HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 16-03; Beach Village Life 1 Mixed Use; REVISED CAST IN DRILLED HOLE PILE RECOMMENDATIONS; 2018-02-05GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE EVALUATION
PLANNED MIXED USE HOTEL, SPA, AND CONDOMINIUMS
300 CHRISTIANSEN WAY, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER (APN) 203-173-02-00
FOR
BEACH VILLAGE LIFE 1, LLC
C/O KARNAK PLANNING AND DESIGN
614 CALLE VICENTE
SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA 92009
W.O. 6942-A1-SC FEBRUARY 15, 2018
Geotechnical C Geologic C Coastal C Environmental
5741 Palmer Way C Carlsbad, California 92010 C (760) 438-3155 C FAX (760) 931-0915 C www.geosoilsinc.com
February 15, 2018
W.O. 6942-A1-SC
Beach Village Life 1, LLC
c/o Karnak Planning and Design
614 Calle Vicente
San Clemente, California 92009
Attention:Mr. Robert Richardson
Subject:Geotechnical Update Evaluation, Planned Mixed-Use Hotel, Spa, and
Condominiums, Christiansen Way, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,
Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 203-173-02-00
Dear Mr. Richardson:
In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a
geotechnical update evaluation of the subject site with respect to the planned six-story,
mixed-use hotel, spa, and condominium development at the subject site. The primary
purpose of this update was to update our preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the
subject site (GSI, 2015 [see Appendix A]) relative to the currently planned development,
the 2016 California Building Code (California Building Standards Commission [CBSC],
2016), and City of Carlsbad storm water requirements (City of Carlsbad, 2016b). This
update also address City of Carlsbad Land Development Review comments (“redlines”)
electronically transmitted to our office by Spear and Associates, Inc. (Project Civil
Engineer) on January 30, 2018. Unless specifically superseded herein, the conclusions
and recommendations contained in GSI (2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018) are still considered
valid and applicable and should appropriately implemented during project planning and
construction.
GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
GSI previously investigated the subject site, relative to the then-planned development, in
September 2015. This initial study included subsurface exploration with three (3)
hollow-stem auger borings, advanced to depths on the order of 31½ to 56 feet below the
existing ground surface (BEGS). The borings were logged by a GSI representative, who
also collected relatively undisturbed and representative bulk samples of the onsite earth
materials for laboratory testing. Based on our early findings, we concluded that the subject
site was generally suitable to receive the proposed development provided our
recommendations were incorporated into the project. The most significant geotechnical
factors related to the proposed development included:
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 2
•Potentially compressible colluvium/disturbed natural ground and weathered old
paralic deposits within the upper approximately 5 feet of the existing grades which
in turn, are underlain by approximately 25 to 29½ feet of relatively unweathered old
paralic deposits (formerly termed “terrace deposits” on older regional geologic
maps) and thence sedimentary bedrock belonging to the Tertiary Santiago
Formation;
•The occurrence of relatively dry and lightly indurated old paralic deposits between
approximately 15 and 20 feet BEGS;
•Perched groundwater occurring between approximately 21½ and 26½ feet below
the existing grades, likely resulting from permeability contrasts between the old
paralic deposits and the underlying Santiago Formation;
•The occurrence of relatively granular, very low expansive soils (expansion index
[E.I.] of 20 or less) within the upper approximately 30 to 34½ feet of the existing
grades;
•The existence of moderately alkaline, corrosive to severely corrosive soils,
possessing negligible sulfate exposure to concrete, and slightly elevated to elevated
concentrations of soluble chlorides; and,
•The need for shoring and/or slot cuts to complete remedial and planned grading.
In September 2017, the design team decided that cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles would
support the planned building foundation and assist in providing temporary support of the
planned excavation. GSI prepared two (2) geotechnical addendums providing axial and
lateral capacities for cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles and recommendations for pile
installation (GSI, 2017 and 2018).
CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS
A GSI representative visited the site on February 5, 2018 to observe the current site
conditions and to perform additional testing for this update evaluation. Based on our
observations, the surficial site conditions were generally similar to those described in
GSI (2015) with the exception of two (2) recently installed water production wells within the
southwesterly quadrant of the property.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
A review of the project architectural, civil engineering, and structural engineering plans
prepared by Karnak Planning and Design ([KP&D], 2018), Spear and Associates, Inc.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 3
([S&A], 2018), and Sun Structural Engineering, Inc. ([SSE], 2018), GSI understands that
planned development includes preparing the site for the construction of a mixed use hotel,
spa, and condominium building with associated improvements (i.e., underground utilities,
pavements, and landscaping). The planned building will consist of six (6) stories with a
roof deck and up to two (2) below-grade floor levels. Excavations ranging between
approximately 5 and 21 feet BEGS will be necessary to achieve the pad grade for the
lowest floor level (Sub Level 2). Shoring will be used to retain excavation walls along the
westerly, southerly, and northeasterly property lines. Temporary 1:1 (horizontal:vertical
[h:v]) slopes will be constructed as part of the planned excavation along the northeasterly
and easterly property lines. According to SSE (2018), 30- to 45-foot long CIDH piles,
interconnected by grade beams, will be used to support the temporary shoring.
GSI understands that the shoring piles will be integrated into the building foundation.
A slab-on-grade floor will be constructed at the lowermost floor level (Sub Level 2). The
second lowest floor level (Sub Level 1) will consist of a concrete deck. Both below grade
concrete sub-floors will receive vehicular loads. GSI understands that structural analysis
of the planned building is ongoing, and the loading conditions have not been finalized.
However, we anticipate maximum column loads ranging between 400 and 500 kips with
maximum wall loads of 5 to 10 kips per lineal foot.
SUPPLEMENTAL FIELD STUDIES
Supplemental field studies were conducted by GSI on February 5, 2017, and consisted of
surficial mapping and advancing three (3) exploratory borings for percolation testing, to
evaluate onsite soil infiltration rates. The borings were logged by a representative of this
office. Following logging, the borings were developed for percolation testing. The logs
of the supplemental borings as well as the borings advanced in preparation of GSI (2015)
are presented in Appendix B. The infiltration test data is discussed later in this report and
presented in Appendix C. The approximate location of the supplemental and GSI (2015)
borings are presented on the Geotechnical Map (see Revised Plate 1), which uses
S&A (2018), as a base.
UPDATED SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS
General
The site geologic units observed and/or encountered during the supplemental and
GSI (2015) subsurface investigations and site reconnaissance included undocumented
artificial fill, undifferentiated Quaternary-age colluvium/disturbed natural ground,
Quaternary-age old paralic deposits, and thence the Tertiary Santiago Formation. During
our supplemental field work performed in preparation of this update, GSI encountered
earth materials not previously identified during the GSI (2015) study. Thus, we are
providing an updated summary relative to the onsite geologic units.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 4
The onsite earth units are generally described below from the youngest to the oldest. The
distribution of these geologic units is shown in plan view and in cross section on Plates 1
and 2, respectively.
Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Map Symbol - Afu)
Undocumented artificial fill was observed in Infiltration Boring No. 4 (IB-4). As observed
therein, the fill consisted of dark grayish brown fine-grained silty sand with some concrete
debris. The fill was moist and loose to medium dense. The fill extended to an approximate
depth of 5 feet BEGS. Based on communication with a KP&D representative, GSI
understands that the fill was placed to backfill a temporary desilting basin that was
previously excavated to capture runoff created during the development of the two (2) new
water production wells installed within the southwesterly quadrant of the site. The
undocumented fill is considered potentially compressible in its existing state and should
not be relied upon for the support of settlement-sensitive improvements. Based on our
understanding of the planned development, the undocumented fill will likely be removed
during the excavation for the below-grade floor levels within the building footprint.
Undifferentiated Quaternary Colluvium/Disturbed Natural Ground (Map Symbol -
Qcol)
A thin mantle of undifferentiated Quaternary-age colluvium/disturbed natural ground was
encountered at the surface in the remaining borings. This earth material generally
consisted of dark brown, grayish brown, dark grayish brown, and dark reddish brown silty
sand with trace amounts of debris, and light gray fine-grained sand. The undifferentiated
Quaternary-age colluvium/disturbed natural ground was generally dry to moist and loose
to medium dense. The colluvium/disturbed natural ground was observed to extend to
depths on the order of ½ foot to 5 feet below the existing grades. Based on a review of
historical imagery on Google Earth, it appears that trees were removed from the site in late
2014. The disturbed natural ground, encountered in our borings, may be associated with
the previous tree removal activity. The undifferentiated Quaternary-age
colluvium/disturbed natural ground is considered potentially compressible in its existing
state and should not be used for support of planned settlement-sensitive improvements
without mitigation. These earth materials will likely be removed during the planned
excavation within the building footprint.
Quaternary-age Old Paralic Deposits (Map Symbol - Qop)
Quaternary-age old paralic deposits were observed underlying the undocumented fill in
Infiltration Boring No. IB-4 and below the undifferentiated colluvium/disturbed natural
ground in the remaining borings at approximate depths of ½ foot to 5 feet BEGS. As
observed, the upper approximately 2½ to 3 feet of the old paralic deposits were weathered
in Borings B-1 and B-2, and Infiltration Boring IB-3. Where weathered, the old paralic
deposits generally consisted of slightly porous, dark reddish yellow fine-grained sand with
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 5
trace silt and dark yellowish brown, and dark reddish yellow silty sand. The weathered old
paralic deposits were dry to damp and medium dense to dense. Locally, the weathered
old paralic deposits contained trace amounts of organic materials (i.e., roots).
Unweathered old paralic deposits were encountered at approximate depths of 3 to 5 feet
BEGS. These sediments generally consisted of light and dark reddish yellow, dark
yellowish brown, reddish yellow, and brownish gray silty sand; yellowish brown, reddish
yellow, brownish gray, dark gray, dark yellowish brown, grayish brown, and yellowish gray,
predominately very fine- to fine-grained sand with varying concentrations of silt; and dark
yellowish brown and reddish yellow clayey sand. The unweathered old paralic deposits
were dry to wet and dense to very dense. The near-surface, weathered old paralic
deposits are considered potentially compressible in their existing state. Removal and
recompaction of these earth materials are recommended for uniform support of
settlement-sensitive improvements and planned fills if they are not removed by the planned
excavations. The planned excavation within the building footprint will likely remove the
weathered old paralic deposits. Unweathered old paralic deposits are considered suitable
bearing materials.
Tertiary-age Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - Tsa)
As observed in the borings, Eocene-age sedimentary bedrock, belonging to the
Santiago Formation, underlies the old paralic deposits at approximate depths of 30 to
34½ feet below the existing grades. The Santiago Formation generally consisted of light
gray silty sandstone with interbeds of light olive brown and greenish gray sandy claystone,
and light brown and light olive brown clayey sandstone. The Santiago Formation was
moist to wet and dense to very dense/hard. The Santiago Formation is considered suitable
for support of settlement-sensitive improvements and/or planned fills in its existing state.
Structural Geology
Based on our experience in the site vicinity, bedding within Quaternary-age old paralic
(terrace) deposits is generally flat lying to gentle westerly dipping. The geologic contact
between the old paralic deposits and Santiago Formation consists of an ancient wave-cut
platform that slightly dips in a westerly direction. Regional geologic mapping by Kennedy
and Tan (2005) indicates Santiago Formation bedding is inclined 10 degrees in a
northeasterly direction, in the site vicinity.
GROUNDWATER
Regional groundwater is expected to generally be coincident with sea level (0 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 [NGVD29]) or approximately 44 feet below the lowest site
elevation. A perched groundwater table was encountered in Borings B-1 and B-2 at
respective approximate depths of 21½ and 26½ feet below the existing grades or
approximate elevations of 22½ to 20½ feet NGVD29. This groundwater table appears to
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 6
be perched atop the less permeable Santiago Formation. Groundwater is not anticipated
to adversely affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in
GSI (2015, 2017, and 2018) and herein, are properly incorporated into final design and
construction. However, perched water may present difficulties during the installation of
CIDH piles and underground utilities/pumps that extend near or below the aforementioned
elevations. Further, the presence of perched water increases the potential for vapor or
water transmission through the slab, foundations, and subterranean walls. Some
pumping/dewatering could be necessary. Supplemental evaluations with respect to
groundwater levels could be performed prior to construction.
These observations reflect site conditions at the time of our investigation and do not
preclude future changes in local groundwater conditions from excessive irrigation,
precipitation, or other conditions that were not obvious at the time of our investigation.
Based on the permeability contrasts between any proposed fill and the old paralic
deposits, and the Santiago Formation, perched groundwater conditions may develop in
the future due to excessive irrigation, poor drainage or damaged utilities, and should be
anticipated. Should manifestations of this perched condition (i.e., seepage) develop in the
future, this office could assess the conditions and provide mitigative recommendations, as
necessary. The potential for perched water to occur during and after development should
be disclosed to all interested/affected parties.
UPDATED SEISMIC SHAKING PARAMETERS
Based on the site conditions, the following table summarizes the updated site-specific
design criteria obtained from the 2016 CBC (CBSC, 2016), Chapter 16 Structural Design,
Section 1613, Earthquake Loads. The computer program “U.S. Seismic Design Maps,”
provided by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS, 2014) was utilized for design
(http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php). The short spectral response
utilizes a period of 0.2 seconds. The geographic coordinates for the approximate centroid
of the site are 33.1603, -117.3516.
2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
PARAMETER VALUE 2016 CBC AND/OR REFERENCE
Site Class D Section 1613.3.2/ASCE 7-10
(Chapter 20)
sSpectral Response - (0.2 sec), S 1.162 g Figure 1613.3.1(1)
1Spectral Response - (1 sec), S 0.446 g Figure 1613.3.1(2)
aSite Coefficient, F 1.035 Table 1613.3.3(1)
vSite Coefficient, F 1.554 Table1613.3.3(2)
GeoSoils, Inc.
2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
PARAMETER VALUE 2016 CBC AND/OR REFERENCE
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 7
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral
MSResponse Acceleration (0.2 sec), S 1.203 g Section 1613.3.3
(Eqn 16-37)
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral
M1Response Acceleration (1 sec), S 0.693 g Section 1613.3.3
(Eqn 16-38)
5% Damped Design Spectral Response
DSAcceleration (0.2 sec), S 0.802 g Section 1613.3.4
(Eqn 16-39)
5% Damped Design Spectral Response
D1Acceleration (1 sec), S 0.462 g Section 1613.3.4
(Eqn 16-40)
MPGA 0.480 g ASCE 7-10 (Eqn 11.8.1)
Seismic Design Category D Section 1613.3.5/ASCE 7-10
(Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2)
Conformance to the criteria above for seismic design does not constitute any kind of
guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur
in the event of a large earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not
to eliminate all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Cumulative
effects of seismic events are not addressed in the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013) and regular
wmaintenance and repair following locally significant seismic events (i.e., M 5.5) will likely
be necessary.
It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of an upper bound or maximum
credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking
would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would
likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a
structure's mass than from those induced by the hazards considered above. Following
implementation of remedial earthwork and design of foundations described herein, this
potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in
the immediate vicinity that comply with current and adopted building standards.
SEISMIC DENSIFICATION POTENTIAL
Seismic Densification
Seismic densification is a phenomenon that typically occurs in low relative density granular
soils (i.e., United States Soil Classification System [USCS] soil types SP, SW, SM, and SC)
that are above the groundwater table. These unsaturated granular soils are susceptible
if left in the original density (unmitigated), and are generally dry of the optimum moisture
content (as defined by the ASTM D 1557). During seismic-induced ground shaking, these
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 8
natural or artificial soils deform under loading and volumetrically strain, potentially resulting
in ground surface settlements. The recommended remedial earthwork, discussed herein,
would reduce the potential for seismic densification. However, some densification may
occur on the adjoining un-mitigated properties or areas of the subject site where remedial
grading is not performed. Some of the dry (i.e., well below optimum moisture content) old
paralic deposits, consisting of USCS soil types SP or SM, above the perched groundwater
table may exhibit low magnitude densification. This may influence improvements located
above a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) projection up from the perimeter of the site or the
limits of remedial grading. Special setbacks and/or foundations would be recommended
for settlement-sensitive improvements within the influence of densifiable soils. Our
evaluation assumes that the current offsite conditions will not be significantly modified by
future grading at the time of the design earthquake, which is a reasonably conservative
assumption.
Summary
It is the opinion of GSI that the susceptibility of the developed site to experience damaging
deformations from seismically-induced densification is relatively low owing to the
recommended recompaction of low density soils (as discussed herein) and the dense
nature of the formational earth units that underlie the site to depth. Densification occurring
on unmitigated, adjoining properties or portions of the subject site where remedial grading
is not performed could potentially affect the proposed improvements located above a
1:1 (h:v) projection up from the perimeter of the site or the limits of remedial grading.
The planned building will be supported by CIDH piles, which transfer building loads into
dense old paralic deposits and Santiago Formation. Thus, the potential for the building
foundation to be adversely affected by offsite seismic densification is considered low.
Seismic densification of unmitigated soils at the property lines, whose maximum thickness
is estimated at approximately 5 feet, has the potential to increase axial loading of the
basement walls. This increase in axial loading during a significant seismic event would
ultimately be transferred to the CIDH pile foundations by soil friction along the back of the
exterior walls if these soils are left in their current condition. Detailing of the wall exterior
could reduce this potential to a less than significant amount.
EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS
Based on our experience with similar nearby sites, we estimate the undocumented fill,
undifferentiated colluvium/disturbed natural ground, and weathered, and unweathered old
paralic deposits can be excavated using standard earth-moving equipment with little to
moderate difficulty. However, localized cemented zones within the old paralic deposits
may require the use of heavy ripping and/or rock breaking equipment (i.e., hoe ram). The
Santiago Formation, if encountered, may present moderate to significant difficulty during
drilling operations for CIDH pile installation. The localized use of a core barrel cannot be
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 9
precluded due to possible concretions and/or well cemented zones. Site earth materials
are anticipated to reduce to particles sizes of 12 inches or less during excavation.
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on relatively undisturbed and representative bulk samples
of site earth materials collected during the GSI (2015)subsurface exploration in order to
evaluate their physical characteristics. Test procedures used and results obtained are
presented in GSI (2015). In order to address City of Carlsbad Land Development Review
comments, GSI is providing an updated summary of the GSI (2015) saturated resistivity,
pH, and soluble sulfates, and chlorides test results.
Updated Saturated Resistivity, pH, and Soluble Sulfates, and Chlorides
In preparation of GSI (2015), GSI conducted sampling of onsite earth materials for general
soil corrosivity and soluble sulfates, and chlorides testing. The testing included evaluation
of soil pH, soluble sulfates, chlorides, and saturated resistivity. Test results are presented
in Appendix D of GSI (2015) and the following table:
SAMPLE LOCATION
AND DEPTH (FT)pH
SATURATED
RESISTIVITY
(ohm-cm)
SOLUBLE
SULFATES
(ppm)
SOLUBLE
CHLORIDES
(ppm)
B-1 @ 10 8.10 1,150 0.0150 130
B-3 @ 20 8.13 620 0.0250 38
Corrosion Summary
The laboratory tests indicate that the tested samples of the onsite soils are moderately
alkaline with respect to soil acidity/alkalinity; are corrosive to severely corrosive to
exposed, buried metals when saturated; present negligible (“Exposure Class S0” per
Table 19.3.1.1 of American Concrete Institute [ACI] 318-14) sulfate exposure to concrete;
and have slightly elevated to elevated concentrations of soluble chlorides. It should be
noted that GSI does not consult in the field of corrosion engineering. Thus, the client,
project architect, and project structural engineer should agree on the level of corrosion
protection required for the project and seek consultation from a qualified corrosion
consultant as warranted, especially in light of the site’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean,
which is a corrosive environment.
