HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD 2017-0013; THE BEACON; GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION; 2017-09-01Geotechnical Evaluation
The Beacon Project
7720 to 7750 El Camino Real RECFl\'ED Carlsbad, California
FEB 01 2018
LAND DEVELOPMENT
Lincoln Property Company ENGINEERING
600 B Street, Suite 2480 I San Diego, California 92101
September 1, 2017 I Project No. 108375001 RECORD COPY
_ f:',~N\J( 3•/5 •\Of
foitial Date
Geotechnical I Environmental I Construction Inspection & Testing I Forensic Engineering & Expert Witness
Geophysics I Engineering Geology I Laboratory Testing I Industrial Hygiene I Occupational Safety I Air Quality I GIS
Gf'{',ff'(h11cal & rn,·1rcnmen!al Sciences Cc-nst.'!ants
G1otechnlcal & Environmental Sciences Consultants
Geotechnical Evaluation
The Beacon Project
7720 to 7750 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, California
AG-CP La Costa Owner, L.P.
c/o Mr. Kevin Flynn
Lincoln Property Company
600 B Street, Suite 2480 I San Diego, California 92101
September 1, 2017 I Project No. 108375001
Christina A. Tretinjak, PG, CEG
Senior Project Geologist
Kenneth H. Mansir, Jr, PE, GE
Principal Engineer
CMK/CAT/JTK/KHM/gg
Distribution:
Jeffrey T. Kent, PE, GE
Senior Engineer
5710 Ruffin Road I San Diego, California 92123 I p. 858.576.1000 I www.ninyoandmoore.com
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1
3 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
4 SUBSURFACE EVALUATION 2
5 INFILTRATION TESTING 2
6 LABORATORY TESTING 3
7 GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3
7.1 Regional Geologic Conditions 4
7.2 Subsurface Conditions 4
7.2.1 Encountered Pavement Sections 4
7.2.2 Fill 5
7.2.3 Delmar Formation 5
7.3 Groundwater 5
8 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5
8.1 Faulting and Seismicity 6
8.1.1 Strong Ground Motion 6
8.1 .2 Ground Surface Rupture 6
8.1.3 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement 7
8.2 Tsunamis 7
8.3 Flood Hazards 7
8.4 Landsliding 7
9 CONCLUSIONS 8
10 RECOMMENDATIONS 8
10.1 Earthwork 9
10.1.1 Site Preparation 9
10.1.2 Temporary Excavations 9
10.1 .3 Excavation Characteristics 9
10.1.4 Materials for Fill 10
10.1.5 Materials for Wall Backfill 10
10.1.6 Reuse of AC or Concrete Materials in Fill 11
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017
10.1 .7 Compacted Fill and Wall Backfill
10.1.8 Slopes
10.1.9 Pipe Bedding and Modulus of Soil Reaction (E')
10.1.10 Utility Trench Zone Backfill
10.2 Seismic Design Considerations
10.3 Retaining Walls
10.4 Interior Building Slabs-on Grade
10.5 Exterior Pedestrian Concrete Flatwork
10.6 Flexible Vehicular Pavements
10.7 Rigid Concrete Pavement
10.8 Pervious Pavements
10.8.1 Pervious AC Pavements
10.8.2 Pervious Concrete Pavements
10.8.3 Construction Considerations
10.9 Concrete
10.10 Site Drainage
10.11 Infiltration Devices
10.12 Pre-Construction Meeting
10.13 Plan Review and Construction Observation
11 LIMITATIONS
12 REFERENCES
TABLES
1 -Infiltration Test Results Summary
2 -Encountered Pavement Section Thicknesses
3 -2016 California Building Code Seismic Design Criteria
4 -Recommended Preliminary Flexible Pavement Sections
5 -Recommended Pervious Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
6 -Recommended Pervious Concrete Pavement Sections
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017
11
12
13
13
13
14
15
15
15
16
16
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
20
21
23
3
4
14
16
17
18
ii
FIGURES
1 -Site Location
2 -Exploration Locations
3-Geology
4 -Fa ult Locations
5 -Lateral Earth Pressures for Yielding Retaining Walls
6 -Lateral Earth Pressures for Restrained Retaining Walls
7 -Retaining Wall Drainage Detail
APPENDICES
A -Boring Logs
B -Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
C -Infiltration Testing
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 iii
1 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request and our proposal dated April 13, 2017, we have performed a
geotechnical evaluation and infiltration testing for the renovation project at 7720 to 7750 El Camino
Real in Carlsbad, California. This report presents the results of our field explorations and laboratory
testing as well as our conclusions regarding the geotechnical conditions at the site and our
recommendations for the design and construction of this project. The objectives of this study were to
assess the prevailing soil conditions at the site, evaluate the engineering properties of the soils
encountered, evaluate the site soil infiltration characteristics, and provide recommendations relative
to the geotechnical aspects of the proposed project.
2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services included the following:
• Review of readily available published and in-house geotechnical literature, topographic
maps, geologic maps, fault maps, and stereoscopic aerial photographs.
• Notification of Underground Service Alert (USA) to clear boring locations for the potential
presence of underground utilities.
• Performance of coring through the existing asphalt concrete (AC) pavement at ten locations.
• Performance of a subsurface exploration consisting of excavating, logging, and sampling of ten
pavement borings through the pavement cores. Nine borings (C-1 through C-9) were manually
excavated to depths up to approximately 5 feet. The other boring in the vicinity of the new
retaining wall was drilled to a depth of approximately 14½ feet using a truck-mounted drill rig. Bulk
and in-place samples were obtained at selected intervals within the borings. The collected
samples were transported to our in-house geotechnical laboratory for analysis.
• Performance of infiltration testing (IT-1 and IT-2) within two of the borings.
• Performance of geotechnical laboratory testing on representative samples to evaluate soil
characteristics and design parameters.
• Compilation and analysis of the data obtained from our background review, subsurface
exploration, and laboratory testing.
• Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations
regarding the geotechnical aspects of the design and construction of the project.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 1
3 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located within an existing shopping center known as La Costa Towne Center
on the east side of El Camino Real approximately 700 feet southeast of its intersection with
La Costa Avenue in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1 ). The site consists of the buildings at
7720 through 7750 El Camino Real, surrounding pavements, and landscaped islands and
planters. The site is bounded by El Camino Real to the west, a driveway for La Costa Towne
Center to the south, an adjacent private development to the east, and a parking lot and Equinox
La Costa to the north. The site coordinates are approximately 33.0834°N latitude and
-1 17.2665°W longitude. Elevations at the site range from approximately 57 feet above mean
sea level (MSL) at the west end of the site along El Camino Real to approximately 79 feet above
MSL at the northeast portion of the site. The proposed project will include improvements to the
pavements surrounding the buildings and a retaining wall and courtyard area between the
buildings at 7720 and 7750 El Camino Real
4 SUBSURFACE EVALUATION
Our subsurface exploration was conducted on August 2 and 3, 2017, and consisted of coring
the existing AC pavement at ten locations and excavating, logging, and sampling of ten borings
through the pavement cores (C-1 through C-9 and 8-1 ). Borings C-1 through C-9 were manually
excavated to depths up to approximately 5 feet. Boring 8-1 was drilled using a truck-mounted
drill rig with hollow stem augers to a depth of approximately 14¼ feet. Bulk and in-place soil
samples were obtained from the borings at selected intervals. The samples were then
transported to our in-house geotechnical laboratory for testing. The approximate locations of the
exploratory borings are shown on Figure 2. Boring logs are included in Appendix A.
5 INFILTRATION TESTING
On August 2, 2017, two exploratory borings (C-4/IT-1 and C-6/IT-2) were manually excavated to
evaluate the infiltration characteristics of the site. The borings were manually excavated to
depths of up to approximately 5 feet. During excavation, the borings were logged and sampled
by Ninyo & Moore personnel. The locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2. Logs of the
borings are presented in Appendix A. Following excavation, infiltration test were performed in
the borings. The infiltration tests were performed in general accordance with County of San
Diego BMP Design Manual (2016). Approximately 2 inches of gravel was placed on the bottom
of each prepared boring. Then, a 2-inch diameter, perforated PVC pipe was installed in the
boring and the annulus was then backfilled with pea gravel. As part of the test procedure, a
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 2
presoak was performed to represent adverse conditions for infiltration. The presoak consisted of
maintaining an approximately 1 foot column of water in each boring for approximately 4 hours.
The water level was then allowed to drop overnight. Infiltration testing was performed on
August 3, 2017 in the presoaked borings. The borings were filled with approximately 6 inches of
water and measurements of the water depth were generally recorded every 30 minutes until
consistent measurements were obtained. The borings were refilled as needed to maintain the
water level until the infiltration rate stabilized.
Infiltration rates were then calculated using the Porchet method. Adjusted infiltration test results
ranged between <0.01 and 0.06 inches per hour (in/hr). Infiltration test measurements and
calculations are included in Appendix C, and the results are summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1 -Infiltration Test Results Summary
Infiltration
Test
Note:
IT-1
IT-2
Depth of Test
(feet)
5
5
(1l1n/hr = inches per hour
6 LABORATORY TESTING
Material Description
(Geologic Unit)
Sandy SILTSTONE
(Delmar Formation)
Silty SAND
(Fill)
Infiltration Rate
ln/hr(1l
<0.01
0.06
Geotechnical laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples to evaluate in-
situ dry density and moisture content, gradation, Atterberg limits, shear strength, expansion
index, and R-value. The results of the in-situ dry density and moisture content tests are
presented on the boring logs presented in Appendix A. The results of the other laboratory tests
are presented in Appendix B.
7 GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The following sections provide information regarding the geologic conditions relative to the
project site.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 3
7 .1 Regional Geologic Conditions
The project area is located in the western San Diego County section of the Peninsular Ranges
Geomorphic Province. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends
approximately 900 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to the
southern tip of Baja California (Norris and Webb, 1990). The province varies in width from
approximately 30 to 100 miles. In general, the province consists of rugged mountains underlain
by Jurassic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous igneous rocks of the
southern California batholith. The portion of the province in San Diego County that includes the
project area consists generally of Quaternary-age surficial deposits, underlain by Tertiary-and
Cretaceous-age sedimentary rocks.
