HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS 16-04; VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CAMPUS; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2016-05-23GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
VIASAT
BRESSI RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
VIASAT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
REy:
MAY 01 nj7
LAND DEIGPYENT
ENGEERIJG
MAY 23, 2016
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
MATE RI AL S
(4017)
Project No. G1928-52-01
May 23, 2016
ViaSat
6155 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, California 92009
Attention: Mr. Ryan Hatch
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
VIASAT - BRESSI RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Hatch:
In accordance with your request and our proposal (LG-15358) dated September 28, 2015, we herein
submit the results of our geotechnical investigation for the subject site. The accompanying report
presents the results of our study and conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical
aspects of proposed development of the site. The site is considered suitable for development provided
the recommendations of this report are followed.
Should you have questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
/9t Ke li &AJameas' hawn Foy Weedon
RCE 79438 GE 2714 --o-om ESsi. ,fEES
A.fW
No 79438 z I(51 No. 2714 M U1
J: SF W:AS :d0I*
'N.OF CAL\"
/Ali/Sadr
CEG 1778
OAL
N,
AU
SADR
No. 1778 M CL CERTIFIED
-V ENGINEERING *1r (P GEOLOGIST
(2/del) Addressee
(3/del) Smith Consulting Architects
Attention: Ms. Arati Rangaswamy
6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone 858.558.6900 • Fax 858.558.6159
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE .!
PREVIOUS SITE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................2
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .............................................................................................2
4.1 Previously Placed Fill (Qpcf) .....................................................................................................2
4.2 Santiago Formation (Ts).............................................................................................................3
GROUNDWATER ...............................................................................................................................3
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ......................................................................................................................3
6.1 Faulting and Seismicity ..............................................................................................................3
6.2 Liquefaction................................................................................................................................5
6.3 Tsunamis and Seiches.................................................................................................................5
6.4 Landslides...................................................................................................................................6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................7
7.1 General........................................................................................................................................7
7.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics ...........................................................................................7
7.3 Seismic Design Criteria..............................................................................................................9
7.4 Grading..................................................................................................................................... 10
7.5 Settlement Due to Fill Loads .................................................................................................... !2
7.6 Temporary Excavations, Shoring, and Tiebacks ...................................................................... 13
7.7 Soil Nail Wall ........................................................................................................................... 17
7.8 Conventional Shallow Foundations .......................................................................................... !8
7.9 Drilled Pier Recommendations.................................................................................................21
7.10 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade ......................................................................................................... 22
7.11 Mat Foundation Recommendations..........................................................................................23
7.12 Concrete Flatwork ....................................................................................................................24
7.13 Retaining Walls ........................................................................................................................25
7.14 Lateral Loading ......................................................................................................................... 26
7.15 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations................................................................................27
7.16 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection.....................................................................................30
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Geologic Map (map pocket)
Figure 3, Geologic Cross-Sections A-A' and B-B' (map pocket)
Figure 4, Geologic Cross-Sections C-C' and D-D' (map pocket)
Figure 5, Fill Thickness
Figure 6, Estimated Post-Construction Settlement
Figure 7, Lateral Active Pressures for Temporary Shoring
Figure 8, Soldier Pile Passive Pressure Distribution
Figure 9, Recommended Effective Zone for Tieback Anchors
Figure 10, Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail
Figure 11, Allowable End Bearing - Drilled Piers
Figure 12, Typical Retaining Wall Drain Detail
I
I APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A-i - A-12, Logs of Exploratory Borings I San Diego County, Department of Environmental Health, Geotechnical Boring Construction Permit
APPENDIX B
I LABORATORY TESTING
Table B-I, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results
Table B-Il, Summary of Laboratory Resistance Value (R-Value) Test Results
I Table B-Ill, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results
Table B-N, Summary of Laboratory Triaxial Shear Test Results
Table B-V, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results
Table B-VI, Summary of Laboratory Potential of Hydrogen (pH) and Resistivity Test Results
I Table B-Vu, Summary of Laboratory Water-Soluble Sulfate Test Results
Table B-Vu!, Summary of Laboratory Water-Soluble Chloride Content Test Results
Table B-IX, Summary of Hand Penetrometer Test Results
I Figures B-i - B-7, Consolidation Curves
Figures B-8 and B-9, Triaxial Shear Strength Test Results
I APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
LIST OF REFERENCES
I
I
[I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of our geotechnical study for Lots 1-9 located in the Bressi Ranch
Corporate Center in Carlsbad, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of this report is to
provide information regarding the geologic conditions underlying the site and to provide foundation
and retaining wall design recommendations.
The scope of the study included a review of:
Report - Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Lots 2, 3, and 4, Proposed HCP Bressi
Ranch Development, Northwest Corner of Town Garden Road and Alicante Road, Carlsbad,
California, prepared by NOVA Services, Inc., dated June 17, 2015 (Project No. 2015291).
Geotechnical Update Study, Bressi Ranch Industrial Planning Area 2, Carlsbad, California,
prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated April 12, 2011 (Project No. 971009-065).
Addendum to the As-Graded Reports of Mass Grading Concerning the Completion of
Settlement Monitoring, Planning Areas PA-1 through PA-5, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad,
California, prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated October 11, 2004 (Project
No. 971009014).
The scope of this investigation also included a review of readily available published and unpublished
geologic literature (see List of References), a field investigation, laboratory testing to characterize
physical properties of the soil, engineering analyses, and preparation of this report.
We performed the field investigation during the period of April 4 through April 7, 2016. The study
consisted of drilling 12 small-diameter borings at the approximate locations indicated on the
Geologic Map, Figure 2. We located the borings in the field using a measuring tape and/or existing
reference points; therefore, actual locations may deviate slightly. Appendix A presents the logs of the
exploratory borings and other details of the field investigation.
We performed laboratory tests on selected soil samples obtained during the field investigation to
evaluate pertinent physical and chemical properties for engineering analyses and to assist in
providing recommendations for site grading and foundation design criteria. Appendix B presents
the details of the laboratory tests and a summary of the test results.
2. PREVIOUS SITE DEVELOPMENT
The project is located in Bressi Ranch Corporate Center located east of El Camino Real, south of
Gateway Road, west of Alicante Road and north of Town Garden Road in Carlsbad, California (see
Vicinity Map, Figure 1). According to the referenced reports prepared by Leighton and -Associates
Project No. G1928-52-01 -1- May 23, 2016
(2004 and 2011), the mass grading operations for the site were performed between June 2003 and
January 2004, resulting in three sheet-graded pads. Leighton and Associates performed testing and
observation services during the mass grading operations. The mass grading of the site included
removal of undocumented fill, topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, landslide deposits, and weathered
formational material, prior to placing new fill. Canyon subdrain systems were installed in the
previous drainages. Stability fill keys were constructed for the slopes located to the south. Fills of up
to approximately 90 feet were placed, and cuts of up to approximately 15 feet were made during the
mass grading operations.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The property consists of a previously sheet-graded pad located south of Gateway Road, west of
Alicante Road, north of Town Garden Road and east of El Camino Real in the Bressi Ranch area of
Carlsbad, California. The subject lots are Lots 2 through 9 of the Bressi Ranch Corporate Center. The
property is currently vacant with landscaping around the perimeter of the property and is accessed
from an opening in the landscape area at the southwest portion of the property from Town Garden
Road. The property slopes gently to existing desilting basins with elevations ranging from
approximately 290 feet to 320 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
We understand the proposed development includes the construction of 6 commercial buildings
(Buildings 12 through 17), a café, conference room and 3 parking structures (P1 through P3) with
accommodating underground utilities, landscape and improvements.
The locations and descriptions of the site and proposed improvements are based on a site
reconnaissance, a review of the referenced report, and our understanding of project development. If
project details vary significantly from those described herein, Geocon Incorporated should be
contacted to review and revise this report.
4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
During our field investigation, we encountered one surficial material (consisting of previously placed
compacted fill) overlying one geologic formation (consisting of the Santiago Formation). The
surficial material and the geologic unit are described herein. The estimated surface and subsurface
relationship between the units is depicted on the Geologic Map (Figure 2), and on the Geologic
Cross-Sections A-A' through D-D' (Figures 3 and 4).
4.1 Previously Placed Fill (Qpcf)
Previously placed fill exists at grade across the majority of the project site. The fill is associated with
the original grading of the site and was observed by Leighton and Associates in 2003 and 2004. The
fill consists of silty to clayey sand and sandy silt and clay. The fill was likely derived from previously
Project No. G1928-52-01 -2- May 23, 2016
existing surficial soil and excavations into the Santiago Formation. The fill possesses a "very low" to
"high" expansion potential (expansion index of 130 or less). We opine that the previously placed fill
is considered suitable for additional fill for structural loads; however, remedial grading of the upper
portion of the fill will be required as discussed herein.
4.2 Santiago Formation (Ts)
The Eocene-aged Santiago Formation is exposed at grade along the northern edge of the site in
portions of proposed Buildings 12, 13 and 14 and in the eastern portion of the site in the area of
proposed Building 15 and the P-2 Parking Structure. The Santiago Formation was encountered in our
borings below the previously placed fill across the remainder of the site. The Santiago formation
consists primarily of interbedded, yellowish to grayish brown, dense to very dense silty sandstone and
hard claystone and siltstone. Due to the presence of cemented zones (concretions), difficulty in
excavation within the formational materials should be expected. The Santiago Formation is suitable
for the support of proposed structures.
5. GROUNDWATER
We encountered seepage just above the Santiago Formation in our Borings B-2 and B-3 at
approximately 55 and 49.5 feet below existing grade, respectively. We do not expect groundwater to
adversely impact the development of the property. Canyon subdrains were previously constructed
throughout the project site, as shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 2. It is not uncommon for
groLndwater or seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed. Groundwater
elevations are dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, among other factors, and vary
as a result. Proper surface drainage will be important to future performance of the project.
6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
6.1 Faulting and Seismicity
Based on a review of geologic literature and experience with the soil and geologic conditions in the
general area, it is our opinion that known active or potentially active faults are not located at the site.
An active fault is defined by the California Geological Survey (CGS) as a fault showing evidence for
activity within the last 11,000 years. The site is not located within State of California Earthquake
Fault Zone.
According to Leighton and Associates (2011), minor inactive faulting was encountered during the
mass grading operations for Bressi Ranch, but these minor faults were not mapped. These are near
vertical normal inter-formational faults and common in the Santiago Formation.
Project No. G1928-52-OI -3 - May 23, 2016
According to the computer program EZ-FRISK (Version 7.65), 9 known active faults are located
within a search radius of 50 miles from the property. We used the 2008 USGS fault database that
provides several models and combinations of fault data to evaluate the fault information. Based on
this database, the nearest known active fault is the Newport-Inglewood (offshore) and Rose Canyon
Faults, located approximately 7 miles west of the site and is the dominant source of potential ground
motion. Earthquakes that might occur on these fault zones or other faults within the southern
California and northern Baja California area are potential generators of significant ground motion at
the site. The estimated deterministic maximum earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration
for the Newport-Inglewood Fault are 7.5 and 0.34g, respectively. Table 6.1 .1 lists the estimated
maximum earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration for the most dominant faults in
relationship to the site location. We calculated peak ground acceleration (PGA) using Boore-
Atkinson (2008) NGA USGS2008, Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) NGA USGS, and Chiou-Youngs
(2007) NGA USGS2008 acceleration-attenuation relationships.
TABLE 6.1.1
DETERMINISTIC SPECTRA SITE PARAMETERS
Fault Name
Distance
from Site
(mites)
Maximum
Earthquake
Magnitude
(Mw)
Peak Ground Acceleration
Boore-
Atkinson
2008 (g)
Campbell-
Bozorgnia
2008 (g)
Chiou-
Youngs
2007 (g)
Newport-Inglewood 7 7.5 0.30 0.26 0.34
Rose Canyon 7 6.9 0.26 0.25 0.28
Elsinore 21 7.9 0.21 0.14 0.19
Coronado Bank 23 7.4 0.18 0.12 0.14
Palos Verdes Connected 23 7.7 0.20 0.13 0.17
Palos Verdes 39 7.3 0.12 0.0:8 0.08
Earthquake Valley 40 6.8 0.09 0.06 0.05
San Joaquin Hills 40 7.1 0.11 0.09 0.08
San Jacinto 46 7.9 0.13 0.09 0.11
We used the computer program EZ-FRJSK to perform a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. The
computer program EZ-FRISK operates under the assumption that the occurrence rate of earthquakes
on each mappable Quaternary fault is proportional to the faults slip rate. The program accounts for
fault rupture length as a function of earthquake magnitude, and site acceleration estimates are made
using the earthquake magnitude and distance from the site to the rupture zone. The program also
accounts for uncertainty in each of following: (1) earthquake magnitude, (2) rupture length for a
given magnitude, (3) location of the rupture zone, (4) maximum possible magnitude of a given
earthquake, and (5) acceleration at the site from a given earthquake along each fault. By calculating
the expected accelerations from considered earthquake sources, the program calculates the total
Project No. G1928-52-0I -4- -- May 23, 2016
average annual expected number of occurrences of site acceleration greater than a specified value.
We utilized acceleration-attenuation relationships suggested by Boore-Atkinson (2008) NGA USGS,
Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) NGA USGS, and Chiou-Youngs (2007) NGA USGS2008 in the
analysis. Table 6.1.2 presents the site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard parameters including
acceleration-attenuation relationships and the probability of exceedence.
TABLE 6.1.2
PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD PARAMETERS
Probability of Exceedence
Peak Ground Acceleration
Boore-Atkinson,
2008 (g)
Campbell-Bozorgnia,
2008 (g)
Chiou-Youngs,
2007 (g)
2% in a 50 Year Period 0.47 0.34 0.39
5% in a 50 Year Period 0.35 0.25 1 0.28
10% in a 50 Year Period 0.27 0.19 1 0.21
While listing peak accelerations is useful for comparison of potential effects of fault activity in a
region, other considerations are important in seismic design, including the frequency and duration of
motion and the soil conditions underlying the site. Seismic design of the structures should be
evaluated in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) guidelines currently adopted by the
County of San Diego.
6.2 Liquefaction
Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is located in a zone with seismic activity, onsite soil is
cohesionless or silt/clay with low plasticity, groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface,
and soil relative densities are less than about 70 percent. If the four of the previous criteria are met, a
seismic event could result in a rapid pore-water pressure increase from the earthquake-generated
ground accelerations. Seismically induced settlement may occur whether the potential for liquefaction
exists or not. The potential for liquefaction and seismically induced settlement occurring within the
site soil is considered to be very low due to the dense nature of the compacted placed fill and the lack
of a permanent groundwater table within 50 feet of the ground surface.
6.3 Tsunamis and Seiches
A tsunami is a series of long period waves generated in the ocean by a sudden displacement of large
volumes of water. Causes of tsunamis include underwater earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or
offshore slope failures. The site is approximately 3.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean with finish grades
over 280 feet above MSL. Therefore, we consider the risk associated with tsunamis to be negligible.
