY: I DATE: I JOB NO.:a!Z 0.. ...I !;(>-~~:20 ! 0.. W ~Vl
(.) ! 0J G FRANZONE 4/13/2006 2006-081=>0
TYPE: JDEERE 410E BACKHOE-24 INCH BUCKET
NOTES:1. TOTAL DEPTH OF TEST PIT = 4 FEET.2. PRACTICAl REFUSAl WITH BACKHOE AT 4 FEET.3. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED4. NO CAVING ENCOUNTERED.5. TEST PIT BACKFILLED ON APRIL 13. 2006.
WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK:TAN TO BROWN, DRY. VERY DENSE. MODERATELY WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK.
SM COLLUVIUM:RED BROWN. DRY TO MOIST, LOOSE, FINE SILTY SAND WITH COBBLES TO 8+ INCHES.
++
+
5
10
2.5-H+...........L.If---I--------------------------------I
7.5
0:: ...... 2:
w M w ~~
oQ~ :2 ?l! lIl!;(0:: • :::;,
:x::t:i~!Z w z et:: oSJI'-w W W!:!::ali it ~ fb"'- !;( -lIl2 8 ! 0.. 0 ::::t ~:s! =>0
lYPE: JDEERE 410E BACKHOE-24 INCH BUCKET I ELEV.: ±753' MSL IT.P. No.: TP-15u SM COLLUVIUM:~:
-'. : .., RED BROWN. DRY TO MOIST. LOOSE. FINE SILTY SAND WITH COBBLES AND BOULDERS TO 18+INCHES.
-+ WEATHERED GRANITIC ROCK:2.5- +: TAN TO BROWN. DRY. VERY DENSE. MODERATElY TO SUGHTlY WEATHERED ROCK, REFUSAL
AV
NOTES:1. TOTAL DEPTH OF TEST PIT = 3 FEET.2. PRACTiCAl REFUSAL WITH BACKHOE AT 3 FEET.
5- - 3. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED- 4. NO CAVING ENCOUNTERED.- 5. TEST PIT BACKFILLED ON APRIL 13, 2006.--
1.5- -l-
I-
l-
I-
10- l-
I-
l-
I-
F
a::: ...JZw w
w~~
lD~ ~o
5 Q::::e V)!;;(
~ ...... ::;:)
~w PROJECT: KHEW PROPERTY-BEAR VALLEY PARKWAY, ESCONDIDO, CA... z w zffi~ o~Vll.&.l ...J W fri~ w!:!:: LOGGED BY: I DATE: I JOB NO.:as: Q. ...J ~~
-til
::::eS ~Q.
0 ~S~ ::>0 J G FRANZONE 4/13/2006 2006-081
T.P. No.: TP-16ELEV.:
BULK
TYPE: JDEERE 410E BACKHOE-24 INCH BUCKET
SM ALLUVIUM:RED BROWN. DRY TO MOIST, LOOSE. FINE SILTY SAND.
2.5..
I I SM I RED BROWN TO TAN. MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE. FINE SILTY SAND.
5
7.5
10
NOTES:1. TOTAL DEPTH OF TEST PIT = 5 FEET.2. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED3. NO CAVING ENCOUNTERED.4. TEST PIT BACKFILLED ON APRIL 13, 2006.
a::: ...JZW1.llJ~
W lD~ 5 Q
~ ::::I!i ~o V)~Ill:: • :::>~w~ffi w z a::: o~w w!:!::it w fb~ !:;coS: ...J -V)
::10~
Q.0 ::::.'!: ~S(,)
~ ::>0
APPENDIXB
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
Expansion Index Tests: The expfu'1sion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the
Expansion Index Test, V.B.C. Standard No. 18-2 (ASTM D4829). Specimens are molded under a
given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50
percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared I-inch thick by
4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap
water until volumetric is reached. The of these tests are presented below:
F1I:n,..n~ion F1I:n,..n~ionSample 1,1 .L! ~~ , .
Sample ... ...'lI;J""•.r ' .. 'IB Index Potential*
TP-2, Reddish brown fine, silty sand with a 0 Very Lowtrace of clay
TP-9, Reddish brown fine, silty sand with a 0 Lowtrace of clay
TP-11, 0-2' Reddish brown fine, silty sand with a 1 Lowtrace ofclay
* Based on the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code, prepared by the International Conference of BuildingOfficials, 1997).
Minimum and tests were performedthe table n""'I',",,'lIY'
Sample JL.I'lJ' .....UIlL-JlVJlJl
7.06.6
VeryVery Low
** per City of San Diego Program Design Guidelines for Consultants, 1992.
The soluble sulfate contents of a selected sample were determined
Test Method 417. test results are presented the table below:
*** Based on the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code, Table No.Conference ofBuilding Officials, (lCBO, 1997).
C:\Active\]rojects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Draft Reports\Khew GeotechReport.doc
"R"-Value: The resistance "R"-value was determined by the California Materials Method No. 301.
The selected sample was prepared and exudation pressure and "R"-value determined. The
graphically determined "R"-value at exudation pressure of300 psi is reported.
Sample Location
TP-l1, 0-2'
C:\Active\-.lrojects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Draft Reports\Khew GeotechReport.doc
R-Value
54
PROJECT Khew 1Bear Valley
1
JOB NO. .L ..." .....~-'.n.--------
Sample T-2/1 LD Sample T-9/1 InL.IIJ
Sta. No. Sta. No.
Soil Type Reddish Brown, F. Silty Sand w. trace Clay Soil Type Reddish Brown, F. Silty Sand w. trace Clay
iDate ~ Dial Reading Wet+Tare 629.2 Date Time Dial Reading Wet+Tare 639.2
14/20/2006 13:30 0.3463 Tare 221.5 4/20/2006 13:30 0.43 Tare 219.1
H2O Net Weight 407.7 H2O Net Weight 420.1
4/21/2006 16:00 0.346 % Water 9.1 4/21/2006 16:00 0.43 % Water 8.1
Dry Dens. 113.2 Dry Dens. 117.8
% Max % Max
I 'vVet+TareI
654 Wet+Tare 662.5
Tare 221.5 Tare 219.1
Net Weight 432.5 Net Weight 443.4
INDEX 0 0.0% % Water 15.7 INDEX 0 0.0% 0/0 Water 14.1
Sample T-11/1 LD Sample
Sta. No. Sta. No.
Soil Reddish Brown, F. Silty Sand w. trace Clay Soil
I IDateDate Time IDial Reading Wet+Tare 641.5 Time Dial Reading VVet+Tare
4/20/2006 13:30 0.2955 Tare 220.7 Tare
H2O Net Weight 420.8 Net Weight
4/21/2006 16:00 0.2941 % Water 8.1 5/2/2003 % Water
Dry Dens. 117.9 Dry Dens.
% Max % Max
Wet+Tare 665.1 Wet+Tare
Tare 220.7 Tare
Net Weight 444.4 Net Weight
l!!iDEX 1 0.1% % Water 14.2 IND % Water
301
Project Khew / Bear Valley
Sample
Soil Type ....:...._--r:.......... _
Job No. 2005-239
LD
Date 4/20/2006
TEST SPECIMEN A B C Grain Size Distribution
Compactor Air Pressure psi 350 50 200 SieveAs Rec'vd. As Tested
(%Pass.) (%Pass.)
Initial Moisture Content % 5.4 5.4 5.4 3"
Water Added ml 50 70 60 21/2"
Moisture at Com paction % 9.8 11.5 10.7 • 2"
Sample & Mold Weight gms 3156 3165 3157 11/2"
Mold Weight gms 2096 2101 2106 1"
Net Sample Weight gms 1060 1064 1051 3/4"
Sampie Height in. I 2.468 2.466 I 2.44 1/2" IDry Density pcf 118.5 117.2 117.9 3/8"
Pressure Ibs 9500 3100 5280 #4
Exudation Pressure 756 247 420 #8
Expansion Dial x 0.0001 0 0 0 #16
Expansion Pressure 0 0 0 #30
Ph at 1000lbs 21 33 32 #50
Ph at 2000lbs psi 32 61 50 #100
i .....
turns 3.14 3.7 3.67 #200,.., . ,- 11t::11l
R'Value 76 52 60 ISand ... .UVCU'l;:;BIIl.
Corrected 'R' Value 76 52 60 (CTM 21
FINAL 'R' VALUE
By Exudation Pressure (@ 300 psi): 54
By Epansion Pressure N/A
TI::::: 5
.,...'V·V ..........l--!lv Associates
CALIFORNIA MAP
125
100
75
50
25
o
-25
-50
KHEW PROPERT'£ BEAR VALLEY PK"vV"'f, ESCONVIDO, CA
200 225 250 275 300 325 350
CALIFORNIA FAULT MAPKHE\-V PROPERTY BEAR VALLEY PKVi,r"f, ESC01\rTIIDO, CA
600500400300200100o-100-200:.300
o
100
700
400
200
500
300
600
800
900
-1 00 +--'L......I-.....I..-J"-+....l.-...I'--'-..L......j'--'-..I--I......l...+--J.......l.....l...-I.-I-..l...-I.......l.....I-.f-J-.J..-l!I-....1.--j--L-J-..l..-..llt....t-.L...l......l.-J.Lt-i.-.l.-....I--I-.f--I--I-.l-...A..~
-400
1000
1100 ....---------------------------------.
***********************
*****
E Q F A U L T
Version 3.00
*****
***********************
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OFPEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
JOB NUMBER: 2006-081DATE: 04-14-2006
JOB NAME: KHEW PROPERTY BEAR VALLEY PKWY, ESCONDIDO, CA
CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: C:\PrGgram Files\EQFAULT1\CGSFLTE_2004.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:SITE LATITUDE:SITE LONGITUDE:
33.1208117.0459
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
(1997) Horiz. - NEHRP C (520)Number of Sigmas: 0.0
ATTENUATION RELATION: 2) Boore et aleUNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): MDISTANCE MEASURE: cd 2drpSCOND: 0Basement Depth: 5.00 krn CampbellCOMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
SSR Campbell SHR:
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: C:\Program Files\EQFAULT1\CGSFLTE_2004.DAT
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 0.0
EQFAULT SUMMARY
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 1
ABBREVIATEDFAULT NAME
APPROXIMATEDISTANCEmi (km)
IESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT1-------------------------------I MAXIMUM I PEAK lEST. SITEIEARTHQUAKE I SITE I INTENSITY1 ~~G. (Mw) I ACCEL. 9 !MOD.MERC.
================================1==============1==========1============1=========ELSINORE (JULIAN) IROSE CANYON IELSINORE (TEMECULA) INEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) IEARTHQUAKE VALLEY ICORONADO BANK ISAN JACINTO-ANZA ISAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK IELSINORE (GLEN IVY) IELSINORE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN) ISAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY ISAN JOAQUIN HILLS ISAN JACINTO - BORREGO IPALOS VERDES ICHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) INEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) IWHITTIER ISAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino M-llSAN ANDREAS Whole M-la ISAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-lb-2 ISAN ANDREAS SB-Coach. M-2b ISAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO ISAN ANDREAS - Coachella M-lc-5 ISUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) IPINTO MOUNTAIN IBURNT MTN. IELMORE RANCH ISUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) IEUREKA PEAK ILAGUNA SALADA IPUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST ICUCAMONGA INORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) INORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) ISAN JOSE IBRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE ISIERRA MADRE ILANDERS ICLEGHORN ISAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture M-2a I
15.3(17.6(17.8 (22.3(27.2(32.2 (37.8 (38.8(40.1(41.0(43.4 (49.0(49.6(52.9(57.3 (60.9(61.1 (62.0 (62.0(62.0(62.0 (62.9(64.4 (65.6(67.2 (67.9(69.2 (70.3(70.9(72.7(73.2 (76.5(76.7 (77.2 (77.5 (79.0(80.0(80.3 (80.7 (84.9 (
24.6) I28.4) I28.7) I35.9) I43.8) I51.8) I60.8) I62.5) I64.5) I66.0) I69.9) I78.9) I79.8) I85.2) I92.2) I98.0) I98.4) I
99.7 ) I99.7 ) I99.7 ) I99.7 ) I101.2) I103.7) I105.6) I108.2) I109.2) I111.4) I113.1) I114.1) I117.0) I117.8) I123.1) I123.5) I124.2) I124.7) I127.2) I128.8) I129.2) I129.8) I136.6) I
7.17.26.87.16.57.67.26.66.86.86.96.66.67.36.77.16.87.58.07.77.76.77.26.67.26.56.66.66.47.07.16.97.26.76.46.47.27.36.57.8
0.1530.1450.1160.1150.0720.1130.0810.0580.0630.0620.0620.0590.0480.0660.0550.0530.0450.0650.0840.0720.0720.0420.0540.0390.0520.0360.0370.0370.0330.0440.0560.0490.0570.0440.0370.0300.0550.0480.0310.059
VIIIVIII
VIIVIIVIVIIVIIVIVIVIVIVIVIVIVIVIVIVIVIIVIVIVIVI
VVI
VV
VV
VIVIVIVIVI
VV
VIVI
VVI
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 2
IESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENTAPPROXIMATE 1-------------------------------
ABBREVIATED DISTANCE 1 MAXIMUM I PEAK lEST. SITEFAULT NAME rni (kill) 1 EARTHQUAKE I SITE I INTENSITY
I 1 MAG. (Mw) I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC.================================1==============1==========1==========1=========SAN ANDREAS - Cho-Moj M-lb-l 1 84.9( 136.6) I 7.8 1 0.059 I VISAN ANDREAS - Mojave M-lc-3 I 84.9( 136.6) I 7.4 I 0.048 I VIIMPERIAL I 86.7 ( 139.6) I 7.0 1 0.038 1 VHELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT I 86.9( 139.9) I 7.3 I 0.045 1 VIEMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. I 87.4( 140.7) 1 7.0 I 0.038 I VLENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSI 88.4( 142.3) I 7.5 I 0.049 I VIJOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 89.1( 143.4) I 6.7 I 0.032 I VUPPER ELYSIAN PARK BLIND THRUST 89.5( 144.0) I 6.4 1 0.033 1 VCLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 90.2( 145.1) I 6.5 1 0.035 1 VRAYMOND 90.4( 145.5) I 6.5 1 0.035 1 VPISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK 92.5( 148.9) i 7.3 I 0.043 I VIVERDUGO 94.8( 152.5) I 6.9 I 0.041 I VCALICO - HIDALGO 96.7( 155.7) I 7.3 1 0.041 I VHOLLYWOOD 97.2( 156.5) I 6.4 1 0.031 1 V*******************************************************************************-END OF SEARCH- 54 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
THE ELSINORE (JULIAN) FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.IT IS ABOUT 15.3 MILES (24.6 kill) AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.1529 g
1
1
1
)
1 (250)1
...Qco
...Qo~
1
1
)
C:\ActiveLProjects\2006\2006-081 Khew Bear Valley\Draft Reports\Khew GeotechReport.doc
4003803603403203002802602402202001806014012010080604020
810
750
770
710
730
790
690
670
650 ! -, __---L- -1
o
1Description: Granitic Rock
180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400140 16012010080604020
Description:Khew Property Comments:Cross Section A-A'
Name:Section A-A, EO.slzSaved Date:4/17/2006Saved
AnalysisDirection of Slip MovementLeft toSlip Surface Option:Grid andP.W.P.Option:PiezometricTension Crack Option:(none)Seismic
770
710
750
810
790
650 I -L- ----J
o
730
690
670
(feet)