7 .2 Subsurface Conditions
The geology of the site is shown on Figure 3. Geologic units encountered during our subsurface
exploration included fill soils and materials mapped as the Tertiary-age Delmar Formation.
Generalized descriptions of the earth units encountered during our field reconnaissance and
subsurface exploration are provided in the subsequent sections. Additional descriptions of the
subsurface units are provided on the boring logs in Appendix A.
7.2.1 Encountered Pavement Sections
Various thicknesses of pavement sections were encountered during our subsurface exploration.
The pavement sections consisted of AC over silty sand materials used as a base course. The
following table summarizes the pavement sections as encountered in our borings.
Table 2 -Encountered Pavement Section Thicknesses
Boring
8-1
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
Encountered AC Thickness
(inches)
5¼
3½ to 3¾
4 to 4¼
4¾ to 5
3½
3¾ to 4
4¼ to 4½
2
3½
3¾ to 4
Base Thickness
(inches)
6¾
6
2
4
3½
10
7
4
2
8
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 4
7.2.2 Fill
Fill materials were encountered in our borings underlying the AC pavements and extending
to depths up to approximately 8 feet. As encountered, these materials generally consisted
of various shades of brown, gray, olive, and white, moist, medium dense, silty sand and
stiff, sandy silt and sandy clay. Scattered amounts of gravel, granitic rock fragments, and
siltstone fragments were encountered in the fill. Laboratory testing presented in Appendix B
indicates that the existing fill soils encountered during this subsurface exploration possess a
very low to medium potential for expansion.
7.2.3 Delmar Formation
Materials of the Tertiary-age Delmar Formation were encountered underlying the fill
materials and extending to the total depths explored in borings B-1 and C-4. As
encountered, these materials consisted generally of gray and brown, moist to wet, strongly
cemented, silty sandstone and strongly indurated, sandy siltstone.
7 .3 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory borings. However, seepage was
encountered at a depth of approximately 13 feet in boring B-1. Also, seepage from upslope
sources has been measured at depths as shallow as 3½ feet in borings performed for previous
evaluations in the project area (Ninyo & Moore, 2012). Fluctuations in the groundwater level
may occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface geologic conditions and
structure, rainfall, irrigation, and other factors not evident at the time of our subsurface
evaluation. Additionally, perched water conditions may be present at the site due to the
presence of trench backfill and bedding materials for underground utilities, as these materials
tend to act as a conduit for water and perched water conditions.
8 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
In general, hazards associated with faulting and seismic activity include strong ground motion,
ground surface rupture, and liquefaction. These considerations and other potential geologic
hazards such as tsunamis and landsliding are discussed in the following sections.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 5
8.1 Faulting and Seismicity
The subject site is considered to be in a seismically active area. Our review of readily available
published geological maps and literature indicate that the there are no known active or
potentially active faults (i.e., faults that exhibit evidence of ground displacement in the last
11 ,000 years and 2,000,000 years, respectively), underlying the proposed site. Major known
active faults in the region consist generally of en-echelon, northwest-striking, right-lateral, strike-
slip faults. These include the San Andreas, Elsinore, and San Jacinto faults located northeast of
the site, and the San Clemente, San Diego Trough, and Coronado Bank faults located to the
west of the site (Figure 4).
8.1.1 Strong Ground Motion
The 2016 California Building Code (CBC) specifies that the Risk-Targeted, Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCER) ground motion response accelerations be used to evaluate seismic loads for
design of buildings and other structures. The MCER ground motion response accelerations are
based on the spectral response accelerations for 5 percent damping in the direction of maximum
horizontal response and incorporate a target risk for structural collapse equivalent to 1 percent in
50 years with deterministic limits for near-source effects. The horizontal peak ground acceleration
(PGA) that corresponds to the MCER for the site was calculated as 0.43g using the United States
Geological Survey (USGS, 2017) seismic design tool (web-based).
The 2016 CBC specifies that the potential for liquefaction and soil strength loss be evaluated,
where applicable, for the Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) peak
ground acceleration with adjustment for site class effects in accordance with the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-10 Standard. The MCEG peak ground acceleration is
based on the geometric mean peak ground acceleration with a 2 percent probability of
exceedance in 50 years. The MCEG peak ground acceleration with adjustment for site class
effects (PG,¾) was calculated as 0.43g using the USGS (USGS, 201 7) seismic design tool that
yielded a mapped MCEG peak ground acceleration of 0.43g for the site and a site coefficient
(FPGA) of 1.0 for Site Class C.
8.1 .2 Ground Surface Rupture
Ground surface rupture due to active faulting is not considered likely in the project area due to the
absence of any known active faults underlying the site. However, lurching or cracking of the
ground surface as a result of nearby seismic events is possible.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project. 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 6
8.1.3 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement
Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes.
Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils and non-plastic silts that are
saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table are susceptible to liquefaction. Based on the
relatively dense nature of the underlying earth materials, it is our opinion that the potential for
liquefaction and seismically induced settlement to occur at the site is not a design consideration.
8.2 Tsunamis
Tsunamis are long wavelength seismic sea waves (long compared to the ocean depth) generated
by sudden movements of the ocean bottom during submarine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic
activity. Seiches are similar oscillating waves on inland or enclosed bodies of water. Based on the
inland location and elevation of the site, the potential for a tsunami or seiche to affect the site is
not a design consideration.
8.3 Flood Hazards
Based on review of a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) (FEMA, 2012), the site is mapped in an area labeled as "Other Areas: Zone X:
Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain" that means the site is lying
outside of mapped 100-and 500-year flood zones. Based on this review, the potential for
flooding of the site is considered low.
8.4 Landsliding
Based on our review of referenced geologic maps, there are no mapped landslides underlying
the subject site. According to the landslide hazards map, the subject project site is located in an
area classified as marginally susceptible to landslides (Tan, 1995). However, the previous
evaluation of the site performed by Benton (1977) indicated that an ancient landslide was
present at the site based on the presence of claystone and siltstones with slickensided surfaces
indicating shearing.
Two previous geotechnical explorations were performed at the site by Benton Engineering
(1977) and Ninyo & Moore (2012). We understand an old landslide was present at the site and
recommendations were provided for the mitigation of the landslide in the Benton Engineering
(1977) report. Additionally, we understand a buttress fill was placed along the hillside east of the
shopping center as part of the landslide remediation measures.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 7
9 CONCLUSIONS
Based on our review of the referenced background data, subsurface exploration, and laboratory
testing, it is our opinion that construction of the proposed improvements is feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations presented in this report are
incorporated into the design and construction of the project. In general, the following
conclusions were made:
• The project site is underlain by fill and materials of the Delmar Formation.
• Based on laboratory testing presented in Appendix B, the on-site materials possess a very
low to medium potential for expansion. As described in the following section, materials that
possess a medium to high potential for expansion are not suitable for reuse as wall backfill.
• Seepage was encountered at a depth of approximately 13 feet in boring B-1 . Additionally,
seepage was encountered at depths as shallow as 3½ feet during the subsurface
exploration performed as part of previous site geotechnical reports (Ninyo & Moore, 1012).
Fluctuations in groundwater level may occur due to variations in ground surface topography,
subsurface geologic conditions and structure, rainfall, irrigation, and other factors.
• Wet and clayey soils were encountered during our subsurface exploration. Therefore the
contractor should anticipate encountering soft and yielding subgrade conditions that will
require mitigation either through drying/aeration or stabilization efforts.
• Due to the presence of zones of seepage encountered during our evaluation, the contractor
should anticipate encountering wet soils that will require additional moisture conditioning and
aeration prior to reuse as compacted fill.
• The on-site materials are generally excavatable with conventional heavy-duty earth moving
construction equipment. However, strongly cemented zones and/or concretions may be
present within the formational materials that may require additional effort in excavation.
Additionally, existing fill soils and possible landslide debris are susceptible to caving and
sloughing. Zones of seepage will also exacerbate the caving of on-site soils.
• Field testing indicated that site soils possessed infiltration rates of 0.06 and less than 0.01 in/hr.
In general, infiltration rates less than 0.5 in/hr are not considered adequate for full infiltration
considerations for the design of infiltration structures or measures (EPA, 2010). Additionally,
rates less than 0.1 in/hr are generally not considered suitable for partial infiltration.
10 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our understanding of the project, the following recommendations are provided for the
proposed design and proposed improvements to pavements surrounding the buildings and a
retaining wall and courtyard area between the buildings at 7720 and 7750 El Camino Real. The
proposed site improvements should be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the
applicable governing agencies.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 8
10.1 Earthwork
In general, earthwork should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented
in this report. Ninyo & Moore should be contacted for questions regarding the recommendations
or guidelines presented herein.
10.1.1 Site Preparation
Site preparation should begin with the removal of existing site improvements, vegetation, utility
lines, asphalt, concrete, and other deleterious debris from areas to be graded. Tree stumps and
roots should be removed to such a depth that organic material is generally not present. Clearing
and grubbing should extend to the outside of the proposed excavation and fill areas. The debris
and unsuitable material generated during clearing and grubbing should be removed from areas to
be graded and disposed of at a legal dumpsite away from the project area.
10.1.2 Temporary Excavations
For temporary excavations, we recommend that the following Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) soil classifications be used:
Fill
Delmar Formation
TypeC
Type B
Upon making the excavations, the soil classifications and excavation performance should be
evaluated in the field by the geotechnical consultant in accordance with the OSHA regulations.
Temporary excavations should be constructed in accordance with OSHA recommendations. For
trench or other excavations, OSHA requirements regarding personnel safety should be met using
appropriate shoring (including trench boxes) or by laying back the slopes to no steeper than 1 ½: 1
(horizontal to vertical) in fill and 1 :1 in the Delmar Formation. Temporary excavations that
encounter seepage may be shored or stabilized by placing sandbags or gravel along the base of
the seepage zone. Excavations encountering seepage should be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis. On-site safety or personnel is the responsibility of the contractor.
10.1.3 Excavation Characteristics
The results of our field exploration program indicate that the project site, as presently
proposed, is underlain by AC pavement, fill and materials of the Delmar Formation. In our
opinion, the on-site materials are generally expected to be excavatable with conventional
heavy-duty earthmoving equipment. However, as noted, strongly cemented zones requiring
additional effort should be expected in excavations within the formational materials.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 9
Excavations may generate oversize material that may not be suitable for use as fill.
