HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 06-24; BRESSI RANCH VILLAGE CENTER; GEOTECHNICAL PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION; 2007-01-25· -I
I
,I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '. '.
GEOTECHNICAL PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION,
BRESSI RANCH VILLAGE CENTER, A PORTION OF PLANNING AREA PA-15,
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
.RECEIVED
JUN 28 2007
Prepared For: ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT
LNR PROPERTY CORPORATION
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY GROUP
4275 EXECUTIVE SQUARE, SUITE 210
LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037
Project No. 971009-047
January 25, 2007
FILE COpy 1/ ()U-J-1
'-------.Leighton and Associates, Inc. ~ .
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
-1
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I-=-'
I
I
I
I
'I
I,
I
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
January 25,2007
To: LNR Property Corporation
Commercial Property Group
4275 Executive Square, Suite 210
La Jolla, California 92037
Attention: Mr. Jeff Williams
Project No. 971009-047
Subject: ' Geotechnical Preliminary ,Investigatien,--Bressi Ranch Village 'Center, A Portion
of Planning Area PA-I5, Carlsbad, California
.In accordance with your request and authorization, we have conducted a preliminary geotechnical
investigation for the proposed Bressi Ranch, Village Center within a portion of Planning Area P A-
15 at the Bressi Ranch development, located in Carlsbad, California, Based on the results of our
study, it is our professional opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed retail development
and associated improvements. The accompanying report 'presents a summary of our preliminary
.investigation and provides preliminary"geotechnical conclusions and recommendations relative to
the proposed site development.
If you have an¥, questions regarding our'report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We
appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
William D: Olson,RCE 452
Associate Engineer
Distribution: (4)
(3)
KW~
dall K. Wagner, CEG 1612
'ncipal Geologist
3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 8205. San Diego, CA 92123-4425
858.292.8030 II Fax 858.292.0771. www.leightongeo.com
~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................•........................... 1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ............................................................................................... 1
1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .............................................................................. 3
1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 3
2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .............................................. 4
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDmONS .................................................................. 5
3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING ................................................................................................. 5
3.2 As-GRADED GEOLOGIC CONDmONS ............................................................................. 5
3.3 SITE-SPEGFIC GEOLOGy ............................................................................................ 5
3.3.1 Artificial Documented Fill (Map Symbol-Af) ........................................................... 5
3.3.2 Santiago Formation (Map Symbo/-Tsa) ................................................................ 6
3.4 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE ............................................................................................. 6
3.5 SURFACE AND GROUND WATER ................................................................................... 6
3.6 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ........................................................................................ 7
3.7 FLOOD HAZARD ••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8
3.8 GRADED SLOPES .................•.....•........••..........•.•.......•..•...••..•.........••.••....••..•....•.•...•.. 8
4.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 9
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 11
5.1 EARTHWORK ........................•..................•.....••••••••.............••••••••.•••.•••••..•..•..•.•••..• 11
5.1.1 Site Preparation .............................................................................................. 11
5.1.2 Mitigation of Cut/Fill Transition Conditions ........................................................ 12
5.1.3 Mitigation of High to Very High Expansive Soils at Finish Grade ............................ 12
5.1.4 Excavations ...... ~ ............................................................................................. 13
5.1.5 Fill Placement and Compaction ......................................................................... 13
5.2 FOUNDATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................... 14
5.2.1 Moisture Conditioning ..................................................................................... 15
5.2.2 Seismic Design Parameters .............................................................................. 16
5.2.3 Foundation Setback ......................................................................................... 16
5.2.4 AntiCipated Settlement. .................................................................................... 17
5.3 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ........•........•................•........•.............................•... ~ ....•.. 17
5.4 FENCES AND FREESTANDING WALLS ............................................................................ 19
5.5 GEOCHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................... 20
5.6 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN ............................................................................... 20
5.7 CONTROL OF SURFACE WATER AND DRAINAGE ............................................................... 22
5.8 SLOPE MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES .............................................................................. 23
+ Leighton ,
I
............ _ ,I
I
--I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
971009-047
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
5.9 LANDSCAPING AND POST-CONSTRUCITON ..................................................................... 23
5.10 CONSTRUCITON OBSERVATION AND TESTING ................................................................. 24
6.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................ 25
AS FE Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report ............................ 26
TABLES
TABLE 1-PRESATURATION RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON FINISH GRADE
SOIL ExPANSION POTENTIAL -PAGE 15
TABLE 2 -MINIMUM FOUNDATION SETBACK FROM DESCENDING SLOPE FACES -PAGE 17
TABLE 3 -LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES -PAGE 18
TABLE 4 -PREliMINARY PAVEMENT SECITON DESIGNS -PAGE 21
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 -SITE LOCATION MAP -PAGE 2
FIGURE 2 -GEOTECHNICAL MAP -REAR OF TEXT
ApPENDICES
ApPENDIX A -REFERENCES
ApPENDIX B -BORING AND TEST PIT LOGS
ApPENDIX C -LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS
ApPENDIX D -GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
-11-
tI
Leighton I
::
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.1
971009-047
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Scope
This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation for the
Bressi Ranch Village Center retail development at the Bressi Ranch project located in
Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The purpose of our preliminary geotechnical
investigation was to evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions present at the site and
to provide preliminary geotechnical conclusions and recommendations relative to the
proposed retail development.
As part of our preliminary investigation of the site, we performed the following:
• Review of available pertinent, published geotechnical reports, geologic literature, and
maps (Appendix A).
• Field reconnaissance of the existing onsite geotechnical conditions.
• Subsurface exploration consisting of the excavation and logging of21 small-diameter
borings and 13 exploratory test pits, as well as, obtaining representative drive and
bulk samples for laboratory testing. The approximate boring and test pit locations are
shown on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2). The logs of the borings and test pits are
presented in Appendix B.
• Laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained from the subsurface
exploration. Results of these tests are presented in Appendix C.
• Compilation and analysis of the geotechnical data obtained from the field
investigation and laboratory testing.
• Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical
recommendations (including General Earthwork and Grading Specifications presented
as Appendix D) with respect to the proposed design, site grading, and general
construction considerations.
-1-Leighton
POOR
QUALITY
ORIGINAL S
I
I ~ N
I 1
0 2,000 4,000
SCALE FEET
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I Retail Center Project No. eI Planning Area PA-15 SITE LOCATION 971009-047
Bressi Ranch MAP Date
I Carlsbad, California January 2007 Figure 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.2 Site Location and Description
The Bressi Ranch development is located southeast of the intersection of EI Camino Real
and Palomar Airport Road in the central portion of the City of Carlsbad, California
(Figure 1). The Bressi Ranch Village Center is located in the northern portion of the
Bressi Ranch project south of Gateway Road, east of the affordable housfngsite and the
Village Square, north of Bressi Ranch Way, and west of EI Fuerte Street (Figures 1
and 2).
The mass grading operations for Planning Area PA-15 were performed between July
2003 and July 2004 (Leighton, 2004b). The rough grading resulted in a sheet-graded pad
with a high point in the middle of the site at an approximate elevation of 411 feet mean
sea level (msl) and gently sloping grades falling to an approximate elevation of 400 feet
msl to the west and east. Rough grading also included the construction of three desiIting
basins on the site. Post grading Improvements of Planning Area PA-15 included the
placement of underground utilities in the streets, construction of paved streets (including
Finnila Place, which separates the western and main portion of the retail development,
and Town Garden Road), and associated improvements.
The mass grading operations were performed by Nelson and Belding while Leighton and
Associates performed the geotechnical observation and testing services. Grading of the
site included: 1) the removal of potentially compressible desiccated older fill soils,
undocumented fill soils, topsoil, colluvium, aUl~vium, and weathered formational
material; 2) the excavation of fill slope keys; 3) preparation of areas to receive fill; 4) the
placement of a sub drain in the canyon bottom; 5) excavation of formational material; and
6) the placement of compacted fill soils.
1.3 Proposed Development
We understand that the proposed retail development will include construction of twelve
retail buildings (i.e., Pads "A" and "B", Shops "A" through "G", and Majors "A" through
"C") totaling approximately 122,000 square-feet; and associated improvements including
building pads, driveways, 620 parking areas, concrete flatwork, underground utilities,
landscaping, etc. We also understand that the proposed retail buildings will be single-
story structures and will likely be constructed with conventional foundations. Based on
the preliminary development plans prepared by Project Design Consultants, the proposed
finish grade elevations will be within approximately 5, feet existing sheet-graded
elevations of the site.
fl
-3-Leighton
1~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Our subsurface investigation consisted of the excavation of 21 small-diameter borings and 13
exploratory test pits to depths ranging from approximately 5 to 20 feet beiow the existing ground
surface (bgs). The purpose of these excavations was to evaluate the engineering characteristics of
the onsite soils with regard to the proposed development. The borings and test pits allowed
evaluation of the onsite soils, including those likely to be encountered at the proposed foundation
elevations and provided representative samples for laboratory testing. Logs of the borings and
test pits are presented in Appendix B.
The exploratory excavations were logged by a geologist from our firm. Representative in-place
drive andlor bulk samples were obtained at selected intervals for laboratory testing. The
approximate locations of the borings and test pits are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2).
Subsequent to logging and sampling, the borings and test pits were backfilled with native soils.
Compactive effort utilizing a backhoe with a sheepsfoot wheel and wheel rolling was applied to the
backfill soils of the test pits in order to minimize settlement of the test pit backfill soils. The
compactive effort was observed by a representative from our firm, however no testing was
performed.
Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples to evaluate the moisture/density,
expansion potential, soluble sulfate, chloride content, minimum resistivity, and pH. A discussion
of the laboratory tests performed and a summary of the laboratory test results are presented in
Appendix C.
-4-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.1
971009-047
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDmONS
Geologic Setting
The subject site is located in the coastal section of the Peninsular Range Province, a
geomorphic province with a long and active geologic history throughout Southern
California. Throughout the last 54 million years, the area known as the "San Diego
Embayment" has undergone several episodes of marine inundation and subsequent
marine regression, resulting in the deposition of a thick sequence of marine and
nonmarine sedimentary rocks on the basement rock of the Southern California batholith.
Gradual emergence of the region from the sea occurred in Pleistocene time, and numerous
wave-cut platforms, most of which were covered by relatively thin marine and nonmarine
terrace deposits, formed as the sea receded from the land. Accelerated fluvial erosion
during periods of heavy rainfall, coupled with the lowering of the base sea level during
Quaternary time, resulted in the rolling hills, mesas, and deeply incised canyons which
characterize the landforms we see in the general site area today.
3.2 As-graded Geologic Conditions
The geologic or geotechnical conditions encountered during our preliminary investigation
of the Bressi Ranch Village Center were essentially as anticipated. A comprehensive
summary of the geologic conditions is presented below.
3.3 Site-Specific Geology
The geologic units encountered during our investigation consisted of artificial
documented fill soils and the Santiago Formation. The approximate limits of the geologic
units encountered during the preliminary investigation are presented on the Geotechnical
Map (Figure 2) and discussed (youngest to oldest) below.
3.3.1 Artificial Documented Fill (Map Symbol-Af)
Documented fill soils placed during the prior grading operations that were observed
and tested by Leighton and Associates are generally located in the northwestern,
south-central, northeastern, and eastern portions of the site (as indicated on Figure
2). The cut/fill transition condition on the sheet-graded pad was not mitigated since
the proposed building pads were not known at the time of the rough grading
operations. The field density test results presented in the as-graded geotechnical
report for the project (Leighton, 2004b) indicated the fill soils were placed and
-5-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction with moisture contents at
or near the optimum moisture content.
During our preliminary investigation, the upper portion of the fill soils was found to
be desiccated and minimal removals andlor scarification and recompaction (i.e. on
the order of 1 to 2 feet) may be necessary prior to the placement of additional·fill or
structural improvements. The fill soils typically consisted of silty sands, clayey
sands, and to a lesser extent sandy to silty clays. Based on our review of the as-
graded geotechnical report (Leighton, 2004c), the fill soils on the site are up to
approximately 20 feet in depth in the south-central portion of the site.
3.3.2 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol-Tsa)
The Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation, as encountered during our investigation,
consisted primarily of massively bedded silty sandstones and sandy siltstones, and
to a lesser extent claystones. The silty sandstones generally consisted of orange-
brown (iron oxide staining) to light brown, damp to moist, dense to very dense,
silty very fine to medium grained sandstone. The siltstones and claystones were
generally olive-green, damp to moist, stiff to hard, moderately weathered, and
occasionally fractured and moderately sheared. Based on our field study, the upper
1 to 2 feet of the existing ground surface was found to be disturbed and minimal
removals andlor scarification and recompaction (i.e. on the order of 1 to 2 feet) may
be necessary prior to the placement of additional fill or structural improvements.
Several well-cemented fossiliferous sandstone beds were encountered on the site
during the grading operations (Leighton, 2004b) and future excavations into these
cemented beds will likely require heavy ripping andlor breaking.
3.4 Geologic Structure
The general structure of the formational material on the site appears to be near horizontal.
Based on our geologic mapping during the mass grading operations (Leighton, 2004b),
bedding within the Santiago Formation generally exhibited somewhat variable bedding with
strikes ranging from northwest to northeast and dips typically 2 to 9 degrees to the east and
west. Variable minor jointing and shearing of the bedrock materials was observed locally.
3.5 Surface and Ground Water
No indication of surface water or evidence of surface ponding was encountered during
our field investigation (with the exception of the desilting basins). However, surface
-6-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
water may drain as sheet flow across the site during rainy periods and accumulate in
lower elevations and in the on-site desilting basins. Ground water was not observed in the
borings or test pits during our investigation; however, perched ground water levels may
develop and fluctuate during periods of precipitation.
3.6 Faulting and Seismicity
Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation
and state policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults.
By definition of the California Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is a fault that has
had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The State
Geologist has defined a potentially active fault as any fault considered to have been active
during Quaternary time (last 1,600,000 years) but that has not been proven to be active or
inactive. This definition is used in delineating Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones as mandated by
the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 and as most recently revised in
1997. The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development does not occur
across the traces of active faults. Based on our review of the Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones,
the site is not located within any Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone as created by the Alquist-
Priolo Act (Hart, 1997).
