Geotechnical Investigation of Karl Straws Brewery, Santee

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
KARL STRAUSS BREWERY

RIVER VIEW
SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
Ryan Companies US Inc.

6134 Innovation Way
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Project No. 11074.001
August 21, 2015

3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 San Diego, CA 92123-4425
858.569.6914 Fax 858.292.0771 www.leightongroup.com
11074.001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose and Scope .............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Site Description .................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Proposed Development ........................................................................................ 2
1.4 Previous Studies................................................................................................... 2
2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ............................ 4
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS .................................................... 5
3.1 Geologic and Tectonic Setting.............................................................................. 5
3.2 Local Geologic Setting.......................................................................................... 5
3.2.1 Artificial Fill (Af) ................................................................................................. 6
3.2.2 Alluvium (Map Symbol Qal) ............................................................................ 6
3.2.3 Granitic Rock (Map Symbol Kgr) ..................................................................... 6
3.3 Geologic Structure ................................................................................................ 6
3.4 Surface and Ground Water ................................................................................... 7
3.5 Expansive Soils ..................................................................................................... 7
3.6 Landslides............................................................................................................. 7
3.7 Hydrocollapse and Compressible Soils ................................................................ 8
3.8 Soil Corrosivity ...................................................................................................... 8
3.9 Infiltration .............................................................................................................. 8
3.10 Flood Hazard ........................................................................................................ 8
3.11 Exceptional Geologic Conditions .......................................................................... 9
3.11.1 Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................ 9
3.11.2 Regional Subsidence ....................................................................................... 9
3.11.3 Non-Tectonic Faulting ....................................................................................... 9
3.11.4 Volcanic Eruption ............................................................................................. 9
3.11.5 Asbestos .......................................................................................................... 9
3.11.6 Radon-222 Gas ............................................................................................. 10
3.12 Earthwork Shrinkage and Bulking ...................................................................... 10
4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY................................................................................ 11
4.1 Faulting ............................................................................................................... 11
4.1.1 Surface Rupture .............................................................................................. 11
4.3 Seismicity ........................................................................................................... 12
4.4 Secondary Seismic Hazards .............................................................................. 12
4.4.1 Liquefaction Potential ..................................................................................... 13
4.4.2 Seismically-Induced Settlement ...................................................................... 13
4.4.3 Surface Manifestation of Liquefaction ............................................................. 14
4.4.4 Lateral Spreading or Flow Failure ................................................................... 14
4.4.5 Tsunamis or Seiches ..................................................................................... 14
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 15
i
11074.001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
6.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 17

6.1 Earthwork ........................................................................................................... 17
6.1.1 Site Preparation .............................................................................................. 17
6.1.2 Removals of Compressible Soils in Building Pad ........................................... 17
6.1.3 Excavations and Oversize Material ................................................................. 18
6.1.4 Engineered Fill ................................................................................................ 18
6.1.5 Import Soils ..................................................................................................... 19
6.2 Foundation and Slab Considerations ................................................................. 19
6.2.1 Shallow Spread Footing Foundations ............................................................. 20
6.2.2 Settlement ....................................................................................................... 20
6.2.3 Foundation Setback......................................................................................... 20
6.2.4 Floor Slabs ...................................................................................................... 22
6.2.5 Moisture Conditioning ..................................................................................... 22
6.3 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design .......................................... 22
6.4 Preliminary Pavement Design Considerations ................................................... 24
6.4.1 Flexible Pavement Section ............................................................................. 24
6.4.2 Rigid Pavement Section ................................................................................. 25
6.5 Geochemical Considerations.............................................................................. 26
6.6 Concrete Flatwork .............................................................................................. 26
6.7 Control of Ground water and Surface Water ...................................................... 26
6.8 Construction Observation ................................................................................... 27
6.9 Plan Review........................................................................................................ 27
7.0 LIMITATIONS......................................................................................................... 28
TABLES
TABLE 1 CBC MAPPED SPECTRAL ACCELERATION PARAMETERS - PAGE 12

TABLE 2 MINIMUM FOUNDATION SETBACK FROM SLOPE FACES - PAGE 21
TABLE 3 STATIC EQUIVALENT FLUID W EIGHT - PAGE 23
TABLE 4 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS - PAGE 24
TABLE 5 PCC PAVEMENT SECTIONS - PAGE 25
ii
11074.001
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP - REAR OF TEXT

FIGURE 2 GEOTECHNICAL MAP - REAR OF TEXT
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A REFERENCES
APPENDIX B EXPLORATION LOGS AND SOUNDINGS
APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX D SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS
APPENDIX E GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
iii
11074.001
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed
Santee Brewery located in Santee, California (Figure 1). The purpose of our
investigation was to identify and evaluate the geologic hazards and significant
geotechnical conditions present at the site in order to provide geotechnical
recommendations for the proposed structures and associated site improvements.
Our scope of services included:
Review of available pertinent, published and unpublished geotechnical

literature and maps. References cited are listed in Appendix A. Specifically,
the review included subsurface explorations and laboratory testing performed
by Leighton in 2002, 2004 and 2005, Geocon in 2004 and Law Crandall in
1999. In addition, we reviewed our most recent remedial grading report
performed for the Parc One at Santee (Leighton, 2013).
Field reconnaissance of the existing on-site geotechnical conditions.
Subsurface exploration consisting of the advancement of nine cone
penetration test (CPT) soundings. CPT soundings are presented in Appendix
B and approximate locations of the subsurface explorations are shown on
Figure 2.
Laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained from previous
subsurface explorations in the subject area. Results of these tests are
presented in Appendix C.
Assessment of geologic hazards.
Development of seismic design parameters based on the 2013 California
Building Code (CBC).
Compilation and analysis of the geotechnical data obtained from the field
investigation and laboratory testing.
Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and
geotechnical recommendations with respect to the proposed geotechnical
design, site grading and general construction considerations.
1.2 Site Description
The site, which is defined as Parcel 1 and shown on Figure 2, is approximately

10.12 acres, and located south of the San Diego River, north of Town Center
-1-
11074.001
Parkway and east of Cuyamaca Street (Figure 1). In general, the topography is
generally flat with a detention basin and an unlined drainage channel in the center of
the site. Presently, the site is undeveloped, with limited vegetation and brush. It
should be noted that piles of large boulder rocks or rip rap are present at grade in
the eastern half of the site. Surface elevations of the site ranging from
approximately 332 feet to 338 feet mean sea level (msl). The invert of the detention
basin is at an elevation of approximately 326 feet msl.
The coordinates for the site are generalized as:
Latitude: 32.8441 N
Longitude: 116.9825 W
1.3 Proposed Development
Based on our review of conceptual site plans, we understand that the

development will include three buildings with surrounding parking areas. The
buildings are anticipated to consist of a large brewery/office building along the
western portion of the site, a large warehouse structure with loading docks in the
central portion of the site, and a 1- to 2-story hospitality building in the south-
central portion of the southern site. Associated improvements will include wet
and dry utilities, and activity hardscape areas, landscaping, and bio-swales for
storm water or LID measures. The proposed building pad elevations are
anticipated to range from approximately 340 feet to 341 feet msl, which is slightly
above the existing site grades, excluding the detention basin and an unlined
drainage channel invert elevations. In addition, it is our understanding that no
basement walls or retaining walls over a height of five feet are currently planned.
It should be noted that development of the site will require import fill to meet the
proposed site grades.
1.4 Previous Studies
As background, four previous geotechnical studies of the general vicinity have

been performed on or immediately adjacent to the subject site. In summary, the
exploration and testing performed to date by Leighton and others is considered
representative of the site and suitable for the purpose of this report. The first study
was performed by Law Crandall for the Edgemoor Property, Lots 1 through 20, in
-2-
11074.001
August of 1999 (Law, 1999). In this initial investigation, the excavation of 22

exploratory borings to depths ranging from 6 to 39.5 feet below the existing ground
surface (bgs) and four test pits were performed. Applicable explorations from the
Law Crandall study to the subject site included L-6-1 and L-TP-2.
Subsequently, in 2002 and 2004, Leighton performed two site-specific

investigations consisting of a total of 20 exploratory borings for the two commercial
developments immediately adjacent to the subject site (Leighton, 2002 and 2004).
The Leighton borings were excavated to approximate depths of 11.5 to 39.5 feet
bgs. The applicable exploration from the Leighton studies to the subject site
included B-7.
The fourth study was performed by Geocon and consisted of 10 exploratory

borings. Depth of the Geocon borings ranged from 31 to 50 feet bgs. The
applicable exploration from the Geocon study to the subject site included G-B-10.
In addition, Parcel 2 located immediately east of the subject site was remedial
graded in 2007/2008 and in 2013. Observations and testing of the remedial
grading activities was performed and documented by Leighton (Leighton, 2013a).
In summary, the results of these studies and the documentation of previous

grading have been considered and incorporated into the preparation of this
current study. The approximate locations of the applicable explorations are
presented on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2). All of the boring and test pit logs
from the previous investigations have been included in Appendix B of this report.
-3-
11074.001
2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
The subsurface exploration performed for this geotechnical investigation consisted of