Excavations within fill materials are prone to caving and sloughing.
10.1.4 Materials for Fill
Materials for fill may be obtained from on-site excavations or may be import materials. Fill soils
should possess an organic content of less than approximately 3 percent by volume (or 1 percent
by weight). In general, fill material should not contain rocks or lumps over approximately 3 inches
in diameter, and not more than approximately 30 percent larger than¾ inch.
Some soils derived from the existing site fills are anticipated to generate clayey soils that
possess a medium potential for expansion and should be exported, where feasible. Clayey
soils that possess a medium to very high potential for expansion are not suitable for reuse
in compacted fills within the building pads, behind retaining walls, or beneath concrete
sidewalks. Soils derived from excavations into the Delmar Formation are generally
considered suitable for reuse as compacted fill.
Imported fill materials, if needed, should generally be granular soils with very low to low
expansion potential (i.e., an expansion index of 50 or less as evaluated by ASTM D 4829).
Imported fill material should also be tested for corrosive potential and exhibit an resistivity value
greater than 1,000 ohm-centimeters, a chloride content of less than 500 parts per million (ppm), a
sulfate content of less than 1,000 ppm and pH greater than 5.5. The contractor should be
responsible for the uniformity of import material brought to the site. Imported fill material should
not contain rocks or lumps over approximately 3 inches in diameter, and not more than
approximately 30 percent larger than¾ inch. We recommend that materials proposed for use as
import fills be evaluated from a contractor's stockpile rather than in place materials.
10.1.5 Materials for Wall Backfill
Materials for wall backfill may be obtained from on-site excavations or may be import materials.
Wall backfill soils should be granular soils that possess an organic content of less than
approximately 3 percent by volume (or 1 percent by weight) and have a very low to low potential
for expansion (i.e., an expansion index [El] of 50 or less). In general, backfill material should not
contain rocks or lumps over approximately 3 inches in diameter, and not more than approximately
30 percent larger than ¾ inch. Oversize materials should be separated from material to be used
for backfill and removed from the site. Our laboratory testing presented in Appendix B indicated
that on-site excavations may generate clayey soils with a medium expansion potential. These
materials are not considered suitable for reuse as wall backfill.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 10
10.1.6 Reuse of AC or Concrete Materials in Fill
We understand that there is consideration to reusing AC or concrete materials generated by on-
site demolition within the engineered fills. AC and/or concrete materials to be reused in
engineered fills should not have painted, stained, or coated surfaces, contain rebar or other metal
reinforcement, vegetation, or other debris. The AC and/or concrete should be crushed to sizes of
3 inches or less. Crushed AC and/or concrete materials to be reused, should be stockpiled and
blended with soil prior to placement. The mixture of crushed AC materials with soils should be
blended and processed to meet the requirements of the "Materials for Fill" section of this report.
Placement and compaction of these blended materials should be performed in accordance with
the "Compacted Fill" section of this report. Additionally, the crushed AC materials should not be
used beneath buildings. Furthermore, the crushed AC and/or concrete materials should not be
used within 5 feet of finish grades for slope faces, beneath permeable pavements, or as retaining
wall backfill. The use of these materials in vegetated areas should be done at the discretion of the
landscape architect.
10.1. 7 Compacted Fill and Wall Backfill
Prior to placement of compacted fill and wall backfill, the contractor should request an evaluation
of the exposed ground surface by Ninyo & Moore. The evaluation of compaction by the
geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude any requirements for observation or
approval by governing agencies. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify this office and the
appropriate governing agency when project areas are ready for observation, and to provide
reasonable time for that review.
Fill and backfill materials should be moisture conditioned to generally above the laboratory
optimum moisture content prior to placement. The optimum moisture content will vary with
material type and other factors. Moisture conditioning of fill soils should be generally consistent
within the soil mass.
Prior to placement of additional compacted fill and wall backfill material following a delay in the
grading operations, the exposed surface of previously compacted fill should be prepared to
receive fill. Preparation may include scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 11
Compacted fill and wall backfill should be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in
loose thickness. Prior to compaction, each lift should be watered or dried as needed to achieve a
moisture content generally above the laboratory optimum, mixed, and then compacted by
mechanical methods, to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The
upper 12 inches of subgrade soils beneath vehicular pavements should be compacted to a
relative compaction of 95 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The aggregate base materials
beneath vehicular pavements should also be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent
as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. Successive lifts should be treated in a like manner until the
desired finished grades are achieved.
10.1.8 Slopes
We anticipate that new cut and fill slopes will be constructed for the project. Unless otherwise
recommended by our offices and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent cut and fill
slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Buildings, structures, and
improvements should be set back from the top of slopes in accordance with the 2016 CBC. We
recommend buildings and structures be set back 20 feet or more from the top of slopes.
Compaction of the face of fill slopes should be performed by backrolling at intervals of 4 feet or
less in vertical slope height. or as dictated by the capability of the available equipment, whichever
is less. Fill slopes should be overbuilt and cut back to finish grades. The placement, moisture
conditioning, and compaction of fill slope materials should be done in accordance with the
recommendations presented herein.
Site runoff should not be permitted to flow over the tops of slopes. Positive drainage should be
established away from the top of slopes. This may be accomplished by utilizing brow ditches
placed at the top of slopes to divert surface runoff away from the slope face where drainage
devices are not otherwise available.
The on-site soils are susceptible to erosion. The project plans and specifications should contain
design features and construction requirements to mitigate erosion of soils or contain a
maintenance program to redress erosion features as they develop on a periodic basis.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 12
10.1 .9 Pipe Bedding and Modulus of Soil Reaction (E1
It is our recommendation that the new pipeline (pipes), where constructed in open excavations,
be supported on 6 or more inches of granular bedding material. Granular pipe bedding should
be provided to distribute vertical loads around the pipe. Bedding material and compaction
requirements should be in accordance with this report. Pipe bedding typically consists of
graded aggregate with a coefficient of uniformity of three or more. The pipe bedding should
conform to the specifications presented for pipe zone backfill materials.
Pipe bedding and pipe zone backfill should have a Sand Equivalent of 30 or more, and be
placed around the sides and the crown of the pipe. In addition, the pipe zone backfill should
extend 1 foot or more above the crown of the pipe. If open-graded gravel is used as pipe
zone backfill, we recommend that the pipe bedding and pipe zone materials be wrapped in
a non-woven geotextile fabric.
The modulus of soil reaction (E') is used to characterize the stiffness of soil backfill placed
at the sides of buried flexible pipes for the purpose of evaluating deflection caused by the
weight of the backfill over the pipe (Hartley and Duncan, 1987). A soil reaction modulus of
1,200 pounds per square inch (psi) may be used for design provided that granular bedding
material is placed adjacent to the pipe, as recommended in this report.
10.1.1 O Utility Trench Zone Backfill
Trench zone backfill should generally be free of rocks or hard lumps of material in excess
of 3 inches in diameter. Rocks or hard lumps larger than about 3 inches in diameter
should be broken into smaller pieces or should be removed from the site. On-site trench
excavations may generate cobbles larger than 3 inches in diameter. Oversize materials
should be separated from material to be used as trench backfill. Moisture conditioning
(including drying and/or mixing) of existing on-site materials is anticipated if reused as
trench backfill. Additionally, soils that possess a medium to high potential for expansion
should not be used in trench zone backfill beneath buildings, beneath concrete sidewalks,
or within retaining wall backfills.
10.2 Seismic Design Considerations
Design of the proposed improvements should be performed in accordance with the
requirements of governing jurisdictions and applicable building codes. Table 3 presents the
seismic design parameters for the sites in accordance with the CBC (2016) guidelines and
adjusted MCER spectral response acceleration parameters (USGS, 2017).
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project. 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 13
Table 3 -2016 California Building Code Seismic Design Criteria
Seismic Design Factors Value
Site Class
Site Coefficient, Fa
Site Coefficient, Fv
Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-second Period, S5
Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-second Period, S1
Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-second Period Adjusted for Site Class, SMs
Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-second Period Adjusted for Site Class, SM1
Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-second Period, Sos
Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0-second Period, So,
10.3 Retaining Walls
C
1.0
1.4
1.080g
0.417g
1.080g
0.577g
0.720g
0.384g
We understand that several retaining walls will be used as part of the project. Retaining walls will be
constructed along the west side of the project site between the buildings at 7720 to 7750 El Camino
Real. For this project, recommendations for standard (concrete and masonry) walls have been
considered. For the purpose of this report, cast-in-place and masonry retaining walls supported on
shallow, continuous foundations are considered to be standard retaining walls.
Standard retaining walls may be supported on a continuous footing wholly bearing on compacted fill
or wholly on competent materials of the Delmar Formation. Allowable bearing capacities of
3,000 pounds per square feet (psf) may be used for the design of retaining wall foundations. The
allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration,
such as wind or seismic forces.
For the design of a yielding standard retaining wall that is not restrained against movement by rigid
corners or structural connections, lateral pressures are presented on Figure 5. Restrained walls
(non-yielding) may be designed for lateral pressures presented on Figure 6. These pressures
assume low-expansive backfill and free draining conditions. Measures should be taken to reduce
the potential for build-up of moisture behind the retaining walls. A drain should be provided behind
the retaining wall as shown on Figure 7. The drain should be connected to an appropriate outlet.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 14
10.4 Interior Building Slabs-on Grade
We recommend that conventional, interior building slab-on-grade floors, underlain by
compacted fill materials of generally very low to low expansion potential, be 5 inches in
thickness and be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches on center each way.
The reinforcing bars should be placed near the middle of the slab height. As a means to help
reduce shrinkage cracks, we recommend that the slabs be provided with crack control joints at
intervals of approximately 12 feet each way. The slab reinforcement, expansion joint spacing,
and doweling into existing slabs should be designed by the project structural engineer.
If moisture sensitive floor coverings are to be used, we recommend that slabs be underlain by a
vapor retarder and capillary break system consisting of a 10-mil polyethylene ( or equivalent)
membrane placed over 4 inches of medium to coarse, clean sand or pea gravel.
