HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 2017-0008; THERMO FISHER PARKING LOT; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2017-01-12ctrjo I1-ooD
6960 Flanders Drive U Sari Diego California 92121 2974 U Telephone 858.558.60M- U Fox 858 558 6159
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1
2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 2
-3.1. Previously Placed Fill (Qpf) 2
3 2 Santiago Formation (Tsa) 2
I 4 'GROUNDWATER 2
I 5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 3
5.4 Faulting and Seismicity 3
5.2- Ground Rupture 4
5.3 Tsunamis and Seiches 5 I 5 4 Liquefaction 5
5 5 Landslides 5
I 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6
.6 General 1.1 6
.6.2. Excavation and Soil Charactenstics 6
1 .6.3'' Seismic Design Cntena - California Building Code 8
6 4 Grading 9
6.5 Retaining Walls 10
I 6.6 Lateral Loading
61, Preliminary Pavement Recommendations
12
13
6 8 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection 18
I LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
I Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Site Plan (Map Pocket)
Figure 3, Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail
I Figure 4, Typical Retaining Wall Drain Detail
APPENDIX
I LABORATORY TESTING
Table A-I, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results
Table A-IT, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results
I Table A-ill, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results
Table A-TV, Summary of Laboratory Water-Soluble Sulfate Test Results
Table A-V, Summary of Laboratory Resistance Value (R-Value) Test Results
I APPENDIX B
STORM WATER INVESTIGATION REPORT
1 LIST OF REFERENCES
I
I
1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
- This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed parking lot I improvements within the Thermo Fisher campus in Carlsbad, California. The purpose of this
geotechnical investigation is to evaluate the surface and subsurfacç soil conditions and general site
geology, and to identify geotechnical constraints that may impact development of the property I including faulting and seismic shaking based on the 2016 .CBC seismic design riteria. The scope of
our study includes pràviding recommendations for pavement, remedial grading in the area of parking 1 expansion, retaining walls, and storm water management recommendations.
I Our scope of services included the review of aerial photographs, readily available published and
unpublished geologic literature and the previous geotechnical investigation for the site (see List of
References), excavating surficial soil samples to a maximum depth of approximately 5 feet, I performing in-situ infiltration field testing, soil sampling, laboratory testing, engineering analyses,
and preparation of this geotechnical report.
We performed laboratory tests on selected soil samples obtained during the field investigation to
evaluate physical and chemical properties for engineering analyses and to assist in providing
geotechnical engineering recommendations for project improvement design. Details of the laboratory
tests and a summary of the test results are presented in Appendix A. We used plans prepared by
Michael Baker International as the base to prepare our Site Plan, Figure 2. Appendix B presents the
results of our storm water management investigation and recommendations.
I 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is located at 5823 Newton Drive within the Thermo Fisher campus at the northern terminus I of the Newton Drive cul-de-sac in the City of Carlsbad, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The
site is occupied by a two-story, concrete tilt-up office and warehouse building surrounded by asphalt 1 concrete (AC) parking stalls and driveways and a Portland cement concrete (PCC) loading dock area
on the east side of the building The topography within the area of the proposed improvements is I relatively flat with an elevations ranging from approximately 260 to 270 feet above Mean Sea Level
(MSL) A descending 11/2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope with a maximum height of approximately
' 25 feet exists along the east perimeter of the site.
We understand the proposed improvements will consist of constructing additional parking spaces ' around the building, two stairs supported by retaining walls on the eastern descending slope to
provide access to the adjacent property parking area and a cart path at the northern portion of the site
Project No. G2066-11-01 -1 January 12,20i7
connecting to the adjacent lot to the east. We also understand that storm water management BMP
devices will be added to the project consisting of permeable pavement to improve water quality.
The site description and proposed development are based on a site reconnaissance and discussions
with you. If development plans differ from those described herein, Geocon Incorporated should be
contacted for review of the plans and provide possible revisions to this report.
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Based on our review of the referenced previous geotechnical investigation performed at the site, and
our current field investigation, we expect the site is underlain by previously placed fill overlying
Santiago Formation. The geologic units are described herein in order of increasing age.
3.1 Previously Placed Fill (Qpf)
We estimate the site is generally underlain by a maximum of approximately 5 feet of previously
placed fill associated with grading of the site with thicker fill potentially present near at the entrance
at Newton Drive and on the northern portion of the parking lot. The fill was likely generated from
excavations within the underlying Santiago Formation at the site The fill soils encountered during
our field investigation generally consist of sandy clays and silty or clayey sands. Based on the results
of our laboratory testing, we expect the fill possesses a "very low" to "medium" expansion potential
(expansion index of 90 or less). The upper portion of the previously placed fill will require remedial
grading.
3.2 Santiago Formation (Tsa)
We expect the Santiago Formation underlies the previously placed fill. The Santiago Formation at the
site generally consists of olive gray, silty sandstones and sandy siltstones with occasional clay seams.
Based on the results of our laboratory testing, we expect the Santiago Formation possesses a "very
low" to "medium" expansion potential (expansion index of 90 or less). The Santiago Formation is
suitable for support of the proposed improvements.
4. GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not encountered during the previous field investigation performed by GeoSoils in
1997 and we expect it to be at least 100 below existing finish grades. We do not expect groundwater
to have a significant influence on construction operations or the performance of the improvements. It
is not uncommon for seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed. Seepage is
dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation and land use, among other factors, and varies as a
result. Proper surface drainage will be critical to future performance of the project.
Project No. G2066-11-01 - 2 - January 12, 2017
1 5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
I 5.1 Faulting and Seismicity
A review of the referenced geologic materials and our knowledge of the general area indicate that the
site is not underlain by active, potentially active, or inactive faults. An active fault is defined by the I California Geological Survey (CGS) as a fault showing evidence for activity within the .last
11,000 years. The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone.
According to the computer program EZ-FRISK (Version 7.65), 10 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 and Rose Canyon Fault
system, located approximately 6 miles west of the site and is the dominant source of potential ground
motion. Earthquakes that might occur on the Newport-Inglewood and Rose Canyon Faults 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 5.1.1 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
2008, and Chiou-Youngs (2007) NGA USGS2008 acceleration-attenuation relationships.
TABLE 5.1.1
DETERMINISTIC SPECTRA SITE PARAMETERS
Fault Name
Distance
from Site
(miles)
Maximum
Earthquake
Magnitude
(Mw)
Peak Ground Acceleration
Boore-
Atkinson
2008 (g)
Campbell-
Bozorgnia
2008 (g)
Chiou-
Youngs
2007 (g)
Newport-Inglewood 6 7.5 0.29 0.27 0.34
Rose Canyon 6 6.9 0.24 0.25 0.28
Elsinore 21 7.9 0.18 0.13 0.17
Coronado Bank 22 7.4 0.15 0.11 0.12
Palos Verdes Connected 22 7.7 0.16 0.12 0.15
Palos Verdes 38 7.3 0.09 0.07 0.07
San Joaquin Hills 38 7.1 0.08 0.08 0.07
Earthquake Valley 41 6.8 0.07 0.05 0.04
San Jacinto 47 7.9 0.10 0.07 0.09
Chino 49 6.8 0.05 0.04 0.03.
1 Project No. G2066-11-01 -3- January 12, 2017
We used the computer program EZ-FRISK 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
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
2008, Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) NGA USGS 2008, and Chiou-Youngs (2007) NGA USGS2008 in
the analysis. Table 5.1.2 presents the site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard parameters including
acceleration-attenuation relationships and the probability of exceedence.
TABLE 5.1.2
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 0.42 0.42 0.47
5% in a 50 Year Period 0.31 0.30 0.33
10% in a 50 Year Period 0.24 0.23 0.24
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 structure should be evaluated
in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) guidelines currently adopted by the City of
Carlsbad.
5.2 Ground Rupture
Ground surface rupture occurs when movement along a fault is sufficient to cause a gap or rupture
where the upper edge of the fault zone intersects the earth surface. The potential for ground rupture is
considered to be negligible due to the absence of active faults at the subject site.
Project No. G2066-11-01 -4- January 12, 2017
5.3 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. The site is located approximately 2'/2 miles from the Pacific Ocean at elevations
ranging from approximately, 260 to 270 feet MSL Therefore, the risk of a tsunami impacting the site
is considered negligible due to the large distance from the ocean and relatively high elevation
Seiches are standing wave oscillations of an enclosed water body after the original driving force has
dissipated Dnving forces are typically caused by seismic ground shaking The site is not located near
a body of water, therefore, the risk of a seiche impacting the site is considered negligible
54 Liquefaction
Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is located in a zone with seismic activity, on-site soils are
cohesionless or silt/clay with low plasticity, groundwater is encountered, and soil relative densities
are less than about 70 percent If the four 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 Due to the lack of a
near surface groundwater table and the dense nature of the existing compacted fill and the Santiago
Formation, the potential for liquefaction and seismically induced settlement occurring at the site is
considered negligible. :
5.5 Landslides
— We have reviewed the Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x,60' Quadrangle prepared by Kennedy
I and Tan, 2007 which indicates a mapped landslide northwest of the parking lot on the descending
slope to the northwest of the site However, the pnor, geotechnical investigation did not encounter the
landslide within the parking lot area Based on review of the geologic maps and examination of aerial
I photographs, it is our opinion that landsliding will not impact the proposed parking lot improvements
I
I
I
1
I
I Project No. 62066-:11 -0 i _'5 7 January 12, 2017
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
6.1.1 From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opinion the site is suitable for
development provided the recommendations presented herein are implemented in design
and construction of the project.