the advancement of nine CPT soundings (CPT-1 through CPT-9). The approximate
locations of the exploration borings and CPTs are shown on Figure 2. The purpose of
the CPT soundings was to investigate the underlying stratigraphy, physical
characteristics, and specific engineering properties of the soils within the area of the
proposed improvements.
Depths of the CPT soundings ranged from 24 to 37 feet bgs at which practical refusal
was encountered. After logging, the direct push boreholes created by the CPT
soundings were backfilled with a bentonite grout, as required by the County of San
Diego. The CPT soundings are provided in Appendix B.
-4-
11074.001
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
3.1 Geologic and Tectonic Setting
The site is located within the coastal subprovince of the Peninsular Ranges
Geomorphic Province, near the western edge of the southern California batholith.
Throughout the last 54 million years, the area known as the San Diego
Embayment has gone through several episodes of marine inundation and
subsequent marine regression, resulting in the deposition of a thick sequence of
marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks on the basement rock of the Southern
California batholith.
The Peninsular Ranges are traversed by several major active faults. The Whittier-
Elsinore, San Jacinto, and the San Andreas faults are major active fault systems
located northeast of the site and the Rose Canyon, Newport-Inglewood (offshore),
Coronado Bank, and San Diego Trough are active faults located to the west-
southwest. Major tectonic activity associated with these and other faults within this
regional tectonic framework is right-lateral strike-slip movement. These faults, as
well as other faults in the region, have the potential for generating strong ground
motions at the project site. Further discussion of faulting relative to the site is
provided in the Faulting and Seismicity section of this report.
Gradual emergence of the region from the sea occurred in Pleistocene time, and
numerous wave-cut platforms, most of which were covered by relatively thin
marine and nonmarine terrace deposits, formed as the sea receded from the land.
Accelerated fluvial erosion during periods of heavy rainfall, coupled with the
lowering of the base sea level during Quaternary times, resulted in the rolling hills,
mesas, and deeply incised canyons which characterize the landforms we see in
the general site area today.
3.2 Local Geologic Setting
Based on the site subsurface investigations, the site is underlain by undocumented

artificial fill, alluvial soils and at depth by Cretaceous-aged Granitic bedrock. A brief
description of the onsite geologic units is presented below.
-5-
11074.001
3.2.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill (unmapped)
As encountered and observed during our current and previous subsurface

explorations, localized areas of the undocumented fill soils generally consist
of loose to medium dense, light to dark brown silty sands. Based on the
results of field exploration and our review of pre-grading topography, the
thickness of the localized areas of the undocumented fill is anticipated to
range from approximately 2 to 5 feet.
3.2.2 Alluvium (Map Symbol Qal)
Alluvial material was encountered in the recent borings, CPT soundings and
in the previous study borings to the maximum explored depth of
approximately 37 feet bgs. Typically, the upper 8 feet were found to consist
of loose, dry to damp, fine silty sands and poorly graded sands. Generally,
these materials are considered potentially compressible and unsuitable for
support of additional fill or the proposed building. Below 8 feet in depth, the
alluvial soils consisted of loose to dense, damp to moist silty sands, poorly
graded sands and layers of firm to stiff, moist sandy silts. Below the ground
water, the alluvial soils consisted of loose to medium dense silty sands and
soft to very stiff sandy silts and clays.
It should be noted that field observations by Leighton during remedial

grading activities east of the subject site indicated that upper 6 to 8 feet of
alluvium was very porous in its structure and relatively high shrinkage
factors, over 25 percent, were calculated.
3.2.3 Granitic Rock (Map Symbol Kgr)
Cretaceous-aged Granitic rock underlies the alluvium at depth and

constitutes the bedrock underlying the site. As encountered in previous
explorations east of the site (Leighton, 2004), the upper surface of this
material consists of damp to wet, moderately hard, highly weathered
granitic rock (i.e. decomposed granite).
3.3 Geologic Structure
Based on our field investigation, literature review and professional experience on

sites with similar soils, the on-site alluvial soils are generally massive to poorly
bedded. Due to the nature of the depositional environment of a river system,
bedding within the alluvial soils are discontinuous both laterally and vertically. Due
-6-
11074.001
to the depth of the granite rock below the existing ground surface, we do not
anticipate that the grading operations at the site will encounter any granitic rock.
3.4 Surface and Ground Water
No indication of surface water or evidence of surface ponding was observed

during our recent field reconnaissance or our previous site investigations
(Leighton, 2002 and 2004). However, surface water may drain as sheet flow in
the higher portions of the site during rainy periods and accumulate in depressed
areas or lower portions of the site.
During the recent and previous field investigations, ground water was encountered
in nearly all of exploratory borings. The depth of ground water at the subject site
varies with the surface topography and will be dependent on the time of year and
the surface water flow of the San Diego River. Based on recent and previous field
investigations, the elevation of the groundwater is anticipated to range from 323
feet to 327 feet msl; however, changes in ground water elevation should be
anticipated. In general, it is our opinion that ground water-related problems should
be minor provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the
design and construction of the project.
3.5 Expansive Soils
Based on our field observations, subsurface investigation and laboratory testing,

expansive soils were not observed within the upper soil layers at the site.
Additional laboratory testing for expansion potential during the importing
activities is recommended. Expansion Index testing should be used as a
screening tool for accepting or rejecting environmentally clean import sites.
3.6 Landslides
The site and surrounding area is relatively flat. No landslides or indications of

deep-seated landsliding were indicated at the site during our field exploration or
our review of available geologic literature, topographic maps, and stereoscopic
aerial photographs. Therefore, the potential for significant landslides or large-scale
slope instability at the site is nil.
-7-
11074.001
3.7 Hydrocollapse and Compressible Soils
Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and previous laboratory testing,
the potential for hydro-collapse of the upper 6 to 8 feet alluvium is considered high
and this material is unsuitable for support of additional fill or the proposed
buildings. Compressible materials not removed by the planned grading should be
excavated to competent material.
3.8 Soil Corrosivity
Laboratory tests carried out on selected soil samples collected during our
previous field investigation (Leighton, 2004) indicate that the native soils have a
negligible soluble sulfate content, a relatively neutral pH, a threshold chloride
content, and moderate to severe degree of corrosivity based on electrical
resistivity. These findings indicate that the corrosive effects of the on-site soils on
buried metal to be moderate to severe and the corrosive effects on concrete are
expected to be low to moderate. Laboratory testing should be performed on the
soils placed at or near finish grade after completion of site grading to ascertain
the actual corrosivity characteristics.
3.9 Infiltration
The results of our subsurface exploration and previous laboratory testing indicate
that on-site soils are of a generally sandy nature having relatively high infiltration
rates. The hydrologic soils group for the onsite near surface soils are typically
sandy (sands to silty sands to clayey sands) so that would be a group B soil.
However, the site will require import to raise the site grades and the import soil
will most likely come from the existing stockpiled soil located west of the site,
which consist of mixture of soils ranging from silty sands to clays. Therefore, the
import would most likely be a group C soil.
3.10 Flood Hazard
According to a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance

rate map (FEMA, 2012), portions of the site are located within a flood zone,
accordingly the site grades are being raised as part of the development.
-8-
11074.001
3.11 Exceptional Geologic Conditions
Exceptional geologic items are items that are present across the State of
California, and occur on a site by site basis. We have addressed the presence or
non-presence of these items typically present across the State in the sections
below.
3.11.1 Hazardous Materials
Our scope of work has not included evaluation of the site for hazardous
materials and we are not aware of any such reports that pertain to the site.
3.11.2 Regional Subsidence
Due to the depth of ground water, the close proximity of San Diego River
and depth of the underlying Cretaceous-aged Granitic rock, the possibility of
regional subsidence is considered to be nil.
3.11.3 Non-Tectonic Faulting
Surface expressions of differential settlement, such as ground fissures,

can develop in areas affected by ground water withdrawal or banking
activities, including geothermal production. The site location is not within
an area affected by differential settlement caused by non-tectonic
sources.
3.11.4 Volcanic Eruption
The proposed site is not located within or near a mapped area of potential
volcanic hazards (Miller, C.D., 1989). The nearest volcanic activity is located
in the Salton Sea area of southern California. Therefore, volcanic activity is
not considered a hazard at the site.
3.11.5 Asbestos
Due to the lack of proximal sources of serpentinic or ultramafic rock bodies,

naturally-occurring asbestos is not considered a hazard at the site.
-9-
11074.001
3.11.6 Radon-222 Gas
Historically, Radon-222 gas has not typically been recognized as an

environmental consideration in San Diego County. In particular the site area
is not mapped as containing organic rich marine shales commonly
characterized to potentially contain Radon-222 gas. Therefore, based on
our review of the referenced literature, and our site exploration, the potential
for the occurrence of Radon-222 gas at the site is considered low.
3.12 Earthwork Shrinkage and Bulking
Based on the results of our investigation and our professional experience with
similar projects in the general vicinity of the site, we have estimated bulking and
shrinkage of the on-site soils. The volume change of excavated on-site materials
upon recompaction as fill is expected to vary with materials and location.
Typically, the surficial soils and bedrock materials vary significantly in natural and
compacted density, and therefore, accurate earthwork shrinkage/bulking
estimates cannot be determined. However, based on the results of our
investigation, geotechnical analysis and professional experience on nearby sites
it is anticipated that the loose alluvial soils will have a shrinkage value ranging from
15 to 30 percent. If possible, we suggest an area be established as a balance
area where site grades can be adjusted during the later portion of the site
grading operations.
-10-
11074.001
4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
4.1 Faulting
Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California

legislation and policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria
associated with faults. By definition of the California Geological Survey, an active
fault is a fault which has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the
last 11,000 years). The state geologist has defined a potentially active fault as any
fault considered to have been active during Quaternary time (last 1,600,000
years). This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated
by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972 and most recently within
an interim revision in 2007 (Hart, 2007). The intent of this act is to assure that
unwise urban development and certain habitable structures do not occur across
the traces of active faults. The subject site is not located within any State mapped
Earthquake Fault Zones or City of San Diego mapped fault zones.
The primary seismic risk to the San Diego metropolitan area is the Rose Canyon
fault zone located approximately 13 miles west of the site. The Rose Canyon
fault zone consists predominantly of right-lateral strike-slip faults that extend
south-southeast bisecting the San Diego metropolitan area. Various fault strands
display strike-slip, normal, oblique, or reverse components of displacement. The
Rose Canyon fault zone extends offshore at La Jolla and continues north-
northwest subparallel to the coastline. The offshore segments are poorly
constrained regarding location and character. South of downtown, the fault zone
splits into several splays that underlie San Diego Bay, Coronado, and the ocean
floor south of Coronado (Treiman, 1993; Kennedy and Clarke, 1999). Portions of
the fault zone in the Mount Soledad, Rose Canyon, and downtown San Diego
areas have been designated by the State of California (CGS, 2000 and 2003a)
as being Earthquake Fault Zones.
Our review of available geologic literature (Appendix A) indicates that there are
no known active faults transecting, or projecting toward the site. The nearest
active fault is the Rose Canyon fault zone located approximately 13 miles west of
the site.
4.1.1 Surface Rupture
As previously discussed, the site is not underlain by a known active or

potentially active fault. Therefore, the potential for ground rupture due to
faulting at the site is considered low. Ground lurching is defined as
movement of low density materials on a bluff, steep slope, or
-11-
11074.001
embankment due to earthquake shaking. Since the site is relatively flat

and removed from any over-steepened slopes, lurching or cracking of the
ground surface as a result of nearby or distant seismic events is unlikely.
4.2 Seismicity
The effect of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the California

