HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 05-12; Ocean Street Residences; SOILS REPORT OF OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES; 2013-03-19AGS
Zephyr Partners
11750 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 130
San Diego, CA 92121
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
9707 Waples Street, Suite 150
San Diego, Califomia 92121
Teleplione: (619) 708-1649 Fax: (714) 409-3287
March 19,2013
PW 1205-06
ReportNo. 1205-06-B-3
Attention: Mr. Jim McMenamin
Subject: Grading Plan Review, Ocean Street Residences (CD 12-09), City of Carlsbad,
California
References: See Appendix
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, presented herein are the results of Advanced Geotechnical Solutions,
Inc.'s (AGS) grading plan review for the Ocean Street Residences (CD 12-09), City of Carlsbad,
Califomia
The original geotechnical investigation was prepared by Geo9Qn, Inp. (GD in September of 2004. Based
upon the findings and data presented in this report (GI 2004), recent onsite geotechnical investigations
conducted by AGS and review of the revised grading plans (sheets 1 through 8) prepared by RBF and
Associates dated Februaiy, 2013, AGS has prepared this updated 20-scale grading plan review.
Key geotechnical/geologic elements identified onsite that will affect the proposed development and which
should be considered in the design and construction ofthe project include the following:
• Unsuitable soil removals.
• Excavation characteristics of soil and bedroclc unit.
• Remedial grading adjacent to existing adjacent improvements.
• Undercut recommendations for pads, streets and retaining walls. JUN 1 4 2013
• Grading recommendations. ; AND iJt
• Liquefaction mitigation measures. E N G 5
• Design of foundations in anticipation of as-graded soil characteristics.
JEER'NG
The recommendations presented in this report are based on the previously conducted subsurface
investigation performed by GI, associated laboratory testing, AGS's recent subsurface investigation, and
our familiarity with the site. It is AGS's opinion, from a geotechnical standpoint, that the subject site is
suitable for construction of the proposed multi-family residences and associated improvements, provided
the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design, planning and construction.
Included in this report are: 1) engineering characteristics of the onsite soils; 2) unsuitable soil removal
recommendations; 3) grading recommendations; 4) foundation design recommendations; and 5)
liquefaction mitigation recommendations.
ORANGE AND L.A. COUNTIES
(714)786-5661
INLAND EMPIRE
(619)708-1649
SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES
(619) 850-3980
IVIarch 19, 2013
P/W 1205-06 ReportNo. 1205-06-B-3
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide you with geotechnical
consulting services and professional opinions. If you have questions regarding this report, please contact
the undersigned at (619) 708-1649.
Respectfully Submitted,
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
JEFFREY A. CHANEY, Vice President
GE 2314, Reg. Exp. 6-30-11
PAUL DE RISI, Vice President
CEG 2536, Reg. Exp. 5-31-11
Distribution: (1) Addressee
(3) RBF, Attention David Weiner
Attachments: 20-Scale Composite Precise Grading Plan (Plate 1)
Cross sections AA' - FF' (Plates 2,3, & 4)
Appendix A- References
Appendix B- CPT Logs
Appendix C- Boring and Laboratory Test Data (Geocon)
Appendix D- General Earthwork & Grading Guidelines
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
DAGS
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS. INC.
25109 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 220
Murrieta, California 92562
Telephone: (619) 708-1649 Fax: (714) 409-3287
Zephyr Partners
11750 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 130
San Diego, CA 92121
April 12,2013
P/W 1205-06
Report 1205-06-B-5
Attention: Mr. Jim McMenamin
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations for Permeable Pavers and
"Grass Pave", Ocean Street Residences (CD 12-09), City of Carlsbad,
Califomia
References: see Appendix A
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request. Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.'s (AGS) has prepared this letter
regarding the use of Permeable Pavers and "Grass Pave" for Carlsbad Fire Department (CFD) access
roads for the Ocean Street Residences (CD 12-09), City of Carlsbad.
It is our understanding that Permeable Pavers will he used for portions of the primary access to the Ocean
Street Residences. In addition, a "Grass Pave" fire access road will be constructed along the northerly side
of the project. From a geotechnical perspective the use of both of these pavement systems will be suitable
for support of CFD fire apparatus. Structural sections should be consistent with the design guidelines per
"Grasspave^" and "Belgard".
The following permeable pavement sections are based upon an "R"-Value (R=65) obtained during the
initial site investigation (Geocon). Final design will be dependent upon the final distribution of onsite
soils and R-Value testing of the near surface subgrade soils.
For preliminary design and cost estimating the following permeable pavement sections are presented:
GRASSPAVE^
Section
GrassPave^
Over
12 inches Permeable Base Material No. 57 Aggregate""
Over
Mirafi HON
over
15 mil Impermeable Membrane
Over
Compacted Subgrade*
ORANGE AND L.A. COUNTIES
(714)786-5661
INLAND EMPIRE
(619)708-1649
SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES
(619)850-3980
Page 2
Report1205-06-B-5
April 12, 2012
P/W 1205-06
Belgard
(Permeable Pavers)
Section
Belgard Paving Stones
over
1.5 to 2 inches No. 8 Drainage Aggregate
over
12 inches Permeable Base Material No. 57 Aggregate*
over
Mirafi 140N(or equivalent)
over
15 mil Impenneable Membrane
over
Compacted Subgrade*
•Indicates minimum compaction of 95% per ASTM Di557
All permeable pavement sections should have perforated pipes to collect the retained water and direct it to
a suitable outfall device. Typically these perforated pipes will consist of a 4-inch diameter SDR 35 or
Schedule 40 pipe.
Where the pipes transition from perforated to solid a suitable "cut-off' wall should be constructed to
minimize the potential for piping of subterranean water into the trench backfill. Typically, these cut-off
walls will consist of concrete or 2-sack sand/cement slurry.
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to pro'vide you with geotechnical
consulting services and professional opinions. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned
at (619) 708-1649.
Respectfully Submitted,
Advanced tions. Inc.
ce President
'RGE 2314, Reg. Exp. 6-30-13
Distribution: (3) Addressee
(1) RBF Attn: David Weincr
Attachments: Appendix A- References
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
Page 3 April 12,2012
Report 1205-06-B-5 P/W 1205-06
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. (2013). Grading Plan Review, Ocean Street Residences (CD 12-
09), City ofCarlsbad, Califomia (CD 12-09), City ofCarlsbad, California, P/W 1205-06, Report
P/W1205-06-B-3. March 3, 2013.
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. (2010). Response to Cycle Review Comments Ocean Street
Residences (CD 12-09), City of Carlsbad, California, P/W 1205-06, Report P/W1205-06-B-2, October
30, 2012.
Geocon Inc., Geotechnical Investigation, Ocean Street Condominiums, Ocean Street and Mountain View
Drive, Carlsbad, Califomia, dated September 3, 2004 (project no. 07353-22-01)
RBF Consulting, A Baker Company, Ocean Street Residences, Tentative Tract Map, dated October 8,
2012, Sheets 1 through 8
City of Carlsbad, Memorandum CD12-09-Ocean Street Residences Review, dated October 25, 2012
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
25109 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 220
Murrieta, California 92562
Telephone: (619) 708-1649 Fax: (714) 409-3287
Zephyr Partners
11750 Sorrento Valley Road, Suite 130
San Diego, CA 92121
October 30, 2012
P/W 1205-06
Report 1205-06-B-2
Attention: Mr. Jim McMenamin
Subject: Response to Cycle Review Comments, Ocean Street Residences (CD 12-09),
City of Carlsbad, California
References: see Appendix A
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request. Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.'s (AGS) has prepared this
response to the second review of the application for CD 12-09 - Ocean Street Residences Cycle Review
comments from the City of Carlsbad. This response specifically addresses the City comments regarding
the proposed DMA, SWMP, and BMP for Ocean Street Residences, City ofCarlsbad, California.
AGS has been retained as tiie Geotechnical Consuhant of Record on the project and will be conducting
supplemental subsurface investigation. Once completed AGS will prepare a 40-scale grading plan review
for die project utilizing plans prepared by RBF.
In preparing the following responses AGS 'las reviewed the Tentative Tract Map prepared by RBF and
the infbrmation presented in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Geocon.
Specifically, AGS has prepared responses to items 1, 5 and 16. For ease in review the cycle review
comments are presented first followed by our responses.
Item l-City of Carlsbad- Provide an update teller from soils engineer that provides design
recommendations for the proposed BMPs/IMPs including bioretention basins, flow-through planters and
pervious pavers, particularly those adjacent to the proposed building structures:
AGS response - Given the relatively high density ofthe development and the numerous retaining
structures and subterranean parking garage, it is our opinion that bio-retention basins, flow-through
planters and pervious pavers, particularly those adjacent to the proposed building structures, should
have no ability to allow percolation of water into the onsite soils. Accordingly the bio-retention
structures should be lined with impervious materials (Visqueen or other suitable materials) to
minimize water transmission into the underlying fills. For the Grass Paver area (northwest side of
the project) this area would be suitable bio-infiltration. For design of the bio-filtration see the rates
presented in the response to Item 5.
Item S-Citv of Carlshad- Soil engineer shall provide percolation rates and design criteria for all self-
retaining areas. Provide details to show that the .self-retaining areas will drain properly and within 72
hours after a storm event.
ORANGE AND L.A. COUNTIES
(714)786-5661
INLAND EMPIRE
(619) 708-1649
SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES
(619)850-3980
Page 2
Report 1205-06-B-2
October 30, 2012
P/W 1205-06
AGS response - Considering the mass grading proposed and the fact that the entire site will be re-
graded, it is anticipated that all ofthe near surface soils will consist of compacted fill either locally
derived from the undocumented artificial fill, terrace deposits, alluvium or fi-om imported soils.
AGS recommends that an infiltration rate of 0 to 0.05 inches/hour (Soil Group D) be utilized for the
design of self-retaining areas located in compacted artificial fill soils.
Item 16-Citv ofCarlshad- Some bioretentions are adjacent to ihe building .structures. The soils engineer
may require impermeable lining It is not clear from the SDHM generated report if inflltration was
assutnedin the analyses. If lined, no infiltration must be assumed in SDHM analysis.
AGS response - AGS does recommend an impermeable liner for bio-retentions adjacent to
structures. From a geotechnical perspective the only suitable area for minor amounts of bio-
i-nfiltration will be in the Grass Paver area on the northwest side of the project. Infihration rates
presented in our response to Item 5 can be utilized for the design ofany bio-infiltration in this area.
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide you with geotechnical
consulting services and professional opinions. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned
at (619) 708-1649.
Respectfully Submitted,
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
HANEY, Vice President
RCE 46544 / RGE 2314, Reg. Exp. 6-30-13
1
PAUL J. DERISI, Vice President
CEG 2536, Reg. Exp. 5-31-13
Distribulion:
Attachments:
(5) Addressee
(1) RBI- Attn: David Weiner
Appendix A- Rcl'erciiccs
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19, 2013 Pagel
P/W 1205-06 Report No. 1205-06-B-3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Background
The purpose of this report is to provide geotechnical recommendations for the design and
construction of Ocean Street Residences. In preparing this report, AGS has reviewed the enclosed
20-scale precise grading plans provided to by RBF & Associates. Pertinent subsurface information
and laboratory data from previous studies are included herein.
1.2 Scope of Work
The scope of our study consisted of the following:
> Review of available geologic and geotechnical literature.
> Review of the previously conducted subsurface investigation performed by Geocon Inc. (GI
2004).
> Retain Kehoe Testing to conduct three Cone Penetrometer Soundings (CPT-1 thru CPT-3).
> Remedial grading recommendations, including undercuts for building pads and underground
improvements.
> Seismic hazard analysis and Hquefaction investigation
> Limited slope stability analysis.
> Earthwork specifications.
> Estimation of shrink/swell parameters of the various onsite earth materials.
> Use of onsite soils as a foundation medium.
> Bearing and friction values.
> Preliminary foundation design.
> Preiiminary pavement design.
> Design parameters for both conventional and MSE retaining walls.
> Preparation of this report with appropriate exhibits.
1.3 Site Location and Description
The site encompasses approximately 3.0 acres and is located north of Ocean Street in the City of
Carlsbad. The subject site is bounded to the west by a residential (condominium) development, to
the north by the Buena Vista Lagoon and a residential stmcture, to the east by a private drive and to
the south by Ocean Street. Currently, the site supports an apartment complex consisting of three
separate structures, two parking structures, parking areas, and associated driveways. Relief across
the site ranges from 10 MSL on the north side to 41 MSL on the south side. Existing slopes on site
range from as steep as! .5:1 (horizontal: vertical) to maximum heights of approximately 20 feet.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19,2013 Page 2
P/W 1205-06 Report No. 1205-06-B-3
1.4 Report Limitations
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on the data developed during the
preliminary site investigation, a review of previously prepared geotechnical studies, and the precise
grading plans provided by RBF & Associates.
