The URL can be used to link to this page

Appendix D GeotechGEOTECHNICALINVESTIGATION WAL-MARTPOWAYEXPANSION STORENO.1700 -05 POWAY,CALIFORNIA PREPAREDFOR WAL-MARTSTORES,INC. ℅NASLANDENGINEERING SANDIEGO ,CALIFORNIA AUGUST7,2007 PROJECT NO.07861-52-01 ProjectNo.07861-52-01 August7,2007 Wal-MartStores,Inc. ℅ Nasland En gin eerin g 4740RuffnerStreet SanDiego,California92111 Attention:Mr.LarryThornburgh Subject:WAL-MARTPOWAYEXPANSION STORENO.1700-05 POWAY,CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICALINVESTIGATION DearMr.Thornburgh: InaccordancewithyourauthorizationofourProposalNo.LG-07164,datedMay17,2007,wehave performedageotechnicalinvestigationforthesubjectproperty.Theaccompanyingreportpresents theresultsofourstudyandc onclusionsandrecommendationspertainingtothegeotechnicalaspects oftheproposedimprovements.Basedontheresultsofourinvestigation,itisouropinionthesiteis consideredsuitablefortheproposeddevelopmentprovidedtherecommendationsofthisreportare followed. ThisreporthasbeenpreparedfortheexclusiveuseofWal-MartStoresIncorporated,theprojectcivil engineeringconsultant,andtheirrespectivesuccessorsandassigns.Thenamedentitiesabovecan conveythisreporttoanaffiliate,relatedentity,subsidiary,lender,titleinsurer,regulatory/cityagency orcurrentpropertyowner(s)andtheiragents,butfurtherdisseminationrequirespriorwritten approvalfromGeoconIncorporated.ThisrelianceisgrantedbyGeoconIncorporatedwiththeintent andunderstandingthatitissubjecttothesamelimitationsstatedinthisreportandGeocon Incorporated’scontractualTermsandConditions,includinglimitationsofliabilityassociatedwiththe workperformed. Shouldyouhavequestionsregardingthisreport,orifwemaybeoffurtherservice,pleasecontactthe undersignedatyourconvenience. Verytrulyyours, GEOCONINCORPORATED NoelBorja StaffEngineer ShawnWeedon GE2714 AliSadr CEG1778 NB:SW:AS:dmc (6/del)Addressee TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................................1 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRWTION ...........................................................................................1 3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS.........................................................................................2 3.1 Previously Placed Fill ............................................................................................................2 3.2 Older Alluvium......................................................................................................................3 3.3 Cretaceous Granitic Rock...................................................................................................... 3 4. GROUNDW ATER...........................................................................................................................3 5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS.................................................................................................................. 3 5.1 Faulting and Seismicity................................................................ ..........................................3 5.2 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement.................................................................5 5.3 Landslides.................................................................................................................... ..........6 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................7 6.1 General................................................................................................................................... 7 6.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics....................................................................................... 7 6.3 Seismic Design Criteria.................................... .....................................................................8 6.4 Grading....................................................................................................................... ...........9 6.5 Foundations........................................................... ...............................................................10 6.6 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade ....................................................................................................11 6.7 Retaining Walls................................................................................................................... .13 6.8 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations ..................... .............. .......... ........... ....... ....... .....14 6.9 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection .......................... .................................................. ....16 6.10 Foundation and Grading Plan Review .................................................................................17 LIMIT A TIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS MAPS AND ILLUSTRA nONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Geologic Map Figure 3, Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail Figure 4, Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Figure 5, Pavement Design Sections APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGA nON Figures A-I - A-4, Logs of Borings County of San Diego Monitoring Well Program - Geotechnical Boring Construction Permit TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDIXB LABORATORY TESTING Table B-1, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results Table B-II, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results Table B-III, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results Table B- IV, Summary of Laboratory Water-Soluble Sulfate Test Results Table B- V, Summary of Laboratory Potential of Hydrogen (pH) and Resistivity Test Results Table B-VI, Summary of Laboratory Atterberg Limits Test Results Table B-VII, Summary of Laboratory Resistance Value (R-Value) Test Results Table B- VIII, Summary of Laboratory Organic Matter Test Results Figures B-1, Gradation Curve Figures B-2, Consolidation Curve APPENDIX C GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FACT SHEET AND FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA APPENDIXD PA VEMENT DESIGN CALCULATIONS APPENDIXE RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS LIST OF REFERENCES GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the proposed Wal-Mart Poway Expansion, located within the existing Wal-Mart facility, south of Hilleary Place, west of Midland Road, and east of Community Road in Poway, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of the geotechnical investigation is to evaluate surface and subsurface soil conditions, general site geology, and to identify geotechnical constraints (if any) that may impact development of the property as proposed. We are providing site-specific grading recommendations and foundation design criteria based on the conditions encountered. To aid in preparation of this report we reviewed the following documents: 1. Geotechnical Investigation Specifications and Report Requirements for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Civil Engineering Consultant (CEC), prepared by Wal-Mart Stores Incorporated, dated December 31, 2003. 2. Base Map for Wal-Mart #2253-05 Expansion, Poway, San Diego County, CA, Wal-Mart Stores Incorporated, Bentonville, AR, prepared by Nasland Engineering, undated (Job No. 106-054.1). The scope of this investigation included a review of stereoscopic aerial photographs, readily available published and unpublished geologic literature (see List of References), a site reconnaissance, and performing a field investigation that included drilling 4 small-diameter borings to a maximum depth of approximately 36Yz feet. The approximate locations of exploratory borings are shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 2. Logs of the exploratory borings and a detailed discussion of the field investigation are presented in Appendix A. We performed laboratory tests on selected soil samples obtained during the field investigation to evaluate pertinent physical properties for engineering analyses and to assist in providing recommendations for site grading and foundation design criteria. Details of the laboratory testing and a summary of the test results are presented in Appendix B. 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is located at 13425 Community Road in Poway, California. Specifically, the site of the expansion will be along the eastern portion of the property with a small area along the front (western) side of the building. The Wal-Mart property is currently occupied by an existing Wal-Mart retail store which encompasses an area of approximately 131,375 square feet. On-grade parking encompasses the west and southwest portions of the site and the commercial building exists on the northeastern corners. We understand proposed improvements will consist of an approximately 50,000-square-fool Project No. 07861-52-01 - 1 - August 7,2007 high-bay, single-story expansion along the eastern edge of the existing Wal-Mart building. The site topography is relatively flat with elevations across the building expansion area ranging from approximately 500 to 502 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Based on the referenced report dated December 31, 2003, the new building superstructure will be a combination of concrete masonry shear walls (load-bearing and non-load-bearing) and steel columns supporting roof loads by means of steel joist girders and steel joists. Perimeter walls are tied to building slab with dowels. The typical bay spacing between columns is approximately 48 feet x 50 feet. The typical gravity load to an interior column is 77 kips. The estimated maximum gravity load that may occasionally occur due to severe live loading is 125 kips. The estimated typical exterior column gravity load is 40 kips. The concrete masonry wall gravity loads range of 1.5 to 2.0 kips per lineal foot. Estimated maximum uniform floor slab live load is 125 psf. Estimated maximum floor slab concentrated load is 5.0 kips The above locations, site descriptions, and proposed development are based on a site reconnaissance, review of the referenced site plan and Wal-Mart's geotechnical specifications, published geologic literature and our field investigation. If the final development plans differ from those described herein, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for review of the plans and possible revisions to this report. 