Building Code or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural
Engineers Association of California. We have provided risk-targeted spectral
acceleration parameters per California Building Code (CBSC 2013) for the
proposed project site, using the USGS Worldwide Seismic Design Values tool.
Table 1
CBC Mapped Spectral Acceleration Parameters
Site Class D
Fa = 1.150
Site Coefficients
Fv = 1.720
SS = 0.876g
Mapped MCE Spectral Accelerations
S1 = 0.340g
SMS = 1.007g
Site Modified MCE Spectral Accelerations
SM1 = 0.585g
SDS = 0.671g
Design Spectral Accelerations
SD1 = 0.390g
Utilizing ASCE Standard 7-10, in accordance with Section 11.8.3, the following
additional parameters for the peak horizontal ground acceleration are associated
with the Geometric Mean Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCEG). The
mapped MCEG peak ground acceleration (PGA) is 0.329g for the site. For a Site
Class D, the FPGA is 1.171 and the mapped peak ground acceleration adjusted
for Site Class effects (PGAM) is 0.386g for the site.
4.3 Secondary Seismic Hazards
In general, secondary seismic hazards can include soil liquefaction, seismically-

induced settlement, lateral displacement, surface manifestations of liquefaction,
-12-
11074.001
landsliding, seiches, and tsunamis. The potential for secondary seismic hazards
at the subject site is discussed below.
4.3.1 Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction of granular soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion

due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose
granular soils underlain by a near-surface groundwater table are most
susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most silty clays and clays
is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Liquefaction is typified by a
reduction of shear strength in the affected soil layer. Liquefaction may be
manifested by excessive settlement, sand boils, and bearing failure.
In our preliminary liquefaction analysis utilizing the computer program

CLiq Version 1.7.6.34, we used the Maximum Considered Earthquake
event with a modal magnitude M6.6 (i.e., associated with the Design
Earthquake Ground Motion). The peak horizontal ground acceleration
associated with the Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion is
0.38g.
Based on current evaluations of liquefaction potential for the site, relatively

thin and potentially discontinuous layers of the alluvial materials, as
encountered in the CPTs, are considered susceptible to liquefaction at the
design earthquake ground motion. Plots of the liquefaction analysis are
presented in Appendix D.
4.3.2 Seismically-Induced Settlement
Based on the results of geotechnical analyses, it is our opinion that the

some of the alluvial deposits underlying the site are susceptible to dynamic
and post-liquefaction settlements as a result of ground shaking at the
design ground motions. The estimated total dynamic settlement for the
existing site conditions is anticipated to range from 0.5- to 1.0-inch based
on the procedures outlined by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) and the results
of the analyses with engineering judgement applied for design earthquake
ground motion. The estimated differential dynamic settlement is anticipated
to be on the order of 1-inch or less within 50 horizontal feet considering an
overall evaluation of the site (i.e., an approximate angular distortion of
1/600). In general, this estimated differential settlement would be
considered within an allowable amount of settlement for the onsite
structures of and no additional foundation design mitigation would be
required.
-13-
11074.001
4.3.3 Surface Manifestation of Liquefaction
Surface manifestations, such as sand boils, can occur as a result of

liquefaction during an earthquake. The possibility of sand boils was
evaluated by using methods suggested by Ishihara in 1985. Based on our
evaluation, the possibility of sand boils at the subject site is considered
low given that a thick dense non-liquefiable surficial layer (i.e., at least 12
feet or more of compacted fill) will overlie the relatively thin layer of
potentially liquefiable soils.
4.3.4 Lateral Spreading or Flow Failure
Empirical relationships have been derived by Youd and others (Youd,

1993; Bartlett and Youd, 1995; and Youd et. al., 1999) to estimate the
magnitude of lateral spread due to liquefaction. These relationships
include parameters such as earthquake magnitude, distance of the
earthquake from the site, free-face slope height, surface ground slope, the
thickness of liquefiable soil, and gradation characteristics of the soil.
Based on the anticipated proposed surface grades (topography) and the

subsurface conditions of the site, the potential for lateral displacement
toward a free-face and ground slope conditions during the design ground
motion is very low. This determination is based on the soil profiles
encountered in the exploratory borings and soundings, and the
observation that the liquefiable soils underneath the site were deposited in
relatively discontinuous layers.
4.3.5 Tsunamis or Seiches
Tsunamis are long wavelength seismic sea waves (long compared to the
ocean depth) generated by sudden movements of the ocean bottom during
submarine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic activity. A seiche is an
oscillation (wave) of a body of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin
that varies in period, depending on the physical dimensions of the basin,
from a few minutes to several hours, and in height from several inches to
several feet. Based on the elevation (approximately 340 feet msl) and
inland location of the site, the potential for damage due to either a tsunami
or seiche is nil.
-14-
11074.001
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our investigation of the site, it is our opinion that the proposed
facility is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the following conclusions
and recommendations are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The
following is a summary of the significant geotechnical factors that we expect may affect
development of the site.
Based on the subsurface explorations and review of pertinent geotechnical reports,

the site is underlain by Cretaceous-aged Granitic bedrock at depth which is overlain
by loose alluvial soils and localized areas of undocumented fills. The undocumented
fills and upper 8 feet of alluvium is very dry, considered potentially compressible and
unsuitable for support of additional fill or proposed buildings and settlement
sensitive improvements.
The existing on-site soils appear to be suitable material for reuse as fill provided they
are moisture conditioned, free of organic material, debris, and oversized materials. It is
anticipated that the soils may be excavated with conventional heavy-duty construction
equipment. In general, it is anticipated that the loose alluvial soils will have a shrinkage
value ranging from 15 to 30 percent.
Ground water was encountered during the investigations at elevations ranging from
323 feet to 327 feet msl. Ground water is not anticipated to be constraint during the
remedial grading.
The existing onsite soils were found to have a very low to low potential for
expansion. Additional laboratory testing for expansion potential during the importing
activities is recommended. In addition, Expansion Index testing should be used as a
screening tool for accepting or rejecting environmentally clean borrow sites
Active or potentially active faults do not transect the site. Active faults do not project
toward the site. The closest active fault is the Rose Canyon fault zone located
approximately 13 miles to the west.
Relatively thin and discontinuous layers of the alluvial materials encountered in the
CPTs are considered susceptible to liquefaction. The total dynamic settlement is
estimated to range from 0.5- to 1.0-inch for design earthquake ground motion.
Differential dynamic settlement is anticipated to be on the order of 1-inch or less within
50 horizontal feet (i.e., an approximate angular distortion of 1/600). Based on this
relatively small settlement, the building designers should consider a dynamic
settlement in their structural analysis. No ground improvement is currently
recommended for mitigation of liquefaction.
The potential for lateral spreading for free-face and ground slope conditions during
the design ground motion is a very low based on the relatively discontinuous layers
of liquefiable soils across the site.
-15-
11074.001
The potential for sand boils at the site during the design ground motion is also
considered low considering the relatively thin layer of potentially liquefiable soils and
anticipated thickness of the dense non-liquefiable surficial layer of compacted fill.
Laboratory test results from previous investigations indicate the onsite soil materials
have a negligible to moderate potential for sulfate attack on concrete and have a low
to moderate potential for corrosion to buried uncoated metal conduits. Additional
testing should be performed during grading and on the completed building pads.
-16-
11074.001
6.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Earthwork
We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, remedial
grading, and fill placement operations. We recommend that earthwork on the site
be performed in accordance with the County of San Diego requirements, the
following recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading
Specifications for Rough Grading included in Appendix E. In case of conflict, the
following recommendations shall supersede those in Appendix E.
6.1.1 Site Preparation
Prior to grading, all areas to receive structural fill, engineered structures,

or hardscape should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions,
including any existing debris and undocumented, loose, or unsuitable fill
soils, and stripped of vegetation. Removed vegetation and debris should
be properly disposed off site. All areas to receive fill and/or other surface
improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches,
brought to optimum or above-optimum moisture conditions, and
recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM
Test Method D1557.
6.1.2 Removals of Compressible Soils in Building Pad
As discussed above, the site is underlain by potentially compressible soils

that may settle under the surcharge of fill and/or foundation loads.
Compressible materials not removed by the planned grading should be
excavated to competent material, moisture conditioned or dried back (as
needed) to above optimum moisture content, and then recompacted prior
to fill placement or construction of improvements within the limits of site
grading. Estimated removal depths of the surficial soils beneath the
proposed buildings is approximately 8 feet below the existing grades and
should extend at least 10 feet beyond the proposed building footprint. For
the bottom of the detention basin area, removals of 2 to 3 feet below the
existing grades should be anticipated. In non-settlement sensitive areas
(pavement) that are not removed by the planned grading, the removals
depths of the potentially compressible soils should be approximately 3 to
5 feet below the existing grades. The actual depth and extent of the
required removals should be determined during grading operations by the
-17-
11074.001
geotechnical consultant. Soil with an expansion index greater than 50

should not be used within 5 feet of finish grade in the building pads.
6.1.3 Excavations and Oversize Material
Excavations of the onsite materials may generally be accomplished with

conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. Oversize material (i.e. rock
fragments greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension) is not
anticipated. However, if encountered or imported, recommendations for
treatment of oversize material are included in the attached General
Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading (Appendix E). In
addition, oversize material may be crushed or utilized in approved surface
applications, beneath landscape areas, or hauled off site.
In accordance with OSHA requirements, excavations deeper than 5 feet