The materials immediately adjacent to, or beneath those observed in the exploratory excavations
may have different characteristics and no representations are made as to the quality or extent of
materials not observed. The recommendations presented herein are specific to the development
plans reflected on the current grading plan. Modifications to that design or development plans could
necessitate revisions to these recommendations.
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Current plans call for the demolition of the existing development and constmcting 35 residential structures
comprised of two story duplexes (units 15-35) along the northerly portion of the project with a "Podium"
structure along the south side of the site. The "Podium" structure will consist of a parking garage on the first
fioor and two story condominiums (units 1-14) placed above the parking garage. It is anticipated that the
"Podium" portion will be supported by conventional continuous and spread footings. The remaining two
story duplex condominium structures will be supported by post-tensioned foundation systems. Two
driveways on the east and west side of the site from Ocean Street will be constmcted to allow for access to
the parking garage. The driveway along the west side will also allow access to the northwesterly side ofthe
site for handicapped parking adjacent to Unit 19 and for emergency fire access along the northem edge ofthe
project. Portions of the northem and easterly property lines will be supported by a five to six foot high
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining wall. Several other conventional retaining walls will be
constructed for the parking garage/podium to heights on the order of 10 to 12 feet, along with other smaller
conventional retaining walls along Ocean Street frontage and in the interior ofthe site.
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
Geocon Inc. (GI 2004) conducted a subsurface investigation to determine the engineering properties of the
onsite soils, liquefaction potential, and to evaluate the onsite soils for support of the development proposed at
that time. As part of their study Geocon (Gl 2004) excavated logged and sampled ten Hollow Stem auger
borings and conducted laboratory testing of both bulk and "undisturbed" samples of the onsite soils (see
appendix C)
This current study by AGS was aimed at providing more detailed geotechnical information as it relates to: 1)
existing site soil conditions; 2) discussion of the geologic units onsite; 3) seismic hazard analysis; 4)
engineering characteristics of the onsite soils; 5) seismic design parameters for use in the stmctural design of
the proposed condominium project; 6) liquefaction and dynamic settlement remediation measures; and 7)
foundation design parameters for the proposed conventional shallow foundation system. As part of this study
AGS retained Kehoe Testing & Engineering to advance three Cone Penetrometer Soundings (CPT-1 thru
CPT-3 (see appendix B)). As part of our work AGS prepared a composite plan utilizing the 20-scale Precise
Grading plans prepared by RBF and Associates and the existing topography (Plate 1). Data developed from
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19,2013 Page 3
P/W 1205-06 Report No.l 205-06-B-3
the previous study is included herein and has been used to develop the conclusions and recommendations
presented in this document.
4.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
4.1 Regional Geologic and Geomorphic Setting
The project site is situated in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges
Province is dominated by a series of northwest-oriented mountain ranges extending from the Baja
Califomia peninsula north to the Transverse Ranges. The series of mountain ranges are separated by
northwest trending valleys; sub parallel to faults branching from the San Andreas Fault System. The
Peninsular Ranges province is bounded by the Transverse Ranges Province to the north, the
Colorado Desert Province to the east, Mexico to the south, and Pacific Ocean to the west. Included
within the province are the offshore islands of Santa Catalina, San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa
Barbara. Major mountain ranges within the province include the San Jacinto, Santa Ana, Santa Rosa,
Agua Tibia, and Laguna Mountains. The highest elevation is found at San Jacinto Peak (10,805-feet)
in the San Jacinto Mountains. Summit elevations generally decrease to the west. Slopes in the
westem portion of the province are gentler, similar to the Sierra Nevada. Drainage is generally
provided by the San Diego, San Dieguito, San Luis Rey, Santa Margarita, Santa Ana, and San
Jacinto Rivers.
The project site is more specifically situated in the coastal section of the Peninsular Ranges
Geomorphic Province. The coastal section is underlain by a thick sequence of sedimentary rocks that
unconformably overlie basement rocks. The portion of the coastal province in which the site is
located is predominantly underlain by Tertiary-aged marine and non-marine sediments consisting of
interbedded sandstone, siltstone, claystone and conglomerate. Following deposition of the
Cretaceous-aged units of the Rosario Group, the coastal margin underwent uplift and erosion until
the middle Eocene. Subsequent deposition on the coastal margin occurred during several
transgressive and regressive cycles resulting in a series of partially intertonguing sedimentary
sequences ranging from non-marine fan and dune deposits in the east to marine continental shelf
deposits near the present day coastline (Kennedy and Tan, 2008).
Beginning in the early Quatemary Period, the sea began the first of many landward incursions onto
the coastal shelf resulting in the formation of a sequence of marine terraces descending to present
sea-level. Marine and non-marine sediments were subsequently deposited unconformably on these
wave-cut terraces and have been preserved due to regional uplift. Faulting and deformation of the
coastal province began in late Miocene or Pliocene time and continues to the present along several
offshore and onshore faults.
4.2 Subsurface Conditions
A brief description of the earth materials encountered during the previous investigation by GI and
AGS's recent investigation is presented in the following sections. More detailed descriptions of the
materials encountered during this investigation are provided in the boring logs and CPT soundings
included in Appendices B and C. Based on our review of subsurface excavations, geologic maps and
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19, 2013 Page 4
P/W 1205-06 ReportNo. 1205-06-B-3
literature, the site is underlain to the maximum depths explored by old p^alic deposits (Units 6-7).
The old paralic deposits are subsequently overlain by undocumented engineered fill and alluvial
soils of variable thickness. It is assumed this undocumented fill was placed during the original mass
grading of the site sometime between 1953 and 1980. Records documenting this grading were
unavailable for our review during the preparation of this report.
4.3 Geologic Units
The proposed project is underiain by previously placed undocumented fills (afii), alluvium and old
paralic deposits (Umts 6-7). The approximate distribution of the geologic units is shown on Plate 1.
The following is a brief summary of the current as-graded configuration.
4-3.1 Undocumented Artificial FiU / Alluvium Undifferentiated (Map Symbol afu/Qal)
Undocumented artificial fill associated with the initial grading of the property is present across most
of the site, as shovm on Plate 1. The fill consists of clayey to silty sands, sands that are slightly
moist to saturated, loose to dense. The undocumented fdl overlies the old paralic deposits and is
found to range in depth from a few feet to in excess of 13.5 feet.
Alluvium is present below the undocumented fill. A clear distinction between the undocumented fill
and the alluvium was not differentiated by GI in their study and is difficuit to determine with CPT
soundings. Accordingly, AGS has grouped these deposits together. In general, the alluvium is
limited to the lower areas adjacent to the lagoon based upon our review of available air photos ofthe
site. The deeper portions of the saturated alluvium on the northem side of the project range from
sands, silty sands to sandy silts and clays. In general, these deeper deposits are poorly consolidated
and are susceptible to seismically induced liquefaction and dynamic settlement.
4 J.2. Old Paralic Deposits (Qop (6.7))
The site is underlain by two distinct subunits within the old paralic deposits; a coarse grained sub
unit characterized by dense to medium dense silty sands to sands and a fine grained sub units
characterized by medium firm to hard sandy silts and clays. In general, this old paralic deposits are
relatively flat lying and do not exhibit slope instability.
4.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in the GI Borings B-5 through B-8, and B-10 at elevations
approximately one foot above sea level. CPT-1 through CPT-3 also encountered groundwater at
elevations of approximately 2.0 to 1.0 MSL. Seepage was not observed in the GI borings at the
coarse gramed /fine grained contact in the old paralic deposits.
4.5 Faulting and Seismicitv
The site is located in the tectonically active Southera Califoraia area, and will therefore likely
experience shaking effects from earthquakes. The type and severity of seismic hazards affecting the
site are to a large degree dependent upon the distance to the causative fault, the intensity of the
seismic event, and the underlying soil characteristics. The seismic hazard may be primary, such as
surface mpture and/or ground shaking, or secondary, such as liquefaction or dynamic settlement.
The following is a site-specific discussion of ground motion parameters, earthquake-induced
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19, 2013 Page 5
P/W 1205-06 Report No. 1205-06-B-3
landslide hazards, settlement, and liquefaction. The purpose of this analysis is to identify potential
seismic hazards and propose mitigations, if necessary, to reduce the hazard to an acceptable level of
risk. The following seismic hazards discussion is guided by the Califoraia Building Code (2010),
CDMG (2008), and Martin and Lew (1998).
4.5.1 Surface Fault Rupture
No knowai active faults have been mapped at or near the subject site. The nearest known active
surface fault is the Oceanside section of the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone which is
approximately 4.3 miles west of the subject site. Accordingly, the potential for fault surface mpture
on the subject site is considered to be low to remote. This conclusion is based on literature review
and aerial photograph analysis.
4.5.2 Seismicity
As noted, the site is within the tectonically active southern Califomia area, and is approximately 4.3
miles from an active fault, the Oceanside section of the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault
zone. The potential exists for sfrong ground motion that may affect future improvements.
At this point in time, non-critical structures (commercial, residential, and industrial) are usually
designed according to the Califomia Building Code (2010) and that of the controlling local agency.
However, liquefaction/seismic slope stability analyses, critical structures, water tanks and unusual
structural designs will likely require site specific ground motion input.
4.5.3 Liquefaction
Potentially liquefiable soils were encountered in CPT 1, CPT-2, CPT-3, and GI borings B-7, B-8,
and B-10. In general the potentially liquefiable soils range from a few feet to approximately to four
feet thick and consist of zones of poorly consolidated sands and silty sands below the existing water
table. Based upon our liquefaction analysis there is a potential for liquefaction of these poorly
consolidated soils in their present condition. The primary concem associated with liquefiable soils
onsite are large magnitudes of dynamic settlement and the potential for surface manifestation of
liquefaction (loss of bearing, sand boils, and ground cracking).
4.5.4 Dynamic Settlement
Dynamic settlement occurs in response to an earthquake event in loose sandy earth materials. The
potential of dynamic settlement at the subject site is considered moderate to high. The magnitude of
dynamic settlement is on the order of approximately 3 to 4 inches.
4.5.5 Seismically Induced Landsliding
No geomorphic features indicative of landsliding were observed onsite by AGS or GI. Further, given
the relatively flat lying interbeded Old Paralic deposits the potential for landsliding is considered to
be very low.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19, 2013 Page 6
P/W 1205-06 ReportNo. 1205-06-B-3
4.5.6. Other Seismic Hazards
The potential for the site to be adversely impacted by tsunamis and/or seiches is considered to be
moderate at the site given its minimum design elevation of 17 feet MSL and the close proximity to
the Pacific Ocean.
5.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
Presented herein is a general discussion of the geotechnical properties of the various soil types and
earth materials summarized from our site-specific analyses of the project and the referenced reports.
5.1 Material Properties
5.1.1 Excavation Characteristics
Based on our analysis, it is this firm's opinion that existing undocumented fills, partially saturated
alluvium, and old paralic deposits will be excavatable with conventional excavation techniques
assisted by minor to moderate ripping.
5.1.2 Compressibility
Onsite materials that are significantly compressible include undocumented fill, alluvium and highly
weathered old paralic deposits. These materials will require complete removal prior to placement of
fill, and where exposed at design grade. In the northern portion of the site complete removals are
unlikely given the shallow depth of the groundwater and the thickness of these deposits. In these
areas it is suggested that mitigation should be conducted to minimize the potential of dynamic
settlement.
5.1.3 Expansion Potential
It is anticipated that the expansion potential of the onsite materials will vary from "Low" to "Very
High." The majority of these materials can be classified as having a "Low" to "Medium" expansion
potential. However, the fine-grained sub unit within the old paralic deposits contains clay soils
having "high" to "very high" expansion potential.
5.1.4 Shear Strength Characteristics
Table 5.1 below presents a summary of "averaged" shear sfrength parameters obtained from the data
presented in the referenced reports. These values have been utilized in our slope stability analyses
and can be used for design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) segmental retaining walls. For
the design of MSE walls the designer should utilize the values for Compacted Fill-Select for the soil
used in the "reinforced" zone and should use the values for Compacted Fill-Non Select in the
"foundation" and "retained" wall zones.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19,2013
P/W 1205-06
Page 7
ReportNo. 1205-06-B-3
TABLE 5.1
Shear Strength Characteristics
Material Description Cohesion,
C(psf)
Friction Angle
^ (Degrees)
Unit Weight
r(pcf)
Compacted Fill-Select
(afcs) 100 32 125
Old Paralic
(Coarse Grained sub unit) 200 35 125
Old Paralic
(Fine Grained sub unit) 450 26 120
5.1.5 Earthwork Adjustments
The following average earthwork adjustment factors presented in table 5.2 have been formulated for
this report.
