Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SDP 09-04A; SHOPPES AT CARLSBAD -WESTFIELD CARLSBAD PHASE 2; GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE REPORT LETTER; 2017-03-23
GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE REPORT LETTER THE SHOPPES AT CARLSBAD PHASE 2 2525 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA March 23, 2017 JUN 282016 LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING Copyright 2017 Klelnfelder All Rights Reserved Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited by anyone other than the client for the specific project. 20172781.001A March 23, 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinielder KLEINFEWEc' 67ht Peopie. Ri'g1 o'ution, \, March 23, 2017 Project No. 20172781.001A Mr. Sean O'Brien Rouse Properties 1114 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2800 New York, NY 10036-7703 Subject: Geotechnical Update Report Letter for The Shoppes at Carlsbad Phase 2 2525 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California 92008 City of Carlsbad Project Number: SDP 09-04(A) Dear Mr. O'Brien: In response to the City of Carlsbad requirement for Geotechnical Engineer of Record responsibility transfer, we have prepared this geotechnical update report letter. The purpose of this report letter was to document that we have reviewed and agreed with the data, recommendations, and conclusions contained in the geotechnical report and its addenda performed by Leighton Consulting, Inc dated July 14, 2016 and February 21, 2013 provided as Attachment A. In addition, we have reviewed the grading and improvement plans 479-513 and 479-5C prepared by Hofman Planning & Engineering dated March 20, 2017 for the implementation of the recommendations of the geotechnical reports. PROJECT BACKGROUND We understand that the proposed improvement described in the referenced geotechnical reports (Leighton 2016 and 2013) was in agreement with the project grading and improvement plans 479-513 and 479-5C (Hofman, 2017). SCOPE OF WORK We have reviewed and agreed that the scope of work performed in the referenced geotechnical reports (Leighton 2016 and 2013) was adequate and appropriate for the project. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING We have reviewed and agreed that the field exploration and laboratory testing methods and results described in the referenced geotechnical reports (Leighton 2016 and 2013) were adequate and appropriate for the project. 20172781.001A. Page 1 of 3 March 23, 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 5761 Copley Drive. Suite 100, San Diego CA 92111 p 1858.223.8500 r — DER &g?, pj*i GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS We have reviewed and agreed that the geologic conditions described in the referenced geotechnical reports (Leighton 2016 and 2013) were adequate and appropriate for the project. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONDITIONS We have reviewed and agreed that the geotechnical engineering conditions described in the referenced geotechnical reports (Leighton 2016 and 2013) were adequate and appropriate for the project. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS We have reviewed and agreed that the seismic consideration described in the referenced geotechnical reports (Leighton 2016 and 2013) were adequate and appropriate for the project. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We have reviewed and agreed that the presented in the referenced geotechnical adequate and appropriate for the project. data, conclusions, and recommendations reports (Leighton 2016 and 2013) were In addition, we are of the opinion that the conclusions and recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical reports (Leighton 2016 and 2013) are valid for the proposed construction shown on the referenced grading plans (Hofman, 2017). LIMITATIONS The review of geotechnical work was performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily, exercised by other members of Kleinfelder's profession practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions and at the date the services are provided. Our conclusions, opinions, and recommendations are based on a limited number of observations and data. It is possible that conditions could vary between or beyond the data evaluated. Kleinfelder makes no other representation, guarantee, or warranty, express or implied, regarding the services, communication (oral or written), report, opinion, or instrument of service provided. This report may be used only by the Client and the registered design professional in responsible charge and only for the purposes stated for this specific engagement within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than two (2) years from the date of the report. 20172781.001A Page 2 of 3 March 23, 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 5761 Copley Drive, Suite 100, San Diego CA 92111 p I 858.223.8500 r — DER &M P. RhL St The work performed was based on project information provided by Client. If there are any changes in the field to the plans and specifications, Client must obtain written approval from Kleinfelder's engineer that such changes do not affect our recommendations. Failure to do so will vitiate Kleinfelder's recommendations." CLOSING We appreciate this opportunity to work with Rouse Properties. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the undersigned at (858) 223-8500. Respectfully Submitted, KLEINFELDER o0FESSio, GE2820 rn Exp 6130/18 James L. Stiady, PhD, PE, GE 2820 Senior Geotechnical Engineer REFERENCE Geotechnical Update Letter, The Shoppes at Carlsbad Phase II Renovation and Cheesecake Factory, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc., dated July 14, 2016. Geotechnical Investigation, Reconfiguration, and Additional Retail Westfield Plaza Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc., dated February 21, 2013. Grading Plans for Shoppes at Carlsbad Phase 2, prepared by Hofman Planning & Engineering, (Drawing No. 479-513 and 479-5C), dated March 20, 2017. Transfer of Geotechnical Responsibility for the Shoppes at Carlsbad Phase 2, prepared by Kleinfelder, dated March 22, 2017. Attachments: Geotechnical Report for the Shoppes at Carlsbad by Leighton Consulting, Inc. Transfer of Geotechnical Responsibility to Kleinfelder 20172781.001A Page 3 of 3 March 23, 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 5761 Copley Drive, Suite 100, San Diego CA 92111 p I 858.223.8500 ATTACHMENT Geotechnical Report for the Shoppes at Carlsbad by Leighton Consulting, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE LETTER THE SHOPPES AT CARLSBAD PHASE II RENOVATION AND CHEESECAKE FACTORY CARSLBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: ROUSE PROPERTIES 1114 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2800 New York, NY 10036-7703 Project No. 603522.003 July 14, 2016 Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY 4 Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY July 14, 2016 Project No. 603522.003 Rouse Properties 1114 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2800 New York, NY 10036-7703 Attention: Mr. Sean O'Brien Subject: Proposal for Geotechnical Update Report The Shoppes at Carlsbad Phase II Renovation and Cheesecake Factory Carlsbad, California Introduction In accordance with your request, we have prepared an update letter with recommendations for the proposed Phase II Renovation and Cheesecake Factory at The Shoppes at Carlsbad redevelopment located in Carlsbad, California. (Figure 1). The purpose of our geotechnical update study was to explore and evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions of the subject site, review the referenced geotechnical report (Leighton, 2013), update geotechnical foundation and seismic design parameters per the 2013 California Building Code (CBSC, 2013), and to provide appropriate conclusions and additional recommendations, as necessary for the proposed improvements. 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.569.6914 • Fax 858.292.0771 • www.leightongroup.com 603522.003 Existing Site Conditions Based on our understanding of the site conditions, recent site observations, and review of the referenced geotechnical documents, the geotechnical conditions of the subject site have not changed. Therefore, it is our professional opinion that the geotechnical recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report (Leighton, 2013) are still applicable for its intended use, provided the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed improvements. Based on a review of the Phase II expansion plans and discussions with the project structural engineer (Thornton Tomaselli, 2016), the existing column foundations will be utilized during renovation of the existing mall structure. The original structural plans by Krumm & Sorenson Architect and Winter Shay Associates indicates the existing column foundations (i.e., constructed in 1968, 48 years old) at the Phase II renovation range from 6- to 7-foot squares with a footing thickness of 18 to 20 inches thickness at a minimum depth of 36 inches below finish floor elevation. The existing column foundations (i.e., constructed in 1978, 38 years old) at the Cheesecake Factory renovation range from 5- to 8-foot squares with a footing thickness of 14 to 24 inches at a minimum depth of 36 inches. Proposed Improvements It is our understanding that the proposed improvements will consist of primarily of renovations to existing structural elements across an existing portions of the mall building. The proposed renovation will consist of reconfiguring retail and new restaurant space with associated improvements. It is our understanding that additional live loads are required at the proposed restaurant space from 75 psf to 100 psf, which constitutes an 11 percent increase. In addition, new conventional footings are anticipated for support of new structural loads. The approximate location of the proposed Phase II renovation area and the proposed Cheesecake Factory are located at the eastern south-central and eastern north-central portion of the Shoppes at Carlsbad, respectively, as delineated on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2). Site Coordinates Latitude: N33.1779 Longitude: Wi 17.3306 -2- Leighton 603522.003 Site-Specific Geology Based on our subsurface exploration, review of as-graded documents and review of pertinent geologic literature and maps, the geologic units underlying the site consist of artificial fill soils, Quaternary-aged Alluvium, and the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. Brief descriptions of the geologic units present on the site are presented in the following sections. Artificial Fill (Afu) The majority of the proposed site consists of a previously filled alluvial area. Prior to placement of the compacted fills, alluvial soils were removed to approximately 1.5 to 2.5 feet below the existing grades. Fills were reported to have been derived primarily from excavations from existing cut slope in the southern portion of The Shoppes at Carlsbad site. To improve stability of the alluvial soils to support construction traffic, granular soil was reportedly mixed into the existing subgrade soils prior to fill placement. Low to medium expansive soils reused as compacted fill were reported at pad grade elevation. Fill soils encountered in previous and recent explorations at the site were described as silty sand with gravel, silty sand with clay, silty sand with traces of clay and gravel. After placement of fill, the alluvial areas placed 15- to 20-foot-surcharge fill that was monitored until settlement was essentially complete. Quaternary-Aged Alluvium (Qal) Alluvium is present beneath the compacted fill throughout the majority portions of the site. The alluvium is considered to be saturated and increases in depth from south to north across the site. The extent of depths of alluvial material near the proposed site ranges from 15 feet in the North West to 27 feet east of the site. The materials that comprise the alluvial materials were predominantly clayey with discontinuous interbedded layers of sands and silty sands to sandy s.ilts. Tertiary-Aged Santiago Formation The Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation is considered to be present beneath the alluvial soils and directly below the fill in the eastern portion of the site. As encountered in previous site investigations, the materials were damp to moist, dense to very dense silty sand to clayey sand. The extent of depths to this material near the proposed site ranges from 8 feet North West of the site to 20 feet in the southeast. 4>1 -3- Leighton 603522.003 Conclusions and Recommendations Based on our recent site visit, review of the proposed improvements, review of the project geotechnical report (Leighton, 2013), it is our professional opinion that the conclusions and recommendations in the referenced geotechnical report: are still considered applicable and should be adhered to during the design and construction phase of this project unless superseded by recommendations presented below. The following recommendations should supersede those presented in our referenced report (attached as Appendix B). I 2013 CBC Seismic Design Parameters The following seismic design parameters for the site are the risk-targeted spectral acceleration parameters for the project determined in accordance with the 2013 CBC and the USGS Seismic Design Map Web Application (Version 3.1.0). Table I 2013 CBC Seismic Design Parameters Site Class D Site Coefficients Fa = 1.056 F = 1.572 Mapped MCE Spectral Accelerations Ss = 1.111g 51 = 0.428g Site Modified MCE Spectral SMS = 1.173g Accelerations SM1 = 0.6729 Design Spectral Accelerations = SDS 0.782g So, = 0.448g Utilizing ASCE Standard 7-10, in accordance with Section 11.8.3, the following additional parameters for the peak horizontal ground acceleration are associated with the Geometric Mean Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCEG). The mapped MCEG peak ground acceleration (PGA) is 0.432 for the site. For a Site Class D, the FPGA is 1.068 and the mapped ground acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects (PGAM) is 0.461g for the site. -4. Leighton Milli 603522.003 Grading Recommendations For areas to receive fill or new structural improvements, limited remedial grading (i.e., removals and recompaction) will be required. In generI, removal depths are recommended to be a minimum of 2 feet below the proposed footings or improvements subgrade. The bottom of all removals should be evaluated by a Certified Engineering Geologist to confirm conditions are as anticipated. Areas to receive fill and/or surface improvements should be scarified and moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). All new fill soils should be moisture conditioned to above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Leighton should observe and test all fill placement during grading and observe footing excavations prior to concrete placement to confirm that the soil conditions are as anticipated. Grading should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading in Appendix E of the attached geotechnical report (Leighton, 2013). Evaluation of Existing Foundations In our review of the original structural foundation plans (Krumm and Sorenson Architects), we found that the existing column foundations within the Phase II renovation area range from 6 to 7 feet in width and have a minimum embedment depth of 36 inches below finish floor. The existing column foundations within the Cheesecake Factory renovation area range from 5 to 8 feet in width and have a minimum embedment depth of 36 inches below finish floor. Given the age of the existing footings (i.e., consolidation/densification of underlying bearing soils due to historical loading of at least 38 years) and the size of the footings along with a minimum embedment depth of 3 feet, we are of the opinion that an allowable bearing capacity of 4,500 pounds per square foot may be used in evaluating the new renovation loads on the existing footings. jø -5- Leighton 603522.003 - New Foundations and Slab-on-Grade Floors For new foundations and slab-on-grade floors recommendations outlined below, we assume that they will be underlain by properly compacted fill having a very low to medium expansion potential (i.e., an expansion index of less than 70). If highly expansive soils are encountered, additional foundation design may be necessary. The new structural loads may be supported by new conventional continuous or isolated spread footings. The footings should extend a minimum of 24 inches beneath the lowest adjacent finish grade. Foundation may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf) if founded in properly compacted fill soils over alluvium, and 5,000 pounds per square foot (pso if founded in properly compacted fill soils over Santiago Formation. The limits of alluvial material and Santiago Formation are depicted on site geotechnical map (Figure 2). 