HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP 23G; CARLSBAD CORPORATE PLAZA; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 1998-02-01,>
; ' '
'. l l i !
i i
GEOCON ~ N b'o RPO R A'T 1E:n I , i . , ,
I '
, ~9TECHNICA~
, tONSUL T ANTS ; J l ' , • \ I i ; l .
I I I i
i !
l I , i
' l '
i i
I I ! I . ! ,
! ! j i i j :
I !
l ' ! i i
' 1
j ; ;
' ' l ;
] ; 1
RECEIVED
FEB 2 3 2011
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
CARLSBAD CORPORA TE PLAZA
PASEO DEL NORTE AND
CAMINO DEL PARQUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
CARLSBAD CORPORATE L. L. C.
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
FEBRUARY 1998
Project No. 06040-22-02
February 27, 1998
Carlsbad Corporate L. L. C.
Post Office Box 34089
Las Vegas, Nevada 89133
Attention:
Subject:
Gentlemen:
Mr. Brian McCullough
CARLSBAD CORPORA TE PLAZA
PASEO-DEL NORTE AND CAMINO DEL PARQUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
In accordance with your authorization and our proposal No. LG-97259, dated July 14, 1997, we
herein submit the results of our geotechnical investigation for the subject site. The accompanying
report presents the findings and conclusions from our study. Based on the results of our study, it is
our opinion that the subject site can be developed as proposed, provided the recommendations of this
report are followed.
If you should have any questions regarding this correspondence, or if we may be of further service,
please contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON IN CORPORA TED
~~.JL Raul R. Garcia
RCE 42132
RRG:MSC:dmc
(2) Addressee
(2) Great Basin Engineering Inc.
Attention: Mr. Bret G. Wahlen
(2) Smith Consulting Architects
Attention: Mr. Jon B. Ohlson
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................... 1
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2
3 .1. Undocumented Fill Soils (Qudf) ....................................................................................... 2
3.2. Terrace Deposits (Qt) ......................................................................................................... 2
4. GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................ 2
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................................... 3
5.1. Landslides .......................................................................................................................... 3
5.2. Faulting .............................................................................................................................. 3
5.3. Seismicity-Deterministic Analysis .................................................................................... 3
5.4. Soil Liquefaction Potential ................................................................................................ 4
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 5
6.1. General ............................................................................................................................... 5
6.2. Soil and Excavation Characteristics .................................................................................. 5
6.3. Grading .............................................................................................................................. 6
6.4. Foundations ........................................................................................................................ 7
6.5. Concrete Slabs-On-Grade ............................................. : .................................................... 8
6.6. Retaining Walls .................................................................................................................. 9
6. 7. Temporary Excavations ................................................................................................... 10
6.8. Slope Stability .................................................................................................................. 11
6.9. Pavement Design ............................................................................................................. 11
6.10. Site Drainage And Moisture Protection ......................................................................... 13
6.11. Foundation and Grading Plan Review ........................................................................... 14
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Geologic Map
Figure 3, Geologic Cross Section A-A'-A"
Figure 4, Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail
Figure 5, Typical Retaining Wall Drain Detail
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A-1 -A-12, Logs of Borings
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIXB
LABORATORY TESTING
Table B-I, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture
Content Test Results
Table B-II, Summary ofln-Place Density/Moisture Content and Direct Shear Test Results
Table B-III, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results
Table B-IV, Summary of Laboratory (R-Value) Test Results
Figure B-1 -B-3, Consolidation Curves
APPENDIXC
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
LIST OF REFERENCES
' ! ..
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of a Geotechnical Investigation for Carlsbad Corporate Plaza located
in Carlsbad, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of the investigation was to
observe and sample prevailing soil conditions underlying the site and to provide recommendations
relative to geotechnical aspects of developing the property as proposed.
The scope of services included a site reconnaissance, field investigation, laboratory testing, engineering
analyses and preparation of this report. The field investigation was performed on January 15, 16,
and 19, 1998, and consisted of the excavation of eight exploratory borings. Logs of the exploratory .
borings and other details of the field investigation are presented in Appendix A.
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained from the borings to determine
pertinent physical properties for engineering analyses. A discussion pertaining to the laboratory testing
and the test results are presented Appendix B.
Reports and plans reviewed as part of our investigation are given in the List of References.
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site encompasses approximately 4½ acres of sheet-graded land located at the northwest
intersection of Paseo del Norte and Camino del Parque in Carlsbad, California (see Vicinity Map,
Figure 1).
The irregular-shaped vacant site is bounded on the north and east by Paseo Del Norte and Camino
Del Parque, respectively, on the west by Interstate 5 and a warehouse facility and on the south by a
residential development. The site is flat-lying with descending slopes at approximate inclinations of
2:1 (horizontal:vertical) along Paseo Del Norte and along Interstate 5. The slopes are up to 25 feet
high. The slope along the existing warehouse storage facility descends to an existing crib wall,
outside the property line. Access to the property will be through Paseo Del Norte.
It is our understanding that two 2-story office buildings with parking and driveway areas are planned
for the property. A review of the grading plan indicates that proposed grading will be minimal and
will involve a balanced earthwork operation with 2,500 cubic yards of cut/fill. With the exception of
the access driveway from Paseo Del Norte, the perimeter slopes are planned to remain as is. The
buildings will likely consist of concrete tilt-up or. masonry block walls with concrete-reinforced
Project No. 06040°22-02 -1 -February 27, 1998
\ .! ,
and/or steel structure. The buildings will be supported on conventional continuous and/or spread
foundations.
The descriptions contained herein are based on our site reconnaissance and a review of the previously
referenced documents. If project details vary significantly from those described, Geocon Incorporated
should be notified prior to final design submittal for review and possible revision of the
recommendations presented herein.
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The soils encountered during our field investigation include fill soils and formational Quaternary
Terrace Deposits. These soil types are discussed below in order of increasing age.
3.1. Undocumented Fill Soils (Qudf)
Undocumented fill soils were encountered in all the exploratory borings to depths varying from 5
feet in the vicinity of boring B-1 to 29½ feet in the vicinity of exploratory boring B-6. The
Geologic Map (Figure 2) depicts the approximate areal extent of the fill soils. These soils are
characterized as very loose to medium dense, damp to saturated, yellow to olive-brown, silty, fine to
coarse sands. The near-surface fill soils are unsuitable in their present condition to receive
settlement-sensitive structures, and remedial grading in the form of partial removal and
recompaction will be required.
3.2. Terrace Deposits (Qt)
Soils of the Quaternary Terrace Deposits underlie the fill soils and extend to the maximum depth of
exploration. These soils are characterized as dense to very dense, damp to moist, olive-brown to
green, silty, fine to very coarse sands. The Terrace Deposits are anticipated to provide satisfactory
support characteristics in their natural state for the proposed development.
4. GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not encountered during the field investigation and is not anticipated to signifi-
cantly impact project development as presently proposed. However, it is not uncommon for ground-
water or seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed. Surface water that is not
properly drained will typically perch on the top of the relatively impervious formational soil.
Therefore, proper surface drainage of irrigation and rain runoff will be critical to future performance
of the project.
Project No. 06040-22-02 -2-February 27, 1998
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
5.1. Landslides
No landslides were encountered during the site investigation and none are known to exist on the
property.
5.2. Faulting
A review of the previously referenced geologic literature indicates that there are no known active or
potentially active faults at the site or in the immediate vicinity.
The Rose Canyon Fault, located approximately 4 miles west of the site, is the closest known active
fault. An active fault is defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) as a fault
with evidence for Holocene activity (approximately 11,000 years before present). The CDMG has
included portions of the Rose Canyon Fault within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, but not
at any location that would significantly impact the proposed development.