I I I I I I
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 10
The following table summarizes the correlation between electrical resistivity of soil and
corrosivity toward ferrous metals.
SOIL RESISTIVITY
(ohm-cm)
CORROSIVITY
CATEGORY
>10,000 Mildly Corrosive
2,000 - 10,000 Moderately Corrosive
1,000 - 2,000 Corrosive
<1,000 Severely Corrosive
The following table summarizes the correlation between water-soluble sulfate
concentrations in soil and the exposure to concrete per Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-14.
WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE IN SOIL
(% by weight)EXPOSURE CLASS
<0.10 S0
0.10-0.20 S1
0.20-2.00 S2
>2.00 S3
Per ACI 318-14, Exposure Class S0 is assigned for conditions where the water-soluble
sulfate concentration in contact with concrete is low and sulfate attack to concrete is
generally not a concern. Exposure Classes S1, S2, and S3 are assigned for structural
concrete members in direct contact with soluble sulfates in soil or water. The severity of
exposure increases from Exposure Class S1 to S3 based on the more critical value of
measured water-soluble sulfate concentration in soil or the concentration of dissolved
sulfate in water. Seawater is classified as Exposure Class S1.
UPDATED CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our previous and supplement field exploration, laboratory testing, and
geotechnical engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the subject site is suitable to
receive the planned development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint,
provided that the recommendations presented in the following sections are incorporated
into the design and construction phases of site development. The primary geotechnical
concerns with respect to the proposed development and improvements are:
I I I
I I I
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 11
•Earth materials characteristics and depth to competent bearing material below
existing grades.
•Foundation support for the planned building.
•Planned excavations in close proximity to property lines.
•Temporary slope stability.
•Perched groundwater and its potential affects during and following the proposed
development.
•Response to wetting of dry sandy soils within the old paralic deposits.
•On-going expansion and corrosion potential of site soils.
•Erosiveness of site earth materials.
•Adverse effects of potential storm water infiltration on the existing and planned
onsite improvements and nearby properties.
•Regional seismic activity.
The recommendations presented herein consider these as well as other aspects of the site.
The engineering analyses performed concerning site preparation and the
recommendations presented herein have been completed using the information provided
and obtained during our field work.
In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the
conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid
unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report verified or
modified in writing by this office. Foundation design parameters are considered
preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this
office for review.
1.Soil engineering, observation, and testing services should be provided during
grading to aid the contractor in removing unsuitable soils and in his effort to
compact the fill.
2.Geologic observations should be performed during grading and foundation
construction to confirm and/or further evaluate the geologic conditions reported
herein. Although unlikely, if adverse geologic structures/conditions are
encountered, supplemental recommendations and earthwork may be warranted.
3.All undocumented artificial fill, undifferentiated colluvium/disturbed natural ground,
and weathered old paralic deposits are considered unsuitable for the support of the
planned settlement-sensitive improvements (i.e., foundations, concrete
slab-on-grade floors, pavements, hardscape, etc.) or new planned fills. If not
removed through planned excavation, all unsuitable soils within the influence of
planned settlement-sensitive improvements and/or planned fill should be removed
to expose dense, unweathered old paralic deposits and then be reused as properly
engineered fill. Based on the available data, dense, unweathered old paralic
deposits occur at an approximate depths of 3 to 5 feet BEGS. Thus, remedial
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 12
grading excavations should minimally extend to these depths. Based on our
understanding of the currently planned development, unsuitable earth materials
within the building footprint should be removed by default during planned
excavations. However, remedial grading is recommended for uniform support of
planned underground utilities and surface improvements between the northerly
property line and Christiansen Way.
4.During meetings with the project design team several foundation alternatives were
discussed. These included spread footings, mat foundations, CIDH pile
foundations, and a hybrid system composed of CIDH piles and a spread footing or
mat foundation. It was concluded that supporting the entire planned building by a
system of CIDH piles interconnected by grade beams was the most practical to
accommodate the anticipated loading conditions and to increase the seismic
performance. Recommendations for the design and construction of CIDH pile
foundation systems were previously provided in GSI (2017 and 2018).
5.Previous expansion index testing (GSI, 2015), performed on a representative soil
sample collected near the pad grade elevation at the westerly end of the planned
building, indicates an E.I. less than 5. This correlates to very low expansion
potential. Atterberg Limits testing, performed on a representative soil sample
collected near the pad grade elevation at the easterly end of the planned building,
indicates a P.I. of 6. On a preliminary basis, structural mitigation for expansive soil
conditions is not considered necessary. The expansion potential of pad grade soils
should be re-evaluated at the conclusion of grading. It should be recognized that
some low expansive soil (E.I. = 21 to 50) with a P.I. less than 15 may be present
onsite.
6.Previous corrosion testing (GSI, 2015), performed on representative soil samples
collected near the pad grade elevation of the planned building, indicates that the
soils are mildly alkaline with respect to soil acidity/alkalinity; are corrosive to
severely corrosive to exposed buried metals when saturated; present negligible
(Exposure Class S0 per ACI 318-14) sulfate exposure to concrete; and contain
slightly elevated to elevated concentrations of soluble chlorides. It should be noted
that GSI does not consult in the field of corrosion engineering. Thus, the client,
project architect, and project structural engineer should agree on the level of
corrosion protection required for the project and seek consultation from a qualified
corrosion consultant as warranted, especially in light of the site’s proximity to the
Pacific Ocean, which is a corrosive environment. Considering that some CIDH piles
will extend below sea level, it is likely that the piles may come into contact with
brackish water conditions. Thus, GSI recommends that concrete used in the
construction of the piles conform to the requirements in Table 19.3.2.1 of
ACI 318-14 for Exposure Classes S1, C2, and W1. In case of conflicting
requirements, the more conservative should govern. The use of double corrosion
protected steel reinforcement in the CIDH piles should also be considered.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 13
7.During field work, performed in preparation of GSI (2015), a perched groundwater
table was encountered in Borings B-1 and B-2 at approximate respective depths of
21½ and 26½ feet below the existing grades. It was not encountered in Boring B-3
to the depth explored (i.e., approximately 34½ feet below the existing grade). The
elevation of the encountered perched groundwater surface ranges between
approximately 20½ and 22½ feet NGVD29. This water table is likely the result of
infiltrated, up-gradient runoff and irrigation waters collecting near the geologic
contact between the more permeable old paralic deposits and the underlying, less
permeable Santiago Formation and may fluctuate due to climatic conditions. This
perched groundwater table is not anticipated to significantly constrain the proposed
development. However, any planned excavation, including drilled excavations for
CIDH pile installation, extending near or below the aforementioned elevations may
encounter caving soils, seepage, and/or saturated soils. Casing of drilled
excavations extending below the water table is recommended. The need for some
dewatering efforts cannot be entirely precluded.
8.The currently planned development includes planned plus remedial excavations up
to approximately 25 feet in close proximity to adjacent property. Where planned
excavations do not allow for the temporary slope gradients, recommended herein,
a properly designed shoring system will be necessary. Recommendations for the
design and construction of temporary and permanent shoring systems were
provided in GSI (2015 and 2018).
9.Site soils are considered erosive. Surface drainage should be designed to eliminate
the potential for concentrated flows. Positive surface drainage away from
foundations is recommended. Temporary erosion control measures should be
implemented until vegetative covering is well established. The owner will need to
maintain proper surface drainage over the life of the project.
10.On a preliminary basis, temporary slopes should be constructed in accordance with
CAL-OSHA guidelines for Type “B” soils (i.e., 1:1 [h:v] slope), provided groundwater
and/or running sands is not present. Should such conditions be exposed,
temporary slopes should be constructed in accordance with CAL-OSHA guidelines
for Type “C” soils (i.e., 1½:1 [h:v] slope). All temporary slopes should be evaluated
by the geotechnical consultant, prior to worker entry. Although not anticipated at
this time, exposed conditions may require inclining temporary slopes to flatter
gradients. According to CAL-OSHA, the maximum height of unsupported vertical
excavations is 4 feet.
11.Although testing (discussed herein) supports that the surficial onsite earth materials
are conducive to “partial infiltration,” storm water infiltration devices, intended for
permanent storm water best management practices (BMPs) are not recommended
(i.e., “no infiltration). Storm water infiltration has the potential to introduce
contaminants to onsite and near-site water production wells; increase the potential
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 14
for basement retaining walls to experience increased hydrostatic pressures;
increase the potential for water transmission through basement retaining walls and
the slab-on-grade floor; corrode metal building and underground utility
components; cause piping and resultant settlement of underground utility trench
backfill; and adversely affect the performance of existing and planned pavements.
This potential extends offsite, and may cause distress to existing improvements.
12.The seismicity-acceleration values provided herein should be considered during the
design and construction of the planned development.
13.General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines are provided at the end of this report as
Appendix D. Specific recommendations are provided below.
UPDATED EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
General
All earthwork should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter “J” of the
2016 CBC (CBSC, 2016), the requirements of the City of Carlsbad, and the General
Earthwork and Grading Guidelines presented in Appendix D, except where specifically
superceded in the text of this report. Prior to earthwork, a GSI representative should be
present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional earthwork guidelines, if
needed, and review the earthwork schedule. This office should be notified in advance of
any fill placement, supplemental regrading of the site, or backfilling underground utility
trenches and retaining walls after rough earthwork has been completed. This includes
grading for pavements and hardscape.
During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of
the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of
GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed
by this office and, if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be
offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry
safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), and the Construction Safety
Act should be met. It is the onsite general contractor and individual subcontractors
responsibility to provide a save working environment for our field staff who are onsite. GSI
does not consult in the area of safety engineering.
Preliminary Earthwork Factors (Shrinkage/Bulking)
The volume change of excavated materials upon compaction as engineered fill is
anticipated to vary with material type and location. The overall earthwork shrinkage and
bulking may be approximated by using the following parameters:
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 15
Undocumented Artificial Fill ........................10% to 15% shrinkage
Quaternary Colluvium/Disturbed Natural Ground .......10% to 15% shrinkage
Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits ........................0% to 5% bulking
Santiago Formation ..................................3% to 8% bulking
It should be noted that the above factors are estimates only, based on preliminary data.
Undocumented fill and colluvium/disturbed natural ground may achieve higher shrinkage
if organics or clay content is higher than anticipated. Further, bulking estimates for old
paralic deposits may be less than indicated above depending on the degree of weathering.
Final earthwork balance factors could vary. In this regard, it is recommended that balance
areas be reserved where grades could be adjusted up or down near the completion of
grading in order to accommodate any yardage imbalance for the project. If the Client
requires additional information regarding embankment factors, additional studies could be
provided upon request.
Demolition/Grubbing
1.Vegetation and any miscellaneous debris should be removed from the areas of
proposed grading.
2.Any existing subsurface structures uncovered during the recommended remedial
earthwork should be observed by GSI so that appropriate remedial
recommendations can be provided.
3.Cavities or loose soils remaining after demolition and site clearance should be
cleaned out and observed by the soil engineer. The cavities should be replaced
with a 2- to 3-sack sand-cement slurry or fill materials that have been moisture
conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least
95 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557).
4.Onsite septic systems (if encountered) should be removed in accordance with
San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH)
standards/guidelines.
5.If encountered, any existing, abandoned wells should be destroyed in accordance
with San Diego County Department of Environmental Health standards/guidelines.
Treatment of Existing Ground/Remedial Grading
1.Remedial excavations should consist of all undocumented fill, colluvium/disturbed
natural ground, and weathered old paralic deposits such that suitable, dense
unweathered old paralic deposits are encountered. Based on the available
subsurface data, the depth of remedial grading excavations are anticipated to be
on the order of 3 to 5 feet BEGS. Based on our understanding of the planned
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 16
development, planned excavations within the building footprint would most likely
remove unsuitable soils. However, remedial excavation appears necessary to
support planned surface improvements and underground utilities along the project
frontage, adjacent to Christiansen Way. The removed soils may be re-used in
engineered fills, provided that the soil is cleaned of any organic and deleterious
materials, moisture conditioned and mixed to at least optimum moisture content,
and compacted to a minimum 95 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM
D 1557). Remedial excavations should be completed below a 1:1 (h:v) plane
projected down from the bottom outboard edge of any settlement-sensitive
improvement or limits of planned fills unless constrained by property lines or
existing improvements that are to remain is serviceable use.
2.Subsequent to the above, the bottoms of remedial excavations should be observed
by the geotechnical consultant scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, brought to
at least optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum relative
compaction of 95 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557), prior to any
fill placement.
3.Localized deeper remedial grading excavations may be necessary due to buried
drainage channel meanders or dry porous materials, septic systems, etc. The
project geotechnical consultant should observe all remedial grading excavations
during earthwork construction.
Overexcavation
Consolidation testing performed in preparation of GSI (2015) indicated that dry sands
within the old paralic deposits (USCS soil types SP and SM) can exhibit approximately 0.5
to 1.0 percent of hydrocollapse (response to wetting). Thus, in order to reduce the
potential for damaging differential settlement, GSI recommends that portions of the
basement floor-level subgrade located less than 15 feet below the existing grades (i.e,,
existing ground surface) be overexcavated to at least 5 feet below the planned subgrade
elevation or 2 feet below the bottom of grade beams (whichever is greater). The subgrade
for the remainder of the basement floor level footprint should be overexcavated to at least
2 feet below the bottom of the grade beams. Based on our understanding of planned
grading within the building footprint, it appears that overexcavation to 2 feet below the
bottom of the grade beams would govern throughout the planned building footprint.
Grade transitions between differing overexcavation depths should be accommodated by
the construction of 2:1 [h:v] or flatter slopes. The zone of the recommended
overexcavation is shown on Plate 2. Following overexcavation, the exposed subsoils
should be scarified at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture
content and then be recompacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM
D 1557) with vibratory compaction equipment. The overexcavation may then be backfilled
with the excavated earth materials that have been placed in relatively thin (i.e.,
approximately 8- to 10-inch thick) lifts, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 17
content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557)
with vibratory compaction equipment. Overexcavation below a 2:1 (h:v) plane projected
down from the shoring dredge line at the face of the shoring wall should be performed in
alternating “A,” “B,” and “C” slot excavations, as recommended below.
Alternating Slot Excavations
Unshored excavations completed below a 2:1 (h:v) plane projected down from the shoring
dredge line at the face of the shoring wall or below a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected down from
the bottom, outboard edges of existing improvements that need to remain in serviceable
use, or property lines should be performed in alternating “A,” “B,” and “C” slot excavations.
The width of alternating slot excavations should not exceed 6 feet. Multiple slots may be
excavated simultaneously provided there is at least 12 feet of undisturbed soils or properly
compacted and approved engineered fill between two open slots. The bottoms of the slot
excavations should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to backfill.
Fill Placement
Subsequent to ground preparation, any required fill materials should be brought to at least
optimum moisture content, placed in thin 6- to 8-inch lifts, and mechanically compacted
to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM
D 1557). Fill materials should not be greater than 12 inches in any dimension.
Underground-utility agencies/companies may have stricter requirements with respect to
the particles sizes of backfill placed in utility trenches. Fill materials placed within the
planned building footprint should have an E.I. of 20 or less and a P.I. of 14 or less.
Subdrains
In the below-grade basement/parking area(s) of the planned building, the basement
retaining wall subdrains are anticipated to consist of geocomposite drain panels. GSI
understands that these drain panels will be installed adjacent to the “blind-side”
waterproofing along the southerly, westerly, and northwesterly sides of the planned
building. Because temporary slopes will be constructed as part of the planned excavation
along the northeasterly and easterly sides of the building, GSI does not anticipate the use
of “blind-side” waterproofing in these areas; however, we assume the use of typical
waterproofing and the geocomposite drain panel on the backsides of the basement
retaining walls. All geocomposite drain panels should consist of Miradrain 6200 or J-drain
200, or an approved equivalent. The drain panels should be connected to a subdrain at
the base of the basement walls. The subdrain should consist of perforated, Schedule 40
or SDR 35 drain pipe with perforations oriented down that is encased in clean crushed
¾ inch to 1½-inch gravels wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent).
The majority of the accumulated water within the below-grade improvements cannot outlet
to an approved drainage facility via gravity; and therefore, needs to be collected and
conveyed via solid drain pipe to the planned sump pump that in turn, directs the water to
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 18
the City of Carlsbad system. The sump pump should consist of a double redundant
system, equipped with alarms, and should be designed such that saturation of the
surrounding soils is reduced. Basement retaining walls and site walls should be
“waterproofed.” Basement retaining walls should be equipped with waterstops installed
between the bottom of the walls and the tops of grade beams. Site retaining walls should
receive subdrains constructed in accordance with the recommendations contained in
GSI (2015).
Temporary Slopes
Unsupported temporary excavation walls ranging between 4 and 20 feet in gross overall
height may be constructed in accordance with CAL-OSHA guidelines for Type B soils (i.e.,
1:1 [h:v] slope), provided that groundwater and/or running sands are not exposed. Should
such conditions be exposed, temporary slopes should be constructed in accordance with
CAL-OSHA guidelines for Type “C” soils (i.e., 1½:1 [h:v] slope) All temporary slopes
should be observed by a licensed engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer,
prior to worker entry into the excavation. Based on the exposed field conditions, inclining
temporary slopes to flatter gradients or the use of shoring may be necessary if adverse
conditions are observed. If temporary slopes conflict with property boundaries or other
boundary restrictions, shoring or alternating slot excavations will be necessary. Soil and
building materials, or heavy construction equipment, should not be stockpiled, stored, nor
operated within “H” feet from the top of temporary excavations walls where “H” equals the
height of the excavation wall. In addition, heavy axle load vehicles should not be parked
nor operated within “H” feet from the top of temporary excavations walls where “H” equals
the height of the temporary slope. Unless otherwise noted by the project structural
engineer, excavations for underground chambers, tanks, vaults, and sump pumps should
not occur until the shoring and/or permanent walls are braced. The construction sequence
of the below grade tanks, chambers, and vaults should be approved by the design team
and included in the construction documents.
Import Fill Materials
All import fill material should be tested by GSI prior to placement within the site. GSI would
also request environmental documentation (e.g., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment)
pertaining to the proposed export site, to evaluate if the proposed import could present an
environmental risk to the planned development. At least five (5) business days of lead time
will be necessary for the required laboratory testing and document review. Unless a
temporary lay-down site is obtained to store the excavated materials from the building
footprint. Import materials may be necessary to backfill the basement retaining walls near
the northwesterly property corner and to complete remedial grading. In general, GSI
recommends that import fill materials have an E.I. of 20 or less and a P.I. of 14 or less.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 19
FOUNDATIONS
As previously indicated, it is our understanding that the planned building will be supported
by CIDH piles interconnected by grade beams. Recommendations for CIDH pile design
and construction were included in GSI (2017 and 2018).
SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOORS
Recommendations for the design and construction of slab-on-grade floors were provided
in GSI (2015).
SHORING
It is our understanding that shoring will be used to retain vertical excavations along the
southerly, westerly, and northwesterly property lines. Recommendations for the design
and construction of temporary and permanent shoring systems were included in GSI (2015
and 2018).
