Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CD 2019-0020; PARK HYATT AVIARA; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT; 2020-01-17
RECORD COPY Initial Date GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS PARK HYATT AVIARA RESORT GOLF CLUB & SPA CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: XENIA HOTELS & RESORTS, INC. 7100 Aviara Resort Dr. Carlsbad, California 9201JCEIVED MAR 03 2020 Project No. 12493.0Qjj\ND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING September 6, 2019 (Revised January 17, 2020) Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY September 6, 2019 (Revised January 17, 2020) Project No. 12493.001 To: Xenia Hotels & Resort, Inc. 7100 Aviara Resort Dr. Carlsbad, California 92011 Attention: M. Stephen Long Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Report, Exterior Renovations, Park Hyatt Aviara Resort Golf Club & Spa, Carlsbad, California In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Leighton) has conducted a geotechnical investigation for the proposed exterior renovations that are planned for the Park Hyatt Aviara Resort Golf Club & Spa (Hyatt Aviara) in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). This report presents the results of our field investigation activities, review of the laboratory testing, 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. Respectfully submitted LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. NO 2451 I ° I E CERTIFIED NGINEERING J William D. Olson, RCE 45283 Mike D. Jensen, CEG 2457 Associate Engineer - Associate Geologist Distribution: Email PDF 4 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Sue B205 • San Die Leighton4425 858.569.6914 • Fax 858.292.0771 • www 12493.001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................I 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .............................................................................................I 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................ I 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................2 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ......................3 2.1 SUBSURFACE FIELD INVESTIGATION .........................................................................3 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................3 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS................................................4 3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING ................................................................................................4 3.2 SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGY ........................................................................................4 3.2.1 Topsoil...........................................................................................................4 3.2.2 Artificial Fill - Af. ............................................................................................ 5 3.2.3 Santiago Formation - Tsa.............................................................................5 3.3 GROUND WATER ..................................................................................................... 5 3.4 LANDSLIDES ...........................................................................................................5 3.5 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS OF ON-SITE SOIL...................................................6 3.5.1 Soil Compressibility and Collapse Potential..................................................6 3.5.2 Expansive Soils.............................................................................................6 3.5.3 Soil Corrosivity .............................................................................................. 7 3.5.4 Excavation Characteristics............................................................................7 3.5.5 Infiltration.......................................................................................................7 4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ...........................................................................10 4.1 FAULTING .............................................................................................................10 4.2 SITE CLASS..........................................................................................................10 4.3 SEISMICITY ........................................................................................................... 11 4.4 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS .............................................................................11 4.4.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement.........................................................12 4.4.2 Lateral Spread.............................................................................................12 4.4.3 Tsunamis and Seiches................................................................................12 4.5 FLOOD HAZARD ....................................................................................................13 5.0 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................14 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 16 6.1 EARTHWORK ........................................................................................................16 6.1.1 Site Preparation...........................................................................................16 4 Leighton 12493.001 6.1.2 Remedial Grading .......................................................................................16 6.1.3 Expansive Soil.............................................................................................17 6.1.4 Import Soils.................................................................................................17 6.2 FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................17 6.2.1 Conventional Foundations...........................................................................17 6.2.2 Preliminary Slab Design..............................................................................18 6.2.3 Settlement ................................................................................................... 16 6.3 CONCRETE FLATWORK..........................................................................................18 6.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES.................................................................................19 6.5 PROPOSED SWIMMING POOLS ...............................................................................20 6.5.1 Pool Deck Recommendations.....................................................................21 6.6 SURFACE DRAINAGE AND EROSION ........................................................................21 6.7 FIRE LANE............................................................................................................21 6.8 PLAN REVIEW.......................................................................................................22 6.9 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION ..............................................................................22 7.0 LIMITATIONS.....................................................................................................24 Tables TABLE I - PERCOLATION AND INFILTRATION RATES - PAGE 8 TABLE 2-2016 CBC MAPPED SPECTRAL ACCELERATION PARAMETERS - PAGE 11 TABLE 3- LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES - PAGE 19 Figures FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP - REAR OF TEXT FIGURE 2- EXPLORATION MAP - REAR OF TEXT Plates PLATES I AND 2- GEOTECHNIAL MAP - REAR OF TEXT APPENDICES APPENDIX A - REFERENCES APPENDIX B - BORING LOGS, DCP LOGS AND PERCOLATION TESTS APPENDIX C - LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS APPENDIX D - GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING APPENDIX E - GBA INSERT 4 Leighton 12493.001 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scone This report presents the results of our preliminary investigation for the proposed exterior renovations that are to be constructed in the southern area of Park Hyatt Aviara Resort Golf Club & Spa (Hyatt Aviara) in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The intent of this report is to provide specific geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for the currently proposed improvements. 1.2 Site Location and Description The subject site is the southern portion of the Hyatt Aviara (see Figure 2). In general, the subject site is bordered by Aviara Resort building to the north, Blue Heron Place to the south and east, and golf course to the west. Currently, the site is occupied by hotel buildings, pool areas, an event lawn courtyard, and associated landscape and hardscape. Vegetation across the site consists of landscaped grass, trees, and shrubs. The general topography of the site adjacent to the hotel building and the upper pool area is a relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 214 to 216 feet above mean sea level (msl). The elevation of the lower pool area ranging from approximately 207 to 210 feet msl. Along the western and southern perimeters of the site, graded slopes (i.e., 2:1 horizontal to vertical or flatter) and a Keystone retaining wall (up to 28 feet high) have been constructed. It should be noted that the Keystone retaining wall has layers of geogrid reinforcement extending into the lower pool area, which should not be disturbed unless it is considered in design of the new improvements. Site Latitude and Longitude 33.098467°N 117.28584°W 1 Leighton 12493.001 1.3 Proposed Development It is our understanding, based on a review of the current grading plans by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., that the proposed improvements will consist of a new restroom structure, replacing pools, changing deck surfaces, pool area retaining walls, grasscrete for fire/emergency access lane, cabanas and a water slide structure. Additional improvements will include access ramps, stairways, and possibly small retaining walls. The proposed improvements are presented on Plates I and 2, Geotechnical Map. 2 Leighton 12493.001 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2.1 Subsurface Field lnvestiation Our recent subsurface exploration activities consisted of advancing eight (8) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer(DCP) tests to depths ranging from 1.5 to 13 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs), and the excavation, logging and sampling of four (4) hand-augured borings to depths ranging from approximately 1.5 to 4 feet bgs. Also, five (5) field percolation test locations were advanced by hand auger to a depth of approximately 4 feet below the existing ground surface. The percolation test well locations were presoaked overnight, and the testing was performed the following day by the falling head method. During the exploration operations, a geologist from our firm prepared geologic logs and collected bulk samples for laboratory testing and evaluation. After logging, the borings were backfilled with a native soil. Geotechnical explorations and field percolation test locations are depicted on Figure 2. 