3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS We encountered two surficial soil types and one geologic formation during our field investigation. The surficial soil consists of previously placed fill and older alluvium. The geologic unit consist of granitic rock. The occurrence and distribution of the various units encountered, including descriptions of the units, are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A and on the Geologic Map, Figure 2. The surficial soil and geologic units are described below in order of increasing age. 3.1 Previously Placed Fill Previously placed fill exists throughout the areas of the proposed Wal-Mart expansion to depths ranging from approximately 5 to 10 feet below existing grade. The previously placed fill encountered was likely derived from excavations within older alluvium during previous site development. The previously placed fill consists of loose to dense, damp to moist, dark olive brown and dark brown to reddish brown, silty to clayey sand and firm to stiff, sandy clay. The upper portion of the previously placed fill is not considered suitable for the support of the proposed structures and will require remedial grading. Project No. 07861-52-01 - 2 - August 7, 2007 3.2 Older Alluvium The Quaternary-age older alluvium underlies the previously placed fill and has a thickness of approximately 30 feet. The older alluvium consists of medium dense to very dense, moist, reddish brown mottled with grayish brown and brown to dark brown, clayey sand and firm to hard sandy clay. The older alluvium is considered suitable for the support of compacted fill and proposed structural loads. We performed a consolidation test on a sample obtained from the borings that indicate the older alluvial soil below the required removal depths have a low compressibility potential and low volume change characteristics due to a potential increase in moisture content (i.e. collapse potential). It is our opinion that the soil below the required removal depth is suitable for the placement of the proposed fill and loading from the proposed development. 3.3 Cretaceous Granitic Rock We encountered Cretaceous-age granitic rock in borings B-3 and B-4 at depths of approximately 36 and 35 feet, respectively. The granitic rock is weak, completely weathered, tan mottled with black and brown, and excavates as a silty, fine to coarse sand. We do not expect to encounter granitic rock during site development. 4. GROUNDWATER We encountered groundwater during the investigation at a depth of approximately 10 feet. Groundwater is not expected to adversely impact site development if excavation depths are limited to 8 feet. However, saturated material located near the groundwater elevation and local seepage should be expected during the excavation of deeper underground utilities. It is not uncommon for groundwater or seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed. Groundwater elevations are dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation, and land use, among other factors, and vary as a result. Proper surface drainage will be important to future performance of the project. Depending upon seasonal conditions at the time of grading, specialized equipment to excavate the surficial soils and drying or mixing with other on-site materials to reduce the moisture content prior to placement as compacted fill may be required. 5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5.1 Faulting and Seismicity Based on a review of geologic literature and experience with the soil and geologic conditions in the general area, it is our opinion that known active, potentially active, or inactive faults are not located at Project No. 07861-52-01 - 3 - August 7, 2007 the site. The site is not mapped in the vicinity of geologic hazards such as landslides, liquefaction areas, or faulting and is not located within the State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. We utilized the computer program EQFAULT (Blake, 2000) in order to determine the distance of known faults to the site. In addition to fault location, we used EQFAULT to estimate ground accelerations at the site for the maximum expected seismic event. According to the computer program EQFAULT, 9 known active faults are located within a search radius of 50 miles from the property. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault, located approximately 14 IIÙles from the site and is the dominant source of potential ground motion. Earthquakes that might occur on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone or other faults within the southern California and nOl1hern Baja California area are potential generators of significant ground motion at the site. The estimated maximum earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration for the Rose Canyon Fault are 7.2 and 0.20, respectively. Table 5.2 lists the estimated maximum earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration for the most dOIIÙnant faults in relationship to the site location. We estimated deterIIÙnistic peak ground accelerations using the attenuation relationships of Sadigh, et ai. (1997). TABLE 5.2 MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE AND PEAK SITE ACCELERATIONS Fault Name Distance from Maximum Earthquake Peak Site Site (miles) Magnitude Acceleration (g) Rose Canyon Fault Zone 14 7.2 0.20 Elsinore (Julian) 24 7.1 0.12 Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) 27 7.1 0.11 Coronado Bank 27 7.6 0.14 Elsinore (Temecula) 29 6.8 0.08 Earthquake Valley 31 6.5 0.06 Elsinore (Coyote Mountain) 39 6.8 0.06 San Jacinto - Coyote Creek 46 6.6 0.04 San Jacinto Anza 46 7.2 0.06 While listing peak accelerations is useful for comparison of potential effects of fault activity in a region, other considerations are important in seismic design, including the frequency and duration of motion and the soil conditions underlying the site. The site could be subjected to significant shaking Project No. 07861-52-01 - 4- August 7, 2007 in the event of a major earthquake on any of the faults listed above or other regional faults in the southern California or northern Baja California area. The seismic design of the structures should be performed in accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) or California Building Code (CBC) guidelines currently adopted by the City of Poway. We performed a site-specific probabilistic seIsmIC hazard analysis using the computer program FRISKS? (Blake, 1989, updated 2004). Geologic parameters not addressed in the deterministic analysis are included in this analysis. The program operates under the assumption that the occurrence rate of earthquakes on each mappable Quaternary fault is proportional to the fault's slip rate. The program accounts for fault rupture length as a function of earthquake magnitude, and site acceleration estimates are made using the earthquake magnitude and distance from the site to the rupture zone. The program also accounts for uncertainty in each of following: (1) earthquake magnitude, (2) rupture length for a given magnitude, (3) location of the rupture zone, (4) maximum possible magnitude of a given em1hquake, and (5) acceleration at the site from a given earthquake along each fault. By calculating the expected accelerations from all considered earthquake sources, the program calculates the total average annual expected number of occurrences of site acceleration greater than a specified value. We utilized attenuation relationships suggested by Sadigh, et aZ. (1997) in the analysis. The results of the analysis indicate that for a weighted magnitude of 7.5 and a 10 percent probability of exceedence in 50 years, a mean site acceleration of 0.14 g may be generated. This value corresponds to a return period of approximately 475 years. For a weighted magnitude of 7.5 and a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 100 years (949-year return period), a mean site acceleration of 0.17 g may be generated. An un weighted mean site acceleration of 0.18 g and 0.21 g was calculated for a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 and 100 years, respectively. 5.2 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is located in a zone with seismic activity, onsite soils are cohesionless, groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface, and soil relative densities are less than about 70 percent. If the four previous criteria are met, a seismic event could result in a rapid pore-water pressure increase from the earthquake-generated ground accelerations. Seismically induced settlement may occur whether the potential for liquefaction exists or not. The potential for liquefaction occurring at the site is considered to be very low due to the lack of a near surface permanent groundwater condition and the dense nature of the older alluvium and formational materials. We calculated the estimated seismic settlement to be less than approximately l,4-inch. Project No. 07861-52-0 I - 5 - August 7, 2007 5.3 Landslides Examination of aerial photographs in our files, and review of available geotechnical reports for the site vicinity and our field investigation indicate landslides are not present at the property or at a location that could impact the site. Project No. 07861-52-01 - 6- August 7, 2007 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 General 6.1.1 No soil or geologic conditions were encountered during our study that would preclude the development of the property as presently planned, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. 6.1.2 We expect subsurface conditions observed in the borings to be consistent across the site; however, some variation in subsurface conditions may be possible. 6.1.3 The site is underlain by previously placed fill, older alluvium, and granitic rock. The upper portion of the previously placed fill is not considered suitable for the support of settlement- sensitive structures and should be removed and recompacted during remedial grading operations. 6.1.4 We encountered groundwater in borings B-1 through B-4; however, groundwater is not expected to adversely impact site development if excavation depths are limited to approximately S feet. 6.1.5 With the exception of possible strong seismic shaking, significant geologic hazards were not observed or are known to exist on the site that would adversely affect the proposed project. Based on published literature and the findings of this investigation, it is our opinion that the site is not located on any known active, potentially active, or inactive faults. 6.1.6 The proposed improvements can be supported by conventional continuous and spread footings, provided the recommendations of this report have been incorporated into the design. 6.1.7 Final grading or foundation plans have not been provided for our revICW. Geocon Incorporated should review the plans prior to the submittal to regulatory agencies for approval. Additional analysis may be required once the plans have been provided. 6.