TABLE 5.2
Earthwork Adjustments
Geologic Unit Adjustment Factor
Undocumented FiU & AUuvium Shrink 10% to 12%
Old Paralic Deposits (Qop): Bulk 3% to 5%
These values may be used in an effort to balance the earthwork quantities. As is the case with every
project, contingencies should be made to adjust the earthwork balance when grading is in progress
and actual conditions are better defined.
5.1.6 Chemical/Resistivity Analyses
The results of sulfate testing (conducted by others) indicate that the soil exhibits "negligible" sulfate
concentrations when classified in accordance with ACI 318-05 Table 4.3.1 (per 2007 CBC).
5.2 Slope Stability
Slope stability analysis was not conducted as no slopes higher that 3 to 5 feet will remain onsite once
the proposed sfructures and retaining walls are constmcted. From a geotechnical perspective fill
slopes graded at slope ratios of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) comprised of compacted fill are both
grossly and surficially stable.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19,2013 Page g
P/W 1205-06 Report No. 1205-06-B-3
5-3 Bearing Capacitv and Lateral Earth Pressures
Ultimate bearing capacity values were obtained using the graphs and formula presented in NAVFAC
DM-7.1. Allowable bearing was determined by applying a factor of safety of at least 3 to the
ultimate bearing capacity. Static lateral earth pressures were calculated using Rankine methods for
active and passive cases. If it is desired to use Coulomb forces, a separate analysis specific to the
application, can be conducted.
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
Development of the subject property as proposed is considered feasible, from a geotechnical
standpoint, provided that the conclusions and recommendations presented herein are incorporated
into the design and construction of the project. Presented below are specific issues identified by this
study or previous studies as possibly impacting site development. Recommendations to mitigate
these issues are presented in the text of this report, with graphic presentation ofthe recommendations
on the enclosed plans, where appropriate.
6.1 Site Preparation and Removals
Grading should be accomplished under the observation and testing of the project soils engineer and
engineering geologist or their authorized representative in accordance with the recommendations
contained herein, the current grading ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, and AGS's Earthwork
Specifications (Appendix D). Topsoil, weathered bedrock and undocumented fill should be removed
in areas planned to receive fill or where exposed at final grade. The resulting undercuts should be
replaced with engineered fill. The extent of removals can best be determined in tlie field during
grading when observation and evaluation can be performed by the soil engineer and/or engineering
geologist. Removals should expose competent bedrock and be observed and mapped by the
engineering geologist prior to fill placement. In general, soils removed during remedial grading will
be suitable for reuse in compacted fills, provided they are properly moisture conditioned and do not
contain deleterious materials.
6.1.1 Stripping and Deleterious Material Removal
Existing vegetation, trash, debris, and other deleterious materials should be removed and wasted
from the site prior to removal of unsuitable soils and placement of compacted fill. Concrete debris
generated from the demolition of the existing improvements can be integrated into the deeper fills
provided it is reduced to a maximum size of 8-inches and has no profruding reinforcement.
6.1.2 Undocumented Fill/Alluvium UndiiTerentiated (Map Symbol afu/Qal)
Undocumented fill and alluvium will require complete removal and recompaction to project
specifications. Estimated depths of removal range from two to 15 feet. Locally deeper areas may be
encountered.
6.1.3 Topsoil (No Map Symbol)
Topsoil will require complete removal and recompaction to project specification in shallow cuts and
fill areas. Estimated removal depth for the topsoil is one to three feet.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19, 2013 Page 9
P/W 1205-06 Report No. 1205-06-B-3
6.1.4 Old ParaUc Deposits (Map Symbol Qop (6.7))
The old paralic deposits exhibit a weathered profile. The weathered profile is approximately one-
half foot to three feet thick. These upper weathered prortions of the units will require removal prior
to fill placement in stmctural fill areas and where exposed at design grade.
6.2 Liquefaction Mitigation
In consideration of our recent CPT soundings, AGS conducted a liquefaction analysis in the lower,
northem portion of the site assuming that groundwater would be at an elevation of approximately 2.0
feet MSL. AGS utilized a fill depth of approximately four to five feet above existing grade to
achieve design grade for the proposed buildings and a site acceleration of 0.4g. Our analysis of the
CPT data indicates that liquefaction could occur in various layers of the soils below the groundwater
table. In general, the potentially liquefiable layers ranged from a few inches thick to as thick as four
feet. Theoretical dynamic settlement of the potentially liquefiable insitu soils could be on the order
of 3 to 4 inches. Due to the dense nature of the old paralic deposits these soils are not subject to
liquefaction
To meet the requirements of CDMG Special Publication 117 and the current standard of care, it is
recommended that a maximum theoretical settlement used for sfructural design of the proposed
condominiums in the northem portion of the site (Units 15 -35) should be 1.0 inch with a maximum
theoretical differential settlement of 14 inch in 40 feet.
To minimize the adverse effects of liquefaction induced settlement and surface manifestation for
Units 15-35 AGS recommends that the in-place saturated undocumented fill/alluvium should
undergo in-situ modifications with the consfruction of stone columns and all the foundations for the
residenfial stmctures should utilize a Post-Tensioned foundations system. It is AGS's opinion that
once the proposed soil improvement (stone columns) are constmcted; recompaction of the upper
soils is conducted; the placement of the proposed design fill to achieve design grade; and the use ofa
suitably designed post tensioned foundation is utilized the effects of seismically-induced dynamic
settlement will be mitigated to "acceptable level of risk" as defined by CDMG Special Publication
117.
It is AGS's recommendafion that the number, location and depth of soil improvement should be
determined by the specialty confractor. The design should be such that the magnitude of dynamic
settlement does not exceed one inch with differential settlement Vz inch in 40 feet.
6.3 Unsuitable Soil Removal Adiacent to Property Lines
As depicted on the grading plans (Plate 1) and cross secfions A-A' through F-F' (Plates 2 through 4),
settlement-sensitive improvements (retaining walls and MSE Walls) are proposed to be as close as
one to two feet from the property line. For all settlement-sensitive stmctures (where feasible)
complete removal of unsuitable soils should be conducted below and extending on a 1 : 1 (horizontal
to vertical) downward projection to bedrock. In lieu of conducting these removals and/or shoring,
specialized trench type removals (utilizing backhoe/trackhoes) along the property line can be
conducted and specialized subgrade freatment can be used for the MSE walls which are proposed in
these areas.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19,2013 Page 10
P/W 1205-06 ReportNo. 1205-06-B-3
6.4 Temporary Backcut Stability
During grading operations, temporary backcuts may be required to accomplish remedial grading.
Backcuts in undocumented fill, topsoil, and bedrock areas should be made no steeper than 1:1.
In consideration of the inherent instability created by temporary consfruction backcuts, it is
imperative that grading schedules are coordinated to minimize the unsupported exposure time of
these excavations. Once started, these excavations and subsequent fill operations should be
maintained to completion without intervening delays imposed by avoidable circumstances. In cases
where five-day workweeks comprise a normal schedule, grading should be planned to avoid
exposing at-grade or near-grade excavations through a non-work weekend. Where improvements
may be affected by temporary instability, either on or offsite, further restrictions such as slot cutting,
extending work days, implementing weekend schedules, and/or other requirements considered
critical to serving specific circumstances may be imposed.
6.5 MSE Walls
Unwanted horizontal and vertical movement of settlement sensitive stractures could occur in areas
situated over the tails of the MSE walls along the northem property lines. To minimize this
settlement potential, placement of additional geotextile fabric is recommended to soften the
transition zone of the "reinforced" and "retained" soil zones. This additional geotextile should
consist of a layer Mirafi 600X (or equivalent) placed a minimum of five feet on either side of the end
of the geotextile MSE wall reinforcement. This additional geotextile layer should be separated from
the MSE wall reinforcement by approximately six to twelve inches of compacted fill and should be
approximately two feet below finished grade
Geotextile reinforcement is also recommended below all of the MSE walls where complete removal
of settlement sensitive soils are not conducted within a 1:1 projection ofthe walls. The proposed
Geotextile should be placed approximately 12 inches below the first course of block and should
extend horizontally approximately eight feet from the fore cut, back underneath the "reinforced" soil
portion of the MSE wall. The Geotextile reinforcement should consist of Mirafi 600X (or
equivalent).
6.6 Overexcavation Recommendations
The following general overexcavation recommendations are presented.
6.6.1 Cut/Fill Transitions
Where design grades and/or remedial grading activities create a cut/fill fransition, the cut and
shallow fill portions of the building pad shall be overexcavated a minimum depth of five feet (or a
minimum of three feet below retaining wall foundation elements, whichever is greater) or H/3 not to
exceed twelve feet (where H is the maximum depth of fill on the lot), whichever is greater and
replaced to design grade with compacted fill. In lieu of the aforementioned h/3 criteria, increased
compaction (minimum of 95%) below a depth of five feet can be utilized. All undercuts should be
graded such that a gradient of at least one percent is maintained toward deeper fill areas or the front
ofthe lot. Replacement fill should be eight-inch minus in maximum particle size, possess "Low"
expansion potential and be compacted to project specifications as discussed in Section 6.9.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19,2013 Page 11
P/W 1205-06 ReportNo. 1205-06-B-3
6.6.2 Podium Area
Due to the potentially highly expansive nature of the claystone portions of the old paralic deposits
likely to be encountered in the podium footprint, it is recommended that these materials should be
overexcavated approximately five feet and replaced with a select "low" expansive soil. This
undercut should have a minimum one percent gradient toward the northern portion of the building to
allow for potential subsmface drainage.
6.63 Expansive Soils
Soils with expansion potential of "Medium" or greater should be placed a minimum of five feet
below design grade.
6.7 Subsurface Drainage
6.7.1 Canyon Subdrains
Owing to the lack of defined drainages, canyon subdrains are not recommended.
6.7.2 Heel Drains
For MSE walls a heel drain should be constmcted at the interface between the "retained" and
"reinforced" zones. Heel drains should be consfructed in accordance with the detail for
Butfress/Stabilization Drain shown on Detail 2 (Appendix D).
6.8 Construction Staking and Survev
Removal bottoms, keyways, subdrains and backdrains should be surveyed by the civil engineer after
approval by the geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist and prior to the placement of fill. Toe
stakes should be provided by the civil engineer in order to verify required key dimensions and
locations.
6.9 Earthwork Considerations
6.9.1 Compaction Standards
Fill and processed natural ground shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90
percent as determined by ASTM Test Method: D 1557. Care should be taken that the ultimate grade
be considered when determining the compaction requirements for disposal fill areas. Compaction
shall be achieved at slightly above the optimum moisture content, and as generally discussed in the
attached Earthwork Specifications (Appendix D).
6.9.2 Documentation of Removals and Drains
Removal bottoms, canyon subdrains, fill keys, backcuts, backdrains and their outlets should be
observed and approved by the engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer and documented
by the civil engineer prior to fill placement.
6.9.3 Treatment of Removal Bottoms
At the completion of removals, the exposed bottom should be scarified to a practical depth, moisture
conditioned to above optimum conditions, and compacted in-place to the standards set forth in this
report.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19,2013 Page 12
P/W 1205-06 Report No. 1205-06-B-3
6.9.4 Fill Placement
After removals, scarification, and compaction of in-place materials are completed, additional fill
may be placed. Fill should be placed in thin lifts [eight- (8) inch bulk], moisture conditioned to
slightly above the optimum moisture content, mixed, compacted, and tested as grading progresses
until final grades are attained.
6.9.5 Benching
Where the natural slope is steeper than 5-horizontal to 1-vertical, md where designed by the project
geotechnical engineer or geologist, compacted fill material should be keyed and benched into
competent bedrock or firm natural soil.
6.9.6 Mixing
In order to provide thorough moisture conditioning and proper compaction, processing (mixing) of
materials is necessary. Mixing should be accomplished prior to, and as part of the compaction of
each fill lift.
6.9.7 Fill Slope Construction
Fill slopes shall be overfilled to an extent determined by the confractor, but not less than two (2) feet
measured perpendicular to the slope face, so that when trimmed back to the compacted core, the
required compaction is achieved.
Compaction of each fill lift should extend out to the temporary slope face. Backrolling during mass
filling as intervals not exceeding four (4) feet in height is recommended unless more extensive
overfill is undertaken.
As an alternative to overfilling, fill slopes may be built to the finish slope face in accordance with
the following recommendations:
• Compaction of each fill lift shall extend to the face of the slopes.
