HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 14-04; MILES BUENA VISTA; UPDATE REPORT AND CHANGE OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD; 2016-10-14,_--_.·.
'A . )
.::::\ :-J \
\ (
)\
':i' , \ ~r
UPDATE REPORT AND ---. \
· CHANGE OF GEOTECHNtCAL
ENGINEER OF RECORD
· lA\\..~s _l!>~~WA-vtS.TA
ROBERT MILES SUBDIVISION
. CT 14-04
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
SHEA HOMES
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA·
RECEIVED
JAN ·1 8 '2017 · . .
LAND DEVELOPMENT
. ENGINEERING
· OCTOBER 14 2016 . . ' PROJECT NO. G2037-32-01.
)
. r -l
~
;' .'\
\._)
() -,·
\._)
\ . . )
\. .
t I __ ,,
:lNOORPOB:ATED . ;' · G-EOGON .o~ -G-E-. 0-. -f-,i:-C_H_N-. -i-c"'""A_L_'i1--E-N~V-il_R_O_N_M_·_E_N_, _T_A_L _r._lli_M_A_T-,--E=-R,_,,..~A~~S . ~/
Project No. G2037-32-01
October 5, 2016
Shea Homes
· 9990 Mesa Rim Road
San Diego, California 92121
Attention:
Subject: .
Ms. Sarah Morrell
UPDATE REPORT AND CHANGE OF
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD · . -rx•
. Dr.A --11.I..L 1 '.\$ VT ROBERT MILES SUBDIVISION -" 1,41 ~ t:7."''~ "'°" V·
CT 14-04 .
CARLSBAD; CALIFORNIA
( · 1 · Dear Ms. M. orrell: '. ) .
r' '\ 1· 1 In accordance with your request; this correspondence has been prepared to document that Geocon
() Incorporated will accept the role of Geotechi:i.ical Engineer of Record for the subject project AB part
( ~' of this acceptance, we have reviewed the following documents.
-
i i
'~ ,,/
I
'
I " .)
, ·,
I '
,/-)
''-/
,j
, -,
1'-j
)·
l . \,
'--,
I ' ".J
! i \ /
. I.
2.
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Residential Subdivision, 1833 Buena Vista ·
Way, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, prepared by GeoSoils Incorporated, dated
March 17, 2014. . .
Grading Plans for Robert Miles Subdivision, Carlsbad, CA, prepared by BHA Inc., undated
Based on a review of the referenced report prepared by GeoSoils, we are in general concurrence with
the geologic characterization of the site and recommendations provided unless superseded herein.
Summarized below are modifications and recommendations that should be considered as an update to
their report dated .March 17, 2014.
MODIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.0 GracUng Recommendations
An undocumented fill embankment exists aiong the top of the eastern slope of the property. Although . . . . .
exploratory .excavations were not performed in this area, it appears that the embankment'is . up to
6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974. • Telephone 858.~58.6900 • Fax 858.558.6159
\.._ _ 1
\'-,.___.,/
) _ _,,,
·,
I ' /
I I
,J
I ) '-/
,
/
f \
'"---'
approximately 5 to 7 feet thick and contains abundant organic debris. This material will require
removal and compaction as part of the project remedial grading and it is possible that the organic
content is such that removal and export of this embankment will be required.
All grading should be performed in a~cordance with the attached Recommended Grading
Specifications (Appendix A). All earthwork should be observed and all fills tested for proper
compaction by Geocon Incorporated.
To reduce the potential for differential settlement, it is recommended that the cut portion of cut/fill
transition building pads be undercut at least 3 feet and replaced with properly compacted "very low''
to "low'' expansive fill soils. Where the thickness of the fill below the building pad exceeds 15 feet,
the depth of the undercut should be increased to one-fifth of the maximum fill thickness.
2.0 Slope Stablllty Evaluation
Slope stability analyses were performed on the approximate 60-foot high, northeast facing slope that
descends to Monroe Street. The analysis utilized the computer software program GeoStudio 2007 to
provide appropriate design recommendations to achieve a factor of safety of at least 1.5 against deep-
seated failure. The results of the analyses indicate that the existing slope exhibits static and pseudo-
static factors of safety of at least 1.5 and 1.0, respectively, and is considered acceptable. An .
evaluation forcing the failure surface eastward of the most critical surface indicates the calculated
factor of safety increases slightly.
In their slope stability analysis, the previous consultant identified the most critical surface along
the easterly facing slope which yielded a factor of safety of 1.5 against deep seated failure. This
line was identified on the Tentative Map as a setback boundary where improvements were
restricted or required special consideration when located within this zone. Based on the results of
our analysis, it is our opinion that this restriction is not necessary and typical recommendations
for improvements located near the top of slopes ( e.g. seven foot to daylight for wall foundations,
etc.) are appropriate.
In accordance with Special Publication 117 A guidelines, site specific seismic slope stability analyses
are required for sites located within mapped haz.a.rd zones. Seismic Hazard Zone maps published by
CDMG, including landslide hazard zones, have not been published for San Diego County due to the
relatively low seismic risk compared with other jurisdictions in Southern California. Therefore, it is
our opinion that providing seismic slope stability analyses is not required. However, to be consistent
with the previous geotechnical report, we are presenting seismic slope stability analyses on the most
critical failure surfaces in accordance with Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG
Special Publication 117: Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California,
Project No. 02037-32-01 - 2 -October 14, 2016
/ \
\
\' _/
,' -\
''---"
' \
I ;
(
. '
I J /
I \
' _/
prepared by the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), dated June 2002, and Special
Publication 117 A, dated September 2008.
The seismic slope stability analysis was performed using a peak ground acceleration of 0.23g,
corresponding to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years for a soft rock condition. In
--
addition, a deaggregation analysis was performed on the 0.23g value for the site. A modal magnitude
and modal distance of 6.8 and 9.2 kilometers, respectively, was used in the analysis and a plot of the
haz.ard contribution is shown in Appendix B, Figure B-7.
Using the parameters discussed herein, an equivalent site acceleration, kEQ, of 0.13g was
calculated to perform the screening analysis and/or seismic slope stability analysis, as shown· in
Appendix B. The screening analysis was performed using an acceleration of 0.13g resulting in
factors of safety ranging between 1.2 and 1.6. Table 2.2 presents a summary of the seismic slope
stability screening evaluation. A slope is considered acceptable by the screening analysis if the
calculated factor of safety is greater than 1.0 using kEQ; therefore, the most critical failure
surfaces depicted on Cross-Sections A-A' and B-B' pass the screening analysis· for the seismic
slope stability.
The output files and calculated factor of safety for the cross sections used for the stability analyses
are presented in Appendix B and summarized in Tables 2.1 and i2.
TABLE2.1
STATIC SLOPE STABILITY SUMMARY
Cross Section Figure Number Condition Analyzed Factor Of Safety
A-A' B-1 Circular Failure Through Qop 1.5
B-B' B-4 Circular Failure TbroughQop 2.1
TABLE 2.2
SEISMIC SLOPE STABILITY SCREENING EVALUATION (KEQ = 0.13G)
Cross Section Figure Number Condition Analyzed Factor Of Safety Pass/Fall
A-A' B-2 Circular Failure Through Qop 1.2 Pass
B-B' B-5 Circular Failure Through Qop 1.6 Pass
The previous borings and laboratory testing, and existing and proposed topography were considered
in the stability analyses. The cross section geometry of the ,subsurface conditions was developed by
interpolating and extrapolating the information obtained in the exploratory borings. The computer
Project No. 02037-32-01 - 3 -Octoi?er 14, 2016
\ " _)
\
\_ _ _,)
/ -\
)
' \
)
\~ /
' -'\
'. 1 's,. __ /
' /
(~ -\
generated cross sections presented in Appendix B represent simplified configurations which were
used in the analyses. The cross sections presented on Figures 2 and 3 are the original geologic
sections from which the computer generated sections were derived
Table 2.3 presents the soil strength parameters that were utilized in the slope stability analyses. Shear
strength parameters for our analysis were derived from the previous laboratory direct shear tests
' '
performed by GeoSoils and our experience and laboratory testing with similar soil types in the
vicinity. It should be noted that the previous consultant used the ''ultimate" strength value for Old
Paralic Deposits based on their laboratory test results. It is our opinion that the "peak'' value is more
appropriate due to the granular nature of the material. Table 2.3 presents the soil strength parameters
that were utilized in the slope stability analyses.
TABLE 2.3
SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS
Geologic Unit Angle of Internal Cohesion (psf) Friction+ (degrees)
Compacted Fill 30 200
Old Paralic Deposits 32 200
Santiago Formation 37 300
3.0 Seismic Design Criteria
We used the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the USGS. Table 3.1
summarizes site-specific design cri.teria obtained from the 2013 California Building Code (CBC;
Based on the 2012 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-10), Chapter 16 Structural Design,
Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 seconds. The values
presented in Table 3.1 are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER). Based on
soil conditions and planned grading, the building should be designed using a Site Class C. We
evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2013 CBC and Table 20.3-
1 of ASCE 7-10.
Project No. 02037-32-01 - 4 -October 14, 2016
( \
' /
' ---\
I _)
('
\
' )
TABLE 3.1
2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value 2013 CBC Reference
Site Class C Section 1613.3.2
MCER Ground Motion Spectral 1.125g Figure 1613.3.1(1) Response Acceleration -Class B (short), Ss
MCER Ground Motion Spectral 0.432g Figure 1613.3.1(2) Response Acceleration-Class B (1 sec), S1
Site Coefficient, FA 1.000 Table 1613.3.3(1)
Site Coefficient, F v 1.368 Table 1613.3.3(2)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral 1.125g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-37) Response Acceleration (short), SMs
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral 0.591g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn'. 16-38) Response Acceleration (1 sec), SM1
5% Damped Design Spectral 0.750g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-39) Response Acceleration (short), Sos
5% Damped Design Spectral 0.394g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-40) Response Acceleration (1 sec), Sm
Table 3.2 presents additional seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design
Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-10 for the mapped maximum considered
geometric mean (MCEo).
TABLE 3.2
2013 CBC SITE ACCELERATION PARAMETERS
Parameter Value, Site Class C ASCE 7-10 Reference
Mapped MCEa Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.44g Figure 22-7
Site Coefficient, F POA 1.00 Table 11.8-1
Site Class Modified MCEa 0.44g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1) Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM
Conformance to the criteria for seismic design does not constitute any guarantee or assurance that
significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur in the event of a ~um level
earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life and not to avoid all damage, since
such design may be economically prohibitive.
4.0 Foundation and Concrete Slab-On-Grade Recommendations
The following foundation recommendatiop.s are for proposed one-to three-st<;>ry residential
structures. The foundation recommendations have been separated into three categories based on either
Project No. G2037-32-01 -5 -October 14, 2016
I )
' /
\ )
. -~/
' ' ' I
~-\
', ___ /'
,-"'i.,
', -j
'~)
__ /
( i \ ,,
, I ' '
the maximum and differential fill thickness or Expansion Index. The foundation category criteria are
presented in Table 4.1.
Foundation
Category
I
II
m
TABLE 4.1
FOUNDATION CATEGORY CRITERIA
Maximum Fill Differential Fill
Thickness, T (feet) Thickness, D (feet)
T<20 --
2Qg<50 10~D<20
~50 D:::20
Expansion
Jnd~I (El)
EI~50
50<El:s90
90<El~l30
Final foundation categories for each building or lot will be provided after finish pad grades have been
achieved and laboratory testing of the sub grade soil has been completed
" Table 4.2 presents minimum foundation and interior concrete slab design criteria for conventional
foundation systep:is.