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 used. The recommended allowable bearing capacity for spread footings is based on a maximum allowable total and differential settlement of 1-inch and 3/4-inch, respectively. Since settlements are functions of footing size and contact bearing pressures, some differential settlement can be expected between adjacent columns, where large differential loading conditions exist. With increased footing depth to width ratios, differential settlement should be less. An additional post-liquefaction 1/2 inch over a distance of 25 feet should be allowed for in the design of the structure (i.e., an angular distortion of 1/600). Slab-on-grade floors should be at least 5 inches thick and reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center each way, placed at mid height in the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand or clean gravel. We emphasize that this is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the slab reinforcement is placed at slab mid-height. We recommend control joints be provided across the slab at appropriate intervals as designed by the project architect. ft my 450 I Leighton I 603522.003 Geochemical Considerations Chloride content, minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed during our previous geotechnical investigation on representative samples of site soils. Based on the results, the site soils are potentially moderately corrosive to structural elements. Expansive Soils Based upon our review of previous geotechnical reports, borings and CPT logs, the near surface fill soils (within the upper 10 to 15 feet) are expected to generally possess a low to medium expansion potential. Alluvial materials below this zone are expected to range from low to highly expansive. Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information and subsurface disclosed by widely spaced excavations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked by Leighton Consulting, Inc. in the field during construction. Construction observation of all onsite excavations and field density testing of all compacted fill should be performed by a representative of this office. We recommend that all excavations be mapped by the geotechnical consultant during grading to determine if any potentially adverse geologic conditions exist at the site. Plan Review Final project foundation plans should be reviewed by Leighton Consulting, Inc. to ensure that recommendations in this report are incorporated in project plans. Limitations Our analyses and recommendations were based in part on data obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, soil excavations, samples and tests. Such information is, by necessity, incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing soil or geologic conditions can be present within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, our findings, conclusions and recommendations are based on the assumption that we (Leighton Consulting, Inc.) will provide geotechnical observation and testing during construction as the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project. mp 490 -7- Leighton 603522.003 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. NOOL CERTIFIE ENGINEER NG 11 Mike D. Jensen, CEG 2457 Senior Project Geologist No. 45283 Exp.___ /V /w/; at ~ - William D. Olson, RCE 45283 Associate Engineer Attachments: Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map Appendix A - References Appendix B - Geotechnical Investigation, dated February 21, 2013 Distribution: (1) Digital Copy 4-1&4W0 -8- I Leighton - - : NPO tc( 4 IL -.0 ~N .44~ . "!\ 41 \Y øi:t - 4 V 4, iqj . --: .\•'. .. d._a.P' . ' - - — — - *01 1. - iI1lIll .*-.- • . .>-. 'AI$ /fr 4 1. Proxima ' ; lN, iv ' . fIa t 1 , .. • . ,' ' . ,4 .\ r I. • - : çlf S\ ',-r-- ::,-. t; 'i ,- -S -.-.. •I 3-4 •:• %' '! '• •'Alt Al . ; :• N .1 I S •.i.. ?. WA ., 41 2,000 4,00C - - - - 25 1 11 1,~A— Feet Ict :1 Project: 603522-003 Eng/Geol WDO/MDJ SITE LOCATION MAP II9UlI Scale: 1 = 2.000 Date July 2016 The Shoppes at Carlsbad Base Mac ESRI ArcGIS Online 2016 Phase H Renovation Thematic Information Carsibad California Author ..hI.)r, •,e.,'.at :5 .flhlllul: APPENDIX A REFERENCES 603522.003 APPENDIX A References American Concrete Institute (ACt), 2011, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-18) and Commentary. California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2013, California Building Code (CBC). Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30x60 Quadrangle, California, California Geological Survey (CGS). Krumm and Sorenson Architects, 1968 Structural Plans, Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center, Carlsbad, California, Sheets S-i, S-3, S-b, dated March 11, 1968. Leighton Consulting, Inc., 2013, Geotechnical Investigation Reconfiguration and Additional Retail, Westfield Plaza Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, dated February 21, 2013. Thornton Tomasetti, 2016, Structural Plans, The Shoppes at Carlsbad, Phase II Renovation, received June 30, 2016. APPENDIX B GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FEBRUARY 21, 2013 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, RECONFIGURATION AND ADDITIONAL RETAIL WESTFIELD PLAZA CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: PLAZA CAMINO REAL, GP 110601 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Project No. 603522-001 February 21, 2013 Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY Respectfully submitted, D. I No. 4528 Ex p. LEIGHTON CONSULTING, k //Z. ~ /J a- William D. Olson, RCE Associate Engineer mt! Mike Jensen, CEG 2547 Project Geologist 4 Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY February 21, 2013 Project No. 603522-001 Plaza Camino Real, GP 110601 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Attention: Mr. Mike Sheller Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Reconfiguration and Additional Retail Westfield Plaza Camino Real Carlsbad, California In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Leighton) has conducted a geotechnical investigation for the proposed Reconfiguration and Additions Retail project in Carlsbad, California. This report presents the results of our field investigation activities, review of previous reports, geotechnical analyses, and provides our conclusions and recommendations for the proposed improvements. Based on the result of our preliminary geotechnical investigation, the proposed project is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided our recommendations are implemented in the design and construction of the project. If you have any questions regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Distribution: (5) Addressee 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.569.6914 • Fax 858.292.0771 • www.leightongroup.com 603522-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................I 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .......................................................................................... I 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION........................................................................3 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................4 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .........5 2.1 SUBSURFACE FIELD INVESTIGATION......................................................................5 2.2 PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS....................................................................5 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ......................................7 3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING.............................................................................................7 3.2 SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGY.....................................................................................7 3.2.1 Artificial Fill (Map Symbol - Af) ...................................................................... 7 3.2.2 Quaternary - Aged Alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal)..........................................8 3.2.3 Tertiary-Aged Santiago Formation) ...............................................................8 3.3 GROUND WATER ................................................................................................. 8 3.4 LANDSLIDES........................................................................................................8 3.5 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS OF ON-SITE SOIL ...............................................9 3.5.1 Soil Compressibility and Collapse Potential ..................................................9 3.5.2 Expansive Soils.............................................................................................9 3.5.3 Soil Corrosivity ..............................................................................................9 3.5.4 Excavation Characteristics..........................................................................10 3.5.5 Infiltration.....................................................................................................10 4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ..................................................................... 11 4.1 FAULTING .........................................................................................................11 4.2 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS...........................................................................11 4.3 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS..........................................................................12 4.3.1 Shallow Ground Rupture.............................................................................13 4.3.2 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading.............................................................13 4.3.3 Tsunamis and Seiches ................................................................................14 5.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. 15 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................17 6.1 EARTHWORK.....................................................................................................17 6.1.1 Site Preparation ............................................................................................ 17 6.1.2 Excavations and Removals .........................................................................18 6.1.3 Engineered Fill Placement and Compaction................................................19 '4 U Leighton I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 6.1.4 Import Soils .................................................................................................19 6.2 FOUNDATION AND SLAB CONSIDERATIONS...........................................................19 63 FLOOR SLAB CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................................22 6.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN...................................................................................23 6.5 SHORING OF EXCAVATIONS ................................................................................ 24 6.6 PIPE BEDDING AND PIPE ZONE BACKFILL ............................................................25 6.6.1 Trench Zone................................................................................................25 6.7 SURFACE DRAINAGE AND EROSION.....................................................................26 6.8 VEHICULAR PAVEMENTS ....................................................................................26 6.9 CONCRETE FLATWORK ......................................................................................28 6.10 GEOCHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................28 6.11 FOUNDATION REVIEW........................................................................................28 6.12 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION...........................................................................28 7.0 LIMITATIONS.....................................................................................................29 Tables Table 1 - 2010 CBC Seismic Design Parameters - Page 12 Table 2 - Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) - Page 22 Table 3 - Preliminary Pavement Sections - Page 26 Figure Figure 1 - Site Location Map - Page 2 Plates Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map - In Pocket Plate 2 - Cross-Sections A-A' and B-B' - In Pocket Appendices Appendix A - References Appendix B - Boring Logs and CPT Sounding Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Appendix D - Liquefaction Analyses Appendix E - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix F - CIDH Pile Data Appendix G - ASFE Geotechnical Insert Leighton I.114 1^11Y 603522-001 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scone This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed reconfiguration and additions to the Westfield Plaza Camino Real in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The purpose of our investigation was to identify and evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions present at the site and to provide conclusions and recommendations relative to the proposed retail development. Our scope of services included: Review of existing project geotechnical reports, aerial photographs, and other geologic documents and maps. References are cited in Appendix A. A subsurface investigation consisting of two (2) small-diameter borings, four (4) field percolation tests, and advancement of four (13) cone penetration test (CPT) soundings in order to obtain site-specific subsurface information for the I design of the site improvements. The logs of the borings and CPT soundings are presented in Appendix B. Field percolation test results are discussed in section 3.5.5. Review of previous studies and as-graded reports that were prepared by others. Geotechnical evaluation of geotechnical data accumulated during our I investigation including seismic, liquefaction, infiltration, and settlement analysis. Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations relative to the proposed retail development with respect to grading, foundation considerations for the proposed improvements. I '4 -1- Leighton \ I A. 1' ) . L p& i1 '\' %2 Li - - — ' #4i P ji- Axt 'S Aw / k 1rz1J A~;ef"" d r! k. r - lull 0, —: - ,.-.. Project: 603522-001 Eng/Geol: MDJ SITE LOCATION MAP Figure 1 Scale. 1=2000 Date: February, 2013 Westfield Plaza Camino Real I 4i Base Map Microsoft hung. 2013 Robinsons-May Renovation I Thematic Info Leighton Author Leighton Geornahcs(cgiovando) Carlsbad, California Leqrl.tori P,P-Ous 13' q 6O9522O I'M aps P613 22-lP Pnfl Sp0 a' oPlap SIS 2111-32-21 —d- 21233 ' 5n Dm 603522-001 1.2 Site Location and Description The focus of our study is the Westfield Plaza Camino Real shopping center which is proposed to receive renovation and additional development. In general, the Westfield Plaza Camino Real is bound by El Camino Real to the east, Highway 78 to the north, Marron Road to the South, and an existing retail center (North County Plaza) to the west in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The existing shopping center development, or mall, consists of 1,100,000 square feet of enclosed retail shops and department stores with one to two levels. The mall is centrally located and surrounded by parking lots. The site topography generally consists of gently sloping paved parking area converging on the southern portions of the site and to the northern portion of the mall parking area. In addition, the site includes two north sloping terraces separating the southern and northern parking areas that are located on the eastern central and the western central portions of the shopping center. The grade breaks between the terraces range from approximately 7 to 19 feet in height. Elevations across the site range from approximately 46 feet mean sea level (msl) in the southeast to approximately 22 feet msl in the north-central portion of the site. The site is located in the alluvial valley previously known at the Buena Vista lagoon. The original grading of the development consisted of cutting the hillside south of Marron Road and filling the valley areas with up to 40 feet of compacted fill. As described in the previous geotechnical reports section of the site prepared by Woodward-Clyde and Leroy Crandall (1967 through 1975), the site has experienced several phases of documented grading (i.e. mass grading, surcharge grading, fine grading). However, it should be noted that remedial grading of the underlying potentially compressible alluvial soils consisted of minor removals of alluvium and marsh vegetation prior to fill placement particularly at the eastern and western ends of the mall. In addition portions of the site were surcharged with approximately 30 feet of fill prior to building construction. Latitude: N33.1786 Longitude: WI 17.3346 Leighton I -3- 603522-001 1.3 Proposed Development It is our understanding that the proposed development will consist of renovations to existing structural elements across the entire site and constructing additional retail space in portions of the site. Associated site improvements will include underground utilities, paved parking and driveways, surface drainage facilities and landscaping. Proposed grades are generally anticipated to be within I to 2 feet of the existing site grades. -4- Leighton 603522-001 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2.1 Subsurface Field Investigation The subsurface investigation, which consisted of the advancement of two (2) small-diameter borings, four (4) field percolation tests, and thirteen (13) CPT soundings to depths ranging from 20 to 116 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). The approximate locations of the borings are presented on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). Logs of the borings and CPT soundings are presented in Appendix B. Field percolation test results are discussed in section 3.5.5. 2.2 Previous Geotechnical Reports As background, original geotechnical studies for the existing Westfield Plaza Camino Real site were performed by Leroy Crandall (LC 1967, 1968, 1969) and Wood-Clyde (WC,1975). As discussed in the referenced reports, an initial foundation investigation report was also performed for the eastern half of the mall site by Leroy Crandall in 1966; however, that report was unavailable for our review. In addition, the Woodward-Clyde geotechnical investigation report, consisting of 10 small-diameter borings, was focused on the western portion of the mall site after the mass grading. The original sheet grading of general site was performed between July and October 1966, and Leroy Crandall provided observation of the excavation of formational material, alluvial deposits, and placement and compaction of engineered fill. Documented fills up to 40 feet and cuts up to 100 feet were performed during sheet grading of the site. It was then determined that up to 3 feet of settlement could occur across the eastern site site over several years. Therefore, in order the use of conventional foundations without waiting several years, a surcharge fill was placed to accelerate settlement. The surcharge fill, approximately 25 to 30 feet high, was placed over and 20 feet outside the building limits, and monitored to for 18 months. Subsequently, the anchor department stores building pads (i.e. Sears, J.C. Penney, Macy's (previously Broadway and May Co.), Robinsons) were individually fine graded. (see Appendix A). The limits of the surcharge fills are gpp -5- io I Leighton 603522-001 shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1) and Geological Cross Sections A-A and B-B' (Plate 2). AN -6- 603522-001 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 3.1 Geologic Setting The 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 "San Diego Embaymenr 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 nonmanne 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 times, resulted in the rolling hills, mesas, and deeply incised canyons which characterize the laridforms we see in the general site area today. 3.2 Site-Specific Geology Based on our subsurface exploration, review of as-graded documents (LC, 1967, 1968a, 1968b, and 1969) and review of pertinent geologic literature and maps, the geologic units underlying the site consist of artificial fill soils, Quaternary-aged Alluvium, and the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. Brief descriptions of the geologic units present on the site are presented in the following sections. The approximate aerial distributions of those units are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). In addition, geological cross-sections of the site are provided on Plate 2. 3.2.1 Artificial Fill (Map Symbol - Af) The proposed site generally consists of a previously filled alluvial area. Prior to placement of the compacted fills, alluvial soils were removed to approximately 2 feet below the existing grades. The depth of compacted fill on the eastern and western portions of the site is expected to be on the Leighton -7- 603522-001 order of 15 to 40 feet. Fills toward the center of the site, which is underlain by the Santiago Formation gradually reduce to as little as 5 feet below existing grade. Fills were reported to have been derived primarily from excavations from existing cut slope in the southern portion of Westfield Plaza Camino Real site. To improve stability of the alluvial soils to support construction traffic, granular soil was reportedly pushed into the existing subgrade soils prior to fill placement. Low to medium expansive soils that were reused as compacted fill were reported at pad grade elevation. Fill soils were described as silty sand with gravel, silty sand with clay, silty sand with traces of clay and gravel. 3.2.2 Quaternary - Aged Alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal) Alluvium is present beneath the compacted fill throughout the eastern and western protions of the site and to a lesser extent in the central portion of the site. The alluvium that was left in-place is considered to be saturated and increases in depth from south to north across the site, approximately 60 to 115 feet, respectively. The materials that comprise the alluvial materials were predominantly clayey with discontinuous interbedded layers of sands and silty sands to sandy silts. 3.2.3 Tertiary-Aged Santiago Formation) The Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation is considered to be present beneath the alluvial soils and directly below the fill in the center portion of the site. As encountered, the materials were damp to moist, dense to very dense as silty sand to clayey sand. 3.3 Ground Water Ground water was encountered at an elevation of 14 and 16 feet above mean sea level during our investigation and in previous geotechnical borings. Materials below this elevation are considered to be saturated. 3.4 Landslides Our investigation was limited primarily to the existing flat graded existing pad and parking lot areas. No ancient landslides or other slope instability problems have -8- Leighton 603522-001 - I been mapped on the subject site. In addition, no evidence of landsliding was encountered during our site investigation. Based on our review of geotechnical literature and our observations, landsliding is not a constraint to the currently proposed development. 3.5 Engineering Characteristics of On-Site Soil Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation, the current and previous laboratory testing of representative on-site soils (Appendix C), and our professional experience on adjacent sites with similar soils, the engineering characteristics of the on-site soils are discussed below. 3.5.1 Soil Compressibility and Collapse Potential The artificial fill soils are considered to have low compressibility and low collapse potential. The underlying alluvial materials encountered at the site have a generally low blow counts and localized porosity indicating an unconsolidated character, which is subject to potential settlement from heavy concentrated building loads or large amounts of additional fill. 3.5.2 Expansive Soils Based upon our laboratory testing, review of previous geotechnical reports, borings and CPT logs, and field observations performed for the preparation of this report, the near surface fill soils (within the upper 10 to 15 feet) are expected to generally possess a low to medium expansion potential. Alluvial materials below this zone are expected to range from low to highly expansive. 3.5.3 Soil Corrosivitv A preliminary corrosive soil screening for the on-site materials was completed during our previous investigations to evaluate their potential effect on concrete and ferrous metals. The corrosion potential was evaluated using the results of laboratory testing on one representative soil sample obtained during our subsurface evaluation. -9 ;W4 - Leighton 603522-001 Laboratory testing was performed to evaluate pH, minimum electrical resistivity, and chloride and soluble sulfate content. The sample tested had a measured pH of 7.39, and a measured minimum electrical resistivity of 340 ohm-cm. Test results also indicated that the sample had a chloride content of 123 ppm, and a soluble sulfate content of less than 0.03 percent (by weight in soil). Soil resistivity test results indicate the soils are generally lower than 2,000 ohm-cm which indicates site soils are potentially corrosive to buried uncoated ferrous metals and should be mitigated. 3.5.4 Excavation Characteristics It is anticipated the on-site soils can be excavated with conventional heavy-duty construction equipment. Localized friable sand zones, if encountered, may require special excavation techniques (i.e. flattening of slopes) to prevent collapsing of the excavation. 3.5.5 Infiltration We performed four field percolation tests (three (P-i through P-3) on the existing compacted fill soils and one (P-4) on the existing native soil) to evaluate the soil for potential infiltration of storm water. The results of the field percolation tests indicated that the existing onsite soils generally have a percolation rates at 50 mpi (P-1),120 mpi (P-2), 120 (P-3) and 250 mpi (P-4) minutes per inch (mpi). It should be noted that generally, a percolation rate less than 120 mpi is considered necessary to consider a site suitable for onsite surface infiltration of storm water. However, the site artificial fill that consist of mixture of soils ranging from silty sands to clays with permeable and impermeable layers which can transmit and perched ground water in unpredictable ways. Therefore, Low Impact Development (LID) measures may impact down gradient improvements and the use of some LID measures may not be appropriate for this project. Infiltration and Bioretention Stormwater Systems design should be reviewed by geotechnical consultant. 4ø -10- Leighton 603522-001 4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY 4.1 Faulting Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation and 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 which 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). This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972 and most recently revised in 2007 (Bryant and Hart, 2007). The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development and certain habitable structures do not occur across the traces of active faults. The subject site is not included within any Earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist-Priolo Act. San Diego County, 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. Our review of geologic literature pertaining to the site and general vicinity indicates that there are no known major or active faults on the site (Jennings, 1994). Evidence for faulting was not encountered during our field investigation. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 5.7 miles (9.1 km) west of the site. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low. 4.2 Seismic Design Parameters The effect of seismic shaking may also be mitigated by adhering to the California Building Code or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. The following geotechnical design 41- I Leighton 603522-001 parameters have been determined in accordance with the 2010 CBC (CBSC, 2010) and the USGS Seismic Design Maps Application (Version 3.0.1): Table 1 CBC (2010) Seismic Code - Parameters for the Site Description Values CBC Reference Site Class D Table 1613.5.2 Short Period Spectral Ss 1.234 Figure 1613.5(1) Acceleration 1-Second Period Spectral S1 0.467 Figure 1613.5(2) Acceleration Short Period Site Coefficient Table Fa 1.007 1613.5.3(1) 1-Second Period Site Coefficient Table F 1.533 1613.5.3(2) Adjusted Short Period Spectral SMS 1.242 Equation 16-36 Acceleration Adjusted 1-Second Period SM1 0.716 Equation 16-37 Acceleration Design Short Period Spectral SDS 0.828 Equation 16-38 Response Parameter Design 1-Second Period SD, 0.477 Equation 16-39 Spectral Response Parameter 4.3 Secondary Seismic Hazards Secondary effects that can be associated with severe ground shaking following a relatively large earthquake include shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction and dynamic settlement, lateral spreading, seiches and tsunamis. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are discussed in the following sections. -12- Leighton 603522-001 - 4.3.1 Shallow Ground Rupture No active faults are mapped crossing the site, and the site is not located within a mapped Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). Shallow ground rupture due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site. 4.3.2 Liquefaction and Lateral SDreadinq Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils underlain by a near surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the most clayey materials are not susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction is characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby causing the soil to behave as a viscous liquid. This effect may be manifested at the ground surface by settlement and, possibly, sand boils where insufficient confining overburden is present over liquefied layers. Where sloping ground conditions are present, liquefaction-induced instability can result. For consideration in liquefaction analysis, and based on deaggregation of the Maximum Considered Earthquake event, a magnitude M7.14 is associated with the Design Earthquake Ground Motion (i.e. peak ground acceleration of 0.33g). Liquefaction analysis was performed utilizing the program LiquefyPro with the procedures of Robertson and Wride and NCEER guidance. Based on our analysis, much of the alluvial soils encountered are considered too clay rich to experience liquefaction. Where liquefaction potential was identified, the potential was found to be within relatively thin discontinuous sand layers, with increasing thickness in some of the soundings and borings at greater depths. In addition, due to the thin, discontinuous nature of the liquefiable zones and the relatively flat site condition, the potential for lateral spreading is considered to be low. -13- (0 Leighton 603522-001 Dynamic settlement was evaluated utilizing procedures outlined by Robertson and Wride, 1998 and the results of that analysis indicate a potential total liquefaction-induced settlement on the order of 1 inch may result from the design earthquake event. It should be noted that the potential differential settlement of the building due to liquefaction is anticipated to be less than 1/2 of an inch, and that the structural design of the new improvements can be used to mitigate potential differential movements. A plot of the liquefaction analysis is provided in Appendix D. 4.3.3 Tsunamis and Seiches Based on the distance between the site and large, open bodies of water, and the elevation of the site with respect to sea level, the possibility of seiches and/or tsunamis is considered to be low. In addition, review of the San Diego County Tsunami Inundation Maps for Emergency Planning, Oceanside/San Luis Rey Quadrangle, indicate that the site is outside of inundation zone. SP -14- LeIghton 603522-001 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our geotechnical study of the site, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements are feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The following is a summary of the significant geotechnical factors that we expect may affect development of the site. The shallow on-site soils are expected to generally possess a very low to moderate expansion potential with Expansion Index values less than 70. Based on our subsurface explorations and laboratory testing, the existing near surface soils in their current condition are not suitable for support of settlement sensitive structures. Remedial grading (i.e., removal, moisture conditioning and recompaction) of the upper 2 feet of materials will be required prior to construction of the proposed improvements. Onsite soils are expected to have a low potential for sulfate attack on concrete. However, buried metal pipes and conduits are susceptible to corrosion. The existing onsite soils appear to be suitable material for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension. Materials placed within 5 feet of the pad grade should possess an expansion index less than 70. Our review of the geologic literature indicates there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. In addition, evidence of active faulting was not encountered within the site during our field investigation or the prior grading operations. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low. The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults. The nearest known active fault is the Newport-Inglewood, which is located approximately 5.7 miles (9.1 km) west of the site. The saturated granular alluvial soils beneath the eastern and western portions of the site have a potential for liquefaction due to a design earthquake loading. Therefore, Q, MIA Leighton 603522-001 the near surface improvements, such as piping and conventional shallow foundations, may be subjected to dynamic differential settlements on the order of 1/2 inch. The structural design of the new improvements can be used to mitigate potential differential movements. Proposed grades are anticipated to be near or below the existing grades. As a result, settlement waiting period is not considered necessary. If grades are raised, revised recommendations may be warranted. 44W -16- Leighton 11 603522-001 - I 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The conclusions and recommendations 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 earthwork operations and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. 6.1 Earthwork We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of remedial grading of the near-surface soils; grading of the building pad additions and associated improvements; utility construction; subgrade preparation in pavement areas; foundation excavation; and retaining wall construction and backfill operations. We recommend that earthwork on the site be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading included in Appendix E. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those in Appendix E. 6.1.1 Site Preparation If additional grading, such as fill placement, is planned on the site, the areas to receive structural fill, engineered structures, or hardscape should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, including any existing debris and undocumented or loose fill soils, and stripped of vegetation. Removals should extend the competent documented fill soils and/or competent formational soils. Removed vegetation and debris should be properly disposed off site. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions which extend below finish site grades should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. All areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to above optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method -17- I Leighton 603522-001 D1557. If clayey soils that are more expansive (El>70) are encountered, increased moisture and revised recommendations may be needed. 6.1.2 Excavations and Removals Excavations of the upper onsite materials (i.e., fill and alluvium soils) may generally be accomplished with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. In accordance with OSHA requirements, excavations deeper than 5 feet should be shored or be laid back to if workers are to enter such excavations. Temporary sloping of excavations should be determined in the field by a "competent person" as defined by OSHA. For preliminary planning, sloping of excavations at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) to a depth of 15 feet (or above ground water) may be assumed for soils and should remain stable for the period required to construct the utility, provided they are free of adverse geologic conditions or seeps. Note that excavations should not extend below a 2:1 plane extending down from existing footings unless properly designed by an engineer. We recommend some removal and recompaction be performed across the site. In parking areas and surface improvements 3 feet beyond proposed additions, the minimum depth should be 1 foot, in proposed building areas the minimum depth should be 2 feet. The bottom of all removals should be proof rolled and uniformly compacted to 90% relative compaction prior to the placement of compacted fill soils. Note that loose or soft undocumented fill soils associated with previous underground utilities, landscaping, and retail construction may be encountered and localized deeper removals may be required. The actual depth and extent of the required removals should be determined during grading operations by the geotechnical consultant. The removal bottom should then be scarified a minimum of 6 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on American Standard of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D1557). Soil can then be placed to proposed finish or subgrade elevations. Expansion and sulfate testing should be performed on finish grade soils. Leighton should observe and test all fill placement during grading and observe footing excavations prior to concrete placement to confirm that the soil conditions are as anticipated. -18- LeIghton 603522-001 6.1.3 Engineered Fill Placement and Compaction The onsite existing fill soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension. All fill soils should be brought to 2 percent above optimum moisture conditions and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557. The upper 12 inches of subgrade and all aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent beneath vehicular pavements. The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly 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 thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with the current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practice, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading presented in Appendix E. 6.1.4 Import Soils Import soils, if necessary to bring the site up to the proposed grades, should be free of oversize material and debris. These soils should be granular and have an expansion index less than 50 (per ASTM Test Method D4829). Please contact this office for further evaluation of the import soils and/or borrow site prior to importation. 6.2 Foundation and Slab Considerations Foundations should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils encountered have a low to medium potential for expansion. Conventional Footings For support of proposed building loads and site retaining walls (i.e., anticipate to be less than 5 feet high), conventional spread and continuous footing may be used. The footings should extend a minimum of 24 inches beneath the lowest I -19- Leighton 603522-001 adjacent finish grade. Foundation may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf) if founded in properly compacted fill soils over alluvium and 5,000 pounds per square foot (psf) if founded in properly compacted fill soils over Santiago Formation. The limits of alluvial material and Santiago Formation is depicted on site geotechnical map. 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 used. The recommended allowable bearing capacity for spread footings is based on a maximum allowable total and differential settlements of 1-inch and 3/4-inch. Since settlements are functions of footing size and contact bearing pressures, some differential settlement can be expected between adjacent columns, where large differential loading conditions exist. With increased footing depth to width ratios, differential settlement should be less. An additional post-liquefaction 1/2 inch over a distance of 25 feet should be allowed for in the design of the structure (i.e., an angular distortion of 1/600). Deep Foundations For deep foundations, we recommend the use of Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) piles. For the analysis and development of the capacities of CIDH piles, the computer program SHAFT (Version 2012.7.3) produced by Ensoft, Inc. was used. As shown in Appendix F, the CIDH allowable capacity curves were developed for 24- to 48-inch diameter piles penetrating into dense formational material. For tension or uplift capacity from the CIDH, we recommend using 0.7 of the allowable capacity. It should be noted that the data presented on the design curves are based on the supporting capacity of the earth materials. Design considerations should also be given to the pile as a structural member. CIDH piles should be spaced at a minimum of three (3) pile diameters if group action capacity reductions are to be neglected. For piles constructed at 1.5 diameters center to center spacing, a 50 percent reduction in capacity should be taken along the affected section of the pile for each adjacent pile. Reduction values for intermediate spacing may be determined by interpolation. Anticipated settlement of 1/2 inch is anticipated for the proposed piles. -20- Leighton 603522-001 All pile installation should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant and consistent with standard practice. Drilling equipment should be powerful enough to drill into the dense to very dense formational material to the design penetration depths. Once a pile excavation has been started, it shall be completed within 8 hours, which includes inspection, placement of the reinforcement, and placement of the concrete. Construction of piles should be sequenced such that the concrete of constructed piles are allowed to setup prior to construction of piles within 3 diameters. Ground water should be anticipated in the pile excavations and should be considered in the development of a Contractor's Pile Installation work plan. If CIDH pile excavations are filled with water or drilling mud, concrete must be placed through a pipe extending to the bottom of the pile excavation. Caving of friable, soft or loose soils may occur. Therefore, a starter casing should be used to protect the top of the borehole to mitigate caving conditions. In addition, the contractor should also be prepared to employ casing or other methods of advancing the drilled pile excavation (i.e., drilling mud) to mitigate caving. Use of casing should be at the contractor's discretion. If CIDH pile excavations become bell-shaped and cannot be advanced due to severe caving, the caved region may be filled with a sand/cement slurry and redrilled. Rednlling may continue when the slurry has reached suitable set and strength. In this case, it may be prudent to utilize casing or other special methods to facilitate continued drilling after the slurry has set. ft -21- I Leighton 603522-001 The lateral capacities for the CIDH piles were determined using the computer program LPILE (Ver, 6.0.08). For other deflections, depths to zero moment, maximum moment and inflection points, see data plots in Appendix F. For piles closer than 8D, the lateral capacity should be reduced according to the values in the table below. CIDH Pile Group Capacity Reductions Pile Spacing (Center-to-Center) Reduction in Axial Capacity (Percent) 7 pile diameters 98 6 pile diameters 95 5 pile diameters 90 4 pile diameters 85 3 pile diameters 75 6.3 Floor Slab Considerations Slab on grade floors should be at least 5 inches thick and reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center each way, placed at mid height in the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand or clean gravel. We recommend that the architect follow the guidance of ACl 302.2R-06 for design of the Under slab moisture protection measures and development of construction specifications. We recommend control joints be provided across the slab at appropriate intervals as designed by the project architect. Prior to placement of the vapor barrier, the upper 6-inches of subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned to a moisture content 2 percent above the laboratory optimum. The potential for slab cracking may be further reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios. The contractor should take the appropriate precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. We recommend that a slip-sheet (or equivalent) be utilized above the concrete slab if crack-sensitive floor coverings are to be placed directly on the concrete slab. If heavy vehicle or equipment loading is proposed for the slabs, greater thickness and increased reinforcing may be required. Ift -22- Leighton 603522-001 6.4 Retaining Wall Design For design purposes, the following lateral earth pressure values in Table 2 for level or sloping backfill are recommended for walls backfilled with very low to low expansion potential (Expansion Index less than 50). Table 2 Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Conditions Level 2:1 Slope Active 35 55 At-Rest 55 85 Passive 3 00 (maximum of 3 ksf) 150 (sloping down) Retaining structures should be provided with a drainage system, as illustrated in Appendix E, to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. For sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the soil-concrete interface. The lateral passive resistance can be taken into account only if it is ensured that the soil against embedded structures will remain intact with time. Retaining wall footings should have a minimum embedment of 18 inches below the adjacent lowest grade unless deeper footings are needed for other reasons. If conditions other than those covered herein are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual case basis by the geotechnical engineer. A surcharge load for a restrained or unrestrained wall resulting from automobile traffic may be assumed to be equivalent to a uniform horizontal pressure of 75 psf which is in addition to the equivalent fluid pressure given above. For other uniform surcharge loads, a uniform horizontal pressure equal to 0.35q should be applied to the wall (where q is the surcharge pressure in psf). Wall backfill should be brought to optimum or above moisture content and compacted by mechanical methods to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557). Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations. For all retaining walls, we recommend the previously discuss setback distance from the outside base of the footing to daylight. MO -23- 450 1 Leighton 603522-001 To account for potential redistribution of forces during a seismic event, the subterranean walls should also be checked considering an additional seismic pressure distribution equal to 10HT psf, where H1 equals the overall retained height in feet. 6.5 Shoring of Excavations Based on our present understanding of the project, excavations on the order of 15 to 20 feet deep are anticipated. Accordingly, temporary shoring of vertical excavations may be required. We recommend that excavations be retained either by a cantilever or braced shoring system with cast-in-place soldier piles and sheeting or wood lagging, as needed. It should be noted that a tie-back restrained pile system may encounter a caving condition. Based on our experience with similar projects, if lateral movement of the .shoring system on the order of 1 to 2 inches cannot be tolerated, we recommend the utilization of a braced pile system. Shoring of excavations of this size are typically performed by specialty contractors with knowledge of the San Diego County area soil conditions. Lateral earth pressures for design of shoring are presented below: Cantilever Shoring System Active pressure = 35H (psf), triangular distribution Passive Pressure = 300h (psf) H = wall height (active case) or h = embedment (passive case) Multi-Braced Shoring System Active Pressure = 29H (psf), rectangular distribution Passive Pressure = 300h (psf) H = wall height (active case) or h = embedment (passive case) General All pressures are based on dewatered conditions, with the water table at least 4 feet below the base of the excavation. All shoring systems should consider additional loading of adjacent surcharging loads. Settlement monitoring of adjacent buildings, sidewalks and adjacent settlement sensitive structures should be considered to evaluate the performance of the -24- Leighton 603522-001 shoring. Shoring of the excavation is the responsibility of the contractor. Extreme caution should be used to minimize damage to existing pavement, utilities, and/or structures caused by settlement or reduction of lateral support 6.6 Pipe Bedding and Pipe Zone Backfill Pipe bedding should extend to a depth of at least 6 inches below the pipe bottom and the pipe zone backfill should extend from the top of the bedding to a height of at least 12 inches over the top of the pipe. In addition, there should be a range of 6 to 12 inches of pipe zone backfill material on either side of the pipe. The bedding and pipe zone material may consist of compacted free draining sand, gravel or crushed rock (SE >30). The bedding layer should be supported on firm, competent material, as determined by the Geotechnical Consultant and provisions of the above reference. Disturbed or loose materials at excavation bottom should be removed to expose firm native material. We anticipate that firm soil conditions exist at proposed invert depths, although some soft and/or loose soils may be encountered. Removals should be performed as previously described in Section 6.1.2 of this report and in accordance with the recommendations made during the course of excavation. 6.6.1 Trench Zone The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted backfill provided they contain enough soil material to effectively create a fill matrix without voids and are free of oversize material, organic materials and debris. Processing or screening of the onsite excavated material may be require prior to reuse as fill. Saturated soils should be dried back and/or replaced with import soils. The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Materials greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension should not be utilized in fills. Fill soils (onsite and import) should be placed near or above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative 00 -25- I Leighton compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of a qualified geotechnical consultant.. Densification by water jetting within the trench zone is not recommended. 6.7 Surface Drainage and Erosion Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. The proposed structures should have appropriate drainage systems to collect runoff. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from the structure toward suitable drainage facilities. In general, ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to the structure or pavements. Over-watering of the site should be avoided. Protective measures to mitigate excessive site erosion during construction should also be implemented in accordance with the latest City of Carlsbad grading ordinances. 6.8 Vehicular Pavements The pavement section design below is based on the stated Traffic Index (TI) and our visual classification of the site soils. We assumed an R-Value of 14 for flexible pavement design. The TI values were chosen based on our experience with similar projects. Actual pavement recommendations should be based on R- value tests performed on bulk samples of the soils that are exposed at the finished subgrade elevations across the site at the completion of the grading operations. Flexible pavement sections have been evaluated in general accordance with the Caltrans method for flexible pavement design and City of Carlsbad Standard GS-17. The recommended flexible pavement section for this condition is given in Table 3. -26 GO - Leighton 603522-001 Table 3 Preliminary Pavement Sections Traffic Description Assumed Traffic Index (TI) Asphalt Concrete (inches) Aggregate Base (inches) Auto Parking 4.5 4 5 Auto Driveways 5.0 4 6 Truck Driveway 6.0 4 12 Flexible pavements should be constructed in accordance with current Caltrans Standard Specifications. Aggregate base should comply with the Caltrans Standard Specifications of Section 26. Aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). For areas subject to regular truck loading (i.e., trash truck apron), we recommend a full depth of Portland Cement Concrete (P.C.C.) section of 7 inches with appropriate steel reinforcement and crack-control joints as designed by the project structural engineer. We recommend that sections be as nearly square as possible. A 3,250-psi mix that produces a 550-psi modulus of rupture should be utilized. All pavement section materials conform to and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (Caltrans) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) codes. The upper 12 inches of subgrade soil and all aggregate base should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, we recommend some measure of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated. It is recommended that the concrete curing separating the landscaping area from the pavement extend below the aggregate base to help seal the ends of the sections where heavy landscape watering may have access to the aggregate base. Concrete swales should be designed in roadway or parking areas subject to concentrated surface runoff. 40 -27- Leighton 603522-001 6.9 Concrete Flatwork Concrete sidewalks and other flatwork (including construction joints) should be designed by the project civil engineer and should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches. For all concrete flatwork, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method Dl 557 prior to the concrete placement. 6.10 Geochemical Considerations Concrete in direct contact with soil or water that contains a high concentration of soluble sulfates can be subject to chemical deterioration commonly known as "sulfate attack." Soluble sulfate results (Appendix C) indicated negligible soluble sulfate content at the sites. We recommend that concrete in contact with earth materials be designed in accordance with Section 4 of ACI 318-08 (ACI, 2008). Based on our testing results, the soils at Westfield Plaza Camino Real site have a corrosion potential to buried uncoated metal conduits (Caltrans, 2003). Therefore, we recommend measures to mitigate corrosion be implemented during design and construction. 6.11 Foundation Review Foundation plans should be reviewed by Leighton to confirm that the recommendations in this report are incorporated in project plans. 6.12 Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information, our experience during rough grading, and subsurface conditions disclosed by widely spaced excavations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction. Construction observation of all onsite excavations and should be performed by a representative of this office so that construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report. All footing excavations should be reviewed by this office prior to steel placement. MP -28 Sto - LeIghton 603522-001 I 7.0 LIMITATIONS 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. A final geotechnical report will be provided once final grades are known. I -29- ¶4 I Leighton - References 603522-001 i APPENDIX A References American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2006, Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials. Bryant, W. A. and Hart, E. W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Aiquist- Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Special Study Zone Maps, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, dated 1997 with 2007 Interim Revision. California Building and Safety Commission (CBSC), 2007, California Building Code. California Division of Mines and Geology, CDMG, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open File Report 96-08. California Division of Mining and Geology, 1996, Guidelines for Evaluating the Hazard of Surface Fault Rupture: Adopted by the Board on May 9, 1997, 6p. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, dated February, 1998. California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2003, Revised 2002, California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, June, 2003. 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Interim Revisions. Ishihara, K., 1985, "Stability of Natural Deposits during Earthquakes", Proceeding of the Eleventh International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, A.A. Belkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M., 1992, "Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction of Sand Under Cyclic Stresses", Soils and Foundations, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 173-188. A-i 603522-001 APPENDIX A (Continued) LeRoy Crandall and Associates (LC), 1967, Control of Compacted Fill, Proposed Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center, El Camino Real and Vista Way, Carlsbad, California for the Plaza Camino Real, Job No. B-66165, dated January 12, 1967. 1968a, Inspection and Testing of Compacted Fills, T.B.A. Building Areas, Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center Near El Camino Real and Vista Freeway, Carlsbad, California for the Plaza Camino Real, Job No. B-67067, dated February 15, 1968. 1968b, Final Report Settlement of Surcharged Area, Proposed Shopping Center, El Camino Real near the Vista Freeway, Carlsbad, California for Plaza Camino Real, Job No. B-66171, dated October 2, 1968. 1969, Inspection of Foundation Excavations, and Inspection and Testing of Compacted Backfill, Proposed Department Store and Maintenance Building, Plaza Camino Real Shopping Center, Carlsbad, California for the May Department Stores Company, Job No. B-68004-C, dated May 26, 1969. National Research Council, 1985, "Liquefaction of Soils during Earthquakes" Report No.: CETS-EE-001, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. NCEER, 1997, Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, edited by Youd and Idriss, Technical Report NCEER- 97-0022, December 31, 1997. Risk Engineering, 2008, EZ-FRISK Version 7.26, Software for Earthquake Ground Motion Estimation. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, l.M., 1971, "Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE 97 (SM9): 1249-1273. 1982, "Ground Motion and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquake", Monograph, Series, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California A-2 603522-001 i APPENDIX A (Continued) 1976, Relationships of Maximum Accelerations, Maximum Velocity, Distance from Source and Local Site Conditions for Moderately Strong Earthquakes, Bull Seism, Soc. Amer., 66:4, dated August. Seed, H.B., Murarkla, R., Lysmer, J., and ldriss, I., 1975, "Relationships Between Maximum Acceleration, Maximum Velocity, Distance from Source and Local Site Conditions for Moderately Strong Earthquake", Report No. EERC 75-17, University of California, Berkeley. Tan, S. S. and Kennedy, M. P., 2007, Geologic Maps of Oceanside Quadrangle, California, California Geological Survey (CGS). Youd, T.L., Idriss, l.M., and Others, 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report form the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 10, pp. 817-832. Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WC), 1975, Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, 1975. Soil Investigation for the Proposed Plaza Project No. 75-173, dated September 17, 1 Zhang, G., Robertson, P.K. Brachman, R., 2002, Estimated Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from the CPT, Canadian Geotechnical Journal. A-3 L APPENDIX B Boring Logs and CPT Sounding Logs GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG KEY I Project No. Project Drilling Co. Drilling Method Location KEY TO BORING LOG GRAPHICS Date Drilled Logged By Hole Diameter Ground Elevation Sampled By SOIL DESCRIPTION U, .2 D 0.0 CD z U_ U C , . U)ø .!j C.) This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the OIL OIL 0. E .2— 00. - time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations 0 ...LU r- o o and may change with time. The description is simplification of the 0. oQ. C.) U) actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be > J S gradual. Asphaltic concrete - ; Portland cement concrete CL Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandy clay; silty clay; lean clay CH Inorganic clay; high plasticity, fat clays OL Organic clay; medium to plasticity, organic silts ML Inorganic silt; clayey silt with low plasticity - MH Inorganic silt; diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils; elastic silt ML-CL Clayey silt to silty clay / cjv Well-graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines o 0 Ro GP Poorly graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines 10 ci Silty gravel; gravel-sand-silt mixtures - GC Clayey gravel; gravel-sand-clay mixtures A sw Well-graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines SP Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines 1 ••II• si Silty sand; poorly graded sand-silt mixtures Sc Clayey sand; sand-clay mixtures Bedrock I I Ground water encountered at time of drilling B-I Bulk Sample C-I Core Sample 0-I Grab Sample R-I Modified California Sampler (3" O.D., 2.5 I.D.) SH-I Shelby Tube Sampler (3' O.D.) S-I Standard Penetration Test SPT (Sampler (2' O.D., 1.4' ID.) PUSH Sampler Penetrates without Hammer Blow MPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: B BULK SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE -200 % FINES PASSING Al. ATTERBERG LIMITS OS DIRECT SHEAR El EXPANSION INDEX SA SIEVE ANALYSIS SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER TR THERMAL RESISTIVITY 4C R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAiNED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Page 1 of 1 I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-I Project No. Project Drilling Co. Drilling Method Location 603522-001 Westfield PCR Baja Drilling CME-75 - 1401b - Autohammer - 30" Drop NE Building Corner Date Drilled 8-31-12 Logged By JTD Hole Diameter 8" Ground Elevation 28 Sampled By JTD o j .9 Ui w.f 0 . j 5) . Z .9 0. .2; a, 00. - . .!. c. -. .93 j u — L___.S__.__ SOIL DESCRIPTION This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. 0 CL 5.5 inches asphalt concrete - SC ARTIFICIAL FILL (An - @5.5': Clayey SAND, olive, moist, fine to medium SAND 25 - -s-T W SAND, moist, dense, medium üb, - . . . 1 12 8 olive-gray, few clay, no recovery on 1st sample 20 - I0 R-2 5 c1 DS, ET - B-I 5 CR, SA, 10-15' 10 H CL QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oafl - --s @ 12': Sandy CLAY, olive-gray, moist to wet, fine to medium sand 15 . •. 4 117 22 SM Silty fineSAND, gray, moist, loose sandy clay, dark gray, -- - 9 CL ® 16': Sandy CLAY, dark gray, moist to wet, stiff 10- -R-3 5 83 38 CH ©20': CLAY, dark gray, moist to wet, stiff, plastic - CO 20— /- R-4 10 -9 25--R-5 4 lOS 20 SC ®25 Clayey SAND, light gray, wet, medium dense, fine sand 10 0 - SAMPIIPTVPES: TYPE OF TESTS: - - B BULK SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE .200 % FINES PASSING AL ATTERBERG LIMITS DS El DIRECT EXPANSION SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAS SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 4040 S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Page 1 of 3 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-I Project No. 603522-001 Date Drilled 8-31-12 Project Westfield PCR Logged By JTD Drilling Co. Baja Drilling Hole Diameter 8" Drilling Method CME-75 - 1401b - Autohammer - 30" Drop Ground Elevation 28 Location NE Building Corner Sampled By JTD 0 LL 2 W a w . Eg C) Z 0. ,.00 .2; o. ! .!. C) U)U) 2j j 5 Cl)'— SOIL DESCRIPTION This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. C) 0 & >, I- - QUATERNARY LUOI (Cont i Co - 7 CH @31': CLAY, dark gray, wet, stiff —R-7 6 8 1108 22 SC ®3 Clayey SAND, gray, wet, loose to medium dense, fine sand - - 9 -10- 40— — — — -- — — — — — — - — — -- — — -- — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - R-8 3 —CH @ CLAY with sand, dark gray, wet, stiff, fine sand, plastic CO 11 -15 45— ---R-9 7 106 21 CL - -20- so— R-10 7 lOS 21 SC-SM ©50CIayeySAN i n SA,H 17 -25 - —R-U 7 —SC-CL @ 55 Sandy clay t clayey SAND, gray, wet, hard tomedium - 8 16 dense, fine to medium sand -30 - SAMPLTYPES: B BULK SAMPLE TYPE OF TES -200 % FINES PASSING OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAS SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER I TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document * * * Page 2 of 3 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-I Project No. 603522-001 Project Westfield PCR Drilling Co. Baja Drilling Drilling Method CME-75 - 1401b - Autohammer - 30" Drop Location NE Building Corner - Date Drilled 8-31-12 Logged By JTD Hole Diameter 8" Ground Elevation 28 Sampled By . _JTD o SOIL DESCRIPTION tn _ C) W ' Z .0 3 M - (lId) This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the 'I- !fl o L 0. 2— ° .- time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations 0 - _ E o .5 and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the CL U) 0 0 U U) actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be >, gradual. 60— R-12 6 12 112 Is Sc OUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oafl (Continued) @60': Clayey SAND, vet, medium dense, fine to medium gray, - 15 sand -35 - 65---R-13 8 CLJCH ®65 Sandy CLAY t plastic clay. Dark gray, wet, hard, fine sand, - 12 overlying clay, dark gray, wet, hard '4 40- - 70 - --- R.14 10 102 --- 23 SC-CL ----------@70': lntcrbedded clayey SANT) and clay, gray and dark gray, wet, - 12 medium dense to hard, tine sand '5 45- - - 75— --- --- R-I5 7 105 22 SP/CL ------------------@75': SAND, olive-gray, wet, medium dense, fine SAND, with interbedded clay layer 9 -50 - so— : 8 III 17 SW ®8O':SAN Light gray, wet, medium dense, fineto medium sand - 10 - --- _ —Io________________ - Total Depth = 81.5 Feet - Groundwater encountered at 13 feet at time of drilling Backfulled with bentonite chips and cuttings on 8l3III 85- -60 - SAMPLTYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: B BULK SAMPLE .200 % FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE Co COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE Cu UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Page 3 of 3 603522-001 Westfield PCR Baja Drilling CME-75 - 1401b - Autohammer - 30" Drop Project No. Project Drilling Co. Drilling Method Location Date Drilled 8-31-12 Logged By JTD Hole Diameter 8" Ground Elevation 40' Sampled By JTD GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 C o LL . . D) W 1- 0 . U1 a Z E 0 0 ,.0 .2; 4' Wy o. 0 - • C.) UI(S) . j .5 0— SOIL DESCRIPTION This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. - 4, 0 CL >, I- 40 O—.,,-..------ --- - .. ARTIFICIAL FILL (At') • SM @0-5': Silty SAND, olive-brown, moist, fine to medium sand R-I 15 Q5': Silty SAND, red-brown, moist, medium dense, fine sand, DS - • • B-I Ii iron-oxide staining SA 5-10' 22 30 10 1 R-2 16 113 8 10': Silty SAND, olive-brown, moist, dense fine sand 24 30 25 15— - .. • R.3 14 20 109 9 -..4inchesconcrete - 15': Silty SAND, dark yellow-brown and light gray-brown, moist, medium dense, tine sand, few clay 29 20 20-----R-4 8 109 16 SC ®20': SAND with day,hghtgray-brown, moist, medium dense, H, SA - B-2 13 tine sand, few clay 20-25 13 15 25— R5 8 106 22 SM/SC ®25' Silty SAND, yeHow-brown, moist, medium dense, finesand, - I 9 overlying • SM/SC OUATERNARV ALLUVIUM (Oal) -. @27': Dark brown to dark gray, clayey SAND, moist, medium • dense, fine to medium sand SA2iPLrYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: B BULK SAMPLE -200 % FINES PASSING OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE * * * This log is part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Page 1 of 2 Project No. 603522-001 Project Westfield PCR Drilling Co. Baja Drilling Drilling Method CME-75 - 1401b - Autohammer - 30" Drop Location Date Drilled 8-31-12 Logged By JTD Hole Diameter 8' Ground Elevation 40 Sampled By JTD GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 o SOIL DESCRIPTION In C ' 0) 06 Z 1j.0 (n S..r (flU) This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the 0) 'I- 10 MUM 0OLL. 0— - 0. -Vj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations 0 E M L. el 20 •5 and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the 06 C.) (Th- actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. 1030— R-6 4 106 21 SP-SC QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oal) (Continued) - 6 @30': SAND with clay. crayish brown, moist, loose, fine sand 9 5 R-7 K Sc ------------------ ®35' Clayey SAND dark gray wet, very loose, fine to - - - CO 4 4 medium sand --- 35- - - 0 R-8 8 113 IS SM (J 40': Silty SAND with clay, dark gray-brown, wet, medium 40- - - 9 21 --- dense, fewclay - Total Depth = 41.5 Feet - Groundwater encountered at 24 feet below ground surface Backlilled with bentonite chips and capped with concrete on - 8/31/12 -s 45- -lo 50- -15 55— i2lPLtTYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: B BULK SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE .200 % FiNES PASSING AL ATTERBERG LIMITS DS El DIRECT EXPANSION SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document * * * Page 2 of 2 APPENDIX B Previous Boring Logs (Woodward-Clyde, 1975) Boring 1 DEPTH FEET I TEST CATA [.OTHERJ TESTS SAMPLE NUMBER SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 'MC ' bO ' BC Compacted, damp, brown clayey sand FILL Compacted, damp, dark gray silty clay with silty sand zones FILL scattered gravel and rubble 5 - 21 103 18 10 26 21 15- 16 20 - Firm, saturated, very dark gray silty clay 34 82 GS,PI 1-4 (CH) 25 - CT 30 Loose, saturated, brown silty sand with F interbedded sandy clay (SM-CL) 21 105 9 1-5 Firm, saturated, dark gray silty clay (CH) 35 - - - - - - - - with thin iriterbedsofsilty fine sand -. Continued on next page *For deicripdon of symbols, is. Figure 2. LOG OF TEST BORING 1 PLAZA CA14INO REAL DRAWN BY: Al I CHECKED5Y:KJ1 PROJECT NO: I DATE: I FIQURENO: Boring 1, continued_ [DEPTH IN TEST DATA SAMPLE i SOIL DESCRIPTION - 1 J -MC loo ac 1'OTHEAI TESTS FEET NUMaER1 - 44 77 4 GSPI 40 — 8 1 -6 Firm, saturated, dark gray silty clay (CH) with thin Interbeds of silty fine sand 45 36 9 50 - 23 55 - 63 60 1-8 Firm, saturated, dark gray silty clay (CL) to loose, saturated, gray silty to clayey sand (sM-SC.) Very dense, saturated, gray fine to medium sand (SP) Medium dense, saturated, gray to light olive gray clayey fine sand (SC) to stiff, sandy clay (CL) _____ _____ Continuedon next page 3 For desdption of iynboli.,Ie FIDu,. 2. I LOG OF TEST BORING 1 PLAZA CAMINO REAL nn £WI ay. ? I Z 1 1,jed.wEr U'. MJT ry .is. 7 C 171 nava. n 11 £IflI gas Sfl A Boring 1, continued - - IDEPTH FEET TEST DATA SAMPIIN *OTHER RC TESTS UMBER - SOIL DESCRIPTION MC 0D I .E 26 20 Medium dense, saturated, gray to light olive Ij gray clayey fine sand (SC) to stiff, sandy jJ clay (CL) 65 1 24 70 18 1 UCS 1-12 3500 271 1-13 Stiff to very stiff, saturated, dark gray silty clay (CH) Medium dense, saturated, gray silty medium to fine sand (SM) 75 Medium dense, saturated, light olive gray clayey medium to fine sand (SC) sand 80 82 Bottom of Hole *For description OP syvi*OI,. za F Igure 2. LOG OF TEST BORIUG I PLAZA CAMINO REAL ILS FCHECKEOBYW4 PROJECT NO 75-17:4 1 DATE 94-75 1 FIOURtNO: 5 Rrirnn 9 DEPTHI IN FEET TEST DATA OTI4ER JXWETESTSR SAMPLE SOIL DESCRIPTION MC #Be Compacted, damp, brown clayey sand FILL 5 - 10 - 15- 20 - 24 103 •22 25 - 30 - 65 35 - - WI aiuu •ucruu FILL H sand - Compacted, saturated, brown silty sand 2-1 FILL. gravel Firm, saturated, dark gray silty clay (Cif with organic material brown C11 22 h §J Firm, saturated, gray to dark gray fine sandy clay (CH) to loose, silty to clayey :I sand (SM-SC) Continued on next page 55 1 'For desvIptio of .rnboti. ie figure 2. r LOG OF TEST BORING 2 PLAZA CAMINO REAL DRAWN8YIALS I cscict flOJCTNO: 75-173 J DATE: 9-2-75 I FIGU(NO; Boring 2, continued DEPTH [ET I TEST DATA - SAMPLEIN TESTS _jbOTHERI NUMBER SOIL DESCRIPTION I MC 00 ac Finn, saturated, gray to dark gray fine sandy clay (CH) to loose, silty to clayey sand (SM-SC) 40 33 91 2-3 45. 501 4 24 103 21 2-4 fl't Medium dense, saturated, gray silty fine sand (SM) - 55 60 24 Stiff, saturated, dark gray sandy clay to clayey sand (CH-SC) Medium dense, saturated, gray clayey sand (SC) Cunt-inued'urt next page - 18 i ucs= 2500 'Fo, description ci synboIs. se. Fire 2. LOG OF TEST BORING 2 .PLAZA CAMWO REAL ORANBY: ALSI cHEcKEDOY POJEcTNO;75..173 - - I.DATh; 9-2-75 - FIOIJHENO: 7 Boring 2, continued [DE IN PTH TESTDATA fOTHE1$AIIILE SOIL DESCRIPTION MC (.00 (*BC FEET TESTS NUMEH - 19 23 75 - 80 - - 33 16 85 90 - • 39 83 15 95_ 2-6 Medium dense, saturated, gray clayey sand tL(5c) . Dense, saturated, gray silty sand (SM) - gravel Stiff, saturated, gray silty clay with interbedded clayey sand (CII) with organic material CT,pll 2-7 Medium dense, saturated, gray clayey sand (SC) scattered fine well rounded gravel UCS 2-8 1700 some interbeds of sandy to clayey silt (ML) 100 102 1_ 15 GSPII 2-9 interbeds of silty clay (CL) Bottom of Hole or d,c.,pion ol tymbo4, see F4gu'e 2. -- LOG OF TEST BORING 2 PLAZA CN1IN0 REAL DRAWN OY ALS JCHECIIEDBV; (I PROJECT NO: 75-173 1 DATE: 94-75 1 PIGUREMO: 8 Boring 3 - DEPTH IN TEST DATA !omEn SAYPtE SOIL D ES C R I PT I ON 1 MC [.00 1 'ec FEET TESTS NUMBER - 5- 25 10 - 22 20 15 22 20- 22 30 ----4 Compacted, damp, light brown silty fine sand scattered medium gravel 3-1 FILL 13-2 1 3-3 1 Compacted, damp, dark gray to black silty clay 3-4 FILL 3-5 Compacted; moist, brown clayey fine sand 1 FILL - - - - Compacted, moist, brown silty sand FILL Continued on next page 25 -I .1 21 23 For description of symbols. see F,uri 2 F LOG OF TEST BORING 3 PLAZA CAMINO REAL PRAWN BY: AI.S I CHECX(.DBY; W FROJECYNO: 75-173 1OAT: 4-7S I FIGUENO Boring 3, continued DEPTH IN I TEST DATA - OTHER SAMPLE SOIL DESCRIPTION MC [soD 'BC - TESTS FE NUMBER - 28 3:61 - Compacted, moist, brown silty sand F ILL jffl Firm, saturated, gray-brown silty clay (CH) 8 3-7 with roots and organic matter 35 - 37 40 - 31 45 - 41 50J 22 52 4 93 7 IJCS= 3-8 1200- 8 3-9 105 1 16 3-10 Very loose, saturated, gray sand (SP) Firm, saturated, dark gray silty to sandy clay (CH) Medium dense, saturated, gray silty sand with interbedded clayey sand (SM-SC) 3att0n of Hole 'For description of symbols, see Figure 2, LOG OF TEST BORING 3 PLAZA CAMIIlO REAL OS4AWNBY Al c 1 C.NCKEbY: i.c—ii I DATE: q__75 I FQURE NO: - in 22 4-3 I El 18 4-4 15 12 - 19 114 I 4-5 OR Boring 4 04vrH 1 FEET TEST DATA I.OThER1 SPLEIN TESTS 1NUER SOIL DESCRIPTION - F MC 00 Lc 15 GS,ST 4-'I Compacted, damp, brown sandy clay 20 1 4-2 FILL Compacted, damp, gray-brown silty clay FILL Dense, damp, light brown sandy to clayey silt NQ Poorly to Moderately Indurated Siltstone Bottom of Hole ,ciipiicn of symbols. ses Figure 2. LOG OF TEST BORING 4 PLAZA CAMINO REAL VNBYALS 1 CHECKOOY:?JJj PROJtCTNO 75-173 1 DATE: 9-2-75 FIOUiNO: Boring 5 - IOEPTHI IN I FEET 1- TEST DATA IomER'su'LE T [NUER ' SOIL DESCRIPTION I MC J .00 ac - Compacted, damp, brown silty to clayey sand 5-1 with clay zones 5 10 15 20 25 —. — FILL 5-21 I clay 5-3 Li .. JJ- sandy clay 5.4E1) 55 Compacted, moist, dark gray si lty clay FILL — I Continued on next page FordecriptionoiymbO..s.eFrgvre 2. -- LOG OF TEST BORING 5 PLAZA CAMINO REAL ..... ,.