San Diego, like the rest of southern California, is seismically active as a result of being
located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates.
The principal source of seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending
regional fault zones such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsinore Faults Zones, as
well as along less active faults such as the Rose Canyon Fault Zone.
As indicated in the Supplemental Geotechnical Report for the Bressi Ranch project
(Leighton, 2001), there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity
of the site. Evidence of active faulting was not encountered during the mass grading
operations. However, several minor inactive faults were encountered within the limits of the
Bressi Ranch development but are not considered a constraint to development of the Bressi
Ranch Village Center. Geologic mapping of the onsite minor faults, where topsoil was
encountered over the faults, indicated that the faults did not extend into or offset the topsoil,
suggesting that the faults are not active.
The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, which is located
approximately 7.0 miles (11.2 kilometers) west of the site. Based on the 2001 California
Building Code (CBC), the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered a Type B Seismic Source.
Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the
site is considered low. Shallow ground rupture due to shaking from distant seismic events
is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site.
-7-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion
due to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose, saturated,
granular soils are susceptible to liquefaction and dynamic settlement. Liquefaction is
typified by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby causing the soil to act
as a viscous liquid. This effect may be manifested by excessive settlements and sand boils
at the ground surface. The fill and formational materials underlying the site are not
considered liquefiable due to their fine-grained nature, dense physical characteristics, and
unsaturated condition.
3.7 Flood Hazard
3.8
Based on our research, the site is not located within any flood hazard zone as defined by
FEMA.
Graded Slopes
Graded slopes within the development are considered grossly and surficially stable from a
geotechnical standpoint (Leighton, 2004b). Manufactured cut and fill slopes within the site
were surveyed by the civil engineer are understood to have been constructed with slope
inclinations of2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter.
-8-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation of the site, it is our
professional opinion that the proposed retail development is feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint, provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the
project plans and specifications.
The following is a summary of the geotechnical factors that may affect development of the site.
• Based on our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and reference review, the near-
surface fill soils are locally disturbed (i.e., the upper 1 to 2 feet). These soils are not
considered suitable for support of additional fill soils, structural loads or surface
improvements in their present condition. Remedial grading measures such as scarification,
removals and recompaction will be necessary to mitigate this condition if the disturbed soils
are not removed by the proposed excavation.
• Cut/fill transition conditions present beneath proposed buildings will need to be mitigated by
the overexcavation of the cut portion of the building pad.
• Based on laboratory testing and visual classification, the fill soils on the site generally
possess a medium to high expansion potential. Highly expansive soils should not be placed or
located within the upper 5 feet of the proposed building pads. Selective grading may be
required to minimize highly expansive soils on the building pads.
• Laboratory test results indicate the fill soils present on the site have a negligible potential for
sulfate attack on normal concrete, however moderate to severe sulfates are known to exist on
the Bressi Ranch project. Laboratory testing also indicated that the on-site soils are severely
to very severely corrosive on buried metal pipes and conduits.
• The existing onsite soils appear to be suitable material for fill construction provided they are
relatively free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 8 inches in
maximum dimension.
• Cemented beds and/or oversized rock are present on the site and may require heavy ripping or
breaking. Oversized rock that is encountered during the future fine grading operations should
be removed within the limits of the proposed building pad or utility trench. The oversized
rock can be removed from the site, placed in landscape areas and/or buried at least 2 feet
below the subgrade elevation in the parking lot (outside the limits of planned utility lines).
• Near surface ground water or seepage was not encountered during our investigation however,
perched ground water and seepage may develop during periods of precipitation.
-9-Leighton
'" '"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
• Active faults are not known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the site.
• Due to the fine-grained nature and/or relatively dense nature of the onsite soils, the potential for
liquefaction and dynamic settlement of the site is considered very low providing the
recommendations for site grading presented herein are adhered to during the design and
construction of the site development.
• The site is not located within any flood hazard zone as defined by FEMA.
• Although foundation plans have not been finalized nor building loads developed, we
anticipate that conventional foundation system, consisting of continuous and spread footings
with slab-on-grade flooring supported by competent fill or formational materials, will be
used.
.,
-10-Leighton
" <.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.1
971009-047
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Earthwork
We anticipate that future earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, fine
grading, utility trench excavation and backfill, retaining wall backfill, and street/driveway
and parking area pavement section preparation and compaction. We recommend that the
earthwork on site be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, the
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading included in Appendix
D, and the City of Carlsbad grading requirements. In case of conflict, the following
recommendations shall supersede those in Appendix D. The contract between the
developer and earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the responsibility of
the contractor to place the fill properly and in accordance with the recommendations of
this report and the specifications in Appendix D, notwithstanding the testing and
observation of the geotechnical consultant.
5.1.1 Site Preparation
During future grading, the areas to receive structural fill or engineered structures
should be cleared of surface obstructions, potentially compressible material (such as
disturbed and/or desiccated fill soils or weathered formational material), and
stripped of vegetation. Vegetation and debris should be removed and properly
disposed of off site. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions that extend
below finish site grades should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material.
Areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a
minimum depth of 12 to 24 inches, brought to optimum moisture condition, and
recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test
Method D1557).
If the length of time between the completion of grading and the construction of the
proposed buildings is longer than six months, we recommend that the building pads
be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and, if needed, the finish grade soils on
the building pads should be scarified a minimum of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned
to optimum moisture-content and recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative
compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557).
-11-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
5.1.2 Mitigation of Cut/Fill Transition Conditions
In order to reduce the potential for differential settlement of the proposed buildings
in areas of cutlfill transitions, we recommend the entire cut portion of the building
pad be overexcavated and replaced with properly compacted fill.
Where the fill thickness is greater than 5 feet in depth, the overexcavation of the cut
portion of the building pad should be made a minimum of 3 feet below the lowest
planned footing elevation and should extend laterally at least 10 feet beyond the
building perimeter or footprint. Anticipated building pads where this condition may
occur include the building pads of Majors "A" and "C" and Shops "A" and "B" (due
to the anticipated infilling of the desilting basins) and the building pad of Major "B"
and Pad "A" (due to the presence of relatively deep existing fills).
Where the anticipated fill thickness is less than 5 feet in depth, the overexcavation
of the cut portion of the building pad should equal the same thickness of the
maximum fill beneath the pad to a maximum overexcavation depth of 1 foot below
the lowest planned footing elevation. These overexcavations should alsD extend
laterally at least 10 feet beyond the building perimeter or footprint. The building
pads where these conditions will occur cannot be determined until the final footing
elevations of the buildings relative to the existing site grades are determined.
In order to minimize perched ground water in the overexcavations, we recommend
that the overexcavation bottoms be tilted a minimum of 2-percent toward the fill
side of the building pad. Additional or revised recommendations may be warranted
based on the configuration and size of the proposed buildings. If the majority of the
proposed building is located on cut, the fill soils beneath the building may be
removed and recompacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction and a deep
foundation system founded completely on formational material may be utilized as
an alternative.
5.1.3 Mitigation of High to Very High Expansive Soils at Finish Grade
Although very high expansive soils were not encountered during our preliminary
investigation, highly expansive soils are present within portions of the site. Should
high to very high expansive soils be encountered on the building pads during the
future fine grading operations, we recommend that these soils be removed below the
planned finish grade of the proposed buildings and other movement sensitive
improvements. If these expansive soils are removed, the removal depth should be a
minimum of 3 feet below the lowest planned footing elevation or until lower
expansive sandy soils are encountered. We also recommend that the overexcavation
bottom be tilted a minimum of 2-percent toward the fill side of the building pad or
toward the street/driveway in order to minimize perched ground water conditions.
-12-Leighton
,
<"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
The resulting excavation should be replaced with properly compacted fill possessing
a very low to medium expansion potential: The actual location of the claystones and
siltstones at or near finish grade at the site should be evaluated during the future fine
grading operations. The high to very high expansive soils may be placed outside the
limits of the proposed building pads.
5.1.4 Excavations
Excavations of the on-site materials may generally be accomplished with
conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. It is not anticipated that blasting will
be required or that significant quantities of oversized rock (i.e. rock with maximum
dimensions greater than 8 inches) will be generated during future grading. However,
localized cemented zones (within the cut areas) and oversized rock (placed within
the compacted fill) may be encountered on the site that may require heavy ripping
andlor breaking and removal. If oversized rock is encountered, it should be placed in
accordance with the recommendations presented in Appendix D, hauled offsite, or
placed in non-structural or landscape areas.
Based on our field investigation, discontinuous cemented zones were encountered at
approximate elevations of393 to 396, 398 to 404, and 407 to 408 feet msl in various
places on the site. Our professional experience during the mass grading operations
indicated the cemented zones were generally less than 6 inches to 24 inches thick,
moderately fractured, and variable in the amount of cementation. While we had
refusal of the backhoe and small-diameter rig in some of the excavations, larger
equipment may have been able to penetrate the cemented zone.
Due to the relatively dense characteristics of the on-site soils, temporary excavations
such as utility trenches in the on-site soils should remain stable for the period
required to construct the utility, provided they are constructed and monitored in
accordance with OSHA requirements.
5.1.5 Fill Placement and Compaction
The on-site soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are
free or organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 8 inches in
maximum dimension. We do not recommend that high or very high expansive soils
be utilized as fill for the building pads or as retaining wall backfill.
All fill soils should be brought to 2-percent over the optimum moisture content and
compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on the
laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). The optimum lift
-13-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
thickness required to produce a unifonnly compacted fill will depend on the type
and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in lifts not
exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Placement and compaction of fill
should be performed in general accordance with Appendix D, the current City of
Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practices, and the geotechnical
recommendations presented herein.
5.2 Foundation Design Considerations
The foundations and slabs for the anticipated retail buildings should be designed in
accordance with structural considerations and the following preliminary
recommendations. These preliminary recommendations assume that the soils encountered
within 5 feet of finish pad grade will have a low to medium potential for expansion per
1997 UBC Standard 18-1. If highly expansive soils are encountered within 5 feet of the
proposed finish grade elevations during site grading, these expansive soils should be
removed and replaced with lower expansive soils. If replacement of the expansive soils is
not feasible, additional foundation design will be necessary.
The proposed buildings may be supported by conventional, continuous or isolated spread
footings. Footings should extend a minimum of 24 inches beneath the lowest adjacent
soil grade. At these depths, footings may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing
pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (pst) if founded in properly compacted fill soils
or formational material. An allowable capacity increase of 500 psf for every 6 inches of
additional embedment may be used to a maximum of 3,500 psf. The allowable pressures
may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or
seismic forces. The minimum recommended width of footings is 18 inches for continuous
footings and 24 inches for square or round footings. If 12-inch wide continuous footings
are desired, we recommend that the allowable bearing pressure be limited to 2,000 psf.
Footings should be designed in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements
and have a minimum reinforcement of four No.5 reinforcing bars (two top and two
bottom).
The slab-on-grade foundations should be at least 5 inches thick and be reinforced with
No.4 rebars 18 inches on center or No. 5 rebars at 24 inches on center, each way. All
reinforcing should be placed at mid-height in the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-
inch layer of clean sand (sand equivalent greater than 30), which is in-turn underlain by a
minimum 10-mil plastic sheeting (moisture barrier) and an additional 2 inches of clean
sand. We recommend that control joints be provided across the slab at appropriate
intervals as designed by the project architect.
The potential for slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios.
The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete
-14-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
in hot weather to mlmmlze cracking of slabs. We recommend that a slipsheet (or
equivalent) be utilized if grouted tile, marble tile, or other crack-sensitive floor covering
is planned directly on concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed in accordance with
structural considerations. If heavy vehicle or equipment loading is proposed for the slabs,
greater thicknesses and increased reinforcing may be required as determined by the
structural engineer.
5.2.1 Moisture Conditioning
The slab sub grade soils underlying the foundation systems of the proposed
structures should be presoaked in accordance with the recommendations presented
in Table 1 prior to placement of the moisture barrier and slab concrete. The
sub grade soil moisture content should be checked by a representative of Leighton
and Associates prior to slab construction.
Table 1
Presaturation Recommendations Based on Finish Grade Soil Expansion Potential
Expansion Potential (per UBC 18-I-B)
Presaturation Very Low Low Medium
Criteria (0-20) (21-50) (51-90)
Minimum
Presoaking Depth 6 12 18
(in inches)
Minimum Near optimum 1.2 times 1.2 times optimum
Recommended moisture optimum moisture moisture
Moisture Content
Presoaking or moisture conditioning may be achieved in a number of ways, but
based on our professional experience, we have found that minimizing the
moisture loss of pads that have been completed (by periodic wetting to keep the
upper portion of the pad from drying out) and/or berming the lot and flooding if
for a short period of time (days to a few weeks) are some of the more efficient
ways to meet the presoaking requirements. If flooding is performed, a couple of
days to let the upper portion of the pad dry out and form a crust so equipment can
be utilized should be anticipated.
-15-Leighton
" .'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
5.2.2 Seismic Design Parameters
The site lies within Seismic Zone 4, as defined in the CBC, 2001 edition. The
nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, which is considered a
Type B Seismic Source (per 2001 CBC criteria), is located approximately 7.0
miles (or 11.2 kilometers) west of the site. The closest Type A Seismic Source is
the Julian segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone, which is located approximately
23.5 miles (or 38 kilometers) east of the site.
The following data should be considered for the seismic analysis of the proposed
structures:
• Causative Fault: Rose Canyon Fault Zone
• Maximum Magnitude: 7.2
• Seismic Source Type: B
• Seismic Zone Factor: 0040
• Soil Profile Type: Sc
• Near Source Factors: Na = 1.01Nv = 1.0
5.2.3 Foundation Setback
We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes or
adjacent retaining walls for all structural foundations, footings, and other settlement-
sensitive structures as indicated on Table 2. This distance is measured from the
outside bottom edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face and is based on the
slope height and type of soil. However, the foundation setback distance may be
revised by the geotechnical consultant on a case-by-case basis if the geotechnical
conditions are different than anticipated.