TABLE 4.2
CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
I Minimum Footing Foundation Embedment Depth Continuous ,Footing Interior Slab
Category (inches) Reinforcement Reinforcement
I 12 Two No. 4 bars, 6 X 6 -10/10 welded -wire
one top and one bottom mesh at slab mid-point
II 18 .Four No. 4 bars, No. 3 bars at 24 inches on
two top and two bottom center, both directions
m 24 Four No. 5 bars, No. 3 bars at 18 inches on
two top and two bottom center, both directions
The embedment depths presented. in Table 4.2 should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad
grade for both interior and exterior footings. The conventional foundations should have a minimum
width of 12 inches and 24 inches for continuous and isolated footings, respectively. A typical
wall/column footing detail is presented on Figure 4.
The concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4 inches thick for Foundation Categories I and
II and 5 inches thick for Foundation Category ill. The concrete slabs-on-grade should be underlain by
4 inches and 3 inches of clean sand for 4-inch thick and 5-inch-thick slabs, respectively. Slabs
expected to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or ~ to store moisture sensitive materials
should be underlain by a vapor inhibitor ~vered with at least 2 inches of clean sand or crushed rock. If
Project No. 02037-32-01 - 6 -October 14, 2016
' )
\
' )
', _:
I\_ )
. )
\
\ --'
' )
crushed rock will be used, the thickness of the vapor inhibitor should be at least 10 mil to prevent
possible puncturing.
AB a substitute, the layer of clean sand ( or crushed rock) beneath the vapor inhibitor recommended in
the previous section can be omitted if a vapor inhibitor that meets or exceeds the requirements of
ASTM E 1745-97 (Class A), and that exhibits permeance not greater than 0.012 perm (measured in
accordance with ASTM E 96-95) is used. This vapor inlubitor may be placed directly on properly
compacted fill or formational materials. The vapor inhibitor should be installed in general
conformance with ASTM E 1643-98 and the manufacturer's recommendations. Two inches of clean
. sand should then be placed on top of the vapor inhibitor to reduce the potential for differential curing,
slab curl, and cracking. Floor coverings should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations.
AB an alternative tq the conventional foundation recommendations, consideration should be given to
the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the support of the proposed
structures. The post-tensioned systems should be designed by a structural engineer experienced in
post-tensioned slab design and design ¢teria of the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI), Third ~tion, as
required by the 2013 California Building Code (CBC Section 1808.6). Although this procedure was
developed for expansive soil conditions, it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation
distress due to differential fill settlement The post-tensioned design should incorporate the
geotechnical parameters presented on Table 4.3 for the particular Foundation Category designated.
The parameters presented in Table 4.3 are based on the guidelines presented in the PTI, Third Edition
design manual.
TABLE4.3
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Imtitote (PTI), Foundation Category
Third Edition Design Parameters I II m
\ Thomthwaite Index -20 -20 -20
Equilibrium Suction 3.9 3.9 3.9
Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (feet) 5.3 5.1 4.9
Edge Lift, YM (inches) 0.61 1.10 1.58
Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (feet) 9.0 9.0 9.0
Center Lift, YM (inches) 0.30 0.47 0.66
Foundation systems for.the lots that possess a foundation Category I and a ''very low'' expansion
potential ( expansion index of 20 or less) can be designed using the method described in Section
1808 of the 2013 CBC. If post-tensioned foundations are planned, an alternative, commonly
Project No. 02037-32-01 - 7 -October 14, 2016
)
)
' ' )
)
. ' \
'' _)
)
\ _)
accepted design method (other tb.an'PTI Third Edition) can be used. However, the post-tensioned
foundation system should be designed with a total and differential deflection of 1 inch. Geocon
Incorporated should be contacted to review the plans and provide additional information, if
necessary.
The foundations for the post-tensioned slabs should be emb~ded in accordance with the
recommendations of the structural engineer. If a post-tensioned mat foundation system is planned, the
slab·should possess a thickened edge with a minimum width of 12 inches and extend below the clean
, sand or crushed rock layer.
If the structural engineer proposes! post-tensioned foundation design method other than PTI, Third
Edition:
• The deflection criteria presented in Table 4.3 are still applicable.
•
•
•
Interior stiffener beams should be used for Foundation Categories II and III .
The width of the perimeter foundations should be at least 12 inches .
The perimeter footing embedment depths should be at least 12 inches, 18 inches, and
24 inches for foundation categories I, II, and III, respectively. The embedment depths should
be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade.
Our experience indicates post-tensioned slabs are susceptible to excessive edge lift, regardless of the
underlying soil conditions. Placing reinforcing steel at the bottom of the perimeter footings and the
I interior stiffener beams may mitigate this potential. Current PTI design procedures primarily address
the potential center lift of slabs but, because of the placement of the reinforcing tendons in the top of
the slab, the resulting eccentricity after tensioning reduces the ability of the system to mitigate edge
lift. The structural engineer should design the foundation system to reduce the potential of efige lift
occurring for the proposed structures.
During the construction of the post-tension foundation system, the concrete should, be placed
monolithically. Under no circumstances should cold joints be allowed to form between the
footings/grade beams and the slab during the construction of the post-tension foundation system.
Category I, II, or III foundations may be designed for ~ allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000
pounds per square foot (psf) ( dead plus live load). This bearing pressure may be increased by one-
third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.
Isolated footings, if present, should have the minimum embedment depth and width
recommended for conventional foundations for a particular foundation category. The use of
isolated footings, which are located beyond the perimeter of the building and support structural
Project Jto. G2037-32-01 - 8 -October 14, 2016
I I
I ' /
j
' )
-\
,j
' '
\
\ '
/)
\ /
elements connected to the building, are not recommended for Category ill: Where this condition
cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be connected to the building foundation system
with grade beams.
For Foundation Category ill, consideration should be given to using interior stiffening beruns and
connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In addition, consideration.should be
given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in width, to the building foundation to reduce the
potential for future separation to occur.
Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the
exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, to maintain
a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement
Where buildings or ot_her improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3: 1
(horizontal:vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended due to the
tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.
. '
•
For fill slopes less than 20 feet high, building footings should be deepened such that the
bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the
slope.
When located next to a descending 3: 1 (horizontal:vertical) fill slope or steeper, the
foundations should be extended to a depth where the minimum horizontal distance is equal to
H/3 (where H equals the vertical distance from the top of the fill slope to the base of the fill
soil) with a minimum of 7 feet but need not exceed 40 feet The horizontal distance is
measured from the outer, deepest edge of the footing to the face of the slope. An acceptable
alternative to deepening the footings would be the use of a post-tensioned slab and
foundation system or increased footing and slab reinforcement. Specific design parameters or
recommendations for either of these alternatives can be provided once the building location
and fill slope geometry have been determined.
• If swimming pools are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for a review of
specific site conditions.
•
•
Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of cut or fill slopes are not recommended .
Where such a condition cannot be avoided, the portion of the swimming pool wall within
7 feet of the slope face be designed assuming that the adjacent soil provides no lateral
support. This recommendation applies to fill slopes up to 30 feet in height, and cut slopes
regardless of height For swimming pools located near the .top of fill slopes greater than
30 feet in height, additional recommendations may be required and Geocon Incorporated
sho_uld be contacted for a review of specific site conditions.
Although other improvements, which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete flatwork
or masonry walls, may experience some distress if located near the top of a slope, it is
generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible, however, to
Project No. G2037-32--01 -9-October 14, 2016
( \
I
• ,I
' 1
\.
I
\
incorporate design measures, which would permit some lateral soil movement without
causing .extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for specific
recommendations. ·
Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be constructed in accordance with
the recommendations herein. Slab panels should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and, when in excess
of 8 feet square, should be reinforced with 6 x 6 -W2.9/W2.9 (6 x 6 -6/6) welded wire mesh or
No. 3 reinforcing bars at 18 inches on center in both directions to reduce the potential for cracking. In
addition, concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control
shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the project structural engineer
based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Crite!'ia of the American Concrete Institute {ACI)
should be taken into consideration when establishing crack control spacing. A 4-inch-thick slab
should have a maximum joint spacing of 10 feet Subgrade soil for exterior slabs not subjected to·
vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the grading section prior
to concrete placement. Subgrade soil should be properly compacted and the moisture content of
subgrade soil should be checked prior to placing concrete.
\
The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to
expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of existing soil or· soil with varying thicknesses.
However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco
walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking due to soil
movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the
supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence _may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting ~e
slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control
joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab comers occur.
Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the
structural engineer.
5.0 Top of Slope Walls/Fences
Grade beam and/or caisson foundation systems are not considered necessary for retaining walls or
fences proposed at the top of slope provided the recommendations of are followed.
6.0 Grading and Foundation Plan Review
The geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist should review the grading and foundation plans
prior to final City submittal to check their compliance with the recommendations of this report and to
determine then~ for additional comments, recommendations and/or analysis.
Project No. 02037-32-01 -10 -October 14, 2016
( -\
/ --\
Should you have any questions regarding thi& correspondence or desire additional infqrmation, please
· contact the.undersigned.·
. Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
)
) :~~:~
.Jill!!:=~
TEM:DBE:dmc:ejc
· (3) · Addressee
. ~,
)
. -/
' \
( '
J .
Project No. G2037-32-0l -11 ~ Octobef 14, 2016
I \
GEOCON
SITE PLAN
ROBERT MILES SUBDIVISION
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
IICAU! 1 • = ao·· · DAT1!1Q -14 -2016
INCORPORATIID G2037 -32 -01
l'IO-I!: sse ~ -FAX sse 5511-6159 SHEET 1 OF 1
bliA,lnc.
lr:rd etn*"i: cMI 81 ~ 11.M)!lQ
~11 ~ A VENIOA ENCl'IAS
SUITE "L"
CARLSBAD. CA. 8200B--4387
(760) 931-8700 RE"1SION DESCRIPTION
o' I 60' zqo'
SCALE 1"'= 60' (On 17x17)
GEOCON LEGEND
8-3 · · S ....... .APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING
f-4 BY GEOSOILS (2014) ~ ....... .APPROX. LOCATION OF INFILTRATION TEST
B B'
( ( ....... .APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC
'--~~__, CROSS-SECTION
"AS BUILT"
RCE __ . _ EXP-----DATE
REVEWEDBY·
--
A
240
-_J en ~ -z
0 180
I-~ w _J w
120
--: ] • --C y-• -./-f !..... -"1 ; • , • ~ ~ ,---• • • • ·.' : • i .' ' • ' - • • ! ,--
.. - -~ -•• .,. --+ -, - - -r , -• ---;-, --. --.. •--__, •• ·---
~t :~ i--~~ ;~ ~ f ~[: ~ i~~~:/~ ~~:>~ F~~ F1:_~o~. -:\ ~:~j-~~i-~o~
~ l : : : : = ~ ~:-: -~ ~-; . ----. Z2(/ -~ --.. -•. ~ -:---- --:
: -----. ~ -----I ---, ~ , ; -LOT
;.......J..-+--1---------------+-g_
-... --+' .. • -~.: <-.• -+" .
~-r-::-1~ ~-:-;::-L. :·~-j~: ~ ; :·:. ;_; .; -~ -~~~ _; ~; ;:: '.--~---• --r:-' --
' 'I
.1-. --~--·, -----, .. --' ----'" ------1• ... ·,---r-·1--.. -~
' --·· -·-------• .! ----+ _.._'
0 60 120 180 240 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A'
SCALE: 1" = 60' (Vert.= Horiz.)