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics 6.2.1 The soil encountered in the field investigation is considered to have a "very low" to "low" expansion potential (expansion index [EIJ of 50 or less) as defined by Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table No. IS-I-B. Recommendations presented herein assume that the site will be graded such that soil with an EI of 50 or less will be present to a minimum depth of 3 feet below finish grade. If soil with an EI greater than 50 is exposed near finish grade, Project No. 07861-52-01 - 7 - August 7, 2007 modifications to the foundation and slab-on-grade recommendations presented herein may be required. 6.2.2 The surficial soil can be excavated with moderate to heavy effort using conventional heavy-duty grading equipment. Very heavy effort (if encountered) may be required within the granitic rock during excavations for deeper utilities. Oversize materials (greater than 12 inches) may be generated from excavations in granitic rock. Oversized material, if encountered, should be placed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Spec(fications in Appendix E. 6.2.3 We tested a sample of the site materials to evaluate the percentage of water-soluble sulfate content. Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate content tests are presented in Appendix B and indicate the on-site materials at the location tested possess "negligible" sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by UBC Table 19-A-4. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e. addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration. Additional samples should be obtained at finish grade elevations subsequent to the completion of grading to check sulfate content. 6.2.4 We pelformed laboratory tests on samples to check for the potential of Hydrogen (pH) and resistivity of the site materials encountered to check the corrosion potential to subsurface metal structures. A site is considered corrosive if the chloride concentration is 500 part per million (ppm) or greater, sulfate concentration is 2000 ppm or greater, or the pH is 5.5 or less in accordance with Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines dated September 2003. Results indicate the pH ranges from 8.1 to 8.4 and resistivity ranges from 453 to 1352 ohm centimeters. Based on the laboratory test results, it is our opinion the site is corrosive with respect to buried metals. We performed the laboratory tests in accordance with California Test Method No. 643. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. 6.2.5 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering; therefore, further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be needed to incorporate the necessary precautions to avoid premature corrosion of underground pipes and buried metal in direct contact with soil. 6.3 Seismic Design Criteria 6.3.1 Table 6.3 summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the UBC. The values listed are for both the Julian segment of the Elsinore Fault (located approximately 17 miles Project No. 07861-52-01 - 8 - August 7,2007 from the site), which is identified as a Type A fault and the Rose Canyon Fault (located approximately 16 miles from the site), which is identified as a Type B fault. The site is located within Seismic Zone 4 according to UBC Figure l6-J. For seismic design, the site is characterized as soil type SD' TABLE 6.3 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value UBC Reference Soil Profile SD Table 16-J Seismic Zone Factor 0.40 Table 16-1 Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.44 Table l6-Q Seismic Coefficient, C, 0.64 Table 16-R Near-Source Factor, Na 1.0 Table 16-S Near-Source Factor, Nv 1.0 Table 16-T Seismic Source A&B Table 16-U 6.3.2 Conformance to the criteria in Table 6.3 for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a maximum level earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life and not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. 6.4 Grading 6.4.1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications in Appendix E. Where the recommendations of this report conflict with Appendix E, the recommendations of this section take precedence. 6.4.2 Earthwork should be observed, and compacted fill tested by representatives of Geocon Incorporated. 6.4.3 A pre-construction conference with the owner, contractor, civil engineer, and soil engineer in attendance should be held prior to beginning grading operations. Special soil handling requirements can be discussed at that time. 6.4.4 Grading of the site should commence with removal of vegetation and eXIstmg improvements from areas to be graded. Deleterious debris such as wood, asphalt, brick, plastic, and concrete should be exported from the site and not be mixed with fill materials. Existing underground improvements within proposed building expansion areas should be Project No. 07861-52-01 - 9 - August 7, 2007 removed and the resulting depressions properly backfilled III accordance with the procedures described herein. 6.4.5 The upper 5 feet of the previously placed fill within the building expansion area should be removed and recompacted. Prior to the placement of compacted fill, the exposed ground surface should be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacted. If loose, soft, or otherwise unsuitable soil is encountered at the bottom of the removal, deeper removals may be required at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer. The remedial grading should extend at least 5 feet beyond the building limits where practical. 6.4.6 Removals should be sloped away from existing footings at an inclination of 1: 1 (horizontal: vertical). Temporary excavations adjacent to existing footings should be backfilled the same day as removals are performed. Care should be taken not to undermine existing footings. 6.4.7 Excavated soil generally free of deleterious debris and contamination can be placed as fill and compacted in layers to the design finish grade elevations. Fill and backfill materials should be placed in horizontal loose layers approximately 6 to 8 inches thick, should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM DI557-02. The upper 12 inches of fill beneath the building pad or in pavement areas should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. 6.4.8 Import fill (if necessary) should consist of granular materials with a "very low" to "low" expansion potential (EI of 50 or less), free of deleterious material or stones larger than 3 inches, and should be compacted as recommended above. Geocon Incorporated should be notified of the import soil source and should perform laboratory testing of import soil prior to its arrival at the site to determine its suitability as fill material. 6.5 Foundations 6.5.1 The proposed building expansion can be supported on a shallow foundation system founded in properly compacted fill. Foundations may consist of continuous strip footings and/or isolated spread footings. Continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide and extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade. Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches and should extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. A wall/column footing dimension detail depicting the depth to lowest adjacent grade is presented on Figure 3. Project No. 07861-52-01 - 10- August 7,2007 6.5.2 Continuous footings should be reinforced with four No.5 steel reinforcing bars, two placed near the top of the footing and two near the bottom. Reinforcement for spread footings should be designed by the project structural engineer. 6.5.3 The recommended allowable bearing capacity for foundations with minimum dimensions described above is 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by an additional 500 psf for each additional foot of depth and 300 psf for each additional foot of width, to a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 psf. The values presented above are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 6.5.4 Settlement due to footing loads conforming to the above recommended allowable soil bearing pressures are expected to be less than %-inch total and Yí-inch differential over a span of 40 feet. 6.5.5 A modulus of subgrade reaction ranging from 100 to 150 pounds per cubic inch (pei) is recommended for compacted fill. The values for the modulus of subgrade reaction presented should be modified using standard equations for actual foundation dimensions. 6.5.6 The minimum reinforcement recommended above is based on soil characteristics only (Elof 50 or less) and is not intended to replace reinforcement required for structural considerations. 6.5.7 No special subgrade pre saturation (i.e., flooding to saturate soils to foundation depths to mitigate highly expansive soils) is deemed necessary prior to placement of concrete. However, the slab and foundation subgrade should be sprinkled as necessary to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any concrete placement. 6.5.8 Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer (a representative of Geocon Incorporated) prior to the placement of reinforcing steel to check that the exposed soil conditions are similar to those expected and that they have been extended to the appropriate bearing strata. If unexpected soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required. 6.6 Concrete Siabs-On-Grade 6.6.1 Concrete slabs-on-grade for the structure should be at least 5 inches thick and be reinforced with No.4, steel, reinforcing bars placed 18 inches on center in both directions. The concrete slab-on-grade recommendations are based on soil support characteristics only. Project No. 07861-52-0 I - 11 - August 7, 2007 The project structural engineer should evaluate the structural requirements of the concrete slabs for supporting equipment and storage loads. Thicker concrete slabs may be required for heavier loads. 6.6.2 The slabs-on-grade should be placed directly on a sub-base consisting of 4 inches of Class 2 Aggregate Base underlying 2 inches of fine aggregate base. The Class 2 Aggregate Base should conform to Section 26-1.02A of the Standard Spec(fications of the State of California, Ðepartnlent of Transportation (Caltrans). The fine aggregate base should conform to the gradation requirements on Table 6.6. TABLE 6.6 GRADATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE Sieve Size Percent Passing No.4 85 -100 No.8 75 95 No. 16 55 75 No. 50 25 -45 No. 200 6 -12 6.6.3 Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are planned, or where slab moisture would be objectionable, a visqueen moisture inhibitor overlain by a 4-inch layer of %-inch crushed aggregate should be placed on the slab sub-base to provide a capillary break. 