RETAINING WALLS
Recommendations for the design and construction of retaining walls were provided in
GSI (2015).
Updated Seismic Surcharge
For engineered retaining walls 6 feet or greater in overall height, retaining walls that are
incorporated into a building, and/or retaining walls that may pose ingress or egress
constraints to the residential structure, GSI recommends that the walls be evaluated for a
seismic surcharge (in general accordance with 2016 CBC requirements). The site walls
in this category should maintain an overturning Factor-of-Safety (FOS) of approximately
1.25 when the seismic surcharge (increment), is applied. For restrained walls, the seismic
surcharge should be applied as a uniform surcharge load from the bottom of the footing
(excluding shear keys) to the top of the backfill at the heel of the wall footing. This seismic
surcharge pressure (seismic increment) may be taken as 17H where "H" for retained walls
is the dimension previously noted as the height of the backfill to the bottom of the footing.
The resultant force should be applied at a distance 0.6 H up from the bottom of the footing.
For the evaluation of the seismic surcharge, the bearing pressure may exceed the static
value by one-third, considering the transient nature of this surcharge. For cantilevered
walls the pressure should be an inverted triangular distribution using 17H. Please note that
the evaluation of the seismic surcharge is for local wall stability only.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 20
The 17H is derived from a Mononobe-Okabe solution for both restrained cantilever walls.
This accounts for the increased lateral pressure due to shakedown or movement of the
sand fill soil in the zone of influence from the wall or roughly a 45/ - N/2 plane away from
the back of the wall. The 17H seismic surcharge is derived from the formula:
hhtP = d C a C (H
hWhere:P =Seismic increment
ha =Probabilistic horizontal site acceleration with a percentage of
“g”
t(=Total unit weight (115 to 125 pcf for site soils @ 95% relative
compaction).
H =Height of the wall from the bottom of the footing or point of pile
fixity.
Backfill for Regional Standard Design Retaining Walls
S&A (2018a) indicates the construction of Regional Standard Design C-1 retaining walls
along the sides of the ingress/egress driveways servicing the planned building. Since
these walls are designed for an Equivalent Fluid Pressure (EFP) of 36 pounds per square
foot per foot (psf/ft) of height, GSI recommends that they be backfilled with clean crushed
¾-inch to 1½-inch gravels or a clean sand and gravel mixture with no fines. The backfill
should be placed above a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected up from the top rear edge of the wall
footings. If gravel backfill is used it should be placed in lifts not exceeding 12 inches,
moisture conditioned, and densified using vibratory equipment. The gravel backfill should
be entirely separated from the surrounding soils with filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved
equivalent). The upper 12 inches of the backfill may consist of native onsite soils with an
E.I. of 20 or less and a P.I. of 20 or less. These backfill soils should be moisture
conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of
the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). If a clean sand and gravel mixture is used to
backfill the walls, it should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content,
placed in relatively thin lifts, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory
standard (ASTM D 1557). The backs of these retaining walls should be waterproofed to
reduce the potential for efflorescence staining at the face. The walls should be drained
using a subdrain connected to the aforementioned basement sump, or weep holes placed
every 5 lineal feet on-center along the length of the walls, directed into a collection sump.
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE OVER AGGREGATE BASE (AC/AB) PAVEMENT SECTIONS
S&A (2018) indicates that the planned development includes AC/AB parking stalls along
the project frontage, adjacent to Christiansen Way. Thus, GSI has evaluated AC/AB
pavement sections on a preliminary basis. Final AC/AB pavement sections should be
based on resistance value (R-value) testing of the pavement subgrade. Our evaluation
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 21
assumed a subgrade R-value of 25, a traffic index (T.I.) of 4.5 for a 10-year pavement life,
and a T.I. of 5.0 for a 20-year pavement life. The table below provides the recommended
structural sections for AC/AB pavements.
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
CLASSIFICATION
TRAFFIC
INDEX (T.I.)(1)
STANDARD PAVEMENT DESIGNS
R-VALUE AC
INCHES
CLASS 2
AGGREGATE BASE(2)
INCHES
Parking Stalls 4.5 25 4.0 4.0(3)(4)
Parking Stalls 5.0 25 4.0 4.0(3)
To be confirmed by the Project Civil Engineer/Traffic Engineer based on traffic use and preferred pavement design1 -
life.
Assumed R-value for Class 2 AB; R=78 - CalTrans or Greenbook standard Class 2 AB.2 -
Minimum AC thickness per City of Carlsbad (2016a)3 -
Minimum AB thickness per City of Carlsbad (2016a) 4 -
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE (PCC) PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR THE ADJACENT, OFFSITE DRIVEWAY
S&A (2018) indicates that the planned development includes the construction of PCC for
alley type driveway per City of Carlsbad Standard Drawings GS-20 on the westerly
adjacent property. It is our understanding that the planned driveway will receive heavy axle
(HS20) vehicle loads associated with water delivery trucks for the Carlsbad Alkaline Water
Company. Thus, we have analyzed the suitability of the 7½-inch thick 560-C-3250 PCC
layer over 6 inches of compacted Class 2 aggregate, shown in the aforementioned design
standard, to receive the intended vehicle load. Our analysis shows that the section
thickness shown in City of Carlsbad Standard Drawing GS-20 is sufficient to support the
intended vehicle load, assuming normal maintenance and proper surface drainage. The
PCC section should be constructed atop firm and non-yielding subgrade soils that have
been moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content and compacted to at least
95 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). Class 2 aggregate base should
conform to the specifications contained in the latest edition of the “Greenbook Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction.” All PCCP should be properly detailed
(jointing, etc.) per the industry standards (PCA, ACI, etc). Pavements may be additionally
reinforced with #4 reinforcing bars, placed 12 inches on center, each way, for improved
performance. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until
they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength.
I I I I I I
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 22
PAVEMENT GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Subgrade and aggregate base preparation should be performed in accordance with the
recommendations presented below, and the minimum subgrade (upper 12 inches) and
Class 2 aggregate base compaction should generally be 95 percent of the maximum dry
density (ASTM D 1557). If adverse conditions (i.e., saturated ground, etc.) are encountered
during preparation of subgrade, special construction methods may need to be employed.
All section changes should be properly transitioned.
The recommended pavement section thickness, provided above, should be considered
preliminary. Further R-value testing and pavement design analysis should be performed
upon completion of grading and underground utility trench backfill.
Subgrade
Remedial grading, conducted in accordance with the recommendations contained in
“Earthwork Construction Recommendations” section of this report should be performed
prior to subgrade preparation. Within vehicular traffic areas, including curbs, all surficial
deposits of loose soil material generated underground utility construction should be
removed or re-compacted as recommended. After the loose soils are
removed/recompacted, the exposed ground should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches,
moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to 95 percent of maximum laboratory
density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557.
Deleterious material, excessively wet or dry pockets, concentrated zones of oversized rock
fragments, and any other unsuitable materials encountered during subgrade preparation
should be removed.
The compacted fill material should then be brought to the elevation of the proposed
subgrade for the pavement. The subgrade should be proof-rolled in order to ensure a
uniformly firm and unyielding surface. All grading and fill placement should be observed
by the project soil engineer and/or his representative.
Aggregate Base
Compaction tests are required for the recommended aggregate base section. The
minimum relative compaction required will be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory
density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. Base aggregate should minimally
conform to Caltrans or Greenbook minimum specifications.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 23
AC Paving
Prime coat may be omitted if all of the following conditions are met:
1.The asphalt pavement layer is placed within two weeks of completion of base
and/or sub base course.
2.Traffic is not routed over completed base before paving.
3.Construction is completed during the dry season of May through October.
4.The base is free of dirt and debris.
If construction is performed during the wet season of November through April, prime coat
may be omitted if no rain occurs between completion of base course and paving and the
time between completion of base and paving is reduced to three days, provided the base
is free of dirt and debris. Where prime coat has been omitted and rain occurs, traffic is
routed over base course, or paving is delayed, measures shall be taken to restore base
course, subbase course, and subgrade to conditions that will meet specifications as
directed by the soil engineer.
Drainage
Positive drainage should be provided for all surface water to drain towards an approved
drainage facility. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should
not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent
to paved areas, measures should be taken to reduce the potential for water to enter the
pavement section. These measures may include, but not limited to, subdrainage devices,
thickened curbs, vertically installed impermeable liners, or concrete cut-off walls. If cut-off
barriers are used, they should extend at least 12 inches below the pavement subgrade
elevation. Thickened curbs or concrete cut-off walls should be at least 6 inches wide.
IMPERVIOUS BRICK PAVERS
S&A (2018) shows impervious non-vehicular brick pavers along the westerly, easterly, and
southerly sides of the planned, exterior parking stalls. Impervious brick pavers should be
installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. Prior to installation, the
subgrade should be scarified at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least optimum
moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM
D 1557).
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 24
PCC SIDEWALKS
Recommendations for the design and construction of PCC sidewalks were provided in
GSI (2015).
STORM WATER INFILTRATION FEASIBILITY EVALUATION
Percolation Testing
Percolation testing was performed in Infiltration Borings IB-1 through IB-4 in general
accordance with Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (2011)
guidelines for borehole percolation tests. At the onset of testing, GSI evaluated if the soil
conditions in the borings met the “sandy soil criteria” by adding water to the test borings
and allowing the water level to fall over two (2) 25-minute test intervals to see if greater than
a 6-inch change in water column height occurred within each test period. Testing
indicated that the soil conditions in the borings met the sandy soil criteria. The test borings
were then pre-soaked over a 2-hour period. Following the pre-soak, GSI performed
percolation testing in the borings over a 1-hour period, taking readings every ten minutes.
During each test interval, the hole was filled to within approximately 8½ to 12 inches of the
surface with water, and the water level was allowed to drop over the 10-minute test interval.
Both initial and final readings were rounded to the nearest c inch. The field percolation
test data sheets are provided in Appendix C.
The change in water column height, recorded during the last test interval, was then used
to calculate the infiltration rate using the Porchet Method per Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District (2011) guidelines. Calculation sheets showing the
conversion of the field percolation test data to infiltration rates are provided in Appendix C.
The following table presents the change in water column height in each test boring during
the last test interval.
BORING NO.CHANGE IN WATER HEIGHT DURING
FINAL TESTING PERIOD (INCHES)
IB-1 6.5
IB-2 2.0
IB-3 4.0
IB-4 1.5
The following table summarizes the calculated infiltration rate within each test boring.
I I I
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 25
BORING NO.INFILTRATION RATE
(INCES/HOUR)
IB-1 1.21
IB-2 0.37
IB-3 0.74
IB-4 0.27
Discussion of Test Results
As shown above, GSI obtained infiltration rates ranging between 0.27 and 1.121
inches/hour (in/hr). It is our opinion that the rate in Boring IB-4 is not representative of the
site as a whole because the testing was predominately performed within undocumented
fill. Thus, the infiltration rate obtained in Infiltration Boring IB-4 was not considered in our
conclusions regarding the onsite soil infiltration rates.
The variable infiltration rates acquired in Infiltration Borings IB-1 through IB-3 are indicative
of heterogenous soil conditions (i.e., degrees of weathering and cemetation, bioturbation,
disturbance from past tree removal activities, and density). In order to account for
heterogeneity, it is our opinion that the infiltration rate of 0.37 in/hr, obtained in Infiltration
Boring IB-2, is appropriately conservative for the tested infiltration rate at the subject site.
For the site suitability factor-of-safety (FOS), GSI recommends an FOS of 2.0. Thus, the
“reliable infiltration rate” is 0.18 inches/hr. This infiltration rate supports the feasibility of
“partial infiltration.” The completed City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual (City of Carlsbad,
2016b) Forms I-8 and I-9 are included in Appendix C.
Feasibility
Although our testing shows that the infiltration rates of the surficial onsite soils are
conducive to “partial infiltration,” GSI recommends “no infiltration.” Our reasoning for not
recommending storm water infiltration as part of the planned development is discussed
below:
Basement Retaining Walls
The planned development includes the construction of basement retaining walls. The
addition of subsurface water created through storm water infiltration has the potential to
exert additional hydrostatic pressures on these walls. In addition, infiltrating storm water
adjacent to the basement retaining walls has the potential to increase moisture
transmission through the walls, which could corrode steel reinforcement given that
corrosion testing indicates the presence of water soluble chlorides in the onsite soils, and
result in efflorescence staining at the wall face. In addition moisture transmission through
the basement retaining walls could lead to the generation of mold inside the planned
building.
I I I
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 26
Below-Grade Floor Slabs
The planned development includes the construction of below-grade parking levels. The
lowermost floor level includes a slab-on-grade floor. Infiltrated storm water adjacent to the
planned building has the potential to migrate downward to the lowermost floor level and
due to pressure differences between the exterior and interior of the building, the water
could eventually migrate into the slab subgrade soils. As a result, there would be an
increased potential for moisture transmission through the slab. This could cause corrosion
of the steel reinforcement within the slab-on-grade floor. In addition, moisture transmission
through the slab-on-grade floor could result in efflorescence staining on the floor slab, lead
to the generation of mold inside the planned building, and could adversely effect the
performance of mechanical equipment on the lowermost floor level.
Existing Water Production Wells
The subject site and adjacent westerly property contain water production wells for
commercial/retail purposes. The infiltration of storm water has the potential to introduce
contaminants into these wells.
Pavements
The infiltration of storm water could adversely affect the long-term performance of the
planned pavements along the project frontage as well as within the Christiansen Way right-
of-way. Water that entering into pavement structural sections weakens the subgrade. This
can lead to rutting and cracking of the pavement surface.
Underground Utilities
Infiltrated storm water has the potential to enter underground utility trenches and corrode
metal utility components. In addition, water entering underground utility trenches can lead
to trench backfill settlement as a result of piping. Settling trench backfill has the potential
to distress overlying surface improvements.
Offsite Improvements
Infiltrated stormwater also has the potential to affect offsite walls, floors, slabs, pavements,
and underground utilities, causing distress.
Feasibility Summary
Since there is no way to accurately predict the pathway of uncontrolled, infiltrated storm
water once it passes below the ground surface, its implications to existing and planned
improvements cannot be entirely predicted. However, it would increase the potential for
the planned development within the subject site as well as nearby existing development
to be exposed to its injurious effects causing distress. From a geotechnical perspective,
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 27
purposely allowing storm water to infiltrate adjacent to structural improvements is not
sound engineering practice and should be avoided. “No infiltration” is recommended.
UPDATED SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING
We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the
following construction stages:
•During shoring soldier pile installation.
•During excavation.
•During grading.
•During placement of subdrains or other subdrainage devices, prior to placing fill
and/or backfill.
•After excavation of building grade beams and retaining wall footings, prior to the
placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.
•Prior to the placement of concrete for the slab-on-grade floor, flatwork, or PCCP,
after the subgrade has been prepared, and before the placement of concrete,
reinforcing steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor retarders.
•During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement
•Prior to bringing any import fill materials to the site.
•During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, underground utility
trenches, and retaining walls.
•When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction
operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report.
•When any developer or owner improvements, such as flatwork, walls, etc., are
constructed, prior to construction.
•A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the
conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear
documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 28
OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS
The design civil engineer, structural engineer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer,
etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those
recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report
part of their project plans. This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of
improvements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria should not be considered
as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer/designer. Please note that the
recommendations contained in GSI (2015) are not intended to preclude the transmission
of water or vapor through the slab or foundation. The structural engineer/foundation
and/or slab designer should provide recommendations to not allow water or vapor to enter
into the structure so as to cause damage to another building component, or so as to limit
the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application.
The structural engineer/designer should analyze actual soil-structure interaction and
consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and
deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop
appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible that other
influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer should
consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the
structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein as
minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that
some, more restrictive details will be required.
If the structural engineer/designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they
should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate
potential distress, the foundation and/or improvement’s designer should confirm to GSI
and the governing agency, in writing, that the proposed foundations and/or improvements
can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and/or expansion characteristics and
other design criteria specified herein.
PLAN REVIEW
Final project plans (grading, precise grading, foundation, retaining wall, shoring,
landscaping, etc.), should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that
construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report.
Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical studies
may be warranted.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 29
LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed
representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between
excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site
conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors.
Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory
data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions
have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty,
either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time.
GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their
inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our
recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an
agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding
any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to
review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of
services for this portion of the project.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC W.O. 6942-A1-SC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad February 15, 2017
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 30
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoSoils, Inc.
John P. Franklin Andrew T. Guatelli
Engineering Geologist, CEG 1340 Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320
RBB/JPF/ATG/jh
Attachments:Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Boring Logs (This Study and GSI [2015])
Appendix C - Infiltration Data
Appendix D - General Earthwork, Grading Guidelines, and Preliminary
Criteria
Revised Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map
Plate 2 - Geologic Cross Section X-X’
Distribution:(3) Addressee (2 wet signed)
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute, 2014, Building code requirements for structural concrete
(ACI 318-14), and commentary (ACI 318R-14): reported by ACI Committee 318,
dated September.
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010, Minimum design loads for buildings and other
structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10.
California Building Standards Commission, 2016, California Building Code, California Code
of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, based on the 2015 International
Building Code, 2016 California Historical Building code, Title 24, Part 8, 2016
California Existing Building Code, Title 24, Part 10, and the 2015 International
Existing Building Code.
City of Carlsbad, 2016a, City of Carlsbad engineering standards, vol. 1, general design
standards, dated February 16.
_____, 2016b, City of Carlsbad engineering standards, vol. 5, Carlsbad BMP design
manual (post construction treatment BMPs, dated February 16.
GeoSoils, Inc., 2018, Revised cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) pile recommendations, planned
mixed-use hotel, spa, and condominiums, Christiansen Way, Carlsbad, San Diego
County, California, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 203-173-02-00,
W.O. 6942-A1-SC, dated February 5.
_____, 2017, Supplemental geotechnical recommendations, proposed mixed-use hotel,
spa, and condominiums, Christiansen Way, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,
Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 203-173-02-00, dated October 23.
_____, 2016, Geotechnical response to City of Carlsbad Engineering Department plan
check comments, Beach Village Life 1 Mixed Use, APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California, CT 16-03/RP 16-09/CDP16-16, W.O. 6942-A1-SC,
dated June 20.
_____, 2015, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California, W.O. 6942-A-SC, dated September 11.
Karnak Planning and Design, 2018, Architectural plans for: Mixed Use Hotel Spa and
Condominiums , 300 Christiansen Way, Carlsbad, CA 92008, 144 sheets, various
scales, Project No.: 20150806_aq, dated January 15.
Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, SS., 2007, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30' by 60' quadrangle,
California, regional geologic map series, scale 1:100,000, California Geologic
Survey Map No. 2.
GeoSoils, Inc.Beach Village Life 1, LLC Appendix A
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 2
Romanoff, M., 1989, Underground corrosion, National Bureau of Standards Circular 579,
Published by National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Houston, Texas,
originally issued April 1, 1957
Spear and Associates, Inc., 2018a, Improvement plans for: Beach Village Life, Christiansen
Ave., 2 sheets, 10-scale, City of Carlsbad Project No.: CT 16-03, Drawing
No.: 508-9, dated February 9.
_____, 2018b, Precise grading plans for: Beach Village Life, 300 Christiansen Ave,
12 sheets, various scales, City of Carlsbad Project No.: CT 16-03, Drawing
No.: 508-9A, dated February 9.