-16-Leighton
-~--.--.-~~.~-.----------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.3
971009-047
Table 2
Minimum Foundation Setback from Descending Slope Faces
Slope Height Minimum Recommended Foundation
Setback
Less than 5 feet 5 feet
5 to 15 feet 7 feet
Greater than 15 feet Hl2 (where H equals the slope height) to a
maximum of 20 feet
Please note that the soils within the structural setback area possess poor lateral
stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavements,
etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement andlor
differential settlement. Potential distress to such improvements may be mitigated by
providing a deepened footing or a pier and grade beam foundation system to support
the improvement. The deepened footing should meet the setback as described
above.
5.2.4 Anticipated Settlement
Settlement is anticipated to occur at varying times over the life of the project.
Short-term settlement typically occurs upon application of the foundation loads
and is essentially completed within the construction period. Long-term
(hydro consolidation) settlement typically occurs in deep fills upon additional
water infiltration into the fill soils (even in properly compacted fill soils and even
with subdrains provided). This settlement typically occurs over many years. Long-
term settlement values and the affects on the foundations should be evaluated after
the site is graded and the actual fill thicknesses beneath the proposed foundations
known. However, for preliminary planning purposes, total future settlement is
expected to be order of 1 to 1.5 inches and differential settlement is estimated to
be on the order of 114 inch in 25 feet.
Lateral Earth Pressures
The recommended lateral pressures for imported very low to low expansive soil (expansion
index less than 50 per UBC Table 18-1-B) or on-site medium expansive soil (expansion
-17-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
index between 51 and 90 per UBC Table 18-I-B) and level or sloping backfill are presented
on Table 3. High to very high expansive soils (having an expansion potential greater than 91
per UBC Table 18-I-B) should not be used as backfill soils on the site.
Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them.
The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can
yield under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil,
it can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the
shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such
walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the
resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. The above noted
passive resistance assumes an appropriate setback per Section 5.2.3.
Table 3
Lateral Earth Pressures
Equivalent Fluid Weight (pct)
Import Very Low to Low On-Site Medium Expansive Soils Expansive Soils
Conditions Expansion Index less than 50 Expansion Index between 51 and
90
Level 2:1 Slope Level 2:1 Slope
Active 35 55 60 70
At-Rest 55 65 70 80
Passive 350 150 350 150
For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls
founded above the static ground water and backfilled with soils of very low to low
expansion potential or medium expansion potential is provided on Table 3. The equivalent
fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions. If conditions other than those
assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressures values should be provided on
an individual-case basis by the geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical and structural
engineer should evaluate surcharge-loading effects from the adjacent structures. All
retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately
_1 ________ ----~----------------1-8--------------------------L~e~igh~to~n=,==_== .. ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.4
971009-047
waterproofed. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical wall
drainage design is illustrated in Appendix D.
For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil
interface. In combining the total lateral resistance, the passive pressure or the frictional
resistance should be reduced by 50 percent. Wall footings should be designed in accordance
with structural considerations. The passive resistance value may be increased by one-third
when considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic loads. The horizontal
distance between foundation elements providing passive resistance should be minimum of
three times the depth of the elements to allow full development of these passive pressures.
The total depth of retained earth for the design of cantilever walls should be the vertical
distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design or measured at
the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding. All wall backcuts should be made in
accordance with the current OSHA requirements.
The granular and native backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction (based on ASTM Test Method DI557). The granular fill should extend
horizontally to a minimum distance equal to one-half the wall height behind the walls. The
walls should be constructed and backfilled as soon as possible after backcut excavations.
Prolonged exposure of back cut slopes may result in some localized slope instability.
Foundations for retaining walls in competent formational soils or properly compacted fill
should be embedded at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade. At this depth, an
allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf may be assumed.
Fences and Freestanding Walls
Footings for freestanding walls should be founded a minimum of 24 inches below lowest
adjacent grade. To reduce the potential for unsightly cracks in freestanding walls, we
recommend inclusion of construction joints at a maximum of IS-foot intervals. This spacing
may be altered in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer, based on
wall reinforcement details.
Our experience on similar sites in older developments indicates that many walls on
shallow foundations near the top-of-slopes tend to tilt excessively over time as a result of
slope creep. If the effects of slope creep on top-of-slope walls are not deemed acceptable,
one or a combination of the options provided in the following paragraphs should be
utilized in the design of such structures, based on the desired level of mitigation of creep-
related effects on them.
A relatively inexpensive option to address creep related problems in top-of-slope walls
and fences is to allow some degree of creep damage and design the structures so that
-19-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
tilting or cracking will be less visually obvious, or such that they may be economically
repaired or replaced. If, however, a better degree of creep mitigation is desired, the walls
and fences may be provided with the deepened footings to meet the foundation setback
criteria laid out in Figure 18-1-1 of the UBC, 1997 edition, or these structures may be
constructed to accommodate potential movement.
Under certain circumstances, an effective solution to minimize the effects of creep on top-
of-slope walls and fences is to support these structures on a pier-and-grade-beam system.
The piers normally consist of minimum 12-inch diameter cast-in-place caissons spaced at a
maximum of 8 feet on center, and connected together by a minimum 12-inch-thick grade
beam at a shallow depth. The piers are typically at least 10 feet deep for medium or high
expansive soil. The steel reinforcement for the system should be designed with
consideration of wall/fence type and loading. Walls or fences aligned essentially
perpendicular to the top of the slope are normally supported on the pier-and-grade-beam
system for at least that part of the wall that is within 15 feet from the top-of-slope. Caisson
support is recommended for all top-of-slope walls where slopes are greater than 10 feet in
height and/or the soil on and adjacent to the slope consists of high to very high expansive
soils.
5.5 Geochemical Considerations
Geochemical screening of the representative onsite soils was performed as part of our
study and the results presented in Appendix C. As indicated in Appendix C, the results of
our limited testing and our professional knowledge of similar soils in other portions of the
Bressi Ranch project, indicates that concrete in contact with the on-site soils should be
designed in accordance with the "moderate" category of Table 19A-A-4 of the 2001
California Building Code. In addition, the onsite soils are anticipated to have a corrosive
environment for buried metal pipes or uncoated metal conduits. Laboratory testing should
be performed on the soils placed at or near finish grade after completion of site grading to
ascertain the actual corrosivity characteristics.
5.6 Preliminary Pavement Design
R-Value test results of representative on-site soils on the adjacent streets range from 5 to 34.
The appropriate Asphalt Concrete (AC) and Class 2 aggregate base (AB) pavement
sections will depend on the type of subgrade soil, shear strength, traffic load, and planned
pavement life. Since an evaluation of the actual subgrade soils cannot be made at this time,
we have conservatively assumed an R-value of 5 and Traffic Indexes (TI) of 4.5, 5.0, and
6.0.
-20-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
The pavement sections based on a TI of 6.0 and 5.0 should be assumed for the heavy truck
drives and vehicle driveways, respectively. The pavement sections for vehicle parking stalls
should be based on a TI of 4.5. Final pavement designs should be completed in accordance
with the City of Carlsbad design criteria after R-value tests have been performed on the
actual sub grade materials.
Table 4
Preliminary Pavement Section DeSigns
Traffic Assumed Preliminary Pavement Sections
Index R-Value AC and Base Section Full Depth AC Section
4.5 5 4 inches AC over 6 inches Class 2 7.0 inches AC over native
Aggregate Base sub grade soils
5.0 5 4 inches AC over 8 inches Class 2 8.0 inches AC over native
Aggregate Base subgrade soils
6.0 5 4 inches AC over 12 inches Class 2 10.0 inches AC over native
Aggregate Base subgrade soils
Asphalt Concrete (AC) and Class 2 aggregate base should conform to and be placed in
accordance with the latest revision of California Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications. Prior to placing the pavement section, the subgrade soils should have a
relative compaction of at least 95 percent to a minimum depth of 12 inches (based on
ASTM Test Method DI557). Aggregate Base (6 inches minimum) should be placed
beneath proposed concrete curb and gutters in accordance with the City of Carlsbad
design criteria, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based on
ASTM Test Method D 1557) prior to placement of the AC.
For areas subject to unusually heavy truck loading (i.e., trash trucks, delivery trucks, etc.),
we recommend a full depth of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) section of 7.5 inches
with steel reinforcement (Number 4 bars at 18-inch centers, each way) and crack-control
joints at a minimum spacing of 10 feet. We recommend that sections be as nearly square
as possible. A 3,500-psi mix that produces a 600-psi modulus of rupture should be
utilized. The actual pavement design should also be in accordance with City of Carlsbad
and ACI design criteria.
If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscaping areas, we recommend some
measures of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming
-21-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.7
971009-047
saturated. Concrete swales should be designed if asphalt pavement is used for drainage of
surface waters.
Control of Surface Water and Drainage
Surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during precise grading,
landscaping, and building construction. Positive drainage (e.g., roof gutters, downspouts,
area drain, etc.) should be provided to direct surface water away from structures and
towards the driveways or suitable drainage devices. Ponding of water adjacent to structures
should be avoided; roof gutters, downspouts, and area drains should be aligned so as to
transport surface water to a minimum distance of 5 feet away from structures. The
performance of structural foundations is dependent upon maintaining adequate surface
drainage away from structures.
Water should be transported off the site in approved drainage devices or unobstructed
swales. We recommend that the minimum flow gradient for the drainage be I-percent for
area drains and paved drainage swales; and 2-percent for unpaved drainage swales. We
recommend that where structures will be located within 5 feet of a proposed drainage
swale, the surface drainage adjacent to the structures be accomplished with a gradient of
at least 3-112 percent away from the structure for a minimum horizontal distance of 3 feet.
Drainage should be further maintained by a swale or drainage path at a gradient of at least
I-percent for area drains and paved drainage swales and 2-percent for unpaved drainage
swales to a suitable collection device (i.e. area drain, street gutter, etc.). We also
recommend that structural footings within 5 feet of the drainage swale flowline be
deepened so that the bottom of the footing is at least 12 inches below the flow-line of the
drainage swale. In places where the prospect of maintaining the minimum recommended
gradient for the drainage swales and the construction of additional area drains is not
feasible, provisions for specific recommendations may be necessary, outlining the
importance of maintaining positive drainage.
The impact of heavy irrigation or inadequate runoff gradient can create perched water
conditions, resulting in seepage or shallow groundwater conditions where previously none
existed. Maintaining adequate surface drainage and controlled irrigation will significantly
reduce the potential for nuisance-type moisture problems. To reduce differential earth
movements (such as heaving and shrinkage due to the change in moisture content of
foundation soils, which may cause distress to a structure or improvement), the moisture
content of the soils surrounding the structure should be kept as relatively constant as
possible.
All area drain inlets should be maintained and kept clear of debris in order to function
properly. Rerouting of site drainage patterns and/or installation of area drains should be
-22-Leighton
,
<.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. 1
I
I
971009-047
performed, if necessary. A qualified civil engineer or a landscape architect should be
consulted prior to rerouting of drainage.
5.8 Slope Maintenance Guidelines
It is the responsibility of the owner to maintain the slopes, including adequate planting,
proper irrigation and maintenance, and repair of faulty irrigation systems. To reduce the
potential for erosion and slumping of graded slopes, all slopes should be planted with
ground cover, shrubs, and plants that develop dense, deep root structures and require
minimal irrigation. Slope planting should be carried out as soon as practical upon
completion of grading. Surface-water runoff and standing water at the top-of-slopes
should be avoided. Oversteepening of slopes should be avoided during construction
activities and landscaping. Maintenance of proper lot drainage, undertaking of property
improvements in accordance with sound engineering practices, and proper maintenance
of vegetation, including regular slope irrigation, should be performed. Slope irrigation
sprinklers should be adjusted to provide maximum uniform coverage with minimal of
water usage and overlap. Overwatering and consequent runoff and ground saturation
should be avoided. If automatic sprinklers systems are installed, their use must be
adjusted to account for rainfall conditions.
Trenches excavated on a slope face for any purpose should be properly backfilled and
compacted in order to obtain a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction, in accordance
with ASTM Test Method D1557. Observation/testing and acceptance by the geotechnical
consultant during trench backfill is recommended. A rodent-control program should be
established and maintained. Prior to planting, recently graded slopes should be
temporarily protected against erosion resulting from rainfall, by the implementing slope
protection measures such as polymer covering, jute mesh, etc.
5.9 Landscaping and Post-Construction
Landscaping and post-construction practices carried out by the owner(s) and their
representative bodies exert significant influences on the integrity of structures founded on
expansive soils. Improper landscaping and post-construction practices, which are beyond
the control of the geotechnical engineer, are frequently the primary cause of distress to these
structures. Recommendations for proper landscaping and post-construction practices are
provided in the following paragraphs within this section. Adhering to these
recommendations will help in minimizing distress due to expansive soils, and in ensuring
that such effects are limited to cosmetic damages, without compromising the overall
integrity of structures .
-23-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
Initial landscaping should be done on all sides adjacent to the foundation of a structure, and
adequate measures should be taken to ensure drainage of water away from the foundation. If
larger, shade providing trees are desired, such trees should be planted away from structures
(at a minimum distance equal to half the mature height of the tree) in order to prevent
penetration of the tree roots beneath the foundation of the structure.
Locating planters adjacent to buildings or structures should be avoided as much as possible.
If planters are utilized in these locations, they should be properly designed so as to prevent
fluctuations in the moisture content of subgrade soils. Planting areas at grade should be
provided with appropriate positive drainage. Wherever possible, exposed soil areas should
be above paved grades. Planters should not be depressed below adjacent paved grades
unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins and drains, are made. Adequate
drainage gradients, devices, and curbing should be provided to prevent runoff from adjacent
pavement or walks into planting areas.