#. si r I ............ Al I ... "or 1 1' Borina 5 continued I DEPTH IN 1 FEET TEST DATA IOmERISM.PLE 1NUMBER I SOIL DESCRIPTION 'MC 'DO 'Bc TESTS 30 1 27 C Compacted, moist, dark gray silty clay 5-6 FILL Stiff, moist, black. silty clay (CH) 5-71 k Firm, wet, olive sandy clay (CL) 23 5-8 5-9 Firm to stiff, saturated, olive silty clay (CH) 5-10 Medium dense, saturated, gray clayey sand 5-11 - (SC) 5-12 Medium dense, saturated, brown clayey silt (ML) 5-13 Stiff, saturated, gray silty clay (CH) 5-14 Bottom of Hole 34 28 45 - 42 34 29 50 - 39 52 PordescriptionøI symbol,. w. Figure 2. LOG OF TEST BORING 5 I PLAZA CAMINO REAL ORANBV: ALS I CHECKEDBY:IL#I PAOJECTNO: 75-173 - DATE: 9-2-75 FGUREKO: 13 L 25 - Boring 6 1DEPTH IN LFEE1 I TEST DATA "OTHER1 SAMPLE MJM3R - SOIL 0 ESC RI PT I ON — - 'MC FDo -Bc TESTS 5 - 10 15 37 20 - Compacted, damp, brown silty to clayey sand 6-11: FILL 6-2 r I dark gray sandy clay 6-3 C — Compacted, wet, dark gray silty clay FILL 6-4 Stiff to medium dense, saturated, gray clayey. sand to sandy clay (CH) 55 Firm, saturated, gray sandy clay (CH) Continued on next page ** Water level approximately 26 days after drilling. 'Foe dc,crption 01 symbols. i.. Figure 2. LOG OF TEST CORING 6 PLAZA CAMTNO REAL 0I4AWNBY; Al [cI4Ec1cEo BY: f.'JtUI P0JECTNO 717 q DATE:q-7-7S I FIOURENO; 14 Boring 6, continued -- I DEPTHJ 114 TEST DATA j1 ThTEST$ 1'oE[sAMpLE NUMBER SOIL DESCRIPTION E.T 1 iE. 28 6-5 L Firm, saturated, gray sandy clay (CH) 30 52 6-7C 37 6-8 Medium dense, saturated, gray clayey sand (SC) Firm, saturated, gray sandy to silty clay • (CU) 35 - • 35 6-9 • - Medium dense, saturated, gray clayey sand 30 6-bC 3 Firm, saturated, gray silty clay (CH) with • some interbeds of clayey sand (Sc) 45 - 50 - 6-14r 1' shells 52 • Bottom of Hole For description of symbols. see Figure 2. LOG OF TEST BORING 6 PLAZA CAMINO REAL DJIAWN By; ALS I CHECKED DJWJ PROJECT No. 75-173 fDAr: 9-2-75 1!!"° 15 Boring 7 J DEPTH IN FEET TEST DATA Omea TESTS V SAMPLE L NUMBER SOIL DESCRIPTION Ii _____________ ' Loge 4" Asphalt Concrete 4"_Base s,Pi 7-1 -- Hard, damp, brown silty clay (CL) 5 7-2 Poorly to Moderately Indurated Claystone Very dense, damp, light brown clayey sand (SC) 7-3 10 - Poorly to Moderately Indurated Sandstone Very dense, damp, brown clayey sand to sandy clay (SC-CL) V 7-4 E." 15 - Poorly to Moderately Indurated Sandstone and Claystone 17 I Bottom of Hole 'For dPlcnptJon of syrnbogs. aee flour, I LOG OF TEST BORING 7 V PLAZA CAMR4O REAL tAAWNOV: Al S I CHECKED BY; pBO.SECT No- 7-17 A TOATE: 0_7c I FIGURE NO DEPTH IN I V - TEST - 'OTHER SAMPLE V SOIL DESCRIPTION f MC DD BC FEET TESTS NUMBER 10 - .. 4" Asphalt Concrete V 12 117 GS OS 8-1 [.: 4' Base 51 0=29 Very dense, damp to saturated, gray clayey Cr1440 sand (SC) with very thin interbeds of V P1 8-2 sandy clay (CL) 95 - 8-3 [i Poorly to Moderately Indurated Sandstone and Claystone Borna 8 15 18 8-5 Bottom of Hole Boring 9. 4" Asphalt Concrete 4" Base Very dense, damp to wet, brown silty to clayey sand (SM-SC) with scattered thin 5 beds of sandy clay 9-1 Poorly to Moderately Indurated Sandstone 10 23 - 14 - 37 9-2 I I Bottom of Hole 'For description of symbo. %" Figure 2. - I LOGS OF TEST BORINGS 8 AND 9 I PLAZA CAMINO REAL DRAWN BV. fl[5 I CHECKED BY: !fl0ftCT NO: 75-173 DATE: 9-2-75 FIGURE NO: 17 Boring 10 iDEPTH IN TEST 'OTHER SAMPLE SOIL DESC RIPTION 'MC [FEET )P TESTS NUMBER - 5 10 15 1 20 25 30 33 Asphalt Concrete and Base - Compacted, damp, brown silty sand with clay 23 10-1 - FILL Compacted, moist, brown to gray silty clay - FILL Compacted, damp to saturated, gray silty 26 10-2 to clayey sand FILL 22 1O_31 Medium dense, saturated, gray medium to fine : sand (SP) 21 1O-4: Very dense, saturated, olive gray clayey sand (SC) Moderately Indurated Sandstone -- Bottom of Hole 4 For description of ,ymbQll. ii. Fii 2. LOG.OF TEST BORING 10 I PLAZA CAMINO REAL FAWNBV:37-1,1 C141ECKSPIIYIA14 PROJECT NO ic..iii I DATE- __ç I PIQURENO: 1R Rnriria 1! DEPTH IN ( TEST DATA SAMPLE SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 -MC _[_'00 J.oc FEET TESTS 1NLSMBEA For diicnpi ion of wmbOli. see Figure 2. LOGS OF TEST BORINGS 11 AND 12 PLAZA CAIIINO REAL DRABY ALS 1 cmiclltD fVIPAOJ!cT_1O..- 7]73 DATE: 9....7ç FWUAENO: q I 25 23 101 30 - 39 83 6 UCS 1500 Boring 13 FEET DE IN PTH TEST DATA 07 {' •ac TESTS LE f NUMSEn . DESCRIPTION I -Mc Compacted, damp to moist, light brown to light gray silty fine sand FILl. 5 10 18 13-1 U Ft Soft, saturated, dark gray silty clay (CH) 132Sfl -- ] Medium dense, saturated, dark gray silty f. medium sand (SM) with slight organic odor -- Soft to firm, saturated, gray silty clay (CH) with silt layers 13-4 13-5 p''' - - " Soft to firm, saturated, dark gray silty ' clay (CH) 35 1 f - Loose to medium dense, saturated, gray silty fine sand (SM) Continued on next page ,dewrlptioO of symbols, ,e Fr. I LOG OF TEST BORINQ 13 I PLAZA CAMTNO REAL AL S T PROJECT NO: 75-173 - LDATE. 9-2-75 [FIOUEno: 20 - Boring 13, continued JDEIN PTH FEET TEST DATA - - OOTHER TESTS SAMPLE NUMBER SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 - 13 5 Loose to medium dense, saturated, gray silty fine sand (SM) -- Medium dense to dense, saturated, gray silty . fine sand (SM) 40- 8 13-7 :tj Very stiff, saturated, gray-brown sandy clay • - 19 112 15 UCS= 13-8 [ (CL-SC) 2600 50 - 19 13-9' Medium dense, saturated, very light olive gray silty very fine sand (SM ML 55 - 20 110 10 Pr 13-101 , Stiff, saturated, olive gray medium to fine • • sandy clay (CL-SC) with scattered pieces of charcoal and a few well rounded pebbles 60 24 13-11 Hard, saturated, olive gray-brown fine sandy 65 clay (CL-CH) 13-121 • Poorly Indurated Clay stone Hard, saturated, light olive gray silty 70 13-131 clay (CH;MH) Poorly to Moderately Indurated Claystone sandier 74 --- - ___ - Bottom of Hole • For dsc,iption of iymboliii. Figure 2. LOG OF TEST BORING 13 PLAZA CAMINO REAL PRAVVNBY:ALS jCHCKIouYVZ4 !°_ 75-173 1 DATE: 9-2-75 FIGURE 90, 21 APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing 603522-001 APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with AASHTO T-291. The results are presented below: Sample Location J Chloride Content, ppm B-I © 10 to 15 feet 123 Consolidation Tests: Consolidation tests were performed on selected, relatively undisturbed ring samples in accordance with Modified ASTM Test Method D2435. Samples were placed in a consolidometer and loads were applied in geometric progression. The percent consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original 1-inch height. The consolidation pressure curves are presented on the attached figures. Direct Shear Tests: A direct shear test (ASTM D 3080) was performed on selected sample which was soaked for a minimum of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. After transfer of the sample to the shear box and reloading of the sample, the pore pressures set up in the sample (due to the transfer) were allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately 1-hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples were tested under various normal loads utilizing a motor- driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus at a strain rate of 0.0025 inches per minute. After a shear strain of 0.2 inches, the motor was stopped and the sample was allowed to "relax" for approximately 15 minutes. The stress drop during the relaxation period was recorded. It is anticipated that, in a majority of samples tested, the 15 minutes relaxing of the samples is sufficient to allow dissipation of pore pressures that may have set up in the samples due to shearing. The drained peak strength was estimated by deducting the shear force reduction during the relaxation period from the peak shear values. The shear values at the end of shearing are considered to be ultimate values and are presented on the attached figure. The samples were either remolded to 90% relative compaction, undisturbed, or the samples were tested in a torsional shear machine to evaluate the remolded clay seam properties. The test results are presented in the test data. c-i I 603522-001 APPENDIX C (Continued) Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion Index Text, ASTM Test Method 4829. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared 1-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 Description Expansion Expansion Index Potential B-I @ 10 to 15 feet Gray Brown Clayey SAND 46 Low Minimum Resistivity and PH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with California Test Method 643. The results are presented in the table below: Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity (ohms-cm) B-i @ 10 to 15 feet 7.39 340 Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content and dry density determinations were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings. The results of these tests are presented in the boring logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from "undisturbed" or disturbed samples. Particle Size Analysis: Particle size analysis was performed by mechanical sieving methods according to ASTM D 422. Plots of the sieve results are provided on the figure in this appendix. C-2 603522-001 APPENDIX C (Continued) Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate of a selected sample was determined by standard geochemical methods. The test results are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sulfate Content (%) B-i @ 10 to 15 feet 0.030 C-3 APPENDIX C Previous Laboratory Testing (Woodward-Clyde, 1975) mm IM PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS 12-1 Liquid Limit. % - 31 Plasticity Index. % 13 Classification by Unified Soil Classificatior_System SC 150 ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES —2.80 SG —2.7050 —2.6050 140 25050 I I ICOBBLES FrI SAWD Iflelmi I1SILT&CLAYVJ I 100 801 1 LIII !60 I. - z Id 40 cc a. 20L ELIE- t 1111111 1000 100 10 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE, mm MECHANICAL ANALYSIS 130 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA Dry Density, pd - 111.4 -. Initial Water Contents % 11 6 Final Water Content. % ]L.9 -- Apparent Cohesion. pd 10 Apparent Friction Angie, degrees 20 SWELL TEST DATA Initial Dry Pensity, pcf' Initial WatetContent, V V Final Dry flensity, pet Final Water Content, % Load, psi Swell. percent 90 1 1 • • I- Maximum Dry 12-1 I -. Density, pcf 124,0 Optimum Moisture 11.5 Content. % I 1 1 FMOISTURE CONTENT.% 80o 10 20 30 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST 40 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST METHOD: ASTMI] 157-70 FILL SUITABILITY TESTS V PLAZA CAMINO REAL ORAWN BY At I CHECKED 1 ME 3V- PROJECTNO: 75-173 DATE; 9_4_75 tOIJAENO: 24 NONE LurA 50 50 K 40 I0 7 II 0 LIQUID LIMIT. LL PLASTICITY CHART. For Classification of Fine - Grained Soils in Unified System Legend Cl. inorganic clay of law to medium plasticity. CH Inorganic clay of high plasticity. ML inorganic silt of low plasticity. 1*1 Inorganic soil of high plasticity. OL Organic silt or clay of low plasticity. ON Organic clay of high plasticity. SM Silty sand. Sc Clayey sand. PLASTICITY CHART PLAZA CAMU4O REAL DflAWN8Y ALS I CHRCKED BY;9tj1 PROJECTNO; 75-173 (DATE: 9-4-75 IPIOUNE NO 25 RESULTS OF LOADED SWELL TESTS Sample Number - Initial Final Pressure Expansion Dry Dens ity Water Content * Saturat i or Dry Density Water Content * Saturation %pcf % sf I of Initial He! - 4-1 106.3 13.8 67 101.4 23.5 99 160 4.8 Diameter of Samples: 194 Inches *assumed specific gravity - 2.65 Height of Samples: Q .629 inches LOADED SWELL TESTS PLAZA CA11It4O REAL DPAWMBY: ALS I cHEKEOuY PHoJEcTNO75-173 - DATe: 8-29-75 [FIGuRE NO: 26 SAMPLE 1 - 4 Pd 1.00 0.92 0.84 L- 0.1 1.0 10.0 100 PRESSURE - Tons per sq. ft. INITIAL DRY DENSITY, pcf 81.5 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SOLIDS 2.80 INITIAL WATER -CONTENT, % 40.1 INITIAL VOID RATIO, eø 1.15 INITIAL SATURATION, % 97.6 COMPRESSION INDEX. C 0.340 FINAL DRY DENSITY, pcf - - 86.7 1 SWELL INDEX, C 0.094__ FINAL WATER CONTENT, % 355 IFFfECTIVE OVERBURDEN PRESS, P'0. tf - 1.5 FINAL SATURATION, 97.3 11MAX. PAST PRESSURE, Pc, tsf 1.6 CONSOLIDATION TEST PLAZA CAMINO REAL DRAWN BY ALS I cI.IEcKEDBY:II PROJECT No: 75-173 DATE: 9-4-75 FIGUMENO: 2 SAMPLE 2 - 2 2.2 2.0 1.8 2 1.6 1.4 1., 1flh11IIII1II1II 11111111 i!iiiIIU11I11O_11111111 BIUhIIii111II1Il_1110111 11111111 11111 III 1111111 11111111 II 11 ___ 1111111 1111111 UI 11__11111111 ___Ililill 'U lI!1II1II__11111111 1111 1I!I1I11_11111111 liii '111111__1111101 "IIII II 11111111 11111111 I.' 0.1 LU 10.0 100 PRESSURE - Tons per sq. ft. INITIAL DRY DENSITY, pcI 55.3 ISPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SOLIDS 2.76 INITIAL _COPITEMT, I .WATER 78.1 INITiAL VOID RATIO. e0 2.12 111111k SATURATION, I - 100 COMPRESSION too 12 ç 0.93 rINAL DRY DENSITY, pcf 64.4 SWELL INDEX, C - 0.23 FINAL WATER CONTEXT, % 60.8 EFFECTIVE OYEDURDEN PRESS, 006 tsf -1.7 FINAL SATURATION, % 99,7 11144X. PAST PRESSURE, P, tsf 1.3 CONSOLIDATION TEST PLAZA CI%MINO REAL DRAWN DY: C"EClCED BY.-WPltQJRCTftmROJCT 75-173 J 9475 NO: 28 SAMPLE 2 - 7 0.78 0.76 eo 0.74 0.72 0.70 0.68 0.66 2 0.64 0.62 0.60 0.58 o - sri - 0.01 0.1 1.0 10.0 PRESSURE - Tons per sq. ft. INITIAL DRY DENSITY, pcf 954 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SOLIDS 2. ______ INITIAL WATER CONTENT, i 30.0 INITIAL VOID RATIO 0.75 INITIAL SATURATION, S - 100 - COMPRESSION INDEX, Cr 0.114 FINAL DRY DENSITY, pcf - 101.8 ISWELL INDEX, c 0.031 FINAL WATER CONTENT, % 25.4 EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN PRESS, P', t"0.79 2.56 - FINAL SATURATION, % 100 114AX. PAST PRESSURE, Pc, tsf I CONSOLIDATION TEST I PLAZA CAMtII0 REAL ALS I cHECP(EOBY: friI PROJECT NO: 75-173 DATE, 9-4-75 j FIGURE NO: 29 R - VALU Dp.TA A B C 0 COMPACTOR PRESS - P.S.I. 80 50 130 Mojsr @ COMPACTION. 258 27.7 23.3 r)rITy. */CU FT. 96.2 92.8 99.3 R-VAL.us. STADII.OMETER 8 5 1.5 EXUD. PRcsSURE. P.S.I. 310 230 570 STAR. THICK - FEET - EXPAN. Picss. THICK-FEET 0.13 0..13 0.50 T. 1. tAssuMEo) GRADING ANALYSIS PERCENT PASSING I2E As RcvD. As UsED 2/ E rpsom to j Project No. 75-173 . ATTACH1E1T I Page 1 of 2 TESTING ENGINEERS - SAN DIEGO 3467 KURTZ ST., P.O. BOX 80965. SAN DIEGO. CA 92136 (714) 225-9641 LABOPArORV NVMBER 5D30-3795 Job No. 1086 DATE August 8, 1975 JoB DATA: Plaza Camino Real. Expansion SAMPLE DATA Job No. 75-173, SIN # 11:13 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Boring #11. Sample submitted to the 3467 Kurtz Street j laboratory August 1., 1975. San Diego, California 92110 Z Zp BY STAB. 0 300 P.S.I. EXUD. 8 "-I BY EXPANSION PRESSURE = AT tOUII.ISRIUM S SAND EQUIVM.CNT = DUBANILITY (COARSE) = DURABILITY (FINE) - LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIa LIMrt P.! MARKS: 1 cc. rltc: rtti TESTING ENGINEERS. IN I -. Th0ma3 IL. topiiui, R.E. #1.2882 -I,I1v., Liquefaction Analysis APPENDIX E General Earthwork and Grading Specifications LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 1.0 General 1.1 Intent These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) 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 exposures 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 geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground 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-conditioning and 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. -1- LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 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 plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, 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. 