5.3. Seismicity-Deterministic Analysis
Earthquakes that might occur on the Rose Canyon, Coronado Banks-Agua Blanca, Newport-
Inglewood-Offshore, San Diego Trough-Bahia Sol, Elsinore, and other faults within the southern
California area are potential generators of significant ground motion at the site. To determine the
distance of known faults from the site, the computer program EQFAULT, Blake (1989, revised
1994), was utilized. The results of the deterministic analysis indicate that the Rose Canyon Fault
Zone is the most significant potential source of ground motion at the site due to its proximity. The
Rose Canyon Fault is postulated as having the potential to generate a maximum credible earthquake
of magnitude 7.0 and a maximum probable earthquake magnitude of 5.9. The "maximum credible
earthquake" is defined as the maximum earthquake that appears capable of occurring under the
presently known tectonic framework while the "maximum probable earthquake" is the maximum
earthquake that is considered likely to occur during a 100-year time interval (CDMG Note 43).
Presented on the following table are the earthquake events and effective site accelerations for the
faults considered most likely to subject the site to ground shaking.
Project No. 06040-22-02 -3-February 27, 1998
TABLE 5.3.
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS FOR SELECTED ACTIVE FAUL TS
Distance Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
From Credible Probable Credible Probable
Fault Name Site Event, Event, Effective Site Effective Site
(miles) Magnitude Magnitude Accelerations Acceleration
(g) (g)
Rose Canyon 4 7.00 5.90 0.41 0.23
Newport-Inglewood-Offshore 9 7.10 5.90 0.27 0.15
Coronado Banlcs-Agua Blanca 20 7.50 6.70 0.15 0.10
La Nacion Fault* 21 6.50 4.20 0.08 0.02
Elsinore Fault 25 7.50 6.60 0.11 0.07
San Diego Trough-B~hia Sol. 30 7.50 6.20 0.09 0.05
Catalina Escarpment 37 7.00 6.10 0.05 0.03
Palos Verdes Hills 44 7.20 6.20 0.05 0.03
*Considered potentially active.
A review of the above information indicates that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe
ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on any of the above tabulated faults or other faults in
the Southern California area. However, the seismic risk is not considered significantly different
from that of the surrounding developments.
5.4. Soil Liquefaction Potential
Soil liquefaction usually occurs in relatively loose, cohesionless sands located below the water table
that are subjected to ground accelerations from earthquakes. Due to the high density of the
underlying soils and the lack of permanent near-surface groundwater, the potential for liquefaction
occurring at the site is considered "very low".
Project No. 06040-22-02 -4-February 27, 1998
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. General
6.1.1. No soil or geologic conditions were encountered that would preclude the development of
the site as presently planned, provided the recommendations presented herein are
implemented in the design and construction of the project.
6.1.2. The site is underlain by undocumented fill soils and formational soils of the Terrace
Deposits. The undocumented fill soils are located at the center and north portion of the site
with a thicknesses varying :from 5 feet in the vicinity of exploratory boring B-1 to 29½ feet in
the vicinity of exploratory boring B-5. The near-surface undocumented fill soils are not
suitable in ~eir present condition to receive settlement-sensitive improvements and/or
additional structural fill soils; therefore, the remedial recommendations presented in the
Grading section should be closely followed. The soils of the Terrace Deposits possess
adequate bearing characteristics.
6.1.3 Subsurface conditions observed in our borings ate expected to be fairly consistent across the
site; however, some variation in subsurface conditions between boring locations should be
anticipated. Figure 3 presents a general cross-section of the geotechnical conditions
encountered.
6.1.4 The grading plan indicates that proposed cuts and fills of less than 2 feet will be constructed
during the grading operations to achieve proposed grades on the building pads and associated
paved areas. Cut operations ranging :from 2 to 10 feet will be performed on the access
driveway from Paseo Del Norte.
6.1.5 Groundwater was not encountered in any of our borings at the site. Groundwater and/or
seepage-related problems are not anticipated if surface drainage is directed into properly
. designed drainage structures and away :from pavement edges, buildings, and other moisture-
sensitive structures.
6.1.6 ·No significant geologic hazards that would adversely affect the proposed project were
observed or are known to exist on the site.
6.2. Soil and Excavation Characteristics
6.2.1. The majority of the soils encountered in our investigation are considered to have a "very
low" expansion potential (Expansion Index [EI] of 20 or less) as defined by the Uniform
Project No. 06040-22-02 -5 -February 27, I 998
l l'
Building Code (UBC) Table No. 18-1-B. Recommendations presented herein assume that
the site will be graded such that soils with an Expansion Index (EI) less than 20 will be
present to a minimum depth of 3 feet below finish grade. If soils with an EI greater than
20 are exposed near finish grade, modifications to the foundation and/or slab-on-grade
recommendations may be required.
6.3. Grading
6.3.1. All grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading
Specifications contained in Appendix C and the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance.
Where the recommendations of this section conflict with Appendix C, the recommenda-
tions of this section take precedence.
6.3.2. Compaction testing and earthwork observation should be provided by representatives of
Geocon Incorporated.
6.3.3. A preconstruction conference should be held at the site prior to the beginning of grading
operations, with the developer, contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in
attendance. Special soil handling requirements can be discussed at that time.
6.3.4. Site preparation should begin with removal and exportation of the existing vegetation and
any abandoned underground lines and concrete slabs from the area to be graded. The depth
of removal should be such that material to be used in fill is generally free of organics and
other deleterious debris.
6.3.5. Existing fill soils under proposed building pads should be removed to a depth of 5 feet
below proposed rough grade elevation. For the parking lot area, existing fill soils should
be removed to a depth of 2 feet below proposed sub grade elevation. Geocon Incorporated
should be retained during the overexcavation operations on a full-time basis to identify
areas where loose materials extend deeper than the recommended 2-foot overexcavation.
Any such areas should be overexcavated until firm ~oils are encountered, and should be
properly backfilled with material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
The bottom of the excavation should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to
at least 90 percent relative compaction at 1 to 3 percent above optimum moisture content
as determined by ASTM Test Method D-1557-91.
6.3.6. The excavated materials can then be placed and compacted in layers to the design finish
grade elevations. All fill (including backfill and scarified surfaces) should be placed in
Project No. 06040-22-02 -6-February 27, 1998
loose layers of approximately 8 inches, moisture conditioned to a water content from 1 to
3 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D-1557-91. Fill soils placed at moisture
contents out of the range specified may be considered unacceptable at the discretion of the
geotechnical engineer.
6.3. 7. The overexcavation should be laterally extended to at least 5 feet beyond the building pads
and parking lot footprints.
6.3.8 Abandoned foundations and buried utilities (if encountered) should be removed and the
subsequent depressions and/or trenches should be filled with properly compacted material as
part of the remedial grading.
6.3 .9 Import fill soil, if requir~d, should consist of granular materials with a "very low" expansion
potential (EI less than 20) and should be compacted as described above. Geocon
Incorporated should be notified of the import soil source and should perform laboratory
testing of import soil prior to its arrival at the site to determine its suitability as fill material.
6.4. Foundations
6.4.1 The following foundation recommendations are for preliminary purposes and are based on
the assumption that the site will be graded as recommended herein. Final foundation
recommendations will be provided in the project final As-Graded Report once the grading
operations are completed and the Expansion Index of the finish grade soil has been
determined.
6.4.2. The project is suitable for the use of conventional foundations consisting of continuous
strip footings and/or isolated spread footings. Continuous footings for two-story structures
should be at least 12 inches wide and should extend at least 24 inches below lowest
adjacent pad grade. Isolated spread footings for two-story structures should be at least 24
inches square and should extend at least 24 inches be_low lowest adjacent pad grade. Steel
reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of at least four No. 4 steel
reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footings, two near the top and two near the
bottom. Figure 4 presents a typical footing dimension detail defining the depth to lowest
adjacent grade. The steel reinforcement for spread footings should be designed by the
project structural engineer.
Project No. 06040-22-02 -7-February 27, 1998
!
.1
. I
6.4.3. The minimum foundation dimensions and steel reinforcement recommendations presented
above are for soil characteristics only and are not intended to replace reinforcement
required for structural considerations. Actual reinforcement of the foundations should be
designed by the project structural engineer.