Watering should be done in a uniform, systematic manner as equally as possible on all sides
of the foundation, to keep the soil moist. Irrigation methods should promote uniformity of
moisture in planters and beneath adjacent concrete flatwork. Overwatering and
underwatering of landscape areas must be avoided. Areas of soil that do no have ground
cover may require more moisture, as they are more susceptible to evaporation. Ponding or
trapping of water in localized areas adjacent to the foundations can cause differential
moisture levels in subsurface soils and should, therefore, not be allowed. Trees located
within a distance of 20 feet of foundations would require more water in periods of extreme
drought, and in some cases, a root injection system may be required to maintain moisture
equilibrium. During extreme hot and dry periods, close observations should be carried out
around foundations to ensure that adequate watering is being undertaken to prevent soil
from separating or pulling back from the foundations.
5.10 Construction Observation and Testing
Construction observation and testing should be performed by the geotechnical consultant
during the fine grading operations, future excavations, and foundation or retaining wall
construction on the site. Additionally, footing excavations should be observed and moisture
determination tests of subgrade soils should be performed by the geotechnical consultant
prior to the pouring of concrete. Foundation design plans should also be reviewed by the
geotechnical consultant prior to excavations.
-24-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
6.0 UMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based in part upon data that
were obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests.
Such information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing
geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying
climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if
Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and
construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative
for the site. An information sheet entitled "Important Information About Your Geotechnical
Engineering Report", prepared by ASFE is also included on the following page.
-25-Leighton
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
J'
"
Important Information About Your
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
The following information is provided to help you manage your risks,
Geotechnical Services Are Perlormed lor Specilic Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of
their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each
geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
-not even you -should apply the report for any purpose or project
except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.
Do not read selected elements only,
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set 01 Project-Specillc Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac-
tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the
client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general
n~ture of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of
the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements,
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the
geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth-
erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a
parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their impact.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems
that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which
they were not informed.
Subsurlace Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-
ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of
time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Prolessional Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those pOints where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes significantly-
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
who developed your report to provide construction observation is the
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
A Report1s Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-
neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical
engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
----------------------------
subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or
liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering
reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-
technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can
also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer1s Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical
engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to
conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they
need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac-
tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you
be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-
plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that
have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of
explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations"
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi-
bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities
and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical
study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually
relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;
e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led
to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen-
vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man-
agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
someone else.
Obtain Prolessional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,
operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from
growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be
devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com-
prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional
mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or
moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-
ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.
While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been
addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this
project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per-
formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study
were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed
in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold
from growing in or on the structure involved.
Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer lor Additional ASSistance
Membership in ASFE/THE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer
with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
ASFE
THE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org
Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means Whatsoever. is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's
specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for
purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other
firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
IIGER08041.0MRP
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
(~
I
I
I
'1' I _
I
~--------------------------------------------------~~-------~--
I
I
I
I
'I
'I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I·
I
I
I)
LEGEND
--II!I-
Af
Tsa
Limits of Report
Artificial Fill
Tertiary Santiago Formation
(circled where buried)
.u..u..u.
0 B-21
-ST-12
Approximate Limits of
Artificial Fill
Approximate Location of Small-Diameter Boring
(with total depth indicated)
Approximate Location of Backhoe Trench
(with total depth indicated)
IMJCR -s-'i;t~J5 S.F.,
8-1
~T.'?.';=20'
o\i. -~;.-'I. . 'FOff[I ~/ .
.&il:.a!' '!j;f~ .'Sf
~
N ~
0 100 200
SCALE FEET
"".1. ""QT"~O '-." '\ ~ , ~' ..
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
Project No.
Scale
Engr/Geol.
Drafted By
Date
Retail Center
Bressi Ranch PA-15
Carlsbad, California
971009-047
1" == 100'
WDO/RKW
KMT
January 2007
~ C ~
Figure 2
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I~
I
971009-047
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part
of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, Open-File Report 95-
04.
----, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open-File
Report, 96-08.
----, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent
Portions of Nevada, dated February 1998.
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2001, California Building Code, Volume 1-
Administrative, Fire-and Life-Safety, and Field Inspection Provision, Volume II -
Structural Engineering Design Provision, and Volume III -Material, Testing and
Installation Provision, ICBO.
California Geological Survey, 2003, The Revised California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment Maps, June 2003.
Hannan, D., 1975, Faulting in the Oceanside, Carlsbad and Vista Areas, Northern San Diego
County, California in Ross, A. and Dowlens, R.J., eds., Studies on the Geology of Camp
Pendleton and Western San Diego County, California: San Diego Association of
Geologists, pp. 56-59.
Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Special Studies Zones Maps: Department of
Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997, Uniform Building Code, Volume I
-Administrative, Fire-and Life-Safety, and Field Inspection Provisions, Volume II -
Structural Engineering Design Provisions, and Volume III -Material, Testing and
Installation Provision, ICBO.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, with Locations and
Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions: California Division of Mines and Geology, California
Geologic Data Map Series, Map No.6, Scale 1 :750,000.
Kennedy, M.P. and Welday, E.E., 1980, Character and Recency of Faulting Offshore
Metropolitan San Diego, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Map
Sheet 40.
A-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
APPENDIX A (continued)
Leary Childs Mascari Warner Architects, 2006, Bressi Ranch Village Center Site Plan, Sheet AI,
dated October 10, 2006.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1997, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Bressi Ranch,
Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4971009-002, dated July 29, 1997.
----, 2001, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation for Mass Grading, Bressi Ranch,
Carlsbad, California, Project No. 971009-0015, dated March 14,2001.
----, 2002, Geotechnical Conclusions Concerning the Mass Grading Recommendations
Relative to Proposed Fine Grading and Review of the 40-Scale Tentative Maps, Bressi
Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 971009-007, dated September 12,2002.
----, 2003a, Geotechnical Grading Plan Review of the Mass Grading plans, Bressi Ranch,
Carls~ad, California, Project No. 971009-007, dated January 17,2003.
----, 2004a, Geotechnical Completion Letter of the Rough and Fine-Grading Operations,
Planning Areas PA-14, PA-15, and OS-2, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No.
4971009-014, dated May 25,2004 ..
----, 2004b, As-Graded Report of Mass Grading, Planning Areas PA-13, PA-14, and a
portion of PA-15, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 971009-014, dated
September 17,2004.
Project Design Consultants, 2003, Mass Grading and Erosion Control Plans for: Bressi Ranch,
Carlsbad, California, Carlsbad Tract No. 00-06, Drawing No. 400-8A; dated January 7,
2003, revised November 24,2003.
----,. 2006, Bressi Ranch Commercial Site Development Permit Tentative Map, Carlsbad
Tract No. 03-03, Sheets Cl through C7, dated October 11,2006.
A-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Date 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1
Project LNR/PA-15 Project No. 971009-047
Drilling Co. Baja Excavation Type of Rig CME-75
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 eound hammer Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Elevation 401' Location Major A Building Pad
c: U III .2_ ..c:_ :.20) <I)
-<I) -<I) "tJ ca<l) 0.(1) 0.0 :::I a;U. <l)u. e.J ..... += jjj c (!) ~
SAMPLE TYPES:
S SPLIT SPOON
R RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
T TUBE SAMPLE
o z
<I)
C.
E ca tI)
5014" 15.6
G GRAB SAMPLE
SH SHELBY TUBE
DESCRIPTION
AJB
Sampled By AJB
brown, moist, dense
SC @ 2': Becomes slightly clayey SAND
CL @ 7': Sandy CLAY lense: Yellow-brown
SM @ 9': Fine grained silty SAND
ML @ 13': Slightly clayey SILT: Concretion, more oxidized with depth
@ 17': Concretion
@ 18': Increasing moist content
Total Depth = 20 Feet
No ground water encountered at time of drilling
Backfilled with native soil on 12/21106
TYPE OF TESTS:
OS DIRECT SHEAR
MD MAXIMUM DENSITY
CN CONSOLIDATION
SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
AT AITERBURG LIMITS
EI EXPANSION INDEX
RV R·VALUE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
Date 12-21-06 --------~~~~------Pr~ect _______________________ L_N_R~/_PA~-_1_5 ____________________ ___
. Sheet 1
Project No.
Type of Rig
140 pound hammer
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter 8"
Elevation Top of Elevation 400'
0 s:: (I)
0 0 0) Z .-.... ..s:: .... :CO) "C 0) .... 0) ..... 0) 0.0 ::I CI:IO) 0.0) Q. >LL ~LL f!-J ..... ~ E ..S! (!) w CI:I CI)
N S
400 0 · . ' .. · ·
..... (1)0
:=0 ou--... alO)
0-
Baja Excavation
Drive Weight
Location
>-0)"Cfl. .... 'iii ... ~ s:: .... ::I ....
0)0 .... s:: (1)0) 00. .-.... os:: >-:EO ...
0 (,)
1Ii--:-(l)CI)
CI:I' -(,) (,). _CI)
'0::)
CI)-
;:'lYl
Major A Building Pad
DESCRIPTION
Logged By AJB
Sampled By AJB
of 1
971009-047
CME-75
Drop 30"
(I) ..... (I) 0) I-.... 0
0)
0. >-l-
TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa} · · . . ' @ 0': Fine grained silty SAND: Light gray, moist, dense to very dense; -. · oxidized zones :: ~. ' .. .
-'. · -.. · · · · '.' @ 2.5': Concretion -, · :: ~. ' .. -:. · ... · . · · ·s-395 5--· . , . .... ' .. 75111 " SM · , R-I -:. · '. . · . · . . .'
I SCIML @ 7': Becomes slightly clayey '!} -• ?:: ..
-. . '
I 390 10
-, 'l'/. ~ ML @ 12': Slightly clayey SILT: Increased moisture content, concretion
-
-
385 15 SM · . -. , @ IS': Silty SAND lense, slightly moist , , , · " -. · @ 16': Fine grained sandy SILT: Light gray, increasing moisture .... " '
.
-' .. '. , content . , ' , , , .' -, , · @ 18': Sandy SILT: Very moist, oxidized " .' , , ' ..
ML
380 20
-Total Depth = 20 Feet
No ~ound water encountered at time of drilling
-Bac filled with native soil on 12/21106
-
-
375 25--
-
-
-
-
370 30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
"
5 SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATIERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R·VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
Date ____ 1:..:2:...:-2=-1:..--0::::.:6:=..-__ _ Sheet 1 of
Project ___________ --=L::..N.:..:.R/~PA:....:-....:1~5 __________ _ Project No.
Type of Rig Drilling Co. Baja Excavation
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer
Elevation Top of Elevation 402' Location Major A Building Pad
>. 0 O)?ft. ui~ DESCRIPTION c III ..... -0 J:_ . ~ 0) Z 1110 'iii ... ~ III(/) . -..... J:C) "C 0) ~o c .... :::l-~.
-0) -0) ..... c -() ~O) 0.0) 0.0 :::l C. au-0)0 1110) ().
aiu. O)u. E..J = 00. .-..... _(/) E m:V oc
iii 0 (!) := >. :EO '0::) Logged By AJB « ~ a. ... (/) 0 () (/)-
N s Sampled By AJB
0 · . '. . 1SM
971009-047
CME-75
Drop 30"
III ..... III 0) J-.... 0
0) 0. ~
TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) · · . . ' @O": Fine grained silty SAND: Light gray to light brown, moist, dense -. to very dense, oxidized zones · . 400 .. . ' . . . -' . . -. . @ 2': Very oxidized · . · .' -. · :: ~. ' ..
ML @4': Slight clayey SILT
5-
• • e. · SM @ 6': Increased moisture content 395 · . · . · .' -· @ 7': Light gray SILT .... ' .. · · . -' .. ' .. @ 8': Oxidized silty SAND · . · .' -. · · .... · ' .. 10-' .. '. . · . · . · .' R-I 50/6"
ML @ 11': Fine grained sandy SILT 390 --
· . ' .. SM @ 13': Concretion, increased moisture content, becomes a silty SAND · . · . · .' -· . · . :: ~. ' .. 15 ML @ IS': Slightly clayey SILT
-
385 -
• • e. · SM @ 18': Silty SAND · . · . . .' -. · . · :: -.....
20
-Total Depth = 20 Feet
380 No ~ound water encountered at time of drilling
Bac filled with native soil on 12121/06 -
-
-
25-
-
375 -
-
-
30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: 4 S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATIERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R·VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I _______ z ________________ _
I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4
I Date ____ 1:..=2:..:-2::...:1~-0::..:6=______ Sheet 1 of 1
Project __________ ----=L::.:..N.:..:.RJ~P:....:A~-....:.1~5___________ Project No. 971009-047
Drilling Co. Baja Excavation Type of Rig CME-75
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Drop 30" 1I~~E~le~v~a=ti~o~n~T~o:p~O~f~E=le~v~a;ti:on~4~0=3~,~~L~o~c~a:tio~n~~~~~~~~~~~~=M=a~jO~r~A=B~u~i=ld~in~g~p~a~d~~~~~~~~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 8-5
Date 12-21-06 Sheet 1
Pr~e~ ______________________ ~L~N~R1~P~A~-1~5~ __________________ ___ Project No.
Type of Rig Drilling Co. Baja Excavation
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer
Elevation Top of Elevation 401' Location Major A Building Pad
0 >-CI)~ 1Ii-:-DESCRIPTION c u ((I ..... ....
.2 ..... J: .... CI) Z ((10 'Uj "--((len :CO) "C CI) =:0 c .... ::I .... co •
'lijCl) .... CI) .... c -() o.CI) 0.0 ::I 0.. ou-Cl)U ((ICI) (). >CI) ;t::: co. Cl)LL Cl)LL E-I iil~ .-.... _en
c ~ E oc
ill (!) >-:EO '0:) Logged By AJB co 0-"-en c () en-
IN 5
Sampled By AJB
0 · . '. . :SM
of 1
971009-047
CME-75
Drop 30"
((I ..... ((I CI) I-.... 0
CI) 0. ?:
TERTIARY AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
400 · . · .' @ 0': Fine grained silty SAND: Light gray to light brown, slightly -. moist to moist, dense to very dense; oxidized zones, interbedded silts . .... ' .. · -' . . '. · and sands
· . · . @ 2': Increased SILT content ~ · .' -. . . :: " . · . .