Project No. G1928-52-01 -5- May 23, 2016
Seiches are standing wave oscillations of an enclosed water body after the original driving force has
dissipated. Driving forces are typically caused by seismic ground shaking. The potential of seiches to
occur is considered to be very low due to the absence of a nearby inland body of water.
6.4. Landslides
Based on the examination of aerial photographs and review of published geologic maps compiled by
Kennedy and Tan (2008), it is our opinion that landslides are not present at the property or at a
location that could impact the subject site. According to Leighton and Associates (2011), several
ancient landslides were encountered during the mass grading of the site, and the landslide deposits
were completely removed to competent formational material. Buttresses were also installed to
increase the factor of safety for slope stability to at least 1.5 in accordance with the City of Carlsbad.
Project No. G1928-52-01 - 6 - May 23, 2016
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 General
7.1.1 We did not encounter soil or geologic conditions during the site investigation that in our
opinion would preclude the development of the property as presently planned, provided the
recommendations of this report are followed.
7.1.2 Our field investigation indicates the site is underlain by previously placed compacted fill
and dense to very dense Santiago Formation (Ts) which underlies the previously placed fill
or exposed in some areas of the site. The previously placed fill and the Santiago Formation
are considered suitable for the support of additional compacted fill and structures.
7.1.3 We encountered minor seepage in Borings B-2 and B-3 at approximately 55 and 49.5 feet
below existing grade, respectively. We do not expect groundwater will be encountered
during the construction of the proposed development. However, seepage could be
encountered during drilling operations if deep foundations are planned and constructed.
7.1.4 The upper portions of the existing fill should be removed and replaced prior to the
construction of the planned improvements. In addition, building pads that expose
formational materials should be over-excavated below the planned grades and replaced as
properly compacted fill to help mitigate the potential for differential settlement.
7.1.5 With the exception of possible moderate to strong seismic shaking and hydroconsolidation,
no significant geologic hazards were observed or are known to exist on the site that would
adversely affect the proposed project.
7.1.6 Based on our review of the project plans, we opine the planned development can be
constructed in accordance with our recommendations provided herein. We do not expect
the planned development will destabilize or result in settlement of adjacent properties.
7.1.7 Surface settlement monuments and additional canyon subdrains will not be required on this
project.
7.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics
7.2.1 Observations and laboratory test results indicate that the prevailing soil conditions within
the upper approximately 3 feet of finish grade is considered to be "expansive" (expansion
index [El] of greater than 20) as defined by 2013 California Building Code (CBC)
Section 1803.5.3. Table 7.2.1 presents soil classifications based on the expansion index.
Project No. G1928-52-0I -7- May 23, 2016
Results of the El laboratory tests are presented in Appendix B and indicate that the soil
possesses "medium" to "high" expansion potentials (El of 51 to 130).
TABLE 7.2.1
EXPANSION CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX
Expansion Index (El) Expansion Classification 2010 CBC
Expansion Classification
0-20 Very Low Non-Expansive
21-50 Low
Expansive
Very High
51-90 Medium
91 -130 High
Greater Than 130
7.2.2 We performed laboratory tests on samples of the site materials to evaluate the percentage
of water-soluble sulfate content. Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate content
tests are presented in Appendix B and indicate that the on-site materials at the locations
tested possess "Moderate" (Si) to "Severe" (S2) sulfate exposure to concrete structures as
defined by 2013 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318-08 Sections 4.2 and 4.3. Table 7.2.2
presents a summary of concrete requirements set forth by 2013 CBC Section 1904 and
ACT 318. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic;
therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations.
Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil
nutrients) may affect the concentration.
TABLE 7.2.2
REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO
SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS
Water-Soluble Maximum Minimum Sulfate Exposure Sulfate Cement Water to
Exposure Class Percent Type Cement Ratio Compressive
by Weight by Weight Strength (psi)
Not Applicable SO 0.00-0.10 -- -- 2,500
Moderate Si 0.10-0.20 II 0.50 4,000
Severe S2 0.20-2.00 V 0.45 4,500
Very Severe S3 > 2.00 V+Pozzolan 0.45 4,500 or Slag
Project No. G1928-52-01 - 8 - May 23, 2016
7.2.3 We tested samples for potential of hydrogen (pH) and resistivity laboratory tests to aid in
evaluating the corrosion potential to subsurface metal structures. The laboratory test results
are presented in Appendix B.
7.2.4 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore,
further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be performed if improvements that could be
susceptible to corrosion are planned.
7.3 Seismic Design Criteria
7.3.1 We used the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the USGS to
evaluate the seismic design criteria. Table 7.3.1 summarizes site-specific design criteria
obtained from the 2013 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2012 International
Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-10), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613
Earthquake Loads. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. The building
structures and improvements should be designed using a Site Class D. We evaluated the
Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2013 CBC and Table 20.3-1
of ASCE 7-10. The values presented in Table 7.3.1 are for the risk-targeted maximum
considered earthquake (NICER).
TABLE 7.3.1
2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value 2013 CBC Reference
Site Class D Table 1613.5.2
Fill Thickness, T (feet) T>20 --
Spectral Response - Class B (short), Ss 1.054 g Figure 1613.3.1(1)
Spectral Response - Class B (1 sec), Si 0.408 g Figure 1613.3.1(2)
Site Coefficient, Fa 1.078 Table 1613.3.3(1)
Site Coefficient, Fv 1.592 Table 1613.3.3(2)
Maximum Considered Earthquake 1.137 g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-37) Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SMS
Maximum Considered Earthquake 0.650 g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-38) Spectral Response Acceleration (I sec), SMi
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 0.758 g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-39)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SDI 0.433 g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-40)
Project No. G1928-52-01 -9- May 23, 2016
7.3.2 Table 7.3.2 presents additional seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic
Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-10 for the mapped
maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG).
TABLE 7.3.2
2013 CBC SITE ACCELERATION DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value ASCE 7-10 Reference
Site Class D
Mapped MCEG Peak Ground 0.406 g Figure 22-7 Acceleration, PGA
Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.094 Table 11.8-1
Site Class Modified MCEG 0.444 g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1) Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM
7.3.3 Conformance to the criteria in Tables 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 for seismic design does not constitute
any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will
not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life,
not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
7.4 Grading
7.4.1 Grading should be performed as discussed herein and in accordance with the attached
Recommended Grading Specifications presented in Appendix C. Where the
recommendations of this section conflict with Appendix C, the recommendations of this
section take precedence.
7.4.2 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with
the owner or developer, city inspector, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical
engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at
that time.
7.4. 31 Site preparation should begin with removing existing improvements and deleterious
material and vegetation. The depth of removal should be such that material exposed in cut
areas or soil to be used as fill are relatively free of organic matter. Material generated
during stripping and/or site demolition of the existing utilities and associated structures
should be exported from the site and not used as fill unless approved by Geocon
Incorporated.
Project No. G1928-52-01 - 10- May 23, 2016
I
1 7.4.4 Existing underground improvements within the proposed building areas should be removed
during grading operations and the resulting excavations properly backfilled in accordance
I with the procedures described herein.
7.4.5 Earthwork should be observed and fill tested for proper compaction by Geocon I Incorporated.
1 7.4.6 The upper two feet of the existing fill should be removed, moisture conditioned as
necessary, and properly compacted prior to receiving additional fill or structures. We
I should evaluate in the field, if deeper removals are required due to the presence of dry, soft
or loose soil. This remedial grading should extend laterally at least 2 feet beyond the
perimeter of the pavement areas, where possible.
7.4.7 If the planned structures will be founded on a shallow foundation system, the formational
I materials encountered within the upper 5 feet of proposed finish grade should be undercut
and the resulting excavations should be backfilled with properly compacted fill. The
undercut can be limited to the upper 2 feet if the structures will be supported on a drilled
I pier system. The undercut should extend laterally at least 10 feet beyond the limits of the
structures. The undercut portion should slope towards the deeper fill areas.
7.4.8 Excavated, on-site soil generally free of deleterious debris can be placed as fill and
I
compacted in layers to the design finish grade elevations. Fill and backfill soil should be
- placed in horizontal loose layers approximately 6 to 8 inches thick, moisture conditioned as
necessary, and compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum
I dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM
D 1557. The upper 12 inches of soil beneath pavement areas should be compacted to a dry
I density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above
optimum moisture content shortly before paving operations.
I 7.4.9 Import fill, if necessary, should consist of granular materials with a "very low" to "low"
expansion potential (El less than 50) free of deleterious material or cobbles larger than
I 6 inches and should be compacted as recommended herein. Geocon Incorporated should be
notified of the import soil source and should perform laboratory testing of import soil prior
to its arrival at the site to evaluate its suitability as fill material.
7.4.10 Excavation of the existing materials should generally be possible with moderate to heavy
effort using conventional, heavy-duty equipment during grading and trenching operations.
Heavy effort should be expected with possible refusal in localized areas for excavations
into strongly cemented Santiago Formation (concretionary beds or lenses). Oversize
ProetNo. G1928-52-01 - 11 - May 23, 2016
material may be generated which would require special handling or exportation from the
site. Rock breaking equipment may be required where cemented material is encountered
during the construction operations.
7.4.11 Subsurface conditions observed may be extrapolated to reflect general soil and geologic
conditions; however, variations in subsurface conditions between exploratory borings
should be expected.
7.5 Settlement Due to Fill Loads
7.5.1 Fill soil, even though properly compacted, may experience significant settlement over the
lifetime of the improvements that it supports. The ultimate settlement potential of the fill is
a function of the soil classification, placement relative compaction, and subsequent
increases in the soil moisture content.
7.5.2 Due to the variable fill thickness, a potential for differential settlement across the proposed
buildings exists, and special foundation design criteria, as discussed hereinafter, will be
necessary. Based on measured settlement of similar fill depths on this and other sites and
the time period since the fill was placed, we estimate that maximum settlement of the
compacted fill will be approximately 0.25 percent of the fill thickness for the 2003/2004
compacted fills and 0.4 percent for the proposed compacted fills. Figure 5 presents the
approximate fill thickness and Figure 6 presents the estimated fill settlement in the areas of
the proposed buildings and improvements. The estimated fill settlement in Figure 6 does
not include the estimated settlement due to the foundation loads.
7.5.3 The proposed buildings will be underlain by a maximum thickness of compacted fill on the
order of 75 feet. The settlement of compacted fill is expected to continue over a relatively
extended time period resulting from both gravity loading and hydrocompression upon
wetting from rainfall and/or landscape irrigation.
7.5.4 Table 7.5 presents the estimated total and differential fill thickness and settlements of the
building pads using an estimated settlement of 0.25 percent for the 2003/2004 existing fill
soils and 0.4 percent for the proposed compacted fill. We assumed that cut portion of the
transition pads would be undercut at least 5 feet and replaced with properly compacted fill.
These settlement magnitudes should be considered in the design of the foundation system
and adjacent flatwork that connects to the buildings.
Project No. G1928-52-01 -12- May 23, 2016
TABLE 7.5
EXPECTED DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT OF FILL SOIL
Maximum Maximum Estimated Estimated Depth of Fill Fill Total Differential Estimated
Building No. Beneath Differential Settlement Settlement Angular
Structure (feet) (inches) (inches) Distortion
(feet)
12
(Western Portion) 52 33 1.8 1.2 1/1100
12 32
(CentralPortion)
25 1 0.8 1/2100
12 14
(EasternPortion)
11.5 0.5 0.4 1/3600
13 19 19 0.6 0.6 1/1600
14 51 51 1.5 1.5 1/900
15 46 45.5 1.4 1.4 1/420
16 61 39 2 1.2 1/1775
17 53 47 1.8 1.5 1/1250
P1 67 57 2 1.7 1/575
P2 42 42 1.3 1.3 1/840
P3 75 40 2.3 1.2 1/1300
Café 61 38 2.1 1.3 1/1000
7.5.5 Highly reinforced shallow foundation systems and slabs-on-grade may be used for support
of the buildings; however, the shallow foundation systems would not eliminate the
potential for cosmetic distress related to differential settlement of the underlying fill. Some
cosmetic distress should be expected over the life of the structure as a result of long-term
differential settlement. The building owner, tenants, and future owners should be made
aware that cosmetic distress, including separation of caulking at wall joints, small, non-
structural wall panel cracks, and separation of concrete flatwork, is likely to occur.
Recommendations for deep foundations can be provided to evaluate the comparative risks
and costs upon request.
7.6 Temporary Excavations, Shoring, and Tiebacks
7.6.1 The recommendations included herein are provided for stable excavations. It is the
responsibility of the contractor to provide a safe excavation during the construction of the
proposed project.
7.6.2 Temporary excavations should be made in conformance with OSHA requirements. The
previously placed fill should be considered a Type B soil and the Santiago Formation
Project No. G1928-52-01 -13- May 23, 2016
should be considered a Type A soil (Type B soil if seepage or groundwater is encountered)
in accordance with OSHA requirements. In general, special shoring requirements may not
be necessary if temporary excavations will be less than 4 feet in height. Temporary
excavations greater than 4 feet in height, however, should be sloped back at an appropriate
inclination. These excavations should not be allowed to become saturated or to dry out.
Surcharge loads should not be permitted to a distance equal to the height of the excavation
from the top of the excavation. The top of the excavation should be a minimum of 15 feet
from the edge of existing improvements. Excavations steeper than those recommended or
closer than 15 feet from an existing surface improvement should be shored in accordance
with applicable OSHA codes and regulations.
7.6.3 The design of temporary shoring is governed by soil and groundwater conditions, and by
the depth and width of the excavated area. Continuous support of the excavation face can
be provided by a system of soldier piles/wood lagging or sheet piles. Excavations
exceeding 15 feet may require soil nails, tieback anchors, or internal bracing to provide
additional wall restraint.
7.6A Excavations may be supported by soldier pile/lagging and temporary tieback anchors. The
design of temporary shoring is governed by soil and groundwater conditions and by the
depth and width of the excavated area. Excavations exceeding 15 feet may require soil
nails, tieback anchors, or internal bracing to provide additional wall restraint.
7.6.5 In general, ground conditions are moderately suited for soldier pile and tieback anchor wall
construction techniques. However, cemented material may be encountered in the Santiago
Formation that would cause difficult drilling operations. Additionally, if loose or
cohesionless sands are encountered, some raveling and instability may result along the
unsupported portions of excavations.