6.6.4 Exterior slabs and hardscape not subjected to vehicle loads and underlain by "very low" to "low" expansive soil (expansion index of 50 or less) compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content, should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced with 6x6-6/6 welded wire mesh. The mesh should be placed within the upper one-third of the slab. Proper mesh positioning is critical to future performance of the slabs. It has been our experience the mesh must be physically pulled up into the slab after concrete placement. The contractor should take extra care to provide proper mesh placement. 6.6.5 Concrete slabs should be provided with adequate construction Jomts and/or expansion joints to control shrinkage cracking. The spacing should be determined by the project structural engineer based on the intended slab usage, type and extent of floor covering materials, thickness and reinforcement. The structural engineer should take into consideration criteria of the American Concrete Institute when establishing crack control spacing patterns. Project No. 07861-52-01 - 12 - August 7, 2007 6.6.6 The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs and foundations as a result of differential movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations and slabs-on-grade will still exhibit some cracking. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the soil supporting characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use of crack-control joints and proper concrete placement and curing. Crack-control joints should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet. Literature provided by the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) present recommendations for proper concrete mix, construction, and curing practices, and should be incorporated into project construction. 6.7 Retaining Walls 6.7.1 Retaining walls that are allowed to rotate more than O.OOIH (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall) at the top of the wall and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 35 pef. Where the backfill will be inclined at 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical), an active soil pressure of 50 pcf is recommended. Soil placed for retaining wall backfill should have an expansion index of 50 or less. 6.7.2 Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an equivalent fluid pressure of 57 psf should be used. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads within a horizontal distance equal to two-thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of fill soil should be added (unit weight 125 pcf). 6.7.3 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular (El of 50 or less) free-draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. Figure 4 presents a typical retaining wall drainage detail. If conditions different than those described are expected, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. 6.7.4 In general, wall foundations having a minImUm depth and width of one foot may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet below the base of the wall consists of compacted fill with an expansion index of less than 50. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3: 1 could impact Project No. 07861-52-01 - 13 - August 7. 2007 the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated. 6.7.5 To resist lateral loads, a passive pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) should be used for design of footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted granular fill soils. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance. 6.7.6 If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, an allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.4 should be used for design. 6.7.7 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that walls higher than 8 feet are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 6.8 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations 6.8.1 The pavement sections herein are preliminary and are based on an R-Value of 10. Final pavement sections should be calculated once subgrade elevations have been attained and R- Value testing on actual subgrade samples is performed. We calculated the flexible pavement sections in general conformance with the Caltrans Method of Flexible Pavement Design (Highway Design Manual, Section 608.4) and based on design criteria contained in Wal-Mart's referenced Geotechnical Investigation Spec(fications and Report Requirements. We calculated the Traffic Index (TI) using design equations from the Caltrans Design Manual for the specified ESAL. We calculated the concrete pavement sections using AASHTO design procedures. Appendix D summarizes pavement section design calculations the calculated pavement sections presented in Table 6.8. A pavement cross section design detail is presented on Figure 5. Project No. 07861-52-01 - 14- August 7, 2007 TABLE 6.8 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN SECTIONS Asphalt Concrete Portland Cement Concrete 20 yr. Traffic (AC) (PCC) Location ESAL Index Class 2 Class 2 (18 kip) (TI) AC Base PCC Base (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) Standard- Duty 43,800 6.0 3 14Yz 5 4 Heavy-Duty 335,800 8.0 5 16 7 4 6.8.2 Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book). Class 2 aggregate base materials should conform to Section 26-1.02A of the Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 6.8.3 The upper 12 inches of the pavement subgrade soil should be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557-02. Base course materials should be moisture conditioned near to slightly above optimum moisture content and compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory Hveem density as determined by ASTM D 2726-05A. 6.8.4 A rigid portland cement concrete (PCC) should be used for truck traffic areas and loading aprons, such as those used for trash bin enclosures and loading docks. The PCC pavement section should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 steel reinforcing bars spaced 24 inches on center in both directions placed at the slab midpoint. The concrete should extend out from the loading dock or trash bin such that both the front and rear wheels of the truck will be located on reinforced concrete pavement when loading. The PCC pavement sections should be placed over subgrade soil that is compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density, near to slightly above optimum moisture content. The PCC pavement section is based on a minimum concrete compressive strength of approximately 3,000 psi (pounds per square inch). 6.8.5 A thickened edge or integral curb should be constructed on the outside of concrete slabs subjected to wheel loads. The thickened edge should be 1.2 times the slab thickness with a minimum increase of 2 inches at the slab edge and taper back to the recommended slab Project No. 07861-52-01 - 15 - August 7. 2007 thickness 3 feet behind the face of the slab (e.g., a 7.5-inch-thick slab would have a 9.5-inch-thick edge). Reinforcing steel will not be necessary within the concrete for geotechnical purposes with the possible exception of dowels at construction joints as discussed below. 6.8.6 To control the location and spread of concrete shrinkage cracks, crack-control joints (weakened plane joints) should be included in the design of the concrete pavement slab. Crack-control joints should not exceed 30 times the recommended slab thickness with a maximum spacing of 15 feet (e.g., 15 by 15 feet for a 7.5-inch-thick slab), and should be sealed with an appropriate sealant to prevent the migration of water through the control joint to the subgrade materials. 6.8.7 To provide load transfer between adjacent pavement slab sections, a trapezoidal-keyed construction joint is recommended. As an alternative to the keyed joint, dowelling is recommended between construction joints. As discussed in the referenced ACI guide, dowels should consist of smooth, Ys-inch-diameter reinforcing steel 14 inches long embedded a minimum of 6 inches into the slab on either side of the construction joint. Dowels should be located at the midpoint of the slab, spaced at 12 inches on center and lubricated to allow joint movement while still transferring loads. Other alternative recommendations for load transfer should be provided by the project structural engineer. 6.8.8 The performance of pavements is highly dependent upon providing pOSItive surface drainage away from the edge of pavements. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the pavement will likely result in saturation of the subgrade materials and subsequent pavement distress. If planter islands are planned, the perimeter curb should extend at least 6 inches below the bottom of the Class 2 aggregate base. 6.9 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection 6.9.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures and the top of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure. 6.9.2 In the case of basement walls or building walls retammg landscaping areas, a waterproofing system should be used on the walls and joints, and a Miradrain drainage panel (or similar) should be placed over the waterproofing. A perforated PVC drainpipe of Project No. 07861-52-01 - 16- August 7, 2007 Schedule 40 or better should be installed at the base of the wall below the floor slab and drained to an appropriate discharge area. Accordion-type pipe is not acceptable. The project architect or civil engineer should provide detailed specifications on the plans for waterproofing and drainage. 6.9.3 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time. 6.9.4 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. We recommend that subdrains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures or impervious above-grade planter boxes be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, we recommend construction of a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base material. 6.10 Foundation and Grading Plan Review 6.10.1 Geocon Incorporated should review the grading plans and foundation plans for the project prior to final design submittal to determine if additional analysis and/or recommendations are required. Project No. 07861-52-01 - 17 - August 7,2007 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated. 2. This repo11 is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent prope11ies. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. Project No. 07861-52-0 I August 7, 2007 r~ ~ ~..h< - ,VlIN C.iDE ,. tAK~ ["" IF: KU ë f,;,' (1 %, : ~ ö: i36l~~, .'ê' COUNTRX CREEK R8 " i ~ ~g !:;; !; ~ ~ POWAY $f~tll"rtt.J:OG:rl;.Ç(lK RC ~i3. g VtLlEY RJ , ~. ,u~", ~ ;~.f ~'__:_~d'-' þ'-:!~) ,- '~-~-'I ~'. .