A'
240
180
120
-_J en
~ -z
0
I-~ w
_J w
ROBERT MILES SUBDIVISION
CARLSBAD I CALIFORNIA
GEOCON LEGEND
Qop ........ OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS
Tsa ........ SANTIAGO FORMATION
B-3 l ....... .APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOTECHNICAL BORING
GEOCON
INCORPORAT&D
GEOTECHNICAL •ENVIRONMENTAL• MATERIAlS
6960 ~ORM-SAN DIEGO, CAlfORl-.aA 92121-'297 4
PHONE 858 558-6900 -FAX 858 558-6159
PROJECT NO. G2037 -32 -01
GEOLOGIC CROSS -SECTION FIGURE 2
DATE 10-14-2016
Plollod:10/13/201612:33PM I ByRUBEN AGUILAR I FIio Locatlon:Y:IPROJECT8\G2037-32-01 I.Ueo SubdMolan\SHEETS\G2037-32--01_en.o-sedlon.dwg
B
240
-; ~~ -i__:_-: ~ • I ....J Cf)
~ 1GRADEf -z 0 180
I-~ w ....J w
120
0 60 120 180 240 300
DISTANCE (FEET)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION B-B'
SCALE: 1" = 60' (Vert. = Horiz.)
B'
240
180
120
-....J
Cf)
~ -z
0
I-~ w ....J w
ROBERT MILES SUBDIVISION
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
GEOCON LEGEND
Qop ........ OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS
Tsa ........ SANTIAGO FORMATION
B-3 l ........ APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOTECHNICAL BORING
GEO CON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL• MATERIALS
6960 ~DRIVE-SAN DEGO, CA1..fORNlA 92121-'197 A
P1--tCN: 858 558-6900 -FAX 858 558-6159
PROJECT NO. G2037 -32 -01
GEOLOGIC CROSS -SECTION FIGURE 3
DATE 10-14-2016
,,,
' \ \, __ j
-\ I
\.,_ .,/
-~1
~J
'.J "---' ,-),
,__,,,
' I
, CONCRETE SLAB
PAD GRADE
CONCRETE SLAB
··.,.;~·;::,:::'1\}i!.:>U·if •
SAND AND VAPOR ::.~ .. ·.t:4... :.· .3 ·
RETARDER IN .... ,~· "·
. ACCORDANCE WITH ACl
..... 1------FOOTING WIDTH·------<
* .... SEE REPORT FOR FOUNDATION WIDTH AND DEPTH RECOMMENDATION. NO SCALE
WALL/ COLUMN FOOTING DIMENSION DETAIL·
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL•· MATERIALS
6960 R.ANDERS DRIVE -SAN DEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 -297 4
PHON: 858 558-6900 -FAX 858 558-6159
TM/CW . I I DSK/GTYPD
ROBERT MILES SUBDIVISION
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 10 -14 -2016 I PROJECT NO. G2037-32-01 I FIG. 4
Plot!ed:10t'13/2016 9:3eAM I By.RUBEN AGLJU.AR I Fie L6calion:Y:IPROJECTSIG2037-32--01 -&lbdMolon\DETAJLS\W.1-0um Foolng DlmenB!on Delall (COlFOOT2).dwg
. •,
\,
~ -' ; --.. '
J'·,
', ~-: ' -.....
j •• -
T _) ,"
.... -'' ~ ~· ..
-. ' '
,
.J ... ,.
. •,'
I, .
-,,-' ·~
.. . ~ --·'
. -, t . ,-
. ' ....
, ... ..,
··-'
·,._, '
,-
•,_, ·, .
-APPENDIX--
, r
,,
' .. -,
. -'
.. -J ~-
.. ; .,
•' • I ~ '
'I •• '
<·· ... ,
'• .,.,.,\ .. '
-·
''
, I
.....
,,, .;
-,
_·,1-
. ,'.
r ,-.\
' )
C)
~J
:_)
.·~
I _/
(. '1
. /
/-.....
I
\. _/ .
' I ''---.
APPENDIX A
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
ROBERT MILES SUBDIVISION
CT 14-04
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. G2037-32-01
."-)
-\
' ·~/
~ • I I ,j
/~
·._)
/ )
}
) "--'
)
)
_/
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. GENERAL
These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the
Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon. The recommendations contained
in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications
and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict.
Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be
employed for the purpose of observing earthwork pro,cedures and testing the fills for
substantial conformance ~th the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these
specifications. The Consultant sho.uld provide adequate testing and observation services so
that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was· performed in substantial
conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to
assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that
personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency
ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. if, in the opinion of the
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, and/or adverse weather result in a quality of work not in
conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the
work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable
conditions are corrected.
2. DEFINITIONS
Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading
work is-being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading
performed.
Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
Civil Engineer or. Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer
or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying
as-graded topography.
Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm
retained to provide geotechnical services for the project
GI rev. 07/2015
\
,_ ~
' ' ) -/
,_.
)
' )
,,~-\
)
> ~ ' )
I ' /
\
\. _ l
)
> -I
·-/
2.5
2.6
· 2.7
3.1
3.2
3.3
\
Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner,
who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be
responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's
work for conformance with these specifications.
Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained
by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site
grading.
Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include
a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the
development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are
intended to apply.
3. MATERIALS
Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or
imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in cpnstruction
of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as
defined below.
3 .1.1 Soil fills are defined as fi!Is containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than
12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of
material smaller than % inch in size.
3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than
4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow
for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as
specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than
12 inches.
3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as ~ls containing nq rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet
in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as
material smaller than ~ inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be
less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantify.
Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the
Consultant shall not be used in fills.
Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as
defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9
GI rev. 07/2015
,_ '
I \ __ )
--, ( \
\ J
\
' _)
-\
--"
\,
'I
/
\
' ;
\ ' -)
' i
\ /
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.1
4.2
and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall
not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous
materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect
the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the
termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading
operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the
suspected materials are not haz.ardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of
properly GQmpacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to
the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil
layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This
procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and
Consultant.
Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the
Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where
appropriate, shear strength, expaq_sion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.
During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other t1ian those identified in the
Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be
notified immediately to evaluate ~e significance of the unanticipated condition.
4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of
complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made
structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried
logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded Roots and
other projections exceeding 1 ~ inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet
below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to
provide suitable fill materials.
Asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly
disposed at an approved off-site facility or in an acceptable area of the project evaluated by
Geocon and the property owner. Concrete fragments that are free of, reinforcing steel may
be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this
document.
GI rev. 07/2015
\ -,/
)
)
4.3
4.4
After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or
porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The
depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of
the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth
of 6 inches. and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent
uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
Where the slope ratio of th~ original ground is steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), or
where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in
accordance with the following illustration. .
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
Finish Grade Original Ground
Remove All
Unsuitable Material
N!. Recommended By
Consultant Slope To Be Such That
Sloughing Or Sliding
Does Not Occur
DETAIL NOTES:
--1\___~~.........--y-
l ·s·
See Note 1 See Note 2
No Scale
(1) Key width ''B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit
complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should
be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope.
(2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material
and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the
bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as
approved by the Consultant.
4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture
conditioned to· achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in
Section 6 of these specifications.
GI rev. 07/2015
' ·~
\ )
\
/
, ---
\
'\
',_ /
--)
--~\
I
\ I
--,
\
. )
_J
I '-_,,/
,--" ' /
5.1
5.2
6.1
5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel
wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be
capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the
specified moisture content
Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.
6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3 .1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should
generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be
thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture
in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock
· materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in
accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.
In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the
optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557.
When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant,
water shall be added by the ~ntractor until the moisture content is in the range
specified.
6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the
Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by
the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture
content is within the range specified.
6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly
compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent
Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place
dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as
determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Compaction shall be continuous
over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so ·that
the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the
entire fill.
GI rev. 07/2015
\
' /
, __
-)
--\
J
\
I
'-/
6.2
6.1.6 Where practical, s_oils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed
at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture
I content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than -the optimum moisture content for the
material.
6.1. 7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To
achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at
-least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered
preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
6.1.8 AB an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a
heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height
intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer
or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope Slrlaces at least
twice.
Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3 .1.2, shall be placed by the Con1;ractor in accordance
with the following recommendations:
6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches _but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be
incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured
15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or
3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.
6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximUD_?. dimension may either be
individually placed _or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock
fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar
methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in
-) maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and
shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow
for passage· of compaction equipment.
6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in
properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and
4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be
filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and
should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an
"open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should
first be approved by the Consultant
GI rev. 07/2015
' I
'\ , I 'J
' '
6.3
6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel. to each other and may be placed either
parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry.
The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center
with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The
minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of
a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow.
6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the
windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant.
Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2
percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The
rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic
1 pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected
)
/
' I
\ '
6.3.2
to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water.
Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet Placement shall be by rock
trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently
placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the
rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall
consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying
I ,
water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with
compactive energy comparable 'to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory.
roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the
required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be
utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in
Paragraph 6.3.3: Once a rock fill lift has been C9vered with soil fill, no additional
rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.
6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196, may be performed in both
the compacted soil fill and in the rock ~ to aid in determining the required
minimum number of passes of the compaction .equipment. If performed, a
minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly
compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing
tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes
and six p~ of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes
required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate
bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection
GI rev. 07/2015
-\
' -J
j
.. -
' )
/
)
' ', I
,· \
/
)
\
-/
7.1
6.3.4
6.3.5
variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction
equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are
equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case
will the required number of passes be less than two.
A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to
observe that the minimum ·number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is
being properly applied and that specified procedures are.being followed. The actual
number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading.
Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that,
in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are
properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be
required in the rock fills ..
.
6.3.6 To reduce the potential for "piping''. of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil
fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the
uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock
should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The
gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is
being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the
Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the
commencement of rock fill placement.
6.3. 7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the
Consultant.
7. SUBDRAINS
The geologic units on the site may have permeability characteristics and/or fracture
systems ·that could be susceptible under certain conditions to seep~ge. The use of canyon
subdrains may be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts as,sociated with
seepage conditions. Canyon subdrains with lengths in exc~ss of 500 feet or extensions of
existing offsite subdrains should use 8-inch-diameter pipes. Canyon subdrains less than 500
feet in length should use 6-inch-diameter pipes.
.GI rev. 07/2015
TYPICAL CANYON DRAIN DETAIL
'"
NOTES:
.... ,
....... , ... .....
" -.. _ --.. _________ ....
'I.....MOI ~aQaW!!a:, PVC P!RJIORAT!O PFePClft RI.I
.. EXCEii Of 100ffET .. DEPTH CRA PIPE WlOllf Of LONGER TIWf 900 f£ET',
2..JK:H DWeTER. tlOEOOlE 40PYC PERFOAATBJ PIP! f'OR f'l.1.1
LEM 1HM 'ltlD-fEl!T IN DEPTH CIRA PIP! U!H01H IHDATER TtWI 800 Fe!T.
BEDROCK
NO SCALE
7.2 Slope drains within stability fill keyways should use 4-inch-diameter (or lager) pipes.
GI rev. 07/2015
TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
t-DC.\'/"111 MCl«lilT A't 1:1 INCIMlllOll,(I.IIUISOMIMlll8 ~
t...13,UEOf lilr~ur,ru ~ • t FRT NJO l'Q!WATlOOIIL w;rmi~ .• lltCF:JNOA ~" lfflliiore.