should be shored or be laid back if workers are to enter such excavations.
Temporary sloping gradients should be determined in the field by a
competent person as defined by OSHA. For preliminary planning,
sloping of fill soils at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) may be assumed.
Excavations greater than 20 feet in height will require an alternative
sloping plan or shoring plan prepared by a California registered civil
engineer.
6.1.4 Engineered Fill
In areas proposed to receive engineered fill, the existing upper 8 inches of

subgrade soils should be scarified then moisture conditioned to moisture
content at or above the optimum content and compacted to 90 percent or
more of the maximum laboratory dry density, as evaluated by ASTM D
1557. Soil materials utilized as fill should be free of oversized rock,
organic materials, and deleterious debris. Rocks greater than 6 inches in
diameter should not be placed within 2 feet of finished grade. Fill should
be moisture conditioned to at least 2 percent above the optimum moisture
content and compacted to 90 percent or more relative compaction, in
accordance with ASTM D 1557. Expansive clayey soils, if encountered or
imported, should be moisture conditioned to at least 6 percent above
optimum moisture content and well mixed prior to placement. It should be
noted that the alluvial surface soils to be removed typically possesses a
very low moisture content and will likely require additional moisture
conditioning and processing prior to reuse as compacted fill. Although the
optimum lift thickness for fill soils will be dependent on the type of
-18-
11074.001
compaction equipment utilized, fill should generally be placed in uniform

lifts not exceeding approximately 8 inches in loose thickness.
In pavement roadway areas the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should

be scarified then moisture conditioned to a moisture content at or above
optimum content and compacted to 95 percent or more of the maximum
laboratory dry density, as evaluated by ASTM D 1557.
Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general

accordance with the current City of Santee and County of San Diego
grading ordinances, California Building Code, sound construction practice,
these recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading
Specifications for Rough Grading presented in Appendix E.
6.1.5 Import Soils
Import soils, if utilized, should be void of oversize material and debris.

Because the on-site soils predominantly have a low potential for
expansion, we recommend all import soils be tested and also have a very
low to low expansion potential (i.e. an expansion index less than 50). If it
is desirable to utilize clayey material as an import source, we recommend
it be placed at depth in parking areas. In addition, we recommend highly
expansive materials not be placed within 5 feet of finish grade.
6.2 Foundation and Slab Considerations
The proposed structure may be constructed with conventional foundations.

Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural
considerations and the following recommendations. These recommendations
assume that the soils encountered within 5 feet of pad grade have a very low to
medium potential for expansion (EI<50). If more expansive materials are
encountered and selective grading cannot be accomplished, revised foundation
recommendations may be necessary. The foundation recommendations below
assume that the all building foundations will be underlain by properly compacted
fill.
-19-
11074.001
6.2.1 Conventional Foundations
The proposed buildings may be supported by conventional, continuous or

isolated spread footings. Footings should extend a minimum of 24 inches
beneath the lowest adjacent soil grade. At these depths, footings may be
designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per
square foot (psf) if founded in properly compacted fill soils. For footings
founded in compacted fill soils, an allowable capacity increase of 500 psf
for every 6 inches of additional embedment may be used, not exceeding
3,500 psf. The bearing pressure for miscellaneous site retaining walls and
other at-grade improvements should be limited to 2,000 psf. The allowable
pressures may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short
duration such as wind or seismic forces. The minimum recommended
width of footings is 18 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for
square or round footings. Footings should be designed in accordance with
the structural engineers requirements and have a minimum reinforcement
of four No. 5 reinforcing bars (two top and two bottom). Reinforcement of
individual column footings should be per the structural requirements.
6.2.2 Settlement
The recommended allowable-bearing capacity is based on a maximum

total and differential settlement competent fill soils. The maximum total and
differential settlements are estimated at less than 1 inch, and of an inch,
respectively. Since settlements are a function of footing size and contact
bearing pressures, some differential settlement can be expected between
adjacent columns or walls where a large differential loading condition
exists. However for most cases, differential settlements between adjacent
footings are considered unlikely to exceed of an inch.
Building designers should also consider a potential differential dynamic

settlement of 1-inch over a horizontal distance of 50 feet (i.e., an angular
distortion of 1/600) in their structural analysis.
6.2.3 Foundation Setback
We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of

slopes for all structural foundations, footings, and other settlement-
sensitive structures as indicated on the Table 2 below. The minimum
recommended setback distance from the face of retaining wall is equal to
1.5 times the height of the retaining wall. This distance is measured from
-20-
11074.001
the outside bottom edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope or retaining
wall face, and is based on the slope or wall height. However, the
foundation setback distance may be revised by the geotechnical consultant
on a case-by-case basis if the geotechnical conditions are different than
anticipated.
Table 2
Minimum Foundation Setback from Slope Faces
Minimum Recommended Foundation
Slope Height
Setback
less than 5 feet 5 feet
5 to 15 feet 7 feet
Please note that the soils within the structural setback area possess poor
lateral stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks,
fences, pavements, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be
subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. Potential
distress to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened
footing or a grade beam foundation system to support the improvement.
In addition, open or backfilled utility trenches that parallel or nearly parallel

structure footings should not encroach within an imaginary 2:1 (horizontal
to vertical) downward sloping line starting 9 inches above the bottom edge
of the footing and should also not be located closer than 18 inches from
the face of the footing. Deepened footings should meet the setbacks as
described above. Also, over-excavation should be accomplished such that
deepening of footings to accomplish the setback will not introduce a cut/fill
transition bearing condition.
Where pipes cross under footings, the footings should be specially

designed. Pipe sleeves should be provided where pipes cross through
footings or footing walls and sleeve clearances should provide for possible
footing settlement, but not less than 1 inch around the pipe.
In addition, utility trenches that parallel or nearly parallel structure footings

should not encroach within an imaginary 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane
extending downward from the outside edge of the footing. Deepened
footings should meet the setbacks as described above. Also,
overexcavation should be accomplished such that deepening of footings to
accomplish the 1:1 setback will not introduce a cut/fill transition bearing
condition.
-21-
11074.001
6.2.4 Floor Slabs
Slab-on-grade should be at least 5 inches thick and be reinforced with No.

4 rebars 18 inches on center each way (minimum) placed at mid-height in
the slab. We recommend control joints be provided across the slab at
appropriate intervals as designed by the project architect. Where moisture-
sensitive finishes are planned, underslab moisture protection should be
designed by the project architect in accordance with Section 4.505 of the
2010 California Green Building Standards Code (CBSC, 2010).
The potential for slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of

water/cement ratios. The contractor should take appropriate curing
precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize
cracking of the slabs. We recommend that a slipsheet (or equivalent) be
utilized if grouted tile, marble tile, or other crack-sensitive floor covering is
planned directly on concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed in
accordance with structural considerations.
For heavy vehicle or equipment loaded interior and exterior slab areas,
greater thickness and increased reinforcing may be required. The
additional measures, such as mat slabs and mat foundations, should be
designed by the structural engineer using a modulus of subgrade reaction
of 150 pounds per cubic inch. Additional moisture/waterproofing measures
that may be needed to accomplish desired serviceability of the building
finishes and should be designed by the project architect.
6.2.5 Moisture Conditioning
The building pads and site flatwork subgrade soils should be maintained at
a moisture content at least 2 percent above optimum. Testing to confirm
the moisture content should be performed prior to placing building slab
underlayment and site flatwork.
6.3 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design
Should retaining walls be added to the project, Table 3 presents the lateral earth
pressure values for level or sloping backfill for walls backfilled with fully drained
soils of very low to low expansion potential (less than 50 per ASTM D4829).
-22-
11074.001
Table 3
Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf)
Conditions Level 2:1 Slope
Active 35 55
At-Rest 55 65
300 100
Passive
(Maximum of 3 ksf) (slopping down)
Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls up to 10 feet in height should be

designed for an active equivalent pressure value provided above. If conditions
other than those covered herein are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure
values should be provided on an individual case-by-case basis by the
geotechnical engineer. A surcharge load for a restrained or unrestrained wall
resulting from automobile traffic may be assumed to be equivalent to a uniform
lateral pressure of 75 psf which is in addition to the equivalent fluid pressure
given above. For other uniform surcharge loads, a uniform pressure equal to
0.35q should be applied to the wall. The wall pressures assume walls are
backfilled with free draining materials and water is not allowed to accumulate
behind walls. A typical drainage design is contained in Appendix E. Wall backfill
should be compacted by mechanical methods to at least 90 percent relative
compaction (based on ASTM D1557). If foundations are planned over the
backfill, the backfill should be compacted to 95 percent. Wall footings should be
designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations and
reinforced in accordance with structural considerations. For all retaining walls, we
recommend a minimum horizontal distance from the outside base of the footing
to daylight as outlined in Section 6.2.3.
Lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be

obtained from the passive pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding
resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil
interface. These values may be increased by one-third when considering loads
of short duration including wind or seismic loads. The total resistance may be
taken as the sum of the frictional and passive resistance provided that the
passive portion does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance.
To account for potential redistribution of forces during a seismic event, retaining

walls providing lateral support where exterior grades on opposites sides differ by
more than 6 feet fall under the requirements of 2013 CBC and/or ASCE 7-05
Section 15.6.1 and should also be analyzed for seismic loading. For that
analysis, an additional uniform lateral seismic force of 8H pounds per square foot
acting at 0.6H should be considered for the design of the retaining walls, where
H is the height of the wall.
-23-
11074.001
6.4 Preliminary Pavement Design Considerations
Based on previous R-value testing results, we have utilized an assumed R-value of