7.6.6 Temporary shoring with a level backfill should be designed using a lateral pressure
envelope acting on the back of the shoring and applying a pressure equal to 25H, 16H, and
20H, for a triangular, rectangular, or trapezoidal distribution, respectively, where H is the
height of the shoring in feet (resulting pressure in pounds per square foot) as shown in
Figure 7. These pressures assume a shoring height of up to about 25 feet and we should be
contacted if deeper excavations are planned. Triangular distribution should be used for
cantilevered shoring and, the trapezoidal and rectangular distribution should be used for
multi-braced systems such as tieback anchors and rakers. The project shoring engineer
should determine the applicable soil distribution for the design of the temporary shoring
system. Additional lateral earth pressure due to the surcharging effects from construction
ProjctNo. G1928-52-01 -14- May 23, 2016
equipment, sloping backfill, planned stockpiles, adjacent structures and/or traffic loads
should be considered, where appropriate, during design of the shoring system.
7.6.7 Passive soil pressure resistance for embedded portions of soldier piles can be based upon
an equivalent passive soil fluid weight of 350D + 500 where D is the depth of embedment,
in feet (resulting in pounds per square foot), as shown on Figure 8. The passive resistance
can be assumed to act over a width of three pile diameters. Typically, soldier piles are
embedded a minimum of 0.5 times the maximum height of the excavation (this depth is to
include footing excavations) if tieback anchors are not employed. The project structural
engineer should determine the actual embedment depth.
7.6.8 Drilled shafts for the soldier piles should be observed by Geocon Incorporated prior to the
placement of steel reinforcement to check that the exposed soil conditions are similar to
those expected and that footing excavations have been extended to the appropriate bearing
strata, and design depths. If unexpected soil conditions are encountered, foundation
modifications may be required
7.6.9 Lateral movement of shoring is associated with vertical ground settlement outside of the
excavation. Therefore, it is essential that the soldier pile and tieback system allow very
limited amounts of lateral displacement. Earth pressures acting on a lagging wall can cause
movement of the shoring toward the excavation and result in ground subsidence outside of
the excavation. Consequently, horizontal movements of the shoring wall should be
accurately monitored and recorded during excavation and anchor construction.
7.6.10 Survey points should be established at the top of the pile on at least 20 percent of the
soldier piles. An additional point located at an intermediate point between the top of the
pile and the base of the excavation should be monitored on at least 20 percent of the piles if
tieback anchors will be used. These points should be monitored on a weekly basis during
excavation work and on a monthly basis thereafter until the permanent support system is
constructed.
7.6.11 The project civil engineer should provide the approximate location, depth, and pipe type of
the underground utilities adjacent to the site to the shoring engineer to help select the
appropriate shoring type and design. The shoring system should be designed to limit
horizontal and vertical soldier pile movement to a maximum of 1 inch and 1/2 inch,
respectively. The amount of horizontal deflection can be assumed to be essentially zero
along the Active Zone and Effective Zone boundary. The magnitude of movement for
intermediate depths and distances from the shoring wall can be linearly interpolated.
Project No. G1928-52-01 -15- May 23, 2016
7.6.12 Tieback anchors employed in shoring should be designed such that anchors fully penetrate
the Active Zone behind the shoring. The Active Zone can be considered the wedge of soil
from the face of the shoring to a plane extending upward from the base of the excavation at
a 29-degree angle from vertical, as shown on Figure 9. Normally, tieback anchors are
contractor-designed and installed, and there are numerous anchor construction methods
available. Relatively non-shrinkage grout should be used for the construction of the tieback
anchors.
7.6.13 Experience has shown that the use of pressure grouting during formation of the
bonded portion of the anchor will increase the soil-grout bond stress. A pressure
grouting tube should be installed during the construction of the tieback. Post grouting
should be performed if adequate capacity cannot be obtained by other construction
methods.
7.6.14 Anchor capacity is a function of construction method, depth of anchor, batter, diameter of
the bonded section, and the length of the bonded section. Anchor capacity should be
evaluated using the strength parameters shown in Table 7.6.
TABLE 7.6
SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR TEMPORARY SHORING
Description Cohesion (psi) Friction Angle (degrees)
Compacted Fill (Qct) or 400 29 Previously _Placed _Fill _(Qpcf)
Santiago Formation (Ts) 500 1 34
7.6.15 Grout should only be placed in the tieback anchor's bonded section prior to testing or the
unbonded sections should be protected such that the planned loads are distributed only in
the effective zone. Tieback anchors should be proof-tested to at least 130 percent of the
anchor's design working load. Following a successful proof test, the tieback anchors should
be locked off at 80 to 100 percent of the allowable working load. Tieback anchor test
failure criteria should be established in project plans and specifications. The tieback anchor
test failure criteria should be based upon a maximum allowable displacement at
130 percent of the anchor's working load (anchor creep) and a maximum residual
displacement within the anchor following stressing. Tieback anchor stressing should only
be conducted after sufficient hydration has occurred within the grout. Tieback anchors that
fail to meet project specified test criteria should be replaced, post-grouted or additional
anchors should be constructed.
Project No. G1928-52-01 -16- May 23, 2016
7.6.16 Lagging for soldier pile walls should keep pace with excavation and tieback anchor
construction. The excavation should not be advanced deeper than three feet below the
bottom of lagging. These unlagged gaps of up to three feet should only be allowed to
stand for short periods of time in order to decrease the probability of soil instability and
should never be unsupported overnight. Backfihling should be conducted when necessary
between the back of lagging and excavation sidewalls to reduce sloughing in this zone
and all voids should be filled by the end of each day. Further, the excavation should not
be advanced further than four feet below a row of tiebacks prior to those tiebacks being
proof tested and locked off.
7.6.17 If tieback anchors are employed, an accurate survey of existing utilities and other
underground structures adjacent to the shoring wall should be conducted. The survey
should include both locations and depths of existing utilities. Locations of anchors should
be adjusted as necessary during the design and construction process to accommodate the
existing and proposed utilities.
7.6.18 If a raker system is employed, the rakers should not be inclined steeper than 1:1
(horizontal:vertical) to provide an excavation to the raker foundation system with an
inclination less than 1:1. A shallow or deep foundation system can be used for the raker
system. We should be contacted to provide recommendations for a raker system, if
planned.
7.7 Soil Nail Wall
7.7.1 As an alternative to temporary shoring, a soil nail wall can be used. Soil nail walls consist
of installing closely spaced steel bars (nails) into a slope or excavation in a top-down
construction sequence. Following installation of a horizontal row of nails drains,
waterproofing, and wall reinforcing steel are placed and shotcrete applied to create a final
wall.
7.7.2 The soil nail wall should be designed by an engineer familiar with the design of soil nail
walls.
7.7.3 In general, ground conditions are moderately suited for soil nail construction techniques.
However, gravel and cobble could be encountered within the existing materials that could
be difficult to drill. In addition, loose soil or relatively clean sand may be encountered
within the materials that may result in some raveling or instability of the unsupported
excavation.
Project No. G1928-52-01 -17- May 23, 2016
7.7.4 A wall drain system should be incorporated into the design of the soil nail wall. Corrosion
protection should be provided for the nails if the wall will be a permanent structure.
7.7.5 Testing of the soil nails should be performed in accordance with the guidelines of the
Federal Highway Administration or similar guidelines. At least two verification tests
should be performed to confirm design assumptions for each soil/rock type encountered.
Verification tests nails should be sacrificial and should not be used to support the proposed
wall. The bond length should be adjusted to allow for pullout testing of the verification
nails to evaluate the ultimate bond stress. A minimum of 5 percent of the production nails
should also be proof tested. Geocon Incorporated should perform observation of soil nail
installation and soil nail testing during the construction operations.
7.7.6 In addition to verification and proof testing, at least two pullout tests should be performed
at the discretion of the soil engineer to check the geotechnical design parameters. During
testing, the nail should be loaded incrementally until failure of the soil-grout bond or until
the stress imposed on the nail reaches 80 percent of the bar yield strength. The bonded
length should be confirmed prior to testing.
7.7.7 Table 7.7 presents the soil strength parameters to incorporate in the design of the soil nail
walls.
TABLE 7.7
SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR SOIL NAIL WALLS
Description Cohesion Friction Angle
Compacted Fill (Qcf) or 400 29 Previously _Placed _Fill _(Qpcf)
Santiago Formation (Is) 500 34
7.8 Conventional Shallow Foundations
7.8.1 The following foundation recommendations herein are based on the assumption that the
prevailing soils within 4 feet of finish grade will possess a "very low" to "high" expansion
potential (expansion index [El] of 130 or less) and that buildings will be placed on
compacted fill and Santiago Formation.
7.8.2 The proposed buildings can be supported on a shallow foundation system founded in the
compacted fill. Foundations for the structure may consist of continuous strip footings
and/or isolated spread footings. Continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide and
extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Isolated spread footings should
Project No. G1928-52-01 - 18- May 23, 2016
have a minimum width of 2 feet and should also extend at least 24 inches below lowest
adjacent pad grade. Figure 10 presents a wall/column footing dimension detail depicting
the depth to lowest adjacent grade.
7.8.3 Continuous footings should be reinforced with four No. 5 steel reinforcing bars placed
horizontally in the footings, two near the top and two near the bottom. Steel reinforcement
for the spread footings should be designed by the project structural engineer. In addition,
footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at
least 7 feet horizontally from the face of slopes.
7.8.4 The recommended allowable bearing capacity for foundations with minimum dimensions
described herein is 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) and 4,000 psf for foundations
bearing in compacted fill and formational materials, respectively. The allowable soil
bearing pressure may be increased by an additional 500 psf for each additional foot of
depth and width, to a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 psf and 6,000 psf for
foundations bearing in compacted fill and formational materials, respectively. The values
presented herein are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third when
considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.
7.8.5 We estimate the total settlements due to footing loads in compacted fill to be about 1/2 inch
and 1 inch based on a 5-foot-square footing and a 10-foot-square footing, respectively. We
estimate the total settlements due to footing loads in formational materials to be about
1/2 inch and 1 inch based on a 4-foot-square footing and an 8-foot-square footing,
respectively. Differential settlements based on the foundations loads should be 1/2 inch in
40 feet. In addition, the buildings should be designed for the potential settlement due to fill
loading as shown on Figure 6, Estimated Settlements Map.
7.8.6 Isolated footings, if present, should have the minimum embedment depth and width
recommended for conventional foundations. The use of isolated footings, which are located
beyond the perimeter of the building and support structural elements connected to the
building, are not recommended. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated
footings should be connected to the building foundation system with grade beams.
7.8.7 Consideration should be given to using interior stiffening beams and connecting isolated
footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In addition, consideration should be given to
connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in width, to the building foundation to reduce
the potential for future separation to occur.
Project No. G1928-52-01 _19- May 23, 2016
7.8.8 Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer (a representative
of Geocon Incorporated) prior to the placement of reinforcing steel to check that the
exposed soil conditions are similar to those expected and that they have been extended to
the appropriate bearing strata. If unexpected soil conditions are encountered, foundation
modifications may be required.
7.8.9 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisturized to maintain a moist
condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
7.8.10 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1
(horizontal: vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended
due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.
For fill slopes less than 20 feet high, building footings should be deepened such
that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the
face of the slope.
When located next to a descending 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) fill slope or steeper, the
foundations should be extended to a depth where the minimum horizontal distance
is equal to W3 (where H equals the vertical distance from the top of the fill slope
to the base of the fill soil) with a minimum of 7 feet but need not exceed 40 feet.
The horizontal distance is measured from the outer, deepest edge of the footing to
the face of the slope. An acceptable alternative to deepening the footings would be
the use of a post-tensioned slab and foundation system or increased footing and
slab reinforcement. Specific design parameters or recommendations for either of
these alternatives can be provided once the building location and fill slope
geometry have been determined.
Although other improvements, which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete
flatwork or masonry walls, may experience some distress if located near the top of
a slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible,
however, to incorporate design measures that would permit some lateral soil
movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted for specific recommendations.
7.8.11 The foundation and concrete slab-on-grade recommendations are based on soil support
characteristics only. The project structural engineer should evaluate the structural
requirements of the concrete slabs for supporting expected loads.
7.8. 121 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as
required by the structural engineer.
ProjecNo. @1928-52-01 -20- May 23, 2016
I
7.8.13 Foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative
of Geocon Incorporated) prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to observe
I that the exposed soil conditions are consistent with those expected and have been extended
to appropriate bearing strata. If expected soil conditions are encountered, foundation
modifications may be required.
7.9 Drilled Pier Recommendations
I 7.9.1 Drilled be load formational piers can used to transfer to the materials and reduce
differential settlement within a building.
I
7.9.2 Piers can be designed to develop support by end bearing within the formational materials
I and skin friction within the formational materials and portions of the fill soil. Calculated
allowable end bearing axial pile capacities for 2-foot, 2.5-foot, 3-foot, and 4-foot diameter
drilled piers based on depth of embedment into the Santiago Formation are presented on
I Figure 11. An allowable skin friction resistance of 500 psf can be used for the portion of
the drilled pier embedded in the fill and Santiago Formation. These allowable values
I possess a factor of safety of at least 2 and 2.5 for skin friction and end bearing,
respectively. We estimate the settlement of the drilled piers will be approximately '/2 inch.
I 7.9.3 The diameter of the piers should be a minimum of 2 feet. The design length of the drilled
piers should be determined by the designer based on the elevation of the pile cap or grade
I beam, the required capacity obtained from Figure 11, the Geologic Map, and Geologic
Cross-Sections presented herein. It is difficult to evaluate the exact length of the proposed
I drilled piers due to the variable thickness of the existing fill; therefore, some variation
should be expected during drilling operations.
1
7.9.4 The piers should be embedded into the formational materials at least 5 feet and at a
sufficient depth to develop the required capacity. The drilled piers should be constructed
I with a minimum length of 10 feet. Piers should be spaced at least three-pile diameters,
center-to-center. If they are spaced closer than this, the efficiency of the group will be less
than 100 percent.
I
7.9.5 Because a significant portion of the pier capacity will be developed by end bearing, the
I bottom of the borehole should be cleaned of all loose cuttings prior to the placement of
steel and concrete. Experience indicates that backspinning the auger does not remove loose
material and a flat cleanout plate or hand cleaning is necessary. Concrete should be placed
I within the pier excavation as soon as possible after the auger/cleanout plate is withdrawn to
reduce the potential for discontinuities or caving. Pier sidewall instability may randomly
occur if loose or cohesionless soil is encountered. We expect localized seepage may be
I Projec: No. G1928-52-01 - -21- May 23,2016
encountered during the drilling operations and casing may be required to maintain the
integrity of the pier excavation, particularly if seepage or sidewall instability is
encountered. The fill and the formational materials contain gravel, cobble and some
boulders. The formational materials may possess very dense and cemented zones, and
difficult drilling conditions during excavations for the piers should be anticipated. The
drilled piers should be designed to avoid the existing canyon subdrain, if possible, and
sewer utilities located beneath the planned structures.
7.9.6 In general, ground conditions are moderately suited for drilled pier construction techniques.
However, gravel, cobble, and oversized material may be encountered in the formational
materials that could be difficult to drill. Additionally, if cohesionless sands are
encountered, some raveling may result along the unsupported portions of excavations.