10.5 Exterior Pedestrian Concrete Flatwork
Exterior concrete flatwork (sidewalks) should be 4 inches in thickness and should be reinforced with
No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 24 inches on-center both ways. This assumes that the sidewalks
are underlain by materials that possess a very low to low potential for expansion (i.e. an expansion
index less than 50). No vapor retarder is needed for exterior concrete flatwork. To reduce the
potential manifestation of distress to exterior concrete flatwork due to movement of the underlying
soil , we recommend that such flatwork be installed with crack-control joints at appropriate spacing
as designed by the project engineer. The subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches,
moisture conditioned to generally above the laboratory optimum moisture content, and compacted
to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. Positive drainage should be
established and maintained adjacent to flatwork.
10.6 Flexible Vehicular Pavements
Our laboratory testing indicated the site soils have R-values of 8, 12 and 37. Accordingly, we have
used a design R-value of 8 and Traffic Indices (Tl) of 5 through 7 for the basis of preliminary design
of flexible pavements for the project. However, actual pavement recommendations should be based
on R-value tests performed on bulk samples of the soils exposed at the finished subgrade
elevations during grading operations. We recommend that the geotechnical consultant re-evaluate
the pavement design at the time of construction. The recommended preliminary flexible pavement
sections for on-site areas presented in Table 4 are designed in accordance with the City of Carlsbad
Engineering Standards (2016).
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 15
Table 4 -Recommended Preliminary Flexible Pavement Sections
. • ... . .. -.
5 8 4 7 (Parking Stalls)
6 8 4 11 (Drive Aisles)
7 8 4 15 (Fire Lanes and Delivery Routes)
These values assume traffic indices of seven or less for site pavements. In addition, we recommend
that the upper 12 inches of the subgrade and aggregate base materials be compacted to a relative
compaction of 95 percent relative density as evaluated by the current version of ASTM D 1557. The
AC materials should be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent as evaluated by the
materials Hveem density. If traffic loads are different from those assumed, the pavement design
should be re-evaluated.
10. 7 Rigid Concrete Pavement
We suggest that consideration be given to using Portland cement concrete pavements in areas
where dumpsters will be stored and where refuse trucks will stop and load. Experience indicates
that refuse truck traffic can significantly shorten the useful life of AC sections. We recommend that in
these areas, 8 inches of 600 pounds per square inch (psi) flexural strength Portland cement
concrete reinforced with No. 3 bars, 18-inches on center, be placed over 6 inches or more of
aggregate base materials compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent.
10.8 Pervious Pavements
Although specifics have not been provided to our office, in the event the project includes the
design and construction of pervious pavements, the following recommendations have been
provided. As described earlier, field testing indicated relatively low rates to no infiltration into the
site subsurface soils. Accordingly, the use of infiltration devices such as pervious pavements will
result in lateral migration of subsurface water and that could potentially lead to adverse effects
to structures and site improvements. Therefore, if pervious pavements are used on the project,
we recommend that the bottom and sides of the gravel reservoirs for these infiltration devices
be lined with an impermeable liner. In addition, site design may consider the use of pavement
edge drains and cutoff curbs to reduce the potential for lateral migration of irrigation and runoff
both into the aggregate base section and from the aggregate base section into adjacent
subsurface soils beneath other improvements.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 16
In general, pervious pavements consist of a permeable layer of AC or concrete underlain by a
rock reservoir layer. From a geotechnical standpoint, we recommend that the rock reservoir
layer be 14 inches or more thick. Furthermore, we recommend that the rock reservoir layer
consist of open-graded gravel that meets the gradation limits for one of the following:
• Size Number 2 and 3 materials per ASTM C33;
• Size Number 2, 24, and 3 materials per American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) M43;
• Caltrans Class 4 permeable;
• Or an approved equivalent.
Furthermore, we recommend that the pervious AC and/or concrete pavements be designed and
constructed in accordance with the following recommendation sections and the Caltrans
Pervious Pavement Design Guidance manual (2014b).
10.8.1 Pervious AC Pavements
In the event pervious AC pavements are used, we recommend that pervious AC pavement
sections consist of a non-structural wearing course consisting of a Caltrans open-graded friction
course (OGFC) underlain by a Caltrans asphalt treated permeable base (ATPB) layer. For the
design of the pervious AC section we have used a design R-value of 8. The design R-value and
the estimated Tl values of 5 through 7 are the basis of our pervious AC pavement design. The
recommended pervious AC pavement sections are presented in Table 5.
Table 5 -Recommended Pervious Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
Traffic Index
(Pavement Usage)
5
(Parking Stalls)
6
(Drive Aisles)
7
(Fire Lanes and Delivery
Routes)
Notes:
Design
R-Value
8
8
8
OGFC
Thickness
(in)
2
2
2
A TPB Rock Reservoir
Thickness Thickness 1
(in) (in)
4 11 or more
5 13 or more
6 15 or more
ATPB = Caltrans Asphalt Treated Permeable Base
OGFC = Caltrans Open-Graded Friction Course
1Minimum recommended thickness. Thickness of reservoir should be evaluated by the project civil engineer
based on capacity demands.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 17
10.8.2 Pervious Concrete Pavements
We recommend that pervious concrete pavement sections consist of pervious concrete
underlain by a Caltrans ATPB layer. The purpose of the ATPB layer is to act as a choker
course between the pervious concrete and the rock reservoir. For the design of the pervious
concrete sections we have used a design R-value of 8. This design R-value, along with
estimated Tl values of 5 and 7 is the basis of our pervious concrete pavement design. The
recommended pervious concrete pavement sections are presented in Table 6.
Table 6 -Recommended Pervious Concrete Pavement Sections
Traffic Index
(Pavement Usage)
5
(Parking Stalls)
6
(Drive Aisles)
7
(Fire Lanes and Delivery
Routes)
Notes:
Design
R-Value
8
8
8
Pervious
Concrete
Thickness
(in)
6
7
8
ATPB = Caltrans Asphalt Treated Permeable Base
3
3
3
Rock Reservoir
Thickness1
(in)
11 or more
13 or more
15 or more
1Minimum recommended thickness. Thickness of reservoir should be evaluated by the project civil engineer
based on capacity demands.
10.8.3 Construction Considerations
The pervious pavements should generally be constructed on relatively undisturbed and
uncompacted native subgrade materials. However, in the event that the design finish
surface elevations are such that the reservoir layer is underlain by fill, the project civil
engineer should anticipate and design for a reduced infiltration rate. Construction traffic and
equipment should not disturb the exposed subgrade conditions once excavated.
Subsequent to excavation to subgrade elevation, the reservoir rock should be placed and
spread over the relatively undisturbed and uncompacted subgrade materials. Low-pressure
construction equipment should be used to lightly compact the rock reservoir materials in 6
to 12 inch lifts. Following the installation of the rock reservoir, the ATPB, OGFC, and/or
pervious concrete materials may be placed. The pervious pavements should be constructed
by an experienced and qualified specialty contractor.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project. 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 201 7 18
Additionally, we recommend that the pervious pavements be separated from the adjacent
conventional pavements. The separation may consist of a modified curb in accordance with
Section 2.4 of the Caltrans guidelines (2014b) or a non-woven geofabric (i.e., Mirafi 140N
or an approved equivalent).
Pervious pavements may be subject to reduced performance due to the accumulation of
debris and sediment if not maintained. In order to provide continued performance of the
pervious pavement system, we recommend that a maintenance plan be prepared, adopted,
and performed on a routine basis. The Caltrans guidelines (2014b) may be referenced and
used for additional recommendations and/or specific maintenance considerations.
10.9 Concrete
Due to the close proximity of the site to a lagoonal environment, we consider the site soils to be
corrosive, we recommend that Type V cement be used for concrete structures in contact with soil.
In addition, we recommend that concrete in contact with soil possess a compressive strength of
4,500 psi and a water to cement ratio of no more than 0.45.
In order to reduce the potential for shrinkage cracks in the concrete during curing , we recommend
that the concrete for proposed structures, be placed with a slump of 4 inches based on
ASTM C 143. The slump should be checked periodically at the site prior to concrete placement.
We also recommend that crack control joints be provided in slabs in accordance with the
recommendations of the structural engineer to reduce the potential for distress due to minor soil
movement and concrete shrinkage. We further recommend that concrete cover over reinforcing
steel for foundations be provided in accordance with ACI 318. The structural engineer should be
consulted for additional concrete specifications.
10.10 Site Drainage
Surface drainage should be provided to convey water away from structures and off pavement
surfaces. Surface water should not be permitted to drain toward the structures or to pond adjacent
to footings or on paved areas. Positive drainage is defined as a slope of 2 percent or more over a
distance of 5 feet or greater away from the structures. Roof gutters should be installed on
structures. Downspouts should discharge to controlled drainage systems away from structures,
pavements, and flatwork.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 201 7 19
10.11 Infiltration Devices
Although specifics have not been provided to our office, we anticipate that the project may include
the construction of pervious pavements, bio-retention swales, and/or other infiltration devices. As
noted earlier, field testing indicated relatively low rates to no infiltration into the site subsurface
soils. Accordingly, the use of infiltration devices such as pervious pavements, bio-retention
swales, and/or other infiltration devices will result in lateral migration of subsurface water and
that could potentially lead to adverse effects to structures and site improvements. Therefore, if
pervious pavements, bio-retention swales, and/or other infiltration devices are used on the
project, we recommend that the bottom and sides of the gravel reservoirs for these infiltration
devices be lined with an impermeable liner. In addition, site design may consider the use of
pavement edge drains and cutoff curbs to reduce the potential for lateral migration of irrigation
and runoff both into the aggregate base section and from the aggregate base section into
adjacent subsurface soils beneath other improvements. We also recommend that infiltration
devices be set back approximately 20 feet from future buildings and the tops of slopes. Gravel
backfill should generally be fully wrapped with a non-woven filter fabric (such as Mirafi 140N}, to
reduce the potential for fines to migrate to the voids in the gravel.
10.12 Pre-Construction Meeting
We recommend that a pre-construction meeting be held prior to commencement of grading. The
owner or his representative, the agency representatives, the architect, the civil engineer, Ninyo &
Moore, and the contractor should be in attendance to discuss the plans, the project, and the
proposed construction schedule.