• Backrolling during mass grading shall be undertaken at intervals not exceeding four (4) feet
in height. Backrolling at more frequent intervals may be required.
• Care should be taken to avoid spillage of loose materials down the face of the slopes during
grading.
• At completion of mass filling, the slope surface shall be watered, shaped and compacted first
with a sheepsfoot roller, and then frack walked with a bulldozer, such that compaction to
project standards is achieved to the slope face.
Proper seeding and planting of the slopes should follow as soon as practical, to inhibit erosion and
deterioration of the slope surfaces. Proper moisture confrol will enhance the long-term stability of
the finished slope surface.
6.10 Haul Roads
Haul roads, ramp fills, and tailing areas should be removed prior to placement of fill.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19,2013 Page 13
P/W 1205-06 Report No. 1205-06-B-3
6.11 Import Materials
Dependent upon the materials encountered during the mass grading it may be necessary to import
"select" granular "low to very low" expansive soils for use in the constmction of the MSE walls.
Import materials, if required, should have similar engineering characteristics as the onsite soils and
should be approved by the soil engineer at the source prior to importation to the site.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Constraction of the proposed multi-family residential sfructures and associated improvements is considered
feasible, from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the conclusions and recommendations presented
herein are incorporated into the design and consfruction of the project. Presented below are specific issues
identified by this study as possibly affecting site development. Recommendations to mitigate these issues
are presented in the text of this report.
7.1 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
It is our understanding that the proposed foundation system for the "Podium" will consist of a
conventionally reinforced foundation system supporting units 1-14, with the remaining two story
residential stmctures, units 15-35, be supported by a post-tensioned slab-on-grade foundation
systems. In addition to the sfructures, associated driveways, hardscape and landscape areas are
proposed. From a geotechnical perspective these proposed improvements are feasible provided that
the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction.
7.1.1 Foundation Design Criteria
The multi-family residential stractures can be supported by either post-tensioned or conventional
shallow slab-on-grade foundation systems. Once the grading is conducted the expansion potential of
the underlying soils is anticipated to range from "Low" to "Very Low" The following values may be
used in the foundation design.
Allowable Bearing: 2500 lbs./sq.ft.
Lateral Bearing: 250 lbs./sq.ft. at a depth of 12 inches plus 250 lbs./sq.ft. for
each additional foot of embedment and depth (respectively)
to a maximum of 3,500 psf.
Sliding Coefficient: 0.35
The above values may be increased as allowed by Code to resist transient loads such as wind or
seismic. Building Code and sfructural design considerations may govern. Depth and reinforcement
requirements should be evaluated by the Stractural Engineer.
7.1.2 Conventional Foundation Design Recommendations - Podium (Units 1 -14)
Based upon the onsite soil conditions and infonnation supplied by the CBC-2010, conventional
foundation systems should be designed in accordance with Section 7.1.1 and the foUowing
recommendations.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19, 2013
P/W 1205-06
>
Page 14
ReportNo. I205-06-B-3
Continuous Footings-
Depth- Minimum of 24 inches
Width-Minimum of 18 inches
Reinforcement- Minimum fourNo.5 rebar's, two top and two bottom
> Isolated Spread Footings- Minimum of 24 inches wide and 24 inches deep
(Reinforcement per stractural engineer)
> Garage Slab-Minimum of 5 inches thick with # 3 rebar on 15 inch centers both
ways. Consideration should be given to underlay the garage slab with a moisture
barrier.
> Garage Slab Entrance- A grade beam reinforced continuously with the garage
footings shall be constructed across the garage entrances, tying together the ends of
the perimeter footings and between individual spread footings. This grade beam
should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches. A thickened slab, separated by a cold
joint from the garage beam, should be provided at the garage entrance. Minunum
dimensions of the thickened edge shall be six (6) inches deep. Footing depth, width
and reinforcement should be the same as the sfructure. Slab tiiickness, reinforcement
and under-slab freatment should be the same as the sfructure.
7.1 _3 Post-Tensioned foundation Design Parameters (Units 15-35)
The following post-tensioned design parameters are presented in Table 7.1 for building units 15-35.
TABLE 7.1
Post Tensioned Design Parameters
Center Lift Edge Lift
Em (ft) Ym(ft) Em (ft) ym(fi)
7.5 0.51 3.9 1.26
7.1.4 Seismic Design Parameters
The following seismic design parameters presented in Table 7.2 are intended to be code compliant to
the Califomia Building Code (2010). The subject lots have been identified to be site class "D" in
accordance with CBC, 2010, Table 1613.5.3 (1). The lots are located at 33.1653T<I Latitude and -
117.3568°W Longitude. Utilizing this information, the computer program USGS Earthquake
Ground Motion Parameters Version 5.1.0 and ASCE 7 criterion, the seismic design category for 0.20
seconds (Ss) and 1.0 second (SO period response accelerations can be determined (CBC, 2010
1613.5.5.1) along with the design spectral response acceleration (CBC, 2010 1613.5.4).
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19,2013
P/W 1205-06
Page 15
ReportNo. 1205-06-B-3
Table 7.2
Seismic Design Criteria
Mapped Specfral Acceleration (0.2 sec Period), Ss 1.059g
Mapped Specfral Acceleration (1.0 sec Period), S| 0.401g
Site Coefficient, Fa 1.077
Site Coefficient, Fy 1.599
MCE Spectral Response Acceleration (0.2 sec Period), SMs 1.140g
MCE Specfral Response Acceleration (1.0 sec Period), SMi 0.642g
Design Spectral Response Acceleration (0.2 sec Period), SDs 0.760g
Design Specfral Response Acceleration (1.0 sec Period), SDi 0.428g
7.1.5 Settlement Potential
Based upon the subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, and proposed ground modifications
the subject residential stmctures and associated improvements may be subject to potential fill
settlement. The magnitude of potential is anticipated to be:
Total Settlement- 1 inch
Differential-1/2 inch in 40 feet
7.1.6 Under Slab-Units 15-35
Prior to concrete placement the subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture
content or slightly above.
A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below the slabs-on-grade in portions of the
structure considered to be moisture sensitive. The retarder should be of suitable composition,
thickness, sfrength and low permeance to effectively prevent the migration of water and reduce the
transmission of water vapor to acceptable levels. Historically, a 10-mil plastic membrane, such as
Visqueen, placed between one to four inches of clean sand, has been used for this purpose. More
recently Stego® Wrap or similar underlayments have been used to lower permeance to effectively
prevent the migration of water and reduce the transmission of water vapor to acceptable levels. The
use of this system or other systems, materials or techniques can be considered, at the discretion of
the designer, provided the system reduces the vapor transmission rates to acceptable levels.
7.1.7 Deepened Footings and Structural Setbacks
It is generally recognized that improvements consfructed in proximity to natural slopes or properly
constructed, manufactured slopes can, over a period of time, be affected by natural processes
including gravity forces, weathering of surficial soils and long-term (secondary) settlement. Most
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19,2013
P/W 1205-06 Page 16
ReportNo. 1205-06-B-3
building codes, including the Califomia Building Code (CBC), require that sfructures be set back or
footings deepened, where subject to the influence of these natural processes.
For the subject site, where foundations for residential structures are to exist in proximity to slopes,
the footings should be embedded to satisfy the requu-ements presented in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1
FACE OF
STRUCTURE H/3 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 40 FY. MAX.
h/2 ^BUT NEED NOT
EXCEED 15 FT.
MAX.
7.1.8 Concrete Design
The results of sulfate testing (conducted by others) indicate that the soil exhibits "low" sulfate
concentrations when classified in accordance with ACI 318-05 Table 4.3.1 (per 2010 CBC).
Resistivity and chloride testing indicates that onsite soils are "moderately" corrosive to metals. In the
past on similar projects, corrosion protection typically consisted of non-metallic piping for water
lines to and below the slabs or by installing above slab pliunbing. Consultation with a corrosion
engineer is recommended. Corrosion
7.1.9 Conventional Retaining Walls
The following earth pressures are recommended for the design of conventional retaining walls onsite
backfilled with select granular fill:
Static Ca.se
Level Backfill
Rankine
Coefficients
Equivalent Fluid
Pressure (psPlin.ft)
Coefficient of Active Pressure: = 0.28
Coefficient of Passive Pressure: Kp = 3.54
Coefficient of at Rest Pressure: Ko = 0.47
35
442
55
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19,2013 Page 17
P/W 1205-06 ReportNo. 1205-06-B-3
Rankine Equivalent Fluid
2 : 1 BackfiU CoefTicients Pressure (psf/lin.ft.)
Coefficient of Active Pressure: Ka = 0.42 52
Coefficient of Passive Pressure:
Descending Kp (-)= 1.34 167
Coefficient of At Rest Pressure: Ko = 0.65 81
Seismic Case
In addition to the above static pressures, unresfrained retaining walls should be designed to
resist seismic loading. In order to be considered unrestrained, retaining walls should be
allowed to rotate a minimum of roughly 0.004 times the wall height. The seismic load can be
modeled as a tlirust load applied at a point 0.6H above the base of the wall, where H is equal
to the height of the wall. This seismic load (in pounds per lineal foot of wall) is represented
by the following equation:
Pe = % *7*H^ *kh
Where:
H = Height ofthe wall (feet)
Y = soil density = 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf)
kh = seismic pseudostatic coefficient = 0.4* peak horizontal ground acceleration / g
Walls should be designed to resist the combined effects of static pressures and the above
seismic thrust load.
The foundations for retaining walls of appurtenant stractures structurally separated from the building
stractures, may bear on properly compacted fill. A bearing value of 2,000 psf may be used for
design of retaining walls. Retaining wall footings should be designed to resist the lateral forces by
passive soil resistance and/or base friction as recommended for foundation lateral resistance. To
relieve the potential for hydrostatic pressure wall backfill should consist of a free draining backfill
(sand equivalent "SE" >20) and a heel drain should be consfructed. The heel drain should be place
at the heel ofthe wall and should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe (SDR35 or SCHD 40)
surrounded by 4 cubic feet of crushed rock (3/4-inch) per lineal foot, wrapped in filter fabric
(Mirafi® MON or equivalent).
Proper drainage devices should be installed along the top of the wall backfill, which should be
properly sloped to prevent surface water ponding adjacent to the wall. In addition to the wall
drainage system, for building perimeter walls extending below the finished grade, the wall should be
waterproofed and/or damp-proofed to effectively seal the wall from moisture infiltration through the
wall section to the interior wall face.
The wall should be backfilled with granular soils placed in loose lifts no greater than 8-inches thick,
at or near optimum moisture content, and mechanically compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative
compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. Flooding or jetting of backfill materials
generally do not result in the required degree and imiformity of compaction and, therefore, is not
recommended. The soils engineer or his representative should observe the retaining wall footings,
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19,2013
P/W 1205-06 Page 18
ReportNo. 1205-06-B-3
backdrain installation and be present during placement of the wall backfill to confirm that the walls
are properly backfilled and compacted.
WATERPROOFING
MEMBRANE
(OPTIONAL)
1:1 (H:V) OR FLATTER
nOllJi. (11 tm^ltt. ••-INCH PtH^OtWrtDABSOKf'VO'K't OHAPPHCVfcD fcOUIVAUEMI SUSSinUt b PlACtt) IliRKlHAHONS DOWN AND SUHROUNOEO BY A MINIMUM OF 1 CUBIC hEEl OH 3^4 INCH ROCK OH AfT"ROVtU EOUIVALfcN) SUBST(IUibANUW«Al'l'fcUIN MIHAH MOf-tLIfeH FABHtC OH AI'J'KOVba
7.2 UTILITY TRENCH EXCAVATION
All utility frenches should be shored or laid back in accordance with applicable OSHA standards.
Excavations in bedrock areas should be made in consideration of underlying geologic stracture.
AGS should be consulted on these issues during constraction.
7.3 UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL
Mainline and lateral utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum
dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. Onsite soils will not be suitable for use as bedding
material but will be suitable for use in backfill, provided oversized materials are removed. No
surcharge loads should be imposed above excavations. This includes spoil piles, lumber, concrete
trucks or other construction materials and equipment. Drainage above excavations should be
directed away from the banks. Care should be taken to avoid saturation of the soils.
Compaction should be accomplished by mechanical means. Jetting of native soils will not be
acceptable.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19,2013 Page 19
P/W 1205-06 Report No. 1205-06-B-3
7.4 EXTERIOR SLABS. WALKWAYS AND PAVEMENT
7.4.1 Subgrade Compaction
The subgrade below exterior slabs, sidewalks, driveways, patios, etc. should be compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D 1557.