Seepage, if encountered during the drilling operations, may cause caving.
7.10 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade
7.10.1 The following foundation recommendations herein are based on the assumption that the
prevailing soils within 4 feet of finish grade will possess a "very low" to "high" expansion
potential (expansion index [El] of 130 or less) and that buildings will be placed on
compacted fill and Santiago Formation.
7.10.2 Concrete floor slabs should possess a thickness of at least 5 inches and reinforced with No.
4 steel reinforcing bars at 18 inches on center in both horizontal directions. The concrete
slab-on-grade recommendations are based on soil support characteristics only. The project
structural engineer should evaluate the structural requirements of the concrete slab for
supporting equipment and storage loads. A thicker concrete slab may be required for
heavier loading conditions. To reduce the effects of differential settlement of the
foundation system, thickened slabs and/or an increase in steel reinforcement can provide a
benefit to reduce concrete cracking.
7.10.3 Slabs that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture-
sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder. The vapor retarder design should
be consistent with the guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute's (ACI) Guide
for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06). In
addition, the membrane should be installed in accordance with manufacturer's
recommendations and ASTM requirements and installed in a manner that prevents puncture.
The vapor retarder used should be specified by the project architect or developer based on the
type of floor covering that will be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity
controlled environment.
Project No. G1928-52-01 -22- May 23, 2016
7.10.4 The bedding sand thickness should be determined by the project foundation engineer,
architect, and/or developer. It is common to have 3 to 4 inches of sand for in the southern
California region. However, we should be contacted to provide recommendations if the
bedding sand is thicker than 6 inches. The foundation design engineer should provide
appropriate concrete mix design criteria and curing measures to assure proper curing of the
slab by reducing the potential for rapid moisture loss and subsequent cracking and/or slab
curl. We suggest that the foundation design engineer present the concrete mix design and
proper curing methods on the foundation plans. It is critical that the foundation contractor
understands and follows the recommendations presented on the foundation plans.
7.10.5 Concrete slabs should be provided with adequate construction joints and/or expansion
joints to control unsightly shrinkage cracking. The design of joints should consider criteria
of the American Concrete Institute when establishing crack-control spacing. Additional
steel reinforcing, concrete admixtures and/or closer crack control joint spacing should be
considered where concrete-exposed concrete finished floors are planned.
7.10.6 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of existing soil or soil with
varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations
presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions
may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of
concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their
occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper
concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic
intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.
7.11 Mat Foundation Recommendations
7.11 .1 A reinforced concrete mat slab foundation may be used to help mitigate settlements of the
underlying soil. A mat foundation consists of a thick rigid concrete mat that allows the
entire footprint of the structure to carry building loads. In addition, the mat can tolerate
significantly greater differential movements such as those associated with very large loads.
7.11.2 The modulus of subgrade reaction for design of the mat can range from 125 to 175 pounds
per cubic inch (pci) for the Santiago Formation. The modulus of subgrade reaction can
range from 75 to 125 pci for the compacted fill. These values should be modified using
standard equation for foundation geometry, as determined by the structural engineer.
7.11.3 We expect the mat foundation would have total and differential settlements are estimated to
be 1 inch based on a mat foundation pressure of 1,000 psf under static foundation loads.
Project No. G1928-52-01 -23 - -- May 23, 2016
7.12 Concrete Flatwork
7.12.1 Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be constructed in
accordance with the recommendations herein. Slab panels should be a minimum of
4 inches thick and, when in excess of 8 feet square, should be reinforced with 4 x 4 -
W4.0/W4.0 (4 x 4 - 4/4) welded wire mesh or No. 4 reinforcing bars spaced at least
18 inches center-to-center in both directions to reduce the potential for cracking. In
addition, concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or
control shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the project
structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the
American Concrete Institute (ACT) should be taken into consideration when establishing
crack control spacing. Subgrade soil for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should
be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the grading section prior to concrete
placement. Subgrade soil should be properly compacted and the moisture content of
subgrade soil should be checked prior to placing concrete.
7.12.2 Even with the incorporation of the recommendations within this report, the exterior
concrete flatwork has a likelihood of experiencing some uplift due to expansive soil
beneath grade; therefore, the steel reinforcement should overlap continuously in flatwork to
reduce the potential for vertical offsets within flatwork. Additionally, flatwork should be
structurally connected to the curbs, where possible, to reduce the potential for offsets
between the curbs and the flatwork.
7.12.3 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit points, the exterior slab should
be dowelled into the structure's foundation stemwall. This recommendation is intended to
reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from differential settlement
or minor heave of the flatwork. Dowelling details should be designed by the project
structural engineer.
7.12.4 The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs and foundations as a result of differential movement. However, even with the
incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations and slabs-on-grade
will still crack. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the soil
supporting characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting
the slump of the concrete, the use of crack control joints and proper concrete placement
and curing. Literature provided by the Portland Concrete Association (PCA) and American
Concrete Institute (ACT) present recommendations for proper concrete mix, construction,
and curing practices, and should be incorporated into project construction.
Project No. G1928-52-01 -24- May 23, 2016
7.13 Retaining Walls
7.13.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of
40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at 2:1
(horizontal:vertical), we recommend an active soil pressure of 55 pcf. Soil with an
expansion index (El) of greater than 90 should not be used as backfill material behind
retaining walls.
7.13.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.00111 (where H equals
the height of the retaining portion of the wall) at the top of the wall. Where walls are
restrained from movement at the top (at-rest condition), an additional uniform pressure of
7H psf should be added to the active soil pressure for walls 8 feet or less. For walls greater
than 8 feet tall, an additional uniform pressure of 13H psf should be applied to the wall
starting at 8 feet from the base of the wall. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads
within a horizontal distance equal to two-thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to
2 feet of fill soil should be added.
7.13.3 Drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) should not be used where the
seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base
of the wall. The recommendations herein assume a properly compacted granular (El of 50
or less) free-draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge
load. Figure 12 presents a typical retaining wall drainage detail. If conditions different than
those described are expected, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon
Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations.
7.13.4 The structural engineer should determine the seismic design category for the project in
accordance with Section 1613 of the CBC. If the project possesses a seismic design
category of D, E, or F, retaining walls that support more than 6 feet of backfill should be
designed with seismic lateral pressure in accordance with Section 18.3.5.12 of the 2013
CBC. The seismic load is dependent on the retained height where H is the height of the
wall, in feet, and the calculated loads result in pounds per square foot (psf) exerted at the
base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall. A seismic load of 21 H should be used for
design. We used the peak ground acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM,
of 0.44g calculated from ASCE 7-10 Section 11.8.3 and applied a pseudo-static coefficient
of 0.3.
7.13.5 The retaining walls may be designed using either the active and restrained (at-rest) loading
condition or the active and seismic loading condition as suggested by the structural
engineer. Typically, it appears the design of the restrained condition for retaining wall
Project No. G1928-52-01 -25 - May 23, 2016
loading may be adequate for the seismic design of the retaining walls. However, the active
earth pressure combined with the seismic design load should be reviewed and also
considered in the design of the retaining walls.
7.13.6 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of 1 foot may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. The proximity of the foundation to the
top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore,
retaining wall foundations should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the
footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope.
7.13.7 The recommendations presented herein are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 20 feet. In the event that
walls higher than 20 feet or other types of walls (such as mechanically stabilized earth
[MSE] walls, soil nail walls, or soldier pile walls) are planned, Geocon Incorporated should
be consulted for additional recommendations.
7.13.8 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied. The amount
of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and
loads acting on the wall. The retaining walls and improvements above the retaining walls
should be designed to incorporate an appropriate amount of lateral deflection as determined
by the structural engineer.
7.13.9 Soil contemplated for use as retaining wall backfill, including import materials, should be
identified in the field prior to backfill. At that time, Geocon Incorporated should obtain
samples for laboratory testing to evaluate its suitability. Modified lateral earth pressures
may be necessary if the backfill soil does not meet the required expansion index or shear
strength. City or regional standard wall designs, if used, are based on a specific active
lateral earth pressure and/or soil friction angle. In this regard, on-site soil to be used as
backfill may or may not meet the values for standard wall designs. Geocon Incorporated
should be consulted to assess the suitability of the on-site soil for use as wall backfill if
standard wall designs will be used.
7.14 Lateral Loading
7.14.1 To resist lateral loads, a passive pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid density of
300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) should be used for the design of footings or shear keys.
The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet, or
three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper
12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be
included in design for passive resistance.
Pro- eft No. G1928-52-01 -26- May 23, 2016
7.14.2 If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, an allowable coefficient of friction between
soil and concrete of 0.35 should be used for design. The friction coefficient may be reduced
depending on the vapor barrier or waterproofing material used for construction in
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
7.14.3 The passive and frictional resistant loads can be combined for design purposes. The lateral
passive pressures may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to
wind or seismic forces.
7.15 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations
7.15.1 We calculated the flexible pavement sections in general conformance with the Ca/trans
Method of Flexible Pavement Design (Highway Design Manual, Section 608.4) using an
estimated Traffic Index (TI) of 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, and 7.0 for parking stalls, driveways, medium
truck traffic areas, and heavy truck traffic areas, respectively. The project civil engineer
and owner should review the pavement designations to determine appropriate locations for
pavement thickness. The final pavement sections for the parking lot should be based on the
R-Value of the subgrade soil encountered at final subgrade elevation. Based on our
laboratory test results, we have assumed an R-Value of 8 and 78 for the subgrade soil and
base materials, respectively, for the purposes of this preliminary analysis. Table 7.15.1
presents the preliminary flexible pavement sections.
TABLE 7.15.1
PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTION
Assumed Assumed Asphalt Class 2
Location Traffic Subgrade Concrete Aggregate
Index R-Value (inches) Base (inches)
Parking stalls for automobiles
and light-duty vehicles 5.0 8 4.0 7
Driveways for automobiles
and _light-duty _vehicles
5 8 4.0 9
Medium truck traffic areas 6.0 8 4.0 11
Driveways for heavy truck traffic 7.0 8 4.0 15
7.15.2 Prior to placing base materials, the upper 12 inches of the subgrade soil should be scarified,
moisture conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent
of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content as
determined by ASTM D 1557. Similarly, the base material should be compacted to a dry
density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above
Projec:No. G1928-52-01 -27- May 23, 2016
optimum moisture content. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a density of at least 95
percent of the laboratory Hveem density in accordance with ASTM D 2726.
7.15.3 Base materials should conform to Section 26-1.028 of the Standard Specifications for The
State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) with a 3/4-inch maximum size
aggregate. The asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook).
7.15.4 The base thickness can be reduced if a reinforcement geogrid is used during the installation
of the pavement. Geocon should be contact for additional recommendations, if required.
7.15.5 A rigid Portland Cement concrete (PCC) pavement section should be placed in driveway
entrance aprons, trash bin loading/storage areas and loading dock areas. The concrete pad
for trash truck areas should be large enough such that the truck wheels will be positioned
on the concrete during loading. We calculated the rigid pavement section in general
conformance with the procedure recommended by the American Concrete Institute report
AC! 330R-08 Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots using the
parameters presented in Table 7.15.2.
TABLE 7.15.2
RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameter Design Value
Modulus of subgrade reaction, k 50 pci
Modulus of rupture for concrete, MR 500 psi
Traffic Category, TC A and C
Average daily truck traffic, ADTT 10 and 100
7.15.6 Based on the criteria presented herein, the PCC pavement sections should have a minimum
thickness as presented in Table 7.15.3.
TABLE 7.15.3
RIGID PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Location Portland Cement Concrete (inches)
Automobile Parking Areas (TC=A) 6.0
Heavy Truck and Fire Lane Areas (TC=C) 7.5
Project No. G1928-52-01 -28- May 23, 2016
7.15.7 The PCC pavement should be placed over subgrade soil that is compacted to a dry density
of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above
optimum moisture content. This pavement section is based on a minimum concrete
compressive strength of approximately 3,000 psi (pounds per square inch).
7.15.8 A thickened edge or integral curb should be constructed on the outside of concrete slabs
subjected to wheel loads. The thickened edge should be 1.2 times the slab thickness or a
minimum thickness of 2 inches, whichever results in a thicker edge, and taper back to the
recommended slab thickness 4 feet behind the face of the slab (e.g., a 7.5-inch-thick slab
would have a 9.5-inch-thick edge). Reinforcing steel will not be necessary within the
concrete for geotechnical purposes with the possible exception of dowels at construction
joints as discussed herein.
7.15.9 To control the location and spread of concrete shrinkage cracks, crack-control joints
(weakened plane joints) should be included in the design of the concrete pavement slab.
Crack-control joints should not exceed 30 times the slab thickness with a maximum
spacing of 15 feet for slabs 6 inches and thicker and should be sealed with an appropriate
sealant to prevent the migration of water through the control joint to the subgrade
materials. The depth of the crack-control joints should be determined by the referenced
AC! report. The depth of the crack-control joints should be at least ¼ of the slab thickness
when using a conventional saw, or at least 1 inch when using early-entry saws on slabs
9 inches or less in thickness, as determined by the referenced AC! report discussed in the
pavement section herein. Cuts at least ¼ inch wide are required for sealed joints, and a
3/8-inch-wide cut is commonly recommended. A narrow joint width of 1/10 to /8 inch wide is
common for unsealed joints.
7.1510 To provide load transfer between adjacent pavement slab sections, a butt-type construction
joint should be constructed. The butt-type joint should be thickened by at least 20 percent
at the edge and taper back at least 4 feet from the face of the slab. As an alternative to the
butt-type construction joint, dowelling can be used between construction joints for
pavements of 7 inches or thicker. As discussed in the referenced ACI guide, dowels should
consist of smooth, 1-inch-diameter reinforcing steel 14 inches long embedded a minimum
of 6 inches into the slab on either side of the construction joint. Dowels should be located
at the midpoint of the slab, spaced at 12 inches on center and lubricated to allow joint
movement while still transferring loads. In addition, tie bars should be installed at the as
recommended in Section 3.8.3 of the referenced AC! guide. The structural engineer should
provide other alternative recommendations for load transfer.
Proje.tNo. G1928-52-01 -29 - May 23, 2016
7.15.11 Concrete curb/gutter should be placed on soil subgrade compacted to a dry density of at
least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum
moisture content. Cross-gutters should be placed on subgrade soil compacted to a dry
density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above
optimum moisture content. Base materials should not be placed below the curb/gutter,
cross-gutters, or sidewalk so water is not able to migrate from the adjacent parkways to the
pavement sections. Where flatwork is located directly adjacent to the curb/gutter, the
concrete flatwork should be structurally connected to the curbs to help reduce the potential
for offsets between the curbs and the flatwork.
7.16 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection
7.16.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement,
erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond
adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is
directed away from structures in accordance with 2013 CBC 1804.3 or other applicable
standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into
swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be
directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure.
7.16.2 In the case of basement walls or building walls retaining landscaping areas, a water-
proofing system should be used on the wall and joints, and a Miradrain drainage panel (or
similar) should be placed over the waterproofing. The project architect or civil engineer
should provide detailed specifications on the plans for all waterproofing and drainage.
7.16.3 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked
periodically for leaks for early detection of water infiltration and detected leaks should be
repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate
the soil for a prolonged period of time.
7.16.4 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for
surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. Area
drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures or impervious
above-grade planter boxes can be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent
to the pavement, construction of a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends
at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base material should be considered.
7.16.5 If detention basins, bioswales, retention basins, water infiltration, low impact development
(LID), or storm water management devices are being considered, Geocon Incorporated
should be notified to provide recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of
Project No. G1928-52-01 -30- May 23, 2016
possible impacts and design. Distress may be caused to planned improvements and
properties located hydrologically downstream. The distress depends on the amount of water
to be detained, its residence time, soil permeability, and other factors. Downstream
properties may be subjected to seeps, springs, slope instability, raised groundwater,
movement of foundations and slabs, or other impacts as a result of water infiltration. We
have not performed a hydrogeology study at the site; however, some of the' onsite materials
are not considered conducive to water infiltration devices due to the dense nature of the
compacted fill and the existing geologic conditions.
7.16.6 If not properly constructed, there is a potential for distress to improvements and properties
located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to these devices. Factors such as the
amount of water to be detained, its residence time, and soil permeability have an important
effect on seepage transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the
storm water management features are not properly designed and constructed. We have not
performed a hydrogeological study at the site. If infiltration of storm water runoff occurs,
downstream properties may be subjected to seeps, springs, slope instability, raised
groundwater, movement of foundations and slabs, or other undesirable impacts as a result
of water infiltration.
7.16.7 Underground utilities should not be placed across infiltration systems. Where this condition
cannot be avoided, the ingress and egress portions of utility trench crossing the infiltration
systems should be provided with cut-off walls to prevent water from entering the utility
trenches and impacting down gradient improvements.
7.16.8 The degree of soil compaction or in-situ density has a significant impact on soil
permeability. Based on our experience and other studies we performed, we have found that
an increase in compaction results in a decrease in soil permeability. We recommend that
additional permeability testing be performed throughout the limits of each infiltration
system to establish the soil hydraulic conductivity trend after completion of grading and
construction of site improvements.
7.16.9 The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation
Services, possesses general information regarding the existing soil conditions for areas
within the United States. The USDA website also provides the Hydrologic Soil Group.
Table 7.16.1 presents the descriptions of the hydrologic soil groups. If a soil is assigned to
a dual hydrologic group (AID, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the
second is for undrained areas.
Project No. G1928-52-01 -31 - May 23, 2016
TABLE 7.16.1
HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP DEFINITIONS
Soil Group Soil Group Definition
Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet.
A These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or
gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
B chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils
that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a
moderate rate of water transmission.
Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of
soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of
moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission.
Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly
wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils
D that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the
surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils
have a very slow rate of water transmission.
7.16.10 The property is covered with man-made fill and should be classified as Hydrologic Soil
Group D. Based on the USDA website, the soils underlying the fill are classified as
Hydrologic Soil Group D. Natural Resources Conservation Services possess general
information regarding the existing soil conditions for areas within the United States. In
addition, the USDA website also provides an estimated saturated hydraulic conductivity for
the existing soil. Table 7.16.2 presents the information from the USDA website.
TABLE 7.16.2
USDA WEB SOIL SURVEY - HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP
Map Unit Approximate Hydrologic kSAT of Most
Map Unit Name Symbol Percentage Soil Group Limiting Layer
of Property (inches/hour)
Altamont clay, AtC 28.5 D 0.06 to 0.20 5 to 9_ percent _slopes
Altamont clay, AtE 18.3 D 0.06 to 0.20
15 to 30_ percent _slopes
Altamont clay,
5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded AtE2 40.9 D 0.06 to 0.20
Gaviota fine sandy loam, AsE 9 to 30_ percent _slopes
1.8 D 1.98 to 5.95
Las fibres loamy fine sand,
2 to 9_ percent _slopes
LeC 10.4 D 0.0 to 0.06
Project No. G1928-52-01 -32- May 23, 2016
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
Recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the
assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If
any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the
proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be
notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification
of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of
services provided by Geocon Incorporated.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are
brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the
plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out
such recommendations in the field.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the
conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural
processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in
applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the
broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly
or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and
should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to
provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of
geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical
aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of
improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to
perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should
prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical
engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their
records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the
geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their
concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform
additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record.
Projec:No. G1928-52-01 May 23, 2016
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHICAL• ENVIRONMENTAL. MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
AS l RA 7 DSK/GTYPD
VIASAT
BRESSI RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 05-23-2016 I PROJECT NO. G1928 -52-01 1 FIG. I
. .. • : •1
. A . .
. . . . . . .
- ,4.,.•p
j '
U.
ow
lâYh *1 - •t.& 1Wf'J'
UL
ALM, .2'
ISO
. I
,J'4i ..• . I . -
. - - • All
All
04 r dt
p
77*
At Al g No
.lI
...&obe 't'! .• . .. .• .. 4 fill
(.. ...
•
. •*'.a.I,,.Iluim . .. -
-5-' .' . I. :r. . .
.. . S . '.•.. .i .. S.
S. . . •. • :. - • . . .
. .• .
:•... •...- . ;.. ..••
a . ..• -
.l. •
S. .
1.•• •• S. - a . - S S • #-. * C S • S Sf. I Its
Mir
5 - .. .• 5-. w .• -- ?it'*'.-. '-
j' 4.: •15. •. .•.. - • . C-16 Qole . •. ••• d r- .1•i ' .' — $... .5.- a..-'- - -' -' •
• •• •I 1 I I •S - •5 I- •. -.1 S
S I I • S• S ••i i
5-- :
Plotted:05/24/2016 7:38AM I By:ALVIN LADRILLONO I File Locaon:V:\PROJECTS\G1928-52.01 ViaSat\DETAILS\G1928.52.01 VlcinityMep.dwg
- -
-.. 0.2 H(ft.)
SOLDIER PILE OR
0---
\ WALL SYSTEM
- N
H(FT)
\ç.._-25 H psf —16 H psf ,..- -20 H psf
OR
\\ OR
EXCAVATION -
BOTTOM\
(A) (B) (C)
- (A)......TRIANGULAR DISTRIBUTION
- (B)......RECTANGULAR DISTRIBUTION
- (C)......TRAPEZOIDAL DISTRIBUTION
NO SCALE
LATERAL ACTIVE PRESSURES FOR TEMPORARY SHORING
GEOCON (701) INCORPORATED
GEOTECF-NICAL• ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
AS I RA DSKIGTYPD
VIASAT
BRESSI RANCH.
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I DATE 05-23 - 2016 I PROJECT NO. G1928 -52 - 01 I FIG. 7 I
Plotted:05/2412016 7:39AM I By:ALVIN LADRILLONO I File Location:'r:\PROJECTS\G1928-52-01 ViaSat\DETAILS\Lateral Active Pressures For Vertical Excavations (LAPFVE1O).dwg
-
H (ft)
EXCAVATION BOTTOM
500 psi
N
/ I
D(ft) 350DPsf/
:
I /
I /
I /
500+350D psi - GROUTED SOLDIER PILE
NO SCALE
SOLDIER PILE PASSIVE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
GEOCON
INCORPORATED 401)
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
AS / RA DSK/GTYPD
VIASAT
BRESSI RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 05 - 23 -2016 1 PROJECT NO. G1928 - 52-01 1 FIG. 8
Plotted:05124/2016 7:37AM I By:ALVIN LADRILLONO I File Locatlon:Y:\PROJECTS\G1928-52-01 ViaSetDETAlLS\Grouted Soldier Pile Passive Pressure (RGSPPD6).dwg
ESTIMATED 10 MAXIMUM
HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT
\\\\
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
/ HESTIMATED 1/2' MAXIMUM
VERTICAL MOVEMENT /
/
/
ACTIVE /
ZONE /
SOLDIER •''-. / TIEBACK PILE ANCHOR
/ 29° /
EFFECTIVE
ZONE
NOTE: NO ESTIMATED MOVEMENT AT EFFECTIVE ZONE
NO SCALE
I RECOMMENDED EFFECTIVE ZONE FOR TIEBACK ANCHORS I
GEOCON
(40P)INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
AS / RA DSK/GTYPD
VIASAT
BRESSI RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I DATE 05-23-2016 I PROJECT NO. G1928 - 52- 01 I FIG. 9 I
P1 d:05/24/2016 7:38AM I By:ALVIN LADRILLONO I File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G1928-52-01 ViaSat\DETAILS\Effective Zone For Tieback Anchors (REZTA6).dwg
CONCRETE SLAB
4 44 .4 -d... ... .. ..,'
PADGRADE
SAND AND VAPOR _J 4.:
RETARDER IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ACI ..,
..
... .< .I- " I.— (L
00
LL
I •
FOOTING
WIDTH
1'! . -4
..
:.4....... : . . ... . J..
SAND AND VAPOR !
. [ 4RETARDERIN lid
ACCORDANCE WITH ACI .1 .. O3
.4 4 44
• 4444
4 44 .4
4 ••'_ 4.-.
1
FOOTING WIDTH*
.. ..SEE REPORT FOR FOUNDATION WIDTH AND DEPTH RECOMMENDATION NO SCALE
I WALL / COLUMN FOOTING DIMENSION DETAIL I
GEOCON 0 INCORPORATED
GEOTECH\IICAL• ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
AS 1 DSK/GTYPD
VIASAT
BRESSI RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 05-23-2016 I PROJECT NO. G1928 -52-01 I FIG. 10
Piotted:05124/2016 7:36AM I By:ALVIN LADRILLONO I File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G1928-52-01 ViaSat\DETAILMall-Coiumn Footing Dimension Detail (COLFOOT2).dwg
Allowable End Bearing Capacity, Kips
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
2-Foot Dia.
10 - ---2.5-FootDia.
—è— 3-Foot Dia.
--0-4-Foot Dia.
20
30_______
cc
40
.c a. CL cu
C Cu E
W 50
uj
30
70
GEOCON S) INCORPORATED
GEOTEcHNICAL CONSULTANTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
KJ/KJ I
ALLOWABLE END BEARING - DRILLED PIERS
VIASAT - BRESSI RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 5-23-2016 PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01 IFIG. 11
CONCRETE
BROWDITCH GROUND SURFACE
PROPOSED - /
RETAINING WALL
PROPERLY
COMPACTED / • BACKFILL / "—..TEMPORARV BACKCUT
WATER PROOFING . . A
/ PER OSHA PER ARCHITECT
:
\
2/3 H
-
MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC I (OR EQUIVALENT)
:4• OPEN GRADED
GROUND SURFACE - : (""\.... I 1" MAX. AGGREGATE
4 DIA. PERFORATED SCHEDULE
40 PVC PIPE EXTENDED TO
APPROVED OUTLET
12"
CONCRETE i—GROUND SURFACE
BROWDITCH
RETAINING
WALL J
WATER PROOFING
- -"PER ARCHITECT
DRAINAGE PANEL
(MIRADRAIN 6000
OR EQUIVALENT)
2/3 H
3/4" CRUSHED ROCK
LFOOTINtG
(1 CU.FTJFT.)
FILTER FABRIC PROPOSED .r" / ENVELOPE GRADE MIRAFI 140N OR
EQUIVALENT
._4" DIA. SCHEDULE 40
PERFORATED PVC PIPE
OR TOTAL DRAIN
EXTENDED TO
APPROVED OUTLET
NOTE:
DRAIN SHOULD BE UNIFORMLY SLOPED TO GRAVITY OUTLET
OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING
CONCRETE
BROWDITCH GROUND SURFACE
RETAINING
WALL
WATERPROOFING
PER ARCHITECT
2/3 H DRAINAGE PANEL
(MIRADRAIN 6000
OR EQUIVALENT)
4" DIA. SCHEDULE 40
PROPOSED PERFORATED PVC PIPE GRADEJ OR TOTAL DRAIN
-
EXTENDED TO
FOOTINl
APPROVED OUTLET
NO SCALE I
I TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL I
GEOCON
INCORPORATED 40724,100
GEOTECHNI'CAL• ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
AS I RA DSK/GTYPD
VIASAT
BRESSI RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 05-23-2016 1 PROJECT NO. G1928 -52-01 FIG. 12
Plotted:05/24/2016 7:36AM I ByALVIN LADRILLONO I File Lotion:Y:\PR0JECTS\G1928-52-01 ViaSat\DETAILS\Typical Retaining Wall Drainage Detail (RWDD7A).dwg
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
We performed the field investigation during the period of April 4 through 7, 2016. Our subsurface
exploration consisted of drilling 12 small-diameter exploratory borings to a maximum depth of
approximately 66.5 feet using a truck-mounted drill rig with a 6- to 8-inch diameter hollow-stem
auger. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are shown on the Geologic Map,
Figure 2. Boring logs, and an explanation of the geologic units encountered are presented on
Figures A-i through A-12. We located the borings in the field using existing reference points;
therefore, actual locations may deviate slightly.
We obtained soil samples during our subsurface exploration in the borings using either a California
sampler or a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. Both samplers are composed of steel and are
driven to obtain relatively undisturbed samples. The California sampler has an inside diameter of
2.5 inches and an outside diameter of 3 inches. Up to 18 rings are placed inside the sampler that is
2.4 inches in diameter and 1 inch in height. The SPT sampler has an inside diameter of 1.5 inches and
an outside diameter of 2 inches. We obtained ring samples at appropriate intervals in moisture-tight
containers and transported to the laboratory for testing. The type of sample is noted on the
exploratory boring logs.
The samplers were driven 12 inches and 18 inches for California sampler and SPT sampler,
respectively. The sampler is connected to A rods and driven into the bottom of the excavation using a
140-pound hammer with a 30-inch drop. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches the sampler is
driven. The penetration resistances shown on the boring logs are shown in terms of blows per foot.
The values indicated on the boring logs are the sum of the last 12 inches of the sampler. If the
sampler was not driven for 12 inches, an approximate value is calculated in term of blows per foot or
the final 6-inch interval is reported. These values are not to be taken as N-values as adjustments have
not been applied. We estimated elevations shown on the boring logs from a topographic map. Each
excavation was backfilled as noted on the boring logs.
The soil encountered in the borings were visually examined, classified, and logged in general
accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) practice for Description and
Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D 2488). The logs depict the soil and geologic
conditions observed and the depth at which samples were obtained.
The County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health issued a Monitoring Well and Boring
Construction and Deconstruction Permit for the exploratory excavations, and the Permit is shown
after the figures in this appendix.