6.1.2 We estimate the site is underlain by up to approximately 5 feet of fill overlying the
Santiago Formation. The upper portion of the fill will require remedial grading in the area
of the planned improvements. The underlying Santiago Formation is considered suitable
for support of additional fill and/or structural loads from the proposed improvements.
6.1.3 Excavation of the existing compacted fill and the underlying Santiago Formation (if
encountered) should generally be possible with medium to heavy effort using conventional,
heavy-duty equipment during remedial grading and trenching operations. We expect some
cemented zones within the Santiago Formation could be encountered during trenching
operations requiring very heavy effort.
6.1.4 We do not expect groundwater to adversely impact the proposed project. However, wet
conditions and seepage could affect proposed construction if grading and trenching
operations occur during or shortly after a rain event and water is allowed to temporarily
pond on the site.
6.1.5 The proposed retaining wall structures can be supported on conventional shallow footings
founded in properly compacted fill or Santiago Formation as recommended herein. We
should be contacted if additional foundation recommendations are required.
6.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics
6.2.1 The soil encountered in the field investigation is considered to be "expansive" (expansion
index [El] greater than 20) as defined by 2016 California Building Code (CBC) Section
1803.5.3. Table 6.2.1 presents soil classifications based on the expansion index. We expect
a majority of the soil encountered possess a "very low" to "medium" expansion potential
(expansion index of 90 or less).
Project No. G2066-fl-01 -6- January 12, 2017
I.. ,
TABLE 6;2.1
EXPANSION CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX'
Expansion Index (El)
ASTM D 4829 Expansion
Classification
2016 CBC
Expansion Classification
0-20 Very Low Non-Epansive
Low
Expansive
Very. High
51-90 Medium
'91-l30 .High
Greater Than 130
I
6.2.21 1 We performed laboratory tests on samples of the site materials to evaluate the percentage
I 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 location
I
tested possesses "S Y' to "S2" sulfate exposure classes tO, concrete structures as defined by
2016 CBC Section 1904 and ACT 318-14 Chapter 19. Table 6.2.2 presents a summary of
concrete requirements set forth by 2016 CBC Section 1904 'and ACT 318. The concrete
I improvements at the site should be designed for S2" sulfate exposure class according to
Table 6.2.2: The ' presence of water-soluble sulfates' is not a visually discernible
I
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 6.2.2 :
I
REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO.
SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS
Wàtèr-Soluble Cement,*.
Maximum
Minimum
Exposure Class . -
Percent '
Sulfate (SO4) ' .Type(ASTM C
-" ' '
Water to
, .
Cement Ratio
Compressive
:. by Weight ' :
150)
by Weight ,.
Strength (psi)
SO ' SO4<0.10 No Type Restriction NA . 2,500
Si' . , ' 0.10SO4<0.20 ' ' Ii ,
,
' 0.50 •' 4,000
S2 ' 0.20S02.00 '.' V ,. .0.45
SO4?2.00' ' '+PozOIa'n or Slag, '- ,' 0:45 . 4,500
6.2.3' Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore,
further evaluation by a corrosion ehgineer may be necessary if improvements that, could be
susceptible to corrosion are plannd. .
I
Project No: G2066- 1-01 -7- .
,:
''. January 12, 2017 , '
6.3 Seismic Design Criteria - California Building Code
6.3.1 We used the computer program US. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the USGS to
evaluate the seismic design criteria. Table 6.3.1 summarizes site-specific design criteria I
obtained from the 2016 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2015 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 structures
and improvements should be designed using a Site Class C. We evaluated the Site Class
based on the discussion in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2016 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-
10. The values presented in Table 6.3.1 are for the risk-targeted maximum considered
earthquake (MCER).
I
TABLE 6.3.1
2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value 2016 CBC Reference
Soil Site Class C Section 1613.3.2
NICER Ground Motion Spectral Response 1.074g Figure 1613.3.1(1)
Acceleration - Class B_(short),_Ss
NICER Ground Motion Spectral Response 0.414g Figure 1613.3.1(2)
Acceleration - Class B_(1_sec),_Si
Site Coefficient, FA 1.000 Table 1613.3.3(1)
Site Coefficient, Fv 1.386 Table 1613.3.3(2)
Site Class Modified NICER 1.074g Section 1613.3.3
Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SMS (Eqn 16-37)
Site Class Modified NICER 0.574g Section 16 13.3.3
Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SMI (Eqn 16-38)
5% Damped Design 0.716g Section 1613.3.4 Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS (Eqn 16-39)
5% Damped Design 0.383g Section 1613.3.4
Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SDi (Eqn 16-40)
6.3.2 Table 6.3.2 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
I maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG).
Project No. G2066-11-01 -8- January 12, 2017
TABLE 6.3.2
2016 CBC SITE ACCELERATION DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value ASCE 7-10 Reference
Mapped MCE0 Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.4159 Figure 22-7
Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.000 Table 11.8-1
Site Class Modified MCEG
Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.415g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1)
6.3.3. Conformance to the criteria in' Tables 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 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.
1 6.4 Grading
6.4.1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented herein
I. and the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance. Earthwork should be observed, and
compacted fill tested by representatives of Geocon Incorporated.
6.4.2 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 requirements can be discussed at that time.
6.4.3 Site preparation should begin with the removal of landscaping vegetation, irrigation pipes,
and debris. The depth of removal should be such that material to be used as fill is generally
free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping operations should be exported
from the site.
6.4.4 In general, the upper I to 2 feet of the existing ground surface within the areas of
improvements will require processing, moisture conditioning as necessary, and
recompaction prior to placing fill or surface improvements.
6.4.5 Some areas of overly wet and saturated soil should be expected in existing landscape
irrigation areas. The saturated soil would require additional effort prior to placement of
compacted fill or additional improvements. Stabilization of the soil would include
scarifying and air-drying, removing and replacement with drier soil, use of stabilization
fabric (e.g. Tensar TX7 or other approved fabric), or chemical treating (i.e. cement or lime
treatment). .
I Project No. G2066-11-01 -9- January 12, 2017
6.4.6 The contractor should be careful during the remedial grading operations to avoid a
"pumping" condition at the base of the removals. Where recompaction of the excavated
bottom will result in a "pumping" condition, the bottom of the excavation should be
tracked with low ground pressure earthmoving equipment prior to placing fill. If needed to
improve the stability of the excavation bottoms, reinforcing fabric or 2- to 3-inch crushed
rock can be placed prior to placement of compacted fill.
6.4.7 Excavated soil generally free of deleterious debris and vegetation can be placed as fill and
compacted in layers to the design finish grade elevations. The onsite soils can be re-used as
compacted fills. Oversize rock material greater than 6 inches should not be placed within
the upper 3 feet of proposed finish grades. Fill and backfill materials should be compacted
to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to
slightly above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557.
6.4.8 Import fill (if necessary) should consist of granular materials with a "very low" to "low"
expansion potential (El of 50 or less), free of deleterious material or rock larger than 1 foot,
and should be compacted as recommended herein. Geocôn 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.
6.4.9 Disturbed slopes should be re-landscaped with drought-tolerant vegetation having variable
root depths and requiring minimal landscape irrigation. In addition, all slopes should be
drained and properly maintained to reduce erosion.
6.5 Retaining Walls
6.5.1 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 to
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.
6.5.2 Retaining walls shall be designed to ensure stability against overturning sliding, excessive
foundation pressure and water uplift. Where a keyway is extended below the wall base with
the intent to engage passive pressure and enhance sliding stability, it is not necessary to
consider active pressure on the keyway.
6.5.3 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 allowable soil bearing pressure
Project No. G2066-I1-01 -10- January 12, 2017
may be increased by an additional 300 psf for each additional foot of depth and width, to a
maximum allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 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. Figure 3 presents a
wall/column footing detail.
6.5.4 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (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 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.
6.5.5 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 90
or less) free-draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge
load. Figure 4 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.
I 6.5.6 The structural engineer should determine the Seismic Design Category for the project in
accordance with Section 1613.3.5 of the 2016 CBC or Section 11.6 of ASCE 7-10. For
I structures assigned to 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
I with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 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
I seismic load of 17H should be used for design. We used the peak ground acceleration
adjusted for Site Class, effects, PGAM, of 0.415g calculated from ASCE 7-10 Section
11. 8.3 and applied a pseudo-static coefficient of 0.3.
6.5.7 The retaining walls may be designed using either the active and restrained (at-rest) loading
I 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
I .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.
Project No. G2066-11-01 -11- January 12,2O17
6.5.8 The recommendations presented herein are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that
walls higher than 8 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.
6.5.9 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.
6.5.10. 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.
6.6 Lateral Loading
6.6.1 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.
6.6.2 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 manufaëturer's recommendations.
6.6.3 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.
Project No. G2066-11-01 - 12 - January 12, 2017
1 6.7 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations
6.7.1 We calculated the flexible pavement sections in general conformance with the Caltrans
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 lots additions should be
based on the R-Value of the subgrade soil encountered at final subgrade elevation. We
assumed an R-Value of 5 and 78 for the subgrade soil and base materials, respectively, for
the purposes of this preliminary analysis. Table 6.7.1 presents the preliminary flexible
pavement sections.
TABLE 6.7.1
PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTION
Assumed Assumed Asphalt Class 2
Location Traffic Subgrade Concrete Aggregate
Index R-Value (inches) Base (inches)
Parking stalls for automobiles 5.0 5 3 10
_light and -duty vehicles
Driveways for automobiles 5 5 3 12
and -duty _light _vehicles
Medium truck traffic areas 6.0 5 3.5 13
Driveways for heavy truck traffic 7.0 5 4 16
6.7.2 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
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.
6.7.3 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).
Project No. G2066-1 1 -01 -13- January 12, 2017
6.7.4 The base thickness can be reduced if a reinforcement geogrid is used during the installation I
of the pavement. Geocon should be contact for additional recommendations, if required.
6.7.5 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
ACI 330R-08 Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots using the
parameters presented in Table 6.7.2.
TABLE 6.7.2
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, ADTF 10 and 100
6.7.6 Based on the criteria presented herein, the PCC pavement sections should have a minimum
thickness as presented in Table 6.7.3.
TABLE 6.7.3
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
6.7.7 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).
6.7.8 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
Project No. G2066-ll-01 -14- January 12, 2017
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.
6.7.9 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 5 feet for the 6- and 7.5-inch-thick slabs 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 ACT report. The depth of the crack-control joints should be at least 1/4 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 ACT report discussed in
the pavement section herein. Cuts at least ¼ inch wide are required for sealed joints, and a
% inch wide cut is commonly recommended. A narrow joint width of 1/10 to 1/8-inch wide
is common for unsealed joints.
6.7.10 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 ACT 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 ACT guide. The structural engineer should
provide other alternative recommendations for load transfer.
6.7.11 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 t6. 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.
Project No. G2066-11-01 -15- January 12, 2017
6.7.12 We understand permeable payers will be used on the property. We calculated the
permeable paver section general conformance with the Caltrans 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. Based on the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI), the payers should
possess a minimum thickness of 31/8 inches overlying 1 to 1 Y2 inch of sand. In addition, the
payers should be installed in a pattern acceptable for vehicular traffic. The payers used for
storm water management should be underlain by Class 2 permeable base or aggregate in
accordance with ASTM C 33 based on the civil engineer/manufacturer's recommendations.
Table 6.7.4 presents the preliminary flexible pavement sections. The payers can be
underlain by PCC with thicknesses shown in Table 6.7.3 in pavement areas not be used for
storm water management.
TABLE 6.7.4
PAVER SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Equivalent Option 1 Option 2
Traffic Assumed Paver
Asphalt Estimated Location Index Subgrade Sand BaseConcrete ASTM C 33 (TI) R-Value Thickness Thickness Materials Aggregate
(inches) (inches) (inches)
Parking stalls
for 2" #8 I
automobiles 5.0 5 3'/8 1 10 4" #57 /
and light-duty 7" #2
vehicles
Driveways for 2" #8 / automobiles 5.5 5 3¼ 1 12 4"#57/ and light-duty 9" #2 vehicles
Medium truck 6.0 5 31/8
2"#8 1
1 14 4" #57/ traffic areas 11"#2
Driveways for 2" #8 /
heavy truck 7.0 5 31/81 1 18 4"#57/
traffic I I I I 1 1 16"#2
6.7.13 The Class 2 permeable base/aggregate section can be thickened to increase the water
capacity as required by the project civil engineer. Prior to placing base/aggregate materials,
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
Project No. 62066-11-01 -16- January 12, 2017
slightly above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557. The depth of
compaction should be at least 12 inches. Similarly, the base materials should be compacted to
a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly
above optimum moisture content.
6.7.14 The subgrade of the water quality payers should be graded to allow water to flow to a
subdrain. The subdrain should be placed at the bottom of the base/aggregate section below
the payers and run the distance of the paver area to reduce the potential for water to build
up within the paving section. The drain should be connected to an approved drainage
device. Continuous impermeable liners should be installed along the sides of the water
quality paver section to prevent water migration along the edge adjacent to the landscape
area. The owner should consider placing a liner at the bottom of the pavement section to
help prevent subgrade soil saturation: The liners should consist of a high density
polyethylene (HDPE) with a minimum thickness of 15 mil or equivalent. The liner should
be sealed at the connections in accordance with manufacturer recommendations and should
be properly waterproofed at the drain connection. The drain should consist of a 3-inch
diameter perforated Schedule 40, PVC pipe and placed at the bottom of the base materials.
The paver section for relatively small area should be completely lined, a drain installed,
and the drain properly outlet to an approved drainage control device.
6.7.15 The payers should be installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations. The future owners should be made aware and responsible for the
maintenance program. In addition, payers tend to shift vertically and horizontally during
the life of the pavement and should be expected. The payers normally require a concrete
border to prevent lateral movement from traffic. The concrete border surrounding the
payers should be embedded at least 6 inches into the subgrade to reduce the potential for
water migration to the adjacent landscape areas and pavement areas. The payers should be
placed tightly adjacent to each other and the spacing between the paver units should be
filled with appropriate filler. A polymer sand (Poly-Sand) can be used on decorative, non-
storm water quality paver area to help prevent water infiltration.
6.7.16 The performance of pavement is highly dependent on providing positive surface drainage
away from the edge of the pavement. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the pavement and
subgrade will likely result in pavement distress and subgrade failure. Drainage from
landscaped areas should be directed to controlled drainage structures. Landscape areas
adjacent to the edge of asphalt pavements are not recommended due to the potential for
surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the underlying permeable aggregate base and cause
distress. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, consideration should be given to
incorporating measures that will significantly reduce the potential for subsurface water
Project No. G2066-11-01 - 17 - January 12, 2017
migration into the aggregate base. If planter islands are planned, the perimeter curb should
extend at least 6 inches below the level of the base materials.
6.8 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection
6.8.1 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 2016 CBC 1804.4 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.
6.8.2 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked
periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil
movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of
time.
6.83 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.
Project No. G2066-11-01 - 18 - January 12, 2017
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
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.
The 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 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.
Project No. G2066-11-01 January 12, 2017
THE GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE FOR DISPLAY WAS PROVIDED BY GOOGLE EARTH,
SUBJECT TO A LICENSING AGREEMENT. THE INFORMATION IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES Ofll. Y; IT IS
NOT INTENDED FOR CLIENT'S USE OR RELIANCE AND SHALL NOT BE REPROOLICED BY CLIENT. CLIENT
SHALL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS GEOCON FROM AN'f LIABILITY INCURRED AS A RESULT
OF SUCH USE OR RELIANCE BY CLIENT.
VICINITY MAP
GE OCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL• MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 • 297 A
PHONE 858 558-6900 • FAX 858 558-6159
t
N
NO SCALE
THERMO FISHER
5823 NEWTON DRIVE
CARLSBAD I CALIFORNIA
RM I AML I I DSK/GTYPD DATE 01 • 12 • 2017 I PROJECT NO. G2066 • 11 • 01 I FIG. 1
I I I ,
I
EXISTING BUILDING
0
GRAPHIC SCAL~
• 75 25 __ 100' , 200' 15_0 ---
" 50 (on 3 4) SCALE 1 =
GEOCON LEGEND
OF SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
APPROX RATION TEST
LOCATION OF INFILT APPROX.
SITE PLAN
THERMO FISHER
WTON DRIVE 5823 NE CALIFORNIA
ON ~ PROJECTNO. G2066-1 1 •01 2 GEO(;•'"" ·=-• , ,
I N C O R p ~L • ENVIRONMEr:~IA 92121·2974 SHEET 1 0 ETS\G206S-11-01 Slte ~n.ctwg TECHNI NDEGO CA "''""" GEO l»OERSDSJVE ·SA S5B-6l59 ""'"'6-"-01 JTh•=
6960 F S51l-6900. FAX 858 "'°'~''""'"c PHONE 858 \1N LADRIU.Or-101 RI•
CARLSBAD, DATE 01-12 -2017
SCALE 1" : 50' FIGURE
Ph,nelt01/13f.l0117: OOAM I Ely.Al.
CONCRETE SLAB
............ :.'. a
I PAD GRADE
SAND AND VAPOR
RETARDER IN
o ACCORDANCE WITH ACI
00
44 ..... .\ k \...::..
"':.. LI.
.40."......
I FOOTING*
WIDTH
4
. :4 4- ri 4 4-
A
'SAND AND VA
RETARDERIN
PORJ
4
A
ACCORDANCE WITH ACI .4
f
:
LL
A 13
FOOTING WIDTH
*SEE REPORT FOR FOUNDATION WIDTH AND DEPTH RECOMMENDATION NO SCALE
I WALL / COLUMN FOOTING DIMENSION DETAIL I
GEOTECHNICAL •rENVIRONMENTAL. MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE -SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
RM / AML DSK/GTYPD
Pbtted:0111312017 7:04AM ByALVNLADRLLOI
THERMO FISHER
5823 NEWTON DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 01-12-2017 PROJECT NO. G2066- 11-01 1 FIG. 3
I Fib LQCafOn:YPROJECTS\G2068-I 1Ol (The,mo Fher)\DETAILS\Wo3Cot.,n,n Footno Onenso Doto0tCOLFOOT2t.do
CONCRETE
BROWDITCH GROUND SURFACE
PROPOSED 7
RETAINING WALL
PROPERLY
COMPACTED /
: BACKFILL TEMPORARY BACKCUT WATER PROOFING - / PER OSHA
f
PER ARCHITECT
- 213 • IMIRAFI14ON FILTER FABRIC I - I (OR EQUIVALENT)
I OPEN GRADED
1" MAX. AGGREGATE
GROUND SURFACE
- FOOTING 4 D. PERFORATED SCHEDULE
L-1 40 PVC PIPE EXTENDED TO
APPROVED OUTLET
12
CONCRETE
BROWDITCH
RETAINING
WALL -
2/3 H
GROUND SURFACE
WATER PROOFING
.-PER ARCHITECT
DRAINAGE PANEL
— (MIRADRAIN 6000
OR EQUIVALENT)
12H
3/4 CRUSHED ROCK
(1 CU.FTJFT.)
j— FILTER FABRIC
ENVELOPE
MIRAFI 140N OR
EQUIVALENT
- 4 DIA. SCHEDULE 40
PERFORATED PVC PIPE
OR TOTAL DRAIN
EXTENDED TO
APPROVED OUTLET
CONCRETE
BROWDITCH
RETAINING
WALL
2/3 H
GROUND SURFACE
WATER PROOFING
PER ARCHITECT
DRAINAGE PANEL
(MIRADRAIN 6000
OR EQUIVALENT)
4 DIA. SCHEDULE 40
PERFORATED PVC PIPE
OR TOTAL DRAIN
EXTENDED TO
APPROVED OUTLET
PROPOSED
FOOTING
PROPOSED
NOTE:
DRAIN SHOULD BE UNIFORMLY SLOPED TO GRAVITY OUTLET
OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING
NO SCALE
I TYPICAL RETAINING WALL. DRAIN DETAIL I
QrE QCON
. (4 INCO , RPORATED
GEOTECHNICALu ENVIRONMENTAL. MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 5586900 - FAX 858 558-6159
RM I AML DSKIGTYPD
THERMO FISHER
5823 NEWTON DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I DATE 01 - 12- 2017 PROJECT NO. G2066 - 11 -01 1 FIG. 4
Pbfted:0111312017 7:04AM I By.ALV04 LADRLLOM I Fide Loctn:Y:R0JECTS\G2066-11.0I (Thermo Fho,DETALS\TypcaI Retaig WOIDm.aOO DetiIRW0D7AI.dwO
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TESTING
We performed laboratory tests on samples collected during our investigation in accordance with the
current, generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or
other suggested procedures. We tested selected samples for their maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content, direct shear strength, expansion, water-soluble sulfate content and R-value
characteristics. Tables A-Lthrough A-V present the results of our laboratory tests.
TABLE A-I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND
OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557
Maximum Optimum
Sample No. Depth
(feet) Description (Geologic Unit) Dry Density Moisture
Content (pci) (% dry wt.)
S-2 0-3 Light grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 123.1 11.2
S-4 0-3 Brown, Clayey fine to medium SAND 123.6 .11.1
TABLE A-Il
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
Sample No. Depth
(feet)
Geologic
Unit
Dry
Density
(pci)
Moisture Content (%) Unit Peak
[Ultimate']
Cohesion
Angle of Peak
[Ultimate'] Shear
Resistance Initial Final (psi) (degrees)
S-42 0-5 Qpf/Tsa 111.8 10.1 18.9 1 375 [275] 1 28 [28]
'Ultimate indicates the end-of-tests at a deflection of about 0.2 inch.
'Sample remolded to 90 percent of the maximum dry density.
TABLE A-Ill
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829
Moisture Content (%) Dry Density . Expansion 2016 CBC ASTM Soil I
I
Sample No. (pci) Index Expansion Expansion Before Test After Test Classification Classification
5-5 11.7 26.8 103.5 83 Expansive Medium
Project No. G2066-1 1 -01 -A-I - January 12, 2017
Sample No Depth (feet) Geolog ic Unit Water-Soluble Sulfate Exposure
Sulfate (%) Class
S-11-03 Qpf 0.100 Si
S5 03 Qpf, 0379 S2
TABLE AN,
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY AESISTANCE VALUE (R-VALUE) TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 2844
Sample No Depth (feet) Description (Geologic Unit) R-Value
S-i 013 Olive gray, Sandy CLAY <5
S-3. 0 3 Light brown Sandy CLAY <5
APPENDIX B
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION
We understand storm water management devices will be used in accordance with the 2016 City of
Carlsbad BMP Design Manual. 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.
Hydrologic Soil Group
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 B-I 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 In addition, the
USDA website also provides an estimated saturated hydraulic conductivity for the existing soil.
TABLE B-I
HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP DEFINITIONS.
Soil Group Soil Group Definition
Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These
A consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These
soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet These consist chiefly of
B moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately
fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water
transmission.
Soils having a slow infiltration kate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils
C 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
D consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water
table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are' shallow
over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very 'slow rate of water transmission.
Project No. G2066-ll-Ol ' -B-1 - 'January 12, 2017
The property is underlain by man-made previously placed fill and should be classified as Soil
Group D. Table B-Il presents the information from the USDA website for the subject property.
TABLE B-Il
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)
Cieneba coarse sandy loam, CIE2 35 D 0.00 -0.06 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded
Cienaba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loams, CnG2 65 D 0.00 -0.06 30 to 65 percent slopes, eroded
In-Situ Testing
The infiltration rate, percolation rates and saturated hydraulic conductivity are different and have
different meanings. Percolation rates tend to overestimate infiltration rates and saturated hydraulic
conductivities by a factor of 10 or more. Table B-Ill describes the differences in the definitions.
TABLE B-Ill
SOIL PERMEABILITY DEFINITIONS
Term Definition
The observation of the flow of water through a material into the ground
Infiltration Rate downward into a given soil structure under long term conditions. This is
. a function of layering of soil, density, pore space, discontinuities and
initial moisture content.
The observation of the flow of water through a material into the ground
Percolation Rate downward and laterally into a given soil structure under long term
i conditions. This s a function of layering of soil, density, pore space,
discontinuities and initial moisture content.
The volume of water that will move in a porous medium under a
Saturated Hydraulic hydraulic gradient through a unit area. This is a function of density,
Conductivity (ksAT, Permeability) structure, stratification, fines content and discontinuities. It is also a
function of the properties of the liquid as well as of the porous medium.
The degree of soil compaction or in-situ density has a significant impact on soil permeability and
infiltration. Based on our experience and other studies we performed, an increase in compaction
results in a decrease in soil permeability.
We performed 8 Aardvark Permeameter tests at locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2.
The test borings were 5 inches in diameter. The results of the tests provide parameters regarding the
saturated hydraulic conductivity and infiltration characteristics of on-site soil and geologic units.
Project No. G2066-11-01 - B-2 - January 12, 2017
Table B-IV presents the results of the estimated field saturated hydraulic conductivity and estimated
infiltration rates obtained from the Aardvark Permeameter tests. The field sheets are also attached
herein. We used a factor of safety applied to the test results on the worksheet values. The designer of
storm water devices should apply an appropriate factor of safety. Soil infiltration rates from in-situ
tests can vary significantly from one location to another due to the heterogeneous characteristics
inherent to most soil. Based on a discussion in the County of Riverside Design Handbook for Low
Impact Development Best Management Practices, the infiltration rate should be considered equal to
the saturated hydraulic conductivity rate. -
TABLE B-IV
FIELD PERMEAMETER INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS
Test No. Geologic
Unit
Test Depth
(feet, below grade)
Field-Saturated
Hydraulic Conductivity,
ksat (inch/hour)
P-1 Fill 4.9 0.021
P-2 Santiago Formation 3.0 0.059
P-3 Fill .. 4.0 0.030
P-4 Santiago Formation 1.7 1.018
P-5 Santiago Formation 3.5 0.215
P-6 Santiago Formation 4.0 0.006
P-7 Santiago Formation 5.0 0.003
P-8 Santiago Formation 3.8 . 0.057
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT CONCLUSIONS
The Site Plan, Figure 2, depicts the existing property and the locations of the field excavations and
the in-situ infiltration test locations.
Soil Types
Previously Compacted Fill - Previously compacted fill exists on and adjacent to the subject
property to depths of up to about 5 feet on the site and likely thicker near the entrance at Newton
Drive. The previously placed fill is comprised of silty to clayey sands and sandy clays. The
compacted fill supports existing parking lot, utilities and the existing building structure and was not
designed to incorporate infiltration. Hazards that occur in the saturation of fill soil include a potential
for hydroconsolidation, long term fill settlement, lateral movement associated with saturated fill
relaxation. These hazards are not easily evaluated without performing significant testing, modeling
and evaluation with specific computer software. Full and partial infiltration within the fill should not
be considered based on the measured rates and because the fill supports existing improvements and
infrastructure.
Project No. G2066-11-01 - B-3 - January 12, 2017
Santiago Formation - We expect Santiago Formation materials will be located below the existing
fill soils. The formational materials typically consist of hard to very dense sandstones and siltstones
that are locally slightly cemented. Full infiltration into the Santiago Formation is considered
infeasible due to the very dense and hard nature of the unit and the cementation of the sandstones and
siltstones and the observed infiltration rates.
Proposed Compacted Fill - Some new compacted fills will be placed on the property during site
improvements. The compacted fill will be comprised of on-site materials. In addition, the fill will be
compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. In our
experience, compacted fill does not possess infiltration rates appropriate with infiltration. Compacted
fill will possess swelling (expansion) potential and will support planned improvements. Therefore,
full and partial infiltration should be considered infeasible.
Infiltration Rates
We performed 8 Aardvark Permeameter tests at depths ranging from approximately 1.7 to 5 feet
within previously placed fill and Santiago Formation. The test results indicate the approximate
infiltration rates range from less than 0.01 to 1.018 inches per hour (0.002 to 0.51 inches per hour
with an applied factor of safety of 2). Full infiltration should be considered infeasible because a
reliable rate of greater than 0.5 inches/hour is not present on the property.
Groundwater Elevations
We expect groundwater is greater than 100 feet below the existing grade. Therefore, infiltration
associated with groundwater elevations would be considered feasible.
New or Existing Utilities
Utilities are present on the existing property boundaries and within the existing Newton Drive. Full or
partial infiltration should not be allowed as utilities are conducive to migrating infiltration water and
potentially causing off site damage to improvements. Mitigation measures to prevent water from
infiltrating the utilities consist of setbacks, installing cutoff walls around the utilities and installing
subdrains and/or installing liners.
Existing and Planned Structures
Existing structures exist to the east and south of the site. Water should not be allowed to infiltrate in
areas where it could affect the existing and neighboring properties and existing and adjacent
structures, improvements and roadways. Infiltration should be considered infeasible due to the lateral
migration characteristics of the soil. Mitigation for existing structures consists of not allowing water
infiltration within a 1:1 plane from existing foundations and extending the infiltration areas at least
Project No. G2066- 1-01 - B-4 - January 12, 2017
I . 10 feet below the existing foundations and into formational materials. However, this is considered
unreasonable due to the relatively large excavation depths that would be required.
I Slopes and Other Geologic Hazards
.I Descending graded 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slopes exist along the,east of the site with heights of up
to about 25 feet. In addition, an existing natural slope exists to the north and a vacant lot to the west.
Water that, infiltrates the soil will affect the existing slopes to the north, east and west of the site.
I Water migration and the resulting seepage forces can negatively affect the stability of slopes and
cause daylight seepage, erosion and surficial slope instability. Due to the potential for lateral water
migration within the, existing soil, full or partial infiltration should be considered infeasible.
Storm Water Management Devices
Liners and subdrains should be incorporated into the design and construction of the planned storm
water devices. The liners should be impermeable (e.g. High-density polyethylene, HDPE, with a
thickness of about 30 mil or equivalent Polyvinyl Chloride, PVC) to prevent water migration. The
subdrains should be perforated within the liner area, installed at the base and above the liner, be at
least 3 inches in diameter and consist of Schedule 40 PVC pipe. The subdrains outside of the liner
should consist of solid pipe. The penetration of the liners at the subdrains should be properly
waterproofed. The subdrains should be connected to a proper outlet. The' devices should also be
installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
Storm Water Standard Worksheets
The SWS requests the geotechnical engineer complete the Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility
I Condition (Worksheet C.4-1 or 1-8) worksheet information to help evaluate the potential for
infiltration on the property. The attached Worksheet C.4-1 presents the completed information for the
u submittal process
The regional storm Water standards also have a worksheet (Worksheet D.5-1 or Form 1-9) that helps
the project civil engineer estimate the factor of safety based on several factors. Table B-V describes
the suitability assessment input parameters related to the geotechnical engineering aspects for the
factor of safety determination. '
.
..
Project No. G2066-11-0 . - B-5- January 12, 2017
TABLE B-V
SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT RELATED CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFILTRATION FACILITY
SAFETY FACTORS
Consideration High Medium Low
Concern - 3 Points Concern - 2 Points Concern - 1 Point
Use of soil survey maps or Use of well permeameter
or simple texture analysis to borehole methods with Direct measurement with
estimate short-term accompanying
continuous boring log, localized (i.e. small-
infiltration rates. Use of Direct measurement of scale) infiltration testing
Assessment Methods well permeameter or infiltration area with methods at relatively high
borehole methods without localized infiltration resolution or use of
accompanying continuous measurement methods extensive test pit
boring log. Relatively (e.g., Infiltrometer). infiltration measurement
sparse testing with direct Moderate spatial
methods.
infiltration methods resolution
Predominant Soil Silty and clayey soils Loamy soils Granular to slightly
Texture with significant fines loamy soils
Highly variable soils Soil boring/test pits Soil boring/test pits
Site Soil Variability indicated from site
assessment or unknown indicate moderately indicate relatively
variability homogenous soils homogenous soils
Depth to Groundwater! <5 feet below 5-15 feet below >15 feet below
Impervious Layer facility bottom facility bottom facility bottom
Based on our geotechnical investigation and the previous table, Table B-VT presents the estimated
factor values for the evaluation of the factor of safety. This table only presents the suitability
assessment safety factor (Part A) of the worksheet. The project civil engineer should evaluate the
safety factor for design (Part B) and use the combined safety factor for the design infiltration rate.
TABLE B-VI
FACTOR OF SAFETY WORKSHEET DESIGN VALUES - PART A1
Suitability Assessment Factor Category Assigned
(w)
Factor
Value (v)
Product
Weight (p = w x v)
Assessment Methods 0.25 2 0.50
Predominant Soil Texture 0.25 3 0.75
Site Soil Variability 0.25 2 0.50
Depth to Groundwater! Impervious Layer 0.25 1 0.25
Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = p 2.00
The project civil engineer should complete Worksheet D.5-1 or Form 1-9 using the data on this table.
Additional information is required to evaluate the design factor of safety.
Project No. G2066-11-01 - B-6 - January 12, 2017
Part 1'- Full Infiltration FeaibiIity Screening Criteria
, .7 - . -'
. '. 'Wou1d mfiltrattn of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable
oneuences that1caniot b easoably mrngted
.. f; •.- . -
- -- 1
.Criterja .--1 Y ' Screening Question -- . AYes .T_v; No
________• - .- --.--,eJ. • •.. '..--- -..m. .. ..-..
.
Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed
facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response
1 to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive . - X
evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix
D. )
Provide basis: I
We performed 8 Aardvark Permearneter tests at the site within the Santiago Formation and previously existing fill.
The following presents the results of our field infiltration tests:
P-i at 4.9 feet in fill: 0.021 inches/hour (0.011 inches per hour with FOS=2)
P-2 at 3.0 feet in Santiago Formation 0.059 inches/hour (0.030 inches/hour with FOS=2)
P-3at 4.0 feet in fill: 0.030 inches/hour (0.015 inches/hour with F0S2)
P.4 at 1.7 feet in Santiago Formation: 1.018 inches/hour (0.51 inches per hour with F052)
P-S at 3.5 feet in Santiago Formation: 0.215 inches/hour (0.108 inôhes/hour with FOS=2)
P-6 at 4.0 feet in Santiago Formation: 0.006 inches/hour (0.003 inches/hour vith FOS=2)
P-7 at 5.0 feet in Santiago Formation: 0.003 inches/hour (0.002 inches per hour with FOS=2)
P-8 at 3.8 feet in Santiago Formation: 0.057 inches/hour (0.029 inches/hour with FOS=2)
In addition, based on the USGS Soil Survey; the site consists of units that possess a Hydrologic Soil Group D
classification with an estimated k 1 of 0.00 to 0.06 inches per hour. The measured rates are less than 0.5 inches per
hour and full infiltration is not considered feasible.
Summarize flndinjs of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability. ' . • -
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed
without increasing risk of geotehnical hazards (slope stability,
2 groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot
be mitigated to an acceptable level? TheT response to this
Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of
- the factors presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis: . . . -. .
We expect previously placed fill and Santiago Formation underlies the permeable pavement areas. These materials
mainly possess lateral infiltration characteristics. Lateral water migration would cause instabilityto adjacent slopes;
right of ways, and the utilities and fill underlying the right of ways. Water that exist the slope faces would cause
daylight seepage, local slope instability and migration of soil: Water would migrate into the compacted fill associated
with the right of way and could cause settlement and distress to roadway pavements. Therefore, full and partial
infiltration should be considered infeasible.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
-
W6&sheet ii
; . 1-4 j " Screemng Quesuon Yes ; No
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed
without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow
water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot x be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this
Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of
the factors presented in Appendix C.3. .
Provide basis: - - -
We expect groundwater is at least 100 feet from the'existing elevations.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability. *
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed
without causing potential water balance issues such as change
of seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of
contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to
this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive
evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. -
Provide basis: - - -
We do not expect infiltration will cause water balance issues such as seasbnality of ephemeral streams or increased
discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters. -
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability. -
If all answers to rows I - 4 are "Yes"a full infiltration design is potentially feasible.
Part 1 - The feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration
No Full Result* . If any answer from row 1-4 is "No", infiltration may be possible to some extentbut Infiltration
would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design.
Proceed to Part 2
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the
MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be7 required by the City to substantiate findings.
Part 2P lInfilt idivs' NoIñfiltraiid'nFeasibility ScéningCrit a.Tr
df'er ir anyap ciabltiniit b hyi.115r feasibi vth'oist an rative . '1
_'n .i' consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated ' .. ..i
-
4 " 4
Criteria ..., Question r t Yes 4Screening -p,..; • . No ,.
Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any
appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening X - 5 Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the
factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.
Provide basis:
We performed 8 Aardvark Permeameter tests at the site within the Santiago Formation and previously existing fill.
The following presents the results of our field infiltration tests:
P-i at 4.9 feet in fill: 0.021 inches/hour (0.0 11 inches per hour with FOS=2)
P-2 at 3.0 feet in Santiago Formation: 0.059 inches/hour (0.030 inches/hour with FOS=2)
P-3 at 4.0 feet in fill: 0.030 inches/hour (0.015 inches/hour with FOS=2)
P-4 at 1.7 feet in Santiago Formation: 1.018 inches/hour (0.51 inches per hour with FOS=2)
P-5 at 3.5 feet in Santiago Formation: 0.215 inches/hour (0.108 inches/hour with FOS=2)
P-6 at 4.0 feet in Santiago Formation: 0.006 inches/hour (0.003 inches/hour with FOS=2)
P-7 at 5.0 feet in Santiago Formation: 0.003 inches/hour (0.002 inches per hour with F0S2)
P-8 at 3.8 feet in Santiago Formation: 0.057 inches/hour (0.029 inches/hour with FOS=2)
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studied, caléulatións, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates.,
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed
without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope
6 stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors)
that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response
to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive
evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. . -
Provide basis:
We expect previously placed fill and Santiago Formation will underlie the proposed permeable pavement'areas. These
materials mainly, possess lateral infiltration characteristics. Lateral water migration would cause instability to adjacent
slopes, right of ways, and the utilities and fill underlying the right of ways. .Water that exist the slope faces would
cause daylight seepage, local slope instability and migration of soiL Water would migrate into the compacted fill
associated with the right of way and could cause settlement and distress to roadway pavémeins. Therefore, full and
partial infiltration should be considered infeasible.
Summarize findings of studies provide reference to studies calculations maps data sources etc Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates.
I
Criteria 'j" creenmgQuestion4 . - Yes ,A -
' No
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed
without posing significant risk for groundwater related
concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other
factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based
on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in
Appendix C.3.
Provide basis: -
We expect groundwater is at least 100 feet from the existing elevations.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates.
Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream - -
8 water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be
based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in
Appendix C.3.
Provide basis: - -
We did not provide a study regarding water rights. However, these rights are not typical in the San Diego County area.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Pro'ride 'narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates.
If all answers from row 1-4 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible.
The feasibility screening categcfry is Partial Infiltration. Part 2
es t* Result* . No Infiltration i If any answer from row 5-8 s no; in filtration nfiltration of any volume is considered to be -
infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration.
*To be completed using gathered site informationand best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the
MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings.
GEOCON
Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis -.
Project Name: rTijsh7,'.. Date: Fi11/29/20161
Project Number: I " iG2066-11-01-.j By:..
Borehole Location: U4 ,. . P-f Ref. EL (feet, MSL): 1T 2640'ri
- Bottom EL (feet, MSL): 259.1
Borehole Diameter (inches): ..4.00
Borehole Depth, H (inhes): 5900 -' Wetted Area, A (in2):I
Distance Between Reservoir & Top of Borehole (inches): ;.t- . 27.50.'%..'-'
Depth to Water Table, s (feet): .100
Height APM Raised from Bottom (inches):
Distance Between Resevoir and APM, 0 (inches):
Head Height Calculated, h (inches):
Head Height Recorded, In (inches):
Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, I (inches)
6,27.
775
8.00 ... ..
1149
Reading Time (mm) Time Elapsed
(mm)
Reservoir Water
Weight (g)
Resevoir Water
Weight (Ibs)
a Interval Water
Consumption (Ibs)
Total Water
- Consumption (Ibs)
*Water
Consumption Rate
(in 3/ min)
1 200 --i19.200
-
n ' .6.00, 4.00 '.. 19.155 r! . 0.045;- . 0.045 0.312
- -
C 10.0011, 400 i' ..19130 ... 0.025 0.070 0.173
4 51400 1 400 v-'- " 19110 0.020 0.090 0.139
- - 18.00V 400 ...-.. ' 19.090 0.020 0.110 0.139
_6_ . 22.00'..: . 4.00 ... . -.19.075 :. 0.015 0.125 0.104
- - ._..'- 26.00, ,'• - 4.00 ...'SL .- 19.060' '0.015 0.140 . ... 0.104
-. . 30.00 4.00 . 19.045:' 0.015 . . 0.155 - 0.104
- .. . 34.O0'-' 4.00 . . ' "19.030 ' .0.015 . 0.170 - 0.104
10
,.-
12 17 k
13 3
14
15 - . •"; - . ; '-.._ -
16 ' . --
17
18
19 .... _1,_• - ,tl L.
.20
21
23 1 .-:, •i --' . . - - . .,
____________ 24
25 . .. -
26 L.-.
..
27 -,
28
Steady Flow Raté,Q (in 3/min): 0.104
1.00 C 0
I
0.75
0.50
I :::
0.00
0 10 •20
Time (mm)
Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Infiltration Rate)
Case l:L/h.>3 K= .3.55E-04
30 " .40
0.021 ]in/hr
10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (mm)
GEOCON
Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis
Project Date: 1/29/2016
Project Number: - G206641-01 ,- .j By: ;': IR '1
Borehole Location: r'-T' Ref. EL (feet, MSL): rToT
Bottom EL (feet, MSL): 270.0
Borehole Diameter (inches): 4.00
Borehole Depth, H (inches): :____36.00 Wetted Area, A (in 2):I 71.53 I Distance Between Reservoir & Top of Borehole (inches): '- . 30.00
Depth to Water Table, s (feet): ioo
Height APM Raised from Bottom (inches): . ioo
Distance Between Resevoir and APM, D (inches):
Head Height Calculated, h (inches):
Head Height Recorded, h (inches):'
Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, 1 (inches):
4.81
4.69
6.00
1169
Reading Time (mm) Time Elapsed
(mm)
Reservoir Water
Weight (g)
Resevoir Water
Weight (lbs)
Interval Water
Consumption (lbs)
Total Water
Consumption (lbs)
*Water
Consumption Rate
(in 3/M in)
1 0.00 ' . J962.
2 5.00. 5.00 3 3' 7950 . .' .• 3'.. 0.026 0.026 0.147
3 . 10.00 -1 5.00 ". .1 7932 ..:"' 0.040 0.066 0.220
4 15.00 5.00 37914. . .. 0.040 0.106 0.220
5 '20.00 5.00 *' 7890 .3 . I . 0.053 0.159 0.293
6 25.00 5.00 7878 " . 0.026 0.185 0.147
7 30.00 5.00 . - 7860-'3.. 0.040 0.225 0.220
8 3 35.00 . 5.00 . 7842 S ...: - i 0.040 0.265 0.220
9 .. 40.00. 5.00 .37826 .. 0.035 0.300 0.196
10 45.00 ... 5.00 .. 78141 . I. . 0.026 0.326 0.147
11 50.00. . 5.00 .-. ,..-.7802 . ' 0.026 0.353 0.147
12 ' I .. . - ,•
13
14
16
17 ..' - _______ .1_•_, _________ __________ __________ __________ 18
19 .- . . . .- ________________ ___________________ ___________________
20
.
21 . .. -' - :-'
22
23
24 -,.' .- 1. ' . ,-' 1 I' _________________ _________________ __________________
25
26
27
28 ...
Steady Flow Rate, Q (in 3/rnin): 0.147
Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Infiltration Rate)
Case 1: L/h >3 Ks t = 9.84E-04 Jin/min 0.059 uin/hr
1.0 C o 0.8 .1-• 0. •
0.
0.2 '5.
- is 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (mm)
GE.IO.,O1
Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis
Project Name: 1. , Thishe7r'T I
Project Number: 1, G2066-11-01 ;; By:) I
Borehole Location:[ 'p3•7, Ref. EL (feet, MSL):[77263.0
r Bottom EL (feet, MSL): 259.0
Borehole Diameter (inches): 400 .
Borehole Depth, H (inches): V 48.00 Wetted Area, A (in2):I. 84.52 I
Distance Between Reservoir & Top of Borehole (inches): '. 29.00 .'
Depth to Water Table, s (feet): - 100
Height APM Raised from Bottom (inches): "2.00
- Distance Between Resevoir and APM, D (inches):
Head Height Calculated, h (inches):
Head Height Recorded, h (inches):
Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, L(inches):
- 5.65
5.73
i-' 6.00" .
1158
Reading
-
. Time (mm) Time Elapsed
(mm)
Reservoir Water
. Weight (g)
Resevoir Water
- Weight (Ibs)
.
Interval Water
Consumption (Ibs)
Total Water
Consumption (Ibs)
*Water
Consumption Rate
(in 1mm)
1 .-0.00 4478-.. L . '
2 '500 t' 500 '- 4460 0.040 0.040 0.220
3. ....- io.00: 5.00 . '-4448 1 ... 0.026 0.066 0.147
4 . .15.00' . 5.00 4434 i.'. 0.031 0.097 0.171
5 '..20.00-. 5.00 4426 ?' , - . 0.018 0.115 0.098
6 -' 25.00 , 5.00 '4420'A''.'-.. 0.013 0.128 0.073,
7 3000" 5.00 .. .4410 ..' - 0.022 0.150 . 0.122
8 5.00 44MEe,,.'-e 0.018 0.168 0.098
9 40.00 . 5.00 ' 439.4 'i 'F : 0.018 0.185 0.098
10 ' __________ • ______________ ., . -
ii . .- ' . '. . -. -- ,----, - .• . - -
12
13
14 _________ -'_''.'.. ..•.. ,,'
_____________ _____________ 15.
16 .7 . _________ 1.7. •
17
18
19
- 47,77
22 ______ ______ ''' • _______
23
24 -:.
25 . :7 14,
26 -.
27 . . .
28
Steady Flow Rate, Q (in3/min): 0.098
Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Infiltration Rite)
.Case l:L/h>3' K5 = 5.05E-04i in/min
. 0.030 .uin/hr
- 10 20 30 40
Time (mm)
C~ - 1) GE.00ON
Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis -
Project Name: Date: fi1/29/2016T
Project Number:., G2066-1101 - By: - 'KH
Borehole Location: Ref. Ref. EL (feet, MSL):j -7269.0 T.}
Bottom EL (feet, MSL): 267.3
Borehole Diameter (inches): 40O •
Borehole Depth, H (inches): 20.50: Wetted Area, A (in2):I 108.40 1 Distance Between Reservoir & Top of Borehole (inches): ç --28.50 ' . I
Depth to Water Table, s (feet): ioo
Height APM Raised from Bottom (inches): .4.00
Distance Between Resevoir and APM, D (inches):
Head Height Calculated, h (inches):
Head Height Recorded, h (inches)...
Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, 1 (inches):
3.15
7.63
- 7.50 -
1187
Reading Time (mm) Time Elapsed
(mm)
Reservoir Water
Weight (g)
Resevoir Water
Weight (Ibs)
Interval Water
Consumpt.ion (Ibs)
Total Water
Consumption (Ibs)
*Water
Consumption Rate
(in 1mm)
- 2.00 - -. -. 20.125-
_2 - 6.00 . 4.00 -. . . 19.335-: . 0.790 0.790 5.474
3 -
- 10.00... 4.00 .-.. . .18.550 • 0.785 1.575 5.440 4 - ... 14.00 - 4.00 .- 17.790 . 0.760 2.335 5.267
5 - 19.00 - 5.00 16.870 0.920 3.255 5.100 6 - 22.00 . 3.00 - 16.335 0.535 3.790 4.943 7 - ..25.00 - '- 3.00 I •S. 5. .45.795 . 0.540 4.330 4.989
_8 - .27.00 . - 2.00 ... .. 15.435 0.360 4.690 4.989
9 29.00; . 2.00 1 .. 15.085 - 0.350 5.040 4.851
10 . 30.00. -t 1.00 . . .. 14.905- . 0.180 5.220 4.989
11 -'p31.00 1.00 14.735 . . 0.170 5.390 4.712
12 . .32.00 1.00 . • - - - 14.555"- 0.180 5.570 4.989
13 -. 33.00., 1.00 .. 1. -' .14.365 0.190 5.760 5.267
14 . .' .34.00 1.00 ..
77
- 14:205 '. 0.160 5.920 4.435
15 '235.00.: 1.00 . '14.030 . 0.175 6.095 4.851
16 36.00 . 1.00 .-' -. - 13.855 .. 0.175 6.270 4.851
17 . 37.00Th 1.00 .- - . . - - 13.680 . 0.175 6.445 4.851
18
19
20
21 -.- -: .-. . . '.-,-, S - •
22 .;
;
23 _,.. --.- .::- __________________ S
24 WA....
25 - -: ___________ . !..- -I• -, -
26
27
28 ______
-..•--.'--,
- Steady Flow Rate, Q (in3/min): 4.851
Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Infiltration Rate)
Case 1: LJh >3 K,.t = 1.70E-02 uin/min 1.018 tin/hr
:GEOCON
Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis .
Project Name: 'Thirmb Date:fjTj7öiZ1 -.
Project Number:I By: AR 1
Borehole Location: P-5.>', ' Ref. EL (feet, MSL): .".. 271.O
.Bottom EL (feet, MSL): 267.5
Borehole Diameter (inches): -' 4.00!.,
Borehole Depth, H (inches):I. '42.00'. Wetted Area, A (in 2):1 109.36 I
Distance Between Reservoir & Top of Borehole (inches):I -'--.36.00.---
Depth to Water Table, s (feet): [_': 100 -
Height APM Raised from Bottom (inchs):I -z 4.00
Distance Between Resevoir and APM, 0 (inches):
Head Height Calculated, h (inches):
Head Height Recorded, h(inches):
Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, 1 (inches):
5.06
7.70
850'
1166
Reading Time (mm) Time Elapsed
(mm)
Reservoir Water
't . Weigh (g)
-
Resevoir Water
Weight (Ibs)
.
.
Interval Water
Consumption (lbs)
Total Water
'
Consumption (Ibs)
-
*Water
Consumption Rate
(in 3/M in)
1 -. ''O.00'' T.6394'.. -,: '. ___________ ___________
2 - .5.00. :. 5.00 .-... ..'.6zo8: -. '....., 0.410 .0.410 2.273
3 - 10.00... 5.00 . ..6076 ''i '''•.- 0.291 0.701 1.613
4. ''.15.00 5.00 ..5962:-- .. ..- 0.251 . . 0.952 . 1.393
5 - 20.00 5.00 0.225 1.177 1 247
.6 t21;00"ct 1.00 5840 0.044. .. 1.221' . i1.222
7 -. , 22.00 N..t . 1.00 . ___5822,z - ..' ' 0.040 1.261 1.100
8 - , 23.00' P 1.00 .- ' 5802.- Z. :.-- 0.044 1.305 1.222
9 2400 100 - ,5782 0.044 1.349 1.222
10 .25.00.-:H 1.00 .. L5764 - . 0.040 .1.389 1.100
11 26.00. 1.00 , .5744 .'H'- ._'1-., '0.044 ' 1.433 1.222
12 ,;..27.00 1.00 -..--i5724 ,.' '--'t- . 0.044 . 1477 1.222
13 'i28O0' f . 1.00 -.-, '.5708:., . . 0.035 . . 1.512 0.978
14 2900 100 '... 5690 ' s..- . 0.040 1.552 1.100
15 A0.00- 1.00 '.-.5672 .' -" . 0.040 1.592 1.100
16 .-'..32.06 2.00 .'-,. 0.075 ' 1.667 - 1.039
17 - . 34.00. 2.00 .-5602 . • .. . - 0.079 1.746 . " 1.100
18 ' -36.0V 2.00 . 5568'A'-' "i. .'.' 0.075 1.821 . 1.039
19 - '40.00-'- 4.00 . - 5500:-'- 0.150'- 1.971 1.039
20 . . 42.O6 . 2.00 5468' . 0.071 ' 2.041..- 0.978
21 -44.00-.. 2.00 -,5434:.,'."- :'y - '0.075 ' 2.116 . .1.039
22 :b.
23 ''..Ti'' - . -.-' ,1..J'•, i'': . -' -
24
25 ' frf ' _________ . . -• ____________
26
27
28
-
. Steady Flow' Rate, Q (in 3/min): 1.039
10.0
8. CL
EE 6.0
-
2' .4., o
2. I. -
- 0.0
0 10 . 20 1 30
Time (mm)
Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Infiltration Rate)
Case 1: L/h >3 = - 3.58E-03 In/mm
40 50
0.215 uin/hr
C .2 0.4
E 0.3
—S In In CC o. 0.2
0.1
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (mm)
-
GEOCON
Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis
Project Name [thj'rmo Fish.777 'r Date:111/29/2016 J
Project Number: • ..G2066-11-01 By:;
Borehole Ref. EL (feet, MSL):f 265.0....1
Bottom EL (feet, MSL) 261.0
Borehole Diameter (inches): .4.00.:' .'
Borehole Depth, H (inches): .. Y48.00 Wetted Area, A (in 2): 78.30 I Distance Between Reservoir & Top of Borehole (inches): 30.00
Depth to Water Table, s (feet): v 100
Height APM Raised from Bottom (inches): 1,.50-
Distance Between Resevoir and APM, D (inches):
Head Height Calculated, h (inches):
Head Height Recorded, h (inches):
Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, 1 (inches):
5.77
5.23
.. 5.00
1157
Reading Time (mm) Time Elapsed
(mm)
Reservoir Water
Weight (g)
Resevoir Water
Weight (Ibs)
Interval Water
Consumption (Ibs)
Total Water
Consumption (Ibs)
*Water
Consumption Rate
(in 1mm)
1 .0.00 . s-8434
2 .5.00 . 5.00 -. . 8416..' .. , .- :. 0.040 0.040 0.220
3 .10.00.i 5.00 ........8414 .JL :'. 0.004 0.044 0.024
4 15.00. 5.00 8414 . . , 0.000 0.044 0.000
S ..20.00 5.00 .8414' 0.000 0.044 0.000
6 '25.00 5.00 8412 0.004 0.049 0.024
7 kAo.00 15.00 - 8408.. 0.009 0.057 0.016
_9_
10
12 :.- .'' .. -•- ..
13
14 - - --... -. .
15 ..•..,-.. .-.,
16 ... .. •' .. _____________ -. .. .-, -
___________________
17
18 '--' -'_... - .-
.-
.- • * -
19 ..- ____________ .. •.. .., _________________ __________________ __________________ 20 7
21
22
23 . .'.z.:;:-- : T , .-'
24
25
26 l';." xl . -
27
28 ..- ,.
Steady Flow Rate, 0 (in 3/min): 0.016
Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Infiltration Rate)
Case 1: L/h >3 = in/min 0.006 In/hr
30
10.0 C
.9 ._. 8.0 0. E 6.0
4.0 'S..
CC o
' 2.0
0.0
0 10 • 20
Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis
Project Date: U11/29/2616s.zl
Project Number: G2066-1101 4 By:
Borehole Location:f" Ref.'EL (feet, MSL):r.268.0.
Bottom EL (feet, MSL): 263.0
- . Borehole Diameter (inches): . " 4.00 v.-. _____________________ Borehole Depth, H (inches): .60.00- Wetted Area, A (1n2):I 110.09 Distance Between Reservoir & Top of Borehole (inches) 29.50
Depth to Water Table, s (feet): 777750
Height APM Raised from Bottom (inches): 4.00
Distance Between Resevoir and APM, D (inches):
Head Height Calculated, h (inches):
Head Height Recorded, h (inches):
Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, 1 (inches):
6.52
7.76
77 7.50
1148
•
,Reading Time (mm) Time Elapsed
(mm)
Reservoir Water
Weight (g)
-
-
Resevoir Water
Weight (Ibs)
.
-.
Interval Water
Consumption (Ibs)
Total Water
. Consumption (Ibs)
*Water
Consumption Rate
(in 1mm)
20.29.5 •. ______________ ______________ ______________
- 2.00 ' 0.025 ' 0.025 0.346
3 .-7•0Q 2.00 T, - 20.260. 0.010 D.035 0.139
4 1100 400 .. 20185 0.075 0.110 0.520
- - 21.O0 10.00 '. .' 20:180 0.005 0.115 0.014
-
__•j
10. - 4 - -
12 - .t 13 .
14 -. .". .. •• .' 't - .j
.15 _________ -- j-Ji•,, _4__• , . 16 - t
17 ;- ____________ ___________ ______________ ..:-,- •:.. . - 18 - 19
20 _________ ------_.- - •- - -.
21
22 23 - . ---
24 -':' 25 ._-•.t ______ _________ - -..
26 ~ _______ -:
_________ ___________ ___________ ___________
28 .:• .•.
Steady Flow Rate, 0 (in 3/min): 0.014
Time (mm)
Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Infiltration Rate)
_______
Case 1: L/h ->3 = 4.73E-05 un/mm 0.003 un/hr
5.0 - C
4.0
E- E 3.0
I,, CC 2.0
1.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40
Time (mm)
(4)
GEOCON
Aardvark Permeameter Data Analysis
Project Name:f Thermo Fisher T Date:1 ,;.11/T2j
Project Number: G206641-01' .1 By: KH.
Borehole iocation:f 78. Ref. EL (feet, MSL):F TTh.o T1
Bottom EL (feet, MSL): 265.3
Borehole Diameter (inches): - 4.00 --
Borehole Depth, H (inches): 45.00 Wetted Area, A (in 2):I 109.40 1
Distance Between Reservoir & Top of Borehole (inches): - 28.00
Depth to Water Table, s (feet): .100
Height APM Raised from Bottom (inches): 4.00
Distance Between Resevoir and APM, D (inches):
Head Height Calculated, h (inches):
Head Height Recorded, h (inches):
Distance Between Constant Head and Water Table, L (inches):
5.15
7.71
-. 9.00
1163
Reading Time (mm) Time Elapsed
(mm)
Reservoir Water
Weight (g)
Resevoir Water
Weight (Ibs)
Interval Water
Consumption (Ibs)
Total Water
Consumption (Ibs)
*Water
Consumption Rate
(in 3/min)
1 2.00 - - 20.590
2 .' 4.00 2.00 - :' 20.485' ' 0.105 0.105 1.455
3 .6.00 2.00 . . . 20.415: . 0.070 0.175 0.970
4 . ' 10.00 4.00 20.305 . 0.110 0.285 0.762
S - - ' 14.00 4.00 . - - 20.280: 0.025 0.310 0.173
6 18.00-. 4.00 . 20.280 . 0.000 0.310 0.000
7 . .:22.00 4.00 - 20.280: 0.000 0.310 0.000
8 '26.00- 4.00 .:. -; .., -..... 20.240 - 0.040 0.350 0.277
9 . .30.00 4.00 . ' - 20.200 0.040 0.390 0.277
10 :32.00 . 2.00 . ___. !.-20.180 0.020 0.410 0.277
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 : _•.-: ____________ --,;.- ,.,r.. __
22
23
24
25
26
27 .-..1.____. ' _.. _. -.-•'.c
28
Steady Flow Rate, 0 (in'/min): 0.277
Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity _(infiltration Rate )
Case 1: L/h >3 =
-o un/mn 0.057uin/hr
LIST OF REFERENCES
2016 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, based on
the 2015 International Building Code, prepared by California Building Standards
Commission, dated July, 2016.
A CI 318-11, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, prepared
by the American Concrete Institute, dated August, 2011.
A CI 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, Ground Motion Prediction Equations for the Average
Horizontal Component of PGA, PVG, and 5%-Ramped PSA at Spectral Periods between
0.01s and 10.0s, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 24, Issue I, February 2008.
California Emergency Management Agency (CEMA), Tsunami Inundation Map For
Emergency Planning, Point Loma Quadrangle, dated June 1, 2009.
California Geological Survey, Seismic Shaking Hazards in California, Based on the
USGS/CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment (PSHA) Model, 2002 (revised April
2003). 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years.
http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghmlpshamap/pshamain.html
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. Young's, A NGA Model for the Average Horizontal
Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, preprint- for article to be
pub1ished in NGA Special Edition of Earthquake Spectra, Spring 2008.
I
II.. Geosoils Incorporated, Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation Portion of 14-acre
Parcel on Newton Drive, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, dated April 15, 1997
(W.O. 2212-A-SC).
I 12. Jennings, C. W., and Bryant, W. A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, California
Geologic Survey, Geologic Data Map No. 6.
I 13. Kennedy, M. P., and S. S. Tan, 2002, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30'x60' Quadrangle,
California, USGS Regional Map Series Map No. 2, Scale 1:100,000.
I S.
Project No. G2066-11-01 January 12, 2017
I
'LIST OF REFERENCES (Concluded) . .
I 14. Legg, M. R., J. C. Borrero, and C. E. Synolakis (2002), Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to
Southern California Coastal Cities, 2002 NEHRP Professional Fellowship Report, dated
January.
1 15: Lindvall; 'S. C., T. K. Rockwell, and C. E. Lindvall, The Seismic. Hazard of San Diego
Revised: New Evidence for Magnitude. 6+ Holocene Earthquakes on the Rose Canyon Fault
Zone: Proceedings of the Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1990,
I 11 .. .
.
16. Risk Engineering, EZ-FRISK, Version 7.65, 2015.
1 17. Unpublished reports, stereo aerial photographs, and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated.
I 18. United States Geologic Siiri'ey, US. Seismic Design Maps;
.
19. URS, 2004, San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, San Diego
I County, California, dated March 15, (TJRS Project No. 27653042.00500).
1 '
1 H .
i ..
I :
I. . .
,.
. . .. . ,. .
I ..
1 . . .
Project No. G2066-11-01 . .
.
. . January 12, 2017