HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-1019-7; Carlsbad Seapointe Resort Addition-Continental; Carlsbad Seapointe Resort Addition; 1997-01-27GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
CARLSBAD SEAPOINTE
RESORT ADDITION
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
CONTINENTAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATION
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 1997
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Project No. 05343-12-04
January 27, 1997
Continental Commercial Corporation
5050 Avenida Encinas Suite 200
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Tim J. Stripe
Subject:
Gentlemen:
CARLSBAD SEAPOINTE RESORT ADDITION
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
In accordance with our letter entitled Change Order Proposal for Geotechnical Investigation, dated
November 18, 1996, and your authorization, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the
subject development. The accompanying report presents the findings from our study and our
conclusions and recommendations based on those findings. It is our opinion that the site may be
developed as proposed, provided that the recommendations of the accompanying report are followed.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please do not
hesitate to contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GBOCON
(6) Addressee
6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone (619) 558-6900 • Fax (619) 558-6159
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 1
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 2
4. GROUNDWATER 2
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 2
5.1. Landslides 2
5.2. Faulting and Seismicity 3
5.3. Liquefaction 4
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5
6.1. General 5
6.2. Soil and Excavation Characteristics 5
6.3. Grading 6
6.4. Slope Stability 7
6.5. Temporary Excavations 7
6.6. Foundations 7
6.7. Concrete Slabs 8
6.8. Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads 9
6.9. Reactive Soil Characteristics 11
6.10. Site Drainage 11
6.11. Foundation Grading and Plan Review 12
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Site Plan
Figure 3, Wall Drain Detail - Basement Retaining Walls
Figure 4, Wall Drain - Exterior Retaining Walls
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A - 1 - A - 2, Logs of Borings
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Figure B-l, Gradation Curve
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed addition to the
Carlsbad Seapointe Resort, located in Carlsbad, California (Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of
the investigation was to collect and evaluate soil and geologic data and provide recommendations
pertinent to the geotechnical aspects of site development.
The scope of the investigation consisted of a geologic reconnaissance and the drilling of 2 small-
diameter, exploratory borings. Relevant soil and geologic literature concerning the site were
reviewed. The literature review included site investigation reports previously authored by Geocon
Incorporated regarding adjacent property entitled Limited Site Investigation for Seapointe Resort,
Carlsbad, California, dated June 10, 1994, and Geotechnical Investigation for Carlsbad Seapointe
Resort, Carlsbad, California, dated January 18, 1995. A portion of the plan entitled Tentative Map
for Seapointe Resort, prepared by O'Day Consultants, dated August 2, 1996 (revised), was used as a
base map for this report.
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples, collected during the investigation, to
evaluate the pertinent physical properties of the foundation soil. Details of the field investigation
and the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix A and B, respectively.
The recommendations presented herein are based on an analysis of the data obtained from the field
investigation, the results of the laboratory tests, our review of previously submitted reports, and
experience with similar soil and geologic conditions.
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
•iThe site consists of approximately '/2 acre of undeveloped land located south of the existing
Seapointe Resort development on the northeast corner of the intersection of Descanso Boulevard and
Ponto Drive in Carlsbad, California.
The site is bounded on the north by the existing multi-unit residential development, on the south by
vacant, graded, building pads, and on the east by the railroad easement. The site slopes gently
toward the east and is sparsely vegetated with weeds. It is understood that two multistory buildings
are planned for the property. In general, the proposed structures are anticipated to be similar to the
adjacent structures. It is therefore assumed that the proposed structures will also have underground
parking.
Project No. 05343-12-04 ~ January 27, 1997
Foundation plans were unavailable for our review; however, it is anticipated that conventional spread
and/or isolated pads and continuous footings will be utilized. The Site Plan, Figure 2, depicts the
existing configuration of the subject site, the approximate location of the proposed buildings and the
approximate locations of the exploratory borings.
If project details vary significantly from those outlined, Geocon Incorporated should be notified for
review and possible revision of recommendations presented herein prior to final design submittal.