20 for design. Actual subgrade R-value results should be verified during grading
and adjustment made to the base thicknesses as appropriate. If more clayey
materials with lower R-value are placed as subgrade in proposed pavement areas,
increased base thickness will be necessary.
6.4.1 Flexible Pavement Section
For flexible pavement section, we are assuming Traffic Indices (TI) of 4.5,
and 5 for the on-site asphalt pavement section design. The range of
pavement sections presented on Table 4 is to be used for preliminary
planning purposes only. Final pavement designs should be completed in
accordance with the City of Santee design criteria after R-value tests have
been performed on actual subgrade materials.
Table 4
Preliminary Pavement Recommendations
Traffic Index Preliminary Pavement Sections
4.5 (on-site parking) 3 inches AC over 6 inches Aggregate Base
5 (on-site driveways) 4 inches AC over 6 inches Aggregate Base
Prior to placement of the aggregate base, the upper 12 inches of

subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture-conditioned to at least
optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum 95 percent
relative compaction based on American Standard of Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Test Method D1557.
Class 2 Aggregate Base or Crushed Aggregate Base should then be placed

and compacted at a minimum 95 percent relative compaction in accordance
with ASTM Test Method D1557. The aggregate base material (AB) should
be a maximum of 6 inches thick below the curb and gutter and extend a
minimum of 6 inches behind the back of the curb. The AB should conform
to and placed in accordance with the approved grading plans, and latest
revision of the Standard Specifications Public Works Construction
(Greenbook).
The Asphalt Concrete (AC) material should conform to Caltrans Standard

Specifications, Sections 39 and 92, with a Performance Grade (PG) of 64-
10, and the City of Santee requirements. The placement of the AC should
-24-
11074.001
be in accordance with the approved grading plans, Section 203-6 of the

Greenbook Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, and
the City of Santee requirements. AC sections greater than 3-inches thick,
should be placed in two lifts. The 1st lift should be a 2-inch minimum base
course consisting of a 3/4-inch maximum coarse aggregate. The 2nd lift
should be a 2-inch minimum surface capping course consisting of a 1/2-
inch maximum coarse aggregate. No single lift shall be greater than 3
inches.
If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscaping areas, we

recommend some measures of moisture control be taken to prevent the
subgrade soils from becoming saturated. It is recommended that the
concrete curbing, separating the landscaping area from the pavement,
extend below the aggregate base to help seal the ends of the sections
where heavy landscape watering may have access to the aggregate base.
Concrete swales should be designed if asphalt pavement is used for
drainage of surface waters.
6.4.2 Rigid Pavement Section
For areas subject to heavy truck loading (i.e., delivery trucks, etc.), we
recommend the use of a full depth of Portland Cement Concrete (P.C.C.)
section. Table 5 below presents PCC pavement sections for driveways
and loading docks considering an R-Value of 20.
Table 5
PCC Pavement Sections
Concrete TI Section (in) Aggregate Base
(in)
Driveways 6 7.0 --
Loading Dock 6 8.0 --
Pavement materials should conform to and be placed in accordance with

Greenbook Specifications. Concrete should be Class 560-B-3250 with a
modulus of rupture of at least 600 psi. Regular crack control joints should
be provided for PCC pavement to mitigate the potential for adverse
cracking.
-25-
11074.001
6.5 Geochemical Considerations
Concrete in direct contact with soil or water that contains a high concentration of
soluble sulfates can be subject to chemical deterioration commonly known as
sulfate attack. Soluble sulfate results (Appendix C) indicated a negligible
soluble sulfate content. We recommend that concrete in contact with earth
materials be designed in accordance with Section 4 of ACI 318-08 (ACI, 2008).
Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed on representative samples of

subgrade soils (Appendix C). Based on our results, the site soils have a
moderate corrosion potential to buried uncoated metal conduits (Caltrans, 2003).
6.6 Concrete Flatwork
Concrete sidewalks and other flatwork (including construction joints) should be

designed by the project civil engineer and should have a minimum thickness of 4
inches. For all concrete flatwork, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be
moisture conditioned to at least 3 percent or above optimum moisture content
and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test
Method D1557 prior to the concrete placement.
6.7 Control of Ground Water and Surface Waters
Surface drainage should be controlled at all times and carefully taken into
consideration during precise grading, landscaping, and construction of site
improvements. Positive drainage (e.g., roof gutters, downspouts, area drains, etc.)
should be provided to direct surface water away from structures and improvements
and towards the street or suitable drainage devices. Ponding of water adjacent to
structures or pavements should be avoided. Roof gutters, downspouts, and area
drains should be aligned so as to transport surface water to a minimum distance of
5 feet away from structures. The performance of structural foundations is
dependent upon maintaining adequate surface drainage away from structures.
Water should be transported off the site in approved drainage devices or

unobstructed swales. We recommend a minimum flow gradient for unpaved
drainage within 5 feet of structures of 2 percent sloping away.
The impact of heavy irrigation or inadequate runoff gradient can create perched
water conditions, resulting in seepage or shallow ground water conditions where
previously none existed. Maintaining adequate surface drainage and controlled
irrigation will significantly reduce the potential for nuisance-type moisture problems.
-26-
11074.001
To reduce differential earth movements such as heaving and shrinkage due to the
change in moisture content of foundation soils, which may cause distress to a
structure and improvements, moisture content of the soils surrounding the
structure should be kept as relatively constant as possible. Below grade planters
should not be situated adjacent to structures or pavements unless provisions for
drainage such as catch basins and drains are made.
All area drain inlets should be maintained and kept clear of debris in order to
function properly. In addition, landscaping should not cause any obstruction to site
drainage. Rerouting of drainage patterns and/or installation of area drains should
be performed, if necessary, by a qualified civil engineer or a landscape architect.
6.8 Construction Observation
The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design

information and subsurface conditions disclosed by widely spaced excavations.
The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked by Leighton
Consulting, Inc. in the field during construction. Construction observation of all
onsite excavations and field density testing of all compacted fill should be
performed by a representative of this office. We recommend that all excavations
be mapped by the geotechnical consultant during grading to determine if any
potentially adverse geologic conditions exist at the site.
6.9 Plan Review
Final project grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by Leighton

Consulting as part of the design development process to ensure that
recommendations in this report are incorporated in project plans.
-27-
11074.001
7.0 LIMITATIONS
The nature of many sites is such that differing geotechnical or geological conditions can
occur over small areal distances and under varying climatic conditions. The conclusions
and recommendations in this report are based in part upon data that were obtained
from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests.
Such information is by necessity incomplete and therefore preliminary. Changes in
subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations presented in this report are considered preliminary and can be
relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions
during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary
findings are representative for the site.
Hazardous materials services were not included as part of this study, nor are they within
the scope of this report.
-28-
Figures and Plates
Approximate
Site Location
0

4,000
Feet
8,000
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and
the GIS User Community, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia,
OpenStreetMap contributors
Figure 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
Project: 11074.001 Eng/Geol: WDO/MDJ
Scale: 1 " = 4,000 ' Date: August 2015

Ryan Companies US, Inc.
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2015
Karl Strauss Brewery, River View
Santee, California
Thematic Information: Leighton
Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy) Leighton
Map S aved as V:\Drafting\11074\001\maps\11074_001_F01_SLM_2015_7_7.mxd on 8/20/2015 1:55:37 PM
L-TP-2

*
*
"
G-B-10
&
(
CPT-4
#
*
Qal
Kgr
CPT-3
#
*
B-7
CPT-5 CPT-1
<
&
#
* #
* Qal
Kgr
CPT-6 L-6-1
#
*
>
&
CPT-9 CPT-2
#
* #
*
CPT-7
#
*
CPT-8
#
*
Qal
Kgr
Legend
CPT-9
#
* Approximate CPT Location
B-7
<
& Approximate Boring Location (Leighton, 2004)
L-6-1
Approximate Boring Location (Law/Crandall, 1999)
>
&

G-B-10
&
( Approximate Boring Location (Geocon, 2004)
L-TP-2

* Approximate Test Pit Location (Law/Crandall, 1999)
*
"
Approximate Site Boundary
0 100 200 Qal Quaternary Alluvium
Feet Kgr Granitics (circled where buried)
Figure 2
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
Project: 11074.001 Eng/Geol: WDO/MDJ
Scale: 1 " = 100 ' Date: August 2015

Ryan Companies US, Inc.
Karl Strauss Brewery, River View
Reference: Sheet No. C-1, Existing Conditions Plan,
by SB&O, Inc. Planning engineering Surveying.
Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy) Santee, California Leighton

Map S aved as V:\Drafting\11074\001\maps\11074-001_F02_GM_2015-08-20.mxd on 8/21/2015 11:32:16 AM
Appendix A
References
11074.001
APPENDIX A
References
American Concrete Institute, 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-08) and Commentary.
Associated Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2005, ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
Bartlett, S.F. and Youd, T.L., 1995, Empirical Prediction of Liquefaction-Induced Lateral
Spread, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No.4, April 1995.
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2013 California Building Code,

Volumes 1 and 2.
______________
, 2013, California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2003, Corrosion Guidelines Version

1.0, California Department of Transportation Division of Engineering Services
Materials and Testing Services Corrosion Technology, September 2003.
California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2000, Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Southern Region, DMG CD 2000-
02.
______________
, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in
California Special Public 117a.
Churchill, Ronald, 1991, Geologic Controls on the Distribution of Radon in California,

Department of Health Services, dated January 25.
A-1
11074.001
APPENDIX A (Continued)
FEMA, 2012, Flood Insurance Maps, Panel 1651F, May 16.
Geocon, 2004, EIR-Level Geotechnical Report, Amendment to Town Center Specific

Plan, Santee, California, Project No. 07268-42-01, dated June 28, 2004.
Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2007, Special Publication 42, Fault Rupture Hazard
Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to
Earthquake Fault Zone Maps, Interim Revision 2007.
Jennings, 1994, Fault Activity of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations of Recent
Volcanic Eruptions, 1:250,000 scale.
Kennedy, M.P., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan area, California, California,
California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200.
Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2005, Geologic Map of the San Diego Quadrangle,
California, California Geologic Survey, 1:100,000 scale.
Law Crandall, 1999, Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Rough

Grading, Proposed Santee Town Center-Edgemoor Property, Santee, California,
Project No. 70330.9.0036, dated May 7, 1999.
Leighton, 2002, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Building,

Lot 11, Santee Town Center, Santee, California, Project Number 040636-001,
dated March 5, 2002.
______________
, 2004, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed-use
Commercial and Residential Development, Santee Town Center, Santee,
California, Project Number 040636-004, dated October 20, 2004.
______________
, 2005, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Remedial Grading,
Edgemoor Master Plan Area, Santee, California, Project Number 040636-005,
dated November 11, 2005.
A-2
11074.001
APPENDIX A (Continued)
Leighton, 2008, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Liberty High School at

Riverview, Santee, California, Project Number 040636-009, dated August 20,
2008.
______________
, 2013 As-Graded Report of Rough and Fine Grading, Proposed Parc One at
Santee Development, Santee, California, Project No. 10089.003, dated October 31,
2013.
Miller, C.D., 1989, Potential Hazards from Future Volcanic Eruptions in California: U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 1847, Plate I, Scale 1:500,000,
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov.
Santee, City of, 2002, Pavement Design and R-Value Test Submittal Procedures,
Department of Development Services, City of Santee, California, Form 435,
dated February 5, 2002
Treiman, J.A., 1993, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Southern California: California
Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 93-02, 45 p.
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to
Earthquake Shaking, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No.
8, dated August 1987.
Youd, T.L., 1993, Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spread Displacement, NCEL Tech. Note
1862, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California.
Youd, T.L., Hanson, C. M., and Bartlett, S.F., 1999, Revised MLR Equations for
Predicting Lateral Spread Displacement, Proceedings of the 7th U.S.-Japan
Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and
Countermeasures Against Soil Liquefaction, November 19, 1999, pp. 99-114.
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., and Others, 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary
Report form the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation
of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering Vol. 127, No. 10, pp. 817-832.
A-3
Appendix B
Exploration Logs and Soundings

Appendix C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results

Appendix D
Seismic Hazard Analysis

PSH Deaggregation on NEHRP C rock
Ryan_Santee 116.982o W, 32.844 N.
10
Peak Horiz. Ground Accel.>=0.3330 g
Ann. Exceedance Rate .404E-03. Mean Return Time 2475 years
Mean (R,M,0) 17.9 km, 6.27, 0.98
8
Modal (R,M,0) = 7.5 km, 6.20, 0.05 (from peak R,M bin)
Modal (R,M,*) = 8.9 km, 5.40, 1 to 2 sigma (from peak R,M, bin)
Binning: DeltaR 10. km, deltaM=0.2, Delta=1.0
6
4
8.
0
0
7.
% Contribution to Hazard
5
M
10
7.
A
0
G
N
IT
U
D
6.
E
5
2
20
(M
w
)
6.
0
30 m)
5.
5
d (k
Rc ,
40 nce
5.
0
Dista
t
0
ses 50
Clo
10 60
20 70
Prob. SA, PGA 30 80

C
<median(R,M) >median loses 40 90
0
t
8.
Dis
tan
5
ce,
R
50
7.
0 < -2 0 < 0 < 0.5 cd

(k
0
m)
7.
60
)
w
-2 < 0 < -1 0.5 < 0 < 1

5
(M
6.
E
D
U
70
IT
N
0
G
-1 < 0 <-0.5 1 < 0 < 2

6.
A
M
80
5.
-0.5 < 0 < 0 2 < 0 < 3 200910 UPDATE

0
5.
90
GMT 2015 Aug 13 00:07:33 Distance (R), magnitude (M), epsilon (E0,E) deaggregation for a site on rock with average vs= 670. m/s top 30 m. USGS CGHT PSHA2008 UPDATE Bins with lt 0.05% contrib. omitted
Leighton
San Diego, CA
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Project title : Ryan Santee- 11074.001 Location : Santee California

CPT file : CPT-01
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method: NCEER (1998) G.W.T. (in-situ): 7.00 ft Use fill: No Clay like behavior
Fines correction method: NCEER (1998) G.W.T. (earthq.): 7.00 ft Fill height: N/A applied: Sands only
Points to test: Based on Ic value Average results interval: 3 Fill weight: N/A Limit depth applied: No
Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.20 Ic cut-off value: 2.60 Trans. detect. applied: No Limit depth: N/A
Peak ground acceleration: 0.38 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT K applied: Yes MSF method: Method based
Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio SBTn
SBTnPlot
Plot CRR
CRRplot
plot FSFS
Plot
Plot
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
During earthq. During earthq.
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9
10 10 10 10 10
Depth (ft)
11 11 11 11 11
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 14
15 15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18 18
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
20 40 60 80 100 120 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
qt (tsf) Rf (%) Ic (Robertson 1990) CRR & CSR Factor of safety
Mw =71/2 , sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
0.8 1,000
Liquefaction
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
0.7
0.6
100
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)
0.5
0.4
10
0.3
0.2
1
0.1 1 10
0.1 Normalized friction ratio (%)
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading
No Liquefaction Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground
geometry
0 Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity,
Qtn,cs brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry
CLiq v.1.7.6.49 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 8/19/2015, 12:08:43 PM 1
Project file: P:\`InFocus PROJECTS\11001-11501\11074-Ryan Companies\001 Santee Brewery\Analyses\Liquefaction\Ryan Santee CPT.clq
This software is licensed to: Leighton CPT name: CPT-01
CPT basic interpretation plots

Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio Pore
Pore
pressure
pressure SBTSBT
Plot
Plot SoilSoil
Behaviour
Behaviour
Type
Type
Siltysand & sandysilt
1 1 1 1 Sand & siltysand
1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 Clay& siltyclay
3 3
4 4 4 4 Clay
4
Clay& siltyclay
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
Insitu
8 8 8 8 8 Clay
9 9 9 9 9
10 10 10 10 10
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
11 11 11 11 11 Clay& siltyclay
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 14
15 15 15 15 15
Sand & siltysand
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18 18
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21 Sand & siltysand
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
20 40 60 80 100 120 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
qt (tsf) Rf (%) u (psi) Ic(SBT) SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)

Analysis method: NCEER (1998) Depth to water table (erthq.): 7.00 ft Fill weight: N/A
Fines correction method: NCEER (1998) Average results interval: 3 Transition detect. applied: No SBT legend
Points to test: Based on Ic value Ic cut-off value: 2.60 K applied: Yes 1. Sensitive fine grained 4. Clayey silt to silty 7. Gravely sand to sand
Earthquake magnitude Mw: 6.20 Unit weight calculation: Based on SBT Clay like behavior applied: Sands only
2. Organic material 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 8. Very stiff sand to
Peak ground acceleration: 0.38 Use fill: No Limit depth applied: No
Depth to water table (insitu): 7.00 ft Fill height: N/A Limit depth: N/A 3. Clay to silty clay 6. Clean sand to silty sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Estimation of post-earthquake settlements

Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance SBTn
SBTn
Plot
Plot FS Plot
FS Plot Strain
Strain
plot
plot Vertical
Vertical
settlements
settlements
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
During earthq.
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9
10 10 10 10 10
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
11 11 11 11 11
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 14
15 15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18 18
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
20 40 60 80 100 120 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
qt (tsf) Ic (Robertson 1990) Factor of safety Volumentric strain (%) Settlement (in)
Abbreviations
qt : Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)
Ic : Soil Behaviour Type Index
FS: Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Volumentric strain: Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
Leighton
San Diego, CA

CPT file : CPT-02
Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio SBTn
SBTnPlot
Plot CRR
CRRplot
plot FSFS
Plot
Plot
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9
10 10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11 11
Depth (ft)
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 14
15 15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18 18
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
100 200 300 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0.8 1,000
Liquefaction
0.7
0.6
100
0.5
0.4
10
0.3
0.2
1
0.1 1 10
geometry

Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio Pore
Pore
pressure
pressure SBTSBT
Plot
Plot SoilSoil
Behaviour
Behaviour
Type
Type
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 Siltysand & sandysilt
4 4 4 4 4
Clay& siltyclay
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8 Clay
9 9 9 9 9
Insitu
10 10 10 10 10
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 14
Sand & siltysand
15 15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
18 Siltysand & sandysilt

18 18 18 18
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
Sand & siltysand
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 Siltysand & sandysilt

25
50 100 150 200 250 300 0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -5 0 5 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18


Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance SBTn
SBTn
Plot
Plot FS Plot
FS Plot Strain
Strain
plot
plot Vertical
Vertical
settlements
settlements
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9
During earthq.
10 10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11 11
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 14
15 15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18 18
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
50 100 150 200 250 300 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Abbreviations
Leighton
San Diego, CA

CPT file : CPT-03
Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio SBTn
SBTnPlot
Plot CRR
CRRplot
plot FSFS
Plot
Plot
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9
10 10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11 11
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
Depth (ft)
14 14 14 14 14
15 15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18 18
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26 26
27 27 27 27 27
28 28 28 28 28
29 29 29 29 29
30 30 30 30 30
50 100 150 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0.8 1,000
Liquefaction
0.7
0.6
100
0.5
0.4
10
0.3
0.2
1
0.1 1 10
geometry

Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio Pore
Pore
pressure
pressure SBTSBT
Plot
Plot SoilSoil
Behaviour
Behaviour
Type
Type
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9
11 11 11 11 11 Clay
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
Clay& siltyclay
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
14 14 14 14 14
15 15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18 18
Insitu Clay
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
Clay& siltyclay
22 22 22 22 22
24 24 24 24 24 Clay
Clay& siltyclay
25 25 25 25 25
28 28 28 28 28

30 30 30 30 30
50 100 150 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18


Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance SBTn
SBTn
Plot
Plot FS Plot
FS Plot Strain
Strain
plot
plot Vertical
Vertical
settlements
settlements
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9
10 10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11 11
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
14 14 14 14 14
15 15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18 18
During earthq.
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26 26
27 27 27 27 27
28 28 28 28 28
29 29 29 29 29
30 30 30 30 30
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Abbreviations
Leighton
San Diego, CA