ML @4': Fine grained sandy SILT: Oxidized blebs
5-
395 R-1 90/11" 110.7 18.6 -
'. . SM @ 7': Oxidized silty SAND: Very moist . · . · . · .' -. . . -.. .. · . ' .. -' .. ' .. · . · .' 10 B-1 ML @ 10': Oxidized SILT, with minor CLAY
390 -
-
-@ 12.5': Concretion
-
15-
385 -
-
-
-@ 19': Concretion
20
380 -Total Depth = 20 Feet
No ftound water encountered at time of drilling
Bac filled with native soil on 12/21106 -
-
-
25-
375 -
-
-
-
30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
"
S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6
Date ____ 1.:..::2:....:-2=-.:1:.-.--0:::.:6::....-__ _
Pr~ect ___________________ ~L~N~R~/~PA~-~1~5 ____________________ ___
Sheet 1 'of 1
Project No. 971009-047
Drilling Co. Baja Excavation Type of Rig CME-75
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Elevation 405' Location Shop E Building Pad
I/) >. 0 rJ)'#. 1Ii-:-DESCRIPTION -c I/) --I/)
0 ..r:::_ (.) rJ) Z 1/)0 'iii ... -I/)(J) rJ) . _-:.20) "C rJ) :=0 c .... :::1-CI:I' I--rJ) -rJ) _c -C,) CI:IrJ) 0..rJ) 0..0 :::I a. ou-rJ)(.) 1/)rJ) C,). ....
~LL ~LL E-l ;!:: 00.. ._-_(J) 0
:::: E Li51ii oc
jjj (!) >. :EO '0:::) Logged By AJB rJ)
~ CI:I Q. ... 0..
(J) 0 C,) (J)-?:
IN 5
Sampled By AJB
405 0 · . '. . ::lM TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa} · . · .. . ' @ 0': Fine grained silty SAND: Light gray, moist, dense to very dense, -. . . . oxidized zones, interbedded sands, silts, and clays .. . ' . -.: . . . '. · . · . .. '
~ CL @ 3': Oxidized silty CLAY
· . ' .. SM @ 4': Oxidized silty SAND · . 400 5-· . '.' · . @ 5': Light gray silty SAND .. .. · . 79/9" 105.5 15.1 · . ' .. R-1 -' .. '. . · . · . . .' ML @ 7': Gray SILT: Increased moisture content, minor clay
-
-
395 10
-Total Depth = 10 Feet
No fJound water encountered at time of drilling
Bac filled with native soil on 12/21106 -
-
-
390 15-
-
-
-
-
385 20-
-
-
-
-
380 25-
-
-
-
-
375 30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: cf S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATIERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R·VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I " ~'.'-----------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-7
Date 12-21-06 --------~~~~-----Sheet 1
Pr~ect ___________ ~L~N~R~/~PA~-~1~5 __________ ___ Project No.
Type of Rig Drilling Co. Baja Excavation
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer
Elevation Top of Elevation 407' Location Major B Building Pad
>. 0 cv~ 1Ii-:-DESCRIPTION I: 1/1 .... .... (.) z 'iii 0 .1: .... :EO) cv 1/10 ... ~ 1/ItJ) . -.... 'C cv ::0 1: .... :::s .... C'i! • .... cv .... cv .... 1: -u C'i!cv o.cv 0.0 :::s c.. ou-CV(.) I/ICV u· ~u.. CVu.. r:!-I .... co. .-.... _tJ) ~ E -... 01: C C) COcv >. :!EO '0::) Logged By AJB w C'i! 0-... tJ) C U tJ)-
N S Sampled By AJB
0 B-1 ML ARTIFICIAL FILL (At)
of _1_
971009-047
CME-75
Drop 3~''
...
1/1 .... 1/1 cv I-.... 0
cv 0. ?:
-@0'-5' @ 0-6': Sandy SILT with clay: Gray-brown, moist, medium dense
405 --
-
-
s-
SM r~---------------------------· . -. · TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) · . · · . . ' @ 6': Silty SAND: Gray, moist, dense to very dense; oxidized zones, 400 -. · . interbedded sands and silts ". · . @ 7': Becomes more oxidized -'. · -. . · · . · . · .' -. · · @ 9': Light gray silty SAND ....
" 0
,
10-0, 0 '. 0 · · . · . · .' R-I 88/9" -. · · .... ' .. ·
395 -' .. '. . · o • @ 12': Concretion, more oxidized · . · .' -. · . · ' .. · · . ' .. ' .. " . -, · . · . · " 15-' , · :: ~. · . " . " , '. . -· · . · .' 390 -..!.r I:...·.::.. ML @ 17': Sandy SILT
-@ 18': Increased water content, silty SAND lense -@ 19': Sandy SILT
20
-Total Depth = 20 Feet
No ftound water encountered at time of drilling
385 -Bac filled with native soil on 12121106
-
-
25-
-
380 -
-
-
30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: C S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATIERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
'<.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 8-8
Date ____ 1~2::...:-2:::..·1:..._-0:::.:6~ __ _ Sheet 1
Pr~ect _________________ ~L~N~R~/~P~A~-1~5~ ____ ----------Project No.
Type of Rig Drilling Co. Baja Excavation
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer
Elevation Top of Elevation 409' Location Major B Building Pad
» 0 o>*' 1Ii-:-DESCRIPTION I: (.) III --0 .c_ O> Z III 0 ·iii .... ~ 1IlC/) ._-:EO) "C 0> :=0 1:_ :;:,-etS· -0> -0> _I: -u ~o> 0.0> 0.0 :;:, Q. OLL 0>(,) III 0> u· O>LL f-l -co. ._-_C/) o>LL C E E iil~ 01:
W (!) » :EO ·0::1 Logged By AJB « etS 0.. ....
C/) C U C/)-
N ~
Sampled By AJB
0 ML TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa}
of 1
971009-047
CME-75
Drop 30"
III -III 0> I--0
0> Co
?:
-@ 0': Fine grained sandy SILT: Gray, slightly moist, dense to very
dense; oxidized zones, interbedded sands and silts
-
-
405 @ 3': Very oxidized
-
5-@ 5': Becomes gray
-
-
-@ 8': Very oxidized 400 -@ 9': Increasing moisture content
10-
-@ II': Slightly clayey
-
.. . SM @ 13'; Silty SAND 395 . . .. · .. -. . · . :: ':. . .. . 15-... .. . · . R-I 50/3" .. . ..
ML @ 16': Fine grained sandy SILT
-@ 17': Minor clay
-390 -
20
-Total Depth = 20 Feet
No fJound water encountered at time of drilling Bac filled with native soil on 12/21/06 -
-
385 -
25-
-
-
-
380 -
30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: ct S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT AITERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R·VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-9
Date 12-21-06 -------~------------Sheet 1 of
Pr~ect ______________________ ~L~N~~~PA~-~1~5 ____________________ ___ Project No.
Type of Rig Drilling Co. Baja Excavation
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer
Elevation Top of Elevation 411' Location Shop 0 Building Pad
» 0 O)?fl. 1Ii--:-DESCRIPTION s:: 11/ .... ....
.2 .... . ~ 0) Z 11/0 ·iii ... -II/en .s:: .... .s::0) "C oS! :;0 s:: .... :::I .... I\!. .... 0) .... 0) .... s:: -(,) I\! 0) 0.0) 0.0 :::I OLI-0)(.) 11/0) (,). ~u. O)u. E...I .... 0. eo. .-.... _en :;:: E -... os:: W e C> ~ !nO) » ::0 ·cb Logged By AJB I\! a. ... en e (,) en-
Sampled By AJB N s
0 ... B-1 SM . ·
1
971009-047
CME-75
Drop 30"
11/ .... 11/ 0) I-.... 0
0)
0. » l-
TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) · · . .. @0'-5' @ 0': Silty SAND: Gmy, brown, slightly moist, dense; oxidized zones, 410 -. · interbedded silts and sands · . .. ... · . -:. · .. . @ 2': SILT lense · . · . · .. -. · .... .. . . . -:. · ... · . · · -.-5-· · · :: ... . @ 5': Silty SAND: Mica present .. . R-l 50/5" 117.7 14.6 405 _ .. · .. . · . ... · ML @ 7': Oxidized sandy SILT: Moist concretion
-@ 8': SILT: Light gray, slightly moist
-@ 9': SILT: Dark gray, moist
10
400 -Total Depth = 10 Feet
No ffound water encountered at time of drilling
-Bac filled with native soil on 12/21/06
-
-
15-
395 -
-
-
-
20-
390 -
-
-
-
25-
385 -
-
-
-
30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: 4 S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R·VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-10
Date 12-21-06 Sheet 1-
Pr~ect ______________________ ~L~N~~~PA~-1~5 ____________________ ___ Project No.
Type of Rig Drilling Co. Baja Excavation
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer
Elevation Top of Elevation 410' Location Shop D Building Pad
0 >-Q)?fl. en"'":' DESCRIPTION s:: t> 1/1 --0 ~-Q) Z 1/10 'iii ... -I/I(/) .--:COl "0 Q) ;=0 s:: .... ::l-ea· ~Q) -Q) _s:: -0 e.Q) 0.0 ::l Q. ou-Q)t> I/IQ) o· >Q) Q)u. E...J -ce. Q)u. ;; E iil:U
._-_(/) C os::
W (!) ~ >-:ii:0 '0::) Logged By AJB ea a. ... (/) C 0 cn-
N 5
Sampled By AJB
410 0 ML TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
of 1
971009-047
CME-75
Drop 30"
1/1 -1/1 ~ .... 0
Q)
e. ~
-@ 0": Sandy SILT: Gray-brown, moist, dense to very dense
-
-@ 3': Concretion
'. . SM @4': Fine grained SILT SAND: Damp, concretion . . .
405 5-. . . .' .. .... . . ' ..
-:-. '. . @ 6': Becomes moist . . .. '.' ML @ 7': Dark gray sandy clayey SILT: Shells present
-
-
400 lO-R-I 85
-@ 11 ': Concretion
-
-@ 13': Concretion, increased moisture content
-
395 15-
-
-
-@18': Traces of CLAY
-
390 20
-Total Depth = 20 Feet
No ffound water encountered at time of drilling
Bac filled with native soil on 12/21106 -
-
-
385 25-
-
-
-
-
380 30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: tI S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-11
Date ____ 1.:.:2::....:-2=-1:..--0;:..:6=---__ _ Sheet 1 of
Pr~ect _____________________ ~L~N~~~PA~-~1~5~ __________________ ___ Project No.
Type of Rig Drilling Co. Baja Excavation
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer
Elevation Top of Elevation 411' Location Shop C Building Pad
0 » 0)* 1Ii-:-DESCRIPTION c III .... ....
.2 .... 0 0) z 'iii III en .c .... :COl 1110 ... ~
"0 0) ~o c ..... :::I .... cu • .... 0) .... 0) .... c -() ~O) 0.0) 0.0 :::I a. ou-0)0 1110) (). ~LL ~..J .... co. .-.... _en O)LL :0:; E -... oc iii (!) < CIlO) >-:lEO '0::) Logged By AJB cu a. ... en c () en-
IN 5
Sampled By AJB
0 ML
9.71009-047
CME-75
Drop 30"
III .... III 0) I-..... 0
0)
0. ?:
TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
410 -@ 0': Sandy SILT: Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense,
shells present, massive
-
-
-
5-
405 -
-
-@ 8': Becomes moist
-
10-@ 10': Sandy SILT: Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense,
400 -shells present, massive
-
-
-
15-50/2" ~ }5': No recovery (on a concretion)
395 6': Concretion
-Total Depth = 16 Feet
No ffound water encountered at time of drilling
Bac filled with native soil on 12/21/06 -
-
20-
390 -
-
-
-
25-
385 -
-
-
-
30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: 4 S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATIERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I------------·~~----------
I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-12
Date 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1
I Project LNRlPA-15 Project No. 971009-047
Drilling Co. Baja Excavation Type of Rig CME-75
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 eound hammer Drop 30"
I Elevation Top of Elevation 410' Location Shop C Building Pad
III » ci fJ)~ 1Ii--:-DESCRIPTION ....
e: III .... =: III
.St ... (J fJ) Z 1110 III ~ ~ IIIC/) fJ) .c: .... :EO) "tJ fJ) ~o e: .... ::s .... Ill' I-
-fJ) .... fJ) _e: -0 1IlfJ) 0.fJ) 0.0 ::s c.. ou.-fJ)(J 1IIfJ) o· ....
~LL fJ)LL E...I -co. ._-_C/) 0 ~ E -~ oe:
jjj C (!) alfJ) » :EO '0:) Logged By AJB fJ)
III a. "-0.
C/) C 0 rn-~
PI! !:;
Sampled By AJB
410 0 ML TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa}
-@ 0': Fine grained sandy SILT: Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very
dense, massive, shells present
-
-@ 2.5': Concretion
I
I
I
-
405 5-. R-l 76/9" I
-@ 6': Becomes very moist
-I -
-@ 9': Fine grained sandy SILT: Dark gray, slightly moist, densy to
400 10 _verY dense massive shells nresent I
-Total Depth = 10 Feet
No ffound water encountered at time of drilling
-Bac filled with native soil on 121121106
-I
-I 395 15-
-
-
-I
-
I 390 20-
-
-,. -I
-
I 385 25-
-
-
-I
-
380 30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: ., S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
I
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I-------------------\--~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-13
Date 12-21-06 Sheet 1
Pr~e~ ______________________ ~L~N~RI~P~A~-1~5 ____________________ ___ Project No.
Type of Rig Drilling Co. Baja Excavation
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer
Elevation Top of Elevation 410' Location Shop B Building Pad
0 >. Ol'#. en"""":" DESCRIPTION c: 11/ .... ~
0 .c: .... U Ol Z 11/0 11/ ... ~ II/m .-.... :Eo> 'C Ol :=0 c: .... :::I .... lIS' ~Ol .... Ol .... c: -(J c.Ol 0.0 :::I Q. ou-OlU II/Ol (J. >Ol Olu-E...! .... co. ._-_m OlU-~ E -... oc:
iii c C!) mOl >. :EO '0:;; Logged By AJB lIS a.. ... m c (J m-
iN 5
Sampled By AJB
410 0 ML
of 1
971009-047
CME-75
Drop 30"
11/ .... 11/ f!. .... 0
Ol 0. ~
TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
-@ 0': Fine grained sandy SILT: Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very
dense, massive, sheJls present
-
-
-
405 5-50/5" 111.1 16.7 @ 5': Fine grained sandy SILT: Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very
-dense, massive, increased sand content
@ 5.5': Medium grained sandy SILT: Dark gray, slightly moist, dense
-to very dense, mica present
-
-@ 9': Concretion
400 10
-Total Depth = 10 Feet
No ftound water encountered at time of drilling
Bac filled with native soil on 12121106 -
-
-
395 15-
-
-
-
-
390 20-
-
-
-
-
385 25-
-
-
-
-
380 30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
"
S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-14
Date ____ 1:.:;:2;...:-2::.:1:.....-0::...:6=---__ _ Sheet 1 of
Pr~ect _____________________ ~L~N~~~P:...:A~-~1~5 ____________________ ___ Project No.
Type of Rig
140 pound hammer
Drilling Co. Baja Excavation
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight
Elevation Top of Elevation 410' Location Shop A Building Pad
>. 0 a>?fl. ui~ DESCRIPTION c III .... -0 .~ a> Z 1110 ·iii .... ~ III(/) . _-..c_ ..cOl 'tI ~ 3=0 c .... ::1-cu· -a> -a> _c -() CUa> o.a> 0.0 ::I au-a>t.) ilia> ().
6)u. a>u. E..J ..... 0. 00. ._--(/) E E -.... oc
ill 0 (!) III a> >. :lEO ·0::; Logged By AJB <C cu 0-....
(/) 0 () (J)-
Sampled By AJB N s
0 B-1 ML
1
971009-047
CME-75
Drop 30"
III -III a> I-.... 0
a> 0. >. l-
TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
-@O'-5' @ 0': Sandy SILT: Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to vel}' dense;
shells present, massive
-@ 2': Oxidized silty SAND lense
-
-
405 5-@ 5': Concretion
-
-@ 7': Becomes moist
-
-
400
10-@ 10': Sandy SILT: Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to vel}' dense;
-R-I 76/11" shells present, massive
-
-
-
395 15-@ IS': Sandy SILT: Dark ra:ay, slightly moist, dense to very dense;
-shells present, slightly c ayey
-
-
-
390 20
-Total Depth = 20 Feet
No fJound water encountered at time of drilling
Bac filled with native soil on 12/21106 -
-
-
385
25-
-
-
-
-
380
30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: fI S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE eN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-15
Date 12-21-06 Sheet 1
Pr~e~ ______________________ ~L~N~ru~P~A~-~1~5 ____________________ ___ Project No_
Type of Rig Drilling Co_
Hole Diameter 8"
Elevation Top of Elevation 411'
0 I: I/) ..... _2_ (.) 0) Z 1/)0 ~-:COl "0 0) :::0 '«j0) ..... 0) 0.0) 0.0 ::I a. ou.. >0) O)LL E...J .... O)LL :;::; E iii; iii c (!) -« 1'1:1 a. m
N S
0
Baja Excavation
Drive Weight
Location
>-O)cfl. --iii ... ~
1: .... ::1-..... 1: 0)(.) 1/)0) co. ---01: >-:EO ... c u
ui--:-I/)m 1'1:1--u u-_m -0=5 m-
lV1L
140 pound hammer
Pad B Building Pad
DESCRIPTION
Logged By AJB
Sampled By AJB
TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
of 1
971009-047
CME-75
Drop 30"
I/) .... I/)
0)
I-.... 0
0)
0. ~
410 -@ 0': Fine grained sandy SILT: Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very
dense; massive, shells present
-@ 2': Silty SAND lense: Oxidized
-@ 3': Traces of CLAY
-
5-
405 R-l 71/9"
-
-@ 7': Becomes moist
-
-
10 400 Total Depth = 10 Feet -No fJound water encountered at time of drilling
Bac filled with native soil on 12/21106 -
-
-
15-
395 -
-
-
-
20-390 -
-
-
-
25-
385 -
-
-
-
30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
"
S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-16
Date ____ 1.:.:2::...:-2=-1:.--0.::..:6=---__ _ Sheet 1 of
Pr~ect ___________________ ~L~N~ru~P~A~-1~5 ____________________ ___ Project No.
Type of Rig
140 pound hammer
Drilling Co. Baja Excavation
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight
Elevation Top of Elevation 409' Location West of Shop F
>-ci Ol?!. ui.-o:-DESCRIPTION c I/) ..... -.2_ e.) Ol z 'iii I/)(/) .c .... :c 1/)0 ... ~
"C Ol ~o c .... :::s-<0' -Q) -Ol o.Ol ..... c -(,,) <OOl o.Ol :::s 0.. ou-Ole.) I/)Ol (,,).
aiLL OlLL <0 0 ;t:: co. ,--_(/) ... ...1 E -... oc
jjj c C> ::: OlOl ~ :EO 'i5::i Logged By AJB < <0 a. (/) C (,,) (/)-
Sampled By AJB
N S
0 '. . ::SM . .
1
971009-047
CME-75
Drop 30"
I/) ..... I/) Ol I-.... 0
Ol"
0. >-l-
ARTIFICIAL FILL (An
-. . . .' @ 0'-2': Fine grained s!lty SAND: Brown, slightly moist, loose to
medium dense " . . . .' . . . . -' . . -. . -TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION {Tsa}-- - - ---.. .. ' @ 2': Fine grained sandy SILT: Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very
405 ML dense; massive, shells present, traces of CLAY
-
5 ({j) 5': Concretion (refusal)
R-l 50/3" Total Depth = 5 Feet -NR No ~und water encountered at time of drilling
Bac !lIed with native soil on 12121/06 -
-
400 -
10-
-
-
-395 -
15-
-
-
-
390 -
20-
-
-
-
385 -
25-
-
-
-
380 -
30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
"
S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATIERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-17
Date ____ 1.:..::2:...:-2=-1:..--0=..;6~ __ _ Sheet 1 of 1
Pr~ect ___________ ~L=N~R~/~P~A~-1~5 __________ __ Project No.
Type of Rig
140 pound hammer
971009-047
Drilling Co. Baja Excavation CME-75
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Elevation 407' Location Shop F Building Pad
ci >-Q)~ w--:-DESCRIPTION ~
s:: en .... .... en
0 ~ .... (.) Ol Z enO .iij ... ~ enen ~ .-.... :E0l "C 3:0 s:: .... :::I .... ea· .... Q) .... Q) 2 .... s:: -(,) eaOl o.Ol 0.0 :::I ou-Ol(') enOl (,). ....
~u.. Olu.. E...J .... 0. 00. .-.... _en 0 ~ E -... os::
iii 0 C> mOl c:-:Eo ·0::) Logged By AJB Ol ea a. 0.
CJ) 0 (,) CJ)-~
IN ~
Sampled By AJB
0 B-1 ML ARTIFICIAL FILL (At)
-@0'-5' @ 0-2': Fine grained sandy SILT: Light brown, slightly moist, loose to
medium dense
405 -~----------------------------TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
-@ 2': Fine grained sandy SILT with traces of clay: Dark gray, slightly
moist, dense to very dense; massive, shells present
-
5-
-
400 -
-@8': Moist
-@ 9': Silty to poorly graded fine to medium grained SAND
10 "'" R-1 5016" 95.5 13.5 SM/SP I.::.:: . raj II': RefusaUconcretion)
395 -Total Depth = 11 Feet
No ffound water encountered at time of drilling
Bac filled with native soil on 12/21106 -
-
15-
.:..
390 -
-
-
20-
-
385 -
-
-
25-
--
380 -
-
-
30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: 4 S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATIERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-18
Date ____ 1:.::2:...:-2::...;1:....;-0:::..:6~ __ _ Sheet 1 of
Pr~ect ___________________ ~L~N~R1~PA~-~1~5 __________________ ___ Project No.
Type of Rig
140 pound hammer
Drilling Co. Baja Excavation
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight
Elevation Top of Elevation 405' Location Shop G Building Pad
ci >. 0>'Cfl. en--:-DESCRIPTION c III .... ....
0 .c .... 0 0> Z 1110 'iii ... ft lIIen . -.... :20) "C 0> ~o c .... ::l .... ~ . .... 0> .... 0> .... c -0 ~o> 0.0> 0.0 ::l C. ou-0>0 1110> o· ~LL O>LL E-' .... co. .-.... _en :3 E -... oc
iii c (!) alo> >. :!EO 'o::::i Logged By AJB « ~ c. ...
C/) C 0 en-
Sampled By AJB
N s
405 0 "'.-::ilVJI1Vll ARTIFICIAL FILL (At) "",
1
971009-047
CME-75
Drop 30"
III .... III 0> I-.... 0
0> 0. >. l-
..
-.':.~:. @ 0-2': Fine grained silty SAND/sandy SILT: Brown, slightly moist,
loose to medium dense :~'.', .
ML -TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGo FORMATIONITsa)-------
-@ 2': Fine grained sandy SILT: Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very
dense, massive, shells present
-
400 5-
-@ 6': Becomes moist
-
-
-
395 10-, ,-
-Total Depth = 10 Feet
No ffound water encountered at time of drilling
-Bac filled with native soil on 12/21106
-
-
390 15-
-
-
-
-
385 20-
-
-
-
-
380 25-..
-
-
-
-
375 30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
"
S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-19
Date 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of
Project ___________ -=L:::...N:::...R/.::.:P:....:A~-....:1.:::.5 __________ _ Project No.
Type of Rig
1
971009-047
Drilling Co. Baja Excavation
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight
Elevation Top of Elevation 410' Location
>-0 O)?ft. 1Ii--:-e cn --0 (.) GI Z cnO ·iii ... ~ cnen . -..... .c ..... :E0l "0 0) ::0 e .... ::l-CiI· -0) ..... 0) ..... e -() CilO) Q.O) Q.o :::s Q. OU-0)(.) cnO) (). ~u. Glu. E!..J ..... CQ. .-..... _en +:: E iil~ ot: c (!) :( >-:EO ·0::; w CiI 11. ... en c () en-
ML
CL
B-1
CL
CME-75
140 pound hammer Drop 30"
Pad A Building Pad
en
DESCRIPTION -cn 0) I-
'0
Logged By AJB GI Q.
?: Sampled By AJB
SILT: Yellow-brown, moist,
@ 5': Gray sandy SILT
@ 7': Gray sandy CLAY
@ 10': Silty CLAY
@ 15': Brown silty CLAY
moist, hard; drilling
Total Depth = 20 Feet
No ground water encountered at time of drilling
Backfilled with native soil on 12/21106
30~L---L--~-~~-~--L-~-~--------------------~--~
SAMPLE TYPES:
S SPLIT SPOON
R RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
T TUBE SAMPLE
G GRAB SAMPLE
SH SHELBY TUBE
TYPE OF TESTS:
OS SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
EI EXPANSION INDEX
RV R-VALUE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-20
Sheet 1 of Date 12-21-06 --------~~~---------Pr~ect ______________________ ~L~N~R1~P~A~-1~5~ __________________ ___ Project No.
Type of Rig Drilling Co. Baja Excavation
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight
Elevation Top of Elevation 405' Location
390 15
385 20
SAMPLE TYPES:
S SPLIT SPOON
R RING SAMPLE
B BULK SAMPLE
T TUBE SAMPLE
G GRAB SAMPLE
SH SHELBY TUBE
140 pound hammer
North of Major C Building Pad
@ 9': Silty CLAY: Dark gray
Total Depth = 10 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling
Backfilled on 12/21106
TYPE OF TESTS:
DS SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
EI EXPANSION INDEX
RV R·VALUE
1
971009-047
CME-75
Drop 30"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 8-21
Date ____ 1:..::2:...:-2::..:1~-0~6~ __ _ Sheet l' of 1
Pr~ect __________________ ~L~N~ru~PA~-~1~5 ___________________ ___ Project No. 971009-047
Drilling Co. Baja Excavation Type of Rig CME-75
Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Elevation 406' Location Major C Building Pad
VI
ci >-OJ'?fl. 1Ii-.:-DESCRIPTION ....
s:: VI -VI
(.) Z -'iii .2_ .s:: .... OJ VlO ... ~ VIC/) OJ :EO) '0 OJ ~o s:: .... ::l .... CI:S. I-.... OJ -OJ _s:: -(,,) Cl:SOJ Q.G) Q.o ::l C. ou-OJ(.) VI OJ (,,). '0
aiu.. OJu.. E-' -OQ. ._-_C/) :;: E -... os::
jjj 0 C> .... IXIOJ >-:EO ·s=> Logged By AJB OJ
~ CI:S Il. ... Q.
C/) 0 (,,) C/)->-
IN .S
Sampled By AJB I-
0 ML TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
405 -@ 0': Fine grained sandy SILT with CLAY: Gray-brown, moist, dense
to very dense
-
-
-@ 4': Concretion
5-
400 -@ 6': Concretion
-
-@ 8': Fine grained sandy SILT with CLAY: Gray-brown, moist, dense
-to very dense
@ 9': Clayey SILT: Dark gray
10
395 -Total Depth = 10 Feet
No ftound water encountered at time of drilling
Bac filled with native soil on 12121106 -
-
-
15-
390 -
-
-
-
20-
385 -
-
-
-
25-
380 -
-
-
-
30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: 4 S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE os DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION EI EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
.., '.
---------~~--------
LOGOFTRENCH: __ ~T~-l~ ____ _
Project Name: LNB-EA15 Logged by: GJM
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
Project Number: 971009-047 Elevation: 410 Feet
Equipment: CAT Backhoe Location/Grid: SeeM~p
GEOLOGIC DATE: 12/29/06 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC Sample Moisture Density
ATTITUDES UNIT USCS No. (%) (pet)
ARTIFICIAL FILL Af B-1
@
A @ 0': Silty fine to medium SAND: Light brown, damp to moist, loose, SM 0'-3'
medium dense
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Tsa
d B @ 3.5': Fine sandy SILTSTONE: Dark gray, damp, hard; micas ML
@ 6': Becomes olive-green, moist B-2
@
6'-7'
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: SCALE: 1"=5' SURF ACE SLOPE: 0° TREND:
, ... ............ ' .... ". " ,. .. ' r ( I
~ .', . It· ... \..;: ...... .... # ,," ........ .. .,.
• .,. ..... ... .... .. 4-.oil.. .. 'fI._ '
~ I ...... " .... \. .... '\1-----W '-.-. -.. -.-. '-'-'R -.-.--.-. -. ..., .. -'-'-r-"'--.. -. -.-.--'-.--.~ ....... -
Total Depth = 7.5 Feet
No Ground Water Encountered
Backfilled: 12/29106
-
.-,-- - - - - - -.. ' .. - - - -.. ---LOG OF TRENCH: __ T-L __
Project Name: LNR-EA15 Logged by: G,TM
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
Project Number: 971009-047 Elevation: 410 Feet
Equipment: CAI Backhoe Location/Grid: See Map
GEOLOGIC DATE: 12/29/06 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC Sample Moisture Density
ATTITUDES UNIT USCS No. (%) (pet)
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Tsa B-1
@
A @ 0': Fine sandy SILTSTONE: Light gray to light green-gray, damp to ML 0'-3'
moist, hard
Practical refusal at 10 feet
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: SCALE: 1"=5' SURF ACE SLOPE: 0° TREND: -
r~' ~l'~~~ -'-. -'-.-.-.-.--~I _ . .--..,. .. --'-'-'-:----.-_._.--'---'-1-"-.• _. -
~ ~.-. . _._/ . -]S;:',. r--. -.-. r-' --. f--'" • --~-:--. ---'..-. .. =--t-• -._ -r-' - . .:.....-:-:. r-=:--=..:-:-1-----._
.--...~. ----'-.J 1\-,---.. -.......---. -~ V ~.--: -.--'--. Total Depth = 10 Feet ---'-No Ground Water Encountered ---=. -Backfilled: 12/29106
.
------_ .. _ .... --------LOGOFTRENCH: __ ~T~-3~ ____ _
Project Name: I.NB-£A15 Logged by: Q,TM
ENGINEERlNG PROPERTIES
Project Number: 971009-047 Elevation: 409 Feet
Equipment: CAT Backhoe Location/Grid: See Map -
GEOLOGIC DATE: 12/29/06 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC Sample Moisture Density
ATTITUDES UNIT USCS No. (%) (pct)
ARTIFICIAL FILL Af SM B-1
@-
A @ 0': Silty fine to medium SAND: Light brown to light yellow-brown, 0'-3'
moist, medium dense; slightly clayey
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Tsa
B @ 5': Fine to medium silty SANDSTONE: Yellow-brown, moist, medium SM I
I
dense I
C @ 10': Concretion layer-practical refusal
GRAPHICAL REPRESENT A TION: SCALE: 1"=5' SURF ACE SLOPE: 0° TREND:
-\ " .. . ....... ,." .. 4~" .... " .. \ ... ~ ., .
\ .... &." l' t --=-.. _. k' ,~ ,,.... .., .. 'j .,. • "'-;. ..... L 'A-' " , -: ~ ~. -... -. , -.. .. , , \ <I .. co. ............. , . . .. --...... .. ~ .. -. .... .. ... . , ... -.. ~ .... , .. : ~ .. C \ " ........ " t ~ ...... ,/
\ .............. I
..... t ' B" ~, 0', . 'j Total Depth = 10 Feet ' . , . . ' .. .. .... " .. '" No Ground Water Encountered
'\ .. .." Backfilled: 12/29/06 . ell .. 4, I' . . . ~ , .
I "''':-11>'-i-ii..?'
",..,-;LI _----1-_--L-_-L--_.L..----L_----l-_---' -L-____ ~ _______ --
-~----~~~~-~-~~-~--
; ... ~'.
LOGOFTRENCH: __ ~T=-4~ ____ _
Project Name: LNR-PA 15 Logged by: __ ~G!J..JMI.ll.... ____________ 1
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 971009-047 Elevation: ___ =t;40w6.l..FCle.a;ea..t ___________ 1
~----~----~------~----~ Equipment: CAT Backhoe Location/Grid: See Map
GEOLOGIC DATE' 12/29/06 DESCRIPTION' GEOLOGIC Sample Moisture Density
ATTITUDES . . UNIT USCS No. (%) (pet)
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Tsa B-1
@
A @ 0': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light gray to light yellow-gray, SM 0' -8'
damp to moist, hard
@ 9': Practical refusal
,
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: SCALE: 1 "=5' SURFACE SLOPE: 0° TREND:
'\ ........ " .. I·'"'' .. '" ........ .... ..
\ -". :.. '. -~. --. --",:. /
r\' ':.,-.~: =~. :~ :~:. :';', "'-.:-~:
--' . AL ... -,.. ;_.. .. ~ J .. ./ ....
.I .r ~..... .. \', .... ..
.. 1'" -..... ".. I -;~~-:' -'.' :j ,,' ,,-: -# .. ., .. -" ..
4 "I.... '_ .. '" t • _ or _ .. , ." _ ..
\i-~-...' I~' ~".' • ~ y" -::-' Total Depth = 9 Feet
-_ • _ 1 • ~'. No Ground Water Encountered
~:J',~. ~-. .. . Backfilled: 12/29/06
-
----~-~~---~-~-~---
LOG OF TRENCH: . T-5
Project Name: LNR-EA15 Logged by: GJM
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
Project Number: 971009-047 Elevation: 404 Feet
Equipment: CAI Backhoe Location/Grid: See Map
GEOLOGIC DATE: 12129/06 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC Sample Moisture Density
ATTITUDES UNIT USCS No. (%) (pet)
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Tsa SM
A @ 0': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light yellow-gray to light
yellow-brown, damp to moist, dense
B @ 11': Fine sandy SILTSTONE: Light gray to olive-gray, damp, hard ML
,N'
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: SCALE: 1 "=5' SURF ACE SLOPE: 0° TREND:
~ ~. .. -, ...... , .... " -,:' ...... I"",. ".. ,. , "'-'Z .... " -,.... ... ........ -....... ... "........ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. -. ... "'.,"" V _" .... .. .... .. . I *' .. .,,-.......... . -~
'\( .. " :....-. ", A"·· I.
:~ ., .. -" ." .... .' • ·t.... -. .... , " .. .. ...:!... :........ l r ... ... ,: J .. ...... .. '." . ' .. .... .... r\"" ,. ...... .. .. .. ... I .. . .-" " .. #" .. ,,: .. \ 1 .. .. .......
1,. .... .t . . . .' ...... . . -...... . ... '\ "'" .. ...... .. . -.. , .. " -.. .. ""' .. .. :,.......... .. : "" , .. ... .... :. "' ...... "; " .. " I. .. I " •• ,-'. -.... .. .. .. .. ....
\:::: .,.t ~ '." " .. ; .... ! ',:.' : ') J '-l, "" ".. .. ~"" . " Total Depth = 12 Feet . . -,," J ., ,. "~ .... -.' .... " No Ground Water Encountered . , B = ",'.-' J • I Backfilled: 12/29/06 ... -" *'
!.~.-? ~ ... -.--" ~-t-..~.-
___ t ...... · _ ..... ' __ ........ __ .. _ ....
LOG OF TRENCH: _-..LT.=-6L--__ _
Project Name: LNR-EA15 Logged by: GJM
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
Project Number: 971009-047 Elevation: 400 Feet
Equipment: CAT Backhoe Location/Grid: See Map
GEOLOGIC DATE: 12/29/06 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC Sample Moisture Density
ATTITUDES UNIT USCS No. (%) (pet)
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Tsa
A @ 0': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light gray, damp to moist, dense SM
to very dense
B @ 6.5': Cemented layer
@ 7': Practical refusal on cemented layer
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: SCALE: 1"=5' SURF ACE SLOPE: 0° TREND: I
, .......... ' . . . . , ·f . '. · \
.0'-~ 'to. ...... • ...... ~ \ ~ · . . · . ~ ... : ..... ~ . . '''''it''' " . .. ., .. c.' . . -. . ,
oil'" ... , K "; -";.,: · . · .. -. .. .. · . , . . -~ . " ., .. I ~
~~'" 7' B ~ Total Depth = 7 Feet
No Ground Water Encountered
Backfilled: 12/29/06
.... _' .... >---_ .... -_ ... ' ....... _ .. LOG OF TRENCH: __ ~T~-7~ ____ _
Project Name: LNR-£A1S Logged by: G.TM
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
Project Number: 971009-047 Elevation: 4035
Equipment: CAI Backhoe Location/Grid: See Map
GEOLOGIC DATE: 12/29/06 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC Sample Moisture Density
ATTITUDES UNIT USCS No. (%) (pct)
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Tsa
A @ 0': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light gray, damp to moist, dense SM
to very dense
B @ 3.5': Slightly cemented layer -6 inches thick
C @4': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light gray, damp to moist, dense
to very dense
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: SCALE: 1"=5' SURF ACE SLOPE: 0° TREND:
~"" "
.. .. .. .. ~ . . .. .. ,"/ •• • 4 .. . .. . ... • .. -J ," ..
~' "'A"" ' . -... " . ' '" ... ., . .. , ""'." : " . -.. -1'\ .. ," ~ B . ., ",·,,'''l # , ..
Kl"" ~ '~"", "c' ~ !: ...... ~ .~ . . /" " ~ ...
Total Depth = 6 Feet
No Ground Water Encountered
Backfilled: 12/29/06
~----.~-~----
~/~ .~~ ~ ~ --.--~ _'_I~'.~~' ~_
LOG OF TRENCH: T-R
Project Name: LNR-EA15 Logged by: GJM
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
Project Number: 971009-047 Elevation: 407 Feet
J'.";~
Equipment: CAT Backhoe Location/Grid: See Map
GEOLOGIC DATE: 12/29/06 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC Sample Moisture Density
ATTITUDES UNIT USCS No. (%) (pet)
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Tsa B-1
@
A @ 0': Fine sandy SILTSTONE: Dark gray to dark greenish gray, damp, hard ML 0'-3'
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: SCALE: 1"=5' SURF ACE SLOPE: 0° TREND:
,,-_. t---• .....-. . ---. -J
~ 1-. ----._'-i .-.... f---. -.-. -~'-' -,-. . -.-. -1--'. -' _ f-._-;y; ------.. ---f',...-.-
Total Depth = 5 Feet
No Grouryd Water Encountered
Backfilled: 12/29/06
-~~~~~~----~~~--~~~
LOG OF TRENCH: T-9
Project Name: LNR-£A15 Logged by: GlM
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
Project Number: 97]009-047 Elevation: 410 Feet
Equipment: CAI Backhoe Location/Grid: See Map
GEOLOGIC DATE: 12/29/06 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC Sample Moisture Density
ATTITUDES UNIT USCS No. (%) (pct)
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Tsa
A @ 0': SILTSTONE to fine sandy SILTSTONE: Dark olive, damp, hard; ML
fossil rich
B @ 2.5': Cemented zone
C @3.0': SILTSTONE to fine sandy SILTSTONE: Dark olive, damp, hard;
fossil rich
GRAPHICAL REPRESENT A TION: SCALE: 1"=5' SURF ACE SLOPE: 0° TREND:
""" ------~ I ~ .~-::k:-::.-:' ~j .:.:-:.: -_.-;:-.
B .. ... -..... --..
!~~~-.~ V' --;-.. -_ . . --::--~
Total Depth = 5 Feet
No Ground Water Encountered
Backfilled: 12/29106
~~-~~--~~-~~~~~~~~~
.. '"
,-
Project Name: LNR-PA] 5 Logged by: GJM
Project Number: _...::z9'-L7..w1 OwO..r.;;9~-OI.L!4±J7"--______ _ Elevation: 4] 1 Feet
Equipment: rAT H~~kh()e Location/Grid: ~ee M~p
GEOLOGIC
ATTITUDES I DATE: 12/29106 DESCRIPTION:
ARTIFICIAL FILL
A @ 0': Silty fine to medium SAND: Light brown to yellow-brown, damp to
moist, medium dense
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION
B @2.5': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light gray, damp, very dense
C @ 3': Cemented zone
@ 3.5': Refusal
LOG OF TRENCH: T -10
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
GEOLOGIC
UNIT I USCS
Sample I Moisture
No. (%)
Density
(pet)
Af
SM
Tsa
SM
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: SCALE: 1"=5' SURFACE SLOPE: 0° TREND:
• ::: -.. #'.~ .. " IA.: -~;"~--"", '!"
., " _. ~ a.~ ..... _ ......
. . .
Total Depth = 3.5 Feet
No Ground Water Encountered
Backfilled: 12/29/06
.. , .. ~--.. , .. , .......... --........ -~ ..
LOG OF TRENCH~ T-ll
Project Name: LNR-PA15 Logged by: GJM
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
Project Number: 971009-047 Elevation: 408 Feet
Equipment: CAI Backhoe Location/Grid: See Map
GEOLOGIC DATE: 12/29/06 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC Sample Moisture Density
ATTITUDES UNIT USCS No. (%) (pet)
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Tsa B-1
@
A @ 0': SILTSTONE: Dark gray, damp, hard ML 0'-3'
B @ 6': Cemented zone
@ 6': Practical refusal
.