6.4.4. The recommended allowable bearing capacity for foundations designed as recommended
above is 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). This allowable soil bearing pressure may be
increased by an additional 400 psf for each additional foot of depth and 200 psf for each
additional foot of width, to a maximum bearing capacity of 4,000 psf. The values
presented above are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third when
considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.
6.4.5. Foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of Geocon Incorporated
prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete to verify that the exposed soil
conditions are consistent with those anticipated. If unanticipated soil conditions are
encountered, foundation modifications may be required.
6.5. Concrete Slabs-On-Grade
6.5.1. Concrete slabs-on-grade for office usage should be at least 5 inches thick and should be
underlain by 4 inches of clean sand and reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing bars
spaced at 18 inches on center in both horizontal directions at the slab midpoint. Where
moisture sensitive floor coverings, or storage areas for moisture sensitive materials are
planned, the slabs should be underlain by a visqueen moisture barrier placed near the
midpoint of the sand blanket.
6.5.2. The concrete slab-on-grade recommendations are minimums based on soil support charac-
teristics only. The project structural engineer should evaluate the structural requirements
of the concrete slabs for supporting equipment and storage loads.
6.5.3. All exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be reinforced with
6x6-W2.9xW2.9 (6x6-6x6) welded wire mesh to reduce the potential for cracking. In
addition, all concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce
and/or cont_rol shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the
project structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of
the American Concrete Institute (ACI) should be taken into consideration when
establishing crack control spacing. Subgrade soils. for exterior slabs not subjected to
vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the grading
Project No. 06040-22-02 -8 -February 27, 1998
section prior to concrete placement. Subgrade soils should be properly compacted and the
moisture content of surficial soils should be verified prior to placing concrete.
6.5.4. The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs and foundations as a result of differential movement. However, even with the
incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations and slabs-on-grade
may still exhibit some cracking. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is
independent of the soil supporting characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or
controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use of crack control joints and proper
concrete placement and curing. Crack control joints should be spaced at intervals no
greater than 12 feet. Literature provided by the Portland Concrete Association (PCA) and
American Concrete Institute (ACI) present recommendations for proper concrete mix,
construction, and curing practices, and should be incorporated into project construction.
6.6. Retaining Walls
6.6.1. Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density
of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pct). Where the backfill will be inclined at 2.0 to 1.0
(horizontal to vertical), an active soil pressure of 45 pcf is recommended. These soil
pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1: 1
plane extending upward from the base of the wall will have an EI of less than 50.
6.6.2. Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals
the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where
walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf
should be added to the above active soil pressure.
6.6.3. Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup
of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The
use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes, etc.) is not
recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact the
property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly
compacted granular (EI less than 50) backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or
imposed surcharge load. Figure 5 presents the suggest drain detail. If conditions different
than those described a,re anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon
.Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations.
Project No. 06040-22-02 -9-February 27, 1998
6.6.4. In general, wall foundations at least 24 inches deep and 12 inches wide may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet below
the base of the wall has an EI of less than 50. The proximity of the foundation to the top of
slopes steeper than 3: 1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Geocon
Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated.
6.6.5. For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
density of300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure
assumes a horizontal surface extending horizontally away from the footing at least 5 feet
or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper
12 inches of: material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in
the design for lateral resistance. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used for
resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined
with the allowable passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads.
6.6.6. The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that
walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib-type walls,
Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
6.7. Temporary Excavations
6.7.1. The following table presents recommendations relative to temporary slopes. These slopes
should be relatively stable against deep-seated slope failures, but may experience localized
sloughing. Ultimately, it the contractor's responsibility to provide sufficient and safe
support for the excavation, as well as nearby utilities, structures, and other improvements
that could be damaged by earth movements.
Table 6.7.
Slope Ratio Maximum Height of Temporary
(horizontal:vertical) Construction Excavations
( cut slopes, in feet)
vertical 5
1:1 10
Project No. 06040-22-02 -10 -February 27, 1998
6.7.2. The above unbraced slope recommendations assume surcharge loading will not encroach
within a horizontal distance from the top of the excavation equal to the depth of the
excavation.
6.8. Slope Stability
6.8.1. It is our opinion, based upon the findings of this investigation, that the existing slopes at
the site possess a factor of safety in excess of 1.5 with respect to deep-seated failure. The
existing fill soils are susceptible to erosion, so we recommend that fill slopes be
landscaped immediately after the grading operations are completed.
6.8.2. The cut slo12es for the access driveway should be observed by an engineering geologist
during grading to check if the soil and geologic conditions exposed do not differ
significantly from those anticipated.
6.8.3. The outer portion of fill slopes equal to at least the height of the slope or 15 feet,
whichever is less, should be composed of properly compacted granular material to reduce
the potential for surface sloughing. All fill slopes should be compacted by backfilling with
a sheepsfoot compactor at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals and should be track-
walked upon completion such that the fill soils are uniformly compacted to at least 90
percent relative compaction. In-place density tests should be performed at a distance of no
more than 2 feet from the face of the completed slope.
6.8.4. All slopes should be planted, drained, and properly maintained to help reduce erosion.
Slope planting should consist of a drought-tolerant plant having a variable root depth.
Slope watering should be kept to a minimum to just support the plant growth.
6.9. Pavement Design
6.9.1. For paved parking areas, we have provided the following preliminary pavement
recommendations. The final pavement sections will be provided once the grading
operations are completed, subgrade soils are exposed, and additional resistance-value
(R-Value) tests are performed. For our design, we have assumed a traffic index (TI) of 4.5
for the parking stalls and 5.5 for the driveways. Pavement sections were determined based
upon procedures outlined in the California Flexible Pavement Design Manual and City of
Carlsbad Structural Sections of Streets and Alleys, Standard Drawing No. 17.
Project No. 06040-22-02 -11 -February 27, I 998
' ! >
t )
SOURCE : 1998 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION GRANTED BY THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS.
THIS MAP IS COPYRIGHTED BY THOMAS BROS. MAPS. IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COPY
OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY .PART THEREOF, WHETHER FOR PERSONAL USE OR
RESALE, WITHOUT PERMISSION
GEOCON
INCORPORATED 0
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULT ANTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE -SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-297 4
PHONE 619 558-6900 -FAX 619 558-6159
RG/RSA I I DSK/E000D
1VICMAP
e, g
ti
i I --------, .,, i! \ -
I I I 1'5 18 I~
--, ,, ., ---
\ I I
-.... .......... .,,,,./ ................ __ .,,
VICINITY MAP
t
N
NO SCALE
CARLSBAD CORPORA TE PLAZA
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
,/
DATE 2-27-1998 I PROJECT NO. 06040 -22 -01 I FIG. 1
l
t . . C
i· r
l
l
' l -I-w w
IJ.. -
J:
I-
0.
w
0
6040RG
A
150'-
100'-BUILDII
~
CARLSBAD CORPORA TE PLAZA
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
A"
----150'
-I-w -100· w
-' IJ.. w cw 0:, -rROPO
! zO
~9\-1 ~ I -"' LB-4 ~11:
J:
Qudf
50'---~~-
Qt
O'-
GEOC
QudC .... uNooc1 Qt ....... TERRAO ,,-, ,;
-........ GEOLO
I-
-50' 0.
w
Q
-0'
GEOCON
INCORPORATED 0
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULT ANTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121·297 A
PHONE 619 558·6900 • FAX 619 558·6159
PROJECT NO. 06040 -22 -01
FIGURE 3
DATE 2-27-1998
i • '
WALL FOOTING
CONCRETE SLAB
PAD GRADE
COLUMN FOOTING
CONCRETE SLAB
1. FOOTING WIDTH*
* ...... SEE REPORT FOR FOUNDATION WIDTH AND DEPTH RECOMMENDATION NO SCALE
WALL/ COLUMN FOOTING DIMENSION DETAIL
GEOCON
INCORPORATED 0
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121·2974
PHONE 619 558-6900 • FAX 619 558·6159
RG/JS I I DSK/GTYPD
COLFOOT VIII/IXVil / RSS
CARLSBAD CORPORATE PLAZA
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 2-27-1998 I PROJECT NO. 06040 -22 -01 I FIG. 4
GROUND SURFACE
PROPERLY COMPACTED
BACKFILL ~\
CONCRETE
BROWDITCH==:J
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL-----
Z/3 H
PROPOSED GRADE ~
,._ __ APPROVED FILTER FABRIC
5' MAX.
1"
4" DIA. PERFORATED PVC PIPE
~--MIN. 1/2% FALL TO APPROVED OUTLET
NO SCALE
TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL
GEOCON
INCORPORATED 0
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULT ANTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 • 297 4
PHONE 619 558-6900 • FAX 619 558-6159
RG/JS I I DSK/G0000
RWDD1
CARLSBAD CORPORA TE PLAZA
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 2-27-1998 I PROJECT NO. 06040-22-01 I FIG. 5
RSS GSITEPL'J/94
-r
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on January 15, 16, and 19, 1998, and consisted of a site
reconnaissance and the excavation of eight exploratory large-diameter borings at the approximate
locations shown on Figure 2. The large-diameter borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 35
feet using an Earthdrill E-100 drill rig equipped with a 30-inch-diameter bucket bit. Relatively
undisturbed samples were obtained with the E-100 bucket drill rig by driving the sampler 12 inches
with blows from the 5,000-pound Kelly bar falling 12 inches. The split-tube sampler was equipped
with I-inch-high by 23/s-inch-diameter brass sampler rings to facilitate sample removal and testing.
Relatively undisturbed samples (chunks) were obtained from the trenches. Disturbed bulk samples
were obtained from the trenches and borings.
The soil conditions encountered in the trenches were visually examined, classified, and logged in
general accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice for
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure 02844). The logs of the
exploratory borings/trenches are presented on Figures A-1 through A-12. The logs depict the
various soil types encountered and indicate the depths at which samples were obtained.
Project No. 06040-22-02 February 27, 1998
PROJECT NO 06040-22-01
0:: BORING B 1 I >-l.J.J zw,..._ >-,""\
I (.!) I-Ou • I-,""\ LLI~ 0 <C DEPTH ...J 3 SOIL Hzl-H. e:::'-'
SAMPLE 0 0 I-<Cl.I. ~LL =>1-IN CLASS <Cl-" NO. ::c z ELEV. (MSL.) 73 DATE COMPLETED 1/15/98 a::(/)(/) LLI • 1-z
t
FEET I-:::) (USCS) I-H3 0~ (I) LLI
H 0 H1-
...J a:: LLI (I) 0 >-0. Oz EQUIPMENT E-100 Zw...J C!) ~e:::e 0::...., :E:o
0 (.)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ,,_
0 Bl-1 :-1-·'-l UNDOCUMENTED FILL SOIL ,_ -l·I ·1 Medium dense, very moist, yellow, very Silty, very -
> ,_ 2 -.-1 -r_ 1· fine to medium SAND '-
! . -r -SM -Becomes medium dense to dense, moist, cohesionless
I .-1-l at 2 feet '-I,_ -
4 -1·1 ·1 -Becomes fine to very coarse grained from 3 to 4 feet '--_'J -r_ I· I--
' c:-1. "ll TERRACE DEPOSITS ,_ 6 -l·I ·1 -Medium dense to dense, moist, yellow, Silty, fine to 1 ,_ -.-1 -r_ 1· coarse SAND '-
I,_ . -r -SM
8 -.-1-·l ~
1=
-t"1 ·1 -
10
_-l -r_ I·
BORING TERMINATED AT 10 FEET
I
' I
I
I
I
Log of Boring B 1, page 1 of 1 CCP , Figure A-1 1....--------------------------------------------, IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST •••. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ••• DISWRBED OR BAG SAMPLE ~ ••• CHUNK SAMPLE J ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO 06040-22-01
a::: BORING B 2 >-L1J Zw""' >-.,....
(!) I-Ou • I-.,.... w~ 0 <C DEPTH -' :I SOIL Hzl-H • a:::'""
SAMPLE 0 Cl CLASS I-<C LL (I) LL :)I-IN NO. :::c z ELEV. (MSL.) 74 DA-TE COMPLETED 1/15/98 <Ci-'-z. 1-z I-:::) 0:::(/)(1) Wu FEET (USCS) 1-H::::I Cl • oow H 0 HI-
-' a::: w 00 o ::,-0.. Oz EQUIPMENT E-100 Zw-' (!) ~a:::e 0::: V Eo
Cl u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
I-0 :-1.·1-l UNDOCUMENTED FILL SOIL .... -l·l -1 Medium dense, saturated, yellowish-brown, Silty, fine ~
B2-1 -2 -."j -t_ 1-to medium SAND I-
. -t: SM -Becomes dense, very moist, slightly clayey at 1.5 feet
.... -.-1: ·I-I-
,_ 4 --i-.·1 ·1 I-
."j .t_ 1-,_ -~ . -t . -Becomes cohesionless, fine to very coarse, yellow :1-l
I-6 -·i-_·I ·1 ~
I--."j .t_ 1-. -Becomes yellowish brown, fine to coarse grained ~
8 -. -t . ~ .... .-1-·l
,---i-.·1 ·1 I...
10 -
.J {_ I·
,-/j/1/-,--~// TERRACE DEPOSITS I...
'/// SC Very dense, moist, grayish-brown, very Clayey, fine
,_ 12 -1"' ' ~ __ to coarse SAND ____ -· ____________________ , r
:-·l .... -l·I .f ~
SM -Becomes very silty
,-14 -."j -1_ [· I...
• 1 ·j •I -
BORING TERMINATED AT 15 FEET
Figure A-2 Log of Boring B 2, page 1 of 1 CCP
D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ••• DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST •••• DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ~ ••• CHUNK SAMPLE ~ ••• WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
.
i ' it ' 1 PROJECT NO
I
l
r I
I ...
l
l
t
,-
I-
I-
I-
I-
I-
-
I-
I-
I-
I-
I-
I-
I-
-
,_
,_
I-
I-
-
-
I-
I-
,_
,_
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0
-
2 -
-
4 -
-
6 -
-
8 -
-
10 -
-
12 -
-
14 -
-
16 -
-
18 -
-
20 -
-
22 -
-
24 -
-
._ 26 -
--
-28 -
--
SAMPLE
NO.
B3-l
B3-2
B3-3
B3-4
B3-5
B3-6
B3-7
Figure A-3
06040-22-01
0:: BORING B 3 >-LLI z LLJ'"' >-......
(!) I-0 <C Ou• I-"" LLI~
....I 3 SOIL Hzl-H. 0:: '--'
0 Cl CLASS I-<Cu. mu. ~I-::r: z ELEV. (MSL.) 75 DATE COMPLETED 1/15/98 <Cl-'\. ~-1-z
I-~ (USCS) 0:: (1)(1) Cl~ (l)LLI
H 0 1-H::3: H1-
....I 0:: E-100
LLl(/)0 >-0. Oz
(!) EQUIPMENT Zw....1 0:: '-' Eo If o::~ Cl u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
:-1.·1--1-UNDOCUMENTED FILL SOIL ·i-_·I ·1 Medium loose, very moist, yellow, Silty, fine to I-
:1 -r. 1-medium SAND '-
--t . SM -Becomes brown, clayey
. :1-l ~Becomes medium dense, yellow, silty '-
1·1 ·1 '-I -·1 t 1--Becomes dark gray 1 107.5 9.7
'---t . -Becomes damp :1-l l·I ·1 '-
_'j t. 1-. -Becomes moist I-
--t . ~ :1-·l -Becomes dense, moist, green, Silty, fine to medium 1·1 ·1 -Becomes very dense, moist to very moist, '-I .-1 -r. 1-1 102.8 24.4
yellowish-brown, fine to coarse '---t . _-1. l ~
·(l·1 -------------------------------------/ , /"'IT ·r, ' Layer of stiff, very moist, green clay from 12 to 12.5 r _. . l I \. __ feet · _______________________________ , I '-
l·I ·1 I-
I_., -r. 1-SM -Becomes olive-brown, clayey 2 122.9 11.6
--r . I-
:1-·l l·I ·1 ~
_., -r. 1-I-
--r . :1-l I-
l·I ·1 I-
1 --------------------------------------~l '/{ ML Medium dense, very moist, brown, Clayey SILT,
I-112.0 18.0
:1-l medium plasticitv / I-
l-·I ·1 TERRACE DEPOSITS I-_., -t. [· . Medium dense, moist, olive-brown, Silty, fine to
--r coarse SAND '-
:1-l I l·I ·1 '-
SM -Becomes very dense, damp, light greenish-yellow, 5 121.5 13.9
:1 -r. i-very silty, very fine to medium '-
--t . '-:1-l . ·i-_·I ·1 '-
_.1 -r. i-~ --t . :1. ,·l -------------------------------------~Llt ML 7 113.5 18.3
Log of Boring B 3, page 1 of 2 CCP
SAMPLE SYMBOLS D . . . SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ••• DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST •••. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ .•• \o/ATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHO\o/N HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
! . •
' PROJECT NO 06040-22-01
a:: BORING B 3 >-IJJ z IJJ'"' >-'"' (.!) I-0 <C Ou• ::;,..._ IJJ~
DEPTH _J :I SOIL Hzl-a::'-'
SAMPLE 1-<Cl.1.. (/) .
0 Cl CLASS zl.1.. =>1-IN :I: z ELEV. (MSL.) 75 DATE COMPLETED 1/15/98 <C1-" NO. a::(/)(/) IJJ • 1-z
FEET I-::) (USCS) 1-H::I Cl~ (/)w
H 0 H1-
_J a:: IJJ(/)0 ::,.-0.. Oz
(.!) EQUIPMENT E-100 Zw-1 ~ a::!8 a::'-' ::E:o
Cl (.)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
i-30 I/ , I, / Very dense, damp, green, Clayey SILT, medium I/I.I ,_ . -Y1v v plasticity ~
1./1,
,_ 32 -I/ I, I, ~
1/1/ !1 ML --r),, I/ I, L-I/ I,
~ 'I, 11 ,_ 34 -I,; 't, L-
B3-8 I I,, 1./v 5 105.7 21.5 -
BORING TERMINATED AT 35 FEET
l .
;
Log of Boring B 3, page 2 of 2 CCP I Figure A-4
0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST •••• DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS ~ ••• DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE liiiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ •.• WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
i ,
PROJECT NO 06040-22-01
a:: BORING B 4 > UJ ZUJ" >-" (.!) I-Ou• 1:;,.... w~ 0 <C DEPTH ...J 3 SOIL Hzl-0:: V
SAMPLE I-<Cu. Cl) •
IN 0 Cl CLASS zU. :::::>1-:::r: z ELEV. (MSL.) 75 DATE COMPLETED 1/15/98 <I:1-" NO. 0::(1)(/) UJ • 1-z
FEET I-:::> (USCS) 1-H:? Cl~ Cl) IJJ
H 0 H1-
...J a:: UJ (/)0 >-0.. Oz EQUIPMENT E-100 Zw...l (.!) ~a::~ a::'-' ::Co
Cl u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
I-0 J"'l UNDOCUMENTED FILL SOIL ... -l-1 ·1 Loose, saturated, yellowish-brown, Silty, fine to '-
-2 -_"J -t_ 1-medium SAND I-
--t . SM -Becomes dense --.-1--l -Becomes medium loose, dry to damp, brown I-
-4 -·j·_·I ·1 I-
B4-1 I .-1 -r_ 1· -Becomes dense, moist, olive-brown
1 117.6 8.4
I----t . ~
.-1-l I-6 -1·1 ·1 '-
.-1 -r_ i----I-
I-8 ---t . I-.-1---1-
I--1·1 ·1 ~
B4-2 I .-1 -r_ 1-1 119.1 11.3
I-10 ---t . I-
... -.-1--"1--Becomes brown, clayey ~
1·1 ·1 ... 12 --·1 -r_ 1-'-
----t . I-.-1. ·l -Becomes yellowish-green, clayey -14 -l·I ·1 I-
B4-3 I _-1 -t. i· 2 125.8 10.6 ---Becomes olive-brown
I-
--1 --16 -.-1--"I-~
·i-_"1 ·i
I---------------------------------------·/_/ CL ___ Stiff, very moist, brown, Sandy CLAY ______________
I-18 --7-/ (_/-·;,/ -Dense, moist, dark olive-brown, Clayey, fine to I--v// '-
B4-4 v// coarse SAND, slightly porous 1 117.6 6.8 ... 20 -I?// -Becomes cohesionless, clean I-
I--;// I-
22 -v>~; ~ ... v// SC ... -//,, '-
... 24 -f1/;/-I l)"-/ ~/-B4-5 r"'.'/J TERRACE DEPOSITS
5 132.0 5.1
I--I-
l{// Very dense, damp, orange, fine to very coarse SAND
... 26 -i;,//
I-
I--//. -// SP v. '/ ,_ 28 -v/; -
I-->/_-; -
B4-6 ll1.0 7 96.7 27.8
1
Figure A-5 Log of Boring B 4, page 1 of 2 CCP
0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL [l ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ••.• DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ~ , .. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE liiiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE J ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO 06040-22-01
~ BORING B 4 >-UJ Zwr-. >-r\ (!) I-
0 <C Ou • ~~ UJ~
DEPTH ...J 3 SOIL H:zl-~'-'
IN SAMPLE 0 Cl CLASS I-<CLL. :zl..L. ::, I-:c :z ELEV. (MSL.) 75 DATE COMPLETED 1/15/98 <CI-" NO. ~(J)(J) UJ • 1-:z
FEET I-::) (USCS) 1-H::? Cl~ (J)UJ
H 0 H1-
...J ~ , lJJu,O >-a.. Oz
(!) EQUIPMENT E-100 Zw...J ~'-' E:o lf~~ Cl u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -30 .1/-//. ·.;, ..
,__ -·.:·/ ,_
(/;, SM -Becomes very dense, moist to very moist, green, ,__ 32 -1/·j:/ ~
, slightly Silty, slightly Clayey, fine to very coarse .
' ·--------------------_______________ , ~ ,__ -ML Dense to very dense, moist, green, SILT, medium
,__ 34 -I plasticity ,_
B4-7 2
,__
BORING TERMINATED AT 35 FEET
.
Figure A-6 Log of Boring B 4, page 2 of 2 CCP
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST •••• DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ ••• DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ~ •.• CHUNK SAMPLE ~ •.. IIATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOIIN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 06040-22-01
a::: BORING B 5 >-lJ.J z wr->-r's (.!) I-0 <C Ou • I-r's I.J.J~ DEPTH ...J 3 SOIL Hzl-H. a:::'-"
IN SAMPLE 0 Cl CLASS I-<CLJ.. cnLJ.. =>1-:c z ELEV. (MSL.) 74 DATE COMPLETED 1/15/98 <Cl-' z. NO. I-=> a::: cnOO Wu 1-z FEET H 0 (USCS) 1-H::I Cl • cnw H1-...J a::: I.J.JcnO >-0.. Oz (.!) EQUIPMENT E-100 Zw...J ~ o::e;? a:::'"' l:o
Cl u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 I-:-1.·1-l B5-1 UNDOCUMENTED FILL SOIL
I--l·I ·1 Medium loose, very moist, olive-brown, Silty, fine to f--
-2 -.·j .t_ 1-coarse SAND -
--r . -Becomes dense, moist
--:1-·l -
-4 -1·1 ·1 -B5-2 I --J -t_ 1-SM 2 113.6 8.0 ----r . -
_-1. l
I-6 -1·1 ·1 -
_"j -t_ 1--I--f--
I-8 ---t . --------------------------------------/ / r,u ___ Layer of very stiff, very moist, CLAY _____________ , I _.1-·1--i-' ----Becomes yellowish-brown I-
B5-3 1·1 ·1 3 126.4 9.3 -10 -_"j -t_ 1--
----r . -Becomes dark olive-brown -_.1. l SM -12 -l·I ·1 -
I--_"j .t. 1-f--
-14 --,L
I)'-/'-/: B5-4 V/) TERRACE DEPOSITS 1 115.2 12.2
I--,-~(/;,, Dense, moist, olive-brown, slightly Clayey, fine to -16 -r)./ coarse SAND ,-
--;(/: -Becomes fine to very coarse, cohesionless, clean -~/// SC -18 -v/} -
--{/.~ -Becomes very dense, moist, green, Silty, fine to -B5-5 4 120.0 8.2
1-20 -1/} coarse SAND -
(7/ I--1/-/ -
1-22 -/f -
/.· _/
I--~/j -
24 /-~ --I /_/ ,-
B5-6 l{./.1/-5 117.5 16.3 -
BORING TERMINATED AT 25 FEET
Figure A-7 Log of Boring B 5, page 1 of 1 CCP
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST •••• DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
l8l;J ••• DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE liiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE :!': ••. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO 06040-22-01
·O::: BORING B 6 >-LIJ z w'"' >-'"' (.!) I-Ou • ~~ LIJ~ 0 (C DEPTH _J :::I SOIL Hzl-0::: '-'
SAMPLE 0 Cl I-<CLL zLL ::)I-IN :c z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 74 DA.TE COMPLETED 1/16/98 <Ci-" NO. 0::: (J) CJ) LIJ • 1-z
FEET I-::::) (USCS) 1-H:::I o'-: Ulw
H 0 HI-
_J 0::: WcnO >-a.. Oz EQUIPMENT E-100 Zw-l (.!) ~O:::~ 0::: '-' ::E:o
Cl u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
I-0 .1/ --\r );(· UNDOCUMENTED FILL SOIL .... -;r.Vi Loose, saturated, dark olive-brown, Clayey, slightly ....
2 -l/iXY Silty, fine to coarse SAND .... -rJ>tt -Becomes dense, moist --%.··b -Becomes clayey, dark gray ....
I-4 -ri;f;y ....
B6-1 1~-x~ SC -Becomes olive-brown, less clayey 2 123.0 6.2
--LA{;
L-
6 v¼.-. L-.... -x½
t--vrry . -Layer of dry to damp, orange from 6.5 to 7 feet ~
t-8 -irVti I.... r~~J t---
B6-2 If¼--Becomes light olive-brown, less clayey 2
t-10 --
l;1 r;.
I--vb,{. l... ;r.Vi -12 -lirXY l...
.... -1(Y.t1 I....
%~ .... 14 -l~tfx L-
B6-3 -xkf-1 112.5 13.1
t--.... l;1{;.
t-16 -r_;y(. ~
--x½ I.... l;(t'Y
,_ 18 -b-1/f.y I.... xff--Becomes dark olive-brown, clayey
,_ -:Jr'."}' L-
B6-4 /vtJ -Becomes brown-yellow, silty, no clay 1 110.4 12.9
.... 20 -lf;tl -
.... -r,;-v.(1 L-
,_ 22 -:r.Vi ~
lXXY --l2'Vi.?, ~
-24 -%.··b l...
B6-5 lt8fx 2 106.9 14.0 ---xkf l...
,_ 26 -b{u l... vlrf ·
-.,.,·I -------------------------------------t-½ Stiff to dense, moist, gray to dark gray, Sandy CLAY, I.... ,_ 28 -. /. I :-1-.,_l 'I. medium plasticity I
t--,_
B6-6 ·1-·I ·1 TERRACE DEPOSITS 8 118.3 16.9
Figure A-8 Log of Boring B 6, page 1 of 2 CCP
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ••.. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ ••. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE i:J ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ •.. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I • \ .
. PROJECT NO 06040-22-01
i ~ BORING B 6 >-I.J.l Zw'"' >-'"' (.!) I-l 0 <C Ou• l=i'"' I.J.l~
DEPTH ...I 3 SOIL Hzl-~'-'
SAMPLE 0 Cl 1-<CLI.. en • ::)I-IN CLASS zll..
NO. ::c z ELEV. (MSL.) 74 DATE COMPLETED 1/16/98 <Ci-'\. I.J.l • 1-z
FEET I-::::) (USCS) ~cncn
Cl~ cnw
j H 0 I-H3
I ...I ~ I.J.lu,O >-0. Hi-
(.!) EQUIPMENT E-100 Zw...1 Oz
~~~ ~'-' Eo
Cl u
f -
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
30 :-1. ·1 --,-Very dense, moist, light green, slightly Silty, fine to I ' l·I ·1 coarse SAND '-,--
-32 -_·, t,. '-
l t . -t . l ,--.-1-·l I-
,-34 -l·I ·1 I-
! ,-B6-7 I _·1 --~-I· 8 126.8 13.4
BORiNG TERMINATED AT 35 FEET
-
1 Figure A-9 Log of Boring B 6, page 2 of 2 CCP
0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ••• DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST •••• DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ~ •.• CHUNK SAMPLE ~ •.. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
) .
'
PROJECT NO. 06040-22-01
a:: BORING B 7 >-UJ Zw'"' >-'"' t!) I-Ou• I-'"' UJ~ 0 <I: DEPTH ..J 3 SOIL Hzf-H, a::'""
IN SAMPLE 0 Cl CLASS
I-<I: LL. (l)l.L. ::::>1-
NO. :::c z ELEV. (MSL.) 76 DATE COMPLETED 1/19/98 <I: .... , z. 1-z
f-::::> 0::(1)(1) Wu
FEET H 0 (USCS) f-H:J: Cl • (l)UJ Hf-
..J a:: IJ.JooO >-0.. Oz
t!) EQUIPMENT E-100 Zw..J
~a::~ a::'-' I:o
Cl u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
I-0 :-1. ·1--i-B7-1 UNDOCUMENTED FJLL SOIL --l-·I ·1 Medium loose, saturated, olive-brown, Silty, fine to L-
-2 -.·1 .t. 1-coarse SAND ~
. -t . SM -Becomes medium loose to medium dense, very moist
I--.-1-.1·"1-___ -Becomes dry, brown ______________________ , L-
/ / --
-4 -f""'T Stiff, moist, brown, CLAY, medium plasticity 1.-1. ·1-l ' r
B7-2 SM ~-----------------------------------· 2 115.8 9.6
--l·I ·1 Medium loose to medium dense, moist, olive-brown, ~
_"j .t. 1-
Silty, fine to coarse SAND .._ 6 --Layer of dry, Silty, fine to medium SAND from 5.5 L-
. -t . . to 6 feet .._ -.-1-l L-
I-8 -l·I ·1 ~
_"j .t. 1·
I--I . ·I . -Becomes clayey to very clayey
~
B7-3 .-1-·l 2 119.5 11.3
I-10 -l·I ·1 -
--_"j .t_ 1--
-12 -. -t . -.-1-l
.._ --i-.·l ·1 L-
-------------------------------------
I~
I-14 -Stiff, very moist, brown to dark brown, Sandy CLAY ~
B7-4 1 116.2 14.0
I---
I-16 -~ ~
I--(:-/} --------------------------------------
-18 -Dense, very moist, olive-brown, Clayey to very :-
(-// clayey, fine to coarse SAND
--t2 -------------------------------------B7-5 Stiff, very moist, brown, Sandy CLAY
1 113.6 16.7
.._ 20 -~ L-
.._ -L-
I-22 -~ ~
I--¼ L-
24 --I :-1.·1·l B7-6 2 112.2 6.3 --l·I ·1 TERRACE DEPOSITS L-
Dense, moist to very moist, olive-brown, Silty, fine to
-26 -_"j .t.,-medium SAND, very cohesionless, very clean L-
. -t .
I--.-1-l L-
I-28 -l·I ·1 L-
I--B7-7 . I _"j .t_ ,--Becomes very dense, damp, green, fine to very ~ . -t . coarse 6 110.5 6.1 .-1. ,l
Figure A-10 Log of Boring B 7, page 1 of 2 CCP
0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ••• DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ••.• DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS i:I ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ •.• WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
: .
t
PROJECT NO
DEPTH
IN SAMPLE
NO. FEET
-30
--
'-32 -
--
06040-22-01
0::: BORING B 7 >-L1J (!) I-0 <C ...J 3 SOIL
0 Cl CLASS ::r: z ELEV. (MSL.) 76 DATE COMPLETED I-::J H 0 (USCS)
...J 0::: (!) EQUIPMENT E-100
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
:-1. ·,_.,_
l·I ·1
_"j -~-1-
--r -_-1. ·l
-34 -.f ·I ·1
B7-8 I .-1 --~-1--Becomes silty
-
BORING TERMINATED AT 35 FEET
'
Figure A-11 Log of Boring B 7, page 2 of 2
Zw'"' >-,,._
Ou • I-,,._ L1J ;-.:
' Hz!-H • 0::: '-' I-<CLL. (J)LL. ::JI-1/19/98 <C1-'\. z. 1-z 0:::(1)(1) Wu 1-H::3: Cl • (/)LlJ H1-WcnO >-a.. Oz Zw...J
~o::~ 0::: '-' :Co
Cl u
L..
L-
L-
L..
7 120.0 9.3
CCP
0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ••. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
[I ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ••.. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
SAMPLE SYMBOLS liiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ •.. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
.
I PROJECT NO. 06040-22-01
0:: BORING B 8 i >-w ZLU"" >-"" (.!) I-Ou • ~~ LU~ 0 <I: DEPTH ...J 3 SOIL Hzl-0:: V SAMPLE 0 Cl I-<I:LL zLL ::JI-IN NO. :c z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 76 DATE COMPLETED 1/19/98 <I:1-'\. LU • t-z I-::J 0:: (I) (I)
Cl~ (l)LU i FEET H 0 (USCS) 1-H::3: H1-' ...J 0:: LUcnO >-a.. Oz EQUIPMENT E-100 ZLU...I I (.!) If o::E:) 0:: V :E:o
Cl (.)
l MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ! ,-0 :-1. ·1 l I "l"-·I ·1
UNDOCUMENTED FILL son, --Medium loose, very moist to saturated, dark ...
-2 -_.J -r. ,-olive-brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND ...
--r . -Becomes medium loose to medium dense, moist to
;--_.1. l very moist, olive-brown ...
-4 -1·1·1 -Becomes very clayey -B8-1 I _.j -r. 1-SM -Becomes medium dense, damp, brown, Silty, fine to 1 115.0 14.1
,----r . -_.1. l medium -6 -1·1 ·1 -
... -.-i -r. ,--Becomes dark greenish-brown, clayey -
--r . ,-8 -_-1. ·l -
I--1·1 ·1 -B8-2 I .-i -r_ 1-3 119.0 12.9 -10 --. --r .
--_.1. ·l -1·1 ·1 -12 -.-1 -r. 1-...
---., .
-Few veins of caliche ... :1-·"I--14 -I ·fl ·1 -B8-3 1 1 'I() /\ '11 "'7
'VJ ------------------------------------------·-I--Stiff, very moist, dark greenish-brown, CLAY, -
-16 -~ medium plasticity ...
--,-
,-18 -/·, ~1/:
I--1/;; TERRACE DEPOSITS -B8-4 I{// SC Dense, very moist, green, very Clayey, fine to very 3/8" 129.2 10.9
,.... 20 -;:-/1/. coarse SAND -
--//: --_j.//
,.... 22 -~/-}. -
--{// -Becomes very dense, damp, silty -
-24 -v/:1/--l B8-5 I//-9 114.0 2.5 ./·// -
BORING TERMINATED AT 25 FEET
!
i I
1Figure A-12 Log of Boring B 8, page 1 of 1 CCP 1.---------------------------------------------,
I 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFU~
~ ••• DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST •••. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
liJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE J ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
1 NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
' DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED to BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
l
. '
Sample No.
4-5
4-6
5-1 *
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
6-1
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
7-7
7-8
8-1
8-2
8-3
8-4
8-5
TABLE B-11 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF IN-PLACE DENSITY/
MOISTURE CONTENT AND DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Dry Density Moisture Content Unit Cohesion Angle of Shear
(pcf) (%) (psf) Resistance (degrees)
132.0 5.1
96.7 27.8
112.3 11.9 445 26
113.6 8.0
126.4 9.3
115.2 12.2
120.0 8.2
117.5 16.3
123.0 6.2
112.5 13.1
110.4 12.9
106.9 14.0
118.3 16.9
126.8 13.4
115.8 9.6
119.5 11.3
116.2 14.0
113.6 16.7
112.2 6.3
110.5 6.1
120.0 9.3
115.0 14.1
119.0 12.9
109.0 21.7
129.2 10.9
114.0 2.5
*Soil sample remolded to 90 percent of maximum dry density at near optimum moisture content.
Project No. 06040-22-02 -B-2 -February 27, 1998
r ,
I
I
1
r ,,
TABLE B-UI
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Sample Moisture Content Dry Expansion
No. Before Test (%) After Test (%) Density (pct) Index
B3-1 8.1 18.1 118.0 11
B7-1 8.0 18.4 117.5 8
TABLE B-IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
Sample No. R-Value
B2-1 56
Project No. 06040-22-02 -B-3 -February 27, 1998
• I,
PROJECT NO. 06040-22-01
SAMPLE NO. B3-3
-4
-2
,r,...
"r-,.
)',,"' 0 ---....... r--....... "' r--,.... ~ ~ r-.... z ~ ~ 0 2 H r,,~ ' N I-~~ ~ (C
Q
~f'l-i. H ...J 0 (/) 4 z 0 u
I-z UJ u 0:: 6 UJ a..
8
10 .
12 0.1 1 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf)
Initial Dry Density (pct) 102.8 Initial Saturation ( % ) 100+
Initial Water Content ( % ) 24.4 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 2.0
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
CARLSBAD CORPORATE PLAZA
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
CCP Figure B-1
PROJECT NO. 06040-22-01
SAMPLE NO. B6-3
-4
-2
0 -........_
r-........ r-. r-.... II--~ I "' """'" :~ z " i,,..i-.
0 2 H -........:: '"""'-I-~ (I: ~ Cl ~ H r-,-... ~ ...J ......
0 ~ (/) "--z 4 0 u
I-z LI.I u 0:: 6 LI.I a.
8
10
12 0.1 1 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf)
Initial Drv Density (pcf) 112.5 Initial Saturation ( % ) 73.3
Initial Water Content ( % ) 13.1 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 2.0
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
CARLSBAD CORPORATE PLAZA
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
CCP Figure B-2
I I i 1 I,
I
PROJECT NO. 06040-22-01
SAMPLE NO. B8-3
-4
-2
0 -"'-.... .. " ~ "" ~~ r-,.... t-,,.. ~
""" z i--.i-,.
0 2 H I\ ~ ~ I-<C ~ C ~ H r-,..; ...J ~ .... 0 Cl) z 4 0 u
I-z lJJ u 0:: 6 lJJ a..
8
10
12 0.1 1 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE (kst)
Initial Drv Density (pct) 109.0 Initial Saturation ( % ) 100+
Initial Water Content ( % ) 21.7 Sample Saturated at (kst) 2.0
CONSOLIDATION-CURVE
CARLSBAD CORPORATE PLAZA
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
CCP Figure B-3
I . , I
l
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
for
CARLSBAD CORPORATE PLAZA
PASEO DEL NORTE AND CAMINO DEL PARQUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 06040-02-02
I. '
.. _ ,tj
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. GENERAL
1.1. These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the
Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The recom-
mendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and
grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of
conflict.
1.2. Prior to the ·commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be
employed for · the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these
specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and
observation services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was performed
in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the
Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so
that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
1 :3. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency I
ordinances, these specifications and-the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, and so forth, result in a quality of work
not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the
work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped until the unacceptable con-
ditions are corrected.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1. Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading
work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading
performed.
2.2. Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
l l
l . .
2.3. Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or
consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-
graded topography.
2.4. Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm
retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
2.5. Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licel}sed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who
is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be
responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's
work for conformance with these specifications.
2.6. Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained
by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site
grading.
2.7. Geotechnical Report shall refer t9 a soil report (including all addendums) which may
include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically
for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are
intended to apply.
3. MATERIALS
3 .1. Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or
imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction
of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as
defined below.
• Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in
maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller
than 3/4 inch in size.
• Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in
maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper
compaction of soil fill around the .. rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in
Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches.
• Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in
maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material
smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than
approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.
l > . .,
3.2. Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the
Consultant shall not be used in fills.
3 .3. Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as
defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9
and 1 O; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall
not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of haza~dous
materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect
the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the
termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading
operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the
suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
3.4. The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of
properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to
the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil
layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This
procedure may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and
Consultant.
3 .5. Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory
by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where
appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.
3.6. During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the
Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be
notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition.
4.-CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
4.1. Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and ·grubbed. Clearing shall consist of
complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made
structures and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried
logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and
other projections exceeding 1-1/2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet
below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to
provide suitable fill materials.
4.2. Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly
disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing
steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of
this document.
4.3. After clearing and grubbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or p,orous
soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of
removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the
Consultant. Toe exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6
inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform
compaction by the equipment to be used.
4.4. Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6: 1 (horizontal:yertical), or
where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance
with the following illustration.
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
DETAIL NOTES:
NO SCALE
(1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or sufficiently wide
to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The
base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the
natural slope.
(2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable
surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material.
Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and
configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant.
I I' I .. .,
4.5. After areas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the surface should be
disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area
should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted
as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications.
5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
5 .1. Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented.:steel
wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be
capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the
specified moisture content.
5.2. Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.
6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
6.1. Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3 .1 :1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
+ Soil fill shall be p1aced by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should
generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughiy
mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The
entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than
12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3
of these specifications.
+ In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum
moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557-91.
+ When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water
shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified.
+ When t~e moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant
or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor
by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods uritil the moisture content is within the
range specified.
+ After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly
compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. Relative
compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of
the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance
with ASTM D1557-91. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and
compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum
relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill.
j ' I
... ,
+ Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be .used in fills if placed at least
3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2
to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material.
+ Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve
proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and
then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of
. slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
+ As an alternative to over-building of slop·es, slope faces may be back-rolled with a
heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals.
Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or similar
equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice.
6.2. Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance
with the following recommendations:
+ Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be
incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15
feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet
below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.
+ Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually
placed or placed-in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to
10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability
of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated
during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to
placement.
+ For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for
passage of compaction equipment.
+ For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly
compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in
maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with
approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be
compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open-face" method
in lieu of the_ trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the
Consultant.
+ Windrows should generally be parallel to each other· and may be placed either parallel to
or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry. The minimum
horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or
offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The ;11linimum vertical spacing
between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom
of the next higher windrow.
+ All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the
windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his representative.
1
. f
6.3. Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be· placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
• The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2
percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable
subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during
construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup.does not develop. The subdrains shall
be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction
infiltration of water.
+ Roc;k fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks
traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift.
Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill
shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks
traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during
rock pla~em~nt.. Compaction equipment With compactive energy comparable to or
greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment
providing suitable energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as
recommended in Paragraph 6.3 .3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made will
be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered
with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be perm,itted over the soil fill. .
+ Plate bearing tests, in acc;ordance with ASTM DI 196-64, may be performed in both the
compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aiq in determining the number of passes of the
compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing
tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock
fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment,
respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by
comparing the results of the pla~e bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by
evaluating the deflection variation with number of passes. The required number of
passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate
bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted
soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two.
• A representative of the Consultant shall be present during rock fill operations to verify
that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is being properly
applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate
bearing tests will be detennined by the Consultant during grading. In general, at least
one test-should be performed for each approximately 5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock
fill placed.
+ Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in his
opinion, sufficient water is present and that void$ between large rocks are properly filled
with smaller rock material. In:.place density testing will not be required in the rock fills.
+ To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill
material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be ,placed above the uppermost lift
of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be
determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded
filter material will be determine~ at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials
, ,(:"4l I' ., ~
f
I
l
I
typical of the rock fili should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow
design of the graded filter prior to the commencement ofrockfill placement.
• AU rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by
representatives of the Consultant.
7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
7.l. The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests during
clearing, grubbing, filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in
vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density test
being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test shall
be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted.
7.2. The Consultant shaU perform random field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock
fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted
as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any
disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion
thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be
reworked until the specified density has been achieved.
72-3. During placement of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that the minimum number of
passes have been obtained per the criteria. disc:ussed in Section 6.3_}. The Consultant shall
request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed
rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an
opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied
to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on the surface
of the most-recently placed lift. Plate bearing tests will be performed to provide a basis for
expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The maximum
deflection in the rock fill determined in Section 6.3.3 shall be less than the maximum
deflection of the properly compacted soil fill. When any of the above criteria indicate that a
layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area
shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture
applied.
7.4. A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of
rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as
recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical
Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading.
l ~ -,
l
I
I l
···"'
7.5.
7.6.
The Consultant shall observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage devices
have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.
Testing procedures shall conform to·the following Standards as appropriate:
Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:
+ Field Density Test, ASTM D1556-82, Density of Soil In-Place By the Sand-f::one
Method.
+ Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922-81, Density of Soil and
Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
+ Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM Dl 557-91, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and
Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop. . .. .. .
+ Expansionlndex Test, Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2, Expansion Index Test.
Rock Fills
+ Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D1196-64 (Reapproved 1977) Standard Method for
Nonrepresentative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components,
For Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and Highway Pavements.
8. PROTECTION OF WORK
8.1. During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide
positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be
controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The
Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such
time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas
subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly preparecl in accordance with the
Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
8.2. After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation
or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant.
9.1.
9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil
Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of
elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot
horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of
subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan
of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the
subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
9.2. The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report
satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should
be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotec~nical
engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the
geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the
Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.
GI rev. 9/96
I
J
1
I
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Anderson, l G., Synthesis of Seismicity and Geologic Data in California, U. S. Geologic Survey
Open-File Report 84-424, 1984, pp. 1-186.
2. Blake, T. F., EQFAULT, A Computer Program for the Determinisitc Prediction of Peak
Horizontal Acceleration.from Digitized California.Faults, User's Manual, 1989a, p. 79.
3. City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study, updated by Leighton and Associates, 1980.
4. Geotechnical Investigation, Paseo Del Norte Upper Pad Proposed Office Building, prepared by
United States Testing Company Incorporated, dated.August 18, 1989.
5. Grading Plan for Carlsbad Tract 72-2.1 Lowder Lane, Sheet 3, prepared by Rick Engineering
Company, gated March 14, 1972.
6. Grading Plan for Mini-Warehouse-Office Complex, Sheet 2, prepared by L&S Consultants,
dated June 27, 1990.
7. iennings, C. W., Fault Map of California with Locations of Volcanoes, Thermal Springs and
Thermal Wells, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1975 (revised 1987).
8. Microfilms for Altabrisa, on file in the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department.
9. Preliminary Grading Plan for Carlsbad Corporate Plaza, Drawing No. C2, prepared by Great
Basin Engineering, Incorporated, dated March 24, 1997.
10. Siang S. Tan and Michael A. Kennedy, Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5'
Qu9.drangles, San Diego County, California, 1996.
11. Topographic Map Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, 7.5 minutes Series, by USGS, 1968.
12. Topographic Map Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, 7.5 minutes Series, by USGS, 1975
(revised).
13. Wesnousky, S. G., Earthquakes, Quaternary.Faults, and Seismic Hazard in California, Journal
of Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, No. Bl2, 1986, pp. 12,587,631.
14. Unpublished reports, aerial photographs, and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated.
Project No. 06040-22-02 February 27, 1998