10.13 Plan Review and Construction Observation
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on analysis of
observed conditions in widely spaced exploratory excavations. If conditions are found to vary from
those described in this report, Ninyo & Moore should be notified, and additional recommendations
will be provided upon request. Ninyo & Moore should review the final project drawings and
specifications prior to the commencement of construction. Ninyo & Moore should perform the
needed observation and testing services during construction operations.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 20
The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that Ninyo & Moore
will provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. In the event that it
is decided not to utilize the services of Ninyo & Moore during construction, we request that the
selected consultant provide the owner with a letter (with a copy to Ninyo & Moore) indicating that
they fully understand Ninyo & Moore's recommendations, and that they are in full agreement with
the design parameters and recommendations contained in this report. Construction of proposed
improvements should be performed by qualified subcontractors utilizing appropriate techniques
and construction materials.
11 LIMITATIONS
The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this report have
been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised
by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No warranty, expressed
or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this
report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition. Variations
may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during
construction. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional
subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request.
Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of
the project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns, or the
presence of hazardous materials.
This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is
designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore
should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the
content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.
This report is intended for design purposes only. It does not provide sufficient data to prepare an
accurate bid by contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant per-
form an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The independent
evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports prepared for the
adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and laboratory testing.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 21
Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site
conditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered,
our office should be notified, and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon
request. It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with time as a result of
natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In addition, changes
to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to
government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be
invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no control.
This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings,
conclusions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is
undertaken at said parties' sole risk.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 22
12 REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (AC I), 2014, ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures, ASCE 7-10.
Benton Engineering, Inc., 1977, Soils Investigation for Proposed Commercial Development,
Southeasterly Area of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real Intersection, Carlsbad,
California: dated December 14.
Building News, 2015, "Greenbook," Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction: BNI
Publications.
California Building Standards Commission, 2016, California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2,
Volumes 1 and 2.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2016, Highway Design Manual (HOM), 6th
Edition: updated December 16.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2015, Corrosion Guidelines (Version 2.1 ),
Division of Engineering and Testing Services, Corrosion Technology Branch: dated
January.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2014, Pervious Pavement Design Guidance:
dated August.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008a, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California, Special Publication 117 A.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008b (revised), Earthquake Shaking Potential for
California: Map Sheet 48.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 1975, Character and Recency of Faulting, San Diego
Metropolitan Area, California, Special Report 123.
City of Carlsbad, 2016, Engineering Standards, Volume 1: General Design Standards and
Volume 5: Carlsbad BMP Design Manual for Post Construction Treatment BMPs.
Geotracker website, 2017, www.geotracker.waterboards,ca.gov: accessed in August.
Google Earth, 2017, https://www.google.com/earth/: accessed in August.
Harden, D.R., 2004, California Geology, 2nd ed.: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Hartley, J.D., and Duncan, J.M., 1987, E' and Its Variation with Depth: American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE), Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 5: dated September.
Jennings, C.W., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Geological
Survey, California Geological Map Series, Map No. 6, Scale 1 :750,000.
Kennedy, M.P., Tan, S.S, Bovard, K.R., Alvarez, RM., Watson, M.J., and Gutierrez, C.I., 2007,
Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' X 60' Quadrangle, California: California Geological
Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 2, Scale 1: 100,000.
Ninyo & Moore, In-house Proprietary Data.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 23
Ninyo & Moore, 2012, Geotechnical Evaluation, La Costa Towne Center, El Camino Real and La
Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California, Report No. 107302002: dated July 13.
Ninyo & Moore, 2017, Proposal for Limited Geotechnical Evaluation and Infiltration Testing, The
Beacon Project, El 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, Proposal No.
P02-00913: dated April 13.
Norris, R. M. and Webb, R. W., 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Tan, 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego
County, California, Landslide Hazards Identification Map No. 33, Open-File Report 95-03,
Scale 1 :24,000.
Treiman, J.A., 1993, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone Southern California: Geological Survey Open-
File Report 93-02.
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1989, Engineering Geology
Field Manual.
United States Department of the Interior, 2014, Circular Area Earthquake Search website
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/epic/epic circ.php.: accessed
August.
United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2012, Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM), Map 06073C1035G: dated May 17.
United States Geological Survey, 2008, National Seismic Hazard Maps -Fault Parameters,
World Wide Web,
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults 2008 search/query main.cfm/.
United States Geological Survey, 2012, Encinitas Quadrangle, California-San Diego County,
7.5-Minute Series (Topographic): Scale 1 :24,000.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2017, U.S. Seismic Design Maps website,
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
Source Date Flight Numbers Scale
USDA May 2, 1953 AXN-2M 68 and 69 1:24,000
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 24
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project. 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017
,_
~
a;
u g
-'
CJ)'
§ ,._
M
~ ~ ,
~
l-lumn11ngb,rd ~
~ ..,
~ ~ 0 8. (/)
<I
MAP INDEX
San Diego
County
"
~ t '
~ i;
E .? 8
'u ?J, 0 :!! l!' o! ~ ,JJ
41e1191 ~d
t)
Mal/l" C: .,J
~ •l
Omni la
Co 111
Gol Club
Servcc Rd
SITE l.J Cosf,t Ave
~;f>riP1 .:: 0 I-
Ahcan1e Ro
Navarra Dr
.:IM.Jo,.
Levante St <+;~
n -. .,.
':f~
Gr1111n V11ll11:,
Tl,. Forum
al Carls bod
lOQ'
~
'Es 't> q
q
!J g
'!I .. C.
~ ti,
"';
" l5 <., ~'?, ...
!!.' o,~ -i-'l>"' ~ '> Via
4f.J6'~ ~ 'i'-('
<:>'
J a 11'
\.3 Quela Ln
El Ras\ro tri
! J:icara1vJa twe
Ollvenhaln•Rd
FEET
"' 0 :, NOTE DIRECTIONS DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE I SOURCE ESRI WORLD TOPO 2017 1,500 3,000
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION
THE BEACON PROJECT, 7720 TO 7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 I 9/17
0 g __, m
~ e)
\?
LEGEND ______________ _
8-1
T0=14.3
~
C-1
TD=5.0
C-6/IT-2
TD=5.0
(¼)
BORING
TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
PAVEMENT BORING
TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
PAVEMENT BORING/INFILTRATION TEST
TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
FEET
NOTE DIRECTIONS DIMEr,SIONS ANO LOCATIQtJSARE APPROXIMATE SOURCE GOOGLE. EARTH 2017 0 100 200
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
FIGURE 2
EXPLORATION LOCATIONS
THE BEACON PROJECT, 7720 TO 7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 I 9/17
~!J
LEGEND
PARALIC ESTUARINE DEPOSITS
YOUNG ALLUVIAL FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS
OLD ALLUVIAL FLOODPLAIN DEPOSITS
lovop,,I VERY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS, UNIT 10
lovop,o l VERY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS, UNIT 10
CK::] TORREY SANDSTONE
~ DELMAR FORMATION
Q ~ SANTIAGO FORMATION
CD 0 -METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC <(
' ROCKS UNDIVIDED
r;,, 65
a ~ U FAULT -SOLID WHERE ACCURATELY
" 0 .... LOCATED, DASHED WHERE APPROXIMATE, N
DOTTED WHERE CONCEALED. ARROW $ FEET l? AND NUMBER INDICATE DIRECTION AND -I
ANGLE OF DIP OF FAULT PLANE 0 2,000 4.000
~ NOTE DIRECTIONS DIMENSIONS AN[, LO(..ATIONSARE APPR()XIMATE I
SOURCE KENNEDY MP AND TAN S S 2005 GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE OCEANSIDE 30' X 60' QUADRANGLE CALIFORNIA
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
FIGURE 3
GEOLOGY
THE BEACON PROJECT, 7720 TO 7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 I 9/17
..J ~
en 0 "
u.
~ ,~
I
CALIFORNIA
□
Pacific
Ocean
LEGEND _____________________ _
CALIFORNIA FAULT ACTIVITY
HISTORICALLY ACTIVE
HOLOCENE ACTIVE
LATE QUATERNARY
(POTENTIALLY ACTIVE)
QUATERNARY
(POTENTIALLY ACTIVE)
STATE/COUNTY BOUNDARY
.,
'~ '~ ...,_
" I, ~ .,. .JI
' \
...... ..
MILES
~ NOTE DIRECTIONS DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE I 0 30 60 :, SOURCE Jennings CW ana Bryant WA 2010 Fault Ac11v1ly Map of Cal,forn,a Cal1fom1a Geological Survey
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
FIGURE 4
FAULT LOCATIONS
THE BEACON PROJECT, 7720 TO 7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 I 9/17
~ ~ a: >-6
~ ,.,
gi
PASSIVE
PRESSURE
NOTES:
RETAINING
WALL
1. ASSUMES NO HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE BUILD-UP
BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL
2. GRANULAR BACKFILL MATERIALS SHOULD BE USED
FOR RETAINING WALL BACKFILL
3. DRAINS AS RECOMMENDED IN THE RETAINING
WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL SHOULD BE INSTALLED
BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL
4. DYNAMIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE IS
BASED ON A PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION OF 0.43g
5. PE IS CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF MONONOBE AND MATSUO (1929)
AND ATIK AND SITAR (2010)
6. SURCHARGE PRESSURES CAUSED BY VEHICLES
OR NEARBY STRUCTURES ARE NOT INCLUDED
7. HAND DARE IN FEET
8. SETBACK SHOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CBC (2016)
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
ESULTANT
+ --------1 H
T ------f 2/3H
j H/3
1
r--PE----1
ACTIVE DYNAMIC
PRESSURE PRESSURE
RECOMMENDED GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Lateral
Earth Equivalent Fluid Pressure (lb/ft2 /ft)1'1
Pressure
Level Backfill 2H:1V Sloping Backfill
P. with Granular Soils (2l with Granular Soils c21
40 H 65 H
PE 27 H 27 H
Level Ground 2H:1V Descending Ground pp
360D 200 D
"'------
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
FIGURE 5
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR YIELDING RETAINING WALLS
THE BEACON PROJECT, 7720 TO 7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 I 9/17
RETAINING
WALL
{ ---~_E~ULI~-'---
r--pp~ I3
PASSIVE
PRESSURE
NOTES:
1. ASSUMES NO HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE BUILD-UP
BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
GRANULAR BACKFILL MATERIALS SHOULD BE USED
FOR RETAINING WALL BACKFILL
DRAINS AS RECOMMENDED IN THE RETAINING
WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL SHOULD BE INSTALLED
BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL
DYNAMIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE IS
BASED ON A PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION OF 0.43g
Pe IS CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF MONONOBE AND MATSUO (1929)
AND ATIK AND SITAR (2010)
SURCHARGE PRESSURES CAUSED BY VEHICLES
OR NEARBY STRUCTURES ARE NOT INCLUDED
HAND DARE IN FEET
SETBACK SHOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CBC (2016)
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
ESULTANT
+ ------1 H
RESULTANT
------f 2/3H
j H/3
1 r--po~ f-PE-j
AT-REST DYNAMIC
PRESSURE PRESSURE
RECOMMENDED GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Lateral
Earth Equivalent Fluid Pressure (lb/ft2 /ft)1'l
Pressure
Level Backfill 2H:1V Sloping Backfill
Pa
with Granular Soils 12> with Granular Soils 12)
60 H 90 H
Pe 27 H 27 H
Level Ground 2H:1V Descending Ground pp
360D 200D
FIGURES
l(ln!JD••••r•
Geotechnlcal & Environmental Sciences Consultants
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR RESTRAINED RETAINING WALLS
THE BEACON PROJECT, 7720 TO 7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 I 9/17
~ ;:
0:: 0
~ .... ..,
RETAINING WALL~
FINISHED GRADE
*BASED ON ASTM D1557
NOT TO SCA!£
~ NOTE: DIMENSIONS. DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
t--1-----
Geotechnlcal & Environmental Sciences Consultants
t
SOIL BACKFILL COMPACTED TO 90%
RELATIVE COMPACTION *
12 INCHES
(/)
LJ.J ~
3/4-INCH OPEN-GRADED GRAVEL WRAPPED
IN AN APPROVED GEOFABRIC.
