HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 2018-0004; ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS; GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE EVALUATION AND RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW COMMETNS; 2022-05-18GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE EVALUATION AND
RESPONSE TO THIRD-PARTY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS
ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS
7527 ROMERIA STREET
CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 92009
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS (APNS) 216-300-12-00 AND -13-00
CITY OF CARLSBAD GRADING PERMIT NO.: GR2021-0039
FOR
BNR INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, LLC
23800 VIA DEL RIO
YORBA LINDA, CALIFORNIA 92887
W.O. 7297-A5-SC MAY 18, 2022
Geotechnical C Geologic C Coastal C Environmental
5741 Palmer Way C Carlsbad, California 92010 C (760) 438-3155 C FAX (760) 931-0915 C www.geosoilsinc.com
May 18, 2022
W.O. 7297-A5-SC
BNR Investment and Development, LLC
23800 Via Del Rio
Yorba Linda, California 92887
Attention:Messrs. Ram Setya and Neal Desai
Subject:Geotechnical Update Evaluation and Response to Third-Party Geotechnical
Review Comments, Romeria Pointe Apartments, 7527 Romeria Street,
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California 92009, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
(APNs) 216-300-12-00 and -13-00, City of Carlsbad Grading Permit No.:
GR2021-0039
Dear Messrs. Setya and Desai:
In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this
summary of our geotechnical update evaluation relative to the planned multi-family
residential development project at the subject site, as currently shown on the grading plans
prepared by Robin B. Hamers & Associates, Inc. ([RBH], 2022 [see Appendix A]). This
update is intended to provide amended preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the
planned construction shown on RBH (2022). In addition, this update provides our
responses to review comments prepared by the City of Carlsbad’s Third-Party
Geotechnical Consultant, Hetherington Engineering, Inc. ([HEI], 2021). The services GSI
performed for this update included reviews of the referenced documents (Appendix A);
engineering analyses (Appendix C); and the preparation of this geotechncial update
report/response. Unless specifically superceded herein, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in our previous site-specific reports (see Appendix A) are still
considered valid and applicable, and should be appropriately implemented during the
balance of project planning, design, and construction.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
According to RBH (2022), the currently planned development involves preparing the
subject parcels to receive two (2) multi-family residential structures with associated
underground utilities, site walls, and vehicular and pedestrian pavements. RBH (2022)
indicates that cut and fill grading will be necessary to achieve the design grades with
maximum planned cuts and fills on the order of 24 and 7 feet, respectively. The planned
grading requires the construction of cut slopes with a maximum height of approximately
10½ feet and gradients of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) or flatter. Foundation walls and site
GeoSoils, Inc.
retaining walls will be used to accommodate abrupt grade transitions. The maximum
height of the planned foundation walls is approximately 14 feet. Site retaining walls will be
constructed to a maximum height of roughly 5½ feet and will be constructed in accordance
with the San Diego Regional Standard Design (SDRSD).
RBH (2022) shows that storm water runoff from the planned development will be directed
toward four (4) biofiltration planters where it will be treated and stored before introduction
into the regional system. The biofiltration planters will require maximum planned
excavations ranging between approximately 9½ and 17 feet below the existing grades, with
the deepest planned excavation occurring within the footprint of Biofiltration Planter No.
3 (BMP-3). From top to bottom, the planned biofiltration planter profiles include a 3-inch
thick hardwood mulch layer, 18 inches of amended soils, a filter course consisting of
6 inches of washed pea gravel, and a reservoir layer consisting of 18 to 42 inches of
Caltrans Class 2 permeable base materials. The biofiltration planters will be surrounded
by retaining walls with a maximum height of roughly 7 feet. The bottoms of the basins will
consist of a 2-foot thick concrete slab-on-grade.
RBH (2022) indicates that temporary shoring will be used to retain the adjacent southern
property during the planned excavations for the construction of Building “A” and
Biofiltration Planter No. 1 (BMP-1). According to shoring plans prepared by Kurt Fischer
Structural Engineering ([KFSE], 2022a), the temporary shoring system will consist of 15,
30-inch diameter soldier piles with a maximum center-to-center spacing of 8 feet and a
minimum total length of 28 feet. Four-inch by 12-inch pressure-treated timber lagging will
be used to retain soils between the soldier piles. The shoring system will retain up to
10 feet of soil and the soldier piles will have a minimum embedment depth of 18 feet below
the excavation bottom elevation.
The planned apartment buildings will be 4 stories in height and will use a system of
reinforced cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) concrete piles at the perimeter walls of the buildings.
According to the building foundation plans prepared by KFSE (2022a), 51 and 54 CIDH
piles will be installed for Buildings “A”and “B,” respectively. The CIDH piles will be
24 inches in diameter and will have total embedments ranging between approximately
18 and 40 feet. Thirty-inch wide by 24-inch deep grade beams will interconnect the CIDH
piles. KSFE (2022a) also shows that the proposed buildings will be supported by shallow,
isolated spread footings with dimensions ranging between 7 and 11 square feet. These
footings will have an embedment depth of 36 inches below the adjacent pad grade
elevations and will be supported by vibro piers designed by Keller North America ([Keller],
2021). These vibro piers will extend to a depth of 25 feet below the bearing elevation of
the footings. The lowest floor levels of the buildings will have concrete slab-on-grade
floors. Vibro piers (aggregate piers) will also be installed for the support of the building
slab-on-grade floors. These vibro piers will extend to a depth of 15 feet below the pad
grade elevations.
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 2
GeoSoils, Inc.
KSFE (2022a) shows column loads ranging between 4,000 and 6,000 pounds (4 to 6 kips).
KSFE (2022b) indicates that the maximum axial load applied to the CIDH piles is on the
order of 185 kips. KSFE (2022b) also shows that the maximum shear force applied at the
pile head is approximately 66 kips.
GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND
The Romeria Pointe property consists of Lots 392 and 393 of the La Costa South, Unit
No. 5 subdivision. According to the original grading plans, prepared by Rick Engineering
Company ([REC], 1970), prior to grading, the Romeria Pointe property was situated upon
a north-facing slope that descended from highlands to the south to the San Marcos Creek
floodplain to the north. A relatively deeply incised, generally northwest-trending natural,
albeit slightly anthropogenically modified drainage course, transected the southwestern
corner of Lot 392 and continued through the adjacent western property. The up-gradient
portion of this drainage course nearly bisected the adjacent southern Lots 390 and 391.
REC (1970) shows that cut and fill grading was required to bring the Romeria Pointe
property to its current grades. Maximum planned cuts and fills were on the order of 5 feet
and 22 feet, respectively. Grading also included the construction of manufactured slopes
with heights up to approximately 20 feet and gradients of 1½:1 (h:v).
Prior to original grading, which occurred in 1970, the geotechnical conditions within the
La Costa South, Unit No. 5 subdivision were investigated by Benton Engineering, Inc.
([BEI], 1969). Based on the subsurface and laboratory data BEI compiled, it was
concluded that the most significant geotechnical factors controlling development of the
subdivision included the occurrence of potentially compressible, loose surficial soils and
porous alluvial deposits, and the presence of expansive soils. BEI made no statement
regarding deep-seated instability or landslide issues associated with the subdivision.
During original grading, BEI performed geotechnical observations and field density testing
as the original ground was prepared and fills were placed and compacted. As indicated
in their “Final Report on Compacted Filled Ground” (BEI, 1970), BEI performed
10 compaction tests on Lot 392 and 5 compaction tests on Lot 393. BEI (1970) stated that
the depth of fill on Lots 392 and 393 was 33 feet and 20 feet, respectively. The differences
between the planned fill thickness on the original grading plan and the as-built fill
thicknesses reported in BEI (1970) suggest that up to 11 feet of the former surficial soils
were removed and recompacted.
In 2001, the site geotechnical conditions were evaluated by East County Soil Consultation
and Engineering, Inc. (ECSCEI, 2001). For their limited investigation, ECSCEI conducted
two exploratory borings to depths ranging between 16 and 17 feet below the existing
grades. ECSCEI also conducted two exploratory test pit excavations to depths on the
order of 10 feet below the existing grades. The logs of ECSCEI (2001) borings and test pits
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 3
GeoSoils, Inc.
are presented in Appendix B. The approximate locations of ECSCEI’s borings and test pits
are indicated on Plate 1 (Updated Geotechnical Map), which uses RBH (2022) as a base.
ECSCEI (2001) reported that the site was mantled by approximately 10 feet of moderately
to highly expansive fill soils that were underlain by dense sandstones belonging to the
Tertiary Santiago Formation. Based upon the analysis of the data and information
gathered from their investigation, ECSCEI concluded that the site was suitable for
development provided that their recommendations were implemented during construction.
Although ECSCEI (2001) did not include slope stability analyses of the existing slopes
descending from the parcels, they recommended an 8-foot structural setback from the tops
of these slopes as mitigation for potential instability. Furthermore, ECSCEI (2001) stated
that the existing fill soils had been previously certified with a relative compaction of
90 percent. However, ECSCEI (2001) did not reference any existing as-graded
geotechnical reports.
In August of 2003, Soil Pacific, Inc. ([SPI], 2003) issued an addendum report and
clarification letter for a formerly proposed development plan using the ECSCEI (2001)
findings. In their addendum report, SPI clarified an engineering review comment by the
City of Carlsbad with respect to a formerly proposed development plan.
In September of 2004, GSI conducted a preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the subject
site for a formerly proposed development plan. For this preliminary investigation, GSI
advanced and logged two large-diameter borings to depths of approximately 16 feet and
41½ feet below the existing grades. Soil samples collected from our subsurface
exploration were tested in the laboratory. We also performed geotechnical engineering
analyses, including slope stability analyses, based on the subsurface conditions
understood at the time. GSI found the site to be suitable for proposed development
provided that the recommendations presented in GSI (2004) were incorporated into project
planning, design, and construction. Based on our findings, we concluded that the most
significant geotechnical factors relative to the former development plan included the
potential compressibility of the existing fills underlying the parcels; the medium to high
expansion potential of the onsite earth materials; the surficial stability of the 1½:1 (h:v) fill
slopes that descend from the parcels; and the potential for the proposed buildings to
surcharge the existing retaining wall on the adjacent western parcel. Recommendations
to mitigate these issues included the removal and recompaction of the potentially
compressible existing fill or the use of deep foundation elements to control settlement and
top-of-slope deformations; the use of post-tensioned or mat-slab foundation systems to
resist expansive soil shrink/swell; the reconstruction of the outer 10 feet of the descending
fill slopes with geogrid reinforcements to reduce the potential for surficial instability; and
deepened foundations that would extend beyond the influence of the aforementioned
existing retaining wall. The GSI (2004) boring logs are included in Appendix B. The
approximate locations of the GSI (2004) borings are shown on Plate 1.
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 4
GeoSoils, Inc.
In order to obtain additional subsurface data pertaining to the approximate depth of the
geologic contact between the existing fill and the Santiago Formation within the southern
parcel, GSI advanced five (5) cone penetration test (CPT) soundings (GSI, 2006a). The
subsurface data acquired from this supplemental investigation indicated that the southern
parcel could be underlain by nearly 35 feet of existing fill near its northwestern corner and
approximately 15 feet of existing fill near its southeastern corner. The GSI (2006a) CPT
logs are included in Appendix B and their approximate locations are shown on Plate 1.
Following this supplemental geotechnical field work, GSI reviewed grading, foundation,
and segmental retaining wall plans for the formerly proposed project. This work was
performed between 2006 and 2007.
GSI performed a geotechnical update evaluation of the Romeria Pointe property in 2017
relative to a formerly proposed development plan, which involved the construction of
two (2), three-story apartment buildings. This study included reviews of the existing,
site-specific geotechnical data, updated site seismicity, and the preparation of a summary
report (GSI, 2017). In GSI (2017), three (3) different alternative earthwork and foundation
support scenarios were recommended, and the advantages and disadvantages of each
measure were discussed. These alternatives included: 1) the complete removal and
recompaction of the earth materials considered unsuitable for supporting the proposed
improvements; 2) the limited removal and recompaction of the unsuitable earth materials
and the use of CIDH piles for support of the proposed buildings and site retaining walls;
and 3) the limited removal and recompaction of the unsuitable earth materials, the use of
CIDH piles for support of portions of the proposed buildings and the site retaining walls
located within 15 feet of descending slopes, and the use of vibro piers for supporting the
proposed improvements not subjected to lateral loads. The recommendations for
enhancing the surficial stability of the descending slopes and for the mitigation of
expansive soils were generally similar to those previously included in GSI (2004).
Following the issuance of GSI (2017), we reviewed the project grading plans and
addressed City of Carlsbad concerns regarding the feasibility of the proposed
development from a geotechnical perspective (GSI, 2018b). In GSI (2018b), we concluded
that the proposed earthwork shown on the grading plans was feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint and was in general conformance with the recommendations previously
provided in the geotechnical documents prepared by this firm. We indicated that the
construction of Building “A” and the formerly proposed 48-inch diameter storm water
storage pipe/tank would cause our recommended temporary slope gradients to be
exceeded, which necessitated temporary shoring to retain the adjacent southern property.