7.4.2 Subgrade Moisture
The subgrade below exterior slabs, sidewalks, driveways, patios, etc. should be moisture conditioned
to a minimum of 11 Opercent of optimum moisture content prior to concrete placement, dependent
upon the expansion potential of the subgrade soils.
7.4.3 Slab Thickness
Concrete flatwork and driveways should be designed utilizing four-inch minimum thickness.
7.4.4 Control Joints
Weakened plane joints should be installed on walkways at intervals of approximately eight to ten
feet. Exterior slabs should be designed to withstand shrinkage ofthe concrete.
7.4.5 Flatwork Reinforcement
Consideration should be given to reinforcing any exterior flatwork with 6 inch by 6 inch No.6 by
No. 6 welded wire mesh for.
7.4.6 Thickened Edge
Consideration should be given to consfruct a thickened edge (scoop footing) at the perimeter of slabs
and walkways adjacent to landscape areas to minimize moisture variation below these
improvements. The thickened edge (scoop footing) should extend approximately eight inches below
concrete slabs and should be a minimum of six inches wide.
7.4.7 Pavement Design
The following preliminary recommendations are presented for onsite pavements assuming an R-
Value (R)of65:
Concrete Pavement
6-inches Concrete*
Over
4-Class II Base**
*Minimunn flexural strengtli of concrete MR=550psi
**Subgradc and base compacted to a minimum of 95% (per ASTM D 1557)
Concrete Pavement
4-inches Asphaltic Concrete
Over
6-Class II Base**
**Subgrade and base compacted to a minimum of 95% (per ASTM D 1557)
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19,2013 Page 20
P/W 1205-06 Report No. 1205-06-B-3
7.5 PLAN REVIEW
Once foundation design plans become available, tiiey should be reviewed by AGS to verify that the
design recommendations presented are consistent with the proposed constraction.
7.6 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
As is the case in any grading project, multiple working hypotheses are established utilizing the
available data, and the most probable model is used for the analysis. Information collected during
the grading and consfruction operations is intended to evaluate the hypotheses, and some of the
assumptions summarized herein may need to be changed as more information becomes available.
Some modification of the grading and constraction recommendations may become necessary, should
the conditions encountered in the field differ significantiy than those hypothesized to exist.
AGS should review the pertinent plans and sections of the project specifications, to evaluate
conformance with the intent of the recommendations contained in this report.
If the project description or final design varies from that described in this report, AGS must be
consulted regarding the applicability of, and the necessity for, any revisions to the recommendations
presented herein. AGS accepts no liability for any use of its recommendations if the project
description or final design varies and AGS is not consulted regarding the changes.
8.0 SLOPE AND LOT MAINTENANCE
Maintenance of improvements is essential to the long-term performance of stractures and slopes. Although
the design and constraction during mass grading is planned to create slopes that are both grossly and
surficially stable, certain factors are beyond the control of the soil engineer and geologist. The homeowners
must implement certain maintenance procedures.
The following recommendations should be implemented.
8.1 SLOPE PLANTING
Slope planting should consist of groimd cover, shrubs and trees that possess deep, dense root
structures and require a minimum of irrigation. The resident should be advised of their
responsibility to maintain such planting.
8.2 LOT DRAINAGE
Roof, pad and lot drainage should be collected and directed away from structures and slopes and
toward approved disposal areas. Design fine-grade elevations should be maintained through the life
of the sfructure or if design fine grade elevations are altered, adequate area drains should be installed
in order to provide rapid discharge of water, away from stractures and slopes. Residents should be
made aware that they are responsible for maintenance and cleaning of all drainage terraces, down
drains and other devices that have been installed to promote sfructure and slope stability.
8.3 SLOPE IRRIGATION
The resident, homeowner and Homeowner Association should be advised of their responsibility to
maintain irrigation systems. Leaks should be repaired immediately. Sprinklers should be adjusted to
provide maximum uniform coverage with a minimum of water usage and overlap.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 19, 2013 Page 21
P/W 1205-06 Report No. 1205-06-B-3
Overwatering with consequent wasteflil run-off and ground saturation should be avoided. If
automatic sprinkler systems are installed, their use must be adjusted to account for natural rainfall
conditions.
8-4 BURROWING ANIMALS
Residents or homeowners should undertake a program for the elimination of burrowing animals.
This should be an ongoing program in order to maintain slope stability.
9.0 LIMITATIONS
This report is based on the project as described and the information obtained from the excavations al the
approximate locations indicated on the Plate 1. The findings are based on the results of the field, laboratory,
and office investigations combined with an interpolation and extrapolation of conditions between and
beyond the excavation locations. The results reflect an interpretation of the direct evidence obtained.
Services performed by AGS have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar
conditions. No other representation, either expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or
intended.
The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that an appropriate level of field
review will be provided by geotechnical engineers and engineering geologists who are familiar with the
design and site geologic conditions. That field review shall be sufficient to confirm that geotechnical and
geologic conditions exposed during grading are consistent with the geologic representations and
corresponding recommendations presented in this report. AGS should be notified of any pertinent changes
in the project plans or if subsurface conditions are found to vary from those described herein. Such changes
or variations may require a re-evaluation of the recommendations contained in this report.
The data, opinions, and recommendations of this report are applicable to the specific design of this project as
discussed in this report. They have no applicability to any other project or to any other location, and any and
all subsequent users accept any and all liability resulting from any use or reuse of the data, opinions, and
recommendations without the prior written consent of AGS.
AGS has no responsibility for consfruction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for
safety precautions or programs in connection with the constmction, for the acts or omissions of the
CONTRACTOR, or any other person performing any of the constraction, or for the failure of any of them to
carry out the constraction in accordance with the final design drawings and specifications.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
APPENDIX A
REFERNCES
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
REFERENCES
Califomia Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG 2008). Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, 2008, Special Publication 117A.
California Building Standards Commission. (2010). California Building Code.
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. (2010). Response to Cycle Review Comments Ocean Street
Residences (CD 12-09), City of Carlsbad Califomia, P/W 1205-06, Report P/W1205-06-B-2,
October 30. 2012.
Geocon Inc., Geotechnical Investigation, Ocean Street Condomimums, Ocean Street and
Mountain View Drive, Carlsbad, California, dated September 3, 2004. (project no. 07353-22-
01)
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
APPENDIX B
CONE PENETROIMETER SOUNDINGS
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kehoe Testing & Engineering
Office: (714) 901-7270
Fax: (714) 901-7289
ricii@kehoetesting.com
www.kehoetesting.com
CPT Data
30 ton rig
Date: 05/Nov/2012
Test ID: CPT-3
Project: Carlsbad
Kehoe Testing & Engineering
Office: (714) 901-7270
Fax: (714) 901-7289
ricii@kehoetesting.com
www.kehoetesting.com
Customer: Advanced Geotechnical Solutions
Job Site: Ocean Street
•
Tip Stress COR Sleeve Stress
(tsf) 600 0 (tsf) 10
Pore Pressure Ratio COR
-2 (tsf) 2 0 (%)
SBT FR
8 2 (Rob. 19B6) 12
Maximum depth: 52.78 (ft)
Page 1 ol 2
Ti»! tl: CPT-3
Fl9:Z05N12D3C£CP
9 O
{(^•P •V' Kehoe Testing & Engineering
Office: (714) 901-7270
Fax:(714)901-7289
rich@kehoetesting.CQm
www.kehoetesting.com
CPT Data
30 ton rig
Date: 05/Nov/2012
Test ID: CPT-3
Project: Carlsbad
{(^•P •V' Kehoe Testing & Engineering
Office: (714) 901-7270
Fax:(714)901-7289
rich@kehoetesting.CQm
www.kehoetesting.com
Customer: Advanced Geotechnical Solutions
Job Site: Ocean Street
Tip Siress COR Sleeve Stress Pore Pressure Ratio COR
0 (tsf) 600 0 (tsO 10 -2 (tsf) 2 0 (%)
SBTFR
8 2 (Rob. 1986) 12
100
Maximjm depth: 52.78 (ft)
Paga 2 a12
50
60
70
80
SO
100
TMt D: CPT J
FiB;2D5S1203C£CP
K^VH Kehoe Testing & Engineering CPT Data Date: 05/Nov/2012
Office: (714) 901-7270 30 ton rig Test ID: CPT-2
E^^ Fax:(714)901-7289 Project: Carlsbad
rich@kehoetesting.com Customer: Advanced Geotechnical Solutions
www.kehoetesting.com Job Site: Ocean Street
Tip Sfress COR
(tsf)
-I r
Sleeve Stress
600 0 (Isf) 10
llllllll
Pore Pressure
-2 (tsf) 2
Ratio COR
0 (%) 8
SBT FR
2 (Rob. 19B6) 12
Maximum doplh-36.03 (ft)
TB«!|D:CPT.J
K^Hf HF Kehoe Testing & Engineering
t^^W Office: (714) 901-7270
E^^ Fax: (714) 901-7289
rich@kehoetesting.com
www.kehoetesting.com
CPT Data
30 ton rig
Date: 05/Nov/2012
Test ID: CPT-1
Project: Carlsbad
K^Hf HF Kehoe Testing & Engineering
t^^W Office: (714) 901-7270
E^^ Fax: (714) 901-7289
rich@kehoetesting.com
www.kehoetesting.com
Customer: Advanced Geotechnical Solutions
Job Site: Ocean Street
Tip Stress COR
(tsf) 600
Sleeve Stress
0 (tsf) 10
Pore Pressure
-2 (tsf) 2
Ratio COR
0 (%) 8
1—,—I—r
SBT FR
2 (Rob. 1986) 12
I I l-l I I I I Sand Mix
Silty Sara
Sand Mix
Silty Sand
10
Clay
Silty Sand
20
30
40
50
Maximjm depth: 20.17 (H)
Teat D CPT.1
APPENDIX C
GEOCON
BORING LOGS AND LABORATORY DATA
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on July 16 and 26 and August 27, 2004, and consisted of a site
reconnaissance and drilling ten exploratory small-diameter borings at the approximate locations
shown on Figure 2. The small-diameter borings were drilled to depths varying from 16 to 3014.
Borings BI through B3 were drilled with a CME 55 drill rig equipped with hollow-stem auger.
Borings B4 through BIO were drilled with a mud rotary drill rig. Relatively undisturbed samples were
obtained by driving a Califomia Modified Sampler 12 inches with blows from a 140-pound hammer
falling 30 inches. This split-tube sampler was equipped with 1-inch-high by 2^A-inch-diameter brass
sampler rings to facilitate sample removal and testing. Dismrbed bulk samples were obtained from
the boring's cuttings.
The soil conditions encountered in the borings were visually examined, classified and logged in
general accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice for
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D 2488). The logs of the
exploratory borings are presented on Figures A-l ihrough A-10. The logs depict the various soil types
encountered and indicate the depths at which samples were obtained.
Project No. 07353-22-0] September 3,2004
PROJECT NO. 07353-22-01
BORING B 1
ELEV. (MSL)
EQUIPMENT
-3B DATE COIVIPLETED 07-16-2004
CME 55
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
4" ASPHALT CONCRETE
TERRACE DEPOSITS
Medium dense, moist, brown, Siltv, fine lo medium SAND
Hard, moist, tan-brown, CLAY
-Becomes very stiff and brown at 13 feci
Medium dense, moist, brown. Silt}', fine to medium SAND
2 o)-
K Z U-
I- w >
15
23
52
37
Q
IO'I,!
102.1
114,5
94,]
96.0
O Z s o u
tu
3.8
5.8
14.5
26.0
4.1
BORING TEiy»41NATED AT 20 FEET
No groundwater
Hole filled with cuttings mixed with 1 bag portland cement
Figure A-1, 735a-22-01.GPJ
Log of Boring B 1, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS °" "•'^-"^^^"^ S2 ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST S .. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
^ .. DlSTURSaj OR BAG SAMPtE B ... CHUNK SAMPLE 51 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE. THE L0I3 OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOW.M HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND ATTHE DATE INDICATED IT
IS NDT WARRANTED TO BS REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 07353-22-01
BORINGS 2
ELEV. (MSL.)
