HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 01-09; LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2012-07-31--"I
I
-·-1
.--I
--,I
~·I
-··1
1··1
--I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
<I
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
San Diego 6280 Riverdale stree~
619.280;4321Si\nDiego,-CA 92120
Indio 83·740 Citrus Avenue
766.775.5983 Suite G
IndiO. CA92201-3438
Riverside 1130 Palmyrita Avenue
951.965.8711 Suite 330-A
River,side, CA92507
Toll Free
877.215.4321 www.scst.com
MR. RICK HENDERSON
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CENTERS
5918 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD
PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588
RECEIVED
MAY 1 7 2016
PREPARED BY:
LAND DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC.
6280 RIVERDALE STREET
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120
Providing Professional Engineering Services Since 1959
C' O\-O~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL &TESTING,INC.
A (allforr .. " (er tll.ed Small Bu<ln"" fnl .. rpt'lse 1'i8fl
January 4, 2012
Revised July 31,2012
Mr. Jim Reuter
Property Development Centers
5918 Stc;meridge Mall Road
Pleasanton, California 94588
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Reuter:
San Diego 6280 Riverdale Street
619.280.432' San Diego, CA 92120
Indio 83·14o--Citrus Avenue
160.775.5983 Suite ,G .
Indio, CA 92201-3438
Riverside 1130 Palmyrit" Avenue
951.965.8711 suite 330·A
Riverside. CA 92501 Toll Free
877.215.4321 wVlw.scst.com
SCS&TNo.1111199
Report ~o. 1 R,
This letter transmits Southern California Soil & Testing Inc.'s (SCS&T) report describin'g the
updated geotechnical investigation performed for the planned commercial develepment. The
subdivision will be located at the southeast corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa
Avenue in the City of Carlsbad, California.
This investigation was conducted in general conformance with the scope ef work present~cI in
SOS&1'8 proposal dated November 16, 2011. If you have any questions concerning this report,
or need additional information, please call us at (619) 280-4321.
Ga . Fountain, GE 27 2
Vice President! Principal Engineer
GBF:AKN:aw
(8) Mr. Mark Langan
(1) Mr. Mark Langan via e-mail atmarkl@sca-sd.com
(1) Mr. Rick Henderson via e-mail atrick.henderson@pdcenters.com
I TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... ~ ................. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................ : .......................... 1
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2.1 Field Exploration .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................ 1
1.2.3 Analysis and Report .............................................................................................................. 1
2. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................... ., ................................. 2
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................ ~ .......... 2
2.2 STOCKPILE ........................................................................................ : ............................................ 2
2.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................ ,2
2.4 GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................. 3
2.5 LANDSLIDES .................................................................................................................................. '3
2.6 POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................... 3
2.7 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ...................................................................................................... 3
3. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 4
4. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................•....... 4
4.1 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING ................................................................................................. 4
4.1.1 Site Preparation .................................................................................................................... 4
4.1.2 Compressible Soil Removal .................................................................................................. 5
4.1.3 Excavation Characteristics ................................................................................................... 5
4.1.4 Expansive Soil ....................................................................................................................... 5
4.1.5 Rock Fill Placement .............................................................................................................. 5
4.1.6 Building Pad Over-Excavation Requirements ...................................................................... 6
4.1.7 Earthwork ............................................................................................................................. 6
4.1.8 Keyway .................................................................................................................................. 6
4.1.9 Subdrains .............................................................................................................................. 7
4.1.10 Fill Slopes ............................................................................................................................. 7
4.1.11 Permanent Cut Slopes ........................................................................................................... 7
4.1.12 Temporary Excavation Slopes .............................................................................................. 7
4.1.13 Shrinkage and Bulkage Estimates ......................................................................................... 8
4.1.14 Imported Soil. ........................................................................................................................ 8
4.1.15 Suiface Drainage .................................................................................................................. 8
4.1.16 Settlement Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 8
4.1.17 Grading Plan Review ............................................................................................................ 8
4.2 FOUNDATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 9
4.2.1 Conventional Footings .......................................................................................................... 9
4.2.2 Foundation Excavation Observations ................................................................................... 9
4.2.3 Static Settlement Characteristics .......................................................................................... 9
4.2.4 Resistance to Lateral Loads .................................................................................................. 9
4.2.5 Foundation Plan Review ....................................................................................................... 9
4.3 SLABS-ON-GRADE .......................................................................................................................... 9
4.3.1 Interior Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ........................................................................................ 9
4.3.2 Exterior Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ..................................................................................... 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION PAGE
4.4 EARTH RETAINING WALLS .............•...•...•.•...........•...................•.••.•.•.•.•...•....•................•.....•••••..•. 11
4.4.1 Foundations ........................................................................................................................ 11.
4.4.2 Passive Pressure ................................................................................................................. ll
4.4.3 Active Pressure ................................................................................................................... 11
4.4.4 At-Rest Pressure .................................................................................................................. 11
4.4.5 Seismic Earth Pressure ................................................................................................... .-. .. 11
4.4.6 Waterproofing and Backdrain Observation ........................................................................ 12
4.4.7 Backjill ............................................................................................................................ ~ ... 12
4.4.8 Factor of Safety .......................................................................................................... , ........ 12
4.5 MSE WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS ........................................................................... , .................... 12
TABLE 3 .................................................................................................................................................... 12
4.6 PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 12
TABLE 4 .................................................................................................................................................... 13
4.7 INFILTRATION RATES ................................................................................................................... lJ
5. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DURING CONSTRUCTION ........................................... 14
6. CLOSURE ......................................................................................................................................... 14
TABLES
Table 1 .......................................................................................... Expansion Index Requirements
Table 2 .................................................................... Estimated Shrinkage and Bulkage Estimates
Table 3 ..................................................... Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Design Parameters
Table 4 .............................................................................. Flexible Pavement Recommendations
Table 5 .................................................................................... Rigid Pavement Recommendations
ATTACHMENTS
FIGURES
Figure 1 ................................................................................................................ Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 ............................................................................................ Subsurface Investigation Map
Figure 3 ............................................................................................... Grading Consideration Map
Figures 4 and 5 ........................................................................... Oversize Rock Placement Detail
Figure 6 .................................................................................................................. Subdrain Detail
Figure 7 ....................................................................................................... Wall Backdrain Details
APPENDICES
Appendix I ................................................................................ Logs of Exploratory Test Trenches
Appendix II ......................................................................................................... Laboratory Testing
Appendix III ............................................................................................ Seismic Traverse Results
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation Southern California Soil and
Testing, Inc. (SCS&T), performed for the planned commercial development to be located on the
southeast corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue in the City of Carlsbad,
California. The purpose of our work is to provide conclusions and recommendations regarding
the geotechnical aspects of the project.
An SCS& T geologist observed the excavation of 7 exploratory test trenches to depths of
between 8 feet and 14 feet below the existing grade with a rubber tire backhoe equipped with an
18-inch bucket. The backhoe encountered refusal in test trenches, T-1 and T-7. SCS&T also
observed the drilling of 4 exploratory test borings using a truck mounted drill rig equipped with a
hollow stem auger. SCS& T tested selected samples from the trenches and borings to evaluate
pertinent classification and engineering properties and assist in the development of geotechnical
conclusions and recommendations. Additionally, 1 seismic traverse was performed to
determine rippability characteristics of the underlying rock.
Materials encountered in the test trenches and borings and exposed near the surface consist of
fill, alluvium, Delmar Formation and Metavolcanic rock. The fill and alluvium are comprised of
loose, clayey sand and soft, sandy clay. The Delmar Formation is comprised of very stiff to
harQ, sandy claystone and clayey sandstone. The metavolcanic rock is comprised of
metamorphosed and un-metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary rock commonly identified as
the Santiago Peak Volcanics.
The main geotechnical considerations affecting the planned development are:
• The presence of compressible alluvial materials;
• Expansive soils;
• Difficult excavation conditions;
• Cut/fill transitions below the building pads;
• Oversize materials.
Mass grading operations are expected to consist of cuts and fills ranging from between about 5
feet and 50 feet. The on-site clayey materials tested have high expansion potentials. The
seismic traverses indicate that the rock on-site will require blasting and specialized rock
breaking equipment during excavation. To reduce the potential for differential settlement and/or
heaving select grading and over-excavation of the building pads will need to be performed. We
expect that the excavated rock will need to be processed with the expansive soil to produce a
suitable fill material. Production of a suitable fill material is expected to require crushing and/or
screening. Shallow spread footings with bottom levels in compacted fill can be used for the
support of the planned structures.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation Southern California Soil and
Testing, Inc. (SCS&T), performed for the planned commercial development to be located on the
southeast corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue in the City of Carlsbad,
California. The purpose of our work is to provide conclusions and recommendations regarding
the geotechnical aspects of the project. Figure 1 presents a site vicinity map.
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK
1.2.1 Field Exploration
Subsurface conditions were explored by excavating a total of 4 exploratory test trenches to
depths of between 8 feet and 14 feet below the existing grade with a rubber tire backhoe
equipped with an 18-inch bucket. SCS& T also observed the drilling of 4 exploratory test
borings using a truck mounted drill rig equipped with a hollow stem auger. Additionally, 1
seismic traverse was performed to determine the rippability characteristics of the underlying
materials. Figure 2 shows the locations of the test trenches, test borings and seismic
traverses. An SCS& T geologist logged the test trenches and borings and obtained samples
for examination and laboratory testing. The logs of the test trenches and borings are in
Appendix I. Soils are classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System illustrated
on Figure 1-1. The seismic traverse results are in Appendix III:
1.2.2 Laboratory Testing
The laboratory program consisted of tests for:
• Expansion Index
The results of the laboratory tests, and brief explanations of test procedures, are in
Appendix II.
1.2.3 Analysis and Report
SCS& T evaluated the results of the field and laboratory tests to develop conclusions and
recommendations regarding:
1. Subsurface conditions beneath the site;
2. Site preparation;
3. Excavation characteristics;
4. Potential geologic hazards that may affect the site;
5. Criteria for seismic design in accordance with California Building Code procedures;
6. Appropriate alternatives for foundation support along with geotechnical engineering
criteria for design of the foundations;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Property Development Centers
La Costa Town Square Commercial Development
Car/sbad, California
7. Resistance to lateral loads;
8. Estimated foundation settlements;
9. Support for concrete slabs-on-grade floors;
10. Lateral pressures for the design of retaining walls;
11. Pavement sections.
July 31,2012
SCS& T Proposal No. 1111199-01R
Page 2
2. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is an irregular shaped lot located on the southeast corner of Rancho Santa Fe
Road and La Costa Avenue in the City of Carlsbad, California. The site is bounded by vacant
land on the east, Rancho Santa Fe Road on the north, and La Costa Avenue and a residential
subdivision on the south and west sides. A stockpile of rocks is located at the northeastern
portion of the project area. The site is located along a south-facing slope that is characterized
by 3r north-south trending, natural drainage swales that flow to the south. The total elevation
difference of the site is about 80 feet over a span of 2,000 feet. Vegetation consists of native
grasses and shrubs.
2.2 STOCKPILE
A stockpile is located at the northeast corner of the site. The material observed in the stockpile
consists of clayey soils and rocks that range up to about 4 feet in maximum dimension. This
material was most likely derived from excavations performed as part of the construction of
Rancho Santa Fe Road and nearby developments. The stockpile appears to be about 20 feet
thick at it deepest section and is most likely underlain by metavolcanic rock.
2.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Alluvium, Delmar Formation, and metavolcanic rock underlie the subject site. Figure 2 shows
the approximate limits of the geologic materials.
Fill: SCS&T's geologist observed fill comprised of loose clayey sand and sift sandy clay
and boulders test trench T-1 and T-7. The fill encountered in test trench T-5 consisted of
clayey sand. Figure 2 shows the approximate limits of this matetial. This fill encountered .in
our test trenches extended to beyond the maximum depth explored of 10 feet.
Alluvium: SCS& T's geologist observed alluvium comprised of loose clayey sand and soft
sandy clay with gravel in test trench T-S. In general, this material is located within the
drainage swales at the site. This alluvium encountered in our test trench extended to a
depth of about 5 feet below the ground surface and overlies the Delmar Formation.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Property Development Centers
La Costa Town Square Commercial Development
Carlsbad, California
July 31,2012
SCS&T Proposal No. 1111199-01R
. Pag(J 3
Delmar Formation: SCS& 1's geologist observed the Delmar Formation comprised of very
stiff to hard, sandy claystone at the surface in test trenches T -2, T -3 and T -4 and borings B-
1 through B-5. This material extended beyond the maximum depth explored of 47 feet in
test boring B-4.
Metavolcanic Rock: SCS&1's geologist observed Metavolcanic rock on the surface
exposed along the eastern portion of the site. The metavolcanic rock is typically comprised
of metamorphosed and un-metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary rock commonly
identified as the Santiago Peak Volcanics.
2.4 GROUNDWATER
SCS& 1's geologist observes groundwater seepage in the test boring B-4 at a depth of about 34
feet below the existing grade and test trench T-7 at a depth of 8 feet. Wat~r and wet soil should
be expected at the bottoms of the existing alluvial channels. Groundwater levels can fluctuate
seasonally, and can rise significantly following periods of precipitation. In addition,groundwater
can be perched on impermeable layers of the claystone and/or rock as a result of rainfall and
irrigation.
2.5 LANDSLIDES
No landslides are mapped at or near the subject site. A slope failure occurred northwest of the
subject site at the southeastern terminus of Agua Dulce Court in 2005. The slope failure
occurred on the northwest facing fill slope built during the construction of the original Rancho
Santa Fe Road alignment and was surficial in nature. We understand a buttress and a
permanent subdrain system was constructed to reduce the potential for future failures
2.6 POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
No known geologic hazards are mapped across the site. A geologic hazard likely to affect the
project is groundshaking as a result of movement along an active fault zone in the vicinity of the
subject site.
2.7 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
The site coefficients and adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral response
acceleration parameters in accordance with the 2010 California Building Code based on the
2009 International Building Code are presented below:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
):=
Property Development Centers
La Costa Town Square Commercial Development
Carlsbad, California
Site Coordinates: Latitude 33.083°
Longitude -117.229°
Site Class: D
Site Coefficient Fa = 1.056
Site Coefficient Fv = 1.583
July 31, 2012
SCS&T Proposal No. 1111199-01R
Page 4
Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods Ss = 1.1
Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Period S1 = 0.4
SMs=FaSs
SM1=FvS1
Sos=2/3* SMS
S01=2/3* SM1
3. CONCLUSIONS
The main geotechnical considerations affecting the planned development are:
• The presence of compressible alluvial materials;
• Expansive soils;
• Difficult excavation conditions;
• CuUfill transitions below the building pads;
• Oversize materials.
Mass grading operations are expected to consist of cuts and fills ranging from between about 5
feet and 50 feet. The on-site clayey materials tested have high expansion potentials. The
seismic traverses indicate that the rock on-site will require blasting and specialized rock
breaking equipment during excavation. To reduce the potential for differential sett.lement and/or
heave, select grading and over-excavation of the building pads will need to be performed. We
expect that the excavated rock will need to be processed with the expansive soil to produce a
suitable fill material. Production of a suitable fill material is expected to require crushing and/or
screening. Other alternatives to produce a suitable fill material can also be considered.