We also pointed out that the 48-inch diameter storm water storage pipe/tank may be
subject to surcharge from the building on the adjacent southern property. To that end, we
recommended that the tank/pipe be evaluated for surcharge or positioned such that it is
located above a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected down and toward the north from the bottom,
outboard edge of the adjacent building foundation. GSI (2018b) also advised that the
proposed biofiltration basin, north of Building “B,” would not allow the uppermost layer of
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 5
GeoSoils, Inc.
geogrid reinforcement recommended in GSI (2017) for improving the surficial stability of
the existing 1½:1 (h:v) fill slopes along the perimeter of the site, thus increasing the
potential that the north-facing slope could possibly require increased maintenance and
repairs over the life of the development. Owing to the vertical sidewalls of the proposed
biofiltration basins and the poor engineering capability of the amended basin soil to
support proposed settlement-sensitive improvements located above a 1:1 (h:v) plane
projected up and toward the adjacent improvements from the basin’s pea gravel filter
course, we identified that the proposed improvements could experience settlement- or
creep-related distress. For mitigation, we recommended that retaining walls be
constructed around the basin perimeters. Otherwise, the builder and owner should allow
for periodic replacement of the improvements every 3 to 10 years. In GSI (2018b), we
again recommended that the proposed buildings, retaining walls, free-standing walls,
exterior staircases and associated landings be supported by CIDH piles or vibro piers if the
entirety of the existing fill materials were not removed and recompacted. In addition, we
cautioned that the proposed vehicular and pedestrian pavements supported by the
existing fill may require increased maintenance, repairs, and perhaps complete
replacement every 3 to 10 years. We also recommended that passive resistance used in
the design CIDH piles, adjacent to the biofiltration basins and the storm water storage
tank/pipe, be neglected above the invert elevation of the tank/pipe. GSI emphasized that
the heavy braking and hard turning by refuse trucks may require that the parking garage
floor slabs, driveway approaches, and driveways be designed as industrial pavements.
GSI (2018b) warned that stockpiled construction materials and heavy equipment storage,
and traffic could surcharge the existing northern and western descending slopes and the
existing retaining walls on the adjacent, western property. Thus, we recommended that
the grading plans prepared in conjunction with final project engineering delineate the
temporary onsite locations appropriate for stockpiling and heavy equipment storage, and
traffic.
Later in 2018, we prepared a response to a City of Carlsbad review comment regarding the
location of the proposed biofiltration planters against the “extended building footing”
(GSI, 2018a). In rebuttal, GSI (2018a) indicated that locating the proposed biofiltration
planters against (adjacent to) the CIDH piles is acceptable from a geotechnical perspective
on the condition that the project structural engineer neglects passive resistance for the
portion of the pile located above the invert elevation of the storm water storage pipes/tanks
in the planters.
Afterwards, GSI attended a June 11, 2019 City of Carlsbad City Council meeting to support
the Romeria Pointe project. Later that year, we responded to concerns raised by project
appellants and some City of Carlsbad Council members regarding the geotechnical
conditions within the Romeria Pointe project site and the immediate surrounding area
(GSI, 2019). We also attended a November 17, 2020 virtual City of Carlsbad City Council
hearing regarding an appeal to the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission’s unanimous
decision to approve the project after their review of an environmental impact report. After
hearing testimony from the project proponents and appellants, the City Council voted to
uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 6
GeoSoils, Inc.
In August 2021, GSI prepared a geotechnical update report (GSI, 2021) to bring the
geotechnical aspects of the project into conformance with the 2019 California Building
Code (California Building Standards Commission [CBSC], 2019)and American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-16 (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017). GSI (2021)
provided updated seismic design parameters and geotechnical recommendations for
incorporating seismic loading into the design of the planned retaining walls.
SITE RECONNAISSANCE
On March 28, 2022, a GSI representative visited the subject site to observe the current
surficial conditions. Observations indicate that the subject parcels are essentially in the
same condition as observed during our previous field work. However, the north-facing
slope has experienced erosion and surficial failures, locally. This appears to be the result
of unmaintained surface drainage that is directing storm runoff toward the top of this slope.
ONSITE GEOLOGIC UNITS
The onsite geologic units include recent slump deposits, undocumented artificial fill,
existing compacted fill placed under purview of BEI (1970), and Tertiary-age sedimentary
bedrock belonging to the Santiago Formation. These earth materials are further described
below from the youngest to the oldest. The approximate limits of the onsite geologic units
are shown in plan view on Plate 1. The onsite geology is also represented in profile view
on Geologic Cross Sections A-A’, B-B’, and C-C’ (Plate 2).
Upon further review and comparison with the subsurface data obtained in preparation of
GSI (2004, 2006a), the reliability of the location of the geologic contact between the
compacted artificial fill and the Santiago Formation, indicated in the logs for ECSCEI (2001)
Boring B-2 and Test Pit TP-2 is dubious. This may be due to inaccurate locating of the
aforementioned boring and test pit or errors in geologic logging. Thus, the subsurface
conditions represented on Plates 1 and 2 do not consider all the geologic data at face
value, reported in ECSCEI (2001) Boring B-2 and Test Pit TP-2.
Quaternary-age (Recent) Slump Deposits (Map Symbol - Qs)
Recent slump deposits were observed along a portion of the north-facing slope, near the
northeastern corner of the site. Although not explored, the slump deposits are likely
composed of clay with minor sand and silt, and angular gravels and cobbles. Based on
our observations, the slump deposits are possibly 2 to 3 feet thick.
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 7
GeoSoils, Inc.
Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Map Symbol - Afu)
Undocumented artificial fill occurred as dumped stockpiles of soil, rocks, and concrete
near the southern margin of the northern parcel. At the surface, the undocumented
artificial fill generally consisted of light grayish brown clayey sand and brown sandy clay
with angular gravels and cobbles and angular fragments of sedimentary bedrock and
concrete. The thickness of the undocumented fill is approximately 3 feet or less.
Artificial Fill - Compacted (Map Symbol - Afc)
Compacted artificial fill, placed under the purview of BEI (1970), mantles most of the site.
As observed in the large-diameter borings, advanced in preparation of GSI (2004), the
compacted artificial fill consisted of grayish brown, olive gray, brown, yellowish brown, gray
and dark brown sandy clay, and yellowish brown and gray silty sand. The compacted fill
also contained subangular and subrounded cobble- and boulder-sized rock constituents.
ECSCEI (2001) described the compacted fill in their borings and test pits as tan, brown,
dark brown, and grayish brown sandy clay; grayish brown, tan, dark brown, and blueish
brown clayey sand with varying concentrations of silt; and light tan silty sand with localized
“oversized” rock fragments. Similar soil types were encountered in the CPT soundings
advanced in preparation of GSI (2006a). Based on our observations, the interpreted CPT
data, and the as-graded information provided in BEI (1970), the approximate thickness of
the compacted fill is anticipated to range between 11½ and 33½ feet on the northern
parcel and between 15 and 34 feet on the southern parcel, but may be thicker locally.
Tertiary Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - Tsa)
Tertiary-age Santiago Formation was encountered underlying the compacted artificial fill
in the borings and CPTs advanced at the site. It also likely outcrops within the basal
portion of the northern-facing slope descending from the norther parcel. The Santiago
Formation encountered in the large diameter borings completed in preparation of
GSI (2004) consisted of dark grayish brown, brown, medium brown, orange, and gray
sandy claystone; yellowish brown, gray, dark grayish brown, and orange clayey
sandstone; gray, orange, grayish brown, and brown silty sandstone; and brown
well-graded sandstone. The Santiago Formation also contained trace to locally abundant
rounded, subangular, and angular pebble- and cobble-sized clasts and trace boulder-sized
clasts. ECSCEI (2001) described the Santiago Formation encountered in their borings and
test pits as dark grayish brown clay; brown dark brown, and grayish brown sandy clay; and
tan sandstone. Similar lithologies were interpreted in the CPTs advanced in preparation
of GSI (2006a). Plate 1 includes isolines showing the approximate elevations of the top of
the Santiago Formation within the subject site.
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 8
GeoSoils, Inc.
GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE
The Santiago Formation encountered in the GSI (2004) large-diameter borings exhibited
subhorizontal bedding. Regionally, Santiago Formation bedding is inclined 5 degrees to
the northwest and southwest, and 20 degrees to the northeast (Kennedy and Tan, 2007).
Bedding orientation is not considered adverse with respect to deep-seated slope stability.
UPDATED PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
Based on our review, the planned development shown on RBH (2022) is considered
technically feasible from a geotechnical engineering perspective, provided that the
recommendations contained in GSI (2017, 2018a, 2018b, 2021), and herein, are properly
incorporated into the balance of project design and construction. The most significant
geotechnical factors relative to the currently proposed site development include:
•The depth to suitable bearing materials below the existing grades.
•The settlement potential of the left-in-place artificial fill.
•The on-going expansion and corrosion potential of the onsite earth materials.
•The stability of the slopes descending from the building pads.
•The protection of adjacent property and existing improvements during construction.
•Long-term effects of slope creep of clay fill soils on foundations and proposed
improvements located near slopes.
These elements are further described below.
1.It is anticipated that the planned grading will remove the slump deposits and the
undocumented artificial fill. However, the planned grading will expose the existing,
compacted artificial fill soils placed during original rough grading of parcels at the
rough grade elevations, over much of the site. Based on the subsurface data
accumulated in preparation of GSI (2004, 2006a) and the as-graded fill thicknesses
reported in BEI (1970), the currently planned grading may leave upwards of
approximately 28 feet of the existing compacted fill materials in place. However, it
is possible that thicker sections of the existing compacted fill materials may remain
locally on the southern parcel. The available subsurface data suggests that the
planned grading on the northern parcel will remove most of this fill. Laboratory test
data obtained in preparation of GSI (2004) suggests that the existing compacted fill
soils are non-uniform with respect to moisture content and density and subject to
considerable compression when inundated and subjected to applied loads.
Following a value engineering review by the project construction manager and
design team, we understand that the client/developer has decided to use a
combination of cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) concrete piles and vibro piers to support
the proposed apartment buildings. The client/developer does not intend to support
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 9
GeoSoils, Inc.
the proposed ancillary site improvements (i.e., underground utilities, site retaining
walls, pavements/hardscape, etc.) with CIDH piles or vibro piers and has
acknowledged that increased maintenance, repairs, and perhaps replacement of
these improvements may occur. Earthwork recommendations are provided herein
to improve the performance of these accessory improvements. However, the
recommendations do not preclude the potential for these accessory improvements
to undergo settlement-related deformations and exhibit associated distress.
2.Expansion index tests by ECSCEI (2001) and GSI (2004) indicate that the
near-surface soils are medium to high in expansion potential with expansion indices
ranging between 56 and 102. The results of Atterberg Limits testing we performed
in preparation of GSI (2004) indicate plasticity indices varying between 21 and 23.
This data demonstrates that the near-surface, onsite soils meet the criteria of
expansive soils as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the 2019 California Building Code
(CBSC, 2019). For conformance with Section 1808.6 of the 2019 California Building
Code, the proposed buildings will include a combination of CIDH piles with
interconnecting grade beams, shallow spread footings supported by vibro piers,
and 6-inch slab-on-grade floors supported by an array of vibro piers. In addition,
expansive soils should not be located above a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected up and
toward the retained soils from the heel of shallow retaining wall foundations or the
base of CIDH pile-supported foundation walls.
3.Testing performed on a sample of the near-surface onsite soils with respect to soil
corrosivity and soluble sulfates and chlorides indicates that the specimen is mildly
alkaline relative to soil acidity/alkalinity; is severely corrosive to exposed buried
metals when moist; does not contain concentrations of soluble sulfates that would
have an injurious effect on concrete (Exposure Class S0 per Table 19.3.1.1 of
American Concrete Institute [ACI] 318-14 [ACI, 2014]); and contains concentrations
of soluble chlorides that may represent an external source of chlorides (Exposure
Class C2 per Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI [2014]).
4.In their completed state and assuming proper preparation and prudent surface
drainage, landscaping, and irrigation practices over the design life of the planned
development, the slopes descending from the proposed building pad areas are
considered grossly and surficially stable. Surface improvements and site retaining
walls within a horizontal distance of 15 feet from the tops of the descending slopes
may be subject to creep-related deformations.
5.Shoring is advised where the recommended gradients for temporary slopes
associated with the planned excavations conflict with property boundaries or
existing improvements that need to remain in service. Temporary shoring designed
by KFSE (2022a) will be used to retain the adjacent southern property during the
construction of planned Biofiltration Planter No. 1 (BMP-1) and Building “A.”
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 10
GeoSoils, Inc.
UPDATED PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
General
The following updated preliminary recommendations should be incorporated into site
grading and the construction of the proposed improvements.
Earthwork Construction
All earthwork should conform to the guidelines presented in the 2019 California Building
Code (CBSC, 2019), the requirements of the City of Carlsbad, and the General Earthwork
and Grading Guidelines presented in Appendix H of GSI (2017), unless superseded herein.
In cases where the recommended earthwork procedures, codes, and standards are in
conflict, the most conservative approach should govern.
A preconstruction meeting is recommended prior to earthwork. A GSI representative
should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional earthwork
guidelines, if needed, and to review the earthwork schedule. This office should be notified
in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of the site, or backfilling
underground utility trenches and retaining walls after rough earthwork has been
completed. This includes grading for driveway approaches, driveways, and exterior
hardscape.
During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of
the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of
GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed
by this office and, if warranted, modified or additional recommendations will be offered.
All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety
orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), and the Construction Safety Act
should be met. It is the onsite general contractor’s and individual subcontractors’
responsibility to provide a safe working environment for our field staff who are onsite. GSI
does not consult in the area of safety engineering.
Site Preparation
All existing vegetation, deleterious debris, and organic-rich topsoils should be removed
from the site prior to the start of construction if they are located in areas of proposed
earthwork. Any remaining cavities should be observed by the geotechnical consultant so
recommendations for mitigation can be provided. The extent of mitigation would largely
be based on the extent of the cavity.
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 11
GeoSoils, Inc.
Remedial Grading - Building Pad Areas
The building pad for Building “A” requires planned cuts and fills up to approximately
9½ feet and 7 feet, respectively. In contrast, the building pad for Building “B” necessitates
planned cuts ranging between 8 and 24 feet from the existing grades. Where the building
pads involve planned cuts of 1 foot or greater below the existing grades, the soils exposed
along the excavation bottom should be proof-rolled with a loaded water truck under the
observation of the geotechnical consultant. If significantly yielding subgrade areas are
identified during proof-rolling, recommendations for mitigation would be provided at that
time and the type of remediation would be based on the conditions exposed.
Building “A” pad areas that require planned cuts less than 1 foot below the existing grades
should be overexcavated (undercut) to a depth of at least 1 foot below pad grade. The
bottom of the overexcavation should be uniformly moisture conditioned or aerated to 2 to
3 percent above the soil’s optimum moisture content and then recompacted to a minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557) or the
maximum extent practical. The overexcavation should then be backfilled with soils that
have been uniformly moisture conditioned or aerated to 2 to 3 percent above the soil’s
optimum moisture content, placed in relatively thin lifts, and then compacted to a minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557).