3....SYAW1Y F1.L TOl!COW'Clll!DOI PAOP91.Y~GIWUMIOI..
~MMCS 10ll!~PRl!l'~Cl~DAAltl'Nl!Ul~$2(0!0RtQUIVNJ!NT)
tpAC£rl A.-io:<alffl!I.Y 20 Fa!T Cl!lffE!I TD csm:R AND, FEliTWIDQ. CL0tER 9Pl',CING Wt/le l'IEQURED F
8EEl"l',Ql;l5~
5-l'L~loW!IW. TOIEIH-lfCH., CPfN-OIWlED CIWlll!DROCICEHCLOl!DIN~FLlE\ l'AMC !MIWI ~
e.....ca.tECTOR ~ TO ll!+NJt MlHl,t\M DW,IEJ!R. Pl!RfORAnl), ~ l'VC 8CH!DU.1!41J OR l!OUIVAmt'T, ~8l.Ol!'mTO OIW',I AT I 1't!l'i:9IT YIUMTOmRt:JVtC OUT\D.
NOSCAI.E
7 .3 The actual subdrain locations will be evaluated in the field during the remedial grading
operations. Additional drains may be necessary depending on the conditions observed and
the requirements of the local regulatory agencies. Appropriate subdrain outlets should be
evaluated prior to finalizing 40-scale grading plans.
7.4 Rock fill or soil-rock fill areas may require subdrains along their down-slope perimeters to
mitigate the potential for buildup of water from construction or landscape irrigation. The
subdrains should be at least 6-inch-diameter pipes encapsulated in gravel and filter fabric.
Rock fill drains should be constructed using the same requirements as canyon subdrains.
GI rev. 07/2015
7.5 Prior to outletting, the final 20-foot segment of a subdrain that will not be extended during
future development should consist of non-perforated drainpipe. At the non-perforated/
perforated interface, a reepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the downslope side of
the pipe.
TYPICAL CUT OFF WALL DETAIL
FRONT V1EW
' '
SIDE VIEW
7.6 Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be
provided with a permanent headwall structure.
GI rev. 07/2015
TYPICAL HEADWALL DETAIL
FRONT VIEW
SIDE VIEW
7. 7 The final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. After
completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer
should survey the drain locations and prepare an "as-built" map showing the drain
locations. The final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading
operations. Subdrains that will be extend.ed dn adjacent projects after grading can be placed
on formational material and a vertical riser should be placed at the end of the subdrain. The
grading contractor should consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check
proper installation and functionality. The contractor is responsible for the performance of
the drains.
GI rev. 07/2015
' \
r.
' !
\
8.1
8.2
8.3
8. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The Consultant shall be the Owner's representative to observe and perform tests during
clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in
vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field density
test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test
should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and
compacted.
The Consultant should perform a sufficient distn"bution of field density tests of the
compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill
material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted
materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any
layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas
represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved.
During placement of rock fill, the Consultant. should observe that the minimum number of
passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant
should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on
the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for
expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture
has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any
portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the
rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied.
' 8.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of
8.5
rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as
recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project
Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed
during grading.
We should observe the placement of subdrains, to check that the drainage devices have
been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.
8.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:
8.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:
8.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556, Density of Soil In-Place By the
Sand-Cone Method.
GI rev. 07/2015
8 ,--)
\. __ ,
C)
!'\
,'--)
i ~\
'-_/
~)
__ )
' )
9.1
9.2
10.1
10.2
8.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938, Density of Soil and
Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
8.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557, Moisture-Density
Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound
Hammer and 18-Inch Drop.
8.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829, Expansion Index Test.
9. PROTECTION OF WORK
During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide
positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be
controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The
\ '
Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent ero~ion of freshly graded areas until
such time as permanent drainage and erosion control fea,tures have been installed. Areas
subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the
Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further
excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with -the services of the
Consultant.
10. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil
Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of
elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot
horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of
subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan
of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the
subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report
satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report
should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating
that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance
with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.
GI rev. 07/2015·
' ,,, •. .
-'( • . " . ; ' . \ '-I •
• ~1 .:,~ •• 1 \ . , . ' • ..,! ' ··: ;,
,. :i
.... ' .. -. •,' .... ··) .. ~ \'
.L -,""-' ---.~ '
l, . ,. , • 7 ,:. ' --, I •
,,-
. ·,:.
< ,-_\' ' -
.l ..... ' ~~
. .:·-;: -. '. ~,
·, .
,. . ~ ~ •.··
": ...
' .: .. ' ; -~ -1f '/ -(·,, .. ' ...... .. ;,•
-,.: ,. ·.-•,
_ .... ,;
.. .,
-·--_ ...
.. -·, ··.·;:,,': .· .....
. •'
.. , ... _ ...
'' .-~~---.: '
, ... :"'-: ".' .
',' .....
. : '.,'
-, I '
--· .......
; -~ ... --
; .~~' \t •, }-I '
. :, !
,.
... ' .... · . . ,·
" ' '. -. ' ~•,.JI
',,, ,.'. • : I •, .. , •,
, . :Z-
"''' ·' '•'. ·.·· :., ,_\ -. '\,,· ·,-'" ' .. _ . . -· . . I • . '. . . . ,,, -< ,, .,: ,.;., ~~) . : /·' _ ....... _ ~:-.. -·" .. ,.
_.,..1... /'
-·--., ..... 1·
7
:. \ i_: APPEN·o'1,x/-'.:
.f.. •• :_·, ,f .._ ·.r
'',:.. .-_. . '• ..... ,,
.... ·:1.·
.J ••• • ..:: ........
,,
.... , . .,. -. ., ._:..., . ~ '
'· ,,
t..11..1.. ,: -,.,.
-, ~-.. ":' .
·';--, . ', .'· .-~ .. ,<
., .. -. : . \ . -. • , '-1.l-
. ' -, ~-, •. •'
. ..
... J.
• • ! :
-:. > ~::..~ • j '· ••
'• -;: ....
".,'I.• ' ·~ ...
... -_.,,.,· . . , ·.-'
', -' 1
~~ ; ..
,i '.
' . , ·,,.
·~ :
. . "
.,_,.
.. ,.
;--'
.'• ,•''
. . . ~ . , ..
..-,. ·-
.. •, ' ..
: ... ·· . ~ .·' .. · ~ ,_ "-•
) ( --> -, .... ~· ·, -., . -·, .. ·
._:;-. ... , '_ ... .._ . : .,; .... -
' -.... ~·
' ', r •
.. ·. ,. ...
.,
'·.(·
_,, ...
,,'
',,,
_·,: __ ,: __ ...
:,·. ·' -". _,
-.' .,· ,,. -. .,
'·;t ...
·-·.·.
..:; _-<~-,
.... ....
J :.
·.., ','
~., ,-
''
-·,, (
:;'1 ~~. -::_"' :r-" ~.
,. ·· ..... .~.
I.
, ..
'.
' l,t-·.
'o ( ' I]-,"'•~
,. ., .. ; ', =·~ · . .,
r· ',•.
,-, •, ..... ~ r ;
.~ -~ ~ ~ •' : . -...._:· -
' ,_.
> ,•, ' ' • '• ,r"' ~
'>1=:, _, ·.,
', , ,... ~-'
. . ~,
... ..:-, .. ,· r ...... -i.
• ,-• .J", .. :-1_
•.'),-
.. -~; . ·-'',
:.'.· .;.•
. -, .... , .. _ , .
• r ,,~
,,,·1 ......
'. r ,•"..,
,,·
< ' .. -.. .,
.'' ,-,
., ::1. --;.,-. -.. -:· .·.
. ,
'.'.
.... ·.:·
--: ;ti.
f -· ,-
. ' ,,·
·,'
1 ; J • > t • • • • f ~ -.
, ·. \·1· '
:_\ ~-.-, r
.... ·,
'u, '.,
j. ~. ', .. -·1. ·-.
...... , .x,;--"" ...
-; ... : .'\,
·-I· t.
. ' . • • ~ ~·,-1 ' .. .-.. I • ~ • ,,
.. "i' ,_ . '--~ r" •. ,-,::;:t
i.,."I' ,-
. ' Y_.', ~ '• . . .
_--.. :,
t--' 1 .. r
'-.· ,, '
/'•'._.
} . -,;
~. )j.
'<'' ( ..... _,., ' ... • '_ ....
~ ;:.r' :.--
·.-: {,
... ,,,..
~' :~ '
-~-<: ' >l',
' t
.'··· , J'. .-'
... .· ~
,~-.~
~,,.·...J',,
·-· ' •... Jc
' •• t, o,..r-
. .. , -...... • •• 1'
,,,
··'
.. . ..
, :,-
' ' '-, ·~
' . -·.:. ;-.
< • j
'l
'._. -~.
:·,'J<.' •
~ ·, .... j
::--. "·'
'• • r
..... , J."
-.,':-" ,;. . '. . . ... .·, ,<,
. -
.. ,
·, -:· • <.
. " .. . ) ;,• '·-,... :~ ...
,',
,__,, ,. ..
~-... ,
l ~ -.... ~ .... ·.' -•
',• . ·-. , -.-. ~ ,-, ... .. ~
. J·
C ' . :_,·., ' ,• 1·;_...
. ! .. ',., .... --,
• l"'i
-). ~. ·'. . ~, / -. ~ • _ _,_ : ... :· ~}. 1..' -:~--. ' :' ~ . ' .. . . .. ·
.,' ,.i,.. -, ,· ..... : ' . ,-:T . -,• .. ..,
.--. r_ '-~
_.,, ., ~' .--.·
'. -' ~; ·:·1. ,•' . .. ~ ,-..
~ ',.; .'
.('."1_.. Ir., : _ .. , . ' .....
',.},':I.J:' •; ·, •; '•
. ~ .. ',. .•
\. -... , ~-t ~ •• ""'
·. '' ~ -
::-, . '
,._ .,..
'' 'lo• ....
' . ..,_,
'• .
' \ 'i
::. -..
.J ... ~ •
' '·
','
•, > •
.:·
· ... ~ . . .
! ,' I
. :. ,.· '
· .... '.::_
,_·;'·_
·,~ ... ,_
,.
. ,, ,,'"
• J ,._,: ~.,
~ ~ ,''r '
...
~:-. ·-
,. ·>.;,·
' ·, ~-.
,·, a
l.:.. .
l -,1
'.J .,
~-)
/.-... ,\
\._j
,''\
\, ___ ,/
C)
,'\ I.J
•\
l ',._)
.~j
\
'_.,/
·~
' )
, ) .._,
:J
\
\...,/
,_)
," ·1
./
1· ""',,
'-. __ )
)
( .