~. . .C'.' .'~..""'.t'.'/..' I,.....".'."'.' .'.'... ......'" ~~'i. r1Þ.~ ~ n~' ,\. ~..~ I - I ~ " :,N R~:>K Sr.:~/ () t) ~/."'.lll~' iJGATE ;;. ~<< l:~ .,i ,~, l/ (I) "';l ~~Ú4'ì [6::\' , ~ ~; ~;~N _RD i .... ", ' 'iT' i. ÀÚBREY ST I '" l rR i'e< ..~ '[OW' ~., I ST ;;, llotJART "" ~tHlLL,.!;: g f:', ;:ziPOWAY ~e- 3 ADRIAN .' ", .... 1400) .'- lr60r . I '"-i Cl ' ~ p.. ~Ri< ~r,~.fi;~~ .J*'.: I d \Nll 'U PL:: g ,,'\' TEMPLE ,51 ~ '~,~ ;1:", TEMPLE.! WY ,r\~ Ii ~'r'-"''<c'''\'S'' ÉZ, , . " . -p.,t~\1. T:---J1--,<;W- --~- "~ '/ \,I'1f;i,' -i < ~1.'''''' ; I , '" :'<:< i' tı: EDGEMOOR i: ,,' EtGE~3F' il BEEC\\"~ " a~: , 5i~ r>r15ıti~'iSlb:,~ :~r5: 51:" WOOll S)1:~o,,~.1".90C ,<f;> 0~'S: L9;.,~ \c"'~ ij' ,:~ \. "".' ,S: ~ H. ~ l~, '~.~ ~ I \i U~i, DR IË '/.,o~'-, " -#'rf ('> ~ r".'J" JI') .. ,- :;.~ r",' I I 'is BIJrTfPiI.' ;;.:.;., s,,\.. ~ 'If ~I I ~i./ ~ j .ooJNsmfi'oo >-' !c:o ~! cruoPß: r"~~ c~ ATOkA jw~C~~f~E ,>~ :;,..... SOMERSET .RP.:.J ~, IPAVA !' HICKORy",Ji'$ f''''\~PL :5:;:;:\ ;i;~;:;;~~>i~';--:'I'JANETTE LNJ:>.... T< 'j C ". <.; ~ ,'" ~ '!i '" .iI' SC 10:; C ..... Cl- BE NADOTT' g: OUAS~n, T! STARRIDGL . <:) Ollvr'óIlOVt'DR.ëj ~!i "',13600 .. ..' _., 1 R......,_E.\;:: " - v 4,' I",,' .\PVHf RD / LN l- OR , "'! ;'r/ PARK '. ~í'-\\\.\ó. '. ~ BIRCI{ ;4;'; 1'. .. - I 1'UT. NEY...., ~" '<c~tRE-) '; I 0:0' 1;; rHI(l'-: (STREE U'*"S'~" KH.,.i'..r' . .1" 1 It ";:137 ~ "" 'I?~ w:,f"-. qlJ.cfJ AGSTENiOí ;:" -:;cu.'rs'l~I:;'~ ~.EE /~. ~~..rt~têf':-:7..'S i. .':';'. -'/"!CY~ '" ~I' l '" ç. .', ,'" !:'!5-~ Ì"',~. Ii Co "'-: '1'" ~",;t ~ s,?X: ~ I, '1",/ l;ìl 5"iS> l'r-,buí:tR~~ ~ ~; '---'.. 1 2( "D'tg éS,~~I:51 fj,' t;; \. :1': ~!> ì COYOTERO~:~/ /,;'f'. '~lr! ~lrL ~RY \ tJitr l~iAM~I\;' ,j(!ffi:\:....nL'-'-,.~~I~if;, ;14 ~ ! S ðrH1L\. '. .,,; I >,":,PAPAGQ!IlR I ~I ~/ t/ " u c t ~'>lJ\)>lI~\ ,I " :",C..T}J,jANKAj :5'1\000 j %J~~'. f/ 13 .... PO .:EI1IDLAND-PDWAY~1 '''VEN' Ell"PARK\, '\~&f YANfrOli DR r WÀNÈSTÀ ~( .IlR,'~,; POWAY c, ... ,I ~ È; OROOf' ~ \ \ _~"1Þf{ ._._.:.~-' -1 ê2,! pr:f'~~Rr5 VALLEY , ~ "".':' ~A\' m;', i ~: .. IN Ii .. LH..C~RRI-lC;(..\\I-\~~S_ POWA;::: I c''''j/' CENTER'-:-' . COO""': RD /SOll ~'BLVD ' .'. .., ,~'ò\:s \'L')00 ,,If< CARRf~GE "'~:t ,LIe. 'c;; lJl.O !II . \ _r '" 0' ~ CENTER~FF. 'ii'; DH'I CC 1::1 ~WA ~ "': . lL~NE STillEST '.lm ~'ê1VIC CENTER á-}'&.') -....,---~--~,._._'-:;"'''''s~r(-.'."OR ,,~, . ,. .'" '~''''.'''. ~I. ?LACK...ST ,..!.,\-t. ill< ;1;' "'.IDLftCH.. '15:3 Ç.'~ - t;;, /4"1 PA li!'-.tt '" I", / '- .' ~q. g:( BUCKLE.Y..?T k.c PiI!'.".'lr;;", ~ (Q..r'i' Ie:::: _(~ ct', j 1-' j/..,'. .; : O?,O:...... .::.:k ....'/ , .;."" R CA '-'I \ tñ: 1/), el; :<2PDWAy. . ..'~I '\r.- GftANOE DR I....' 1:z:1 =, 'C''''''''''~lTYI!l _,",,' CR "'''' -..~" > Zj. >-'. -i W,C!\_'.""."'v "~-~. "'.'liS"-/1.' LA' VISTA iii,::I' iii: ",.::;, ; PAR ı!J. :::: " ,~ .:,";:: i! 0'. :z "",RD.:i: "'.. . '~.Þ.;;'.'~I":.'::'" ,'>"'7., I !I '" WY :0:, 0: '" "Q._~.~,"" I V!' ,Jr " ~ .,,' ~::I?ã ,Ui.: _.- -'::_,,_,__Í:()r~!i4'i;V;~, >;sf ~~'t; :'.-"' KllOlL! ," Ii! 1Z8')2-----,,/\i1:ào~fi~VI~TA~ ~r;J:f,.",-: (,::.!t....~tL----sr- . <:i~~ôt ffi~A~p,Ht,~J. "~,~, mt,,-;~~~":; ~ '--:'-50\)\;[ -\:ij'.' . . ') ..,:~I:>: 3 ,,; '" I · ~ <:l:: !ll("~ .. L' "' ORPHA "'æl a L ,:~ ~\ 1\)S\11l?1 ~\ CT~t; ~11~>'t ~ '( '1 i:9f}1: ,~~' 1< ATE-- ~ TR 1;.... ;r) ð l 6 fRrrRIDGE::" i :- J?7:.!,> lER ~ ::: ;a ~ v; 1. ".....::.,; i (';'~'f ~ 'J' TREf4;Rf . lOR' ex i~ æ - .,S, I 'k, ~ Sf l-o f ~ , ~ V> 5 ~tr "" /, r,. ie} I ~,$". ' , ~rrrtiç;~;/ g- r-"'-"-' C1Æ i <f;>1'1 l~,~' 'L' :,.- '.,:"-ARY, ìw' !æ ../' 10 ~ 1::0 .,/. .~.."DR ' ~~@ MELglllE lEI::: " IN ,~ \~ f% , E~~IE. .It!jttl mA If=, ~"--lffi iw ~ ~~ "" i l;:: ~ !__.~; >~t;; is 0... I,)r"'~'~'~!lt'~'\'D_jl' BW 1~:5 Ilt LtHoJ.' ~r' I ' <iJ , <:to I 1 ~ì % . ! ) Q ~\"'~ :9--!t L : :z t;':~'--- h.M~'':;~-~-- \ PO~.,trv-" CREEK' LN ... z' ~ IX ~ 3 ,~ u: ~,> ~,oEf.lt: ;;ii""g SAép. -:3 ~; :Jr:\,,--J~{k_I.rT~B '~J. I '. {iÍ ",il([tlNtBIlNI( _':?\, >ERlH uiSCARBORO , :::.' LN 1 :t:;'""...... , 8 .... ;: GLENVI LlE u.J"lO!jrIT~_ i . " :.- 'i:s: ~tât'Ln t;: ~ ~',~' i '--. '. ~ <e.,~ M1NYA"tN.. Ø'.~ ~ ./". \~._. HI~\ '~I~E: i 51 . .,' ,,' 1 I '---_..,-'-_._---- I I S~'llt, IDR ". \~ (,"\ K]RV,\'I~/' C, !!2., POWAY !f;'SPORTS PA K .C.i<OS.THWAITÇ: (.J'" ')If '\C1. ::3:. \ :::t: ~ICX! \ I ,I " I 0\\\;" ; \ ; i~i~,:. " ,;,\,/ ~\ ......'--r--;;;' .F..,~;~l" 1;1" i'r '~ ,~ ':"1} VICINITY MAP WAl-MART POWAY EXPANSION STORE NO. 1700-05 POWA Y, CALIFORNIA DATE 08 - 07 - 2007 I PROJECT NO, 07861 - 52 - 01 T FIG. 1 SOURCE: 2007 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA "MAP @ RAND McNALLY, R.L07-S-62, REPROOUCED WITH PERMISSION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COPY OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF, WHETHER FOR PERSONAL USE OR RESALE, WITHOUT PERMISSION" GEDeON o INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 NNBI RA I I DSK/GTYPD VicinifyMop .".., .., ',:1'"" s<:..,~ 7 t ~J NO SCALE I 5lU.J ;-_ --------.,,- r--- ----- -, ._, ,- ~ A ,GVS..._i.- ~~'/'- ....... ....... "L__" f"""'05' v~::;015.>..,.) ""5... _ ...... '50'.,~'.> oMH "DojoMff-'>ï.E.!,-PYp'~~CE">\_-I-- .................. "'. .... ..... ..~..........,.~....... '7 ",,,- ..T.... .... ./.GV " '"V''' . Lc ......... ..-.. .'. .... "'&1 .-'.,q~-NF'..t: ,m.8';',.g,' ; .~~ ,,,,. ~~E:; r~"~";;ji..~''T70.~~.,..... - ~7':;"~J;.,_. ~.\~.;;;.~~n,rr~~-~=~:"~.,.~=\~~= ~~~~ Iþi' q. PM' 76877 I PAF; 2 ':08 ~3~? ..,.~' -'-;y~ I;; "gg.5 "gg, S) ~;~".fi \"~~." 1 ,............. ............. /\ '~..:: PARCEL e=z;;,,_ .s" \/ .[ ~, i. L _ :.-i PM: /1 !t',~j} .",~g ?7~~~ '<99.' ,.,~01~(5FO \ ~ ~ 1;:'...v:5~)~tOJf.-~~ ;50': a~;<6~ð~~g~XPANSIONo055.~~. :. '57 iB 1'50" ~o l' , /"7 I 0~,5;'*j.~.~}~..,.8 ~ 7L/ oos ....'..., 1\500S ' t, ,,'SOil ~. ~.-'" 'ìl j,:, ,-I ;6:~~";,'L> TT ,.1ffi1'SOf7 ,;1 ,'" "'.. ""'..' ~,g"_.~,JðI;':~ J .m, \_ ~B~~' ~I.\:oo ,-~ '7 m / ~ IL~.~;L;;'~,& . . I '5"': jl'.' "~Vr}Y'T ~:Y;'f J :- rì,Æ.;,C;' ..tff)"~'r;,;..~;l~ '500 ri 0~" ~~~/,/ //" , . I Þ-[,,' ':OS t= l,t, , "",,:/!' ,).,,1 1 v!h.,/;Wr~;:";'~5~;~vÐ~ r'// ///'//A/A~' , /:>7/ ~~./ .'\"^ '" ! ,~" ,. \, '-- 's"I.:..1- ~~ '50:9 '500' V 1/ I ;/1!~ / '/ / r~!J.(~ 00 ., 7 \, .." /' """C r,'\ PROPElnY..' ....C; ;.I~}HJ{_'Å ~;n : ~,)'~\w1spo( qv / I !)W/ // ~ w,,' 9. .:: 5 ) '50 . ' ; /f'~!=""'<:~/, b026 .,/"", ~~ II :~~~,~"\~""<~l"'~\1: ~ ~ / / / //, .~ ~-E '% / <þ'/"~ ~~ '.~íl~~.~~-.. .......,;+,,-:""Z~T. .;-'.'.............n ~~ '5OO'.....................'.'g.g..'. .'"g.'. ...~.,,~~L Qpf/()oaf/f<gr 'W~/~o~,! ~WiA- '0 1;(. '. == ................. ': ~.'i \ .~.\J ~i\\~ \~\., ~{~.~;.. 5,-, v' APPROX. LIMITS ; V // / I., ::::-, '~...:':'.::~ .. ~ .~,j \~..;, ._. ~...,.,., ~,_; V PROPOSED EXPANSION . .oo ." , ~ /~ Ii~/ .=, .1" .E '~'$Ds .l /~ i~, ~~R;~~7; :~Ifj~/r:3ìYI9~ ~ I ,~. !ß1Þ~\;i .... p~~....9.EL... C:'001 0 .5003 . "9.B "'. 0. ~ .~ f'.. . ~\ ! , '. ,I '~, ..." "'~ ....,l .,., "'. .... '.' 1 ~ _ '\. ." .. .' / //I:~' '\ I i ~1il '~;I',' .5021 m ..''-ëJ ...... . .', ~ : ::..: .::. E E.': ....::-. / '/" '" ,r '"1 fit , 0 '499' '''92 "'97 '/ /. ( !1~ ,þ ;} 'f95 ( & t>~~''''\\\\~m' 5007 SfG;~/ PA~L : '~5' I "k 'J', Ii I' <;:J,Of7 '501< 0 Sf' S'~"g" "'-',0 o! : ~ / /~ [;, (j lei/. I r,' , . 0 'm80 "987 '''94 / ') S6'l./1 "ll' \, ',::, . f, .'pds, . ~,~ i. : ~c., dIIJ~,:ID '.e> "~>z~'. ~,vW,y J\ ~".." "~~.:\....r~[jf.:- r: / ~ ili /. ',v ! ","7 - _ r~ ,g8< tgat m, 0' ,.; .. V '/1\ L' , .., l/~~..'~'I ~'S'~\\\ ........':J ."~ ..i">5\.I'~Íi1~~~, - -\", -, !((~, " 0" ( Qpf/ Qoa! /!<g t;r; ~;)'J< .=, !\I:P > Tn Ësn08 ~ '5DaJ~' ""~2 /~ .'. "'9)70 ~/~'~"77MH "0}-;'~;~,'i 64" 500 005/~B'/ ~;/ //:19// //:,:~ ///// /// //';L r~y6~~7 'Ii t\jj ,1/ ~:' 7fþj{~..,..::.~\ \(\~ ~\i:<,\{\\ \\ ,,: ,\ \ '\;~:'::'\;/~, D 0 ~ir ~ . .", _ _-:::--:. J'=,~;':c_,:.:i:./ ./ '_:.1,,, \ I I; '.~ "'J r"~ '- .... PROP~~ lj.INE I I : I 1Jj) .'J '.(...~... '~/~...:h I I it "976 " : ,~~.~ )4~ .,'" 0]/ ~'II/! .......~,5p dT~ ~ r/. VI 4.~';..,..,,!..!.i'.~.cL. I. ',-/ i MAP 9561 " L WAL-MART POWAY EXPANSION STORE NO. 1700-05 POWAY, CALIFORNIA I , \ 1 SCALE: 1" = 100' "'501 J '502 GEOeON LEGEND Qpf ........PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL Qoa I ........OLDER ALLUVIUM (Dotted Where Buried) Kg r ........GRANITIC ROCK (Dotted Where Buried) B-4~ "........APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING PM 1 7 07 ;:~~XM~~~D /r!iD7f:~~ --..--/ pm PM 16871 GEDeON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558.6900 ' FAX 858 558-6159 PROJECT NO, 07861 - 52 - 01 FIGURE 2 GEOLOGIC MAP DATE 08007 - 2007 (;) Y!/07861.52'OliRA/NN8]B61 GEOLCX>IC MftJ'/rJWG. WALL FOOTING CONCRETE SLAB <;14 ., 4 ~ "'. SAND --=::::::2 , q 1. 'l1 PAD GRADE p.;,4 . "<l -'-<;.<'\. A" A' VISQUEEN l?I Z I- <14 ï= a.. ~ A.ð ocr4 ð 8 ~ :;; " LLL.: ,.' ,.q L /,/,/(, J FOOTING' WIDTH ~ " " A ~ <I 4 ,'~ l?I ~f- f-O- OlU 00 LL COLUMN FOOTING " .ð , * q ð 4., ,ð I *.a . " ~ " *"J ~~ ,4 <t ð . .. CONCRETE SLAB q , * " * . I. " . *J . * 1 " .4 <14., .4 4 <1. '" .a q . *. q . q" , " "',ð q ... '" q . . .. d 4 .aq . . '" 4 ., d . . 4 . .. : 4 , ð J //,://,/> q ...a 1 *q '" .aq. ð.,4 " . ~ "q .. * 4 * . , q" ~ q 'l."" ð d ., <:1 * , . .. .a"~ , :::: ~ q . .d ð '., " ' .. 4 4..<1., ~ .<144"'.. ð .4<:144.. " , *" . . " q * ,<, ,,<, ,,<, ,,<,,' FOOTING WIDTH' *....SEE REPORT FOR FOUNDATION WITDH AND DEPTH RECOMMENDATION NO SCALE WALL / COLUMN FOOTING DIMENSION DETAIL GEDeON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 e WAL-MART POWAY EXPANSION STORE NO. 1 700-05 POWAY, CALIFORNIA NNBI RA I I DSKlGTYPD DATE 08 - 07 - 2007 I PROJECT NO. 07861 - 52 - 01 I FIG. 3 YJ1_DETAIL/COLFOOT2/DWG, ~;::;:::lll, I~::---.: ') '" GROUND SURFACE RETAINING WALL 3/4" CRUSHED GRAVEL H MIRAFI140N FILTER FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT 4" DIA. PERFORATED SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE " ~ð .d NOTES: L...PVC PIPE TO DRAIN AT A MINIMUM GRADIENT OF 1% AND CONNECT TO A SUITABLE OUTLET. 2......WALL DRAINAGE PANELS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF EXTENDING GRAVEL TO TWO-THIRDS THE WALL HEIGHT. NO SCALE RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974 PHONE 858558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 o GEDeON WAL-MART POWAY EXPANSION STORE NO. 1 700-05 POWAY, CALIFORNIA NNB/RA I I DSKlGTYPD DATE 08 - 07 - 2007 I PROJECT NO. 07861 - 52 - 01 I FIG. 4 YJR1ATEMPI1.AUTOCAD PLATE TEMPLA TEIl.DET AIURETW All3 ~ AC,ORPCC~TABl~lOWF~HICKN/ES~ / .. / / 00 0 O---é;TO O~ 0 00;0 0-c::7-'0 Oc;,;:) O&-b 0 r () 0,-71 O 0 w^ 0 ~ --.j ~ 0 ~ 0 /' "-./~. 0..::::::) C) ~ 0 O 0 \0'~SS~2 AGGREGATE BAS{(SEE TABLE BElOWFOR THICKNE:sð)O 0 \/00 [ Co 000,,- (CAlTRANSSECTION26-1.02A) 10. 00/\ oC o VOUOU 00.01/ ( --L:::L.