Prior to placing planned fills within the Building “A” pad area, the existing soils should be
removed to a depth of at least 1 foot below the existing grades. The bottom of this
remedial excavation should be uniformly moisture conditioned or aerated to 2 to 3 percent
above the soil’s optimum moisture content and then recompacted to a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557) or the maximum
extent practical. The excavation should then be backfilled with excavated soils that have
been uniformly moisture conditioned or aerated to 2 to 3 percent above the soil’s optimum
moisture content, placed in relatively thin lifts, and then compacted to a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557).
Remedial Grading - Biofiltration Planters
As previously stated, the planned biofiltration basins, including the foundation for their
perimeter walls, will require excavations ranging between approximately 9½ and 17 feet
below the existing grades. Following the planned excavation, the bearing surface for the
biofiltration planter wall foundations should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 1 foot.
The bottom of the overexcavation should be uniformly moisture conditioned or aerated to
2 to 3 percent above the soil’s optimum moisture content, and then recompacted to a
minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557).
The overexcavation should then be backfilled with soils that have been uniformly moisture
conditioned or aerated to 2 to 3 percent above the soil’s optimum moisture content, placed
in relatively thin lifts, and then compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent
of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557). If significantly yielding soil conditions are
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 12
GeoSoils, Inc.
identified along the overexcavation bottom that would preclude its recommended
recompaction or the compaction of the overlying backfill, recommendations for mitigation
would be provided at that time and the type of remediation would be based on the
conditions exposed.
Remedial Grading - Site Retaining Walls, Free-Standing Walls, and Waterline Thrust
Blocks
In areas where planned cuts for site retaining wall and free-standing wall foundations, and
waterline thrust blocks are 1 foot or greater below the existing grades, the bottoms of the
planned excavations should be overexcavated (undercut) to at least 1 foot below the
bottom of the wall foundations or shear keys (where shear keys occur) and the bottoms
of the thrust blocks. The bottoms of the overexcavations should be uniformly moisture
conditioned or aerated to 2 to 3 percent above the soil’s optimum moisture content, and
then recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory
standard (per ASTM D 1557). The overexcavation should then be backfilled with soils that
have been uniformly moisture conditioned or aerated to 2 to 3 percent above the soil’s
optimum moisture content, placed in relatively thin lifts, and then compacted to a minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557). Unless
constrained by property lines and improvements, the overexcavations for the site retaining
wall and free-standing wall foundations and waterline thrust blocks should be completed
for a lateral distance of at least 2W outside the wall foundations/thrust blocks in all
directions, where “W” equals the width of the footing in plan view. The overexcavations
should be backfilled to the top-of-footing/top-of-thrust block elevations so that the
footings/thrust blocks develop lateral support from the newly compacted fill. If significantly
yielding soil conditions are identified along the overexcavation bottom that would preclude
its recommended recompaction or the compaction of the overlying backfill,
recommendations for mitigation would be provided at that time and the type of remediation
would be based on the conditions exposed.
In areas where planned fills are necessary or where planned cuts for site retaining wall and
free-standing wall foundations, and waterline thrust blocks are less than 1 foot below the
existing grades, the existing fill soils should be removed or overexcavated (undercut) to a
depth of at least 1 foot below the existing grades. The bottoms of the remedial
excavations/overexcavations should be uniformly moisture conditioned or aerated to 2 to
3 percent above the soil’s optimum moisture content and then recompacted to a minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557). The
remedial excavation/overexcavation should then be backfilled with soils that have been
uniformly moisture conditioned or aerated to 2 to 3 percent above the soil’s optimum
moisture content, placed in relatively thin lifts, and then compacted to a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557). Unless, restricted
by property boundaries or improvements, the remedial excavation/overexcavation should
be completed for a lateral distance of at least 2W outside the wall foundations/thrust blocks
in all directions, where “W” equals the width of the footing/dimensions of the thrust block
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 13
GeoSoils, Inc.
in plan view. If significantly yielding soil conditions are identified along the remedial
excavation/overexcavation bottom that would preclude its recommended recompaction
or the compaction of the overlying backfill, recommendations for mitigation would be
provided at that time and the type of remediation would be based on the conditions
exposed.
Vehicular Pavements
In areas where planned cuts for vehicular pavement subgrades are 1 foot or greater below
the existing grades, the bottoms of the planned excavations should be overexcavated
(undercut) to at least 1 foot below the pavement subgrades. The overexcavated
subgrades should be proof-rolled with a loaded water truck under the observation of the
geotechnical consultant. The bottoms of the overexcavations should then be uniformly
moisture conditioned or aerated between the soil’s optimum moisture content and
1 percent above the soil’s optimum moisture content, and then recompacted to a minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557). The
overexcavation should then be backfilled with soils that have been uniformly moisture
conditioned or aerated between the soil’s optimum moisture content and 1percent above
the soil’s optimum moisture content, placed in relatively thin lifts, and then compacted to
a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per
ASTM D 1557). Unless constrained by property lines and improvements, the
overexcavation should be completed for a lateral distance of 2 feet beyond the edge of
pavement or the back of curb. If significantly yielding soil conditions are identified along
the overexcavation bottom that would preclude its recommended recompaction or the
compaction of the overlying backfill, recommendations for mitigation would be provided
at that time and the type of remediation would be based on the conditions exposed.
In areas where planned fills are necessary or where planned cuts for vehicular pavement
subgrades are less than 1 foot below the existing grades, the existing fill soils should be
removed or overexcavated (undercut) to a depth of at least 1 foot below the existing
grades. The exposed subsoils along the bottoms of the remedial
excavations/overexcavations should be proof-rolled with a loaded water truck under the
observation of the geotechnical consultant. The bottoms of the remedial
excavations/overexcavations should then be uniformly moisture conditioned or aerated
between the soil’s optimum moisture content and 1 percent above the soil’s optimum
moisture content and then recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent
of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557). The remedial excavation/overexcavation
should then be backfilled with soils that have been uniformly moisture conditioned or
aerated between the soil’s optimum moisture content and 1 percent above the soil’s
optimum moisture content, placed in relatively thin lifts, and then compacted to a minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557). Unless
restricted by property lines and improvements, the remedial excavation/overexcavation
should be completed for a lateral distance of 2 feet beyond the edge of pavement or the
back of curb. If significantly yielding soil conditions are identified along the remedial
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 14
GeoSoils, Inc.
excavation/overexcavation bottom that would preclude its recommended recompaction
or the compaction of the overlying backfill, recommendations for mitigation would be
provided at that time and the type of remediation would be based on the conditions
exposed.
Pedestrian Pavements/Hardscape
In areas where planned cuts for pedestrian pavement/hardscape subgrades are 1 foot or
greater below the existing grades, the bottoms of the planned excavations should be
overexcavated (undercut) to at least 1 foot below the pavement/hardscape subgrades.
The bottoms of the overexcavations should be uniformly moisture conditioned or aerated
to 2 to 3 percent above the soil’s optimum moisture content, and then recompacted to a
minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557).
The overexcavation should then be backfilled with soils that have been uniformly moisture
conditioned or aerated to 2 to 3 percent above the soil’s optimum moisture content, placed
in relatively thin lifts, and then compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent
of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557). Unless constrained by property lines and
improvements, the overexcavation should be completed for a lateral distance of 2 feet
beyond the edge of pavement/hardscape.
In areas where planned fills are necessary or where planned cuts for pedestrian
pavement/hardscape subgrades are less than 1 foot below the existing grades, the
existing fill soils should be removed or overexcavated (undercut) to a depth of at least
1 foot below the existing grades. The bottoms of the remedial excavations/overexcavations
should be uniformly moisture conditioned or aerated to 2 to 3 percent above the soil’s
optimum moisture content and then recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of
90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557). The remedial
excavation/overexcavation should then be backfilled with soils that have been uniformly
moisture conditioned or aerated to 2 to 3 percent above the soil’s optimum moisture
content, placed in relatively thin lifts, and then compacted to a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557). Unless restricted
by property lines and improvements, the remedial excavation/overexcavation should be
completed for a lateral distance of 2 feet beyond the edge of pavement/hardscape. If
significantly yielding soil conditions are identified along the remedial
excavation/overexcavation bottom that would preclude its recommended recompaction
or the compaction of the overlying backfill, recommendations for mitigation would be
provided at that time and the type of remediation would be based on the conditions
exposed.
Underground Utility Trench Bottoms
Following trenching and prior to placing pipe bedding materials, the bottoms of
underground utility trenches should be uniformly moisture conditioned or aerated to 2 to
3 percent above the soil’s optimum moisture content and then recompacted to a minimum
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 15
GeoSoils, Inc.
relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557). If
significantly yielding conditions are identified during compaction of the trench bottoms that
would preclude the recommended compaction of the overlying backfill, recommendations
for mitigation would be provided at that time and the type of remediation would be based
on the conditions exposed.
Structural Fill Placement
Fill materials should be placed in approximately 6- to 8-inch lifts, cleaned of vegetation and
any debris, uniformly moisture conditioned or aerated to at least 2 to 3 percent above the
soil’s optimum moisture content, and be compacted to achieve a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). Nesting of oversized
rock constituents should be avoided if used in structural fill. The maximum particle size
incorporated into structural fills should not exceed 12 inches in dimension. However,
stricter requirements for oversized fill materials may be necessary where underground
utilities are planned. Benching should be provided on all surfaces steeper than 5:1 (h:v)
prior to fill placement. Observations and field density testing should be performed by the
geotechnical consultant during structural fill placement.
Underground Utility Trench Backfill
Underground utility trench backfill, including irrigation trench backfill, should be uniformly
moisture conditioned or aerated to at least 2 to 3 percent above the soil’s optimum
moisture content, placed in relatively thin lifts, and compacted to a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557). In vehicular
pavement areas, the backfill soils within 2 feet of the pavement subgrade should be placed
at optimum moisture content to reduce the potential for yielding subgrade conditions.
Backfill soils should not include oversized particles greater than 3 inches in dimension.
However, underground utility providers may have stricter requirements in this regard.
Import Soils
If import fill is necessary, a sample of the soil import should be evaluated by this office prior
to importing, in order to assure compatibility with the onsite soils and the
recommendations presented in this report. If non-manufactured materials are used,
environmental documentation for the export site should be provided for GSI review. At
least three (3) business days of lead time should be allowed by builders or contractors for
proposed import submittals. This lead time will allow for environmental document review,
particle size analysis, laboratory standard, expansion testing, and blended import/native
characteristics as deemed necessary. Import soils should have an expansion index (E.I.)
of 50 or less and a P.I. of 20 or less. Import for retaining wall backfill should have an E.I.
of 20 or less and a P.I. of 14 or less. The importation of gravel (3/4- inch to 1½ inches in
dimension) is recommended for the backfill of the planned SDRSD site retaining walls due
to the low equivalent fluid pressures used in the design of these walls. Placement of
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 16
GeoSoils, Inc.
expansive soils within driveway areas may increase the thickness of the pavement
structural section. The use of subdrains at the bottom of the fill cap may be necessary, and
may be subsequently recommended based on compatibility with onsite soils.
Graded Slopes
General
RBH (2022) indicates that the northern-facing slope descending from the northern parcel
will be regraded at a 2:1 (h:v) or flatter gradient. In addition, the existing descending slope
near the northeastern property corner will be regraded at an approximate 3:1 (h:v) or flatter
gradient. Furthermore, a portion of the eastern-facing slope descending from the southern
parcel will be regraded at a 4:1 (h:v) gradient. Lastly, RBH (2022) indicates that the portion
of the western-facing slope descending from the southern parcel will be kept at an
approximate 1.5:1 (h:v) gradient, where not located within the footprint of proposed
Building “A.”
The slopes are anticipated to be grossly and surficially stable provided the
recommendations contained herein are properly implemented during construction and
post-development land management. Our opinion regarding graded slope stability
assumes proper slope construction, normal rainfall, adequate vegetative covering with
deep-rooted and drought tolerant plant species, prudent irrigation and surface drainage
practices, and regular maintenance.
Compaction of the Slope Face
The faces of the regraded slopes and the remaining portions of the western-facing
1.5:1 (h:v) slope should be uniformly moisture conditioned or aerated to at least 2 to
3 percent above the soil’s optimum moisture content, and then be compacted to a
minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557).
During slope regrading and compaction, it may be necessary to provide a temporary
catchment to prevent rock constituents in the existing fill from impacting the adjacent
properties.
Other Considerations Regarding Graded Slopes
•Graded slopes should receive a deep-rooted, drought tolerant vegetative covering
immediately following construction. In the interim between construction and the
establishment of landscape cover, the graded slopes should receive City of
Carlsbad-approved erosion control devices.
•The project landscape plan should consider the use of drip-system irrigation with
moisture sensors on all slopes.
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 17
GeoSoils, Inc.
•Surface drainage should be directed away from the tops of graded slopes.
Conveyance of surface runoff along the toes of slopes should be avoided or
transported in lined swales or through piping. Storage or infiltration of surface
runoff along the tops and toes of slopes should be avoided, if possible.
•The condition of graded slopes should be periodically reviewed by the
client/developer or their representative(s) and any deficiencies should be corrected
as soon as possible. If requested, this office can provide additional consultation
regarding the maintenance of graded slopes.
Temporary Slopes
Temporary slopes for excavations greater than 4 feet, but less than 20 feet in overall height
should conform to CAL/OSHA or OSHA requirements for Type “B” soils (i.e., 1:1 [h:v] slope
gradient), provided groundwater, seepage, or running sands are not present. Construction
materials or soil stockpiles should not be placed within “H” of any temporary slope where
“H” equals the height of the temporary slope. All temporary slopes should be observed
by a licensed engineering geologist or engineer prior to worker entry into the excavation.
Based on the exposed field conditions, inclining temporary slopes to flatter gradients or
the use of shoring may be necessary if adverse conditions are observed. If adverse
conditions are exposed or if temporary slopes conflict with property boundaries, or existing
improvements that need to remain in service, shoring or slot grading may be necessary.
The need for shoring or slot grading could be further evaluated during site earthwork.
Surcharges on temporary slopes from soil stockpiles, heavy equipment, traffic, and existing
structures will require evaluation.
Slot Grading
Slot grading may be performed as an alternative to shoring when conducting excavations
adjacent to property lines and existing improvements that need to remain in service so as
to not cause damage to such. Slot excavations may be performed in an “A,” “B,” and “C”
sequence and should be a maximum of 6 feet in width. Multiple slots may be
simultaneously excavated provided that open slots are separated by at least 12 feet of
approved compacted fill or undisturbed soils. Slot excavations should not extend more
than 10 feet deep without the assistance of shoring. Slot grading is recommended for any
excavation located below a 2:1 (h:v) plane projected down and away (north) of the face
of the temporary shoring at the planned cut depth. Daily survey monitoring is
recommended during slot grading in front of the temporary shoring.
Excavation Observation and Monitoring (All Excavations)
When excavations are made adjacent to an existing improvement (i.e., underground utility,
wall, road, building, etc.) there is a risk of some damage even if a well-designed system
of excavation is planned and executed. We therefore recommend that a systematic
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 18
GeoSoils, Inc.
program of observations be made before, during, and after construction to determine the
effects (if any) of construction on existing improvements.
We believe that this is necessary for two reasons. First, if excessive movements (i.e., more
than ½-inch) are detected early enough, remedial measures can be undertaken which
could possibly prevent serious damage to existing improvements. Second, the
responsibility for damage to the existing improvement can be determined more equitably
if the cause and extent of the damage can be determined more precisely.
Monitoring should include the measurement of any horizontal and vertical movements of
the existing structures/improvements. Locations and types of the monitoring devices
should be selected prior to the start of construction. The program of monitoring should be
agreed upon between the client/developer, the general contractor, the site surveyor, and
the geotechnical consultant, prior to excavation.
Reference points should be provided on existing walls, buildings, and other
settlement-sensitive improvements. These points should be placed as low as possible on
the wall and building adjacent to the excavation. Exact locations may be dictated by
critical points, such as bearing walls or columns for buildings; and surface points on
roadways or curbs near the top of the excavation.
For a survey monitoring system, an accuracy of a least 0.01 foot should be required.
Reference points should be installed and read initially prior to excavation. The readings
should continue until all below-grade construction has been completed and the permanent
backfill has been brought to finish grade.
The frequency of readings will depend upon the results of previous readings and the rate
of construction. Weekly readings could be assumed throughout the duration of
construction with daily readings during rapid excavation near the bottom of the excavation.
The readings should be plotted by the project surveyor or civil engineer and then reviewed
by the geotechnical consultant. In addition to the monitoring system, it would be prudent
for the geotechnical consultant and the contractor to make a complete inspection of the
existing structures both before and after construction. The inspection should be directed
toward detecting any signs of damage, particularly those caused by settlement.
Pre-construction notes should be made and photographs or video recordings should be
taken where necessary.
Earthwork Balance (Shrinkage/Bulking)
The volume change of excavated materials upon compaction as compacted fill is
anticipated to vary with material type and location. The overall earthwork shrinkage and
bulking may be approximated by using the following parameters:
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 19
GeoSoils, Inc.
Undocumented Fill and Slump Deposits.....................5% to 10% shrinkage
Existing Compacted Fill .........................5% shrinkage to 2 to 3% bulking
Santiago Formation ........................................2% to 3% bulking
The above factors are estimates only, based on preliminary data. The undocumented fill,
slump deposits, and the existing compacted fill may achieve higher shrinkage if organics
or clay content is higher than anticipated, if a high degree of porosity is encountered, or
if compaction averages more than 92 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557).
In addition, higher shrinkage may be encountered due to extensive rodent burrowing.
Final earthwork balance factors could vary. In this regard, it is recommended that balance
areas be reserved where grades could be adjusted up or down near the completion of
grading in order to accommodate any yardage imbalance for the project.
CIDH Pile Embedment
From a geotechnical standpoint, the CIDH piles should extend at least 6 feet into Santiago
Formation, as recommended in GSI (2017), and be of sufficient length to accommodate
the required structural capacities. CIDH pile embedment into Santiago Formation should
also consider the “Total Capacity Versus Depth” charts included in GSI (2017) and the
results of our lateral pile capacity evaluation contained herein. When evaluating total CIDH
pile embedment, the project structural engineer should refer to the approximate elevations
of the buried geologic contact between the compacted artificial fill and the Santiago
Formation shown on Plate 1.
Neglection of Soil Resistance for CIDH Piles Adjacent to Biofiltration Planters
If the planned excavations for the biofiltration planter occurs following the construction of
adjacent Buildings “A” and “B,” soil resistance contributed to the portion of the CIDH piles
should be neglected to 1 pile diameter below the planter excavation. This includes the
excavation for the planter wall foundation and any remedial earthwork.
Lateral Pile Capacity Analyses
GSI evaluated the lateral capacity of proposed Building “A” CIDH pile no. C49 and
proposed Building “B” CIDH pile no. C33 (KSFE, 2022b) using the computer program
LPILE Plus V5.0 (Ensoft, Inc., 2007b). The lateral capacity analyses modeled the
subsurface conditions and earth material strengths (GSI, 2004, 2006a), and the currently
planned CIDH pile construction, the associated shear force applied at the pile head, and
the axial load transferred to the pile (KSFE, 2022a, 2022b).
Graphical output plots showing the relationships between lateral pile deflection and pile
depth (pile length), shear force and pile depth (pile length), and the bending moment and
pile depth (pile length) were generated from our evaluation. These plots are provided in
Appendix C. GSI recommends that the location of the maximum bending moment
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 20
GeoSoils, Inc.
obtained from our analyses be considered in KSFE’s estimation of the location of the point
of fixity.
Verification of Subsurface Conditions for Vibro Pier Design
GSI recommends that Keller North America verify that the available subsurface information
is suitable and sufficient for vibro pier design and that their proprietary design will perform
in accordance with their calculations, predictions, and owner expectations. Although GSI
understands that general principals involved in the design of vibro piers to control
settlement, we cannot be held responsible for the performance of a proprietary,
design-build ground improvement system.
Slab-on-Grade Floor Subgrade Preparation and Pre-Soaking
Prior to the placement of the slab-on-grade floor underlayment section, any loose materials
should be removed and the subgrade moisture conditioned or aerated to 2 to 3 percent
above the soil’s optimum moisture content, and then be compacted to a minimum relative
density of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557).
Pre-moistening of the subgrade soil for the planned slab-on-grade floors is recommended
prior to placing the slab underlayment section, owing to the medium to high expansion
potentials exhibited by the onsite soils.
Pre-moistening and/or pre-soaking should be evaluated by the soils engineer within
72 hours prior to vapor retarder placement. In summary:
EXPANSION
POTENTIAL PAD SOIL MOISTURE CONSTRUCTION
METHOD
SOIL MOISTURE
RETENTION
Medium
(E.I. = 51-90)
Upper 18 inches of pad soil
moisture 2 percent over
optimum (or 1.2 times)
Berm and flood or wetting
and reprocessing
Periodically wet or cover
with plastic after trenching.
Evaluation 72 hours prior to
placement of concrete.
High
(E.I. = 91-130)
Upper 24 inches of pad soil
moisture 3 percent over
optimum (or 1.3 times)
Berm and flood or wetting
and reprocessing
Periodically wet or cover
with plastic after trenching.
Evaluation 72 hours prior to
placement of concrete.
Biofiltration Planter Foundation Design
Provided the remedial grading recommendations in this report are followed, the design of
the biofiltration planter wall foundations may use an allowable bearing value of
1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for a minimum 24-inch wide footing extending at least
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 21
I I I I I
-
-
GeoSoils, Inc.
24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade into compacted fill observed and tested by the
geotechnical consultant. The design of the foundation may also use a passive pressure
of 150 psf per foot (psf/ft) with a maximum earth pressure of 1,500 psf, and a coefficient of
friction equivalent to 0.30 when multiplied by the dead load force. When combining
passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be
reduced by one-third. The foundation design may assume backfill soil densities between
110 and 115 pounds per cubic foot.
Retaining Wall Subdrains
Planned retaining walls not designed for hydrostatic pressure should receive a subdrain
system conforming to the recommendations in GSI (2017). The subdrains should be
outletted into a non-erodible discharge point(s) designated by the project civil engineer.
The retaining wall subdrain layout and discharge point(s) should be provided by the
project civil engineer. GSI recommends that the installed retaining wall subdrains be
surveyed during construction and shown on the as-graded grading plans in order to avoid
damage to such by future excavations. Subdrain cleanout spacing should conform to the
currently adopted plumbing code.
Retaining Wall Backfill
As previously indicated in the “Import Soils” section of this report, gravel backfill materials
are recommended for the planned SDRSD retaining walls owing to the low equivalent fluid
pressure used in their design. The gravel backfill should be ¾- inch to 1½ inches in
dimension. It should be moisturized, placed in lifts, and densified. The gravel backfill
should be separated from adjacent soils using filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved
equivalent). The filter fabric-encased gravel backfill should be capped with pavement or
slab-on-grade floor underlayment sections (where applicable), or at least 18 inches of soils
with an expansion index of 50 or less that have been uniformly moisture conditioned to at
least 1 to 2 percent above soil’s optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (per ASTM D 1557).
The project structural engineer should specify the type of backfill (i.e., select or native) to
be used in the construction of the foundation, elevator pit, and biofiltration planter walls on
the structural plans. Recommended specifications for select and native backfill materials
were provided in GSI (2017). The onsite soils will likely not conform to these
recommended specifications. In order to reduce lateral earth pressures on the retaining
walls, expansive soils (E.I. > 20) should be kept below a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected up and
toward the retained zone from the heel of shallow retaining wall foundations and the base
of pile-supported foundation walls. It is recommended that the placement of the
biofiltration planter wall backfill and the gravel, and amended soils inside the planter occur
simultaneously so that the height of the soil/gravel on the interior and exteriors of the
planters are roughly equal.
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 22
GeoSoils, Inc.
Surcharge from the Existing, Offsite Condominium Building on the Temporary
Shoring
Surcharge on the planned temporary shoring from the existing condominium building on
the adjacent southern property should be modeled as 50 percent of the dead plus live load
force below a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected down and toward the Romeria Pointe project site
from the bottom, outboard edge of the condominium building foundation.
Preliminary Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCCP) Design for Access Drive
Aisles
The following preliminary recommendations for the design of PCCP assume a subgrade
resistance value (R-value) of 5.0 (equivalent subgrade modulus of 67 pci), moduli of
rupture equivalent to 420 and 510 pounds per square inch (psi) for PCCP with design
compressive strengths of 2,500 and 3,250 psi, respectively, and estimated axle loads of
35,000 pounds for the front axle and 50,000 pounds for the rear tandem axle of a refuse
truck. We assumed that the truck would travel the PCCP twice a week (208 trips per year
or 4,160 trips over a 20-year pavement life). Based on these parameters, preliminary
recommendations fo the design of the PCCP access drive aisles are provided in the table
below.
PORTLAND CONCRETE CEMENT PAVEMENTS (PCCP)
TRAFFIC
AREAS
CONCRETE
TYPE
PCCP
THICKNESS
(inches)
Access Drive Aisles
520-C-2500 7.0
560-C-3250 6.0
NOTE: All PCCP is designed as un-reinforced and bearing directly on compacted subgrade. However, a 4-inch thick layer
of compacted Class 2 aggregate base may be considered for increased performance. All PCCP should be properly detailed
(jointing, etc.) per the industry standard. Pavements may be additionally reinforced with #4 reinforcing bars, placed 12 inches
on center, each way, for improved performance.
Other Considerations Regarding Vehicular Pavement Design
The final pavement design should be based on the results of R-value testing at the
conclusion of grading and underground utility trench backfill. The recommended
pavement sections provided above are intended as minimum guidelines. If thinner or
highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair
could be expected. If the ADT (average daily traffic) or ADTT (average daily truck traffic)
increases beyond that intended, as reflected by the T.I. used for design, increased
maintenance and repair could be required for the pavement section. Consideration should
be given to the increased potential for distress from overuse of paved street areas by heavy
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 23
I I I I
GeoSoils, Inc.
equipment or construction related heavy traffic (e.g., concrete trucks, loaded supply trucks,
etc.). Best management construction practices should be followed at all times, especially
during inclement weather.
Where PCCP is located adjacent to landscape areas, it should incorporate a minimum
6-inch wide turned-down edge extending at least 12 inches below the pavement subgrade.
Site drainage should direct surface runoff away from the PCCP and not allow water to pond
adjacent to the PCCP.
Vehicular PCCP Section Construction
General
The following recommendations should be incorporated into the construction of vehicular
PCCP:
Pavement Subgrade
The recommended remedial grading should occur within the vehicular pavement areas
prior to subgrade preparation. The pavement subgrade should be free of any loose
materials, scarified at least 6 to 8 inches, uniformly moisture conditioned to the soil’s
optimum moisture content, and then compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory
standard (per ASTM D 1557). The pavement subgrade should be proof-rolled under the
observation of the geotechnical consultant prior to placing the concrete or the Class 2
aggregate base course (if used). Field density tests should be performed during the
compaction of the pavement subgrade.
Class 2 Aggregate Base
If used, the Class 2 aggregate base should be uniformly moisture conditioned to at least
optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory standard
(per ASTM D 1557). Field density tests should be performed during the compaction of the
aggregate base layer. Base aggregate should be in accordance to the Caltrans or
“Greenbook” specifications for Class 2 base rock (minimum R-value=78).
Settlement of Left-in-Place Existing Compacted Fill Beneath Ancillary Site
Improvements
Following the recommended remedial grading, we estimate that the remaining compacted
fill materials, originally placed under the purview of BEI (1970), receiving applied loads
from the proposed ancillary site improvements (i.e., biofiltration planters, site retaining
walls, underground utilities, vehicular and pedestrian pavements, etc.) will undergo total
settlements on the order of 1½ inches and a differential settlement of approximately ¾-inch
in a 40-foot horizontal span (angular distortion = 1/640).
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 24
GeoSoils, Inc.
RESPONSE TO THIRD-PARTY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS (HEI, 2021)
The HEI (2021) review comments are repeated below in italics, followed by our response.
HEI Comment No. 1
Due to the age of the “Geotechnical Update Evaluation” (Reference 1), the Consultant
should provide an updated geotechnical report addressing the plans, and provide updated
grading and foundation recommendations consistent with the 2019 California Building
Code, as necessary.
GSI Response
Please see the preceding geotechnical update evaluation.
HEI Comment No. 2
The Consultant should review the project grading, shoring, retaining wall and foundation
plans, provide any additional geotechnical recommendations considered necessary, and
confirm that the plans have been prepared in accordance with the geotechnical
recommendations provided.
GSI Response
GSI has performed geotechnical reviews of RBH (2022) and KSFE (2022a). In general,
RBH (2022) and KSFE (2022a) conform to the geotechnical recommendations provided
by this firm. GSI recommends that we be provided the opportunity to review any significant
revisions to RBH (2022) and KSFE (2022a) that require geotechnical consideration.
HEI Comment No. 3
The Consultant should provide a geotechnical map/plot utilizing the latest grading plan for
the project to clearly show (at a minimum): a) existing site topography, b) proposed
structures/improvements, c) proposed finish grades, d) geologic contacts, e) locations of
the subsurface exploration, f) temporary construction slopes, g) shoring, and h) remedial
grading, etc.
GSI Response
The requested updated geotechnical map (Plate 1) is included herein.
HEI Comment No. 4
The Consultant should provide geologic cross-sections utilizing the current grading plan to
clearly show (at a minimum): a) existing site topography, b) proposed
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 25
GeoSoils, Inc.
structures/improvements, c) proposed finish grades, d) geologic contacts, e) locations of
the subsurface exploration, f) remedial grading limits, g) shoring, and h) temporary slopes.
GSI Response
The requested geologic cross sections (Plate 2) are included herein.
HEI Comment No. 5
The Consultant should provide a detailed description of proposed site grading,
structures/improvements, foundation types, etc.
GSI Response
Please see the “Planned Development” section of the preceding geotechnical update.
HEI Comment No. 6
The Consultant should provide a statement regarding the impact of the proposed grading
and construction on adjacent properties and improvements.
GSI Response
Provided the recommendations provided in GSI (2017, 2018b) and in the text of the
preceding geotechnical update are incorporated into the balance of project design and
during construction, the impact of the proposed grading and construction on adjacent
properties and improvements is considered negligible.
HEI Comment No. 7
The Consultant should provide an opinion with respect to the stability of existing and/or
proposed slopes including temporary, gross (static and seismic), and surficial stability.
GSI Response
Based on our review and provided the recommendations in the “Graded Slopes” and
“Temporary Slopes” sections of the preceding geotechnical update are adhered during
and following construction, it is our opinion that the existing and proposed slopes will have
acceptable factors-of-safety (FOS) under gross static and seismic conditions (FOS equal
to 1.5 and 1.1, respectively) and surficial conditions (FOS equal to 1.5). In addition, the
temporary slopes will have acceptable static short-term gross stability (FOS equal to 1.25).
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 26
GeoSoils, Inc.
HEI Comment No. 8
Foundation and slab design criteria for expansive soils should be consistent with Section
1808.6 of the 2019 California [Building] Code. The Consultant should update foundation
recommendations, as necessary.
GSI Response
It is our opinion that the combination of the CIDH piles, vibro piers, slab subgrade
pre-soaking, and the 6-inch thick concrete slab-on-grade floors would provide mitigation
of expansive soils in accordance with Section 1808.6 of the 2019 California Building Code.
HEI Comment No. 9
The Consultant should address expected total and differential settlements due to leaving
undocumented fill in place.
GSI Response
See the “Settlement of Left-in-Place Existing Compacted Fill Beneath Ancillary Site
Improvements” section of the preceding geotechnical update.
HEI Comment No. 10
The Consultant should address the effects of differential settlement on utilities and lifeline
services outside of mitigation and provide any recommendations necessary.
GSI Response
See the “Settlement of Left-in-Place Existing Compacted Fill Beneath Ancillary Site
Improvements” section of the preceding geotechnical update. The magnitude of
settlement is not considered adverse with respect to the operability of underground utilities
and lifeline services, from a geotechnical viewpoint.
HEI Comment No. 11
The Consultant should address the effects of settlement on retaining walls and hardscape
that will be supported by undocumented fill.
GSI Response
See the “Settlement of Left-in-Place Existing Compacted Fill Beneath Ancillary Site
Improvements” section of the preceding geotechnical update.
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 27
GeoSoils, Inc.
LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have
been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either
express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI
assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their
inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our
recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an
agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding
any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to
review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of
services for this portion of the project.
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 28
GeoSoils, Inc.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this response document, please do not
hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoSoils, Inc.
John P. Franklin Stephen J. Coover
Engineering Geologist, CEG 1340 Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2057
Ryan B. Boehmer
Project Geologist
RBB/JPF/SJC/sh
Attachments:Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Logs of Subsurface Explorations: B.1 - ECSCEI, 2001;
B.2 - GSI, 2004; and B.3 - GSI, 2006a
Appendix C - Lateral Pile Capacity Analyses
Plate 1 - Updated Geotechnical Map
Plate 2 - Geologic Cross Sections A-A’, B-B’, and C-C’
Distribution:(3) Addressee (2 wet signed, 1 copy, and PDF via email)
(1) Streamline Development Group
Attention: Mr. John Allen (PDF via email)
(1) Foxlin Architectural Design and Consulting
Attention: Mr. Michael Fox (PDF via email)
(1) Robin B. Hamers and Associates, Inc.
Attention: Mr. Michael Benesh (PDF via email)
(1) Kurt Fischer Structural Engineering
Attention: Mr. Michael Goodenough (PDF via email)
BNR Investment and Development, LLC W.O. 7297-A5-SC
Romeria Pointe Apartments, Carlsbad May 18, 2022
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 29
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute, 2014, Building code requirements for structural concrete
(ACI 318-14), and commentary (ACI 318R-14): reported by ACI Committee 318,
dated September.
Benton Engineering, Inc., 1970, Project no. 70-1-5D, County permit no. L5548, final report
on compacted ground, Lots 330 to 382, inclusive, Lots 389 to 394, inclusive,
Lots 400 to 410, inclusive, certain street areas of La Costa South Unit No. 5, also
certain offsite areas adjacent to Lots 368 to 370, inclusive and Lots 377 to 379,
inclusive, San Diego County, California, dated October 19.
_____, 1969, Project no. 69-9-8C, preliminary soils investigation, La Costa South Unit
Nos. 5, 6 and 7, east of the intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real,
San Diego County, California, dated November 7.
California Building Standards Commission, 2019, California Building Code, California Code
of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2, based on the 2018 International
Building Code.
East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., 2001, Limited site investigation,
Proposed 4-unit townhouse, Southwest corner of Gibraltar Street and Romeria
Street, City of Carlsbad, California, Project no. 01-1147H1, dated May 10.
Ensoft, Inc., 2007, LPILE Plus V5.0 for Windows; a computer program for the analysis of
piles and drilled shafts under lateral loads.
Foxlin Architectural Design and Consulting, 2021, Architectural plans for: Romeria Pointe
Apartments, Romeria and Gibraltar, 55 sheets, various scales, job no.: 1703, dated
September 22.
GeoSoils, Inc., 2022, DRAFT Preliminary geotechnical reviews of project structural and
grading plans, Romeria Pointe Apartments, 7527 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, San
Diego County, California 92009, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs)216-300-12-00
and -13-00, City of Carlsbad Grading Permit No.: GR2021-0039, W.O. 7297-A5-SC,
dated April 29.
____, 2021, Geotechnical update, Romeria Pointe Apartments, 7527 Romeria Street,
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California 92009, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs)
216-300-12-00 and -13-00, City of Carlsbad project no.: SDP2018-0004,
W.O. 7297-A4-SC, dated August 17.
GeoSoils, Inc.
_____, 2019, Geotechnical response to issues raised at the June 11, 2019 City of Carlsbad
City Council meeting pertaining to the geotechnical conditions at the Romeria
Pointe Apartments project site and near vicinity, 7527 Romeria Street, Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California 92009, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 216-300-12
& -13, City of Carlsbad project no.: SDP2018-0004, W.O. 7297-A3-SC, dated
November 30.
_____, 2018a, Geotechnical response to City of Carlsbad review comments dated October
19, 2018, Romeria Pointe Apartments, 7527 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, San Diego
County, California 92009, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 216-300-12 & -13, City
of Carlsbad Project No.: SDP2018-0004, W.O. 7297-A2-SC, dated December 6.
_____, 2018b, Geotechnical review of title sheet and preliminary grading plans for: Romeria
Pointe, 7527 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California 92009,
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 216-300-12 & -13, W.O. 7297-A1-SC, dated
September 12.
_____, 2017, Geotechnical update evaluation, Romeria Pointe, multi-family residential
development, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 216-300-12 & -13, Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California, W.O. 7297-A-SC, dated November 21.
_____, 2007a, Final geotechnical review of foundation (drilled pier and post-tensioned slab)
plans, notes, and details, Romeria Pointe Townhomes, Carlsbad, San Diego
County, California, W.O. 4460-A6-SC, dated November 14.
_____, 2007b, Geotechnical review of structural plans, Romeria Pointe Townhomes,
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4460-A4-SC, dated February 22.
_____, 2006a, Memorandum: General discussion of recent cone penetration tests,
Building A, Romeria Point, Carlsbad, California, W.O. 4460-A3-SC, dated
October 13.
____, 2006b, Revised geotechnical review of grading, post-tension foundation, and
structural plans, Romeria Pointe Townhomes, Carlsbad, San Diego County,
California, W.O. 4460-A3-SC, dated July 26.
_____, 2006c, Geotechnical review of grading, post-tension foundation, and structural
plans, Romeria Pointe Townhomes, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,
W.O. 4460-A3-SC, dated July 21.
_____, 2005, Geotechnical review of post-tension foundation and structural plans, Romeria
Pointe Townhomes, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4460-A1-SC,
dated March 8.
BNR Investment and Development, LLC Appendix A
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 2
GeoSoils, Inc.
_____, 2004, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, Romeria Pointe, APNs 216-300-12
and -13, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4460-A-SC, dated
September 27.
Hetherington Engineering, Inc., 2021, Third-party geotechnical review (first), Romeria
Pointe Apartments, 7527 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, California, GR2021-0039,
project no.: 8554.1, log no.: 21664, dated November 1.
Keller North America, 2021, For discussion: Romeria Point development vibro piers for
internal footings and slab treatment, dated November 9.
Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, SS., 2007, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30' by 60' quadrangle,
California, regional map series, scale 1:100,000, California Geologic Survey and
Un ited Sta tes Geolo gic al Survey, www .c onservation.ca.go v /
cgs/rghm/rgm/preliminary_geologic_maps.html
Kurt Fischer Structural Engineer, 2022a, Structural plans for: Romeria Point Apartments,
7527 Romeria St, Carlsbad, CA 92009, 43 sheets, various scales, project no.:
17071, dated May 5.
_____, 2022b, PC submittal responses and calculations for Romeria Pointe Apartments,
7527 Romeria St., Carlsbad, CA [90046], 143 pages, KFSE job no.: 17071,dated
May 5.
Rick Engineering Company, 1970, Grading plans for: La Costa South, Unit No. 5, sheet 3
of 5, 40-scale, County of San Diego Grading Permit No.: L 5548, revision dated
March 27.
Robin Hamers and Associates, Inc., 2022, Grading plans for: Romeria Pointe Apartments,
7527 Romeria Street, Carlsbad, CA, APNs 216-300-12 & 200-300-13, sheets 1
through 9 of 12, various scales, project no.: GR2021-0039, drawing no.: 534-1A,
dated April 29.
Soil Pacific Inc., 2003, Addendum report and clarification letter, proposed nine unit
condominium, Lots 392 and 393 of [La] Costa South, Unit no. 5, City of Carlsbad,
California, Project no. A-2452-03, dated August 25.
BNR Investment and Development, LLC Appendix A
File:e:\wp21\7200\7297a5.gue Page 3
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX B
LOGS OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
B.1 - ECSCEI, 2001
B.2 - GSI, 2004
B.3 - GSI, 2006a
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX B
LOGS OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
B.1 - ECSCEI, 2001
LEGACY DEVELOPMENT. LLC PROJECT NO.01-1147Hl
I R BORINGNO.l N E 0 M L I p 0 A s EQUlPMENT: GAS-POWERED AUGER L I T 0 A s I I C C T V D L SAMPLING METIIOD: E u E E A R p s s C= CHUNK SAMPLE D E C T A s B= BULK SAMPLE, R 0 H M I y C M p F U= UNDISTURBED DRIVE 0 p I L I D N A N E C E T C A N E T F T T s N I E y I I T 0 E p 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION T N T E N y % 'Yo
0 SC TAN. DA.'.-f PTO MOIST, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF SANDY CLAY (QaO . I DARK BROWN, MOIST, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, CLAYEY SAND -2 -SC TAN. MOIST. SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF SANDY CLAY
-
4 -.s -
6
. ...._ .. -
7 -
g --
9 -
10 ·-CL SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) -DARK GRAYISH BROWN. MOIST, MEDIUM STIFF CLAY II B -
12 BROWN. MOIST. MEDIUM STIFF SANDY CLA V
IJ -
14 -
15 -
16 SC-TAN MOIST, DENSE, SA."-JDSTONE -SM 17 BOTTOM OF EXPLORATORY HOLE -
IS PLATE N0.2 I I DATE LOGGED: APRJL 12. 2001LOGGED BY: M. DUNCAN 9
W .0. 4460-A-SC Plate B.1-1
s
L
L
J
--
-
LEGACY DEVELOPMENT. LLC PROJECT NO. 01-1147HJ
s I R BORING NO. 2 N E 0 M L
s L p 0 A
EQUIPMENT: GAS-POWERED AUGER L r T s I I C D L L T V
SAMPLING METHOD: E u E E A R p s s C;:: CHUNK SAMPLE D E C T A B= BULK SAMPLE, R 0 H M C M p F U= UNDISTURBED DRIVE 0 p I L N E N A E T C F T E T E y N I T 0 E p 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION T N T E % '¼
0 --TAN, MOIST, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF SANDY CLAY (Qaf) B I .
2 --.
3 -BROWN, MOIST, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF SANDY CLAY 4 . SC TAN, MOIST TO WET, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, SILTY. CLAYEY SAND s -6 .
7 CL GRAYISH BROWN. MOIST. SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF SANDY CLAY
8 -
9 .
10 CL SANilAGO FORMATION (Tse) -DARK BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM STiff SANDY CLAY II -
12 GRAYISH BROWN.MOIST. MEDIUM STIFF. SANDY CLAY
13
14 -
IS B SC-TAN MOIST, DENSE. SANDSTONE . SM 16 BOTTOM OF EXPLORATORY HOLE .
17 .
18
i PLATE NO. 3 I DA TE LOGGED: APRIL 12, 200 I LOGGED BY: M. DUNCAN W.0. 4460-A-SC Plate B.1-2
I
0 A
C
s
l y
I D
C
A N
T s
I I
N y
-
-
-
-
I
10
LEGACY DEVELOPMENT, LLC PROJECT NO. OJ-1 J 47Hl
I I{ TRENCH NO. I N E L I p 0 A s EQUIPMENT: CASE 580 E BACKHOE L I T s I I C C T V D l SAMPLING METHOD: E u E E p s s U= UNDISTURBED DRIVE D E C T A C= CHUNK SAMPLE R 0H M I y C Mp F B= BULK SAMPLE 0 pI L I D N A N E C E T C A N E T F T T s N I E y l I T 0 E p 0 T NT E SOIL DESCRIPTION y % %
0 SC TAN, DAMP TO MOIST, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF SANDY Cl.A Y WI11i GRAVEL: (Qaf)
I DARJC BROWN, MOIST LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, Cl.A YEY SAND
2 C 105.8 18.7 SC TAN, MOIST, SOFT TO MEDlL"M STIFF SANDY CLAY C 103.4 20.2 -BROWN, MOIST. SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, SANDY CLA V
-GRAYISH BROWN, MOIST. LOOSE, SIL TY.CLAYEY SAND
-6 C 105.0 13.0
7 -
g -
9 BLUEISH BROWN, MOIST, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE. CL.A YEY SAND -
10 CL SANTIAGO fORMA TION lTsa) -DARK GRA YJSH BROWN, MOIST. MEDIUM STIFF CLAY: BOTTOM OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH II -
12 -
13 -
14 -
15
I I
-
PLATE NO. 4 I I DA TE LOGGED: MAY 2, 2001 LOOGEDBY:M.DUNCAN 11
W .0. 4460-A-SC Plate B.1-3
s
0 M
L
0 A
L
A R
s
N
-
-
-
)
4 ;
5
-
Wd':1V: ':J
LEGACY DEVELOPMENT, LLC PROJECT NO.01-1147HJ
s I R TRENCHNO.2 N E 0 M L I p 0 A s EQUIPMENT: CASE 580 E BACKHOE L I T 0 A s I I C D L C T V SAMPLING METHOD: E u EE A R p s s U= UNDISTURBED DRIVE D E C T A C= CHUNK SAMPLE R 0 H M I y C M p F B= BULK SAMPLE 0 p I L I N E C D N A E T C
F T E T
E y N I
E p T 0
T E N N SOIL DESCRIPTION y ¾ "·
0 SC TAN, DAMP TO MOIST. SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF SANDY Cl.A Y (Qaf) -
I -
2 -
3 -BROWN, MOIST. SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF SANDY CLAY 4 -TAN. MOIST TO w1:-r, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE. SIL TY, CLAYEY SAND 5 110.J 17.2 . TAN BROWN, WET, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF SANDY a.A Y: lA YER OF OVERSIZED ROCK 6 -
7 LICHT TAN, MOIST, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE. SILTY SAND
8 -
9 -10 CL SANTIGO FORMATION (Tsa) -DARK GRAYISH BROWN. MOIST. MEDIUM STIFF CLAY: BOTTOM OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH 11 -12 -13 .
14 .
IS
PLATE NO. S I I DATE LOGGED: MAY 2. 2001LOGGEDBY:M.DUNCAN W .0. 4460-A-SC 12 Plate B.1-4
..:IWJ..L U..:lf\J...:1..J..:10
L
I
L
s
A N
T s
I I
0 T
C
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX B
LOGS OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
B.2 - GSI, 2004
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY
Major Divisions Group
Symbols Typical Names CRITERIA
Co
a
r
s
e
-
G
r
a
i
n
e
d
S
o
i
l
s
Mo
r
e
t
h
a
n
5
0
%
r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d
o
n
N
o
.
2
0
0
s
i
e
v
e
Gr
a
v
e
l
s
50
%
o
r
m
o
r
e
o
f
co
a
r
s
e
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
re
t
a
i
n
e
d
o
n
N
o
.
4
s
i
e
v
e
Cl
e
a
n
Gr
a
v
e
l
s
GW Well-graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Standard Penetration Test
Penetration
Resistance N Relative (blows/ft)Density
0 - 4 Very loose
4 - 10 Loose
10 - 30 Medium
30 - 50 Dense
> 50 Very dense
GP Poorly graded gravels andgravel-sand mixtures, little or no
fines
Gr
a
v
e
l
wi
t
h
GM Silty gravels gravel-sand-silt
mixtures
GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay
mixtures
Sa
n
d
s
mo
r
e
t
h
a
n
5
0
%
o
f
co
a
r
s
e
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
pa
s
s
e
s
N
o
.
4
s
i
e
v
e
Cle
a
n
Sa
n
d
s
SW Well-graded sands and gravelly
sands, little or no fines
SP Poorly graded sands andgravelly sands, little or no fines
Sa
n
d
s
wi
t
h
Fi
n
e
s
SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay
mixtures
Fi
n
e
-
G
r
a
i
n
e
d
S
o
i
l
s
50
%
o
r
m
o
r
e
p
a
s
s
e
s
N
o
.
2
0
0
s
i
e
v
e
Sil
t
s
a
n
d
C
l
a
y
s
Liq
u
i
d
l
i
m
i
t
50
%
o
r
l
e
s
s
ML Inorganic silts, very fine sands,rock flour, silty or clayey finesands
Standard Penetration Test
Unconfined
Penetration Compressive
Resistance N Strength
(blows/ft)Consistency (tons/ft2)
<2 Very Soft <0.25
2 - 4 Soft 0.25 - .050
4 - 8 Medium 0.50 - 1.00
8 - 15 Stiff 1.00 - 2.00
15 - 30 Very Stiff 2.00 - 4.00
>30 Hard >4.00
CL
Inorganic clays of low to
medium plasticity, gravelly clays,
sandy clays, silty clays, lean
clays
OL Organic silts and organic silty
clays of low plasticity
Si
l
t
s
a
n
d
C
l
a
y
s
Li
q
u
i
d
l
i
m
i
t
gr
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
5
0
%
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sands or silts,
elastic silts
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,
fat clays
OH Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity
Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, mucic, and other highly
organic soils
3"3/4"#4 #10 #40 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve
Unified Soil
Classification Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay
coarse fine coarse medium fine
MOISTURE CONDITIONS MATERIAL QUANTITY OTHER SYMBOLS
Dry Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch trace 0 - 5 %C Core Sample
Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5 - 10 %S SPT Sample
Moist Near optimum moisture content little 10 - 25 %B Bulk Sample
Very Moist Above optimum moisture content some 25 - 45 %–Groundwater
Wet Visible free water; below water table Qp Pocket Penetrometer
BASIC LOG FORMAT:
Group name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, gypsum,
coarse grained particles, etc.
EXAMPLE:
Sand (SP), fine to medium grained, brown, moist, loose, trace silt, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4" in size, some hair roots and rootlets.
File:Mgr: c;\SoilClassif.wpd PLATE B.2-1
I I I I I I I I I
-
GeoSoils, Inc.
PROJECT: KARNAK
Romeria Points, Carlsbad
Sample
� �'§' � (/) il ;t:: a. .s::: .!h � c� a.-" "O .a 3:: UE 2::-(l) ::i C: � 0 (/) >-0 lD :::> .3 ai :::> (/) 0
CL
SM 101.1
1-1 0"
ush 1 "CL 113.1
1-18"
CL
15 Push 4 'CUSC 113.9
5-8"
20
25
Romeria Points, Carlsbad
19.4
15.3
17.0
C: .Q
1ii (/)
81.0
87.9
99.7
BORING LOG
BORING B-1
W 0. 4460-A-SC
SHEET_ OF 1
8-12-04
SAMPLE METHOD:
DATE EXCAVATED
�
,..,A . ·r· ....r.-· .
. :...----.· ,.,--. ·....;..-:--·, �-;__,..:...· . y-:-· _,....
Standard Penetration Test 'SI.-Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample
Description of Material
ARTIFICIAL FILL: @ O' SANDY CLAY, gray brown, dry, soft; porous, non-uniform. @ 1' SANDY CLAY, olive gray to brown to dark brown, damp to moist, medium stiff; oversize rock (12") encountered @2', non-uniform.
@ 5' SIL TY SAND, yellow brown to gray brown, moist, medium dense; non-uniform.
@ 1 O' SANDY CLAY, yellow brown to gray brown, moist, stiff; non-uniform.
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION: @ 11 ½' SANDY CLA YSTONE, dark gray brown to brown, moist, medium stiff to stiff.
@ 15' SANDY CLAYSTONE, medium brown, moist, very stiff to CLAYEY SAND, yellow brown to gray to dark gray brown to orange, moist, dense; abundant angular pebble-to cobble-size clasts. Practical Refusal Due to Oversize Rock @ 16½' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 8-12-2004
GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B.2-2
� .c a. Q)
5
10
15
GeoSoils, Inc.
PROJECT KARNAK
Romeria Points, Carlsbad
Sample
iu' !E C/)0 � Q. -��c� .,, :J -"' :l: u .0 -0 .0 CJ)� i!-:'i c� co =>B ii:i :J CJ)
CL
104.1
111.9
20.8 93.7
14.2 79.0
BORING LOG
BORING B-2
SAMPLE METHOD:
DATE EXCAVATED
Standard Penetration Test 'Sl Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample
Description of Material
ARTIFICIAL FILL:
WO. ___ 44_6_0_-A_-S_C _
SHEET_1_ OF _3_
8-12-04
@ O' SANDY CLAY, brown, dry, soft; porous, occasional pebbleto cobble-size clasts (subrounded to subangular), non-uniform.
@2' SANDY CLAY, brown, moist, medium stiff; occasional subangular cobble-to boulder-size clasts, non-uniform.
@ 5' SANDY CLAY, brown to dark brown, moist to wet, medium stiff; occasional to abundant subangular cobble-to boulder-size clasts, non-uniform.
@ 1 O' SANDY CLAY, yellow brown to gray, moist, soft to medium stiff; occasional subrounded cobble-size clasts, non-uniform.
@ 15' SIL TY SAND, yellow brown, moist, medium dense to SANDY CLAY, gray to brown, moist, stiff; non-uniform.
20-l----il-,-,-,-,.+-.--+-,--+-,-----+---:-=-,,........+--,-,-::--t,,"771--::--=--c--c--=-....,....,..-:-=-:c-:--::-:--:-:-:---:-:---------,----:-:,:------:-::-------jPush 6 CL 110.9 17.8 96.0 @ 20' SANDY CLAY, olive gray, moist, stiff, non-uniform.
11
CL
25-1----11-,-,-,-,.+-.-2-+c
,,..u-csc-cc+--1--c1-1.-4---1f--,-1s=-.3,,........+_,1....,.o..,...o.-=-o--f.L.'-L.L.f,
SM
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (REPROCESSED):@24' SANDY CLAYSTONE, dark gray brown to brown, moist, medium stiff or anic odor subhorizontal contact. @ 25' SANDY CLAYSTONE, orange to gray, moist, stiff.
@ 29' SIL TY SANDSTONE w/GRAVEL, brown, moist to wet,
Romeria Points, Carlsbad GeoSoils, Inc. PL.ATE B.2-3
~ a
~ 0
0 C ~ Q) .Q 5 ~ iii :::,
0 ·o iii 0 0 ~ rn
� .r:. a. Q) 0
GeoSoils, Inc.
PROJECT: KARNAK
Romeria Points, Carlsbad
Sample
� (/)] -�-g-"' 'O .0 3: UE "S c� 0 (/) >, co :::, .a co :::, en
CL
C 0
ni en
BORING LOG
BORING B-2
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD: ___________________
Standard Penetration Test 'Sl.. Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample
Description of Material
dense.
W.O. 4460-A-SC
SHEET _3_ OF _3_
8-12-04
I' @30' SANDY CLAYSTONE w/GRAVEL , brown, moist to wet,
dense; abundant rounded cobble-size clasts.
SW :•:-@ 33' Grades to SANDSTONE w/GRAVEL, brown , damp,
I
:,._♦ '-----d'=e�n-='s�e,...·c='a""b-=u=-n'="d=a'7n..,...t� o,e:-abb=l-=e..,...-""to=--""c.c,.o=b.,..-bl--c-e"""-s,....i_ze�c�la,--cs�ts�. ___ __,.-,---�'SM :....--@ 34' SIL TY SANDSTONE w/CLAY, gray to orange, moist, 35-+---1W777:,i---s--t-cc-:-L-r--1 -o-,1.-9--1 ---,-1s,--.1--t-,7::-:5,-.9:--1777=\'--"d="e:..:.,nc=sc,=e.L.,·""w=e;.=a""kc,,,:s=-=u;.=b;,;..hc=oc'cri'='z"=o"=nt==a;,;..lc=cb-=e=d=d=in"'1au.....:cc=a=l ic=h'"'e"'._� _____ �/_ � @ 35' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, gray, moist, very de·nse; occasional subangular cobble-size clasts, weak subhorizontal bedding.
40 _-+---+��+---12--!-s-M--+-1-1-s-.2�'--13-.s-+-8-5-.1-.""::<+·+--@-4-□-,-S-IL_T_Y_S_A_N_D_S_T_O _N_E _,-g-ra_y_b -ro_w_n_,_d_a_m_p_,_v _e _ry _d -en_s_e_. __ _
:---":"'.
45-
50-
55-
Romeria Points, Carlsbad
Total Depth= 41½' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 8-12-2004
GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B.2-4
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX B
LOGS OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
B.3 - GSI, 2006a
GeoSoils Inc
Location Romeria Point Operator ML-JH Filename SDF(458).cpt
Job Number 4460-A3-SC Cone Number DSG0409 GPS
Hole Number CPT-01 Date and Time 10/4/2006 1:46:04 PM Maximum Depth 33.96 ft
Water Table Depth 32.00 ft
Depth Increment Soil Behavior Referance*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 400
TIP
TSF 0 12
FRICTION
TSF 0 12
Fs/Qt
% 0 350
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DE
P
T
H
(f
t
)
SO
I
L
BE
H
A
V
I
O
R
TY
P
E
Plate B.3-1
4 ·g·;;1
CONEl'lN[Til()M£TU:TlSTING&DllllCJ.IUSHCROU'
~ ..----=
----------
pa-
( < ~ ( f 7 ~ ~
-1 i> ..___ -L c -~---=-
,---t==-..____ -,.,--t=
( ~
~ ( ________,.->
~
<' ~ \ >
.£.) ~ -( / ~
:i e----~ s: ~ .. ~ -i < -:;=-
~ -----. --==ec_
= :::== -""' S.__~ • i ~ "-::-,. -~ 1--===---.
~ ~ .;,;=-
< --, ': :::=--~ --=--_.,
I-----'
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
GeoSoils Inc
Location Romeria Point Operator ML-JH Filename SDF(460).cpt
Job Number 4460-A3-SC Cone Number DSG0409 GPS
Hole Number CPT-02 Date and Time 10/4/2006 2:44:31 PM Maximum Depth 37.24 ft
Water Table Depth 32.00 ft
Depth Increment Soil Behavior Referance*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 400
TIP
TSF 0 12
FRICTION
TSF 0 12
Fs/Qt
% 0 350
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DE
P
T
H
(f
t
)
SO
I
L
BE
H
A
V
I
O
R
TY
P
E
Plate B.3-2
4 ·g·;;1
CONEl'lN[Til()M£TU:TlSTING&DllllCJ.IUSHCROU'
p ~to,-~ -..... r 1 -_,,-,, r s= c / =;;f_ ~ --~--T j ""> 5 = r r-~ = r -
?
l ~
< ~ l ,,.-_?
} ~ > ~-
~ \
t I=-L
----
_f t = ~ ~ ~
I=-s -= ~ ----,____,__
t:::=----z.___ -> t-----------=:::::: --~ =
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
GeoSoils Inc
Location Romeria Point Operator ML-JH Filename SDF(463).cpt
Job Number 4460-A3-SC Cone Number DSG0409 GPS
Hole Number CPT-03B Date and Time 10/4/2006 3:51:43 PM Maximum Depth 35.60 ft
Water Table Depth 32.00 ft
Depth Increment Soil Behavior Referance*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 400
TIP
TSF 0 12
FRICTION
TSF 0 12
Fs/Qt
% 0 350
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DE
P
T
H
(f
t
)
SO
I
L
BE
H
A
V
I
O
R
TY
P
E
Plate B.3-3
4 ·g·;;1
CONEl'lN[Til()M£TU:TlSTING&DllllCJ.IUSHCROU'
v -~ ( 11111
l_ ~ :=:, ~
D
= "';> ? -z • □
~p ~ ~ ~ ••
~
(__
> ~
~ <:: -----~ < -=i =
( ~
-,:_;;
=-
~
,, ~ > ~ r i==-z:: -! ) 7 ,J
z \_:, <---7 _f (
( t •
<:::: 3 > D ~
--=-= <,' ____,--
~ ~ --~ ~
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
GeoSoils Inc
Location Romeria Point Operator ML-JH Filename SDF(464).cpt
Job Number 4460-A3-SC Cone Number DSG0409 GPS
Hole Number CPT-04 Date and Time 10/4/2006 4:51:05 PM Maximum Depth 51.34 ft
Water Table Depth 32.00 ft
Depth Increment Soil Behavior Referance*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 400
TIP
TSF 0 12
FRICTION
TSF 0 12
Fs/Qt
% 0 350
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DE
P
T
H
(f
t
)
SO
I
L
BE
H
A
V
I
O
R
TY
P
E
Plate B.3-4
4 ·g·;;1
CONEl'lN[Til()M£TU:TlSTING&DllllCJ.IUSHCROU'
1·· ~ ---> ? c; ~ ~ ~ > -=
I-~ --=-
~
---= ==-L _) -0---~ ...... ; ~
} l__ c 'S ••• s~ ••• ,--'-t l ~ 1 c=--~
~
<;:, ' ;;;:--
1 l _J -=,_
~ ') ~-\
= ( -----, ~ ~ ·--:c~
Ii 1------------,, = ==..._ ~ ~ -C p ~ r---L,----=----~ -rs;=. II c---p-~ < F=--
c'.'.: --------
z_ -~ ~ --==-i--------._
R 2 ~ < f-'
C [> ,----,
? -3
J $' ? -~ --"'" -sec:
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
GeoSoils Inc
Location Romeria Point Operator ML-JH Filename SDF(459).cpt
Job Number 4460-A3-SC Cone Number DSG0409 GPS
Hole Number CPT-05 Date and Time 10/4/2006 2:22:15 PM Maximum Depth 16.40 ft
Water Table Depth 32.00 ft
Depth Increment Soil Behavior Referance*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 400
TIP
TSF 0 12
FRICTION
TSF 0 12
Fs/Qt
% 0 350
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DE
P
T
H
(f
t
)
SO
I
L
BE
H
A
V
I
O
R
TY
P
E
Plate B.3-5
4 ·g·;;1
CONEl'lN[Til()M£TU:TlSTING&DllllCJ.IUSHCROU'
J? 5 ---------
t7
---
_=:::=, 2 I . 't;== ._. ~ ~ -"'---, / -t:= _:;::=---= -D l [_ < ~ __,. = ~
I~~ ~ -:) v=---•...J I! ~ ~ -~
cc___ =-.c ~ = .--::=-
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX C
LATERAL PILE CAPACITY ANALYSES
Building "A" Pile No: C49
Lateral Deflection vs. Depth
LPILE Plus 5.0, (c) 2008 by Ensoft, Inc.
Deflection, in.
0.10.090.080.070.060.050.040.030.020.010
De
p
t
h
,
f
e
e
t
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
W.O. 7297-A5-SC
PLATE C-1
-~-------______ L ______ L ______ J _____ _
I I I I -7-------------r------r------~-------------1-------1-------I ---------7 ----~-------______ L ______ L ______ ~------____ J_ ______ _J __ _
-7-------------r------r------~------=-----r--.... --_-=----r------T------7---
-_I_ - - - - - -______ I ______ I ______ I __ _
I I I I
--1-- - - - - -- - - - - --1-- - - - --1-- - - - - -I-- - - - - -+ - - - - - ----1 - - -
I I I I ---------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
' I I I
I I I _______ I _______ I _______ I ------I------1---
-_____ L ______ L ______ _l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ I _______ I _______ L ______ J_ ______ _J __ _
- - - - - -r - - - - - -r - - - - - --t - - - - - - - - - - - --1-- - - - --1-- - - - - -r - - - - - --t - - - - - -7 - - -______ I ______ I ______ I _____________ I _______ I _______ I ______ I ______ I __ _
- - - - - -t-- - - - - -t-- - - - - --+ - - - - - - - - - - - --1-- - - - --1-- - - - - -t-- - - - - -+ - - - - - -7 - - -
__ I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ I ______ I ______ I _____ _ _ _____ I ______ I ______ I __ _
I I I I
--1-- - - - - -
I -i-- - - - - -
-1-- - - - - -
- - - - - -I-- - - - --1-- - - - - --+-- - - - -
I I I
- - - - - -,-- - - - -,-- - - - -,-- - - - -
- - - - - -L-- - - - -L-- - - - -J _ - - - - -
- - - - - -r-- - - - -r-- - - --1-- - - - -
- - - - - -l_ _ - - - - _ l_ _ - - - - -__l _ - - - - -
- - - - - -r-- - - - -r-- - - - --t-- - - - -
I I I
I I I
- - - - - --1-- - - - --1-- - - - - -I-- - - - - -+ - - - - - ----1 - - -
I I I I I -------1-------1-------I ------T ------7 ---
- - - - - --1-- - - - --1-- - - - - - L - - - - - -j_ - - - - - -_J - - -
-------1-------1-------r ------T ------7 ---_______ I _______ I _______ L ______ J_ ______ _J __ _
-------1-------1-------t--------t ------7 ---
I I I ----------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
' I I I I I - - - - - -+-- - - - - -+-- - - - - --+-- - - - -- - - - - --1-- - - - --1-- - - - - -I-- - - - - -+ - - - - - ----1 - - -------1 ------1 ------1------_______ I _______ I _______ I ------I------1---
-- - - - -+-- - - - - -+-- - - - - ---+-- - - - --- - - - --1-- - - - --1-- - - - - -I-- - - - - -+ - - - - - ----1 - - -
I I I
- - - - - -,-- - - - -,-- - - - -,-- - - - --------1-------1-------I ------T ------7 ---______ I ______ I ______ I _____ _ _______ I _______ I _______ I ______ I ______ I __ _
------1------1-------t------
I I I I I I ---------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
' I I I I I - - - - - -t-- - - - - -t-- - - - - --t-- - - - -- - - - - --1-- - - - --1-- - - - - -t-- - - - - --t - - - - - ----1 - - -
I I I I I I ------------' I I
- - - - - -L-- - - - -L-- - - - -J _ - - - - -
I I I
- - - - - -l_ _ - - - - _ l_ _ - - - - -_l _ - - - - -
I I I
- - - - - -,-- - - - -,-- - - - -,-- - - - -
I I I
- - - - - --1-- - - - --1-- - - - - - L - - - - - -j_ - - - - - -_J - - -
I _______ I _______ I _______ I ------I------1---
-______ I _______ I _______ L ______ J_ ______ _J __ _
Building "A" Pile No: C49
Bending Moment vs. Depth
LPILE Plus 5.0, (c) 2008 by Ensoft, Inc.
Bending Moment, kips-in.
5000-500-1,000-1,500-2,000-2,500
De
p
t
h
,
f
e
e
t
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
W.O. 7297-A5-SC
PLATE C-2
_______ L ______ _ ________ L __________ L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________ L __________ I _____ _
I I I -------,---------7----------,------,---------_______ L _________ ~ __________ L __________ L ___ _ -------r---------7----------1----------r---------_______ 1 __________ I __________ I __________ I ________ _
I I I I -------~---------~----------+-----------~---------
1 I I I -------------------------------------------------1 I I I -------L---------~----------L----------L---------
I I I I _______ L _________ ~ __________ L __________ L ________ _
-------r---------7----------r----------r---------_______ 1 __________ I __________ I __________ I ________ _
-------r---------7----------+-----------r--------------------------I __________ I __________ I ________ _
I I I -------~---------~----------+-----------~---------
1 I I I -------,---------7----------,----------,----------------L---------~----------L----------L----------------r---------7----------1----------r---------_______ L _________ ~ __________ L __________ L ________ _
-------r---------7----------r----------r---------
1 I I I -------------------------------------------------1 I I I -------~---------7----------+-----------~---------
_______ I __________ 1----------1 ----------1 ----------------~---------~----------+-----------~---------
I I I I -------,---------7----------,----------,---------_______ I __________ I __________ I __________ I ________ _ -------r---------7----------r----------r---------
1 I I I -------------------------------------------------1 I I I -------r---------7----------r----------r---------
1 I I I
I I I I -------L---------~----------L----------L---------
I I I I _______ L _________ ~ __________ L __________ L ________ _
I I I I -------,---------7----------,----------,---------
----------I ----------1------
_ _________ L __________ I _____ _
- - - - - - - --1-- - - - -
- - - - - - - - --1-- - - - -
- - - - - - - - -_I_ - - - - -r-- - - - - - - --1-- - - - -
I ----------
' +-- - - - - - - - --1-- - - - -
I ----------1------
- - - - - - - - --1-- - - - -
- - - - - - - - --i-- - - - -
- - - - - - - - -_I_ - - - - -
- - - - - - - - --1-- - - - -
- - - - - - - - --1-- - - - -
- - - - - - - - --1-- - - - -
- - - - - - - - -_I_ - - - - -
Building "A" Pile No: C49
Shear Force vs. Depth
LPILE Plus 5.0, (c) 2008 by Ensoft, Inc.
Shear Force, kips
65605550454035302520151050-5
De
p
t
h
,
f
e
e
t
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
W.O. 7297-A5-SC
PLATE C-3
_____ I _____ I _____ L ____ L ____ L ____ L ____ --1 ____ --1 ____ --1 _____ I _____ I _____ I _____ I _____ L __
-- - --i-- - --i-- - --r - - --r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -1 - - - -1 - - - -1 - - - --i-- - --i-- - --i-- - - - - -_____ I _____ I _____ L ____ L ____ L ____ L ____ __l ____ __l ____ __l _____ I _____ I___ _ ___ I _____ L ____ L
____ I ____ I ____ I ____ I ____ I_ ____ I _____ I ___ _ ____ I ____ I
I I I I I I I I - - - --+ - - - --+ - - - --+ - - - --1-- - --1-- - --1-- - --1-- - - -I-- - - -I-
I I ----------
' I
____ I ____ I ____ I ____ I ____ I ____ I ____ I _____ I ___ _ ____ I ____ I
I I I I I I I I I I -1-- - --1-- - - -I-- - - -I-- - - -I-- - - -I-- - - --+ - - - --+ - - - --+ - - - --1-- - --1-- - --1-- - --1-- - - -I-- - - -I-
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - --i-- - --r - - --r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -1 - - - -1 - - - -1 - - - --i-- - --i-- - --i-- - --i-- - --r - - --r
- --1-- - - - L - - - - L - - - - L - - - - L - - - ---1 - - - ---1 - - - ---1 - - - --1-- - --1-- - --1-- - --1-- - - - L - - - - L
-1-- - - -r - - - - r - - - - r - - - - r - - - ----r - - - ----r - - - ----r - - - --1-- - --1-- - --1-- - --1-- - - -r - - - - r
I _____ L ____ L ____ L ____ L ____ __l ____ __l ____ __l _____ I _____ I _____ I _____ I _____ L ____ L
- - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - --t - - - --t - - - --t - - - --1 - - - --1-- - --1-- - --1-- - - -r - - - -r
I I I I I I I I I I ------------------------------------------------------1 I I I I I I I ' I - - - --1-- - --I - - - -I-- - - -I-- - - -I-- - - -I-- - - --+ - - - --+ - - - --+ - - - --1-- - --1-- - --1-- - --1-- - - -I-- - - -I-
_____ I _____ ----1 ----1 ----1 ----1 ----1----1----I _____ I _____ I _____ I _____ I _____ I ----1
- - - --1-- - --1 - - - -I-- - - -I-- - - -I-- - - -I-- - - --+ - - - --+ - - - --+ - - - --1-- - --1-- - --1-- - --1-- - --1--- - - -I-
-- - --i-- - --1 - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -1 - - - -1 - - - -1 - - - --i-- - --i-- - --i-- - --i-- - - -r - - - -r _____ I _________ I ____ I ____ I ____ I ____ I ____ I ____ I _____ I _____ I _____ I _____ I _____ I ____ I
I I I I I I I I I I ------------------------------------------------------1 I I I I I I I ' I - - - --1-- - - - - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - --t - - - --t - - - --t - - - --1-- - --1-- - --1-- - --1-- - - -r - - - -r
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I _____ 1 ___ _ - - - - L - - - - L - - - - L - - - - L - - - ---1 - - - ---1 - - - ---1 - - - --1 - - - --1-- - --1-- - --1-- - - - L - - - - L
I I I _____ I ___ _ ----1 ----1 ----1 ----1 ----1----1----I _____ I _____ I _____ I _____ I _____ I ----1 _____ I ___ _ _ ___ L ____ L ____ L ____ L ____ --1 ____ --1 ____ --1 _____ I _____ I _____ I _____ I _____ L ____ L
- - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -r - - - -1 - - - -1 - - - -1 - - - --1 - - - --i-- - --i-- - --i-- - - -r - - - -r
Building "B" Pile No: C33
Lateral Deflection vs. Depth
LPILE Plus 5.0, (c) 2008 by Ensoft, Inc.
Deflection, in.
0.0280.0260.0240.0220.020.0180.0160.0140.0120.010.0080.0060.0040.0020
De
p
t
h
,
f
e
e
t
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
W.O. 7297-A5-SC
PLATE C-4
__ I _____ I _____ I ____ I _____ I _____ I _____ I ____ I _____ I _____ I ____ I ____ I ___ _
- -I-- - - -I-- - - -+ - - - ---1 - - - --1-- - --1-- - - -I-- - - ----t - - - --1-- - - -I-- - - -I-- - - --+ - - - -
--I ----I ----I ----I -----1-----1-----I ----I -----1-----I ----I ---
I I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------I I I I ' I
____ I ____ I ___ _ ____ I ____ I ____ I ___ _
I I I I I
_ _ l_ ____ _J _____ I _____ I _____ L ____ _l _____ I _____ L ____ L ____ J_ ___ _
I I I I I I I I I I
-t-- - - --t - - - -----1 - - - - -1-- - - -1-- - - -t-- - - ----t - - - --1-- - - -t-- - - -t-- - - ---t - - - -
----I ----T ----7 -----I-----I-----I ----7 -----1-----I ----I ----I ----
I I I I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------------------------I I I ' I ' I I
- L - - - - L - - - -1-- - - -_J - - - - -1-- - - -1-- - - - L - - - --1 - - - --1-- - - - L - - - - L - - - -J_ - - - -
- -t-- - - -t-- - - --t - - - -----1 - - - --1-- - --1-- - - -t-- - - ----t - - - --1-- - - -f-- - - -t-- - - ---t - - - -
__ I _____ I _____ I----I _____ I _____ I _____ I----I _____ I _____ I ----1 ----I----
I I I I I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------------------------I I I I ' I ' I I
-I-- - - -I-- - - -+ - - - ---1 - - - --1-- - --1-- - - -I-- - - ----t - - - --1-- - - -I-- - - -I-- - - --+ - - - -
-I ----I ----I ----I -----1-----1-----I ----I -----1-----I ----I ------t ----
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I ------
'
____ l__
----+-
____ _I_ _
I
____ l_ _
-----t-
I ------
' ____ J__
----+-
I ------
' ----+-
Building "B" Pile No: C33
Bending Moment vs Depth
LPILE Plus 5.0, (c) 2008 by Ensoft, Inc.
Bending Moment, kips-in.
2001000-100-200-300-400-500-600-700-800
De
p
t
h
,
f
e
e
t
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
W.O. 7297-A5-SC
PLATE C-5
_______ I _______ I _______ I ______ I ______ I __
--1------1------1-------------1------
I I I -----------------------------
' I I
__ I ______ I ______ I _____________ I _____ _
- - -+-- - - - - -+-- - - - ---+-- - - - -- - - - - --1-- - - - - - - - - - --1-- - - - --1-- - - - - -f-- - - - - -t-- - - -
---,------1------7------- - - - - --1-- - - - -- - - - - --1-- - - - - -1-- - - - - -r - - - - - -1 - - - - - -r
___ I ______ I ______ I _____ _
I I I
- - -l_ _ - - - - -J_ _ - - - - -_J _ - - - - -- - - - - -_I_ - - - - -_______ I _______ I _______ L ______ l_ ______ L
I I I I I I
- - -+-- - - - - -+-- - - - ---+-- - - - -- - - - - --1-- - - - - - - - - - --1-- - - - - -1-- - - - - -f-- - - - - -t-- - - - -
I I I --,------T------7------- - - - - --i-- - - - --------1-------I-------I ------I ---
I I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I I I
- _ 1._ _ - - - - -j_ _ - - - - -_J _ - - - - -- - - - - --1-- - - - -- - - - - --1-- - - - - -1-- - - - - - L - - - - -
- - -+-- - - - - -+-- - - - ---+-- - - - -- - - - - --1-- - - - - - - - - - --1-- - - - --1-- - - - - -f-- - -
---1 ______ I ______ 1------_______ I _____________ I _______ I _______ I -----1 ------1 --
I I I I I ------------------------------ ---------------------1 I I I I
- - -+-- - - - - -+ - - - - - -4 - - - - - - - - - - - --1-- - - - - - - - - - --1-- - - - - -1-- - - - - - - - - - - -+-- - - - - -f---- -
---I ------T ------I -------------1 -------------1 -------1-------------I ------f---
I I I I I
I I I I I
Building "B" Pile No: C33
Shear Force vs. Depth
LPILE Plus 5.0, (c) 2008 by Ensoft, Inc.
Shear Force, kips
20181614121086420-2
De
p
t
h
,
f
e
e
t
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
W.O. 7297-A5-SC
PLATE C-6
___ I ______ I ______ I ______ I ______ I ___________ I ______ I _____ I ______ I ______ I ____ _
- - --+-- - - --1-- - - - ----t-- - - --1-- - - - -+-- - - - -
- - - - ---t - - - - - -r - - - - ----t - - - - --1-- - - - ----1 - - - - - -
-----I ------r -----7 ------1------7 ------
_____ I ___________ I ______ I _____ I ____ _ -----I _____ _
I I I I I
_____ I ______ _J ______ I ______ l_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _J_ ______ L _____ _J ______ I ______ _J _____ _
I I I I I I I I I
---t - - - - --1-- - - - ----t - - - - --1-- - - - --t - - - - - - - - - - ---t - - - - - -r - - - - ----t - - - - --1-- - - - ----1 - - - - - -
I I I I I I -----------------------------------------------------------
' 1 I I I '
-_l_ - - - - --1-- - - - --1 - - - - --1-- - - - -1-- - - - - - - - - - -_l_ - - - - - -L - - - - -J - - - - --1-- - - - -_J - - - - - -
--t - - - - --1-- - - - ----t - - - - --1-- - - - --t - - - - - - - - - - ---t - - - - - -r - - - - ----t - - - - --1-- - - - ----1 - - - - - -
I I I I I I -----------------------------------------------------------
' 1 I I I '
-1-- - - - ----t - - - - --1-- - - - -+ - - - - - - - - - - --+ - - - - - -f---- - - - ----t - - - - --1-- - - - ----1 - - - - - -
1-- - - - ----t - - - - - -1-- - - - --t - - - - - - - - - - ---t - - - - - -r - - - - ----t - - - - - -1-- - - - ----1 - - - - - -
I I I I
I I I I
W.O.DATE:SCALE:7297-A5-SC 1" = 10'
Plate 1
UPDATED
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
05/22
ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
This document or efile is not a part of the Construction
Documents and should not be relied upon as being an
accurate depiction of design.
B-1
TD=16 1
2'
B-2
TD=41 1
2'
TP-1
TD=10'
B-1
TD=17'
B-2
TD=16'
TP-2
TD=10'
Afc
Tsa
Afc
TsaCPT-4
CPT-5
CPT-3
CPT-1
CPT-2
A
A'
B
B'
C'
C
SCALE: 1" = '
0 302010
10
N
S
E
W
Afc
Tsa
GSI LEGEND
CPT-5
B-2
TD=411
2'
B-2
TD=17'
TP-2
C C'
Afu
Qs
Afc
Tsa
Afu
76.5
?
?
Afc
Tsa
Qs
63.5
67.5
56.5
56.5
76.5
68
67.5
65
58
Afc
Tsa
Afc
Tsa
Afc
TsaAfc
Tsa
Afc
Tsa
Afc
Tsa
Afc
Tsa
TD=37 1
4'
TD=34'
TD=16'
TD=51 1
4 '
TD=351
2 '
W.O.DATE:SCALE:7297-A5-SC 1" = 10'
Plate 2
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS
A-A', B-B' & C-C'
05/22
ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
This document or efile is not a part of the Construction
Documents and should not be relied upon as being an
accurate depiction of design.
0 0
30
0
30
DISTANCE (FEET)
N41°W
Afc
Tsa
GSI LEGEND
?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
30
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
N
G
V
D
2
9
DISTANCE (FEET)
110
N86°E
A
120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
N
G
V
D
2
9
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CPT-2
(GSI, 2006a)
CPT-1 (GSI, 2006a)
PROJECTED ~ 214' NW
EXISTING
RETAINING WALL
TD=351
2'
TD=3714'
TD=34'
PROPOSED BIOFILTRATION PLANTER
(BMP-2)PROPOSED BUILDING "A"ROMERIA STREET
Tsa Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
A'
EXISTING
STORM
DRAIN
??
?
?
AfcAfcAfc
Afc
EXISTING
GRADE
PROPOSED
GRADE
PROPOSED
GRADE
CPT-3
(GSI, 2006a)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
N
G
V
D
2
9
B
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
B'
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
DISTANCE (FEET)
N-S
PROPOSED
GRADE
PROPOSED BUILDING "A"EXISTING CONDOMINIUM
BUILDING
PROPOSED TEMPORARY
SHORING SOLDIER PILE
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
?
?
?
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
N
G
V
D
2
9
?
PROPOSED
BIOFILTRATION PLANTER
(BMP-1)
EXISTING
GRADE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
30
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
N
G
V
D
2
9
110 120 130 140 150 160
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
N
G
V
D
2
9
C'
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
TD=3512'
TD=1612'
CPT-3 (GSI, 2006a)
PROJECTED ~ 4' NE
B-2 (GSI, 2004)
PROJECTED ~ 1212' NE
EXISTING
GRADE
PROPOSED
GRADE
PROPOSED
GRADE
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
??
?
?
C
GIBRALTAR STREET
PROPOSED BUILDING "B"
PROPOSED
BIOFILTRATION PLANTER
(BMP-3)
PROPOSED BUILDING "A"
Afc
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Afc
Afc
TEMPORARY
SLOPE
Afc
Afc
Afc
PROPOSED
F9
FOOTING
SCALE: 1" = '
0 302010
10
Afc
TEMPORARY
SLOPE
PROPOSED
GRADE BEAM PROPOSED
GRADE BEAM TEMPORARY
SLOPE
1
1
PROPOSED
GRADE BEAM
PROPOSED
GRADE BEAM
TEMPORARY
SLOPE
11
1
1
PROPOSED
GRADE BEAM
PROPOSED
GRADE BEAMS
TEMPORARY
SLOPE
SUBHORIZONTAL
BEDDING
SUBHORIZONTAL
BEDDING
SUBHORIZONTAL
BEDDING
TEMPORARY
SLOPE
~--------
I · ·I·
....
-------~ ~---
..
-----~
r .. r----
1
I I I I
I
7
I
~
I
--
I
---~H
NOTE:
SOME CIDH PILES AND VIBRO PIERS ARE PROJECTED INTO
THE GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS TO ILLUSTRATE THEIR
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SITE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
ARnFJCJAL FJLL PLACED UNDER PURVIEW OF BEi (1970)
TERnARY SANnAGO FORMAnON
APPROX/MA 1E LDCA noN OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT,
QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN
PROPOSED 24" DIAMETER C/DH PILE
PROPOSED JO" DIAMETER VIBRO PIER
....
~ APPROX/MA 1E LDCA noN OF PROPERTY LINE