3 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
As evidenced by the exploratory borings, the soils underlying the site generally consisted of
sediments described as Quaternary Terrace Deposits. This formation is primarily composed of
medium dense, damp to moist, light brown, silty to clayey, fine to medium sand with zones of
cohesionless sand. The Terrace Deposits possess good bearing characteristics in either a natural or
properly compacted condition; however, in order to provide a uniform soil support condition, it is
recommended that the upper 1 to 2 feet of the Terrace Deposits be remediated during grading as
recommended in section 6.1. Geocon Incorporated has encountered moderately cemented zones
within the Terrace Deposits during site investigations for nearby projects. These zones, if
encountered, may require heavier than normal ripping during mass grading and trenching operations.
Based on our experience during construction of the existing development, clay soils are present
within the area near the eastern property line. These soils were not encountered in the exploratory
excavations for this study. The planned development for the addition, recommendations presented
herein for foundations, and retaining walls should be reviewed and revised as necessary.
4 GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not encountered in either of the exploratory borings at the time of the
investigation; however, during previous investigations of adjacent properties groundwater was
encountered at a depth of approximately 43 feet to 45 feet below existing grade. Therefore,
groundwater is not anticipated to impact project development as currently proposed.
5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
5.1. Landslides
Based on a review of the aerial photographs and available geologic literature and our field
investigation, no landslides were evident within the site and immediate adjacent areas.
Project No. 05343-12-04 ~- January 27, 1997
5.2 Faulting and Seismicity
Based on this field investigation, and review of aerial photographs and published geologic maps, the
site is not located on any active or potentially active fault trace as defined by the California Division
of Mines and Geology.
The Rose Canyon Fault Zone and the Offshore Zone of Deformation, the closest known active faults,
lie approximately 5 and 18 miles to the west, respectively. As shown on Table 5.2, a "maximum
probable" earthquake of Magnitude 6.5 occurring on the Rose Canyon Fault could result in a peak
site acceleration of approximately 0.30 g. Other active faults listed on Table 5.2 are more distant
from the site and, hence, ground shaking from earthquakes on those faults will be less intense. It is
our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a
major earthquake along any of the above-mentioned faults; however, the seismic risk at the site is
not considered significantly greater than the surrounding area.
TABLE 5.2.*
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS FOR SELECTED FAULT
Fault Name
Rose Canyon
Offshore Zone of Deformation
Coronado Banks Fault Zone
Elsinore
San Diego Trough
Newport - Inglewood
Coyote Creek (San Jacinto)
Casa Loma-Clark (San Jacinto)
Gin. Helen-Lytle Cr-Clremnt
Distance
From
Site
(miles)
5
9
18
26
28
43
52
50
53
Maximum Credible Event
Maximum
Credible
(Mag)
7.00
7.5
6.75
7.50
6.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
Peak
Site
Acceleration
(g)
0.39
0.33
0.11
0.10
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
Maximum Probable Event
Maximum
Probable
(Mag)
6.50
6.5
6.00
6.75
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.00
7.00
Peak
Site
Acceleration
(g)
0.30
0.19
0.07
0.07
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
*Derived from Blake T. F. EQFAULT, Computer Program for Deterministic Prediction of
Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, 1989, a, updated 1993.
Project No. 05343-12-04 -3-January27, 1997
5.3 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless sands lose shear
strength during strong ground motion. Groundwater was not encountered at the depths explored
beneath the subject site and at adjacent sites groundwater was encountered at considerable depth
below the existing and planned grades. Furthermore, the groundwater encountered beneath adjacent
sites was present within the Santiago Formation, which is composed of dense sandstones and
siltstones.
Therefore, due to the geologic site conditions, particularly the lack of permanent near-surface
groundwater, the potential for liquefaction occurring at the site is not considered to be a constraint to
site development as proposed.
Project No. 05343-12-04 - 4 - January 27, 1997
>»•>->•
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. General
6.1.1. In our opinion, no soil, geological, or geotechnical conditions or constrains exist at the site
which would preclude the development of the site as presently planned, provided that the
recommendations of this report are followed.