4-INCH-DIAMETER PERFORATED
SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE OR EQUIVALENT
INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN;
1% GRADIENT OR MORE TO A SUITABLE
OUTLET
FIGURE 7
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
THE BEACON PROJECT, 7720 TO 7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 I 9/17
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017
APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS
Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples
Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods.
Bulk Samples
Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory borings.
The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing.
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampler
Disturbed drive samples of earth materials were obtained by means of a Standard
Penetration Test sampler. The sampler is composed of a split barrel with an external
diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 1 ¾ inches. The sampler was
driven into the ground with a 140-pound hammer free-falling from a height of 30 inches in
general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The blow counts were recorded for every 6 inches
of penetration; the blow counts reported on the logs are those for the last 12 inches of
penetration. Soil samples were observed and removed from the sampler, bagged, sealed
and transported to the laboratory for testing.
Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples
Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the Modified Split-Barrel Drive
Sampler. The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, was lined with 1-inch long, thin
brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into
the ground with the weight of a 140-pound hammer, in general accordance with ASTM D 3550.
The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the
hammer, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring logs as an index
to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample
barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017
Grain Size
Primary Divisions f------~--------1 Description
Soil Classification Chart Per ASTM D 2488 I
Secondary Divisions
Group Symbol Group Name
Sieve
Size Grain Size Approximate
Size
-I -I. I • •
' ••
GP poorly graded GRAVEL
GW-GM well-graded GRAVEL with silt
GRAVEL GRAVEL with more than DUAL GP-GM poorly graded GRAVEL with silt
50% of CLASSIFICATIONS coarse 5% to 12% fines GW-GC well-graded GRAVEL with clay
fraction
retained on GP-GC poorly graded GRAVEL with
Boulders > 12' > 12' Larger than
basketball-sized
Cobbles 3 • 12' 3 • 12" Fist-sized to
basketball-sized
Coarse 3/4 -3" 3/4 -3" Thumb-sized to
fist-sized
Gravel
No. 4 sieve
GRAVEL with GM silty GRAVEL Fine #4 -3/4" 0.19-0.75' Pea-sized to
thumb-sized
COARSE-FINES GC clayey GRAVEL GRAINED more than
SOILS 12% fines GC-GM silty, clayey GRAVEL
Coarse #10 • #4 0.079 -0.19" Rock-salt-sized to
pea-sized
more than
50% retained CLEAN SAND SW well-graded SAND
on No. 200 less than 5% fines SP poorly graded SAND sieve
Sand Medium #40 -#1 0 0.017 -0.079' Sugar-sized to
rock-salt-sized
SW-SM well-graded SAND with silt
SAND SAND with SP-SM poorly graded SAND with silt 50% or more DUAL
Fine #200 • #40 0.0029 -Flour-sized to
0.017' sugar-sized
of coarse CLASSIFICATIONS SW-SC well-graded SAND with clay fraction 5% to 12% fines Fines Passing < 0.0029" Flour-sized and
#200 smaller
passes SP-SC poorly graded SAND with clay No. 4 sieve
SM silty SAND Plasticity Chart
SAND with FINES
more than SC clayey SAND
12% fines
SC-SM silty, clayey SAND
CL lean CLAY ~
SILT and INORGANIC ML SILT
CLAY CL-ML silty CLAY liquid limit
FINE-less than 50% OL (Pl> 4) organic CLAY
GRAINED ORGANIC
SOILS OL (Pl< 4) organic SILT
0.
>< w C ~
>-...
u
j::
50% or CH fat CLAY rn
ct more passes SILT and INORGANIC
No. 200 sieve CLAY MH elastic SI LT
...J
0. 7
liquid limit organic CLAY 50% or more ORGANIC
organic SILT LIQUID LIMIT (LL), %
Highly Organic Soils
Apparent Density -Coarse-Grained Soil Consistency -Fine-Grained Soil
Spooling Cable or Cathead Automatic Trip Hammer Spooling Cable or Cathead Automatic Trip Hammer
Apparent Modified SPT II Modified Consis-SPT II Modified Modified Density SPT II Split Barrel Split Barrel tency (bl /f t) Split Barrel SPT II Split Barrel (blows/foot) (blows/foot) (blows/foot) (blows/foot) ows 00 (blows/foot) (blows/foot) (blows/foot)
Very Loose ~4 ~8 ~3 ~ 5 Very Soft <2 <3 < 1 <2
Loose 5 • 10 9 • 21 4 -7 6 -14 Soft 2-4 3 • 5 1 • 3 2-3
Medium Firm 5 -8 6 • 10 4 -5 4 -6
Dense 11 • 30 22-63 8 -20 15 • 42
Stiff 9 -15 11 • 20 6 • 10 7 • 13
Dense 31 • so 64 -105 21 -33 43 • 70 Very Stiff 16 • 30 21 -39 11 • 20 14 • 26
Very Dense > 50 > 105 > 33 > 70 Hard > 30 > 39 > 20 > 26
uses METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consuttants
(/) Ci::' L1J C) ...J I-;;e-~ Q) a. 0 ~
~ ~ 0 L1J ~ ...J
<( LL a::: 0
(/) in ci5 II) J: ::::> ~ I-~ I-z a. (/) L1J >-C 0 (/) L1J '§ -~ 0 0 0 ...J
II) ~ >-II) ~ a::: 0 0
XX/XX
10
15
Geotechnlcal & Environmental Sciences Consultants
z 0 ;::: <( (/) C) . _C) LL . -(/) (/) . (/)::::>
~ C)
SM
CL
BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET
Bulk sample.
Modified split-barrel drive sampler.
No recovery with modified split-barrel drive sampler.
Sample retained by others.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT).
No recovery with a SPT.
Shelby tube sample. Distance pushed in inches/length of sample recovered in inches.
No recovery with Shelby tube sampler.
Continuous Push Sample.
Seepage.
Groundwater encountered during drilling.
Groundwater measured after drilling.
MAJOR MATERIAL TYPE (SOIL):
Solid line denotes unit change.
Dashed line denotes material change.
Attitudes: Strike/Dip
b: Bedding
c: Contact
j: Joint
f: Fracture
F: Fault
cs: Clay Seam
s: Shear
bss: Basal Slide Surface
sf: Shear Fracture
sz: Shear Zone
sbs: Shear Bedding Surface
The total depth line is a solid line that is drawn at the bottom of the boring.
BORING LOG
U) w _, U:-~ c.. () z ~ I-~ c.. 0 c.. c.. <( 0 0 i== U) 0 w ~ CJ
_, <( Cf.) 0 u. 0::: z CJ () . ci3 in -() :::J 0 ~ u. . ~ I-z -U) U) w <( >-U) . C 0 w U) U) :::J .::,(, Q) 6 Cl ~ ·E:
_, 0::: :5 CJ ~ >-Cl Cl 0::: ()
Cl a:
0
SM
SM
45 17.6 108.5
50/3"
50/3" 105 114.5
DATE DRILLED 8/3/17 BORING NO. B-1
GROUND ELEVATION 57' ± (MSL) SHEET OF ---
METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (CME-75) (Baja)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY GSW LOGGED BY GSW REVIEWED BY CAT
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE:
roximatel 5-1/4 inches thick.
BASE:
Brown, moist medium dense silt SAND· trace ravel.
FILL:
Light brown to gray, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; scattered gravel; trace clay.
DELMAR FORMATION:
Gray, moist, strongly cemented, silty SANDSTONE.
Light brown to gray; wet; seepage at approximately 13-1 /2 feet.
ota ept -14.3 eet.
Seepage encountered at approximately 13 feet.
Backfilled with approximately 5 cubic feet of bentonite grout and patched with black dyed
concrete shortly after drilling on 8/3/17.
Note: Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to
seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.
The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations
of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is
not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE A-1
THE BEACON PROJECT, 7720 to 7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 9M7
Cf) w ...J a..
~ Q)
~ <i Cf)
:I: I-a.. C w ::!: Q) 0 ::>.~ co .... 0
0
10
DATE DRILLED 8/2/17 BORING NO. C-1
Li:' ~ () z
I-~ a.. 0 GROUND ELEVATION 62' + (MSL) SHEET OF a.. a.. 0 ~ i== . ---
0 ~ ...J w (!) 0 <i Cf) LL c:: z () . METHOD OF DRILLING Manual U) :::> U) co -() i5 ~ LL . ~ I-z -Cf)
Cf) w <i >-Cf) . 0 w Cf) Cf) :::> DRIVE WEIGHT N/A DROP NIA i5 0 ...J c:: :s co ~ >-0 c:: ()
0 a: SAMPLED BY GSW LOGGED BY GSW REVIEWED BY CAT
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
8.2 SM
ML
ASPHALT CONCRETE:
roximatel 3-1/2 to 3-3/4 inches thick.