EQUIPMENT
-35 DATE COMPLETED 07-16-2004
CME 55
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
4" ASPHALT CONCIETE
TERRACE DEPOSITS
Medium dense, moist, red-brown, Silt\', fine to medium SAND
Very stiff, moist, brown, CLAY
2 o 1-
H to g
30
05
u
o: a
50/6"
Dense, moist, lan, fine to coarse SAND
118.4
108.3
O Z 5 O
o
5.7
9.5
21 96.2
46
26.2
102.1
BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET
No groundwater
Hole filled with cunings mixed with 1 bag portland cement
46 96.1
7.8
4.4
Figure A-2,
Log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of 1 r353-22-0VGPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ^ - ^'^'"^"^'^ UNSUCCESSFUL BD ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST H ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
MrVTC T-U= 1 r,^ nc Cl (QC, jnr-A/%f- .
y .,- C«UNK SAMPLE S. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
= REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
PROJECT NO. 07353-22-01
BORING B 3
ELEV. (MSL.:
EQUIPMENT
-32 DATE COMPLETED 07-16-2004
CME 55
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
H to >
CO ~
ti:
Q
UJ 3S
I— Z 2 ff Q 2 S O u
UNDOCUMENTED FILL/ALLUVIUM
Medium dense, moist, dark-brouTi, Silly, fine to medium SAND
TERRACE DEPOSITS
Firm, moist, brown. Sandy SILT
Firm, moist, brown, CLAY
Gravel al 7 feet
12
Dense, moist, gray-brown, fine to coaise SAND
•Gravel layer at 17 feet
Hard, moist grav-brown. CLAYSTONE"
BORING •nERMINATED AT 20 FEET
Hole filled with cuttings mixed with 1 bag ponland cement
Figure A-3,
Log of Boring B 3, Page 1 of 1
113.8 6.S
107.8
46
5.1
110.2
49 88.5 il.9
7353-22.01,GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ^ - ^"'''^^^ UNSUCCESSFUL u. . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST M ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
WnTC- Tun t rin too tar.\r.Fr ......i.....,^.,.. ... . _
s. . CHUNK SAMPLE X •• WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
IS NOT WARRAI^EOTO fli REPREsiNTA^E OFluBSU^-crcON^ >^
PROJECT NO. 07353-22-01
T
Figure A-4,
Log of Boring B 4, Page 1 of 1 73S3-22-D1.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
S ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
B .. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
El .. CHUNK SAMPLE
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
? •• WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
PROJECTNO. 07353-22-01
DEPTH
IN
FEET
SAMPLE
NO.
CD O
o
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
BORING B 5
ELEV. (MSL.) -15
EQUIPMENT
DATE COMPLETED 07-26-2004
MUD ROTARY
LU
Tn O
ro
CC Cs
02 20
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 2 -
4 -
B5-1
B5-2 4-)
V/. - 6
- 10 -
12
y./A
B5-:
14
16 -
18 -
B5-4
/
SM
SC
B5-5
ML
UNDOCUMENTED FILL/ALLUVIUM
Loose, moist, lan and brown. Silly, fme to coarse SAND
Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND
-Becomes saturated at 11 feel
-1 fool layer of gravel at 13 feet
TERRACE DEPOSITS
Hard, saturated, gray-green, Sandy SLIT
-No recovery
11 111.5
110.9
19
74/10"
50/6"
113.4
14.1
17.J
15.:
BORING TERMINATED AT 19.5 FEET
Groundwater encountered al 11 feet
Hole filled with 15 gallons of benionile slurry
Figure A-5, 1 1 \ 1
7353-22-Ol.GPJ
Log of Boring B 5, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ° - '"""'""^UNSUCCESSFUL B ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST H ...DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
S ... DISTURBED OR SAG SAMPLE B ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED n"
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONOrriONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES cmL-ll-Altu,
PROJECT NO. 07353-22-01
BORING B 6
ELEV. (MSL)
EQUIPMENT
-16 DATE COMPLETED 07-26-2004
MUD ROTARY
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
2 OH I t
S < CO 2":
to
TO UJ
s o
o
UNDOCUMENTED FILL/ALLUA'IUM
Medium dense, moist, brovw, Siln-, fine lo coanre SAND
Stiff, moist, gray-green, Sandy SILT
Medium dense, moist, red-br'^\^,liTty7fme~to~c^ SAND'
TERRACE DEPOSITS ~
Ver>' dense, pale gray, Silty, line to coarse SAND
20
12
105.0
Hard, saturated, lan, Sandy SILT'
88/9" 106.4
BORING TERMINATED AT 15.75 FEET
Groundwater encountered at 11.5 feet
Hole filled with 7 gallons of bentonite slurry'
50/3"
S.O
17.9
DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
Z ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
PROJECT NO. 07353-22-01
BORING B 7
ELEV. (MSL.) -14
EQUIPMENT
DATE COMPLETED 07-26-2004
IVIUD ROTARY
9 o H
H 2 U.
H CO g
Q.
>-
to
ZLL
a
si
O 2 2 o o
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
U.NDOCUMENTED FILL/ALLU\1UM
Medium dense, moist, orange-brown, Siltj-, fine to coarse SAND
-Becomes gray
-Layer of asphalt concrete at 9 feet
Soft, wet, dark gray, Sandy SILT; organicodor
11
25 112.5
-Becomes saturated at 11.5 feet
Medium dense. satuiBled, dark gray, Silty, fine to coarse SAND"
-1 foot gravel layer at 23 feet
TERRACE DEPOSITS
Vcr^'tof, fa liphi lan. Siltv fine m cnar^p .SA,Nn
105.2
15
16.6
14.9
Figure A-7,
Log of Boring B 7, Page 1 of 2 7353-2201 .GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS •• ^'^"'"'-"^^ UNSUCCESSFUL E ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST M ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
S ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE £
MOTP TWC 1 r,/-; nc Cl iD0iiOi:Ar.e r.r>fc.r..T..-.i.^ .
... CHUNK SAMPLE S. - WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF •S.BsVR^ACrc^NDm JAND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
PROJECTNO. 07353-22-01
Figure A-7,
Log of Boring B 7, Page 2 of 2 7353-22-^1 GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS n -. SAMPUNG UNSUCCESSFUL
S ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
I .. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
I ...CHUNKSAMPLE
B ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
X - WATER TABLE OH SEEPAGE
'^°^^-S^oV°fvA^R=^^-SS^^^^
PROJECT NO. 07353-22-01
DEPTH
IN
FEET
2 -
4 -
6 -
SAMPLE
NO.
B8-I
B8-2
10
- 12 -
- 14
- 16
- IB -
20 -
22
24
B8-3
BS-4
BS-5
>-O O
o
X
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
r. !
fU
'!• I I ftp
1^1
sc
SM
SM
SP
BORING B 8
ELEV. (MSL.) -10
EQUIPMENT
DATE COMPLETED 08-27-2004
MUD ROTARY
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
UNDOCU>IENTED FILL/ALLUVIUM
Very dense, moist, brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND
Loose, moist, brown, SUty, fine to coarse SAND, some gravef
O UJ —? _ o
I- 2 U -
I- CO S
2"3
CO
2 u-
li
vc a
53
Loose, saturated, black, Silty, fine to coai7c SAND and GRAVEL "
Loose, saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND"
-Becomes medium dense, some concrete in sampler 25
LU S«
5 0 U
-Gravel layer al 24 feet
Figure A-8,
Log of Boring B 8, Page 1 of 2 7353-22-01.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
El ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
E .. CHUNK SAMPLE
m ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
... VVATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE THE LOS OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT TME SPFriFir pno,K,r- no -r„=>,„^ ~~ ~~
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CO^moNS^T^^Eri.0^^^^^^^^ ™ °«TE INDICATED. IT
PROJECT NO. 07353-22-01
DEPTH
IN
FEET
SAMPLE
NO-
B8-6
- 25 -
- 28 -
- 30
32 -
34 -
35 -
BS-7
O
o
o
SOIL
cuss
(USCS)
- 38
- 40
B8-8
B8-9
m
BORINGS 8
ELEV. (MSL.)
EQUIPMENT
-10 DATE COMPLETED 08-27-2004
MUD ROTARY
SM
SC
:UJ . 2 Qo)--t z kt
5^ a
to H
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Medium dense, saturated, gray. Silly, fine to medium SAN-D, some shells
TERRACE DEPOSITS ~
Ver>' dense, saturaled, gray. Clayey, fine to coarse SANDSTONE
-No recovery
25
-No recovery
50/4"
>-
t; CO -^ 2 u.
DL O
98/10"
BORING TERMINATED AT 4i FEET
Groundwater encountered at 8 feet
Hole filled wilh 40 gal. of benionile slurry
Figure A-8,
Log of Boring B 8, Page 2 of 2
60/6"
O 2 SO
o
7353-22^31. GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ^ ''^"""^"^SUCCESSFUL IC. . STANDARD PENETRATION TEST H ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
^ -.. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE . CHUNK SAMPLE 3! ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
= REPRESENTAT^/EOF SUBSURFAciFoSBmiiisA^OWERIO™^^^^^
PROJECT NO. 07353-22-01
BORING B 9
ELEV. (MSL.) -12
EQUIPMENT
DATE COMPLETED 08-27-2004
MUD ROTARY
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
UNDOCUtMENTED FILL/ALLUVTUM
Loose, moist, brown. Clayey, fine to coarse SAND
Dense, moist, red-brown, Silty, flne lo coarse SAND, boulders and debris
2
Qoi-)- 2 y-CO
2
cc o
47
UJ
o z 2 O
o
BORING TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Hole filled with cuttings mixed with bentonite
Figure A-9, 73S 3-22-01,GPJ
Log of Boring B 9, Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ° -. SMIPLING UNSUCCESSFUL C ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST M ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE B -. CHUNK SAMPLE X - WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE THS LOQ OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON A-OPUES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INOICATED IT
JS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONomONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
PROJECTNO. 07353-22-01
BORING B 10
ELEV. (MSL.) . -13 DATE COMPLETED 08-27-2004
EQUIPMENT MUD ROTARY
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
UNDOCUMENTED FimALLUVIU.M
Dense, moist, red-brown. Clayey, fine to coaree SAND
-Becomes verj' loose at 5 feet
-Becomes saturated at 7 feet
o
S o (-
K 2 u.
H- CO >
46 ITY tu
CO ~ cc ~ 2U-2 2 go to LU
>• ^
O 2 CC s o Cl o
Loose, saturated, dark gray to black, Claj^i', fine to coarse SAND TnThT
organic odor
•Becomes medium dense 12
Medium dense, saturated, light-tan. Silty, fine SAND " 39
TERRACE DEPOSITS
Figure A-10,
Log of Boring B 10, Page 1 of 2
V£G:.to.-=e, ?anirmed. nale-grav (pi^vi^v fi,,i;n,^.wj,,m .SAND.SjnKrf
7353-22^)1 GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS O ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
^ „. DISTURBED OR SAG SAMPLE
iJ.. STANDARD PENETRATIONT=ST
H.. . CHUNK SAMPLE
H ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDmONS SHOWN HEREON APPLiF<! ONI V iTTuc eo-n,^,^ _ __
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVETI^SSuVFAcfcoSD^^^^^^^^ IT
PROJECT NO. 07353-22-01
BORING B 10
ELEV. (MSL) -13
EQUIPMENT
DATE COMPLETED 08-27-2004
MUD ROTARY
y u I--CQ -r
2 LL
ll
It
Q
UJ
I— 2
2 O O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
60
BORING TERMINATED AT 31 FEET
Groimdwater encountered al 7 feel
Hole filled with 40 gal. of bentonite slurry
85
Figure A-10, 7353-22-Ol.GPJ
Log of Boring B 10, Page 2 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ° '""""''^ "^S^^^^^SSFUI B ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST H ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE 2. -.. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
IS NOT WARRAffl-ED TO BE HEPRESEI^TATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were perfonned in accordance with generally accepted test methods ofthe American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Samples were subjected to
drained direct shear, grain-size analysis, consolidation, expansion index, R-value, and laboratory
maximum dry density and optimum moisture content tests. One sample was tested for its corrosivity
characteristics. Results of the gram-size analysis and consolidation tests are presented on Figures Bl
through B3. Results of the other laboratory tests are presented on Tables B-l through B-VI. In situ
moisture and diy density tests are presented on the boring logs (Appendix A).
TABLE B-l
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080-98
Sample
No.
Dry Density
(pc«
Moisture Content
(%)
Unit Cohesion
(psf)
Angle of Shear
Resistance (degrees)
Bl-4 114.5 14.5 630 33
B6-1 106.0 8.0 370 36
TABLE B-ll
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829-95
Sample
No.
Moisture Content Dry
Density (pcf)
Expansion
Index
Sample
No. Before Test (%) After Test (%)
Dry
Density (pcf)
Expansion
Index
B2-5 13.8 36.8 99.7 181
Project No. 07353-22-01 B-l Septembca- 3, 2004
TABLE B-III
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D15S7-02
Sample No. Description
Maximum
Dry Density
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture Content
(% dry wt.)