Shallow spread footings with bottom levels in compacted fill can be used for the support of the
planned structures.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING
4.1.1 Site Preparation
Site preparation should begin with the removal of the existing vegetation and debris. Itis
expected that the upper 6 inches of the exposed surface will need to be brushed and
exported from the site. The stockpiled materials and existing fill should be excavated in their
entirety. Figure 3 presents the approximate bottom elevations of the fill that will be
excavated.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Property Development Centers
La Costa Town Square Commercial Development
Carlsbad, California
4.1.2 Compressible Soil Removal
July31; 2012
SCS&T Proposal No. 1111199-01R
. Page 5
It is recommended that existing compressible soils (fill, alluvium and highly weathered
formational deposits) underlying areas of the site to be graded be excavated in their entirety.
SCS& T expects the compressible soil excavation to be about 3 feet within the alluvial
drainage channels. No excavation for remedial grading is expected where rock is exposed
on the surface. Figure 3 presents the approximate limits of the compressible soil removal.
An SCS& T representative should observe conditions exposed in the bottom of the
excavations to determine if additional excavation is required.
4.1.3 Excavation Characteristics
Conventional heavy equipment in good working order is expected to be able to excavate the
alluvial materials and Del Mar Formation on-site. However, non-rippable rock exists on-site,
and these areas will require rock-breaking equipment. In addition, oversized, buried hard
rock requiring special handling should be anticipated. Contract documents should specify
that the contractor mobilize equipment capable of excavating and breaking the bedrock.
Additionally, it should be noted that gravel, cobbles, and boulders up. to 48 inches in
diameter could be encountered within the stockpile. Contract documents should specify that
the contractor mobilize equipment capable of compacting materials with gravel and cobbles.
4.1.4 Expansive Soil
The existing materials on-site that were tested have a high expansion potential in
accordance with ASTM D 4829. Expansive soil with an expansion index (EI) greater than
90 should be placed at least 10 feet below the planned final pad grade elevation and at least
10 feet from the face of all fill slopes and retaining walls. Expansive soil with an EI less than
90 can be placed at within 10 feet of the planned final pad grade elevation. Table 1
presents updated expansion index recommendations for the placement of the soil.
E
Table 1
Id R t xpanslon n ex equlremeo s
Depth Below Planned Final'Grade ExpanSion Index of Material to be Placed
Elevation
o to 10 feet Expansion Index Less Than 90
Greater than 10 feet Expansion Index Greater Than 90 Allowed
4.1.5 Rock Fill Placement
The quantity of rock generated during grading operations will depend on the grading
scheme. The rock will most likely consist of cobbles and boulders of varying size. The rock
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I'
I
I
I
Property Development Centers
La Costa Town Square Commercial Development
Carlsbad, California
JulY 3-1, 2012
SCS&T Proposal No. 1111199-01R
Page 6
should be mixed with sufficient quantities of soil such that nesting does not occur during
placement and the rock is completely surrounded by a soil matrix material. It is expected
that crushing and/or screening of on-site material will be required to achieve a suitable fill
material. The rock/soil mixture should be placed in lifts of approximately 12 inches in
thickness and compacted with a rubber-tire loader. Oversized rock between 6 inches and 2
feet may be placed in structural fills in accordance with the details illustrated in the attached
Figures 4 and 5. Larger rock may only be utilized for landscaping purposes. Rocks greater
than 3 inches in diameter should not be used within 18 inches of final grade or where
foundation or utility trenches will be located.
4.1.6 Building Pad Over-Excavation Requirements
Hard rock or expansive soil is expected to be encountered at the planned final grade
elevation for the building pads located along the north side and middle of the site. the
remainder of the lots will span a cut/fill transition with a fill differentials ranging between
about 5 and 35 feet. Figure 3 presents the expected over excavation requirements for each
building pad. The over-excavation depths shown may have to be increased depending on
conditions observed during grading. The bottoms of the excavation and subgrades beneath
fill areas should be sloped toward the street or fill portion of the lot, and away from its center.
Subdrains will be needed at the bottom of the excavated areas.
4.1.7 Earthwork
The material exposed in the bottom of the excavation should be scarified to a depth of 12
inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Excavated
materials, except for soil containing roots and organic debris, can be used as compacted fill.
Fill should be placed in 6-to 8-inch thick loose lifts, moisture conditioned to neat optimum
moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. The maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content for the evaluation of relative compaction should be
determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557.
Utility trench backfill within 3 feet of the structure and beneath pavements and hardscape
should be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. The upper 12 inches of
subgrade beneath slabs and paved areas should be compacted to at least 95% relative
compaction.
4.1.8 Keyway
A keyway should be established at the base of sloped areas. The keyway should be at least
15 feet wide at the bottom, extend at least 3 feet into competent material and be sloped
back at an inclination of about 2%. The keyway may need to be wider to accommodate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
Property Development Centers
La Costa Town Square Commercial Development
Carlsbad, California
Jl,lly 31, 2012
SCS&T Proposal No. 1111.199-01R
Pagel
compaction equipment. Final keyway recommendations will depend on the final grading
plans.
4.1.9 Subdrains
Canyon subdrains shall be installed at the bottom of canyon removals wherever fill depths
exceed 10 feet. Canyon subdrains should consist of a perforated pipe (SDR 35 or
equivalent), surrounded by at least 6 cubic feet per lineal foot of crushed rock wrapped in
filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent). A canyon subdrain is provided as Figure 6. As-
graded canyon subdrain locations should be surveyed.
Subdrains may be required at the heel of keyways for buttress slopes and/or fill-over-cut
slopes, Figure 6. Subdrains may also be required for some transition undercut areas if
warranted by soil conditions or the presence of groundwater. Figure 3 shows the
approximate locations of the planned subdrains.
4.1.10 Fill Slopes
Fill slopes can be constructed at an inclination of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Compaction of
slopes should be performed by back-rolling with a sheepsfoot compactor at vertical intervals
of 2 feet or less as the fill is being placed, and by track-walking the fac~ of the slope when
the fill is completed. Alternatively, slopes can be overfilled and cut back to expose dense
material at the design line and grade. Fills should be benched into temporary slopes and
into the rock when the natural slope is steeper than 5:1 (horizontal: vertical).
4.1.11 Permanent Cut Slopes
It is our opinion that cut slopes constructed at an inclination ·of 2:1 or flatter ratio will possess
an adequate factor of safety. The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes
during grading to ascertain that no unforeseen adverse conditions requiring revised
recommendations are encountered.
4.1.12 Temporary Excavation Slopes
It is recommended that temporary cut slopes greater than 3 feet in depth be cut at an
inclination no steeper that 1 :1. Cuts less than or equal to 3 feet in depth can be made
vertical. Temporary cut slopes should be observed by an SCS&T Engineering Geologist
during grading to ascertain that no unforeseen adverse conditions are observed. The
temporary slopes should be inspected daily by the contractor's Competent Person before
personnel are allowed to enter the excavation. Zones of potential instability, sloughing or
raveling should be brought to the attention of the Engineer and corrective action
implemented before personnel begin working in the trench. No surcharge loads should .be
placed within a distance from the top of temporary cut slopes equal to half the slope height.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Property Development Centers
La Costa Town Square Commercial Development
Carlsbad, California
4.1.13 Shrinkage and Bulkage Estimates
July 31, 2012
SCS&T Proposal No. 1111199-01R
Page 8
The estimate shrinkage and bulkage estimates are presented below.
Table 2
Eft d Sh . k d B Ik s Imae rm age an u age Eft sima es
Soil Type Shrinkage Bulkage
Topsoil and alluvium 15% to 20%
Del Mar Formation 5% to 10%
Metavolcanic Rock 10% to 20%
Rock Stockpile 15% to 20%
4.1.14 Imported Soil
Imported fill should meet the specifications for Caltrans structure backfill and, if appropriate,
be tested by SCS& T prior to transport to the site.
4.1.15 Surface Drainage
Final surface grades around the buildings should be designed to collect and direct surface
water away from the structure and toward appropriate drainage facilities. The ground around
the structures should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the structure
without ponding. In general, we recommend that the ground adjacent to the structure slope
away at a gradient of at least 2%. Densely vegetated areas where runoff can be impaired
should have a minimum gradient of at least 5% within the first 5 feet from the structure. Roof
gutters with downspouts that discharge directly into a closed drainage system are
recommended on structures.
Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout
the life of the proposed structures. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum
necessary to sustain landscape growth. Should excessive irrigation, impaired drainage, or
unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones of perched groundwater can develop.
4.1.16 Settlement Monitoring
F'ills on the order of between 30 feet and 50 feet are expected as part or the mass grading
operations. Compacted fill can be expected to settle up to about 0.5% of the fill height.. It is
suggested that deep fills be monitored to determine when settlement is essentially complete.
4.1.17 Grading Plan Review
The grading plans should be submitted to SCS& T for review to ~scertain whether the intent
of the recommendations contained in this report have been implemented, and that no
revised recommendations are necessary due to changes in the development scheme.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Property Development Centers
La Costa Town Square Commercial Development
. Carlsbad, California
4.2 FOUNDATIONS
4.2.1 Conventional Footings
July 31,2012
SCS&T Proposal No. 1111199-01R
Pag,e 9
Structures and retaining walls can be supported on· shallow spread footings with bottom
levels in compacted fill. A minimum width of 12 inches is recommended for continuous
footings for single story structures and 15 inches for 2 story structures. Isolated footings
should be at least 24 inches wide. All footings should extend a minimum of 36 inches below
lowest adjacent grade. A bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds' per square foot (psf) can be
used. These values can be increased by Ya when considering the total of all loads,
including wind or seismic forces. Footings adjacent to slopes should be extended to a depth
such that a minimum distance of 7 feet exists between the bottom of the footing and the face
of the slope. For conventional retaining walls, a minimum 10-foot distance is recommended.
4.2.2 Foundation Excavation Observations
It is recommended that all foundation excavations be approved by a representative from
SCS& T prior to forming or placing reinforcing steel.
4.2.3 Static Settlement Characteristics
Total footing settlements are estimated to be less than 1 inch. Differential settlements
between adjacent footings are estimated to be less than % inch. Settlements should occur
rapidly, and should be completed shortly after structural loads are applied.
4.2.4 Resistance to Lateral Loads
Lateral loads will be resisted by friction between the bottoms of the footings and passive
pressure on the faces of footings and other structural elements below grade. A friction
factor of 0.3 can be used. Passive pressure can be computed using a lateral pressure value
of 300 psf per foot of depth below the ground surface. The upper foot of soil should not be
relied on for passive support unless the ground is covered with pavements or slabs.
4.2.5 Foundation Plan Review
The foundation plans should be submitted to SCS& T for review to ascertain that the intent of
the recommendations in this report has been implemented and that revised
recommendations are not necessary due to the layout.
4.3 SLABS-ON-GRADE
4.3.1 Interior Concrete Siabs-on-Grade
Concrete slabs-on-grade should be designed by the project structural engineer. Siabs-on-
grade should be underlain by a 4-inch thick blanket of clean, poorly graded, coarse sand
(sand equivalent = 30 or greater) or %-inch crushed rock. Where moisture sensitive floor
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Property Development Centers
La Costa Town Square Commercial Development
Carlsbad, California
July 31,2012
SCS&T Proposal No. 1111199-01R
Page 10
coverings are planned, a vapor retardant should be placed over the sand layer. Typically,
visqueen is used as a vapor retardant. If visqueen is used, a minimum 10-mil is
recommended.
Moisture emissions can vary widely, depending upon such factors as concrete type and
subgrade moisture conditions. If these moisture emission values are not within the
manufacturer's specifications for the type of flooring to be installed, SCS&T should be
contacted to develop appropriate additional damp-proofing recommendations. It is
recommended that moisture emission tests be performed prior to the placement of floor
coverings. In addition, over-watering should be avoided, and good site drainage should be
established and maintained to reduce the potential for the build-up of excess sub-slab
moisture.
4.3.2 Exterior Concrete Siabs-on-Grade
Exterior slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and should be reinforced with
at least No.3 bars at 18 inches on center each way. Additionally, slabs should be underlain
by at least 6 inches of aggregate base. Slabs should be provided with weakened plane
joints. Joints should be placed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
Guidelines Section 3.13. Joints should be placed where cracks are anticipated to develop
naturally. Alternative patterns consistent with ACI guidelines also can be used. The
landscape architect can be consulted in selecting the final joint patterns.
A 1-inch maximum size aggregate mix is recommended for concrete for exterior slabs. A
water/cement ratio of less than 0.6 is recommended, in order to decrease the potential for
shrinkage cracks. It is strongly suggested that the driveway concrete mix have a minimum
compressive strength of 3,000 pounds per square inch (psi). Coarse and fine aggregate in
concrete should conform to the "Greenbook" Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction.
SpeCial attention should be paid to the method of curing the concrete to reduce the potential
for excessive shrinkage and resultant random cracking. Minor cracks occur normally in
concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing and redistribution of
stresses. Some shrinkage cracks can be expected. These cracks are not necessarily an
indication of vertical movements or structural distress.
Factors that contribute to the amount of shrinkage that takes place in a slab-on-grade
include joint spacing, depth, and design; concrete mix components; water/cement ratio and
surface finishing techniques. According to the undated "Technical BUlletin" published by the
Southern California Rock Products Association and Southern California Ready Mixed
Concrete Association, flatwork formed of high-slump concrete (high water/cement ratio)
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Property Development Centers
La Costa Town Square Commercial Development
Carlsbad, California
July 31, 2012
SCS& T Proposal No. 1111199-01 R
. Page 11
utilizing 3lB-inch maximum size aggregate ("Pea Gravel Grout" mix) is likely to exhibit
extensive shrinkage and cracking. Cracks most often occur in random patterns between
construction joints.
4.4 EARTH RETAINING WALLS
4.4.1 Foundations
The recommendations provided in the foundation section of this report are also applicable to
earth retaining structures.
4.4.2 Passive Pressure
The passive pressure for the retaining walls can be considered to be 300 psf per foot of
depth up to a maximum of 1,500 psf. This pressure may be increa~ed by % for seismic
loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be taken as 0.3 for resistance to
lateral movement. When combining friction and passive resistance, the friction should be
reduced by %. The upper 12 inches of soil in front of retaining wall footings should not be
included in passive pressure calculations unless pavement extends adjacent to the footing.
4.4.3 Active Pressure
The active soil pressure for the design of unrestrained earth retaining structures with level
backfills can be taken as equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 40 pounds per cubic
foot (pcf). An additional 20 pcf should be added for walls with sloping /;>ackfillsof
2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. A granular and drained backfill condition has been
assumed. Surcharge loads from vehicles can be taken into account by assuming an
additional 2 feet of soil is supported by the wall. If any other surcharge loads are antiCipated,
SCS& T should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. The project
architect should provide waterproofing speCifications and details. A typical wall backdrain
detail is shown on Figure 7.
4.4.4 At-Rest Pressure
The at-rest soil pressure for the design of restrained earth retaining structures with level
backfills can be taken as equivalent to the pressure of a fluid w~ighing 60 pcf. An additional
20 pcf should be added for walls ,with sloping backfills of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. A
granular and drained backfill condition has been assumed. If any surcharge loads are
anticipated, SCS&T should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure.
4.4.5 Seismic Earth Pressure
The seismic earth pressures can be taken as an inverted triangular distribution with a
maximum pressure at the top equal to 16H pounds per square foot (with Hbeing the 'height
of the retained earth in feet). This pressure Is In addition to the un-factored stati~'fign ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Property Development Centers
La Costa Town Square Commercial Development
Carlsbad, California
July 31,2012
SCS&T Proposal No. 1111199-01R
Page 12
wall load. The allowable passive pressure and bearing capacity can be increased by Ya in
determining the stability of the wall.
4.4.6 Waterproofing and Backdrain Observation
The geotechnical engineer should be requested to verify that waterproofing has been
applied and that the backdrain has been properly installed. However, unless specifically
asked to do so, we will not verify proper application of the waterproofing. SCS& T does have
a waterproofing division that can provide this service if requested.