BASE:
rown moist, medium dense silt SAND· scattered ravel.
114 FILL:
1-----+--+---+------1JWJ..U+---4 Li ht brown to olive, moist stiff sand SILT; scattered ranitic rock fra ments.
ota ept = 3.8 eet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled and patched with black dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 8/2/17.
Notes: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher
level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in
the report.
The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations
of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is
not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE A-2
THE BEACON PROJECT, 7720 to 7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 9/17
Cl)
UJ
...J G::' ~ a.. (..) z ~ I-~ a.. 0 a, <( 0 e.... e:.. e:.. .=: ~ Cl) 0 UJ ~ (9 ...J <i:: en LL. a:: 0 (..) . ~ u5 z Ill _(..) I :::> 0 ~ LL. . I-I-z -Cl) a.. Cl) UJ <( >-Cl) .
UJ ~~ 0 0 0 UJ Cl) (/) :::>
0 ::, .:1: ...J a:: '.'S Ill .._ Ill ~ >-0 0 a:: (..)
0 a:
SM
14.1 SM
18.1
20
Geottd'lnk.11 & Environmental Sci.nc.t Consutt.antt
DATE DRILLED 8/2/17 BORING NO. C-2
GROUND ELEVATION 62' ± (MSL) SHEET OF
METHOD OF DRILLING Manual
DRIVE WEIGHT N/A DROP NIA
SAMPLED BY GSW LOGGED BY GSW REVIEWED BY CAT
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE:
roximatel 4 to 4-1 /4 inches thick; alli ator crackin area.
BASE:
Brown moist medium dense, silt SAND· scattered ravel.
FILL:
Olive brown to white moist, medium dense silt SAND.
Total Dept = 4 eet.
Groundwater was not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled and patched with black dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 8/2/17.
Notes: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher
level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in
the report.
The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations
of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is
not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents .
FIGURE A-3
THE BEACON PROJECT, 7720 to 7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 9/17
(f) w _J U::-~ a.. 0 z ~ I-~ a.. 0 ~ <{ 0 ~ e:. e:. i== ~ (f) 0 w ~ C) _J <{ cri LL 0:: 0 0 . ~ u5 z CI) -0 I ::::> 15 ::;; LL . I-I-z -(f) a.. (f) w <{ >-(f) . C 0 (f) (f) ::::> w ~ Q) 6 0 w
0 :5 .2: _J 0:: :5 CI) ~ CI) ~ >-0 0 0:: 0 0 a:
0
SM
ML 19.1
20
o.ottchnkll l Enrironmental $den~ Consullan1t
DATE DRILLED
GROUND ELEVATION
8/2/1 7 BORING NO. C-3 ____ -=-.:c__ __ _
69' + (MSL) SHEET ---OF ---
METHOD OF DRILLING .:..:M.:..::ac..:.nu::..:a:.cl __________________ _
DRIVE WEIGHT NIA DROP N/A -------------
SAMPLED BY GSW LOGGED BY GSW REVIEWED BY CAT ---------DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ravel.
resent.
Notes: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher
level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in
the report.
The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations
of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is
not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE A-4
THE BEACON PROJECT, 7720 to 7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 9/17
C/) w ...J U:::-~ a.. 0 z :!! I-~ a.. 0 Q) <( 0 ~ e:, e:, F ~ C/) 0 w ~ (.9 ...J <( uj u.. c:: z 0 0 . U) in co -0 I :J 0 :!! u.. . I-?!: I-z -C/) a.. C/) w <( >-C/) .
w ~~ 0 6 0 w C/) C/) :J
0 ...J c:: :'.5 :::J .~ co :!! >-co .... 0 0 c:: 0 0 a:
9.7
15.4
10
20
30
Geotechnicat &. Environment.al Sciitncn Consultant,
DATE DRILLED 8/2/17 BORING NO. C-4/IT-1
GROUND ELEVATION 69' ± (MSL) SHEET OF
METHOD OF DRILLING Manual
DRIVE WEIGHT N/A DROP NIA
SAMPLED BY GSW LOGGED BY GSW REVIEWED BY CAT
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
moist medium dense silt SAND· scattered ravel.
silt SAND.
Notes: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher
level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in
the report.
The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations
of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is
not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE A-5
THE BEACON PROJECT, 7720 to 7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 9/17
(/) w u::-j ...J ~ a. 0 z ~ I-Q. 0 ~ Q. Q. Ql ~ 0 ~ ...J ~ ~ (/) 0 w ~ C) 0 ~uj LL a::: 0 .
I ~ ::::, in z co -0 15 ~ LL . I-I-z -(/) Q. (/) w ~ >-(/) .
C: 0 (/) (/) ::::, w -" Q) 0 0 0 :5 .::: ...J a::: :5 co .... co ~ >-0 0 a::: 0 0 a:
0 6.9 SM
SM
17.9
Geot.chnklil ' Elfflronmental Sc..ncet Conwlttntl
DATE DRILLED 8/2/17 BORING NO. C-5
GROUND ELEVATION 79' ± (MSL) SHEET OF
METHOD OF DRILLING Manual
DRIVE WEIGHT NIA DROP N/A
SAMPLED BY GSW LOGGED BY GSW REVIEWED BY CAT
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE:
roximatel 3-3/4 to 4 inches thick.
BASE:
rown moist medium dense silt SAND; scattered
FILL:
Gra moist medium dense silt SAND.
otal Dept = 3 eet.
Groundwater was not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled and patched with black dyed concrete on 8/2/17.
Notes: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher
level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in
the report.
The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations
of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is
not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE A-6
THE BEACON PROJECT, 7720 to 7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 9/17
(/) w ....J U:::-~ 0.. (..) z ~ t-~ 0.. 0 ~ <( 0 ~ ~ 0.. i= ~ (/) 0 w ~ C) ....J <( uj u. a:: 0 (_)·
I U) :::, in z []) _(..) 0 ~ u. . t-s: t-z -(/)
0.. (/) w <( >-(/) .
C: 0 (/) (/) :::, w -" Q) 6 0 w
0 =i -~ ....J a:: ::i []) ~ []) ~ >-0 0 a:: (..)
0 a:
9.3
20.1
10
20
30
0.0.Khnkal & EMlronmtnUI Sclencet Con1utta.nt.a
DATE DRILLED
GROUND ELEVATION
812117 BORING NO. C-6/IT-2 ---------
61' + (MSL) SHEET OF ------
METHOD OF DRILLING Manual ----------------------
DRIVE WEIGHT NIA DROP NIA -------------
SAMPLED BY --=G...::.S.;.cW_ LOGGED BY GSW REVIEWED BY __ C_A_T __
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE:
roximatel 4-1 /4 to 4-1 /2 inches thick.
BASE:
rown moist, medium dense silt SAND· scattered ravel.
FILL:
Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; trace clay.
Total Dept = 5 eet.
Groundwater was not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled and patched with black dyed concrete on 8/3/17.
Notes: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher
level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in
the report.
The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations
of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is
not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE A-7
THE BEACON PROJECT, 7720 to 7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 9/17
(/) w
...J a.. ~ Q)
~
<{
(/)
I f-a.. C w .Y. Q) 0 :5 .::: co ~ 0
~
~ 10
U:-:E () z f-~ a.. 0 0 ~ e:. a.. ~ 0 w ~ ('.) ...J <{ u:i u. 0:: 0 () .
u5 u5 z co -() ::J 6 ~ u. . ~ f-z -(/) (/) w <{ >-(/) . 0 w (/) (/) ::J 6 0 ...J 0:: ::i co ~ >-0 0:: ()
0 a:
10.6
DATE DRILLED
GROUND ELEVATION
8/3/17 BORING NO. ____ C=----7 ___ _
60' ± (MSL) SHEET __ OF
METHOD OF DRILLING .:..:M.:..:a=--nu::..:a=--1 _________________ _
DRIVE WEIGHT ______ N_i_A ____ _ DROP
SAMPLED BY GSW LOGGED BY GSW REVIEWED BY ----DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE:
roximatel 2 inches thick.
BASE:
Brown moist, medium dense silt SAND· scattered ravel.
N/A
CAT -----
9.6
1-----+----l--,l.---...jUJ.""'4----l, FILL: Olive to brown moist, medium dense silt SAND; trace cla
ota Dept = 3.5 eet.
Groundwater was not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled and patched with black dyed concrete on 8/3/17.
Notes: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher
level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in
the report.
The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations
of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is
not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE A-8
THE BEACON PROJECT, 7720 to 7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 9/17
(/)
LU ...J U::-~ a. z ~ I-~ (.) a. 0 ~ e:, e:, Ql <x: 0 ~ ...J ~ ~ (/) 0 LU ~ (.') 0 <x: (/) u.. Cl:'. (.) . in u5 z co -(.) ::r: :::, i5 ~ u.. . I-3: I-z -(/) a. (/) LU <x: >-(/) .
C 0 LU (/) (/) :::, LU .::.! Ql 0 0 0 "S .;? ...J Cl:'. ::i co ~ co ~ >-0 0 Cl:'. (.)
0 a:
8.5
6.5
10
20
DATE DRILLED 8/3/17 BORING NO. C-8
GROUND ELEVATION 59' ± (MSL) SHEET OF
METHOD OF DRILLING Manual
DRIVE WEIGHT N/A DROP NIA
SAMPLED BY GSW LOGGED BY GSW REVIEWED BY CAT
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE:
roximatel 3-1 /2 inches thick.
BASE:
Brown, moist medium dense silt SAND· scattered ravel.
FILL:
Li ht brown moist medium dense, silt SAND.
ota ept = 3.5 eet.
Groundwater was not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled and patched with black dyed concrete on 8/3/17.
Notes: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher
level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in
the report.
The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations
of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is
not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE A-9
THE BEACON PROJECT, 7720 to 7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 9/17
(/) w ...J U::-:!!: CL t) z :!!: I-~ CL 0 Q) <( 0 ~ e:.. CL .=: ~ (/) 0 w ~ Cl ...J <( Cl) 0 LL. 0:: z co t) .
u5 en -t) I ::J i.5 :!!: LL. . I-~ I-z -(/)
CL (/) LJ.J <( >-(/) .