Sun Structural Engineering, Inc, 2018a, Site shoring plan for: Beach Village Life,
300 Christensen Ave. 6 sheets, various scales, City of Carlsbad project
no.: CT 16-03, drawing no.: 508-9A, plans electronically transmitted on February 5.
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX B
BORING LOGS
(THIS STUDY AND GSI [2015])
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY
Major Divisions Group
Symbols Typical Names CRITERIA
Coarse-Grained SoilsMore than 50% retained on No. 200 sieveGravels 50% or more of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieveCleanGravelsGW Well-graded gravels and gravel-
sand mixtures, little or no fines Standard Penetration Test
Penetration
Resistance N Relative
(blows/ft) Density
0 - 4 Very loose
4 - 10 Loose
10 - 30 Medium
30 - 50 Dense
> 50 Very dense
GP
Poorly graded gravels and
gravel-sand mixtures, little or no
fines
GravelwithGM Silty gravels gravel-sand-silt
mixtures
GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay
mixtures
Sands more than 50% ofcoarse fractionpasses No. 4 sieveCleanSandsSW Well-graded sands and gravelly
sands, little or no fines
SP Poorly graded sands and
gravelly sands, little or no fines
SandswithFinesSM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay
mixtures
Fine-Grained Soils50% or more passes No. 200 sieveSilts and ClaysLiquid limit50% or lessML
Inorganic silts, very fine sands,
rock flour, silty or clayey fine
sands
Standard Penetration Test
Unconfined
Penetration Compressive
Resistance N Strength
(blows/ft) Consistency (tons/ft
2)
<2 Very Soft <0.25
2 - 4 Soft 0.25 - .050
4 - 8 Medium 0.50 - 1.00
8 - 15 Stiff 1.00 - 2.00
15 - 30 Very Stiff 2.00 - 4.00
>30 Hard >4.00
CL
Inorganic clays of low to
medium plasticity, gravelly clays,
sandy clays, silty clays, lean
clays
OL Organic silts and organic silty
clays of low plasticity
Silts and ClaysLiquid limitgreater than 50%MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sands or silts,
elastic silts
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,
fat clays
OH Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity
Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, mucic, and other highly
organic soils
3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve
Unified Soil
Classification Cobbles
Gravel Sand Silt or Clay
coarse fine coarse medium fine
MOISTURE CONDITIONS MATERIAL QUANTITY OTHER SYMBOLS
Dry Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch trace 0 - 5 %C Core Sample
Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5 - 10 %S SPT Sample
Moist Near optimum moisture content little 10 - 25 % B Bulk Sample
Very Moist Above optimum moisture content some 25 - 45 % – Groundwater
Wet Visible free water; below water table Qp Pocket Penetrometer
BASIC LOG FORMAT:
Group name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, gypsum,
coarse grained particles, etc.
EXAMPLE:
Sand (SP), fine to medium grained, brown, moist, loose, trace silt, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4" in size, some hair roots and rootlets.
File:Mgr: c;\SoilClassif.wpd PLATE B-1
I I I I I I I I I
-
W.O. 6942-A1-SCBeach Village Life 1, LLCAPN 203-173-02-00, CarlsbadLogged By:CWPFebruary 5, 2018PLATE B-2LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORINGBORINGNO.ELEV.(ft.)DEPTH(ft.)GROUPSYMBOLSAMPLEDEPTH(ft.)MOISTURE(%)FIELD DRYDENSITY(pcf)DESCRIPTIONIB-1 ±51½ 0-1 SMQUATERNARY COLLUVIUM/DISTURBED NATURAL GROUND: SILTYSAND, grayish brown, moist, medium dense; fine grained.1-3 SMSILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, medium dense; fine grained.3-6¼ SMQUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, dark yellowishbrown, moist, dense; fine grained.Total Depth = 6¼'No Groundwater/CavingBackfilled 2/5/18IB-2 ±51½ 0-1 SPQUATERNARY COLLUVIUM/DISTURBED NATURAL GROUND: SAND,light gray, moist, medium dense; fine grained.1-1½ SMSILTY SAND, dark grayish brown, moist, medium dense; fine grained.1½-3½ SMSILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, medium dense; fine grained.3½-6¼ SMQUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, dark yellowishbrown, moist, dense, fine grained.Total Depth = 6¼’No Groundwater/Caving EncounteredBackfilled 2/5/18I I I I I I I I I
W.O. 6942-A1-SCBeach Village Life 1, LLCAPN 203-173-02-00, CarlsbadLogged By:CWPFebruary 5, 2018LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORINGBORINGNO.ELEV.(ft.)DEPTH(ft.)GROUPSYMBOLSAMPLEDEPTH(ft.)MOISTURE(%)FIELD DRYDENSITY(pcf)DESCRIPTIONPLATE B-3IB-3 ±45½ 0-½ SMQUATERNARY COLLUVIUM/DISTURBED NATURAL GROUND: SILTYSAND, grayish brown, dry, medium dense; fine grained.½-3 SMWEATHERED OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, dark yellowishbrown, damp, medium dense; fine grained.3-6¼ SMQUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, dark yellowishbrown, moist, dense; fine grained.Total Depth = 6¼’No Groundwater/Caving EncounteredBackfilled 2/5/2018IB-4 ±45½ 0-4 SMARTIFICIAL FILL - UNDOCUMENTED: SILTY SAND, dark grayish brown,moist, loose; fine grained.4-5 SMSILTY SAND, dark grayish brown, moist, medium dense; fine grained,construction debris (concrete).5-6¼ SMQUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, dark yellowishbrown, moist, dense; fine grained.Total Depth = 6¼'No Groundwater/Caving EncounteredBackfilled 2/5/2018I I I I I I I I I
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY
Major Divisions Group
Symbols Typical Names CRITERIA
Coarse-Grained SoilsMore than 50% retained on No. 200 sieveGravels 50% or more of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieveCleanGravelsGW Well-graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Standard Penetration Test
Penetration
Resistance N Relative (blows/ft) Density
0 - 4 Very loose
4 - 10 Loose
10 - 30 Medium
30 - 50 Dense
> 50 Very dense
GP Poorly graded gravels andgravel-sand mixtures, little or no
fines
GravelwithGM Silty gravels gravel-sand-silt
mixtures
GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay
mixtures
Sands more than 50% ofcoarse fractionpasses No. 4 sieveCleanSandsSW Well-graded sands and gravelly
sands, little or no fines
SP Poorly graded sands andgravelly sands, little or no fines
SandswithFinesSM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay
mixtures
Fine-Grained Soils50% or more passes No. 200 sieveSilts and ClaysLiquid limit50% or lessML Inorganic silts, very fine sands,rock flour, silty or clayey finesands
Standard Penetration Test
Unconfined
Penetration Compressive
Resistance N Strength
(blows/ft) Consistency (tons/ft
2)
<2 Very Soft <0.25
2 - 4 Soft 0.25 - .050
4 - 8 Medium 0.50 - 1.00
8 - 15 Stiff 1.00 - 2.00
15 - 30 Very Stiff 2.00 - 4.00
>30 Hard >4.00
CL
Inorganic clays of low to
medium plasticity, gravelly clays,
sandy clays, silty clays, lean
clays
OL Organic silts and organic silty
clays of low plasticity
Silts and ClaysLiquid limitgreater than 50%MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sands or silts,
elastic silts
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,
fat clays
OH Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity
Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, mucic, and other highly
organic soils
3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve
Unified Soil
Classification Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay
coarse fine coarse medium fine
MOISTURE CONDITIONS MATERIAL QUANTITY OTHER SYMBOLS
Dry Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch trace 0 - 5 %C Core Sample
Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5 - 10 %S SPT Sample
Moist Near optimum moisture content little 10 - 25 % B Bulk Sample
Very Moist Above optimum moisture content some 25 - 45 % – Groundwater
Wet Visible free water; below water table Qp Pocket Penetrometer
BASIC LOG FORMAT:
Group name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, gypsum,
coarse grained particles, etc.
EXAMPLE:
Sand (SP), fine to medium grained, brown, moist, loose, trace silt, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4" in size, some hair roots and rootlets.
File:Mgr: c;\SoilClassif.wpd PLATE B-1
I I I I I I I I I
-
SM
SM
SP
SM
SP
50-6"
50-6"
35
29/
50-6"
40
27/
50-6"
99.6
102.1
101.4
104.4
4.6
5.2
4.1
2.7
19.3
18.6
22.2
17.2
87.6
UNDIFFERENTIATED QUATERNARY
COLLUVIUM/DISTURBED NATURAL GROUND:
@ 0' SILTY SAND, dark brown, dry to damp, loose.
@ 1½' SILTY SAND, dark reddish brown, damp, loose
becoming medium dense with depth; trace debris.
WEATHERED OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:
@ 2' SAND with SILT, dark reddish yellow, dry, dense; trace
roots.
QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:
@ 5' SILTY SAND, dark reddish yellow, dry, dense; moderately
cemented.
@ 8½' SILTY SAND with CLAY/CLAYEY SAND, dark yellowish
brown and reddish yellow, moist, dense; slightly plastic.
@ 15' SAND with SILT, yellowish brown and reddish yellow, dry,
very dense; very fine to fine grained, trace iron-oxide staining.
@ 20' SAND with SILT, brownish gray, moist, dense; very fine
to fine grained, micaceous.
@ 21½' Perched groundwater encountered.
@ 25' SAND with SILT, brownish gray and dark gray, wet, very
dense; very fine to fine grained, trace manganese-oxide
staining, micaceous.
@ 26' Driller reported increased difficulty in drilling.Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)B-1
Saturation (%)W.O.
PLATE
7-29-15
BulkStandard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
2
Depth (ft.)B-2
Approx. Elevation: 48' MSL
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
SHEET OF1
6942-A-SC
Groundwater
BORING
Description of Material
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
GeoSoils, Inc.
DATE EXCAVATED
GeoSoils, Inc.
TROMPOLINO, INC.
SAMPLE METHOD:UndisturbedMoisture (%)USCS SymbolPROJECT:
6942-A-SC
Sample
BORING LOG
Seepage
Blows/Ft.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Standard Penetrometer/Mod Cal Sampler, 140 Lb Hammer @ 30" Drop
--
m 2 ~ ~
'--"
-J' -~
'--" \ r
-~ I
-
-~
-
-
-I -
-
-
-
-
-~ -
-
-
-I 't
-
-
-~ -
-
-
SM
SM/CL
SM
SC/SM
40/
50-5"
50-3½"
50-6"
50-3"
50-6"
110.6
116.1
11.4
12.9
13.4
14.7
16.7
69.1
91.6
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION:
@ 30' SILTY SANDSTONE with trace CLAY, light gray, wet,
very dense; predominately very fine to fine grained, trace
medium and coarse grains.
@ 35' SILTY SANDSTONE, light gray, moist, dense; fine to
coarse grained and SANDY CLAYSTONE, greenish gray, moist,
hard.
@ 40' SILTY SANDSTONE, light gray, wet, dense; fine to
coarse grained.
@ 45' SILTY SANDSTONE, light gray, wet, dense.
@ 47' Caving encountered. Driller added bentonite grout to
stabilize sidewalls of boring.
@ 51½' Interbedded CLAYEY SANDSTONE and SILTY
SANDSTONE, light brown (CLAYEY SANDSTONE) and light
gray (SILTY SANDSTONE), wet, very dense.
@ 55' No recovery.
Total Depth = 56'
Groundwater Encountered @ 21½'
Perched Caving Encountered @ 47'
Backfilled 7-29-2015 With Bentonite GroutDry Unit Wt. (pcf)B-1
Saturation (%)W.O.
PLATE
7-29-15
BulkStandard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
2
Depth (ft.)B-3
Approx. Elevation: 48' MSL
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
SHEET OF2
6942-A-SC
Groundwater
BORING
Description of Material
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
GeoSoils, Inc.
DATE EXCAVATED
GeoSoils, Inc.
TROMPOLINO, INC.
SAMPLE METHOD:UndisturbedMoisture (%)USCS SymbolPROJECT:
6942-A-SC
Sample
BORING LOG
Seepage
Blows/Ft.31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Standard Penetrometer/Mod Cal Sampler, 140 Lb Hammer @ 30" Drop
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
GeoSoils, Inc.
DATE EXCAVATED
GeoSoils, Inc.
TROMPOLINO, INC.
SAMPLE METHOD:UndisturbedMoisture (%)USCS SymbolPROJECT:
6942-A-SC
Sample
SM
SM
SM
SP
SP/SM
14/
50-4"
50-4"
31
32/
50-6"
40
30/
50-6"
111.5
108.9
104.9
98.7
2.5
4.6
5.4
5.2
4.7
6.1
13.5
23.3
23.8
23.9
UNDIFFERENTIATED QUATERNARY
COLLUVIUM/DISTURBED NATURAL GROUND:
@ 0' SILTY SAND, dark brown, damp, loose to medium dense;
trace organics.
WEATHERED OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:
@ 2' SILTY SAND, dark reddish yellow, dry, dense; moderately
cemented.
QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:
@ 5' SILTY SAND, dark reddish yellow, dry, dense; fine grained
with trace medium grains, moderately cemented.
@ 10' SILTY SAND, reddish yellow, damp, medium dense; fine
to medium grained.
@ 15' SAND, yellowish brown , dry, very dense; fine grained,
trace silt.
@ 20' SAND with SILT, brownish gray, damp, dense; very fine
to fine grained, trace medium grains.
@ 25' SAND with SILT/SILTY SAND, brownish gray, dry, very
dense; very fine grained.
@ 26½' Perched groundwater encountered.Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)B-2
Saturation (%)W.O.
PLATE
7-29-15
BulkStandard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
2
Depth (ft.)B-4
Approx. Elevation: 49' MSL
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
SHEET OF1
6942-A-SC
Groundwater
BORING
Description of Material
BORING LOG
Seepage
Blows/Ft.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Standard Penetrometer/Mod Cal Sampler, 140 Lb Hammer @ 30" Drop
----
m 2 ~ ~
'--"
-J' -~
-J'
-r '--" ~ -J'
~ -
'--"
--./'
~
~
~ ~ '-"'
~ -
._,c--
-J'
'-"'
,./C -er-
'-"' -,..;,-:-
~
'-"' -I ._/'
._,c---
J'
~ -..,,.,
er-
-'-"'
,_;,,--
-~
'-"'
._/'
-~
-
-
-I
-
-
~ ~
~
-
-
CL/SC31/
50-4½"
20.9 TERTIARY SANTIAGO FOUNDATION:
@ 30' SANDY CLAYSTONE/CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light olive
brown, wet, hard.
Total Depth = 31½'
Perched Groundwater Encountered @ 26½'
No Caving Encountered
Backfilled 7-29-15 With Bentonite GroutDry Unit Wt. (pcf)B-2
Saturation (%)W.O.
PLATE
7-29-15
BulkStandard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
2
Depth (ft.)B-5
Approx. Elevation: 49' MSL
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
SHEET OF2
6942-A-SC
Groundwater
BORING
Description of Material
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
GeoSoils, Inc.
DATE EXCAVATED
GeoSoils, Inc.
TROMPOLINO, INC.
SAMPLE METHOD:UndisturbedMoisture (%)USCS SymbolPROJECT:
6942-A-SC
Sample
BORING LOG
Seepage
Blows/Ft.31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Standard Penetrometer/Mod Cal Sampler, 140 Lb Hammer @ 30" Drop
----
m 2 ~ ~
-ml r -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SM
SM
SM
SM/SP
SM
SP
SP
60
50-6"
44/
50-5"
50-5½"
37/
50-4½"
57
109.8
123.0
119.7
107.1
104.4
3.8
5.9
4.3
6.4
3.9
19.9
45.3
29.8
31.0
17.5
UNDIFFERENTIATED QUATERNARY
COLLUVIUM/DISTURBED NATURAL GROUND:
@ 0' SILTY SAND, dark brown, dry, loose; porous.
@ 2' SILTY SAND, dark brown, dry, dense.
QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:
@ 5' SILTY SAND, dark reddish yellow, damp, dense.
@ 10' SILTY SAND/SAND with SILT, dark yellowish brown,
damp, very dense; very fine to fine grained, trace medium
grains, moderately cemented.
@ 15' SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown and light reddish
yellow, damp, dense.
@ 20' SAND with SILT, grayish brown, dry, very dense; very
fine to medium grained.
@ 25' SAND with trace SILT, brownish gray, moist, very dense;
fine grained.Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)B-3
Saturation (%)W.O.
PLATE
7-29-15
BulkStandard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
2
Depth (ft.)B-6
Approx. Elevation: 56' MSL
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
SHEET OF1
6942-A-SC
Groundwater
BORING
Description of Material
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
GeoSoils, Inc.
DATE EXCAVATED
GeoSoils, Inc.
TROMPOLINO, INC.
SAMPLE METHOD:UndisturbedMoisture (%)USCS SymbolPROJECT:
6942-A-SC
Sample
BORING LOG
Seepage
Blows/Ft.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Standard Penetrometer/Mod Cal Sampler, 140 Lb Hammer @ 30" Drop
--
m 2 ~ ~
'--"
-J' -~
-J'
-
'--" ~ -J'
~ -
'--"
--./'
~
~
-~
-
-
-
-~ -
-
-
-
-~ -
-
-
-~
-
-
-I -
-
-
SP
CL
27/
50-5½"
36/
50-5"
102.2 2.7 11.6 @ 30' SAND, yellowish gray, dry, dense; very fine to fine
grained, trace medium grains, friable.
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION:
@ 34½' SANDY CLAYSTONE, light olive brown, moist, hard.
Total Depth = 36'
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 7-29-2015Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)B-3
Saturation (%)W.O.
PLATE
7-29-15
BulkStandard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
2
Depth (ft.)B-7
Approx. Elevation: 56' MSL
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
SHEET OF2
6942-A-SC
Groundwater
BORING
Description of Material
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
GeoSoils, Inc.
DATE EXCAVATED
GeoSoils, Inc.
TROMPOLINO, INC.
SAMPLE METHOD:UndisturbedMoisture (%)USCS SymbolPROJECT:
6942-A-SC
Sample
BORING LOG
Seepage
Blows/Ft.31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Standard Penetrometer/Mod Cal Sampler, 140 Lb Hammer @ 30" Drop
--
m 2 ~ ~
-~
-
-
-
-mm ~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX C
INFILTRATION DATA
GSI Appendix , W.O. 6942-A1-SC, dated February 15, 2018
From “City of Carlsbad, BMP Design Manual: Appendix I,” dated February 16, 2016.
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
C-4 February 2016
Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Form I-8
Part 1 - Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria
Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences
that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
1
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 Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.
X
Provide basis:
Owing to the heterogenous traits exhibited by the earth materials due to differing degrees of weathering
and cementation, bioturbation, disturbance from past tree removal activities, and density, it is our opinion
that a tested infiltration rate of 0.37 inches per hour is appropriately conservative for the project site. The
“reliable infiltration rate” is 0.37/2.0 = 0.18 inches/hr. This rate does not support full infiltration. See the
text body and Appendix C of the encompassing report for infiltration test results.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion
of study/data source applicability.
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.
Provide basis:
No response required. See Criteria No. 1.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion
of study/data source applicability.
GSI Appendix , W.O. 6942-A1-SC, dated February 15, 2018
From “City of Carlsbad, BMP Design Manual: Appendix I,” dated February 16, 2016.
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
C-4 February 2016
Form I-8 Page 2 of 4
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
3
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing
risk 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 comprehensible evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.3.