2.2 Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples to evaluate expansion potential, grain-size, R-value, and chemical characteristics of the subsurface soils. A discussion of the laboratory tests performed, and a summary of the laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C. 4 Leighton 12493.001 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 Embayment" has undergone several episodes of marine inundation and subsequent marine regression, resulting in the deposition of a thick sequence of marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks on the basement rock of the Southern California batholith. Gradual emergence of the region from the sea occurred in Pleistocene time, and numerous wave-cut platforms, most of which were covered by relatively thin marine and nonmarine terrace deposits, formed as the sea receded from the land. Accelerated fluvial erosion during periods of heavy rainfall, coupled with the lowering of the base sea level during Quaternary times, resulted in the rolling hills, mesas, and deeply incised canyons which characterize the landforms we see in the general site area today. 3.2 Site-Specific Geology Based on our subsurface exploration and review of pertinent geologic literature and maps (Appendix A), the geologic units underlying the site consist of artificial fill and Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation deposits (Kennedy & Tan, 2007). A brief description of the geologic units encountered at the site is presented below. The geotechnical DCP tests and boring logs with detailed soils descriptions are presented in Appendix B. The approximate areal extent of the geologic units encountered during our exploration is depicted on Plates I and 2, Geotechnical Map, which utilizes the most current grading plan by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 3.2.1 Topsoil As encountered during our exploration, the topsoil consisted of 6 to 12 inches of silty sand. The silty sand consists of moist, dark brown, loose, fine grained with roots throughout. 4 Leighton 12493.001 3.2.2 Artificial Fill - Af As encountered during our exploration, the artificial fill was below the topsoil extended to varying depths up approximately 13 feet bgs. The artificial fill consists of moist, light-yellowish brown, loose to medium dense, silty sands. The fill was derived from on-site excavations that was placed and compacted during the rough grading operations during the original development (Leroy Crandall, 1990 and 2000). The upper I to 2 feet of previously placed fill is weathered and should be removed and reprocessed prior to the placement of additional fills or construction of improvements. 3.2.3 Santiago Formation - isa Santiago Formation was encountered in our subsurface investigation below the artificial fill. Santiago Formation consists of gray-light brown to off-white moist, very dense, silty fine to medium grained sandstone. 3.3 Ground Water No indication of surface water or evidence of surface ponding was encountered during our field investigation. However, surface water may drain as sheet flow across the site during rainy periods. Ground water was not observed in the exploration borings during our investigation. Perched ground water levels may develop and fluctuate during periods of precipitation. Ground water was not encountered during our geotechnical investigation at the site. It should be noted that ground water levels may fluctuate with seasonal variations and irrigation and local perched ground water conditions may exist within cemented layers and sandy lenses within the Santiago deposits. Nevertheless, based on the above information, we do not anticipate ground water will be a constraint to the construction of the proposed improvements. 3.4 Landslides Landslides are deep-seated ground failures (several tens to hundreds of feet deep) in which a large arcuate shaped section of a slope detaches and slides downhill. Landslides are not to be confused with minor slope failures (slumps), which are usually limited to the topsoil zone and can occur on slopes composed of almost any geologic material. Landslides can cause damage to structures both above and 5 . 4 Leighton iPZ1'I'il below the slide mass. Structures above the slide area are typically damaged by undermining of foundations. Areas below a slide mass can be damaged by being overridden and crushed by the failed slope material. Several formations within the San Diego region are particularly prone to landsliding. These formations generally have high clay content and mobilize when they become saturated with water. Other factors, such as steeply dipping bedding that project out of the face of the slope and/or the presence of fracture planes, will also increase the potential for landsliding. Based on our site reconnaissance and geologic mapping, the materials on site are generally massive with no distinctive structure. No active landslides or indications of deep-seated landsliding were noted at the site during our field exploration or our review of available geologic literature, topographic maps, and stereoscopic aerial photographs. Furthermore, our field reconnaissance and the local geologic maps indicate the site is underlain by favorable oriented geologic structure, and no nearby slopes. Therefore, the potential for significant landslides or large-scale slope instability at the site is considered low. 3.5 Engineering Characteristics of On-Site Soil Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation, the current 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 Based on the dense nature of the on-site artificial fill and Santiago Formation, it is our opinion that the potential for settlement and collapse at the site is low. Existing near surface undocumented and weathered fills that are present are considered compressible, but are expected to be removed by planned grading and/or remedial grading. 3.5.2 Expansive Soils Laboratory tests carried out on selected soil samples collected from our subsurface investigation (Appendix C) indicate the soils at the site possess 6 Leighton 12493.001 a very low expansion potential. Locally, soils may have a low to medium potential expansion. Soils generated from excavations in the Santiago Formation are expected to possess a very low to low potential expansion while excavations into the artificial fill are expected to possess a very low to medium potential expansion. 3.5.3 Soil Corrosivitv Laboratory tests carried out on selected soil samples collected from our subsurface investigation (Appendix C) indicate the soils possess a low soluble sulfate content, neutral pH, low soluble chloride content, and low electrical resistivity. These results are consistent with the results presented in our previous reports (Appendix A). These findings indicate that the corrosive effects to buried ferrous metal are expected to be moderate to severe. Affects to properly designed and placed concrete are considered low. 3.5.4 Excavation Characteristics It is anticipated the on-site soils can be excavated with conventional heavy- duty construction equipment. Localized cemented zones located within the Santiago Formation, if encountered, may require heavy ripping or breaking. In addition, localized zones of friable sands may be encountered within the Santiago Formation. Beds of friable sands may experience caving during unsupported excavation. 3.5.5 Infiltration Field percolation tests were performed in general accordance with County of San Diego Storm Water Standards. Based on our field percolation testing, the in-situ percolation rates and calculated infiltration rates attested locations and depths are summarized in Table 1. We have used the following equation based upon the Porchet Method to convert measured percolation rates to infiltration rates in accordance with County of San Diego BMP Design Manual (County of San Diego, 2019). In addition, we have included a factor of safety of 2 for the evaluation of existing site conditions. The storm water design factor of safety should be determined by civil engineer and reviewed by geotechnical consultant. Also, additional field 7 4 Leighton 12493.001 percolation tests may be required within storm water retention areas once final locations are determined by the civil engineer. It = iH *60 * r At(r+2HAvG) Where: It = calculated infiltration rate, inches/hour AH = change in head over the time interval, inches At = time interval, minutes r = radius of test hole HAVG = average head over the time interval, inches The field percolation test locations are shown on Figure 2 (Geotechnical Map). Field data and calculated percolation rates for each field percolation test location is presented in Appendix B. Table I Percolation and Infiltration Rates Measured Calculated Recommended Test No. Depth (ft) Soil Type Percolation Infiltration Infiltration Rate Rate Rate wl FS of 2 (minslin) (inches/hr) (inches/hr) Light Brown P-I 4.0 Silty Sand 2.5 0.828 0.414 (SM) Light Yellow- P-2 4.0 Brown Silty 14.7 0.111 0.056 Sand (SM) Light Yellow- P-3 4.0 Brown Silty 6.1 0.300 0.150 Sand (SM) Light Yellow- P-4 4 Brown Silty 41.7 0.037 0.0185 Sand (SM) Light Yellow- P-5 4 Brown Silty 25.0 0.066 0.033 Sand (SM) 8 Leighton 12493.001 Note that the above percolation test results are representative of the tested locations and depths where they were performed. It should also be noted that percolation test field measurements are accurate to 0.01 feet. Varying subsurface conditions may exist outside of the test locations, which could alter the calculated percolation rate indicated below. In addition, it is important to note that percolation rates are not equal to infiltration rates. As a result, we have made a distinction between percolation rates where water movement is considered laterally and vertically versus infiltration rates where only the vertical direction is considered. It is possible that the long-term rate of transmissivity of permeable soil strata may be lower than the values obtained by testing. Infiltration may be influenced by a combination of factors including but not limited to: a highly variable vertical permeability and limited lateral extent of permeable soil strata; a reduction of permeability rates overtime due to silting of the soil pore spaces; and other unknown factors. Accordingly, the possibility of future surface ponding of water, as well as, shallow groundwater impacts on subterranean structures such as basements, underground utilities, etc. should be anticipated as possible future conditions in all design aspects of the site. 4 9 Leighton 12493.001 4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY 4.1 Faulting The State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) has defined a Holocene-active fault as a fault which has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,700 years). In addition, a pre-Holocene fault is a fault that has not moved in the past 11,700 years, and does not meet the criteria of "Holocene-active fault' as defined in the A-P Act and SMGB regulations. These definitions are used in delineating Special Studies Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972. The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development does not occur across the traces of Holocene-active faults. As background, Special Publication (SP) 42 was provided for guidance with regard to informing reviewers and practitioners on the locations of the fault rupture hazard zones in California, and was subsequently revised several times between 1976 and 2007. The most recent revision of the document was completed in 2018 and resulted in a significant change from previous versions, as it now provides guidelines (previously included as supplements for SP 42) for both reviewers and practitioners working in EFZs. Our review of available geologic literature (Appendix A) indicates that there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest active regional fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 4.9 miles west of the site. 4.2 Site Class Utilizing 2016 California Building Code (CBC) procedures, we have characterized the site soil profile to be Site Class D based on our experience with similar sites in the project area and the results of our subsurface evaluation. 