Project No. G1928-52-0 1 May 23, 2016
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
DEPTH
IN
FEET
SAMPLE
NO.
>-
8 j
0 x
It w
<
0
z
0 IX
SOIL
CLASS
BORING BI
ELEV. (MSL.)317 DATE COMPLETED 04-04-2016
EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L. RODRIGUEZ
0
I— Z
ci)
-
0)
.
0
. Z U.1
20
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
- BI-1 7 - SC/CL PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpcl)
- Medium dense, moist, olive brown, Clayey, fme to coarse SAND to Sandy -
2- CLAY -
/
/ -
BI-2
6-
-Few to little chunks of silty sand 22
/
8-
10
- BI-3 -Becomes wet, trace shell fragments - 18 107.4 18.7
-
12-
(pp. 4.5+tsf) -
-
14-
16
BI-4 -Few to little layers/chunks of yellowish to grayish fine sand and gray silt 21
-
/
-
-18-
20 /
- BI-5 (pp. 4.5+tsO - 23 98.8 30.7
-22- -
- 24
BI-6 Stiff,dark olive brown, Sandy trace chunks silt and sand 34 26 - -
28 - -
30 BI-7 (pp. 4.5+tsf) 27 99.2 24.7
32 - -
34 - -
Figure A-I,
Log of Boring B I, Page 1 of 2
LI ... SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST E... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE k ...CHUNK SAMPLE X ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
Ir LU BORING B I
DEPTH < SOIL I- Z
IN SAMPLE SAMPLE z
FEET NO. z z ELEV. (MSL.)317 DATE COMPLETED 04-04-2016 0
1 0 Ix EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L. RODRIGUEZ Cl. 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
361 BI-8 39
- 38
40 B1-9 :• ML Hard, moist, grayish to yellowish brown, Sandy SILT; little to some chunks 46 104.6 15.3
clay and sand -
- 42 - : : (p.p. 45+tsf) -
-44- :•.•; -
-
- BI-10 - SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) 84/9"
- 46 - Very dense, damp, gray to yellowish brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE; weakly -
- cemented; laminated with magnesium -
48 - -
- BI-11 - - 85/9"
BORING TERMINATED AT 50.75 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled with 10.0 ft' bentonite grout slurry
Figure A-I,
Log of Boring 1, Page 2of2
LI ... SAMPLE SYMEOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL El ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GE000N
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
DEPTH
IN
FEET
SAMPLE
NO.
j
< SOIL
BORING B 2
ELEV. (MSL.)308 DATE COMPLETED 04-05-2016
EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L. RODRIGUEZ
Z w—.
I-Z
U).
Cl)
0
0
Z
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0
- 132-1 - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpcl)
- Medium dense, damp, yellowish to grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium -
- 2 - I I SAND; trace gravel; trace organics -
I ti
B2-2 -Becomes wet, trace to little layers/chunks dark olive brown, sandy clay 25 122.9 12.6
6- -
8
10 - -- - ---------------------------------
- B2-3 //
-- --
CL Stiff, moist, dark olive brown, Sandy CLAY; trace gravel
-
29
12
14
- B24 SM/ML Medium dense, damp, gray, Silty, fine SAND to Sandy SILT; trace shell 33 119.1 64 16
- I fragments -
- 1 (p.p.4.0ts -
18 1 W 1
20
- B2-5 SM 30 121.0 11.0
-
I shell fragments -
22 1
24 - -
- B2-6 41 26
28 - -
30
- B2-7 -Trace gravel - 44 109.6 16.5
- I (pp. 4.5+tsf) -
32
Figure A-2,
Log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL UI ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ...CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GE000N
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
BORING B 2 w o .
DEPTH
SAMPLE
< SOIL <Ci)
I) Z z IN NO.
-j 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)308 DATE COMPLETED 04-05-2016 I- FEET
0
(USGS) C/) >-
w 20
0 z
EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L RODRIGUEZ '-
• _____ .-, MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
132-8 ., y,i. SC Medium dense, moist, yellowish to grayish brown, Clayey, fine SAND 40
36
-
38 z/': -
• -
40 - -"'-'. -. ---- B2-9 SM Medium dense, moist, yellowish to grayish brown, Silty, fine SAND 39 110.3 12.1
(p.p. 4.5+tsf) -
42 -
- --------------------------
-
44
132-10 ..•.f'.1'1: -Becomes damp 49 46 -
48
50
- B2- 11 .j:. -Becomes very dense, wet; fine content decreases; little to some shell - 85/11" 114.2 17.4
- ]..•'•. fragments; trace clay -
- 52 - .. ' (pp. 4.5+tsf) -
54
-Slight seepage SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) 72
- 56 -
B2-12
Very dense, wet, grayish to yellowish brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE;
weakly cemented -
58
B2-13 - 50
BORING TERMINATED AT 61.5 FEET
Slight seepage encountered at 55 feet
Backfilled with 12.1 ft bentonite grout slurry
Figure A-2,
Log of Boring B 2, Page 2 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SLBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
IX BORING B 3
DEPTH
>-
< SOIL - Z Qoi IJU
C')
SAMPLE
NO.
..j CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)296 DATE COMPLETED 04.07-2016
<<(I, Z • z
FEET
0 20
EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: B. KUNA -
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
-
- 133-1 TrT1 - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpcl)
Medium dense, damp, yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND -
- 2 - -
-
-
- B3-2 SM-SC Medium dens; moist, moffled yellowish brown and wlt; mixed with gray 31 U2 I52
- 6 - ; .•: Sandy CLAY -
8/
10
-
133-3 :I (pp. 4.5+tsD
-
24 113.8 15.0
12- -
14-
B34 Sc Medium dense, moist, dark brown, Clayey, fine SAND 27
16- /7 -
18
20 133-5 CL Stiff, moist, dark brown, Silty CLAY 30
22 - -
-
24 A
B3-6
-.
SC-SM Medium dense, wet, dark brown mixed with gray, Clayey SAND and 22 112.0 15.4
26 - :/.
- -------------------------------------
yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND, mottled yellowish brown and white -
(p.p. 4.5+tsf) -
28- -
30
- B3-7 -. CL Stiff, wet, dark brown, Silty CLAY
32 -
-25
-
.34
Figure A-3,
Log of Boring B 3, Page 1 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
Ej DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED, IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GE000N
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
>
Of W BORING B3 zw—.
DEPTH < SOIL IZLL l) z u- .
IN SAMPLE -J
z ELEV. (MSL.)296 DATE COMPLETED 04-07-2016
< >
- ')> ° Cl) FEET
F_ :i
:3 (LJSCS) w Fn O >. oz
0 LU EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: B. KUNA -
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
B3-8 -Becomes dark grayish-brown 28 105.3 21.9
- 36 (pp. 3.0 tsf)
- 38 -
- 40
- B3-9 -Same 25 104.7 20.9
(p.p. 1.5 tsf)
- 42 -
- - 44
B3-10 -Same 35
- 46 - (pp. 4.0 tsf) -
- 48 -
-
..Slight seepage
f SANTIAGO FORMATION (Is) - 70
- 50 B3-11
-
- Very stiff, moist, interbedded layers of brown, yellowish brown and gray. -
- 52 - SILTSTONIE with gypsum crystals -
- - -Perched groundwater at 49.5 feet
- 54 -
B3-12
--
- SM - Very dense, moist, gray, Silty, fine SANDSTONE 87/11'
-56- BORING TERMINATED AT 56 FEET
Slight seepage encountered at 49.5 feet
Backfilled with 11 ft' bentonite grout slurry
Figure A-3,
Log of Boring B 3, Page 2 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS El SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II -. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I -. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE -. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
it BORING B 4
DEPTH
>-
8 < SOIL
o.
I Z I—
IN SAMPLE
NO. o 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)294 DATE COMPLETED 04-06-2016
(I)
I— U)0 W (j s... Z
SQ FEET p... (USCS) 0 20
LLI 0)9 LU - a z
EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: B. KUNA
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 134-1 :TT.: - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpct)
Dense, damp, yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND; some dark brown, sandy
- 2 - 'f: clay chunks; mottled yellowish gray -
4 -
-
- B4-2 I:1IiI -Becomes moist - 35 102.8 12.2
(pp. 4.5+tsf) -
- 8
- 10
- 134-3 SM 20 107.7 17
-
- SAND
12 - :J1 11:1:. (p.p. 4.5+tsf) -
14
- B44 SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Is) 60
16 - I :. Very dense, moist, gray mottled with yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND -
18
20 B4-5
-
Becomes dark yellowish brown 52
BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Figure A-4,
Log of Boring B 4, Page 1 of I
LI ... SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ...'WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
UJI BORING B 5
DEPTH 8 < SOIL 0Z tL Cl)
IN SAMPLE
NO. 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)318 DATE COMPLETED 04-04-2016
c/)
FEET (USGS) Z Fn o
IX EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L. RODRIGUEZ 0.
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 135-1 T7 - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpct)
- I Medium dense, damp to moist, light yellowish to grayish brown, Silty, fine to
2 - 1 medium SAND; trace chunks of gray silt
B5-2 33
10
- B5-3 - 27 116.1 17.5
12 H.
14 H. -
B54 CL/SC Stiff, moist, olive brown, Sandy CLAY to Clayey, fine to medium SAND 21 116.4 13.5
16
(pp. 4.5+tsf) -
18
20
- B5-5 H - SM Medium dense, moist, light yellowishto grayish brown, Silt) fine to medium 34
- SAND -
22- -
24-
- B5-6 -Becomes coarser grained; trace to few chunks of olive brown sandy clay - 27 121.3 10.4 26 - I (pp. 4.5+tsf) -
.28 1
30 B5-7 j -Trace gravel-sized rock fragments 41
32- H1 -
.34
Figure A-5,
Log of Boring B 5, Page 1 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE L ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
Ix BORING B 5 LU
DEPTH SOIL F— z U)IX
IN SAMPLE
NO. ELEV. (MSL.)318 DATE COMPLETED 04-04-2016 0 FEET
IX EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L. RODRIGUEZ 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- B5-8 :TI: - (p.p. 4.5+tsf) 41 106.9 19.3
36
38 1
- 40
- B5-9 CL Stiff,moist,yellowish to grayish brown, Sandy CLAY; trace rock fragments 24
trace to few chunks of silt; trace wood debris -
- 42
44
-
- B5-10 /:.. (pp. 4.5+tsfl 23 105.1 20.5
- 46
48 - -
50 B5-11 .. -Trace wood debris
-
30
52- :..:
54 - -
56- -
1 58 1
60
- B5-12 - SC SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) 92/90
- Very dense, damp, yellowish brown, Clayey, fine to medium SANDSTONE; -
62 - weakly cemented; trace magnesium -
64 - -
- B5-13 :: -87/111,
66 - moderately cemented; micaceous -
BORING TERMINATED AT 66.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled with 13.1 ft' bentonite grout slurry
Figure A-5,
Log of Boring B 5, Page 2 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SU3SURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GE000N
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
BORING B6
DEPTH < SOIL
>-zw—U.1 o.
F Z Cl)
SAMPLE
NO.IN CLASS ELEV.
<&)
FEET (MSL.)310 DATE COMPLETED 04-05-2016
EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L. RODRIGUEZ Uj 0 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0
- 136-1 .T:1. - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpct)
Medium dense, damp, light yellowish brown to olive brown, Silty, fine to -
- 2 - : f : medium SAND; trace clay
1 4 i
136-2 34
6
8
J.
-
- 136-3 :i>. CL Stiff,moist, olive dark brown, Sandy CLAY 22 108.6 18.7
- .:: - ______ (pp. 4.5+tst) -
12 - SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) -
- Very dense, damp, yellowish to grayish brown, Silty, fine SANDSTONE; -
14
weakly cemented
B6-4 81/11" 16 BORING TERMINATED AT 16 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Figure A-6,
Log of Boring B 6, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... IRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GE000N
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
BORING B 7
DEPTH 1 SOIL
>-0 '- Z Cl)
SAMPLE
NO.
.j 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)302 DATE COMPLETED 04-06-2016
<CI) Z
FEET
EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: B. KUNA a-
_____
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 B7-1 TjTT: - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpcf)
-
.. .. Medium dense, moist, yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND; some small chunks
- 2 - I.: of green mottled white and yellowish brown siltstone, -
H
B7-2 :tS1. (p.p. 4.5+tsf) 27 106.6 8.8
6
-
8
SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts)
10 B7-3 Dense moist very light yellowish gray, Silty fine SAND 45
12
14
B74 :j•: 35
16
BORING TERMINATED AT 16.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Figure A-7,
Log of Boring B 7, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUaSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
BORING B 8
DEPTH 0< SOIL I- Z J)
SAMPLE
NO.
9
Z
CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)291 DATE COMPLETED 04-07-2016
zu..
0 FEET
EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: B. KUNA 0 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- B84 T7 - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpt)
Medium dense, damp, yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND mixed with brown -
2 and gray CLAY
- 138-2 . (p.p. 4.5+ts 33 106.0 11.3
10 B8-3 - -Becomes moist, increase in clay content 28
12
14
B84 CL Medium dense, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY 30
16
18
20 B8-5 :- :... CL Medium dense, moist, dark brown and gray, Sandy, CLAY with gray Silty 32 110.0 17.4
SAND -
22 - (p.p. 4.5+tsf) -
24 - -
- B8-6 - -Gravel-size cemented material disturbed sample - 50/3" 26
28- -
30 B8-7 CL-SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) 19
- Stiff, moist, brownish-yellow and orange, Silty CLAY interbedded with gray -
32
- j3 Silty, fine SAND; crystals of gypsum -
.34 -
Figure A-8,
Log of Boring B 8, Page '1 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS El SAMPLIJG UNSUCCESSFUL E ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
pl~
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
BORING
DEPTH SOIL
IN SAMPLE
NO. o 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 291_______ - DATE COMPLETED 04-07 2016 I- U) 0 0 FEET
0 (USCS) Z -j . x 20
EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: B. KUNA W XS a. 0 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
B8-8 TT1 - SM Dense, damp, brown, orange, gray and yellowish brown, Silty SAND 46
- 36 -
BORING TERMINATED AT 36.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled with 7.2 ft3 bentonite grout slurry
Figure A-8,
Log of Boring B 8, Page 2 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL Ii ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
>- LU BORING B9 z LU
DEPTH SOIL
o.
Z 1)
uJ
IN SAMPLE
NO. z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)303 DATE COMPLETED 04-05-2016 I-
- Q> W d 0 '-
FEET
0
(USGS) Cl) >- 0 z 20
EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L RODRIGUEZ a 0 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- B9-1 :T:TI: - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpt)
- :. :1 Medium dense, moist, yellowish to grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium -
2 - ::J: I:. SAND; little chunks olive brown clay
4 -
- B9-2 SM/ML Medium dense, moist,yellowish to grayish brown, Silty, fine SAND to Sandy 32 1018 19.0
6 SILT
(pp4.5+tsf)
10
- B9-3 SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) 86/11'
-
Very dense, damp, light grayish to yellowish brown, Silty, fine -
12 - : SANDSTONE; weakly cemented -
14
- 139-4 - 52
16
BORING TERMINATED AT 16.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Figure A-9,
Log of Boring B 9, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL LI STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE •.. CHUNK SAMPLE •.. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GE000N
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
it BORING
DEPTH SOIL
IN SAMPLE
NO. 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)304 DATE COMPLETED 04.05-2016 I- 0 FEET i....
0
(USCS) W 0 Z W - . Of o z 20
of EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: L. RODRIGUEZ 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- BIO-I TjTT.j: - SMIML PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpt)
:. . .. Medium dense, damp, grayish to yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND to Sandy -
2 - :JIf.: SILT -
4
B10-2 -Partially disturbed sample - 32 111.0 15.7
6 (pp. 4.5+tsf) -
8 -
• 10
- B10-3 :::: SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) 72
- Very dense, damp, light grayish brown, to yellowish brown, Silty, fine -
12 -
SANDSTONE; weakly cemented -
14 -
- B1O-4 ::F: - 70
16
BORING TERMINATED AT 16.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Figure A-10,
Log of Boring B 10, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPL'NG UNSUCCESSFUL El ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST UI ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
w BORING BII Z . 0Lu
DEPTH
>-
SOIL I—z U)
IN
FEET
SAMPLE
NO. ELEV. (MSL.)304 DATE COMPLETED 04-06-2016 0
IX 20 IX EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: B. KUNA WXS 0 C)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0
- B11-1 TTTI - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpt)
:1 Medium dense, moist, yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND; mottled white and -
2 - : J. yellowish brown -
- B11-2 I}: (pp.4.5=1st) 24 105.5 19.7
6- .1.:
8
10
- BI 1-3 7 , SM-CL Mixed with dark brown CLAY 114.9 12.1
(p 4.5+tsf) -
12 - -
14 -
- B11-4 / - 35
16
- -. SM Dens;yellowish brown, moist, Silty, fine to medium SAND
(p.p. 4.5+tsf) -
-
18 H
20
- B1I-5 -. SC Dediuirndense, moist, dark brown and olive-brown, Clayey to Silty, fine 22 114.7 104
SAND
22 - (pp. 4.5+tsf) -
-35
• 24 - -
- B11-6 I//I - 28
26 - -
28 /./'. - -
30 BI 1-7 7. SM Stiff, moist, dark brown to olive brown, Sandy CLAY mixed with light 31 110.3 14.7
-
- /> grayish to yellowish brown Silty SAND -
-32- :..: -
34 - •• -
Figure A-I I,
Log of Boring Bll Page l 0f2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL Ii ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE .. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GE000N
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
w BORING B 1 z LLJ
DEPTH
>-
SOIL
0
Z
IN SAMPLE
NO.
9 Q 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)304 DATE COMPLETED 04-06-2016
U)
I—
ZLL
FEET
0 (55) LLj CI) 0 0 z
—J IX EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: B. KIJNA 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
B11-8 :7.
- (pp. 4.5+tsf) 33
36 .
- 38
40 - B11-9 r moist, Silty diiA 106.2 19.9
-
- Bli-lO (pp. 4.5+tsf)
42
44
--------------33
B11
-
11
46 - - - CL SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) - 50
- - Hard, moist, gray and brown, laminated CLAYSTONE
48
50 BORING TERMINATED AT 50 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Backfihled with 9.8 ft' bentonite grout slurry
Figure A-1 1,
Log of Boring B II, Page 2 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS El SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
IX BORING B12
DEPTH
>-
< SOIL
o.
h Z (1)
IN SAMPLE 0 CLASS W (5ELEV.
I_z
FEET NO.LU (MSL.)305 DATE COMPLETED 04-06-2016 I- U) LU 0 0
i 0 (USCS) (1) >- z
Ix EQUIPMENT MARL M-5 BY: B. KUNA a.
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 - B12-1 .T1T9: - SM PREVIOUSLY PLACE FILL (Qpt)
Medium dense, damp, yellowish-brown Silty, fine SAND with chunks of -
2 - :J.1..: olive-brown Sandy CLAY -
CL Very stiff, damp, dark brown to olive brown, fine Sandy CLAY
4 '.: (p.p.4.5+tsf)
B12-2 38 120.3 8.7
6 - ...•• -
8- -
B12-3 SM Becomes medium dense, moist, dark yellowish-brown, Silty fine SAND, 28
mottled orange and light grayish-brown -
12
14
-
- B12-4 . -. CL-SM Becomes stiff, moist, olive-brown CLAY interbedded with light —22 111.4 143
16 - .,yt' i, grayish-brown, Silty SAND, mottled orange -
(pp. 4.5+tsf)
SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) - 18 -id- Very dense, damp, gray, Silty, fine SAND, mottled yellow
20 B12-5
-
- 76
BORING TERMINATED AT 21 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Figure A-12,
Log of Boring B 12, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS El SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL III ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... CRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
GEOCON
C
PERMIT # LMWP-002206
A.P.N. # 213-260-02, -03, -
06,09
EST# NONE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
LAND AND WATER QUALITY DIVISION
MONITORING WELL PROGRAM
GEOTECHNICAL BORING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
SITE NAME: TOWN GARDEN AND ALICANTE PROPERTY
SITE ADDRESS: PARCELS AT TOWN GARDEN RD. AND ALICANTE RD., CARLSBAD,
CA 92009
PERMIT FOR: 6 GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS
PERMIT APPROVAL DATE: 03/17/2016
PERMIT EXPIRES ON: 07/15/2016
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: SMITH CONSULTING ARCH ITECTS-ARATI RANGASWAMY
PERMIT CONDITIONS:
All borings must be sealed from the bottom of the boring to the ground surface with an
approved sealing material as specified in California Well Standards Bulletin 74-90,
Part III, Section 19.D. ji?ill cuttings are not an acceptable fill material.
All borings must be properly destroyed within 24 hours of drilling.
Placement of any sealing material at a depth greater than 30 feet must be done using
the tremie method.
This work is not connected to any known unauthorized release of hazardous
substances. Any contamination found in the course of drilling and sampling must be
reported to DEH. All water and soil resulting from the activities covered by this permit
must be managed, stored and disposed of as specified in the SAM Manual in Section
5, II, D-4. (http://www.sdcountv.ca.qov/deh/lwcj/sam/manual guidelines.html) In
addition, drill cuttings must be properly handled and disposed in compliance with the
Stormwater Best Management Practices of the local jurisdiction.
Within 60 days of completing work, submit a well/boring construction report, including
all well and/or boring logs and laboratory data to the Well Permit Desk. This report
must include all items required by the SAM Manual, Section 5, Pages 6 & 7.
This office must be given 48-hour notice of any drilling activity on this site and
advanced notification of drilling cancellation. Please contact the Well Permit
Desk at (858) 505-6688.
cv'.,, NrSbyV..S€.T..1.nH Veronica Tavlzon H;=. APPRC\'ED BY: '.'"" DATE:03/17/21
VERONICA TAVIZON
APPENDIX
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
A laboratory test program is designed for each project to evaluate the physical and mechanical properties of
the materials encountered at the site. We performed the laboratory tests in accordanze with the current
versions of the generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) or
other suggested procedures. We tested selected soil samples for their maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content, resistance value (R-Value), shear strength, expansion index, pH and resistivity, water-
soluble sulfate characteristics, water-soluble chloride ion content, :jnconfined compressive strength,
consolidation characteristics and triaxial shear strength. The results of our laboratory tests are presented on
Tables B-I through B-IX and Figures B-i through B-9. In addition, the in-place dry density and moisture
content results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.
TABLE B-I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND
OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557
Sample No. Maximum . Optimum
(Geologic Unit) Description Dry Density I Moisture Content
(pcf) (% dry wt.)
131-1 Olive brown, Clayey fine to coarse SAND 123.4 12.0
136-1 Light yellowish brown to olive brown, Silty fine to 122.3 11.9 medium SAND; trace clay
1311-10 Olive brown, Silty CLAY 119.7 12.7
TABLE B-Il
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESISTANCE VALUE (R-VALUE) TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 2844
Sample No. R-Value
B5-1 8
Project No. G 1928-52-01 -B-I - May 23, 2016
TABLE B-Ill
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
Sample No. Dry Density
(pcf)
Moisture Content (%) Peak [Ultimate']
Cohesion (psi)
Peak [Ultimate']
Angle of Shear
Resistance (degrees) Initial Final
132-2 122.9 12.6 15.6 1,600 [1,200] 35 [34]
132-5 121.0 11.0 14.2 600 [300] 37 [37]
134-3 107.7 12.7 20.5 500 [490] 26 [24]
135-3 116.1 17.5 18.6 1,200 [1,380] 29 [23]
'Ultima:e at end of test at 0.2 inch deflection
TABLE B-IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TRIAXIAL SHEAR TEST RESULTS
CONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED
ASTM D 4767
Total Stress
Sample No.
Initial Dry
Density (pci)
Initial Moisture
Content (%)
Young's
Modulus, Unit Cohesion Angle of
(psi)
Shear Resistance E (ksl)
(degrees)
33-4 115.0 15.2 3,000 16 2,025
38-4 106.6 17.1 3,200 18 1,780
TABLE B-V
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829
Pad
Nos.,
Sample
No.
Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density
(pci)
Expansion
Index
Expansion
Classification
2013 CBC Soil
Expansion
Classification
Before
Test
After
Test
15 131-1 11.5 25.9 103.6 86 Medium Expansive
13 136-1 10.8 24.6 105.0 73 Medium Expansive
12 1312-1 11.7 27.6 101.4 95 High Expansive
Project No. G1928-52-01 - B-2 - May 23, 2016
TABLE B-VI
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY POTENTIAL OF HYDROGEN (PH) AND RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 643
Sample No. pH Minimum Resistivity
(ohm-centimeters)
131-1 7.8 410
136-1 8.0 530
TABLE B-VII
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST 417
Sample No. Water-Soluble
Sulfate (%) Sulfate Severity Sulfate Class
131-1 0.344 Severe S2
B6-1 0.138 Moderate Si
1312-1 0.104 Moderate Si
TABLE B-VIII
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE CHLORIDE ION TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. T 291
Sample No. Chloride Ion Content (%)
B1-1 0.075
B6-1 0.065
Project No. G1928-52-01 - B-3 - May 23, 2016
TABLE B-IX
SUMMARY OF HAND PENETROMETER TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1558
Sample No. Depth (feet) Geologic Unit
Hand Penetrometer
Reading, Unconfined
Compression Strength (tsf)
Estimated
Undrained Shear
Strength (ksf)
B1-3 10 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B1-5 20 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B1-7 30 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B1-9 40 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B24 15 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
132-7 30 Qpcf 4.5 4,5
B2-9 40 Qpcf 4.5 4,5
132-11 50 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B3-3 10 Qpcf 4,5 4.5
B3-6 25 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B3-8 35 Qpcf 3.0 3.0
B3-9 40 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B3-10 45 Qpcf 4.0 4.0
B4-2 5 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B4-3 10 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B54 15 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B5-6 25 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B5-8 35 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B5-10 45 Qpcf 4.0 4.0
B6-3 10 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B7-2 5 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B8-2 5 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B8-5 20 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B9-2 5 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B10-2 5 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B11-2 5 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B11-3 10 Qpcf 4,5 4.5
B11-4 15 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B11-6 25 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
BI 1-7 30 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B11-9 40 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B12-2 5 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
B12-4 15 Qpcf 4.5 4.5
Project No. G1928-52-01 - B-4 - May 23, 2016
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
SAMPLE NO. B3-2
-6
-4
-2
N
'S
-J
0
U) z
0 0
I- z 4 w 0
w a-
6
8
10
12 0.1 1 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf)
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 112.6 Initial Saturation (%) 85
Initial Water Content (%) 15.2 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 0.5
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
VIASAT
BRESSI RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
61928-52-01.GP.' Figure B-i
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
SAMPLE NO. B3-8
—6
—4
-L
z Q
2
-::--....
0 C)
I— z 4 w 0
------- ____
Ui 0
6 ------ ____
e ------ ____ ------ ____ ------ -
10
12 0.1 1 lii 100
APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf)
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
VIASAT
BRESSI RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
G1928-52-01.GPJ Figure B-2
GE000N
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 105.3
Initial Water Content (%) 21.9
Initial Saturation (%) 100+
Sample Saturated at (ksf) 2.0
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
SAMPLE NO. B4-2
-6
-4
-2
4L
:2 0.1 1 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf)
l Initial Dry Density (pcf) 102.8 Initial Saturation (%) 52.6
Initial Water Content (%) 12.2 Sample Saturated at (ksf) .5
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
VIASAT
BRESSI RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
i1-b2-U1.(.iPJ
Figure B-3
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
SAMPLE NO. B5-4
-6
-4
-2
0
z 0
- 2 _J o
(I) z 0 C)
I— 4 z w C)
w
0
6
8
'0-
-2- 0.1 1 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf)
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 116.4
Initial Water Content
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
VIASAT
BRESSI RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
G1928-52-01.GPJ Figure B-4
GEOCON
Initial Saturation (%) 84.2
Sample Saturated at (ksf) 2.0
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
SAMPLE NO. B8-2
-6
-4
-2
C
-_::::::::::=----
CL
10
12
0.1 1 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf)
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 106.0
Initial Water Content (%) 11.3
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
VIASAT
BRESSI RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
G1926-52-01 GPJ Figure B-5
GE000N
Initial Saturation (%) 53.2
Sample Saturated at (ksf) 1.0
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
SAMPLE NO. BI 1-2
-6
-4 ------ ____ ----- ____
-2 ---- -
o
-:---- ----------- - __
2
o
(I) z 0 0
I- z 4 w 0
w
6
10
12 - 0.1 1 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf)
Initial Dry Density (pct) 105.5 Initial Saturation (%) 91.4
Initial Water Content (%) 19.7 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 1.0
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
VIASAT
BRESSI RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
1928-52-01.GPJ
Figure B-6
GEOCON
-4.
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
SAMPLE NO. 81 1-5
-6
-4
-2
z
2 I-.
2
cn
0
w a-
6
12 0.1 1 iO 100
APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf)
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 114.7 Initial Saturation (%)
Initial Water Content (%) 10.4
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
VIASAT
BRESSI RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
928-52.O1.GPJ Figure B-7
GE000N
62.2
Sample Saturated at (ksf) 2.0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Strain, %
10000
10000
CL 14000
12000
03
1 C00
0000 5
6000
4000
2000
0
0
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
MOHR'S CIRCLES
130
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
4;:
50
4.0
3,0
20
1.0
0.0
00 50 10,0 150
Nonnal Stress (ksf)
STRESS-STRAIN
Test Results
,deçrees
c, psf
Sample Description
-Sample Number
Sample Depth (feet)
Material Description
Initial Conditions at Start of Stage
Sample ID (psf), minor principal stress
H
Height (inch)
Diameter (inch)
Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
Shear Test Conditions
Strain Rate (%/min)
Major Principal Stress at Failure
Strain at failure (%)
Deviator Stress and Fail (psf)
Geocon Incorporated
6960 Flanders Drive 47>~ San Diego, California 9212
GEOCON Telephone: (858) 558-6900
CONSULTA NTS. INC Fax: (858) 55E-6159
Failure Photo
:
20.0 25.
18.2
3200
B8-4
15
Mottled White and Olive SILT
2000 4000 8000
4.820 4.741 4.592
2.423 2.443 2.461
17.1 17.1 17.1
106.6 106.6 106.6
79.5 79.5 79.5
0.2925 0.2867 0.2969
12520 16630 24100
2.49 4.10 13.27
10530 12630 16110
Triaxial Shear Strength - UU Test (sta
Project: ViaSat
Location:
Number: G1928-52-01
Figure: B-8
MOHR'S CIRCLES
12.0
Failure Photo
s J0
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
..-.
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
00 5.0 10.0 15.0 200
Normal Stress (ksf)
STRESS-STRAIN
16000
14000
i
110 12 14 16
St-am, %
Test Results
L degrees 1 5.8
_
, psf 3000
Sample Description
Sample Number 133-.4
Sample Depth (feet) 15
Material Description Dark brown and yellowish brown Sandy lean CLAY
Initial Conditions at Start of Stage
Sample ID (psf), minor principal stress 2000 4000 8000
Height (inch) 4.820 4.776 4.710
Diameter (inch) 2.417 2.428 2.434
Moisture Content (%) 15.2 15.2 15.2
Dry Density (pcf) 115.0 115.0 115.0
Saturation (%) 88.1 88.1 88.1
Shear Test Conditions
Strain Rate (%/min) 0.2915 £12858 0.2996
Major Principal Stress at Failure (psf) 11300 14020 21540
Strain at failure (% 1.66 206 15.07
Deviator Stress and Fail (psf) 9300 1C030 13550
Geocon Incorporated
6960 Flanders Drive
San Diego, Cal fornia 92121
GEOCON Telephone: (858) 558-6900
CONSULTANTS, INC. Fax: (858) 558-6159
Triaxial Shear Strength - UU Test (staged)
Project: ViaSat
Location:
Number: G1928-52-01
1 Figure: B-9
I
[
I
U
I
El
1
I
I
I
I
1
[I
I
I
APPENDIX
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
VIASAT - BRESSI RANCH
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. G1928-52-01
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. GENERAL
1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the
Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon. The recommendations contained
in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications
and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict.
1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be
employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these
specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so
that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was performed in substantial
conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to
assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that
personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency
ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, and/or adverse weather result in a quality of work not in
conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the
work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable
conditions are corrected.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading
work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading
performed.
2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer
or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying
as-graded topography.
2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm
retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
GI rev. 07/2015
2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner,
who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be
responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's
work for conformance with these specifications.
2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained
by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site
grading.
2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include
a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the
- development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are
intended to apply.
3. MATERIALS
3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or
imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction
of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as
defined below.
3.1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than
12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of
material smaller than 3/4 inch in size.
3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than
4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow
for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as
specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than
12 inches.
3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet
in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as
material smaller than % inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be
less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.
3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the
Consultant shall not be used in fills.
3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as
defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9
GI rev. 07/2015
a and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall
not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous
materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect
the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the
- termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading
operations, the Owner shall provide awritten report to the Consultant indicating that the
suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of
properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to
the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) and a soil
layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This
procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and
Consultant.
3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the
Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where
appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.
3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the
Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be
notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition.
4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of
complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made
structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried
logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and
other projections exceeding 11/2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet
below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to
provide suitable fill materials.
4.2 Asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly
disposed at an approved off-site facility or in an acceptable area of the project evaluated by
Geocon and the property owner. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing steel may
be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this
document.
GI rev. 07/2015
4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or
porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The
depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of
the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth
of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent
uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), or
where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in
accordance with the following illustration.
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
Finish Grade Ground
41
Finish Slope Surface
Remove All
Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By 'Slope To BeSuchThat Consultant
Sloughing Or Sliding
Does Not Occur I Varies
"B"
See Note 1 See Note 2
No Scale
DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit
complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should
be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope.
(2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material
and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the
bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as
approved by the Consultant.
4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture
conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in
Section 6 of these specifications.
GI rev. 07/2015
5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel
wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be
capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the
specified moisture content.
5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.
6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should
generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be
thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture
in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock
materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in
accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.
6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the
optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557.
6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant,
water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range
specified.
6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the
Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by
the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture
content is within the range specified.
6.1 .5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly
compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.
Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place
dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as
determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Compaction shall be continuous
over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that
the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the
entire fill.
GI rev. 07/2015
6.1.6 Where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed
at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture
content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the
material.
6.1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To
achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at
least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered
preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a
heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height
intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer
or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least
twice.
6.2 Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance
with the following recommendations:
6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be
incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured
15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or
3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.
6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be
individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock
fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar
methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in
maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and
shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow
for passage of compaction equipment.
6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in
properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and
4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be
filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and
should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an
"open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should
first be approved by the Consultant.
GI rev. 07/2015
6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either
parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry.
The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center
with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The
minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of
a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow.
6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the
windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant.
6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2
percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The
rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic
pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected
to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water.
6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock
trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently
placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the
rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall
consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying
water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with
compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory
roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the
required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be
utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in
Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional
rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.
6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196, may be performed in both
the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required
minimum number of passes of the compaction equipment. If performed, a
minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly
compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing
tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes
and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes
required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate
bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection
GI rev. 07/2015
variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction
equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are
equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case
will the required number of passes be less than two.
6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to
observe that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is
being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual
number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading.
6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that,
in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are
properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be
required in the rock fills.
6.3.6 To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil
fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the
uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock
should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The
gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is
being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the
Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the
commencement of rock fill placement.
6.3.7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the
Consultant.
7. SUBDRAINS
7.1 The geologic units on the site may have permeability characteristics and/or fracture
systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to seepage. The use of canyon
subdrains may be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts associated with
seepage conditions. Canyon subdrains with lengths in excess of 500 feet or extensions of
existing offsite subdrains should use 8-inch-diameter pipes. Canyon subdrains less than 500
feet in length should use 6-inch-diameter pipes.
GI rev. 07/2015
TYPICAL CANYON DRAIN DETAIL
ALLINIUII AND
OLLLMUM
RISOVAL
NATURAL CR0190'--
-- _-
BEDROCK
SEE DETAIL BELOW
NOTE FINAL 20' OF MEAT OIJflE
SMALL BE NON-PECRAT.
V DIA.. PERFORATED
SUBDRAIN PIPE
.'d •.- :--
9 CUBIC FEET! FOOT OF OPEN
GRADED GRAVE SOUNDED BY
MIRAfl 140IC (OR EQUIVALENT)
FILTER FABRIC
NOTES:
I. 84NCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 80 PVC PERFORATED PIPE FOR FILLS
IN EXCESS OF 100-FEET IN DEPTH ORA PIPE LENGTH OF LONGER THAN 500 FEET.
2......8-INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE FOR PILLS
LESS THAN 100-FEET IN DEPTH OR A PIPE LENGTH SHORTER THAN 500 FEET.
NO SCALE
7.2 Slope drains within stability fill keyways should use 4-inch-diameter (or lager) pipes.
GI rev. 07/2015
TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
NOTE
SEE '.iJ I I DETM.V r— i I 3MK
rM!N --1 BEE NOTE 2
FORMAI7OIILAL MATERIAL
NOTES:
EXCAVATE BACNDUT AT 1:1 INCLINATION (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED).
..EASE OF STABILITY FILL TO BE 3 FEET INTO FORMATIONAL MATERIAL. SLOPING A MINIMUM 5% INTO SLOPE.
3.....STABIUTY FL. TO BE COMPOSED Of PROPERLY COMPACTED CIWIILAR SOIL
4....CHIMNEY DRAINS TO BE APPROVED PREFABRICATED CHIMNEY DRAIN PANGS (MINABRAFI 020GW OR EQUIVALENT)
SPACED APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET CENTER 10 CENTER AND 4 FEET WOE. CLOSER SPACING MAY BE REQUIRED F
SEEPAGE IS ENCOUNTERED.
5....FILTER MATERIALTO BE 3/4-11011, OPEN-ORADED CRUSHED ROCK ENCLOSED IN APPROVED FILTER FABRIC ERAF1 140110).
8.....COU.ECTOR PIPE TO BE 4-INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER. PERFORATED. THICK-WALLED PVC SGEEDILE 40 OR
EQUIVALENT, AND SLOPED TO DRAIN AT 1 PERCENT MINIMUM TO APPROVED OUTLET.
NO SCALE
7.3 The actual subdrain locations will be evaluated in the field during the remedial grading
operations. Additional drains may be necessary depending on the conditions observed and
the requirements of the local regulatory agencies. Appropriate subdrain outlets should be
evaluated prior to finalizing 40-scale grading plans.
7.4 Rock fill or soil-rock fill areas may require subdrains along their down-slope perimeters to
mitigate the potential for buildup of water from construction or landscape irrigation. The
subdrains should be at least 6-inch-diameter pipes encapsulated in gravel and filter fabric.
Rock fill drains should be constructed using the same requirements as canyon subdrains.
GI rev. 07/2015
7.5 Prior to outletting, the final 20-foot segment of a subdrain that will not be extended during
future development should consist of non-perforated drainpipe. At the non-perforated/
perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the downslope side of
the pipe.
TYPICAL CUT OFF WALL DETAIL
FRONT VIEW
NO SCALE
SIDE VIEW
r ir
CUT-OFF WALL ----T-T1 T (Th'P)
8CUD8R'NPE
f rUIN.cIVP)
NO SCALE
7.6 Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be
provided with a permanent headwall structure.
GI rev. 07/2015
TYFICAL HEADWALL DETAIL
FISiI&AI'i'I
NO SCALE
SIDE V
NOTE: HEADWAJJ. SHOULD OUTLET AT TOE OF FILL SLOPE NO SCALE
OR INTO CONTROLLED SURFACE DRAINAGE
7.7 The final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. After
completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the proiect civil engineer
should survey the drain locations and prepare an "as-built" map showing the drain
locations. The final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading
operations. Subdrains that will be extended on adjacent projects after grading can be placed
on formational material and a vertical riser should be placed at the end of the subdrain. The
grading contractor should consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check
proper installation and functionality. The contractor is responsible for the performance of
the drains.
GI rev. 07/2015
8. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
8.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner's representative to observe and perform tests during
clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in
vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field density
test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test
should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and
compacted.
8.2 The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the
compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill
material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted
materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any
layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas
represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved.
8.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of
passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant
should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on
the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for
expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture
has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any
portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the
rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied.
8.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of
rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as
recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project
Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed
during grading.
8.5 We should observe the placement of subdrains, to check that the drainage devices have
been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.
8.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:
8.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:
8.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556, Density of Soil In-Place By the
Sand-Cone Method.
GI rev. 07/2015
8.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938, Density of Soil and
Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
8.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557, Moisture-Density
Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound
Hammer and 18-Inch Drop.
8.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829, Expansion Index Test.
9. PROTECTION OF WORK
9.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide
positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be
controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The
Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until
such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas
subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the
Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
9.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further
excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the
Consultant.
10. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
10.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil
Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of
elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot
horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of
subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan
of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the
subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
10.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report
satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report
should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating
that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance
with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.
61 rev. 07/2015
LIST OF REFERENCES
2013 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, based on the
2012 International Building Code, prepared by California Building Standards Commission, dated
July, 2013.
ACI 318-11, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, prepared by
the American Concrete Institute, dated August, 2011.
ACI 330-08, Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots, prepared by the
American Concrete Institute, dated June 2008.
4. Anderson, J. G., T. K. Rockwell, and D. C. Agnew, Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of
Significance to the San Diego Region: Earthquake Spectra, 1989, v. 5, no. 2, p. 299-333.
ASCE 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Second Printing,
April 6, 2011.
Boore, D. M., and G. M Atkinson (2008), Ground-Motion Prediction for the Average Horizontal
Component of PGA, PG V, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods Between 0.01 and 10.0 5,
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp. 99-138, February 2008.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open File Report 96-08, 1996.
California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, University of
Southern California (2009). Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of
California, County of San Diego, Point Loma Triangle, Scale 1:24,000, dated June 1.
Campbell, K. W., and Y. Bozorgnia, NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric Mean
Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for
Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Preprint of version submitted for publication in the NGA
Special Volume of Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, Issue 1, pages 139-171, February 2008.
Chiou, Brian S. J., and Robert R. Youngs, A NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component
of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, preprint for article to be published in NGA
Special Edition for Earthquake Spectra, Spring 2008.
County of San Diego, San Diego County Multi Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan, San Diego,
California - Final Draft, July, 2010.
Jennings, C. W., 1994, California Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Activity Map of
California and Adjacent Areas, California Geologic Data Map Series Map No. 6.
Kennedy, M. P., and S. S. Tan, 2008, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30 'x60' Quadrangle,
California, USGS Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 2, Scale 1:100,000.
Legg, M. R., J. C. Borrero, and C. E. Synolakis (2002), Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern
California Coastal Cities, 2002 NEI-IRP Professional Fellowship Report, dated January.
Project No. G1928-52-01 May 23, 2016
LIST OF REFERENCES (Concluded)
Leighton and Associates, Inc. (2004). Addendum to the As-Graded Reports of Mass Grading
Concerning the Completion of Settlement Monitoring, Planning Areas PA-1 through PA-5, Bressi
Ranch, Carlsbad, California, dated October 11 (Project No. 971009-014).
Leighton and Associates, Inc. (2011). Geotechnical Update Study, Bress' Ranch Industrial
Planning Area 2, Carlsbad, California, dated April 12 (Project No. 971009-065).
NOVA Services, Inc. (2015), Report - Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Lots 2, 3, and 4,
Proposed HCP Bressi Ranch Development, Northwest Corner of Town Garden Road and
Alicante Road, Carlsbad, California, dated June 17 (Project No. 2015291).
Risk Engineering, EZ-FRISK, 2012.
Unpublished Geotechnical Reports and Information, Geocon Incorporated.
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil
Survey, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
USGS computer program, Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response Spectra,
http://earthguake.usgs.gov/researchlhazmaps/design/.
Project No. G1928-52-01 May 23, 2016