X
Provide basis:
No response required. See Criteria No. 1.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion
of study/data source applicability.
4
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing
potential water balance issues such as a 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:
No response required. See Criteria No. 1.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion
of study/data source applicability.
Part 1
Result*
In the 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,
proceed
to part 2
* To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgement considering the definition of MEP in the MS4
Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings.
GSI Appendix , W.O. 6942-A1-SC, dated February 15, 2018
From “City of Carlsbad, BMP Design Manual: Appendix I,” dated February 16, 2016.
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
C-4 February 2016
Form I-8 Page 3 of 4
Part 2 - Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria
Would infiltration of water in an appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences
that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
5
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:
Owing to the heterogenous traits exhibited by the earth materials due to differing degrees of weathering
and cementation, bioturbation, disturbance from past tree removal activities, and density, it is our opinion
that a tested infiltration rate of 0.37 inches per hour is appropriately conservative for the project site. The
“reliable infiltration rate” is 0.37/2.0 = 0.18 inches/hr. This rate supports “partial infiltration.” See the text
body and Appendix C of the encompassing report for infiltration test results.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
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:
Explanations are provided in the “Storm Water Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation” section of the
encompassing report. The potential for distress to proposed and existing improvements is high.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
GSI Appendix , W.O. 6942-A1-SC, dated February 15, 2018
From “City of Carlsbad, BMP Design Manual: Appendix I,” dated February 16, 2016.
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
C-4 February 2016
Form I-8 Page 4 of 4
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
7
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing
significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table,
storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening
Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.3.
X
Provide basis:
Explanations are provided in the “Storm Water Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation” section of the
encompassing report. Contamination of producing nearby water wells may occur.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
8
Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights?
The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive
evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
X
Provide basis:
Water rights are considered a legal matter, and typically do not fall within the purview of geotechnical
engineering. GSI is not aware of any downstream water rights issues of concern on the adjoining
properties. Further, given the low infiltration rate of onsite soils, it does not appear that infiltration should
significantly affect downstream water rights, from a geotechnical perspective.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
Part 2
Result*
If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. The
feasibility screening category is Partial 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 No Infiltration.
No
Infiltration
* To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgement considering the definition of MEP in the MS4
Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings.
GSI Appendix , W.O. 6942-A1-SC, dated February 15, 2018
From “City of Carlsbad, BMP Design Manual: Appendix I,” dated February 2016.
I-7 June, 2016
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration
Rate Worksheet
Form I-9 /
Factor Criteria Factor Description Assigned
Weight (w)
Factor
Value (v)
Product (p)
p = w x v
A Suitability
Assessment
Soil assessment methods 0.25 2 0.5
Predominant soil texture 0.25 1 0.25
Site soil variability 0.25 2 0.5
Depth to groundwater/impervious layer 0.25 1 0.25
ASuitability Assessment Safety Factor, S = Ep 1.50 Use 2.0
B Design
Level of pretreatment/expected sediment loads 0.5
Redundancy/resiliency 0.25
Compaction during construction 0.25
BDesign Safety Factor, S = Ep
total A BCombined Safety Factor, S = S x S
observedObserved Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, K
(corrected for test-specific bias)
design observed totalDesign Infiltration Rate, in/hr, K = K / S
Supporting Data
Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms:
Percolation Test Field Data Sheet
Project:Beach Village Life 1, LLC Mixed Use Hotel W.O. Number:
Test Hole No.:IB-1 Date Excavated:
Test Hole Depth (ft.): 6¼ Hole Radius(in.): 4 Soil Classification:
Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested by:CWP Date:2/5/2018 Presoak: 2/5/2018
Actual Percolation Tested by:CWP Date:2/5/2018
Sandy Soil Criteria Test
Trial No. Time
Time Interval
(Min.)
Initial Water
Level (Inches)
Final Water
Level (Inches)
in Water
Level
Greater than
or equal to 6"
10:12
10:37
10:38
11:03
Use: Sandy Soil Criteria
Total Initial Water Final Water in Water Percolation
Time Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate
Time (min) Time (Min.) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (min./in.)
13:05
13:15
13:16
13:26
13:28
13:38
13:40
13:50
13:51
14:01
14:02
14:12
39 30 Yes
6942-A1-SC
2/5/2018
SM
1 25 14 43 29 Yes
10 10
2 25 9
9 17 8 1.25
10 21 8 1/2 16 7 1/2 1.33
10 33 9 16 7 1.43
10 45 9 1/2 16 6 1/2 1.54
17 6 1/2 1.54
10 67 9 1/2 16 6 1/2
10 56 10 1/2
1.54
Plate No. C-1
I I I I
Percolation Test Field Data Sheet
Project:Beach Village Life 1, LLC Mixed Use Hotel W.O. Number:
Test Hole No.:IB-2 Date Excavated:
Test Hole Depth (ft.): 6¼ Hole Radius(in.): 4 Soil Classification:
Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested by:CWP Date:2/5/2018 Presoak: 2/5/2018
Actual Percolation Tested by:CWP Date:2/5/2018
Sandy Soil Criteria Test
Trial No. Time
Time Interval
(Min.)
Initial Water
Level (Inches)
Final Water
Level (Inches)
in Water
Level
Greater than
or equal to 6"
10:18
10:43
10:44
11:09
Use: Sandy Soil Criteria
Total Initial Water Final Water in Water Percolation
Time Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate
Time (min) Time (Min.) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (min./in.)
13:10
13:20
13:22
13:32
13:33
13:43
13:45
13:55
13:56
14:06
14:07
14:17
31 19 Yes
6942-A1-SC
2/5/2018
SM
1 25 13 36 23 Yes
10 10
2 25 12
12 15 3 3.33
10 22 12 16 4 2.50
10 33 11 1/2 14 1/2 3 3.33
10 45 12 15 3 3.33
14 1/2 3 3.33
10 67 11 1/2 13 1/2 2
10 56 11 1/2
5.00
Plate No. C-1
I I I I
Percolation Test Field Data Sheet
Project:Beach Village Life 1, LLC Mixed Use Hotel W.O. Number:
Test Hole No.:IB-3 Date Excavated:
Test Hole Depth (ft.): 6¼ Hole Radius(in.): 4 Soil Classification:
Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested by:CWP Date:2/5/2018 Presoak: 2/5/2018
Actual Percolation Tested by:CWP Date:2/5/2018
Sandy Soil Criteria Test
Trial No. Time
Time Interval
(Min.)
Initial Water
Level (Inches)
Final Water
Level (Inches)
in Water
Level
Greater than
or equal to 6"
10:22
10:47
10:48
11:13
Use: Sandy Soil Criteria
Total Initial Water Final Water in Water Percolation
Time Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate
Time (min) Time (Min.) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (min./in.)
13:17
13:27
13:34
13:44
13:47
13:57
14:00
14:10
14:11
14:21
14:23
14:33
29 15 Yes
6942-A1-SC
2/5/2018
SM
1 25 12 35 23 Yes
10 10
2 25 14
10 15 5 2.00
10 27 10 15 5 2.00
10 40 11 1/2 15 3 1/2 2.85
10 53 10 1/2 14 1/2 4 2.50
15 4 2.50
10 76 10 14 4
10 64 11
2.50
Plate No. C-1
I I I I
Percolation Test Field Data Sheet
Project:Beach Village Life 1, LLC Mixed Use Hotel W.O. Number:
Test Hole No.:IB-4 Date Excavated:
Test Hole Depth (ft.): 6¼ Hole Radius(in.): 4 Soil Classification:
Check for Sandy Soil Criteria Tested by:CWP Date:2/5/2018 Presoak: 2/5/2018
Actual Percolation Tested by:CWP Date:2/5/2018
Sandy Soil Criteria Test
Trial No. Time
Time Interval
(Min.)
Initial Water
Level (Inches)
Final Water
Level (Inches)
in Water
Level
Greater than
or equal to 6"
10:25
10:50
10:51
11:16
Use: Sandy Soil Criteria
Total Initial Water Final Water in Water Percolation
Time Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate
Time (min) Time (Min.) (Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (min./in.)
13:31
13:41
13:46
13:56
14:04
14:14
14:18
14:28
14:30
14:40
14:42
14:52
16 7 Yes
6942-A1-SC
2/5/2018
SM
1 25 4 17 13 Yes
10 10
2 25 9
9 12 3 3.33
10 25 9 11 2 5.00
10 43 9 10 1/2 1 1/2 6.67
10 57 8 1/2 10 1 1/2 6.67
10 1/2 1 1/2 6.67
10 81 9 10 1/2 1 1/2
10 69 9
6.67
Plate No. C-1
I I I I
SHEET __ ~/ __ OF_~/ __ _
CALCULATED BY:_fZ_6 __ DATE: 2/t /;8
CHECKED BY: _____ DATE: ___ _
CLIENT:6€AcHvfwu,ElrrEfUc PROJECT:Mrit~/,l /)s, //41/ilAi'f't-JfA '
SCALE: /1/i:u./ 6-
I I I _,,-
I ,v F-7 / /c ,t. 7 7 / , I\,
I ' '1'/ -r ~ / 9 _', /)JJ
I
I \ -f.J I .r l to_/' L l ,IV .,,
I I I -r r IA -L. • I I M ,__ !Tit / ll'IJ". "INI I rnA Mr.-ll(J • -..
I ,n I' I . I/ I/
b n .. ,,, -V I ",, ,, [r' 'ol'llk Su: D,/· I 0 u. J '/J j tp,1,-I ,; ,. 1'.l 0'. ' Irr IN ri: I ... i:.Wi< N-u.N
I
TM '1 -I ' £ •'l .. ) " ( JI/
.. ,~ -
I )\t-,.. ' I
' ' -I~ . , r,. {\ i f !<. I' .
\ I ' ••.J I
I
"' -. '·" . ' --' r l ~· I'/ r. l I ., 1 t:> 7 t= C I A 'F, T I u,;. I 1,/if
I !, 1-,-' _'\ . -~ I I C, I l I '1 I~ .JI "" ,I' ; I w I r. ; ,,,, fl ' \ 0.1"f. ,,-i] (?':;" I,:;;; " /(,I _,,
Lu " " --I fl --I 1 \ ~ ~ \ pt: ,,.,·t, E ! /.,,-J if ,. IC!'<-It',-ft j
r -' -.. -~ '" . I
I \H 'rli!' 7(,.. 1€D J:5 r . J " 't·I' . V/< L
r· I "' £ [ » f-'\ . ·---I ,.; ~j..fJ.:5,
l 11 ;it .,. I I f. \ I • ,A D~ 1, I , i,-.::, 7 ,a ' '= L , ~•c !-ii''
J ' k I
~ ':, , I, _, -~ ~,W> ..... ~ ~ •= IA ~'--=l I' ~ I • r . 1,·rhl 1'1 T €'12 IF'1, I r rn I,µ 'e(fV t: }
--~-,_ _J__ A I I -I , 1.1., -J 7tf I : ',I, (, I' ,. "' !.} ,, I\. 'Cl/<
I It J ( .Ii> I,, I> VI"; lh 1,1 IAI
I-LN n ,
I
I ',. I~-w J •
-IL..\ 1 \ J
I I I I I ,,.. :: I
(
-I "" -f ,~ 7 .JI.
I I
I "' ~ -I
I l,,j -:: a l. • I. J
I I
' I I I I
I I I
SHEET __ ..:..../ __ OF __ / __ _
CALCULATED BY: _/Z_f3 __ DATE: 2/1o/11J
CHECKED BY: _____ DATE: ___ _
I I
I
i-~ "' , i'\l,r I ~ I/ I, , ' 1/ 7 I r, IA , ) 1'1"1/ -I I" I I/ y;,s; I Al
' I 1~ LI !CI !Lt 17·, ,l VI<;
I I I I I I
T r IA LI I fl r-]L II I 1,rl,C n.'41 i .~ ,✓ rT ij h • II J I/
/'D • 11 J' J , 1/1 n .,,, :1 I j I~ ',,,. ,.,., SII t,j: Jo 1/.1,, ·u I I~,,,;: ,'ll· no. j Irr 11\J '': 1~•< t:,~,, 1/l 7 'J.U"I • I -t' I
\ , 1,.. J I \
' , J.. '/,, , ( ult I
:,. -
I J \ " I
_L+: , / -~ I {\ i f k I' . . r-. ll ~, .,, I I
._ I
-",. ,. ., I T ,_ "\ r=,c I .A 'HT /__7 A'i,< I/✓
I 7 -I.-' .i:Jll.l I I I I,.. -~ I n J --/l \ I J 11 I (IL ~ :., ' " I\ 41-,: ,,eu €~ I i 'r, 1& .,.,_ .I
\ "\
, __
\ I I
J " "" ,,:r ~ l f!i t GE. 11,J IV 't Ttr-H::IC I r l .,; ~, -.. , '!I A ·r I I I u ' u l /\ '1-'lt' "Iii~ lflD l :,S: I .1 " r· ;(,:~ ii' I..
l~M
I, __ \.
'ii LM, ;i IF; 5
8 ,I
17 (. \ I -,Ill f5fr'. [JI, l.,i:-?F~ 1 .: I . ,_, '( fir 05.l
7 ''I.I': , .. If ' J, ~'-FtJ:. , .. -• rl I ,I,,, "" ,, JI"'· ,, I 1111, .. ' -. I 7"1' /'IC,: ..l t,. HJ ~If):} II-IEL':, : I 'I l('V, 1rc:'J
A I I ,~
I l., • ~ 111 . '.t I(, f "IQ DI "' I\ I' '!,.
I ff : .( :i J r., l .·!> rv '' 11,1 V IJ:11/
I r~
rEN CI, ,
'71"', ,
I , .. 1[l; 12
I I , .... ,
I.I X fl . IZ'"'
I I I ,_ "" I -·1 !LI I
-, -I/ ,. 1 I I
I
I I ,t✓ 1,., I .I~
I It .,i"' -I?~ • 1 ..
I I I
I ' I I I I I
I I I I->-+-
SHEET I OF I
CALCULATED BY: /-Z6 DATE: 2/'b /n1
'
CHECKED BY: DATE:
w.o. f:,'fA/2-Al=S& SCALE: Jlot<JIE'
I I
,_;,-
v iFl, I/ IJ: ,a I/ 7 ,r:, ]I\, ,r'\ 1'11/ '-,.. I V "'' ID' l/
J I \,.__ ~L !Cl ' ll I/ -1, r\JI<
I I
' -r > ... "' hi I I f'/1 C-Jr: 1, rJ RIA 0NI , l>A ·'" [,-' •n • 8 } l
,,~ ,IA I/ I 17 b o, • 1U I I oo ·1Pl l "Ill .,,,., sr J:>l· I O IJ "' ·u I ,,,.,_ ,._, (): /-Tr "'ft" rev •<IL 'W.i' H:. ·-'N . I I ,, ,,. I
L 'J ;~ I ~ ( < ..11/ I
,~ -
I , \ r It, l ' I.L -, , " 7'1= " i: -. .r ,,,
I I
I "'~' -~
r1I \ ,_ 1 "-~ rT !Fil /1,., r /'IT. l.7 "JI' A DI!,/ ,~ @"II 1, -\ "'II I 11u '" T l,.11 ~ :: I J I r'\ ✓-ll "\
I <\' "F J/IJ.J (;"t; J .,. 1(.,/ :1/F-, / ,_ --7 "' if " --\ I I
~ .. ""' :-I \ .l ~ I_I ·,"' (rt 'IM V ~ c:,.,_ -rt: ·t 1/ I) H'D I 1/,, --IT I I \J 'ff! . " lt'.ID f J;S I .J " t :/1: ~ II' L ,-"' J j 1 ::,i-,,, II'-\
' ""I'" l L J -~ '"S
""'J 1-r J I !P \
I ::: /1 !J J I • rs Ill LI I<: f_,I'." U," T ,,. 0 I_ i:;: I t/( Ii, :s,. ,_ \ • I ,. " ,~,~ nw;, 1/1£
IA '-'-r I --Yu
1d
,_
I ., ·, hi c I !Ee ~IJ ):} , \ Ir Er, I/ 11<11
-,. I I '" I I ,,. 1.,-:: ' 7 tr "j LZIC,I E Ile 11-l t) ' r,' \LI' ·c rr
·111 :C( ~ 7 I) l lf_!)", [V Tl II<:\,< IAII
1-'"' C!-1
"' ' I IDJl!, lLI~ .J
I
I ,.
I IJ \,., -I, '"
I I I I ,_ -, -I I c) I
-,1,, IA
I/\· -J f1 "" •kJ
I I/ ,,. "' I I r.:;;.~ -1;, . '-
I I I ' I
I I ,_ f-f-
SHEET / OF I --------------/<~-~:::~~:~'} /.-~~~:::_; (:~~) ~C?~,,,~-~;~ fl'r·
'~-..:.-2.C,~;./ \-~~✓/ <~ ... ~ ... -~)
CALCULATED BY: /Z6 DATE: 1/6 ft6
CHECKED BY: _____ DATE: ___ _
I
-t,-,...
--'11/•f-I 1~ I/< I I tr:> V\ j ' ~I/ I" f, V.") ,~,v
j '
'-~I .r I ' / f,) vi'\
I I
I I
T r ~ 1"'7 _, I
IM,-.. II I ,x"' 'JNI I cD.il . "r,. 1U • LL J J
,, ) ,1,1 /'I V ( b o,:z '/ ~ I::;· . l 'l:. ~ ,, I '>i'I I.le$ 1J. l.>I -I 0 ll ,; ·u I -,,-1,-. l ,,,A, 0-,I-~·r "'Fr11~ ""'" \.'A 114 'I\( _,
\ 1 /" I
• 'J. -~ I I< l ..11/
r,, ~
I ) \ i ... r I
1./-. .. , h r,. I\ ~ E {( F . -. ,, \ 'I ,,, I
--I _,..
' I ~ l:J It: I-J.1.,,., rt-I. (../ ,,..,< IJ .f
.H 1"11 ,\I"!
I"' ,;, I I ') .I'._. I) I"\
Cll°l: ,// IHE S, I f. . ,. I() -'IF--I
I ~ ' _ .... I I I
' -4 ~ i f ' " G t ,,.., V , 11t:-~ '7it Ir/~ i ---~ r J.. ""'"' nu lJ;;J lf "' J i/\ r -r. rr I I \..fl 'r., Ti,~ lflw Ii.-$ 7 .J '1 l ,,;:~ II"< L
-~ ,, I If-'-I 1 -I :!J L i::. \ L1 ,J 1.f 'f. s .J
10, "-' /l'V
') .... r, JI r. \ --I -!'-..A :, T_, Ul's I_;_ IF I ':'a I ;:: ' ',J( 'rlrSJ
1 I\ J I If--\ LI _, L .u Nt: }" 6 '1D ·,~ II ,_,.... 1-t r --•A r , f H IN I E' KIF q-·-. t-EL, I ""V ~-)
,. I I I I \ ·• ,r -I fl f J. (. t I /:. ~ :J I c 1.1. • T ''" 'Cl/<
I E J:f I I 1 ~ I f:: ~ V ,-II( ll IAIL
l-" •N c-11.
. rr.., :,
I 01' .J. 0
I I ' ,-
I L \ "1 a ~
I I I I .... : 1 ,, I
I L I
-,,, ,,,
I ,-1 j I!.. •Id!