APPENDIX B
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
FOR
ROBERT MILES SUBDIVISION
CT 14-04
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. G2037-32-01"
Shea-Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad
Project No. G2037-32-01
Section A-A'
Name: AA-Case1 .gsz
Date: 9/26/2016 Time: 3:50:54 PM
Name: Qop-Old Paralic Deposits Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 32 °
Name: Tsa -Santiago Formation Unit Weight: 115 pct Cohesion: 300 psf Phi: 37 °
Name: Qcf -Compacted Fill Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Ph i: 30 °
A
220 1.5 .-
200 PL Storm Water -Basin ~ Lot 11 ..__..
z 180 0
I-Qop <{ > 160 w
_J w
140
120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
DISTANCE (ft)
Proposed Condition
A'
220
Proposed Grade Lot9
Existing Grade
200
Lot7
180
Qop
160
140
120
200 220 240 260 280 300
X:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2007\Projects\G2037-32-01 (Shea-Carlsbad)\
Figure B-1
Shea-Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad
Project No. G2037-32-01
Section A-A'
Name: AA-Case1 s.gsz
Date: 9/27/2016 Time: 11 :34:17 AM
Name: Qop-Old Paralic Deposits Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 32 °
Name: Tsa -Santiago Formation Unit Weight: 115 pcf Cohesion: 300 psf Phi: 37 °
Name: Qcf-Compacted Fill Unit Weight: 125 pct Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 30 °
A
220 1.2 .-
200 PL Storm Water -Basin .i= Lot 11 -z 180 0
I-Qop <t: > 160 w
__J w 140
120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
DISTANCE (ft )
Proposed Condition
Seismic Condition
Keq = 0.13g
Proposed Grad
Existing Grade
Lot 7
Qop
200 220 240 260
A'
220
Lot 9
200
180
160
140
120
280 300
X:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2007\Projects\G2037-32-01 (Shea-Carlsbad)\
Figure B-2
\. _,,,
)
·J
)
a \
\ ./
\ )
"· . )
) . _./
. .,, \ /
' I
\
I
.GEOCON
Seismic Slope Stabllity Evaluation
Input Data In Shaded Areas
Project
.Project Number
Date
FIiename
Mlles Subdlvlslon
G2037-3?-01
09/27/16 .
AA-Case1
:Peak Ground Acceleration (Finn Rock), MHA,, g Modal Magnitude, M . .
Modal Distance, r, km
Site Condition, S (0. for rock, 1 for soi)
Yield Accelerallon, k.,Jg.
Shell" Wave Vek:lclty, V 1 (fl/sec)
Max Vertical Dlstlllce, H (Feet)
Is Slde:X-Area.:> 25,ooott2 (YIN)
· Correcllon · for horizontal ~rcohereoce
Duration, D=lm..i, sec.
:Coefficient, C1
Coefficient,.~
Coefflcleot, ~ .
8t&'ldard Error, er
-~ Square Period, T,., !!0C -
Initial Screening with MHEA " MHA a k,,..g
0.23
6.8
9.2
1
NA
NA
NA
N
1.0
11.535
0.5190
0.0837
0.0019
0.437
0.602
~~.: NA
feo(IF5cm) = (NRF/3.477)*(1:87-log(u/((MJ-IA/g)*NRF*Ds..as))) 0.5599
kec = feq(MHA,.)/g • 0.129
F cdor of Safety In Slope Analysis Using kea [ 1.20
Passes Initial $creening Analysls
Computed By TEM
10% In 50 yen
<-Enter Value or NA for Screening Analysls
<-
<-
<-Use 'N' for Buttress Fiiis ·
Approximation ofSeilmlc Demand
Period of S11dtng=Mass, T 1 = 4HN., sec
T/Tm
MHEA/(MHA*NRF)
NRF = 0.6225+0.9196EXP(-2.25*M~,lg)
. MHEA/g
ly'MHEA = ly'k,,..,
Norma!zed Dlsplacement, Nonnu
Estimated Dlsplacement, u (cm)
NA
NA
NA
1.17
NA
NA
NA
NA
Figure B-3
Shea-Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad
Project No. 82037-32-01
Section B-B'
Name: BB-Case1 .gsz
Date: 9/27/2016 Time: 9:14:32 AM
Name: Qop-Old Paralic Deposits Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 32 °
Name: Tsa -Santiago Formation Unit Weight: 115 pcf Cohesion: 300 psf Phi: 37 °
Proposed Condition
B B'
-¢:'. -z 0
I-<( > w
_J w
220 220
200
180
160
140
120
100
0 20 40 60
2.1 .-PL
Lot 11 Street
Qop
Proposed Grade
Storm Water Existing Grade
Basin
Qop
200
180
160
140
~.L...IL.-~------...... --~-----~------~ ...... ~~ ...... ~--~~~~--...... .;.;;.--a..i 100
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
DISTANCE (ft)
X:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2007\Projects\G2037-32-01 (Shea-Carlsbad)\ Figure B-4
Shea-Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad
Project No. G2037-32-01
Section B-B'
Name: BB-Case1 s.gsz
Date: 9/27/2016 Time: 12:27:35 PM
Name: Qop-Old Paralic Deposits
Name: Tsa -Santiago Formation
B
220
200
-~ 180 -z
0
I-<( >
160
w 140 .....J w
20 40
Unit Weight: 125 pct Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 32 °
Unit Weight: 115 pct Cohesion : 300 psf Phi: 37 °
60
1.6 .-
80 100 120
PL
Lot 11
140 160
Street
Qop
180
DISTANCE (ft)
Proposed Condition
Seismic Condition
Keq = 0.13g
Proposed Grade
Storm Water Existing Grade
Basin
Qop
200 220 240 260
B'
280
~20
200
180
160
140
120
100
300
X:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2007\Projects\G2037-32-01 (Shea-Carlsbad)\ Figure B-5
•. ·--· ·Gl110CON
1 Seismic Slope Stability Evaluation " __ /
---,,,
I '. /
)
)
Input Dita in Shaded Areas
Project Miles Subdivision
Project Number . G2037-32-01
Date 09/27/16
FUename BB-Case1
Peal( Ground Acceleration (F111T1 Rock), MHA,, g
Modal Magnitude, M
Modal Distance, r. km
Sile Condition, S (0 for rock, 1 for sol) ·
Yleld Accelerallon' k./9. · Shea,r Wave Velocity, V, (ft/sec)
Max V0ft!cal Distance, H (Feet)
Is Slide:X-Araa > 25,0ootr (YIN)
Correction for hot1zontal iu:oherence
-Duration, D&-861.n.ci, sec
Coefficient, C1
Coefficient, C:i
Coefficient, ~ '
Standard Error, Er ·
MeaD Square Period, T"" sec
Initial Screening with MHEA" MHA " ka.xg .
0.23.
s:a
9:2
1
NA
NA
NA·
'. N·
. 1.0
11.535
0.51,90
0.0837
0.0019
·o.431 ·
0.602
~~ NA
foo(u=5cm) = (NRF/3.477)*(1.87-log(u/((MHA/g)*NRF*~))) 0.5599
~ = feq(MHAJ!g . . . . 0.129
Computed By TEM
1 0% i1 50 }_'98T8
<-1;:nter. Yalu.a or NA for Screenilg Analysis
<-'
<-
<-Use 'N' for Bµttress FIiis. ·
Approximation of Sllllmlc Demand
Perfodof Sttdilg Mass, T, = 4HN., sec.
T/T.,
MHE.AJ(MHA 'NRF)
NA
NA
·NA
Factor of Safut>'. In Slope Analysis Using kea . I f.60 ' 1 . NRF = 0.6225+0.9196EXP(-2.25'MHA,lg)
MHEA/g
1.17
NA
NA
NA
Passes lnltlal Screening Anal~ls : •
~HEA = ly'k,,. ·
Normalized Displacemen~ Normu
Estimated Displacement, u (cm) NA
I
'i / -,
Figure 8-6 •
\ ,
Prob. SA, PGA
<medlan(R,M)
• £o <-2
• -2 <£0<-l
-I < £0 <-0.5
• -0.5 <E0 <0
~
>median ~~ .so .. _
0 < £0 < 0.5 "' .. ~,;>o
-~db
• 0.5 <£a < I
• l <Eo<2
• 2 < Eo < 3 200910 UPDATE
PSH Deaggregati on on NEHRP C soil
Miles Subdivisi 11 7.335°W, 33 .169N.
Peak Horiz. Ground Accel.>=0.2331 g
ROBERT MILES SUBDIVISION
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Arm. Exceedance Rate .211 E-02. Mean Return Time 475 years
Mean (R,M,f.o) 23.0 km, 6.63, 0.48
Modal (R,M,Eo) = 9.2 km, 6. 78, -0.25 (from peak R,M bin)
Modal (R,M,c*) = 9.2 km, 6.77, 0 to 1 sigma (from peak R,M,e bin)
Binning: DeltaR 10. km, deltaM=0.2, Delta£= 1.0
2016 Sep 27 16:23:<>5 DKi.nc. (R), magnitude (1,1, opillon (?O.e:) deawreglllon '"'• ... on IOU with .. .._ VF $60. m/1 top 30 m. uses CCHTPSHA2001 UPOAff Bins w1lh k 0.05% coocrtb. omlaed
SEISMIC DE-AGGREGATION GRAPH
GEO CON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS ORNE · SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 · 297 4
PHONE 858 558-6900 • FAX 858 558-6159
PROJECT NO. G2037 · 32 · 0 1
FIGURE B-7
DA TE 1 0 -14 · 2016
Plotted:10/13/2016 1:58PM ( By-.ALVIN LADRILLONO ( FIie Locatlon:Y:IPROJECTS1G2037.J2.01 Miles Subdlvlslon\SHEETS1G2037-32.01 Seismic De-Aggregation Graph.dwg
d'
. ',
I /
', )
\
I
\
I )
I ' /
, \
APPENDIX C
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
FOR
ROBERTMILES SUBDIVISION
.CT 14-04
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. G2037-32-01
i
j
,_ I
\ _,/ ,,
\ _)
' )
-\
' /
',
'j
I /
\ )
,
/
/
APPENDIXC
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION
We understand storm water management devices are being proposed in accordance with the 2016
Model BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region, commonly referred to as the Storm Water Standards
(SWS). If not properly constructed, there is a potential for distress to improvements and properties
located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to these devices. Factors such as the amount of
water to be detained, its residence time, and soil permeability -have an important effect on seepage
transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the storm water management
features are not properly designed and constructed. We have not performed a hydrogeological study
at the site. If infiltration of storm water runoff occurs, downstream properties may be subjected to
seeps, springs, slope instability, raised groundwater, movement of foundations and slabs, or other
undesirable impacts as a result of water infqtration.
Hydrologlc Soil Group
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Services,
possesses general information regarding the e:,tjsting soil conditions for areas within the United
States. The USDA website also provides the Hydrologic Soil Group. Table C-1 presents the
descriptions of the hydrologic soil groups. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, BID,
or CID), the first letter is for drained -areas and the second is for undrained areas. In addition, the
USDA website also provides an estimated saturated hydraulic conductivity for the existing soil.
TABLE C-1
HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP DEFINITIONS
Soil Group Soll Group Definltion
Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet These
A consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These
soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of
B moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately
fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water
transmission.
Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet These consist chiefly of soils
C having a layer that impedes the downward movement of ~ter or soils of moderately fine
texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.
Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet These
D consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water
table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow
over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
Project No. 02037-32-01 -C-1 -October 14, 2016
-",,
)
. ,./
. \
. )
)
\
)
\ )
j
.. '.
I
/
\ I
. \
··.)
, The property is underlain by 3 units identified as Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand (CbC), Maira loamy
coarse sand (MIC), and Marina loamy coarse sand (MIE). The Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand and
' marina loamy co~e sand is classified as Soil Group B. Table C-2 presents the information from the
USDA website for the subject property.
TABLE C-2
USDA WEB SOIL SURVEY -HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP
Map Unit Approximate Hydrologic ksAT of Most
Map Unit Name Percentage Limiting Layer Symbol of Property Soil Group (inches/hour)
·-Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand CbC 44.8 B 1.98-5.95
Marina loamy coarse sand MIC 23.5 B 0.57 -1.98
Marina loamy coarse sand MIE 31.7 B 0.57 -1.98
In-Situ Testing
The infiltration rate, percplation rates and saturated hydraulic conductivity are different and have
different meanings. Percolation rates tend to overestimate infiltration rates and saturated hydraulic
conductivities by a factor of 10 or more. Table C-3 describes the differences in the definitions.
TABLE C-3
SOIL PERMEABILITY DEFINITIONS
Term Definition
The observation of the flow of water through a material into the ground
Infiltration Rate downward into a given soil structure under long term conditions. This is
a function of layering of soil, density, pore space, discontinuities and
initial moisture content
The observation of the flow of water through a.material into the ground
Percolation Rate downward and laterally into a given soil structure under long term
conditions. This is a function of layering of soil, density, pore space,
discontinuities and initial moisture content
The volume of water that will move in a porous medium under a
Saturated Hydraulic hydraulic gradient through a unit area. This is a function of density,
Conductivity (ksAT, Permeability) structure, stratification, fines content and discontinuities. It is also a
function of the properties of the liquid as well as of the porous medium .
The degree of soil compaction or in-situ density has a significant impact on soil permeability and
infiltration. Based on our experience and other studies we performed, an increase in compaction
results in a decrease in soil permeability.
Project No. 02037-32-01 -C-2 -October 14, 2016
\ .. _,/
j
' j
\ I ___ _/
\
\ --,'
(
)
( 1
/ .. ,\
' I " _/
We performed 4 Aardvark Permeameter Tests, I-1 through I-4, at locations shown on the attached
Site Plan, Figure 1. The test borings were 4 inches in diameter. The results of the tests provide
parameters regarding the saturated hydraulic conductivity characteristics of on-site soil and geologic
units. Table C-4 presents the results of the estimated field saturated hydraulic conductivity and
estimated infiltration rates obtained from the Aardvark Permeameter tests. The field sheets are also
attached herein. We applied a feasibility factor of safety of 2 to the field results for use in preparation
of Worksheet C.4-1. The results of the testing within old paralic deposits indicate an adjusted soil
infiltration rate ranging between 0.08 and 0.65 inches per hour after applying a Factor of Safety of 2.
Based on a discussion in the County of Riverside Design Handbook for Low Impact Development
Best Management Practices, the infiltration rate should be considered equal to the saturated hydraulic
conductivity rate.
TABLE C-4
FIELD PERMEAMETER INFILTRATION TEST.RESULTS
Geologic Test Depth Field-Saturated WorkAheet1 Saturated
Test No. Hydraulic Conductivity, Hydraulic Conductivity, Unit (feet) k.at (inch/hour) k.at (inch/hour)
1-1 Qop 2.7 0.68 0.34
1-2 Qop 2.7 0.25 0.13
1-3 Qop 4.7 1.3 0.65
1-4 Qop 4.0 0.16 0.08
1 Using a factor of safety of2 for Worksheet C.4-1.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT CONCLUSIONS
The Site Plan, Figure 1, depicts the existing property, proposed conceptual development and the in-
situ infiltration test locations.
Soll Types
Proposed Compacted Fill -Compacted fill will be placed across the entire property during site
development. Proposed remedial grading will consist of removing any undocumented fill, colluvium,
I
and weathered old paralic deposits and replacement as compacted fill. The proposed storm water
BMP's will be founded in compacted fill placed above dense to very dense old paralic deposits. The
compacted fill wµl be comprised of the on-site silty/clayey sands. The fill will be compacted to a dry
density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. In our experience, compacted
fill does not possess infiltration rates appropriate for infiltration BMP's. Haz.ards that occur as a result
of fill soil saturation include a potential for hydro-consolidation of the granular fill soils, long term
fill settlement, differential fill settlement, and lateral movement associated with saturated fill
relaxation. The potential for lateral water migration to adversely impact existing or proposed
Project No. G2037-32-01 -C-3 -October 14, 2016
' )
I ' /
' /
• I ,_J
structures,, foundations, utilities, and roadways, is high. Therefore, full and partial infiltration should
be considered infeasible.
Section D.4.2 of the 2016 Storm Water Standards (SWS) provides a discussion regarding fill
materials used for infiltration. The SWS states:
•
•
For engineered fills, in.filtration rates may still be quite uncertain due to layering and
heterogeneities introduced as part of construction that cannot be precisely controlled. Due to
these uncertainties, full and partial infiltration should be considered geotechnically infeasible
and liners and subdrains should be used in areas where infiltration BMP's are founded in
compacted fill.
-Where possible, in.filtration BMPs on fill material should be designed such that their
in.filtrating surf ace extends into -native soils. The underlying granitic rock below the
compacted fill is expected between 5 to 30 feet below proposed finish grades after remedi'al
grading is performed. Full and partial infiltration should be considered geotechnically
infeasible within the compacted fill and liners and subdrains should be used. If the infiltration
BMP's extended below the compacted fill, partial infiltration may be feasible.
• Because of the uncertainty of fill parameters as well as potential compaction of the -native
soils, an in.filtration BMP may not be feasible. Therefore, full and partial infiltration should
be cons}dered geotechnically infeasible and liners and subdrains should be used in the fill
areas.
• If the source of fill material is de.fined and this material is known to be of a granular -nature
and that the native soils below are permeable and will not be highly compacted, in.filtration
through compacted fill materials may still be feasible. In this case, a project phasing
. approach could be used including the fallowing general steps, (1) collect samples from areas I expected ·to be used for fill, (2) remold samples to approximately the proposed degree of
compaction and measure the saturated hydraulic conductivity of remolded samples using
laboratory methods, (3) if in.filtration rates appear adequate for in.filtration, then apply an
appropriate factor of safety and use the initial rates for prelimi-nary design, (4) following
placement of fill, conduct in-situ testing to re.fine design in.filtration rates and adjust the
design as needed. However, based on the discussion above, it is our opinion that infiltrating
into compacted fill should be considered geotechnically infeasible and liners and subdrains
should be used.
Infiltration Rates
The results of the infiltration rates obtained within the old paralic deposits ranged between 0.08 and
0.65 inches per hour. Three of the four tests indicated adjusted infiltration rates below th~ current
threshold for infiltration BMP's. Test No. 1-3 which yielded an adjusted rate of 0.65 inches per hour
was not considered representative of the dense to very dense old paralic deposits observed in the
other tests. Therefore, based on ihe results of the infiltration te~ting, full infiltration should be
considered infeasible.
Project No. G2037-32-0l ~ C-4-October 14, 2016
\ I \ ,
' )
,
-,
•
./
\
\
Groundwater Elevations I
Groundwater was not encountered during the subsurface exploration. Groundwater is not expected to
be a geotechnical constraint. We expect to encounter groundwater at elevations near sea level, or
greater than 100 feet below the ground surface.
Soil or Groundwater Contamination
Soil or groundwater contamination is not expected.
New or Existing Utllltles
Existing utilities are present within right of ways adjacent to the existing streets, generally beneath
sidewalks and roadways. We expect that all on-site utilities would be removed prior to site
development. Full or partial infiltration near existing or proposed utilities should be avoided to
prevent lateral water migration into the permeable trench backfill materials .
. Existing and Planned Structures
Residential developments exist to the north, west, and south. Public streets are located immediately
adjacent to the northern and southern property boundaries. An existing residence is located in close
proximity to the western property boundary. If water is allowed to infiltrate into the soil, the water
could migrate laterally and into other properties in the vicinity of the subject site. The water
migration may negatively affect other buildings and_ improvements in the area.
Slopes and Other Geologic Hazards
An approximately 60-foot high slope descends from the site to Monroe Street. The slope stability
analyses without pore water pressure/perched groundwater indicates a factor _of safety of 1.5 along
Cross-Section A-A'. If water is allowed to infiltrate into the slope zone soils, slope instability may be
experienced. Full or partial infiltration should be avoided to prevent lateral water migration, daylight
water seepage, and slope instability.
Recommendations
Liners and subdrains should be incorporated into the design and construction of the planned storm
water devices. Th~ liners should be impermeable ( e.g. High-density polyethylene, HDPE, with a
thickness of about 30 mil or equivalent Polyvinyl Chloride, PVC) to prevent water migration. The
subdrains should be perforated within the liner area, installed at the base and above the liner, be at
least 3 inches .in diameter and consist of Schedule 40 PVC pipe. The subdrains outside of the liner
should consist of solid pipe. Seams and penetrations c;,f the liners should be properly waterproofed:
Project No. 02037-32-01 -C-5 -October 14, 2016
/-"\
'._,_/ /-, v --,
'--j
,------.\
',_/
\
\._./
/ ---'\
\J
/,.--.. .. \
\ .. J
;-,
"j
( -,,
\_j
/ ·,
<) r,,
''-j -~ : ___ )
(-)
''""-__/
CJ r-,
'·._)
(r-"\J
',_/ ,..,--,
l)
,''""\ ;,) '
(-')
', ,/
r-,_)
,/'\
,_j
I\ \ j
( •, )
,.-,
\J
'\-
"-)
\
\~ -I
:/)
,j
'/
, ) '·..;
The subdrains should be connected to a proper outlet. The devices should also be installed. in
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
Storm Water Standard Wprksheets
The SWS requests the geotechnical engineer complete the Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility
Condition (Worksheet C.4-1 ·or I-8) worksheet information to 'help evaluate the potential for
infiltration on the property. The attached Worksheet C.4-1 presents the completed information for the
submittal process.
The regional storm water standards also have a worksheet (Worksheet D.5-1 or Form I-9) that helps
the project civil engineer estimate the factor of safety based on several factors. T~le C-5 describes
the suitability assessment input parameters related to the geotechnical engineering aspects for the
factor of safety determination. ·
TABLE C-5
SUl,TABILITY ASSESSMENT RELATED CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFILTRATION FACILITY
SAFETY FACTORS
Consideration &lgh Medium Low
Concern - 3 Points Concern - 2 Points Concern - 1 Point
Use of soil survey maps Use of well permeameter or simple texture or borehole methods with Direct measurement
analysis to estimate accompanying continuous with localized
short-term infiltration (i.e. small-scale)
rates. Use of well boring log. Direct infiltration testing measurement of
Assessment Methods permeameter or borehole infiltration area with methods at relatively
methods without localized infiltration high resolution or use
accompanying measurement methods , of extensive test pit
continuous boring log. ( e.g., Infiltrometer). infiltration
Relatively sparse testing Moderate spatial measurement
with direct infiltration methods.
methods resolution
Predominant Soil Texture Silty and clayey soils Loamy soils Granular to slightly
with significant fines loamy soils
Highly variable soils Soil boring/test pits Soil boring/test pits indicated from site Site Soil Variability assessment or unknown indicate moderately indicate relatively
variability homogenous soils homogenous .. soils
Depth to Groundwater/ <5 feet below 5-15 feet below > 15 feet below
Impervious Layer facility bottom facility bottom facility bottom
Based on our geotechnical investigation and the Table C-5, Table C-6 presents the estimated factor
values for the evaluation of the factor of safety. This table only presents the suitability assessment
Project No. 02037-32-01 -C-6 -October 14, 2016
\ _,,/
\ -~ :' \ '---/ (~\
'-_/
C)
,--'\
\ __ j
./
C)
/\ I
/
r -~\
' ---\
\_) --,
\. ___ )
I. )
safety factor (Part A) of the worksheet. The project civil engineer should evaluate the safety factor for
design (Part B) and use the combined safety factor for the design infiltration rate.
TABLE C-6
FACTOR OF SAFETY WORKSHEET DESIGN VALUES-PART-A1
Suitability Assessment Factor Category Assigned Factor Product
Weight (w) Value (v) (p =w xv)
Assessment Methods 0.25 3 0.75
Predominant Soil Texture 0.25 2 0.50
Site Soil Variability 0.25 2 0.50
Depth to Groundwater/ Impervious Layer 0.25 1 0.25
Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA= LP 2.00
1 The project civil engineer should complete Worksheet D.5-1 or Form 1-9 using the data on this table.
Additional information is required to evaluate the design factor of_safety .
Project No. 02037-32-01 -C-7 -October 14, 2016
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility
locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this
Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of
the factors presented in _:-\ppendix C.2 and Appendix D.
X
Provide basis: Based on results ofpenneability testing in four locations within the underlying old paralic deposits,
the unfactored infiltration rate was measured to be 0.68, 0.25, 1.3, and 0.16 inches/hour using a constant head
borehole permeameter. If applying a feasibility factor of safety of 2.0, the infiltration rates would be 0.34 iph, 0.13
iph, 0.65 iph, and 0.08 iph. Therefore, 3 of the 4 tests did not meet the minimum threshold for infiltration feasibility.
The test that did meet the criteria was not considered representative of the dense to very dense old paralic deposits.
The Aardvark Penneameter test results are attached. In accordance with the Riverside County stom1 water
procedures, which reference the United States Bureau of Reclamation Well Penneameter Method (USBR 7300), the
saturated hydraulic conductivity is equal to the unfactored infiltration rate.
2
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed
without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards ( slope stability,
groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be
mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening
Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.2.
X
Provide basis: 1\11 approximately 60-foot high slope descends from the property to Monroe Street. Based on the results
of slope stability analyses, the slope exhibits a factor of safety of 1.5 without any pore water pressure/ perched
groundwater. If water is allowed to infiltrate near this slope, daylight seepage and slope instability may be experienced.
Existing public streets are situated to the north and south of the property. _t\n existing residence exists immediately to
the west of the site. \vater infiltration may result in lateral water mi,gration that may adversely impact existing public
utilities. Along the western property boundary, water infiltration may result in daylight water seepage and potential
distress to the existing residence.
1-27 February 2016
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
Form 1-8 Pagl' 2 of-1-
~~~~~~~
3
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed
without increasing rlsk of groundwater contamination (shallow
water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot
be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening
Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.3.
X
Provide basis: Groundwater is not located within 10 feet from any proposed infiltration BMP, therefore the risk of
storm water infiltration BMP's adversely impacting groundwater is considered negligible. Based on the Geotracker
website, no known active remediation sites exist in the vicinity of the site.
4
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed
without causing potential water balance issues such as change of
seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of
contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this
Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of
the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
X
Provide basis: We are not aware of any wells within 100 feet of the site, and given the amount of water that would
infiltrate into the ground, it is our opinion there are no adverse impacts to groundwater, water balance impacts to
stream flow, or impacts on any downstream water rights. It should be noted that researching downstream water
rights or evaluating water balance issues to stream flows is beyond the scope of the geotechnical consultant
Partl
Result
*
If all answers to rows 1 -4 are ''Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The
feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration
If any answer from row 1-4 is ''No", infiltration may be possible to some extent but
would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design.
Proceed to Part 2
No
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in
the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by Agency/Jurisdictions to substantiate findings
1-28 February 2016
5
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any
appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening
Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.
X
Provide basis: Any infill:rfltion BMP' s would be founded in either compacted fill or dense to very dense old paralic
deposits. Infiltration BMP' s founded in compacted fill are not recommended due to the potential for lateral water
migration, hydro-consolidation, and differential settlement. Infiltration BMP' s founded in the underlying old paralic
deposits may also result in lateral water migration, daylight water seepage and slope instability. Please refer to
discussion in Appendix C. Slope stability analyses indicate factors of safety below current standards of 1.5 under static
conditions if water is allowed to infiltrate into the slope zone soils.
6
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without
increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability,
groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot
be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening
Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.2.
X
· Provide basis: An approximately 60--foot high slope descends from the property to Monroe Street. Based on the results
of slope stability analyses, the slope exhibits a factor of safety of 1.5 without any pore water pressure/perched
groundwater. If water is allowed to infiltrate near this slope, daylight seepage and slope instability may be experienced.
Existing public streets are situated to the north and south of the property. An existing residence exists immediately to
the west of the site. Water infiltration may result in lateral water migration that may adversely impact existing public
utilities. Along the western property boundary, water infiltration may result in daylight water seepage and potential
distress to the existing residence.
1-29 February 2016
7
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without
posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns
(shallow water table, storm water pollutants or otherfactors)?
The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a
comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
X
Provide basis: Groundwater is not located within 10 feet from any proposed infiltration BMP, therefore the risk of
storm water infiltration BMP's adversely impacting groundwater is considered negligible. Based on the Geotracker
website, no known active remediation sites exist in the vicinity of the site.
8
Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water
rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be based ooa
comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
X
Provide basis: We are not aware of any wells within 100 feet of the site, and given the amount of water that would
infiltrate into the ground, it is our opinion there are no adverse impacts to groundwater, water balance impacts to
stream flow, or impacts on any downstream water rights. It should be noted that researching downstream water
rights or evaluating water balance issues to stream flows is beyond the scope of the geotechnical consultant
Part2
Result*
If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible.
The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. No Infiltration
If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be
infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is Nolnfiltratlon.
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of:MEP in
the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by Agency /Jurisdictions to substantiate findings
1-30 February 2016
.GEOCON
Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis
Project Name: 1----M_i=le:....s_S_u_b_di_v_is_io_n_---+
Project Number. G2037-32-01 ::::=============~ Borehole Locatlon:,_I _____ 1-_1 ____ _.
:
:
Borehole Diameter (inches)
Borehole Depth, H (feet)
Distance Between Reservoir & Top of Borehole (feet)
Depth to Water Table, s (feet)
Height Al'M Raised from Bottom (inches)
:
:
Date: I 9/28/2016
By:_ TM
Ref. EL (feet, MSL):
Bottom EL (feet, MSL):
4.00
2.67
2.33
100
2.00
Distance Between Resevolr and APM, D (feet):
Head Height, h (Inches):
Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, L (Inches):
Time
Reading Time Elapsed Reservoir Water Resevolr Water Interval Water
(min) (min) Weight (g) Weight (lbs) Consumption (lbs)
1 0.00 22.800
2 15.00 15.00 2L185 1.62
3 25.00 10.00 20.300 0.88
4 35.00 10.00 19.430 0.87
5 45.00 10.00 18.620 0.81
6 55.00 10.00 17.830 0.79
7 65.00 10.00 17.020 0.81
8 75.00 10.00 16.235 0.79
9 85.00 10.00 15.415 0.82
10 95.00 10.00 14.635 0.78
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
...._ _____ ___.
-------
Wetted Area, A (In\_! __ 8_3_.8_1 __ -
4.23
5.67
1174
•water
Total Water Consumption Rate Consumption (lbs) (ln3/mln)
1.62 2.98
2.50 "2.45
3.37 2.41
4.18 2.25
4.97 2.19
5.78 2.25
6.57 2.18
7.39 2.27
8.17 2.16
Steady Flow Rate, Q {ln3/mln): 2.16
4.00
C i.c 3.00 e-
;ii~ 2.00
C "I:
---
8 :; 1.00
~! 0.00 ~ 0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100
Time (min)
Reid-Saturated Hydraunc Conductjyfty -lofntratloo Rate
Case 1: l/h > 3 K sat = ! 0.0113 ! in/min ___ o_._68 __ ___.I in/hr
___ /
OGEOCON
Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis
Project Name: Miles Subdivision .-------,---------1 Project Number. G2037-32-0l :::::================: Borehole Location: .... ! _____ 1-2 ____ __.
: Borehole Diameter {Inches)
Borehole Depth, H (feet):
Distance Between Reservoir & Top of Borehole (feet)
Depth to Water Table, s (feet):
Height APM Raised from Bottom (Inches) :
Date: I 9/28/2016
By:_ TM
Ref. EL (feet, MSL):
Bottom EL (feet, MSL):
4.00
2.67
2.42
100
2.00
Distance Between Resevoir and APM, D (feet):
Head Height, h (Inches):
Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, L (Inches):
TI me
Reading TI me Elapsed Reservoir Water Resewlr Water Interval Water
(min) (min) Weight (g) Weight (lbs) Consumption (lbs)
1 0.00 24.130
2 10.00 10.00 23.690 0.44
3 20.00 10.00 23.310 0.38
4 31.00 11.00 22.945 0.36
5 41.00 10.00 22.655 0.29
6 51.00 10.00 22.340 0.32
7 61.00 10.00 22.005 0.34
8 71.00 10.00 21.685 0.32
9 81.00 10.00 2L370 0.31
10 92.00 11.00 21.040 0.33
11 102.00 10.00 20.750 0.29
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
'-------~
-------
Wetted Area, A (In\ ... I __ 8_3_.85 __ __.
4.32
5.67
1174
•water Total Water Consumption Rate Consumption (lbs) (ln3/mln)
0.44 1.22
0.82 1.05
1.19 0.92
1.48 0.80
1.79 0.87
2.13 0.93
2.45 0.89
2.76 0.87
3.09 0.83
3.38 0.80
Steady Flow Rate, Q (ln3 /min): 0.80
1.50 C 0 i. c 1.00 EE 51 ......
C "I: 0.50 8 =-... .21
-----
;~ 0.00 ~ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Time (min)
Field-Saturated HydrauUc Conductfyfty -Infiltration Rate
Case 1: l/h > 3 K-= ! 0.0042 !in/min .__ __ o_._2s __ __,!1n/hr
.GEOCON
Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis
Project Name: Miles Subdivision
Project Number: 1----G-2-03-7---32---01~---1
:================: Borehole Locatlon: ... [ ____ l_-3 ____ ~
: Borehole Diameter (Inches)
Borehole Depth, H (feet):
Distance Between Reservoir & Top of Borehole (feet)
Depth to Water Table, s (feet):
Height APM Raised from Bottom (Inches) :
Date: l 9/28/2016.
By:[ TM
Ref. EL (feet, MSL):
Bottom EL (feet, MSL):
4.00
4.67
2.33
100
2.00
Distance Between Resevoir and APM, D (feet):
Head Height, h (Inches):
Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, L (Inches):
TI me
Reading TI me Elapsed Reservoir Water Resevolr Water Interval Water
(min) (min) Weight (g) Weight (lbs) Consumption (lbs)
1 0.00 23.560
2 10.00 10.00 21.365 2.20
3 21.00 11.00 19.300 2.07
4 30.00 9.00 17.720 L58
5 45.00 15.00 15.170 2.55
6 55.00 10.00 13.555 1.62
7 65.00 10.00 11.975 1.58
8 75.00 10.00 10.395 1.58
9 85.00 10.00 8.875 1.52
10 95.00 10.00 7.355 1.52
11
u
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
________ _.
-------
Wetted Area, A (In\._! __ 84.;;..;.;..8.;...;1.;..._ _ _.
6.23
5.75
1150
•water
Total Water Consumption Rate
Consumption (lbs)
(ln3/mln)
2.20 6.08
4.26 5.20
5.84 4.87
8.39 4.71
10.01 4.48
U.59 4.38
13.17 4.38
14.69 4.21
16.21 4.21
Steady Flow Rate, Q (ln3 /min): 4.21
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (min)
Flekl:Saturated Hydraulic Conductlvltv-lnflltratJon Rate
Case 1: l/h > 3 K Ult = ! , 0.0216 ! in/min
60 70 80 90 100
...._ __ 1_.3_0 __ .....,!ln/hr
OGEOCON
Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysls
Project Name: Miles Suedlvision
Project Number: --~Gj'jJJ_,.·,,,-~--..,.3-2---0-1------1
::=============~ Borehole Location: ... [ _____ 1-4 ____ __.
Date: f 9/28/2016
By:_ TM
Ref. EL (feet, MSL): ....._ _____ .....
Bottom EL (feet, MSL): -------
: 4.00 Borehole Diameter (inches)
Borehole Depth, H (feet): 4.00 Wetted Area, A (In\._! __ 84;;;..;.;..5;;..;;2;;...__.....,
Distance Between Reservoir & Top of Borehole (feet)
Depth to Water Table, s (feet):
2.42
100
Height APM Raised from Bottom (Inches) : 2.00
o;mm~ Betw~, Res~,, aod APM, o (feet hi 5.65
Head Height, h (inches): 5.73
Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, L (Inches): 1158
TI me
Reading nme Elapsed Reservoir Water Resevolr Water Interval Water Total Water
(min) (min) Weight (g) Weight (lbs) Consumption (lbs) Consumption (lbs)
1 0.00 23.540
2 10.00 10.00 23.270 0.27 0.27
3 20.00 10.00 22.980 0.29 0.56
4 31.00 11.00 22.695 0.29 0.84
5 41.00 10.00 22.475 0.22 1.07
6 51.00 10.00 22.270 0.21 1.27
7 61.00 10.00 22.075 0.20 1.47
8 75.00 14.00 21.795 0.28 1.75
9 85.00 10.00 21.605 0.19 1.94
10 95.00 10.00 21.425 0.18 2.12
11 105.00 10.00 21.235 0.19 2.31
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Steady Flow Rate, Q (ln3 /min):
1.00
15 0.80 i. c EE 0.60 Ji 0.40
CII 0.20 .....
--...............
;~ 0.00 :t 0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100
Time (min)
Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity -lnflltratfon Rate
*Water
Consumption Rate
(ln3/mln)
0.75
0.80
0.72
0.61
0.57
0.54
0.55
0.53
0.50
0.53
0.53
110 120
Case 1: l/h > 3 K sat = ! 0.0027 j 1n/min .__ __ o_.1_G __ .....,!1n/hr
33" 1a14"N
33" la 5' N
468720
468720
Soil Map-San Diego County Area, California
(Miles Subdivision, Carlsbad)
468750 468700 468810
468750 468700 468810
Map Scale: 1: 1,420 W printed on A portrait (8.5" X 11") sheet. -------=====~--------------==============>Meters 0 20 40 80 120 -----======-----------==========:,Feet 0 SO 1()() 200 300
Map projection: Web Mercator Comermordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone UN WGS84
USDA Natural Resources
siF Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
468870
9/27/2016
Page 1 of 3
33" 1a14"N
33" 1a5'N
Soil Map-San Diego County Area. California
(Miles Subdivision, Carlsbad)
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
D Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
=i Soil Map Unit Polygons
,.....,,. Soil Map Unit Lines
El Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
~ Blowout
181 Borrow Pit
• Clay Spot
0 Closed Depression
X Gravel Pit . Gravelly Spot ..
0 Landfill
/\. Lava Flow ... Marsh or swamp
~ Mine or Quarry
0 Miscellaneous Water
0 Perennial Water
V Rock Outcrop
+ Saline Spot .. Sandy Spot . ..
Severely Eroded Spot
0 Sinkhole
J, Slide or Slip
fJ Sodic Spot
USDA Natural Resources
--Conservation Service
§I Spoil Area
0 Stony Spot
al Very Stony Spot
~ Wet Spot
t:. Other
--Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
t-+-+ Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
• Aerial Photography
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area:
Survey Area Data:
San Diego County Area, California
Version 9, Sep 17, 2015
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1 :50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Nov 3, 2014-Nov 22,
2014
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
9/27/2016
Page 2 of 3
' /
\ /
. /
) ·~ /
( . ' i
I ''-.._/
' -,
)
son Map-San Diego County Area, Callfomla
. Map Unit Legend
:
Map Unit Symbol
CbC
MIC
MIE
Totals for Area of l_nterest
Natural Resou~
Conservation Service
Sah.D~.Cciunty Area, Callfomla·(CA63B)
MapUnltN~ · Acres In AOI.
Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 5
to 9 percent slopes
Marina loamy'COSrse sand, 2 to
9 percent slopes
Marina loamy coarse sand, 9 to
30 percent slopes
WebSoUSu~y
National Cooperative Soll Survey
;
1.9
1.0
1.4
4.3
Miles Subdivision, Carlsbad
Percent of AOI
''
44.8%
23.5% ..
31.7%
. 100.0%
9/27/2016
Page 3 of 3
Map Unit Descr1ptlon: Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 5 to 9 percent slopes-San Diego County · Miles Subdivision, Carlsbad ·
"--' _ Area, California · '
.-\ , __ )
/ /-\
I~~)
-', .)
. __/
( . '
)
.·.San OiegQ County Ar~~' California
. -. .
_Cb~ai1sbad gravelly loamy sand, 5 to 9 percent slopes -
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hb99
Elevation: 3.0 t.o 300 feet .
Mean annual precipitation: .10 to 16 inches
Frost-free period: 330 to 350 days .
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
· . Map.Unit Composition
USDA Natural R8804,lrce,s
:IM · Conservation Service
Carlsbad and similar soils: 85 percent
· Minor components: 15 ·percent ,
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects oftha
mapunlt:
Description of .Carlsbad
Setting
· Landform: Hillslopes
· Landform position (two-dimensional): .Backslope
Landforrn position (three-dimensional): Side slope ...
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope $hapa: Convex
· Parent ma(f3rial: Ferruginous sanostone
Typical. profile
H1 -:· O to 21.inches: gravelly loamy sand
. H2 -21 to 39 inches: .loamy sand
H3 -39 to_SO inches: indurated
Properties and qualities
-Slope: 5 to 9 percent·
Depth to restrictive feature: -24 to 40 inclies to duripan
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit_ water (Ksat): High (.1, .98
to 5.95 In/hr)
Depth to water tabla: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: · None
. Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in prolile: Very low (about 2,7 inches)
Interpretive groups
· Land capability c/assffication (irrigated):-3e
Land capability c/assffication (nonirrigatad): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: SANDY (1975) (R019XD035CA)
Hydrlc soil rati~g: No
Web Soll Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
. 9/27/2016
Page 1 of2
''--;
' -1
)
' _/
\.__ ,'
'-/
,, -/
~,
) -
Map Unit Desaiptlon: Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 5 to 9 percent slopes-San Diego County
Area, Cslifomia
Mlno,r-Cqmponents
· Chesterton
Percent of map unft: 5 percent
Hyrfric soil rating: No
·Marina
Percent df map unft: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, ponded
Percent of map unft: 2 percent
Landfonn: 't>epresslons
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Redding
Percent of m_ap unft: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed
Percent of map unft: 1 percent
Landfonn: Sloughs
Hydric soil rati_ng: Yes
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California·
$urvey Area Data: _Version 9, Sep 17, 2015
us~ Natural Resources
MM . Conservation Service ·
Web Soll Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
Miles Subdivision, Carlsbad
9/27/2016
Page 2 of2
,_,.
." \
~)
; . ~""' I '_J
.)
1
' )
\
'---'I
\
'-/
\ _./ .-. _)
> _ ..
• ->
I
. "' \
\ )
\
J
Map Unit Description: Marina loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes-San Diego County Area, Miles Subdivision, Csr1sbad
Csltfomla ·
· San Diego County Area, California
Ml~arina loamy coarse' sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Map Un.It Setting ..
. . National map unit symbol: hbdz
Mean annual air temperature: 57 to 61 degrees F ·
Farmland classification: Prime Jam,land if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Marina and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent , ·
Estimates are baseg on observations, descriptiqns, and transects of the
· mapunit.
Description of Marina
Natural Resources
Conservation Service .
.Setting·
Lane/form: .Ridges
Down-.slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent materiai: · Eolian sands derived from mixed sources
Typical profile.·
H1 -Oto 10 inches: l.oamy coarse sand·.
H2 -10 to 57 inches: loamy sand, loamy coarse sand
. H2 -10 to 57 inches: sand, coarse sand
H3 -57 to 60 inches:
H3 -57 to 60 inches:
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 9 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
· Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained.
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting liiyer to transmit '(YBter (Ksat):
Moderately high to high (0.5-r to 1.98 in/hr)
· Depth to water table: More than 80 Inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: Non·e
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very siiglitly saline (0.0 to
2.0 mmhos/cm)· · · · ·
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8:7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s .
Land capability c/assfffcatlon (nonlrrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B ·
Hydric soil rating: No
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/27/2016
Page 1 of 2
'\
-j
1 Map Unit Description: Marina loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes-San Diego County Area,
~" Callfomla -
' ) ,j
: )
-',
I /
I .. _ _...·
Minor Components
Carlsbad
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydnc soil rating: No
Chesterton
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydiic soil rating: No
-Corralltos
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric so1(rating: No .
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area:
Survey Area.Data:
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
San Diego County Area, California
Versjon 9, Sep 17, 2015
Web Soll Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
Miles SubdMslon, Carlsbad
9/27/2016
Page 2 of 2
)
__ ,,
. -/
,, .... -\
)
~j
\~)
' I
\__./
\
•.._ ____ /
\_ /
I \..
Map Unit Description: Manna foamy coarse sand, 9 to 30 percent slopes-San Diego County · Miles Subdivision, Carlsbad
Area, California · · ·
.San Di~go County Area, California
MIE~arina loamy coars·e sand, 9-to 30 percent slopes
Natural Resou~
Conservation Service
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hbfO
Mean annual air temperature: 57 to ·51 degrees F
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition ·
Marina and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimate_s are ba~ed on obseNations, descriptions, and transects of the
mapunit .
Description: of Marina
·Setting.
Landform: Ridges
Down-slope shape: Conci;ive
· Across-slope shape: Linear
· Parent material: Eollari sands derived from mixed sources
Typical profile
H1 -Oto 10 Inches: loamy coarse sand
H2-10 to 57 inches: loamy sand, loamfcoarse sand
H2 -10 to 51 inches: ·sand, coarse sand·
H3 -· 57 to .60 inches:
· H3 -57 to 60 inches:
Properties and qualities
Slope: 9 to 30 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class:· Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):
Mode·rately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
· -Sallnlty, maximum in pro'file: Nonsallne to very slightly saline·(o.o to
· 2.0 mm hos/cm). ·
Available water storage in pro'file: Moderate (about 8.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydrlc soil rating: No
Web Soll ~urvey -_
National Cooperative Soil Survey
9/27/2016
Page 1 of 2
' __ /
l '/
)
'--~
Map Unit Description: Marina loamy coarse sand, 9 to 30 percent slopes-San Diego County
Area, Callfomla · · ·
Minor Components
· Cartsbad
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Chesterton
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Corralltos
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soii rating: No· · ·
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area; California
Survey Area Data: Version 9, Sep 17, 2015
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soi ~urvey
National Cooperative Soll Survey
Miles SubdMslon, Garlsbad
9/27/2016
Page 2 of 2