2.0 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 Consultant. 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. -2- LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. - General EarthWork and Grading Specifications 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. 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 -3- LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. 3.0 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. 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. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4.1 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. ON LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 4.2 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 D1557). 4.3 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). 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. 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes 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 ASTM Test Method D1557. 4.5 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). 4.6 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. -5- LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 4.7 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. 5.0 Subdrain 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. 6.0 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. 7.0 Trench Backfills 7.1 Safety The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. -6- LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 7.2 Bedding and Backfill All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be performed 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. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of relative compaction from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. 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 of fill. 7.3 Lift Thickness Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in 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. 7.4 Observation and Testing The densification of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. -7- ALL SLOPE PROJECTED PLANE 1:1- (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL) MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND GROUND SURFACE 2 FEET MIN.—' LOWEST KEY DEPTH BENCH (KEY) ;IIiIX ;Ijf kill i ziIIIIIII EXIS11NC. GROUND SURFACE - 2 - - PoMIN 1 15 FEET MIN. - LOWEST 2 FEET BENCH (KEY) MIN. KEY \ DEPTH 'REMOVE UNSUITABLE t LBENCH HEIGHT MATERIAL (4 FEET TYPICAL) BENCH LBENCH HEIGHT (4 FEET TYPICAL) REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL CUT-OVER-ALL SLOPE CUT FACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT TO ALLOW VIEWING,//- OF GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS GROUND / SURFACE CUT FACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT OVERBUILD TRIM BACK 6 PROJECTED PLANE DESIGN SLOPE- 1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND - - 15 FEET MIN. 2 FEET MIN— LOWEST KEY DEPTH BENCH (KEY) REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL LBENCH HEIGHT (4 FEET TYPICAL) BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPES ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1. MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET AND MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET. KEYING AND BENCHING Aft GRADING SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND 4 STANDARD DETAIL A GRADE SLOPE FACE -s.. - OVERSIZE WINDROW'\ - OVERSIZE ROCK IS LARGER THAN 8 INCHES IN LARGEST DIMENSION. EXCAVATE A TRENCH IN THE COMPACTED FILL DEEP ENOUGH TO BURY ALL THE ROCK. 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. GRANULAR MATERIAL TO BE DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY DETAIL FLOODING OR JETTING. GRANULAR MATERIAL TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL B 'I.' \'- rvienii# / / / / MOVE SUITABLE TERIAL TRENCH SEE DETAIL BELOW FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED 6 MIN EQUIVALENT) OVERLAP CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE COVER MIN. IN FILTER FABRIC OR #2 ROCK (9FT 3/FT) WRAPPED L...•:. 4" MIN. BEDDING COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL BE MINIMUM 6" DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL D SUBDRAIN DETAIL FOR PIPE SPECIFICATIONS DESIGN FINISH GRADE MIN. _-(FILTER FABRIC KFILL / (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED / EQUIVALENT) ""• .. ' • ." . • - • ..-CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE .•• ...•.. . . •. .. • -. - OR 02 ROCK (9FT3/FT) WRAPPED I '- • • - - IN FILTER FABRIC 20' MIN. NiV MIN. PERFORATED NONPERFO Ø MIN. IØ MIN. PIPE DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET CANYON SUBDRAINS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL C 4 OUTLET PIPES 4" 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE. 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY. 30' MAX O.C. VERTICALLY BACK CUT 1:1 OR FLATTER SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD BE SITUATED AS LOW AS POSSIBLE TO ALLOW SUITABLE OUTLET 11 .- KEY WIDTH TXEY AS NOTED ON GRADING PLANS DEPTH (15 MIN.) (2' MIN.) 12" MIN. OVERLAP- FROM THE TOP HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET CALTRANS CLASS II PERMEABLE OR 02 ROCK (3 FT-3/FT) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC r4" 0 ' NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE .,.- - - - T-CON4ECTlON FOR COLLECTOR PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE 16" MIN. i .IL ICOVER PERFORATED -• ur± PIPE 5% PROVIDE POSITIVE-1 '—FILTER FABRIC SEAL AT THE ENVELOPE (MIRAFI JOINT 140 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL 4" MIN. BEDDING SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - subdroin collector pipe shall be installed with perforation down or. unless otherwise designated by the geotechnicol consultant. Outlet pipes sholl be non—perforated pipe. The subdroin pipe shall have at least 8 perfootions uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation shall be 1/4" to 1/2" if drill holes are used. All subdroin pipes shall hove a gradient of at least 2% towards the outlet. SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdron pipe shall be ASTM D2751. SDR 23.5 or ASTM 01527, Schedule 40, or ASTM 03034, SOR 23.5. Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe. All outlet pipe shall be placed in o trench no wider than twice the subdroin pipe. BUTTRESS OR REPLACEMENT FILL SUBDRAINS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL D 4 CUT-FILL TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION REMOVE L UNSUITABLE GROUND - -r - - - I_- -1 5 - — IMIN. I ---I I- J•-i -------------Ac'&'c-'okx\xI --COMPACTED 5 - OVEREXCAVATE "- AND RECOMPACT - - - -.--'- - - - -1 -.TYPICAL - - -_1 BENCHING -_-I UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT—_--- GENERAL EARTHWORK AND TRANSITION LOT FILLS GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL E SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION BASED ON ASTM D1557 RETAINING WALI—..._ WAIL WATERPROOFING -- OVERLAP FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE PER ARCHITECTS 0 • • (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED SPECIFICATIONS I •e: •° EQUIVALENT)" 0 0 11' TO 1-1/2 CLEAN GRAVEL lo FINISH GRADE 0 • •. 4 (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED / 0 -y-: PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR J • 0 . -:-:-:-H EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS 0 ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED Flu. - I •40 0 0 11 MINIMUM PERCENT GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET -------------------------------- -------------- 3" MIN. WALL FOOTING - 1 hm - \ 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. INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL F 4 ACTIVE ZONE GRAVEL- DRAINAGE FILL MIN 6" BELOW WALL MIN 12" BEHIND UNITS NOTES: 1) MATERIAL GRADATION AND PLASTICITY FILTER FABRIC ............... REINFORCED ZONE : : :• :- : : -: : •: : •: : - : - P -FILTER FABRIC:::::::::::: :: REAR SUBDRAIN: 4" (MIN) DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN. SURROUNDED BY 1 CU. FT/FT OF 3/4" GRAVEL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT) OUTLET SUBDRAINS EVERY 100 FEET, OR CLOSER, BY TIGHTLINE TO SUITABLE PROTECTED OUTLET SUBDRAIN I FOUNDATION SOILSI RETAINED ZONE BACKDRAIN TO 70% OF WALL HEIGHT SIEVE.-;17F % PASSING 1 INCH 100 NO.4 20-100 N040 0-60 NO. 200 0-35 GRAVEL DRAINAGE FILL: % PASSING 100 SIEVE SIZE 1 INCH 3/4 INCH 75-100 NO.4 0-60 NO. 40 0-50 NO. 200 0-5 FOR WALL HEIGHT < 10 FEET, PLASTICITY INDEX <20 FOR WALL HEIGHT 10 TO 20 FEET, PLASTICITY INDEX c 10 FOR TIERED WALLS, USE COMBINED WALL HEIGHTS WALL DESIGNER TO REQUEST SITE-SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR WALL HEIGHT >20 FEET CONTRACTOR TO USE SOILS WITHIN THE RETAINED AND REINFORCED ZONES THAT MEET THE STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS OF WALL DESIGN. GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT TO BE DESIGNED BY WALL DESIGNER CONSIDERING INTERNAL. EXTERNAL. AND COMPOUND STABILITY. 3) GEOGRID TO BE PRETENSIONED DURING INSTALLATION. IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE ACTIVE ZONE ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO POST-CONSTRUCTION SETTLEMENT. ANGLE a=45+/2, WHERE 4' IS THE FRICTION ANGLE OF THE MATERIAL IN THE RETAINED ZONE. BACKDRAIN SHOULD CONSIST OF J-DRAIN 302 (OR EQUIVALENT) OR 6-INCH THICK DRAINAGE FILL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC. PERCENT COVERAGE OF BACKDRAIN TO BE PER GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW. SEGMENTAL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS RETAINING WALLS STANDARD DETAIL APPENDIX F CIDH Pile Data Appehdix F, Vertical Capacities Appendix F, LPile Analysis APPENDIX G ASFE Geotechnical Insert Geotechnical Engineering Report elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the I proposed structure, composition of the design team, or project ownership. I Geoteclinical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geolechnical 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, preparp., solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnicai 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 Fall 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 of Project-Specific 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 nature 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 otherwise, 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, As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ors—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. Subsurface 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 engineering 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 fluctuations. 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 Ceoteclndcal Findings Are Professional 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 Report's 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 perforrti construction observation. A Deotechalcal Enghieering 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 gee- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after stibmiuing 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 Enghieer's 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 neivbe 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 GN Oactors a Complete Report and 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 1e11er, 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. Ceoenvlroninental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geolechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmentat 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 geoenvi- ronmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk manage- ment guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To ON with NO 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 mold prevention consultant; noiwoftheun- ibmiedhi connection svlm the geotochnkal enghir's stzsi.y were designed or conducted for the pup of mold provon- lion. ft,per implementation of the ,wcamm.ndati conveyed hi this foport will not of I&If be suffident to prevent mold bum gm w* in or an the sbvcbiie hivoAgL Rely on Your A&E-Member Ceotecluilcal Engineer for AdtIonaI Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Geoprolessional Business Association 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 your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE THE GEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/5652733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asle.org www.asfe.org Copynght 2004 by AS Inc. 0&qrncatlen. ,epwdoction. or copying of this downienl in whole or in pail, by any means whatsoevei is s*t11ypmh1b1leo esceptwithASFE's Specific whiten pei'rnission. Exc&Ong, quoting, or otherwise extracting wonikig tram this docutnentispenmitedonly with the expmes wrfttenpennT of ASFE and only ler puiposas of Scholarly ,ssea,ch or book ,vulew Onfy membais of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report Any other Arm, kidleWual or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE meenbercould be committing negligent or kitenlleiial (fraudulent) mfsrepreswPtaffon. ftGEROI I I5.0MRP ATTACHMENT B Transfer of Geotechnical Responsibility to Kleinfelder (00'~ KLEINFELDER Bright People. Right Solutions. March 22, 2017 Project No. 20172781.001A Mr. Steve Bobbett City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Transfer of Geotechnical Responsibility for The Shoppes at Carlsbad Phase 2 2525 El Camino Real Carlsbad, California 92008 City of Carlsbad Project Number: SDP 09-04(A) Building Permit No. CB162334, CB163800 References: 1. Geotechnical Update Letter, The Shoppes at Carlsbad Phase II Renovation and Cheesecake Factory, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc., dated July 14, 2016. Geotechnical Investigation, Reconfiguration, and Additional Retail Westfield Plaza Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc., dated February 21, 2013. Grading Plans for Shoppes at Carlsbad Phase 2, prepared by Hofman Planning & Engineering, (Drawing No. 479-513 and 479-5C) Dear Mr. Bobbett: In accordance with request of the City of Carlsbad, Kleinfelder is providing this letter to document a change of geotechnical consultant of record. Kleinfelder has reviewed the referenced geotechnical investigation performed by Leighton Consulting, Inc. and Kleinfelder is in general agreement with the data, conclusions and recommendations provided in the report. In addition we have reviewed the referenced grading plans prepared by Hofman Planning & Engineering with respect to the referenced soils report. In our opinion, the data, conclusions and recommendations provided in the referenced report are valid for the proposed construction shown on the referenced grading plans. 20172781.001A Page 1 of 2 March 22, 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER 5761 Copley Drive, Suite 100, San Diego CA 92111 p 1858.223.8500 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (858) 223-8500. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER, INC. 9rQFESSi0 LU 0E2820 Exp 6/30/18 "Q~OF CALW James L. Stiady, PhD, PE, GE Senior Geotechnical Engineer 20172781.001A Page 2 of 2 March 22, 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER 5761 Copley Drive, Suite 100, San Diego CA 92111 p 1858-223-8500