B3-1 Dark brown Silty, fine to coarse SAND 134.0 8.1
TABLE B-IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESISTANCE VALUE TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 2844-99
Sample No. Description R-Value
Bl-1 Reddish brown Silty, fine to medium SAND
with a trace of gravel 65
TABLE B-V
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY pH AND RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 643
Sample No. pH Minimum Resistivity
(ohm-centimeters)
B3-3 6.4 210
TABLE B-VI
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
CAUFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 417
Sample No. Water-Soluble Sulfate (%)
B3-3 0.050
Project No. 07353-22-01 •B-2. September 3, 2004
PROJECTNO. 07353-22-01
GRA MEL SAND
SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM 1 FINE SILT OR CLAY
3" 1-\I2" 3/4" 3/8" 4
U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
200
TJtr
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION NATWC LL PL PI
• B5-3 10.0 Sandy SILT (ML)
B7-3 10.0 Clayey SAND (SC)
GRADATION CURVE
OCEAN STI?EET CONDOMINIUM
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
73iJ•2^01-CJPJ
Figure B-1
PROJECTNO. 07353-22-01
SAMPLE NO. 87-4
-6
-4
2 O
i=
§
o
CO 2 O O H Z UJ O CC tu a.
10
TiT
APPLIED PRESSURE (Jtsf)
Initial Dry Densily (pcf) 105.2
Initial Water Content (%) 14.9
•00
Initial Saturation (%) 68.6
Sample Saturated at (Ksf) 2.0
CONSOUDATION CURVE
OCEAN STREET CONDOMINIUM
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
7353-J2-01.t!PJ
Figure B-2
PROJECTNO. 07353-22-01
3 O to 2 O u
2 111 o IT UJ 0.
SAMPLE NO. B5-2
1" "mr
APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf)
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 110.9
Initial Water Content ('/.) 17.4
Initial Saturation (%) 93.2
Sample SaturatetJ at (ksf) 2.0
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
OCEAN STREET CONDOMINIUM
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
7353.22.01.GPJ
Figure B-1
APPENDIX D
GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
AND GRADING GUIDELINES
ADVANCED GEOTECHNiCAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
P/W 1205-06 Report No. 1205-06-B-3
GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
1. General
A. General procedures and requirements for earthwork anti grading are presented herein. The earthwork and grading
recommendations provided in the geotechnical report are considered part of these specifications, and where the general
specifications provided herein conflict with those provided in the geotechnical report, the recommendations in the geotechnical
report shall govem. Recommendations provided herein and in the geotechnical report may need to be modified depending on thc
conditions encountered during grading.
B. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the project plans,
specifications, applicable building codes, and local goveming agency requirements. Where these requirements conflict, the
stricter requirements shall govern.
C. It is the contractor's responsibility to read and understand thc guidelines presented herein and in the geotechnical report as
well as the project plans and specifications. Information presented in the geotechnical report is subject to verification during
grading. The information presented on thc exploration logs depict conditions at the particular time of excavation and at the
location of the excavation. Subsurface conditions present at other locations may differ, and the passage of time may result in
different subsurface conditions being encountered at the locations of the exploratory excavations. The contractor shall perform an
independent investigation and evaluate the nature of thc surface and subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures
and equipment to be used in performing his work.
D- The contractor shall have the responsibility to provide adequate equipment and procedures to accomplish the earthwork in
accordance with applicable requirements. When the quality of work is less than that required, the Geotechnical Consultant may
reject the work and may recommend that the operations be suspended until the conditions are corrected.
E. Prior to thc start of grading, a qualified Geotechnical Consultant should be employed to observe grading procedures and
provide testing of the fills for conformance with the project specifications, approved grading plan, and guidelines presented
herein. All remedial removals, clean-outs, removal bottoms, keyways, and subdrain installations should be observed and
documented by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing fill. It is the contractor's responsibility to appraise the Geotechnical
Consultant of their schedules and notify the Geotechnical Consultant when those areas are ready for observation.
F. The contractor is respon.sible for providing a safe environment for the Geotechnical Consultant to observe grading and conduct
tests.
II- Site Preparation
A. Clearing and Grubbing: Excessive vegetation and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed as required by the
Geotechnical Consultant, and such materials shall be properly disposed of offsite in a method acceptable to the owner and
goveming agencies. Where applicable, the contractor may obtain permission from the Geotechnical Consultant, owner, and
governing agencies to dispose of vegetation and other deleterious materials in designated areas onsite.
B. Unsuitable Soils Removals: Earth materials that are deemed unsuitable for the support of fill shall be removed as necessary to
the satisfaction ofthe Geotechnical ConsultanL
C. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, other utilities, or
other structures located within the limits of grading shall be removed and/or abandoned in accordance with the requirements of
the goveming agency and to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical ConsultanL
D- Preparation of Areas to Receive Fill: After removals are completed, the exposed surfaces shall be scarified to a depth of
approximately 8 inches, watered or dried, as needed, to achieve a generally uniform moisture content that is at or near optimum
moisture content Thc scarified materials shall then be compacted to the project requirements and tested as specified.
E. All areas receiving fill shall be observed and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to the placement of fill. A
licensed surveyor shall provide survey control for determining elevations of processed areas and keyways.
Ill, Placement of Fill
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
P/W 1205-06 ReportNo. 1205-06-B-3
A. Suitability of fill materials: Any materials, derived onsite or imported, may be utilized as fill provided that the materials have
been determined to be suitable by the Geotechnical Consultant Such materials shall be essentially free of organic matter and
other deleterious materials, and be of a gradation, expansion potential, and/or strength that is acceptable to the Geotechnical
Consultant. Fill materials shall be tested in a laboratory approved by the Geotechnical Consultant, and import materials shall be
tested and approved prior to being imported,
B. Generally, dilferent fill materials shall be thoroughly mixed to provide a relatively uniform blend of materials and prevent
abrupt changes in material type. Fill materials derived from benching should be dispersed throughout the fill area instead of
placing the materials within only an equipment-width from the cut/fill contact.
C. Oversize Materials: Rocks greater than 8 inches in largest dimension shall be disposed of offsite or bc placed in accordance
with the recommendations by the Geotechnical Consultant in the areas that are designated as suitable for oversize rock
placement Rocks that are smaller than 8 inches in largest dimension may be utilized in the fill provided that they are not nested
and are their quantity and distribution are acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant.
D. The fill materials shall be placed in thin, horizontal layers such that, when compacted, shall not exceed 6 inches. liach layer
shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed to obtain a near uniform moisture content and uniform blend of materials.
E. Moisture Content: Fill materials shall be placed at or above the optimum moisture content or as reconunended by thc
geotechnical report. Where the moisture content of the engineered fill is less than recommended, water shall be added, and the fill
materials shall be blended so that a near uniform moisture content is achieved. If the moisture content is above the limits
specified by thc Geotechnical Consultant, thc fill materials shall be aerated by discing, blading, or other methods until the
moisture content is acceptable.
F. Each layer of fill shall be compacted to the project standards in accordance to the project specifications and recommendations
of the Geotechnical Consultant. Unless otherwise specified by the Geotechnical Consultant, the fill shall be compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent ofthe maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method: Dl 557-09.
G. Benching: Where placing fill on a slope exceeding a ratio of 5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be keyed or
benched. The keyways and benches shall extend through all unsuitable materials into suitable materials such as firm materials or
sound bedrock or as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant The minimum keyway width shall be 15 feet and extend into
suitable materials, or as recommended by the geotechnical report and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. The minimum
keyway width for fill over cut slopes is also 15 feet or as recommended by the geotechnical report and approved by the
Geotechnical ConsultanL As a general rule, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant the minimum width
ofthe keyway shall be equal to 1/2 the height ofthe fill slope.
H. Stope Face: The specified minimum relative compaction shall be maintained out to the finish face of fill and stabilization fill
slopes. Generally, this may be achieved by overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core. The actual amount of
overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. Alternately, this may be achieved by backrolling the slope face with suitable
equipment or other methods that produce the designated result Loose soil should not be allowed to build up on the slope face. If
pre.sent, loose soils shall be trimmed to expose the compacted slope face.
I. Slope Ratio: Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Consultant and goveming agencies, permanent fill slopes shall be
designed and constracted no steeper than 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical).
J. Natural Ground and Cut Areas: Design grades that are in natural ground or in cuts should be evaluated by the Geotechnical
Consultant to determine whether scarification and processing of the ground and/or overexcavation is needed.
K. Fill materials shall not be placed, spread, or compacted during unfavorable weather conditions. When grading is interrupted by
rain, filing operations shall not resume until thc Geotechnical Consultant approves the moisture and density ofthe previously
placed compacted fill.
IV. Cut Slopes
A. The Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect all cut slopes, including fill over cut slopes, and shall be notified by the contractor
when cut slopes are started.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
P/W 1205-06 Report No. 1205-06-B-3
B. If adverse or potentially adverse conditions are encountered during grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall investigate,
evaluate, and make recommendations to mitigate the adverse conditions.
C. Unless otherwise stated in the geotechnical report, cut slopes shall not be excavated higher or sleeper than the requirements of
the local goveming agencies. Short-term stability ofthe cut slopes and other excavations is the contractor's responsibility.
v. Drainage
A. Backdrains and Subdrains: Backdrains and subdrains shall be provided in fill as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant
and shall be constructed in accordance with the governing agency and/or recommendations ofthe Geotechnical Consultant. The
location of subdrains, especially outiets, shall be surveyed and recorded by the Civil Engineer.
B. Top-of-slope Drainage: Positive drainage shall be established away from the top of slope. Site drainage shall not be permitted
to flow over the tops of slopes.
C. Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the goveming agency requirements and/or in accordance with the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant.
D. Non-erodible interceptor swales shall be placed at the top of cut slopes that face the same direction as the prevailing drainage.
VI. Erosion Control
A. All finish cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion and/or planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or
landscape architect's recommendations. Such measures to protect the slope face shall be undertaken as soon as practical after
completion of grading,
B. During construction, the contractor shall maintain proper drainage and prevent the ponding of water. The contractor shall take
remedial measures to prevent the erosion of graded areas until permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been
installed.
VII. Trench Excavation and Backfill
A. Safety: The contractor shall follow all OSHA requirements for safety of U'ench excavations. Knowing and following these
requirements is the contractor's responsibility. All trench excavations or open cuts in excess of 5 feet in depth shall be shored or
laid back. Trench excavations and open cuts exposing adverse geologic conditions may require further evaluation by the
Geotechnical Consultant If a contractor fails to provide safe access for compaction testing, backfill not tested due to safety
concems may be subject to removal.
B. Bedding: Bedding materials shall be non-expansive and have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30. Where permitted by the
Geotechnical ConsultanL the bedding materials can be densified by jetting.
C. Backfill: Jetting of backfill materials is generally not acceptable. Where permitted by the Geotechnical Consultant the
bedding materials can be densified by jetting provided the backfill materials are granular, free-draining and have a Sand
Equivalent greater than 30.
VIIL Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Grading
A. Compaction Testing: Fill .shall be tested by the Geotechnical Consultant for evaluation of general compliance with the
recommended compaction and moisture conditions. The tests shall be taken in the compacted soils beneath the surface if the
surficial materials are disturbed. The contractor shall assist the Geotechnical Consultant by excavating suitable test pits for testing
of compacted fill.
B. Where tests indicate that the density of a layer of fill is less than required, or the moisture content not within specifications, the
Geotechnical Consultant shall notify the contractor of the unsatisfactory conditions of the fill. The portions of the fill that are not
within specifications shall be reworked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill
.shall be placed until the last lift of fill is tested and found to meet the project specifications and approved by the Geotechnical
Consultant
C. If, in thc opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as adverse weather, exce.ssive rock or
deleterious materials being placed in the fill, insufficient equipment excessive rate of fill placement results in a quality of work
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
P/W 1205-06 ReportNo. 1205-06-B-3
that is unacceptable, the consultant shall notify the contractor, and the contractor shall rectify the conditions, and if necessary,
stop work until conditions are sati.sfactory.
D. Frequency of Compaction Testing: The location and frequency of tests shall be at the Geotechnical Consultant's
discretion. Generally, compaction tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding two feet in fill height and 1,000 cubic yards of
fill materials placed.
E. Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal
coordinates of the compaction te.st locations. The conlractor shall coordinate with the surveyor to assure that sufficient grade
stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations. Alternately, the test locations can be
surveyed and the results provided to the Geotechnical Consultant
F. Areas of fill that have not been observed or tested by the Geotechnica! Consultant may have to be removed and recompacted at
the contractor's expense, llio depth and extent of removals will be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant.
G. Observation and testing by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be conducted during grading in order for the Geotechnical
Consultant to state that in his opinion, grading has been completed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report and
project specifications.
H. Reporting of Test Results: After completion of grading operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall submit reports
documenting their observations during constraction and test results. These reports may be subject to review by the local
governing agencies.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
DESIGN GRADE
7^:
^ \ EXISTING GRADE
REQUIRED BENCHING
ENGINEERED FILL
\
SUBDRAIN OPTION 1 OR 2
(SEE DETAIL 2)
UNSUITABLE
BEARING MATERIAL
(REMOVE)
SUITABLE
BEARING MATERIAL
PLACE SUBDRAIN AT LOWEST
GRADE WITHIN CANYON REMOVAL
CANYON SUBDRAIN PROFILE
DIRECT SOLID OUTLET PIPE TO
APPROVED DRAINAGE AREA PER
PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER
CONSTRUCT DRAIN OUTLET
A MINIMUM 1-FOOT
ABOVE GRADE
CUTOFF WALL CONSISTING OF
GROUT, CONCRETE, BENTONITE
OR OTHER MATERIAL
APPROVED BY
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
SOLID PIPE
NOTE: LOCATION OF CANYON SUBDRAINS AND OUTLETS
SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED BY PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER.
OUTLETS MUST BE KEPT UNOBSTRUCTED AT ALL TIMES.
CUTOFF WALL
DIMENSIONS
CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINUS
VER 1.0 NTS
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAiL 1
12-lNCH MINIMUM
ABOVE PIPE
APPROVED
• FILTER
MATERIAL
6-INCHES MINIMUM,
ADJACENTTO AND
BELOW PIPE
OPTION 1
FILTER MATERIAL: MINIMUM VOLUME OF
9 CUBIC FEET PER LINEAL
FOOT OF CALTRANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
12-INCH MINIMUM
ABOVE PIPE
APPROVED
FILTER
FABRIC, WITH
6-INCH
OVERLAP
APPROVED
DRAIN
MATERIAL
6-INCHES MINIMUM,
ADJACENT TO AND
BELOW PIPE
OPTION 2
DRAIN MATERIAL: MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 CUBIC FEET
PER LINEAL FOOT OF 3/4-INCH MAX
ROCK OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT
SUBSTITUTE
FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR
APPROVED EQUIVALENT SUBSTITUTE
PIPE: 6 OR 8-INCH ABS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE WITH A MINIMUM
OF 8 PERFORATIONS (1/4-INCH DIAMETER) PER LINEAL FOOT IN
BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE
(ASTM D2751, SDR-35 OR ASTM D3034, SDR-35
ASTMD1527, SCHD. 40 OR ASTM D1785, SCHD. 40)
NOTE: CONTINUOUS RUN IN EXCESS OF 500 FEET REQUIRES 8-INCH DIAMETER PIPE
(ASTM D3034, SDR-35, OR ASTM D1785, SCHD. 40)
DRAIN
MATERIAL
WITH
FILTER FABRIC
2-FT MIN
K >l
/
4-INCH SOLID
OUTLET PIPE
CANYON SUBDRAIN
DRAIN
MATERIAL
WITH
FILTER FABRIC
2-FT MIN.
K ^
2-INCH MIN
BELOW PIPE
3-FT
MIN.
OPTION 1
4-INCH SOLID
OUTLET PIPE
OPTION 2
2-lNCH MIN.
BELOW PIPE
DRAIN MATERIAL: GRAVEL TRENCH TO BE FILLED WITH 3/4-INCH MAX ROCK OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT
SUBSTITUTE
FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT SUBSTITUTE WITH A MINIMUM 6-INCH OVERLAP
PIPE: 4-INCH ABS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT SUBSTITUTE WITH A MINIMUM
OF 8 PERFORATIONS (1/4-INCH DIAMETER) PER LINEAL FOOT IN
BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE
(ASTM D2751, SDR-35 OR ASTM D3034, SDR-35
ASTM D1527, SCHD. 40 OR ASTM D1785, SCHD. 40)
VER 1.0
BUTTRESS/STABILIZATION DRAIN
NTS
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS
DRAIN SPECIFICATIONS DETAIL 2
BLANKET FILL-AS REQUIRED BY
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
AND/OR CODE COMPLIANCE
(3 FOOT MIN.)
CODE COMPLIANT
SETBACK, 15 FOOT MIN
CONSTRUCT DRAIN OUTLET
A MINIMUM 1-FOOT
ABOVE GRADE
4 FOOT MIN.
BENCH HEIGHT
2% MIN
1^ WIDTH
:HEEL
CODE COMPLIANT KEYWAY
WITH MINIMUM DIMENSIONS:
TOE 2 FOOT MIN.
HEEL 3 FOOT MIN.
WIDTH 15 FOOT MIN.
VER 1.0
SEE DETAIL 2 FOR DRAIN SPECIFICATIONS
NOTES;
1. DRAIN OUTLETS TO BE PROVIDED EVERY 100 FEET
CONNECT TO PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE BY "L" OR 'T"
AT A MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT
2. THE NECESSITY AND LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL
DRAINS SHALL BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT UPPER STAGE
OUTLETS SHOULD BE EMPTIED ONTO CONCRETE
TERRACE DRAINS.
3. DRAIN PIPE TO EXTEND FULL LENGTH OF
STABILIZATION/BUTTRESS WITH A MINIMUM GFiADIENT
OF 2% TO SOLID OUTLET PIPES.
4. LOCATION OF DRAINS AND OUTLETS
SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED BY PROJECT
CIVIL ENGINEER. OUTLETS MUST BE KEPT
UNOBSTRUCTED AT ALL TIMES.
NTS
BAGS
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS
STABILIZATION/BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL 3
THE "CUT" PORTION OF THE SLOPE SHALL
BE EXCAVATED AND EVALUATED BYTHE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTING THE TILL" PORTION
^0^^•^.'
BENCH WIDTH
VARIES
4 FOOT MIN.
BENCH HEIGHT
SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL
SUITABLE
BEARING MATERIAL
CODE COMPLIANT KEYWAY
WITH MINIMUM DIMENSIONS:
TOE: 2 FOOT MIN.
HEEL: 3 FOOT MIN.
WIDTH: 15 FOOT MIN.
NOTES:
1. THE NECESSITY AND LOCATION OF DRAINS
SHALL BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD
BYTHE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
2. SEE DETAIL 2 FOR DRAIN SPECIFICATIONS
VER 1.0 NTS
li»AGS
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS
FILL OVER CUT SLOPE DETAIL 4
A 1:1 MINIMUM
PROJECTION FROM DESIGN
SLOPE TOE TO TOE OF KEYWAY
ENGINEERED FILL
RE-GRADE NATURAL SLOPE
WITH ENGINEERED FILL
VARIABLE
BACKCUT
BENCH WIDTH
VARIES
4 FOOT MIN.
BENCH HEIGHT
SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL
CODE COMPLIANT KEYWAY
WITH MINIMUM DIMENSIONS:
TOE: 2 FOOT MIN.
HEEL: 3 FOOT MIN,
WIDTH: 15 FOOT MIN.
NOTES:
1. WHEN THE NATURAL SLOPE APPROACHES OR
EXCEEDS THE DESIGN GRADE SLOPE RATIO,
SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NECESSARY
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
2. THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT WILL
DETERMINE THE REQUIREMENT FOR AND
LOCATION OF SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS.
3. MAINTAIN MINIMUM 15 FOOT HORIZONTAL WIDTH
FROM FACE OF SLOPE TO BENCH/BACKCUT
VER 1.0 NTS
AGS
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS
FILL OVER NATURAL SLOPE DETAILS
EXISTING GRADE
TO_E_
2% Mlf^
WIDTH
-HEEL
BENCH WIDTH
VARIES
4 FOOT MIN.
BENCH HEIGHT
SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL
CODE COMPLIANT KEYWAY
WITH MINIMUM DIMENSIONS:
TOE: 2 FOOT MIN.
HEEL; 3 FOOT MIN.
WIDTH: 15 FOOT MIN.
NOTES:
1. MAINTAIN MINIMUM 15 FOOT HORIZONTAL WIDTH
FROM FACE OF SLOPE TO BENCH/BACKCUT
2. SEE DETAIL 2 FOR DRAIN SPECIFICATIONS
VER 1.0 NTS
iAGS
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS
SKiN FILL CONDITION DETAIL 6
UNSUITABLE
BEARING MATERIAL
(REMOVE)
BENCH WIDTH
VARIES
4 FOOT MIN.
BENCH HEIGHT
1 FOOT TILT BACK (MIN.)
SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL
NOTES:
1. IF RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
THE REMAINING CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE MAY REQUIRE
REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT WITH AN ENGINEERED FILL
2. "W" SHALL BE EQUIPMENT WIDTH (15 FEET) FOR SLOPE HEIGHT
LESS THAN 25 FEET FOR SLOPES GREATER THAN 25 FEET "W" SHALL
BE DETERMINED BYTHE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT AT NO
TIME SHALL "W" BE LESS THAN H/2
3. DRAINS WILL BE REQUIRED (SEE DETAIL 2)
VER 1.0 NTS
HAGS
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS
PARTIAL CUT SLOPE
STABILIZATION DETAIL?
DESIGN GRADE
5 FEET
MIN.
EXISTING GRADE _
5 FEET
MIN.
DESIGN GRADE
EXISTING GRADE _
"SUBSURFACE \
DRAINAGE \
/ ^ / DEPTH *
/ i
SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL
CUT LOT OVEREXCAVATION
REMOVE AND REPLACE
WITH ENGINEERED FILL
DESIGN GRADE
0-^ 5 FEET
MIN.
< M
ENGINEERED FILL
SUBSURFACE
DF^AINAGE \
•REQUIRED BENCH
SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL
REMOVE AND REPLACE
WITH ENGINEERED FILL
CUT-FILL LOT OVEREXCAVATION
NOTES:
* SEE REPORT FOR RECOMMENDED DEPTHS, DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE REQUIRED BY
THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BASED ON EXPOSED FIELD CONDITIONS
** CONSTRUCT EXCAVATION TO PROVIDE FOR POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS STREETS,
DEEPER FILL AREAS OR APPROVED DRAINAGE DEVICES BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS
VER 1.0 NTS
*^IAGS
ADVANCED GEOTECHNiCAL SOLUTIONS
CUT & CUT-FILL LOT
OVEREXCAVATION DETAILS
DESIGN GRADE
ADDITIONAL
ENGINEERED FILL
(TO DESIGN GRADE)
EXISTING GRADE — — — 7
\
ENGINEERED FILL \ /.
(EXISTING) \
N
TEMPORARY
ENGINEERED FILL
(TO BE REMOVED) * /
/ • UNSUITABLE'
• SEARING MATERIAL
/ •• -•• • (REMOVE)'- •• .
SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL
REMOVE BEFORE PLACING ADDITIONAL ENGINEERED FILL
TYPICAL UP-CANYON PROFILE
VER 1.0 NTS
iAGS
ADVANCED GEOTECHMCAL SOLUTIONS
REMOVAL ADJACENT TO
EXISTING FILL DETAIL 9
C°T-2
a.Q'-27.0' Q(U/OOI
27.0'-2B.O' Oop
•y » S.O'
T.D.-28.0'
LEGEND
\J CPT-1 DENOTES APPROXIMATE LOCATION ^ OF CPT (THIS STUDY)
sf U/Qal ARTIFICIAL FILL. UNDOCUMENTED
Qop O"-"^ PARRALIC DEPOSITS
(BRACKETED Vi^ERE BURIED)
(CS-CLAYSTONE SUBUNIT)
(SS-3ANDST0NE SUBUNIT)
\ CROSS-SECTION LOCATION
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
(•) PtFmtTtB KHiWFtG mux P[J1 5ntns
CROSS SECTION AA'
CROSS SECTION FF'
SCALE: T=20' (H&V) PLATE 2
•jAGS S"^C? ttiples StTM!, Suite 150 San a«go.Ciiif(s=iiJ P2121 T-iephcaf (SI?) Fax; (:i-J) 409-.':i7
Project: P/W 1205-06 REPORT: 1205-06-B-3
CROSS SECTION BB'
SCALE: 1"=20' (H&V)
CROSS SECTION CC
PLATE 3
/^!d.\ ^ A AOVANCtD etOTECHN
Z\ f ^ 9707 W«ple. S'.rt.l. Su.l.-L
etOTECHMCAL SOLUTIONS, INC
Project: P/W 1205-06 REPORT: 1205-O6-B-3
CROSS SECTION DD'
afu/Qal
-3C
30
10
-10
B-2
Qop
(ss)
Qop
(cs)
Qop
(ss)
NEW
BUILDING
Qop
CROSS SECTION EE
E'
30
10
-10
»^;AGS
SCALE: 7 =20' (H&V) PLATE 4 Project: P/W 1205-06 REPORT: 1205-06-B-3