4.4.7 'Backfill
All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Expansive
or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled
until the grout has reached an adequate strength.
4.4.8 Factor of Safety
The above values, with the exception of the allowable soil bearing pressure, do not include a
factor of safety. Appropriate factors of safety should be incorporated into the deSign.
4.5 MSE WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS
The following soil parameters can be used for the design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth
(MSE) walls.
Table 3
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Design Parameters
Reinforced Soil Retained Soil Foundation Soil
Internal Friction Angle 300 300 300 . (degrees)
Cohesion 0 0 0 (pounds per square foot)
Moist Unit Weight (pounds 130 130 130
per cubic foot)
4.6 PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
The pavement support characteristics of the soils encountered during our investigation range
from poor to good. It is anticipated that these deposits will be mixed and the resulting blend will
have moderately good pavement support characteristics. An "R" value of 25 was assumed for
this blend. The actual "R" value of the subgrade soils will be determined after grading. Based
on an "R" value of 25, the following structural sections are recommended for the assl,Jmed
Traffic Indices.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Property Development Centers
La Costa Town Square Commercial Development
Carlsba~, California
Table 4
July 31, 2012
SCS&T Proposal No. 1111199~01R
Page 13
Flexible Pavement Recommendations
Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete Aggregate Base 1
(inches) (inches)
6.0 4 9
7.5 5 12
Note 1: AB shall conform to Class 2 Aggregate Base In Section 26-1.02 of the Standard Specifications of The
State of California Department of Transportation or Crushed Miscellaneous Base in accordance with the
Standard Specifications for Public Works and City of Carlsbad Standards.
Based on an "R"-Value of 25 the following rigid pavement sections are recommended for the
Traffic Index presented below.
R· ·dP Igi avemen
Traffic Type
Parking Stalls
Drive Lanes
*Jomted Plain Concrete Pavement.
Table 5
tS f R eClon ecommen
Traffic Index
6.0
7.5
d . atlons
JPCP*/Aggregate Base 1
(inches)
6/6
6/6
Note 1: AB shall conform to Class 2 Aggregate Base in Section 26-1.02 of the Standard Specifications of The
State of California Department of Transportation or Crushed Miscellaneous Base in accordance with the
Standard Specifications for Public Works and City of Carlsbad Standards.
Bus turnouts should be constructed in accordance with the San Diego Regional Standard
Drawings SDG-109, 9 inches of concrete underlain by at least 12 inches of aggregate base.
The concrete should have a compressive strength of at least 3250 pounds per square inch.
SDG&E concrete maintenance areas should have a concrete thickness of at least 7% inches
underlain by at least 12 inches of aggregate base.
Trash enclosures should have a thickness of at least 7% and be underlain by at least 12 inches
of aggregate base.
The upper 12 inches of subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to above optimum
moisture requirements, and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density. All soft or
spongy areas should be excavated and replaced with compacted fill. The base material should
be compacted to at least 95% of its maximum dry density. All materials and methods of
construction should conform to good engineering practices and the minimum standards set forth
by the City of Carlsbad.
4.7 INFILTRATION RATES
The underlying earthen materials are comprised of impermeable clay and rock. Infiltration rates
will be dependent on the materials placed during mass grading operations. The project civil
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Property Development Centers
La Costa Town Square Commercial Development
Carlsbad, California
July 31,20-12
SCS& T Proposal No. 1111199-01 R
Page 14
engineer should design permeable surfaces to collect surface water and direct it toward
appropriate drainage facilities.
S. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DURING CONSTRUCTION
The geotechnical engineer should review project plans and specifications prior to bidding and
construction to check that the intent of the recommendations in this report has been
incorporated. Observations and tests should be performed during construction. If the
conditions encountered during construction differ from those anticipated based on the
subsurface exploration program, the presence of the geotechnical engineer during construction
will enable an evaluation of the exposed conditions and modifications of the recommendations
in this report or development of additional recommendations in a timely manner.
6. CLOSURE
SCS& T should be advised of any changes in the project scope so that the recommendations
contained in this report can be evaluated with respect to the revised plans. Changes in
recommendations will be verified in writing. The findings in this report are valid as of the date of
this report. Changes in the condition of the site can, however, occur with the passage of time,
whether they are due to natural processes or work on this or adjacent areas. In addition,
changes in the standards of practice and government regulations can occur. Thus, the findings
in this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. This report
should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the
suitability of the conclusions and recommendations to site conditions at that time.
In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions
and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those
encountered at the boring locations, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations
are based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data,
interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for interpretations by others
of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation
only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in
connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting
or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.
I
I
I
I
I
I~====~~==~~~~~~
I SOUTHERN CALIFORN SITE VICINITY MAP
SOIL & TESTING, INC. LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE -Job No.: 111.1199-1 1
COMMERCIAL Scale: Not To Scale I~----~----~--~~~
J I\J
It. IS'. 60'
JO 120'
SCJ.J.£:l".W'
SCS& T LEGEND
Qaf Artificial fill
Qal Alluvium (Potentially
compressible soil)
Td Delmar Formation
Metasedimentary and
metavolcanic rocks, undivided
Mzu
" '''' Geologic Contact
~cL.T2011) Approximate test trench location
lZZZl (reported by SCS&T, 2011)
8-4
(8OS&T2oo5) Approximate test boring location
(reported by SCS&T, 2005) e
SL-10 (8OS&T2011)
H Approximate Seismic Refraction Traverse location
(reported by SCS& T, 2011)
TP-52
(GeeB 990) Approximate test trench location
(reported by Geosoils, 1990) T-15
(GeesoD.,1982) Approximate test trench location ~ (reported by Geosoils, 19~2)
8-6
(GeosoDS,82) Approximate test boring location
(reported by Geosoils, 1982)
- -----
l/AI/CIK) SANTA F<,I/()AIJ
·~.t7f
- -- -- -- ---- -
T"" d, m T"" T""
,
w ~ a en
~
~ 8 ()
::s
« Z,
a:O Oz LL -
::Jcj (§~ zt:i a:LU LUf-:1:06
f-....J :::J_ 00 cncn
Figure:
2
-
J I\J
o· 1~' 60'
JO 120'
SCAt£.1~. fit
;CS& T LEGEND
@ Building pad number
Qaf Artificial fill
Qal Alluvium (potentially
compressible soil)
Td Delmar Formation
Mzu Metasedimentary and
metavolcanic rocks, undivided
',.... Geologic contact
~ Anticipated bottom elevation of fill
->-Subdrain alignment (approximate)
..... ~-CuVFiII transition line (approximate)
GRADING
location Requirement
Pad Number 1 5-foot overexcavatJon
(FiUPad)
Pad Numbcrs4 ~6, 9~13 5-foot overexcavatlon (CuI Pad)
Pad Numbers 2, 3, 5-foot overexcavatlOn
7. and 8 (CutlFiU Transillon Pad)
Pad Numbers 14 and 15 15-100t overexcavation (Fill Pads)
Pad Numbers 16 and 17 15-root overexcavatJon
(Cut Pad,)
Pad Number 18 15-fool overexcava!.lon
(CuVFdl TranSlbon Pad)
NolD: Honzonlally. tho axcavatkln should extend at least 5 feet
outsideperlmeteffoobnglinesCll'equaltDlhedeplhof
ovetexcavabon, whichever Is more
-- - --
--t:I.../'.1.
- --- - - -- -- ---
a ..--'C 8l<!:
:::: II ..-.c z..-<. ~~.f:
§ ci ': w z ..!! .. .c " >-0<' co -,.u.
~ =>-1 0« Cl)u z-3:ffi O~ I-~ ~o Cl)U o U ::s
« Z. 0:0 Oz LL -::Jej (§~ ztn o:w WI-Ices 1---1 :::l-oa C/)C/)
Figure:
3
-
I~------------------~~
I
I
I OVERSIZE ROCK FILL PLACEMENT
: lii~lt~~~f~~f~~~~irrili\~~~;~il~jj~ti~~J11:~~~:;}fI~i~~
I ~l"-.l ~'-'~~~'-'~'-'r:;;~'-,.J~'--'..r"\Q~~2...'-"~~~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ZONED
ZONE A: Compacted soil fill.
No rock fragments over 3 inches in any dimension.
ZONE B: Compacted soil fill.
No rock fragments over 6 inches in any dimension.
ZONE C: No rock fragments over 2 feet in any dimension~
Uniformly distributed and well spaced in compacted soil fill.
ZONE D: No rock fragments over 4 feet in any dimension.
Uniformly distributed and well spaced in compacted soil fill.
Note 1: Compacted soil fill should contain at least 40% soil finer than i inch
sieve (by Weight) and be compacted to at least 90% relative
compaction.
Note 2: Rocks over 4 feet in maximum dimension are not permitted in fill.
~----------------.---------------------.---------~------~--~~
I OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL Date: 4/16/2012 Figure: .
C'1011\.. SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA By: EL 4·! ~OIL & TESTING, INC. LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE -Job No.: 1111199-1! I ~ ________________ ~ _____ C_O_M __ M_E_R_IC_A_L ______ ~_s_ca_le_.: ______ N_o~tt~o_s_cru_e~ .... _Re_.~~i~
- - - - - - --. - - - --. - -... - - -
:0
TypiCal WIndrow Detall (End View)
Typical Windrow Detail (Profile VIew)
31 MIN I' • I 12' MIN
NOTES:
1. Compacted·soil fill shall contain at least 4O%.soil si~e passing i inch
sieve, (by weight). and be compacted at least 90% relative compaction.
2. Rocks over 4 feet In maximum dimanslonnot permitted in fill.
~·01 en
." cO' c: ~
.c.. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
~SOJL & TESTING, INC.
CD c.
o
OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL
(Structral Soil -Rock Fill)
I· P/L • I
LEGEND
ZONE A: Compacted soil fill.
No rock fragments over 3 inches In any dimension.
ZONE B: Compacted soil fill.
No.rock fragments over 6 inches in any dimension.
ZONE C: No rock fragments over 2 feet In any dimension.
Uniformly. distributed and well spaced In compacted soil fill.
ZONE D: No rock fragments over 4 fe!!t in any dimension.
Uniformly distributed and well spaced In compacted soli fiJi.
ZONE E: Required for all existing slopes 5:1 and steeper. At least 90%
comapction Zone Aor B material can be used.
OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL
LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE -
COMMERICAL
Date:
By:
Jqb No.:
Scale:
4/16/2012
EL
1111199-1
Not To Scale
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
Natural
Ground
Remove
Unsuitable
Material
DETAIL A Perforated Pipe Surrounded with Filter Material
Detail
A-1
Filter Material 6 cubic feet/foot
Perforated Pipe* Detail
A-2
DETAIL 8 ~ inch open-graded gravel
wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi
140N or equivalent)
Filter Material -(Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent)
·1 I·
Filter Material Shall be Class 2
permeable material per Section 68 of
CALTRANS standard specifications, or
approved alternate.
DETAIL of Canyon
Subdrain Outlet
Fill Filter Fabric
==========
Detail
B-1
Perforated Pipe* Detail
B-2
(for fills
over 35'
deep)
I [-201 MIN -t. MI~ . I r Non-perforated Pipe* ---11----Perforated PiPe*-j i inch open graded
gravel or equivalent
6 cubic feet/foot
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION
Subdrain pipe shall be installed with perforation down.
SUBDRAIN PIPE
Subdrain pipe shall be PVC or ABS, type SDR35 for fills up
to 35 feet deep, or type SDR21 for fills up to 100 feet deep.
-"-. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
__ SOIL & TESTING, INC.
SUBGRADIN DETAIL
LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE -
COMMERICAL
* MINIMUM DIAMETER
Date:
By:
Job No.:
Scale:
4" min = a ':" 500i Drain.
6" min = 500 -1,000' Drain
8" min = 1,000+ Drain
1/1/2012 Figure: EL
1111199-1 6 Not To Scale
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
nt-----1---Miradrain 6000 or Equivalent
1 -Filter fabric between rock and soil.
2 -Backcut as recommended in accordance with CALOSHA
3 -Waterproof back of wall.
4 -A 4-inch min mum diameter perforated pipe, SDR35 or equivalent, holes
1 % fall to outlet, encased in 3/4" crushed rock. Provide 3 cubic feel per
lineal foot of crushed rQck minimum. Crushed rock to be surrounded
by filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent), with a 6-inch minumum
overlap. Provide solid outlet pipe at suitable location.
5 -3/4-inch crushed rock
WALL.BACKDRAIN Date: c.. ~OUTHERN CALIFORNIA LA.COSTA.TOWN.SQUARE.-.COMMERCIAL By: ~OIL & TESTING, INC. Job No.:
Scale:
4/16/2011
GBF
1111199-01
NOTTOSCALE
Figure:
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX I
FIELD INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX I
Seven exploratory test trenches were excavated and 4 test borings were drilled at the locations
shown on Figure 2. The fieldwork was performed under the observation of our geology
personnel, who also logged the trenches/borings and obtained samples of the materials
encountered.
The logs are presented on Figures 1-2 through 1-15. Soils are classified in accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System illustrated on Figure 1-1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEND
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUP TYPICAL NAMES SYMBOL
I. COARSE GRAINED, more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.
GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines More than half of
coarse fraction is GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel sand mixtures, little or no fines. larger than No.4
sieve size but GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures. smaller than 3", (Appreciable amount of
fines) GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-clay mixtures.
SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines. More than half of
coarse fraction is SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. smaller than No.
4 sieve size. SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty mixtures.
(Appreciable amount of
fines) SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures.
II. FINE GRAINED, more than 50% of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.
SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt or clayey-silt-
(Liquid Limit less sand mixtures with slight plasticity.
than 50) CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,
silty clays, lean clays.
OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity.
SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils,
(Liquid Limit elastic silts.
greater than 50) CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity.
III. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils.
FIELD SAMPLE SYMBOLS LABORATORY TEST SYMBOLS
IZI-Bulk Sample AL -Atterberg Limits
CAL -Modified California penetration test sampler CON -Consolidation
CK -Undisturbed chunk sample COR -Corrosivity Test
MS -Maximum Size of Particle -Sulfate
~3 -Water seepage at time of excavation or as indicated -Chloride
-pH and Resi~tivity
SPT -Standard penetration test sampler DS -Direct Shear
ST -Shelby Tube EI -Expansion Index
V -Water level at time of excavation or as indicated MAX -Maximum Density
RV -RValue
SA -Sieve Analysis
UC -Unconfined Compression
&:OUTHERN CAUFORNIA
LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL
S'. SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: DAS I Date: 1/4/2012
Job Number: 1111199-1 I Figure: 1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-1
Date Excavated: 12/9/2011 logged by: AKN
Equipment: Case 580l with 18-inch bucket Project Manager: GBF
Surface Elevation (ft): 271 Depth to Water (ft): Seepage at 8 feet
SAMPLES
0 -'fi'
g ?F-e. & W .......
00 al ....... ~ 0 00 ::c u 0::: ~ W
I-00 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS => ....J 0::: ~~ a. => l-=> => I-
W 00 al I-Z OW
0 is 00 all-0 => z & :5 => ~
0
sc FILL (Qat) • Light brown, moist, loose, CLAYEY SAND.
- 2 -cl-~--------------------------------Medium brown, moist, medium stiff, SANDY CLAY with
I-GRAVEL.
I-4
- 6
:Sc-~.---------------------------.---Light grayish brown, moist, medium dense, CLAYEY SAND
I-8 with GRAVEL. Boulders encountered below 7 feet.
I--10 PRACTICAL REFUSAL AT 10 FEET ON BOULDERS.
-12
I-14
-
-16
-18
I-
~ 20
& SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL
S' SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: AKN Date: 1/4/2012
Job Number: 1111199-1 Figure: 1·2 ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-2
Date Excavated: 12/9/2011 logged by: AKN
Equipment: Case S80l with 18-inch bucket Project Manager: GBF
Surface Elevation (ft): 329 Depth to Water (ft): Not observed
SAMPLES
Cl ,-... '5'
.-.. '#. 0.. ~ ¢:! UJ '-'
'-' C/) !XI '-' ~ :c 0 c::: ~ UJ OC/)
~ C/) SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS :::J ..J c::: ~~ a. :::J ~ :::J :::J ~
UJ C/) !XI ~ Z oUJ
Cl 0 C/) !XI~ 5 :::J
Z ~ ::5 :::J ::2
Cl
DELMAR FORMATION (Td) -Light brown and medium
greenish gray, moist, very stiff to hard, SANDY CLAYSTONE. r-
- 2 \/
I-4
1/\
- 6 -----------------------------------'--
Light gray and brown, moist, dense to very dense, fine-to
medium-grained, SilTY SANDSTONE.
- 8 BOTTOM OF TEST TRENCH AT 8 FEET. NO
GROUNDWATER OR SEEPAGE ENCOUNTERED.
-10
-12-
... 14
-16
-18
-20
~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL
SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: AKN Date: 1/4/2012
Job Number: 1111199-1 Figure: 1-3
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-3
Date Excavated: 12/9/2011 logged by: AKN
Equipment: Case 580l with 18-inch bucket Project Manager: GBF
Surface Elevation (ft): 320 Depth to Water (ft): Not observed
SAMPLES
0 -13 ~ ¢? ?F-a. LU --00 al -~ J: U c::: ~ LU 0 00
I-00 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ::::> -' 0::: ~tn 0-::::> I-::::> ::::> I-
LU 00 al I-Z OLU
0 5 00 alI-a ::::> z ~ ;c(
:::J ~ -'
0
DELMAR FORMATION (Td) -Light reddish gray, moist, hard, EI
SANDY CLAYSTONE. \/ - 2
I-4 1/\
f. t....-
- 6
f.-8
I-10 f.----r.--------------------------------Light gray, moist, very dense, fine-grained, Sil TV
SANDSTONE.
-12 BOTTOM OF TEST TRENCH AT 12 FEET. NO
GROUNDWATER OR SEEPAGE ENCOUNTERED.
I-14
-16
-18
'-20
& SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA lA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL
S,"J,; SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: AKN Date: 1/4/2012
Job Number: 1111199-1 Figure: 1-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Date Excavated:
Equipment:
LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-4
12/9/2011 logged by: AKN
Project Manager: GBF
Surface Elevation (ft):
Case 580l with 18-inch bucket
345 Depth to Water (ft): Not observed
g
:c ~ Ii: 00 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS W ::> o
, DELMAR FORMATION (Td) -Light gray, moist, very stiff to
hard, SANDY CLAYSTONE.
- 2
I-4
- 6
I-8
SAMPLES
0 W al 0:: ~ ::> ....J I-::> 00 al is z ::>
\/
1/\
I-
I-10 -----------------------------------l----Light brownish gray, moist, very dense, fine-grained, CLAYEY 1\ /
SANDSTONE. i \
-12 X
~ 1\
1-14~~------~~~~----~--~------------~ BOTTOM OF TEST TRENCH AT 14 FEET. NO
GROUNDWATER OR SEEPAGE ENCOUNTERED.
-16
-18
..-.. 13
~ c.. >-0 -0:: -~ W o ci) ,
0:: ~~ ::> I-I-Z OW 00 all-0 ::>
~ <t: ::2 ....J
0
~20~-L--------------------------------------~~~--~--~~~
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL & TESTING, INC.
LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL
By: AKN Date: 1/4/2012
Job Number: 1111199-1 Figure: 1-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I'
I
I
I
LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-5
Date Excavated: 12/9/2011 logged by: AKN
Equipment: Case 580l with 18-inch bucket Project Manager: GBF
Surface Elevation (ft): 358 Depth to Water (ft): Not observed
SAMPLES
Cl -13 -~ Q. ~ !S W 0 -00 co -~ J: t) c::: ~ W 0 00
I--00 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS :::> ..J c::: ~t5 a.. :::> I--:::> :::> I--W 00 co I--Z OW
Cl is 00 col--0 :::> z ~ « :::> ~ ..J
Cl
sc ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qan • Medium brown, moist, medium
dense, CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL. 1\/ I-2
I-4 1/\
DELMAR FORMATION (Td)· Light orange brown, moist,
i--
- 6 dense to very dense, SIL TV SANDSTONE. Gravel beds \/ throughout.
I-8 1/\
I-10 I--
-12 i------------------------------------Light gray, moist, hard, SANDY CLAYSTONE. ~
I-14 BOTTOM OF TEST TRENCH AT 14 FEET. NO
r--
GROUNDWATER OR SEEPAGE ENCOUNTERED.
I-16
-18
I-
L... 20
& SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL
S' SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: AKN Date: 1/4/2012
Job Number: 1111199-1 Figure: 1-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I'
I
I
I
LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-6
Date Excavated: 12/8/2011 logged by: AKN
Equipment: Case S80l with 18-inch bucket Project Manager: GBF
Surface Elevation (ft): 258 Depth to Water (ft): Not observed
SAMPLES
Cl .--. 'S
.--. <F-0.. & ~ W ------C/) III ---~ :I: (,) a:: ~ W OC/)
I-C/) SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ::::> -' a:: ~t; a. ::::> I-::::> ::::> I-
W C/) III I-Z OW
Cl is C/) III ,I-0 ::::> z & «
::::> ~ -'
Cl
ALLUVIUM (Qal) -Dark brown, very moist, soft, SANDY \/ CLAY. Gravel encountered throughout.
- 2
I-4 \
-DELMAR FORMATION (Td) -Light grayish brown, moist,
- 6 very stiff to hard, SANDY CLAYSTONE. /
X
I-8 V\
f-
BOTTOM OF TEST TRENCH AT 9 FEET. NO
f-10 GROUNDWATER OR SEEPAGE ENCOUNTERED.
-12
I-14
-16
-18
-20
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL ~ SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: AKN Date: 1/4/2012 S~
Job Number: 1111199-1 Figure: 1-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
Date Excavated:
Equipment:
LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER i-7
12/8/2011 logged by: AKN
Project Manager: GBF
Surface Elevation (ft):
Case 580l with 18-inch bucket
269 Depth to Water (ft): Seepage at 8 feet
g
J: C/') I-() a.. C/') W ::::>
Q
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
sc ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qat) • Medium grayish brown, moist to
very moist, stiff, SANDY CLAY.
- 2
I-4
I-6
r~-----------------------------I Light grayish brown, saturated, medium dense, CLAYEY
I / SAND with GRAVEL. Boulders encountered below 7 feet.
I
~--3
I-8 .................................. ~ Seepage encountered below 8 feet.
PRACTICAL REFUSAL AT 9 FEET DUE TO TRENCH·
I-10 WALL CAVING.
I-12
I-14
I-16
I-18
SAMPLES
Q ,...... '5'
"#. 0-~ W -co -~ 0::: ~ W OC/')
::::> ....J 0::: ~t; I-::::> ::::> I-
C/') co I-.Z OW 0 C/') col-O ::::> z ~ <C ::::> ~ ....J
Q
1\ J
J\
'--
~20~~--------------------------------------~--~J---~--~--~
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL & TESTING, INC.
LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL
By: AKN Date: 1/4/2012
Job Number: 1111199-1 Figure: i-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'1
I
I
I
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NUMBER B-1
Date Excavated: 3/18/2005 Logged by: ~;. MPF
Equipment: HSA (Ingersol-Rand A300) Project Manager: DBA
Surface Elevation (ft): 331 Depth to Water (ft): Not observed
SAMPLES C/) I-
'5' C/)
0 (j) ...-. w
...-. z ?f!. Q. l-
S W ,2: '-'
C/) OJ 0 .... '-' ~ ~ :c .~ '0 W
I-0 c::: ~ '0 c::: 0 C/) SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ::> ...J
0.. ::> I-::> = ::> !:: ~ w C/) OJ tij --'I-Z 0 is z ~ (/) ::> z w 0 ~ 0
::> a.. ::0 ~. 1Xl· ....... « 0 ...J
DELMAR FORMATION (Td)· Rust to grayish-brown, moist, humid,
SANDY CLAYSTONE. Not ~ r-2 suitable capping material
~
- 4
I-6
f-8 )<
~
-10 --Gray withrust mottling, mois(hard/dense-:-SIL TV SANDST6NE~ -
Suitable capping material
I-12
i-14
)<
~
SPT 57
-16
I-18 ~
L-20
~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL
S'~ SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: DBA/SO Date: 4/6/2005
Job Number: 1111199-1 Figure: 1:-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
,I
f
.1
J
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NUMBER B-1 (continued)
Date Excavated: 3/18/2005 Logged by: MPF
Equipment: HSA (Ingersol-Rand A300) Project Manager: DBA
Surface Elevation (ft): 331 Depth to Water (ft): Not observed
SAMPLES en I-
13 en
0 --ill -Z Q) ~ '0.. l-
S ill .~ -0 co ~ en co -~ :c ~ "C ill U 0:: ~ .....
I-en SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ::> -I 0 0:: 0 a.. ::> I-::> = ::> !:: ~ ill en co Iii ~ I-Z 0 is en z 0 ::> 0 z w ~ ::> a.. e ~ co
0 ::s
Gray with rust mottling, moist, hardldense, SIL TV SANDSTONE.
Suitable capping material
I-22
24 @ 23': Slight color change, more rust iron oxide staining ~
I-26
I-28
SPT 5014"
I-30
I-32
Gradational contact 33' -35'± -----------------------------------Dark olive to grayish-black, moist, humid, SANDY CLAYSTONE.
I-34 Not suitable capping material
I-36
\
I-40 @ 40': Numerous shell fragments, high decayed organic content in SPT 60/3"
sample
I...:. 41 BOTTOM OF BORING AT 41 FEET. NO GROUNDWATER OR
SEEPAGE ENCOUNTERED. &. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL
S" , SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: DBA/SO Date: 416/2005
Job Number: 1111199-1 Figure: 1-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NUMBER B-2
Date Excavated: 3/18/2005 Logged by: MPF
Equipment: HSA (Ingersol-Rand A300) Project Manager: DBA
Surface Elevation (ft): 305 Depth to Water (ft): Not observed
SAMPLES en I-
'fi' en
e Q) -w -z ~ 0. I-
~ W .E; -0 0 ~ en co -~ :c ~ "0 W U 0::: ~ .....
I-en SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ::> -I 0 0::: 0
0-::> I-::> ¢:1 ::> !:: ~ w I:i:i l-e en co -z 15 z ~ en ::> z lJ.J ..Q 6 0 a. ::2E ~ co ::> -e « e -I"
DELMAR FORMATION (Td) • Gray with rust, moist, hardldense,
SIL TY SANDSTONE. ~ I-2 Suitable capping material
'-4
-----------------------------------Gray to maroon, moist, hard, SANDY SILTSTONE.
- 6 Suitable capping material ~
I-8
--Darkorange-broWn tOdark graylsh-brown-:-moist, hard,"" SANDY· -
-10 CLAYSTONE.
Not suitable capping material ~ I-12 F---"
Concretion at 12.5'+, difficult drilling SPT 50/5"
f.
I-14
-16
Dark blackish-gray
""" 20
t--. @ 20': Hard cemented siltstone in sample tip SPT 50/4"
-23 AUGER REFUSAL AT 23 FEET. NO GROUNDWATER OR
SEEPAGE ENCOUNTERED.
~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL
i>, SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: DBA/SD Date: 4/6/2005
Job Number: 1111199-1 Figure: 1-11
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NUMBER B-3
Date Excavated: 3/18/2005 Logged by: MPF
Equipment: HSA (Ingersol-Rand A300) Project Manager: DBA
Surface Elevation (ft): 311 Depth to Water (ft): Not observed
SAMPLES CI)
I-
'S CI)
Cl Q) -w -, z ~ a. l-
E. w .~ '-" 0 0 ~ CI) OJ ... '-" g :::c ~ "0 W () 0:: ~ 15 I-C/) SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS => ...J 0:: 0
c.. => l-=> ¢:! => !:: ~ w CI) OJ Ii:i --I-Z Cl Ci Ul CI) Z == 0 => 0 z w .Q & a.. ~ OJ => e « Cl ...J
DELMAR FORMATION (Td) -Gray with rust, moist, hard/dense,
SIL TV SANDSTONE. ~ r-2 Suitable capping material
'-4
I-6
r-8
I-Green to dark grayish-brown
-10
I-12 -----------------------------------Dark blackish-gray, moist, hard, SANDY CLAYSTONE.
Not suitable capping material ~ r-14
I-PRACTICAL REFUSAL AT 15 FEET. NO GROUNDWATER OR
... 16 SEEPAGE ENCOUNTERED .
I-18
'-20
& SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL
. ~,~ SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: DBA/SO Date: 4/6/2005
Job Number: 1111199-1 Figure: 1-12
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NUMBER B-4
Date Excavated: 3/18/2005 Logged by: MPF
Equipment: HSA (Ingersol-Rand A300) Project Manager: DBA
Surface Elevation (ft): 352 Depth to Water (ft): Seepage at 34 feet
SAMPLES CI)
I--
'5' CI)
0 Q) -w -z ~ 0. I--
lI:: W .f: "-0 C> ~ "-CI) to -~ :::c ~ "C W () 0:: ~ '0 I--CI) SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ::::> ...J 0:: 0
0.. ::::> I--::::> ¢:! ::::> !:: .' ~ W l-I--C/) to w -Z 0 0 en C/) Z 3: 5 ::::> 0 z w .Q f2 ::::> a. .0 ~ to ...... « 0 ...J
ASPHALT CONCRETE OVER AGGREGATE BASE
DELMAR FORMATION (Td) • Olive to mauve with sulphur yellow
I-2 seams, very moist, stiff, SANDY CLAYSTONE.
Not suitable capping material ~ I-4
I-6
l-
I-8 ~
I-10
f-
I-12
l-
I-14
SPT 28
I-16
I-18
L... 20
&. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL
S" SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: DBA/SO Date: 4/6/20(}5
Job Number: 1111199-1 Figure: 1-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
~
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NUMBER B-4 (continued) ..
Date Excavated: 3/18/2005 Logged by: MPF
Equipment: HSA (Ingersol-Rand A300) Project Manager: DBA
Surface Elevation (ft): 352 Depth to Water (ft): Seepage at 34 feet
SAMPLES C/)
I-
'5' C/)
0 -. ....... w ....... z Q) '#. a. l-
S W 0 .~ ..,.,
C/) III -~ ~ :c ~ "0 W U 0:: ~ '0 I-C/) SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ::> ...J 0:: 0 a.. ::> I-::> II:! ::> !:: r-w C/) III l:U --I-Z ~ 0 15 z ~ C/) ::> z w 0 >-0
::> a. ::a :E III --0:: « 0 ...J
", Contact at 20'+; distinct change in cuttings .... ---------------------------------Gray with rust, moist, hardldense, SIL TY SANDSTONE.
I-22 Suitable capping material
24 Occasional SANDY CLAYSTONE layers.
May not be suitable capping material
SPT 75
I-26
I-28
I-
-30
I-32
I-34 --Light water seepage at 34' ---------------------------------Dark yellowish-brown, moist, very hard, SIL TSTONE.
I-Suitable capping material
I-36
I-38 -----------------------------------Grades to SANDY CLAYSTONE.
I-Not suitable capping material
"-40
~SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL
S", SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: DBA/SO Date: 4/6/2005
Job Number: 1111199-1 Figure: 1-14
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
,I
I
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NUMBER B-4 (Continued)
Date Excavated: 3/18/2005 Logged by: MPF
Equipment: HSA (Ingersol-Rand A300) Project Manager: DBA
Surface Elevation (ft): 352 Depth to Water (ft): Seepage at 34 feet
SAMPLES C/) I-
t5 C/)
0 --w
2' z Q) ~ 0.. I-W .~ -0 0 ~ -C/) III -~ :c ~ 'C W C) 0::: :::.::: .... ~ I-C/) SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS :::l ...J 0 0::: 0
a.. :::l I-:::l -= ::J !:: I-
W ,C/) m Iii -'I-Z ~ 0 Ci z ~ C/) ::J
Z w 0 ~ 0
:::l a. e ::;E III ~ 0 ...J
-----------------------------------Tan to gray to rust, moist, hard, SIL TSTONE.
i-42 Suitable capping material
~
44
SPT 5015"
-46
AUGER REFUSAL AT 47 FEET. {COBBLE OR SANTIAGO
-48 PEAK VOLCANICS ?}.
-50
-
I-52
,.. 54
-56
~ 58
-60
& SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE COMMERCIAL
SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: DBA/SO Date: ' 4/~/2005
Job Number: 1111199-1 Figure: 1-15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX II
LABORATORY TESTING
SUMMARY
APPENDIX II
Laboratory tests were performed to provide geotechnical parameters for engineering analyses.
The following tests were conducted:
• CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual
examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System.
• EXPANSION INDEX TESTS: One expansion index tests was performed in accordan<~e
with ASTM D 4289. The result of these tests is presented on Figure 11-1.
Soil samples not tested are now stored in our laboratory for future reference and analysis, if
needed. Unless notified to the contrary, all samples will be disposed of 30 days from the date of
this report.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
'I
EXPANSION INDEX
ASTM -04829
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION EXPANSION INDEX
T-3 at 0'-5' Medium brown, CLAYEY SAND 111
T-5 at 0'-5' Medium brown, CLAYEY SAND 44
B-1 at 8' to 9' Grayish brown, sandy clay 104
B-2 at 6' to 7' Grayish, sandy clay 60
B-1 at 23' to 25' Grayish, sandy clay 54
CLASSIFICA TlON OF EXPANSIVE SOIL
EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION f-'------... ---------.... ----------------------------0-20 Very Low
21 -50 Low -----,,----------~------.-.-.~---.-
51 -90 Medium
91 -130 1-------,--'''-----------------!:!~-~-,--------------Above 130 Very High
-'
&. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LA COSTA TOWN SQUARI; -COMMERCIAL
S" SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: DAS/GBF I Date: 1/4/12
Job Number: 1111199-1 IFigure: 11-1
I APPENDIX III
I
I (COMMERCIAL 1111199·01)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Jil .~
I
I
I
I
I SEISl\1IC REFRACTION SURVEY
LA COSTA TOWN CENTER
I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I
I
'I PREPARED FOR:
Southern California Soil & Testing
6280 Riverdale Street
I San Diego, CA 92120
I
I
I PREPARED BY:
Southwest Geophysics, Inc.
8057 Raytheon Road, Suit~ 9
I San Diego, CA 92111
I
I
I December 29, 2011
Project No. 111399
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Doug Skinner
Southern California Soil & Testing
6280 Riverdale Street
San Diego, CA 92120
Subject: Seismic Refraction Survey
La Costa Town Center
Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. Skinner:
December 29,2011
Project No. 111399
In accordance with your authorization, we have performed a seismic refraction survey pertaining
to the proposed La Costa Town Center project located along Rancho Santa Fe Road in Carlsbad,
California. Specifically, our survey consisted of performing 10 seismic refraction lines at the
subject site. The purpose of the study was to develop subsurface velocity profiles of the project
area and to evaluate the apparent rippability of the shallow subsurface materials. This report pre-
sents our survey methodology, equipment used, analysis, and results from our survey.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions
related to this report, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Sincerely,
SOUTHWEST GEOPHYSICS, INC.
Patrick Lehrmann, P.G., R.Gp.
Principal Geologist/Geophysicist
HVIPFLlhv
Distribution: Addressee ( electronic)
Hans van de Vrugt, C.E.G., R.Gp.
Principal Geologist/Geophysicist
__ 8_0_57_Ra_y_th_eo_n_R_o_ad_,_S_ui_te_9_._S_a_n_D_ie_9_0 _._C_a_lif_or_ni_a_92_1_11_' _Te_le_p_ho_n_e_8_58_.5_2_7._08_4_9_-._F_ax_85_8_.2 ...... ~ __ 5._01_1,,",,4.---~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
La Costa Town Center
Carlsbad, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
December 29,2011
Project No. 111399
Page
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 1
3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 1
4. SURVEY METHODOLOGY : ................................................................................................. 1
5. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 3"
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... ,., .... .4
7. LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 5
8. SELECTED REFERENCES ..................................................................................... ' .... ' ........... 6
Tables
Table 1 -Rippability Classification ................................................................................................ 3
Table 2 -Seismic Traverse Results ....................................................................... , ......................... 3
Figures
Figure 1 -Site Location Map
Figure 2 -Line Location Map
Figure 3a -Site Photographs (SL-1 to SL-4)
Figure 3b -Site Photographs (SL-5 to SL-7)
Figure 3c -Site Photographs (SL-8 to SL-10)
Figure 4a -Seismic Profiles, SL-1 and SL-2
Figure 4b -Seismic Profiles, SL-3 and SL-4
Figure 4c -Seismic Profiles, SL-5 and SL-6
Figure 4d -Seismic Profiles, SL-7 and SL-8
Figure 4e -Seismic Profiles, SL-9 and SL-IO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
La Costa Town Center
Carlsbad, California
1. INTRODUCTION
December 29, 2011
Project No. 111399
In accordance with your authorization, we have performed a seismic refraction survey pertaining
to the proposed La Costa Town Center project located along Rancho Santa Fe Road in Carlsbad,
California (Figure 1). Specifically, our survey consisted of performing 10 seismic refraction lines
at the subject site. The purpose of the study was to develop subsurface velocity profiles of the
project area and to evaluate the apparent rippability of the shallow subsurface materials. This re-
port presents our survey methodology, equipment used, analysis, and results from our survey.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services for this study included:
• Performance of 10 seismic refraction lines at the project site.
• Compilation and analysis of the data collected.
• Preparation of this report presenting our results, conclusions, and recommendations.
3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The study area is located along the south side of Rancho Santa Fe Road, near its intersection with
Pas eo Lupino in the Carlsbad area of San Diego (Figure 1). The site is generally undev~loped
with the exception of a few dirt roads which transect the site. Topography consists of relatively
gentle slopes. Vegetation consists of annual grass and brush. Figures 2 and 3a through 3c depict
the general site conditions in the area of the refraction lines. It is our understanding that resi-
dences may be constructed at the site and that cuts up to 45 feet may be performed during
grading.
4. SURVEY METHODOLOGY
A seismic P-wave (compression wave) refraction survey was conducted atthe site to evaluate the
rippability characteristics of the subsurface materials and to develop a subsurface velocity profile
of the site. The seismic refraction method uses first-arrival times of refracted seismic wave~ to
estimate the thicknesses and seismic velocities of subsurface layers. Seismic P-waves generated
at the surface, using a hammer and plate, are refracted at boundaries separating materials of con-
trasting velocities. These refracted seismic waves are then detected by a series of surface vertical
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
La Costa Town Center
Carlsbad, California
December 29, 2011
Project No. 111399
component geophones, and recorded with a 24-channel Geometrics Strata View seismograph.
The travel times of the seismic P-waves are used in conjunction with the shot-to-geophone dis-
tances to obtain thickness and velocity information on the subsurface materials. Ten seismic
lines/profiles (SL-l through SL-IO) were conducted at the site as part of this study. The ap-
proximate locations of the lines are depicted on Figure 2. Shot points (signal generation
locations) were conducted at each end of the line and at the midpoint. The lines were 150 feet
long and the general locations were selected by your office.
The refraction method requires that subsurface velocities increase with depth. A layer having a
velocity lower than that of the layer above will generally not be detectable by the seismic refrac-
tion method and, therefore, could lead to errors in the depth calculations of subsequent layers. In
addition, lateral variations in velocity, such as those caused by core stones/outcrops, can also re-
sult in the misinterpretation of the subsurface conditions.
In general, seismic wave velocities can be correlated to material density andlor rock hardness.
The relationship between rippability and seismic velocity is empirical and assumes a homoge-
nous mass. Localized areas of differing composition, texture, andlor structure may affect both the
measured data and the actual rippability of the mass. The rippability of a mass is also dependent
on the excavation equipment used and the skill and experience of the equipment operator.
The rippability values presented in Table 1 are based on our experience with similar materials
and assumes that a Caterpillar D-9 dozer ripping with a single shank is used. We emphasize that
the cutoffs in this classification scheme are approximate and that rock characteristics, such as
fracture spacing and orientation, play a significant role in determining rock rippability. These
characteristics may also vary with location and depth.
For trenching operations, the rippability values should be scaled downward. For example, veloci-
ties as low as 3,500 feet/second may indicate difficult ripping during trenching operations. In
addition, the presence of boulders, which can be troublesome in a narrow trench, should be an-
ticipated.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
La Costa Town Center
Carlsbad, California
December 29, 2011
Project No. 111399
Table 1 -Rippability Classification
Seismic P-wave Velocity Rippability
o to 2,000 feet/second Easy
2,000 to 4,000 feet/second Moderate
4,000 to 5,500 feet/second Difficult, Possible Blasting
5,500 to 7,000 feet/second Very Difficult, Probable Blasting .
Greater than 7,000 feet/second Blasting Generally Required
It should be noted that the rippability cutoffs presented in Table 1 are slightly more conservative
than those published in the Caterpillar Perfonnance Handbook (Caterpillar, 2004). Accordingly,
the above classification scheme should be used with discretion; and contractors should not be
relieved of making their own independent evaluation of th~ rippability of the on-site materials
prior to submitting their bids.
5. RESULTS
Table 2 lists the average P-wave velocities and depths calculated from the seismic refraction
traverses conducted during our evaluation. The approximate locations of the seismic refraction
traverses are shown on the Line Location Map (Figure 2). Layer velocity profiles are also in-
cluded in Figures 4a through 4e. Please note the vertical scale changes for the profiles. It should
also be noted that, as a general rule, the effective depth of evaluation for a seismic refraction
traverse is approximately one-third to one-fifth the length of the refraction line. The lengths of
the seismic refraction lines are listed with their interpretations in Table 2.
Table 2 -Seismic Traverse Results
Traverse No. P-wave Velocity Approximate Depth to Rippability* And Length feet/second Bottom of Layer in feet
SL-l VI = 1,615 1-5 Easy
150 feet V2=3,475 7 -16 Moderate
V3 =6,795 ---Very Difficult, Probable Blasting
SL-2 VI = 1,355 12-19 Easy
150 feet V2=7,050 ---Blasting Generally Required
SL-3 VI = 1,820 8-17 Easy
150 feet V2 = 7,640 ---Blasting GenerallyRequired
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
La Costa Town Center
Carlsbad, California
December 29, 2011
Project No. 111399
Table 2 -Seismic Traverse Results
Traverse No. P-wave Velocity Approximate Depth to Rippability* And Length feet/second Bottom of Layer in feet
SL-4 VI = 1,325 12-17 Easy
150 feet V2=6,115 ---Very Difficult, Probable Blas,ting
SL-5 VI = 1,310 16-19 Easy
150 feet V2=7,190 ---Blasting Generally Required
SL-6 VI = 1,250 17 -21 Easy
150 feet V2=9,370 ---Blasting GenerallyRequired
SL-7 VI = 1,365 21-28 Easy
150 feet V2=8,080 ---Blasting Generally Required
SL-8 VI = 1,395 18-27 Easy
150 feet V2 = 7,535 ---Blasting Generally Required
SL-9 VI = 1,215 1-5 Easy
150 feet V2=3,500 12-22 Moderate
V3 = 8,770 ---Blasting Generally Required
SL-1O VI = 1,340 15-22 Easy
150 feet V2= 10,960 ---Blasting Generally Required
* Rippability criteria based on the use of a Caterpillar D-9 dozer ripping with a single shank
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results from this seismic survey revealed two to three distinct geologic layers at the locations
surveyed. Based on our site observations and discussions with you, the study area is generally
underlain by surficial soils (i.e., topsoil, colluvium, and/or fill) and crystalline bedrock with vary-
ing degrees of weathering. The layer velocities measured for the surficial layers are generally
consistent; however, the bedrock velocities vary across the site.
Significant scatter was noted in the first-arrivals indicating the presence of inhomogeneities in
the subsurface materials. These inhomogeneities may be due to buried core stones/remnant boul-
ders, dikes, and/or differential weathering of the bedrock. Therefore, significant variability in the
excavatability (including excavation depth) of the subsurface materials should be expected
across the project area. A contractor with excavation experience in similar conditions should be
consulted for expert advice on excavation methodology, equipment, production rate, and over-
sized materials.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
La Costa Town Center
Carlsbad, California
7. LIMITATIONS
December 29, 2011
Project No. 111399
The field evaluation and geophysical analyses presented in this report have been conducted in
general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by consultants per-
forming similar tasks in the project area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding
the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report. There is no evaluation
detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition. Variations may exist and conditions not
observed or described in this report may be present. Uncertainties relative to subsurface condi-
tions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface surveying
will be performed upon request.
This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is
designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Southwest Geophys~
ics, Inc. should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions
regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document. This report is
intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings, conclusions, and/or
recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said parties' sole
risk.
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
La Costa Town Center
Carlsbad, California
8. SELECTED REFERENCES
December 29, 2011
Project No. 111399
Caterpillar, Inc., 2004, Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 35, Caterpillar, Inc., Peoria,
Illinois.
Mooney, H.M., 1976, Handbook of Engineering Geophysics, dated February.
Rimrock Geophysics, 2003, Seismic Refraction Interpretation Programs (SIPwin), V-2.76.
Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sheriff, R.E., and Keys, D.A., 1976, Applied Geophysics, Cam-
bridge University Press.
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
81n .
SITE LOCATION MAP La Costa Town Center
Carlsbad, California
Project No.: 111399 Date: 12/11
TWfnO' Golf,
SOUTHWEST
GEOPHYSICS JNC.
Figure 1
-------.------------
A La Costa Town, Center ~ SOUTHWEST LINE LOCATION MAP I carlsba~.califomlaGEOf'HV .. ce'NC.
project No.: 111399 Figure 2
o 200 .coo
I ' !
approximate scale In feet
-------,------------
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
(SL-1 to SL-4)
La Costa Town Center
Carlsbad, California·
P.roject N9.: 111399 Date: 12111
• SOUTHWEST
-~EOPHYSICS INO.
Figure 3a
-------------------
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
(SL-5to SL-7)
La Costa Town Center
Carlsbad, California
:' , ~.
P.roject'lilo.: 111399 eate: 12111
jSOUTHWEST
PEOPtt¥SICS ,NO.
Figure 3b
_. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SITE PHOTOGRAP.HS
(SL.;8 to SL-10)
La Costa Town Center
Carlsbad, California
Project No.: 111399 , Date: 1211 f
S9UT.f:iWE~T
Figure 3c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o 20 40
I
I • i i i i. i i i i
I
I
I
I
I
I 0 20 40
I SEISMIC PROFILES
SL-1 AND SL-2
I
I
60
i.
n
Project No.:
SL-1
80
Distance
(ft)
SL-2
i j, i i' i'
80
Distance
(ft)
100
i i "
100
La Costa Town Center
Carlsbad, California
• j
111399 Date: 12/11
120 140
i I , i j j »:$ ,
-10
-20
-30 120 140
SOUTHWEST
GEOPHYSICS INC.
Figure 4a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c o ~
iii £ cu-> i ~
o 20
o 20
SEISMIC PROFILES
SL-3 AND SL-4
40
40
60
60
SL-3
80
Distance
(tt)
SL-4
80
Distance
(tt)
100
100
La Costa Town Center
Carlsbad, California
120
120
Project No.: 111'399 Date, 12/11
140
140
SOUTHWEST
G~OPHYSICS INC.
Figure 4b
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SL-5
-...
Z~t~~~;~~~~§~~*~~:;~~~¥':~~~~~~~5~f§~~;~~~~t~:i.:~!~~·!::;::~~~~~:~~;,~~~~~~~~~)~,:~:~~~~,~~~~::~~;~:~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~:~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 :::,,::·:::1:··::':."::ti:::::":_~:'~::·":::::::~:·';:4·'··· ,. ~,,,~,~,,,,-;",".i",;-'''';r,~ ..... .t>~'l-r';',,,,~''''/''t./·\f~'''''''~'~-'\,''%'':''"";'i';'\""'~./··I'-""~'f,.,',.',"t..,..'/'"-;!".,.'.;';·~I"r'_i''i';t.l''J: ,. .... : ..... ,,:*. •• :.::::.:.::.: ... ::::;)::::.;:::~"'. ,1·" ... .,.'/\;,~',.'-J.'\irr..;'.r';,..f~,. ..... .;'\,,'.J.~_/' .. :/·i-.,,'/'l'·/ .. i"\#'~i'i"-"'''''/''',/\,/'!'i'.'''V'''''-.,'I'~''''''\'~./'\J'''J'~-1..t~'.,'''',,;'-,."\;\;.'\.,. .... ,'1
B-7~""';"i " .. : .. :.: ...... ?~. ,7 ~':"~~ ..... :,'-t"('A"..,'? ... .,',,';""~',~i'.,~,'-~', .. -I'-~/ ... f'''.,,.'.J'"'',/ .. :./·tI,"-l\." .... /!I·,~.; ...... ./ .. , ..... ;,~ .... .,~,..'~\i';-\-',~~" .... .,'\f .... ~tt...;'./' .. ".'./ ... 'i~/'I'"".../'.,,~i. ""'r;",~"',~,,,~,"?,£,,'/··i..,';.fI,,,,,~~'t''\,_/'''''''.1'-''''''''--?'7''I''i·\i''.I''.I'',.';< ..... 1l(./)~~"'i/~At~"",'\.."'.r-~,/\, ..... /!.-t1~~,,.i'J.t'\;'/·, ... ,'./' .... ,', ... 1'~/"r'rI"~'",'\t'.;\."i: , ~'..I..."if'/ .. /!r../'I,;~-/' .. ,-!,..f"~"'~'F.,.;"'·-I-'i\~ ... ;~~"'\~"/'t./'-',,. .... ;,'; ..... / ... /'J 1188 ft/B'.;'i\'''''';~J'':/''./'~'''''~~\''''iI''''''iI''~'~'i·'''·;'''''''''''''i'·'~/"/"'''''J''\..i t~';'~"V"'l";'../'.I'~"'·"t,.,_';f"''\.'''/'t-'''''''\I"~'\./''\.'''''~~'''~'r'l·.,;\.~':t-"";""r";-~~.r-r~"~'..f.'''~''.j'''t..~'$.''.'~'I'''''-'''''"r~~'.I'--..t:'.,'\;-".,'\ ..... ',,""J", ..... "~"'-\.1 ,'-/·"··.I", .... "'i'-i'"'''';.·i·''--I-':.,...'··;,,, .... ,'\-''/~·~~/''-if .. .,''~'~r'\c~./ ...... ;'/",.··~~/'.,"If~,-L'-i'./·Ir_l" ... /"P;\.,'l',:&,~·,.,~'--';','/~"~'l·,-/··,/~l·;"'I",','I"~"',.tw.,'.,'~"/..,'''/fI;/\1
... / ... ""\.#\.#~/' ... ,.",.f .. ,'-""\/ . .".F~....." .. ,,,.,'/'.,/"t,;1tr,','\-,,"tk.,'./'t-,\.~\I .... ~"~",.,.,,,,,,',,'*~,""'~~,,,..,..;,~,~\.,,,; ... ,,.'J'.,.''-//"'.,,,:'\J''~'r"--I .... :/'1t·"' ... ,,'\ •• *'J".t'/\;,.'.,'\.i ..... "'1 '~.r-'--,'-I"T~i\.~';-:..,f'\j...."Jl":/ .... i"'~.",., ..... ".,./"I''''J\.~ ... ~'/!JI·.,'--, ..... ,'-~":".'#"~,,,,~,'./'\,,.,.,"..,,;".,'r'~"-/,./"""i'\/''atr··'·~~, .. ,' ... ,.~;'"i··i.~'-;'~...,.".~'\..;,~,;"'".,,,.'\-~'t#'-,',. ..... ~ ,'i' .. i::i .. i:J/ .. :~'lt .. ~":i.~; ... !':/., .. ,i .. ,,~ ... !. .. :l'·i"(';'i'·"'t. .. / ... £'t .... ,, ... t,' .. i'f-'i''t;'(~ei .. i'i'I;>'i ... i'i\ .... t,,'i+i''! .. t~r. .. I','L~L';"'~" .. ,t.~"":.i:,(.':t. .. t....:;,
0 20 40
Ii i i i I J i Ii
o 20 40
60
i i Ii Ii
80
Distance
(ft)
SL-6
iii. iii'
B
80
Distance
(ft)
100 120 140
i i t' • j • i I j i j i ji i j • i
. I
100 120 140
-10
-20
-30
20
-20
SEISMIC PROFILES
SL .. 5 AND SL .. 6
La Costa Town Center
Carlsbad, California SOUTHWEST
GEOPHY~ICS INC.
Project No,: 111399 Date: 12/11 Figure 4c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SL-7
r1-r~I'I~~lrTl~~~lrTl~~I"~~rITI'-~~IT1'-~I'I~'-rITI'-~I~ITI'I~I"~lrTl'-~I~IrT'-TI~I-r~lrl~-r~lrlrT-rTI~I~~lrrl~l-)rT'lrrl~rTl"~·"20
c .2 ~
iii =--10 CI)-
i ~
o 20 40
i i
o 20
SEISMIC PROFILES
SL-7 AND SL-8
40
• i
60
I'
60
B
80
Distance
(tt)
SL-8
'i ( iii I
80
Distance
(tt)
100
i i
100
La Costa Town Center
Carlsbad, California
Project No.: 111399 Date: 12111
-20
-30
120 140
120 140
SOUTHWEST
GEOPHVSICS INC.
Figure 4d
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 20 40
Ii Ii i I i i i.
o 20
SEISMIC PROFILES
SL-9 AND SL-10
40
60
i i , i Ii
60
Project No.:
SL-9
80 100 120 140
Distance
(tt)
SL-10
iii j i 'I • i i i. i. i. i i i I Ii • j -20
-30
80 100 120 140
Distance
(tt)
La Costa Town Center -SOUTHWEST Carlsbad, California GJ;0PHVSICS INC.
111399 Date: 12/11 Figure 4e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Qc:. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA a. ~U~!~"'~!'~~!!'~~' INC.
April 16, 2012
Mr. Rick Henderson
Property Development Centers
5918 Stoneridge Mall Road
Pleasanton, California 94588
Subject: ADDENDUM -1
RFI-1
LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
San Diego Office P: 619.280.4321
6280 Riverdale Street F: 619.280.4717
San Diego, CA92120 wwW.scst.com
Indio Office P: 760.775.5983
83-740 Citrus Avenue, SUite G F: 760.775.8382
Indio, CA92201-3438
Riverside Office
1130 Palmyrila Avenue, Suite 339·A
Riverside. CA 92507
P: 951.965.8711
ToUFree:
877.215.4321
SCS&T No. 1111199
Report No.4
Reference: "Geotechnical Investigation, La Costa Town Square,. Commercial Development,
Carlsbad California" prepared by Southern California Soil and Testing, dated January
4,2012.
Dear Mr. Henderson:
In accordance with your request, Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. (SCS&T) has prepared
this letter as an addendum to the above referenced report.
PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
The pavement support characteristics of the soils encountered during our investigation ranged from
poor to good. It is antiCipated that these s.oils will be mixed and the resulting blend will have
moderately good pavement support characteristics. An uR" value of 25 was assumed fpr this blend.
The actual UR" value of the subgrade soils will be determined after grading. Based ,on an UR" value of
25, the following structural sections are recommended for the assumed Traffic Indices ..
Table 2
Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete Class 2 Base
(inches)' (inches)
6.0 3% 9
p 7.5 3% 14
Based on an uR"-Value of 25 the following rigid pavement sections are recommended for the Traffic
Index presented below.
R' 'dP Igl avemen
Traffic Type
Parking Stalls
Drive Lanes
"Jomted Plam Concrete Pavement.
TABLE 2
tS f R ec Ion ecommen
Traffic Index
5.0
7.5
d f a Ions
JPCP*/Class 2 Base
(inches)
6/6
6/6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Property Development Centers
La Costa Town Square
Carlsbad, California
April 16, 2012
SCS&T No. 1111199-04
Page 2
Special consideration should be given to areas that may experience heavy loads from delivery trucks,
trash trucks or forklifts. SCS& T can provide additional recommendations if these conditions are
antiCipated.
The upper 12 inches of subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to above optimum
moisture requirements, and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density. All soft or spongy
areas should be excavated and replaced with compacted fill. The base material should be compacted
to at least 95% of its maximum dry density. All materials and methods of construction should conform
to "good engineering practices and the minimum standards set forth by the City of Carlsbad.
FIGURE UPDATES
SCS&T updated Figures 4,5 and 7, attached.
GRADING UPDATES
4.1.4 Select Grading -Suitable Fill Material
Suitable fill material meeting the ~pecifications for Caltrans structure backfill should be placed
within the upper 18 inches of the planned final grade elevation. It is expected that crushing and/or
screening of on-site material will be required to achieve a suitable fill material.
4.1.5 Expansive Soil
The existing materials on-site that were tested have a high expansion potential in accordance with
ASTM 0 4829.
• Expansive soil with an expansion index (EI) greater than 50 should be placed atJeast 15
feet below the planned final pad grade elevation and at'least 10 feet from the face of all fill
slopes. "
• Expansive soil with an EI greater than 20 and less than 50 should be placed at least 5 feet
below the planned final pad grade elevation and at least 5 feet from the face of all fill
slopes.
• Expansive soil with an EI less than 20 should be placed within 5 feelof the planned final
pad grade elevation. "
If you have questions concerning this report, please call me at (619) 280-4321.
Respectfully Submitted,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL &
GBF:aw
Attachments: Figures 4, 5 and 7
(1) Mr. Mark Langan via e-mail atmarkl@sca-sd.com
(1) Mr. Riek Henderson via e-mail atrick.henderson@pdcenters.com
(1) Mr. Rick BighamRBigham@tiltonpacific.com
(1) Mr. Jim Shaw via e-mail atjims@sca-sd.com
OVERSIZE ROCK FILL PLACEMENT
ZONED
ZONE A: Compacted soil fill.
No rock fragments over 3 inches in any dimension.
ZONE B: Compacted soil fill.
No rock fragments over 6 inches in any dimension.
ZONE C: No rock fragments over 2 feet in any dimension.
Uniformly distributed and well spaced in compacted soil fill.
ZONE D: No rock fragments over 4 feet in any dimension.
Uniformly distributed and well spaced in compacted soil fill.
Note 1: Compacted soil fill should contain at least 40% soil finer than i inch
sieve (by Weight) and be compacted to at least 90% relative
compaction.
Note 2: Rocks over 4 feet in maximum dimension are not permitted in fill.
C'"",-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
~SOIL & TESTING, INC. LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE -
COMMERICAL
OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL Date: 4/l6/2012 Figure: By: EL 4 Job No.: 11-11199-1
Scale: Not To Scale R~vised
::0
NOTES:
Typical Windro...., Detail (End View)
Typical Windrow Detail (Profile View)
OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL
(Structral Soil -Rock Fill)
4'MIN
3'MIN
I.. P/L • I
.. ;:'j;?O ~ 0 0 0 5)Fff,IJ>1l"! 0 0 0 0 ZONEC O 000 0 0 00 00<
.. <::':·~"·).>ZONE 0 r-~ =-..L'>_<'l: 10 ~ Q.=-.D _0-= _0 __ o-=-~ c-0
15' MIN"7.".4.....,'.:..,:.....·.';f<.,......·:· 0 ( 23~u 9~ 0 0 Z~.O ~
-l
LEGEND
ZONEE ZONE A: Compacted soil fill.
No rock fragments over 3 inches in any dimension.
ZONE B: Compacted soil fill.
No rock fragments over 6 inches in any dimension.
ZONE C: No rock fragments over 2 feet in any dimension. I.. • I 12' MIN
Uniformly distributed and well spaced in compacted soil fill.
1. Compacted soil fill shall contain at least 40% soil size passing ~ inch
sieve, (by weight), and be compacted at least'gO% relative compaction.
2. Rocks over 4 feet in maximum dimension not permitted in fill.
ZONE D: No rock fragments over 4 feet in any dimension.
Uniformly distributed and well spaced in compacted soil fill.
ZONE E: Required for all existing slopes 5:1 and steeper. At least 90%
comapction Zone A or B material can be used.
TI <6'
Date: 4/16/2012
~, CJ1 (J)
e
CD
" ...... SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
__ SOIL & TESTING, INC.
OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL
LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE -
COMMERICAL
By:
Job No.:
EL
1111199-1
Not To Scale CD 0.. Scale: -------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
" " " " " " " " rl-----f.---Miradrain 6000 or I;quivalent'
1 -Filter fabric between rock and soil.
2 -Backcut as recommended in accordance with CALOSHA
3 -Waterproof back of wall.
4 - A 4-inch minmum diameter perforated pipe, SDR35 or equivalent, holes
1 % fall to outlet, encased in 3/4" crushed rock. Provide 3 cubic feet per
lineal foot of crushed rock minimum. Crushed rock to be surrounded
by filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent), with a 6-inch minumum
overlap. Provide solid outlet pipe at suitable location.
5 -314-inch crushed rock
4/16/2011 Figure: WALL.BACKDRAIN Date:
I .c.. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LA.COSTATOWN.SQUARE.-.COMMERCIAL By:
__ SOIL & TESTING, INC. Job No.:
GBF
1111199-01 7 Scale: NOTTOSCALE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.k:"c... SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA a ~2.'~~"~Sm!.~w~!!,,~,~, INC.
July 18, 2012
Mr. Rick Henderson
Property Development Centers
5918 Stoneridge Mall Road
Pleasanton, California 94588
Subject: ADDENDUM-4
EXPANSION INDEX REQUIREMENTS
CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE UNDERLAYMENT
LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
San Diego Office
6280 Riverdale Street
San Diego, CA 92120
IndloOffic,e
83·740 Citrus Avenue, Suite G
Indio, CA92201·3438
Riverside Office
1130 Pillmyrita Avenue, Suite 339·A
Riverside, CA 92507
P: 619.280;4321
F: 619.280.4717
www.scst.com
P:760.'?75.5983
F: 760.77l).8362
P:'951.965.8711 fall Free:
877.215.4321
SCS&T No. 11H199
Report No.1 0
Reference: "Geotechnical Investigation, La Costa Town Square, Commercial Development, Cat/sbad
CaliforniEi' prepared by Southern California Soil and Testing, dated January 4,2012.
Dear Mr. Henderson:
In accordance with your request, Southern California Soil and Testing; Inc. (SCS& T) has prepared this letter as
an addendum to the above referenced report.
Expansive Soil
The existing materials on-site that were tested have a medium to high expansion potential in accordance
with ASTM D 4829. Table 1 presents updated expansion index recommendations fortheplacementofthe
soil.
Table 1
Depth Below Planned Final Grade Elevation Expansion Index of Material'to be Placed
o to 10 feet Expansion Index Less Than 90
Greater than 10 feet Expansion Index Greater Than 90 Allowed,
InteriQr Concrete Siabs-on-Grade
miJ:1AFm:::~nort, please call me at (619) 280-4321.
INC.
(1) Mr. Mark Langan via e-mail atmarkl@sca-sd.com
(1) Mr. Rick Henderson via e-mail atrick.henderson@pdcenters.com
(1) Mr. Jim Shaw via e-mail atjims@sca-sd.com
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
March 15, 201'3
Mr. Juan Arriaga
Construction Manager
Property Development Centers LLC
5918 Stoneridge Mall Road
Pleasanton, California 94588
Subject: COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY TEST RESULTS
JANUARY 2013
San Diego 6280 Riverdale Street
619.280.4321 San Diego, CA 92120
Indio 83·740 Citrus Avenue
760.775.5983 S.uite G
Indio, CA 92201-3438
Riverside 1130 P~lmyrita Avenue
961.966.8711 Suite 330·A
Riverside, CA 92607
Toll Free
877.216.4321 www.scst.com
SCS&T No. 1211179
Report No. 14
LA COSTA TOWN SQUARE -EARTHWORK OBSERVATION
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Reference: "Geotechnical Investigation, La Costa Town Square, CommercialOevelopment,
Carlsbad California"; prepared by Southern California Soil and Testing, dated July31 ,
2012.
Dear Mr. Arriaga:
In accordance with your request, Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., (SCS&T) prepared this
letter to present our results of compaction tests performed to date. Figures 1 through 7 present the
compaction test results.
If you have questions concerning this report, please call me at (619) 280-4321.
Respectfully Submitted,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNI~~~'i8~II&
GBF;gf
(1) Addressee via e-mail atJuan.Arriaga@pdcenters.com
(1) Chuck Lee via e-mail atchucklee@cslent.com
(1) Lary Olson via e-mail atlolson@tiltonpacific.com
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JOB NAME:
TEST
NO. DATE
1 12/31/12
2 12131112
3 12/31/12
4 112/13
5 1/2/13
6 1/2/13
7 1/2/13
8 1/2/13
9 1/3/13
10 1/3/13
11 1/3113
12 1/3/13
13 1/4/13
14 114/13
15 1/4/13
16 1/4/13
17 1/4/13
18 117113
19 1/7/13
20 1/7/13
21 1/7/13
22 1/7/13
23 1/8/13
24 1/8/13
25 1/8/13
26 1/8/13
27 1/8/13
28 1/8/13
29 1/8/13
30 1/14/13
31 1/14/13
32 1/15/13
33 1/15/13
34 1/15/13
35 1/15/13
36 1/15/13
37 1/16/13
38 1/16/13
39 1/16/13
40 1/16/13
41 1/16/13
42 1/16/13
43 1/16/13
44 1'117113
45 1/17/13
46 1/17/13
47 1/17/13
48 1/17/13
49 1117/13
50 1/17/13
51 1/17/13
La Costa Square
LOCATION
Commercial East Lot #1
Commercial East Lot #1
Commercial East Lot #1
Commercial East Lot #1
Commercial East Lot #1
Commercial East Lot #2
Commercial East Lot #2
Commercial East Lot #2
Commercial East Lot #1
Commercial East Lot #1
Commercial East Lot #1
Commercial East Lot #2
Commercial East Lot #1
Commercial East Lot #2
Commercial East Lot #1
RETEST OF 16
Commercial Parking North Lot #1
Commercial North Lot #1
Commercial North Lot #1
Commercial North Lot #1
Commercial Parking North Lot #1
Commercial Parking North Lot #1
Commercial Parking North Lot #1
Commercial Parking North Lot #1
Commercial Cut/Fill Slope
Commercial Cut/Fill Slope
Commercial Cut/Fill Slope
Commercial Parking North Lot #1
Commercial Parking North Lot #1
Residential via Tamarindo
Residential via Tamarindo
Commercial South Building 14
Commercial South Building 14
Commercial South Building 14
Commercial North Building 14
Commercial North Building 14
Commercial North Building 14
Commercial North Building 15
Commercial North Building 14
Commercial North Building 14
Commercial North Building 14
Commercial North Building 14
Commercial North Building 14
Commercial South Building 14
Commercial South Building 14
RETEST OF 45
Res. Paseo Tamarindo
Res. Paseo Tamarindo
Commercial South Building 14
Commercial South Building 14
RETEST OF 50
ELEVATION
(feet,MSL)
304.5
304.5
308.5
317.5
306.0
312.5
314.5
316.5
309.0
311.0
315.5
318.5
317.5
319.0
318.5
316.0
316.0
310.0
312.0
314.0
311.0
315.0
316.5
316.0
327.0
339.0
341.5
315.0
317.0
284.0
286.0
254.0
256.0
296.5
324.0
325.0
327.0
330.0
321.0
329.0
332.0
334.0
332.0
260.0
263.0
263.0
288.0
291.5
267.5
272.0
272.0
JOB NUMBER:
MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL
(percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE
12.6 105.0 > 1
13.0 103.2 1
12.8
8.9
11.5
14.7
14.0
12.7
14.0
13.5
13.8
15.4
14.9
13.9
16.4
18.7
16.0
15.2
16.6
24.5
18.0
15.9
15.0
16.4
15.3
14.5
15.5
16.6
21.3
18.0
19.8
19.9
18.0
12.7
13.8
15.8
12.0
15.9
15.8
13.2
14.2
15.0
14.7
13.8
14.3
13.9
18.0
20.1
12.5
18.8
14.0
104.5
108.1
106.0
103.3
104.0
1"02.9
102.5
103.9
105.9
104.6
103.9
106.5
102.5
96.8
103.1
104.0
104.6
97.7
98.6
110.7
105.6
108.3
102.7
103.5
102.3
103.6
97.7
108.2
108.0
108.6
108.5
104.0
104.6
103.3
110.1
103.3
100.4
112.0
117.1
111.5
112.6
110.1
106.8
108.0
108.7
108.3
112.9
100.6
108.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1.
1
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
:3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1211179
RI;L.COMP.
(percent)
92.7
91.1
92.2
95.4
93.6
91.2
91.8
90.8
90.5
90.5
91.7
92.3
91.7.
94.0
90.5
85.4
91.0
91.8
92.3
91.9
92.8
97.7
93.2
95.6
90.6
91.4
90.3
91.4
91.9
90.8
90.6
91.1
91.0
97.8
98.4
·91.4
92.4
97.2
94.4
94.0
9~.2
93.5
94.5
92.4
89.6
90.6
91.2
90.9
94.7
84.4
90.8
FIGI,JRE 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JOB NAME: La Costa Square
TEST
NO. DATE LOCATION
52 1/18/13 Off-Site South Lot #2
53 1/18/13 Off-Site South Lot #2
54 1/18/13 Commercial South Building 14
55 1/18/13 RETEST OF 54
56 1/18/13 Res. Site South Retention Basin
57 1/18/13 Res. Site South Retention Basin
58 1/18/13 Res. Site Paseo Tamarindo
59 1/18/13 Res. Site East Retention Basin
60 1/18/13 Res. Site East Retention Basin
61 1/22/13 Community Building 14
62 1/22/13 Residential South Building
63 1/22/13 Residential South Building Lot 1
64 1/22/13 Residential South Building Lot 10
65 1/22/13 Residential South Building Lot 9
66 1/22/13 Residential South Building Lot 9
67 1/22/13 Residential South Building
68 1/22/13 Residential Paseo Tamarindo
69 1/22/13 Community Building 14
70 1/22/13 RETEST OF 69
71 1/22/13 Community Building 14
72 1/23/13 Residential Paseo Tamarindo
73 1/23/13 Residential Paseo Tamarindo
74 1/23/13 Residential Paseo Tamarindo
75 1/23/13 Community Building 14
76 1/23/13 Community Building 14
77 1/23/13 Residential Paseo Tamarindo
78 1/23/13 Community Building 14
79 1/23/13 Community Building 14
80 1/23/13 Residential South Lot 1
81 1/24/13 Residential South Lot 9
82 1/24/13 Residential South Lot 9
83 1/24/13 Community South Building 14
84 1/24/13 Residential South Lot #1
85 1/24/13 Residential South Lot #1
86 1/24/13 Residential South Lot #1
87 1/24/13 Residential South Lot 9
88 1/24/13 Residential South Lot 10
89 1/24/13 Residential Street B
90 1/24/13 Residential Lot #4
91 1/25/13 Residential Lot 10
92 1/25/13 Commercial South Retention Basin
93 1/28/13 Residential Lot 3
94 1/28/13 Residential Lot 4
95 1/28/13 RETEST OF 94
96 1/28/13 Residential Lot 2
97 1/28/13 Residential Lot 3
98 1/28/13 Residential Lot 4
99 1/29/13 Residential Lot 24
100 1/29/13 Residential Lot 25
101 1/29/13 Residential Lot 26
102 1/29/13 Residential Lot 25
ELEVATION
(feet,MSL)
260.0
261.5
274.0
274.0
257.5
262.5
293.5
278.0
283.0
315.5
274.5
277.0
263.5
270.5
274.0
295.0
297.0
312.5
312.5
315.0
310.0
315.0
324.5
328.5
332.0
336.0
333.0
335.0
275.0
278.0
281.0
276.0
284.0
287.0
290.0
284.0
267.0
313.5
303.0
270.0
273.0
300.0
308.0
308.0
290.0
302.0
311.0
350.0
352.0
354.0
357.0
JOB NUMBER: 1211179
MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP.
(percent) (p.c.f.) . TYPE (percent)
19.7 109.7 3 92.0
18.0 108.9 3 91.4
19.2
18.0
14.2
13.8
11.7
19.3
18.0
10.0
19.3
18.2
12.9
11.9
13.4
15.0
17.0
17.5
11.0
11.5
14.8
15.3
13.0
11.6
10.8
17.0
12.1
14.8
16.7
15.2
14.0
19.2
17.8
19.1
18.8
18.0
17.2
11.4
12.8
17.8
18.0
14.2
13.8
14.9
18.2
19.1
12.6
10.8
11.8
7.7
10.0
104.7
108.0
110.4
109.4
107.9
109.4
108.1
116.6
97.2
97.8
111.2
113.0
113.9
109.1
110.4
94.5
108.5
108.2
104.3
105.3
110.7
113.7
111.6
107.3
106.1
104.7
110.8
112.4
111.6
96.6
105.3
107.0
107.1
103.4
105.0
114.5
112.1
105.5
104.0
111.5
102.3
113.5
105.7
107.0
109.1
110.6
111.8
122.5
118.3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
6
6
7
7
7
6
6
6
3
3
5B
5
87.8
90.6
92.6
91.8
90.5
91.8
90.7
97.8
91.4
92.0
93.3
94.8 .
95.6
91.5
92.6
88.9
91.0
90.8
92.1
92.9
97.7
95.4
93.6
94.7
93.6
92.4
97.8
94.~
93.6
90.9
92.9
94.4
94.5
91.3
92.7
93.9
92.0
92.8
91.5
91.5
83.9
93.1
93.0
94.1
96.0
92.8
93.8
92.0
91.1
FIGURE 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
JOB NAME: La Costa Square
TEST
NO. DATE LOCATION
103 1/29/13 Residential Lot 27
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141 '
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
1/29/13 Commercial North of Lot 14
1/29/13 Commercial North of Lot 14
1/29/13 Residential Lot 26
1/30/13 Residential Lot 27
1/30/13 Residential Lot 29
1/30/13 Commercial North of Lot 14
1/30/13 Commercial North of Lot 14
1/30/13 Commercial East of Lot 1
1/30/13 Commercial East of Lot 1
1/30/13 Residential Lot 30
1/30/13 Residential Lot 29
1/30/13 Commercial East of Lot 1
1/31/13 Lots 28-31
1/31/13 Lots 28-31
1/31/13 Lots 28-31
1/31/13 Lots 28-31
1/31/13 Lots 28-31
1/31/13 Lots 28-31
1/31/13 Lots 28-31
1/31/13 Lots 28-31
1/31/13 Parking East Lot 1
1/31/13 Parking East Lot 1
1/31/13 Parking East Lot 1
1/31/13 Parking East Lot 1
2/1113 Residential lot #64
2/1/13 Residential lot #64
2/1/13
2/1/13
2/1/13
2/1/13
2/1/13
2/1/13
2/4/13
2/4/13
2/4/13
2/4/13
2/4/13
2/4/13
2/4/13
2/4/13
2/4/13
2/5/13
2/5/13
2/5/13
2/5/13
2/5/13
2/6/13
2/6/13
2/6/13
2/6/13
Residential lot #64
Residential lot #5
Residential lot #6
Residential lot #63
Residential lot #5
Residential lot #63
Residential Lot#62
Residential Lot#62
Paseo Tamarindo Sta 14+30
Commerciallot#14
Commerciallot#14
Commercial 10t#14
Commerciallot#14
Commerciallot#14
Commerciallot#14
Residential 10t#31
Residentiallot#29
Residential 10t#30
Residential 10t#28
Residentiallot#26
South of Residentiallot#1 0
Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
JOB NUMBER: 1211179
ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP~
(feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (p~rcent)
356.0 8.2 123.2 58 92.6
334.0
334.0
357.5
360.0
340.5
335.0
335.5
318.0
318.0
342.5
344.5
318.0
346.0
348.0
350.0
352.0
354.0
356.0
358.0
360.0
319.0
319.0
320.0
320.0
312.0
315.0
317.5
313.0
306.0
321.0
320.0
325.0
328.0
330.0
322.0
306.0
308.0
310.0
312.0
314.0
316.0
365.5
368.0
368.0
369.5
372.0
265.5
267.0
267.0
268.5
18.3
17.1
6.9
7.0
20.0
17.8
16.9
15.5
14.2
18.0
11.6
18.2
10.8
12.6
15.2
10.4
13.9
9.7
8.9
10.6
20.0
18.2
17.8
19.0
7.2
8.0
8.5
8.2
14.3
7.7
9.7
7.8
8.3
7.8
7.6
9.2
8.7
8.8
7.5
9.0
8.8
12.6
10.2
10.0
11.0
10.5
16.2
20.0
17.6
16.9
100.3
100.9
133.9
121.3
105.5
99.5
98.6
98.0
99.1
97.8
111.9
97.8
120.4
121.3
118.7
124.6
118.9
123.4
129.2
121.7
100.3
99.1
98.6
99.5
124.8
125.6
125.3
120.0
107.5
118.4
127.8
121.0
127.3
125.5
125.3
120.2
119.3
125.8
119.9
117.8
119.0
111.7
134.2
122.5
120.4
118.5
104.7
103.1
105.3
106.5
2
2
5E
5C
6
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
58
58
5
5C
5
5C
5F
5C
2
2
2
2
5d
5d
5d
5b
6
5a
5e
5a
5d
5d
5d
5a
5a
5d
5a
5
5
7
5e
5b
5b
9
1
6
6
6
94.4
94.9
96.8
90.0
92.8
93.6
92.8
92.2
, 93.2
92.0
93.9
92.0
90.5
91.1
91.4
. 92.4
91.6
91.5
92.2
90.3
94.4
93.2
92.8
93.6
91.4
92.0
91.8
90.2
94.5
90.1
92.4
92.1
93.3
91.9
91.8
91.5
90.8
92.2
91.2
90.8
91.7
91.6
97.0
92.0
90.5
92.6
92.4
90.7
92.6
93.7
FIGURE 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
JOB NAME: La Costa Square
TEST
NO. DATE LOCATION
154 2/6/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
155 2/6/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
156 2/6/13 Canyon fill west of Comm lot#18
157 2/6/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
158 2/6/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
159 2/7/13 South of lot #2 office site
160 2/7/13 South of Lot #9 Residential site
161, 2/7/13 South of lot #10 Residential site
162 2/7/13 South of lot #2 office site
163 2/7/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
164 2/7/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
165 2/7/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
166 2/7/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
167 2/7/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
168 2/7/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
169 2/11/13 Lot #1 Comm
170 2/11/13 North lot #5 Comm
171 2/11/13 Lot #1 Comm
172 2/11/13 Lot #2 Comm
173 2/11/13 RETEST #171
174 2/12/13 S. of lot #10 Residential
175 2/12/13 Lot#1 Comm
176 2/12/13 Lot #2 Comm
177 2/12/13 S. of 10t#2 office site
178 2/12/13 S. of 10t#2 office site
179 2/12/13 S. of lot #9 Residential
180 2/12/13 RETEST #178
181 2/13/13 S. of lot #2 office
182 2/13/13 S. of lot #9 Residential
183 2/13/13 S. of lot #10 Residential
184 2/13/13 S. of lot #10 Residential
185 2/13/13 S. of retention basin Residential
186 2/13/13 S. lot #2 office
187 2/13/13 S.lot#2 office
188 2/14/13 S of bio ret basin Res
189 2/14/13 West of lot 10 RES
190 2/14/13 Westoflot10RES
191 2/14/13 South lot 10 RES
192 2/14/13 South lot 2 Office
193 2/14/13 South lot 14 Comm
194 2/14/13 pad 1 Comm FG
195 2/14/13 Pad 2 Comm FG
196 2/14/13 Buttress north lot 5 Comm
197 2/14/13 Buttress north lot 5 Comm
198 2/14/13 Buttress north lot 5 Comm
199 2/14/13 Pad 3 Comm
200 2/14/13 Pad 4 Comm
201 2/15/13 Lot 14 Comm
202 2/15/13 S. of Lot 9 Res
203 2/15/13 S. of Lot 10 Res
204 2/15/13 S. of Ret Basin Res
ELEVATION
(feet,MSL)
269.0
269.0
273.0
271.0
271.5
263.5
276.5
268.5
267.0
275.0
280.0
285.0
278.0
281.0
285.0
317.0
334.5
318.0
317.0
318.0
276.5
320.0
320.0
266.0
267.0
269.5
267.0
269.5
280.0
284.0
286.0
281.0
274.0
272.0
283.0
278.0
281.0
283.0
276.0
285.0
320.6
320.9
336.5
338.5
340.5
323.0
326.0
288.0
289.5
284.5
283.0
JOB NUMBER:
MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL
(percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE
12.6 119.3 5a
10.4 122.6 5c
11.2
9.7
10.1
11.0
15.0
13.8
16.3
9.7
8.6
10.1
9.9
9.2
10.3
9.6
8.1
10.4
10.1
10.8
13.0
11.4
12.1
13.3
16.4
14.8
14.0
18.5
12.5
14.0
13.8
12.0
14.8
14.5
15.9
6.5
7.0
14.4
18.0
8.7
8.9
10.5
12.4
14.1
14.9
13.7
12.9
7.8
17.0
16.9
16.4
124.7
120.4
125.0
99.4
100.1
98.9
104.1
119.2
124.8
121.0
122.5
120.3
119.9
110.3
124.2
108.3
112.7
111.7
100.8
117.4
116.1
103.2
97.2
107.2
99.3
103.8
104.0
101.4
102.4
103.0
105.0
102.3
106.1
124.8
123.9
105.5
103.3
128.6
116.2
112.7
96.1
99.4
98.2
114.3
117,8
125.8
98.2
97.9
98.3
5c
5
5c
2
2
2
4
5a
5c
5b
5b
5b
5b
13c
5c
13c
13c
13c
12
13e
13e
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
6
12
6
5d
5d
12
6
5d
13e
13e
2
2
2
13e
13e
5d
2
2
2
1211179
REL.COMP.
(percent)
90.8
90.9
92.5
92.8
92.7
93.5
94.2
93.0
92.1
90.7
92.6
90.9
92.0
90.4
90.1
90.9
92.1
89.2
92.8
92.0
92.2
94.3
93.3
94.4
88.9
98.1
90.9
95.0
95.2
92.8
93.7
94.2
92.3
93.6
93.3
91.4
90.8
96.5
90.9
94.2
93.3
90.5
90.4
93.5
92.4
91.8
94.6
92.2
92.4
92.1
92.5
FIGURE 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JOB NAME: La Costa Square
TEST
NO. DATE LOCATION
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
2/15/13 S. of Lot 2 Office
2/15/13 S. of Lot 14 Comm
2/15/13 S. of Ret Basin Res
2/15/13 Buttress Slope N. of lot 5 Comm
2/15/13 Buttress Slope N. of lot 5 Comm
2/15/13 Buttress Slope N. of lot 10 Comm
2/15/13 Buttress Slope N. of lot 10 Comm
2/15/13 Buttress Slope N. of lot 5 Comm
2/15/13 Lot 3 Comm
2/15/13 Lot 4 Comm
2/19/13 Lot 21 Res
2/19/13 S. of Lot 10 Res
2/19/13 S. of Lot 2 Office
2/19/13 Lot 21 Res
2/19/13 Lot 20 Res
2/19/13 Lot 22 Res
2/20/13 Lot 6 Res
222 2/20/13 Lot 5 Res
223 2/20/13 S. of Lot 2 Office
224 2/20/13 S. of Lot 2 Office
225 2/20/13 Lot 7 Res
226 2/20/13 Lot 7 Res
227 2/20/13 Lot 3 Res
228 2/20/13 RETEST #227
229 2/20/13 S. of Lot 2 Office
230 2/21/13 S. of lot 2 office
231 2/21/13 S. of Lot 2 Office
232 2/21/13 S. of Lot 2 Office
233 2/21/13 Lot 23 Res
234 2/21/13 Lot 61 Res
235 2/21/13 Lot 61 Res
236 2/21/13 S. of Lot 2 Office
237 2/21/13 S. of Lot 2 Office
238 2/21/13 Lot 29 Res
239 2/21/13 Lot 31 Res
240 2/22/13 RETEST #235
241 2/22/13 Lot 14 Comm
242 2/22113 S. of Lot 2 Office
243 2/22/13 Lot 22 Res
244 2/22/13 Lot 63 Res
245 2/22/13 Lot 62 Res
246 2/22/13 Lot 14 Comm
247 2/22/13 Lot 14 Comm
248 2/23/13 Lot 22 Res
249 2/23/13 Lot 14 Comm
250 2/23/13 S. of Lot 14 Comm
251 2/23/13 Via Mercado Comm
252 2/23/13 Via Mercado Comm
253 2/23/13 Lot 22 Res
254 2/23/13 Via Mercado Comm
255 2/23/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
ELEVATION
(feet,MSL)
277.5
290.0
284.5
344.5
346.5
347.0
349.0
350.0
324.5
327.5
326.0
285.0
279.0
327.0
327.5
325.0
323.0
325.5
276.0
278.0
311.5
313.5
308.0
308.0
280.0
279.0
268.0
271.0
342.0
340.5
343.0
274.0
276.0
371.5
372.0
243.0
294.0
282.5
331.5
330.5
339.5
296.0
297.0
246.5
298.0
287.0
280.0
282.0
245.5
284.0
306.0
JOB NUMBER: 1211179
MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP.
(percent) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE
16.8 98.9 2 93.0
92.8
91.7
91.6
~0.4
93.8
95.2
91.3
90.0
91.6
91.8
92.1
93.4
92.6
90.8
91.6
95.5
93.2
93.1
91.3
92.8
92.2
87.1
93.6
90.4
90.1
93.5
95.0
92.2
90.8
87.0
8.0 126.7 5d
16.0
14.3
14.0
14.9
16.6
17.8
14.0
10.6
12.8
14.0
14.8
13.1
13.6
14.5
10.9
9.0
13.0
18.3
9.0
10.6
11.9
11.4
13.6
14.5
19.4
20.0
9.8
9.0
5.0
19.4
18.3
9.6
9.1
9.6
9.0
20.0
8.2
11.4
10.8
10.1
9.7
9.5
9.0
18.0
14.0
14.2
13.3
14.6
15.8
104.3
97.4
96.1
99.7
101.2
97.1
112.1
114.0
111.9
97.9
106.2
114.7
112.4
104.2
130.3
127.2
105.8
103.8
126.7
125.8
118.9
127.8
111.9
102.5
99.4
101.0
125.8
123.9
118.7
96.8
97.1
124.6
123.7
124.7
126.1
99.9
123.9
116.0
118.0
131.9
129.4
117.2
128.0
100.8
102.5
101.6
119.3
104.1
101.9
6
2
2
2
2
2
13e
13e
7
2
6
8
8
.6
5d
5d
6
6
5d
5d
5d
5d
8
6
2
2
5d
5d
5d
2 91.1
2 91.3
5c 92.4
5c 91.8
5d91.4
'5d P
4 94.0
5d 90.8
11 91.2
11 92.8
5d 96.6
5d 94.8
11 92.1
5d 93.8
2 94.8
2 96.4
2 95.6
11 93.8
4 92.1
4 90.2
FIGURE 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
JOB NAME: La Costa Square
TEST
NO.
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
206
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
DATE LOCATION
2/23/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
2/23/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
2/23/13 Canyon fill west of Comm lot#18
2/25/13 Lot 14 Comm
2/25/13 Lot 4 Res
2/25/13 Lot 4 Res
2/25/13 Lot 3 Res
2/25/13 Via Mercado Comm
2/25/13 Via Mercado Comm
2/25/13 Via Mercado Comm
2/25/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
2/25/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
2/25/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
2/26/13 Lot 14 Comm
2/26/13 Lot 14 Comm
2/26/13 Lot2 Res
2/26/13 Lot 2 Res
2/26/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
2/26/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
2/26/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
2/26/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
2/26/13 Lot 63 Res
2/26/13 RETEST #277
2/26/13 Lot 64 Res
2/26/13 Lot 14 Comm
2/26/13 Street at Lot 59 Res
2/27113 Lot 61 Res
2/27/13 Lot 14 Comm
2/27/13 Street at Lot 60 Res
2/27/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
2/21/13 Lot 60 Res
2/27113 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
2/27/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
2/27/13 Lot 61 Res
2/28/13 Slope N. of lot 21 Res
2/28/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
2/28/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
2/28/13 Slope N. of lot 22 Res
2/28/13 Slope W. of Lot 4 Res
2/28/13 Slope W. of Lot 3 Res
2/28/13 Slope N. of Lot 20 Res
2/28/13 Slope N. of Lot 22 Res
2/28/13 Lot 60 Res
2/28/13 Slope W. of Lot 4 Res
2/28/13 Slope W. of Lot 2 Res
2/28/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
2/28/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
2/28/13 Canyon fill west of Comm 10t#18
ELEVATION
(feet,MSL)
308.0
310.0
312.0
300.0
315.0
316.5
309.5
301.0
304.0
307.0
309.5
314.0
316.0
302.0
304.0
369.5
372.0
293.0
290.0
295.0
292.0
313.5
313.5
307.0
306.0
350.0
345.0
308.0
345.5
297.0
346.5
294.0
298.0
348.0
333.0
298.0
304.0
336.5
321.0
315.0
339.0
342.0
349.0
321.0
318.0
301.0
303.0
307.0
JOB NUMBER: 1211179
MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP.
(percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent)
15.3 102.6 4 90.8 .
15.1
14.4
8.4
10.8
11.5
13.0
14.9
15.5
18.1
18.7
20.3
14.2
9.0
9.6
12.0
11.7
19.9
18.4
19.3
17.7
9.4
8.1
8.7
10.6
9.7
10.8
9.2
10.0
16.3
9.0
17.3
16.4
11.6
12.2
21.0
20.1
13.5
99.1
100.1
100.1
13.0
7.5
14.9
15.0
15.2
16.0
14.9
101.7
103.2
122.9
118.3
113.6
111.6
104.1
103.8
101.9
98.1
96.7
101.6
127.3
126.7
114.6
113.7
97.8
99.3
99.1
98.6
108.3
122.2
124.2
132.8
117.5
126.5
127.0
115.5
95.9
126.6
98.1
99.7
109.8
100.5
96.9
98.2
102.1
13.4
14.8
12.6
102.4
113.4
102.0
101.6
100.2
100.7
99.8
4
4
5d
11
7
7
4
4
4
2
2
2
5d
5d
7
7
2
2
2
2
11
11
11
5d
11
5d
5d
10
2
5d
2
2
7
12
2
2
12
12
12
12
12
10
12
12
2
2
2
90.0
91.3
90.0
93.0
93.2
91.6
92.1
91.9
90.2
92.3
91.0
95.6
93.3
92.8
94.0
93.3
92.0
93.4
93.2
92.8
85.1
96.1
97.6
97.3
92.4
92.7
93.0
92.1
90.2
92.7
92.3
93.8
90.1
91.9
91.2
92.4
93.4
12.3
13.5
11.5
93.7
90.4
93.3
93.0
94.3
94.7
93.9
FIGURE 6
I JOB NAME: La Costa Square JOB NUMBER: 1211179
I
TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP.
I NO. DATE
NOTE
LOCATION (feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent)
GRADING PLANS CHANGE AS OF 3-1-13 Lot numbers have moved.
304 3/1/13 Slope N. Lot 21 Res 358.0 14.9 99.2 12 90.8
I 305 3/1/13
306 3/1/13
Slope N. Lot 23 Res 349.0 13.6 103.4 12 94.6
Slope W. Lot 5 Res 328.0 15.4 101.4 12 92.8
307 3/1/13 Slope W. Lot 7 Res 310.5 14.8 103.1 12 94.3
I 308 3/1/13
309 3/1/13
310 3/1/13
Slope N. Lot 22 Res 352.0 11.5 103.7 12 94.9
Lot 14 Comm 310.0 7.7 125.6 5d 98.7
Canyon fill west of Lot 25 Comm 310.0 16.0 97.3 2 91.5
I 311 3/1/13
312 3/1/13
313 3/1/13
Canyon fill west of Lot 25 Comm 312.0 15.3 96.0 2 90.3
Canyon fill west of Lot 25 Comm 313.0 15.7 99.2 2 93,3
Canyon fill west of Lot 25 Comm 312.0 16.2 96.4 2 90.7
314 3/1/13 Canyon fill west of Lot 25 Comm 315.0 17.0 97.2 2 91.4
I 315 3/1/13 Canyon fill west of Lot 25 Comm 317.0 16.3 98.1 2 92.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I FIGURE 7