~ ' SUBGRADE 12-INCH SCARIFIED AND RECOMPACTED TO A DRY DENSITY OF AT lEAST 95 % ~ 1.1- EXISTING SOil (COMPACTED Fill) . -'- ASP HAL T CONCRETE (AC) PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE (PCC) lOCATION AC (Inches) CLASS 2 BASE (Inches) PCC (Inches) CLASS 2 BASE (Inches) STANDARD DUTY 3 14.5 5 4 HEAVY DUTY 5 16 7 4 * DESIGN OF ASPHALT CONCRETE BASED ON CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL DESIGN OF PCC BASED ON AASHTO DESIGN METHOD NO SCALE PA YEMENT DESIGN SECTIONS INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 o GEDeON WAL-MART POWAY EXPANSION STORE 1 700-05 POWAY, CALIFORNIA NNBI RA I I DSKlEOOOO DATE 08 - 07 - 2007 I PROJECT NO. 07861 - 52 - 01 I FIG.5 EJ1YPIPDS.DWGIRA APPENDIX APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Fieldwork for our investigation included geologic mapping, subsurface exploration, and soil sampling. The locations of the exploratory borings and trenches are depicted on the Geologic Map, Figure 2. Boring logs and an explanation of the geologic units encountered are presented in the figures following the text in this appendix. We located the exploratory borings in the field using a measuring tape and existing reference points. Therefore, actual boring locations may deviate slightly. We performed a subsurface exploration on July 19, 2007 and consisted of the drilling of 4 small diameter borings. The borings extended to a maximum depth of approximately 36Y2 feet using an CME 55 drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow stem augers. We obtained samples using a Modified California Sampler or a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. Both samplers are composed of steel and are driven to obtain undisturbed samples. The Modified California sampler has an inside diameter of 2.5 inches and an outside diameter of 3 inches. Up to 18 rings are placed inside the sampler that is 2.4 inches in diameter and 1 inch in height. The SPT sampler has an inside diameter of 1.5 inches and an outside diameter of 2 inches. Up to 4 rings (depending on the length of the sampler) may be placed inside the sampler that is 1.4 inches in diameter and 6 inches in height. We obtained ring samples at appropriate intervals, placed them in moisture-tight containers, and transported them to the laboratory for testing. The type of sample is noted on the exploratory boring logs. The sampler was driven 12 inches into the bottom of the excavations with the use of an automatic trip hammer and the use of A rods. The sampler is connected to the A rods and driven into the bottom of the excavation using a 140-pound hammer with a 30-inch drop. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches the sampler is driven. The penetration resistances shown on the boring logs are shown in terms of blows per foot. The values indicated on the boring logs are the sum of the last 12 inches of the sampler. If the sampler was not driven for 18 inches, an approximate value is calculated in term of blows per foot or the final 6-inch interval is reported. These values are not to be taken as N-values as adjustments have not been applied. We estimated elevations shown on the boring logs either from a topographic map or by using a benchmark. Each excavation was backfilled as noted on the boring logs. The County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health issued a Monitoring Well and Boring Construction and Deconstruction Permit for the exploratory excavations and is shown after the figures in this appendix. Project No. 07861-52-01 August 7, 2007 PROJECT NO. 07861-52-01 0:: BORING B 1 Zw~ >- LU~ >- W l- I- Oül-' DEPTH CJ ~ SOIL ~~L.!:: ëñ....,. o::~ SAMPLE 0 Zu.. :;:)1- IN -' f::tï;~ ~0 I-Z 0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 500' DATE COMPLETED 07-19-2007 ~I::! FEET NO j!: Z W-O >-S :;:) (USCS) Z(/)-' Oz :J 0 WWCO 0:: :2:0 0:: EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: M. ERTWINE n..o::~ 0 ü CJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 4 inchcs ASPHALT CONCRETE ~ 8 inches BASE - BI-I /lfr SM-SC PREVIOUSL Y PLACED FILL 2 - ,tV( Å~~ Loose to medium dense. damp to moist, dark olive brown, Silty to Clayey, fine - VGi to medium SAND: affluent odor 4 - It t- - ---- ----- -- -- --- -- ------ ------ - 1----- --- - - BI-2 CL Firm to stiff, moist, dark olive brown, Sandy CLAY; trace gravels 16 104.3 21.6 I- 6 - I- - to !-- 8 - ~ I- 10 " -Static groundwater level at 10 feet BI-3 V. // SC OLDER ALLUVIUM 34 106.7 21.0 - v// Dense, moist to wet, reddish brown mottled with grayish brown. Clayey, fine 12 - {// SAND; micaceous with biotite staining v// - // // 14 - //} I- - ;:// I- BI-4 ;// 31 20.7 16 - I- // -Fcw rip-up clasts of granitic origin /// I- /// 18 // I- - J(; I- /// 20 - BI-5 ::>/ -Becomes medium dense 19 109.3 19.1 I- ./// BORING TERMINATED AT 21 FEET Groundwater encountered at 10 feet Backfilled with 7.3 ft3 ofbentonite-eement slurry Figure A-1, Log of Boring B 1, Page 1 of 1 D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL !l2J DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 07861-52-Q1. GP J SAMPLE SYMBOLS IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST IiìJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE . ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) T ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEDeON PROJECT NO. 07861-52-01 0::: BORING B 2 ZUJ~ >- >- ~ Oür-: I- UJ';/2. DEPTH (;) ~ SOIL ~~"" ü5--:- o:::~ SAMPLE 0 Zu.. ~~ IN ...J r:tñ~ ~cj 0 Cl CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 500' DATE COMPLETED 07-19-2007 ~~ FEET NO. ~ Z UJ-O >-eo. ::::> (USCS) Zcn...J Oz ::J 0 UJUJOO 0::: ::20 0::: EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: M. ERTWINE o...o:::~ Cl ü (;) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 2 inches ASPHALT CONCRETE ~ \ I - 10 inches BASE A/~ SM-SC \ I 2 - PREVIOUSL Y PLACED FILL B2-1 fy~ Loose to medium dense. moist, dark brown, Silty to Clayey, fine to medium V~ SAND 4 4~'/ - -111- -- .- -- -- ------------- --- --- --- -- ---- - - -- B2-2 //} SC Dense. moist, dark reddish brown. Clayey, fine to medium SAND; clean till 43 123.4 11.3 I- 6 - /. I- - /// (~ I- 8 - /// SC OLDER ALLUVIUM I- - // Dcnse, moist, dark reddish brown mottled with grayish brown, Clayey. fine 10 [/// -!' SAND; micaceous with biotite staining I- - Iv// B2-3 -Static groundwater level at 10 fcet 50 118.4 14.9 - /// V // 12 - V/ // - // 14 - ;/~ I- // - /// I- B2-4 /// 43 109.9 18.7 16 - // -Becomes fine- to medium-grained I- /// - v// I- ./ 18 - ::// I- - B2-5 //} I- 37 103.4 22.6 // -Becomes grayish brown mottled with reddish brown 20 BORING TERMlNA TED AT 20 FEET Groundwater encountered at 19 feet Backfilled with 7.0 ft3 ofbcntonite-cement slurry Figure A-2, Log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of 1 [J ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 07861-52-D1.GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS IJ 'n STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ~ n. CHUNK SAMPLE . n. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) .'!. 'n WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEDeON PROJECT NO, 07861-52-01 0:: BORING B 3 ZUJ~ >- UJ~ >- ~ Qür-: I- DEPTH (') ~ SOIL ::;:~L!: ü5--:- o::~ 0 ZLl. ~~ IN SAMPLE ...J ~0~ ~0 0 0 CLASS ELEV, (MSL.) 500' DATE COMPLETED 07-19-2007 ~~ FEET NO FE Z UJ-O >-e:. :::> (USCS) Z(/)...J Oz :J 0 UJUJco 0:: ::::EO 0:: EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: M. ERTWINE c.o::~ 0 ü (') MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 83-1 3 inches ASPHALT CONCRETE SM-SC 8 inches BASE 2 PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL Medium dense to dense. moist, dark brown, Silty to Clayey. fine to medium SAND 4 B3-2 CL OLDER ALLUVIliM 5015" 111.2 17.4 6 Hard, moist, reddish brown mottled with dark brown, Sandy CLA Y; carbonate staining; slightly micaceous 8 10 -Static groundwater level at 10 feet B3-3 30 108,6 19,8 -Becomes very stiff 12 14 ------ ------ ------- ------ B3-4 SC Dense. saturated, reddish brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND; trace angular 44 14,8 16 gravels; micaceous; large gravel in sampler tip; rip-up clasts of granitic origin 18 20 B3-5 -Becomes very dense, reddish brown mottled with gray brown 5015" 16.9 22 24 B3-6 32 19,1 26 -Becomes dense, massive 28 Figure A-3, Log of Boring B 3, Page 1 of 2 D... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 07861-52-01 GP J SAMPLE SYMBOLS DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE IJ .. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST !ii;j ... CHUNK SAMPLE . ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) Y. ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEDeON PROJECT NO. 07861-52-01 0:: BORING B 3 Zw~ >- UJ~ >- ~ Oüe-: I- DEPTH C> ~ SOIL ~~kf: ü5--:- o::~ 0 ZLL ~~ IN SAMPLE ..J ~tiï~ ~<..i 0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 500' DATE COMPLETED 07-19-2007 ~~ FEET NO. FE Z w-O >-e:.. Oz ::> (USCS) ZUl..J ::::; 0 wwco 0:: :::::0 0:: EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: M. ERTWINE a..o::~ 0 ü C> MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 30 B3-7 >/~ -Becomes medium densc, dark brown to reddish brown. fine-grained 30 103.8 23.0 - ::// 32 - //j - ~// 34 - //} - f;:; B3-8 67 12.9 36 + i- GRANITIC ROCK Weak, completely weathered, damp to moist tan mottled with black, GRANITIC ROCK; salt and pepper texture; biotite; feldspar flakes; excavates as Silty, fine to coarse SAND I BORING TERMINATED AT 36.5 FEET Groundwater encountered at 10 feet Backfilled with bentonite-eement slurry Figure A-3, Log of Boring B 3, Page 2 of 2 07861-52-01. GP J SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL [:B:j .. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE IJ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE . ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) T WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEDeON PROJECT NO. 07861-52-01 0:: BORING B 4 ZlJ.J~ >- w* >- f!:! oü~ I- DEPTH 0 ~ SOIL ~~L!: û5--:- o::~ 0 ZlJ.. ~!z IN SAMPLE ...J ~t;~ lJ.J' 0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 500' DATE COMPLETED 07-19-2007 0(,) Ç!2f!:! FEET NO f!: Z lJ.J-O >-e:.. ::J (USCS) ZC/)...J Oz :J 0 lJ.JlJ.JCO 0:: 20 0:: EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: M. ERTWINE a.o::~ 0 ü 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 B4-1 3 inches ASPHALT CONCRETE SM-SC 8 inches BASE 2 PREVIOUSL Y PLACED FILL Medium dense, moist, reddish brown. Silty to Clayey, fine SAND; clean fill 4 B4-2 CL OLDER ALLUVIUM 73 112.4 17.4 6 Vel)' stiff, moist, brown mottled with reddish brown, Sandy CLAY 8 10 __~~~~~~~~~~m~~~_________________ B4-3 SC Dense, moist to saturated brown, Clayey. fine SAND; micaceous 44 105.4 21.3 12 14 -Becomes fine to coarse-grained; clasts of gravels of granitic origin B4-4 45 15.8 16 18 -Increased drilling pressure 20 B4-5 -Becomes reddish brown mottled gray; micaceous 31 105.3 20.7 22 24 --------------------- ------ ---- B4-6 CL Firm, saturated, brown mottled with grayish brown, fine Sandy CLA Y; thin 13 34.4 26 laminations of silts and clays 28 Figure A-4, Log of Boring B 4, Page 1 of 2 U ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 07861-52-Q1GPJ IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE SAMPLE SYMBOLS NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEDeON PROJECT NO, 07861-52-01 0::: BORING B 4 ZUJ~ >- w* >- ~ Qü~ t- DEPTH 0 ~ SOIL ~~L!: üi--:- o:::~ 0 ZLL ~!z iN SAMPLE -l ~tñ~ ~0 0 Cl CLASS ELEV, (MSL) 500' DATE COMPLETED 07-19-2007 ~~ FEET NO. F!: Z UJ-O >-~ ::J (USCS) Z(J)-l Oz :J 0 UJUJc:o 0::: :;::0 0::: EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: M. ERTWINE [l.o:::~ Cl ü 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I- 30 B4-7 V<~ SC Medium dense, saturated reddish brown mottled with grayish brown. Clayey, 19 99.1 25.3 I- - fine SAND; micaceous I- 32 - I~>/ v/j I- - I~>/ I- 34 - f/// I- - // B4-8 + + GRANITIC ROCK 43 ]8.5 I- 36 - + Weak, completely weathered, moist, brown, GRANITIC ROCK; excavates as Silty, fine to coarse SAND í BORING TERMINATED AT 36.5 FEET ('Jfoundwater cncountered at 10 feet Backfilled with bentonite-cement slurry Figure A-4, Log of Boring B 4, Page 2 of 2 D .. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~ ... DiSTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 07861-52-01GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST Iii;] ... CHUNK SAMPLE . ,.. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) .T ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT is NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITiONS AT OTHER LOCATiONS AND TiMES. GEDeON PERMIT #LMON104934 A.P.N. # 317-130-42-00; 317-130-66-00 EST# 132227 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAND AND WATER QUALITY DIVISION MONITORING WELL PROGRAM GEOTECHNICAL BORING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT SITE NAME: WALMART POWAY EXPANSION SITE ADDRESS: 13430 MIDLAND RD., AND 13427 COMMUNITY RD., POWAY, CA 92064 PERMIT FOR: 5 GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS PERMIT APPROVAL DATE: JULY 6, 2007 PERMIT EXPIRES ON: NOVEMBER 3, 2007 RESPONSIBLE PARTY: NASLAND ENGINEERING PERMIT CONDITIONS: 1. All borings must be sealed from the bottom of the boring to the ground surface with an approved sealing material as speCified in California Well Standards Bulletin 74-90, Part III, Section 19.0. Orin cuttings are not an acceptable fill material. 2. All borings must be properly destroyed within 24 hours of drilling. 3. Placement of any sealing material at a depth greater than 30 feet must be done using the tremie method. 4. This work is not connected to any known unauthorized release of hazard9us substances. Any contamination found in the course of drilling and sampling must be reported to DEH. All water and soil resulting from the activities covered by this permit must be managed, stored and disposed of as specified in the SAM Manual in Section 5, II, E- 4. (http://www.sdcountv.ca.aov/deh/lwQ/sam/manualauidelines.html).ln addition, drill cuttings must be properly handled and disposed in compliance with the Stormwater Best Management Practices of the local jurisdiction. . 5. Within 60 days of completing work, submit a well/boring construction report, including all well and/or boring logs and laboratory data to the Well Permit Desk. This report must include all items required by the SAM Manual, Section 5, Pages 6 & 7. 6. This office must be given 48-hour notice of any drilling activity on this site and advanced notification of drilling cancellation. Please contact the Well Permit Desk at 619) 338-2339. APPROVED BY: m ~k DATE: 0710612007 MARl SUE CRY AL NOTIFIED: DEH:SAM-9075 (4/03) APPENDIX APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING We performed laboratory tests in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. We tested selected samples for their in-place dry density and moisture content, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, shear strength, expansion index, soluble sulfate characteristics, pH and resistivity, Atterberg Limits, resistance value (R-Value), organic content, gradation, and consolidation characteristics. The results of our laboratory tests are presented in Tables B-1 through B-VII and Figures B-1 and B-2. In addition, the in-place dry density and moisture content results are presented on the exploratory boring logs. TABLE B-1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557-02 Sample Maximum Optimum No. Description Dry Density Moisture Content (pcf) (% dry wt.) Bl-l Dark olive brown, Clayey, fine to medium 135.9 7.1 SAND with trace gravel TABLE B-II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ASTM D 3080-04 Moisture Content Angle of Sample Dry Density (%) Unit Cohesion Shear Resistance No. (pcf) (psf) (degrees) Initial Final Bl-l 122.4 6.9 14.7 400 32 *Sample remolded to approximately 90 percent of maximum dry density near optimum moisture content. Project No. 07861-52-01 - B-1 - August 7, 2007 TABLE B-II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D 4829-03 Moisture Content Sample Dry Density Expansion UBC No. Before Test After Test (pet) Index Classification (%) (%) Bl-l 8.8 17.1 113.4 30 Low TABLE B-IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS (CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417) Sample No. Water Soluble Sulfate Sulfate Rating* Content (percent) Bl-l 0.001 Negligible *Reference: 1997 Uniform Building Code Table 19-A-4. TABLE B-V SUMMARY OF LABORATORY POTENTIAL OF HYDROGEN (pH) AND RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 643 Sample No. pH Minimum Resistivity (obm-centimeters) Bl-l 8.1 1352 B3-1 8.4 811 B5-1 8.1 453 Project No. 07861-52-01 - B-2 - August 7. 2007 TABLE B-VI SUMMARY OF LABORATORY ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS ASTM 04318-05 Sample Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity No. (%) (%) Index BI-I 33 15 18 TABLE B-VII SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESISTANCE VALUE (R-VALUE) TEST RESULTS ASTM 0 2844-01 Sample No. BI-I R-Value 10 TABLE B-VIII SUMMARY OF LABORATORY ORGANIC MATTER TEST RESULTS ASTM 02974 Sample Moisture Content Organic Matter No. (%) (%) BI-I 2.4 2.1 Project No. 07861-52-01 - B-3 - August 7, 2007 PROJECT NO. 07861-52-01 GRAVEL COARSE FINE SAND COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT OR CLAY 3" 100 1-1/2" 3/4" U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE ~3050 3/8" ~ I ,'10 'IITrhirT'~OimfrTTr 90 80 I- 70 ::c Cl ~ 60 >- CO 0::: LU 50 Z ü: I- Z 40 LU Ü 0::: LU 30 0- 20 10 0 mT I!~ Jl' . urn I I , ! i '! :; '+ I ! II ' I IT" I , i , ii' I II Ì'-.~' ! ' ! I: I ,I t I I i' - I I I l' I I 1 'I I 1', I I I I "lI I , I I I Ì\ I , I I ,I I .. I .1 II I I I I \ 'I I I ~ I , I I I I ! I I 1,1 '\ i I II I I , I I I , I , Ii I I I , , I I , I I , I \ , , I I Ii I I I I I ì ........... I I Ì'-..........' I I II II I I N~ - I I " r-- ~ I I , I I Ii I I I : I I I . II 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS . SAMPLE 81-1 DEPTH (ft) 1.5 SM-SC CLASSIFICATION NATWC LL PL PI GRADATION CURVE WAl-MART POWAY EXPANSION STORE NO. 1700-05 POWAY, CALIFORNIA 07861-52-01.GPJ Figure B-1 GEOeON PROJECT NO. 07861-52-01 SAMPLE NO. B3-3 o I I I I f , ì t-- ì -' ,-- -..,..... I , '.....;--..1 j i j-, ~ i I I , I 1 I ""'Ì', I , 1 ì , I...... r- , r-i- '~ ' , i ! --- 1'-.' , i --..... r--- l- i'- I ; r-_~ ; I ! I ì I I , I II I I I I , ! I 1 ! I i I I 10 o -4 -2 2 z 0 ~ Cl 4 ::ï 0 (f) Z 0 Ü I- 6 z UJ Ü 0::: UJ 0.. 8 10 12 14 0.1 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pet) Initial Water Content ('Yo) 108.6 19,8 Initial Saturation ('Yo) Sample Saturated at (kst) 99.9 .150 CONSOLIDATION CURVE WAL-MART POWAY EXPANSION STORE NO. 1700-05 POWAY, CALIFORNIA 07861-52-01.GPJ Figure B-2 GEDeON APPENDIX APPENDIX C GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FACT SHEET AND FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA FOR WAL-MART POWAY EXPANSION STORE NO. 1700-05 EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 07861-52-01 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FACT SHEET PROJECT LOCATION: 13425 Community Road, Poway, California Engineer: Nasland Engineerin~ Phone #: (858) 292-7770 Geotechnical Engineering Co.: Geocon Incorporated Report Date: August 7,2007 Ground Water Elevation: 490 MSL Fill Soils Characteristics: SM to SC and CL (likely derived from excavations within older alluvium) Date Groundwater Measured: July 19,2007 Maximum Liquid Limit: 33 Topsoil/Stripping Depth (where applies): N/A Maximum Plasticity Index: Undercut (If Required): 5 feet Specified Compaction: 90 percent Modified Proctor Results: (Attach plots.) Moisture Content Range: Near to slightly above Optimum Moisture Content Recommended Compaction Control Tests: 1 Test for Each 5,000 1 Test for Each 5,000 Sq. Ft. each 2-foot Lift (bldg. area) Sq. Ft. each 2-foot Lift (parking area) Structural Fill Maximum Lift Thickness: 8 inches (Measured loose) Subgrade Design R-Value = COMPONENT ASPHALT standard heavy CONCRETE standard heavy Stabilized Subgrade (If Applicable) N/A N/A N/A N/A Base Material (Class 2 Aggregate Base) 14Vl 16 -.L Asphalt Base Course *Note: For Standard Asphalt use V2-max Base Course -L 3 Leveling Binder Course N/A N/A Surface Course -L NOTE: This information shall not be used separately from the geotechnical report. Project No. 07861-52-01 - C-I - August 7,2007 FOUNDA TION DESIGN CRITERIA Include this form in the Geotechnical Report as an Appendix. PROJECT LOCATION: 13425 Community Road, Poway, California Engineer: Nasland Engineering Phone #: (858) 292-7770 Geotechnical Engineering Co.: Geocon Incorporated Report Date: August 7, 2007 Foundation type: Shallow Continuous or Spread Footings Allowable bearing pressure: 2,000 psf for Compacted Fill Only Factor of Safety: Minimum footing dimensions: Individual: 2 feet Continuous: 12 inches Minimum footing embedment: Exterior: 24 inches Interior: 24 inches Frost depth: Maximum foundation settlements: Total: Differential: Y2-inch over span of 40 feet Slab: Potential vertical rise: Capillary Break (not a vapor barrier) describe: 4-inch layer of 3/8-inch crushed aggregate Subgrade reaction modulus: 100 to 150 psi/in Compacted fill Method obtained: Compacted Fill 95 percent in upper 12-inches of Slab, 90 percent below 12-inches Active Equivalent Fluid Pressures: 35 pcf (horizontal backfill) 50 pcf (2:1 sloped backfill) Passive Equivalent Fluid Pressures: 350 pcf Perimeter Drains (describe): Building: Retaining Walls: %-inch crushed aggregate wrapped in filter fabric with 4-inch PVC pipe sloped to positive outlet (see Figure 4 of Geotechnical Investigation) Cement Type: No specific requirements for "negligible" sulfate potential. See UBC Table 19-A-4 for other concrete design criteria. Retaining Wall: At rest pressure: 57 pcf for Conventional Retaining Walls (horizontal backfill) Coefficient of friction: COMMENTS: Project No. 07861-52-01 - C-2 - August 7, 2007 APPENDIX APPENDIX D PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATIONS Determination of Traffic Index Traffic Index (TI) 9.0(ESAL/I06)0119 (Reference: Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Section 603.4) Standard-Duty Pavement ESAL = 43,800 (20 year design life) TI = 9.0 (43,800/106)0119 TI = 6.2 (Round to 6.0) Heavy-Duty Pavement ESAL = 335,800 (20 year design life) TI = 9.0 (335,800/106)0119 TI = 7.9 (Round to 8.0) STANDARD-DUTY PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATIONS Asphalt Concrete Section Use subgrade R-Value 10.0 Traffic Index (TI) = 6.0 Methodology = CALTRANS Highway Design Manual Section 608.4 GE for AC = (0.0032)( 6.0)(100-78.0) = 0.42 feet from Table 608.4B Highway Design Manual GE = 0.42 feet for AC yields actual thickness = 2.18 inches Use 3.0 inches of AC GE for 3.0 inches of AC = 0.42 feet GE for base = (0.0032)( 6.0)(100- 10.0) - 0.42 = 1.31 feet from Table 608.4B Highway Design Manual with GF for Class 2 base = 1.1 Base thickness = 14.27 inches Use base thickness = 14.5 inches *** Design AC Street Structural Section - Standard-Duty Pavement*** Asphalt Concrete Thickness = 3.0 inches. Class 2 Aggregate Base Thickness = 14.5 inches. Project No. 07861-52-01 - D-1 - August 7, 2007 HEAVY-DUTY PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATIONS Asphalt Concrete Section Use subgrade R-Value = 10.0 Traffic Index (TI) = 8.0 Methodology = CAL TRANS Highway Design Manual Section 608.4 GE for AC = (0.0032)( 8.0)(100-78.0) = 0.56 feet from Table 608.4B Highway Design Manual GE = 0.56 feet for AC yields actual thickness = 3.36 inches Use 5.0 inches of AC GE for 5.0 inches of AC 0.84 feet GE for base (0.0032)(8.0)(100-10.0) - 0.84 1.46 feet from Table 608.4B Highway Design Manual with GF for Class 2 base 1.1 Base thickness 15.97 inches Use base thickness = 16.0 inches *** Design Street Structural Section - Heavy-Duty Pavement *** Asphalt Concrete Thickness = 5.0 inches. Class 2 Aggregate Base Thickness = 16.0 inches. Project No. 07861-52-01 - D-2 - August 7, 2007 APPENDIX APPENDIX E RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR WAL-MART EL POWAY EXPANSION STORE NO. 1700-05 POWAY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 07861-52-01 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. GENERAL 1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The recommendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. 1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly. 1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed. 2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work. 2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topography. GI rev. 10/06 2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. 2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications. 2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading. 2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply. 3. MATERIALS 3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as defined below. 3.1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than % inch in size. 3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches. 3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than % inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity. GI rev. 10/06 3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills. 3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written repOlt to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations. 3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant. 3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil. 3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition 4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED 4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1 Yz inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. BOlTOW areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials. GI rev. 10/06 4.2 Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document. 4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. 4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5: 1 (horizontal: vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration. TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL Finish Grade í Finish Slope Surface Remove All Unsuitable Material As Recommended By Consultant Slope To Be Such That Sloughing Or Sliding Does Not Occur I I "B" I . See Note 1 . See Note 2 No Scale DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant. OJ rev. 10/06 4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6 of these specifications. 5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT 5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content. 5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3. 6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL 6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications. 6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557-02. 6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified. 6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified. GI rev. 10/06 6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557-02. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill. 6.1.6 Where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. 6.1. 7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph. 6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice. 6.2 Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper. 6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maXimum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement. GI rev. 10/06 6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment. 6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant. 6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow. 6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil In the windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant. 6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water. 6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the GI rev. 10/06 required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill. 6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196-93, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required minimum number of passes of the compaction equipment. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two. 6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to observe that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading. 6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills. 6.3.6 To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement. 6.3.7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the Consultant. or rev. ] 0106 7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING 7.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner's representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted. 7.2 The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the patticular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved. 7.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied. 7.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading. 7.5 The Consultant should observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications. 7.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate: OJ rev. 10/06 7.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills: 7.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556-02, Density of Soil In-Place By the Sand-Cone Method. 7.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 2922-01, Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). 7.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557-02, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using IO-Pound Hammer and I8-lnch Drop. 7.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829-03, Expansion Index Test. 7.6.2 Rock Fills 7.6.2.1 Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D 1196-93 (Reapproved 1997) Standard Methodfor Nonreparative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and Highway Pavements. 8. PROTECTION OF WORK 8.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures. 8.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant. GI rev. ) 0106 9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS 9.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions. 9.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications. GI rev. 10/06 LIST OF REFERENCES 1. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 1993, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2. Blake, T. F., EQFAULT, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, User's Manual, 1989a, p.79 (Revised 2000). 3. Blake, T. F., FRISKSP, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources, User's Manual, 1989a (Revised 2000). 4. Blake, T. F., UBCSEIS, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Uniform Building Coefficients Using 3-D Fault Sources, Users Manual, 1989a, p. 79 (Revised 2000). 5. Cal(fornia Highway Design Manual, State of Californian Department of Transportation, Fifth Edition, July 1, 1995. 6. Geotechnical Investigation for Poway Retail Center, Poway, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated March 28, 1989 (Project No. D-4324-M01). 7. Geotechnical Investigation Specifications and Report Requirements, provided to Geocon Incorporated by Nasland Engineering, December 31, 2003. 8. ACI 330R-OI, Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots, reported by ACI Committee 330. 9. Jennings, C. W., Fault Activity Map of California And Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, California Geological Survey, formerly California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994. 10. McGuire, R. K., FRISK: Computer Program for Seismic Risk Analysis Using Faults as Earthquake Sources, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-1007, 1978. 11. Nasland Engineering, Wal-Mart #2253-05 El Cajon, CA, Expansion Plan Option A, Sheet CP-05, Well-Mart Stores, Inc., Bentonville, AR, April 16, 2006. 12. Sadigh, et ai., Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on California Strong Motion Data. Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No.1, JanuarylFebruary, pp. 180-189, 1997. 13. Tan, S. S., 2002, Geologic Map of the Poway 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, San Diego, California. 14. Unpublished reports, aerial photographs and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated. Project No. 07861-52-01 August 7, 2007