4 10 Leighton 12493.001 4.3 Seismicity The site can be considered to lie within a seismically active region, as can all of Southern California. The effect of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to California Building Code (CBC, 2016) for proposed subject site. The following seismic design parameters. have been determined in accordance with the 2016 CBC and the USGS Seismic Design Data accessed using the ATC Hazards by Location Web Application. Table 2 2016 CBC Mapped Spectral Acceleration Parameters Site Class D Fa 1.061 Site Coefficients Fv 1.577 Mapped MCER Spectral Ss 1.096 Accelerations Si 0.423 Site Modified MCER Spectral SMS 1.164 Accelerations SMI 0.667 Design Spectral Accelerations SDS 0.776 SDI 0.445 Seismic Design Category D 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 0.433g for the site. For a Site Class D, the FPGA is 1.067 and the mapped peak ground acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects (PGAM) is 0.462g for the site. 4.4 Secondary Seismic Hazards In general, secondary seismic hazards can include soil liquefaction, seismically- induced settlement, lateral displacement, surface manifestations of liquefaction, landsliding, seiches, and tsunamis. The potential for secondary seismic hazards at the subject site is discussed below. 11 8 Leighton 12493.001 4.4.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose, saturated, granular soils are susceptible to liquefaction and dynamic settlement. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby causing the soil to behave as a viscous liquid. This effect may be manifested by excessive settlements and sand boils at the ground surface. Based on our evaluation, the on-site soils are not considered liquefiable due to their dense condition and absence of a shallow ground water condition. Considering planned grading and foundation design measures, dynamic settlement potential is also considered negligible. 4.4.2 Lateral SDread Empirical relationships have been derived (Youd et al., 1999) to estimate the magnitude of lateral spread due to liquefaction. These relationships include parameters •such as earthquake magnitude, distance of the earthquake from the site, slope height and angle, the thickness of liquefiable soil, and gradation characteristics of the soil. Based on the low susceptibility to liquefaction and the formational material unit underlying the site, the possibility of earthquake-induced lateral spread is considered to be low for the site. 4.4.3 Tsunamis and Seiches Based upon the California Emergency Management Agency Tsunami Inundation Map (CalEMA, 2009), the site is not located within a tsunami inundation area. In addition, 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 nil. of 12 Leighton 12493.001 4.5 Flood Hazard According to a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate map (FEMA, 2012); the site is not located within a floodplain. In addition, the site is not located downstream of a dam or within a dam inundation area based on our review of topographic maps. Therefore, the potential for flooding of the site is considered very low. 4 13 Leighton 12493.001 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our geotechnical review of the site, it is our opinion that the proposed development is 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. Areas of fill up to approximately 13 feet in thickness are located across the southern and eastern portions of site excluding the Keystone wall backfill. The upper I to 2 feet of previously placed fill should be removed and reprocessed prior to the placement of additional fills or construction of improvements. Additional overexcavation or undercutting may be needed if cut or fill transitions are encountered. The existing Keystone wall located along the southern perimeter of the site (i.e., up to 28 feet high) has layers of geogrid reinforcement extending into the lower pool area. The geogrid reinforcement should not be disturbed unless it is considered and/or mitigated in design of the new improvements. We anticipate that the soils present on the site will be generally rippable with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. Although foundation plans have not been finalized and building/structural loads were not provided at the time this report was drafted, we anticipate that a lightly loaded conventional foundation system, consisting of continuous and spread footings with slab-on-grade flooring supported by competent documented fill materials or the Santiago Formation, will be utilized. Based on laboratory testing and visual classification, the soils on the site generally possess a very low to low expansion potential. Nevertheless, there may be localized areas across the site and between our exploration locations having a higher expansion potential. Laboratory test results indicate the soils present on the site have a negligible potential for sulfate attack on normal concrete, and are moderately to severely corrosive to buried ferrous metals. These tests should be confirmed upon completion of the grading activities where appropriate. A corrosion consultant should be consulted. 4 14 Leighton 12493.001 The existing onsite soils are suitable for reuse as fill provided they are relatively free of organic material, debris, and cobbles or rock fragments larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension. Ground water was not encountered during our investigation. Therefore, ground water is not considered a constraint on the proposed project development. However, perched ground water and seepage may develop along the less permeable silt layers within the Santiago Formation and along the fill and Santiago Formation geologic contact during periods of moderate to high precipitation or increased landscape irrigation. Active faults are not known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity or project toward the site. However, the proposed project is located in the seismically active region of southern California and can expect to be subjected to seismic shaking during its design life. Our review of the geologic literature (Appendix A) along with the results of our study, indicate that the probability of geologic hazards including, tsunamis and seiche, landsliding, liquefaction, and seismic induced settlement are considered low for the site. 15 4 Leighton 12493.001 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Earthwork We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, foundation excavation and flatwork subgrade compaction. 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 D. In case of conflict, the following recommendations supersede those in Appendix D. 6.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to grading, all areas to receive engineered structures and hardscapes should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, including any existing debris, utilities, foundations, and undocumented fill, loose, compressible, or unsuitable soils, and stripped of vegetation. Removed vegetation and debris should be properly disposed off-site. 6.1.2 Remedial Grading Potentially compressible fill and disturbed soil at the subject site may settle as a result of wetting or settle under the surcharge of engineered fill and/or structural loads supported on shallow foundations. It is anticipated that up to 2 feet of potentially compressible materials will need to be removed. The bottom of the removals should be evaluated by a Certified Engineering Geologist to confirm conditions are as anticipated. The on-site soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free or organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension. All fill soils should be brought to 2-percent over the optimum moisture content (based on the type of soil) and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on the laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). The optimum lift 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 4 16 Leighton 12493.001 inches in compacted thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with Appendix D, the current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practices, and the geotechnical recommendations presented herein. 6.1.3 Exøansive Soil Based on our laboratory testing and observations, we anticipate the onsite soil materials possess a very low to low expansion potential (Appendix C). Although not anticipated, should highly expansive materials be encountered, it should not be used as fill and exported off site. 6.1.4 Import Soils If import soils are necessary to bring the site up to the proposed grades, these soils should be granular in nature, environmentally clean, have an expansion index less than 50 (per ASTM Test Method D4829) and have a low corrosion impact to the proposed improvements. Import soils and/or the borrow site location should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to import. 6.2 Foundation Considerations The proposed structure may be constructed with conventional foundations. Foundations should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils encountered within 5 feet of pad grade have a very low to moderate potential for expansion with and Expansion Index less than (El<50). The foundation recommendations below assume that the façade structure foundations will be underlain by engineered compacted fill. 6.2.1 Conventional Foundations The proposed new structure improvements may be supported by spread footings that are at least 24 inches in width (18 inches for continuous footings) that extend a minimum of 24 inches beneath the lowest adjacent finished grade. At these depths, footings may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable pressures may be increased by one-third when considering loads 4 17 Leighton 12493.001 of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. Continuous footings should be designed in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements and have a minimum reinforcement of four No. 5 reinforcing bars (two top and two bottom). 6.2.2 Preliminary Slab Design Slabs on grade should be reinforced with reinforcing bars placed at slab mid-height. Slabs should have crack joints at spacings designed by the structural engineer. Columns, if any, should be structurally isolated from slabs. Slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center on center (each way). The slab should be underlain by 2-inch layer of clean sand (S.E. greater than 30). A moisture barrier (10-mil non-recycled plastic sheeting) should be placed below the sand layer if reduction of moisture vapor up through the concrete slab is desired (such as below equipment, living/office areas, etc.), which is in turn underlain by an additional 2-inches of clean sand. If applicable, slabs should also be designed for the anticipated traffic loading using a modulus of subgrade reaction of 180 pounds per cubic inch. All waterproofing measures should be designed by the project architect. 6.2.3 Settlement Fill depths between 5 and 10 feet are anticipated beneath the proposed building/structural foundations. For conventional footings, the recommended allowable-bearing capacity is based on a maximum total and differential static settlement of 3/4 inch and 1/2 inch, respectively. Since settlements are a function of footing size and contact bearing pressures, some differential settlement can be expected where a large differential loading condition exists. However, for most cases, differential settlements are considered unlikely to exceed 1/2 inch. 6.3 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 with No. 4 bars at 24 inches on center or No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center. For all concrete flatwork, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to at least 3 percent above optimum moisture content depending on 18 Leighton 12493.001 the soil type and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method 01557 prior to the concrete placement. 6.4 Lateral Earth Pressures The recommended lateral pressures for the onsite very low to low expansive soil (expansion index less than 50) and level or sloping backfill are presented on Table 3. Medium to very high expansive soils (having an expansion potential greater than 51) should not be used as wall backfill soils on the site. Table 3 Lateral Earth Pressures Conditions Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Very Low to Low Expansive Soils Expansion Index less than 50 Level 2:1 Slope Active 35 55 At-Rest 55 65 Passive 350 150 For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded above the static ground water and backfilled with soils of very low to low expansion potential is provided on Table 3. The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressures values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical and structural engineer should evaluate surcharge-loading effects from the adjacent structures. All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical wall drainage design is illustrated in Appendix D. 4 19 Leighton 12493.001 For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. In combining the total lateral resistance, the passive pressure or the frictional resistance should be reduced by 50 percent. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. The passive resistance value may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic loads. The horizontal distance between foundation elements providing passive resistance should be minimum of three times the depth of the elements to allow full development of these passive pressures. The total depth of retained earth for the design of cantilever walls should be the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding. All wall backcuts should be made in accordance with the current OSHA requirements. The granular and native backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method Dl 557). The granular fill should extend horizontally to a minimum distance equal to one-half the wall height behind the walls. The walls should be constructed and backfilled as soon as possible after backcut excavations. Prolonged exposure of backcut slopes may result in some localized slope surficial instability. 6.5 Proposed Swimming Pools The swimming pools and water elements should be designed by a structural engineer to resist the forces lateral earth pressures soils and differential settlement of the fill. The following items should be taken into consideration in the design and construction of the swimming pools and water elements: Installation of a pressure release valve system beneath the pool bottom is recommended. The pool contractor should provide a sufficient level of inspection and control to assure that approved pool plans and specifications are implemented during construction. Observations and testing should be performed by a geotechnical consultant during pool excavation and backfill operations to verify that exposed soil conditions are consistent with the design assumptions. 4 20 Leighton 12493.001 6.5.1 Pool Deck Recommendations We recommend that the pool deck be a minimum of 5-inches thick, reinforced with No. 3 rebars at 18 inches. The perimeter of the decking should be constructed with a perimeter footing a minimum of 8 inches wide and deep. The deck should have appropriate crack control and expansion joints to reduce the potential for the formation of unsightly cracks as the deck responds to the underlying expansive soils. In general, the construction joints should be a minimum of 5 feet on center (each way) and extend to a depth of at least 1/3 of the concrete thickness. The joints should not cut the rebar reinforcement. Special attention should be given to ensure that the joint between the pool decking and pool coping is properly sealed with a flexible, watertight caulking to prevent water infiltration. The concrete decking should be sloped to area drains with sufficient gradient to maintain active flow, even if the deck is subject to minor movement. 6.6 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. 6.7 Fire Lane Based on our field exploration and visual classification of the site soils, and laboratory testing of subgrade soils, we have development the following preliminary recommendations for the proposed Fire Lane for emergency access. We recommend a "Grasspave2" product be used for the proposed fire lane areas. This product consists of a HDPE plastic confinement rings that can be infilled with clean washed concrete sand for supporting grass sod turf or a synthetic turf material (Nutmeg Ultra), as specified by the Landscape Architect. The "Grasspave2" section should be underlain by a 12-inch Class 2 Permeable Base section, over a compacted subgrade. The upper 12 inches of subgrade and the Class 2 Permeable material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent 4 21 Leighton 12493.001 relative compaction (ASTM 0 1557). If a synthetic turf material is being proposed, the "Grasspave2" product should be underlain by a filter fabric (Mirafi 140N) and the clean washed concrete sand infill should be mechanically densified and/or jetted into place for compaction in accordance with the manufactures guidelines. In addition, we recommend the pavement section be constructed with a concrete confinement band around the perimeter, and with a bottom subdrain system to remove collected groundwater within the Class 2 Permeable base material. The concrete confinement band should be at least 8 inches wide and 12 inches tall, and reinforced with two Number 3 bars, top and bottom. The bottom subdrain (i.e., 4-inch diameter perforated schedule 40 PVC pipe) should be centrally located, and sloped to drain (i.e., min i percent) to appropriate discharge outlets. The subgrade surface should also be sloped to drain with a minimum 1 percent slope to the central subdrain, which should be slightly lower than subgrade surface. The subrain should be placed in a trench below the pavement section thickness and surrounded with the Class 2 Permeable base material. 6.8 Plan Review Foundation and grading plans should be reviewed by Leighton to confirm that the recommendations in this report are incorporated in project plans. 6.9 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. 22 8 Leighton 12493.001 Below is a list of recommended observations and testing by the Leighton, the geotechnical engineer, during the site grading and construction. Observation of removal bottoms prior to placement of fill. Observation of utility trench bottoms prior to placement of utility. Observation and testing of all new fill and/or backfill soil for compaction. Observation of foundation excavations prior to placement of steel reinforcement. 23 Leighton 12493.001 7.0 LIMITATIONS The recommendations contained in this report are based on available project information. Changes made during design development, should be reviewed by Leighton to determine if the recommendations herein are still applicable. Any questions regarding the contents of this report should be directed to the attention of William D. Olson, (858) 300-8491 of Leighton. The nature of many sites is such that differing geotechnical or geological conditions can occur over small areal distances and under varying climatic conditions. 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 and therefore preliminary. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are considered preliminary and can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the proposed improvements, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. This report was prepared for the sole use of Xenia Hotels & Resort, Inc. for application to the design of the proposed improvements in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time in California. Our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of the project and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns, or the presence of hazardous materials. 24 Leighton pzI1,IIjI FIGURES AND PLATES Leighton - -- .. -- - I Project: 12493.001 Eng/Geol: WDO/MDJ SITE LOCATION MAP Figure 1 Scaie:1 = 2,000 Date. January 2020 Park Hyatt Aviara Resort Exterior Renovations 41 I Base Map: ESRIArcOIS Online 2019 100 Aviara Resort Drive Author: (mrrrrphy) Carlsbad, California I Leighton 12493.001 References Leighton 12493.001 APPENDIX A References American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2006, Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials. ACI, 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute. Bryant, W. A. and Hart, E. W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist- 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), 2016, California Building Code. California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), California Geological Survey, and University of Southern California, 2009, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Encinitas Quadrangle, Scale 1:24,000, June 1, 2009. California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2003, Revised 2002, California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, June, 2003. County of San Diego, 2019, BMP Design Manual, January 1, 2019 FEMA, 2012, Flood Insurance Rate Map, dated May 16, 2012. Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30'x60' Quadrangle, California, California Geologic Survey, 1:100,000 scale. Jennings, C.W., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, California Geologic Map Series, Map No. 6 Leroy Crandall, 1990, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Four Seasons Resort Hotel, Aviara, Carlsbad, California, August 15, 1990 .4 Leighton 12493.001 APPENDIX A (Continued) 2000, Slope Stability Evaluation and Earthwork Recommendations for Keystone Retaining Wall, Aviara Four Seasons Resort Hotel - Lower Terrace Poll Expansion, Carlsbad, California, February 8, 2000. Norris, R.M., and Webb, R.W., 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Treiman, J.A., 1993, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Southern California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 93-02, 45 p. United States Geologic Survey (USGS), 2010, Ground Motion Parameter Calculator, Version 5.1.0. Youd, T.L., ldriss, and Others, 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF WorkshOps on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Jnl GGE ASCE, 127(4), 297-313. 4 Leighton 12493.001 APPENDIX B Boring Logs, DCP Logs and Percolation Tests WO 04 Leighton r - ,- w. ------. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG KEY Date Sheet I of I Project KEY TO BORING LOG GRAPHICS Project No. Drilling Co. Type of Rig Hole Diameter Drive Weight Drop Elevation Top of Elevation ' Location U) .1 'DI Z i I i4j IU)øI I ci . 0 , I . 0 • a ZCL ad Le E F0 I so ff UJI I oI Logged By OOU) (l Sampled By DESCRIPTION Asphaltic concrete. - Portland cement concrete. CL Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandy - ,........s1lly cthiy: lejin dsy CH Inorganic clay; high plasticity, fat clays. OL Organic clay; medium to plasticity, organic silts. Mi.. Inorganic silt; clayey silt with low plasticity. vg-j Inorganic silt; diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils; elastic silt. Clayey silt to silty clay. Gw Well-graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines. GP Poorly graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines. GM Silty gravel; gravel-sand-silt mixtures. GC Clayey gravel; gravel-sand-clay mixtures. , Well-graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines. Sp Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines. SM Silty sand; poorly graded sand-silt mixtures. Sc Clayey sand, sand-clay mixtures. Bedrock Ground water encountered at time of drilling. B-I Bulk Sample I. B-I Bulk Sample 2. c-I Core Sample. G-I Grab Sample. R-I Modified California Sampler (3' O.D., 2.5 ID.). SH-1 Shelby Tube Sampler (3' O.D.). 25 S-I Standard Penetration Test SN' (Sampler (2" O.D., 1.4" ID.). PUSH Sampler Penetrates without Hammer Blow. Bulk Sample 2. 130 I I I II I I I I SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG HA-1 Project No. 12493.001 Date Drilled 8-15-19 Project Xenia Hotels/Renovations to the Park Hyatt Aviara Logged By SLR Drilling Co. N/A Hole Diameter of Drilling MofflOd Hand Auger Ground Elevation 214' msl Location See Figure 2 Sampled By SLR C; owl SOIL DESCRIPTION °O . Z '. V 00 - a 4.r , c .tj This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the 31 time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations 0 E el a and may change with time. The description is snrtplification of the & ( CO— actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil lypes may be > gradual. - I- 0—..------ ---- 0-4": TOPSOIL . - - B-I SM ARTIFICIAL FILL (AI) .. t 4": silty SAND, loose, gray, moist - . .. - ---------.SW. 1': Silty SAND, loose, light brown, very moist to wet - . J ---- @ 2.5': SIS14 SAND, medium dense, light brown, moist 210 1. '1 @3.5': Silty SAND, medium dense, grayish light bwn, slightly - moist to moist Total Depth = 5 Feet (bgs) No Groundwater Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfihled on 8115119 SAMP ES: II I I TYPE OF TESTS: I I B BULK SAMPLE -200 % FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS C CORE SAMPLE Al. ATTERBERG UI',TS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH S POCKET PENETROMETER * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document * * * Page 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG HA-2 Project No. 12493.001 Date Drilled 8-15-19 Project Xenia Hotels/Renovations to the Park Hyatt Aviara Logged By CA Drilling Co. N/A Hole Diameter is Drilling Method Hand Auger Ground Elevation 212' msl Location See Figure 2 Sampled By CA I I I ,. I I SOIL DESCRIPTION I ' ' 'ffiz • . .0 o Z 5 to I i 0.5 I I I j I o I This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the I ' I , I I I . co time of sampling. Subsunace conditions may differ at other locations I and may change with time, The descnptson as a simplification ojrme I a I 0 u)' I actual conditions encountered. Transitions beMeen soil lypes may > I gradual. I ' I - ---1-----l— -------- u-i. uJrJIL -" B-i W SM ARTCAL FV'(Afl 5'-5' @ 4': Si ty SAjb, loose, light yellowish brown, very moist, trace Of rootlets Ill @ 15: Silty SAND, medium dense, light yellowish brown and variegated red and gray, moist to very moist Total Depth = 5 Feet (bgs) No Groundwater Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled on 8115119 190 MPLETYPES: 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 CM COIISOUDA11ON 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 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG HA-3 Project No. 12493.001 Date Drilled 8-14-19 Project Xenia Hotels/Renovations to the Park Hyatt Aviara Logged By CA Drilling Co. N/A Hole Diameter 11 Drilling Method Hand Auger Ground Elevation 213' msl Location See Figure 2 Sampled By CA o SOIL DESCRIPTION 0.0 CDI Z U) a . 0)0 .$ This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the U.0. E . ci time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations 'U 5 and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the C) CO— actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be > gradual. - I- __ ___ __ - TOPSOIL ________________________ --------------------. - - 8 .-- SM ANTIAO FORMPTION 4: Silty AN (Tsa "b, dense to very dense, grayish light brown, moist to sliht1v moist Total Depth = 2 Feet (bgs) No Groundwater Encountered at Time of Drilling Backlilled on 8114119 I MPLE1YPES: 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 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 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG HA-4 Project No. 12493.001 Date Drilled 8-14-19 Project Xenia Hotels/Renovations to the Park Hyatt Aviara Logged By CA Drilling Co. N/A Hole Diameter Drilling Method Hand Auger Ground Elevation 210' msl Location See Figure 2 Sampled By CA C; .' SOIL DESCRIPTION CO • 2 Z 0 a e o.E .2 LAS . !tj This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the 0 e-J ° E (D . time of sampling. Subsurface cenditions may differ at other!ocations - o o and may change with time. The description is simplification of the 0. (3 CO— actual conditions encountered. Transitions beMeen soil types may be >, gradual. 210 A 6 SW 0—---- @0-8': TOPSOIL B-i - - - - - SM ? liON crsa ----------- - r-4r 8 light brownish gray, slightly moist 11.5: 'dense, 1f: Silty SAND, very light brownish gray, slightly moist Total Depth = 4 Feet (bgs) No Groundwater Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled on 8114119 I MPLE1YPES: 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 0 GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY (IC 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 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of 1 Leighton PROJECT NUMBER. 12493.001 DATE STARTED: 08-15-2019 DATE COMPLETED: 08-15-2019 HOLE #: DCP-1 CREW: CA/SLR SURFACE ELEVATION: - PROJECT: Xenia Hotels I Renovations to the Park Hyatt Aviara Resort WATER ON COMPLETION:_____________ ADDRESS: See Map HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs. LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA 92011 CONE AREA:10 sq. cm DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE Kg/cm2 GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 N' TESTED CONSISTENCY NON-COHESIVE COHESIVE - 5 22.2 ..... 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 19 84.4 24 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 1 ft 32 142.1 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ DENSE HARD - 30 133.2 SSSSSSSSSS•S••SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS•SS• 25+ DENSE HARD - 32 142.1 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ DENSE HARD - 2 ft 18 79.9 ....".".".....' 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 12 53.3 ".'."." 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 8 35.5 ."•.•••• 10 LOOSE STIFF - 3 ft 8 35.5 '.'...... 10 LOOSE STIFF - 1 m 9 40.0 ".•.• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 14 54.0 ••"•••"•••••' 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 4 ft 20 77.2 ••..'.•".'•••.•..•.' 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 23 88.8 25 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 17 65.6 e.....'....e.'.e.. 18 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 5 ft 17 65.6 ".."•" 18 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 13 50.2 ....".." 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 12 46.3 '.'.".'.'. 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 6 ft 24 92.6 25+ MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 33 127.4 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ DENSE HARD - 2 m 38 146.7 .s.s.s.........s.,s,,s..........,.s, 25+ DENSE HARD - 7 ft 32 109.4 .s.s•s....••.•..•...•.••••..•. 25+ DENSE I-IARI) - 33 112.9 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ DENSE HARD - 33 112.9 .........•..........••..•.••... 25+ DENSE HARD - 8 ft 33 112.9 25+ DENSE I-LA.RI) - 30 102.6 '•"•'.'."•••.'.'•••• 25+ MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 30 102.6 ...".".........".".". 25+ MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 9 ft 28 95.8 25+ MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 29 99.2 25+ MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 32 109.4 sssssssssns.e.e.ss.,.s....... 25+ DENSE HARD - 3 m 10 ft 37 126.5 ....sss......s......s.s.......s.... 25+ DENSE HARD - lift - 12 ft -4m 13 ft C:My OowrentsMIdcaflWC_XI.97.XI.S WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Leighton PROJECT NUMBER: DATE STARTED: DATE COMPLETED: Page 1 of 1 12493.001 08-15-2019 08-15-2019 35 lbs. HOLE #: DCP-2 CREW: CA/SLR PROJECT: Xenia Hotels / Renovations to the Park Hyatt Aviara Resort ADDRESS: See Map LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA 92011 SURFACE ELEVATION: WATER ON COMPLETION: HAMMER WEIGHT: CONE AREA: 10 sq. cm DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE Kg/cm2 GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 N TESTED CONSISTENCY NON-COHESIVE COHESIVE - 5 22.2 ..... 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 12 53.3 ••••••.•••••••• 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 1 ft 13 57.7 .s...'...".". 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 11 48.8 .'.'.'..e.'.' 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 22 97.7 25+ MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 2 ft 27 119.9 ...........S.Sn..S.S.SS.S...... 25+ DENSE HARD - 31 137.6 .s.s.s.ss.s.s..n.......s...s........s 25+ DENSE HARD - 33 146.5 ...•...s•.••.....•.•.•..•......•...•....• 25+ DENSE HARD - 3 ft 29 128.8 .................................... 25+ DENSE HARD - 1 m 26 115.4 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ DENSE HARD - 22 84.9 24 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 4 ft 20 77.2 "•"•"..•'•. 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 21 81.1 23 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 15 57.9 •••••••••••••••• 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 5 ft 12 46.3 .....e.e.... 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 12 46.3 ..'."..".' 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 14 54.0 ..'.'..'.'.... 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 6 ft 20 77.2 ....'..'.'."..'." 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 25 96.5 25+ MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 2 m 35 135.1 .s.s.ss.s.s........s..s............s 25+ DENSE FIARI) - 7 ft 50 171.0 25+ DENSE HARD - 8 f - 9 f -3m lOft - lift - 12 ft -4m 13 ft C:V.iy DocumersWIIdcatWC_XL97.XLS WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of 1 Leighton PROJECT NUMBER. 12493.001 DATE STARTED: 08-15-2019 DATE COMPLETED:08-15-2019 HOLE #: DCP-3 CREW: CA/SLR SURFACE ELEVATION: - PROJECT: Xenia Hotels / Renovations to the Park Hyatt Aviara Resort - WATER ON COMPLETION:____________ ADDRESS: See Map HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs. LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA 92011 CONE AREA:10 sq. cm DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE Kg/cm2 GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 - Nt TESTED CONSISTENCY NON-COHESIVE COHESIVE - 10 44.4 .".'.'.. 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 23 102.1 '.'.'....'......e.'......... 25+ MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 1 ft 26 115.4 ..•...•...•••..•..•.e••.•.s...e• 25+ DENSE HARD - 27 119.9 .•...•s.s•s•...s.s....s.s•e••e•. 25+ DENSE HARD - 27 119.9 ...........s.•..•.•.•..s•es.•s..e 25+ DENSE I-IAR1) - 2 ft 21 93.2 25+ MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 16 71.0 .......'...'....'.. 20 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 12 53.3 ••••••••••••••• 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 3 ft 9 40.0 '..".'.. 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 1 m 11 48.8 ••••••••••'•'• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 11 42.5 " 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 4 ft 9 34.7 •••••••••• 9 LOOSE STIFF - 7 27.0 ..." 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 23.2 ..... 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 ft 6 23.2 •••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 23.2 ••••'• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 19.3 .'.. 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 ft 8 30.9 ••.•'.•. 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 50 193.0 .•...••.•....•...•••••....e..s...e..e.s.s 25+ VERY DENSE HARD -2m - 7 f 8 f - 9 f -3m lOft - lift - 12 ft -4m 13 ft C:%My DoajmentsWUdca1%WC_XL97.XLS WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of 1 Leighton PROJECT NUMBER: 12493 .001 DATE STARTED: 08-15-2019 DATE COMPLETED: 08-15-2019 HOLE #: DCP-4 CREW: CA/SLR PROJECT: Xenia Hotels / Renovations to the Park Hyatt Aviara Resort ADDRESS: Tee Map LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA 92011 SURFACE ELEVATION: WATER ON COMPLETION: HAMMER WEIGHT:35 lbs. CONE AREA: 10 sq. cm DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE Kg/cm2 GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 N' TESTED CONSISTENCY NON-COHESIVE COHESIVE - 4 17.8 s's.' 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 17 75.5 ••••••••••••••••••••• 21 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 1 ft 18 79.9 ".•••••••••••"•• 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 17 75.5 ••••••••••••••••••••• 21 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 18 79.9 '."..'...".'..'. 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 2 ft 14 62.2 ".'...'....'." 17 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 17 75.5 ••••••••••••••••••••• 21 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 26 115.4 s..s...s..s....es....s.s..s.s... 25+ DENSE HARD - 3 ft 28 124.3 ss.s.s.s.....e.es....s..s.s...ss. 25+ DENSE I-IA.RI - 1 m 32 142.1 ••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ DENSE LIAR]) - 20 77.2 ".".".'..'.' 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 4 ft 18 69.5 "•"•"•'•" 19 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 16 61.8 '..'.....'...'.' 17 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 13 50.2 "•'•'•'•"• 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 5 ft 13 50.2 ."..'...'." 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 15 57.9 "•" 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 12 46.3 '...'..'.'.. 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 6 ft 11 42.5 "•" 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 12 46.3 '•'•"•"• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 2 m 16 61.8 "..'.'. 17 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 7 ft 25 85.5 '.'.'..'.'..".".. 24 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 25 85.5 " 24 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 28 95.8 "•"•"•"•' 25+ MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 8 ft 33 112.9 ....•.••••.••..••.••..••.••.•.• 25+ DENSE FIARI) - 41 140.2 ••.•••.••.••..••.•..•.•••..••.•..••.••• 25+ DENSE HARD - 45 153.9 ....s.........s....s.......s............. 25+ DENSE HARD - 9 ft 43 147.1 .ss..s.s.s.ss.s.s.s..s.s.s.ss.s.s.s..s.s. 25+ DENSE HARD - 40 136.8 s•...••..s.....•.•..•e•s•s•.s•.•s••.•s 25+ DENSE LIAR]) - 37 126.5 ••ss••••••.••.•••••.•••.•s.•.•.•s 25+ DENSE HARD - 3 m 10 ft 38 130.0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ DENSE FIARI) - 35 107.1 ......s.s.s.•e.e...s..s......s 25+ MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - lift - 12 ft -4m 13 ft C:Vy DocumentMWiIdcatWC_XL97.XLS WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page lof I Leighton PROJECT NUMBER. 12493 .001 DATE STARTED: 08-14-2019 DATE COMPLETED: 09-14-2019 HOLE #: DCP-5 CREW: SLR SURFACE ELEVATION: - PROJECT: Xenia Hotels / Renovations to the Park Hyatt Aviara Resort WATER ON COMPLETION:_____________ ADDRESS: See Map HAMMER WEIGHT: 35lbs. LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA 92011 CONE AREA:10 sq. cm DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE Kg/cm- GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 N1 TESTED CONSISTENCY NON-COHESIVE COHESIVE - 5 22.2 ....' 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 10 44.4 '.'.".'.'. 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 1 ft 15 66.6 ".'....'.'•".'. 19 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 13 57.7 '•••••••••••••• 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 19 84.4 24 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 2 ft 14 62.2 .••..•'.".'..' 17 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 8 35.5 es's..'... 10 LOOSE STIFF - 9 40.0 ....'...'. 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 3 ft 8 35.5 •••'•••'•• 10 LOOSE STIFF - 1 m 9 40.0 ••'•••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 8 30.9 .'..'.' 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 4 ft 12 46.3 '......'...' 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 17 65.6 ...'.'.'...'..." 18 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 17 65.6 ••.'."•'.'•'.•'.'. 18 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 5 ft 20 77.2 .......'.e..........' 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 21 81.1 '••"•"•.•"•"•"•' 23 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 35 135.1 .•.............•.•............•.•...• 25+ DENSE HARD - 6 ft 30 115.8 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ DENSE HARD - 35 135.1 .....s....s.s..e........e.s........... 25+ DENSE HARD - 2 m 35 135.1 •••••••••.•s•s•••••••••.•s•••••.••••• 25+ DENSE FLARI) - 7 ft 28 95.8 00660006000000i000000000000 25+ MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 36 123.1 00000000000000000000000000000000000 25+ DENSE llA.R1 - 33 112.9 000000000000000000000ooseses0000 25+ DENSE HARD - 8 ft 40 136.8 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ DENSE HARD - 43 147.1 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••.••.•• 25+ DENSE HARD - 45 153.9 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 25+ DENSE HARD - 9 ft 43 147.1 009000009000000000000000000000000000000000 25+ DENSE HARD - 48 164.2 ••••••••••••••.•••••••••.•••.•..••••• 25+ DENSE HARD - 50 171.0 •••.••............•.................•... 25+ DENSE HARD -3m lOft - lift - 12 ft -4m 13 ft C:V.iy DocurnenteWIIdcatWC_XL97.XLS WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of 2 Leighton HOLE #: DCP-6 CREW: SLR PROJECT: Tenia Hotels / Renovations to the Park Hyatt Aviara Resort ADDRESS: See Map LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA 92011 PROJECT NUMBER: 12493 .001 DATE STARTED:08-14-2019 DATE COMPLETED: 08-14-2019 SURFACE ELEVATION: WATER ON COMPLETION:_____________ HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs. CONE AREA: 10 sq. cm DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE Kg/cm2 GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 - N' TESTED CONSISTENCY NON-COHESIVE COHESIVE - 5 22.2 s's.'. 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 13 57.7 ".".'.'....'. 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 1 ft 13 57.7 '••••••••••••'. 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 12 53.3 ••••••••••••••• 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 16 71.0 .'...".......'.... 20 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 2 ft 17 75.5 .'••••••••••••••••••• 21 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 16 71.0 ...'....'."..'.". 20 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 22 97.7 '..'.'....'...".'...'..'.' 25+ MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 3 ft 19 84.4 "•'•"•". 24 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 1 m 12 53.3 ••••••••••••••• 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 13 50.2 ".'.". 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 4 ft 10 38.6 "• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 15 57.9 ". 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 13 50.2 ............. 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 5 ft 13 50.2 "."." 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 15 57.9 •••••••••••'•"• 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 15 57.9 •••••••••••••'•• 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 6 ft 15 57.9 ••••••••••'•••" 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 18 69.5 "• 19 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 2 m 18 69.5 '••'•"• 19 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 7 ft 15 51.3 ".'.' 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 21 71.8 "•"•"• 20 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 18 61.6 '•'•'•'•'••'•••• 17 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 8 ft 13 44.5 '••'•'•'•" 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 11 37.6 ".'s'. 10 LOOSE STIFF - 13 44.5 "•" 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 9 ft 12 41.0 .'.".".' 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 12 41.0 ".".. 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 9 30.8 "•"•' 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 3 m 10 ft 5 17.1 "• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 5 15.3 .'. 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 5 15.3 s's. 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 3 9.2 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT - lift 3 9.2 ' 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 4 12.2 " 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 5 15.3 " 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 12 ft 5 15.3 "• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 7 21.4 " 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 10 30.6 s's." 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 4m 13 ft 10 30.6 " 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF C:My DocumentMIdcatWVC_XL97.XLS WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of 1 Leighton PROJECT NUMBER: 12493 .001 HOLE #: DCP-7 CREW: SLR PROJECT: Xenia Hotels / Renovations to the Park Hyatt Aviara Resort ADDRESS: See Map LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA 92011 DATE STARTED: 08-14-2019 DATE COMPLETED: 08.14-2019 SURFACE ELEVATION: - WATER ON COMPLETION:____________ HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs. CONE AREA: 10 sq. cm DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE Kg/cm2 GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 - N TESTED CONSISTENCY NON-COHESIVE COHESIVE - 3 13.3 s's 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 20 88.8 .'.".'.".'.".' 25 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 1 ft 26 115.4 •••s..sss•s•ss••••.s...••••••• 25+ DENSE HARD - 50 222.0 ......•.e.•..•.•••.••.•..•••••••••••••• 25+ VERY DENSE HARD - 2 f - 3 f -im - 4 f - 5 f - 6 f -2m - 7 f - 8 f - 9 f -3m lOft - lift - 12 ft -4m 13 ft C:Wy DocumentMWildcat%WC_XL97.XLS IV WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of I Leighton PROJECT NUMBER. 12493.001 DATE STARTED: 08-14-2019 DATE COMPLETED: 08-14-2019 HOLE #: DCP-8 CREW: SLR PROJECT: Xenia Hotels I Renovations to the Park Hyatt Aviara Resort ADDRESS: See Map LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA 92011 SURFACE ELEVATION: WATER ON COMPLETION:____________ HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs. CONE AREA: 10 sq. cm DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE Kg/cm2 GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 - N1 TESTED CONSISTENCY NON-COHESIVE COHESIVE - 3 13.3 .. 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 7 31.1 "• 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 1 ft 10 44.4 '•"•'.••" 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 8 35.5 '•."••" 10 LOOSE STIFF - 18 79.9 '."..'...'........ 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 2 ft 50 222.0 ••.....e.s.ss.s......e..........•s.•..s 25+ VERY DENSE HARD - 50 222.0 ...••.••..••.••.•••....•.•••.••.•........ 25+ VERY DENSE HARD - 3 f -lm - 4 f - 5 f - 6 f -2m - 7 f - 8 f - 9 f -3m lOft - lift - 12 ft -4m 13 ft C:My DocumentsWIdcaflWC_XL97.XLS 4 Leighton Project Name: Xenia Hotels / Renovations to the Park Hyatt Aviara Rc Project No.: 12493.001 Proj. Address: Aviara Resort Drive, Carlsbad, San Diego 92011 Soil Type: Light Brown Silty Sand (SM) Hole # P-I Location: See Map Hole Dia: 3.25 Depth 4 Tested by: CA Pre-Saturation Date: 8-15-19 Test Date: 8-16-19 Notes: Measurements in 11100ths of feet (ft) and P-I Met Sandy Soil Criteria Time of Day Interval (min) Initial Depth to Water (ft) Final Depth of Water (ft) A in Water Level (It) Percolation Rate (inch/hour) PerIation Rate (minñnth) 7:30-7:55 AM 25.00 .92 2.70 0.78 22.46 2.67 8:00.8:25 AM 25.00 1.95 2.71 0.76 21.89 2.74 8:27-8:37 AM 10.00 1.92 2.29 0.37 26.64 2.25 8:39-8:49 AM 10.00 1.98 2.27 0.29 20.88 2.87 8:51-9:01 AM 10.00 1.95 2.25 0.30 21.60 2.78 903-913AM 10.00 1.93 2.20 0.27 19.44 3.09 9:15-9:25AM 10.00 1.92 2.23 0.31 22.32 2.69 9:27-9:37 AM 10.00 1.96 2.29 0.33 23.76 2.53 Notes: 2.53 minfinch or 23.76 inchThour Last 10 minute reading used to calculate the percolation rate. 0 Leighton FIELD PERCOLATION TEST DATA SHEET Project Name: Xenia Hotels I Renovations to the Park Hyatt Aviara Re Project No.: 12493.001 Proj. Address: Aviara Resort Drive, Carlsbad, San Diego 92011 SOIL TYPE! TEST LOCATION! BOREHOLE Soil Type: Light Yellowish Brown Silty Sand (SM Hole # P-2 Location: See Map Hole Die: 3.25 Depth 4 Tested by: CA Pre-Saturation Date: 8-15-19 Test Date: 8-16-19 Notes: Measurements in 1/100ths of feet (ft) Time of Day Interval (mu) Initial Depth to Water (ft) Final Depth of Water (ft) t in Water Level (fi) Peralation Rate (inch/hour) Perrzilalion Rate (niMnch) 9:10-9:40 AM 30.00 1.50 1.80 0.30 7.20 8.33 9:45-1015AM 30.00 1.53 1.75 0.22 5.28 11.36 1018-10:48AM 30.00 1.48 1.75 0.27 6.48 9.26 1050-11:20AM I 30.00 1.53 1.77 0.24 5.76 10.42 11:24-11:54 AM 30.00 1.44 1.74 0.25 6.00 10.00 11:58-1228 AM 30.00 1.50 1.72 0.22 5.28 11.36 12:28-112:58 AM 30.00 1.47 1.67 0.20 4.80 12.50 1:00-1:30 AM 30.00 1.48 1.65 0.17 4.08 14.71 1:32-2:02 AM 30.00 1.51 1.68 0.17 4.08 14.71 2-.04-2:34 AM 30.00 1.47 1.66 0.19 4.56 13.16 2:35,3-05 AM 30.00 1.49 1.67 0.18 4.32 13.89 3:07-3:37 AM 30.00 1.5 1.67 0.17 4.08 14.71 Notes: 14.71 mlnñncti or 4.08 techThour F '•'• I Last 30 nnute reading used to calculate the percolation rate. 4 Leighton Prect Name: Xenia Hotels/ Renovations to the Park Hyatt Aviara Re Proje No.: 12493.001 Proj. Address: Aviara Resort Drive, Carlsbad, San Diego 92011 SOIL TYPE! TEST LOCATION / BOREHOLE I Soil Type: Light Yellowish Brown Silty Sand (SM Hole P-3 Location: See Map Hole Dia: 3.25" Depth 4' Tested by: CA Pre-Saturation Date: 8-15-19 Test Date: 8-16-19 Notes: Measurements in 1/100ths of feet (ft) Time of Day Interval (mm) Initial Depth to Water (ft) Final Depth of Water (ft) t In Water Level (It) Perculalion Rate (inch/hour) Percalahon Rate (mlnñnch) 9:213-9:50 AM 30.00 1.65 2.15 0.50 12.00 5.00 9:53-111.23AM 30.00 1.63 2.09 0.46 11.04 5.43 10:28-1058 AM 30.00 1.67 2.10 0.43 10.32 5.81 1102-11:32AM 1 30.00 1.67 2.07 0.40 9.60 6.25 11:35-12:05 AM 30.00 1.65 2.04 0.39 9.36 6.41 1208.1,',.38AM 30.00 1.61 1.99 0.38 9.12 6.58 12:401:10 AM 30.00 1.63 2.03 0.40 9.60 6.25 1:12-1:42 AM 30.00 1.62 2.00 0.38 9.12 6.58 1:44-2:14 AM 30.00 1.63 2.01 0.38 9.12 6.58 2:15-2.45 AM 30.00 1.60 1.96 0.36 8.64 6.94 2:46-3:16 AM 30.00 1.62 2.01 0.39 9.36 6.41 3:18-3:48 AM 30.00 1.64 2.05 0.41 9.84 6.10 Notes: 6.10 mln(inth or 9.84 inch!hour Last 30 atnute reading used to calculate the percolation rate. I Leighton Project Name: Proposed Renovations to the Park Hyatt Aviara Resort Project No.: 12493.001 PM. Address: Aviara Resort Drive, Carlsbad, San Diego 92011 I SOIL TYPE I TEST LOCATION I BOREHOLE Soil Type: Light Yellow-Brown, Silty SAND (SM) Hole # P-4 Location: See Map Hole Die: 3.25" Depth 4' Tested by: CA Pre-Saturation Date: 11-14-19 Test Date: 11-15-19 Notes: Measurements in 1/100ths of feet (It) Time of Day lntmval (mm) Initial Depth to Water (It) Final Depth of Water (It) A in Water Level (It) Percolation Rate (lnthrnow) Percolation Rate (mkiñnth) 830-9:00 30.00 1.68 1.76 0.08 1.92 31.25 905-9:35 30.00 1.63 1.67 0.04 0.96 62.50 9:37-10:07 30.00 1.41 1.47 0.06 1.44 41.67 10:08-10:38 30.00 1.47 1.52 0.05 1.2 50.00 10:3841:08 30.00 1.52 1.57 0.05 1.2 50.00 1t09-11:39 30.00 1.57 1.62 0.05 1.2 50.00 11:012:10 30.00 1.62 1.67 0.05 1.2 50.00 12.10-12:40 30.00 1.67 1.71 0.04 0.96 62.50 12:45-116 30.00 1.55 1.58 0.03 0.72 8333 1:17-1:47 30.00 1.58 1.64 0.06 1.44 41.67 1:48-2:18 30.00 1.34 1.4 0.06 1.44 41.67 2.18-2:48 30.00 1.4 1.46 0.06 1.44 41.67 Notes: 41.67 mlnllnch or 1.44 lncMiour Last 30 mInute reading used b calculate the percolation rate. 4 Leighton Project Name: Proposed Renovations to the Park Hyatt Aviara Resort Project No.: 12493.001 Proj. Address: Aviara Resort Drive, Carlsbad, San Diego 92011 SOIL TYPE I TEST LOCATION I BOREHOLE Soil Type: Light Yellow-Brown, Silty SAND (SM) Hole # P-5 Location: See Map Hole Die: 3.25" Depth 4 Tested by: CA Pro-Saturation Date: 11-14-19 Test Date: 11-15-19 Notes: Measurements in lllOOths of feet (It) lime of Day Interval (rain) Initial Depth to Wale- (6) FInal Depth of Water (It) A in Water Level (It) Peiselation Rate (inthmour) PeruIation Rate (nlnñndl) 8:35-9:05 30.00 1.80 1.78 0.18 4.32 13.89 p.08-9:38 30.00 1.53 1.67 0.14 3.38 17.86 92-10:08 30.00 1.67 1.77 0.10 2.4 25.00 1008-10-.38 30.00 1.77 1.87 0.10 2.4 25.00 1039-11.09 30.00 1.87 1.96 0.09 2.16 27.78 11:10-11:40 30.00 1.96 2.04 0.08 1.92 31.25 11:43.12:13 30.00 1.44 1.57 0.13 3.12 1923 12.13-12.43 30.00 1.57 1.68 0.11 2.64 22.73 12:48-1:18 30.00 1.42 1.55 0.13 3.12 19.23 1:21-1:51 30.00 1.5 1.58 0.08 1.92 31.25 1:52-222 30.00 1.58 1.68 0.10 2.4 25.00 2.22-2:52 30.00 1.55 1.65 0.10 2.4 25.00 Notes: 25.0 minMch or 2.4 incMour Last 30 minute reading used to calculate the pereotatlon rate. 12493.001 APPENDIX C Laboratory Test Results Leighton 12493.001 APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Following are tables that summarize laboratory testing that was performed by other consultants and provided to Leighton. Copies of the tests results we were provided are included at the end of this appendix. Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with Caltrans Test Method CT643. The results are presented in the table below: Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity (ohms-cm) HA-2 © 0.5-5 Feet 7.37 1299 HA-4@1-4 Feet 7.38 912 Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with DOT Test Method No. 422. The results are presented below: Sample Location Chloride Content Degree of Corrosivity (ppm) HA-2 © 0.5-5 Feet 172 Low HA-4 © 1-4 Feet 232 Moderate Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by Caltrans Test Method CT4I 7. The test results are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sulfate Content (ppm) Potential Degree of Sulfate Attack* HA-2 © 0.5-5 Feet 62 Negligible HA-4 © 1-4 Feet 108 Negligible * Based on the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318-08, Table No. 4.3.1. c-I 4 Leighton 12493.001 APPENDIX C (Continued) Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of a selected material was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, ASTM Test Method 4829. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The result of the test is presented in the table below: Sample Depth (ft) . Sample Description I Expansion Expansion Location Index Potential HA-2 0.5 to 5 Clayey Sand-Silty Sand (SC-SM) 10 Very Low HA-4 I to 4 Silty Sand (SC-SM) 10 Very Low "R"-Value: The resistance "R"-value was determined by the California Materials Method CT30I for base, subbase, and basement soils. The samples were prepared and exudation pressure and "R"-value determined. The graphically determined "R"-value at exudation pressure of 300 psi is reported. Sample Location I Sample Description I R-Value HA-1 © 0.5-5 feet 0 I Clayey SAND-Silty Sand I I (SC-SM) I 4 Leighton 12493.001 APPENDIX D General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Leighton 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. -2- LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. 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 -3- LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 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/Acceøtance of Fill Areas All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. 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 lmort 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- LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 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. 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 Sloøes 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 01557. 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 -5- LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 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. 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. LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 7.0 Trench Backfills 7.1 Safety The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 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 EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 2 FEET MIN.- LOWEST KEY DEPTH BENCH (KEY) RLL-OV-CUT SLOPE EXISTiNG.. GROUND SURFACE ) - -'-- FEET MIN., - LOWEST 2 FEET MIN. KEY BENCH (KEY) DEPTH UNSUITABLE BENCH HEIGHT MATERIAL (4 FEET TYPICAL) BENCH HEIGHT (4 FEET TYPICAL) UNSUITABLE MATERIAL WT-OVER-FILL SLOPE CUT FACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT TO ALLOW VIEWING/,,'- OF GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 's EXISTING - f GROUND SURFACE -..-...--- CUT FACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT OVERBUILD TRIM BACK PROJECTED PLANE-. DESIGN SLOPE-.-.- 1TOIMAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND - I 15 FEET MIN. 2 FEET MIN-1 • LOWEST KEY DEPTH BENCH (KEY) REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL LBENCH HEIGHT (4 FEET TYPICAL) BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPE'S ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1. MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET AND MINIMUM ALL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND KEYING AND BENCHING GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL A 49 GRADE SLOPE FACE 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. 6wh,~ 4 W'a GRANULAR MATERIAL TO BE DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY DETAIL FLOODING OR JETTING. VETTED OR FLOODED GRANULAR MATERIAL TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW OVERSIZE ROCK GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 4 DISPOSAL STANDARD DETAIL B MOVE SUITABLE TERIAL TRENCH SEE DETAIL BELOW FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED 6" MIN. OUIVALENT)- OVEP CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MIN. OR #2 ROCK (9FT3/FT) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC 4 MIN. BEDDING COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL BE MINIMUM 6" DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 pvc PERFORATED PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL D FOR PIPE SPECIFICATIONS DESIGN FINISH GRADE fILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) '•. .' . • . '• • ..—CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE . :' : -' • OR 02 ROCK (9Fr3/FT) WRAPPED ip -1 - IN FILTER FABRIC 20 MIN. 5 IN. I-- PERFORATED 'I NONPERFORATED 6"0 1.11W. 6 01.11W. PIPE DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET GENERAL EARTHWORK AND CANYON SUBDRAINS GRADING SPECIFICATIONS I STANDARD DETAIL OUTLET PIPES 4" 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE. 100 MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY. 30 MAX O.C. VERTICALLY BACK CUT 1:1 OR FLATTER SUBDRAIN TRENCH LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD BE SITUATED AS LOW AS POSSIBLE TO ALLOW SUITABLE OUTLET 1• KEY WIDTH FKEY 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 92 ROCK (3 Fr3/FT) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC 4-0 ' NON—PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE ....- - PROVIDE POSITIVE SEAL AT THE JOINT T—CONNECTION FOR COLLECTOR PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE 2r 1 6 MIN. COVER •• ••• ..:•. 4-0 .: PERFORATED Sx MIN. PIPE 4" MIN. —FILTEfi FABRIC BEDDING ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - subdroin collector pipe shall be installed with perforation down or. unless otherwise designated by the geotechnicol consultant. Outlet pipes shall be non—perforated pipe. The subdroin pipe shall hove at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation shall be 1/4" to 1/21 if drill holes are used. All subdr&n pipes shell have o gradient of at least 2% towards the outlet. SUBDRAIN APE - Subdram pipe shall be ASTU D2751. SDR 23.5 or ASTU D1527, Schedule 40. or ASTM 03034. SDR 23.5. Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe. All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench no wider than twice the subdrcin pipe. BUTTRESS OR GENERAL EARTHWORK AND REPLACEMENT GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FILL SUBDRAINS STANDARD DETAIL 41 CUT-FILL TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVA11ON REMOVE UNSUITABLE -. GROUND I - - I I - I - -4- 5 I MIN I I -- - - - - - ------- -—COMPACTED - - - ---.----- 5 MIN. \ ____ or ______ (7 OVEREXCAVATE YPICAL AND RECOMPACT - - - - - - —I T — — — BENCHING -_- UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT TRANSITION LOT FILLS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAIL E SOIL BACKFILL COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION BASED ON ASTM D1557 RETAINING I • I- ---------- I" • WALL WATERPROOFING -. I' ?&C FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE PER ARCHITECTS 0 • • (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED SPECIFICATIONS I .° •o EQUIVALENT)' FINISH GRADE I'S 1 MIN 11-.314" TO 1-1/2" CLEAN GRAVEL Th o • • .. :: 4 (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED / 0 -:--. PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR / I • oO . -:-:-:-: EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS -- 4 0 0 ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED - I .!I°° :1 MINIMUM PERCENT GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET ----- 3" MIN. WALL FOOTING 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 ACTIVE ZONE FljgR FBI .......... : : : v; l El ZONE .FILTER FABRIC.:,:.:.:.: RETAINED ZONE BACKDRAIN TO 70% OF WALL HEIGHT GRAVEL DRAINAGE FILL MIN 6" BELOW WALL MIN 12" BEHIND UNITS AND 24" FROM FACE WHERE WALL HEIGHT> 10' SAME AS ABOVE, BUT BELOW UPPER 10' INCREASE GRAVEL TO MIN 24" BEHIND UNIT AND 36" FROM FACE WHERE WALL HEIGHT:,, 20' SAME AS ABOVE, BUT BELOW UPPER 20' INCREASE GRAVEL TO MIN 36" BEHIND UNIT AND 48" FROM FACE SUBDRAIN REAR SUBDRAIN: 4" (MIN) DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN. SURROUNDED BY I 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 NOTES: MATERIAL GRADATION AND PLASTICITY 1 INCH 100 1 INCH 100 NO.4 20-100 3/4 INCH 75-100 NO. 40 0-60 NO.4 0-60 NO. 200 0-35 NO. 40 0-50 FOR WALL HEIGHT <10 FEET, PLASTICITY INDEX <20 AND LIQUID LIMIT <40 NO. 200 0-5 FOR WALL HEIGHT 10 FEET OR TALLER, PLASTICITY INDEX <6 FOR TIERED WALLS, USE COMBINED WALL HEIGHTS FOR WALL HEIGHT >20 FEET, REDUCE ALLOWABLE RANGE % PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE TO 0-15 CONTRACTOR TO USE SOILS WITHIN THE RETAINED AND REINFORCED ZONES THAT MEET THE STRENGTH AND UNIT WEIGHT 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 10 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 -411011 I GRADING SPECIFICATIONS RETAINING WALLS I STANDARD DETAIL Wi F 12493.001 APPENDIX E GBA Insert Geolechnical-EnUmineeping Report --) The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you - assumedly a client representative - interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more Information about any of the issues discussed below, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil- works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical- engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a d jflrent client can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one - not even you - should apply this reportjbr any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read this Report in Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report infril. You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer about Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when designing the study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and risk-management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, configuration, and performance criteria; the structure's location and orientation on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. 1pica1 changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect: the site's size or shape, the function of the proposed structure, as when its changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse; the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure; the composition of the design team; or project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes - even minor ones - and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered. This Report May Not Be Reliable Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: for a different client; for a different project; for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. Ifyour geotechnical engineer has not indicated an "apply-by" date on the report, ask what it should be, and, in general, (fyou are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis - if any is required at all - could prevent major problems. Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site's subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ - maybe significantly - from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly, whenever needed. This Report's Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent The recommendations included in this report - including any options or alternatives - are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation- dependent recommendations (fyou fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals' misinterpretation of geotechnical- engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the design team, to: confer with other design-team members, help develop specifications, review pertinent elements of other design professionals' plans and specifications, and be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction observation. Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you've included the rnaterialfor informational purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that "informational purposes" means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations," many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study - e.g., a "phase-one" or "phase-two" environmental site assessment - differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical- engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six months old. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer's services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled migration of moisture - including water vapor - from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's recommendations will not of Itself be sufficient to prevent moisture Infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building- envelope or mold specialists. GEOPROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION SAFA BUSINESS Telephone: 301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org wwwgeoprofessional.org Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessionsi Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, In whole or In part, by any means whatsoever, Is strictly prohibited, except with GBAs specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or Its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent