The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP 15-23; NORTH COAST MEDICAL PLAZA; RESPONSES AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR NORTH COAST MEDICAL PLAZA; 2025-07-11 (800) 419-4926 www.PARTNEResi.com July 11, 2025 Timothy Hoag SSG-TH, LLC 5553 Willowmere Lane San Diego, California 92130 Subject: Response to City Comments North Coast Medical Office Building Adjacent to 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92011 Partner Project No. 25-495296.1 Dear Timothy Hoag: Partner Assessment Corporation (Partner) performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed North Coast Medical Office Building to be constructed in the vacant building pad adjacent to 6010 Hidden Valley Road in Carlsbad, California, and summarized the results in a report dated September 9, 2022. The City of Carlsbad (the City) reviewed our report and provided comments in their letter dated January 9, 2022 (Project ID: SDP15023). Based on these comments a supplemental investigation was conducted and summarized in our report dated June 2, 2025. The City provided further comment in there letter dated June 27, 2025 (Project ID: SDP15023) This letter presents our responses to the city comments, as listed below: City Comment 1: Please provide geologic cross-sections, one oriented generally North-South and one oriented generally East-West, at a sufficiently large scale to show all information on the Geologic Site Map plus the current elevation of the groundwater and depths/limits or remedial grading to prepare the site for the proposed development. (repeat comment – the Cross-Sections A-A’ and B-B’ provided in the recently submitted “Supplemental Geotechnical Report…” dated June 2, 2025, show only line work and do not include any labels identifying the lines or geologic units (borings are not identified, existing grade and proposed grade and proposed removals are not identified, geologic units are not identified, etc.). Please clearly label all line work.) RESPONSE: See attached for requested cross sections with proper labels. City Comment 2: There is no value for passive resistance provided in the “Supplemental Geotechnical Report, Proposed North Coast Medical Office Building…” (dated June 2, 2025); please provide as necessary for design of the proposed building and improvements. RESPONSE: The lateral resistance may be calculated using the minimum of the following: 50 percent of passive resistance plus 50 percent of base friction, 100 percent passive resistance only, or 100 percent of the base friction only. An equivalent fluid pressure of 300H pcf may be used for passive resistance where H is the depth to the bottom of the footing. City Comment 3: The results of the direct shear test provided in the “Supplemental Geotechnical Report, Proposed North Coast Medical Office Building…” (dated June 2, 2025) indicates values C=0 and Φ=30. PARTNER --------ooe@i---- Response to Review City Comments Project No. 25-495296.1 July 11, 2025 Page 2 Please confirm and provide the calculations demonstrating support for the recommended bearing capacity of 2500 psf and 3500 psf for conventional continuous/spread footings founded on compacted fill that is provided in the report. RESPONSE: The allowable bearing pressure is governed by settlement not the ultimate bearing failure of the on-site materials. Foundations with a minimum width of 2.5 feet and placed a minimum of 2- and 3-feet below the proposed grades will have bearing capacities in excess of 2,500 psf and 3,500 psf, respectively. Please see attached for our bearing capacity calculations. City Comment 4: Expansion Index testing is not presented in the reviewed report. Please provide the appropriate laboratory testing to assess expansive soils at the subject site and provide recommendations as necessary and a statement that the proposed foundation system/slabs-on-ground for the proposed structures will meet the requirements of Section 1808.6 of the 2019 California Building Code. As soils with expansion index (EI) over 20 are considered expansive and require mitigation in accordance with Sections 1803.5.3 and 1808.6 of the 2019 CBC, please indicate the method of Section 1808.6 (1808.6.1 through 1808.6.4) that is being recommended to satisfy the requirement for expansive soils, and provide the Effective Plasticity Index and any other parameters for slab-on-ground design in accordance with 1808.6.2 and WRI/CRSI Design of Slab-on-Ground floors (or PTI DC 10.5 if post-tensioned foundation is recommended) as necessary. (repeat comment – Expansion Index testing of the on-site soils presented in the recently submitted “Supplemental Geotechnical Report, Proposed North Coast Medical Office Building…” (dated June 2, 2025) indicates an Expansion Index of 64 (Medium). As soils with an Expansion Index over 20 are considered expansive per Sections 1803.5.3 and 1808.6 of the 2022 California Building Code, please provide specific recommendations as necessary to address the 2022 CBC. Please indicate the specific procedure of 1808.6.2 and provide justification on how the recommendations of the geotechnical report are satisfying Section 1808.6.2 for the slabs on-ground floors for the proposed building. Please provide necessary geotechnical parameters (Effective Plasticity Index, etc.) for WRI/CRSI design or post-tensioned design in accordance with PTI DC 10.5 to satisfy Section 1808.6.2; or state if one of the other methods of Section 1808.6 (1808.6.3 or 1808.6.4) are being issued to satisfy the code requirement and provide recommendations accordingly. Please also provide a statement that the foundation system for the proposed structure will meet the requirements of Section 1808.6 of the 2022 California Building Code. RESPONSE: Based on the 2022 CBC section 1808.6, soils are considered expensive when all four of the following criteria are met: 1. A Plasticity Index (PI) of 15 or greater 2. More than 10 percent of the soil passing a No. 200 Sieve 3. More than 10 percent of the soil is less than 5 micrometers in size 4. Expansive index is greater than 20 Based on laboratory testing the soils encountered in the upper 5 feet have a PI ranging from 0 to 24. The two samples associated with the clayey soils encountered had a PI over 15 and should be considered expensive. The Clayey sands encountered do not have a PI over 15 and are not considered expensive. Where encountered, the clayey soils with a PI greater than 15 should be removed from PARTNER Response to Review City Comments Project No. 25-495296.1 July 11, 2025 Page 3 structural backfill or mixed with the more granular non expansive soils located on-site prior to being used for building support. City Comment 5: Please clarify the recommendations for sulfate resistant concrete (compressive strength, w/c ratio, type cement) consistent with the 2022 California Building Code and ACI 318-19, Tables 19.3.1.1 and 19.3.2.1. RESPONSE: Based on laboratory testing and ACI-318 the soil on site is measured as having a S1 exposure class and considered moderately corrosive to concrete. However, we still recommend consulting with the producer, engineer or other qualified party based on their knowledge of the materials and site conditions as to whether using corrosion resistant concrete (e.g. Type II or equivalent Portland Cement, a fly ash/slag mixture of 25 percent cement replacement, or a water/cement ratio of 0.5 or less) is warranted. City Comment 6: The recently submitted “Supplemental Geotechnical Report, Proposed North Coast Medical Office Building…” (dated June 2, 2025) indicates the depth to groundwater is approximately 14 to 16’ below existing grades based on 2016 subsurface exploration. However, the results of the CPT soundings appear to indicate the current depth to groundwater is approximately 5.5’. Please clarify the approximate current depth groundwater beneath the subject site. RESPONSE: The groundwater listed was based on the prior borings conducted and physical readings of the depth to groundwater. Based on the pore water dissipation tests conducted during the supplemental CPT’s groundwater may be located as shallow as 5.5 feet below the current existing grades. However, groundwater levels fluctuate over time and may be different at the time of construction and during the project life. City Comment 7: Please discuss the potential for liquefaction with respect to the proposed development at the subject site. (repeat comment – please provide a summary statement addressing the potential for liquefaction at the subject site and depths below grade that are potentially liquefiable based on the CPT soundings.) RESPONSE: Based on our analysis, the anticipated seismic induced dry sand settlement ranged from 1 to 1 ½ inches with a differential settlement of ½ inch. In general, spread footings can tolerate a maximum of 0.75 inches of differential settlement and mat/structural slab foundations can tolerate up to 2 inches of differential settlements. The anticipated seismically induced settlements are within the required tolerance for the use of shallow spread footings and no further mitigation is needed on site at this time. City Comment 8: Please clarify the total and differential (static plus dynamic) settlements that should be used for the design of the proposed structure and improvements. (repeat comment – the reviewer notes that page 14 of the recent report indicates potential total static settlement of 1” and differential static settlement of 0.5” to 0.75”; while page 16 (and the CPT soundings) indicates potential total seismic settlement of 1.5” and differential seismic settlement of 0.5”. Please clarify/confirm that the values for settlement for design of the project should consist of potentially 2.5” for total (static plus seismic) and 1.25” differential (static plus seismic). PARTNER RESPONSE: Based on our calculations a maximum total (static plus dynamic) settlements of 2 ½ inches should be anticipated and a differential total (static plus dynamic) settlements of an inch should be anticipated over a distance of 30 feet. City Comment 9: Please provide recommendations addressing the vapor retarder for concrete slab-on-grade floors for the proposed structure from a geotechnical standpoint. (repeat comment) RESPONSE: According to Appendix C of our report, depending on the site conditions and climate, vapor barriers may be required below in-door grade-slabs to receive flooring. This reduces the opportunity for moisture vapor to accumulate in the slab, which could degrade flooring adhesive and result in mold or other problems. Vapor barriers should be specified by the structural engineer and/or architect. The installation of the barrier should be inspected to evaluate the correct product and thickness is used, and that it has not been damaged or degraded. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service during this phase of the work. Sincerely, Attachments: City Comments Cross Sections Bearing Capacity Calculations Response to Review City Comments Project No. 25-495296.1 July 11, 2025 Page 4 PARTNER CITY COMMENTS PARTNER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW DATE: June 27, 2025 TO: City of Carlsbad Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Nichole Fine PROJECT ID: SDP15023 GRADING PERMIT NO.: GR2022-0050 SUBJECT: North Coast Medical Plaza, 6020 Hidden Valley Road (4th review) Items Submitted by Aoolicant Items Being Returned to Aoolicant • "Response to City Comments, North Coast • Written report review comments. Medical Office Building, Adjacent to 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California," by Partner, dated June 2, 2025. • "Supplemental Geotechnical Report, • Written report review comments. Proposed North Coast Medical Office Building, Adjacent to 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California," by Partner, dated June 2, 2025. • "Response to City Comments, North Coast • Medical Office Building, Adjacent to 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California," by Partner, dated May 23, 2023. • "Geotechnical Report, North Coast Medical Office • Building, Adjacent to 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California," by Partner, dated May 23, 2023. Based on our review of the submitted geotechnical reports, we are providing the following comments that should be addressed prior to the next submittal. In order to expedite the review process, please provide complete and thoroughly written responses to all comments. GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS: 1. The submitted "Supplemental Geotechnical Report, Proposed North Coast Medical Office Building ... " (dated June 2, 2025) has been reviewed with the understanding that the report is intended to be used in concert with the previous reports by Partner that were submitted for the proposed project ("Geotechnical Report, North Coast Medical Office Building ... ", GR2022-0050 June 27, 2025 Page 2 of 3 dated May 19, 2023, and “Response to City Comments…”, dated May 23, 2023). The following comments have been provided with that understanding. 2. Please provide geologic cross-sections, one oriented generally North-South and one oriented generally East-West, at a sufficiently large scale to show all information on the Geologic Site Map plus the current elevation of the groundwater and depths/limits or remedial grading to prepare the site for the proposed development. (repeat comment – the Cross-Sections A-A’ and B-B’ provided in the recently submitted “Supplemental Geotechnical Report…” dated June 2, 2025, show only line work and do not include any labels identifying the lines or geologic units (borings are not identified, existing grade and proposed grade and proposed removals are not identified, geologic units are not identified, etc.). Please clearly label all line work.) 3. There is no value for passive resistance provided in the “Supplemental Geotechnical Report, Proposed North Coast Medical Office Building…” (dated June 2, 2025); please provide as necessary for design of the proposed building and improvements. 4. The results of the direct shear test provided in the “Supplemental Geotechnical Report, Proposed North Coast Medical Office Building…” (dated June 2, 2025) indicates values C=0 and Φ=30. Please confirm and provide the calculations demonstrating support for the recommended bearing capacity of 2500 psf and 3500 psf for conventional continuous/spread footings founded on compacted fill that is provided in the report. 5. Expansion Index testing is not presented in the reviewed report. Please provide the appropriate laboratory testing to assess expansive soils at the subject site and provide recommendations as necessary and a statement that the proposed foundation system/slabs-on-ground for the proposed structures will meet the requirements of Section 1808.6 of the 2019 California Building Code. As soils with expansion index (EI) over 20 are considered expansive and require mitigation in accordance with Sections 1803.5.3 and 1808.6 of the 2019 CBC, please indicate the method of Section 1808.6 (1808.6.1 through 1808.6.4) that is being recommended to satisfy the requirement for expansive soils, and provide the Effective Plasticity Index and any other parameters for slab-on- ground design in accordance with 1808.6.2 and WRI/CRSI Design of Slab-on-Ground floors (or PTI DC 10.5 if post-tensioned foundation is recommended) as necessary. (repeat comment – Expansion Index testing of the on-site soils presented in the recently submitted “Supplemental Geotechnical Report, Proposed North Coast Medical Office Building…” (dated June 2, 2025) indicates an Expansion Index of 64 (Medium). As soils with an Expansion Index over 20 are considered expansive per Sections 1803.5.3 and 1808.6 of the 2022 California Building Code, please provide specific recommendations as necessary to address the 2022 CBC. Please indicate the specific procedure of 1808.6.2 and provide justification on how the recommendations of the geotechnical report are satisfying Section 1808.6.2 for the slabs on-ground floors for the proposed building. Please provide necessary geotechnical parameters (Effective Plasticity Index, etc.) for WRI/CRSI design or post-tensioned design in accordance with PTI DC 10.5 to satisfy Section 1808.6.2; or state if one of the other methods of Section 1808.6 (1808.6.3 or 1808.6.4) are being issued to satisfy the code requirement and provide recommendations accordingly. Please also provide a statement that the foundation system for the proposed GR2022-0050 June 27, 2025 Page 3 of 3 structure will meet the requirements of Section 1808.6 of the 2022 California Building Code. 6. Please clarify the recommendations for sulfate resistant concrete (compressive strength, w/c ratio, type cement) consistent with the 2022 California Building Code and ACI 318-19, Tables 19.3.1.1 and 19.3.2.1. 7. The recently submitted “Supplemental Geotechnical Report, Proposed North Coast Medical Office Building…” (dated June 2, 2025) indicates the depth to groundwater is approximately 14 to 16’ below existing grades based on 2016 subsurface exploration. However, the results of the CPT soundings appear to indicate the current depth to groundwater is approximately 5.5’. Please clarify the approximate current depth groundwater beneath the subject site. 8. Please discuss the potential for liquefaction with respect to the proposed development at the subject site. (repeat comment – please provide a summary statement addressing the potential for liquefaction at the subject site and depths below grade that are potentially liquefiable based on the CPT soundings.) 9. Please clarify the total and differential (static plus dynamic) settlements that should be used for the design of the proposed structure and improvements. (repeat comment – the reviewer notes that page 14 of the recent report indicates potential total static settlement of 1” and differential static settlement of 0.5” to 0.75”; while page 16 (and the CPT soundings) indicates potential total seismic settlement of 1.5” and differential seismic settlement of 0.5”. Please clarify/confirm that the values for settlement for design of the project should consist of potentially 2.5” for total (static plus seismic) and 1.25” differential (static plus seismic).) 10. Please provide recommendations addressing the vapor retarder for concrete slab on- grade floors for the proposed structure from a geotechnical standpoint. (repeat comment) CROSS SECTIONS PARTNER 14 0 12 0 10 0 80 60 40 20 0 -2 0 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 Project North Coast Medical Office Building Company Partner Engineering Scale 1 inch = 20 feetDrawn By AJA Project Number 25-495296.1Date5/19/2023, 4:05:58 PM FIGURE 5 - Cross Section B-B' SLIDE 9.034 - - - - - - - - - -I ■ ,_ - - - - - -_I. ■ '---------· ·--------________ , ~ - - - - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PARTNER I 12 0 10 0 80 60 40 20 0 -2 0 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Project North Coast Medical Office Building Company Partner Engineering Scale 1 inch = 20 feetDrawn By AJA Project Number 25-495296.1Date5/19/2023, 3:13:29 PM FIGURE 5 - Cross Section A-A' SLIDE 9.034 - - - - - - - - - I ~---1 ____________________ , , _____ j _____ I -----------T----------------· -------· -- -r----_ - ---- - - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PARTNER I BEARING CAPACITIES PARTNER Bearing Capacity Project Name:North Coast Medical Office Building Job Number:22-375713.3 By:AS Date:5/25/2025 Checked:AJA Date Checked:5/26/2025 Soil Properties Unit Weight (pcf)120 Cohesion (psf)0 Friction Angle (deg)30 Footing Type 1 (1= square, 2= continuous, 3=circular) Factor of Safety 3 Terzaghi's Equation Allowable Bearing Capacity = (Sc*c'*Nc+g*Depth*Nq+Sg*g'*Width*Ng) Shape Multipliers Bearing Capacity Factors Sc 1.3 Nc 37.2 Sg 0.4 Nq 22.5 Ng 20.1 Allowable Bearing Capacity = (Sc*c'*Nc+g*Depth*Nq+Sg*g*Width*Ng) Sc c'Nc g Depth Nq Sg Width g'Ng FS Allowable Bearing Capacity 1.3 0 37.2 120 0 22.5 0.4 2.5 0 20.1 3 804 1.3 0 37.2 120 2 22.5 0.4 2.5 240 20.1 3 2604 1.3 0 37.2 120 3 22.5 0.4 2.5 360 20.1 3 3504 1.3 0 37.2 120 4 22.5 0.4 2.5 480 20.1 3 4404 1.3 0 37.2 120 0 22.5 0.4 3 0 20.1 3 965 1.3 0 37.2 120 2 22.5 0.4 3 240 20.1 3 2765 1.3 0 37.2 120 3 22.5 0.4 3 360 20.1 3 3665 1.3 0 37.2 120 4 22.5 0.4 3 480 20.1 3 4565 1.3 0 37.2 120 0 22.5 0.4 3.5 0 20.1 3 1126 1.3 0 37.2 120 2 22.5 0.4 3.5 240 20.1 3 2926 1.3 0 37.2 120 3 22.5 0.4 3.5 360 20.1 3 3826 1.3 0 37.2 120 4 22.5 0.4 3.5 480 20.1 3 4726 1.3 0 37.2 120 0 22.5 0.4 4 0 20.1 3 1286 1.3 0 37.2 120 2 22.5 0.4 4 240 20.1 3 3086 1.3 0 37.2 120 3 22.5 0.4 4 360 20.1 3 3986 1.3 0 37.2 120 4 22.5 0.4 4 480 20.1 3 4886 1.3 0 37.2 120 0 22.5 0.4 4.5 8 20.1 3 1447 1.3 0 37.2 120 2 22.5 0.4 4.5 8 20.1 3 3247 1.3 0 37.2 120 3 22.5 0.4 4.5 8 20.1 3 4147 1.3 0 37.2 120 4 22.5 0.4 4.5 8 20.1 3 5047 width Depth 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 804 965 1126 1286 1447 2 2604 2765 2926 3086 3247 3 3504 3665 3826 3986 4147 4 4404 4565 4726 4886 5047 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Fo u n d a t i o n D e p t h ( f t ) Allowable Bearing Pressure (psf) 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Footing Width (ft)----- (800) 419-4926 www.PARTNEResi.com June 2, 2025 Timothy Hoag SSG-TH, LLC 5553 Willowmere Lane San Diego, California 92130 Subject: Response to City Comments North Coast Medical Office Building Adjacent to 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92011 Partner Project No. 25-495296.1 Dear Timothy Hoag: Partner Assessment Corporation (Partner) performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed North Coast Medical Office Building to be constructed in the vacant building pad adjacent to 6010 Hidden Valley Road in Carlsbad, California, and summarized the results in a report dated September 9, 2022. The City of Carlsbad (the City) reviewed our report and provided comments in their letter dated January 9, 2022 (Project ID: SDP15023). This letter presents our responses to the city comments, as listed below: City Comment 1: The submitted “Geotechnical Report, North Coast Medical Office Building...” (dated September 9, 2022 and May 19, 2023) and "Response to City Comments..." (dated May 23, 2023) do not include recent subsurface exploration (borings provided in the report were performed in 2016), thorough laboratory testing of the soils underlying the subject site, determination of the current groundwater conditions, or sufficient analysis/conclusions/recommendations to thoroughly address the soil conditions beneath the entirety of the property, (repeat comment - a complete stand-alone geotechnical report (including current subsurface exploration, lab testing, etc.) for this project by the current geotechnical consultant (Partner) was previously requested and Is the expectation. If the current consultant (Partner) considers it appropriate to use the various aspects (borings, lab testing, etc.) of the previous geotechnical work at the site by Robert Prater Associates from more than 20-years ago to supplement their work, all data/information from the previous work by Robert Prater Associates should be discussed/referenced accordingly in the narrative and provided in appendices of the Partner report and review response as applicable. All relevant data (boring logs, lab testing, geotechnical maps, etc.) and any technical support (graphs, tables, etc.) used in the preparation of the geotechnical report and/or response to comments report should be provided as necessary by Partner to justify the outstanding comments below that remain from the previous review. Please note that any work by Robert Prater Associates used to assess the geotechnical conditions of the subject site and aid in the formulation of conclusions/recommendations for development by Partner should be site specific to the subject lot.) PARTNER --------ooe@i---- Response to Review City Comments Project No. 15-153691.2 June 2, 2025 Page 2 RESPONSE: A revised standalone report based on our initial 2016 investigation and a supplemental investigation conducted in May 2025 is attached. City Comment 2: The subsurface exploration provided in the report was reportedly performed in 2016. As only one boring was performed to a depth of 50 feet below existing grades, please provide additional subsurface exploration as necessary to adequately cover the subject site and area of proposed development and demonstrate the three-dimensional distribution of underlying sediments to a depth of at least 50’ in accordance with the requirements of California Geological Survey (CDMG) Special Publication 117A relative to liquefaction potential. Cone Penetration Test soundings (CPT’s) should be considered to assess liquefaction potential at the subject site. See comment #10 below with respect to liquefaction potential and analysis, (repeat comment - see comment #1 above) RESPONSE: A supplemental investigation was conducted in May 2025 which included three CPT’s to 50 feet and two hand augers to 5 feet and is summarized in the attached revised standalone report. City Comment 3: Please provide an updated “Boring Location” map utilizing the most current revision of the grading plan for the project as the base map and at a sufficiently large scale to clearly show (at a minimum): a) existing site topography, b) proposed office buildings and associated parking/hardscape Improvements, c) proposed finished grades, d) geologic units, and e) the locations of subsurface exploration, (repeat comment - please revisit the “Geologic Site Plan (Figure 2) provided In the “Geotechnical Report..." dated May 19, 2023 (that is attached to the “Response to City Comments..." report) relative to the east-west trending geologic contact line and unit Tsa (Santiago formation) that is shown along the north side of the lot, as the site Is situated In an alluvial valley and there is no bedrock exposure reported at the site In the report or shown on the accompanying geologic cross-sections. Please revise the map as necessary based on the geologic conditions of the site (fill over alluvium). Please also add any new borings drilled by the consultant (Partner) and the relevant borings by Robert Prater Associates (EB-11, EB-12, EB-13, and EB-14) on the “Geologic Site Plan" if that Information Is being used by the consultant to help define the subsurface conditions.). RESPONSE: See attached revised standalone report for scaled boring location plan as requested. The Robert Prater and Associates borings have been excluded from our report and analysis based on comments questioning the validity of the boring logs and lab testing based on the age of the report. City Comment 4: Please provide geologic cross-sections, one oriented generally North-South and one oriented generally East-West, at a sufficiently large scale to show all information requested in comment #3 above plus the current elevation of the groundwater and depths/limits or remedial grading to prepare the site for the proposed development, (repeat comment -the cross-sections provided In the “Geotechnical Report..." dated May 19, 2023 (that Is attached to the “Response to City Comments..." report) do not show bedrock but rather “Native Stratum" at depth, however the boring logs from the previous Investigation by Robert Prater Associates (EB-11, EB-12, EB-13, and EB- 14) that are included In the “Response to City Comments...” report show sandstone bedrock of the Santiago formation beneath the site ranging from approximately 34.5 to 63’. Please explain why the depth to bedrock is not discussed in die report (report indicates the depth to bedrock is “unknown”) or shown on the geologic cross sections as revise the sections If necessary to add the bedrock contact. Please also add any new borings drilled by the consultant (Partner) and show the borings by Robert Prater Associates as applicable In the cross-sections.) PARTNER Response to Review City Comments Project No. 15-153691.2 June 2, 2025 Page 3 RESPONSE: See attached revised standalone report for cross sections as requested. The Robert Prater and Associates borings have been excluded from our report and analysis based on comments questioning the validity of the boring logs and lab testing based on the age of the report. City Comment 5: Please provide the geotechnical map associated with the “Earthwork Observation, Testing, and As-Built Geology Services...” report by Robert Prater Associates that is partially provided (along with density tests) as an attachment in the “Response to City Comments...” report to show the locations of the density tests performed by Robert Prater Associates during the previous grading of the subject site in 2000. RESPONSE: See attached for the full “Earthwork Observation, Testing, and As-Built Geology Services...” report by Robert Prater Associates. City Comment 6: As it appears that only limited laboratory testing has been performed to date (3 - moisture/density tests, 2 - consolidation tests, 2 - gradation, and 1- Atterberg Limits); please provide thorough laboratory testing as necessary to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the on-site soils with respect to the proposed development (see comments below), (repeat comment - the same tests appear to be provided in the “Geotechnical Report...” dated May 19, 2023 and in the previous revision of the report (dated September 9, 2022) with the exception of sulfate content. Please see comment #1 above and the comments below) RESPONSE: A supplemental investigation was conducted in May 2025 which included three CPT’s to 50 feet and two hand augers to 5 feet. The supplemental investigation also included additional lab testing as requested by the reviewer and is summarized in the attached revised standalone report. City Comment 7: Strength (direct shear) testing of the on-site soils is not provided in the reviewed report. Please provide the appropriate laboratory testing to substantiate the values for bearing capacity, passive pressure, and coefficient of friction for foundation design. If presumptive values are being recommended by the consultant, please state the reference and use values consistent with the appropriate soil type (class) in Table 1806.2 of the 2019 California Building Code. If soil parameters other than soil class 5 in Table 1806.2 are provided, please justify the soil type (and soil class of Table 1808.6.2 used) by laboratory testing (gradation for CBC or direct shear testing), (repeat comment - please provide the results of sufficient laboratory tests to substantiate and Justify the values of bearing capacity, passive pressure, and coefficient of friction for the proposed development and using the options indicated above (grain- size for CBC or direct shear testing). Please note that site specific testing is required.) RESPONSE: A supplemental investigation was conducted in May 2025 which included three CPT’s to 50 feet and two hand augers to 5 feet. The supplemental investigation also included additional lab testing as requested by the reviewer and is summarized in the attached revised standalone report. City Comment 8: Expansion Index testing is not presented in the reviewed report. Please provide the appropriate laboratory testing to assess expansive soils at the subject site and provide recommendations as necessary and a statement that the proposed foundation system/slabs-on-ground for the proposed structures will meet the requirements of Section 1808.6 of the 2019 California Building Code. As soils with expansion index (El) over 20 are considered expansive and require mitigation in accordance with Sections 1803.5.3 and 1808.6 of the 2019 CBC, please indicate the method of Section 1808.6 (1808.6.1 through PARTNER Response to Review City Comments Project No. 15-153691.2 June 2, 2025 Page 4 1808.6.4) that is being recommended to satisfy the requirement for expansive soils, and provide the Effective Plasticity Index and any other parameters for slab-onground design in accordance with 1808.6.2 and WRI/CRSI Design of Slab-on-Ground floors (or PTI DC 10.5 if post-tensioned foundation is recommended) as necessary. (repeat comment - please provide sufficient site specific Expansion Index and Atterberg Limits testing to accurately characterize the subject property with respect to the proposed development. The “Geotechnical Report...” recommends a concrete slab-on-ground floor for the proposed structure. Section 1808.6.2 of the 2019 CBC requires that slabs on-ground constructed on expansive soils be designed in accordance with WRI/CRSI Design of Slab on- Ground Foundations or a post-tensioned design in accordance with PTI DC 10.5. As an Expansion Index and Effective Plasticity Index has not been provided In the report for foundation design in accordance with WRI design methods, the reviewer Is requesting that the consultant state the specific procedure of Section 1808.6.2 of the 2019 CBC that is being applied in the foundation and slab on-ground recommendations to satisfy the code requirement and mitigate potential expansive soils. Please indicate the specific procedure of 1808.6.2 and provide Justification on how the recommendations of the geotechnical report are satisfying Section 1808.6.2 for slabs on- ground floors. Please provide necessary geotechnical parameters (Effective Plasticity Index, etc.) for WRI/CRSI design or indicate the use of a posttensioned design in accordance with PTI DC 10.5 to satisfy Section 1808.6.2; or state if one of the other methods of Section 1808.6 (1808.6.3 or 1808.6.4) are being issued to satisfy the code requirement and provide recommendations accordingly.) RESPONSE: A supplemental investigation was conducted in May 2025 which included three CPT’s to 50 feet and two hand augers to 5 feet. The supplemental investigation also included additional lab testing as requested by the reviewer and is summarized in the attached revised standalone report. City Comment 9: Please provide a discussion describing the depth of the Alluvium/depth to bedrock beneath the subject site (see comment #4 above), (repeat comment) RESPONSE: Information regarding depths of the existing fill and native materials was discussed in the table presented in section 4.1 of our revised report. In general certified compacted fills where encountered in the upper 10 feet. Certified fills where underlain by Alluvial soils consisting of Sandy Clayey Soils. Residuum soils where encountered below a depth of 35 feet. Residuum is a term describing soil or intermediate geomaterials (saprolite) that is formed from the in-place weathering of bedrock. Our report referred to the lithology by soil types and not the broad stata designations. The Residual Clayey Sands listed in the above table is part of the Residuum strata. As stated in comments about we feel that bedrock was not encountered in our borings or CPT and the Robert Prater and Associates borings have been excluded from our report and analysis based on comments questioning the validity of the boring logs and lab testing based on the age of the report City Comment 10: Please discuss the potential for liquefaction with respect to the proposed development at the subject site. Please provide complete liquefaction analysis to address the subsurface conditions at the subject property and with respect to the subject project in accordance with the requirements of California Geological Survey (CDMG) Special Publication 117A (see comment #4 above). Please provide all calculations, CPT plots, print-outs, etc., from the analysis. The requested liquefaction analysis should assume the highest historic groundwater level at the subject site and peak ground accelerations in accordance with Section 1803.5. 12 of the 2019 California Building Code (PGAm). Please provide the basis for the ultimate groundwater level and acceleration used in the PARTNER Response to Review City Comments Project No. 15-153691.2 June 2, 2025 Page 5 liquefaction analysis, (repeat comment - please provide additional liquefaction analysis as necessary to supplement the analysis provided in the “Response to City Comments...” report and based on the additional subsurface exploration requested In comments #1 and 2 above.) RESPONSE: See attached revised standalone report for a liquefaction analysis based on the supplemental CPTs as requested. City Comment 11: With respect to the liquefaction analysis provided in the “Response to City Comments...," Please explain the basis for the soil properties used to define the alluvial column analyzed, as there is only one moisture/density and one consolidation test (no grain size, etc.) presented in the “Geotechnical Report...” for boring B-2 that was used for the analysis. (repeat comment) RESPONSE: See attached revised standalone report for the liquefaction analysis based on the supplemental CPTs and supersedes the prior analysis. City Comment 12: Please provide revised total and differential (static and dynamic) settlements that should be used for the design of the proposed structure and improvements if necessary based on the comments above, (repeat comment) RESPONSE: See attached revised standalone report for the liquefaction analysis based on the supplemental CPTs and supersedes the prior analysis. City Comment 13: Please provide recommendations (minimum concrete slab thickness, reinforcing, slab underlayment/vapor retarder, etc.) for concrete slab on-grade floors for the proposed structure from a geotechnical standpoint, (repeat comment) RESPONSE: See attached revised standalone report for revised recommendations. City Comment 14: Please provide recommendations (minimum concrete slab thickness, reinforcing, subgrade preparation, etc.) for the proposed hardscape and driveway improvements associated with the project, (repeat comment} RESPONSE: See attached revised standalone report for revised recommendations. City Comment 15: Please provide a complete summery list of the geotechnical observation/testing services that should be performed as part of the construction of this proposed development. (repeat comment - please add all grading activities (bottom removals, fill placements, temporary cuts, etc.) and utility trench backfill to the list of services to be performed during construction.) RESPONSE: See attached revised standalone report for revised recommendations. PARTNER We appreciate the opportunity to be of service during this phase of the work. Sincerely, Aubrey T. S Senior Engineer/ Project Manager Attachments: City Comments Earthwork observation, testing, and as-built geology services letter by Robert Prater Associates (2003) Supplemental Geotechnical Report Response to Review City Comments Project No. 15-153691.2 June 4, 2025 Page 6 PARTNER CITY COMMENTS PARTNER GEOTECHNICALREPORT REVIEW DATE: February 15, 2025 TO: City of Carlsbad Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Nichole Fine PROJECT ID: SDP15023 GRADING PERMIT NO.: GR2022-0050 SUBJECT: North Coast Medical Plaza, 6020 Hidden Valley Road (3rd review) Items Submitted by Applicant Items Beina Returned to Aoo/icant . "Response to City Comments, North Coast . Written report review comments. Medical Office Building, Adjacent to 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California," by Partner, dated May 23, 2023. - Based on our review of the submitted geotechnical report, we are providing the following comments that should be addressed prior to the next submittal. Please provide complete and thoroughly written responses to all comments. Please note that the "Response to City Comments ... " report by Partner, dated May 23, 2023, provided with this 3rd submittal is the same document that was provided at the previous zid submittal and the subject of the city geotechnical review comments dated September 13, 2023. Consequently, the same report review comments that were provided in the September 13, 2023 review remain outstanding and are presented below again for clarity. GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS: 1. The submitted "Geotechnical Report, North Coast Medical Office Building ... " (dated September 9, 2022 and May 19, 2023) and "Response to City Comments ... " (dated May 23 , 2023) do not include recent subsurface exploration (borings provided in the report were performed in 2016), thorough laboratory testing of the soils underlying the subject site, determination of the current groundwater conditions, or sufficient analysis/conclusions/recommendations to thoroughly address the soil conditions beneath the entirety of the property, (repeat comment -a complete stand-alone geotechnical report (including current subsurface exploration, lab testing, etc.) for this project by the current geotechnical consultant (Partner) was previously requested and Is GR2022-0050 February 15, 2025 Page 2 of 5 the expectation. If the current consultant (Partner) considers it appropriate to use the various aspects (borings, lab testing, etc.) of the previous geotechnical work at the site by Robert Prater Associates from more than 20-years ago to supplement their work, all data/Information from the previous work by Robert Prater Associates should be discussed/referenced accordingly in the narrative and provided in appendices of the Partner report and review response as applicable. All relevant data (boring logs, lab testing, geotechnical maps, etc.) and any technical support (graphs, tables, etc.) used in the preparation of the geotechnical report and/or response to comments report should be provided as necessary by Partner to justify the outstanding comments below that remain from the previous review. Please note that any work by Robert Prater Associates used to assess the geotechnical conditions of the subject site and aid in the formulation of conclusions/recommendations for development by Partner should be site specific to the subject lot.) 2. The subsurface exploration provided in the report was reportedly performed in 2016. As only one boring was performed to a depth of 5T below existing grades, please provide additional subsurface exploration as necessary to adequately cover the subject site and area of proposed development and demonstrate the three-dimensional distribution of underlying sediments to a depth of at least 50' in accordance with the requirements of California Geological Survey (CDMG) Special Publication 117 A relative to liquefaction potential. Cone Penetration Test soundings (CPT's) should be considered to assess liquefaction potential at the subject site. See comment #10 below with respect to liquefaction potential and analysis, (repeat comment -see comment #1 above) 3. Please provide an updated "Boring Location" map utilizing the most current revision of the grading plan for the project as the base map and at a sufficiently large scale to clearly show (at a minimum): a) existing site topography, b) proposed office buildings and associated parking/hardscape Improvements, c) proposed finished grades, d) geologic units, and e) the locations of subsurface exploration, (repeat comment-please revisit the "Geologic Site Plan (Figure 2) provided In the "Geotechnical Report..." dated May 19, 2023 (that is attached to the "Response to City Comments ... " report) relative to the east-west trending geologic contact line and unit Tsa (Santiago formation) that is shown along the north side of the lot, as the site Is situated In an alluvial valley and there is no bedrock exposure reported at the site In the report or shown on the accompanying geologic cross-sections. Please revise the map as necessary based on the geologic conditions of the site (fill over alluvium). Please also add any new borings drilled by the consultent (Partner) and the relevant borings by Robert Prater Associates (EB-11, EB-12, EB-13, and EB-14) on the "Geologic Site Plan" if that Information Is being used by the consultant to help define the subsurface conditions.) 4. Please provide geologic cross-sections, one oriented generally North-South and one oriented generally East-West, at a sufficiently large scale to show all information requested in comment #3 above plus the current elevation of the groundwater and depths/limits or remedial grading to prepare the site for the proposed development, (repeat comment- the cross-sections provided In the "Geotechnical Report ... " dated May 19, 2023 (that Is attached to the "Response to City Comments ... " report) do not show bedrock but rather "Native Stratum" at depth, however the boring logs from the previous Investigation by Robert Prater Associates (EB-11, EB-12, EB-13, and EB- GR2022-0050 February 15, 2025 Page 3 of 5 14) that are included In the "Response to City Comments ... " report show sandstone bedrock of the Santiago formation beneath the site ranging from approximately 34.5 to 63'. Please explain why the depth to bedrock is not discussed in die report (report indicates the depth to bedrock is "unknown") or shown on the geologic cross- sections as revise the sections If necessary to add the bedrock contact. Please also add any new borings drilled by the consultant (Partner) and show the borings by Robert Prater Associates as applicable In the cross-sections.) 5. Please provide the geotechnical map associated with the "Earthwork Observation, Testing , and As-Built Geology Services ... " report by Robert Prater Associates that is partially provided (along with density tests) as an attachment in the "Response to City Comments ... " report to show the locations of the density tests performed by Robert Prater Associates during the previous grading of the subject site in 2000. (repeat comment) 6. As it appears that only limited laboratory testing has been performed to date (3 - moisture/density tests, 2 -consolidation tests, 2 -gradation, and 1- Atterberg Limits); please provide thorough laboratory testing as necessary to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the on-site soils with respect to the proposed development (see comments below), (repeat comment-the same tests appear to be provided in the "Geotechnical Report ... " dated May 19, 2023 and in the previous revision of the report (dated September 9, 2022) with the exception of sulfate content. Please see comment #1 above and the comments below) 7. Strength (direct shear) testing of the on-site soils is not provided in the reviewed report. Please provide the appropriate laboratory testing to substantiate the values for bearing capacity, passive pressure, and coefficient of friction for foundation design. If presumptive values are being recommended by the consultant, please state the reference and use values consistent with the appropriate soil type (class) in Table 1806.2 of the 2019 California Building Code. If soil parameters other than soil class 5 in Table 1806.2 are provided, please justify the soil type (and soil class of Table 1808.6.2 used) by laboratory testing (gradation for CBC or direct shear testing), (repeat comment -please provide the results of sufficient laboratory tests to substantiate and Justify the values of bearing capacity, passive pressure, and coefficient of friction for the proposed development and using the options indicated above (grain-size for CBC or direct shear testing). Please note that site specific testing is required.) 8. Expansion Index testing is not presented in the reviewed report. Please provide the appropriate laboratory testing to assess expansive soils at the subject site and provide recommendations as necessary and a statement that the proposed foundation system/slabs-on-ground for the proposed structures will meet the requirements of Section 1808.6 of the 2019 California Building Code. As soils with expansion index (El) over 20 are considered expansive and require mitigation in accordance with Sections 1803.5.3 and 1808.6 of the 2019 CBC, please indicate the method of Section 1808.6 (1808.6.1 through 1808.6.4) that is being recommended to satisfy the requirement for expansive soils, and provide the Effective Plasticity Index and any other parameters for slab-on- ground design in accordance with 1808.6.2 and WRI/CRSI Design of Slab-on-Ground floors (or PTI DC 10.5 if post-tensioned foundation is recommended) as necessary. (repeat comment -please provide sufficient site specific Expansion Index and Atterberg Limits testing to accurately characterize the subject property with respect to the proposed development. The "Geotechnical Report ... " recommends a GR2022-0050 February 15, 2025 Page 4 of 5 concrete slab-on-ground floor for the proposed structure. Section 1808.6.2 of the 2019 CBC requires that slabs on-ground constructed on expansive soils be designed in accordance with WRI/CRSI Design of Slab on-Ground Foundations or a post-tensioned design in accordance with PT/ DC 10.5. As an Expansion Index and Effective Plasticity Index has not been provided In the repon for foundation design in accordance with WR/ design methods, the reviewer ts requesting that the consultant state the specific procedure of Section 1808.6.2 of the 2019 CBC that is being applied in the foundation and stab on-ground recommendations to satisfy the code requirement and miligate potential expansive soils. Please indicate the specific procedure of 1808.6.2 and provide Justification on how the recommendations of the geotechnicat repon are satisfying Section 1808.6.2 for slabs on-ground floors. Please provide necessary geotechnicat parameters (Effective Plasticity Index, etc.) for WRIICRSI design or indicate the use of a post- tensioned design in accordance with PT/ DC 10.5 to satisfy Section 1808.6.2; or state if one of the other methods of Section 1808.6 (1808.6.3 or 1808.6.4) are being issued to satisfy the code requirement and provide recommendations accordingly.) 9. Please provide a discussion describing the depth of the Alluvium/depth to bedrock beneath the subject site (see comment #4 above), (repeat comment) 10. Please discuss the potential for liquefaction with respect to the proposed development at the subject site. Please provide complete liquefaction analysis to address the subsurface conditions at the subject property and with respect to the subject project in accordance with the requirements of California Geological Survey (CDMG) Special Publication 117 A (see comment #4 above). Please provide all calculations, CPT plots, print-outs, etc., from the analysis. The requested liquefaction analysis should assume the highest historic groundwater level at the subject site and peak ground accelerations in accordance with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2019 California Building Code (PGAm). Please provide the basis for the ultimate groundwater level and acceleration used in the liquefaction analysis, (repeat comment-please provide additional liquefaction analysis as necessary to supplement the analysis provided in the "Response to City Comments ... " repon and based on the additional subsurface exploration requested In comments #1 and 2 above.) 11. With respect to the liquefaction analysis provided in the "Response to City Comments ... ," Please explain the basis for the soil properties used to define the alluvial column analyzed, as there is only one moisture/density and one consolidation test (no grain size, etc.) presented in the "Geotechnical Report ... " for boring B-2 that was used for the analysis. (repeat comment) 12. Please provide revised total and differential (static and dynamic) settlements that should be used for the design of the proposed structure and improvements if necessary based on the comments above, (repeat comment) 13. Please provide recommendations (minimum concrete slab thickness, reinforcing, slab underlaymenUvapor retarder, etc.) for concrete slab on-grade floors for the proposed structure from a geotechnical standpoint, (repeat comment) GR2022-0050 February 15, 2025 Page 5 of 5 14. Please provide recommendations (minimum concrete slab thickness, reinforcing , subgrade preparation, etc.) for the proposed hardscape and driveway improvements associated with the project, (repeat comment} 15. Please provide a complete summery list of the geotechnical observation/testing services that should be performed as part of the construction of this proposed development. (repeat comment -please add all grading activities (bottom removals, fill placements, temporary cuts, etc.) and utility trench backfill to the list of services to be performed during construction.) EARTHWORK OBSERVATION, TESTING, AND AS-BUILT GEOLOGY SERVICES LETTER Robert Prater Associates (2000) PARTNER EARTHWORK OBSERVATION AND TESTING SERVICES .FOR KELLY RANCH CORPORA TE CENTER SITE AND OFFSITE rnPROVEMENTS AND BlJil,DING 2A CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 2003 September 11, 2003 543-1D-1 02-07 ' The Allen Group f ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists 6005 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 150 Carlsbad, California 92009 Attention: Mr. Harve Filuk Re: Earthwork Observation and Testing Services Kelly Ranch Corporate Center Site and Offsite Improvements and Building 2A Carlsbad, California Gentlemen: Robert R. Prater, C.E. 1942-1980 Wm. David Hespeler, C.E., G.E. In accordance with your request we have provided earthwork observation and testing services • in connection with the subject project. We previously performed a geotechnical investigation for the Kelly. Ranch Corporate Center, the results of which were.presented in our report dated April 30, 1997. The results of an update geotechnical reconnaissance were presented in our letter report dated August 25, 1999. In addition, supplemental surcharge and earthwork recommendations were provided in letters . dated October 6, and November 16, 1999. A letter regarding the analysis of surcharge data for Buildings • · 2A and 2B was issued on January 31, 2000. A letter dated Febmary·2, 2000, was issued providing . . supplemental recommendations for mitigation of expansive soils at the site. The results of our earthwork observation, testing and as-built geology services associated with the mass grading operations for-the subject building pad were presented in our report dated April 12, 2000. An update geotechnical reconnaissance letter dated March 23, 2001, was also issued for the subject project.. During the period of June 27, 2001 through April 4, 2002, our representatives were present at the site to observe the earthwork operations and to provide. field density testing services as requested. The results of the field density and laboratory compaction tests are presented in the enclosed Tables A and B, respectively. Field density tests for joint utility trenches are presented on the enclosed Figures 1 and 2. The approximate locations of the other field density tests are shown on the enclosed Grading Plans, Sheets 3 of 12 of the Grading Plans and Sheet C-2 of the Precise Grading Plans. Grading, Utility, Backfill, and Wall Backfill Based on our observations and the enclosed test results it is our opinion that the following items of work were satisfactorily completed in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation report and subsequent letters. 1) Mass Grading as referenced by Test Nos. 1-23, 33-35, 37-42, 50, 51, 82-84, 97-99, 147, 148, 152-159, 162-164, 172-178, 180-182, 184-189, 195, 196, 199-216, 221-224, 228, and 339- 348. 4125 Sorrento Valley Blvd., Suite B, San Diego, California 92121 • (858) 453-5605 FAX: (858) 453-7420 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) September 11, 2003 543-lD-l, 02-07 Page 2 Sewer Line Trench Backfill as referenced by Test Nos. 24-32, 36, 43-47, 103, 124-132, 301, and 302. • Water Line Trench Backfill as referenced by Test Nos. 48, 49, 52-62, 68-81, 91, 92, 123, 145, 146, 149-151, 183, 190-192, 194,217,218, and 282-289. Storm Drain Trench Backfill as referenced by Test Nos. 63-67, 85-90, 93-96, 104-106, 118- 122, 219,220,225,226, 290-292, 306-308, 314,315, and 324. Joint Utility Trench Backfill as referenced by Test Nos.100-102, 107-117, 137-140, 142, and 143. Telephone Line Trench Backfill as referenced by Test Nos. 133-136, 141, 160, 161, 165, 168- 170, 179, 193, 197, and 198. Electrical Line Trench Backfill as referenced by Test Nos. 166, 167, and 171. Foundations Our representatives were also onsite to inspect the materials exposed in the footing excavations for the subject building. The materials consisted essentially of well-compacted clayey and silty sand fill soils as anticipated in our geotechnical investigation report. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the footing excavations were carried to the proper depth and that the materials· exposed are suitable for the support offootings designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the geotechnical investigation report for the project dated April 30, 1997. Pavements Based on our observations and the enclosed test results it is our opinion that the following items of work were satisfactorily completed in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation report and subsequent letters. 1) Preparation and compaction of the pavement subgrade soils to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction as referenced by Test Nos. 230-251, 293-295, 309-313, 316, 317, 320, and 321. In lieu of compacting the subgrade soils to a minimum of95 percent relative compaction and placing aggregate base under concrete swales in the pav~ment areas, the subgrade soils were compacted to a minimum of90 percent relative compaction as referenced by Test Nos. 227, 229 and the concrete was thickened to match the adjacent pavement section: During the AC overlay work at the southwest comer of the site within parking stalls, the pavement subgrade soils failed and damaged the existing asphalt concrete. On April 4 and 5, 2002, the AC and aggregate base were removed from this area. Ponded water was observed at the contact between the base and subgrade soil. In addition, loose and saturated_ soils were evident adjacent to the curb and gutter to a depth of about 2 feet at the far southern comer. Accordingly, we recommended that these soils be removed and reinforcing fabric be placed at the bottom of the excavation. The wet soils were then replaced with aggregate base compacted to a minimum of90 percent below finish subgrade and 95 percent at finish subgrade as well as the base level as represented by Test Nos. 359-362. September 11, 2003 543-ID-l, 02-07 Page 3 2) Placement and compaction ofaggregate base to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction as referenced by Test Nos. 252-269, 296-300, 303-305, 322, 323, 325-327, 349, and 350. ' 3) Placement and compaction ofasphalt concrete to a minimum of95 percent relative compaction as referenced by Test Nos. 270-281, 328-338, and 351-358. ~ . _ , ~- It should be noted that the tum lane widening adjacent to Palomar Airport Roaq to Aviara Parkway has not been constructed at this time. It is our understanding that the tum lane will be constructed at the time of the future construction of Buildings 2B and 3. ; ~ , It should also be noted that the satisfactory performance of the site is dependent on proper maintenance. Proper maintenance includes, but is not limited to, providing and maintaining good drainage away from structures and slopes, establishing good vegetation cover on slopes, and avoiding excess irrigation. Our services consist of professional opinions and recommendations made in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either express or implied. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES ~~ wm·. D. Hespeler, G.E. WDH:mkd Enclosures Copies: Addressee (4) Reno Contracting, Attn: Mr. Dan Schwartzer (2) City of Carlsbad Engineering Department, Attn: Mr. Chip Escobar (2) Keith Companies (Crosby Mead Benton & Associates), Attn: Mr. Bruno Callu (I) Smith Consulting Architects, Attn: Mr. Mike Platis (1) ~ ! ,"2• C ·s, 'I ,. .-- : ! __ _,.------------ LEGEND •100 Indicates approximate location of field density test -------------------: ------- Approximate Scale (feet) 0 100 200 400 ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists I I I SITE PLAN I KELLY CORPORATE CENTER -BUILDING 2A 1 Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO. DATE 543-1 D-1 September-2003 FIGURE 1 ------ LEGEND .•116 Indicates approximate location of field density test ---- 0 ROAD ,r.AR .AIRPORT p.ALO~ • .----------------------~ -----• ------------------- Approximate Scale (feet) 100 200 400 ROBERT PRATER ASSOC/A TES Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists SITE PLAN KELLY CORPORA TE CENTER -BUILDING 2A Carlsbad, California ' PROJECT NO. DATE 1 543-1 D-1 September 2003 FIGURE 2 Legend to Table A 1) "Compaction Curve No." refers to Table B. 2) Unless otherwise noted elevations shown to nearest foot. 3) "FSG" denotes finis_h subgrade elevation. 4) "FBG" denotes finish base grade elevation. 5) "FPG" denotes finish pavement grade. II,.· Project No. 543-1 D-1 TABLE A-SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1556-90 and/or ASTM D2922-91, ASTM D3017-88) Approximate Water Dry Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction ___NQ,_ Date of Test Test Location {FEET} -1%}_ (gcfl -1%}_ Curve No. Remarks Mass Grading 1 06/29/2001 South of Building Pad 3 76 8 114.1 94 2 Retest of #1 72 / job # 543-1 B 2 06/29/2001 South of Building Pad 2A 73 11 109.1 90 2 3 07/02/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 78.5 13 113.0 91 3 4 07/02/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 80 14 110.2 89 3 Test Failed, see #5; slope 5 07/02/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 80 13 111.3 90 3 Retest of #4; slope 6 07/02/2001 North of Building Pad 2A 72.5 8 110.1 91 2 7 07/02/2001 North of Building Pad 2B 75 12 113.9 92 3 8 07/03/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 82 13 108.8 90 2 slope 9 07/03/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 79.5 14 113.8 92 3 slope 10 07/03/2001 Building Pad 2A 76 (FSG) 12 110.6 90 3 11 07/03/2001 Building Pad 2A 76 (FSG) 12 111.4 90 3 12 07/03/2001 Building Pad 2A 76 (FSG) . 13 111.2 90 3 13 07/03/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 84 16 111.5 90 3 slope 14 07/03/2001 Southwest of Building Pad 2A 74.2 (FSG) 16 111.2 90 3 Mechanical Yard 15 07/05/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 85 13 115.8 94 3 16 07/06/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 75.5 11 . 111.2 90 3 17 07/06/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 77 10 112.0 91 3 18 07/06/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 79 12 108.5 90 2 19 07/09/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 81 8 106.4 86 3 Test Failed, see #20; slope 20 07/09/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 81 9 111.0 90 3 Retest of #19; slope 21 07/09/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 81 13 110.3 90 4 22 07/09/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 83 12 106.0 87 4 Test Failed, see #23 23 07/09/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 83 11 109.8 90 4 Retest of #22 Sewer Line Trench Backfill 24 07/10/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FSG-3.5 11 106.2 88 2 Test Failep, see #25 25 07/10/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FSG-3.5 13 108.4 90 2 Retest of #24 26 07/10/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FSG-2 10 109.0 90 2 27 07/10/2001 North of Building Pad 28 FSG-3 11 110.2 91 2 28 07/10/2001 Northeast of Building Pad 28 FSG-3 12 115.8 94 3 Page 1 Project No. 543-1 D-1 TABLE A-SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM 01556-90 and/or ASTM 02922-91, ASTM 03017-88) Approximate Water Dry Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction . __N_Q,_ Date of Test Test Location {FEET} __jfil_ {gcf} __jfil_ Curve No. Remarks 29 07/10/2001 Northwest of Building Pad 3 FSG-1 12 113.6 92 3 30 07/10/2001 North of Building Pad 3 FSG-2 • 14 113.5 92 3 31 07/11/2001 Lateral to Building Pad 3 FSG-2 13 115.6 94 3 32 07/11/2001 Lateral to Building Pad 28 FSG-1.5 12 115.0 93 3 Mass Grading 33 07/11/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 80 11 107.8 87 6 Test Failed, see #34 34 07/11/2001 Southeast of Buil~ing Pad 3 80 9 113.1 91 6 Retest of #33 35 07/11/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 82 12 111.1 90 3 slope Sewer Line Trench Backfill 36 07/11/2001 Lateral to Building Pad 2A FSG-1 13 108.7 90 2 Mass Grading 37 07/11/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 84 13 110.8 90 4 slope 38 07/11/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 86 10 113.8 93 4 39 07/11/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 88 11 110.3 90 4 slope 40 07/12/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 88 11 113.0 92 4 41 07/12/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 90 14 105.4 86 4 Test Failed, see #42 42 07/12/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 90 13 112.8 92 4 Retest of #41 Sewer Line Trench Backfill 43 07/12/2001 North of Building Pad 3 FSG-2 10 111.8 91 3 manhole 44 07/12/2001 Northeast of Building Pad 28 FSG-2 12 105.4 85 3 Test Failed, see #45; manhole 45 07/12/2001 Northeast of Building Pad 28 FSG-2 10 115.0 93 3 Retest of #44; manhole 46 07/12/2001 Northwest of Building Pad 2A FSG-3 11 113.0 93 2 manhole 47 07/12/2001 Northwest of Building Pad 2A FSG-1 9 111.6 92 2 manhole Water Line Trench Backfill 48 07/12/2001 West of Building Pad 2A; Station 12+60 FSG-2 13 109.0 90 2 49 07/12/2001 West of Building Pad 2A; Station 11 +00 FSG-1 14 113.4 92 3 Mass Grading 50 07/12/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 90 11 110.2 90 4 51 07/12/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3 78 12 111.7 90 3 Page 2 • Project No. 543-1 D-1 TABLE A -SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1556-~0 and/or ASTM D2922-91, ASTM D3017-88) Approximate Water Dry Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction __NQ,_ Date of Test Test Location (FEET} ----1%.L (gcfl ----1%.L Curve No. Remarks Water Line Trench Backfill 52 07/13/2001 South of Building Pad 2A; Station 13+50 FSG-1.5 14 113.6 92 3 53 07/13/2001 South of Building Pad 28; Station 15+20 FSG-1 12 114.9 93 3 54 07/13/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 28; Station 16+20 FSG-1.5 13 109.7 91 2 55 07/19/2001 South of Building Pad 3; Station 18+10 FSG-1 9 113.2 92 3 56 07/19/2001 South of Building Pad 3; Station 19+45 FSG-1.5 10 105.5 87 2 Test Failed, see #57 57 07/19/2001 South of Building Pad 3; Station 19+45 FSG-1.5 9 113.3 94 2 Retest of #56 58 07/19/2001 East of Building Pad 3; Station 24+00 FSG-1.5 12 117.6 95 3 59 07/19/2001 East of Building Pad 3; Station 22+90 FSG-0.5 13 112.5 91 3 60 07/19/2001 North ofBuilding Pad 3; Station 21+40 FSG-1.5 11 108.7 90 2 61 07/19/2001 North of Building Pad 3; Station 19+18 FSG-1 10 . 113.2 92 3 62 07/19/2001 Northwest of Building Pad 3; Station 17+90 FSG-1.5 12 111.0 92 2 Storm Drain Trench Backfill 63 07/20/2001 Line B; Station 12+90 FSG-3 12 110.5 91 2 . 64 07/20/2001 Line B; Station 12+10 FSG-1 15 106.9 87 3 Test Failed, see #65 65 07/20/2001 Line B; Station 12+10 FSG-1 13 112.4 91 ·3 Retest of #64 66 07/20/2001 Line B; Station 11 +50 FSG-3 12 113.5 92 3 67 07/20/2001 Line B; Station 10+50 FSG-2.5 12 110.1 91 2 Water Line Trench Backfill 68 07/20/2001 North of Building Pad 2A; Station 13+ 70 FSG-1 13 111.8 92 2 69 07/23/2001 Southwest of Building Pad 28; Station 14+55 FSG-1 12 108.9 90 2 hydrant service 70 07/23/2001 South of Building Pad 28; Station 17+00 FSG-6.5 14 108.7 90 2 71 07/23/2001 Southeast of Buil~ing Pad 3; Station 21 +05 FSG-1.5 11 114.2 92 3 72 07/23/2001 Northeast of Building Pad 3; Station 22+50 FSG-1.5 8 114.2 92 3 73 07/23/2001 North of Building Pad 3; Station 20+05 FSG-1.5 12 107.9 87 3 Test Failed: see #74 74 07/23/2001 ~ orth of Building Pad 3; Station 20+05 FSG-1.5 11 113.1 92 3 Retest of #73 75 07/23/2001 North of Building Pad 3; Station 19+32 FSG-2 13 108.3 90 7 76 07/23/2001 North of Building Pad 28; Station 15+60 FSG-1 11 109.3 90 2 77 07/23/2001 North of Building Pad 2A; Station 14+65 FSG-4 14 108.9 90 2 78 07/23/2001 North of Building Pad 2A; Station 14+25 FSG-2 13 106.3 88 2 Test Failed, see #79 Page 3 Project No. 543-1 D-1 TABLE A -SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1556-90 and/or ASTM D2922-91, ASTM D3017-88) Approximate Water Dry Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction _NQ_,_ Date of Test Test Location (FEET) _{%_}_ (gcf) _{%_}_ Curve No. Remarks 79 07/23/2001 North of Building Pad 2A; Station 14+25 FSG-2 12 109.1 90 2 Retest of #78 80 07/23/2001 North of Building Pad 2A; Station 13+43 FSG-1 10 112.4 93 2 hydrant service 81 07/23/2001 South of Building Pad 2A; Station 11 +90 FSG-1 12 112.5 91 3 Mass Grading 82 07/25/2001 West of Building Pad 2A 71 10 109.7 91 2 83 07/25/2001 West of Building Pad 2A 71.5 10 108.5 90 2 84 07/28/2001 West of Building Pad 2A 71 11 112.0 93 2 Storm Drain Trench Backfill 85 07/28/2001 Line D; Station 12+50 FSG-3 12 112.8 91 3 86 07/28/2001 Line D; Station 13+80 FSG-1 9 110.8 90 3 87 07/28/2001 Line D; Station 1 0+ 75 FSG-2 10 111.2 90 3 pot holed 88 07/31/2001 Line C; Station 11 +32 FSG-3.5 18 106.8 88 2 Test Failed, see #89 89 07/31/2001 Line C; Station 11 +32 FSG-3.5 11 116.3 96 2 Retest of #88 90 07/31/2001 Line C; Station 12+25 FSG-3 8 109.5 90 2 Water Line Trench Backfill 91 08/01/2001 South Side; Station 16+80 FSG-0.5 14 109.7 91 2 92 08/01/2001 South Side; Station 17+46 FSG-1 12 111.5 90 3 Storm Drain Trench Backfill 93 08/01/2001 Line A; Station 11 +00 72 12 108.6 90 2 94 08/01/2001 Line A; Station 11 +68 72 11 109.5 90 2 95 08/02/2001 Line A; Station 12+ 75 72.5 12 116.6 94 3 96 08/02/2001 Line A; Station 13+ 70 73 10 109.2 90 2 Mass Grading 97 08/03/2001 Entrance Ramp; HVR 74 13 109.5 90 2 98 08/03/2001 Entrance Ramp; HVR 74 • 13 114.1 92 3 99 08/03/2001 Entrance Ramp; HVR 76 14 110.6 90 3 Joint Utility Trench Backfill 100 08/08/2001 South Side FSG-2.5 7 96.9 90 9 101 08/08/2001 South Side FSG-3 15 96.7 90 9 102 08/08/2001 South Side FSG-3 15 96.3 90 9 Page 4 Project No. 543-1 D-1 TABLE A -SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RES UL TS (ASTM D1556-90 and/or ASTM D2922-91, ASTM D3017-88) Approximate Water Dry Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction ____NQ.,_ Date of Test Test Location (FEET) --1.%.L (gcf) --1.%.L Curve No. Remarks Sewer Line Trench Backfill 103 08/09/2001 Northwest of Pad 2A 71 11 108.3 90 2 lateral 60-lnch Storm Drain Trench Backfill 104 08/09/2001 Station 14+10 76 11 109.0 90 2 slope Storm Drain Trench Backfill 105 08/10/2001 Line B FSG-1 13 108.3 90 2 lateral 106 08/10/2001 Line B F.SG-1 13 111.9 91 3 lateral Joint Utili~ Trench Backfill 107 08/10/2001 South Side FSG-1.5 7 94.1 88 9 Test Failed, see #108 108 08/10/2001 South Side FSG-1.5 8 97.5 91 9 Retest of #1 07 • 109 08/10/2001 South Side FSG-1.5 7 98.0 91 9 110 08/10/2001 South Side FSG-1.5 10 96.3 90 9 111 08/13/2001 South Side FSG-0.5 11 108.3 90 2 112 08/13/2001 South Side FSG-0.5 13 109.8 91 2 113 08/14/2001 Hidden Valley Road FSG-1.5 15 98.4 92 9 114 08/14/2001 Hidden Valley Road FSG-0.5 15 97.7. 91 9 115 08/14/2001 West of Hidden Valley Road FSG 14 112.1 93 2 sidewalk 116 08/15/2001 Southwest of Building Pad 28 FSG-1.5 12 111.4 90 3 117 08/15/2001 Southwest of Building Pad 28 FSG-1 12 112.0 91 3 Storm Drain Trench Backfill 118 08/16/2001 Line B; Station 10+20 FSG-2 11 111.4 90 3 potholed; inlet box 119 08/16/2001 Line B; Station 13+65 FSG-2 10 108.9 90 2 potholed; inlet box 120 08/16/2001 Line D; Station 10+00 FSG-2 12 109.4 90 2 121 08/20/2001 Line C; Station 10+18 FSG-1.5 12 112.6 91 3 inlet box 122 08/20/2001 Line C; Station 13+1 O FSG-1 11 109.6 91 2 potholed; inlet box Water Line Trench Backfill 123 08/20/2001 Southwest of Pad 2A; Station 10+50 FSG-1 12 115.9 94 3 potholed Sewer Line Trench Backfill 124 08/20/2001 Building Pad 2A FSG 8 110.4 89 3 Test Failed, see #132 moisture low Page 5 Project No. 543-1 D-1 TABLE A -SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM 01556-90 and/or ASTM D2922-91, ASTM D3017-88) Approximate Water Dry Degree of Test Elevati"on Content Density Compaction Compaction _NQ,_ Date of Test Test Location (FEET} _oo_ (gcf) _oo_ Curve No. Remarks 125 08/20/2001 Building Pad 2A FSG 12 110.6 90 3 126 08/20/2001 Building Pad 2A FSG 13 112.1 91 3 127 08/20/2001 Building Pad 2A FSG-2 15 108.8 90 2 128 08/20/2001 Building _Pad 2A FSG-3 13 108.8 90 2 129 08/20/2001 Building Pad 2A FSG-1 12 112.0 91 3 130 08/20/2001 Building Pad 2A FSG 13 111.0 . 90 3 131 08/20/2001 Northeast of Building Pad 2A FSG-2 11 111. 7 90 3 132 08/20/2001 Building Pad 2A FSG 12 111.6 90 3 Retest of #124 Teleghone Line Trench Backfill 133 08/29/2001 Building Pad 2A FSG-2.5 14 108.8 90 2 134 08/29/2001 Building Pad 2A FSG-1 14 109.0 90 2 135 08/29/2001 Building Pad 2A FSG-2 13 111.5 90 3 136 08/29/2001 Building Pad 2A FSG-0.33 13 111.0 90 3 Joint Utili!}! Trench Backfill 137 08/30/2001 South of Building Pad 2A FSG-3 13 107.2 87 3 Test Failed, see #138 138 08/30/2001 South of Building Pad 2A FSG-3 13 111.2 90 3 Retest of #137 139 08/30/2001 South of Building Pad 2A FSG-1 14 109.9 91 2 140 08/31/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 2A FSG-2 13 112.2 93 2 Teleghone Line Trench Backfill 141 • 08/31/2001 Southwest of Building Pad 2B FSG-1 13 113.6 92 3 Joint Utili!}! Trench Backfill 142 08/31/2001 South of Building Pad 2A FSG-3 11 115.9 94 3 143 08/31/2001 Building Pad 2A FSG-2 13 113.7 92 3 Electrical Line Trench Backfill 144 08/31/2001 Building Pad 2A FSG 14 111.0 90 3 Water Line Trench Backfill 145 09/05/2001 West of Building Pad 2A FSG-2 16 107.9 90 7 146 09/05/2001 West of Building Pad 2A FSG 13 110.6 90 3 Mass Grading .. 147 09/06/2001 West of Building Pad 2A 75 11 109.0 90 2 slope Page 6 Project No. 543-1 D-1 • TABLE A -SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1556-90 and/or ASTM D2922-91, ASTM D3017-88) Approximate Water Dry Degree of Test Elevatioo Content Density Compaction Compaction ~ Date of Test Test Location (FEET} ----1.%1-(gcf} ---1.%.L Curve No. Remarks 148 09/06/2001 West of Building Pad 2A 77 7 104.1 86 2 Test Failed, see #152 Water Line Trench Backfill 149 09/06/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FSG-2 17 108.7 90 2 fire service 150 09/06/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FSG-1 12 104.7 87 2 Test Failed, see #151, fire service 151 09/06/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FSGc1 12 109.6 91 2 Retest of #150, fire service Mass Grading 152 09/06/2001 West of Building Pad 2A 77 12 109.3 90 2 Retest of #148 153 09/06/2001 West of Building Pad 2A 75 10 115.5 94 3 slope I 154 09/06/2001 West of Building Pad 2A 77 10 114.6 93 3 slope 155 09/07/2001 West of Building Pad 2A 75 13 108.6 88 3 Test Failed, see #156, slope 156 09/07/2001" West of Building Pad 2A . 75 12 111.6 90 3 Retest of #155, slope 157 09/07/2001 West of Building Pad 2A 77 11 110.6 91 2 ·slope 158 09/07/2001 West of Building Pad 2A 76 11 109.2 90 2 slope face 159 09/07/2001 West of Building Pad 2A 79(FSG) 11 108.4 90 2 Teleghone Line Trench Backfill 160 09/12/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FSG-1 12 106.8 86 3 Test Failed, see #161 161 09/12/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FSG-1 13 111.2 90 3 Retest of #160 Mass Grading 162 09/12/2001 • Southeast of Building Pad 2A 74 9 111.3 90 3 slope 163 09/12/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 2A 76 7 106.9 87 3 Test Failed, see #164, slope 164 09/12/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 2A 76 10 111.9 91 3 Retest of #163, slope Teleghone Line Trench Backfill 165 09/12/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FSG-2 12 108.8 90 2 Electrical Line Trench Backfill 166 09/13/2001 South of Building Pad 2A FSG-1 13 108.4 88 3 Test Failed, see #167 167 09/13/2001 South of Building Pad 2A FSG-1 13 110.8 90 3 Retest of #166 Teleghone Line Trench Backfill 168 09/13/2001 Northeast of Building Pad 2A FSG-2 13 110.2 91 2 169 09/13/2001 Northeast of Building Pad 2A FSG-1 12 108.9 90 2 Page 7 Project No. 543-10-1 TABLE A-SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM 01556-90 and/or ASTM 02922-91, ASTM 03017-88) . Approximate Water Dry Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction ~ Date of Test Test Location (FEET} ~ ([!Cf) ~ Curve No. Remarks 170 09/17/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FSG-1 12 111.8 92 2 Electrical Line Trench Backfill 171 09/17/2001 East of Building Pad 2A FSG-1 10 112.3 91 3 Mass Grading 172 09/18/2001 Building Pad 2B 76 7 119.0 94 12 173 09/18/2001 North of Building Pad 2A 73 9 103.0 85 2 Test Failed, see #176 174 09/20/2001 North of Building Pad 2B 74 10 110.7 90 3 Slope face 175 09/20/2001 North of Building Pad 2A 74 9 110.1 91 2 Slope face 176 09/20/2001 North of Building Pad 2A 73 11 108.4 90 2 Retest of #173 177 09/20/2001 North of Building Pad 2B 75 9 113.2 92 3 178 09/20/2001 East of Building Pad 2B 76 7 117.7 93· 12 Teleghone Line Trench Backfill 179 09/21/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FSG-2 15 108.7 90 2 Mass Grading 180 09/24/2001 North of Building Pad 3 74 7 96.0 79 2 Test Failed, see #181, slope 181 09/24/2001 North of Building Pad 3 74 9 108.8 90 2 Retest of#180, slope 182 09/24/2001 North of Building Pad 3 76 9 108.9 90 2 slope Water Line Trench Backfill 183 09/24/2001 West of Building Pad 2A FSG-1 14 111.2 90 3 irrigation line Mass Grading 184 09/25/2001 Northeast of Building Pad 3 77 12 111.8 91 3 slope 185 09/25/2001 Building Pad 2B 77 (FSG) 5 116.1 92 12 186 09/25/2001 Building Pad 2B 77 (FSG) 4 117.0 92 12 187 09/25/2001 North of Building Pad 3 78 13 110.8 92 2 slope 188 09/25/2001 Northeast of Building Pad 3 80 11 104.5 87 14 Test Failed, see #189, slope 189 09/25/2001 Northeast of Building Pad 3 80 9 107.9 90 14 Retest of #188, slope Water Line Trench Backfill 190 09/25/2001 Southwest of Building Pad 2A FSG-3 14 102.0 84 2 Test Failed, see #191 191 09/25/2001 Southwest of Building Pad 2A FSG-3 14 108.7 90 2 Retest of #190 192 09/25/2001 Southwest of Building Pad 2A FSG-1 13 111.5 92 2 Page 8 Project No. 543-1 D-1 TABLE A -SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1556-90 and/or ASTM D2922-91, ASTM D3017-88) Approximate Water Dry Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction ____NQ.__ Date of Test Test Location (FEET} ----1.%1-(gcf} ----1.%1-Curve No. Remarks Teleghone Line Trench Backfill 193 09/25/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FSG-1.5 12 108.7 90 2 e> Water Line Trench Backfill 194 09/26/2001 Southwest of Building Pad 2A FSG-2 15 109.0 90 2 Mass Grading 195 09/26/2001 North of Building Pad 3 80 10 115.1 91 12 slope 196 09/26/2001 Northeast of Building Pad 3 82 13 116.6 92 12 slope Teleghone Line Trench Backfill 197 09/26/2001 North of Building Pad 28 FSG-3 11 115.1 93 3 198 09/26/2001 North of Building Pad 28 FSG-1 12 111.9 91 3 Mass Grading 199 09/26/2001 North of Building Pad 3 79 10 110.7 90 3 slope 200 09/26/2001 North of Building Pad 3 83 13 106.8 86 3 Test Failed, see #201, slope 201 09/26/2001 North of Building Pad 3 83 13 110.8 90 3 Retest of #200, slope 202 09/26/2001 North of Building Pad 3 84 11 110.5 89 3 slope 203 09/27/2001 Northeast of Building Pad 3 85 11 113.4 92 3 slope 204 09/27/2001 North of Building Pad 3 87 9 112.4 91 3 slope 205 09/28/2001 North of Building Pad 3 86 11 • 103.3 85 2 Test Failed, see #206, slope 206 09/28/2001 North of Building Pad 3 86 11 108.8 90 2 Retest of #205, slope 207 09/28/2001 Northeast of Building Pad 3 88 12 109.1 90 2 slope 208 09/28/2001 East of Building Pad 3 74.5 12 104.9 85 3 Test Failed, see #209 209 10/01/2001 East of Building Pad 3 74.5 11 110.7 90 3 Retest of #208 210 10/01/2001 East of Building Pad 3 76 9 115.4 91 12 211 10/01/2001 East of Building Pad 3 77 10 112.0 91 3 212 10/02/2001 North of Building Pad 3 82 10 112.4 91 3 slope face 213 10/02/2001 Northeast of Building Pad 3 80 10 109.9 92 14 slope face 214 10/02/2001 East of Bu.ilding Pad 3 78 10 107.7 88 11 Test Failed, see #215 215 10/02/2001 East of Building Pad 3 78 10 110.5 . 90 11 Retest of #214 216 10/02/2001 Building Pad 3 78.5 11 108.8 91 14 Page 9 Project No. 543-1 D-1 TABLE A -SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM 01556-90 and/or ASTM 02922-91, ASTM 03017-88) Approximate Water Dry Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction ____N_Q_,_ Date of Test Test Location {FEET} __Jfil_. {gcf} __Jfil_ Curve No. Remarks Water Line Trench Backfill 217 10/05/2001 Southwest of Building Pad 2A; Station 10+05 FSG-1 15 112.1 93 2 218 10/05/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 3; Station 21 +95 FSG-1 8 111.7 90 3 Storm Drain Trench Backfill 219 10/09/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FSG 7 108.9 90 2 220 10/09/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FSG-1 11 108.5 90 2 potholed Mass Grading 221 10/09/2001 Building Pad 3 79.5 (FSG) 7 108.6 87 15 Test Failed, see #224 222 10/09/2001 Building Pad 3 79.5 (FSG) 8 109.4 88 15 • Test Failed, see #223 223 10/10/2001 Building Pad 3 79.5 (FSG) 9 111.8 90 15 Retest of #222 224 10/10/2001 Building Pad 3 79.5 (FSG) 8 111.8 90 15 Retest of #221 Storm Drain Tre!Tlch Backfill 225 10/10/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FSG-1 9 117.7 95 3 226 10/10/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FSG 9 116.5 94 3 Concrete Pavement Area 227 10/10/2001 Northwest of Building Pad 2A FSG .9 111.4 90 3 cross-gutter Mass Grading 228 10/10/2001 South of Building Pad 2A 75 10 108.7 90 2 Concrete Pavement Area 229 10/11/2001 East of Building Pad 2A FSG 9 108.9 90 2 cross-gutter Pavement Area 230 10/23/2001 West of Building Pad 2A FSG 7 114.5 93. 3 Test Failed, see #234 231 10/23/2001 West of Building Pad 2A FSG 11 • 113.9 92 3 Test Failed, see #235 232 10/23/2001 West of Building Pad 2A FSG 9 119.7 97 3 233 10/23/2001 West of Building Pad 2A FSG 11 116.8 95 3 234 10/23/2001 West of Building Pad 2A FSG 9 117.3 95 3 Retest of #230 235 10/23/2001 West of Building Pad 2A FSG 11 117.6 95 3 Retest of #231 236 10/24/2001 Southwest of Building Pad 2A FSG 7 119.3 97 3 237 10/24/2001 Southwest of Building Pad 2A FSG 8 117.0 95 3 238 10/24/2001 West of Building Pad 2A FSG 11 117.1 95 3 Page 10 Project No. 543-1 D-1 TABLE A -SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1556-90 and/or ASTM D2922-91, ASTM D3017-88) Approximate Water Dry Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction ____NQ.,_ Date of Test Test Location (FEET) __oo_ {12cfl __oo_ Curve No. Remarks 239 10/24/2001 West of Building Pad 2A FSG 10 117.3 95 3 240 10/24/2001 West of Building Pad 2A FSG 10 117.4 95 3 241 10/24/2001 Northwest of Building Pad 2A FSG 9 117.8 95 3 242 10/24/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FSG 8 116.8 95 3 243 10/24/2001 • Northeast of Building Pad 2A FSG 9 117.7 95 3 244 10/24/2001 East of Building Pad 2A FSG 12 110.4 91 2 Test Failed, see #248 245 10/24/2001 East of Building Pad 2A FSG 9 113.0 93 2 Test Failed, see #249 246 10/24/2001 East of Building Pad 2A FSG 9 113.2 94 2 Test Failed, see #250 247 10/24/2001 South of Building Pad 2A FSG 10 11 !>.0 95 2 248 10/25/2001 East of Building Pad 2A FSG 12 115.2 95 2 Retest of #244 249 10/25/2001 East of Building Pad 2A FSG 10 114.7 95 2 Retest of #245 250 10/25/2001 East of Building Pad 2A FSG 11 115.6 96 2 Retest of #246 251 10/26/2001 West of Building Pad 2A FSG 9 118.7 96 3 252 10/26/2001 East of Building Pad 2A FBG 10 121.7 97 16 253 10/26/2001 East of Building Pad 2A FBG 9 120.9 96 16 254 10/26/2001 East of Building Pad 2A FBG 8 123.5 98 16 255 10/29/2001 Southeast of Building Pad 2A FBG 6 120.0 95 16 256 10/29/2001 South of Building Pad 2A FBG 6 124.3 99 16 257 10/29/2001 Southwest of Building Pad 2A FBG 8 121.6 97 16 258 10/29/2001 East of Building Pad 2A FBG 9 118.9 95 16 259 10/29/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FBG 11 116.2 92 16 Test Failed, see #261 260 10/29/2001 Northeast of Building Pad 2A FBG 8 120.0 95 16 261 10/29/2001 North of Building Pad 2A FBG 9 118.9 95 16 Retest of #259 262 10/30/2001 West of Building FBG 9 124.3 99 16 263 10/30/2001 West of Building FBG 8 123.2 98 16 264 10/30/2001 West of Building FBG 9 120.6 96 16 265 10/30/2001 West of Building FBG 8 121.3 96 16 266 10/30/2001 Northwest of Building FBG 8 124.8 99 16 267 10/30/2001 West of Building FBG 10 122.7 98 16 268 10/30/2001 West of Building FBG 9· 123.0 98 16 Page 11 Project No. 543-1 D-1 TABLE A -SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM 01556-90 and/or ASTM 02922-91, ASTM 03017-88) Approximate Water Dry Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction __NQ,_ Date of Test Test Location CFEETl ---1.%L Cgcf) ---1.%L Curve No. Remarks 269 10/30/2001 Southwest of Building FBG 9 120.4 96 16 Approximate Water Wet Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction __NQ,_ Date of Test Test Location (FEET) ---1.%L (gcf) ---1.%L Curve No. Remarks Asghalt Concrete 270 10/31/2001 East of Building FPG-0.1 142.6 95 17 271 10/31/2001 East of Building FPG-0.1 142.7 95 17 272 10/31/2001 East of Building FPG-0.1 142.9 95 17 273 10/31/2001 North of Building FPG-0.1 142.6 95 17 274 10/31/2001 Nor:th of Building FPG-0.1 143.0 95 17 275 10/31/2001 North of Building FPG-0.1 144.8 96 17 276 10/31/2001 Northwest of Building FPG-0.1 143.1 95 17 277 10/31/2001 West of Building FPG-0.1 142.6 95 17 278 10/31/2001 West of Building FPG-0.1 142.9 95 17 279 10/31/2001 West of Building FPG-0.1 142.8 95 17 280 10/31/2001 South of Building FPG-0.1 143.1 95 17 281 10/31/2001 South of Building FPG-0.1 142.9 95 17 Approximate Water Dry Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction __NQ,_ Date of Test Test Location (FEETl ---1.%L (gcfl ---1.%L Curve No. Remarks Water Line Trench Backfill 282 11/28/2001 North of Building FSG-2 12 111.4 90 3 irrigation line 283 11/28/2001 North of Building FSG 10 112.3 91 3 irrigation line 284 11/28/2001 North of Building FSG-1 12 111.9 91 3 irrigation line 285 11/28/2001 North of Building FSG 12 117.6 95 3 irrigation line 286 11/28/2001 East of Building FSG-1 11 113.2 92 3 . irrigation line 287 11/28/2001 East of Building FSG 12 112.7 91 3 irrigation line 288 11/29/2001 North of Building FBG 10 115.6 92 16 Test Failed, see #289, irrigation line 289 11/29/2001 North of Building FBG 9 119.7 95 16 Retest of #288, irrigation line Page 12 Project No. 543-1 D-1 TABLE A -SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS_(ASTM D1556-90 and/or ASTM D2922-91, ASTM D3017-88) Approximate Water Dry Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction ~ Date of Test Test Location (FEET} --1.%L (gcf} --1.%L Curve No. Remarks Storm Drain Trench Backfill 290 11/29/2001 Line B; Station 13+62 FSG-2 8 117.0 91 19 inlet box 291 11/29/2001 Line B; Station 13+66 FSG-0.33 12 111.0 92 2 inlet box 292 11/29/2001 Line C; Station 13+07 FSG-1 9 116.7 90 19 inlet box Pavement Area 293 01/04/2002 South Side of Building FSG 1"1 115.5 95 2 294 01/04/2002 South Side of Building FSG 11 117.5 97 2 Pavement Area -Concrete Swale 295 01/08/2002 Entrance; Hidden Valley Road FSG 13 114.4 95 2 296 01/08/2002 Entrance; Hidden Valley Road FBG 5 127.0 91 21 Test Failed, see #297 297 01/08/2002 Entrance; Hidden Valley Road FBG 5 133.2 95 21 Retest of #296 298 01/08/2002 East of Building FBG 16 109.8 95 20 299 01/08/2002 North of Building FBG 17-110.2 95 20 300 01/08/2002 North of Building FBG 17 113.5 98 20 Sewer Line Trench Backfill 301 01/17/2002 Building FSG 15 108.6 90 2 302 01/17/2002 Building FSG 15 109.3 90 2 Pavement Area -Concrete Swale 303 01/23/2002 Entrance; Hidden Valley Road FSG 14 114.4 95 2 304 01/23/2002 Entrance; Hidden Valley Road FBG 6 124.5 89 21 Test Failed, see #305 305 01/23/2002 Entrance; Hidden Valley Road FBG 6 131.9 95 21 Retest of #304 Storm Drain Trench Backfill 306 01/23/2002 East of Building FSG-1 14 108.3 90 2 307 01/23/2002 East of Building FSG-1 11 108.6 90 2 308 01/23/2002 East of Building FSG 14 108.3 90 2 Pavement Area 309 01/23/2002 East of Building FSG 16 111.0 96 20 Concrete Pavement Area 310 01/23/2002 East of Building FSG 16 109.7 95 20 • , Page 13 Project No. 543-10-1 TABLE A-SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM 01556-90 and/or ASTM 02922-91, ASTM 03017-88) Approximate Water Dry Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction _N_Q_,_ Date of Test Test Location (FEET} ~ (gcf} ~ Curve No. Remarks Pavement Area 311 01/23/2002 East of Building FSG 14 112.4 97 20 312 01/23/2002 North of Building FSG 15 114.6 99 20 / 313 01/23/2002 North of Building FSG 15 113.7 98 20 Storm Drain Trench Backfill 314 01/23/2002 East of Building FSG-1 16 110.4 91 2 315 01/23/2002 East of Building FSG 16 109.3 90 2 Pavement Area 316 01/24/2002 North of Building_ FSG 15 115.4 95 2 317 01/24/2002 North of Building FSG 15 114.4 95 2 318 01/24/2002 East of Building FBG 14 113.8 98 20 319 01/24/2002 East of Building FBG 16 109.7 95 20 320 01/25/2002 Entrance; Hidden Valley Road FSG 11 120.4 97 3 321 01/25/2002 Entrance; Hidden Valley Road FSG 12 119.1 96 3 322 01/25/2002 North Side of Entrance FBG 5 133.5 96 21 323 01/25/2002 South Side of Entrance FBG 6 133.6 96 21 Storm Drain Trench Backfill 324 01/25/2002 Southeast of Building FSG-2 10 108.8 90 2 Pavement Area 325 01/28/2002 South of Building FBG 7 132.1 95 21 326 01/28/2002 North of Building FBG 5 132.2 95 21 327 01/28/2002 North of Building· FBG 5 133.1 95 21 Approximate Water Wet Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction _N_Q_,_ Date of Test Test Location (FEET} ~ (gcf} ~ Curve No. Remarks Asghalt Concrete 328 01/29/2002 South of Building FPG-0.1 150.3 98 22 329 01/29/2002 South of Building FPG-0.1 148.4 96 22 330 01/29/2002 South of Building FPG-0.1 149.6 97 22 331 01/29/2002 South of Building FPG-0.1 149.0 97 22 Page 14 Project No. 543-1 D-1 TABLE A -SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1556-90 and/or ASTM D2922-91, ASTM D3017-88) Approximate Water Wet Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction _N_Q,_ Date of Test Test Location {FEET) _(fil_ {gcf) _(fil_ Curve No. Rema.rks 332 01/29/2002 East of Building FPG-0.1 151.2 98 22 333 01/29/2002 East of Building FPG-0.1 150.9 98 22 334 01/29/2002 North of Building FPG-0.1 150.7 98 22 335 01/29/2002 North of Building FPG-0.1 148.9 97 22_ 336 01/29/2002 North of Building FPG-0.1 150.5 98 22 337 01/29/2002 North of Building FPG-0.1 149.0 97 22 338 01/29/2002 Main Entrance FPG-0.1 148.1 96 22 Approximate Water Dry Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction _N_Q,_ Date of Test Test Location {FEET} _(fil_ {gcf) _oo_· Curve No. Remarks Mass Grading 339 01/31/2002 Jogging Trail FSG 12 113.4 92 3 340 01/31/2002 Jogging Trail FSG 13 115.6 94 3 341 01/31/2002 Jogging Trail FSG 13 112.9 91 3 342-01/31/2002 Palomar Airport Ride; Sidewalk FSG 13 112.5 88 23 343 01/31/2002 Palomar Airport Ride; Sidewalk FSG 12 113.6 89 23 344 01/31/2002 West of Building FSG-1 13 109.4 90 2 345 01/31/2002 West of Building FSG 14 109.8 91 2 346 01/31/2002 North of Entry FSG 13 112.4 91 3 347 01/31/2002 Handicap Ramp at Entry FSG 12 114.6 93 3 348 01/31/2002 Handicap Ramp at Entry FSG 12 115.0 93 3 Concrete Pavement Area 349 02/25/2002 West of Building FBG 9 119.6 95 16 Test Failed, see #350 350 02/26/2002 West of Building FBG 8 123.1 98 16 Retest of #349 Approximate Water Wet Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction _N_Q,_ Date of Test -Test Location {FEET} _(fil_ {gcf) _(fil_ Curve No. Remarks Asghalt Concrete 351 03/28/2002 East of Building FPG 141.3 95 18 352 03/28/2002 East of Building FPG 144.7 97 18 Page 15 Project No. 543-1 D-1 TABLE A -SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RES UL TS (ASTM D1556-90 and/or ASTM D2922-91, ASTM D3017-88) Approximate Water Wet Degree of Test Elevation Content Density _Compaction Compaction ~ Date of Test Test Location (FEET) -1.fil_ (gcf) -1.fil_ Curve No. Remarks 353 03/28/2002 North of Building FPG 142.4 96 18 354 03/28/2002 North of Building FPG 144.0 97 18 355 03/28/2002 West of Building FPG 143.6 96 18 356 03/28/2002 West of Building FPG 141.9 95 18 357 03/28/2002 South of Building FPG 142.7 96 18 358 03/28/2002 South of Building FPG 143.3 96 18 Approximate Water Dry Degree of Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction ~ Date of Test Test Location (FEET} -1.fil_ (gcf) -1.fil_ Curve No. Remarks Pavement Area 359 04/05/2002 Southwest Corner FSG-0.7 11 108.0 84 23 Test Failed, see #360 360 04/05/2002 Southwest Corner FSG-0.7 9 116.6 91 23 Retest of #359 361 04/05/2002 Southwest Corner FSG 9 121.0 95 23 362 04/05/2002 Southwest Corner FBG 9 121.3 95 23 Page 16 543-lD-l TABLEB LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1557-91) Compaction Maximum Optimum Test Source of Dry Density Water Content Curve No. Description of Material Material (pcfl (%) -1 CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown Import 122.0 12.1 2 CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown On-Site 121.0 12.0 3 CLAYEY SAND (SC}, dark brown On-Site 123.5 ·10.2 4 CLAYEY SAND (SC), light olive brown On-Site 122.5 11.7 5 POORLY GRADED SAND (SP}, dark grayish brown Import 106.1 15.9 6 CLAYEY SAND (SC); yellowish brown Import 123.8 9.7 7 SANDY CLAY-CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), On-Site 120.5 12.2 dark grayish brown 8 SILTY-POORLY GRADED SAND, gray Import 109.3 14.0 9 POORLY GRADED SAND, gray Import 107.5 10.5 10 SANDY CLAY-SANDY SILT with gravel Import 121.5 11.6 (CL-ML), yellowish brown 11 CLAYEY SAND (SC), yellowish brown Import 122.5 11.0 12 SIL TY SAND (SM}, dark yellowish brown Import 126.7 9.5 13 SIL TY SAND (SM), grayish brown Import 119.3 10.7 14 CLAYEY SAND (SC), dark yellowish brown Import 119.9 12.3. 15 CLAYEY SAND (SC}, brown Import 124.8 9.9 16 SILTY GRAVEL (GW), dark grayish brown Import 125.7 9.2 (Class II aggregate base) TABLE B (cont.) LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1557-91) Compaction Maximum Optimum Test .,, Source of Dry Density Water Content Curve No. Description of Material Material (pct) (%) 17 ASPHALT CONCRETE (3/4-inch) Import 150.8* 18 ASPHALT CONCRETE (½-inch) Import 149.0* 19 SIL TY SAND (SM), dark reddish brown Import 129.0 9.4 20 SILTY GRAVEL (GM), grayish brown Import 116.0 ·13.0 21 WELL-GRADED GRAVEL (GW), grayish brown Import 139.5 7.0 , 22 ASPHALT CONCRETE (3/4-inch) Import 154.0* 23 WELL-GRADED GRAVEL (GW), brown Import 128.0 10.5 * Density provided by manufacturer 543-lD-l TABLEC RESULTS OF EXPANSION INDEX TESTS Molding Initial Moisture Dry Content Density Expansion Sample No. Sample Description (%) (pcQ Index 1 CLAYEY SAND (SC), brown 8.9 111.1 41 (import mix) 2 CLAYEY SAND with gravel (SC), yellowish brown 9.9 114.9 31 \ (import) 3 CLAYEY SAND (SC), dark brown 9.9 109.3 34 (on-site -Pad 3) SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PARTNER SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Proposed North Coast Medical Office Building Adjacent to 6020 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, California 92011 Report Date: June 2, 2025 Partner Project No. 25-495296.1 Prepared for: SSG-TH, LLC 27051 Towne Centre Drive, Suite #220 Lake Forest, California 92610 PARTNER Engineering and Science, Inc: Building Science Environmental Consulting More Than Just Assessments. Construction & Development Solutions. Energy & Sustainability R ------------------------------------l..._ _____ _ June 2, 2025 Timothy Hoag SSG-TH, LLC 27051 Towne Center Drive, Suite #220 Lake Forest, California 92610 Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Report North Coast Medical Office Building Adjacent to 6020 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92011 Partner Project No. 25-495296.1 Dear Timothy Hoag: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner) presents the attached Geotechnical Report prepared in accordance with the terms of our proposal and industry standards, and which is based on available data and our general experiences regarding construction practices and geotechnical conditions on other sites. Partner's report is based on the following assumptions related to the planned new construction: • Nature of New Construction: Medical Office Building • Type of Construction: Slab-on-grade with wood/light gauge metal framing, masonry units • Presumed Isolated loads of 280-kips and wall loads of 13 kif • Size of New Construction: 49,942 sf/three-story building The geotechnical conditions on the site will allow for the planned development, given that consideration will be made for the costs and challenges associated with existing fills, liquefaction settlement, and other considerations further detailed in the report. Our geotechnical report is presented for your use in this electronic format, as shown in the hyperlinked outline below. To return after clicking a hyperlink, hold "alt" and press the "left arrow key" on your keyboard. 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Geotechnical Executive Summary Report Overview and Limitations Geologic Conditions and Hazards Geotechnical Exploration and Laboratory Results Geotechnical Recommendations Figures & Appendices We appreciate the opportunity to be of service during this phase of the work. ** for sections 3.2 and 3.3 800-419-4923 4~ Aubrey T. Smith, PE (TN) Senior Eng ineer www.PARTNEResi.com 1. GEOTECHNICAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The executive summary is meant to consolidate information provided in more detail in the body of this report. This summary in no way replaces or overrides the detailed sections of the report. Geologic Zones and Site Hazards The site is located in the City of Carlsbad within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of the State of California. More specifically, the site is located near the western terminus of Canyon de las Encinas, only 1.4 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Surficial geology at the site is mapped as young alluvial flood-plain deposits. The unit is Holocene and late Pleistocene in age. The subject property is currently developed as a vacant graded lot. The site appears to have been used for agricultural purposes prior to 1994 and remedial grading was completed on site sometime around 2003 as part of the construction efforts of the adjacent structures. This portion of the state is prone to seismic ground shaking. No other geological hazards are known or suspected on the site. Excavation Conditions We anticipate excavations on the site to depths of up to 4 feet for foundations and 5 feet for utilities. Based on our data, conventional construction equipment in good working condition should be able to perform the planned excavations. As previously mentioned, buried utility lines, undocumented fills as well as other remnants of previous construction may be present on the site. Native sandy soils may contain cohesionless material which could also cave or be difficult to remove. This may require additional planning and equipment. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 14 during our our borings at the time of drilling. However, groundwater levels fluctuate over time and may be different at the time of construction and during the project life. Foundation/Slab Support We recommend that the new primary building structure be supported on spread foundations with a concrete slab on grade. Based on the boring data, we recommend new foundations be established a minimum of 24- inches below grade over 24-inches of removed and recompacted on site soils. This could be accomplished by over-excavating below the footings to a depth of 12-inches below the bottom of the foundations. The base of excavation should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted prior to placing new fills. The over-excavation beneath the footings should extend horizontally a minimum of 2 feet beyond the width of the footing. The base of excavations for new foundations should be evaluated by the engineer, with additional removal of soft or deleterious material if needed and should then be moisture conditioned and compacted in-place prior to the placement of new fills or foundations. Settlement estimates, and modulus values are provided on the design tables in the Subgrade Prepa ration section Soil Reuse Based on our borings site soils will generally be usable as structural fill provided it is free of deleterious material. Low to non-plastic soils (Pl <20), as well as existing structural materials such as concrete, asphalt, crushed aggregate, or others could potentially be re-used as site fills if processed to meet fill requirements on the site. We anticipate that some volume loss may occur in native soils after compaction, and this should be accounted for in the contractor's grading estimates. We recommend engineered fill for the site be moisture condit ioned and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557 and Appendix C of this report. Parking Area Heavy Duty Proofrolled/Compacted Subgrade Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page 1 9 in asphalt/ 3 in aggregate base PARTNER 2. REPORT OVERVIEW & LIMITATIONS 2.1 Report Overview To develop this report, Partner accessed existing information and obtained site specific data from our exploration program. Partner also used standard industry practices and our experience on previous projects to perform engineering analysis and provide recommendations for construction along with construction considerations to guide the methods of site development. The opinions on the cover letter of this report do not constitute engineering recommendations, and are only general, based on our recent anecdotal experiences and not statistical analysis. Section 1.0, Executive Geotechnical Summary, compiles data from each of the report sections, while each of sections in the report presents a detailed description of our work. The detailed descriptions in Section 5.0 and Appendix C constitute our engineering recommendations for the project, and they supersede the Executive Geotechnical Summary. The report overview, including a description of the planned construction and a list of references, as well as an explanation of the report limitations is provided in Section 2.0. The findings of Partner's geologic review are included in Section 3.0 Geologic Conditions and Hazards. The descriptions of our methods of exploration and testing, as well as our findings are included in Section 4.0 Geotechnical Exploration and Laboratory Results. In addition, logs of our exploration excavations are included in Appendix A of the report, and laboratory testing is included in Appendix B of the report. Site Location and Site Plan maps are included as Figures in the report. 2.2 Assumed Construction Partner's understanding of the planned construction was based on information provided by the project team. The proposed site plan is included as Figure 2 to this report. Partner's assumptions regarding the new construction are presented in the below table. Project Data Proposed Use: Medical Office Building Building footprint/height 49,942 square foot, 3-stories Land Acreage (Ac): Approximately 2 acres Expected Cuts and Fills Up to 5 feet of cut Type of Construction: Assumed slab-on-grade with wood framing and/or masonry units Foundations Type Assumed conventional spread foundations Anticipated Loads Assumed 13.0 kif wall loads and 280 kip column loads Traffic Loading Frequent vehicular traffic with occasional heavy truck traffic Site Information Sources: NCM -PH II BLDG structural plans prepared by Ware Malcomb, dated 08/31/2018 Grading Plans for North Coast Medical Plaza, prepared by Excel Engineering, 9 sheets, dated 05/17/2023 Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 PARTNER June 2, 2025 Page 2 Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page 3 2.3 References The following references were used to generate this report: California Geological Survey (CGS), Note 36, California Geomorphic Provinces, 2002. California Geological Survey, Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides in California, C.J. Willis, F.G. Perez, C.I. Gutierrez, 2011 County of San Diego Department of Planning and land Use, Draft- Liquefaction County of San Diego Hazard Mitigation Planning County of San Diego, Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2023 Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA Flood Map Service Center, accessed 9/8/2022 Google Earth Pro (Online), accessed 8/10/2022 Historic Aerials by NETR Online, accessed 7/30/2022 Kennedy, M.P., Tan, S.S., Bovard, K.R., Alvarez, R.M., Watson, M.J., and Gutierrez, C.I., 2007, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30x60-minute quadrangle, California: California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 2, scale 1:100,000 OSHPD Seismic Design Maps, accessed online 5/23/2025 Robert Prater Associates, Geotechnical Investigation for Kelly Ranch Corporate Center, April 1997 United States Department of Agriculture, Web Soil Survey, accessed online 8/1/2022 United States Geological Survey, California Interactive Geologic Map accessed 8/1/2022 United States Geological Survey, Lower 48 States 2014 Seismic Hazard Map, accessed online 8/1/2022 United States Geologic Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program (Online), accessed 8/1/2022 United States Geological Survey, 20220103, US Topo 7.5-minute map for Encinitas, CA: USGS - National Geospatial Technical Operations Center (NGTOC). 2.4 Limitations The conclusions, recommendations, and opinions in this report are based upon soil samples and data obtained in widely spaced locations that were accessible at the time of exploration and collected based on project information available at that time. Our findings are subject to field confirmation that the samples we obtained were representative of site conditions. If conditions on the site are different than what was encountered in our borings, the report recommendations should be reviewed by our office, and new recommendations should be provided based on the new information and possible additional exploration if needed. It should be noted that geotechnical subsurface evaluations are not capable of predicting all subsurface conditions, and that our evaluation was performed to industry standards at the time of the study, no other warranty or guarantee is made. Likewise, our document review and geologic research study made a good-faith effort to review readily available documents that we could access and were aware of at the time, as listed in this letter. We are not PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page 4 able to guarantee that we have discovered, observed, and reviewed all relevant site documents and conditions. If new documents or studies are available following the completion of the report, the recommendations herein should be reviewed by our office, and new recommendations should be provided based on the new information and possible additional exploration if needed. This report is intended for the use of the client in its entirety for the proposed project as described in the text. Information from this report is not to be used for other projects or for other sites. All of the report must be reviewed and applied to the project or else the report recommendations may no longer apply. If pertinent changes are made in the project plans or conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different than indicated by this report, please contact this office for review. Significant variations may necessitate a re-evaluation of the recommendations presented in this report. The findings in this report are valid for one year from the date of the report. This report has been completed under specific Terms and Conditions relating to scope, relying parties, limitations of liability, indemnification, dispute resolution, and other factors relevant to any reliance on this report. If a building permit is obtained for the project based on the submittal of this report, it would become the design geotechnical report for the project. If parties other than Partner are engaged to provide construction geotechnical special inspection services, they will also be required to assume construction geotechnical engineer of record (GEOR) services as well. To confirm this, they should issue a letter concurring with the findings and recommendations in this geotechnical design report or providing alternate recommendations prior to the start of construction. The GEOR should be directly involved in the construction process, provide engineering review the special inspection reports on a daily basis, and sign off at the end of the project that the construction was done per the geotechnical design report. If Partner is not the GEOR, we should be contacted as the design geotechnical engineer in the case of changed conditions or changes to the planned construction. Interpretation of the design geotechnical report during construction, response to project RFI’s, and oversight of special inspectors and quality control testing is to be handled by the GEOR. Partner can provide a proposal for special inspection and GEOR services upon request. PARTNER 3. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS & HAZARDS This section presents the results of a geologic review performed by Partner, for the proposed new construction on site. The general location of the project is shown on Figure 1. 3.1 Site Location and Project Information The planned construction will be situated on a currently a vacant graded lot within a mostly commercial area of Carlsbad, California. The site is relatively flat with grades sloping to the west. A relatively steep slope exists along the northern edge of the site that slopes down from Palomar Airport Road to the site with elevations falling approximately 8 feet over distance of 50 feet. The site appears to have been previously used for agricultural purposes as early as 1947 until 1994. The site is situated directly between a medical plaza to the west and a bank to east, southeast of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Hidden Valley Road in Carlsbad. Figures 2 present the project site and the locations of our site explorations. Based on our review of available documents, the site has had the following previous uses: Historical Use Information Period/Date Source Description/Use 1914-1994 Aerial Photographs, Topographic Maps Agricultural 1994-Present Aerial Photographs, Onsite Observations Current use 3.2 Geologic Setting The site is located in the City of Carlsbad within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of the State of California. More specifically, the site is located near the western terminus of Canyon de las Encinas, only 1.4 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Surficial geology at the site is mapped as young alluvial flood-plain deposits. The unit is Holocene and late Pleistocene in age. The subject property is largely mapped as Visalia sandy loam according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey online database. The Visalia series consists of well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from granite. A general summary of the geologic data compiled for this project is provided in the below table. Geologic Data Parameter Value Geomorphic Zone Peninsular Ranges Ground Elevation 80 Flood Elevation Minimal Flood Hazard (Zone X) Seismic Hazard Zone Moderate Geologic Hazards Ground shaking, Liquefaction Surface Cover Loose Topsoil Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page 5 Source CGS USGS, Google Earth Pro FEMA USGS CGS, San Diego County Partner Borings PARTNER I Geologic Data Parameter Value Source Site Modifications Graded vacant lot Historic Aerials, Robert Prater and Associates Grading Letter Surficial Geology Santiago Formation USGS Depth to Bedrock Unknown Partner Borings Groundwater Depth 12 to 14 feet Partner Borings (1/5/2016) 3.3 Geologic Hazards California is tectonically active and contains numerous large, active faults. As a result, geologic hazards with the greatest potential to affect California include earthquakes and related hazards such as tsunamis, landslides, liquefaction, and ground shaking. According to the USGS Unified Hazard Disaggregation Tool, the faults most relevant to the site are the Rose Canyon (8.40 kilometers from the site, Mmax: 6.76), Newport- Inglewood offshore (12.24 kilometers from the site, Mmax: 7.38), and Oceanside (8.24 kilometers from the site, Mmax: 7.29). According to CGS and San Diego County geologic hazard maps, the site will be subject to ground shaking. No other geologic hazards are known or suspected to impact the site. State, County, City, and other j urisdictions in seismically active areas update seismic standards on a regular basis. The design team should carefully evaluate all of the building requirements for the project. 3.4 Seismic Design Parameters The site latitude and longitude are 33.123156 degrees North and -117.304147 degrees West respectively. Based on the CGS Geologic Hazard Maps, the site is liquefiable, classifying it as Site Class F. However, based on section 20.3 of ASCE 7-16, structures that have fundamental periods of vibration equal to or less than 0.5 seconds, site response analysis is not required to determine spectral accelerations for liquefiable soils. The structural engineer has confirmed that the fundamental period of the structure is approximately 0.256 seconds and will not exceed 0.5 seconds. Site class was therefore determined in accordance with section 20.3 to be Site Class D. Based on the recent edition of ASCE 7-16 and its subsequent supplements, a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis (GM HA) is required for sites with • Structures on Site Class D site with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2. • Structures on Site Class E site with Ss greater than or equal to 1.0 or S, greater than or equal to 0.2. However, a ground motion hazard analysis is not required if the following exemptions are met: 1) Structures on Site Class D site with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2, provided the value of the parameter SM1 determined by Eq. (11.4-2) is increased by 50% for all applications of SM1 in this Standard. The resulting value of the parameter So, determined by Eq. (11.4-4) shall be used for all applications of So, in this Standard. Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page 6 PARTNER 2) Structures on Site Class E with Ss greater than or equal to 1.0 or S, greater than or equal to 0.2, provided the equivalent lateral force procedure is used for design and the value of Cs is determined by Eq. (12.8-2) for all values of T, or. where both the value of Sa; is determined by Eq. (15.7-7) for all values of Ti and the value of the parameter So, is replaced with 1.5So, in Eq. (15. 7-10) and Eq. (15. 7-11 ). Based on boring logs, SPT N values, and the conditions described above the site is determined to be Site Class D. The site qualifies for exemption No. 1. Therefore, a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis is NOT needed for this site provided the value of the parameter SM1 determined by Eq. (11.4-2) is increased by 50% for all applications of SM, for this site. The resulting value of the parameter So, determined by Eq. (11.4-4) shall be used for all applications of So, for the site. Using information obtained from the SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California)/ OSH PD (Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development) Seismic Design Maps for ASCE 7-1 6, for a Site Class of D and risk category of II, the following values were obtained as shown on the below table. Seismic Item Value Site Classification D (Stiff Soils) Fa , .1 s. 1.042g SMs 1.129g Sos 0.752g PGAM 0.523g Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page 7 Seismic Item Value Seismic Design Category D Fv , .9 s, 0.377g SM, (increased by 50% per exemption No. 1) 1.087g So, (determined using increased SD1) 0.725g Design PGA (2/3 PGAM) 0.349g PARTNER 4. GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION & LABORATORY RESULTS Our evaluation of soils on the site included field exploration and laboratory testing. The field exploration and laboratory testing programs are briefly described below. Data reports from the field exploration and laboratory testing are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B. respectively. 4.1 Soil Borings The soil boring program was conducted on January 5, 2016. Two borings, designated B-1 and B-2 were located in the building area and were drilled to depths ranging from approximately 20 and 50 feet below ground surface. Additionally, two borings, designated B-3 and B-4, were drilled in the parking areas, and were terminated at depths of 5 feet below the ground surface. Borings were completed by the use of a truck-mounted drill rig using hollow-stem auger drilling techniques. We returned to the site in October 2016 to complete two infiltration tests, designated P1 and P2 at a depth of 5 feet. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings and percolation tests are shown on Figure 2. A supplemental soil boring program was conducted between May 9, 2025 and May 12, 2025. Two (2) hand- auger borings were advanced by the use of hand tools and three (3) cone penetration test (CPT) soundings were conducted. The hand-auger borings were extended to depths of approximately 5 feet (HA-1 and HA- 2) and the CPTs (CPT-1 through CPT-3) were advanced to approximate depths of 50 feet below existing grades. The approximate location of the exploratory borings is shown on Figure 2. Logs of subsurface conditions encountered in the borings were prepared in the field by a representative of Partner Engineering. Soil samples consisting of modified California split-spoon samplers (CalMod) and Standard Penetration Tests (SPD samples were collected at approximately 2.5 and 5-foot depth intervals and were returned to the laboratory for testing. The Cal Mod samples were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 3550 and SPTs were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. Typed boring logs were prepared from the field logs and are presented in Appendix A. A summary table description is provided below: Surficial Geology Strata Depth to Bottom of Layer (bgs*) Surface Cover Up to 24 inches Fill Material 10 feet Alluvium Stratum 35 feet Residuum Stratum > 50 feet Groundwater Between 12 and 14 feet Bedrock Not Encountered Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page 8 Description Topsoil Sandy clayey soils Sandy Clay Residual Clayey Sands Partner Borings (2016) Partner Borings PARTNER 4.2 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at 12 and 14 feet in borings 8-1 and 8-2 (January 5, 2016 exploration), respectively, at the time of drilling. However, groundwater levels will fluctuate over time and may be different at the time of construction and during the project life. 4.3 Laboratory Evaluation Selected samples collected during drilling activities were tested in the laboratory to assist in evaluating engineering properties of subsurface materials at the site. The results of laboratory analyses are presented in Appendix 8. 4.4 Infiltration Tests Two bore hole permeameter "percolation" tests designated P1 and P2 were during a supplemental investigation (from October 2016). The infiltration testing was performed at a depth of 5 feet below the ground surface at the locations shown on figure 2. A single-ring infiltration test was performed, by seating of a 4-inch diameter perforated plastic pipe into the bottom of a cleaned 8-inch diameter hole. Upon completion of testing the percolation rate measured in the field was converted into an infiltration rate using a reduction factor. Percolation Test Locations can be found on Figures 2. Boring logs and Percolation test data can be found in Appendix A, and is summarized below: Test Number I Location Elevation of Tested Area Depth of Well Test Start Depth Final Water Drop Un-factored Infiltration Rate Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page 9 P1 See Figure 2 78 ft 5 ft 0 ft 0.S in. 0.15 in./hr I P2 See Figure 2 77 ft 5 ft 0 ft 0.5 in. 0.18 in/hr PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page 10 5. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS & PARAMETERS The following discussion of findings for the site is based on the assumed construction, geologic review, results of the field exploration, and laboratory testing programs. The recommendations of this report are contingent upon adherence to Appendix C of this report, General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations. For additional details on the below recommendations, please see Appendix C. 5.1 Geotechnical Recommendations The proposed construction is generally feasible from a geotechnical perspective and will have a negligible impact on the surrounding properties provided the recommendations and assumptions of this report are followed. Geologic/General Site Considerations • The site is located in the City of Carlsbad within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of the State of California. More specifically, the site is located near the western terminus of Canyon de las Encinas, only 1.4 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Surficial geology at the site is mapped as young alluvial flood-plain deposits. The unit is Holocene and late Pleistocene in age. The subject property is currently developed as a vacant graded lot. The site appears to have been used for agricultural purposes prior to 1994 and remedial grading was completed on site sometime around 2003 as part of the construction efforts of the adjacent structures. This portion of the state is prone to seismic ground shaking. No other geological hazards are known or suspected on the site. Excavation Considerations • We anticipate excavations on the site to depths of up to 4 feet for foundations and 5 feet for utilities. Based on our data, conventional construction equipment in good working condition should be able to perform the planned excavations. As previously mentioned, buried utility lines, undocumented fills as well as other remnants of previous construction may be present on the site. Native sandy soils may contain cohesionless material which could also cave or be difficult to remove. This may require additional planning and equipment. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 14 during our borings at the time of drilling. However, groundwater levels fluctuate over time and may be different at the time of construction and during the project life. • Appendix C further discusses excavation recommendations in the following sections, which can be accessed by clicking hyperlinks: Earthwork, Underground Pipeline, Excavation De-Watering. Foundations • We recommend that the new primary building structure be supported on spread foundations with a concrete slab on grade. Based on the boring data, we recommend new foundations be established a minimum of 24-inches below grade over 24-inches of removed and recompacted on site soils. This could be accomplished by over-excavating below the footings to a depth of 12-inches below the bottom of the foundations. The base of excavation should then be scarified to a depth of 12 PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page 11 inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted prior to placing new fills. The over-excavation beneath the footings should extend horizontally a minimum of 2 feet beyond the width of the footing. • The base of excavations for new foundations should be evaluated by the engineer, with additional removal of soft or deleterious material if needed and should then be moisture conditioned and compacted in-place prior to the placement of new fills or foundations. • We recommend that the new slabs on grade should be supported on an aggregate layer roughly equal to slab thickness or a minimum of 4 inches, as required for capillary break, followed by properly compacted on site soils. The subgrade below concrete should be evaluated by an engineer with soft or deleterious material removed, subgrade should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted prior to placing new fills. Slabs on grade should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and reinforced with #4 bars spaced 18 inches O.C. or equivalent, or as directed by the structural engineer based on building loads. • We recommend that the sidewalks, hardscapes, and other non-structural slabs be supported on an properly compacted on site soils. The subgrade below concrete should be evaluated by an engineer with soft or deleterious material removed, subgrade should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted prior to placing new fills. Sidewalks, hardscapes, and other non-structural slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and reinforced as directed by the structural or civil engineer based on building loads and project needs. • Areas for new slabs on grade should be evaluated by proofrolling with soft, unstable areas removed and replaced with compacted fill. • Section 5.2 of this report provides a table outlining the embedment depth, bearing capacity, settlement and other parameters for foundation design and construction. Recommendations for a deep foundation option can be provided upon request. On-Grade Construction Considerations • In new structural areas of the site, all remnants of previous construction, vegetation and/or deleterious materials should be completely removed to exposed clean subgrade soil. In new fill, structural, and pavement areas, cleaned subgrade should be proofrolled and evaluated by the engineer with a loaded water truck (4,000 gallon) or equivalent rubber-tired equipment. In locations where proofrolling is not feasible, probing, dynamic cone penetration testing, or other methods may be employed. Soft or unstable areas should be repaired per the direction of the engineer. Once approved, the subgrade soil should be scarified to a depth of 24 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted as engineered fill. Improvements in these areas should extend laterally beyond the new structure limits 2 feet or a distance equal to or greater than the layer thickness, whichever is greater. This zone should extend vertically from the bearing grade elevation to the base of the fill. The thicknesses of the layer, settlement estimates, and modulus values are provided on the design tables in the next section. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page 12 • Based on our borings, we anticipate that some over-excavation may result from proofrolling operations. In areas where deep instability is encountered, we recommend test pits be excavated and an engineer be called to perform an evaluation of the issue and to propose a resolution. Such resolutions may include but are not limited to: the use of geotextiles, chemical treatments (soil cement, hydrated lime, etc.) thickened slabs or pavements sections, lime-treated aggregate base, or others. Pavement sections provided in Section 5.2 are based on approved, compacted in-place soils being used in the subgrade. If subgrade conditions in the upper 3 feet of pavement areas vary or are improved, the pavement sections may be modified. • Appendix C provides additional recommendations for foundations in the following sections: Cast- in-place Concrete, Foundations, Earthwork, Paving, Subgrade Preparation which can be accessed by clicking the hyperlinks. Soil Reuse Considerations • Based on our borings site soils will generally be usable as structural fill provided it is free of deleterious material. Low to non-plastic soils (PI<20), as well as existing structural materials such as concrete, asphalt, crushed aggregate, or others could potentially be re-used as site fills if processed to meet fill requirements on the site. We anticipate that some volume loss may occur in native soils after compaction, and this should be accounted for in the contractor's grading estimates. We recommend engineered fill for the site be moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557 and Appendix C of this report. • Appendix C provides additional recommendations for foundations in the following sections: EARTHWORK, SUBGRADE PREPARATION which can be accessed by clicking the hyperlinks. Geotechnical Concrete and Steel Construction Considerations • Measured sulfate contents on the site were low. However, we recommend using corrosion resistant concrete (e.g. Type II/V Portland Cement, a fly ash mixture of 25 percent cement replacement, and a water/cement ratio of 0.45 or less) as directed by the producer, engineer or other qualified party based on their knowledge of the materials and site conditions. Concrete exposed to freezing weather should be air-entrained. Mix designs should be well-established and reviewed by the project engineers prior to placement, to verify the design is appropriate to meet the project needs and parameters provided in this report. Quality control testing should be performed to verify appropriate mixes are used and are properly handled and placed. Please refer to Appendix C, Cast In-Place Concrete for more details. • Soil/rock may be corrosive to un-protected metallic elements such as pipes, poles, rebar, etc. We recommend the use of coatings and/or cathodic protection for metals in contact with the ground, as directed by the product manufacturer, engineer or other qualified party based on their knowledge of the materials to be used and site soil conditions. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page 13 Site Storm Water Considerations • The results of our onsite testing indicated a design infiltration rate of less than 0.2 inches per hour for use in design, and hence the site is not recommended for storm water infiltration. • The surficial soil in the upper 20 inches of the site was found to contain more than 20 percent clay material, with a plasticity index of 24. As such these are considered to be a part of hydrologic Soil Group C. • Surface drainage and landscaping design should be carefully planned to protect the new structures from erosion/undermining, and to maintain the site earthwork and structure subgrades in a relatively consistent moisture condition. Water should not flow towards or pond near to new structures, and high water-demand plants should not be planned near to structures. Appendix C provides additional recommendations for foundations in the following sections: SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE, WATER PROOFING which can be accessed by clicking the hyperlinks. • We recommend consulting with the landscape designer and civil engineer regarding management of site storm water and irrigation water, as changes in moisture content below the site after construction will lead to soil movement and potential distress to the building. Geotechnical Construction Observation and Testing • Geotechnical testing and observation during construction is considered to be a continuing part of the geotechnical consultation. In order to confirm that the recommendations presented in our report remain applicable, our representatives should be present at the site to provide appropriate observation and testing services during the following primary activities: o Overexcavation bottom observation and approval o Foundation bottom observation and approval o Placement and compaction of fill material o Inspection of temporary cuts o Installation of drywells o Utility Trench bottom and backfill observation and approval o Placement and compaction of pavement subgrade PARTNER 5.2 Geotechnical Parameters Based on the findings of our field and laboratory testing, we recommend that design and construction proceed per industry accepted practices and procedures, as described in Appendix C. General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations (Considerations). Preeared Subgrade Parameters -(hyperlink to Construction Considerations) Prepared Subgrade Parameters Structure Design Cover Bearing Surface a Static Values Depth Settlement d Slab on Grade k=150 pci b N/A Re-worked on site soils 12 inches in <1 inch (Reinforced with #4 q.u = 200 psf< thickness bars spaced 18 µ = 0.35 inches O.C. or equivalent) Spread q.u = 2. 5 ksf< 24 inches Re-worked on site soils 24 inches in <1 inch Foundations µ = 0.35 thickness Spread q.u = 3.5 ksf< 36 inches Re-worked on site soils 24 inches in <1 inch Foundations µ = 0.35 thickness 0 Repairs in bearing surface areas should be structural fill per the recommendation of the Earthwork section of Appendix C that is moisture conditioned to within 3 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to 95 percent or more of the soil maximum dry density per ASTM D 7 557. b Subgrade modulus value "k", assuming the grade slab is supported by aggregate layer roughly equal to slab thickness (minimum 4 inches), as required for capillary break. c Can be increased by 7/3 for temporary loading such as seismic and wind, allowable parameters, estimated FS of 2.5. d Differential settlement is expected to be half ta ¾ of total settlement. Pavement Desi n and Construction Recommendations • In our experience we recommend that multiple different pavement sections be considered for the project for economic and performance reasons. For trash enclosures we recommend that thickened reinforced concrete pavement be utilized. For heavily used and ADA parking spaces, etc., we recommend the use of thinner reinforced concrete pavement. We recommend a heavy-duty asphalt pavement section for drive aisles and thinner sections can be used in the parking field if any. We recommend concrete pavements consist of local DOT, or otherwise jurisdictionally approved mixes, and that paving cross slopes, curbs, and other features conform to the applicab·le local standard specifications and details. • The following sections are provided for native soil subgrade conditions. If imported fill is used, the section may need to be adjusted. This information assumes that construction will proceed per the provided Construction Considerations, presented in Appendix C. Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page 14 PARTNER Paving Structural Sections -(hyperlink to Construction Considerations) Pavement Sections Roadway Type Subgrade Preparation a Pavement Section be Parking Area Light Duty Proofrolled/Compacted Subgrade 6 in asphalt/ 3 in aggregate base Parking Area Heavy Duty Proofrolled/Compacted Subgrade 9 in asphalt/ 3 in aggregate base ADA Parking Spaces Proofrolled/Compacted Subgrade 6 in concrete/ 4 in. Aggregate Base Trash Enclosures Proofrolled/Compacted Subgrade 8 in concrete/ 4 in. Aggregate Base 0 Repairs in proof rolled areas should be structural fill per the recommendation of the Earthwork (hyper/ink to Construction Considerations) that is moisture conditioned to within 3 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to 95 percent or more of the soil maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557. b 1 inch of pavement may be reduced if 6-in of lime or cement-treated soil is used with a 500 psi 28-day compressive strength. Soils with Plasticity Index of 10 or more are generally candidates for lime treatment, other soils are candidates for cement treatment, if any. c Reinforced concrete should consist of 4,000 psi (or more) concrete with 3/8-inch high yield steel reinforcement placed at 18 inches on center, each way. Liquefaction Analysis -(hyperlink to Appendix D) The data obtained from our geotechnical investigations was entered into the Cliq software program for liquefaction analysis. We analyzed resistance, friction, and pore pressure parameters. Data available on the California State Water Resources Control Board Geo Tracker data base showed that groundwater was encountered at an approximate depth of 10 at a site located approximately 1.25 miles to the southwest. A groundwater depth of 5 feet was used as a conservative estimate of historic high groundwater levels in our analysis. A PGAm value of 0.523g obtained from the SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California) / OSHPD (Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development) Seismic Design Maps for ASCE 7-16, for a Site Class of D and risk category of II was used for our liquefaction analysis. The analysis relied on methods presented in the NCEER Workshop (1998/2009), Youd et al (2001 ), Robertson (2009) for layer factors of safety, Soil Behavior Type Index (le) Cutoff values, earthquake magnitude, and settlement calcu lations. The anticipated seismic induced dry sand settlement and differential settlement are shown below. In general, spread can tolerate a maximum of 0.75 inches differential settlement and mat/structural slab foundations can tolerate 2 inches. The detailed analysis is presented in Appendix D. Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 PARTNER June 2, 2025 Page 15 Seismic Dry Sand and Static Settlement Estimates Seismic Item Total Seismic Seismic Differential Total Static +Seismic Total Differential Settlement {in) Settlement a {in) Settlement {in) Settlement a {in) CPT-1 1 ½ 2½ CPT-2 1 3/i6 ½ 2 3/16 ½ CPT-3 1 2 a. Differential settlement is assumed to be the difference between the greatest and least settlement estimates over a distance of 200 feet. Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page 16 PARTNER FIGURES • Site Vicinity Plan • Site Exploration Plan (Aerial) • Scaled Geologic Site Plan • Cross section A-A’ • Cross Section B-B’ • Geologic Map PARTNER San M.,rcos E ondldo ! 600~ Source: United States Geological Survey, 20220703, US Topo 7.5-minute map for Encinitas, CA: FIGURE 1 -SITE VICINITY PLAN USGS -National Geospatial Technical Operations Center (NGTOC). KEY 'Approximate Site Location Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 PARTNER Source: Google Earth Pro 2022 FIGURE 2A -BORING LOCATION AERIAL KEY ~ Approximate Boring Test Locations (2016) • Approximate Infiltration Test Locations (2016) r •-, . • Approximate Project Limits -· _, @ Approximate CPT Locations (this study) Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 ~ Approximate Hand-Auger Locations (this study) PARTNER Source: Excel Engineering, Inc. North Coast Medical Plaza East Grading Sheet, Drawing No. 496-18, Received 5/18/2023 Approximate Boring Location (2016) 0 • Approximate Location of Infiltration Testing (2016) 40' 80' Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Figure 1 ~ Approximate Location ~ Approximate Hand- 'O' of CPTs \I Auger Boring Location 120' 160' KEY Scale I inch = 40 feet Approximate Location of Cross Sections 320 □ Approximate Limits of Proposed Building s FIGURE 2B -SCALED GEOLOGIC SITE PLAN □ Approximate Limits of Existing Building 480' PARTNER 76~ -. B Young alluvial flood-plain deposits (Holocene and late Pleistocene) ~ Santiago Formation (middle Eocene) B Old paralic deposits, undivided (late to middle Pleistocene) ~ Very old paralic deposits, undivided (middle to early Pleistocene) Source: Kennedy, M.P., Tan, S.S., Bovard, K.R., Alvarez, R.M., Watson, MJ., and Gutierrez, Cl. , 2007, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30x60-minute quadrangle, California: California Geological Survey, Re ional Geolo ic Ma No. 2, scale 7:700,000 KEY ~ Approximate Site Location Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Tsa FIGURE 3 -GEOLOGIC MAP PARTNER \ Source: Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2023, San Diego, California, Map of San Diego County Liquefaction Risk Areas KEY ' Approximate Site Location Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 San Diego CounlY. Legend Probabilistic Peak Ground Acceleration (2% in 50 years): 0.25 -0.5 (Low Liquefaction Risk) 0.51 -1.11 (High Liquefaction Risk) Liquefaction Layers Faull Base Layers: D Incorporated City Boundary --Freeways/Highways Major Roads Lakes FIGURE 4 -GEOLOGIC HAZARD MAP PARTNER 0 ~ - ~ - ~ - g- - g- I I - - - - - -_I. I - '---------1 ■-----------------' ' ~-i=- - ~ - 0-- - ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 FIGURE 5 -Cross Section 8-8' PARTNER Project North Coast Medical Office Building Drawn By AJA I.scale 1 inch = 20 feet Company Partner Engineering Date 6/2/2025 Project Number 25-495296.1 SLIDE 9.034 - ~ - !?- - g- - 2- - I ~---1--------------------· j _____ j _____ I ----------------------------· -------· ~-T - -- ----= -~ -------...- - 0-- - ~ - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 FIGURE 6 -Cross Section A-A' PARTNER Project North Coast Medical Office Building Drawn By AJA ISa//e 1 inch = 20 feet Company Partner Engineering lJ;Jte 6/2/2025 Project Number 25-495296.1 SLIDE 9.034 APPENDIX A Boring Logs (2016) Percolation Test Logs (2016) CPT Data Hand-Auger Boring Logs PARTNER BORING LOG KEY· EXPLANATION OF TERMS SURFACE COVER: General description with thickness to the inch, ex. Topsoil, Concrete, Asphalt, etc., Fill: General description with thickness to the 0.5 feet. Ex. Roots, Debris, Processed Materials (Pea Gravel, etc.) NATIVE GEOLOGIC MATERIAL: Deposit type, 1.Color, 2.moisture, 3.density, 4.SOIL TYPE, other notes -Thickness to 0.5 feet 1. Color -Generalized Light Brown (usually indicates dry soil, rock, caliche) Brown (usually indicates moist soil) Dark Brown (moist to wet soil, organics, clays) Reddish (or other bright colors) Brown (moist, indicates some soil development/or residual soil) Greyish Brown (Marine, sub groundwater -not the same as light brown above) Mottled (brown and gray, indicates groundwater fluctuations) 2. Moisture Dry -only use for wind-blown silts in the desert Damp -soil with little moisture content Moist -near optimum, has some cohesion and stickiness Wet -beyond the plastic limit for clayey soils, and feels wet to the touch for non clays Saturated -Soil be.low the groundwater table, sampler is wet on outside 3A. Relative Density for Granular Soils 38. Consistency of Fine-Grained Cohesive Soils Relative Density Ring SPT Consistency Very loose 0-7 0-4 Very Soft Loose 8-14 5 -10 Soft Medium Dense 15-28 11-29 Medium Stiff Dense 29 -100 30-50 Very Dense Over 100 Over50 4. Classification Determine percent Gravel (Material larger than the No. 4 Sieve) Determine percent fines (Material passing the No. 200 Sieve) Determine percent sand (Passing the No. 4 and retained on the No. 200 Sieve) Determine if clayey (make soil moist, if it easily roll into a snake it is clayey) Coarse Grained Soils (Less than 50% Passing the No. 200 Sieve) GP SP Mostly sand and gravel, with less than 5 % fines GP-GM SP-SM Mostly sand and gravel 5-12% fines, non-clayey GP-GC SP-SC Mostly sand and gravel 5-12% fines, clayey GC SC Mostly sand and gravel >12% fines clayey GM SM Mostly sand and gravel >12% fines non-clayey Fine Grained Soils (50% or more passes the No. 200 Sieve) Stiff Very Stiff SPT undrained Shear Strength, tsf 0-2 less than 0.125 3-4 0.125 -0.25 5-8 o.25-a.so 9-15 0.50-1.0 16-30 1.0-2.0 Sandy GRAVEL SAND Sandy GRAVEL with Silt SAND with Silt Sandy GRAVEL with Clay SAND with Clay Clayey GRAVEL Clayey SAND Silty GRAVEL Silty SAND ML Soft, non clayey SILT with sand MH CL CH Very rare, holds a lot of water, and is pliable with very low strength If sandy can be hard when dry, will be stiff/plastic when wet Hard and resilient when dry, very strong/sticky when wet (may have sand in it) H = liquid limit over 50%, L -LL under 50% C= Clay M =Silt Samplers S = Standard split spoon (SPT) R = Modified ring Bulk = Excavation spoils ST= Shelby tube C= Rock core Line Type When uses classifications changed within a same layer type at the certain depth When the layer type changes at the uncertain depths When the layer type changes at the certain depths ______ . When uses classifications changed within a same layer type at the uncertain depth End of the boring logs For Boring Logs border (Outside Borders) Geotechnical Report Project No. 23-430807.1 A -1 Elastic SILT CLAY with Sand/Silt FAT CLAY Boring Number: 8-1 Page 1 of 1 Location: Northwest Building Corner Date Started: 1/5/2016 Site Address: 6010 Hidden Valley Road Date Completed: 1/5/2016 Carlsbad, California Depth to Groundwater: 14 feet Project Number: 153691.1 Field Technician: Marcus Drill Rig Type: Hollow-stem Auger Partner Engineering and Science Sampling Equipment: SPT 2154 Torrance Blvd, Suite 201 Borehole Diameter: 8in Torrance, CA 90501 Depth Sample N-Value uses Description 0 Surface Cover: 12 inches of loose topsoil 1 2 I R 29 SC CERTIFIED Fill: Dark brown, stiff, moist, clayey SAND 3 ~-----------~----------------------------------------------------- 4 5 t ---~--- 12 SM CERTIFIED Flll:Brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND ~----------------------------------------------------- 6 7 I R 27 SC CERTIFIED Fill: Brown, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND 8 9 10 I N 14 SC Alluvium: Brown, medium dense, moist to wet, clayey SAND 11 12 13 14 V Groundwater at 14 feet 15 Saturated 16 17 18 19 20 I N 14 Boring terminated at 21 feet Groundwater measured at 14 feet upon boring completion Boring backfilled with cement slury after completion Boring Number: 8-2 Page 1 of 2 Location: Southwest Building Corner Date Started: 1/5/2016 Site Address: 6010 Hidden Valley Road Date Completed: 1/5/2016 Carlsbad, California Depth to Groundwater: 12 feet Project Number: 153691.1 Field Technician: Marcus Drill Rig Type: Hollow-stem Auger Partner Engineering and Science Sampling Equipment: SPT 2154 Torrance Blvd, Suite 201 Borehole Diameter: 8in Torrance, CA 90501 Depth Sample N-Value uses Description 0 Surface Cover: 10 inches of topsoil 1 CL/SC CERTIFIED FILL: Gray, firm, moist, clayey SAND/Sandy CLAY and, trace roots 2 3 4 5 I R 19 6 7 8 9 10 I N 8 SC Alluvium: Brown, loose, wet to saturated, clayey SAND 11 12 V Groundwater encountered during drilling 13 14 15 I R 21 medium dense 16 17 18 19 20 I N 19 21 22 23 24 25 I N 12 26 27 28 29 continued on next eage ... Boring Number: 8-2 Page 2 of 2 Location: Southwest Building Corner Date Started: 1/5/2016 Site Address: 6010 Hidden Valley Road Date Completed: 1/5/2016 Carlsbad, California Depth to Groundwater: 12 feet Project Number: 153691.1 Field Technician: Marcus Drill Rig Type: Hollow-stem Auger Partner Engineering and Science Sampling Equipment: SPT 2154 Torrance Blvd, Suite 201 Borehole Diameter: 8in Torrance, CA 90501 Depth Sample N-Value uses Description 30 I N 13 ... continued from orevious oaee 31 SC Brown, firm, saturated, clayey SAND 32 33 34 35 I R 38 SC Residuum: Brown, moist, dense, clayey SAND with gravel 36 37 38 39 40 I N 11 medium dense 41 42 43 44 45 I R 31 dense 46 47 48 49 50 I N 25 Boring terminated at 51 feet Groundwater measured at 12 feet upon boring completion Boring backfilled with cement slury after completion Boring Number: 8-3 Page 1 of 1 Location: Northeast Parking Area Date Started: 1/5/2016 Site Address: 6010 Hidden Valley Road Date Completed: 1/5/2016 Carlsbad, California Depth to Groundwater: 14 feet Project Number: 153691.1 Field Technician: Marcus Drill Rig Type: Hollow-stem Auger Partner Engineering and Science Sampling Equipment: SPT 2154 Torrance Blvd, Suite 201 Borehole Diameter: Sin Torrance, CA 90501 Depth Sample N-Value uses Description 0 Surface Cover: 16 inches of loose topsoil 1 SC CERTIFIED FILL: Brown, moist, clayey SAND -------- --- ----------------------------- ------------------------ -- 2 3 CL CERTIFIED FILL: Dark Brown, moist, sandy CLAY 4 Boring terminated at 5 feet Boring backfilled with spoils upon completion Groundwater not encountered Boring Number: 8-4 Page 1 of 1 Location: Southwest Parking Area Date Started: 1/5/2016 Site Address: 6010 Hidden Valley Road Date Completed: 1/5/2016 Carlsbad, California Depth to Groundwater: 14 feet Project Number: 153691.1 Field Technician: Marcus Drill Rig Type: Hollow-stem Auger Partner Engineering and Science Sampling Equipment: SPT 2154 Torrance Blvd, Suite 201 Borehole Diameter: Sin Torrance, CA 90501 Depth Sample N-Value uses Description 0 Surface Cover: 2 feet of loose topsoil 1 2 SC CERTIFIED FILL: Brown, moist, clayey SAND 3 ~-----------~----------------------------------------------------- 4 CL CERTIFIED FIU: Dark brown, moist, sandy CLAY Boring terminated at 5 feet Boring backfilled with spoils upon completion Groundwater not encountered Technician: M. Marcus Date: October-2016 Project and#: 15-153691.3 -North Coast Medical Office Building PERCOLATION FIELD TEST REPORT Notes & Observations Pere Test # Pl Location: See Figure 2 Time Comments Percolation Test -Pre Soak Pre Soaking Time -1 or 4 Hours Time: Pre Soak Time: Percolation Reading StartTime/ Elapsed WLBTP WL~ Percolation Rate for Rdg # EndTime Time (in) (in) (in/hr) 7:40 0.0 1 10 6.0 36.0 7:50 6.0 7:50 6.0 2 60 2.0 2.0 8:50 8.0 8:50 8.0 3 60 1.5 1.5 9:50 9.5 9:50 9.5 4 60 1.5 1.5 10:50 11.0 10:50 11.0 5 60 1.0 1.0 11:50 12.0 11:50 12.0 6 30 0.5 1.0 U:20 12.5 U:20 12.5 7 30 0.5 1.0 U:50 13.0 U:50 13.0 8 30 0.5 1.0 13:20 13.5 Notes: btp -below top of pipe d 1 = Depth to Initial Water Depth (in.) l'id = Water Level Drop of the WL -water level Final Period or Stablixed Rate (in) min -minutes DIA -Diameter of the boring (in.) ft-feet I weather: Calculations dl = 22.5 lid= 1.125 DIA = 4 Reduction Factor Measured Percolation rate Oeisgn Infiltration Rate (in/hr) = in 6.81 1.00 0.15 Page:___!_ *Measured percolation rate is the average drop of the stabilized rate over the last 3 consecutive readings Technician: M. Marcus Page: 1 -Date: October-2016 Project and #: 15-153691.3 -North Coast Medical Office Building PERCOLATION FIELD TEST REPORT Notes & Observations Pere Test # P2 Location: See Figure 2 I weather: Time Comments Percolation Test -Pre Soak Pre Soaking Time -1 or 4 Hours Time: Pre Soak Time: Percolation Reading Start Time/ Elapsed WLBTP Wl6 Percolation Rate for Calculations # EndTime Time (in) (in) Rdg (in/hr) 7:20 0.0 1 10 12.0 72.0 7:30 12.0 7:30 12.0 2 60 6.0 6.0 8:30 18.0 dl = 22.5 8:30 18.0 tid = 1.125 3 60 2.0 2.0 9:30 20.0 DIA = 4 in 9:30 20.0 4 60 1.0 1.0 10:30 21.0 10:30 21.0 5 60 1.0 1.0 11:30 22.0 Reduction Factor 5.56 11:30 22.0 6 30 0.5 1.0 12:00 22.5 Measured Percolation 1.00 12:00 22.5 rate 7 30 0.5 1.0 12:30 23.0 12:30 23.0 Oeisgn Infiltration 8 30 0.5 1.0 0.18 13:00 23.5 Rate (inLhrl = Notes: btp -below top of pipe d 1 = Depth to Initial Water Depth (in.) 6d = Water Level Drop of WL -water level the Final Period or Stablixed •Measured percolation rate is the average drop of the Rate (in} stabilized rate over the last 3 consecutive readings min -minutes DIA -Diameter of the boring (in.) ft feet SUMMARY OF CoNE PENETRATION TEST DATA Project: North Coast Medical Plaza 6020 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA May 9, 2025 Prepared for: Mr. Zachary Bopp Partner Engineering & Science, Inc. 4518 N. 12th Street, Ste 201 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Office (800) 899-9363 Prepared l>y: K~ KEHOE TESTING & ENGINEERING 5415 Industrial Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1518 Office (714) 901 -7270 I Fax (714) 901-7289 www.kehoetesting.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2. SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK 3. FIELD EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES 4. CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA & INTERPRETATION APPENDIX • CPT Plots • CPT Classification/Soil Behavior Chart • Summary of Shear Wave Velocities • Pore Pressure Dissipation Graphs • CPT Data Files (sent via email) SUMMARY OF CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a Cone Penetration Test (CPT) program carried out for the North Coast Medical Plaza project located at 6020 Hidden Valley Road in Carlsbad, California. The work was performed by Kehoe Testing & Engineering (KTE) on May 9, 2025. The scope of work was performed as directed by Partner Engineering & Science, Inc. personnel. 2. SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK The fieldwork consisted of performing CPT soundings at three locations to determine the soil lithology. A summary is provided in TABLE 2.1 . DEPTH OF LOCATION CPT {ft) COMMENTS/NOTES: CPT-1 50 CPT-2 50 CPT-3 50 TABLE 2.1 • Summary of CPT Soundings 3. FIELD EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES The CPT soundings were carried out by KTE using an integrated electronic cone system manufactured by Vertek. The CPT soundings were performed in accordance with ASTM standards (05778). The cone penetrometers were pushed using a 30-ton CPT rig. The cone used during the program was a 15 cm"2 cone with a cone net area ratio of 0.83. The following parameters were recorded at approximately 2.5 cm depth intervals: • Cone Resistance (qc) • Inclination • Sleeve Friction (fs) • Penetration Speed • Dynamic Pore Pressure (u) • Pore Pressure Dissipation (at selected depths) At location CPT-2, shear wave measurements were obtained at approximately 5-foot intervals. The shear wave is generated using an air-actuated hammer, which is located inside the front jack of the CPT rig. The cone has a triaxial geophone, which recorded the shear wave signal generated by the air hammer. The above parameters were recorded and viewed in real time using a laptop computer. Data is stored at the KTE office for up to 2 years for future analysis and reference. A complete set of baseline readings was taken prior to each sounding to determine temperature shifts and any zero load offsets. Monitoring base line readings ensures that the cone electronics are operating properly. 4. CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA & INTERPRETATION The Cone Penetration Test data is presented in graphical form in the attached Appendix. These plots were generated using the CPeT-IT program. Penetration depths are referenced to ground surface. The soil behavior type on the CPT plots is derived from the attached CPT SBT plot (Robertson, “Interpretation of Cone Penetration Test…”, 2009) and presents major soil lithologic changes. The stratigraphic interpretation is based on relationships between cone resistance (qc), sleeve friction (fs), and penetration pore pressure (u). The friction ratio (Rf), which is sleeve friction divided by cone resistance, is a calculated parameter that is used along with cone resistance to infer soil behavior type. Generally, cohesive soils (clays) have high friction ratios, low cone resistance and generate excess pore water pressures. Cohesionless soils (sands) have lower friction ratios, high cone bearing and generate little (or negative) excess pore water pressures. The CPT data files have also been provided. These files can be imported in CPeT-IT (software by GeoLogismiki) and other programs to calculate various geotechnical parameters. It should be noted that it is not always possible to clearly identify a soil type based on qc, fs and u. In these situations, experience, judgement and an assessment of the pore pressure data should be used to infer the soil behavior type. If you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to call our office at (714) 901-7270. Sincerely, KEHOE TESTING & ENGINEERING Steven P. Kehoe President 05/13/25-eb-7616 APPENDIX Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 steve@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com Project: Partner Engineering & Science / North Coast Medical Plaza Location: 6020 Hidden Valley Rd, Carlsbad, CA ....... ...., 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 14 1 6 18 20 22 :t:,. 24 ..r::. c. 26 Q) 0 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 Cone resistance "I ~ l 3 j ~ < C ~ 5 i> ~ ~ _., ?' r==- ) ~ '> ? ~ 1, I 100 200 300 Tip resistance (tsf) 400 ....... ...., 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ~24 ..r::. c. 26 Q) 0 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 Sleeve friction '-, .. , ·, r' ? ( } ':z f t '{._. s ? ) l > \ l r> ~ ...... ~ ...__ ~ --~ 2 ,;;,..._ -- 2 4 6 8 10 Friction (tsf) ....... ...., 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 !t:, 2 4 ..r::. c. 26 Q) 0 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 Pore pressure u .... \ f -20 -10 0 10 Pressure (psi) CPeT-IT v.2..3.1.9 -CPTU data presentation & interpretation software -Report created on: 5/10/2025, 11:53:30 AM 20 ..r: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 c. 26 Q) 0 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 Project file: C:\Users\SteveK\OneDrive -Kehoe Testing and Engineering Inc\Oocuments\CPT Current Oata\Partner-carlsbadS-25\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt Friction ratio > - .c,:- ~ ,~ -=-.. ~~ ~:, ~ ->,- 'II~ .r:- ~ -=ii!! ~ --c:: r-- i --;.;;;. -L. .... --.. -h ~ 1-~ r -~--"'-i .. -> - E' .. ~ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rf(%) 14- 16- 18- 20 - 22 -....... ...., !=,24- ..r::. c. 26 - Q) 0 28 - 30- 32 - 36- 38- 40- 48- 50- 0 CPT-1 Total depth: 50.13 ft, Date: 5/9/2025 2 Soil Behaviour Type Sil~ san<I & san y sflt _J--f-Sa~ iy-,,<1---+----4 Clay & Sil clay sflt silt silt silt silt silt silt Ve dens stiffs ii Ve dels sfiff s ii cr,y.&-• cclay Cl~ e ensr,611-s • Ve dense/stiffs ii Ve dense/stiffs ii 4 6 8 10 12 14 1 6 1 8 SBT (Robertson, 20 10) 1 Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 steve@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com Project: Partner Engineering & Science / North Coast Medical Plaza Location: 6020 Hidden Valley Rd, Carlsbad, CA ....... ...., 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 14 16 18 20 22 :t:,. 24 ..r::. c. 26 Q) 0 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 Cone resistance .,.. ' __/ ~ c.._ < C, ,.-- l ") ? ~ '- r ,,, ...., ~ > < __; ~ ' :i,o ~ 100 200 300 Tip resistance (tsf) 400 ....... ...., 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ~24 ..r::. c. 26 Q) 0 28 30 32 - 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 4 8 50 Sleeve friction )._ 2 -? '-)> \. -( L c' [ t J, ? ~ > I ~ -, ~- ~ C ::=,a ~ l { , ~ "' - 0 2 4 6 8 10 Friction (tsf) ....... ...., 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 !t:, 2 4 ..r::. c. 26 Q) 0 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 Pore pressure u 7= __J I, ... -20 -10 0 10 Pressure (psi) CPeT-IT v.2..3.1.9 -CPTU data presentation & interpretation software -Report created on: 5/10/2025, 11:53:31 AM 20 ..r: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 c. 26 Q) 0 28 30- 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 Friction ratio ~ ....... I ~ s ~ ~ -, -I .. & -_, -~ --- _D .... ~ .. i.;::,, ....... -.,:. . > -l -~ r.> I ---- ~ ;:;a,.-~,..... ~b - ~~. ~ I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rf(%) Project file: C:\Users\SteveK\OneDrive -Kehoe Testing and Engineering Inc\Documents\CPT Current Oata\Partner-carlsbadS-25\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt ....... ...., 18- 20 - !.=.,.24 - ..r::. c. 26 - a, 0 28 - 36- 38 - 40- 42- 46- 48- CPT-2 Total depth: 50.16 ft, Date: 5/9/2025 Soil Behaviour Type silt --+--+-Ci,,¥--+--+--+---1 Clay ---+---+_1,iy. -+--+--+-~la:,__-+--+--+--1 I . Clay & sd clay Clay & Sil clay silt Slit silt Clay --+-+-'C14Y-+---1---1--1 SilfY sa & san y silt 50 _i==i:==+--+--l-~c1~y~&~s~i11'--"c1a~y+--!l--l 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1 6 1 8 SBT (Robertson, 20 10) 2 Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 steve@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com Project: Partner Engineering & Science / North Coast Medical Plaza Location: 6020 Hidden Valley Rd, Carlsbad, CA ....... ...., 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 14 16 18 20 22 :t:,. 24 ..r::. c. 26 Q) 0 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 Cone resistance {_ ~ ~ { ~ r" j' l E _,,> ~ c.. -<.. ,,- ( ? r r c- ~ 100 200 300 Tip resistance (tsf) 400 ....... ...., 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ~24 ..r::. c. 26 Q) 0 28 30 32 34 36 38- 40 42 44 46 4 8 50 0 Sleeve friction ( ....... > -< -,...::> ~ \ ::> \ < •• f' "')_ ~ ( \ ( f, ) , ... ? ( {_ < > - 2 4 6 8 10 Friction (tsf) ....... ...., 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 !t:, 2 4 ..r::. c. 26 Q) 0 28 30 32 34- 36 38 40 42 44 - 46 48 50 Pore pressure u -) ,-1 ( , r I -20 -10 0 10 Pressure (psi) CPeT-IT v.2..3.1.9 -CPTU data presentation & interpretation software -Report created on: 5/10/2025, 11:53:31 AM 20 ..r: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 c. 26 Q) 0 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 Project file: C:\Users\SteveK\OneDrive -Kehoe Testing and Engineering Inc\Documents\CPT Current Oata\Partner-carlsbadS-25\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt Friction ratio ~ -- -~ ---Iii ~ --f-- I - <.... ~ ' s-~. -I _,,.- ,_ r--.. -~;._ ..-:ii, --.. "'i ~ ... I::.. { ~► ;E~ --- ~ --~ - = ;:,=-.. ~ ---r I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rf(%) 18- 20 - 22 - CPT-3 Total depth: 50.82 ft, Date: 5/9/2025 Soil Behaviour Type g 24 -~•-c=-i -~~~~~~r~~_j ..r::. c. 26 - a, 0 28 - 30- 32 - 36- 38 - 40- 48- 50- ---+--t--•Cl,,,--+--+--+---1 c1,y =t---+--+-Cl,,,--+--+--+---1 c11y . lll:=--+--~e1<jr&-sr1 -ct Clay & Sil clay ----1---1--c1Jy-&-sil -ela,v+--+---1 Cl 1y & Sil clay Clay Clqy & silty clay 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1 6 1 8 SBT (Robertson, 20 10) 3 ru a. c} O"' Q) 0 c:: IU ~ V, V, Q) L Q) c:: 0 u 10 0 - 1 Keroe Testing and Engineetilg 714-901-7270 rich@:+i.ehoetesthg.com www.ilehoetesting.com 7 6 0.1 SBTlegend SBT plot 8 9 5 1 Friction R ati o) Rf (%) ■ 1. Sensitive fine grained II 4. Cl.oy~ sit to silty day 0 5. Slky sand to sandy silt 0 G. Clean sand to siky sand 0 7. Gravely sand to sand ■ 2, Organi: material ■ 3. Clay to lllty clay 0 8, Very stilf sand U> clayey sand 0 'l, Ve,y stiff Rne qrained 10 Tip Depth Location (ft) CPT-2 4.98 10.01 14.99 20.01 25.00 29.99 35.01 39.99 45.01 50.00 Partner Engineering Science North Coast Medical Plaza Carlsbad, CA CPT Shear Wave Measurements S-Wave Interval Geophone Travel S-Wave Velocity S-Wave Depth Distance Arrival from Surface Velocity (ft) (ft) (msec) (ft/sec) (ft/sec) 3.98 4.45 4.78 932 9.01 9.23 12.52 737 617 13.99 14.13 18.72 755 791 19.01 19.11 24.84 770 814 24.00 24.08 30.42 792 890 28.99 29.06 35.00 830 1086 34.01 34.07 40.78 835 867 38.99 39.04 44.74 873 1256 44.01 44.06 50.08 880 939 49.00 49.04 56.22 872 812 Shear Wave Source Offset -2 ft S-Wave Velocity from Surface = Travel Distance/S-Wave Arrival Interval S-Wave Velocity= (Travel Dist2-Travel Dist1)/(Time2-Time1) TEST ID: CPT-2 PRESSURE (psi) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 ~ 2v V / V 5 10 / /'-~ 15 TIME: {MINUTES) V / 20 ~ DEPTH (ft) -30.918 25 Boring Number: HA-1 Location: See Figure 3 Site Address: 6020 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA 92011 Project Number: 25-495296 Drill Rig Type: NA Sampling Equipment: Hand Auger Borehole Diameter: 3.25-inch DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE N-VALUE 0 0.5 I Bulk (0-5) 1 R 1.5 r--GB --~---------- 2 2.5 1 ----R ---~---------- 3 3.5 4 I GB 4.5 GB 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 u 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296 uses SC ---- CL ---- SC Boring Log Page 1 of 1 Date Started: 5/12/2025 Date Completed: 5/12/2025 Depth to Groundwater: N/E Drilling Company: NA Partner Engineering and Science 2154 Torrance Blvd Torrance, CA 90501 DESCRIPTION SURFACE COVER: Topsoil CERTIFIED FILL: Brown, damp, Clayey SAND w Gravel (Moisture Content: 10.3%, Dry Density: 100.2 pcf) ---- --- ------------------------ -------------------------------CERTIFIED FILL: Brown, moist, Clay with SAND (Moisture Content: 11.6%,Fines: 55.5%, Pl:18 LL:36) ------- ------------------------ ------------------------------- CERTIFIED FIU : Brown and dark brown, damp to moist, Clayey SAND (Moisture Content: 9.7%, Dry density: 105.4 pd) Boring terminated at 5 feet below the ground surface Boring backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion Groundwater not encountered at time of drilling (5/12/2025) A -2 Boring Number: HA-2 Location: See Figure 3 Site Address: 6020 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA 92011 Project Number: 25-495296 Drill Rig Type: NA Sampling Equipment: Hand Auger Borehole Diameter: 3.25-inch DEPTH (ft} SAMPLE N-VALUE 0 0.5 I Bulk (0-5) 1 R 1.5 2 I GB 2.5 1----R ---~---------- 3 3.5 4 I---:: -. ~---------- 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 u 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296 uses SC ---- SM ---- SC Boring Log Page 1 of 1 Date Started: 5/9/2025 Date Completed: 5/12/2025 Depth to Groundwater: N/E Drilling Company: NA Partner Engineering and Science 2154 Torrance Blvd Torrance, CA 90501 DESCRIPTION SURFACE COVER: Topsoil (Moisture Content: 14.8%, Fines: 28.6%, Pl: 10 LL: 31) CERTIFIED FILL: Brown, damp, Clayey SAND w Gravel I (Moisture Content: 11.2%, Dry Density: 93.4 pcf} (Moisture Content: 11.9%, Fines: 39%, Pl: 11 LL: 30) -------------------------------------------------------------- CERTIFIED FIU: Brown, damp, Silty SAND (Moisture Content: 7.6%, Dry Density: 95.6 pcf} --------------------------------------------------------------CERTIFIED FILL: Brown, moist, Clayey SAND (Moisture Content: 20.0%, Fines: 35.2%, Pl: 8 11 LL: 29) Boring terminated at 5 feet below the ground surface Boring backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion Groundwater not encountered at time of drilling (5/12/2025) A -3 APPENDIX B Lab Data PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No.25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page B-i Laboratory Testing Moisture Content The natural moisture content of select soil samples was determined in general accordance with ASTM D2216. The natural moisture content is a ratio of the weight of the water to soil in a test sample and is expressed as a percentage. The test results are presented in this appendix Dry Density Select soil samples were tested to determine the in situ dry density. The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D2937.The dry density is defined as the ratio of the dry weight of the soil sample to the volume of that sample. The dry density typically is expressed in units of pcf. The test results are presented in this appendix. Atterberg Limits Plasticity Index and Liquid Limit of select soil samples was determined in general accordance with ASTM D4318. The test measures the liquid limit and plastic limit of the in situ soils and is then used to calculate the plasticity index. The test results are presented in this appendix Sulfate Content The soluble sulfate Content of select soil samples was determined in general accordance with California Test Method 417 from the California Department of Transportation.These results are used in determining the corrosive nature of the environment for concrete structures, as well as for other purposes and is expressed in both parts per million (ppm) and as a percent by mass of the soils sample. The test results are presented in this appendix Consolidation Testing One-dimensional consolidation testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM D2435. The tests measure the volume change of a soil sample under predetermined loads. The test results are presented in this appendix. Grain Size Distribution The natural moisture content of select soil samples was determined in general accordance with ASTM D422.This test method measures the distribution of particle sizes in soils smaller than 75 micrometers by a sedimentation process using a hydrometer.The test results are presented in this appendix STRENGTH TESTING Direct shear tests were completed on select samples obtained from the explorations. The tests were conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 3080. The test results are presented in this appendix. EXPANSIVE INDEX TESTING Expansion index testing was performed on a select soil sample in general accordance with ASTM D4829. The test results are presented in this appendix. PARTNER Moisture and Density Data Soil Sample Dry Density Moisture Content (%) 81 @ 2.0 feet 81 @ 7.0 feet 82@ 5.0 feet + 107.8 112.4 108.7 Index Test Data 10.7 16.2 16.7 Soil Sample Plasticity Index Liquid Limit Percent Passing 81 @ 5 feet ___l__ P1 and P2 @Composite (0-1.5~ NP 24 _l NP 39 Sulfate Content Test Data 84@ 0feet Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 220 0.022 _l #200 Sieve 31 % 27% Exposure Class S1 _J PARTNER HA-1 HA-1 2 HA-1 3 HA-2 0-5 HA-2 HA-2 2 HA-2 3 HA-2 5 Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 INDEX TEST DATA 100.2 10.3 18 36 11.6 55.5 CL 105.4 9.7 10 31 14.8 28.6 SC 93.4 11 .2 11 30 11.9 39 SC 95.6 7.6 8 29 20 35.2 SC PARTNER Symbol ■ Plasticity Index Data Soil Sample Plasticity Index Plastic Limit I P1 and P2 @Composite (0-1.5 feet) _ _,___ ___,__ 60 Liquid Limit u~ A-7 50 40 a: x- a, "O -= 30 2:-~ ..... "' "' a: 20 10 ~ :-1{ j"J '+ I / / V / / V ~ ~12,t_;P 2 / / / ,V / GROUP 1.5 / GRO UP 3 " "'-... / V -7 / / G0 0 l., J , / 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Liquid Limit, % I I • I t I Soi l Descriptions GROUP 1 -ML. SM, GM, OL* SILTS, SANDS, AND GRAVELS WITH NO TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY GROUP 1.5 -ML-CL, SM-SC, GM-GC, OL* CLAYS, SILTS, SANDS, AND GRAVELS WITH LOW PLASTICITY CLAYS, SANDS, AND GRAVELS WITH LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY GROUP 2 -CL. SC, GC, OL * GROUP 3 -MH, SM, GM, OH* GROUP 4-CH, SC, GC, OH* --+-- SILTS, SANDS, AND GRAVELS WITH NO TO HIGH PLASTICITY CLAYS, SANDS, AND GRAVELS WITH HIGH PLASTICITY --'--- *Or combinations of any within the same group (example ML-SM or CL-SC) Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 PARTNER I PLASTICITY INDEX DATA Boring Depth, ft D HA-1 2 • HA-2 0-5 0 HA-2 2 HA-2 5 60 55 so 45 40 X ~ 35 z ~ 30 u i'.= <ll ::i 25 Q. 20 15 10 s 0 0 10 20 30 Group and USCS Symbols GROUP 1: ML, SM, GM, OL GROUP 1.5: CL-ML GROUP 2: CL, SC, GC, OL GROUP 3: MH, SM, GM, OH GROUP 4: CH, SC, GC, OH' ---CL SC SC SC 40 11.6 14.8 11.9 20 so LIQUID LIMITS 60 18 18 10 21 11 19 8 21 70 80 90 Soil Descriptions SILTS, SILTY SAND/GRAVEL WITH LOW PLASTICITY SILTY CLAY WITH LOW PLASTICITY CLAYS, CLAYEY SAND/GRAVEL WITH LOW PLASTICITY SILTS, SILTY SAND/GRAVEL WITH HIGH PLASTICITY CLAYS, CLAYEY SAND/GRAVEL WITH HIGH PLASTICITY "Or combinations of any within the same group depending on percentage passing #200 Sieve (Example: SW-SC, GP-GC) 36 31 30 29 100 I Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Consolidation Test Data Boring B1 at 2.0-foot l 6 iili i ~ l m Q ;i; ~ ~ ! IL 0 ~ 0 15 IL ~ 6 ~ ~ g 0.1 -4.0 -3-.0 -2 .. 0 -1..0 0 .. 0 1..0 2 .. 0 3,_0 4 .. 0 5.0 6 .. 0 7..0 8,.0 9,_o 10 .. 0 ~ -- I I I I ------- ---4-- --A-- 1.0 STRESS N l<!IPS PER SQUARE FOOT rn.o I I I + - - - 1--1 -- .... ..... ..... "' -,. '" .... .... '" .... -.... I I I l --- ;.. ~ -~ .- Sea ·ng Cycle Loadirig Prior to ln:undalio:n Loadirig After lnundatioo Rebound Cycle -- .... '" - - ,_ ----·-,_ ,_ ,_ ,-,-. - - ,_ .... JI. '--·-._,_ --'--- ,_ -,-,--~ ,-,_ Samp e location Dep1ih (ft.) B-1 .2.Cll-3.0 SC Soil Type 100.0 I I I j j ,_ --H+ ,_ --H-t I I '' I I ,_ I I tt ,-'' I ,PERFORMED GENERAL. AOCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Consolidation Test Data Boring B2 at 5.0-foot l 6 w I l ia Q ;i; I-~ ! IL. 0 ~ Iii ~ 6 .:= ti ~ g 0.1 -4 .. 0 -3,.0 -2_0 -1.0 J I I I 1.0 STRESS N l<!IPS PER SQUARE FOOT 10.0 100 .. 0 I - -- -- - ,._ -H -- 0.0 rn 2_0 3-.. 0 4 .. 0 S.O I 6 .. 0 7.0 -l~f- 8..0 9,_o 10.0 I ,--~ -- .... '-..... '!It. '- I I I I I I f------ -f-- - - J I - I I I Sea ·ng Cycle Loading Prior to ln:u:m:la1io:n Loading After lnundatioo Rebound Cycte iERFORMED GEN£RAL AOCORDAINCE WlliH A.STM D 2435 '- ' ·- ·- - , ..... , ... -,--f-t-- ,~ ,_ --c-~ Samp e l ocation Dep1ih (ft.} Soil Type = - ,_ ,_ B-2 5.0J6.0 SC -f-- - - --,~ I-. PARTNER Grain Size Distribution Test Data (ASTM D Composite Sample form Borings Pl and P2 at 0-1.5-foot 100 90 80 C 70 ro ..c ';:'. 60 (1) C u::: so .., C 2l 40 ... (1) a.. 30 20 10 3-in No.4 100 10 Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 No.200 0.005 mm 0.001 mm 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Particle Size (mm) PARTNER PARTNER Direct Shear Results 4000 3500 I 3000 ..• ::;::-2500 V, Cl. V, V, Cl) 2000 ... .., Vl ... IV Cl) ..c 1500 Vl .' .. ·• ... ,· 1000 ..•• •····.·:: ..• •····•1..-----~---------------1 . . .... •.. •· .. •· 500 ... ··:::::::::: ••••• •• .. •· ... ·· 0 ♦:: ::·.:· •••• 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Confining Pressure (psf) • Peak Shear Stress ■ Ultimate Shear Stress 3000.0 ~ .E: 2000.0 • ~ 1000.0 Cl) ~ 0.0 Boring HA-1 0.00 Depth (ft) 3 feet Key A X ♦ Supplemental Geotechnlcal Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 X • Stress -Displacement Diagram • • • • • • • • • X X X X X X X X X • • • • • • • • • 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 Horizontal Displacement (inches) Sample Type USCS Soil Type -Saturated SC Confining Peak Shear Pressure Stress (psf) (psf) 970 739 1,940 1391 3,879 2776 Cohesion (pcf) 0 Ultimate Shear Stress (psf) 498 1118 2286 3500 4000 • X ... 0.25 Friction Angle 30 PARTNER ID HAMILTON &. Associates 1641 Border Avenue • Torrance, CA90501 T 310.618.2190 888.618.2190 F 310.618.2191 W homilton-ossociates.net Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. 2154 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 200 Torrance. CA 90501 Attention: Andrew (AJ) Atry, PE, Senior Engineer May 22, 2025 H&A Project No. 25-3405 Partner Project No. 495296 Subject: Laboratory Testing of Soil Samples. Partner (North Coast Medical Plaza) Dear Mr. Atry: We have completed the laboratory test on the samples provided for the subject project. Enclosed is a summary of laboratory test results. We thank you for the opportunity to provide laboratory testing services. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, HAMIL TON & ASSOC/A TES, INC. J~ag Laboratory Distribution : (1) Andrew Atry aatry@partneresi.com Hamihon & Associates, Inc. Geotechnicol Engineering Construction Testing & Inspection Materials Laboratory EXPANSION TEST An expansion test was performed on a soil sample to determine the swell characteristics. The expansion test was conducted in accordance with ASTM 0 4829, Expansion Index Test. The expansion sample was remolded to approximately 85 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture content, subjected to 144 pounds per sq uare foot surcharge load and saturated. Molded Dry Location Density, pct HA-1 110.7 Partner Engineering 25-3405 Molded Moist. Degree of Content,% Saturation 9.3 48.1 m HAMILTON & Associates Expansion Index 64 Design Expansion Classification Medium May 22, 2025 Page2 125 f > ·iii 120 C GI Q ~ Q Proctor (ASTM 0698/01557 & AASHTO T99/T180) \ ' ' ' \ \ ' ' . \ \ \ \ \ I I \ \ . . \ ' ' . \ ' \ . . . . \ . . . \ • \ . \ . \ • . \ 115 5% 7% Maximum Density (lb/ft3): 122.4 Optimum Moisture: 10.1 9% 11% 13% Moisture Content Maximum Density w/ Oversize Correction (lb/ft3): Optimum Moisture w/ Oversized Correction (%): 122.4 10.1 lnsitu Moisture Content(%): 0.0 Project Name: North Coast Medical Plaza Date Tested: Project No: 495296 Tested By: Material Source: 0-5 feet Method: Material Description: Light brown/beige clayey sand Mold Size: . . . \ . \ . . . . . . \ . . ' 15% 5/27/2025 MB ASTM 01557 4 in. APPENDIX C General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations Subgrade Preparation Earthwork – Structural Fill/Excavations Underground Pipeline Installation – Structural Backfill Cast-in-Place Concrete Foundations Laterally Loaded Structures Excavations and Dewatering Waterproofing and Drainage Chemical Treatment of Soils Paving Site Grading and Drainage PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 1 - SUBGRADE PREPARATION 1. In general, construction should proceed per the project specifications and contract documents, as well as governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable State Department of Transportation, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site. 2. Subgrade preparation in this section is considered to apply to the initial modifications to existing site conditions to prepare for new planned construction. 3. Prior to the start of subgrade preparation, a detailed conflict study including as-builts, utility locating, and potholing should be conducted. Existing features that are to be demolished should also be identified and the geotechnical study should be referenced to determine the need for subgrade preparation, such as over-excavation, scarification and compaction, moisture conditioning, and/or other activities below planned new structural fills, slabs on grade, pavements, foundations, and other structures. 4. The site conflicts, planned demolitions, and subgrade preparation requirements should be discussed in a pre-construction meeting with the pertinent parties, including the geotechnical engineer, inspector, contractors, testing laboratory, surveyor, and others. 5. In the event of preparations that will require work near to existing structures to remain in-place, protection of the existing structures should be considered. This also includes a geotechnical review of excavations near to existing structures and utilities and other concerns discussed in General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations, EARTHWORK and UNDERGROUND PIPELINE INSTALLATION. 6. Features to be demolished should be completely removed and disposed of per jurisdictional requirements and/or other conditions set forth as a part of the project. Resulting excavations or voids should be backfilled per the recommendations in the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations, EARTHWORK section. 7. Vegetation, roots, soils containing organic materials, debris and/or other deleterious materials on the site should be removed from structural areas and should be disposed of as above. Replacement of such materials should be in accordance with the recommendations in the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations, EARTHWORK section 8. Subgrade preparation required by the geotechnical report may also call for as over-excavation, scarification and compaction, moisture conditioning, and/or other activities below planned structural fills, slabs on grade, pavements, foundations, and other structures. These requirements should be provided within the geotechnical report. The execution of this work should be observed by the geotechnical engineering representative or inspector for the site. Testing of the subgrade preparation should be performed per the recommendations in the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations, EARTHWORK section. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 2 - 9. Subgrade Preparation cannot be completed on frozen ground or on ground that is not at a proper moisture condition. Wet subgrades may be dried under favorable weather if they are disked and/or actively worked during hot, dry, weather, when exposed to wind and sunlight. Frozen ground or wet material can be removed and replaced with suitable material. Dry material can be pre-soaked or can have water added and worked in with appropriate equipment. The soil conditions should be monitored by the geotechnical engineer prior to compaction. Following this type of work, approved subgrades should be protected by direction of surface water, covering, or other methods, otherwise, re-work may be needed. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 3 - EARTHWORK – STRUCTURAL FILL 1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable State Department of Transportation, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site. 2. Earthwork in this section is considered to apply to the re-shaping and grading of soil, rock, and aggregate materials for the purpose of supporting man-made structures. Where earthwork is needed to raise the elevation of the site for the purpose of supporting structures or forming slopes, this is referred to as the placement of structural fill. Where lowering of site elevations is needed prior to the installation of new structures, this is referred to as earthwork excavations. 3. Prior to the start of earthwork operations, the geotechnical study should be referenced to determine the need for subgrade preparation, such as over-excavation or scarification and compaction of unsuitable soils below planned structural fills, slabs on grade, pavements, foundations, and other structures. These required preparations should be discussed in a pre- construction meeting with the pertinent parties, including the geotechnical engineer, inspector, contractors, testing laboratory, surveyor, and others. The preparations should be observed by the inspector or geotechnical engineer representative, and following such subgrade preparation, the geotechnical engineer should observe the prepared subgrade to approve it for the placement of earthwork fills or new structures. 4. Structural fill materials should be relatively free of organic materials, man-made debris, environmentally hazardous materials, and brittle, non-durable aggregate, frozen soil, soil clods or rocks and/or any other materials that can break down and degrade over time. 5. In deeper structural fill zones, expansive soils (greater than 1.5 percent swell at 100 pounds per square foot surcharge) and rock fills (fills containing particles larger than 4 inches and/or containing more than 35 percent gravel larger than ¾-inch diameter or more than 50 percent gravel) may be used with the approval and guidance of the geotechnical report or geotechnical engineer. This may require the placement of geotextiles or other added costs and/or conditions. These conditions may also apply to corrosive soils (less than 2,000 ohm-cm resistivity, more than 50 ppm chloride content, more than 0.1 percent sulfates) 6. For structural fill zones that are closer in depth below planed structures, low expansive materials, and materials with smaller particle size are generally recommended, as directed by the geotechnical report (see criteria above in 5). This may also apply to corrosive soils. 7. For structural fill materials, in general the compaction equipment should be appropriate for the thickness of the loose lift being placed, and the thickness of the loose lift being placed should be at least two times the maximum particle size incorporated in the fill. 8. Fill lift thickness (including bedding) should generally be proportioned to achieve 95 percent or more of a standard proctor (ASTM D689) maximum dry density (MDD) or 90 percent or more of a modified proctor (ASTM D1557) MDD, depending on the state practices. For subgrades below PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 4 - roadways, the general requirement for soil compaction is usually increased to 100 percent or more of the standard proctor MDD and 95 percent or more of the modified proctor MDD. 9. Soil compaction should be performed at a moisture content generally near optimum moisture content determined by either standard or modified proctor, and ideally within 3 percent below to 1 percent over the optimum for a standard proctor, and from 2 percent below to 2 percent above optimum for a modified proctor. 10. In some instances, fill areas are difficult to access. In such cases a low-strength soil-cement slurry can be used in the place of compacted fill soil. In general, such fills should be rated to have a 28- day strength of 75 to 125 psi, which in some areas is referred to as a “1-sack” slurry. It should be noted that these materials are wet during placement and require a period of 2 days (24 hours) to cure before additional fill can be placed above them. Testing of this material can be done using concrete cylinder compression strength testing equipment, but care is needed in removing the test specimens from the molds. Field testing using the ball method and spread, or flow testing is also acceptable. 11. For fills to be placed on slopes, benching of fill lifts is recommended, which may require cutting into existing slopes to create a bench perpendicular to the slope where soil can be placed in a relatively horizontal orientation. For the construction of slopes, the slopes should be over-built and cut back to grade, as the material in the outer portion of the slope may not be well compacted. 12. For subgrade below roadways, runways, railways or other areas to receive dynamic loading, a proofroll of the finished, compacted subgrade should be performed by the geotechnical engineer or inspector prior to the placement of structural aggregate, asphalt or concrete. Proofrolling consists of observing the performance of the subgrade under heavy-loaded equipment, such as full, 4,000 Gallon water truck, loaded tandem-axel dump truck or similar. Areas that exhibit instability during proofroll should be marked for additional work prior to approval of the subgrade for the next stage of construction. 13. Quality control testing should be provided on earthwork. Proctor testing should be performed on each soil type, and one-point field proctors should be used to verify the soil types during compaction testing. If compaction testing is performed with a nuclear density gauge, it should be periodically correlated with a sand cone test for each soil type. Density testing should be performed per project specifications and or jurisdictional requirements, but not less than once per 12 inches elevation of any fill area, with additional tests per 12-inch fill area for each additional 7,500 square- foot section or portion thereof. 14. For earthwork excavations, OSHA guidelines should be referenced for sloping and shoring. Excavations over a depth of 20 feet require a shoring design. In the event excavations are planned near to existing structures, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted to evaluate whether such excavation will call for shoring or underpinning the adjacent structure. Pre-construction and post- construction condition surveys and vibration monitoring might also be helpful to evaluate any potential damage to surrounding structures. 15. Excavations into rock, partially weathered rock, cemented soils, boulders and cobbles, and other hard soil or “hard-pan” materials, may result in slower excavation rates, larger equipment with specialized digging tools, and even blasting. It is also not unusual in these situations for screening PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 5 - and or crushing of rock to be called for. Blasting, hard excavating, and material processing equipment have special safety concerns and are more costly than the use of soil excavation equipment. Additionally, this type of excavation, especially blasting, is known to cause vibrations that should be monitored at nearby structures. As above, a pre-blast and post-blast conditions assessment might also be warranted. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 6 - UNDERGROUND PIPELINE – STRUCTURAL BACKFILL 1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable State Department of Transportation, the State Department of Environmental Quality, the US Environmental Protection Agency, City and/or County Public Works, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Private Utility Companies, and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered, and in some cases, work may take place to multiple different standards. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site. 2. Underground pipeline in this section is considered to apply to the installation of underground conduits for water, storm water, irrigation water, sewage, electricity, telecommunications, gas, etc. Structural backfill refers to the activity of restoring the grade or establishing a new grade in the area where excavations were needed for the underground pipeline installation. 3. Prior to the start of underground pipeline installation, a detailed conflict study including as-builts, utility locating, and potholing should be conducted. The geotechnical study should be referenced to determine subsurface conditions such as caving soils, unsuitable soils, shallow groundwater, shallow rock and others. In addition, the utility company responsible for the line also will have requirements for pipe bedding and support as well as other special requirements. Also, if the underground pipeline traverses other properties, rights-of-way, and/or easements etc. (for roads, waterways, dams, railways, other utility corridors, etc.) those owners may have additional requirements for construction. 4. The required preparations above should be discussed in a pre-construction meeting with the pertinent parties, including the geotechnical engineer, inspector, contractors, testing laboratory, surveyor, and other stake holders. 5. For pipeline excavations, OSHA guidelines should be referenced for sloping and shoring. Excavations over a depth of 20 feet require a shoring design. In the event excavations are planned near to existing structures or pipelines, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted to evaluate whether such excavation will call for shoring or supporting the adjacent structure or pipeline. A pre- construction and post-construction condition survey and vibration monitoring might also be helpful to evaluate any potential damage to surrounding structures. 6. Excavations into rock, partially weathered rock, cemented soils, boulders and cobbles, and other hard soil or “hard-pan” materials, may result in slower excavation rates, larger equipment with specialized digging tools, and even blasting. It is also not unusual in these situations for screening and or crushing of rock to be called for. Blasting, hard excavating and material processing equipment have special safety concerns and are more costly than the use soil excavation equipment. Additionally, this type of excavation, especially blasting, is known to cause vibrations that should be monitored at nearby structures. As above, a pre-blast and post-blast conditions assessment might also be warranted. 7. Bedding material requirements vary between utility companies and might depend of the type of pipe material and availability of different types of aggregates in different locations. In general, PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 7 - bedding refers to the material that supports the bottom of the pipe, and extends to 1 foot above the top of the pipe. In general the use of aggregate base for larger diameter pipes (6-inch diameter or more) is recommended lacking a jurisdictionally specified bedding material. Gas lines and smaller diameter lines are often backfilled with fine aggregate meeting the ASTM requirements for concrete sand. In all cases bedding with less than 2,000 ohm-cm resistivity, more than 50 ppm chloride content or more than 0.1 percent sulfates should not be used. 8. Structural backfill materials above the bedding should be relatively free of organic materials, man- made debris, environmentally hazardous materials, frozen material, and brittle, non-durable aggregate, soil clods or rocks and/or any other materials that can break down and degrade over time. 9. In general the backfill soil requirements will depend on the future use of the land above the buried line, but in most cases, excessive settlement of the pipe trench is not considered advisable or acceptable. As such, the structural backfill compaction equipment should be appropriate for the thickness of the loose lift being placed. The thickness of the loose lift being placed should be at least two times the maximum particle size incorporated in the fill. Care should be taken not to damage the pipe during compaction or compaction testing. 10. Fill lift thickness (including bedding) should generally be proportioned to achieve 95 percent or more of a standard proctor (ASTM D689) maximum dry density (MDD) or 90 percent or more of a modified proctor (ASTM D1557) MDD, depending on the state practices (in general the modified proctor is required in California and for projects in the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers). For backfills within the upper poritons of roadway subgrades, the general requirement for soil compaction is usually increased to 100 percent or more of the standard proctor MDD and 95 percent or more of the modified proctor MDD. 11. Soil compaction should be performed at a moisture content generally near optimum moisture content determined by either standard or modified proctor, and ideally within 3 percent below to 1 percent over the optimum for a standard proctor, and from 2 percent below to 2 percent above optimum for a modified proctor. 12. In some instances fill areas are difficult to access. In such cases a low-strength soil-cement slurry can be used in the place of compacted fill soil. In general such fills should be rated to have a 28- day strength of 75 to 125 psi, which in some areas is referred to as a “1-sack” slurry. It should be noted that these materials are wet, and require a period of 2 days (24 hours) to cure before additional fill can be placed above it. Testing of this material can be done using concrete cylinder compression strength testing equipment, but care is needed in removing the test specimens from the molds. Field testing using the ball method, and spread or flow testing is also acceptable. 13. Quality control testing should be provided on structural backfill to assist the contractor in meeting project specifications. Proctor testing should be performed on each soil type, and one-point field proctors should be used to verify the soil types during compaction testing. If compaction testing is performed with a nuclear density gauge, it should be periodically correlated with a sand cone test for each soil type. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 8 - 14. Density testing should be performed on structural backfill per project specifications and or jurisdictional requirements, but not less than once per 12 inches elevation in each area, and additional tests for each additional 500 linear-foot section or portion thereof. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 9 - CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE/STRUCTURES/PAVEMENTS 1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI), International Code Council (ICC), State Department of Transportation, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site. 2. Cast-in-place concrete (concrete) in this section is considered to apply to the installation of cast- in-place concrete slabs on grade, including reinforced and non-reinforced slabs, structures, and pavements. 3. In areas where concrete is bearing on prepared subgrade or structural fill soils, testing and approval of this work should be completed prior to the beginning of concrete construction. 4. In locations where a concrete is approved to bear on in-place (native) soil or in locations where approved documented fills have been exposed to weather conditions after approval, a concrete subgrade evaluation should be performed prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and or concrete. This can consist of probing with a “t”-handled rod, borings, penetrometer testing, dynamic cone penetration testing and/or other methods requested by the geotechnical engineer and/or inspector. Where unsuitable, wet, or frozen bearing material is encountered, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted for additional recommendations. 5. Slabs on grade should be placed on a 4-inch thick or more capillary barrier consisting of non- corrosive (more than 2,000 ohm-cm resistivity, less than 50 ppm chloride content and less than 0.1 percent sulfates) aggregate base or open-graded aggregate material. This material should be compacted or consolidated per the recommendations of the structural engineer or otherwise would be covered by the General Considerations for EARTHWORK. 6. Depending on the site conditions and climate, vapor barriers may be required below in-door grade- slabs to receive flooring. This reduces the opportunity for moisture vapor to accumulate in the slab, which could degrade flooring adhesive and result in mold or other problems. Vapor barriers should be specified by the structural engineer and/or architect. The installation of the barrier should be inspected to evaluate the correct product and thickness is used, and that it has not been damaged or degraded. 7. At times when rainfall is predicted during construction, a mud-mat or a thin concrete layer can be placed on prepared and approved subgrades prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or tendons. This serves the purpose of protecting the subgrades from damage once the reinforcement placement has begun. 8. Prior to the placement of concrete, exposed subgrade or base material and forms should be wetted, and form release compounds should be applied. Reinforcement support stands or ties should be checked. Concrete bases or subgrades should not be so wet that they are softened or have standing water. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 10 - 9. For a cast-in-place concrete, the form dimensions, reinforcement placement and cover, concrete mix design, and other code requirements should be carefully checked by an inspector before and during placement. The reinforcement should be specified by the structural engineering drawings and calculations. 10. For post-tension concrete, an additional check of the tendons is needed, and a tensioning inspection form should be prepared prior to placement of concrete. 11. For Portland cement pavements, forms an additional check of reinforcing dowels should performed per the design drawings. 12. During placement, concrete should be tested, and should meet the ACI and jurisdictional requirements and mix design targets for slump, air entrainment, unit weight, compressive strength, flexural strength (pavements), and any other specified properties. In general concrete should be placed within 90 minutes of batching at a temperature of less than 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Adding of water to the truck on the jobsite is generally not encouraged. 13. Concrete mix designs should be created by the accredited and jurisdictionally approved supplier to meet the requirements of the structural engineer. In general a water/cement ratio of 0.45 or less is advisable, and aggregates, cement, flyash, and other constituents should be tested to meet ASTM C-33 standards, including Alkali Silica Reaction (ASR). To further mitigate the possibility of concrete degradation from corrosion and ASR, Type II or V Portland Cement should be used, and fly ash replacement of 25 percent is also recommended. Air entrained concrete should be used in areas where concrete will be exposed to frozen ground or ambient temperatures below freezing. 14. Control joints are recommended to improve the aesthetics of the finished concrete by allowing for cracking within partially cut or grooved joints. The control joints are generally made to depths of about 1/4 of the slab thickness and are generally completed within the first day of construction. The spacing should be laid out by the structural engineer, and is often in a square pattern. Joint spacing is generally 5 to 15 feet on-center but this can vary and should be decided by the structural engineer. For pavements, construction joints are generally considered to function as control joints. Post-tensioned slabs generally do not have control joints. 15. Some slabs are expected to meet flatness and levelness requirements. In those cases, testing for flatness and levelness should be completed as soon as possible, usually the same day as concrete placement, and before cutting of control joints if possible. Roadway smoothness can also be measured, and is usually specified by the jurisdictional owner if is required. 16. Prior to tensioning of post-tension structures, placement of soil backfills or continuation of building on newly-placed concrete, a strength requirement is generally required, which should be specified by the structural engineer. The strength progress can be evaluated by the use of concrete compressive strength cylinders or maturity monitoring in some jurisdictions. Advancing with backfill, additional concrete work or post-tensioning without reaching strength benchmarks could result in damage and failure of the concrete, which could result in danger and harm to nearby people and property. 17. In general, concrete should not be exposed to freezing temperatures in the first 7 days after placement, which may require insulation or heating. Additionally, in hot or dry, windy weather, PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 11 - misting, covering with wet burlap or the use of curing compounds may be called for to reduce shrinkage cracking and curling during the first 7 days. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 12 - FOUNDATIONS 1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI), International Code Council (ICC), State Department of Transportation, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site. 2. Foundations in this section are considered to apply to the construction of structural supports which directly transfer loads from man-made structures into the earth. In general, these include shallow foundations and deep foundations. Shallow foundations are generally constructed for the purpose of distributing the structural loads horizontally over a larger area of earth. Some types of shallow foundations (or footings) are spread footings, continuous footings, mat foundations, and reinforced slabs-on-grade. Deep foundations are generally designed for the purpose of distributing the structural loads vertically deeper into the soil by the use of end bearing and side friction. Some types of deep foundations are driven piles, auger-cast piles, drilled shafts, caissons, helical piers, and micro-piles. 3. For shallow foundations, the minimum bearing depth considered should be greater than the maximum design frost depth for the location of construction. This can be found on frost depth maps (ICC), but the standard of practice in the city and/or county should also be consulted. In general the bearing depth should never be less than 18 inches below planned finished grades. 4. Shallow continuous foundations should be sized with a minimum width of 18 inches and isolated spread footings should be a minimum of 24 inches in each direction. Foundation sizing, spacing, and reinforcing steel design should be performed by a qualified structural engineer. 5. The geotechnical engineer will provide an estimated bearing capacity and settlement values for the project based on soil conditions and estimated loads provided by the structural engineer. It is assumed that appropriate safety factors will be applied by the structural engineer. 6. In areas where shallow foundations are bearing on prepared subgrade or structural fill soils, testing and approval of this work should be completed prior to the beginning of foundation construction. 7. In locations where the shallow foundations are approved to bear on in-place (native) soil or in locations where approved documented fills have been exposed to weather conditions after approval, a foundation subgrade evaluation should be performed prior to the placement of reinforcing steel. This can consist of probing with a “t”-handled rod, borings, penetrometer testing, dynamic cone penetration testing and/or other methods requested by the geotechnical engineer and/or inspector. Where unsuitable foundation bearing material is encountered, the geotechnical engineer should be consulted for additional recommendations. 8. For shallow foundations to bear on rock, partially weathered rock, hard cemented soils, and/or boulders, the entire foundation system should bear directly on such material. In this case, the rock surface should be prepared so that it is clean, competent, and formed into a roughly horizontal, stepped base. If that is not possible, then the entire structure should be underlain by a zone of PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 13 - structural fill. This may require the over-excavation in areas of rock removal and/or hard dig. In general this zone can vary in thickness but it should be a minimum of 1 foot thick. The geotechnical engineer should be consulted in this instance. 9. At times when rainfall is predicted during construction, a mud-mat or a thin concrete layer can be placed on prepared and approved subgrades prior to the placement of reinforcing steel. This serves the purpose of protecting the subgrades from damage once the reinforcing steel placement has begun. 10. For cast-in-place concrete foundations, the excavations dimensions, reinforcing steel placement and cover, structural fill compaction, concrete mix design, and other code requirements should be carefully checked by an inspector before and during placement. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. For deep foundations, the geotechnical engineer will generally provide design charts that provide foundations axial capacity and uplift resistance at various depths given certain-sized foundations. These charts may be based on blow count data from drilling and or laboratory testing. In general safety factors are included in these design charts by the geotechnical engineer. 12. In addition, the geotechnical engineer may provide other soil parameters for use in the lateral resistance analysis. These parameters are usually raw data, and safety factors should be provided by the shaft designer. Sometimes, direct shear and or tri-axial testing is performed for this analysis. 13. In general the spacing of deep foundations is expected to be 6 shaft diameters or more. If that spacing is reduced, a group reduction factor should be applied by the structural engineer to the foundation capacities per FHWA guidelines. The spacing should not be less than 2.5 shaft diameters. 14. For deep foundations, a representative of the geotechnical engineer should be on-site to observe the excavations (if any) to evaluate that the soil conditions are consistent with the findings of the geotechnical report. Soil/rock stratigraphy will vary at times, and this may result in a change in the planned construction. This may require the use of fall protection equipment to perform observations close to an open excavation. 15. For driven foundations, a representative of the geotechnical engineer should be on-site to observe the driving process and to evaluate that the resistance of driving is consistent with the design assumptions. Soil/rock stratigraphy will vary at times and may this may result in a change in the planned construction. 16. For deep foundations, the size, depth, and ground conditions should be verified during construction by the geotechnical engineer and/or inspector responsible. Open excavations should be clean, with any areas of caving and groundwater seepage noted. In areas below the groundwater table, or areas where slurry is used to keep the trench open, non-destructive testing techniques should be used as outlined below. 17. Steel members including structural steel piles, reinforcing steel, bolts, threaded steel rods, etc. should be evaluated for design and code compliance prior to pick-up and placement in the foundation. This includes verification of size, weight, layout, cleanliness, lap-splices, etc. In addition, if non-destructive testing such as crosshole sonic logging or gamma-gamma logging is required, access tubes should be attached to the steel reinforcement prior to placement, and should be PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 14 - relatively straight, capped at the bottom, and generally kept in-round. These tubes must be filled with water prior to the placement of concrete. 18. In cases where steel welding is required, this should be observed by a certified welding inspector. 19. In many cases, a crane will be used to lower steel members into the deep foundations. Crane picks should be carefully planned, including the ground conditions at placement of outriggers, wind conditions, and other factors. These are not generally provided in the geotechnical report, but can usually be provided upon request. 20. Cast-in-place concrete, grout or other cementations materials should be pumped or distributed to the bottom of the excavation using a tremmie pipe or hollow stem auger pipe. Depending on the construction type, different mix slumps will be used. This should be carefully checked in the field during placement, and consolidation of the material should be considered. Use of a vibrator may be called for. 21. For work in a wet excavation (slurry), the concrete placed at the bottom of the excavation will displace the slurry as it comes up. The upper layer of concrete that has interacted with the slurry should be removed and not be a part of the final product. 22. Bolts or other connections to be set in the top after the placement is complete should be done immediately after final concrete placement, and prior to the on-set of curing. 23. For shafts requiring crosshole sonic logging or gamma-gamma testing, this should be performed within the first week after placement, but not before a 2 day curing period. The testing company and equipment manufacturer should provide more details on the requirements of the testing. 24. Load testing of deep foundations is recommended, and it is often a project requirement. In some cases, if test piles are constructed and tested, it can result in a significant reduction of the amount of needed foundations. The load testing frame and equipment should be sized appropriately for the test to be performed, and should be observed by the geotechnical engineer or inspector as it is performed. The results are provided to the structural engineer for approval. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 15 - LATERALLY LOADED STRUCTURES - RETAINING WALLS/SLOPES/DEEP FOUNDATIONS/MISCELLANEOUS 1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI), International Code Council (ICC), State Department of Transportation, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site. 2. Laterally loaded structures for this section are generally meant to describe structures that are subjected to loading roughly horizontal to the ground surface. Such structures include retaining walls, slopes, deep foundations, tall buildings, box culverts, and other buried or partially buried structures. 3. The recommendations put forth in General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations for FOUNDATIONS, CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE, EARTHWORK, and SUBGRADE PREPARATION should be reviewed, as they are not all repeated in this section, but many of them will apply to the work. Those recommendations are incorporated by reference herein. 4. Laterally loaded structures are generally affected by overburden pressure, water pressure, surcharges, and other static loads, as well as traffic, seismic, wind, and other dynamic loads. The structural engineer must account for these loads. In addition, eccentric loading of the foundation should be evaluated and accounted for by the structural engineer. The structural engineer is also responsible for applying the appropriate factors of safety to the raw data provided by the geotechnical engineer. 5. The geotechnical report should provide data regarding soil lateral earth pressures, seismic design parameters, and groundwater levels. In the report the pressures are usually reported as raw data in the form of equivalent fluid pressures for three cases. 1. Static is for soil pressure against a structure that is fixed at top and bottom, like a basement wall or box culvert. 2. Active is for soil pressure against a wall that is free to move at the top, like a retaining wall. 3. Passive is for soil that is resisting the movement of the structure, usually at the toe of the wall where the foundation and embedded section are located. The structural engineer is responsible for deciding on safety factors for design parameters and groundwater elevations based on the raw data in the geotechnical report. 6. Generally speaking, direct shear or tri-axial shear testing should be performed for this evaluation in cases of soil slopes or unrestrained soil retaining walls over 6 feet in height or in lower walls in some cases based on the engineer’s judgment. For deep foundations and completely buried structures, this testing will be required per the discretion of the structural engineer. 7. For non-confined retaining walls (walls that are not attached at the top) and slopes, a geotechnical engineer should perform overall stability analysis for sliding, overturning, and global stability. For walls that are structurally restrained at the top, the geotechnical engineer does not generally perform this analysis. Internal wall stability should be designed by the structural engineer. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 16 - 8. Cut slopes into rock should be evaluated by an engineering geologist, and rock coring to identify the orientation of fracture plans, faults, bedding planes, and other features should be performed. An analysis of this data will be provided by the engineering geologist to identify modes of failure including sliding, wedge, and overturning, and to provide design and construction recommendations. 9. For laterally loaded deep foundations that support towers, bridges or other structures with high lateral loads, geotechnical reports generally provide parameters for design analysis which is performed by the structural engineer. The structural engineer is responsible for applying appropriate safety factors to the raw data from the geotechnical engineer. 10. Construction recommendations for deep foundations can be found in the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations-FOUNDATIONS section. 11. Construction of retaining walls often requires temporary slope excavations and shoring, including soil nails, soldier piles and lagging or laid-back slopes. This should be done per OSHA requirements and may require specialty design and contracting. 12. In general, surface water should not be directed over a slope or retaining wall, but should be captured in a drainage feature trending parallel to the slope, with an erosion protected outlet to the base of the wall or slope. 13. Waterproofing for retaining walls is generally required on the backfilled side, and they should be backfilled with an 18-inch zone of open graded aggregate wrapped in filter fabric or a synthetic draining product, which outlets to weep holes or a drain at the base of the wall. The purpose of this zone, which is immediately behind the wall is to relieve water pressures from building behind the wall. 14. Backfill compaction around retaining walls and slopes requires special care. Lighter equipment should be considered, and consideration to curing of cementitious materials used during construction will be called for. Additionally, if mechanically stabilized earth walls are being constructed, or if tie-backs are being utilized, additional care will be necessary to avoid damaging or displacing the materials. Use of heavy or large equipment, and/or beginning of backfill prior to concrete strength verification can create dangers to construction and human safety. Please refer to the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations-CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE section. These concerns will also apply to the curing of cell grouting within reinforced masonry walls. 15. Usually safety features such as handrails are designed to be installed at the top of retaining walls and slopes. Prior to their installation, workers in those areas will need to be equipped with appropriate fall protection equipment. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 17 - EXCAVATION AND DEWATERING 1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI), International Code Council (ICC), State Department of Transportation, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site. 2. Excavation and Dewatering for this section are generally meant to describe structures that are intended to create stable, excavations for the construction of infrastructure near to existing development and below the groundwater table. 3. The recommendations put forth in General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations for LATERALLY LOADED STRUCTURES, FOUNDATIONS, CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE, EARTHWORK, and SUBGRADE PREPARATION should be reviewed, as they are not all repeated in this section, but many of them will apply to the work. Those recommendations are incorporated by reference herein. 4. The site excavations will generally be affected by overburden pressure, water pressure, surcharges, and other static loads, as well as traffic, seismic, wind, and other dynamic loads. The structural engineer must account for these loads as described in Section 5.2 of this report. In addition, eccentric loading of the foundation should be evaluated and accounted for by the structural engineer. The structural engineer is also responsible for applying the appropriate factors of safety to the raw data provided by the geotechnical engineer. 5. The geotechnical report should provide data regarding soil lateral earth pressures, seismic design parameters, and groundwater levels. In the report the pressures are usually reported as raw data in the form of equivalent fluid pressures for three cases. 1. Static is for soil pressure against a structure that is fixed at top and bottom, like a basement wall or box culvert. 2. Active is for soil pressure against a wall that is free to move at the top, like a retaining wall. 3. Passive is for soil that is resisting the movement of the structure, usually at the toe of the wall where the foundation and embedded section are located. The structural engineer is responsible for deciding on safety factors for design parameters and groundwater elevations based on the raw data in the geotechnical report. 6. The parameters provided above are based on laboratory testing and engineering judgement. Since numerous soil layers with different properties will be encountered in a large excavation, assumptions and judgement are used to generate the equivalent fluid pressures to be used in design. Factors of safety are not included in those numbers and should be evaluated prior to design. 7. Groundwater, if encountered will dramatically change the stability of the excavation. In addition, pumping of groundwater from the bottom of the excavation can be difficult and costly, and it can result in potential damage to nearby structures if groundwater drawdown occurs. As such, we recommend that groundwater monitoring be performed across the site during design and prior to construction to assist in the excavation design and planning. 8. Groundwater pumping tests should be performed if groundwater pumping will be needed during construction. The pumping tests can be used to estimate drawdown at nearby properties, and also PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 18 - will be needed to determine the hydraulic conductivity of the soil for the design of the dewatering system. 9. For excavation stabilization in granular and dense soil, the use of soldier piles and lagging is recommended. The soldier pile spacing and size should be determined by the structural engineer based on the lateral loads provided in the report. In general, the spacing should be more than two pile diameters, and less than 8 feet. Soldier piles should be advanced 5 feet or more below the base of the excavation. Passive pressures from Section 5.2 can be used in the design of soldier piles for the portions of the piles below the excavation. 10. If the piles are drilled, they should be grouted in-place. If below the groundwater table, the grouting should be accomplished by tremmie pipe, and the concrete should be a mix intended for placement below the groundwater table. For work in a wet excavation, the concrete placed at the bottom of the excavation will displace the water as it comes up. The upper layer of concrete that has interacted with the water should be removed and not be a part of the final product. Lagging should be specially designed timber or other lagging. The temporary excavation will need to account for seepage pressures at the toe of the wall as well as hydrostatic forces behind the wall. 11. Depending on the loading, tie back anchors and/or soil nails may be needed. These should be installed beyond the failure envelope of the wall. This would be a plane that is rotated upward 55 degrees from horizontal. The strength of the anchors behind this plane should be considered, and bond strength inside the plane should be ignored. If friction anchors are used, they should extend 10 feet or more beyond the failure envelope. Evaluation of the anchor length and encroachment onto other properties, and possible conflicts with underground utilities should be carefully considered. Anchors are typically installed 25 to 40 degrees below horizontal. The capacity of the anchors should be checked on 10% of locations by loading to 200% of the design strength. All should be loaded to 120% of design strength, and should be locked off at 80% 12. The shoring and tie backs should be designed to allow less than ½ inch of deflection at the top of the excavation wall, where the wall is within an imaginary 1:1 line extending downward from the base of surrounding structures. This can be expanded to 1 inch of deflection if there is no nearby structure inside that plane. An analysis of nearby structures to locate their depth and horizontal position should be conducted prior to shored excavation design. 13. Assuming that the excavations will encroach below the groundwater table, allowances for drainage behind and through the lagging should be made. The drainage can be accomplished by using an open-graded gravel material that is wrapped in geotextile fabric. The lagging should allow for the collected water to pass through the wall at select locations into drainage trenches below the excavation base. These trenches should be considered as sump areas where groundwater can be pumped out of the excavation. 14. The pumped groundwater needs to be handled properly per jurisdictional guidelines. 15. In general, surface water should not be directed over a slope or retaining wall, but should be captured in a drainage feature trending parallel to the slope, with an erosion protected outlet to the base of the wall or slope. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 19 - 16. Safety features such as handrails or barriers are to be designed to be installed at the top of retaining walls and slopes. Prior to their installation, workers in those areas will need to be equipped with appropriate fall protection equipment. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 20 - Waterproofing and Back Drainage 1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI), International Code Council (ICC), State Department of Transportation, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site. 2. Waterproofing and Back drainage structures for this section are generally meant to describe permanent subgrade structures that are planned to be below the historic high groundwater elevation of 20 feet below existing grades. 3. The recommendations put forth in General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations for FOUNDATIONS, CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE, EARTHWORK, and SUBGRADE PREPARATION should be reviewed, as they are not all repeated in this section, but many of them will apply to the work. Those recommendations are incorporated by reference herein. 4. In general, surface water should not be directed over a slope or retaining wall, but should be captured in a drainage feature trending parallel to the slope, with an erosion protected outlet to the base of the wall or slope. 5. Waterproofing for retaining walls is generally required on the backfilled side, and they should be backfilled with an 18-inch zone of open graded aggregate wrapped in filter fabric or a synthetic draining product, which outlets to weep holes or a drain at the base of the wall. The purpose of this zone, which is immediately behind the wall is to relieve water pressures from building behind the wall. 6. For the basement walls on this site, sump pumps will be needed to reduce the build-up of water in the basement. The design should be for a historic high groundwater level of 20 feet bgs. The pumping system should be designed to keep the slab and walls relatively dry so that mold, efflorescence, and other detrimental effects to the concrete structure will not result. 7. Backfill compaction around retaining walls and slopes requires special care. Lighter equipment should be considered, and consideration to curing of cementitious materials used during construction will be called for. Additionally, if mechanically stabilized earth walls are being constructed, or if tie-backs are being utilized, additional care will be necessary to avoid damaging or displacing the materials. Use of heavy or large equipment, and/or beginning of backfill prior to concrete strength verification can create dangers to construction and human safety. Please refer to the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations-CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE section. These concerns will also apply to the curing of cell grouting within reinforced masonry walls. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 21 - CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF SOIL 1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI), International Code Council (ICC), State Department of Transportation, State Department of Environmental Quality, the US Environmental Protection Agency, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site. 2. Chemical treatment of soil for this section is generally meant to describe the process of improving soil properties for a specific purpose, using cement or chemical lime. 3. A mix design should be performed by the geotechnical engineer to help it meet the specific strength, plasticity index, durability, and/or other desired properties. The mix design should be performed using the proposed chemical lime or cement proposed for use by the contractor, along with samples of the site soil that are taken from the material to be used in the process. 4. For the mix design the geotechnical engineer should perform proctor testing to determine optimum moisture content of the soil, and then mix samples of the soil at 3 percent above optimum moisture content with varying concentrations of lime or cement. The samples will be prepared and cured per ASTM standards, and then after 7-days for curing, they will be tested for compression strength. Durability testing goes on for 28 days. 5. Following this testing, the geotechnical engineer will provide a recommended mix ratio of cement or chemical lime in the geotechnical report for use by the contractor. The geotechnical engineer will generally specify a design ratio of 2 percent more than the minimum to account for some error during construction. 6. Prior to treatment, the in-place soil moisture should be measured so that the correct amount of water can be used during construction. Work should not be performed on frozen ground. 7. During construction, special considerations for construction of treated soils should be followed. The application process should be conducted to prevent the loss of the treatment material to wind which might transport the materials off site, and workers should be provided with personal protective equipment for dust generated in the process. 8. The treatment should be applied evenly over the surface, and this can be monitored by use of a pan placed on the subgrade. This can also be tested by preparing test specimens from the in-place mixture for laboratory testing. 9. Often, after or during the chemical application, additional water may be needed to activate the chemical reaction. In general, it should be maintained at about 3 percent or more above optimum moisture. Following this, mixing of the applied material is generally performed using specialized equipment. 10. The total amount of chemical provided can be verified by collecting batch tickets from the delivery trucks, and the depth of the treatment can be verified by digging of test pits, and the use of reagents that react with lime and or cement. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 22 - 11. For the use of lime treatment, compaction should be performed after a specified amount of time has passed following mixing and re-grading. For concrete, compaction should be performed immediately after mixing and re-grading. In both cases, some swelling of the surface should be expected. Final grading should be performed the following day of the initial work for lime treatment, and within 2 to 4 hours for soil cement. 12. Quality control testing of compacted treated subgrades should be performed per the recommendations of the geotechnical report, and generally in accordance with General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations - EARTHWORK PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 23 - PAVING 1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI), International Code Council (ICC), State Department of Transportation, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site. 2. Paving for this section is generally meant to describe the placement of surface treatments on travel- ways to be used by rubber-tired vehicles, such as roadways, runways, parking lots, etc. 3. The geotechnical engineer is generally responsible for providing structural analysis to recommend the thickness of pavement sections, which can include asphalt, concrete pavements, aggregate base, cement or lime treated aggregate base, and cement or lime treated subgrades. 4. The civil engineer is generally responsible for determining which surface finishes and mixes are appropriate, and often the owner, general contractor and/or other party will decide on lift thickness, the use of tack coats and surface treatments, etc. 5. The geotechnical engineer will generally be provided with the planned traffic loading, as well as reliability, design life, and serviceability factors by the jurisdiction, traffic engineer, designer, and/or owner. The geotechnical study will provide data regarding soil resiliency and strength. A pavement modeling software is generally used to perform the analysis for design, however, jurisdictional minimum sections also must be considered, as well as construction considerations and other factors. 6. The geotechnical report report will generally provide pavement section thicknesses if requested. 7. For construction of overlays, where new pavement is being placed on old pavement, an evaluation of the existing pavement is needed, which should include coring the pavement, evaluation of the overall condition and thickness of the pavement, and evaluation of the pavement base and subgrade materials. 8. In general, the existing pavement is milled and treated with a tack coat prior to the placement of new pavement for the purpose of creating a stronger bond between the old and new material. This is also a way of removing aged asphalt and helping to maintain finished grades closer to existing conditions grading and drainage considerations. 9. If milling is performed, a minimum of 2 inches of existing asphalt should be left in-place to reduce the likelihood of equipment breaking through the asphalt layer and destroying its integrity. After milling and before the placement of tack coat, the surface should be evaluated for cracking or degradation. Cracked or degraded asphalt should be removed, spanned with geosynthetic reinforcement, or be otherwise repaired per the direction of the civil and or geotechnical engineer prior to continuing construction. Proofrolling may be requested. 10. For pavements to be placed on subgrade or base materials, the subgrade and base materials should be prepared per the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations – EARTHWORK section. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 24 - 11. Following the proofrolling as described in the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations – EARTHWORK section, the application of subgrade treatment, base material, and paving materials can proceed per the recommendations in the geotechnical report and/or project plans. The placement of pavement materials or structural fills cannot take place on frozen ground. 12. The placement of aggregate base material should conform to the jurisdictional guidelines. In general the materials should be provided by an accredited supplier, and the material should meet the standards of ASTM C-33. Material that has been stockpiled and exposed to weather including wind and rain should be retested for compliance since fines could be lost. Frozen material cannot be used. 13. The placement of asphalt material should conform to the jurisdictional guidelines. In general the materials should be provided by an accredited supplier, and the material should meet the standards of ASTM C-33. The material can be placed in a screed by end-dumping, or it can be placed directly on the paving surface. The temperature of the mix at placement should generally be on the order of 300 degrees Fahrenheit at time of placement and screeding. 14. Compaction of the screeded asphalt should begin as soon as practical after placement, and initial rolling should be performed before the asphalt has cooled significantly. Compaction equipment should have vibratory capabilities, and should be of appropriate size and weight given the thickness of the lift being placed and the sloping of the ground surface. 15. In cold and/or windy weather, the cooling of the screeded asphalt is a quality issue, so preparations should be made to perform screeding immediately after placement, and compaction immediately after screeding. 16. Quality control testing of the asphalt should be performed during placement to verify compaction and mix design properties are being met and that delivery temperatures are correct. Results of testing data from asphalt laboratory testing should be provided within 24 hours of the paving. PARTNER Supplemental Geotechnical Report Project No. 25-495296.1 June 2, 2025 Page C-- 25 - SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE 1. In general, construction should proceed per the governing jurisdictional guidelines for the project site, including but not limited to the applicable American Concrete Institute (ACI), International Code Council (ICC), State Department of Transportation, State Department of Environmental Quality, the US Environmental Protection Agency, City and/or County, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Aviation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and any other governing standard details and specifications. In areas where multiple standards are applicable the more stringent should be considered. Work should be performed by qualified, licensed contractors with experience in the specific type of work in the area of the site. 2. Site grading and drainage for this section is generally meant to describe the effect of new construction on surface hydrology, which impacts the flow of rainfall or other water running across, onto or off-of, a newly constructed or modified development. 3. This section does not apply to the construction of site grading and drainage features. Recommendations for the construction of such features are covered in General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations for Earthwork – Structural Fills section and Underground Pipeline Installation – Backfill section. 4. In general, surface water flows should be directed towards storm drains, natural channels, retention or detention basins, swales, and/or other features specifically designed to capture, store, and or transmit them to specific off-site outfalls. 5. The surface water flow design is generally performed by a site civil engineer, and it can be impacted by hydrology, roof lines, and other site structures that do not allow for water to infiltrate into the soil, and that modify the topography of the site. 6. Soil permeability, density, and strength properties are relevant to the design of storm drain systems, including dry wells, retention basins, swales, and others. These properties are usually only provided in a geotechnical report if specifically requested, and recommendations will be provided in the geotechnical report in those cases. 7. Structures or site features that are not a part of the surface water drainage system should not be exposed to surface water flows, standing water or water infiltration. In general, roof drains and scuppers, exterior slabs, pavements, landscaping, etc. should be constructed to drain water away from structures and foundations. The purpose of this is to reduce the opportunity for water damage, erosion, and/or altering of structural soil properties by wetting. In general, a 5 percent or more slope away from foundations, structural fills, slopes, structures, etc. should be maintained. 8. Special considerations should be used for slopes and retaining walls, as described in the General Geotechnical Design and Construction Considerations - LATERALLY LOADED STRUCTURES section. 9. Additionally, landscaping features including irrigation emitters and plants that require large amounts of water should not be placed near to new structures, as they have the potential to alter soil moisture states. Changing of the moisture state of soil that provides structural support can lead to damage to the supported structures PARTNER Error! Reference source not found. APPENDIX D Liquefaction Analysis PARTNER T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S 1 8 9 10 17 18 19 26 27 CPT-1 results Summary data report Transition layer aglorithm summary report Vertical settlements summary report CPT-2 results Summary data report Transition layer aglorithm summary report Vertical settlements summary report CPT-3 results Summary data report Transition layer aglorithm summary report Vertical settlements summary report CLiq v.3.0.3.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:34 PM Project file: GEO Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 r-steve@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Project title : Partner Engineering & Science l ocation : 6020 Hidden Valley Rd, Carlsbad, CA 1 ... 1-+-,... I 1 •• ,... ...... ...,.,.. •• ;..,..'"'..,. ..... ...,....._.. ........... ...,..,...,....,.II 1,.,...,1 o;.,... n ..... ..._ ...... CPTfile : CPT-1 Input parameters and analysis data Anaty'sis method: Robertson {2009) G.W.T. (in-situ): 5.50 ft Use fill: No day like behaVior Fines correction method: Robertson {2009) G.W.T. {earthq.): 5.00 ft Fill height: N/A applied: Points to test: Based on le value Average results interval: 5 Fil welg,t: N/A Limit depth applied: Earth(J.lake magnitule Mw: 6.71 le cut-off value: 2.60 Trans. detect. applied: Yes Limit depth: All soils No N/A Peak ground acceleration: 0.52 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT K0 applied: No MSF method: Method based Cone resistance Friction Ratio SBTn Plot CRRplot FS Plot Q-,: ...... --...... --_.. ... _J ____ __, 0-<"'.....,=" ..... -....... ---J __ J __ , -+----+----+··· ··-f------+··--·1·-·· : I : .... ·--·---···..l·-·-----· : : i ·::::1:::::1:~~:1:::~ 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 I • • 14 --~--~---~·--14 : : : 16 ·-·-.. ., .................. -..... -, ....... .. 18 20 2 22 ~ 24 .c c. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 • • I +---+---+--: : : 1----1-----r--· 20 ---1---r----,·--22 -•-i--..+----l•--24 • I • ----i-----+-----i---· I : ....................... ________ 28 I i : -•-1-•-r I • I • --·t··-··t··-··t···· 32 __ ..,1 ____ _.1. ..... _ ..... l......... 34 : I : ................. ~---···..;.·-·--.:......... 36 : I : -----t-------4-----;---· 38 : I I • --i----+-----1----40 _ 1_ .. __ .. 1_ .. ___ J_ ...... , , I 42 ------+·-···+·-· 44 I t : 26 30 +----➔---46 '-----~·---48 __ .j_ ___ , --+---· --+----.. _T ___ ,. --+---· .. t_ .... l .... _. ! : ·r---r--· ..... ,. ....... -..,. ........ I : -~---+--· I : ·t---r-·-· -1--· --r--· -~----i----· ··~----+---.. : I ·r--,--· . -t-··±-·-· : ! ··-i·-·· .. -4 .... _ .. I --+---· I ··r .. ·-· +.::r=· I • 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50"1-,...,..,~_.,.... ... 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 ·----1- ---------~ 0 ---i----· 2 ·------~---i------· 4 6 -· .. ·----8 ·--------10 ·----12 14 16 18 I 20 -----1--· ·----;-----22 -----~-----I I 24 ------➔--------! 26 28 I 30 . --·-·1-------i -----· 32 . 34 1 ! 1 • 36 ·--------~·--------.......... 38 -----~------------~ 40 , _____ _j ______ 42 . --------~--------. 44 : ·----1----t-----· 46 ------~------~------~ 48 _____ j _____ . -L---· so 100 200 300 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 O.E 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 qt (tsf) Rf(%) le (Robertson 1990) CRR &CSR Factor of safety Mw=71l2, sigma'=! atm base curve 0.8_ ...... ____ ..... ___ ..... ___________ ___. ___ ..... ___ ....., .... ;- ex: U'l 0.7 0.6 ~ 0.5 ~ ~ ro ex: 0.4 "' "' ~ U) .!:! 0.3 'O >-u 0.2 0.1 ~ -· .. -... L ... -... L ... -... L ... -... L....... • • • ._!L. : : : :_, : I I I I T i I I ......... t ......... t ......... t ......... t ......... t ......... t ..... : •• -.... !9··· .. ·· ::: :::-!--····t·· ••••1•• ····:·· : ... : ....... 1.:: ::::i::: ::l :I:: :::: iii iN>~ o -T"T-r-.,...,-r-..-.-r-............... -r-.,...,-r-..-.-r-............... -r-.,...,-r-..-.-r-............... -r-~ 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Qtn,cs Summary of liquefaction potential 1,000 +---'----'-........................... ___ ...__ ........... _ ................... CV u C ro 1;, in ~ C 0 :.:; ~ Q) C CV C. ~ u 100 "O 10 ~ ro E ~ 0.1 7 ' 'I' 1 Normalized friction ratio (%) Zone A,: Cydic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading 10 Zone Ao: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and grouno geometry Zone 8: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic sonening Zone C: Cydic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undraine<l sliength and ground geometry Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:32 PM Project file: 1 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Cone resistance Friction Ratio CPT basic i nte r pr etatio n plots Pore pressure SBT Plot 0-r:i=-----..,,---~-"I 2 .................. f ......................... i ......... ... 4 .......... ..:... ................ L ............... j ........ ... : I : 6 ....... t ............ t ............ 1-···· 8 10 : :::: ::t :::: :::: :t: :::: :::: ~::: :: 12 ......... + ......... + ......... ~ ......... .. 14-r·--a:-... l ...................... l ....................... J .......... ... i I I T T 1 16 18 t·········t·········i ............. 20 +----·+·----1·-- 22 ......... + ........... + ............ ~ ...... .. .......... l ........... 1 ............. 1 ......... .. i ! i ------:::::::::::r::::::::r::: 30 ................. + ...................... + ....................... 1 ......... ... • I • 32 • -------+---------+---------◄-----: I : : ··==-=.t=.=.=.=.r=.=.=.r 40 .............. + ......... + ......... ~ ......... .. 42 ............. l ................ L ............... j ........ ... I I I T T 1 44 : ·--------+--------:~::::::::t:::: so ............. 1 .............. 1 ... 100 200 300 qt (tsf) Input parameters and analysis data A naff sis method: Robertson {2009} Fines correction method: Robertson {2009} Points to test: Based on Jc value Earthq.Jake magnlttde Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground acreleration: 0.52 Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft o---=-= ..... ------.---. . 2 ... ~ .................... f ................. i ................ t ............. ... ----: --·--+---·-· 4 ·---- 6 1: :::::::r-- 12 14 16 18 20 22 28 30 32 34 36 ·--- 38 .. ······1······+······ : ······1······+······ ··--t--+-- i ---I so4-.,;=::::::~:.:..... ............. _..,............1 0 2 4 6 Rf(%) Depth to water table {erthq.): Average results interval: Jc cut-off value: 8 5.00 ft s 2.60 10 0-r---------~--.... : ::::r:::::l::::: :f ::::: 6 ·····t·····1~······1········ ;! j· :;;\!I\IIIli\\ 18 1·· ·····; ·······t········f ••••••• 20 22 g 24 £ c. 26 ~ 32 i···· ···t········t·-·····i········ 34 36 38 40 42 44 : E::i:·:::::;::::::::E:::: 0 s 10 u (psi) Fil weigit: Transition detect applied: K0 applied: 15 N/A Yes No Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Based on SBT No Clay like behavbr applecl: Limit depth applied: All soils No All height: N/A Limit depth: N/A CLiq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:32 PM Project file: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ~ ..... ::::, 24 £ C. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 so 1 2 3 Ic(SBT) SBTlegend ■ 1. Sensitive fine grained ■ 2 Organic material ■ 3. day to silty clay 4 ~ ..... 2 4 6 8 10 12 16 18 20 22 ::::, 24 £ c. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 CPT name: CPT 1 Soil Behaviour Type 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11121314 15 161718 SBT (Robertson et al. 1986) ■ □ □ 4. dayey silt to silty D s·. Silty sand to sandy silt D 6. dean sand to silty sand D 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to . . 9. Very stiff fine grained 2 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized) Norm. cone resistance . . . . . . 0 - 2 .................... " ................... .,.. ..................... ,. ............. - 4 6 . . . . . . . ........ .,.. ............... " ............... ... . . . . ······t········t········ ;! ::::· .::i::::::T{iI{t 18 ········t········ 20 22 30 32 ····t········t·········'t········ 34 36 38 40 42 44 : ::::::::t:::::: .. 1....:·t ::::::: 0 so 100 Qtn 150 20( Input parameters and analysis data A naff sis method: Robertson {2009} Fines correction method: Robertson {2009} Points to test: Based on Jc value Earthq.Jake magnlttde Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground acreleration: 0.52 Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft Norm. friction ratio :--==-~_~_~. _~_~_~ __ ~_~j~--~-~-~--~ ... ~; ~ __ ~_~_~ __ "' 4 .......... ··--r------ 6 ..... t······ l : :::: :r. · .1::::::1: ·····I······ 18 ··t····· ... 1······+······ 20 22 28 30 32 ····1······+······ 34 . . 36 ·--·: 38 ·······~ 40 . . 42 .............. .: ... .. . . 44 ·······1·· : ::::::i: ... .L.J ..... 0 2 4 6 Fr(%) Depth to water table {erthq.): Average results interval: Jc cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: All height: 8 5.00 ft 5 2.60 10 Based on SBT No N/A Nom. pore pressure ratio : ::::: ::: :j: :::r:::r:::r::: 6 .......... ·····i·····t····t·····t····· 8 10 12 14 16 ••••• t;;1:;;il:/ltI!t 18 •••Hi•H••i••H+H•Ht••H• 20 22 28 30 32 •••• ······i·····t····t·····t····· 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 ::::1::JJ:::1:::: 50,.;;;.;;,;.;;.=;.;;..;;;;;;;;.;;;;;;.;;.;;,;.;;;;;,;;;;.;,;..;;;;,;.;;.;;,;.;;.;;;,;;;..;;.i -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Bq 1 Fil weight: Transition detect applied: K0 applied: Clay like behavbr appled: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes No All soils No N/A CLiq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:32 PM Project file: ~ ..... 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ::::, 24 £ a. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 1 SBTn Plot 2 3 le (Robertson 1990) SBTnlegend ■ 1. Sensitive fine grained ■ 2 Organic material ■ 3. day to silty clay ~ ..... 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 16 18 20 22 ::::, 24 £ a. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 CPT name: CPT 1 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 121314 15161718 SBTn (Robertson 1990) ■ 4. dayey silt to silty □ 7. Gravely sand to sand □ s·. Silty sand to sandy silt □ 8. Very stiff sand to . . □ 6. dean sand to silty sand □ 9. Very stiff fine grained 3 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Liquefa ctio n analysis overall plots (intermediate results) Total cone resistance 2 0-r==--------~-.... . ! T T 4 ------+----------+----------+---- 6 -------i-----------~-----------i----- 8 ------1--------1---------L--- 10 12 ' I I T T f ---, ---,-- --+---·------+·---·---·-+·--· 16 ·----i-----+------+--- 18 i--------i---------i----i i i 20 +------1------1--- 22 ! ! ! ...., :::::, 24 .c ::::::: l:::::::::!::::::::::L:: c. 26 ~ 28 i ---+--- 30 -·------4----·------t·---·---·-! ..... -... I I I 32 -----t·--·--·-· ! --·-----i---- 34 36 ·-=+====+~===+== ____ 1,. ____ 1_ _____ L __ : ·----+-! --+--- 42 -+--------··t··------·-t··-· 44 ·----,-----r-----t--- 46 . . . -------·t -----i-----------1---- _______ l ___ .. __ ., 1 ---·-----L __ _ : _______ l __________ J.__ , 100 200 300 qt (tsf) Input parameters and analysis data A naff sis method: Robertson {2009} Fines correction method: Robertson {2009} Points to test: Based on Jc value EarthqJake magnitu!e Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground aa:eleration: 0.52 Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft SBTn Index 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ~ 24 £ a. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 2 3 le (Robertson 1990) Depth to water table {erthq.): Average results interval: Jc cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: All height: 5.00 ft 5 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Norm. cone resista nce ! : I ---·---...... ., ........................ , ..................... "'r_ .. ____ _ ! ------~---------4--------: : ----__ J ______ j_ _____ j _______ _ --__ 1 ____ .. _j ___ ,. ___ 1 ______ __ I : : I _J,. ____ +-•-•- f i ~~=:._._.._ .. _ .. _--,_-1.•;; i . : ------t-·------ -=--'!,-----+----- ......... .a ................ J ......... l .................. . 22 - I • • ... J ....... ·J ......... t ....... . ~ ..., :::::, 24 .c c. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 : --,-----i·--- 1 t : ............ 't ......................... ., ........................... T ........ _.., .... ... : : : -----1------~-------+-------. . . --------1---------t--·------ ---f•----~•----+----e . . . _ __ 1 __ ...J _____ L ___ _ . . . : : : ----•--·-·---------• I I ---------i -·------i·--------+-------- 1 : : 1--7-----t-----_______ ; ______ • -.1.-------- _ _____ j ______ J .. ____ l-------. . ·--·--·i-.... -........... 1 ........... __ 0 50 100 Qtn 150 20( Fil weigit: N/A Yes No Transition detect applied: K0 applied: Clay like behavbr appled: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: All soils No N/A Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:32 PM Project file: ~ ..., 4 14 20 ·-- 22 Grain char. factor ---i-------- --- _j __ L .. L .... L .... :::::, 24 .c c. 26 ~ 28 30 ·--r·'"' .. """'"' .. """ .... -: : : 32 ·-+-+-+ -i--1---~-- I t t t : :=t=~-~ t=t:: I I I I I I I I -""'-...,,=~: : Js ·-·r-i-i r---:--· I i i : : I t t I I 40 ·--r-·r-1 -r-··r--· 42 ---r---r-. . 44 ·-·r-1 46 ·-----r-t--1---1-•-i-•-1-·-"t"-- ·--__ ! ___ .: ..... .: __ .: __ .:..,__.:__ ___ :._ __ 48 1 I I I I I : ! I I I : : : 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Kc ~ ~ .c ...., C. ~ CPT name: CPT 1 Corrected norm. cone resistano 0 T __ ~_~ __ ~_~_~ __ ~_1 1 ~ __ ~_~_~ __ ~_~_~_,T! _•_• __ ;i::_:::::_:: __ :::_:+~-:_:_: __ ~_~_~ __ i 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 : ! i ·---------t---------;-••--··--+·-···- ·--·--··~·-··-·~--· ·-------L ______ j ____ _ i I f 1 j ::====t:=::=::~: ·--·-··-i-·--·-· ----·~---•-•0c i i f ---1---i- ! _j'-~~~~ :=:::::f :::: . ·--------·t-·----- .................... : .. --------:· . . . •-•--•••t••-•• I -•--••-➔---••-•0c . ----f :·····. ·--··--··-,----··--·· .. ···-i ! ·-------·-r-·---·---;-··--··--t--··---·-. . . ·-----r---·--·1-·--·--t : : I ·-------~--------1------I-------. . . ·-----··i .... _ .... _ .. J _____ .. -1 ___ .. __ .. . . . : : : ·--·--·-4-..·--·--"--·-----·-··- 0 50 100 Qtn,cs 150 20( 4 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. CPT name: CPT 1 Liq u e f act i o n a n aly sis o v e r all p lo t s CRRplot o.....-----..... --..,,.,---- 2 .. _ ....... --..... --.. 1 .......................... ~ .............. _ ..... _ ... ! ! 4 ------------T-----------r----------- 6 ·--------- 8 ·--------- 10 ·------------------ 12 ·------------- 14 16 18 ii----1-----1 20 •----+-~---z==t===::I __________ l____________ ------------~ : ·--------+----------t ------------ ..... ' ' ~ 26 -----------·y-----·-----·r ---------· 28 30 ------------' 32 ·-------+----------• ----------- ' ' :: :====r======t ==:---:= ' ' 38 ·------+-----•: ------ 40 ·-------+------! ------ 42 -----------·t··---·---------·--·--· 44 ·------t-----r------ , ' 46 ·--··-··-·+-·--·---t····-··· .. ··- 48 ·---------+.-·--·--· -~·-----··---- 50 ·--·--·--·l .......................... t ........................... .. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 CRR &CSR Input parameters and analysis data A naff sis method: Robertson {2009} Fines correction method: Robertson {2009} Points to test: Based on Jc value Earthq.Jake magnlttde Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground acreleration: 0.52 Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft FS Plot 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ..., !::.. 24 .c a. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 Factor of safety Depth to water table {erthq.): Average results interval: Jc cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: All height: 5.00 ft 5 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A 2 Liquefaction potential 0...------,-----, 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ~ ..., !::.. 24 .c a. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 5 10 LPI Fil weigit: Transition detect applied: K0 applied: Clay like behavbr appled: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes No 15 All soils No N/A Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:32 PM Project file: 20 ~ ..., Vertical settlements 0--------__ .....,I _______ ....., __ _, 2 .......................... f .............................. ~-··-·--·- : ! 4 ........................ ., ........................... r-·--·----: I 6 ----------f-------------t-----------1 I 8 ---------f----------i---------- 1 i 10 ---------[----------~---------- -·--·-----t _______ _l ___ .,_ 12 ! I 14 16 18 20 22 ......................... t----...................... r-·-----·-.. -----f----· r------- _________ 1 ---------i------------ 1 : I -----f-------~------- ·--· ... _.i_ ................ l ............................. .. ! ! !::.. 24 -·-·· -··-1--·------·L .......... _ .......... .. ' I .c ' ' a. 26 ~ I I ------......................................................... -...... -.... .. i : 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 ' I f f .. -···-···-·T·---·--·---··r-··-··-··" : I ·--------t--··-----·t··--··--·--- ..... _ ... _ ....... _.~_ ............. ~ ..... -................... .. ____ .. t ________ .t ______ _ i I ' I -----·------r-------! I ·--·-----►-----·►---·-·· : ! ------------r---·-------·-r----·-----' : -----r-----·r------· i : ---------r----------~------------ • I __________ [_ ____________ [_ __________ _ 0.5 1 Settlement (in) F.S. color sd1eme ■ Almost certain it will liquefy D Very likely to liquefy ~ ..., lateral displacements 0-------..... -----..... 2 ·--------------------------------------- 4 ·--------------------------------------- 6-·-------------------------- 8 ·----------------------------- 10 ·---------------------------- 12 ·--------------------------------- 14 ·--------------------------------------- 16 ·------------------------------- 18-·----------------------------- 20 ----------- 22 ·-------------------------- !::.. 24 ·-----------------------------.,= .... l 26 ................................................... -------------------- 28-·--------------------------------- 30 ·--------------------------------------- 32-·---------------------------- 34 ·-------------------------- 36 ----------- 38 ·------------------------------- 40 ·--------------------------------- 42 ·--------------------------------------- 44-·------------------------------- 46 ·----------------------------- 48 ·---------------------------- 50--====--=-;;;;-=-;;;;;;;;-.;;;;-;;;;-;;;;-=-=== 0 Displacement (in) LPI color scheme ■ Very high risk 0 High risk D Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely D Unlike to liquefy D Lowrisk ■ Almost certain it will not liquefy s This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. 7 8 9 l!l C 2 Ill 100: vi ~ C 0 :.:::; ~ OJ C Ql a. I-a. u -0 Ql N '° E ~ 1 -1----..------,,---,--,-,......,....,....,.-,-----'-~-....-~~-.-~.,..-i 0.1 1 10 Normalized friction ratio(%) Input parameters and analysis data A naff sis method: Robertson {2009} Depth to water table {erthq.): Fines correction method: Robertson {2009} Average results interval: Points to test: Based on Jc value Jc cut-off value: Earthq.Jake magnitu!e Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground acceleration: 0.52 Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft RII height: Li q u e f acti o n a nalysis s umma ry p lo t s ~ 5.00 ft 5 2.60 0 Based on SBT No N/A ' ' W ~ W ~ ~ rn ~ ~ ~ D Qtn,cs Fil weight: Transition detect applied: K0 applied: Clay like behaver appled: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes No All soils No N/A Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:32 PM Project file: CPT name: CPT 1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Thickness of surface layer, H1 (m) 6 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Check for strength loss plots (Robertson (2010)) ~rm. cone resistance 4 6 0 - 2 .. _ ...... J .... -----~--------~·----_t ! t : I ! • ------f-------l-------+-------~ 8 --•• ------•------1-------1-------i 12 14 16 _ __ L _____ L _____ J ___ . __ i _____ .l 10 I I I I I : : : : ! --~--T·-·1·---[ --"'!"'---la.: i i ! --7·---..,-----r 18 ----~-----··+··-··-~ : I I 20 22 ----◄----+----~ __ -... _-_-_-_-__ 'L ............ 1 ............... l ................ l .... :t::. 24 .c ---+----+----+----+----··t c. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 ·---r------·r---·--r·------r--·--r --r-----4•---...;---·-;. ' I ' : : : i J t I I .......... ,. ................ r•·---.... , ............. .,..._ ..... _,. : : : : : ---~-----t·-----~---·--1-------t t I f I I • ------~-------1----·-·t····-··~ 36 --i----~---~-----+-----~ I I i I I 38 : : i : : .......... ________________ ,. I I i I I 40 : : i : : I t t f I -·:-·--r--1·---:----r I I f I 42 -----·r----·--;-------~--·--r I I I ; I f J i I I 44 46 r--r--7----;.----r t i : : -~--.j----+---··i···----~ . L----+-----+ ' ---------' ' so , _____ L_ _____ J .......... 48 50 100 150 200 250 Qtn Input parameters and analysis data A naff sis method: Robertson {2009} Fines correction method: Robertson {2009} Points to test: Based on Jc value Earthq.Jake magnitu!e Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground acreleration: 0.52 Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft Grain char. factor 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ~ 24 £ a. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Kc Depth to water table {erthq.): Average results interval: Jc cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: All height: 5.00 ft 5 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A 20 30 32 • 34 • 36 38 40 ................ I +------- =+=::=::: . : -1 ---·-r·-. 42 ·-------·t--·· .. ····f---·----+-- -t-----+----+-~ 46 ---·1--·--·f----+-·--·--, 44 48 ---·.1--.. --+----+-·--·-- 50 • ..... _ .... J ..... _ ...... -.... l .................. .. 0 50 Fil weigit: 100 Qtn,cs 150 Transition detect applied: N/A Yes No K0 applied: Clay like behavbr appled: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: All soils No N/A 20( CLiq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:32 PM Project file: SBTn Index 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ~ ..., :t::. 24 .c c. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 1 2 3 le (Robertson 1990) CPT name: CPT 1 Liquefied Su/Sig'v 6 ·----t-----1-----1----+------ i i i i 8 ......................................................................................... _ ... .. i i i ! 10 --•--◄--◄---1--· I I I : 12 .................... f ................... ~ ...... -........... ~-·····-+---·--- 14 , ____ j _____ j_ ____ j_ ___ J _____ _ I I I I : ! ! : 16-··-·--· .. •• .. ·-· .... • ... -....... _ ............. _ ... ... i : : : 18 ·----t-··-·i-··-·i-··--1----- 20 ··-·--.i ........... J ...... _ . .j,.. ... _ ... ! ..... -... .. • I I I ! ! ! : 22 t 1 1 ! 24-····-··t··--·-~----·-~-·--·-+ ·--·-· .c a. 28 ~ 30 • I I I 26 , ____ t _____ J _____ J _____ _:_ ____ _ I I I : i ! ! i ·-------:---·---,-------,-------:·-----· --~-~--~--.!-.--! i i I 32-.................... .,. ................... , ................... , ........ .,.. ........ _ .. ... : : : : 1 I I I 34 ·---·---t··-----t···--··-1······-t--------- 1 I I I 36 ·-----•-··-·.j-.. -. .j-.. -.,1----·· : : : ! 38-·--·--·t ......... -.... J ..... -.... J ..... -.... ..:. .... -....... : : : : : : : ' 40 ·----•-----◄-----◄------1-----• I I I : : : ! 42 ....... -.......... -... ◄••·-.... ◄ ....... _ ........... _ ... ... : : : I ; I I I 44 ·----•------i------i------i------1 : : : : ; ; I 46 ............. t ........... 1-··--··1···--••j••··--· : : : I 48_ -i I I I 50 I -Peak Su ratio -Liq. 5, ratJc. I I I I I 4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 o.s Su/Sig'v 7 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. CPT name: CPT-1 TRANSITION LAYER DETECTION ALGORITHM REPORT Summary Details & Plots Short description The software will delete data when the cone is in transition from either clay to sand or vise-versa. To do this the software requires a range of le values over which the transition w ill be defined (typically somewhere between 1.80 < le< 3.0) and a rate of change of le, Transitions typicaly occur when the rate of change of le is fast (i.e. delta le is 9'11al0, The SST n plot below, dsplctyts in red the detected transtion layers based on the parameters listed bebw the graphs. SBTn Index 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 g 24 .c ~ 26 Q) Cl 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 so 1 2 3 4 le (Robertson 1990) Transition layer algorithm properties le minimum check value: 1.70 le ma>cimum check value: 3.00 le change ratio val.Je: 0.0250 Minimum number of points in layer: 3 ~ ..... 2 4 6 8 10 12 16 18 22 !t::. 24 .c °g-26 Cl 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 Norm. Soil Behaviour Type 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 SBTn (Robertson 1990) General statistics Total points in CPT file: Total points excluded: Exclusion percentage: Number of layers detected: 764 135 17.67% 17 CLiq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:32 PM Project file: 8 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Estimation of post-earthquake settlements Cone resistance 0-r=;:::::"="';"""--""';"'-=~=""'I -··-··l··-······l···-2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 -T----+----+-----+----t------i--- ~=:=:t==.L~=~=~L~= __ J __ .. _______ L ______ _L_ __ _ i i i T T T ·t··-··-··t··-·-···-t···- .i----i-------i--- 1 ' ' .j. .......... .j. .......... .j. .. _. ___ l_ ___ l_ _____ L __ i ! ! f f f ---i-----t----t-- -.,....·-···-···-r-·--·--r-·- i i 30 • ------T·--·--·-T----···-·T--·-: : : 32 ········+··········+·········· I ·-· : : : 34 -·--1----1------1--- 36 ········+··········+··········+··-· 38 ----r---·--·-t·--·-----r---- 40 ----+·-···-···-+--·--·--+---- 42 ! ! : •-,------,------,---. : : 44 --:·--·--·-r·--·-----r---- : ::=::I:=::=:~:=:=t= 100 200 300 qt (tsf) Abbreviations SBTn Plot 0~===,:;::= 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 501--,-,--.--.--,.-,--,--i=i'=i=~==i==i=l 2 3 4 le (Robertson 1990) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ~ ~ 24 .c a. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 c.: Total cone resistance (cone resistance qccorrected for pore water effects) le: Soil ~haviour Type Index FS: Catulated Factor of Safety agaif6t liquefaction Volumentric strain: Post-liqt.efaction volurentric strain 0 Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:32 PM Project file: FS Plot 0.5 1 1.5 2 Factor of safety 0 2 4 6 8 10 l2 14 16 18 20 22 ~ ,_, Strain plot I i I f I ·----..... ---,.,,...--·-,-----.. ----··r···----i i ! ! ! ·--r--r--·r--,·--1--·· -·---+---1---t---f---· I : ; ; : ·-···+---+--<--•---•---· I : i i i ....................... .J... ................ A. •••• -&. ... -.... .. I I I I I I : ! ! ! -·-=-!--•+·--·f-···+····· .. .,... ... -..... , ........ __ 1'_ ......... 1' ......... .. • t t I c..l.--~---i---i---· --.... .t .... J .... J ... -i.-.. - 1 j ! ! ! ·---r--,---1---r---r--· ~ 24 ·---·.L---1. I l I I : : .c a. 26 ~ I ' ' ·--+---+---i---r·---t---- 28 , t t t t : I I I ·-·.,...-· .. --,--·-1'·--·-.. -·-·· i i i i I i i i t I I I 32 ••••• ·····t·····1"·····t····--t·-··· ! "T 1 i f 34 ·--· ---!----1---t---t·--· 36 38 I I I I ··---............ ..:.. ........... J ............... 1 ........... _1 __ .., __ i : i i i I t J I I T -r-• r : I i i i i 40 ·--•j••·-·T-··--1--·-t·--·-t··-·· I I I I I 42 ·--+·--t---1---r----r---- 44 ·-·-t-··-t·-··i···-·t-····t······ 46 ·------+--~---!---~---· 48 ........ .. ..... + ...... ~ ....... f ....... f--•-- so _____ .. __ l ___ J ___ !---L--- 0 1 2 3 4 5 Volumentric strain(%) 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 g 24 .c ,_, C. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 CPT name: CPT 1 Vertical settlements - -' -~:---~-- ====L===r=== I I ··-··-··-t·-··-··-··t···-··-·· I I ' I ······-····t·-··-··-··t···-··--: : ............................................................ 1. .................... ... ------·i·--·-·-·~-·-·-- ........ _ ... __ ..,_..,t ...... _ .. __ .., ... _ ... t_ .. __ ----.. ·-··-··+·-··-·· ~-··-··-·· -----·---~-----·--·- -----------t---·---··--··~-· .... -........ -.. ., ----· ---l·-----.. --.. ~---------- •••••• ····+-··-··-·+··-··-··· -----r---r---- • j ---·r·----·-·r-----·-- ! ! -·-··-···r-··-··-.... -.. r-..... -..... -.. ., I ; ············•·············~············ : : ··-··-··-t·-··-··-·-t···-··-··· -------·---·r-------------r-----------., ----·--·-r··-··-··-·r-··-··-· .. ------~--------~-----·--: : -----;....---~----: : -·--·-··-r··-··-··-·r-··-··-· .. ' ' -·····-····t·-··-··-··t···-··-··· I : .......................... t---·---··--··~-··--··---·· ' ' ---------i .. _____ .. ___ t _________ .,. 0.5 1 Settlement (in) 9 GEO Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 r-steve@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Project title : Partner Engineering & Science l ocation : 6020 Hidden Valley Rd, Carlsbad, CA 1..,..._,... I 1 •• ,... ...... ...,.,.. •• ;..,..'"'..,....,. • ...,..,__.,r1...._ .. ...,..,...,....,.l11,.,...,1 o;.,... n ..... ..._ ....... CPT file : CPT-2 Input parameters and analysis data Anaty'sis method: Robertson {2009) G.W.T. (in-situ): 5.50 ft Use fill: No day like behaVior Fines correction method: Robertson {2009) G.W.T. {earthq.): 5.00 ft Fill height: N/A applied: Points to test: Based on le value Average results interval: 5 Fil welg,t: N/A Limit depth applied: Earth(J.lake magnitule Mw: 6.71 le cut-off value: 2.60 Trans. detect. applied: Yes Limit depth: All soils No N/A Peak ground acceleration: 0.52 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT K0 applied: No MSF method: Method based ;. ex: U'l ~ ~ ~ n:, ex: "' "' ~ U) .!:! 'O >-u 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Cone resistance Friction Ratio SBTn Plot CRRplot FS Plot so 100 150 0 2 4 6 8 10 qt (tsf) Rf(%) Mw=71l2, sigma'=! atm base curve ~ o...,,=,,.---,,,,,, 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 so,_,~-~--"' 1 2 3 4 le (Robertson 1990) CV u C n:, 1;, in ~ C 0 :.:; ~ Q) C CV C. 100 0 ---------- 2 ____ J_ ---L---· 4 ·------~---i------· 6 8 10 12 14 -----: : 16 -· .. ·-·--,-----·-· r ............ ~ 18 ·----±t ~~-~. IF.=:::;;;:::::;;! 20 ---·-1---·· 22 ·----1---------· 24 ·-·--;------·-·- 26 28 30 32 ·---··-1-··--·· 34 J ! ' 36 ········•········· ········- 38 ·-···-···l·· 40 ---·-~···------·-- 42 44 ........ l ....... i .... . : : 46 ·----1----· f-·-· 48 so 0 ------~--------~---·--~ -----1--~--t----· 0.2 0.4 CRR &CSR O.E 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 so 0 0.5 1 1.5 Factor of safety Summary of liquefaction potential 2 -··-·+··-·+··-·+·L .. ti.~M.•~rie .~ ...... I I I I f ~ •• I ... ~ -i.. ., ~ u : : : : : I . I .... f ........ L ..... L ..... L ..... L ..... L ..... ~ .. L::~ ...... L .... . : : : : : : : : : . ::: ::::l::: ::::!::: :··-f-: ::::!::: ::::;:: .. :::i::: ::::1::: J::: ":::I~::::: iii iN>~ 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Qtn,cs -0 10 ~ n:, E ~ 0.1 1 10 Normalized friction ratio (%) Zone A,: Cydic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone Ao: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and grouno geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic sonening Zone C: Cydic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained sliength and ground geometry Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:33 PM Project file: 10 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. CPT bas ic i nte r pr etatio n plots 0 - 2 4 Cone resistance . . ............................................. . . . . . . . ................ ,. ............ . . 6 I ------._-1,.-_ ................ •t•• ................ t••• .. .. 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 .... :t::. 24 .c c. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 ---; .............. ~ ............ t--··- ··::~:;;;;;:;;;;;r;; 44 • ······t-········-t··········t··--· : •• ···t :::::::1:::::::1:::: so 100 qt (tsf) 150 Input parameters and analysis data Friction Ratio o--=--------.---. 2 4 ·--- 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 . . . ....................................... . . . . . . . . ..... ., .............................. ... . . . . ---~...:;;;,;,i;;:--··t··---· ··-·+-···-· -.. 22 ....... _;..._ .... __ .. i--•---+--·---~ ~ 24 .c c. 26 ~ 38 40 42 44 46 48 0 2 --t--+-- 4 6 Rf(%) 8 10 A naff sis method: Robertson {2009} Depth to water table {erthq.): 5.00 ft 5 Fines correction method: Robertson {2009} Average results interval: Points to test: Based on Jc value Jc cut-off value: 2.60 Pore pressure o-~:---...----~-~1-----...... 4 2 ·_-_r::·· -.·.·.·.·.-.......... i ...... ~ ....... ~ ........... ... . .. ........... ! ............. J ............. J ............ .. : : : 6 ··t····· •.~--t-~--:----t--·I : : L: .. :: . .:l::::::l::::::l:::::: 14 J ........ L ...... J ...... L ........ J ......... . :: t ::::!:::::. \:::j::::::j:::::: 20 ··~· --~--·t· --1·--·1--- 22 ··~-•••• i ...... } ..... ~ ...... ~ ....... . g 24 .L .... L ....... L.. J ......... J ....... . £ i i ! I i ~ :: .:· .::::r::::r::: .. r::::r:::: 30 r··-··-}···-··}-···-·i ......... 1 ........ . 32 • • I • • ...... i ......•...... ~ ..... ~ ..... . : I : : : f 1=.:1==.i:::i=.=.=. 40 ... ~ ......... ~ ....... i ....... ~ ........ ' ........ ... 42 J ..... i.. ..... !... .... ..J ...... J ... . : : I : : 44 ··t·· ···t······t······i······i· ••• :t:: :t:::::i::::::t::::1:::.-: 46 48 50 ... t ......... i ....... l ....... J ........ J ..... . -5 0 5 10 u (psi) Fil weight: Transition detect. applied: K0 applied: 15 N/A Yes No Earthq.Jake magnlttde Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground acreleration: 0.52 Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Based on SBT No Clay like behavbr appled: Limit depth applied: All soils No Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft All height: N/A Limit depth: CLiq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:33 PM Project file: N/A SBT Plot 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ~ ..... :t::. 24 £ a. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 so 1 2 3 Ic(SBT) SBTlegend ■ 1. Sensitive fine grained ■ 2 Organic material ■ 3. day to silty clay ~ ..... :t::. 24 £ a. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 so CPT name: CPT-2 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11121314 15 161718 SBT (Robertson et al. 1986) ■ □ □ 4. dayey silt to silty D s·. Silty sand to sandy silt D 6. dean sand to silty sand D 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to . . 9. Very stiff fine grained 11 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized) 0 Norm. cone resistance ' ' ' : ·::::::::r:::::::t-------: 6 • ---·-·t········t·-···-·· 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 30 32 ....... : --····· .. t· .. ··· .. ···'t-···-·-· :::;:::::t<!t< 34 36 38 40 42 44 ............. t ............. t ............ t········ : : :··::r ::::1:::::1::::::: 0 so 100 Qtn 150 20( Input parameters and analysis data A naff sis method: Robertson {2009} Fines correction method: Robertson {2009} Points to test: Based on Jc value Earthq.Jake magnlttde Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground acreleration: 0.52 Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft Norm. friction ratio ;-__ ~_..,_=-----:~:~~~::~:~:~::~:~! ~::~:~:~::"' 6 --t:::==-!-=·· ---+··· ..... 8 12 14 16 18 20 22 28 30 32 ... • ......... 1 ........ +------ .,. __ ..... • --1;-·-t--: 36 38 40 42 34 44 ···1·· .. ···t···--· : ••••• ·j . :::l:::::l::::: 0 2 4 6 Fr(%) Depth to water table {erthq.): Average results interval: Jc cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: All height: 8 5.00 ft 5 2.60 10 Based on SBT No N/A Nom. pore pressure ratio '. ...... ::: f :::i::::i::::I::::: 6 ........... ·····i····-t····t·····t····· 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 28 30 32 : -----1-----+----+-----t·---- i -· ·:--i--t-t-t-- 44 -t··-··i····-t·--·t···--t·--·- 46 48 ·1:::::1:::l:::Ll::: so ..... ...,.... _________ .,....... -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Bq 1 Fil weight: Transition detect applied: K0 applied: Clay like behavbr appled: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes No All soils No N/A Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:33 PM Project file: ~ ..... SBTn Plot 04-===---= 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ::::, 24 £ a. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 so 1 2 3 le (Robertson 1990) SBTnlegend ■ 1. Sensitive fine grained ■ 2 Organic material ■ 3. day to silty clay ~ ..... 0 2~-----'----- 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ::::, 24 £ c. 26 ~ CPT name: CPT-2 4 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11121314 15 161718 SBTn (Robertson 1990) ■ 4. dayey silt to silty □ 7. Gravely sand to sand □ s·. Silty sand to sandy silt □ 8. Very stiff sand to . ' □ 6. dean sand to silty sand □ 9. Very stiff fine grained 12 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Liquefactio n a na ly s is o v e r a ll plots (inte rmedia t e r es ults) Total cone resistance 0 - 2 4 --t------L--- ' ' I .......................... i ......... _ ... : 6 -----------t-----------f------ 8 ·--=-·--·--··i-----···-·~--·- 10 12 ' ' ---1-..., _____ .... l .... __ .. ______ i ____ _ ... L __ J _____ j __ _ i I i 14 ' ' ----------r-·---·-·-·-r··--· 16 I I : --;---·r------r--- 18 , ' ' ---..!..---... i------~---' ' ' I I I 20 ·----+------~------1--- 22 ...., 1 I I __ ... ..:.. ........................... t ............................ t ............. .. I I I ' ' ' :::::, 24 .c ----L ..... -..... -..... L ........ -.......... t ......... _ ' ' ' ' ' ' : : : c. 26 ~ -----------►·--------·-•-·--· ~--...:.: : 28 ----~--- 30 ' I ' ' -----·r-··--·-····r···-· : 32J ----d:==-=-:::_:::_:::: __ tt-·::: __ :: ______ f····- 34 . ' ' -·--·+-·-···-···-t··-·---·---t-----· ' ' ' 36 ·-__ .!._ _______ t ______ :._ __ : I : 38 , -·--~--- 40 . ! ~....---•~------►---: : : 42 44 46 : -----------r---------·-r-·--· ----t---··-··~---------J---- 48 +-·--·--·-~-·--·-----~-----. : : 50,:;:.;;.::.:.:=:::;:=:::::-:=::::-:=::::·➔•~-::::-~-=-~-=-~·~-::::-~-= 50 100 qt (tsf) 150 Input parameters and analysis data A naff sis method: Robertson {2009} Fines correction method: Robertson {2009} Points to test: Based on Jc value EarthqJake magnitu!e Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground aa:eleration: 0.52 Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft SBTn Index 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ~ 24 £ a, 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 2 3 le (Robertson 1990) Depth to water table {erthq.): Average results interval: Jc cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: All height: 5.00 ft 5 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A 4 ~ .., 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 :::::, 24 .c c. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 Norm. cone resistance ! ' ! 7 ---------1---------1---------::;,.-----.. i ' ---· .... ---·-----' ' --:-----6-::=:t::::::::: --+-·--- ·:::..;;;;;,;---or-: ···-··t. -·--·-----7-- ---7-----,------ , ' -----1-----t----- ··-···-·~ ............. + .... -.... --.. - ······+::::::::t:::::::: --+-----: ........... ..;.. ....... _.., __ _ : ~--d'.~::'.:':':::r:=----+-···-···- : ------+--------- ___ l ____ .., : =:::::t:=~---L----! : --,·-·- ;------•--i•--------r-·--·---. ' ' t· ··-· ··-· 1·-· -·-· -·t-·-· ----- l----·· ~-------.!.---------. ' ' : I I 48 1----··~·--·---7··--·---· : I I 50-,:::.::.::::;::=~:.;l::::-=.:-;;::~·::::-;::'·~-::::-:::;:-::::-=.:~;::::~-.:;-=.:-::::-::i 0 Fil weigit: 50 100 Qtn Transition detect applied: K0 applied: Clay like behavbr appled: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes No 150 All soils No N/A 20( Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:33 PM Project file: Grain char. factor 2 4 14 30 42 50 ·--~-' 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Kc CPT name: CPT-2 Corrected norm. cone resistano o-.--:---F==.=::::::::=i I -1 t 2 f i T : , ______ _t _____ J_ t 8 ·------+------1----~;;::=1 10 f 1 -:- 12 j j .., 14 ·---------!-------·-+-·· ....... "'!-__ ...., .. 16 ·-----t·--·---J--------------- 18 ·---------i----·----,--·----.,.--·•-··-j i 20 ---1---i---l---· ! ! I :: :=:::::f :::::·c1 ~-...... -.--:+;-----:-----:-1: 28 ··-··--··t·-···-·-. -t-··-··· 30 ........................ !.... ... .. t ............. .. 32 ·-·-·-+·-•i;;;;---·+·-··-·- ' : 34 ·-----··1-·-·· --t-·-··- ' :: -===r---,;:-=~~ 40 ... -..... --.. ·-r .. ·--·· 42 ................... t .. ' ' 44 ·-----··i-·-7--·-··- 46 ·--·-··-~----~----·--~ : ·-·-·-t· ... l. _____ _ 0 50 100 Qtn,cs 150 20( 13 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. CPT name: CPT-2 Liquefaction analysis overall plots CRRplot 0 -..... ________ L ______ :.,. _____ _ 2 : : 4 -----------·+-----------t·---·-----· 6 ---------~ 8 ·----------i----- 10 , _______ j_ ____ _ i 12 ·------- :: ::=::::::::~:::::=. f------1 32 ·------·t·--------r ----------- • • ii ;;~-~+~<::::r_:!:!:! 42 ' ' 44 --------·t··-···-·--t--·---·- 46 ·--------·+-·--·--· t--··-- 48 ·---------+.-·--·----~·-----···--- 50 ________ L___ .L _____ _ 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 CRR &CSR Input parameters and analysis data A naff sis method: Robertson {2009} Fines correction method: Robertson {2009} Points to test: Based on Jc value Earthq.Jake magnitu!e Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground aa:eleration: 0.52 Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft FS Plot 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ..., !::-24 ~ a. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 Factor of safety Depth to water table {erthq.): Average results interval: Jc cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: All height: 5.00 ft 5 2.60 Based on 5BT No N/A 2 Liquefaction potential o...------,-------, ~ ..., 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 !::-24 ~ a. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 Fil weight: 5 10 LPI Transition detect applied: K0 applied: Clay like behavbr appled: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes No 15 All soils No N/A Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:33 PM Project file: 20 ~ ..., Vertical settlements o-----,-_...,.. ______ .,,.........,.I __ 2 ----1--t--~-1---t---: ! I i ! 4 -----,------r-----T·····1····-r·-·· 6 ·--·J···-··~-·-· j --J·--·-~-·-· 8 ··-·L .. J._ . .1. __ .j_ .. J ..... _ ___ J ____ l ____ l ____ J ____ J ____ _ 10 I ' ' I ' : ! ! : ! 12 ·--◄--· 1---·· i : : : : 14 ---·-1-·---... :----... : ... --.... , •••••• 1 18 16 ---i---~--_,;... __ i ___ l i : : i : ...... --~-----~ I ~--.. r---"I ! i i ! i 20 22 ---1·--·~--+---1·--· ~-- .., __ ... J ....... _ ... .l_ ............ L ...... _J... ___ l ...... _ ... ~ 24 ! ! ! ! ! I ...... -·1-··-t·-··+----1--·-r···-· ~ a. 26 ~ J : : I : ·-·-. ---·-·r·----:-----◄---:---- 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 ! I I : I •--,-----r--•-,---r---! : ! i I I I I ... -... -~-... r ... --·--:·--··1····-r·-·- ·-··1-·--r--· i -·1-····r··-·· ..,_ ··1'"'··-·-t-····1-··-1'"'--·-t-·-· --_J.. ___ t __ _L __ J ___ ... t __ i i : i : ... -~---~--......:....--~---~---J ! i i ! i ··--◄-----,. ◄---►--- : : I : : I ---·-1------r---·-r----·1·----r--·- ·--·➔···-··~-·-··➔-··-➔·--·-~-·-·1 i : : i : ··-·-1-··-~·-··➔··--·1-····~····· ! : : t : 1 t r 1 t -·--J--t : I 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Settlement (in) 1.2 F.S. color sd1eme ■ Almost certain it will liquefy O Very likely to liquefy ~ ..., lateral displacements o------..... ------ 2 ··-··--·-···-··-·· ···-··-··-··-··· 4 ....................................... . 6-·-----·--·--· -·-·-·-·-··· 8 ·--·-··-··-··-· -··-··-··-··-·- 10 ·-·-··-··-··-· -··-··-··-··-·- 12 ··-··--·-···-··-·· ···-··-··-··-··· 14 •••••••••••••••••••• ···················- 16 ····-··-··-··-·· ···-··-··-··-··· 18-··-··--·-···-··-·· ···-··-··-··-··· 20 ----------· 22 ·-----·--·--· -·-·-·-·-··· !::-24 ·--·-··-··-··-· -··-··-··-··-·· ~ ..., ~ 26 .................................................... --------------------- 28-··-··--·-···-··-·· ···-··-··-··-··· 30 •••••••••••••••••••• ···················- 32-·-·-··-··-··-· -··-··-··-··-·· 34 ·-----·--·--· -·-·-·-·-··· 36 ----------· 38 ····-··-··-··-·· ···-··-··-··-··· 40 ··-··--·-···-··-·· ···-··-··-··-··· 42 ....................................... . 44 ·-----·--·--· -·-·-·-·-··· 46 ·--·-··-··-··-· -··-··-··-··-·- 48 ·-·-··-··-··-· -··-··-··-··-·- 50 ··-··--·-···-··-·· ···-··-··-··-··· 0 Displacement (in) LPI color scheme ■ Very high risk 0 High risk O liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely O Unlike to liquefy O Lowrisk ■ Almost certain it will not liquefy 14 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. 7 8 9 l!l C 2 Ill 100: vi ~ C 0 :.:::; ~ OJ C Ql a. I-a. u -0 Ql N '° E ~ 1 -1----..------,,---,--,-,......,....,....,.-,------'-~-....-~~-.-~.,-i 0.1 1 10 Normalized friction ratio(%) Input parameters and analysis data A naff sis method: Robertson {2009} Depth to water table {erthq.): Fines correction method: Robertson {2009} Average results interval: Points to test: Based on Jc value Jc cut-off value: Earthq.Jake magnitu!e Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground acceleration: 0.52 Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft RII height: Liquefaction analysis summary plots ~ 5.00 ft 5 2.60 0 Based on SBT No N/A ' ' W ~ W ~ ~ rn ~ ~ ~ D Qtn,cs Fil weight: Transition detect applied: K0 applied: Clay like behaver appled: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes No All soils No N/A Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:33 PM Project file: CPT name: CPT-2 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Thickness of surface layer, Hl (m) 15 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Check for strength loss plots (Robertson {2010)) ~rm. cone resistance 0 - 2 ·------ 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 ............ i---------~--- 1 : -----f----------~---1 : --·--1--·-··--·-J ..... _ I : ---i : : : ·--------t---·---·---1--· I I : ... ...,... ... ----r--i j i _i ____ r ____ ,... I • • -+------f------l-- __ l .......................... i ..... __ ,. __ ,._j __ _ ! ! : ·--+·-··-·--}·--···-···1··- : I : ----------t·------·---1--· ! : ---r .-- -------r---·---·---,--· : : --·--t--·-------i'--- ................... ~-·--·--·-~--- ---·l------J--i : ' I : =:=r---------1 . ' ......... .;.. ....................... ~-------·--·1--· ; : t ---i -----------f---------1--- • I ' ---+--------r----------i--- : I ; -......i..--·--·--·--·-----··"'---• I , 50;:;:.2::.:=-=-~!::::==~-=-::;:l====~!=~ 100 200 Qtn 300 Input parameters and analysis data A naff sis method: Robertson {2009} Fines correction method: Robertson {2009} Points to test: Based on Jc value Earthq.Jake magnitu!e Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground aa:eleration: 0.52 Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft Grain char. factor ..., 2 4 14 !:::-24 £ a. 26 ~ 30 32 36 38 40 42 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Kc Depth to water table {erthq.): Average results interval: Jc cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: All height: 5.00 ft 5 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A Corrected norm. cone resistano 0 _, -1 ! C: 2 I ----,-----r------ 4 ·---·-----t-·· .. ·····1--.. -· ..... -.. +-·-••*•-- 6 ... ·---l-·--··-i----<=¥ ¾: ............ ;: : i . 8 ----l------i--._.:.---i i 10 ---·1--.. --T- 12 -~----"'1----- 14 ·-------+-------: 16 -:--.. 18 -t--: 20 --f----! ; :: : ___ =F -r--::::::: o 28 +-·-··- 30 : .... ..,..-................ .. : 32 • t------- --==t;;;:;:~--i ______ _ 34 - 36 38 40 : --·- 42 -·r-·-·-···· 44 ... ··t·······-- 46 -+------- 48 -+-·--·--! 50-L-_-:::::::=~:::::~=:::::::: 0 50 Fil weight: 100 Qtn,cs 150 Transition detect applied: N/A Yes No K0 applied: Clay like behavbr appled: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: All soils No N/A 20( Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:33 PM Project file: SBTn Index 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ~ ..., ~ 24 ..c:: c. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 1 2 3 le (Robertson 1990) 4 CPT name: CPT-2 Liquefied Su/Sig'v 5---=--...... ------.... 6 ___ L_J __ J __ L __ 7 ····-··i-..... -.... j ...... _ ..... j ....... _ ..... 1 ..... _ ..... ... a ................... i ............... J .................. J ........... l ................ .. : : : : 9 ·----r----1---·1----:·-· .... 10 ---f--i--i--1---I I I : 11 ! 1 1 T 12 ................... t ................... ~-------~------·T··----· 13 ·----t----1----1----1------ ~i-:=:=:i::::J::=:t:=:i:=:: 17 ·-----i-----~-----~-----➔------ 18 ···--·-t··--··1-·--·-1-·--·-+ ·--·-- 19 ·--·-·t-··-·i---·--i--·--+..-•--Oc 20 ·----t-----1-----1----i ----21 ................... " ................... , .................. , ........... .,.. ........... ., ......... 2.2 ...... -... ! ..... _ ..... J. ..... _ .... J ...... _ .... J. .... _ .... .. ~ 23 ---i--~--~--+--.. .,C t I I ! b. 24 ·----t---.. 1-.. -.. 1-.. -.. ;-.. -· .... ~ 25 ·---------------·-------··------.1.----·-- 26 ·----i---.. ~-.. -.. ~-.. --+-.. -· .... 27 ---t--1--1--+--.. 28-·--· .. --... ~ ........ -... ,: ..... -... ,: ..... --·+-·-...... : : : I 29 ............ t .......... ~-------~---------:-------- 30 ·--·--f c;-.............. .............. ............... --ti 31 ·----t-----1-----1-----1-----~ 32 ·--· .. --............. -............. -............. _ ... .,.. ..... _ ..... ... ·----l _____ J _____ J _____ l_ ____ ~ 33 , , , I 34 ·-----•------i------i-----~------ 35-...... -... i ...... -..... ~ ...... -.... ~ ...... -.... t .... -....... f I I I I I I t ~~ ·----f---.. ~-.. --~-.. --~ .. ----· 38 .............. i ............ ~-·---·-~-·---•-+ ........... ., : : : : 39 ...... -.......... -............. -............ _ ............ _ ..... .. : : : I 40 ---:--1--1--1-.. 41 ·-1 -Peak Su ratio -Liq. s rat:Jc. 1·- 42-t...!::::=~,=:;:::::::;,=:;::=;::::,::;:::::::;,;::::::;:::~ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Su/Sig'v o.s 16 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. CPT name: CPT-2 Short description TRANSITION LAYER DETECTION ALGORITHM REPORT Summary Details & Plots The software will delete data when the cone is in transition from either clay to sand or vise-versa. To do this the software requires a range of le values over which the transition will be defined (typically somewhere between 1.80 < le< 3.0) and a rate of change of le, Transitions typicaly occur when the rate of change of le is fast (i.e. delta le is 9'11al0, The SST n plot below, dsplctyts in red t he detected transtion layers based on the parameters listed bebw the graphs. SBTn Index 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 g 24 .c ~ 26 Q) Cl 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 so 1 2 3 4 le (Robertson 1990) Transition layer algorithm properties le minimum check value: 1.70 le ma>cimum check value: 3.00 le change ratio val.Je: 0.0250 Minimum number of points in layer: 3 ~ ..... 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 !t::. 24 .c °g-26 Cl 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Norm. Soil Behaviour Type 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 SBTn (Robertson 1990) General statistics Total points in CPT file: Total points excluded: Exclusion percentage: Number of layers detected: 764 128 16.75% 16 CLiq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:33 PM Project file: 17 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Estimation of post-earthquake settlements Cone resistance 0 2 4 . . ·-···· .. --.. --.. --.. --.. - i ______ L __ I : 6 ---+------f--- 1 : 8 ·-----==+·----~------~--- 10 12 ---i---------·-l ....... -..... ---·-i ...... _ ... I • -+-----4-----~--- I I : 14 ' . i • 16 ·----t--------+----------····-: : 18 ·-·---..;.. ...... -.... ·-···-~--·--·------ 20 • ··---L----------.l----·······~----· i I i r-I f 22 _,._..:..._ ___ L ______ t __ _ : I : I I : _____ ..,..._ ______ _ ' . ----t• • .. --·--t---- 1 : -•r--•--•••-•r'"'""'••-30 1 32l ----=-d:==--=-::: •• tt.::: __ ::: __ ::: ______ t···-· 34 ---+-----t------t--- 36 . ' . . ' . .. ... .. -.. -t-------·---··-~-·--··--··-t'"''"' .. _'"' 38 • : ----·+···- 40 : -·---------------. ' . : I : 42 ------1-------~---: 44 .... ---+-----------t--- 46 1 • ·-t---· ------t-·- 48 1 : ..,__ ___ ,.. ____ ,._ ---------·-"·---· : ...................... --·--·--i ___ _ SO,;;;==;,;====;;;;;;;==;;;;;,;== so Abbreviations 100 qt (tsf) 150 SBTn Plot 0 0 2 2 4 4 6 6 8 8 10 10 12 12 14 14 16 16 18 18 20 20 22 22 ~ ~ ~ 24 ~ 24 £ .c a. 26 a. 26 ~ ~ 28 28 30 30 32 32 34 34 36 36 38 38 40 40 42 42 44 44 46 46 48 48 so so 2 3 4 le (Robertson 1990) c.: Total cone resistance (cone resistance qccorrected for pore water effects) le: Soil ~haviour Tyi:,e Index FS: Cat ulated Factor of Safety agaif6t liquefaction Volumentric strain: Post-liqt.efaction volurentric strain 0 Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:33 PM Project file: FS Plot 0.5 1 1.5 2 Factor of safety 0 Strain plot 1 2 3 4 5 Volumentric strain(%) 6 CPT name: CPT-2 Vertica l settlements o .... _...,. ___ ...,._...,._...,._= ~-1 , , -1~T-- 2 ---1-·--r--·r·-1-·-r-·· 4 --,--r-,-,--r- 6 ----1-·--t·-··+··-·1-··-t·-·· 1 t t 1 t 8 ------i-----~----+-----i----~----. . . . . 10 ............ J ............. t ........... l .......... J ............. t ....... _ .. i i i i i 12 ---◄-·-· .. ·--·--·-◄-·-.... • --·-J·--··L ... _ .. l.. ..... _J..._ ........ ! 14 i i i i ! 16 ··--r-···r·-·,-··-r-···: 18 20 22 : I I : ___ _.] ____ __[ _____ [ __ _.] _____ [__ __ _ .... _..J_ .. __ L_ .... l .... _J_ ..... L_ .... ~ g 24 .......... J_ ....... _L_ .... l ..... _J_ ....... L_ .. _ : i i : ! .c ..., a. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 -i--r-r--1 ·r- : I I : I -•,-•-•r•--... ..-,-•-r--•--, t t t t t I ; I I ; I t i f i -•-,-•r••--.,......-•-,•--••r-•---, , I I I I ----f·----t-----+-----1------t----- • t t t t I ----1-·--t·-··t··-·1-··-t·-·· t t t t t ·---1--·---r .. ··--t---·-1----·-r-·-·- .. -l·-··-t ... -.. L ... _J __ ...... t ... -..... : : : : : I : I I : I ··-·1----:-·--•i•-1---r--•-ci : I I : I --~--;...-+--~--;...-~ : I I : I I t t I t I ----1-·--t·-··t··-·1-··-t·-·· I I I I I I -----➔-----~----+----➔----~----' I I I I I I I I I I ..................................... .a.. .................. _-____ ! i i ! i --·◄----►·--· ....... ·-◄---►--•-ci 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Settlement (in) 1.2 18 GEO Kehoe Testing and Engineering 714-901-7270 r-steve@kehoetesting.com www.kehoetesting.com LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Project title : Partner Engineering & Science l ocation : 6020 Hidden Valley Rd, Carlsbad, CA , ... ..._,... 11 .................... ;..,.._..,. ......... ~...a ....................... 111,.,...,1 o; ..... n ..... ..._ .... .. CPTfile: CPT-3 Input parameters and analysis data Anaty'sis method: Robertson {2009) G.W.T. {in-situ): 5.50 ft Use fill: No day like behaVior Fines correction method: Robertson {2009) G.W.T. {earthq.): 5.00 ft Fill height: N/A applied: All soils Points to test: Based on le value Average results interval: 5 Fil welg,t: N/A Limit depth applied: No Earth(J.lake magnitule Mw: 6.71 le cut-off value: 2.60 Trans. detect. applied: Yes Limit depth: N/A Peak ground acreleration: 0.52 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT K0 applied: No MSF method: Method based Cone resistance Friction Ratio SBTn Plot CRR plot FS Plot o-""""="'""'--""', --0-.................. -..,...-~...,,, I i 2 4 • 6 .......... :-............ .. 8 ------j--······ 10 --·+·-·- ~! ... J ...... . 16 18 20 Z' 22 ~ 24 . 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 t 26 ~-----~----26 ~·-::=:::t::=::: 28 : 30 --··---r---·--· 32 ---·+·-·-34 36 ··-r---r--· • ··+··-· i::=· ::t=: -~·-· ~--·+--· I : ·r-··r-· ·r---r--· I • •r---r•-• J __ .. 1 __ , ! + I --;--· I ·~-··+··-· t l : I ··r···-+···· • I ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 so . . ......... } ............ .. . ·t-··+·-· 38 ' I 40 ·-1=::.-r=· --·+--· --+·--· ---=---·t-·--- ----r----42 ----r--·-44 ---!---· . =::!~=: I • "'-===*=-,-•···~··-··· 46 .................. :----·--· 48 -----~----so 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 ...... ------------------""l- 2 ·----1----L---· 4 ·-----~ • ··-··-· : ....... °t ::::::: ______ J_ 12 ·---J----t--·-4 : . 14 ········r······ r········- 16 ·----1--·· ~----· 18 20 I 22 -··-··i···-···· .... 24 ········.J·······---ti---1 26 ·---J _____ ·---· 28 ·-----~-·---·-: 30 ......... __ _.,; _____ . : -·----1---·--.l-·- ········~-······ 36 38 :~ • ·---1--•_-~liiiiiim,!I . 44 ·--·i-·- 46 . -··-··1···-·· 48 ·-·------i----··- 50 ·----1--- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 so 50 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 CRR &CSR O.E 0 0.5 1 1.5 Factor of safety 2 qt (tsf) Rf(%) le (Robertson 1990) Mw=71l2, sigma'=! atm base curve 0.8 _ ...... ______ ...... ___ ...... ___________ ___. ___________ ......, ..... ;. a: U'l 0.7 0.6 ~ 0.5 ~ ~ n:, a: 0.4 "' "' ~ U) .!:! 0.3 'O >-u 0.2 0.1 ~ f f f f . f f f f -·--··t-·--··t-·--··t-·--··t-:... t t-.. ! ! ! ! : ! • : : : : ~ ••: iii iN>~ o -T"T-r-.,....,-r-T"'t-r-T"T...,..T"T"T".,....,-r-..-.-r-T"T...,..T"T"T".,....,"T" ...... "T"T"T...,..T"T"T"+- 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Qtn,cs Summary of liquefaction potential 1,000 +---'----'-........................... ___ ...__ ............ _ ..................... CV u C n:, 1;, in ~ C 0 :.:; e Q) C CV C. ~ u 100 -0 10 ~ n:, E ~ 0.1 7 ' 'I' 1 Normalized friction ratio (%) Zone A,: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading 10 Zone A,: Cydic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and grouno geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic sonening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undraine<l slrength and ground geometry Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software · Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:34 PM Project file: 19 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Cone resistance Friction Ratio CPT basic i nte r pr etatio n plots Pore pressure SBT Plot 0 -' ' ' ' ' 2 ............................ r.................. . ....... , ......................... ... ' ' ' ' 4 I •••• .. ••••i••-•••-••• ,: ::::·:=.~r~~~~F~~~ :: • ----::::t:::::::::::J::::::::: 18 ' 20 ············f············ 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ' ' I I I I .,..,,,....,.., .. ,....,..,r,....,.., .. ,....,,. .. ,....,.., .. ,.."'r'"''"''"''"''"''"' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ............... ., .............................. ... ' ' ' ' r-+---_~,:::::f ·-t--· 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 22 •-----•t-----••-±:-,---"I ~ 24 ............... ~ ................................. ' .. g 24 --·-i---r t--t--: g 24 .c c. 26 ' ' ' ... • ............................ .1 ....................... .. ' ' .c C. ~ 28 ' ' ' ' ' ' ......................................................................... ' ' ~ ' ' ' ' 30 ' ' -•·•r•••••••••••••,-••••••••• ' ' ' ' i • :::~\I\\\I\\ ~ ... --==t~~~~F~~~ so -··-··t-··· .. ••• .. ···-+···-···-··· so 100 qt (tsf) Input parameters and analysis data A naff sis method: Robertson {2009} Fines correction method: Robertson {2009} Points to test: Based on Jc value Earthq.Jake magnlttde Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground acreleration: 0.52 Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 so -:;;:J-t--: • ·--I:: ···:--t--t--: ·······i-=:::::t~···i······t······ :::::::t:::::-::t:::::t:::::: 0 2 4 6 Rf(%) 8 10 Depth to water table {erthq.): 5.00 ft s Average results interval: Jc cut-off value: 2.60 £ C. ~ Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Based on SBT No All height: N/A 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 ---i--------------------t---------- ··t··-···-··· : ............ t···-···-·· ·--t·-------' Jrstu---t---------- ' ' ' ' ' ' ·-"·---....... ----·-----' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ........... ................... .. ...................................... ... ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..... .,. ...................... ,...... ... .............. .,.. ......................... .. ' ' ' ' ' ' ~f :~:~~~~l~:)l i~~i~~~ : ·----·1---· ··+----- :f ~~i~~~l~~~i}~i~~i~~~ ~l'.\\'.l~\\li\\ f ~~~F~~T~::~= .. f ................ 1··· .. ··· .. ··+··· ........... .. 0 10 u (psi) Fil weigit: Transition detect applied: K0 applied: Clay like behavbr applecl: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes No 20 All soils No N/A Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:34 PM Project file: 0 2 4 6 8 10 u 14 16 18 20 22 g 24 .c c. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 so 2 3 Ic(SBT) SBTlegend ■ 1. Sensitive fine grained ■ 2 Organic material ■ 3. day to silty clay CPT name: CPT-3 Soil Behaviour Type 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 g 24 £ C. 26 ~ 4 ■ □ □ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 121314 15161718 SBT (Robertson et al. 1986) 4. dayey silt to silty D s·. Silty sand to sandy silt D 6. dean sand to silty sand D 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to . ' 9. Very stiff fine grained 20 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized) Norm. cone resistance 0 -' ' ' ' 2 ...................... " .............. ' ' 4 ........... t ... 20 so 0 so 100 Qtn 150 20( Input parameters and analysis data A naff sis method: Robertson {2009} Fines correction method: Robertson {2009} Points to test: Based on Jc value Earthq.Jake magnlttde Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground acreleration: 0.52 Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 g 24 0 2 4 6 Fr(%) Depth to water table {erthq.): Average results interval: Jc cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: All height: 8 5.00 ft 5 2.60 10 £ C. ~ Based on SBT No N/A 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 so -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Bq Fil weight: Transition detect applied: K0 applied: Clay like behavbr appled: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes No All soils No N/A Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:34 PM Project file: 0 2 4 6 8 10 u 14 16 18 20 22 g 24 .c a. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 so 1 SBTn Plot 2 3 le (Robertson 1990) SBTn legend ■ 1. Sensitive fine grained ■ 2 Organic material ■ 3. day to silty clay 4 ■ □ □ CPT name: CPT-3 Norm. Soil Behaviour Type 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 so 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 121314 15161718 SBTn (Robertson 1990) 4. dayey silt to silty □ 7. Gravely sand to sand s·. Silty sand to sandy silt □ 8. Very stiff sand to . . 6. dean sand to silty sand □ 9. Very stiff fine grained 21 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Liquefa ctio n analysis overall plots (intermediate results) Total cone resistance 0 - 2 -----t--------- 4 -.i.-----=-::--·--·t· ---···-·- 6 ·---------~---------------f----------- 8 --~---------i·-----' I I , r i : : -------r-···---................ " ......... _ ..... _ ... I : 14 -------t-·--·--·--·t----···--- 16 -·-··t-.. _-· __ .., ___ ~ ... -........ _ 18 20 i r I I ' 22 ·----~--------:::1----- 1 -----. •--•----•~-•--••-•--I .c c. 26 ~ 28 ' .. ...·-··-·r-·--·------~ ... -........ _ .... --------t ............................... 1 ......... -..... -... i i 30 -~i-------;.---·- : I 32 34 -===~:=======~:===== 36 -----------r---------------t---------. ' 38 ----~------~-----' ' : I 40 ___ , ·------i---·-1 42 --t·-------t·----- 44 ·---·-··~···-·······-·-·~--·-·-·-·-· 46 I : f ................. 1 ......... -..... -... ' -~------i-----' ' : I 48 so -------t-----------t---------- so 100 qt (tsf) Input parameters and analysis data A naff sis method: Robertson {2009} Fines correction method: Robertson {2009} Points to test: Based on Jc value Earthq.Jake magnlttde Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground acreleration: 0.52 Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft SBTn Index 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ~ 24 £ a. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 2 3 le (Robertson 1990) Depth to water table {erthq.): Average results interval: Jc cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: All height: 5.00 ft 5 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A 4 Norm. cone resistance O"f""---:-=a::::= ........ -r----. ! 2 ---------,------ 4 6 8 ! -----1-.......... ' ------t--------- r----r----e I o : ----- ; -~~~--!::::::::l~~~~~~ 20 ---------j 22 ---i ~ I ' ~ 24 ------~ + 1 :: ::_ ::=:t::=::t:=::=J:::=:::: ' ' ' 30 I I I --1---7-----t-·--- , I I 32 ---t-----i-----+----· ! : : 34 ... -·-........... ·-····· ............. ...,., •• _ ........... .. : : ! 36 ................. i-··--·---1----·---·t-·--·--- • I 0 38 ·---1--7•----t----- i ; i 40...------=-.. ---7·----r·--- 1 I I 42 --i-----i-----+-----: : : 1 1 T 44 46 ;---------1---------r-------- 48 --?---;-----t----- 50 ------~------~-------+--------· 0 Fil weight: so 100 Qtn Transition detect applied: K0 applied: Clay like behavbr appled: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes No 150 All soils No N/A 20( CLiq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:34 PM Project file: Grain char. factor o--=-r--=: .._,_,...... ____ ,,_,,, : : I I I I I I 2 ............. " ....... " ...... , ........ , ....... , .... .,.. .. .,.. ..... ,. ..... ... I ; : : : I I J 4 ·--I ••t•••i•••i•••i•••t••t•••t••~ ' '_ ·--·--~---+--+-- 1 12 ...... ,. ...... 1 I : I 14 ·--t---r--r-- 16 ,_ ...... t ....... t __ t _ _: I I I I 18 ---:--t•--t·--~·--~---~---+--+---~---: : ! ! ! i i i 20 •--•T--.,--,-•,-•,--.,.... ... .,.... .... ,--... f f I I I I I f : : • • • I I I 22 +--+--i--1--1--1--1--+--~ I ''' I I I ~ 24 i --. ..... •-1•H1•--1-•-•i -1H-•t--... t 26 ·--+-+-+-+ ~ I t t I 28 ---~·--f ...... f ...... ~ .... 30 ,_.i_J __ L ! ~-"""""" I : , . , 32 ·--t-i-i--t-1c:::;;::::;!-,-li;' 34 ...... t .... -L .. ...:. .... _J ...... J ...... ,; ..... I ! ! ; ; ; I ---r---r---r---1---f-·f-·t-· • I : : I I I : 38 ·-·r-'"'-f'--r--,--,--, .. ---..- 1 : : i i 40 ·--~--l--l--·-• i i J : 36 42 ·-+--+--+--1 ... ~'-+--.;;.::?:= ...... l .... 1 .... 1 .... _J ...... ,; ...... ,; ..... r::: 44 ! : : : : : I i i t I I ·--r---: 46 : : : I 48 ·-4--}--}--t- • I I I I I i ' ' ' I I I ' so •--+-+-+-+------I - --r--· -... ~ ...... 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Kc CPT name: CPT-3 Corrected norm. cone resistano a---~---:-=~--.... ' ! 2 r 1 : ·-----J------1------: a ___ L __ J__ : : ,· : 10 ·-------1---·---: i : 12 r :: :=.::::::!::::::::: ' ' ' •·-···----' ' 20 ________ J ___ _ j 22 ---I-I :=.::::+:: 30 ·--------r- : :====f 38 ·-------r 40 ·--------r-- 42 ---t : :~=:=:T:- 48 ·-------r·- so ·------+- 0 50 ' ' ' ------ ·--•·--··----: : -i---i---- _j ______ J ____ _ ! ! ........... .: ...................... ..:... .............. _ .. ... : : o I ----1-----·-r--·--·- : I ---i----: : -----,----- 100 Qtn,cs : 150 20( 22 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Liq u e f act i o n a n a lys is o v era ll plots CRRplot o.....-----..... --..,,.,---- 2 .. _ ....... --... ----1 ........................... ~ .............. _ ..... _ ... I ; 4 -------+---------f------------ : , ____ f __ 10 ·-----.-L_____ --L--- ' ' 12 .......................... 4-.................... -·~·---·--·--· I ; :: ~=~=~=:t:~=::=: t ::::::::::= 18 20 j 22 ·----+-------, ---1 : .c c. 26 ::::::::::l:::::::: .. ; ........... . ~ 28 -----------·-:-------·-----·t ---·-------· ' ' : : 30 ·-------..-------, j ' 32 ·----+-------~ --:;-··--. ________ ..... l .................. __ J -·-- 34 ____________ l__________ 1 36 ! I 38 ·------t-----·: 40 ··--·-·-+--------·I : ====:1::=.::=.:: '···········- 46 : : 48 ·------+----r------- so ---------+-------+---«==::=i 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 CRR &CSR Input parameters and analysis data A naff sis method: Robertson {2009} Fines correction method: Robertson {2009} Points to test: Based on Jc value Earthq.Jake magnitu!e Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground aa:eleration: 0.52 Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 0.5 FS Plot 1 1.5 Factor of safety Depth to water table {erthq.): Average results interval: Jc cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: All height: 5.00 ft 5 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A 2 Liquefaction potential 0...-----.-------, 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 g 24 .c c. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 Fil weight: s 10 LPI Transition detect applied: K0 applied: Clay like behavbr appled: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes No 15 All soils No N/A Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:34 PM Project file: 20 Vertical settlements 0------------------:----... I I : I 2 ................. r .. --... --.. -r-------,-------r---; I : : 4 ------t------t-----1-------t---- 6 -----~--------~------~------t--- 8 : I ; I ---~----~----1----t·-- 10 12 14 16 18 ____ L ____ l ____ j ____ i __ I I I I ::::)::::::1:::::::1::::::: ::::: ---·-·t·-------r-------·-·t-·-· 20 22 : I ' ' ' ---· ---r----,----r--• ' I ' I ----i-----~----l----~---- g 24 : I : : ----r------r-----1------+----.c c. 26 _____ J _____ ) _______ ] ______ J ___ _ ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 i i i ! •--•-r-----r----,----r--• ; : ; I --i-----~----i----~---- ___ J _______ _t ______ j ______ t ___ _ ! : : ; ------!---.... -... :. ......... -... ~----··-·1-·-· : : : : • I • I ·----r----r----1----r--· 40 ' I ' I ·-----t-----~----~----i--- ' I ' I ; : ; I 42 44 ---1-----~----i----•---- _____ i ________ t _____ ... J ______ t ... __ _ : : : : 46 -------!---.... -... :. ......... -..... ~ .... -...... -... !-..... : : : : 48 so -----~----}----i----~--- 1 I I I ------•------~-----➔-------•-----' I I f 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Settlement (in) F.S. color sd1eme ■ Almost certain it will liquefy O Very likely to liquefy O liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely O Unlike to liquefy ■ Almost certain it will not liquefy CPT name: CPT-3 lateral displacements 0------..... -----.... 2 ·---------------------------------··-··· 4 ·---------------------------- 6-·----------------------- 8 ------------ 10 ·------------------------------- 12-·--------------------------------------- 14 ·---------------------------- 16 ·----------------------------- 18 ·-------------------·------------------- 20 ·--------------------------------- 22 ------------ 30 ·--------------------------------- 32 ------------ 34 ·----------------------- 36 ·--------------------------------------- 38 ·------------------------------- 40 ·--------------------------------- 42 ------------ 44 ·----------------------- 46 ·--------------------------------------- 48 ·------------------------------- 50 ·----------------------------- 0 Displacement (in) LPI color scheme ■ Very high risk 0 High risk O Lowrisk 23 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. 7 8 9 l!l C 2 U'I 100: vi ~ C 0 :.:::; ~ OJ C Ql a. I-a. u -0 Ql N '° E ~ 1 -1----..------,,---,--,-,......,....,....,.-,------'-~-....-~~-.-~.,-i 0.1 1 10 Normalized friction ratio(%) Input parameters and analysis data A naff sis method: Robert.son {2009} Depth to water table {erthq.): Fines correction method: Robert.son {2009} Average results interval: Points to test: Based on Jc value Jc cut-off value: Earthq.lake magnitu!e Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground acceleration: 0.52 Unit weight calculation: Use fill: Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft RII height: Li q u e f acti o n a nalysis s umma ry p lo t s ~ 5.00 ft 5 2.60 0 Based on SBT No N/A ' ' W ~ W ~ ~ rn ~ ~ ~ D Qtn,cs Fil weight: Transition detect applied: K0 applied: Clay like behaver appled: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes No All soils No N/A Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:34 PM Project file: CPT name: CPT-3 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Thickness of surface layer, Hl (m) 24 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Check for strength loss plots (Robertson {2010)) ~rm. cone resistance 0 - 2 ... _ ....... _ ........... l ............................... ~ ... ---·---·--I : 8 4 -----t--------+' --=== 6 ·-------t, ·-·-·----·--·-~--- -~·------i-- 10 12 .. J ... ______ l __ ' I i ! ..... , .......................... -r--• I I 14 16 18 :::_______ -4""-------::F 20 ·-------L L j i 22 ·---I-I __ ..,... I .c c. 26 ----::::i:::::::::t::::::::-r-~ 28 . ' ' ' ' ' 30 ··-· --:-----;· , 32 ' ' --i------i-------~-- 34 . _______ l ........................ 1 ....... _ .... _ .... _t __ _ i : : 36 38 40 42 44 48 50 ' ' ' -·-------... r·--·-----... -1----·---·--r--· ' ' ' ·----r----1·------r-- -----~----l--: ' : : I --1------i-------~-- _____ l ........................ 1 ....... __ ,. __ ,._t __ _ i ............................... J ......................... _l __ ... : : ! ------f-------1----------l-- so 100 Qtn 150 Input parameters and analysis data A naff sis method: Robertson {2009} Fines correction method: Robertson {2009} Points to test: Based on Jc value Earthq.Jake magnitu!e Mw: 6. 71 Peak ground aa:eleration: 0.52 Depth to water table {insitu): 5.50 ft Grain char. factor 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Kc Depth to water table {erthq.): Average results interval: Jc cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Use fill: All height: 5.00 ft 5 2.60 Based on SBT No N/A Corrected norm. cone resistano o---,..--1;=-:=~-- 2 ---------,---------;---! ' 4 ----1-----+----+--~ 6 ... ·-·!-·--··~-·-······+···-···-- 8 --+.--·-•-t•--·-1 10 -¼----! 12 -------·-r·-----r:::;_-_ ... -F ----- 14 ----•-------:: : __ --,--- 20 -!--- 22 j -f-- 1 =t:: ---r------ 30 -" ·-+---·-- 32 34 - 36 ----------· 38 40 42 44 - 46 48 so - ·------i--·--·· ....................... l .................. .. ---------f--------- ·----t-4·-··- ~--·--i +------- .... 1 ................ .. ---+--------- -+-·-··- --+------- 0 50 100 Qtn,cs 150 20( Fil weigit: Transition detect applied: K0 applied: Clay like behavbr appled: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: N/A Yes No All soils No N/A Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:34 PM Project file: SBTn Index 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 g 24 .c c. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 1 2 3 le (Robertson 1990) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~ 21 ~ 22 .c 23 ..... C. 24 ~ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4 CPT name: CPT-3 Liquefied Su/Sig'v ·--·-·t-··-·i-··-·i-··-·~---·- .......... t··· .. ···;· ........ i .. ······t····--- f 1 1 ! ............ ., ............. , ........... , ........... .,.. .......... ., ·----i-..... -.. J-..... -.. J-..... -.. L ..... _ .. .. ·-----l-----J-----J------1------: I I I .......... t·······~···-···~ .......... T ......... .. I I I I ·----t---·1-·-·1-·-.. 1-·-··· .............. : ........... 1··--... ·-1-·-·-·-t··-... -·., f 1 1 ! ............ r ............ , ............. , ........... .,.. .......... ., ·----1-..... -.. J-..... -.. J-..... -.. L ..... _ .. .. I I I I ·····-··i .......... J ... _ .. J ... _ .. ~ .. -.. ... : : : I ........... ! ........... 1-··--··1-··--··--:-··-·--- ·----t---·1-·-·1-·-·1-·-··· .................................................... J.. .......... ., • I I I ·----t--·-·i--·--1--·--i ·--.. ............ r ........... , .............. , ............ .,.. .......... ., : I I : ·-·-·"--·--"--·--"--·--......_-•--Oc : : : I I t t t ••••••••'f'•• .. ••••,••--••,•••-••-,.••-••-: : : I ---~_., __ ., __ ...___ .. t I I t ·----•----i----i-----1------1 I I I ............ ! ............ J ............. J ........... J.. .......... ., + I I I ·----t--·--1--·--1--·--1--•-•0c .................... ·--·· .. ···-·· .... ··-··-I I I I ---t--1--1--1--· ........ ~ ........ ~.·--··~···-··+··-··-: : : I ___ .., __ ., __ ., __ ...___ .. : : : i ····-••i••·---~·---·-~··--•--,.•----· f I I I ·--·-·t-..... -.. .:-.... -.. .:-..... -.. L ..... -.... ; I t I ·----•-----➔-----i------i------1 ' ' ' ' ' ' .................... ·--·· .. ···-••+••-··-I I I I ---t--1--1--1--· ····-··t···--· ·---·-··--·-.,..·----· --Peak Su ratio -Liq. s rat:Jc. - 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Su/Sig'v 0.4 o.s 25 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. CPT name: CPT-3 Short description TRANSITION LAYER DETECTION ALGORITHM REPORT Summary Details & Plots The software will delete data when the cone is in transition from either clay to sand or vise-versa. To do this the software requires a range of le values over which the transition will be defined (typically somewhere between 1.80 < le< 3.0) and a rate of change of le, Transitions typicaly occur when the rate of change of le is fast (i.e. delta le is 9'11al0, The SST n plot below, dsplctyts in red t he detected transtion layers based on the parameters listed bebw the graphs. SBTn Index 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 g 24 .c ~ 26 Q) Cl 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 1 2 3 4 le (Robertson 1990) Transition layer algorithm properties le minimum check value: 1.70 le ma>cimum check value: 3.00 le change ratio val.Je: 0.0250 Minimum number of points in layer: 3 4 20 22 g 24 .c ~ 26 Q) Cl 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 SBTn (Robertson 1990) General statistics Total points in CPT file: Total points excluded: Exclusion percentage: Number of layers detected: 774 145 18.73% 18 CLiq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:34 PM Project file: 26 This software is licensed to: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Estimation of post-earthquake settlements Cone resistance 0-F=-===::.:---=-=--,,== ......... 2 ---i ............... _ i 4 ___.__..,_,.,,_,,.-__________ . ________ _ I 6 ·--·-·-·t--·-·-t-·-·- 8 ----·i--... --------·---·f--·--·--· . . t-·--·--·---i ................... _ i i r r -···~::=t==~=~=i=~=~= 10 14 18 ·----!:===~T- 20 •--------·r···-···-·--...... • I 22 ············~············•-'.:.t.:;,>· --- 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 : ------------~---------------. -. . .... ----_ .. ______ ., ____ _ . . : : ---r-------r·----- ' I --r···-···-·--·-r·--·--------, I ·········~···············•····-··-· _____ t ______ i ____ _ : ! . . -------·r-··-·------r··-··· .. ··- -·-·-·r-··-··-··-·t·········-. . ___ , .................... --.. -i .. --·---- • I ·····~···············t····-··-· . . ____ t ______ i ____ _ ! i . . . i . . --r-·--·--·---t-·--··---- --·-~--·---i-----. . so 100 qt (tsf) Abbreviations SBTn Plot O~===,,.......,="'::::;::=::::::::::=i ~ 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ~ 24 .c a. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 1-r--.-.--..--.-,-,....;==i==i=::;=:;~i=l 2 3 4 le (Robertson 1990) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ~ S., 24 .c a. 26 ~ 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 c.: Total cone resistance (cone resistance qccorrected for pore water effects) le: Soil ~haviour Type Index FS: Catulated Factor of Safety agaif6t liquefaction Volumentric strain: Post-liqt.efaction volurentric strain 0 Cliq v.3.0.3.4 -CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software -Report created on: 5/29/2025, 3:09:34 PM Project file: FS Plot 0.5 1 1.5 2 Factor of safety Strain plot 0-1"'---....,..-----~-- I i I -r I 2 ·----...... -·-,.,,...·-··,-----.. ---··r···-·--i I i i I 4 ·····+·····+·····~······•······•·-··· I I I I I + ' I I I 6 ·--· -·-t·--i-·-t-·-t·-·· 8 -----+-----+-----~------!------i-----1 t t t I 10 ·---•----..l--·-~·----f-----~------ l2 ·----t-·-"4·-·-l----.!---··i ......... .. i : ! ! ! 14 ·····+·····t·····1······t······t·-··· I I I I I 16 ·-----+--+ t f t ,---,:-,_ : : i : 1s ·--T--;----1---r·--·r---- 20 22 .c 1 t t t t I : I I I .... .,...-........ ,-••-f'•--••r-•-•• : i i i ····+·····+·····➔······•····-f·-··-1 : I I I ··t·····+····+····+·····t·-··· I I I I a. 26 , ____ J.. _ __,!_ I l---l---• I : ; J ~ 28 I t t t ·--+---+---1---r·--·t----, I I I I 30 , ___ .J_ ••••• .J..-····~-··-i·-·••i••-·· 32 ·····+····.t····J .... -i-.... .l.-.. -l ! ! ! ! 34 ·---... --1---1---r---r--· 36 38 I t t t -··1·-··r----r---··r··-·- -··-+·-··1···-·t-····t······ 40 42 I t t t ........... i-........ ~--•-i•--·-~-·-·· I t t t ..... i ..... ~ ...... i ...... [.-.. - 1 I t I 44 ·---~--J. __ _j ___ i ___ t ... __ _ i ! i i i 46 I I I I I T "T i i i I I I I I 48 ·---t----+--·-;-----t-----r------ • I I I I so ·-·-·+--+-·i-·-•---•---· 0 I I I I ! 1 2 3 4 S Volumentric strain{%) 6 CPT name: CPT-3 Vertical settlements 0 2 -T-, . r~- •-•-•-,.•••-•••r-•--•·,••--•-"•--1 t I t I I I I 4 ·······f········~·······➔········•··-· I I I : 6 ··-···f··-··-t·-··-1--··-·f-·· 8 10 12 -------1 ................... l ................... J .................... i ....... .. ______ L ______ L _____ J. _____ L __ I i I • •••-••T•••-•••r-•--•-,••--• i ! i 14 ·······•········t·······➔••••••• I , I 16 . . . i r 1 18 I : : --t---:----=.-.-, -~- 20 22 g 24 .c .... 26 C. ~ 28 ' ' I , I , -•-•r•-•-,•-•-r-•-• ...... i ...... J ...... J ...... -[. ... - ! I i ··-··· ···-··-L-.. -·-··-.t-... ! : . . ---.---r---·--r-.. 30 32 34 ' . . I I : ---•f'••--·-·r·-·-·-·-r-·-· ..... .l ....... J ............... [ .... - ____ _! ______ L ____ j__ ____ j ___ _ I • • • I I 36 ---·-···-···~------J-.. _-·_l .. --.. I I 38 ' . *•---· ------·r------·-----r---.. 40 42 44 46 48 so : : -----------·~----·---~-·---' . ······· ........ ~ ............... [ .... -. . . _____ .. t ______ t .. ____ .,.., _____ t ___ _ i ! ! i I• r i : ' . . ------•------·r------1·-----r---.. i I I I ···-···f···-··-•·-··-i·-··--•-··· I I I I 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Settlement (in) 27