LJ.J C 0 6 0 w (/) (/) ::J ::!!: Cl) 0 :::, .:?: ...J 0:: ~ co ... co :!!: >-0 0 0:: t)
0 a:
12.2
10
o.ot:Khnical a Enrironm.-,tal Scienc.et Conautbnt.1
DATE DRILLED 8/3/17 BORING NO. C-9
GROUND ELEVATION 74' + (MSL) SHEET OF
METHOD OF DRILLING Manual
DRIVE WEIGHT N/A DROP NIA
SAMPLED BY GSW LOGGED BY GSW REVIEWED BY CAT
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ravel u to 2 inches in diameter.
Notes: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher
level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in
the report.
The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations
of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is
not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE A-10
THE BEACON PROJECT, 7720 to 7750 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 9/17
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017
Classification
APPENDIX 8
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D 2488. Soil classifications are ind icated on
the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A
In-Place Moisture and Density Tests
The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the
exploratory borings were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. The test results
are presented on the logs of the exploratory borings and infiltration test borings in Appendix A
Gradation Analysis
A gradation analysis test was performed on a selected representative soil sample in general
accordance with ASTM D 422. The grain size distribution curve is shown on Figure B-1 . The test
results were utilized in evaluating the soil classification in accordance with the USCS.
Atterberg Limits
Tests were performed on selected representative fine-grained soil samples to evaluate the liquid
limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. These test
results were utilized to evaluate the soil classifications in accordance with the USCS. The test
results and classifications are shown on Figure B-2.
Direct Shear Test
A direct shear test was performed on a relatively undisturbed sample in general accordance with
ASTM D 3080 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of the selected material. The
sample was inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. The results are
shown on Figure B-3.
Expansion Index Test
The expansion index of selected material was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 4829.
The specimens were molded under a specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent
saturation . The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens were loaded with a surcharge of
144 pounds per square foot and was inundated with tap water. Readings of volumetric swell were
made for a period of 24 hours. The results of this test are presented on Figure B-4.
R-Value
The resistance value, or R-value, for site soils were evaluated in general accordance with
CT 301. Samples were prepared and evaluated for exudation pressure and expansion pressure.
The equilibrium R-value is reported as the lesser or more conservative of the two calculated
results. The test results are shown on Figure B-5.
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017
I-I (9
jjj
~
>-co
0::: w z u::
I-z w
(.) 0::: w
0..
100.0
90.0
80 0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
00
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Coarse Fine Coars Medium Fine SILT CLAY
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE HYDROMETER NUMBERS
3" 2' 1½" 1" ¼~ ½' . 8 16 30 50 100 200 ---~ ~:
~t.. --...,_
\
I \
\
11 \
~
100 10 0.1 0 01 0.001 0.0001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
■■ .. . . .
• C-2 0.5-4.0 NP NP NP 29 SM
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422
NP -INDICATES NON-PLASTIC
FIGURE B-1
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
THE BEACON PROJECT
7720 TO 7750 EL CAMINO REAL, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
C10tochnlc1I & Envlronmtnlll ScltnctJ Con1ut11nt1 108375001 I 9/17
108375001 SIEVE C-2@ 0 5-4 0 xl!.x
•••••• uses
CLASSIFICATION
(Fraction Finer Than
No 40 Sieve)
uses
•
■
C-2
C-3
0.5-4.0
0.8-4.0
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
SM
ML
SM
ML
NP -INDICATES NON-PLASTIC
60
50
i:i:
><.-40
UJ
Cl ~
~ 30
u j::: en 20 :3 0..
10
[7 .v
V CH or OH V
/
iV V /
/4_orOL ~v MH or OH V V /
,) I/ ML or OL ,, Cl -r L .,
I/ I I -0
0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
LIQUID LIMIT, LL
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4318
FIGURE B-2
Geotachnlcal & Envlronmental Sciences Consultants
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS
THE BEACON PROJECT
7720 TO 7750 EL CAMINO REAL, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 I 9/17
108375001 ATTERBERG Page 1 x\sl!
I
Cf)
Cf) w n::: t-(/)
n:::
<( w I Cf)
Descnpt1on
Silty SAND
Silty SAND
5000 ~----,----,---,---.----,---,----.----,.----,----,
4000 +----+-----1---1---+-----1---l---+-----11---+--~
/, )0/
3000 +---+---l---+----+----+----+---+--/,c..-+,,---------1-------1
/~/''
2000 +--+--+--+--+-----,,;f-~---'/c...+ .... -/_,+--+--+-----1 V
/ )
/': '~
1000 +----+-----1....,-~---,;1,~q..•_/_-+-----l---l---+-----I--+--~ ~v //''
~/
0 -f"~'---'---+-----'---t-----'----+--..__--+-----'------1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
-11,---, ----· . -. -. .
B-1
--X --B-1
5.0-6.5 Peak
5.0-6.5 Ultimate
130
0
5000
Fnct1on Angle
(degrees)
37
36
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 3080
Soil Type
SM
SM
FIGURE B-3
Geottchnkal & Environmental Sc .. nc11 Con1ultant1
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
THE BEACON PROJECT
7720 TO 7750 EL CAMINO REAL, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 I 9/17
108375001 SHEAR 8-1@ 5.0-6.5.xlsx
-----CL ..
B-1 1.0-5.0 8.7
C-9 1.0-3.5 10.6
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH
Geotechnlcal & Environmental Sciences Consultants
108375001 El Page 1 Jelsx
COMPACTED DRY
DENSITY cf
114.3
108.6
.. N
15.2
19.0
VOLUMETRIC
SWELL in
0.008
0.052
8
52
Very Low
Medium
0 UBC STANDARD 18-2 0 ASTM D 4829
FIGURE B-4
EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
THE BEACON PROJECT
7720 TO 7750 EL CAMINO REAL, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
1os31soo1 I 9117
SAMPLE LOCATION
C-1
C-3
C-9
SAMPLE DEPTH
(ft)
0.7-3.8
0.8-4.0
1.0-3.5
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2844/CT 301
Geotechnlcal & Environmental Sciences Consultants
108375001 R-VALUE Page 1 x!sx
SOIL TYPE
Sandy SILT (ML)
SILT (ML)
Sandy CLAY (CL)
R-VALUE
37
12
8
FIGURE B-5
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
THE BEACON PROJECT
7720 TO 7750 EL CAMINO REAL, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108375001 I 9/17
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
Infiltration Testing
Ninyo & Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 201 7
Test Date 8/3/2017
Test Hole Diameter. D (inches)
Test performed and recorded by
d, t, t2 (feet)
7:55 4.00 8:20
8:20 4.00 8:45
8:45 4.00 9:15
9:15 4.00 9:45
9:45 4.00 10:15
10:15 4.00 10:45
10:45 4.00 11 :15
11 :15 4.00 11 :45
11 :45 4.00 12:15
12:15 4.00 12:45
12:45 4.00 1 :15
1 :15 4.00 1:45
Test Date· 8/3/2017
Test Hole Diameter. D (inches)
Test performed and recorded by
7:35 4.10 8:00
8:00 4.10 8:25
8:25 4.10 8:55
8:55 4.10 9:25
9:25 4.10 9:55
9:55 4.10 10:25
10:25 4.10 10:55
10:55 4.10 11 :25
11 :25 4.10 11 :55
11 :55 4.10 12:25
12:25 4.10 12:55
12:55 4.10 1 :25
Notes:
t, = initial time when filling or refilling is completed
d1 = initial depth to water in hole at 11
60
CLE/GSW
d2
(feet)
4.05
4.00
4.02
4.03
4.00
4.00
4.06
4.05
4.00
4.03
4.05
4.00
6.0
CLE/GSW
d2
(feet)
4.12
4.16
4.13
4.10
4.12
4.14
4.16
4.18
4.17
4.17
4.11
4.12
t2 = final time when incremental water level reading is taken
d2 = final depth to water m hole at 12
.0.t = change m time between 1ntt1al and final water level readings
At
(min)
25
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
At
(min)
25
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
C.H = change in depth to water or change in height of water column (i.e., d2 • d1)
Ho:: Initial height of water column
inhir = inches per hour
Infiltration Test No. C-4/IT-1
Excavation Depth (feet) 5 (Formation)
Pipe Length (feet) 5.00
AH Percolation Havg Infiltration Rate Rate (feet) (min/in) (feet) (in/hr)
0.05 42 0.98 0.16
0.00 #DIV/0! 1.00 <0.01
0.02 125 0.99 0.05
0.03 83 0.98 0.08
0.00 #DIV/0! 1.00 <0.01
0.00 #DIV/0! 1.00 <0.01
0.06 42 0.97 0.16
0.05 50 0.98 0.14
0.00 #DIV/0! 1.00 <0.01
0.03 83 0.98 0.08
0.05 50 0.98 0.14
0.00 #DIV/0! 1.00 <0.01
Infiltration Test No.: C-6/IT-2
Excavation Depth (feet) 5 (Fill)
Pipe Length (feet) 5.00
AH Percolation Havg Infiltration Rate Rate (feet) (min/in) (feet) (in/hr)
0.02 104 0.89 0.07
0.06 35 087 0.22
0.03 83 0.89 0.09
0.00 #DIV/0I 0.90 <0.01
0.02 125 0.89 0.06
0.04 62 0.88 0.12
0.06 42 0.87 0.18
0.08 31 0.86 0.24
0.07 36 0 87 0.21
0.07 36 0.87 0.21
0.01 250 0.90 0.03
0.02 125 0.89 0.06
Percolation Rate to Infiltration Rate Conversion 1
l!.f-{ X 60 X r
It= M(r + 2Havg )
~ = tested infiltration rate, inches/hour
l!.H • change in head ove, the bme interval. inches
.O.t • nme interval. minutes
r = effective radius of test hole
H,..g = average head over the time interval, inches
1 Based on the ''Porchet Method" as presented iff
Riverside County Fk>od Control, 2011, Design Handbook for Low Impact
Development Best Management Practices: dated September
Ninyo Moore I The Beacon Project, 7720 to 7750 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California I 108375001 I September 1, 2017 Appendix C
Geotechnlcal & Environmental Sciences Consultants
5710 Ruffin Road I San Diego, California 92123 I p. 858.576.1000
www.nin oandmoore.com