6.1.2. The site is immediately underlain by Terrace Deposits generally composed of silty to clayey
sand. In order to provide uniform soil support conditions, the surficial 1 to 2 feet will
require remediation in areas of planned improvement. In addition, some zones of
cohesionless and/or near-cohesionless sand deposits were encountered and will require
remediation or special consideration during site development. The Terrace Deposits may
also contain highly cemented zones which could require special handling during grading or
trenching. In the event clay soils are exposed within the eastern edge of the site during
construction, recommendations presented below for foundation wall design should be re-
evaluated and revised if required.
6.1.3. Subsurface conditions observed may be extrapolated to reflect general soil/geologic
conditions; however, some variations in subsurface conditions between boring locations
should be anticipated.
6.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics
6.2.1. Based on field observations, laboratory tests, and the review of reports for adjacent property
the prevailing soils are anticipated to be comprised of "very low" to "low" expansive (El less
than 50), silty or clayey, fine to medium sand and relatively clean cohesionless sand of the
Terrace Deposits. The expansive character of the soil was defined in accordance with the
Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 18-I-B. Clays with and El of greater than 50 may be
encountered along the eastern property line.
6.2.2. The cohesionless sand is generally unstable for excavations with slopes having an inclination
in excess of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Special consideration will be required, especially
during trenching or other excavations, where these soils are encountered.
6.2.3. The siltstones and sandstones of the Santiago Formation encountered during previous
investigations of adjacent properties underlie the Terrace Deposits are not anticipated to be
encountered during the grading operations.
Project No. 05343-12-04 - 5 - January 27, 1997
6.2.4. Excavation of the Terrace Deposits should generally be possible with light to moderate
effort with conventional, heavy-duty equipment. Based on our previous experience,
moderately cemented zones may be encountered within the Terrace Deposits. Therefore,
moderate to heavy effort should be anticipated for excavation in these zones, particularly,
when trenching for foundations or utility installation.
6.3 Grading
6.3.1. Grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications
contained in Appendix C and the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance. Where the recom-
mendations of Appendix C conflict with this section of the report, the recommendations of
this report section shall take precedence.
6.3.2. Site preparation should begin with the removal of all vegetation, pavement, concrete and
other deleterious materials from areas of planned development. The material should be
exported from the site. The upper portion of the Terrace Deposits should be removed and
recompacted. Depth of removal is anticipated to be approximately 1 to 2 feet but may be
deeper in some areas. All soils placed as fill should be properly moisture-conditioned and
compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, based on ASTM Test Procedure
D1557-91 (Laboratory Compaction Characteristics Using Modified Effort}.
6.3.3. Prior to placing fill the base of the overexcavations should be scarified to a depth of at least
12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90
percent, at or slightly above optimum moisture content as defined by ASTM D 1557-91.
6.3.4. All fill material, including wall and trench backfill, greater than 12 inches thick should
consist of low expansive (El less than 50), granular soil and be compacted to 90 percent
relative compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content as described by ASTM
D 1557-91.
6.3.5. Pipe bedding and shading material should conform to civil design and/or agency specifi-
cations. It is recommended that shading material placed under the haunches and to a level of
just over the top of pipe consist of granular soils with a Sand Equivalent greater than 30.
Project No. 05343-12-04 -6- January 27, 1997
6.4 Slope Stability
6.4.1. It is understood that there are no cut of fill slopes planned for this project; therefore, no slope
stability analysis was performed.
6.5. Temporary Excavations
6.5.1. Temporary cut slopes excavated as a part of below-grade construction may, in general, be
considered stable with an inclination of 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). This assumes near-
cohesionless or cohesionless sands are not present within the excavated slope or within that
zone just beneath the slope. For this condition, slopes should be flattened to at least 2:1
(horizontahvertical) or shallower. These 2:1 s-lopes are anticipated to relatively stable
against deep-seated slope failures, but may experience localized sloughing. The
recommended slope inclinations assume that no surcharge loading will encroach within a
horizontal distance from the top of the excavation equal to the depth of the excavation.