CPT file : CPT-04
Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio SBTn
SBTnPlot
Plot CRR
CRRplot
plot FSFS
Plot
Plot
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9
10 10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11 11
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
Depth (ft)
14 14 14 14 14
15 15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18 18
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26 26
27 27 27 27 27
28 28 28 28 28
29 29 29 29 29
30 30 30 30 30
100 200 300 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0.8 1,000
Liquefaction
0.7
0.6
100
0.5
0.4
10
0.3
0.2
1
0.1 1 10
geometry

Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio Pore
Pore
pressure
pressure SBTSBT
Plot
Plot SoilSoil
Behaviour
Behaviour
Type
Type
1 1 1 1 1
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
Sand & siltysand
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
14 14 14 14 14
Insitu
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18 18
Clay
20 20 20 20 20
Sand & siltysand
21 21 21 21 21
Sand & siltysand
22 22 22 22 22
Sand
23 23 23 23 23
25 25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26 26
27 27 27 27 27
28 28 Sand & siltysand
28 28 28
29 29 29 29 29
30 30 30 30 30
100 200 300 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18


Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance SBTn
SBTn
Plot
Plot FS Plot
FS Plot Strain
Strain
plot
plot Vertical
Vertical
settlements
settlements
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9
10 10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11 11
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
14 14 14 14 14
During earthq.
15 15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18 18
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26 26
27 27 27 27 27
28 28 28 28 28
29 29 29 29 29
30 30 30 30 30
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.05 0.1
Abbreviations
Leighton
San Diego, CA

CPT file : CPT-05
Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio SBTn
SBTnPlot
Plot CRR
CRRplot
plot FSFS
Plot
Plot
2 2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4 4
6 6 6 6 6
8 8 8 8 8
10 10 10 10 10
12 12 12 12 12
14 14 14 14 14
Depth (ft)
16 16 16 16 16
18 18 18 18 18
20 20 20 20 20
22 22 22 22 22
24 24 24 24 24
26 26 26 26 26
28 28 28 28 28
30 30 30 30 30
32 32 32 32 32
34 34 34 34 34
100 200 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

0.8 1,000
Liquefaction
0.7
0.6
100
0.5
0.4
10
0.3
0.2
1
0.1 1 10
geometry

Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio Pore
Pore
pressure
pressure SBTSBT
Plot
Plot SoilSoil
Behaviour
Behaviour
Type
Type
1 1 1 1 1
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
10 10 10 10 10
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
Clay& siltyclay
14 14 14 14 14 Clay
15 15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16 16
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Clay& siltyclay
17 17 17 17 17
Insitu Clay
18 18 18 18 18
19 19 19 19 19 Clay
Clay& siltyclay
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23 Clay
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
Clay& siltyclay
26 26 26 26 26
Sand & siltysand
29 29 29 29 29
30 30 30 30 30
31 31 31 31 31
Sand & siltysand
32 32 32 32 32
33 33 33 33 33
34 34 34 34 34
Sand
35 35 35 35 35
50 100 150 200 250 0 2 4 6 8 10 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18


Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance SBTn
SBTn
Plot
Plot FS Plot
FS Plot Strain
Strain
plot
plot Vertical
Vertical
settlements
settlements
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9
10 10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11 11
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 14
15 15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16 16
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
17 17 17 17 17
During earthq.
18 18 18 18 18
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26 26
27 27 27 27 27
28 28 28 28 28
29 29 29 29 29
30 30 30 30 30
31 31 31 31 31
32 32 32 32 32
33 33 33 33 33
34 34 34 34 34
35 35 35 35 35
50 100 150 200 250 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Abbreviations
Leighton
San Diego, CA

CPT file : CPT-06
Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio SBTn
SBTnPlot
Plot CRR
CRRplot
plot FSFS
Plot
Plot
2 2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4 4
6 6 6 6 6
8 8 8 8 8
10 10 10 10 10
12 12 12 12 12
14 14 14 14 14
Depth (ft)
16 16 16 16 16
18 18 18 18 18
20 20 20 20 20
22 22 22 22 22
24 24 24 24 24
26 26 26 26 26
28 28 28 28 28
30 30 30 30 30
32 32 32 32 32
100 200 300 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

0.8 1,000
Liquefaction
0.7
0.6
100
0.5
0.4
10
0.3
0.2
1
0.1 1 10
geometry

Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio Pore
Pore
pressure
pressure SBTSBT
Plot
Plot SoilSoil
Behaviour
Behaviour
Type
Type
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
7 7 7 7 7
9 9 9 9 9
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
15 15 15 15 15
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
Insitu
18 18 18 18 18
Clay
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
27 27 27 27 27
28 28 28 28 28
29 29 29 29 29
Sand
30 30 30 30 30
33 33 33 33 33
100 200 300 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18


Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance SBTn
SBTn
Plot
Plot FS Plot
FS Plot Strain
Strain
plot
plot Vertical
Vertical
settlements
settlements
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9
10 10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11 11
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 14
15 15 15 15 15
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
During earthq.
18 18 18 18 18
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26 26
27 27 27 27 27
28 28 28 28 28
29 29 29 29 29
30 30 30 30 30
31 31 31 31 31
32 32 32 32 32
33 33 33 33 33
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Abbreviations
Leighton
San Diego, CA

CPT file : CPT-07
Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio SBTn
SBTnPlot
Plot CRR
CRRplot
plot FSFS
Plot
Plot
2 2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4 4
6 6 6 6 6
8 8 8 8 8
10 10 10 10 10
12 12 12 12 12
14 14 14 14 14
Depth (ft)
16 16 16 16 16
18 18 18 18 18
20 20 20 20 20
22 22 22 22 22
24 24 24 24 24
26 26 26 26 26
28 28 28 28 28
30 30 30 30 30
32 32 32 32 32
34 34 34 34 34
100 200 300 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0.8 1,000
Liquefaction
0.7
0.6
100
0.5
0.4
10
0.3
0.2
1
0.1 1 10
geometry

Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio Pore
Pore
pressure
pressure SBTSBT
Plot
Plot SoilSoil
Behaviour
Behaviour
Type
Type

3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
9 9 9 9 9
10 10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11 11
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 14
Clay& siltyclay
15 15 15 15 15
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18 18
Insitu Clay
19 19 19 19 19
21 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26 26
28 28 28 28 28
29 29 29 29 29
30 30 30 30 30
31 31 31 31 31
32 32 32 32 32
34 34 34 34 34
50 100 150 200 250 300 0 2 4 6 8 10 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18


Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance SBTn
SBTn
Plot
Plot FS Plot
FS Plot Strain
Strain
plot
plot Vertical
Vertical
settlements
settlements
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9
10 10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11 11
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 14
15 15 15 15 15
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18 18
During earthq.
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26 26
27 27 27 27 27
28 28 28 28 28
29 29 29 29 29
30 30 30 30 30
31 31 31 31 31
32 32 32 32 32
33 33 33 33 33
34 34 34 34 34
50 100 150 200 250 300 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Abbreviations
Leighton
San Diego, CA

CPT file : CPT-08
Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio SBTn
SBTnPlot
Plot CRR
CRRplot
plot FSFS
Plot
Plot
2 2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4 4
6 6 6 6 6
8 8 8 8 8
10 10 10 10 10
12 12 12 12 12
14 14 14 14 14
16 16 16 16 16
Depth (ft)
18 18 18 18 18
20 20 20 20 20
22 22 22 22 22
24 24 24 24 24
26 26 26 26 26
28 28 28 28 28
30 30 30 30 30
32 32 32 32 32
34 34 34 34 34
36 36 36 36 36
100 200 300 400 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

0.8 1,000
Liquefaction
0.7
0.6
100
0.5
0.4
10
0.3
0.2
1
0.1 1 10
geometry

Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio Pore
Pore
pressure
pressure SBTSBT
Plot
Plot SoilSoil
Behaviour
Behaviour
Type
Type
Sand & siltysand
2 2 2 2 2
Clay& siltyclay
3 3 3 3 3
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
10 10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11 11
13 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 14
15 15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
18 18 18 18 18
Insitu Clay& siltyclay
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26 26
27 27 27 27 27
28 28 28 28 28
29 29 29 29 29
30 30 30 30 30
Sand & siltysand
31 31 31 31 31
32 32 32 32 32
33 33 33 33 33
34 34 34 34 34
35 35 35 35 35
36 36 36 36 36
37 37 37 37 37
100 200 300 400 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18


Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance SBTn
SBTn
Plot
Plot FS Plot
FS Plot Strain
Strain
plot
plot Vertical
Vertical
settlements
settlements
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9
10 10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11 11
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 14
15 15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17 17
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
18 18 18 18 18
During earthq.
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26 26
27 27 27 27 27
28 28 28 28 28
29 29 29 29 29
30 30 30 30 30
31 31 31 31 31
32 32 32 32 32
33 33 33 33 33
34 34 34 34 34
35 35 35 35 35
36 36 36 36 36
37 37 37 37 37
100 200 300 400 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Abbreviations
Leighton
San Diego, CA

CPT file : CPT-09
Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio SBTn
SBTnPlot
Plot CRR
CRRplot
plot FSFS
Plot
Plot
2 2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4 4
6 6 6 6 6
8 8 8 8 8
10 10 10 10 10
12 12 12 12 12
14 14 14 14 14
16 16 16 16 16
Depth (ft)
18 18 18 18 18
20 20 20 20 20
22 22 22 22 22
24 24 24 24 24
26 26 26 26 26
28 28 28 28 28
30 30 30 30 30
32 32 32 32 32
34 34 34 34 34
36 36 36 36 36
200 400 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0.8 1,000
Liquefaction
0.7
0.6
100
0.5
0.4
10
0.3
0.2
1
0.1 1 10
geometry

Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance Friction
Friction
Ratio
Ratio Pore
Pore
pressure
pressure SBTSBT
Plot
Plot SoilSoil
Behaviour
Behaviour
Type
Type
1 1 1 1 1
Sand & siltysand
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9 Clay
Insitu
11 11 11 11 11
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 14
16 16 16 16 16
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
17 17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18 18
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20 Sand
21 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22 22
Sand & siltysand
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26 26
27 Sand & siltysand
27 27 27 27
28 28 28 28 28
29 Siltysand & sandysilt
29 29 29 29 Verydense/stiff soil
30 30 30 30 30
31 31 31 31 31
32 32 32 32 32
Clay& siltyclay
33 33 33 33 33
34 34 34 34 34
Sand & siltysand
35 35 35 35 35
36 36 36 36 36
100 200 300 400 500 0 2 4 6 8 10 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18


Cone
Cone
resistance
resistance SBTn
SBTn
Plot
Plot FS Plot
FS Plot Strain
Strain
plot
plot Vertical
Vertical
settlements
settlements
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9 9
During earthq.
10 10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11 11
12 12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 14
15 15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16 16
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)
17 17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18 18
19 19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26 26
27 27 27 27 27
28 28 28 28 28
29 29 29 29 29
30 30 30 30 30
31 31 31 31 31
32 32 32 32 32
33 33 33 33 33
34 34 34 34 34
35 35 35 35 35
36 36 36 36 36
100 200 300 400 500 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Abbreviations
Appendix E
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading

LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
1.0 General
1.1 Intent
These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading
and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in
the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the
recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of
conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall
supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the
earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of
grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could
supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the
geotechnical report(s).
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record
Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical

Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical
Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical
report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical
findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement
of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall

review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor)
and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of
observation, mapping, and compaction testing.
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant

shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the
geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to
be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the
design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner,
recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed
conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface
areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or
tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but
before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key
bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and

processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative
compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner
and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.
-1-
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor
The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced,

and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of
ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and
compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans,
geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of
grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the
grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the
Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of
earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated
quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to
commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and
the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to
the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that
appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished.
The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is
aware of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate

equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with
the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these
Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical
report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper
moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size,
adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required
in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work
and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the
conditions are rectified.
2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing
Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material

shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method
acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical
Consultant.
-2-
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals

depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain
more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall
contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic
materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall

stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall
be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these
materials prior to continuing to work in that area.
As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum

products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have
chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As
such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the
ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or
imprisonment, and shall not be allowed.
2.2 Processing
Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by
the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of
6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated
as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils
are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working
surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would
inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation
In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the

approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry,
saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable
ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the
Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
2.4 Benching
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1
(horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched.
Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest
bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep,
into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into
competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical
-3-
Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be
benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.
2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas
All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key
bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded,
and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as
suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance
from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed
surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of
processed areas, keys, and benches.
3.0 Fill Material
3.1 General
Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and

other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical
Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with
unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be
placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with
other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2 Oversize
Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a

maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed
in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically
accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be
such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that
oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill.
Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade
or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.
3.3 Import
If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material

shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source
shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working
days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and
appropriate tests performed.
-4-
4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
4.1 Fill Layers
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per
Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose
thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if
testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the
thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to
attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning
Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as

necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over
optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall
be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557).
4.3 Compaction of Fill
After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly

spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of
maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction
equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed
for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the
specified level of compaction with uniformity.
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes
In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction

of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot
rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods
producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant.
Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope
face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test
Method D1557.
4.5 Compaction Testing
Field-tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils
shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and
frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field
conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be
selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify
adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to
-5-
inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the

fill/bedrock benches).
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing
Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or
1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a
guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each
5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of
slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the
testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these
minimum standards are not met.
4.7 Compaction Test Locations
The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation

and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall
coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes
are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the
test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes
within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart
from potential test locations shall be provided.
5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved

geotechnical report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The
Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in
subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions
encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land
surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial.
Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be

evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal
depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of
removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field
evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are
to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted
by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of
the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
-6-
7.0 Trench Backfills
7.1 Safety
The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for
safety of trench excavations.
7.2 Bedding and Backfill
All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be performed in

accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of
Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand
Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot
over the top of the conduit and densified. Backfill shall be placed and
densified to a minimum of 90 percent of relative compaction from 1 foot
above the top of the conduit to the surface.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative
compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench
and 2 feet of fill.
7.3 Lift Thickness
Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the
Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the
Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift
can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative
equipment and method.
7.4 Observation and Testing
The densification of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by

the Geotechnical Consultant.
-7-
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
KEYING AND BENCHING GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAIL A
OVERSIZE ROCK GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
DISPOSAL STANDARD DETAIL B
CANYON SUBDRAINS GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAIL C
BUTTRESS OR GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
REPLACEMENT GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAIL D
FILL SUBDRAINS
TRANSITION LOT FILLS GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAIL E
RETAINING WALL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
DRAINAGE STANDARD DETAIL F
ACTIVE
ZONE
FILTER FABRIC
REINFORCED RETAINED
ZONE ZONE
BACKDRAIN
TO 70% OF
WALL HEIGHT
FILTER FABRIC
GRAVEL
DRAINAGE FILL WALL SUBDRAIN
MIN 6" BELOW WALL REAR SUBDRAIN:
MIN 12" BEHIND UNITS 4" (MIN) DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE
FOUNDATION SOILS (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQUIVALENT) WITH
PERFORATIONS DOWN. SURROUNDED BY
1 CU. FT/FT OF 3/4" GRAVEL WRAPPED IN
FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT)
OUTLET SUBDRAINS EVERY 100 FEET, OR CLOSER,

NOTES: BY TIGHTLINE TO SUITABLE PROTECTED OUTLET
1) MATERIAL GRADATION AND PLASTICITY

REINFORCED ZONE: GRAVEL DRAINAGE FILL:
SIEVE SIZE % PASSING SIEVE SIZE % PASSING
1 INCH 100 1 INCH 100
NO. 4 20-100 3/4 INCH 75-100
NO. 40 0-60 NO. 4 0-60
NO. 200 0-35 NO. 40 0-50
FOR WALL HEIGHT < 10 FEET, PLASTICITY INDEX < 20 NO. 200 0-5
FOR WALL HEIGHT 10 TO 20 FEET, PLASTICITY INDEX < 10
FOR TIERED WALLS, USE COMBINED WALL HEIGHTS
WALL DESIGNER TO REQUEST SITE-SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR WALL HEIGHT > 20 FEET
2) CONTRACTOR TO USE SOILS WITHIN THE RETAINED AND REINFORCED ZONES THAT MEET THE STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS OF WALL DESIGN.
3) GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT TO BE DESIGNED BY WALL DESIGNER CONSIDERING INTERNAL, EXTERNAL, AND COMPOUND STABILITY.
3) GEOGRID TO BE PRETENSIONED DURING INSTALLATION.
4) IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE ACTIVE ZONE ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO POST-CONSTRUCTION SETTLEMENT. ANGLE ==45+./2, WHERE . IS THE
FRICTION ANGLE OF THE MATERIAL IN THE RETAINED ZONE.
5) BACKDRAIN SHOULD CONSIST OF J-DRAIN 302 (OR EQUIVALENT) OR 6-INCH THICK DRAINAGE FILL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC. PERCENT
COVERAGE OF BACKDRAIN TO BE PER GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW.
SEGMENTAL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND

RETAINING WALLS STANDARD DETAIL G

Geotechnical Investigation of Karl Straws Brewery, Santee

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Investigation of Karl Straws Brewery, Santee

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

KARL STRAUSS BREWERY

Ryan Companies US Inc.

Project No. 11074.001

August 21, 2015

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

6.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 17

TABLE 1 CBC MAPPED SPECTRAL ACCELERATION PARAMETERS - PAGE 12

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP - REAR OF TEXT

1.1 Purpose and Scope

Review of available pertinent, published and unpublished geotechnical

1.2 Site Description

The site, which is defined as Parcel 1 and shown on Figure 2, is approximately

The coordinates for the site are generalized as:

1.3 Proposed Development

Based on our review of conceptual site plans, we understand that the

1.4 Previous Studies

As background, four previous geotechnical studies of the general vicinity have

August of 1999 (Law, 1999). In this initial investigation, the excavation of 22

Subsequently, in 2002 and 2004, Leighton performed two site-specific

The fourth study was performed by Geocon and consisted of 10 exploratory

In summary, the results of these studies and the documentation of previous

2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

The subsurface exploration performed for this geotechnical investigation consisted of

3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

3.1 Geologic and Tectonic Setting

3.2 Local Geologic Setting

Based on the site subsurface investigations, the site is underlain by undocumented

3.2.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill (unmapped)

As encountered and observed during our current and previous subsurface

3.2.2 Alluvium (Map Symbol Qal)

It should be noted that field observations by Leighton during remedial

3.2.3 Granitic Rock (Map Symbol Kgr)

Cretaceous-aged Granitic rock underlies the alluvium at depth and

3.3 Geologic Structure

Based on our field investigation, literature review and professional experience on

3.4 Surface and Ground Water

No indication of surface water or evidence of surface ponding was observed

3.5 Expansive Soils

Based on our field observations, subsurface investigation and laboratory testing,

The site and surrounding area is relatively flat. No landslides or indications of

3.7 Hydrocollapse and Compressible Soils

3.8 Soil Corrosivity

3.10 Flood Hazard

According to a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance

3.11 Exceptional Geologic Conditions

3.11.1 Hazardous Materials

3.11.2 Regional Subsidence

3.11.3 Non-Tectonic Faulting

Surface expressions of differential settlement, such as ground fissures,

3.11.4 Volcanic Eruption

Due to the lack of proximal sources of serpentinic or ultramafic rock bodies,

3.11.6 Radon-222 Gas

Historically, Radon-222 gas has not typically been recognized as an

3.12 Earthwork Shrinkage and Bulking

4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY

Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California

4.1.1 Surface Rupture

As previously discussed, the site is not underlain by a known active or

embankment due to earthquake shaking. Since the site is relatively flat

The effect of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the California

4.3 Secondary Seismic Hazards