I
I ,-"l 1i~ I
I j,>/ .. I ,,1 -~ I
' I
I I
I I -i--
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX D
GENERAL EARTHWORK, GRADING GUIDELINES
AND PRELIMINARY CRITERIA
GeoSoils, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK, GRADING GUIDELINES, AND PRELIMINARY CRITERIA
General
These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading
as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to be filled,
placement of fill, installation of subdrains, excavations, and appurtenant structures or
flatwork. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of these
earthwork and grading guidelines and would supercede the provisions contained hereafter
in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of
grading may result in new or revised recommendations which could supercede these
guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. Generalized
details follow this text.
The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance
with provisions of the project plans and specifications and latest adopted Code. In the
case of conflict, the most onerous provisions shall prevail. The project geotechnical
engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant), and/or their representatives,
should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the
duration of the project.
EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Geotechnical Consultant
Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer
and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork
procedures and testing the fills for general conformance with the recommendations of the
geotechnical report(s), the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and
ordinances.
The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that an evaluation
may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of
the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work
schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly.
All remedial removals, clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and
subdrain installation should be observed and documented by the geotechnical consultant
prior to placing any fill. It is the contractor’s responsibility to notify the geotechnical
consultant when such areas are ready for observation.
Laboratory and Field Tests
Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed
in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation
D 1557. Random or representative field compaction tests should be performed in
GeoSoils, Inc.Beach Village Life 1, LLC Appendix D
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 2
accordance with test methods ASTM designation D 1556, D 2937 or D 2922, and D 3017,
at intervals of approximately ±2 feet of fill height or approximately every 1,000 cubic yards
placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the
project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the
geotechnical consultant.
Contractor's Responsibility
All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted
by the contractor, with observation by a geotechnical consultant, and staged approval by
the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the
ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant, and to
place, spread, moisture condition, mix, and compact the fill in accordance with the
recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor should also remove all
non-earth material considered unsatisfactory by the geotechnical consultant.
Notwithstanding the services provided by the geotechnical consultant, it is the sole
responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish
the earthwork in strict accordance with applicable grading guidelines, latest adopted
Codes or agency ordinances, geotechnical report(s), and approved grading plans.
Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the
contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic
conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such
as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock or deleterious material, insufficient
support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the
consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the
conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory.
During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good
drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to
control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent
drainage and erosion control measures have been installed.
SITE PREPARATION
All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other
deleterious material, should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must
be concluded prior to placing fill. In-place existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock
materials, as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant as being unsuitable, should be
removed prior to any fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials
may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted
fills should be approved by the geotechnical consultant.
Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic
tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading, are to be removed
GeoSoils, Inc.Beach Village Life 1, LLC Appendix D
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 3
or treated in a manner recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Soft, dry, spongy,
highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface
processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to
firm ground and approved by the geotechnical consultant before compaction and filling
operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils, which have been properly
mixed and moisture conditioned, should be re-compacted to the minimum relative
compaction as specified in these guidelines.
Existing ground, which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills, should be
scarified (ripped) to a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, or as directed by the geotechnical
consultant. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content, or greater
and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone
is greater than 6 to 8 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place
the material in lifts restricted to about 6 to 8 inches in compacted thickness.
Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be
overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report, or by the on-site geotechnical
consultant. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable forms of mixing should
continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working
surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, mounds, or other
uneven features, which would inhibit compaction as described previously.
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical
[h:v]), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a
key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm
material, and approved by the geotechnical consultant. In fill-over-cut slope conditions,
the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet, with the key
founded on firm material, as designated by the geotechnical consultant. As a general rule,
unless specifically recommended otherwise by the geotechnical consultant, the minimum
width of fill keys should be equal to ½ the height of the slope.
Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable
material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood
that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered
for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness.
All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toes of fill
benches, should be observed and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to
placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades
(elevations) are attained.
COMPACTED FILLS
Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill
provided that each material has been evaluated to be suitable by the geotechnical
GeoSoils, Inc.Beach Village Life 1, LLC Appendix D
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 4
consultant. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter,
or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as
directed by the geotechnical consultant. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion
potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as
unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material.
Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill
area and blended with other approved material. Benching operations should not result in
the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the
fill/bedrock contact.
Oversized materials defined as rock, or other irreducible materials, with a maximum
dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills unless the
location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the geotechnical
consultant. Oversized material should be taken offsite, or placed in accordance with
recommendations of the geotechnical consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock
disposal. GSI anticipates that soils to be utilized as fill material for the subject project may
contain some rock. Appropriately, the need for rock disposal may be necessary during
grading operations on the site. From a geotechnical standpoint, the depth of any rocks,
rock fills, or rock blankets, should be a sufficient distance from finish grade. This depth is
generally the same as any overexcavation due to cut-fill transitions in hard rock areas, and
generally facilitates the excavation of structural footings and substructures. Should deeper
excavations be proposed (i.e., deepened footings, utility trenching, swimming pools, spas,
etc.), the developer may consider increasing the hold-down depth of any rocky fills to be
placed, as appropriate. In addition, some agencies/jurisdictions mandate a specific
hold-down depth for oversize materials placed in fills. The hold-down depth, and potential
to encounter oversize rock, both within fills, and occurring in cut or natural areas, would
need to be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. Once approved by the governing
agency, the hold-down depth for oversized rock (i.e., greater than 12 inches) in fills on this
project is provided as 10 feet, unless specified differently in the text of this report. The
governing agency may require that these materials need to be deeper, crushed, or
reduced to less than 12 inches in maximum dimension, at their discretion.
To facilitate future trenching, rock (or oversized material), should not be placed within the
hold-down depth feet from finish grade, the range of foundation excavations, future utilities,
or underground construction unless specifically approved by the governing agency, the
geotechnical consultant, and/or the developer’s representative.
If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be
utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the geotechnical
consultant to evaluate it’s physical properties and suitability for use onsite. Such testing
should be performed three (3) days prior to importation. If any material other than that
previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material
should be conducted by the geotechnical consultant as soon as possible.
GeoSoils, Inc.Beach Village Life 1, LLC Appendix D
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 5
Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal
layers, that when compacted, should not exceed about 6 to 8 inches in thickness. The
geotechnical consultant may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures
are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each
layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture
suitable for compaction.
Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet
fill layers should be aerated by scarification, or should be blended with drier material.
Moisture conditioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill
materials have a uniform moisture content at, or above, optimum moisture.
After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it should be
uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density as evaluated by
ASTM test designation D 1557, or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical
consultant. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically
designed for soil compaction, or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified
degree of compaction.
Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the
required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or
portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been
attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been
tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the
geotechnical consultant.
In general, per the latest adopted Code, fill slopes should be designed and constructed
at a gradient of 2:1 (h:v), or flatter. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-
building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design
slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate
compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain
the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed
by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final evaluation
of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished
slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (h:v), prior
approval from the governing agency, specific material types, a higher minimum relative
compaction, special reinforcement, and special grading procedures will be recommended.
If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected,
then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet
of each lift of fill by undertaking the following:
1.An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy, short-shanked sheepsfoot
should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is
placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the
GeoSoils, Inc.Beach Village Life 1, LLC Appendix D
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 6
slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face
of the slope.
2.Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is
compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be
trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling.
3.Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) ±2 to ±8 feet of the
slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations.
4.After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor
and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face.
Subsequent to testing to evaluate compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to
achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to evaluate
compaction after grid rolling.
5.Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be
responsible to rip, water, mix, and recompact the slope material as necessary to
achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to evaluate
compaction.
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION
Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate
alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or
materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical
consultant. The geotechnical consultant may recommend and direct changes in subdrain
line, grade, and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of
constructed subdrains, especially the outlets, should be recorded/surveyed by the project
civil engineer. Drainage at the subdrain outlets should be provided by the project civil
engineer.
EXCAVATIONS
Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the geotechnical
consultant. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavations or
overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of
cut slopes should be performed. When fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, unless
otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the geotechnical
consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope.
The geotechnical consultant should observe all cut slopes, and should be notified by the
contractor when excavation of cut slopes commence.
GeoSoils, Inc.Beach Village Life 1, LLC Appendix D
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 7
If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic
conditions are encountered, the geotechnical consultant should investigate, evaluate, and
make appropriate recommendations for mitigation of these conditions. The need for cut
slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the
geotechnical consultant, whether anticipated or not.
Unless otherwise specified in geotechnical and geological report(s), no cut slopes should
be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling
governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the
contractor’s responsibility.
Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and
should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental
agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant.
COMPLETION
Observation, testing, and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be
conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and fill
areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion
of grading, and after the geotechnical consultant has finished observations of the work,
final reports should be submitted, and may be subject to review by the controlling
governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior
notification of the geotechnical consultant or approved plans.
All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in
accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape
architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after
completion of grading.
PRELIMINARY OUTDOOR POOL/SPA DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
The following preliminary recommendations are provided for consideration in pool/spa
design and planning. Actual recommendations should be provided by a qualified
geotechnical consultant, based on site specific geotechnical conditions, including a
subsurface investigation, differential settlement potential, expansive and corrosive soil
potential, proximity of the proposed pool/spa to any slopes with regard to slope creep and
lateral fill extension, as well as slope setbacks per Code, and geometry of the proposed
improvements. Recommendations for pools/spas and/or deck flatwork underlain by
expansive soils, or for areas with differential settlement greater than ¼-inch over 40 feet
horizontally, will be more onerous than the preliminary recommendations presented below.
The 1:1 (h:v) influence zone of any nearby retaining wall site structures should be
delineated on the project civil drawings with the pool/spa. This 1:1 (h:v) zone is defined
GeoSoils, Inc.Beach Village Life 1, LLC Appendix D
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 8
as a plane up from the lower-most heel of the retaining structure, to the daylight grade of
the nearby building pad or slope. If pools/spas or associated pool/spa improvements are
constructed within this zone, they should be re-positioned (horizontally or vertically) so that
they are supported by earth materials that are outside or below this 1:1 plane. If this is not
possible given the area of the building pad, the owner should consider eliminating these
improvements or allow for increased potential for lateral/vertical deformations and
associated distress that may render these improvements unusable in the future, unless
they are periodically repaired and maintained. The conditions and recommendations
presented herein should be disclosed to all homeowners and any interested/affected
parties.
General
1.The equivalent fluid pressure to be used for the pool/spa design should be
60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for pool/spa walls with level backfill, and 75 pcf for
a 2:1 sloped backfill condition. In addition, backdrains should be provided behind
pool/spa walls subjacent to slopes.
2.Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of
150 pcf, to a maximum lateral earth pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf).
3.An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.30 may be used
with the dead load forces.
4.When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure
component should be reduced by one-third.
5.Where pools/spas are planned near structures, appropriate surcharge loads need
to be incorporated into design and construction by the pool/spa designer. This
includes, but is not limited to landscape berms, decorative walls, footings, built-in
barbeques, utility poles, etc.
6.All pool/spa walls should be designed as “free standing” and be capable of
supporting the water in the pool/spa without soil support. The shape of pool/spa
in cross section and plan view may affect the performance of the pool, from a
geotechnical standpoint. Pools and spas should also be designed in accordance
with the latest adopted Code. Minimally, the bottoms of the pools/spas, should
maintain a distance H/3, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), from the slope
face. This distance should not be less than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than
40 feet.
7.The soil beneath the pool/spa bottom should be uniformly moist with the same
stiffness throughout. If a fill/cut transition occurs beneath the pool/spa bottom, the
cut portion should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 48 inches, and
replaced with compacted fill, such that there is a uniform blanket that is a minimum
GeoSoils, Inc.Beach Village Life 1, LLC Appendix D
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 9
of 48 inches below the pool/spa shell. If very low expansive soil is used for fill, the
fill should be placed at a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction, at optimum
moisture conditions. This requirement should be 90 percent relative compaction
at over optimum moisture if the pool/spa is constructed within or near expansive
soils. The potential for grading and/or re-grading of the pool/spa bottom, and
attendant potential for shoring and/or slot excavation, needs to be considered
during all aspects of pool/spa planning, design, and construction.
8.If the pool/spa is founded entirely in compacted fill placed during rough grading, the
deepest portion of the pool/spa should correspond with the thickest fill on the lot.
9.Hydrostatic pressure relief valves should be incorporated into the pool and spa
designs. A pool/spa under-drain system is also recommended, with an appropriate
outlet for discharge.
10.All fittings and pipe joints, particularly fittings in the side of the pool or spa, should
be properly sealed to prevent water from leaking into the adjacent soils materials,
and be fitted with slip or expandible joints between connections transecting varying
soil conditions.
11.An elastic expansion joint (flexible waterproof sealant) should be installed to prevent
water from seeping into the soil at all deck joints.
12.A reinforced grade beam should be placed around skimmer inlets to provide
support and mitigate cracking around the skimmer face.
13.In order to reduce unsightly cracking, deck slabs should minimally be 4 inches
thick, and reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars at 18 inches on-center. All slab
reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper mid-slab positioning during
the placement of concrete. Wire mesh reinforcing is specifically not recommended.
Deck slabs should not be tied to the pool/spa structure. Pre-moistening and/or
pre-soaking of the slab subgrade is recommended, to a depth of 12 inches
(optimum moisture content), or 18 inches (120 percent of the soil’s optimum
moisture content, or 3 percent over optimum moisture content, whichever is
greater), for very low to low, and medium expansive soils, respectively. This
moisture content should be maintained in the subgrade soils during concrete
placement to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the
development of unsightly shrinkage cracks. Slab underlayment should consist of
a 1- to 2-inch leveling course of sand (S.E.>30) and a minimum of 4 to 6 inches of
Class 2 base compacted to 90 percent. Deck slabs within the H/3 zone, where H
is the height of the slope (in feet), will have an increased potential for distress
relative to other areas outside of the H/3 zone. If distress is undesirable,
improvements, deck slabs or flatwork should not be constructed closer than H/3 or
7 feet (whichever is greater) from the slope face, in order to reduce, but not
eliminate, this potential.
GeoSoils, Inc.Beach Village Life 1, LLC Appendix D
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 10
14.Pool/spa bottom or deck slabs should be founded entirely on competent bedrock,
or properly compacted fill. Fill should be compacted to achieve a minimum
90 percent relative compaction, as discussed above. Prior to pouring concrete,
subgrade soils below the pool/spa decking should be throughly watered to achieve
a moisture content that is at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content, to a
depth of at least 18 inches below the bottom of slabs. This moisture content should
be maintained in the subgrade soils during concrete placement to promote uniform
curing of the concrete and minimize the development of unsightly shrinkage cracks.
15.In order to reduce unsightly cracking, the outer edges of pool/spa decking to be
bordered by landscaping, and the edges immediately adjacent to the pool/spa,
should be underlain by an 8-inch wide concrete cutoff shoulder (thickened edge)
extending to a depth of at least 12 inches below the bottoms of the slabs to mitigate
excessive infiltration of water under the pool/spa deck. These thickened edges
should be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one at the top and one at the bottom.
Deck slabs may be minimally reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at
18 inches on-center, in both directions. All slab reinforcement should be supported
on chairs to ensure proper mid-slab positioning during the placement of concrete.
16.Surface and shrinkage cracking of the finish slab may be reduced if a low slump
and water-cement ratio are maintained during concrete placement. Concrete
utilized should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi. Excessive water
added to concrete prior to placement is likely to cause shrinkage cracking, and
should be avoided. Some concrete shrinkage cracking, however, is unavoidable.
17.Joint and sawcut locations for the pool/spa deck should be determined by the
design engineer and/or contractor. However, spacings should not exceed 6 feet on
center.
18.Considering the nature of the onsite earth materials, it should be anticipated that
caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching.
Shoring or excavating the trench walls/backcuts at the angle of repose (typically 25
to 45 degrees), should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by a
representative of the geotechnical consultant, including the project geologist and/or
geotechnical engineer, prior to workers entering the excavation or trench, and
minimally conform to Cal/OSHA (“Type C” soils may be assumed), state, and local
safety codes. Should adverse conditions exist, appropriate recommendations
should be offered at that time by the geotechnical consultant. GSI does not consult
in the area of safety engineering and the safety of the construction crew is the
responsibility of the pool/spa builder.
19.It is imperative that adequate provisions for surface drainage are incorporated by
the homeowners into their overall improvement scheme. Ponding water, ground
saturation and flow over slope faces, are all situations which must be avoided to
enhance long-term performance of the pool/spa and associated improvements, and
reduce the likelihood of distress.
GeoSoils, Inc.Beach Village Life 1, LLC Appendix D
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 11
20.Regardless of the methods employed, once the pool/spa is filled with water, should
it be emptied, there exists some potential that if emptied, significant distress may
occur. Accordingly, once filled, the pool/spa should not be emptied unless
evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and the pool/spa builder.
21.For pools/spas built within (all or part) of the Code setback and/or geotechnical
setback, as indicated in the site geotechnical documents, special foundations are
recommended to mitigate the affects of creep, lateral fill extension, expansive soils
and settlement on the proposed pool/spa. Most municipalities or County reviewers
do not consider these effects in pool/spa plan approvals. As such, where
pools/spas are proposed on 20 feet or more of fill, medium or highly expansive
soils, or rock fill with limited “cap soils” and built within Code setbacks, or within the
influence of the creep zone, or lateral fill extension, the following should be
considered during design and construction:
OPTION A: Shallow foundations with or without overexcavation of the
pool/spa “shell,” such that the pool/spa is surrounded by 5 feet of very low
to low expansive soils (without irreducible particles greater that 6 inches),
and the pool/spa walls closer to the slope(s) are designed to be free
standing. GSI recommends a pool/spa under-drain or blanket system (see
attached Typical Pool/Spa Detail). The pool/spa builders and owner in this
optional construction technique should be generally satisfied with pool/spa
performance under this scenario; however, some settlement, tilting, cracking,
and leakage of the pool/spa is likely over the life of the project.
OPTION B: Pier supported pool/spa foundations with or without
overexcavation of the pool/spa shell such that the pool/spa is surrounded by
5 feet of very low to low expansive soils (without irreducible particles greater
than 6 inches), and the pool/spa walls closer to the slope(s) are designed to
be free standing. The need for a pool/spa under-drain system may be
installed for leak detection purposes. Piers that support the pool/spa should
be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter and at a spacing to provide vertical
and lateral support of the pool/spa, in accordance with the pool/spa
designers recommendations current applicable Codes. The pool/spa builder
and owner in this second scenario construction technique should be more
satisfied with pool/spa performance. This construction will reduce settlement
and creep effects on the pool/spa; however, it will not eliminate these
potentials, nor make the pool/spa “leak-free.”
22.The temperature of the water lines for spas and pools may affect the corrosion
properties of site soils, thus, a corrosion specialist should be retained to review all
spa and pool plans, and provide mitigative recommendations, as warranted.
Concrete mix design should be reviewed by a qualified corrosion consultant and
materials engineer.
GeoSoils, Inc.Beach Village Life 1, LLC Appendix D
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 12
23.All pool/spa utility trenches should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory
standard, under the full-time observation and testing of a qualified geotechnical
consultant. Utility trench bottoms should be sloped away from the primary structure
on the property (typically the residence).
24.Pool and spa utility lines should not cross the primary structure’s utility lines (i.e.,
not stacked, or sharing of trenches, etc.).
25.The pool/spa or associated utilities should not intercept, interrupt, or otherwise
adversely impact any area drain, roof drain, or other drainage conveyances. If it is
necessary to modify, move, or disrupt existing area drains, subdrains, or tightlines,
then the design civil engineer should be consulted, and mitigative measures
provided. Such measures should be further reviewed and approved by the
geotechnical consultant, prior to proceeding with any further construction.
26.The geotechnical consultant should review and approve all aspects of pool/spa and
flatwork design prior to construction. A design civil engineer should review all
aspects of such design, including drainage and setback conditions. Prior to
acceptance of the pool/spa construction, the project builder, geotechnical
consultant and civil designer should evaluate the performance of the area drains
and other site drainage pipes, following pool/spa construction.
27.All aspects of construction should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical
consultant, including during excavation, prior to the placement of any additional fill,
prior to the placement of any reinforcement or pouring of any concrete.
28.Any changes in design or location of the pool/spa should be reviewed and
approved by the geotechnical and design civil engineer prior to construction. Field
adjustments should not be allowed until written approval of the proposed field
changes are obtained from the geotechnical and design civil engineer.
29.Disclosure should be made to homeowners and builders, contractors, and any
interested/affected parties, that pools/spas built within about 15 feet of the top of a
slope, and/or H/3, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), will experience some
movement or tilting. While the pool/spa shell or coping may not necessarily crack,
the levelness of the pool/spa will likely tilt toward the slope, and may not be
esthetically pleasing. The same is true with decking, flatwork and other
improvements in this zone.
30.Failure to adhere to the above recommendations will significantly increase the
potential for distress to the pool/spa, flatwork, etc.
31.Local seismicity and/or the design earthquake will cause some distress to the
pool/spa and decking or flatwork, possibly including total functional and economic
loss.
GeoSoils, Inc.Beach Village Life 1, LLC Appendix D
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 13
32.The information and recommendations discussed above should be provided to any
contractors and/or subcontractors, or homeowners, interested/affected parties, etc.,
that may perform or may be affected by such work.
JOB SAFETY
General
At GSI, getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's
safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites.
On-ground personnel are at highest risk of injury, and possible fatality, on grading and
construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site, and
that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be
safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents,
cooperation between the client, the contractor, and GSI personnel must be maintained.
In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the
following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading
and construction projects:
Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractor’s regularly
scheduled and documented safety meetings.
Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for, and are to be worn by GSI personnel,
at all times, when they are working in the field.
Safety Flags:Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be
affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the
spoil pile on all test pits.
Flashing Lights:All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing
amber beacons, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing.
While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher
on the vehicle shall be activated.
In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not
following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office.
Test Pits Location, Orientation, and Clearance
The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be
the technician’s safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading
contractor’s authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the
established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractor’s authorized
GeoSoils, Inc.Beach Village Life 1, LLC Appendix D
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 14
representative (supervisor, grade checker, dump man, operator, etc.) should direct
excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be
the soil technician’s safety, and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill.
Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic,
whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite
the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition.
Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test
holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access.
A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment
should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend
approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for
safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results.
When taking slope tests, the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the
test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the
slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe
operational distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing.
The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible
following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in
a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor
should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors
that may affect site access and site safety.
In the event that the technician’s safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the
contractor’s failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company
policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractor’s
representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. However, in the interim,
no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed can be
considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction, or removal.
In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established
safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to the technician’s attention and
notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractor’s
representative and the soil technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the
above safety plan.
Trench and Vertical Excavation
It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction
testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut
which: 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back; 2) displays any evidence of
instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench; or 3) displays
any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth.
GeoSoils, Inc.Beach Village Life 1, LLC Appendix D
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1.gue Page 15
All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters,
should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with
Cal/OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any
trench by being lowered or “riding down” on the equipment.
If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our
company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor.
The contractor’s representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. All backfill
not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and/or
removal.
If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or
vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer
on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then
has an obligation to notify Cal/OSHA and/or the proper controlling authorities.
TYPE A
TYPE B
Selection of alternate subdrain details, location, and extent of subdrains should be
evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading.
c. CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL Plate D-1
12-inch minimum ----6-inch minimum
A-1 8-1
Filter material: Minimum volume of 9 cubic feet per
lineal foot of pipe. FILTER MATERIAL
Perforated pipe: 6-inch-diameter ABS or PVC pipe or
approved substitute with minimum 8 perforations
<¼-inch diameter) per lineal foot in
bottom half of pipe (ASTM D-2751, SDR-35, or
ASTM D-1527, Schd. 40).
For continuous run in excess of 500 feet, use
a-inch-diameter pipe (ASTM D-3034, SDR-35, or
ASTM D-1785, Schd. 40).
Sieve Size
1 inch
¾inch
¾ inch
No.4
No. 8
No.30
No.50
No.200
Percent Passing
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
AL TERNA TE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FIL TEA MATERIAL
\~ 6-inch minimum
~\ \ "'I I
• ~--LI / '--~-~nch
---
Filter fabric
A-2
minimum
Gravel Material= 9 cubic feet per lineal foot.
Perforated Pipe: See Alternate 1
Gravel: Clean ¾-inch rock or approved substitute.
Filter Fabric: Mirafi 140 or approved substitute.
1 6-inch minimum
ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL, AND FILTER FABRIC
c. CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS Plate 0-2
Original ground surface to be
restored with compacted fill
I
Back-cut varies. For deep removals,
backcut should be made no steeper
than 1=1 (H=V), or flatter as necessary
for safety considerations.
2D
/
Toe of slope as shown
on grading plan
/ < '7,·' :<• .• .--•.· ---. <": ·. ·· ... ' · · : . · · .. ·: ,'Cornpa.ct~d. Fill -: :.= · ·. :· ·
. -~-:-.,~·:·.·.:· ·:···::. ·.'' .. :·:-::=:· · .. ::.::· ... _-:-:=.: ... :..-.·:'·i .. ~::· .. ·.·>·.·.: :_:: .. :: :· ./.·:: ... :.:.· .. i
#~ / \__Original ground surface
~ <f / D -Anticipated removal of unsuitable material
-~" / (depth per geotechnical engineer) '" ""'"~/
Provide a 1=1 (H=V) minimum projection from toe of
slope as shown on grading plan to the recommended
removal depth. Slope height, site conditions, and/ or
local conditions could dictate flatter projections.
c. FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON DETAIL Plate 0-3
Proposed grade~ ----
,--------Previously placed, temporary
compacted fill for drainage only
-------
Proposed additional compacted fill
Existing compacted fill +~;~~r:: ~g'±j;~f ,;;?/: ·•· ··.,. ,. . , , ... ,,,, ... / . . . . . . , le mater1·a1 c··t . . . ", :::::::•:•· • • ,,:: .. , .. : · .. • ·: .,. ·.·., ·., • • .. • :·, • . o. bEi· rem .. ,, ... : •. . . · . . • . ::z-· · . . oved)
.··,, ', , , ;~ ~~~y\\'S:< ,
/4\;<;;,\\'?<-Vi ):;0Z ~;,:;,\\'«-V>W' v' \ 0sY' \ \__ · ·
To be rem Bedrock or a
additional :;ed before placing native materia:iproved
mpacted fill
c. REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL DETAIL Plate D-4
Drainage per design
civil engineer
/
Blanket fill (if recommended by
the geotechnical consultant)
Design finish slope -~
/
/
I 1s 1oot I ----. . --1 minimum I
I -i----------
10-foot minimum /
25-foot maximum/
---;/---..,,,,, I
Buttress or
stabilization fill
_.;,--Typical benching
~--4-inch-diameter non-perforated
2-Percent Gradient Typical
benching
(4-foot
minimum)
outlet pipe and backdrain (see
Bedrock or
approved native
material
Subdrain as
recommended by
geotechnical consultant
detail Plate D-6). Outlets to be
spaced at 100-foot maximum
intervals and shall extend 2 feet
beyond the face of slope at time
of rough grading completion. At
the completion of rough grading.
the design civil engineer should
provide recommendations to
convey any outlet's discharge to
a suitable conveyance, utilizing a
non-erosive device.
e. TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL Plate D-5
I .. 2-toot ..
1 I minimum
I
I 2-toot I I .. minimum., I
1 ~.::::<:::::<:::::: ---t f ~~::~
........... . . . . . . . . . . . = ·.-.-.=:Q:_.-.-. ---J . . . . . . . . . . . ----
minimu 2-inch J 4-inch
pipe minimum
Filter Material= Minimum of 5 cubic feet per lineal foot of pipe or 4 cubic feet per lineal
feet of pipe when placed in square cut trench.
Alternative in Lieu of Filter Material= Gravel may be encased in approved filter fabric.
Filter fabric shall be Mirafi 140 or equivalent. Filter fabric shall be lapped a minimum of
12 inches in all joints.
Minimum 4-lnch-Diameter Pipe: ABS-ASTM D-2751, SDR 35; or ASTM D-1527 Schedule
40, PVC-ASTM D-3034, SDR 35; or ASTM D-1785 Schedule 40 with a crushing strength
of 1,000 pounds minimum, and a minimum of 8 uniformly-spaced perforations per foot of
pipe. Must be installed with perforations down at bottom of pipe. Provide cap at
upstream end of pipe. Slope at 2 percent to outlet pipe. Outlet pipe to be connected
to subdrain pipe with tee or elbow.
Notes= 1. Trench for outlet pipes to be backfilled and compacted with onsite soil.
2. Backdrains and lateral drains shall be located at elevation of every bench
drain. First drain located at elevation just above lower lot grade. Additional
drains may be required at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant.
Filter Material shall be of the following
specification or an approved equivalent.
Sieve Size
1 inch
¾ inch
¾ inch
No.4
No. 8
No.30
No.50
No.200
Percent Passing
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
Gravel shall be of the following
specification or an approved equivalent.
Sieve Size
1½ inch
No.4
No.200
Percent Passing
100
50
8
c. TYPICAL BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL Plate D-6
Toe of slope as shown
on grading plan
Natural slope to
be restored with
compacted fill
~ Proposed grade \ / /
/
/ Compacted fill
/
/ ..
/ .•
~.: ... :•: ... •.•••·, :;~~(i,S\~: ::__5 ·~
...• ·.··· .. ·· .... •·· .. ··. oi\c~···· ·.··.· ... ···.· .···· L
2-foot m· · · ~ (. • '. \',et{\O'I~ \~ , • · 'y_;_ ' , ~·-✓: ":::::· ~· ·.~:. ~· .,.,.....__l ,,,.)\ <(\~,, -
in bedr 1n1mum ~. . . \ 1· , • . . ... "'"" . . . . . . . . . ' . : :. : ... i .. , •· ~ . . ~ r / ,y\' \, / -4-1001 nttnum
Backcut varies
/
r ock or..-:'.:. ,. .. . . . . . ··.· . . .,, '§· .. • •: • · , . • ,_;;-. .,.--r, :.<'\,, /). y\ \ \::..<,-!\_-_ """'°""" : ·.. . ·. . '§; 'Y . . . . . ,;_--'· '" . -=-eorth materiel_· .o:..:· • ' ' ~< ' ~ . ~~~,......,-~f:~ y\ \ <\\0;>::C\ \\ I r
r ----~ .; .. ,i<> ~ --\\;(\\'.:<~)/4' L Bench...., I __. '-\ \-,;;, C~\ 2-Pe,cent 0..ad-----~ _ · [ 3-foot minimum I may vary ~
·1 ·' '\ :.c, /, y\"" ~ , ----<•-<oot -1 Bedrock
0
I
, .,,\;..;\;,,: ---r 15-loot....., 'f --approved
1-----:2-•Hm•a I r native material
slope height I Subdrain as recommended by
geotechnical consultant
NOTES=
1. Where the natural slope approaches or exceeds the design slope ratio, special recommendations would be
provided by the geotechnical consultant.
2. The need for and disposition of drains should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant, based upon
exposed conditions.
c. FILL OVER NATURAL {SIDEHILL FILL) DETAIL Plate D-7
H -height of slope
Cut/fill contact as
shown on grading plan
Cut/fill contact as
shown on as-built plan _
Original (existing) grade
Proposed grade
/'
i--mayvary---i
I (4-foot minimum) I
/'
/
Compacted fill
Subdrain as recommended by
geotechnical consultant
NOTE= The cut portion of the slope should be excavated and evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to
construction of the fill portion.
c. FILL OVER CUT DETAIL Plate D-8
Natural slope
Proposed finish grade ~
--------------
I~
/
.,
.. ·. · ...... ·.:: .. _ ··:
... •, :·. '• .. '• . ·'·
. ·•.. . ... · ... ••,· ... .-. ·.-_ ...... ·. •'
. ·, . . . : .' . . . .
Typical benching
(4-foot minimum)
/
Compacted stablization fill
~-Bedrock or other
approved native material
-If recommended by the geotechnical
consultant, the remaining cut portion of
the slope may require removal and
replacement with compacted fill.
Subdrain as recommended by
geotechnical consultant
NOTES= 1. Subdrains may be required as specified by the geotechnical consultant.
2 W shall be equipment width (15 feet) for slope heights less than 25 feet. For slopes greater than
25 feet, W shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. At no time, shall W be less than H/2,
where H is the height of the slope.
c.1 STABLIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL EXPOSED IN CUT SLOPE DETAIL Plate D-9
Proposed finish grade -~ Natural grade
------------------------.,,,,,,,,,,. 2
/ . · ...
./ . , .. ·7· .-:-.· .·.·· --~
./ ./ .. · .· · .. · .
./ .·:·:·:._·:·,/:· ..... .
. -~
H -height of slope
~~\\\°<(\ '>;: \ ,...-;1/.,.-\ \
-----~ .... :._. ; .:_;/ .....,. ................. :1/\ . ·";_. ·-.··::_·,_ .. '. .·_: ·_;;;--\\~?\\
Typical benching
( 4-foot minimum)
·< ·::-_· .... , · ... : · .. '. ·. ...,......,........,....1,.,~ \
s\ '<«<]~0,,,'i;:_ . 2-Percen1 o.-.., , ~\?~
~½Y/\\ \\\:-<\;'~ -~ 2-foot minimum · 1/, ..-\ \ \<\\1/-~\ \~ key depth I .,. 15-foot minimum key 'width½\ ,....-·\ "\1 ,\ \
or H/2 if H>30 feet _, Subdrain as recommended by
geotechnical consultant
NOTES= 1. 15-foot minimum to be maintained from proposed finish slope face to back cut.
minimum
2. The need and disposition of drains will be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions.
3. Pad overexcavation and recompaction should be performed if evaluated to be necessary by the
geotechnical consultant.
c. SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND DETAIL Plate D-10
Reconstruct compacted fill slope at 2=1 or flatter
(may increase or decrease pad area)
Overexcavate and recompact
replacement fill
Natural grade
· .... _.
... ·. . ... ,·.:.-~
··.-, .. ·.·~
·-·· ···/
.···,··.· .-: .. ·:·····✓· .... ·.·•··•····· .... •.·~~r.,~ :/ r~~~~o;r:~e
. .,. ,·. ··\.··· :·. ·:· .· .: ...... ·. . .. : . I
/ .·~ -··· --'--.. · .. · .. / .·::.: .. :.::--. ·_.··.'• ..... :.··. ··:···· 3-footminimumfillblanket
Back-cut varies---,
Avoid and/ or clean up
spillage of materials on
the natural slope
.. _ .' .. : .. : .. /_.-·· .•. '·.·,:•:.·.·:✓-,<<<>,<> ,,,,y ✓<,<,,,,>., A',('.;>\(,<((>7,>/
· .. · .. ,.· .. ·i~·_/.> .. ·.: .... ·.:. . . \~ ~V'\\, . . : .;-~/ .. · ........ , . ' . . . \ \' /.
: . ·. . . ~/ .. ·. ·.. . . , ';-. \ · .. ··. _ ..... · ...... ·.· .·~¥:y.· . · .. · ... ·.:.···-✓-~ ~ ::--<-\~
. . . '<i. . .... / f;) y\ ,\, .... <f :--... · .. · .: .·-.-·.· ... ~~§/,.· :·· ··:··: ·.·. ~ Bedrock or approved
2-tootm~nimum L·: ..... : ·.;·-: \··.· .. :.·:: .. , .~?., .. ;-·./ \.\\\,\\ native material
[key width . ·.. .·.· . · . · .. / 1/ \ . . ., .. :· :· .. : ·: ... ·· ·:·· . •'··. •. ·. /.·· '( Typical benching
-----· · -,.-·.7· ~: . .;. ·~· .:'"--::,-_;_ .. 2-percent gradient ~ (4-foot minimum)
.: ... ,.· .' . . ..· ·. ~~~~\\\: -r µ~----=---·--~\\ _.. · .·· :· · ... ·_:-.~··.·.< .. :.····.-\~\\\::--('\/40\ v\\ \1/
... , · .. :..:: .· .. _ .. ' ..... · ·. \\\/ . .\ : ..... · ........ > ..... :·.-: .-;.·.·: :)(\v--"'------Subdrain as recommended by
· · .. .-.-.. •·, \~V geotechnical consultant /4~
NOTES= 1. Subdrain and key width requirements will be evaluated based on exposed subsurface conditions and
thickness of overburden.
2. Pad overexcavation and recompaction should be performed if evaluated necessary by the geotechnical
consultant.
e. DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL Plate D-11
Natural grade
Proposed pad grade
_=::::a...-.,::-::-... · .... ···:
; .. / .. : .-·<: .. '·"·._;··~
·. . ·: ... .-·
.-.~··::._::,::..::,; ·--__ l_
\<~,, y\\ ;((0~t\ y\ \\''\\\~>::::-\ ,,,\ \\~\/4;✓,,,\'\ ;((0~/ y)\ <0,;;,'\ y\ \Y
~ 3-to 7-foot minimum•
\' B d k overexcavate and recompact \ ~~1/\ e roe or per text of report ,,\ \ \::--<, approved native
material
Typical benching
CUT LOT OR MATERIAL -TYPE TRANSITION
Typical benching
(4-foot minimum)
Natural grade
. _:, ..... :·.-... _.·:~
. . . . . l_
·.· .... ~.:·-~~~" ·_ ---
Bedrock or
approved native
material
• Deeper overexcavation may be
recommended by the geotechnical
consultant in steep cut-fill transition
areas, such that the underlying
topography is no steeper than 3:1 (H:V)
CUT-FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION)
c. TRANSITION LOT DETAILS Plate D-12
(E) Hold-down depth
NOTES:
VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE
Proposed finish grade ~
(E)~ ~ 7 ---~ ' _ t (E) Hold-down depth / -/ cO ✓\
t_cf:J cco cO
(D) ccr
---=:-1 (B)
cO
(G)
(F)
~0~~~~~~~~~~0~\%<
\; Bedrock or approved
minimum native material
VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE
A. One equipment width or a minimum of 15 feet between rows (or windrows).
B. Height and width may vary depending on rock size and type of equipment. Length of windrow
shall be no greater than 100 feet.
C. If approved by the geotechnical consultant, windrows may be placed direclty on competent
material or bedrock, provided adequate space is available for compaction.
D. Orientation of windrows may vary but should be as recommended by the geotechnical engineer
and/ or engineering geologist. Staggering of windrows is not necessary unless recommended.
E. Clear area for utility trenches, foundations, and swimming pools; Hold-down depth as specified in
text of report, subject to governing agency approval.
F. All fill over and around rock windrow shall be compacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction or as recommended.
G. After fill between windrows is placed and compacted, with the lift of fill covering windrow, windrow
should be proof rolled with a D-9 dozer or equivalent.
VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS OR CODE
ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED
c:. OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL Plate 0-13
ROCK DISPOSAL PITS
Fill lifts compacted 01/er
rock after embedment ,-------
1 -----
Granular material
L _ _ _ ~--~:-----:::::::-Large Rock I -_-_-
I
I
I Compacted Fill
I
------7
I
Size of excavation to I
be commensurate I
with rock size I
ROCK DISPOSAL LA YEAS
Granular soil to fill voids, densified by flooding _. __ -{ ~ompacte~fi~ _
Layer one rock high --~C)( )C:JOt:[ ~ L £:: Proposed finish gr~ ,--~~ ---=--=---__
•Ho -t-
Oversize layer
PROFILE ALONG LA YER
_t Compacted fill
3-foot
minimum
rill Slope l l t
•• aear zone TOP VIEW
Layer one rock high
• Hold-down depth or below lowest utility as specified in text of report, subject to governing agency approval.
•• Clear zone for utility trenches, foundations, and swimming pools, as specified in text of report.
VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS OR CODE
ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN
c. ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL Plate 0-14
Existing grade 5-foot-high
Existing grade
Existing grade
impact/debris wall METHOD 1
1 Pad grade
--_L__ ---
5-foot-high
impact/ debris wall
5-foot-wide catchment area
impact/ debris wall
METHOD2
[
5-foot-high METHOD 3
\\ ,-::<_, __ ~ Pad grad_e_
<\~'\
\ \_,.,,
/~/ /,
Existing grade
~\ 2=1 (h:v) slope cence
-\ \\>;y \ 2=1 (h=v> slope METHOD 4
----::::--'\ ~ ~ Pad grade
\\\,__ '-----_L_ ·--
. ~
,;
NOTTO SCALE
c. DEBRIS DEVICE CONTROL METHODS DETAIL Plate 0-15
Rock-filled
gabion basket
Existing grade
Proposed grade
Filter fabric Drain rock
Compacted fill
Gabion impact or diversion wall should be constructed at the base of the
ascending slope subject to rock fall. Walls need to be constructed with high
segments that sustain impact and mitigate potential for overtopping, and low
segment that provides channelization of sediments and debris to desired
depositional area for subsequent clean-out. Additional subdrain may be
recommended by geotechnical consultant.
From GSA, 1987
c. ROCK FALL MITIGATION DETAIL Plate 0-16
MAP VIEW
NOTTO SCALE Concrete cut-off wall
SEE NOTEI __ s __________ J
B I Top of elope ~
2-inch-thick
sand layer
Gravity-flow,
nonperforated subdrain I=== pipe (tra.,...,,-eel
Toe of slope 4
A --I
I
1--Sleet
Pool
4-inch perforated
subdrain pipe
(longitudinal)
Coping A'
4-inch perforated
subdrain pipe
(transverse)
Pool
Direction
of drainage
B'
CROSS SECTION VIEW
Coping
NOTTO SCALE
SEE NOTES
Pool encapsulated in 5-foot
thickness of sand --~
6-inch-thick gravel layer
B
NOTES:
r
H
Gravity-flow nonperforated
subdrain pipe
4-inch perforated subdrain pipe
I I 1 1--steet
Coping B'
Vapor retarder
Perforated subdrain pipe
1. 6-inch-thick, clean gravel(¾ to 1½ inch) sub-base encapsulated in Mirafi 140N or equivalent, underlain by
a 15-mil vapor retarder, with 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe longitudinal connected to 4-inch-diameter
perforated pipe transverse. Connect transverse pipe to 4-inch-diameter nonperforated pipe at low point
and outlet or to sump pump area.
2. Pools on fills thicker than 20 feet should be constructed on deep foundations; otherwise, distress (titting,
cracking, etc.) should be expected.
3. Design does not apply to infinity-edge pools/ spas.
c. TYPICAL POOL/SPA DETAIL Plate 0-17
2-foot x 2-foot x ¼-inch steel plate
Standard ¾-inch pipe nipple
welded to top of plate
--+--¾-inch x 5-foot galvanized pipe,
standard pipe threads top and bottom;
extensions threaded on both ends and
added in 5-foot increments
3-inch schedule 40 PVC pipe sleeve, add
in 5-foot increments with glue joints
Proposed finish grade
~ ' ~ ~ __ J_
I -5feet 5feet I !
I I
I I
I I s teet r 2,ee1 ///) l,,,, J
= = =•~k\••··••••:••••·••;•·•··•••·•~: ..•. ~••··••<·••: .•. -•• •.· .• •·i:~~e a~~~:u~ :o:~Old -t-bedding of compacted sand
NOTES:
1. Locations of settlement plates should be clearly marked and readily visible (red flagged) to
equipment operators.
2. Contractor should maintain clearance of a 5-foot radius of plate base and withiin 5 feet (vertical)
for heavy equipment. Fill within clearance area should be hand compacted to project
specifications or compacted by alternative approved method by the geotechnical consultant (in
writing, prior to construction).
3. After 5 feet (vertical) of fill is in place, contractor should maintain a 5-foot radius equipment
clearance from riser.
4. Place and mechanically hand compact initial 2 feet of fill prior to establishing the initial reading.
5. In the event of damage to the settlement plate or extension resulting from equipment operating
within the specified clearance area, contractor should immediately notify the geotechnical
consultant and should be responsible for restoring the settlement plates to working order.
6. An alternate design and method of installation may be provided at the discretion of the
geotechnical consultant.
c:. SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL Plate D-18
Finish grade ---------
c.
Ll
<J
<J Ll
I I 3 to 6 feet Ll
<J
<J
Ll
LJ <J
<J
L'.l
Ll
' L'.l.
Ll <J
Ll
<J
--¾-inch-diameter X 6-inch-long
carriage bolt or equivalent
1 ... 6-inch diameter X
3½-inch-long hole
Concrete backfill
-· -------------
TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT Plate D-19
SIDE VIEW
Spoil pile
Test pit
TOP VIEW
Flag Flag
Spoil pile Test pit
Light
Vehicle
-----50feet----------50feet-----
-------------------lOOfee,1------------
c. TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM Plate D-20
------.--
~ l _J
--------. .,,,,.._ ~ ~--'--~-'--'------'--~'---'--~--------_,i .
-----::: LJ
-----'--L._,'---'--~'-----------h"-.:'
' n•--R I/ r;1J~ '-, , 1:1 1. . (, / I) , .J .._
'
. '-. -------"--') '-.~-----._,: '-. '-. '-. '-. '-.' '
I JI ' I ,0 I
------,,
t2
. ,.
./ \ • 1 ''ll ~
,I • ·-
~-:\:,T:::<"_'.;
I
P"I
59.87)TC
59.Jl)FS
(59.BBJTc"/'
(59.49)FS
\
\
/
('
\
\ '\
\ \
\
\
0, ~ ~
(43.32 FS) • • • • -, I
/ _ X' 31 • =
,',(,_0%), ! ,, ., 1 1, -· :';\I .,
\. ,.., \. ! ! In ! I II I I \ -~~~--~-~~5!~~~~!1!~~:, Oii:
\
!::'r""s·_5..l!·_-_5~'---1~')TW..,-<_~!!a"!J~-~~~i;-i,i. ~~F=""!!!''-~~)iaia-~•--1Dia,!~!!Ll!-"'-~-E"L~(5ic_ia_~94~fk._-~l,;."E-~""-_L"l_c1J!!!!!:!.:.c.Glll!':!!!1:!!IO!LI!•u!i'~-~~-~~1C111:!'![;!!!!'-'liEJ!!B-=0-..:::11 'ii:ii70 \r4:.;i7~g4·'£ 201.00 \ I --\ 1' .b.J I ----.________ -c• ~~~Jit-7!]; ~~!-•·il!1'~{0.-~~l-i' -~ ~~7 2~
(53.57')/W / -1 I \.!J -· ·--I ---._ , '-~ ---, ~ -'·. , cc·
(51.JB)FG (50.45)FG t.'"'"''i==F==~====c==r==,=====:==-~'==;i====,==;=====;===~-=c=;===;:;::::,===;==;;;:;:::::;::::;,e:,=-=1====;===;===;=:==='-=·=±===;=====;====~=··:,::-·~=:±====;====r==c===-==;=-=l=::,'~-::::·:::·;==F"'::i·,r=±:, t-~=/~~'1'-"f" h ·==;c·-=·1';"'=="'= ~ l rso. 4! lW / x1sr. RITAINl~G WALL~ l 111_~ E (47.61 ·w I I / "--' 1
" ' JGJ · I
~E 1/5.5:-55)/W ~'
(50.Bl)FG ::v 51. f5)FG
R/W
I :
I f2'
'
1(50.JflJTC D sr P.c.c c, "a_,-I I (44_5I) r. 1 1sr P.c.c c 1R8 ,,, (48. U) FG ,, b. 4'! -(47. 15) G (44.98) ~" V, '
(49.aaJrs I /
I II AP/ 2031 73-0 I I I
80'
40' CI_ 40'
JU
H/W
I
:
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
CD REMOVE EXISTING FENCE. BMPTABLE
(
I !If u· /()_()' /.1.5' 16.5
20·: .:;R-~o·_ 2.0· ,
1
!7
1
70· ,
1
' 1_5
1
,-.c~· '
@ PROPOSED ROOF DRAIN OUTLET TO DRAIN THROUGH MODU/AR WET/ANDS
DOWNSPOUT BIOFIURATION DEVICE BEFORE 0/SCHARG/NG OFFS/TE. UNITS
TO BE INCORPORATEO INTO BUILDING, OUTS/OE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. BMP ID BMP TYPE SYMBOL CASQA NO. QUANTITY DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.(S) INSPECTION*
FREQUENCY
MAINTENANCE
FREQUENCY
I PA,7K/NS
' ' r-3,5
()[l/7?111-NG
' -~--' ~-~ -J["•'~cf' ___ _
@) PROPOSED 8UILDING ELECTRICAL TR.AJISFORMER AND SWITCH GEAR AREA.
INCORPORATED II/TO BUILDING, OUTSIDE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND
SCREENED BACK FROM PUBLIC VIEW.
@) MODULAR WE7/ANDS 8"¢ DOWNSPOUT 8/0FILTRATION 0£1//CE LOCATION. UNITS
TO 8E INCORPORATED INTO 8UILDING, OUTSIDE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. SEE
DETAIL SHEET J.
® ROOF DRAIN
DOWN SPOUT
FILTER
508-9A HEREON 11 AS BUIL T'1
RCE __ _ EXP,----DAT E PI/OPOScD r · n2f:••~· ~ ,~-1· i · -·-, ~-~-.,\ 1
P.c.c. s1ot1w,K 1' I ~I P.1/0POSED P.s.c / L__ EXIST P.cc \L[x1s·,. cu,11s, "c_," Ca' ,/ a TT/i 6'iJ / / U/ MIU ' ' ~ I I ,S'Ui /CJ-,! GU,/[_ i'
® CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL PER SDRSD C-1. SLAB ON GRADE NOTE:
TH[ SLAB ON GRAD[ WILL BE 7" THICK CONCRET[ WITH 2" OF
CLEAN, WASHED SAND ABQV[ A 15-MIL VAPOR RETARDER,
UND[RLAIN BY A CAPILLARY :BREAK CONSISTING OF AT LEAST 4" OF
~--~-~----------1 REVIE'v/ED BY:
10
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 5 10
,· = 10'
20
PROPOSED I PF!OPOSED .L.. C -EX/ST. A. C. 6" P.S.C. CURB
PEH G 1 PAl,}11/-:] i·J.Vi'-MiNl
CHRISTIANSEN WAY TYPICAL SECTION
[OOKi1VG' //t__S/
NO ,?CAI r
S/U[/1/1-LX
INSPECTOR DATE
,__----+-------------+--+---+--f-------l lsHE2ET l.c_1_r_Y_o_F_c_A_R_L_s_B_A_D~~2 _ ENGINEERI NG DEPARTMENT ~
f-'K ~l"AKl:.U UNUl:.K I HI:. SUPI:. ~V ISIU~J Ur :,_ _____ r------------------+----+---t----r-----t
DA TE INITIAL
,!OSHIIA R. 7FIGI FR R .C:.F. ~c,4 .• l nATF ENGINEER OF WORK
FXP 9/."IO/ 18
I
REVISION DESCR IPTION
DATE INITIAL DATE INITIAL
OTHER APPROVAL CITY APPROVAL
PRECISE uRAD!Nu PLAN F DR:
BEACH VILLAGE LIFE
300 CHRISTIANS EN AVE
GR2017-0071
APPROVED: JASON S. GELDERT
CITY ENGINEER RCE 53912 EXPI RES 9/30/18 DATE
OWN BY: JZ PROJECT NO.
CHKD BY: __ _
RVWD BY: CT 16 -03
DRAWING NO.
508-9A
I
ARTIFICIAL FILL -UNDOCUMEN1ED
QUA TERNARY COLLUVIUM / DISTIJRBED NA TIJRAL GROUND
, ,
; , ,
; ,
; , ,
;
' , , , ,
' , . ,
Afu -
Qcol-
Qop-
Tsa -
QUA TERNARY OLD PARAUC DEPOS/15, C/RC/.ED WHERE BURIED
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION, CIRCLED WHERE BURIED --IB-4 • TD=6 Y,•
B-3
!81
TD=56'
-APPROX/MA TE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
-APPROX/MA TE LOCATION OF INFIL 1RA TION TEST BORING
'MTH TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET (THIS STIJDY)
-APPROX/MA TE LOCATION OF HO/.LOW-STEI,/ AUGER BORING
'MTH TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET (GSI, 2015)
f-.....f' -APPROX/MA TE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
This document or eflle Is not a part of the Construction
Documents and should not be relied upon as being an
accurate deplcUon of design.
•
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
Revised Plate 1
w.o. 6942-A1-SC DATE: 02/18 SCALE: 1" = 10'
o,' "' §!
~
>-~ ~
i's "' §
"' c::
70
60
50
30
20
10
0
-10
X
EXISTING
MASONRY
WALLS
?-
Qop
I P/L
I
I
I
I
~
' '
• 4 ..
• •
Qcol
•
... : le • • •
• •
B-3 PROJECTED (GST, 2015)
•
'· •
••
•
4
• _<!·
• '' 4
•
' ,•
• 4
. <f'..
. ":
JB-2 PROJECTED (/HIS STUDY)
1D=6 ¼'
--Qcol <::::..:
----
. 1==r=f=rf -
·•. LBOTTOM OF PROPOSED GRADE BEAM
• . '
•
.•
•
EXIS71NG GRADE 8-2 PROJECTED (GSI, 2015)
---
• •
• . Qop • .. ·.
• . ' ''. ..
• ..
. •·
• .
' ..
Qop (WEATHERED) JB-,f. PROJECTED (IHIS STUDY)
Qop
(WEA 1HERED)
Qcol
8-1 PROJECTED (GSI, 2015) I
P/L
X'
70
60
------~-1-Afu rrl ---.;_ 1D=6 ¼'
---.------,__40 -----+-::_----~,...,,.J.----? ----
• • •
.•
' .
•
4.
" .-: •
,··
•
•
' .
• ..
•
• • •
• ... .. . ' '
-~ .
. "
.. •
I •
' ,
,;
. . . .
•
• . '
Qop
?-..
• •
~ ...
---+--+--•-,,,..•1---~.'".~.--~---+---+-•-• ·~.---ID~--~'6~'~ .. +---~+--+-. •-..... •----1•:...· -+----+,;.· •..,._ __ .,.•.,.·,, ~-_ .,._ .. _ .. ·,.• •--1-.;;~~-----... •..,._ ___ t'·-• -+----.j....:.•
ill.f V .::I .0: 4-· .,· • " d . 7D=J7 ½' r--,. ·--+--,-1...;;.• .j... ... , .. . ... ~
.. ·• .~ ' . .•
4 ..
. "' ..
' '.
' .
•.-it -""t..~.1r-+-+-----l-4---?
•
Tsa . ''
:. '
.. . '
4·
• " '
• .. :_
K
'4
•
' '' '' ,
• ...
.. , ..
..;, ,•
•
.. :.
4
'4 •
' .
..I.. ..
"··· . ...
. -~ .
B B
·•.
•
' ' •
•
..
.. '
. "' . ,i. ".. ._. ., •d,'
' •. :" :
.. .... . '
• .,j ...
·•
' " ·•. •
C C
•
. 411·:
. ... ,
•
4
• . ' '
C
4
•
' 4
. _..,.
..
' .
·•
• .. ..
' < ',4
•
D
•·
' .. . '4
•· . '
. . '-4
•·
Tsa •
.. '
.·fl .
.• •
.. ·•
• 4' . '
. '
•
' .
F
' .
. . ,;I • • ..
• •·
• ...
, .. ·•
••
;•
•
F
••
4 • ..
. .
' .
•. 4
. ' '
' ..
' .
•
H H
• .,,.·
1D=56'
.. ·, . . .
10
• •
H Tsa
0
-10
-20-+-----~---~----~---~----~----~---~----~---~----~----~---~----~---~~---~----~---~----~---~~---~----~---~---t---20
0 10 20 JO 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CASS ION SC HED ULE (ADOPT[{) FROM SHEET NO. S-2 OF
SUN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING [2018])
STEEL COLUMN
MARK DIAMETER LENGTH SCHEDULE DETAIL REMARKS
0 36" 45' W24x250 (4)
0 / 1 ·,
36" 45' W24x250 ("so;)
0 36" 40' W24x104 @ 1
10 0
~
5
I
0 36" 35' W24x104 "3 '
c~_1,)
0 35" 35' W18x76 / 3 j
(.___s0_1,
0 35" 30' W18x76 (~)
,_SD'!_,
0 /-y -..,
36" 30' W14x34 ls,,,)
0 @ @ NORTH isTERN
36" 45' W24x250 & SOUTH ESTERN 3 CORNER
110
DISTANCE (FEET)
N56°E
::>'
120
GRAPHIC SCALE
10 20
I I
I' = 10'
130 140
40
I
150 160
Afe
Afu
Qcol
Qop
Tsa
-?-
..5L --
..I..
D
[J
0
170 180 190
GS/ LEGEND
ART/rlCIAL FILL -ENGINEERED
ART/rlCIAL FILL -UNDOCUMENTED
200
QUA TERNARY COLLUVIUM/DIS1URBED NA 1URAL GROUND
QUA TERNARY OW PARAUC DEPOSITS
TER71ARY SAN71AGO FORMA 710N
APPROX/MA TE LOCA 710N OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT,
QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN
ES71MATED PERCHED GROUNDWATER SURFACE
£5111,fA TED REGIONAL GROUNDWATER SURFACE
ZONE OF RECOMMENDED OVEREXCAVA 710N AND RECOMPAC710N
(SEE REPORT)
APPROX/MA TE LOCA 710N OF 36"-CIDH PILE PER
SUN STRUC1URAL ENGINEERING (2018)
210
CIDH PILE DESlGNA 710N PER SUN STRUC1URAL ENGINEERING (2018)
220 227
ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
This document or eflle Is not a part of the Construction
Documents and should not be relied upon as being an
accurate depiction of design .
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
X-X' Revised Plate 2
w.o. 6942-A1-SC DATE: 02/18 SCALE: 1" = 10'