6.5.2. It should be the contractor's responsibility to provide sufficient and safe support for the
excavation, as well as nearby utilities, structures and other improvements that could be
damaged by earth movements. The contractor should provide appropriate shoring systems
for any excavations with slopes steeper than 1:1. Geocon Incorporated should be contacted
for recommendations concerning vertical shoring systems. Temporary excavations should
be in compliance with the applicable governing agency regulations. The top of temporary
excavations should be graded to result in positive drainage away from the excavations.
6.6 Foundations
6.6.1. In general, the project is suitable for the use of continuous strip footings and/or isolated
spread footings, if the preceding grading recommendations are followed. Continuous strip
footings should be at least 18 inches wide and should extend at least 24 inches below lowest
adjacent pad grade into dense native soil or properly compacted fill soil. Isolated spread
footings should be at least 24 inches square and extend at least 30 inches below lowest
adjacent pad grade. Minimum reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of four
No. 4, steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footings, two near the top and two
near the bottom. Reinforcement for the spread footings should be designed by the project
structural engineer.
6.6.2. The recommended concrete reinforcement presented above is based on soil characteristics
only and is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary to satisfy structural loading.
Project No. 05343-12-04 ~ January 27, 1997
6.6.3. The recommended allowable soil bearing pressure for foundations designed as discussed
above is 3,000 psf. This bearing pressure may be increased an additional 500 psf for each
additional foot of depth and an additional 300 psf for each additional foot of width, to a
maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. These values are for dead plus live loads
and may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic
forces. Foundations designed as recommended are anticipated to have an estimated total and
differential settlement of one inch and one-half inch (measured for a horizontal distance of
50 feet), respectively.
6.6.4. The use of isolated footings located beyond the perimeter of the building that support
structural elements connected to the building are not recommended for areas underlain by
deep fills or fill thickness differentials. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated
footings should be connected to the building foundation system with grade beams designed
by a structural engineer.
6.6.5. Foundations for the proposed structures located in close proximity to foundations of the
existing structures should be placed at the same elevation so as not to create a surcharge
condition due to the loading of one foundation influencing the other.
6.6.6. All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of Geocon Incorporated prior
to placing reinforcing steel or concrete. The above foundation recommendations are based
on a "low" expansive soil condition. If soils with higher expansive potential (Expansion
Index greater than 50) are encountered within 3 feet of finish grade, deeper footings and/or
additional steel reinforcing may be required.
6.7 Concrete Slabs
6.7.1. Concrete slabs not subjected to vehicular traffic or other heavy loads should be at least 4
inches thick and be reinforced with 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh, located at slab midpoint.
6.7.2. The underground parking slab, limited to light-weight vehicular traffic loading, should have
a thickness of at least 5 inches and be reinforced with No. 3 bars spaced at 24 inches in both
directions. This assumes that possible hydrostatic uplift pressures will be mitigated by the
installation of drains at the garage wall boundaries.
6.7.3. Concrete utilized for the underground parking slab shall be Class 560-B-3250 ("Green
Book") with a minimum modulus of rupture (MOR) of 600 psi. This Class and MOR of
Project No. 05343-12-04 - 8 - January 27, 1997
concrete is considered a minimum and may be modified at the discretion of the project
structural engineer. Crack control joints should be spaced at a maximum of 15 feet, each
way. Construction joints should be dowelled. Expansion joints should be specified to
isolate fixed objects abutting or within the slab area.
6.7.4. Concrete for slabs other than the underground parking garage should be specified by the
structural engineer
6.7.5. All interior slabs should be underlain by at least 4 inches of clean sand or clean crushed
rock. For the underground garage slab clean crushed rock is the preferred alternative.
6.7.6. Slabs expected to receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or to be used for storage of
moisture-sensitive materials, or where moisture migration through the slab is undesirable
should be underlain by a suitable vapor barrier covered with 2 inches of clean sand.
6.7.7. No special subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled, as needed, to maintain a
moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
6.7.8. The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs
due to expansive soils (if present), differential settlement of deep fills or fills of varying
thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented
herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still
exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete
shrinkage cracks is independent of the independent of the supporting soil characteristics.
Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete,
proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at
periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entry slab corners occur.
6.8 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
6.8.1. Active earth pressures against walls will depend upon the slope of backfill and the degree of
wall restraint. Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H
(where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the
wall. Unrestrained walls with a level backfill should be designed to resist an active pressure
equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid weight of 40 pcf.
Project No. 05343-12-04 -9- January 27, 1997
6.8.2. It is anticipated that the below grade walls of the parking structure will be rigidly restrained
by the second level floor beams. For rigid, restrained walls, an additional uniform pressure
of 7H psf (where H equals the wall height in feet) should be added to the above loading.
These values assume a drained backfill condition with no hydrostatic pressure behind
the wall.
6.8.3. The above recommendations assume level, properly drained granular backfill with no
surcharge loading on the wall. For 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) sloping backfill, an active earth
pressure equivalent to that exerted by a fluid weighing 60 pcf should be assumed. If the
retaining walls are subject to vehicle traffic surcharge within a horizontal distance equal to
or less than the height of the wall they should be designed for an additional uniform
horizontal pressure of 75 psf.
6.8.4. In general, exterior retaining wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one
foot may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil
within 3 feet below the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 90. The
proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable
soil bearing pressure and will require additional depth as previously discussed. Therefore,
Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated.
6.8.5. Underground parking structure wall foundations should conform to the recommendations
previously presented in the Foundations section.
6.8.6. For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure
assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet or three times the surface generating
the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected by
floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An
allowable friction coefficient of 0.4 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and
concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth
pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads.
6.8.7. Retaining walls should be properly waterproofed and provided with wall drainage systems to
reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Figure 3 presents a
recommended wall drain detail for underground parking retaining walls. The project
architect and Geocon Incorporated should approve any drainage boards to be used in project
design. Figure 4 is a recommended wall drain detail for exterior retaining walls. If
Project No. 05343-12-04 - 10- January 27, 1997
conditions different than those described are anticipated or if other drainage details are
requested, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations.
6.8.8. Retaining wall construction may result in a narrow void between the backcut soils and the
adjacent face of the wall. Where this condition occurs, backfilling and compacting the void
will not be practical by conventional methods. In this case, the void should be filled with
dry, coarse sand or pea gravel. Prodding or tamping the material may be necessary to assure
complete backfilling.
6.8.9. The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of exterior
rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event
that walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib-type walls,
Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
6.9 Reactive Soil Characteristics
6.9.1. Reactive soil characteristics as indicated by pH and resistivity tests were not within the
scope of work for this study. Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion
engineering. Therefore, this information, if required, should be provided by other qualified
consultants and furnished to those responsible for below grade improvements to evaluate
potential adverse effect.
6.10 Site Drainage
6.10.1. Adequate drainage provisions are imperative. Under no circumstances should water be
allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that
surface drainage is directed away from structures and the top of slopes into swales or other
controlled drainage devices. All roof and pavement drainage should be directed onto splash-
blocks or into conduits which carry runoff away from the proposed structure.
6.10.2. Landscaping planters immediately adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the
potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course.
It is suggested that either subdrains, which collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to
drainage structures, or impervious, above-grade planter boxes be used. In addition, where
landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, it is recommended that consideration be
given to providing a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches
below the subgrade soil.
Project No. 05343-12-04 - 11 - January 27, 1997
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon
the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the
investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during
construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon
Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The
evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was
not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated.
2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are
brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the
plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry
out such recommendations in the field.
3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the
conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural
processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in
applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the
broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated
wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review
and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
Project No. 05343-12-04 January 27, 1997
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected soil
samples were tested for their in-place unit weight and moisture content and grain-size distribution.
The results of our laboratory tests are presented on Figure B-l and Figures A-l and A-2.
Project No. 05343-12-04 January 27, 1997
SOURCE: 1996 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION GRANTED BY THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS.
THIS MAP IS COPYRIGHTED BY THOMAS BROS. MAPS. IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COPY
OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF, WHETHER FOR PERSONAL USE OR
RESALE, WITHOUT PERMISSION
GEOCON ®>
INCORPORATED ^Mr
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974
PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558-6159
GWC / JS DSK/GOOOO
VICINITY MAP
SEAPOINTE RESORT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 1-27-97 PROJECT NO. 05343 - 12 - 04 FIG1
1VICMAP
EXISTING
SEA POINTE RESORT
DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT BOUNDARY
mX
CO
o
g
D
PROPOSED BUILDING
LOCATIONS
EXISTING ROAD
SEA POINTE RESORT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
r
N
SCALE: 1" = 40'
C
GEOCON
INCORPOEATED
B-1 LEGEND
APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING
SITE PLAN
GEOTECHNICAl CONSULTANTS
696O FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 2974
PHONE 619 558 6900 - FAX 619 558-6159
PROJECT NO. 05343-12-04
FIGURE 2
DATE 1-27-1997
S343GC
. O.' .0 .0.' .O. .C.
ft -Q • ' /S -Q • ' f\ -^
BASEMENT
RETAINING WALL-
•<>•'• «ei -A'^ •'• «•:' ° •«•.'• <?•:' •' -°-.'• «•:
18"
T DRAINAGE PANEL (J-DRAIN 1000
OR EQUIVALENT)
3/4" CRUSHED ROCK (1 CU.FT. / FT.)
FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
(MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT)
4" DIA. SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED
PVC PIPE EXTENDED TO APPROVED
OUTLET
FOOTING
SAND OR ROCK
VISQUEEN (AS SPECIFIED)
NO SCALE
BASEMENT RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL
GBOCON ffl
1NCOR.POR.ATED \JLJ
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS
(i960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92I2I-2974
PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558-6159
GWC / RSA DSK/GTYP1
SEA POINTE RESORT PHASE 2
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 1-27- 1997 PROJECT NO. 05343- 12-04 FIG. 3
RWDD3/X-IXV
PROPERLY
' COMPACTED
BACKFILL
DRAINAGE PANEL (J-DRAIN 1000
OR EQUIVALENT)
FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
(MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT)
3/4" CRUSHED ROCK (1 CU. FT/FT)
4" DIA. SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED
PVC PIPE EXTENDED TO APPROVED
OUTLET
t-r
NO SCALE
EXTERIOR RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL
GEOCON fh
INCORPORATED \IL-J
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92I2I-2974
PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558-6159
GWC / RSA DSK/GTYP1
SEA POINTE RESORT PHASE 2
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 1-27-1997 PROJECT NO. 05343 - 12 - 04 FIG. 4
RWDD9
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on December 4, 1996, and consisted of a site reconnaissance
and the excavation of two exploratory borings to depth of approximately 31 and 21 feet below
ground surface. The borings were excavated using a Spiradrill T1206 drill rig fitted with hollow-
stem augers. Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained from various depths within the
borings using a California modified split-spoon sampler fitted with brass rings.
The soils encountered in the borings were visually examined, classified, and logged in general
accordance with ASTM practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual
Procedure D 2844). Logs of the exploratory borings depicting the soil and geologic conditions
encountered and the depths at which samples were obtained are presented on Figures A-l and A-2.
Project No. 05343-12-04 January 27, 1997
PROJECT NO. 05343-12-04
DEPTH
IN
FEET
nU
- 2 -
-
- 4 -
_ —
- 6 -
- 8 -
- 10 -
- 12 -
- 14 -
—
- 16 -
- 18 -
- 20 -
~ —
- 22 -
- 24 -
—
- 26 -
- 28 -
- 30 -
-
SAMPLE
NO.
Bl-1
Bl-2
Bl-3
Bl-4
Bl-5
Bl-6
Bl-7
Bl-8
Bl-9
._LITHOLOG.-"• •'-
.
• _ .
•- • -'
"-. • -
_'.-.-
- -
-:• :"•:"•
* - ' -
ceii
GROUNDUA1SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
SP
BORING B 1
ELEV. (MSL.) 63 DATE COMPLETED 12/4/96
EQUIPMENT T1206 DRILL RIG
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TERRACE DEPOSITS
Very dense, moist, red brown, medium SAND, some
silt, trace clay
-Becomes gray-orange brown mottled with
stratification
-Dense, moist, light orange gray with black specks,
medium SAND, cohesionless
-Very dense, moist, brown, fine SAND, some silt,
trace clay
-Dense, moist, orange and black, medium SAND
-Very dense, moist, light orange-gray with black
•\ specks, fine SAND, stratified /•
BORING TERMINATED AT 31.5 FEET
Z s^ENETRATIOI(ESISTANCEBLOUS/FT.Q_U-\S
-50/4"
74
- 71
41
51
-
45—
—
-
49
-
44
^
fcz .
0
115.3
113.3 MOISTUREDNTENT (Xu
7.5
4.1
3.3
Figure A-l Log of Boring B 1, page 1 of 1 SEA
SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL B ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST • ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
§1 ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE K ... CHUNK SAMPLE I ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 05343-12-04
DEPTH
IN
FEET
- 2 -
- 4 -
~ —
- 6 -
- 8 -
- 10
- 12 -
- 14 -
- 16 -
- 18 -
- 70 -
—
SAMPLE
NO.
B2-1 1
B2-2 fI
B2-3 1P
B2-4 1
f
CDO
o
H
?#
t/.'/
///'/
''-//'/
fe?
g
-• .'
|. - '• '
-'_'.'_
' - . '
ccu
•3.
z
QceCO
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
SC
SP
T>/"\T"1TVT/"^ T> ^BORING B 2
ELEV. (MSL.) 60 DATE COMPLETED 12/4/96
EQUIPMENT T1206 DRILL RIG
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TERRACE DEPOSITS
Dense, moist, red brown, Clayey, medium SAND
Dense, moist, orange and yellow-gray banded,
medium SAND, grades into fine sand
Dense, moist, red-brown with black specks, fine
SAND trace silt
Dense, moist, orange, gray and black, fine SAND,
cohesionless
BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FEET
ow~.Hyi-h-jpLl.<E£\
£«o*S*~H3
5^mQ.0^
52
49
50
_
-
61—
>
H~w ulUJ.JQ .
Ql*'0
107.3
^
o;^
^SSy°l
(J
3.4
Figure A-2 Log of Boring B 2, page 1 of 1 SEA
SAMPLE SYMBOLS D... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
H ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
C... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST •... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
K ... CHUNK SAMPLE T. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected soil
samples were tested for their in-place unit weight and moisture content and grain-size distribution.
The results of our laboratory tests are presented on Table B-I and Figures A-l and A-2.
Project No. 05343-12-04 January 27, 1997
PROJECT NO. 05343-12-04
GRAVEL
COARSE FINE
SAND
COARSE MEDIUM FINE SBLT OR CLAY
U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
8 16 30 50
3" 1-1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 110 I 20 40 60 100 2001 no "• — * -*1 '
H
LU2
CO
u 50
HU.
K 40
HIo
£ 30
20
10
0
I
T
^\«
>
1\\i\
\\1>>
1
i
\
I\
\N
S
•—
1
—10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
m
SAMPLE
Bl-6
B2-1
Depth (ft)
15.0
5.0
CLASSIFICATION
(SP) Medium SAND, cohesionless
(SC) Clayey medium SAND
VAT WC LL PL PI
GRADATION CURVE
SEAPOINTE RESORT ADDITION
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
SEA Figure B-l