GRAPIDCAL REPRESENTATION: SCALE: 1"=5' SURFACE SLOPE: 0° TREND:
"' -. ....;;;;;;;.. .. -.. -.-.-I
~ ---.-. ~ .-. -:::A--_. _.--.--------'" ---'-.-_. ---.-. ---_._---.. _-I---.. -....
i Total Depth = 6 Feet
No Ground Water Encountered
Backfilled: 12/29106
~-~~~~-~~~-~~~~~-~-
LOGOFTRENCH: __ ~J-~12~ __ __
Project Name: LNR-EA15 Logged by: G,TM
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
Project Number: 971009-047 Elevation: 407 Feet
Equipment: CAIBackboe Location/Grid: See Map
GEOLOGIC 12/29/06 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC Sample Moisture Density
ATTITUDES DATE: UNIT USCS No. (%) (pet)
,.-TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Tsa SM
A @ 0': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Yellow-brown, damp to moist,
dense
B @ 2.5': SILTSTONE: Dark gray, damp, hard ML
C @ 3': Cemented zone
@ 3': Practical refusal
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: SCALE: 1"=5' SURF ACE SLOPE: 0° TREND:
.. ..... ... .' A·· ....
.. • : t. ... If·· .. .. : ~ .. ... ... '.. . I
C '" _. -:-..:::-' • .L B --
Total Depth = 3 Feet
No Ground Water Encountered
Backfilled: 12/29/06
-~-~~---~------~-~-
~------_. ----LOG OF TRENCH: _L1~
Project Name: LNB-FA15 Logged by: GM
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
Project Number: 971009-047 Elevation: 410 Feet
Equipment: CAI Backhoe Location/Grid: See Map
GEOLOGIC DATE: 12/29/06 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC Sample Moisture Density
ATTITUDES UNIT USCS No. (%) (pcf)
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Tsa
A @ 0': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Yellow-brown, moist, dense SM
B @ I': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: White, damp, very dense SM
C @2': Cemented zone
@ 3.5': Practical refusal
u'
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: SCALE: 1 "=5' SURF ACE SLOPE: 0° TREND:
I
/A I
• L '" .. , . .. <# .... ' .... " ........ t. -!J "". : .. -.. ""'." .. ~"." "" ..n .. , '" ~ ~.·oo,,: D ~ 1-~;l-1-J-~ ~Y:;,iC>,'I-C----;<-~;'-7'. -.--
Total Depth = 3.5 Feet
No Ground Water Encountered
Backfilled: 12/29/06
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
971009-047
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the
Expansion Index Test; ASTM Standard D4829 Specimens are molded under a given compactive
energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation.
The prepared I-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf
surcharge and are inundated with water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these
tests are presented in the table below:
Sample Location Sample Description Expansion Expansion
Index Potential
Boring B-1, South of Shop "D" Pad Light gray silty fine SAND 69 Medium
Boring B-5, Major "A" Pad Light gray-brown sandy SILT 66 Medium
Boring B-7, Major "B" Pad Gray-brown sandy SILT with clay 102 High
Boring B-9, Shop "D" Pad Light gray silty fine SAND 58 Medium
Boring B-17, Shop "F" Pad Light brown sandy SILT with clay 92 High
Boring B-20, Major "c" Pad Light brown sandy SILT with clay 93 High
Test Pit T-l, South of Shop "D" Pad Light brown silty SAND 84 Medium
Test Pit T-2, South of Major "B" Pad Light olive-gray sandy SILT 91 High
Test Pit T -8, South of Shop "G" Pad Dark olive-gray SILT 90 Medium
Test Pit T -11, North of Major "B" Pad Dark gray sandy SILT 58 Medium
* The expansion potential of selected matenals was evaluated by the Classification of Expansive Soil,
CBC, Table No. 18-I-B.
C-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
APPENDIX C (Continued)
Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content (ASTM Test Method D2216) and dry
density determinations were performed on relatively undisturbed ring samples obtained from the
test borings and/or trenches. The results of these tests are presented in the boring and/or trench logs.
Where applicable, only the moisture content was determined from disturbed samples.
Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general
accordance with Caltrans Test Method CT643 for Steel or CT532 for concrete and standard
geochemical methods. The results are presented in the table below:
Sample Location Sample Description pH
Minimum Resistivity
(ohms-cm)
Boring B-1, South of Shop "D" Pad Light gray silty fine sand 7.6 740
Boring B-20, Major "C" Pad Light brown sandy silt with 7.7 740 clay
Test Pit T-2, South of Major "B" Pad Light olive-gray sandy SILT 7.7 480
Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with Caltrans Test Method CT422.
The results are presented below:
Sample Location Chloride Content, Chloride Attack
ppm Potential *
Boring B-1, South of Shop "D" Pad 400 Positive
Boring B-20, Major "C" Pad 270 Threshold
Test Pit T-2, South of Major "B" Pad 360 Positive
*Per City of San Diego Program Guidelines for Design Consultant, 1992.
C-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-047
APPENDIX C (Continued)
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were detennined by standard
geochemical methods (Caltrans Test Method CT417). The test results are presented in the table
below:
Sample Location Sulfate Potential Degree of
Content (%) Sulfate Attack*
Boring B-1, South of Shop "D" Pad 0.02 Negligible
Boring B-20, Major "C" Pad 0.04 Negligible
Test Pit T-2, South of Major "B" Pad 0.03 Negligible
* Based on the 1997 edition of the Unifonn Building Code, Table No. 19-A-4,
prepared by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO, 1997).
C-3
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Leighton and Associates/Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 1 of6
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
1.0
3030.1094
General
1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and
earthwork shown on the approved grading planes) and/or indicated in the geotechnical
report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the
geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the
earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result
in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations in the geotechnical report( s).
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall
employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The
Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical
report( s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings,conclusions,
and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work
plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor ( Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel
to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall-observe,
map, and document the subsurface ~xposures to verify the geotechnical design
assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the
interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform
the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed
conditions, and notifY the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be
geotechnicallyobserved, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural groul).d
after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial
removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioningand processing of the
subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the
attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to
the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
Leightonand Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 2 of6
2.0
3030.1094
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified,
experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of
ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill.
The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these
Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely
responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a
work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of
work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to
commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical
Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in
advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and
accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware
of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and
agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved
geotechnical report(s) and grading planes). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical
Con'sultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition,
inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in
a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the GeotechniCal Consultant
shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until
the conditions are rectified.
Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious
material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to
the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consulta,n.t.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on
specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic
materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter.
Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the
affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately,for proper
evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area
As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline,
diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered
to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids
onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment,
and shall not be allowed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 3 of6
3.0
2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the
Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing
ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section.
Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or
clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that
would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the
approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy,
organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to
competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
2.4 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5: 1 (horizontal
to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details
for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and
at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as
otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping
flatter than 5: 1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade
for the fill.
2.5 Evaluation! Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and
processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations
recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable
to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical
. Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for
determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
Fill Material
3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to
placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high
expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical
Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location,
. materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical
Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not
occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified
fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within
2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.
3030.1094
.~
"1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 4 of6
4.0
3030.1094
3.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall
meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the
Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that
its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.
Fill Placement and Compaction
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Fill Layers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per
Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The
Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading
procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly
and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
Fill Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed,
as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum.
Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in
accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method
DI557-91).
Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly
spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density
(ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be
either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently
achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
Compaction ofFill Slopes: In aqdition to normal compaction procedures specified above,
compaction of slope.s shall be 'accomplished by backrolling.of slopes with sheepsfoot
rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing
satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of
grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of
maximum density per ASTMTestMethod D1557-91.
Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and . relative compaction of the fill
soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests
shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction
test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be
selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to
inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).
" <.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
PageS of6
5.0
6.0
3030.1094
4.6
4.7
Frequency of Compaction Testing: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in
vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a
guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope
face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill
construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical
Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these
minimum standards are not met. .
Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate
elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate
with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the
Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a
minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100. feet and vertically less than
5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.
Sub drain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the
grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional
subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions
encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for
line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the
Contractor for these surveys.
Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans
are estimates only. The. actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical
Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut
slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the
slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
.,.
<.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 6 of6
7.0
3030.1094
Trench Backfills
7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench
excavations.
7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material
shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1
foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and
densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the
conduit to the surface.
7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be-obset:\'ed by··the Geotechnical
Consultant.
7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least
one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet offill.
7.5. Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed III the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the
Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative
compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FILL SLOPE
PROJECTED PLANE
1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM
TOE OF SLOPE TO
APPROVED GROUND
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE
CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE
2' MIN.
KEY
DEPTH
OVERBUILD AND..,----o:r-,
PROJECTED PLANE
1 TO 1 MAXIMUM
FROM TOE OF SLOPE
TO APPROVED GROUND
15' MIN. .1
LOWEST
BENCH
(KEY)
KEYING AND BENCHING
<.
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
CUT FACE SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED PRIOR
TO FILL PLACEMENT
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
FOR SUBDRAINS .SEE
STANDARD DETAIL C
'BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPE'S
ANGLE IS' EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5: 1.
MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET
AND MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS A
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. 1
I
I.
I
I
I
I
SLOPE FACE
... OVERSIZE ROCK IS LARGER THAN
8 INCHES IN LARGEST DIMENSION.
FINISH GRADE
... EXCAVATE A TRENCH IN THE COMPACTED
FILL DEEP ENOUGH TO BURY ALL THE
ROCK. GRANULAR MATERIAL TO BE
DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY
FLOODING OR JETTING.
DETAIL
... BACKFILL WITH GRANULAR SOIL JETTED
OR FLOODED IN PLACE TO FILL ALL THE
VOIDS.
... DO NOT BURY ROCK WITHIN 10 FEET OF
FINISH GRADE.
... WINDROW OF BURIED ROCK SHALL BE
PARALLEL TO THE FINISHED SLOPE .
JETTED OR FLOODED
GRANULAR MATERIAL
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
OVERSIZE
ROCK DISPOSAL
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS 8
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES
I
I
I
,I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
"-"" " ____ EXISTING
'"
BENCHING
SUBDRAIN
TRENCH
SEE DETAIL BELOW
FIL TER FABRIC
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
(MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)*
COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL
BE MINIMUM 6" DIAMETER
SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED
PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL D
FOR PIPE SPECIFICATIONS
SUBDRAIN DETAIL
DESIGN FINISH
GRADE -----------------_-_-:=:~::::::::::::::::::::: 10' MIN. FIL TER FABRIC -----------------BACKFILL (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED __ -:-::::~~~~~l~~~~~-~t~~~~~:~ ~:~:~:~:~~:::-. EQUIVALENT) ~ ~~!~II~&~~:~:~:~;-~~-::-:~, t~-:'?-~ ", '~ ',', -g~L ~~A~~Lt~~A/f~M~~~~~ED
I I I IN FIL TER FABRIC I-20' MIN. ~ s' MIN. I-PERFORATED
-NONPERFORA TED 6" 0 MIN. • 6" 0 MIN. PIPE
DETAIL Of CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET
CANYON SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS C I ~ ______________________________________ ~ ________________________ ~~_~~E~IGH~T~ON~AN~D~A~SS~O~CI~AT~ES~
I
I'
,I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OUTLET PIPES
4" 0 NONPERFORA TED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
.30' MAX O.C. VERTICALLY
12" MIN. OVERLAP
FROM THE TOP HOG
RING TIED EVERY
6 FEET
CAL TRANS CLASS II
PERMEABLE OR #2
ROCK (.3 FT".3/FT)
WRAPPED IN FILTER
FABRIC
15' MIN. _I
BACK CUT
1: 1 OR FLA TTER
TRENCH
LOWEST SUB DRAIN SHOULD
BE SITUATED AS LOW AS
POSSIBLE TO ALLOW
SUITABLE OUTLET
T -CONNECTION
FOR COLLECTOR
PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE
'-----4" MIN.
FILTER FABRIC
ENVELOPE (MIRAFI
140 OR APPROVED
EQl,JIVALENT)
BEDDING
SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL
SUBORAIN INSTALLATION -sub drain collector pipe sholl be installed with perforotion down or,
unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant. Outlet pipes sholl be non-perforated
pipe. The subdrain pipe sholl have at least 8 perforotions uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation
sholl be 1/4" to 1/2" if drill holes are used. All subdrain pipes sholl have a gradient of at
least 2% towards the outlet.
SUBORAIN PIPE -Subdrain pipe sholl be ASTM 02751, SDR 2.3.5 or ASTM 01527, Schedule 40, or
ASTM 0.30.34, SOR 2.3.5, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe.
All outlet pipe sholl be placed in a trench no wide than twice the subdrain pipe. Pipe sholl be in
soil of SE >/=.30 jetted or flooded in place except for the outside 5 feet which sholl be native
soil backfill.
BUTTRESS OR
REPLACEMENT FILL
SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND·
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS D
LEIGHTON ,AND ASSOCIATES
RETAINING WALL
WALL WATERPROOFING ~
PER ARCHITECT'S
SPECiFICA TlONS
FINISH GRADE
.-----------------------------------------------------------------------f::::::::::::::::::::::::{;OMP-ACYf6--FILi::::::::::::::::: .. -.----:-:-: ~::::::::::::::::::=::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::: :::::::
.------:~~~~:~~~~~:~~~
WALL FOOTING ---
SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO
90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION
BASED ON ASTM D1557
::::::::::----::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::-:;.:::::::-.---'
~~~l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~]~j1~i~~~~:~::::-~·
----------------------------------------------. . r:= -----------------~. 1-~ :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: 6" MIN' • :::~:::::::::?~ ..
I, OVERLAP I::::::::"::::·· FIL TER FABRIC ENVELOPE
• o. :-:-:-:-:--. (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
1
0 0 ·1 :--:--:. EQUIVALENT)** o ·0 ---o _-_-_-_-.
•• 0 0 ::::::::: I ~ ~. :IN· ... I $---3/4" TO 1-1/2" CLEAN GRAVEL
I· . ~I-:-:-:-
o • •• .~ ::::~:: .-.---4" (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED
t o I-:Z-PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR
•. 00 0: ::::~~ EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS
o -:-:-:-:-ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED I 0 o· 0 I ::::::::= MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT ~~ 0 ::::::::: TO SUITABLE OUTLET
3" MIN.
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
NOTE: UPON REVIEW BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT,
COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR
J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAl. INSTALLA TION SHOULD BE
PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICA TlONS.
RETAINING WALL
DRAINAGE DETAIL
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS E
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES