GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

CALLAN ROAD REDEVELOPMENT

3030 CALLAN ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR

PROJECT MANAGEMENT ADVISORS, LLC

SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 30, 2020

PROJECT NO. G2469-11-01
GROCON
INCORPORATED

GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALSO

Project No. G2469-11-01

January 30, 2020

Project Management Advisors, Inc.

420 Stevens Avenue, Suite 170
Solana Beach, California 92075

Attention: Ms. Crista Swan

Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

CALLAN ROAD REDEVELOPMENT
3030 CALLAN ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

Dear Ms. Swan:

In accordance with your request and authorization of our Proposal No. LG-19437 dated November 6,
2019, we herein submit the results of our geotechnical investigation for the subject project. We
performed our investigation to evaluate the underlying soil and geologic conditions and potential
geologic hazards, and to assist in the design of the proposed buildings and associated improvements.

The accompanying report presents the results of our study and conclusions and recommendations
pertaining to geotechnical aspects of the proposed project. The site is suitable for the proposed
buildings and improvements provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the
design and construction of the planned project.

Should you have questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience.

Very truly yours,

GEOCON INCORPORATED

Lilian E. Rodriguez Shawn Foy Weedon John Hoobs

RCE 83227 GE 2714 CEG 1524

LER:SFW:JH:arm

(email) Addressee

6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone 858.558.6900 • Fax 858.558.6159
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................. 1

2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 1

3. GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................................................................................... 3

4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 4

4.1 Previously Placed Fill (Qpf) .................................................................................................. 4
4.2 Very Old Paralic Deposits (Qvop) ......................................................................................... 5
4.3 Scripps Formation (Tsc) ........................................................................................................ 5

5. GROUNDWATER .......................................................................................................................... 5

6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................................. 5

6.1 Geologic Hazard Category .................................................................................................... 5
6.2 Faulting and Seismicity ......................................................................................................... 6
6.3 Liquefaction ........................................................................................................................... 8
6.4 Storm Surge, Tsunamis, and Seiches ..................................................................................... 8
6.5 Slope Stability........................................................................................................................ 9
6.6 Landslides .............................................................................................................................. 9

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................... 10

7.1 General................................................................................................................................. 10
7.2 Soil Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 11
7.3 Grading ................................................................................................................................ 12
7.4 Excavation Slopes, Shoring and Tiebacks ........................................................................... 14
7.5 Soil Nail Wall ...................................................................................................................... 21
7.6 Seismic Design Criteria ....................................................................................................... 22
7.7 Building Foundations........................................................................................................... 24
7.8 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade .................................................................................................... 26
7.9 Exterior Concrete Flatwork ................................................................................................. 28
7.10 Retaining Walls ................................................................................................................... 29
7.11 Lateral Loading.................................................................................................................... 33
7.12 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations ........................................................................... 33
7.13 Interlocking Pervious Concrete Paver Recommendations................................................... 36
7.14 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection ................................................................................ 38
7.15 Grading and Foundation Plan Review ................................................................................. 39

LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS

MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION

APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)

APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

LIST OF REFERENCES
 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the construction of two new
office buildings and associated improvements located within the Torrey Pines area in the City of San
Diego, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of the geotechnical investigation is to
evaluate the surface and subsurface soil conditions and general site geology, and to identify
geotechnical constraints that may affect development of the property including faulting, liquefaction
and seismic shaking based on the 2019 CBC seismic design criteria. In addition, we provided
recommendations for remedial grading, shallow foundations, concrete slab-on-grade, concrete
flatwork, pavement, and retaining walls.

We reviewed the following plans and report in preparation of this report:

1. Site Plan Exhibit, Callan Redevelopment, San Diego, California, prepared by Kimley-Horn,
dated January 16, 2020.

2. Overall Site Plan, 3030 Callan Road, San Diego, California, prepared by FPB Architects,
dated September 13, 2019.

3. Geotechnical Investigation for Synthetic Genomics, 11099 North Torrey Pines Road, San
Diego, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated October 23, 2008 (Project
No. 1008-52-01).

4. Geotechnical Investigation for IRT Site, Torrey Pines Science Park, Unit No. 2, Lot 10,
San Diego, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated July 9, 1979 (Project
No. D-1851-T02).

The scope of this investigation included reviewing readily available published and unpublished
geologic literature (see List of References); performing engineering analyses; and preparing this
report. We also advanced 5 exploratory borings to a maximum depth of about 30½ feet, performed
percolation/infiltration testing, sampled soil and performed laboratory testing. Appendix A presents
the exploratory boring logs and details of the field investigation. The details of the laboratory tests
and a summary of the test results are shown in Appendix B and on the boring logs in Appendix A. the
results of our percolation/infiltration testing are summarized in our storm water management
investigation that is presented in separate report.

2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The irregularly-shaped, approximately 2.65-acre property currently consists of two occupied office
buildings, asphalt parking and driveways, concrete flatwork, landscaping and associated
improvements. The site is located on the north side of Callan Road within the Torrey Pines Business

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 -1- January 30, 2020

Park and is bordered by office buildings to north, west and south, and undeveloped descending
hillside to the east and south. Access to the property extends from Callan Road along an
approximately 400-foot driveway to the parking lot. Ascending landscaped slopes extending to
neighboring properties exist along the north and west perimeters of the site, and slopes exist between
three tiers of on-grade asphalt parking levels. The existing elevations range from approximately 350
to 400 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the northeast corner of the site and the entrance at Callan Road,
respectively. The Existing Site Map shows the current site conditions.

Existing Site Map

Based on review of the referenced site plans, construction will consist of two, four-level office
buildings (Buildings A and B) that will include one subterranean level (Level P1) with a finish floor
elevation of 352 feet above MSL. Building A will be located on the southern portion of the site and
Building B on the northern portion. The proposed buildings are shown on Geologic Map, Figure 2.
Each building will have one level of subterranean for parking and a portion of the second level
(Level L1) also designated for parking. Driveway entrances for the buildings will be located at the
south end of Building A and the north end of Building B at Level L1 at an elevation of 364 feet MSL.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 -2- January 30, 2020

Surface parking will be located to the west of the Building A and adjacent to the entrance of the
property from Callan Road. We expect each building will have a mechanical equipment yard along
with surrounding landscaping, and storm-water management devices will be constructed on the lower
elevations of the site.

The locations, site descriptions, and proposed development are based on our site reconnaissance,
review of published geologic literature, field investigations, and discussions with project personnel. If
development plans differ from those described herein, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for
review of the plans and possible revisions to this report.

3. GEOLOGIC SETTING

Regionally, the site is located in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The province is
bounded by the Transverse Ranges to the north, the San Jacinto Fault Zone on the east, the Pacific
Ocean coastline on the west, and the Baja California on the south. The province is characterized by
elongated northwest-trending mountain ridges separated by straight-sided sediment-filled valleys.
The northwest trend is further reflected in the direction of the dominant geologic structural features of
the province that are northwest to west-northwest trending folds and faults, such as the nearby Rose
Canyon fault zone.

Locally, the site is within the coastal plain of San Diego County. The coastal plain is underlain by a
thick sequence of relatively undisturbed and non-conformable sedimentary bedrock units that thicken
to the west and range in age from Upper Cretaceous age through the Pleistocene age which have been
deposited on Cretaceous to Jurassic age igneous and volcanic bedrock. Geomorphically, the coastal
plain is characterized by a series of twenty-one, stair-stepped marine terraces (younger to the west)
that have been dissected by west flowing rivers. The coastal plain is a relatively stable block that is
dissected by relatively few faults consisting of the potentially active La Nacion Fault Zone and the
active Rose Canyon Fault Zone. The Regional Geologic Map shows the geologic conditions in the
vicinity of the subject project (Kennedy & Tan, 2008).

The site is located on the western portion of the coastal plain. Marine sedimentary units make up the
geologic sequence encountered on the site and consist of Quaternary-age Very Old Paralic Deposits
and the Eocene-age Scripps Formation. The Regional Geologic Map shows the geologic conditions in
the vicinity of the subject project (Kennedy & Tan, 2008).

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 -3- January 30, 2020

 Regional Geologic Map

4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

We encountered one surficial soil unit (consisting of undocumented fill) and two formational units
(consisting of Very Old Paralic Deposits and Scripps Formation). The occurrence, distribution, and
description of each unit encountered is shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 2 and on the boring logs
in Appendix A. The Geologic Cross-Sections, Figure 3, show the approximate subsurface
relationship between the geologic units. The surficial soil and geologic units are described herein in
order of increasing age.

4.1 Previously Placed Fill (Qpf)

We encountered previously placed fill in Borings B-1, B-3 and B-4 to depths ranging from about 3 to
7 feet. In general, the fill consists of medium dense, moist, clayey sand to sandy clay and likely
possesses a “very low” to “low” expansion index (expansion index of 50 or less). The upper portions
of the previously placed fill is not considered suitable in its current condition for the support of

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 -4- January 30, 2020

foundations or structural fill and remedial grading will required. The previously placed fill can be
reused for new compacted fill during grading operations provided it is free of roots and debris.

4.2 Very Old Paralic Deposits (Qvop)

Quaternary-age Very Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 10 (formerly called the Lindavista Formation) exists
at grade in Borings B-2 and B-5 and underlies the existing fill soil in Boring B-3. The Very Old
Paralic Deposits consists of dense to very dense sandstone and cobble conglomerate. We expect these
materials possess a “very low” to “low” expansive potential (expansion index of 50 or less).
Excavations within this unit will likely be difficult in the cemented zones and oversize material with
abundant cobbles may be generated. In addition, coring and rock breaking equipment may be
required to excavate the very dense and cemented sandstone and cobble layers. The Very Old Paralic
Deposits are considered suitable to support additional fill and/or structural loads.

4.3 Scripps Formation (Tsc)

We encountered Eocene-age Scripps Formation underlying fill within Boring B-1 and below the Very
Old Paralic Deposits in Borings B-3 and B-4. The Scripps Formation is generally brown, yellowish
brown to light gray, silty to clayey sandstone and sandy siltstone/claystone with layers of strongly-
cemented material. Our laboratory tests and experience indicate the Scripps Formation possesses a
“very low” to “medium” expansion potential (expansion index of 90 or less). The Scripps Formation
may possess a “S0” to “S2” water-soluble sulfate content that could require specialized concrete. The
Scripps Formation is generally considered suitable for support of properly compacted structural fill
and improvements.

5. GROUNDWATER

We did not encounter groundwater or seepage during our site investigation. However, it is not
uncommon for shallow seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed when sites are
irrigated or infiltration is implemented. Seepage is dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation,
land use, among other factors, and varies as a result. Proper surface drainage will be important to
future performance of the project. We expect groundwater is deeper than about 50 feet below existing
grade. We do not expect groundwater to be encountered during construction of the proposed
development.

6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

6.1 Geologic Hazard Category

The City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study, Geologic Hazards and Faults, Map Sheet 34 defines the
site with Hazard Category 52: Other Terrain – Other level areas, gently sloping to steep terrain,
favorable geologic structure; Low Risk. Based on a review of the map, a fault does not traverse the

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 -5- January 30, 2020

planned development area. However, an unnamed fault is mapped approximately ¾ mile to southeast
and the Carmel Valley Fault is mapped approximately 1 mile to the northwest of the site. The City of
San Diego Seismic Safety Map shows the proposed property and hazard category.

City of San Diego Seismic Safety Map

6.2 Faulting and Seismicity

A review of the referenced geologic materials and our knowledge of the general area indicate that the
site is not underlain by active, potentially active, or inactive faults. An active fault is defined by the
California Geological Survey (CGS) as a fault showing evidence for activity within the last
11,000 years. The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone.

According to the computer program EZ-FRISK (Version 7.65), 7 known active faults are located
within a search radius of 50 miles from the property. We used the 2008 USGS fault database that
provides several models and combinations of fault data to evaluate the fault information. Based on
this database, the nearest known active fault is the Newport-Inglewood Fault system, located
approximately 2 miles west of the site, and is the dominant source of potential ground motion.
Earthquakes that might occur on the Newport-Inglewood Fault or other faults within the southern
California and northern Baja California area are potential generators of significant ground motion at

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 -6- January 30, 2020

the site. The estimated deterministic maximum earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration
for the Newport-Inglewood Fault are 7.5 and 0.51g, respectively. Table 6.2.1 lists the estimated
maximum earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration for the most dominant faults in
relationship to the site location. We calculated peak ground acceleration (PGA) using Boore-
Atkinson (2008) NGA USGS2008, Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) NGA USGS 2008 and Chiou-
Youngs (2007) NGA USGS2008 acceleration-attenuation relationships.

TABLE 6.2.1
DETERMINISTIC SPECTRA SITE PARAMETERS

Maximum Peak Ground Acceleration

Distance from Earthquake Boore- Campbell- Chiou-
Fault Name
Site (miles) Magnitude Atkinson Bozorgnia Youngs
(Mw) 2008 (g) 2008 (g) 2007 (g)
Newport - Inglewood 2 7.5 0.41 0.42 0.51
Rose Canyon 2 6.9 0.37 0.41 0.45
Coronado Bank 17 7.4 0.18 0.14 0.16
Palos Verdes Connected 17 7.7 0.20 0.15 0.19
Elsinore 33 7.9 0.13 0.09 0.11
Earthquake Valley 42 6.8 0.06 0.05 0.04
Palos Verdes 47 7.3 0.07 0.06 0.05

We used the computer program EZ-FRISK to perform a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. The
computer program EZ-FRISK operates under the assumption that the occurrence rate of earthquakes
on each mappable Quaternary fault is proportional to the faults slip rate. The program accounts for
fault rupture length as a function of earthquake magnitude, and site acceleration estimates are made
using the earthquake magnitude and distance from the site to the rupture zone. The program also
accounts for uncertainty in each of following: (1) earthquake magnitude, (2) rupture length for a
given magnitude, (3) location of the rupture zone, (4) maximum possible magnitude of a given
earthquake, and (5) acceleration at the site from a given earthquake along each fault. By calculating
the expected accelerations from considered earthquake sources, the program calculates the total
average annual expected number of occurrences of site acceleration greater than a specified value.
We utilized acceleration-attenuation relationships suggested by Boore-Atkinson (2008) NGA USGS
2008, Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) NGA USGS 2008 and Chiou-Youngs (2007) NGA USGS2008 in
the analysis. Table 6.2.2 presents the site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard parameters including
acceleration-attenuation relationships and the probability of exceedence.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 -7- January 30, 2020

 TABLE 6.2.2
PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD PARAMETERS

Peak Ground Acceleration

Probability of Exceedence Boore-Atkinson, Campbell-Bozorgnia, Chiou-Youngs,
2008 (g) 2008 (g) 2007 (g)
2% in a 50 Year Period 0.49 0.52 0.59
5% in a 50 Year Period 0.32 0.33 0.37
10% in a 50 Year Period 0.22 0.22 0.23

While listing peak accelerations is useful for comparison of potential effects of fault activity in a
region, other considerations are important in seismic design, including the frequency and duration of
motion and the soil conditions underlying the site. Seismic design of the structure should be evaluated
in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) guidelines currently adopted by the City of
San Diego.

6.3 Liquefaction

Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is located in a zone with seismic activity, onsite soils are
cohesionless or silt/clay with low plasticity, groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface
and soil densities are less than about 70 percent of the maximum dry densities. If the four previous
criteria are met, a seismic event could result in a rapid pore water pressure increase from the
earthquake-generated ground accelerations. Due to the lack of a permanent, near-surface groundwater
table and the very dense nature of the underlying fill, Very Old Paralic Deposits and Scripps
Formation, liquefaction potential for the site is considered very low.

6.4 Storm Surge, Tsunamis, and Seiches

Storm surges are large ocean waves that sweep across coastal areas when storms make landfall.
Storm surges can cause inundation, severe erosion and backwater flooding along the water front. The
site is located approximately 1 mile from the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of approximately 350 feet
or greater above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Therefore, the potential of storm surges affecting the site is
considered low.

A tsunami is a series of long period waves generated in the ocean by a sudden displacement of large
volumes of water. Causes of tsunamis include underwater earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or
offshore slope failures. The site is not included within one of these high-risk hazard areas. The site is
located approximately 1 mile from the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of approximately 350 feet or
greater above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Therefore, we consider the risk of a tsunami hazard at the site
to be low.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 -8- January 30, 2020

A seiche is a run-up of water within a lake or embayment triggered by fault- or landslide-induced
ground displacement. The site is not located near an inland body of water; therefore, we consider the
potential for seiches to impact the site low.

6.5 Slope Stability

Planned fill slopes exist along the east perimeter of the site with heights up to approximately 20 feet.
In addition, a cut slope into formational Very Old Paralic Deposits is proposed along the west side of
the property with a height of up to approximately 25 feet. Slope stability analyses for the proposed fill
and cut slopes with inclinations as steep as 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) indicate a calculated factor of
safety of at least 1.5 under static conditions for both deep-seated and surficial failure. Figures 4 and 5
presents the slope stability calculations for deep-seated and surficial failures for the proposed fill and
cut slopes, respectively.

Slopes should be landscaped with drought-tolerant vegetation having variable root depths and
requiring minimal landscape irrigation. In addition, slopes should be drained and properly maintained
to reduce erosion.

6.6 Landslides

We did not observe evidence of previous or incipient slope instability at the site during our study and
the property is relatively flat. Published geologic mapping indicates landslides are not present on or
adjacent to the site. Therefore, in our professional opinion, the potential for a landslide is not a
significant concern for this project.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 -9- January 30, 2020

 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 General

7.1.1 We did not encounter soil or geologic conditions during our exploration that would
preclude the proposed development, provided the preliminary recommendations presented
herein are followed and implemented during design and construction. We will provide
supplemental recommendations if we observe variable or undesirable conditions during
construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein.

7.1.2 With the exception of possible moderate to strong seismic shaking, we did not observe or
know of significant geologic hazards to exist on the site that would adversely affect the
proposed project.

7.1.3 The upper portion of the previously placed fill are unsuitable in their present condition for
the support of compacted fill or settlement-sensitive improvements. Remedial grading of
these materials should be performed as discussed herein. The underlying Very Old Paralic
Deposits and Scripps Formation are considered suitable for the support of proposed fill and
structural loads.

7.1.4 We did not encounter groundwater during our subsurface exploration and we do not expect
it to be a constraint to project development. However, seepage within surficial and formational
materials may be encountered during the grading operations, especially during the rainy
seasons.

7.1.5 Excavation of the fill, Very Old Paralic Deposits and Scripps Formation should generally
be possible with moderate to heavy effort using conventional, heavy-duty equipment
during grading and trenching operations. We expect very heavy effort with possible refusal
in localized areas for excavations into strongly cemented portions of the Very Old Paralic
Deposits and Scripps Formation. Oversized rock (rocks greater than 12-inches in
dimension) may be generated with the granitic rock materials that can be incorporated into
landscape use or deep compacted fill areas, if available.

7.1.6 We expect the planned structure will be supported on conventional shallow foundations
and a concrete slab-on-grade. The foundations will be embedded in either properly
compacted fill or formational materials.

7.1.7 Proper drainage should be maintained in order to preserve the engineering properties of the
fill in both the building pads and slope areas. Recommendations for site drainage are
provided herein.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 10 - January 30, 2020

7.1.8 Based on our review of the project plans, we opine the planned development can be
constructed in accordance with our recommendations provided herein. We do not expect
the planned development will destabilize or result in settlement of adjacent properties.

7.1.9 Surface settlement monuments and canyon subdrains will not be required on this project.

7.2 Soil Characteristics

7.2.1 The soil encountered in the field investigation is considered to be “non-expansive”

(expansion index [EI] of 20 or less) as defined by 2019 California Building Code (CBC)
Section 1803.5.3. Table 7.2.1 presents soil classifications based on the expansion index.
We expect a majority of the soil encountered possess a “very low” to “low” expansion
potential (EI of 50 or less).

TABLE 7.2.1
EXPANSION CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX

ASTM D 4829 2019 CBC

Expansion Index (EI)
Expansion Classification Expansion Classification
0 – 20 Very Low Non-Expansive
21 – 50 Low
51 – 90 Medium
Expansive
91 – 130 High
Greater Than 130 Very High

7.2.2 We performed laboratory tests on samples of the site materials to evaluate the percentage
of water-soluble sulfate content. Appendix B presents results of the laboratory water-
soluble sulfate content tests. The test results indicate the on-site materials at the locations
tested possess “S0” sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2019 CBC Section
1904 and ACI 318-14 Chapter 19. However, some areas of the Scripps Formation possess
“S1” to “S2” water-soluble sulfate contents and additional concrete design
recommendations may be encountered during construction. Table 7.2.2 presents a summary
of concrete requirements set forth by 2019 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318. The presence
of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil
samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time
landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the
concentration.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 11 - January 30, 2020

 TABLE 7.2.2
REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO
SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS

Water-Soluble Maximum Water Minimum

Exposure Cement Type
Sulfate (SO4) to Cement Ratio Compressive
Class (ASTM C 150)
Percent by Weight by Weight1 Strength (psi)
No Type
S0 SO4<0.10 n/a 2,500
Restriction
S1 0.10<SO4<0.20 II 0.50 4,000
S2 0.20<SO4<2.00 V 0.45 4,500
S3 SO4>2.00 V+Pozzolan or Slag 0.45 4,500
1
Maximum water to cement ratio limits do not apply to lightweight concrete.

7.2.3 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore,
further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be performed if improvements susceptible
to corrosion are planned.

7.3 Grading

7.3.1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this
report, the Recommended Grading Specifications contained in Appendix C and the City of
San Diego’s Grading Ordinance. Geocon Incorporated should observe the grading
operations on a full-time basis and provide testing during the fill placement.

7.3.2 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with
the county inspector, developer, grading and underground contractors, civil engineer, and
geotechnical engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be
discussed at that time.

7.3.3 Site preparation should begin with the removal of deleterious material, paving and hardscape
materials, debris, and vegetation. The depth of vegetation removal should be such that
material exposed in cut areas or soil to be used as fill is relatively free of organic matter.
Material generated during stripping and/or site demolition should be exported from the site.
Asphalt and concrete should not be mixed with the fill soil unless approved by the
Geotechnical Engineer. Crushed asphalt grindings and concrete crushed to base size materials
can be reused as new fill soils or mixed with fill materials placed outside building pad areas.

7.3.4 Abandoned foundations and buried utilities (if encountered) should be removed and the
resultant depressions and/or trenches should be backfilled with properly compacted
material as part of the remedial grading.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 12 - January 30, 2020

7.3.5 Based on the current site plans, we expect the planned buildings will be supported on a
shallow foundation system embedded into formational materials (Very Old Paralic Deposits
or Scripps Formation). However, we expect that the eastern portion of Building B will expose
previously placed fill at finish grade for parking level P1. Where previously placed fill is
exposed at finish grade within the building pads, the upper 3 feet should be removed and
replaced with new compacted fill. The removals should extend at least 5 feet outside the
building pads. The removals should be limited to expose formational materials (e.g. if
formation is 1 foot down, the 3-foot removal should be limited to 1 foot). No undercutting of
formational materials below finish grade within the building pads should occur.

7.3.6 In areas of proposed improvements outside of the building areas, the upper 2 feet of
existing soil should be processed, moisture conditioned as necessary and recompacted.
Deeper removals may be required in areas where loose or saturated materials are
encountered. The removals should extend at least 2 feet outside of the improvement area,
where possible. Table 7.3.1 provides a summary of the grading recommendations.

TABLE 7.3.1
SUMMARY OF GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS

Area Removal Requirements

Removal of Previously Placed Fill to expose
Formational Materials
Building Pads
Maximum Removal of 3 Feet of Existing Fill
Materials
Improvement Areas Outside Building Pads Process Upper 2 Feet of Existing Materials
5 Feet Outside of Buildings
Lateral Grading Limits
2 Feet Outside of Improvement Areas,
No Processing – Building Pads
Exposed Bottoms of Remedial Grading
Scarify Upper 12 Inches – Improvements Areas

7.3.7 The bottom of the excavations should be sloped 1 percent to the adjacent street or deepest
fill. Prior to fill soil being placed, the existing ground surface should be scarified, moisture
conditioned as necessary, and compacted to a depth of at least 12 inches. However, the
upper 12 inches of formational materials exposed in building pad areas during grading
should not be scarified. Deeper removals may be required if saturated or loose fill soil is
encountered. A representative of Geocon should be on-site during removals to evaluate the
limits of the remedial grading.

7.3.8 Some areas of overly wet and saturated soil could be encountered due to the existing
landscape and pavement areas that will require deeper removals during remedial grading.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 13 - January 30, 2020

 The saturated soil would require additional effort prior to placement of compacted fill or
additional improvements. Stabilization of the soil would include scarifying and air-drying,
removing and replacement with drier soil, undercutting at least 2 feet with the use of
stabilization fabric (e.g. Tensar TX7, Mirafi 370HP, or other approved structural grid) and
replacement with properly compacted base materials, or dry cement mixing with wet soils.

7.3.9 The site should then be brought to final subgrade elevations with fill compacted in layers.
In general, soil native to the site is suitable for use from a geotechnical engineering
standpoint as fill if relatively free from vegetation, debris and other deleterious material.
Layers of fill should be about 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness and no thicker than will allow
for adequate bonding and compaction. Fill, including backfill and scarified ground
surfaces, should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory
maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content in accordance with
ASTM Test Procedure D 1557. Fill materials placed below optimum moisture content may
require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill. The upper
12 inches of subgrade soil underlying pavement should be compacted to a dry density of at
least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum
moisture content shortly before paving operations.

7.3.10 Import fill (if necessary) should consist of the characteristics presented in Table 7.3.2.
Geocon Incorporated should be notified of the import soil source and should perform
laboratory testing of import soil prior to its arrival at the site to determine its suitability as
fill material.

TABLE 7.3.2
SUMMARY OF IMPORT FILL RECOMMENDATIONS

Soil Characteristic Values

Expansion Potential “Very Low” to “Low” (Expansion Index of 50 or less)
Maximum Dimension Less Than 3 Inches
Particle Size
Generally Free of Debris

7.4 Excavation Slopes, Shoring and Tiebacks

7.4.1 The recommendations included herein are provided for stable excavations. It is the
responsibility of the contractor and their competent person to ensure all excavations,
temporary slopes and trenches are properly constructed and maintained in accordance with
applicable OSHA guidelines in order to maintain safety and the stability of the excavations
and adjacent improvements. These excavations should not be allowed to become saturated

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 14 - January 30, 2020

 or to dry out. Surcharge loads should not be permitted to a distance equal to the height of
the excavation from the top of the excavation. The top of the excavation should be a
minimum of 15 feet from the edge of existing improvements. Excavations steeper than
those recommended or closer than 15 feet from an existing surface improvement should be
shored in accordance with applicable OSHA codes and regulations.

7.4.2 The stability of the excavations is dependent on the design and construction of the shoring
system and site condition. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated cannot be responsible for site
safety and the stability of the proposed excavations.

7.4.3 The design of temporary shoring is governed by soil and groundwater conditions, and by
the depth and width of the excavated area. Continuous support of the excavation face can
be provided by a system of soldier piles and wood lagging. Excavations exceeding 15 feet
may require soil nails, tieback anchors or internal bracing to provide additional wall
restraint.

7.4.4 The condition of existing buildings, streets, sidewalks, and other structures/improvements
around the perimeter of the planned excavation should be documented prior to the start of
shoring and excavation work. Special attention should be given to documenting existing
cracks or other indications of differential settlement within these adjacent structures,
pavements and other improvements. Underground utilities sensitive to settlement should be
videotaped prior to construction to check the integrity of pipes. In addition, monitoring
points should be established indicating location and elevation around the excavation and
upon existing buildings. These points should be monitored on a weekly basis during
excavation work and on a monthly basis thereafter. Inclinometers should be installed and
monitored behind any shoring sections that will be advanced deeper than 30 feet below the
existing ground surface.

7.4.5 In general, ground conditions are moderately suited for soldier pile and tieback anchor wall
construction techniques. However, gravel, cobble, and oversized material may be
encountered in the existing materials that could be difficult to drill. Additionally, if
cohesionless sands are encountered, some raveling may result along the unsupported
portions of excavations.

7.4.6 Temporary shoring with a level backfill should be designed using a lateral pressure
envelope acting on the back of the shoring as presented in Table 7.4.1 assuming a level
backfill. The distributions are shown on the Active Pressures for Temporary Shoring.
Triangular distribution should be used for cantilevered shoring and, the trapezoidal and
rectangular distribution should be used for multi-braced systems such as tieback anchors

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 15 - January 30, 2020

 and rakers. The project shoring engineer should determine the applicable soil distribution
for the design of the temporary shoring system. Additional lateral earth pressure due to the
surcharging effects from construction equipment, sloping backfill, planned stockpiles,
adjacent structures and/or traffic loads should be considered, where appropriate, during
design of the shoring system.

TABLE 7.4.1
SUMMARY OF TEMPORARY SHORING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS

Parameter Value
Triangular Distribution, A 29H psf
Rectangular Distribution, B 18H psf
Trapezoidal Distribution, C 23H psf
Passive Pressure, P 375D + 500 psf
Effective Zone Angle, E 30 degrees
Maximum Design Lateral Movement 1 Inch
Maximum Design Vertical Movement ½ Inch
Maximum Design Retained Height, H 30 Feet

H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall in feet.

D equals the embedment depth of the retaining wall in feet.

Active Pressures on Temporary Shoring

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 16 - January 30, 2020

7.4.7 The passive resistance can be assumed to act over a width of three pile diameters.
Typically, soldier piles are embedded a minimum of 0.5 times the maximum height of the
excavation (this depth is to include footing excavations) if tieback anchors are not
employed. The project structural engineer should determine the actual embedment depth.

Passive Pressures on Temporary Shoring

7.4.8 We should observe the drilled shafts for the soldier piles prior to the placement of steel
reinforcement to check that the exposed soil conditions are similar to those expected and
that footing excavations have been extended to the appropriate bearing strata and design
depths. If unexpected soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be
required.

7.4.9 Lateral movement of shoring is associated with vertical ground settlement outside of the
excavation. Therefore, it is essential that the soldier pile and tieback system allow very
limited amounts of lateral displacement. Earth pressures acting on a lagging wall can cause
movement of the shoring toward the excavation and result in ground subsidence outside of
the excavation. Consequently, horizontal movements of the shoring wall should be
accurately monitored and recorded during excavation and anchor construction.

7.4.10 Survey points should be established at the top of the pile on at least 20 percent of the
soldier piles. An additional point located at an intermediate point between the top of the
pile and the base of the excavation should be monitored on at least 20 percent of the piles if

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 17 - January 30, 2020

 tieback anchors will be used. These points should be monitored on a weekly basis during
excavation work and on a monthly basis thereafter until the permanent support system is
constructed.

7.4.11 The project civil engineer should provide the approximate location, depth, and pipe type of
the underground utilities to the shoring engineer to help select the shoring type and shoring
design. The shoring system should be designed to limit horizontal soldier pile movement to
a maximum of 1 inch. The amount of horizontal deflection can be assumed to be essentially
zero along the Active Zone and Effective Zone boundary. The magnitude of movement for
intermediate depths and distances from the shoring wall can be linearly interpolated. We
understand the City of San Diego may require the developer to prepare a hold harmless
agreement for the planned construction operations and development regarding the existing
utilities and improvements.

7.4.12 Tieback anchors employed in shoring should be designed such that anchors fully penetrate
the Active Zone behind the shoring. The Active Zone can be considered the wedge of soil
from the face of the shoring to a plane extending upward from the base of the excavation as
shown on the Active Zone Detail. Normally, tieback anchors are contractor-designed and
installed, and there are numerous anchor construction methods available. Non-shrinkage
grout should be used for the construction of the tieback anchors.

Active Zone Detail

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 18 - January 30, 2020

7.4.13 Experience has shown that the use of pressure grouting during formation of the bonded
portion of the anchor will increase the soil-grout bond stress. A pressure grouting tube
should be installed during the construction of the tieback. Post grouting should be
performed if adequate capacity cannot be obtained by other construction methods.

7.4.14 Anchor capacity is a function of construction method, depth of anchor, batter, diameter of
the bonded section and the length of the bonded section. Anchor capacity should be
evaluated using the strength parameters shown in Table 7.4.2.

TABLE 7.4.2
SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR TEMPORARY SHORING

Description Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle (Degrees)

Previously Placed Fill 350 25
Very Old Paralic Deposits 400 31
Scripps Formation 600 34

7.4.15 Grout should only be placed in the tieback anchor’s bonded section prior to testing.
Tieback anchors should be proof-tested to at least 130 percent of the anchor’s design
working load. Following a successful proof test, the tieback anchors should be locked off at
80 percent of the allowable working load. Tieback anchor test failure criteria should be
established in project plans and specifications. The tieback anchor test failure criteria
should be based upon a maximum allowable displacement at 130 percent of the anchor’s
working load (anchor creep) and a maximum residual displacement within the anchor
following stressing. Tieback anchor stressing should only be conducted after sufficient
hydration has occurred within the grout. Tieback anchors that fail to meet project specified
test criteria should be replaced or additional anchors should be constructed.

7.4.16 Lagging should keep pace with excavation. The excavation should not be advanced deeper
than three feet below the bottom of lagging at any time. These unlagged gaps of up to three
feet should only be allowed to stand for short periods of time to help decrease the
probability of soil instability and should never be unsupported overnight. Backfilling
should be conducted when necessary between the back of lagging and excavation sidewalls
to reduce sloughing in this zone and all voids should be filled by the end of each day.
Further, the excavation should not be advanced further than four feet below a row of
tiebacks prior to those tiebacks being proof tested and locked off unless otherwise specific
by the shoring engineer.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 19 - January 30, 2020

7.4.17 If tieback anchors are employed, an accurate survey of existing utilities and other
underground structures adjacent to the shoring wall should be conducted. The survey
should include both locations and depths of existing utilities. Locations of anchors should
be adjusted as necessary during the design and construction process to accommodate the
existing and proposed utilities.

7.4.18 Tieback anchors within the City of San Diego right-of-way should be properly detensioned
and removed where steel does not exist within the upper 20 feet from the existing grade.
The Notice – Land Development Review/Shoring in City Right-Of-Way, prepared by the
City of San Diego, dated July 1, 2003 should be reviewed and incorporated into the design
of the tieback anchors. Procedures for removal of tieback anchors include unscrewing
tendons using special couplings, use of explosives, or heat induction. Geocon Incorporated
should be consulted if other methods of removal are planned.

7.4.19 The shoring system should incorporate a drainage system for the proposed retaining wall as
shown herein.

Typical Soldier Pile Wall Drainage Detail

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 20 - January 30, 2020

7.5 Soil Nail Wall

7.5.1 As an alternative to temporary shoring followed by construction of a permanent basement

wall, a soil nail wall can be used. Soil nail walls consist of installing closely spaced steel
bars (nails) into a slope or excavation in a top-down construction sequence. Following
installation of a horizontal row of nails, drains, waterproofing and wall reinforcing steel are
placed and shotcrete applied to create a final wall. The wall should be designed by an
engineer familiar with the design of soil nail walls.

7.5.2 Temporary soil nail walls should not be considered a permanent design to support the
seismic lateral loads and soil pressures on a building wall. Therefore, the proposed building
should be designed to support the expected lateral loads.

7.5.3 In general, ground conditions are moderately suited to soil nail wall construction
techniques. However, localized gravel, cobble and oversized material could be encountered
in the existing materials that could be difficult to drill. Additionally, relatively clean sands
may be encountered within the existing soil that may result in some raveling of the
unsupported excavation. Casing or specialized drilling techniques should be planned where
raveling exists (e.g. casing).

7.5.4 Testing of the soil nails should be performed in accordance with the guidelines of the
Federal Highway Administration or similar guidelines. At least two verification tests
should be performed to confirm design assumptions for each soil/rock type encountered.
Verification tests nails should be sacrificial and should not be used to support the proposed
wall. The bond length should be adjusted to allow for pullout testing of the verification
nails to evaluate the ultimate bond stress. A minimum of 5 percent of the production nails
should also be proof tested and a minimum of 4 sacrificial nails should be tested at the
discretion of Geocon Incorporated. Consideration should be given to testing sacrificial nails
with an adjusted bond length rather than testing production nails. Geocon Incorporated
should observe the nail installation and perform the nail testing.

7.5.5 The soil strength parameters listed in Table 7.5 can be used in design of the soil nails. The
bond stress is dependent on drilling method, diameter, and construction method. Therefore,
the designer should evaluate the bond stress based on the existing soil conditions and the
construction method.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 21 - January 30, 2020

 TABLE 7.5
SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR SOIL NAIL WALLS

Friction Angle Estimated Ultimate

Description Cohesion (psf)
(degrees) Bond Stress (psi)*
Previously Placed Fill 350 25 10
Very Old Paralic Deposits 400 31 20
Scripps Formation 600 34 20
* Assuming gravity fed, open hole drilling techniques.

7.5.6 A wall drain system should be incorporated into the design of the soil nail wall as shown
herein. Corrosion protection should be provided for the nails if the wall will be a permanent
structure.

Soil Nail Wall Detail

7.6 Seismic Design Criteria

7.6.1 Table 7.6.1 summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2019 California
Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2018 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-
16), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. We used the computer
program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the Structural Engineers Association
(SEA) to calculate the seismic design parameters. The short spectral response uses a period
of 0.2 second. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.2.2 of
the 2019 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. The values presented herein are for the
risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER). Sites designated as Site Class D, E

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 22 - January 30, 2020

 and F may require additional analyses if requested by the project structural engineer and
client.

TABLE 7.6.1
2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

Parameter Value 2019 CBC Reference

Site Class C Section 1613.2.2
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response
1.224g Figure 1613.2.1(1)
Acceleration – Class B (short), SS
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response
0.432g Figure 1613.2.1(2)
Acceleration – Class B (1 sec), S1
Site Coefficient, FA 1.200 Table 1613.2.3(1)
Site Coefficient, FV 1.500* Table 1613.2.3(2)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
1.469g Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-36)
Acceleration (short), SMS
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
0.648g* Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-37)
Acceleration – (1 sec), SM1
5% Damped Design
0.979g Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-38)
Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS
5% Damped Design
0.432g* Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-39)
Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1

* Using the code-based values presented in this table, in lieu of a performing a ground motion hazard
analysis, requires the exceptions outlined in ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8 be followed by the project
structural engineer. Per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-16, a ground motion hazard analysis should be
performed for projects for Site Class “E” sites with Ss greater than or equal to 1.0g and for Site Class
“D” and “E” sites with S1 greater than 0.2g. Section 11.4.8 also provides exceptions which indicates
that the ground motion hazard analysis may be waived provided the exceptions are followed.

7.6.2 Table 7.6.2 presents the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG) seismic
design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in
accordance with ASCE 7-16.

TABLE 7.6.2
ASCE 7-16 PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION

Parameter Value ASCE 7-16 Reference

Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.553g Figure 22-7
Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.200 Table 11.8-1
Site Class Modified MCEG Peak Ground
0.663g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1)
Acceleration, PGAM

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 23 - January 30, 2020

7.6.3 Conformance to the criteria in Tables 7.6.1 and 7.6.2 for seismic design does not constitute
any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will
not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life,
not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.

7.6.4 The project structural engineer and architect should evaluate the appropriate Risk Category
and Seismic Design Category for the planned structures. The values presented herein
assume a Risk Category of II and resulting in a Seismic Design Category D. Table 7.6.3
presents a summary of the risk categories.

TABLE 7.6.3
ASCE 7-16 RISK CATEGORIES

Risk
Building Use Examples
Category
I Low risk to Human Life at Failure Barn, Storage Shelter
Nominal Risk to Human Life at Failure Residential, Commercial
II
(Buildings Not Designated as I, III or IV) and Industrial Buildings
Theaters, Lecture Halls, Dining Halls,
Schools, Prisons, Small Healthcare
III Substantial Risk to Human Life at Failure
Facilities, Infrastructure Plants,
Storage for Explosives/Toxins
Hazardous Material Facilities,
Hospitals, Fire and Rescue, Emergency
IV Essential Facilities Shelters, Police Stations, Power
Stations, Aviation Control Facilities,
National Defense, Water Storage

7.7 Building Foundations

7.7.1 The proposed structures can be supported on a shallow foundation system embedded in the
formational materials (Very Old Paralic Deposits or Scripps Formation). Foundations for
the structure should consist of continuous strip footings and/or isolated spread footings.
Footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at
least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope. Table 7.7 provides a summary of the
foundation design recommendations.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 24 - January 30, 2020

 TABLE 7.7
SUMMARY OF FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Parameter Value
Minimum Continuous Foundation Width 12 inches
Minimum Isolated Foundation Width 24 inches
Minimum Foundation Depth 24 Inches Below Lowest Adjacent Grade
Minimum Steel Reinforcement 4 No. 5 Bars, 2 at the Top and 2 at the Bottom
Allowable Bearing Capacity – Formation 6,000 psf
500 psf per Foot of Depth
Bearing Capacity Increase
300 psf per Foot of Width
Maximum Allowable Bearing Capacity 8,000 psf
Estimated Total Settlement 1 Inch
Estimated Differential Settlement ½ Inch in 40 Feet
Footing Size Used for Settlement 10-Foot Square
Design Expansion Index 50 or less

7.7.2 The foundations should be embedded in accordance with the recommendations herein and
the Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail. The embedment depths should be measured
from the lowest adjacent pad grade for both interior and exterior footings. Footings should
be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally
from the face of the slope (unless designed with a post-tensioned foundation system as
discussed herein).

Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail

7.7.3 The bearing capacity values presented herein are for dead plus live loads and may be
increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 25 - January 30, 2020

7.7.4 Deepening of footings will be required where the bottom of the footing does not expose
formational materials. We expect this will be necessary on the eastern 30 to 40 feet of
Building B where fill soils will be placed to achieve finish grade. As an alternative to
deepening footings, overexcavation of the bottom of the footing and replacement with
slurry can be performed in areas where formational materials are not encountered at the
bottom of the footing. Minimum two-sack slurry can be placed in the footing excavations
for the conventional foundations to the bottom of proposed footing elevation.

7.7.5 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1
(horizontal to vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended
due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.

 For fill slopes less than 20 feet high, building footings should be deepened such
that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the
face of the slope.

 When located next to a descending 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) fill slope or steeper,
the foundations should be extended to a depth where the minimum horizontal
distance is equal to H/3 (where H equals the vertical distance from the top of the
fill slope to the base of the fill soil) with a minimum of 7 feet but need not exceed
40 feet. The horizontal distance is measured from the outer, deepest edge of the
footing to the face of the slope. An acceptable alternative to deepening the footings
would be the use of a post-tensioned slab and foundation system or increased
footing and slab reinforcement. Specific design parameters or recommendations for
either of these alternatives can be provided once the building location and fill slope
geometry have been determined.

 Although other improvements, which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete
flatwork or masonry walls, may experience some distress if located near the top of
a slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible,
however, to incorporate design measures that would permit some lateral soil
movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted for specific recommendations.

7.7.6 We should observe the foundation excavations prior to the placement of reinforcing steel
and concrete to check that the exposed soil conditions are similar to those expected and that
they have been extended to the appropriate bearing strata. Foundation modifications may
be required if unexpected soil conditions are encountered.

7.7.7 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as

required by the structural engineer.

7.8 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade

7.8.1 Concrete slabs-on-grade for the structures should be constructed in accordance with Table 7.8.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 26 - January 30, 2020

 TABLE 7.8
MINIMUM CONCRETE SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS

Parameter Value
Minimum Concrete Slab Thickness 4 inches
Minimum Steel Reinforcement No. 3 Bars 18 Inches on Center, Both Directions
Typical Slab Underlayment 3 to 4 Inches of Sand/Gravel/Base
Design Expansion Index 50 or less

7.8.2 Slabs that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture-
sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder. The vapor retarder design should
be consistent with the guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI) Guide
for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06). In
addition, the membrane should be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s
recommendations and ASTM requirements and installed in a manner that prevents puncture.
The vapor retarder used should be specified by the project architect or developer based on the
type of floor covering that will be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity
controlled environment.

7.8.3 The bedding sand thickness should be determined by the project foundation engineer,
architect, and/or developer. It is common to have 3 to 4 inches of sand for 5-inch and 4-
inch thick slabs, respectively, in the southern California region. However, we should be
contacted to provide recommendations if the bedding sand is thicker than 6 inches. The
foundation design engineer should provide appropriate concrete mix design criteria and
curing measures to assure proper curing of the slab by reducing the potential for rapid
moisture loss and subsequent cracking and/or slab curl. We suggest that the foundation
design engineer present the concrete mix design and proper curing methods on the
foundation plans. It is critical that the foundation contractor understands and follows the
recommendations presented on the foundation plans.

7.8.4 Concrete slabs should be provided with adequate crack-control joints, construction joints
and/or expansion joints to reduce unsightly shrinkage cracking. The design of joints should
consider criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) when establishing crack-control
spacing. Crack-control joints should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet.
Additional steel reinforcing, concrete admixtures and/or closer crack control joint spacing
should be considered where concrete-exposed finished floors are planned.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 27 - January 30, 2020

7.8.5 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisturized to maintain a moist
condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.

7.8.6 The concrete slab-on-grade recommendations are based on soil support characteristics
only. The project structural engineer should evaluate the structural requirements of the
concrete slabs for supporting expected loads.

7.8.7 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of existing soil or soil with
varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations
presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions
may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of
concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their
occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper
concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic
intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.

7.9 Exterior Concrete Flatwork

7.9.1 Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be constructed in
accordance with the recommendations presented in Table 7.9. The recommended steel
reinforcement would help reduce the potential for cracking.

TABLE 7.9
MINIMUM CONCRETE FLATWORK RECOMMENDATIONS

Expansion Minimum
Minimum Steel Reinforcement* Options
Index, EI Thickness
6x6-W2.9/W2.9 (6x6-6/6) welded wire mesh
EI < 90 4 Inches
No. 3 Bars 18 inches on center, Both Directions

* In excess of 8 feet square.

7.9.2 Even with the incorporation of the recommendations of this report, the exterior concrete
flatwork has a potential to experience some uplift due to expansive soil beneath grade. The
steel reinforcement should overlap continuously in flatwork to reduce the potential for
vertical offsets within flatwork. Additionally, flatwork should be structurally connected to
the curbs, where possible, to reduce the potential for offsets between the curbs and the
flatwork.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 28 - January 30, 2020

7.9.3 Concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control
shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the project structural
engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the American
Concrete Institute (ACI) should be taken into consideration when establishing crack control
spacing. Subgrade soil for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be
compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the grading section prior to concrete
placement. Subgrade soil should be properly compacted and the moisture content of
subgrade soil should be verified prior to placing concrete. Base materials will not be
required below concrete improvements.

7.9.4 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit points, the exterior slab should
be dowelled into the structure’s foundation stemwall. This recommendation is intended to
reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from differential settlement
or minor heave of the flatwork. Dowelling details should be designed by the project
structural engineer.

7.9.5 The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
exterior slabs as a result of differential movement. However, even with the incorporation of
the recommendations presented herein, slabs-on-grade will still crack. The occurrence of
concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the soil supporting characteristics. Their
occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use
of crack control joints and proper concrete placement and curing. Crack control joints
should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet. Literature provided by the Portland
Concrete Association (PCA) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) present
recommendations for proper concrete mix, construction, and curing practices, and should
be incorporated into project construction.

7.10 Retaining Walls

7.10.1 Retaining walls should be designed using the values presented in Table 7.10.1. Soil with an
expansion index (EI) of greater than 50 should not be used as backfill material behind
retaining walls.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 29 - January 30, 2020

 TABLE 7.10.1
RETAINING WALL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Parameter Value
Active Soil Pressure, A (Fluid Density, Level Backfill) 35 pcf
Active Soil Pressure, A (Fluid Density, 2:1 Sloping Backfill) 50 pcf
Seismic Pressure, S 15H psf
At-Rest/Restrained Walls Additional Uniform Pressure (0 to 8 Feet High) 7H psf
At-Rest/Restrained Walls Additional Uniform Pressure (8+ Feet High) 13H psf
Expected Expansion Index for the Subject Property EI<50

H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall.

7.10.2 The project retaining walls should be designed as shown in the Retaining Wall Loading
Diagram.

Retaining Wall Loading Diagram

7.10.3 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals
the height of the retaining portion of the wall) at the top of the wall. Where walls are
restrained from movement at the top (at-rest condition), an additional uniform pressure
should be applied to the wall. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads within a
horizontal distance equal to two-thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of
fill soil should be added.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 30 - January 30, 2020

7.10.4 The structural engineer should determine the Seismic Design Category for the project in
accordance with Section 1613.2.5 of the 2019 CBC or Section 11.6 of ASCE 7-16. For
structures assigned to Seismic Design Category of D, E, or F, retaining walls that support
more than 6 feet of backfill should be designed with seismic lateral pressure in accordance
with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2019 CBC. The seismic load is dependent on the retained
height where H is the height of the wall, in feet, and the calculated loads result in pounds
per square foot (psf) exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall.

7.10.5 Retaining walls should be designed to ensure stability against overturning sliding, and
excessive foundation pressure. Where a keyway is extended below the wall base with the
intent to engage passive pressure and enhance sliding stability, it is not necessary to
consider active pressure on the keyway.

7.10.6 Drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) should not be used where the
seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base
of the wall. The recommendations herein assume a properly compacted granular (EI of 50
or less) free-draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge
load. The retaining wall should be properly drained as shown in the Typical Retaining Wall
Drainage Detail. If conditions different than those described are expected, or if specific
drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional
recommendations.

Typical Retaining Wall Drainage Detail

7.10.7 The retaining walls may be designed using either the active and restrained (at-rest) loading
condition or the active and seismic loading condition as suggested by the structural

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 31 - January 30, 2020

 engineer. Typically, it appears the design of the restrained condition for retaining wall
loading may be adequate for the seismic design of the retaining walls. However, the active
earth pressure combined with the seismic design load should be reviewed and also
considered in the design of the retaining walls.

7.10.8 In general, wall foundations having should be designed in accordance with Table 7.10.2.
The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the
allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, retaining wall foundations should be deepened
such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face
of the slope.

TABLE 7.10.2
SUMMARY OF RETAINING WALL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Parameter Value
Minimum Retaining Wall Foundation Width 12 inches
Minimum Retaining Wall Foundation Depth 12 Inches
Minimum Steel Reinforcement Per Structural Engineer
Maximum Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,000 psf
Estimated Total Settlement 1 Inch
Estimated Differential Settlement ½ Inch in 40 Feet

7.10.9 The recommendations presented herein are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls. In the event that other types of walls (such as
mechanically stabilized earth [MSE] walls, soil nail walls, or soldier pile walls) are
planned, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.

7.10.10 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied. The amount
of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and
loads acting on the wall. The retaining walls and improvements above the retaining walls
should be designed to incorporate an appropriate amount of lateral deflection as determined
by the structural engineer.

7.10.11 Soil contemplated for use as retaining wall backfill, including import materials, should be
identified in the field prior to backfill. At that time, Geocon Incorporated should obtain
samples for laboratory testing to evaluate its suitability. Modified lateral earth pressures
may be necessary if the backfill soil does not meet the required expansion index or shear
strength. City or regional standard wall designs, if used, are based on a specific active
lateral earth pressure and/or soil friction angle. In this regard, on-site soil to be used as

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 32 - January 30, 2020

 backfill may or may not meet the values for standard wall designs. Geocon Incorporated
should be consulted to assess the suitability of the on-site soil for use as wall backfill if
standard wall designs will be used.

7.11 Lateral Loading

7.11.1 Table 7.11 should be used to help design the proposed structures and improvements to
resist lateral loads for the design of footings or shear keys. The allowable passive pressure
assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet, or three times the surface generating
the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not
protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in design for passive
resistance.

TABLE 7.11
SUMMARY OF LATERAL LOAD DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Parameter Value
Passive Pressure Fluid Density 350 pcf
Coefficient of Friction (Concrete and Soil) 0.35
Coefficient of Friction (Along Vapor Barrier) 0.2 to 0.25*

* Per manufacturer’s recommendations.

7.11.2 The passive and frictional resistant loads can be combined for design purposes. The lateral
passive pressures may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to
wind or seismic forces.

7.12 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations

7.12.1 We calculated the flexible pavement sections in general conformance with the Caltrans
Method of Flexible Pavement Design (Highway Design Manual, Section 608.4) using an
estimated Traffic Index (TI) of 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, and 7.0 for parking stalls, driveways, medium
truck traffic areas, and heavy truck traffic areas, respectively. The project civil engineer
and owner should review the pavement designations to determine appropriate locations for
pavement thickness. The final pavement sections for the parking lot should be based on the
R-Value of the subgrade soil encountered at final subgrade elevation. We have assumed an
R-Value of 7 and 78 for the subgrade soil and base materials, respectively, for the purposes
of this preliminary analysis. Table 7.12.1 presents the preliminary flexible pavement
sections.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 33 - January 30, 2020

 TABLE 7.12.1
PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTION

Assumed Assumed Asphalt Class 2

Location Traffic Subgrade Concrete Aggregate
Index R-Value (inches) Base (inches)
Parking stalls for automobiles
5.0 7 3 10
and light-duty vehicles
Driveways for automobiles
5.5 7 3 12
and light-duty vehicles
Medium truck traffic areas 6.0 7 3.5 13
Driveways for heavy truck traffic 7.0 7 4 15

7.12.2 Prior to placing base materials, the upper 12 inches of the subgrade soil should be scarified,
moisture conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent
of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content as
determined by ASTM D 1557. Similarly, the base material should be compacted to a dry
density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above
optimum moisture content. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a density of at least
95 percent of the laboratory Hveem density in accordance with ASTM D 2726.

7.12.3 A rigid Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement section should be placed in roadway
aprons and cross gutters. We calculated the rigid pavement section in general conformance
with the procedure recommended by the American Concrete Institute report ACI 330R-08
Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots using the parameters
presented in Table 7.12.2.

TABLE 7.12.2
RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS

Design Parameter Design Value

Modulus of subgrade reaction, k 50 pci
Modulus of rupture for concrete, MR 500 psi
Traffic Category, TC A and C
Average daily truck traffic, ADTT 10 and 100

7.12.4 Based on the criteria presented herein, the PCC pavement sections should have a minimum
thickness as presented in Table 7.12.3.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 34 - January 30, 2020

 TABLE 7.12.3
RIGID VEHICULAR PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Location Portland Cement Concrete (inches)

Automobile Parking Stalls (TC=A) 6.0
Driveways (TC=C) 7.5

7.12.5 The PCC vehicular pavement should be placed over subgrade soil that is compacted to a
dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly
above optimum moisture content. This pavement section is based on a minimum concrete
compressive strength of approximately 3,000 psi (pounds per square inch).

7.12.6 A thickened edge or integral curb should be constructed on the outside of concrete slabs
subjected to wheel loads. The thickened edge should be 1.2 times the slab thickness or a
minimum thickness of 2 inches, whichever results in a thicker edge, and taper back to the
recommended slab thickness 4 feet behind the face of the slab (e.g., 6-inch and 7.5-inch-
thick slabs would have an 8- and 9.5-inch-thick edge, respectively). Reinforcing steel will
not be necessary within the concrete for geotechnical purposes with the possible exception
of dowels at construction joints as discussed herein.

7.12.7 To control the location and spread of concrete shrinkage cracks, crack-control joints
(weakened plane joints) should be included in the design of the concrete pavement slab.
Crack-control joints should not exceed 30 times the slab thickness with a maximum
spacing of 15 feet for the 6.0-inch and thicker slabs and should be sealed with an
appropriate sealant to prevent the migration of water through the control joint to the
subgrade materials. The depth of the crack-control joints should be determined by the
referenced ACI report. The depth of the crack-control joints should be at least ¼ of the slab
thickness when using a conventional saw, or at least 1 inch when using early-entry saws on
slabs 9 inches or less in thickness, as determined by the referenced ACI report discussed in
the pavement section herein. Cuts at least ¼ inch wide are required for sealed joints, and a
⅜ inch wide cut is commonly recommended. A narrow joint width of 1/10- to 1/8-inch wide
is common for unsealed joints.

7.12.8 To provide load transfer between adjacent pavement slab sections, a butt-type construction
joint should be constructed. The butt-type joint should be thickened by at least 20 percent
at the edge and taper back at least 4 feet from the face of the slab. As an alternative to the
butt-type construction joint, dowelling can be used between construction joints for
pavements of 7 inches or thicker. As discussed in the referenced ACI guide, dowels should
consist of smooth, 1-inch-diameter reinforcing steel 14 inches long embedded a minimum

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 35 - January 30, 2020

 of 6 inches into the slab on either side of the construction joint. Dowels should be located
at the midpoint of the slab, spaced at 12 inches on center and lubricated to allow joint
movement while still transferring loads. In addition, tie bars should be installed as
recommended in Section 3.8.3 of the referenced ACI guide. The structural engineer should
provide other alternative recommendations for load transfer.

7.12.9 Concrete curb/gutter should be placed on soil subgrade compacted to a dry density of at
least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum
moisture content. Cross-gutters that receives vehicular should be placed on subgrade soil
compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density
near to slightly above optimum moisture content. Base materials should not be placed
below the curb/gutter, or cross-gutters so water is not able to migrate from the adjacent
parkways to the pavement sections. Where flatwork is located directly adjacent to the
curb/gutter, the concrete flatwork should be structurally connected to the curbs to help
reduce the potential for offsets between the curbs and the flatwork.

7.13 Interlocking Pervious Concrete Paver Recommendations

7.13.1 We understand vehicular pervious concrete pavers may be used at the site. The concrete
vehicular paver thickness should not be less than 3⅛ inches. The pavers should be installed
and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. In addition, the
concrete pavers should be installed in a pattern acceptable for vehicular traffic. A subdrain
should be installed within the base materials at the low point of the subgrade as discussed
herein.

7.13.2 We calculated the concrete paver pavement sections in general conformance with the
Caltrans Method of Flexible Pavement Design (Highway Design Manual, Section 608.4).
We used an R-Value of 7 for the subgrade soil for our analysis and an R-Value of 78 for
the base materials per Caltrans specifications.

7.13.3 We understand that Class 2 aggregate base may be placed below the concrete pavers. We
calculated the base section based on an equivalent asphalt concrete section equal to the
thickness of the concrete vehicular paver (about 3 inches or 80 mm) in accordance with the
Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute, Tech Spec Number 4. The paver pavement
sections can be increased as required by manufacturer’s recommendations. Table 7.13
presents the recommended interlocking paver pavement sections.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 36 - January 30, 2020

 TABLE 7.13
INTERLOCKING PAVER PAVEMENT SECTIONS

Estimated Minimum
Bedding
Traffic Subgrade Paver Class 2 Aggregate
Location Sand Thickness
Index R-Value Thickness Base Thickness
(inches)
(inches) (inches)

Parking Stalls 5.0 7 3⅛ 1-2 10

Driveway 6.0 7 3⅛ 1-2 13

7.13.4 Prior to placing base materials, the upper 12 inches of the subgrade soil should be scarified,
moisture conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent
of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content as
determined by ASTM D 1557. Similarly, the base material should be compacted to a dry
density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above
optimum moisture content.

7.13.5 The property owner should be informed by the manufacturer of their responsibility for the
paver maintenance program. In addition, pavers tend to shift vertically and horizontally
during the life of the pavement and should be expected. The pavers normally require a
concrete border to reduce the magnitude of lateral movement from traffic. The concrete
border surrounding the pavers should be embedded at least 6 inches from finish grade
surface. We understand that the space between concrete pavers will be pervious to allow
water infiltration into the underlying base materials. The recommendations for draining the
base of water as discussed herein should be included in design.

7.13.6 Concrete pedestrian pavers can be used at the site as long as surface runoff is not
concentrated toward the permeable paver areas. The pedestrian concrete pavers can also be
designed as permeable if desired with the addition of a subdrain placed within the base.
Therefore, the bottom of permeable paver areas do not need to be lined.

7.13.7 Based on the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI), the pedestrian pavers should
possess a minimum thickness of 60 millimeters overlying 1 to 1½ inch of sand. The sand
should be underlain by at least 4 inches of Class 2 aggregate base or #57 aggregate in
accordance with ASTM C 33 and in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.
The aggregate section can be thickened to increase the water capacity as required by the
project civil engineer.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 37 - January 30, 2020

7.13.8 Prior to placing aggregate materials, the subgrade soil should be scarified, moisture
conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the
laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content as
determined by ASTM D 1557. The depth of compaction should be at least 12 inches.
Similarly, the aggregate base materials should be compacted to a dry density of at least
95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture
content.

7.13.9 The subgrade of the pervious pavers should be graded to allow water to flow to a subdrain at
a minimum gradient of 2 percent. A subdrain should be installed within the base materials at
the low point of the subgrade to reduce the potential for water to build up within the paving
section. The subdrain can be elevated above the subgrade a maximum of 3 inches within the
base section. The subdrain should be connected to an approved drainage device. The subdrain
should consist of at least 3-inch diameter perforated Schedule 40, PVC pipe.

7.13.10 A continuous impermeable liner or rigid concrete cutoff wall should be installed along the
sides of the pervious paver section to prevent water migration. The sidewall liner is not
required if the concrete border wall is installed to an elevation of the bottom of the base
materials. The sidewall liner should consist of a high density polyethylene (HDPE) with a
minimum thickness of 15 mil or equivalent with the liner or concrete cutoff wall extending to
the subgrade elevation. The liner/barrier should be sealed at the connections in accordance
with manufacturer recommendations and should be properly waterproofed at the drain
connection.

7.13.11 The performance of pavement is highly dependent on providing positive surface drainage
away from the edge of the pavement. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the pavement will
likely result in pavement distress and subgrade failure. Drainage from landscaped areas
should be directed to controlled drainage structures. Landscape areas adjacent to the edge of
asphalt pavements are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to
infiltrate the underlying permeable aggregate base and cause distress. Where such a condition
cannot be avoided, consideration should be given to incorporating measures that will
significantly reduce the potential for subsurface water migration into the aggregate base. If
planter islands are planned, the perimeter curb should extend at least 6 inches below the level
of the base materials.

7.14 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection

7.14.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement,
erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond
adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 38 - January 30, 2020

 directed away from structures in accordance with 2019 CBC 1804.4 or other applicable
standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into
swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be
directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure.

7.14.2 In the case of basement walls or building walls retaining landscaping areas, a water-
proofing system should be used on the wall and joints, and a Miradrain drainage panel (or
similar) should be placed over the waterproofing. The project architect or civil engineer
should provide detailed specifications on the plans for all waterproofing and drainage.

7.14.3 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked
periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil
movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of
time.

7.14.4 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for
surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. Area
drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures or impervious
above-grade planter boxes can be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent
to the pavement, construction of a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends
at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base material should be considered.

7.15 Grading and Foundation Plan Review

7.15.1 Geocon Incorporated should review the grading and building foundation plans for the
project prior to final design submittal to evaluate if additional analyses and/or
recommendations are required.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - 39 - January 30, 2020

 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS

1. The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to
provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of
geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical
aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of
improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to
perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should
prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical
engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their
records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the
geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their
concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform
additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record.

2. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon
the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the
investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction,
or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated
should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or
identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the
scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated.

3. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his
representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are
brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the
plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out
such recommendations in the field.

4. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions
of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or
the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or
appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of
knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by
changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied
upon after a period of three years.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 January 30, 2020

 SITE

THE GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE FOR DISPLAY WAS PROVIDED BY GOOGLE EARTH,
SUBJECT TO A LICENSING AGREEMENT. THE INFORMATION IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY; IT IS
NOT INTENDED FOR CLIENT'S USE OR RELIANCE AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED BY CLIENT. CLIENT
SHALL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS GEOCON FROM ANY LIABILITY INCURRED AS A RESULT
OF SUCH USE OR RELIANCE BY CLIENT. NO SCALE

VICINITY MAP

CALLAN ROAD REDEVELOPMENT

3030 CALLAN ROAD
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159

LR / RA DSK/GTYPD DATE 01 - 30 - 2020 PROJECT NO. G2469 - 11 - 01 FIG. 1

Plotted:01/30/2020 10:18AM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G2469-11-01 Callan Rd Redevelopment\DETAILS\G2469-11-01 VicinityMap.dwg
 2
· · · ·· ·· · · · ·· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· · · · · · · · · · ·

····
···
···
···
···
B-1
Qpf/

··
··
(3')

··
··
··
··
··
··
··
··
··
··
··
···

··
Qpf/

··
··

··
··

··
··

··
·

··
··

··
·
·· ·
·· · ··
·· ··
··· ·
··· ··
··· · ··
····· ··
······ ··

?
· · · · · · · ··
······· ··

APPROX. LIMITS
OF GRADING

B-4
(7')

?
B-5
(0')

Qpf/ Qvop

?
1'
1 B-3
(7')

B-2 ? ?
? ? (0')

APPROX. LIMITS

.
OF PROPOSED

CALLAN RD
BUILDINGS
2'

GEOCON LEGEND

Qpf ........PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL

Qvop........VERY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Dotted Where Buried)
Tsc ........SCRIPPS FORMATION (Dotted Where Buried)
? ........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
GEOLOGIC MAP
(Dotted Where Buried, Queried Where Uncertain) CALLAN ROAD REDEVELOPMENT
B-5
........APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING
3030 CALLAN ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
(10') ........APPROX. DEPTH TO FORMATION (In Feet, MSL) SCALE DATE
1" = 40' 01 - 30 - 2020
B B'
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION PROJECT NO. FIGURE
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
G2469 - 11 - 01
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET 1 OF 1
2
Plotted:01/30/2020 9:59AM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G2469-11-01 Callan Rd Redevelopment\SHEETS\G2469-11-01 Geo Map.dwg
 CROSS-SECTION
2-2'

440
1 N 20° W 1'
440

400 PROPOSED BUILDING B PROPOSED BUILDING A

400
PL
PROPOSED
B-2 EXISTING B-5 GRADE
E L E V A T I O N (M S L)

E L E V A T I O N (M S L)
(Projected GRADE (Projected
35' NE) 80' SW)
B-3
Qpf
360 Qpf Qvop
360
Qvop F.F. = 352' MSL

? ? ? ? ?
Qvop ? ? ? ? ? ?

Tsc Tsc Tsc

320 320

280 280
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560 600 640 680 720 760 800

DISTANCE

GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION 1-1'

SCALE: 1" = 40' (Vert. = Horiz.)

CROSS-SECTION
1-1'

440
2 N 70° E 2'
440

PROPOSED BUILDING B PROPOSED BUILDING A

400 PL 400

B-2
EXISTING
E L E V A T I O N (M S L)

E L E V A T I O N (M S L)
(Projected
GRADE 10' SE)
PROPOSED
GRADE
B-4
(Projected
PL 120' NW)
360
Qpf Qvop 360
F.F. = 352' MSL
B-1
? ?
Qvop ? ? ?

Qpf
320 320
Tsc
Tsc Tsc

280 280
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480

DISTANCE

GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION 2-2'

SCALE: 1" = 40' (Vert. = Horiz.)

GEOCON LEGEND

Qpf ........PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL

Qvop........VERY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS
Tsc ........SCRIPPS FORMATION
B-5 ........APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING

GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION

CALLAN ROAD REDEVELOPMENT
3030 CALLAN ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SCALE DATE
1" = 40' 01 - 30 - 2020
PROJECT NO. FIGURE
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
G2469 - 11 - 01
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET 1 OF 1
3
Plotted:01/30/2020 10:15AM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G2469-11-01 Callan Rd Redevelopment\SHEETS\G2469-11-01 XSection.dwg
 Surficial Slope Stability Evaluation
Slope Height, H (feet) ∞
Vertical Depth of Stauration, Z (feet) 3
Slope Inclination 2.00 :1
Slope Inclination, I (degrees) 26.6
Unit Weight of Water, γW (pcf) 62.4
Total Unit Weight of Soil, γT (pcf) 120
Friction Angle, φ (degrees) 28
Cohesion, C (psf) 200

Factor of Safety = (C+(γT-γW)Z cos2i tanφ)/(γTZ sin i cos i) 1.90

References: (1) Haefeli, R. The Stability of Slopes Acted Upon by Parallel Seepage , Proc. Second International Conference,
SMFE, Rotterdam, 1948, 1, 57-62.

(2) Skempton, A. W., and F. A. Delory, Stability of Natural Slopes in London Clay , Proc. Fourth International
Conference, SMFE, London, 1957, 2, 378-81.

Slope Stability Evaluation

Slope Height, H (feet) 20
Slope Inclination 2.0 :1
Total Unit Weight of Soil, γT (pcf) 120
Friction Angle, φ (degrees) 28
Cohesion, C (psf) 200
γCφ = (γHtanφ)/C 6.4
NCf (from Chart) 25

Factor of Safety = (NCfC)/(γH) 2.08

References: (1) Janbu, N. Stability Analysis of Slopes with Dimensionless Parameters, Harvard Soil Mechanics, Series No.
46, 1954.

(2) Janbu, N. Discussion of J.M. Bell, DimensionlessParameters for Homogeneous Earth Slopes, Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Design, No. SM6, November 1967.

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS - FILL SLOPES

CALLAN ROAD REDEVELOPMENT

3030 CALLAN ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

SW / SW DATE 01-30-2020 PROJECT NO. G2469-11-01 FIG. 4

 Surficial Slope Stability Evaluation
Slope Height, H (feet) ∞
Vertical Depth of Stauration, Z (feet) 3
Slope Inclination 2.00 :1
Slope Inclination, I (degrees) 26.6
Unit Weight of Water, γW (pcf) 62.4
Total Unit Weight of Soil, γT (pcf) 125
Friction Angle, φ (degrees) 31
Cohesion, C (psf) 400

Factor of Safety = (C+(γT-γW)Z cos2i tanφ)/(γTZ sin i cos i) 3.27

References: (1) Haefeli, R. The Stability of Slopes Acted Upon by Parallel Seepage , Proc. Second International Conference,
SMFE, Rotterdam, 1948, 1, 57-62.

(2) Skempton, A. W., and F. A. Delory, Stability of Natural Slopes in London Clay , Proc. Fourth International
Conference, SMFE, London, 1957, 2, 378-81.

Slope Stability Evaluation

Slope Height, H (feet) 25
Slope Inclination 2.0 :1
Total Unit Weight of Soil, γT (pcf) 125
Friction Angle, φ (degrees) 31
Cohesion, C (psf) 400
γCφ = (γHtanφ)/C 4.7
NCf (from Chart) 20

Factor of Safety = (NCfC)/(γH) 2.56

References: (1) Janbu, N. Stability Analysis of Slopes with Dimensionless Parameters, Harvard Soil Mechanics, Series No.
46, 1954.

(2) Janbu, N. Discussion of J.M. Bell, DimensionlessParameters for Homogeneous Earth Slopes, Journal of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Design, No. SM6, November 1967.

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS - CUT SLOPES

CALLAN ROAD REDEVELOPMENT

3030 CALLAN ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SW / SW DATE 01-30-2020 PROJECT NO. G2469-11-01 FIG. 5
APPENDIX A
 APPENDIX A

FIELD INVESTIGATION

We performed the drilling operations on November 21, 2019. Borings extended to maximum depth of
approximately 30½ feet. The locations of the exploratory borings are shown on the Geologic Map,
Figure 2 and the boring logs are presented in this Appendix. We located the borings in the field using a
measuring tape and existing reference points; therefore, actual boring locations may deviate slightly.
The geotechnical borings were drilled to depths ranging from approximately 10 to 30½ feet below
existing grade using an Ingersoll Rand A-300 drill rig equipped with hollow-stem augers.

We obtained samples during our subsurface exploration in the borings using a California sampler. The
sampler is composed of steel and are driven to obtain ring samples, and has an inside diameter of
2.5 inches and an outside diameter of 3 inches. Up to 18 rings are placed inside the sampler that is
2.4 inches in diameter and 1 inch in height. We obtained ring samples at appropriate intervals, placed
them in moisture-tight containers, and transported them to the laboratory for testing. The type of
sample is noted on the exploratory boring logs.

The samplers were driven 12 inches. The sampler is connected to A rods and driven into the bottom of
the excavation using a 140-pound hammer with a 30-inch drop. Blow counts are recorded for every
6 inches the sampler is driven. The penetration resistances shown on the boring logs are shown in terms
of blows per foot. The values indicated on the boring logs are the sum of the last 12 inches of the
sampler. If the sampler was not driven for 12 inches, an approximate value is calculated in term of blows
per foot or the final 6-inch interval is reported. These values are not to be taken as N-values as
adjustments have not been applied. We estimated elevations shown on the boring logs either from a
topographic map or by using a benchmark. Each excavation was backfilled as noted on the boring logs.

We visually examined, classified, and logged the soil encountered in the borings in general accordance
with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) practice for Description and Identification
of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D 2488). The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions observed
and the depth at which samples were obtained.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 January 30, 2020

PROJECT NO. G2469-11-01

BORING B 1

GROUNDWATER

PENETRATION

DRY DENSITY

CONTENT (%)
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
LITHOLOGY

MOISTURE
DEPTH

(P.C.F.)
SOIL
SAMPLE
IN CLASS
NO. ELEV. (MSL.) 345' DATE COMPLETED 11-21-2019
FEET (USCS)

EQUIPMENT IR A-300 BY: L. RODRIGUEZ

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
3" ASPHALT CONCRETE over 6" BASE
B1-1 SC PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpf)
2
Medium dense, moist, yellowish to grayish brown, Clayey, fine to medium
SAND
ML SCRIPPS FORMATION (Tsc)
4 Hard, moist, light yellowish to grayish brown, Sandy SILTSTONE

B1-2 50/5"
6

10
B1-3 50/5" 108.4 14.0

12

14

B1-4 50/5" 107.4 16.6

16

18
-Drilling becomes more difficult
B1-5 50/3"
REFUSAL AT 19 FEET DUE TO CONCRETION
No groundwater encountered

Figure A-1, G2469-11-01.GPJ

Log of Boring B 1, Page 1 of 1

... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE

NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

GEOCON
PROJECT NO. G2469-11-01

BORING B 2

GROUNDWATER

PENETRATION

DRY DENSITY

CONTENT (%)
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
LITHOLOGY

MOISTURE
DEPTH

(P.C.F.)
SOIL
SAMPLE
IN CLASS
NO. ELEV. (MSL.) 375' DATE COMPLETED 11-21-2019
FEET (USCS)

EQUIPMENT IR A-300 BY: L. RODRIGUEZ

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
3" ASPHALT CONCRETE over 7" BASE
B2-1 SM VERY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qvop)
2 Very dense, damp, light reddish brown, Silty, fine- to medium-grained
SANDSTONE

B2-2 50/2.5" 103.2 4.5

6

8
-Drilling becomes difficult

10 B2-3 50/3" 99.1 5.4

BORING TERMINATED AT 10.25 FEET
No groundwater encountered

Figure A-2, G2469-11-01.GPJ

Log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of 1

... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE

NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

GEOCON
PROJECT NO. G2469-11-01

BORING B 3

GROUNDWATER

PENETRATION

DRY DENSITY

CONTENT (%)
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
LITHOLOGY

MOISTURE
DEPTH

(P.C.F.)
SOIL
SAMPLE
IN CLASS
NO. ELEV. (MSL.) 373' DATE COMPLETED 11-21-2019
FEET (USCS)

EQUIPMENT IR A-300 BY: L. RODRIGUEZ

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
3" ASPHALT CONCRETE over 6" BASE
SC PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpf)
2
Medium dense, moist, reddish brown to brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND;
trace gravel

B3-1 78 105.9 10.7

6

SM VERY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qvop)

8 Very dense, damp, reddish to yellowish brown, Silty, fine- to medium-grained
SANDSTONE

10
B3-2 50/6" 102.7 10.2

12

14

B3-3 -Becomes light yellowish brown 50/3" 97.8 12.8

16

18

20
B3-4 50/4.5" 97.5 11.2

22

24

B3-5 50/4" 96.7 11.4

26

28

Figure A-3, G2469-11-01.GPJ

Log of Boring B 3, Page 1 of 2

... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE

NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

GEOCON
PROJECT NO. G2469-11-01

BORING B 3

GROUNDWATER

PENETRATION

DRY DENSITY

CONTENT (%)
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
LITHOLOGY

MOISTURE
DEPTH

(P.C.F.)
SOIL
SAMPLE
IN CLASS
NO. ELEV. (MSL.) 373' DATE COMPLETED 11-21-2019
FEET (USCS)

EQUIPMENT IR A-300 BY: L. RODRIGUEZ

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
30
B3-6 SM/ML SCRIPPS FORMATION (Tsc) 50/4.5" 98.5 13.7
Very dense, damp, gray with orange mottling, Silty, fine-grained
SANDSTONE to Sandy SILTSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 30.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered

Figure A-3, G2469-11-01.GPJ

Log of Boring B 3, Page 2 of 2

... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE

NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

GEOCON
PROJECT NO. G2469-11-01

BORING B 4

GROUNDWATER

PENETRATION

DRY DENSITY

CONTENT (%)
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
LITHOLOGY

MOISTURE
DEPTH

(P.C.F.)
SOIL
SAMPLE
IN CLASS
NO. ELEV. (MSL.) 359' DATE COMPLETED 11-21-2019
FEET (USCS)

EQUIPMENT IR A-300 BY: L. RODRIGUEZ

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
3" ASPHALT CONCRETE over 5" BASE
B4-1 CL/SC PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpf)
2
Medium dense, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY to Clayey, fine to coarse
SAND; few organics; organic odor

B4-2 30 116.5 15.3

6

SM VERY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qvop)

8 Very dense, dark yellowish brown to gray, Silty, fine- to medium-grained
SANDSTONE

10
B4-3 90/11" 118.8 11.8

12

14

B4-4 ML SCRIPPS FORMATION (Tsc) 73/11.5" 113.5 13.6

16 Hard, moist, light yellowish brown, Sandy SILTSTONE

18
B4-5 50/3" 111.3 13.7
BORING TERMINATED AT 19.25 FEET
No groundwater encountered

Figure A-4, G2469-11-01.GPJ

Log of Boring B 4, Page 1 of 1

... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE

NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

GEOCON
PROJECT NO. G2469-11-01

BORING B 5

GROUNDWATER

PENETRATION

DRY DENSITY

CONTENT (%)
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
LITHOLOGY

MOISTURE
DEPTH

(P.C.F.)
SOIL
SAMPLE
IN CLASS
NO. ELEV. (MSL.) 365' DATE COMPLETED 11-21-2019
FEET (USCS)

EQUIPMENT IR A-300 BY: L. RODRIGUEZ

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
3" ASPHALT CONCRETE over 5" BASE
SM VERY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qvop)
2
Very dense, damp, light reddish to yellowish brown, Silty, fine- to
coarse-grained SANDSTONE; trace cobble

B5-1 -Gravel/cobble layer from 5-6 feet; difficult drilling 50/3.5" 96.8 7.6
6

10
B5-2 SM/ML Very dense/hard, reddish brown to brown, Silty, fine- to medium-grained 50/5" 105.9 13.7
SANDSTONE to Sandy SILTSTONE

12

14
B5-3 50/4" 111.7 16.0
BORING TERMINATED AT 15.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered

Figure A-5, G2469-11-01.GPJ

Log of Boring B 5, Page 1 of 1

... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE

NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

GEOCON
APPENDIX B
 APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING

We performed laboratory tests in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. We tested selected soil samples
for in-place dry density and moisture content, maximum density and optimum moisture content, direct
shear strength, expansion index, water soluble sulfate, R-Value, unconfined compressive strength, and
gradation characteristics. The results of our laboratory tests are presented herein. The in-place dry density
and moisture content of the samples tested are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.

TABLE B-I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557

Optimum
Sample Maximum Dry
Description (Geologic Unit) Moisture Content
No. Density (pcf)
(% dry wt.)
Brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND to Sandy CLAY; trace
B4-1 136.9 7.8
gravel (Qpf)

TABLE B-II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080

Moisture Content (%) Unit Peak Angle of Peak

Dry
Sample Depth Geologic [Ultimate1] [Ultimate1] Shear
Density
No. (feet) Unit Initial Final Cohesion Resistance
(pcf)
(psf) (degrees)
B1-4 15 Tsc 107.4 16.6 20.4 600 [400] 40 [40]
B4-2 5 Qpf 116.5 15.3 16.5 975 [975] 25 [25]
B4-3 10 Qvop 118.8 11.8 15.2 400 [350] 31 [30]

TABLE B-III
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829

Moisture Content (%) Dry 2019 CBC ASTM Soil

Sample Expansion
Before Density Expansion Expansion
No. After Test Index
Test (pcf) Classification Classification

B2-1 8.7 13.9 115.9 5 Non-Expansive Very Low

B4-1 7.9 15.6 118.1 5 Non-Expansive Very Low

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - B-1 - January 30, 2020

 TABLE B-IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417

Water-Soluble ACI 318 Sulfate

Sample No. Depth (feet) Geologic Unit
Sulfate (%) Exposure
B2-1 1–5 Qvop 0.014 S0
B4-1 1–5 Qpf 0.011 S0

TABLE B-V
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESISTANCE VALUE (R-VALUE) TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 2844

Sample No. Depth (feet) Description (Geologic Unit) R-Value

Brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND to
B4-1 0-5 7
Sandy CLAY; trace gravel (Qudf)

TABLE B-VI
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1558

Hand Penetrometer Reading/Unconfined

Sample No. Depth (feet) Geologic Unit Compression Strength (tsf) and Undrained
Shear Strength (ksf)
B1-3 10 Tsc 4.5
B2-2 5 Qvop 3.5
B2-3 10 Qvop 4.5
B3-1 5 Qpf 4.5
B3-2 10 Qvop 4.5
B3-3 15 Qvop 4.5
B4-4 15 Qvop 4.5
B4-5 19 Qvop 4.5
B5-2 10 Qvop 4.5
B5-3 15 Qvop 4.5

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 - B-2 - January 30, 2020

 SAMPLE NO.: B4-1 GEOLOGIC UNIT: Qudf
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT.): 0-5'

GRAVEL SAND
SILT OR CLAY
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

#100

#200
1½"

#10

#16

#30
#40
#50
#60
#80
#20
#8
¾"

½"
⅜"

#4
3"

2"

100

90

80

70

60
PERCENT PASSING

50

40

30

20

10

0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PARTICLE SIZE (mm)

TEST DATA
D10 (mm) D30 (mm) D60 (mm) Cc Cu SOIL DESCRIPTION
-- 0.0495357 0.2512417 -- -- Silty Clayey SAND

SIEVE ANALYSES - ASTM D 135 & D 422

CALLAN ROAD REDEVELOPMENT

PROJECT NO.: G2469-11-01

APPENDIX C
 APPENDIX C

RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

FOR

CALLAN ROAD REDEVELOPMENT

3030 CALLAN ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

PROJECT NO. G2469-11-01

 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

1. GENERAL

1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the
Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon. The recommendations contained
in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications
and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict.

1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be

employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these
specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so
that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was performed in substantial
conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to
assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that
personnel may be scheduled accordingly.

1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency
ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, and/or adverse weather result in a quality of work not in
conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the
work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable
conditions are corrected.

2. DEFINITIONS

2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading
work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading
performed.

2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.

2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer
or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying
as-graded topography.

2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm
retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.

GI rev. 07/2015
2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner,
who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be
responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's
work for conformance with these specifications.

2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained
by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site
grading.

2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include
a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the
development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are
intended to apply.

3. MATERIALS

3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or
imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction
of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as
defined below.

3.1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than
12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of
material smaller than ¾ inch in size.

3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than
4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow
for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as
specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than
12 inches.

3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet
in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as
material smaller than ¾ inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be
less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.

3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the

Consultant shall not be used in fills.

3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as
defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9

GI rev. 07/2015
 and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall
not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous
materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect
the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the
termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading
operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the
suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.

3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of
properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to
the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil
layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This
procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and
Consultant.

3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the
Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where
appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.

3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the
Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be
notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition.

4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED

4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of
complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made
structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried
logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and
other projections exceeding 1½ inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet
below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to
provide suitable fill materials.

4.2 Asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly
disposed at an approved off-site facility or in an acceptable area of the project evaluated by
Geocon and the property owner. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing steel may
be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this
document.

GI rev. 07/2015
4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or
porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The
depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of
the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth
of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent
uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.

4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), or
where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in
accordance with the following illustration.

TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL

Finish Grade Original Ground

2
1
Finish Slope Surface

Remove All
Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By
Consultant Slope To Be Such That
Sloughing Or Sliding
Does Not Occur Varies

“B”
See Note 1 See Note 2

No Scale

DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit
complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should
be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope.

(2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material
and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the
bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as
approved by the Consultant.

4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture
conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in
Section 6 of these specifications.

GI rev. 07/2015
 5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT

5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel

wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be
capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the
specified moisture content.

5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.

6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL

6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:

6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should
generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be
thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture
in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock
materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in
accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.

6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the
optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557.

6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant,
water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range
specified.

6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the
Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by
the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture
content is within the range specified.

6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly
compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.
Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place
dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as
determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Compaction shall be continuous
over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that
the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the
entire fill.

GI rev. 07/2015
 6.1.6 Where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed
at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture
content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the
material.

6.1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To
achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at
least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered
preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.

6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a

heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height
intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer
or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least
twice.

6.2 Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance
with the following recommendations:

6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be
incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured
15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or
3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.

6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be

individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock
fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar
methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in
maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and
shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.

6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow
for passage of compaction equipment.

6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in
properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and
4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be
filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and
should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an
"open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should
first be approved by the Consultant.

GI rev. 07/2015
 6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either
parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry.
The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center
with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The
minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of
a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow.

6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the
windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant.

6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:

6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2
percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The
rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic
pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected
to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water.

6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock
trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently
placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the
rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall
consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying
water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with
compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory
roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the
required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be
utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in
Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional
rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.

6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196, may be performed in both
the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required
minimum number of passes of the compaction equipment. If performed, a
minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly
compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing
tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes
and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes
required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate
bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection

GI rev. 07/2015
 variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction
equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are
equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case
will the required number of passes be less than two.

6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to
observe that the minimum number of “passes” have been obtained, that water is
being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual
number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading.

6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that,
in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are
properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be
required in the rock fills.

6.3.6 To reduce the potential for “piping” of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil
fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the
uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock
should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The
gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is
being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the
Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the
commencement of rock fill placement.

6.3.7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the
Consultant.

7. SUBDRAINS

7.1 The geologic units on the site may have permeability characteristics and/or fracture
systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to seepage. The use of canyon
subdrains may be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts associated with
seepage conditions. Canyon subdrains with lengths in excess of 500 feet or extensions of
existing offsite subdrains should use 8-inch-diameter pipes. Canyon subdrains less than 500
feet in length should use 6-inch-diameter pipes.

GI rev. 07/2015
TYPICAL CANYON DRAIN DETAIL

7.2 Slope drains within stability fill keyways should use 4-inch-diameter (or lager) pipes.

GI rev. 07/2015
TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL

7.3 The actual subdrain locations will be evaluated in the field during the remedial grading
operations. Additional drains may be necessary depending on the conditions observed and
the requirements of the local regulatory agencies. Appropriate subdrain outlets should be
evaluated prior to finalizing 40-scale grading plans.

7.4 Rock fill or soil-rock fill areas may require subdrains along their down-slope perimeters to
mitigate the potential for buildup of water from construction or landscape irrigation. The
subdrains should be at least 6-inch-diameter pipes encapsulated in gravel and filter fabric.
Rock fill drains should be constructed using the same requirements as canyon subdrains.

GI rev. 07/2015
7.5 Prior to outletting, the final 20-foot segment of a subdrain that will not be extended during
future development should consist of non-perforated drainpipe. At the non-perforated/
perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the downslope side of
the pipe.

TYPICAL CUT OFF WALL DETAIL

7.6 Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be
provided with a permanent headwall structure.

GI rev. 07/2015
TYPICAL HEADWALL DETAIL

7.7 The final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. After
completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer
should survey the drain locations and prepare an “as-built” map showing the drain
locations. The final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading
operations. Subdrains that will be extended on adjacent projects after grading can be placed
on formational material and a vertical riser should be placed at the end of the subdrain. The
grading contractor should consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check
proper installation and functionality. The contractor is responsible for the performance of
the drains.

GI rev. 07/2015
 8. OBSERVATION AND TESTING

8.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner’s representative to observe and perform tests during
clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in
vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field density
test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test
should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and
compacted.

8.2 The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the
compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill
material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted
materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any
layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas
represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved.

8.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of
passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant
should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on
the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for
expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture
has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any
portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the
rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied.

8.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of
rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as
recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project
Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed
during grading.

8.5 We should observe the placement of subdrains, to check that the drainage devices have
been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.

8.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:

8.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:

8.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556, Density of Soil In-Place By the
Sand-Cone Method.

GI rev. 07/2015
 8.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938, Density of Soil and
Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).

8.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557, Moisture-Density

Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound
Hammer and 18-Inch Drop.

8.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829, Expansion Index Test.

9. PROTECTION OF WORK

9.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide
positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be
controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The
Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until
such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas
subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the
Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.

9.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further
excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the
Consultant.

10. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS

10.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil
Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of
elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot
horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of
subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan
of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the
subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.

10.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report
satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report
should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating
that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance
with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.

GI rev. 07/2015
 LIST OF REFERENCES

1. 2019 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, based on the
2018 International Building Code, prepared by California Building Standards Commission,
dated July 2019.

2. American Concrete Institute, ACI 318-11, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary, dated August, 2011.

3. American Concrete Institute, ACI 330-08, Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete
Parking Lots, dated June, 2008.

4. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-16, Minimum Design Loads and Associated
Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, 2017.

5. Boore, D. M., and G. M Atkinson (2006), Ground Motion Prediction Equations for the
Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PVG, and 5%-Ramped PSA at Spectral Periods
Between 0.01s and 10.0s, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 24, Issue I, February 2008.

6. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Probabilistic Seismic

Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open File Report 96-08, 1996.

7. California Geological Survey, Seismic Shaking Hazards in California, Based on the

USGS/CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment (PSHA) Model, 2002 (revised April
2003). 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years.
http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html

8. Campbell, K. W., Y. Bozorgnia, NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric Mean
Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra
for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Preprint of version submitted for publication in the
NGA Special Volume of Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, Issue 1, pages 139-171, February
2008.

9. Chiou, Brian, and Robert R. Youngs, A NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of
Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, preprint for article to be published in NGA
Special Edition for Earthquake Spectra, Spring 2008.

10. City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study, Geologic Hazards and Faults, 2008 edition, Map
Sheet 34.

11. County of San Diego, San Diego County Multi Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan, San
Diego, California – Final Draft, dated July, 2010.

12. Historical Aerial Photos. http://www.historicaerials.com

13. Kennedy, M. P. and S. S. Tan, 2008, Geologic Map of the San Diego 30’x60’ Quadrangle,
California, USGS Regional Map Series Map No. 3, Scale 1:100,000.

14. Risk Engineering, EZ-FRISK, 2016.

15. SEAOC web application, OSHPD Seismic Design Maps, https://seismicmaps.org/.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 January 30, 2020

 LIST OF REFERENCES (Concluded)

16. Special Publication 117A, Guidelines For Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in
California 2008, California Geological Survey, Revised and Re-adopted September 11, 2008.

17. Unpublished reports, aerial photographs, and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated.

18. USGS computer program, Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response Spectra,
http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.

Geocon Project No. G2469-11-01 January 30, 2020