131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com 131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE ONǦCALL (ASǦNEEDED)
GEOTECHNICAL PLAN CHECK SERVICES
Prepared For:
City of San Clemente
Attn: Mr. Zak Ponsen
910 Calle Negocio, Suite 100
San Clemente, California 92673
$WWDFKPHQW
131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com
ʹͲǡʹͲʹͷ
ǡǤǤ
City of San Clemente
ͻͳͲ
ǡͳͲͲ
ǡͻʹ͵
Subject: Proposal to Provide OnǦCall (AsǦNeeded) Geotechnical Plan Check Services for the City of San Clemente, California
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ Ǥ ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
ͳǡͲͲͲ
ʹͺ
Ǥ ǡ
ͳͷ
Ǥǡ
ǯ
ǯ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ͳ͵ͳ
ǡ ʹͲͲǡ ǡ ͻʹʹǡ ȋͻͶͻȌ ͵ͻǦͳͶͳǤ Ǥ
ȋͻͶͻȌ ͶͳʹǦͲͶͺ
ȋ
̷
Ǥ
ȌǤ
Ǥ
ǯ
ǡǡ
Ǥ
ͻͲǤ
Ǥ ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
LGC Geotechnical, Inc.
Ǥǡ
ǣ ȋ͵Ȍȋ͵Ǧ
Ȍ
LGC Geotechnical, In
TOC January 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
BACKGROUND AND APPROACH....................................................................................................... 1
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹ METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 2 WORK PLAN.......................................................................................................................................... 4 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING..................................................................................... 5
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͷ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤ RESUMES FOR KEY TECHNICAL TEAM MEMBERS ....................................................................... 7 ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͺ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳ͵
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳͷ
ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤͳͻ ǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹͳ Related Experience ..........................................................................................................................23 Sample Plan Review Correction Lists & Forms .........................................................................24 Project Schedule ...............................................................................................................................25 Cost Data .............................................................................................................................................25 Statement of Compliance ................................................................................................................25 Local Experience MattersǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹͷ NonǦDiscriminationǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤǤʹ Included with Submittal:ʹͲʹͶ
Background and Approach
ǡ
Ǥ ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ȋ
ǤǤȌ
ȋǤǤ
ǤȌǤ
ǯ Ǥ
ǡ
Ǧ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡǡ
ǡ ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǣǡ
ǡǡǡ
ǡ ǡ ǡ
Ǥ
Ǧ
ȋȌ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡǦǦǦ
ǡ
ǡǡ
Ǥ
ǤǡǦ
Ǥ
ǯ
Ǥ
ͷ ǡ
ͷǡͲͲͲǡͳǡͲͲͲǡͲͲͲ
ǡʹͷ
ǡͳͲͲ
Ǥ
ǯ
ǡ ǡ
Ǥ ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡǡ
ǡ
ȋ
ǣ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǧ
ǡ Ȍǡ
Ǥ
ǡ ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡͳǤͷǤ
Ǥ
Geotechnical Engineering
x
x
ȋȌ
x
x
x
x
Ȁ
x
x
x
Ȁ
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x Ȁ
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Ǧ
x
Engineering Geology
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Methodology
ȋȌ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ʹͲʹʹ
ȋȌǡ
ͳͳǦ
ȋʹͲͲͺȌǤǡ
ǯ
ǡ
ǡʹͶ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǣǦǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ
ǡ ȋ
ǣ
ǡƬǡǦ ǡȌǡ
Ǥ
ȋȌ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǯǡǡ Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǧ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǯ
Ȁ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ ǡ
Ǥ ǡ Ǧ
ǯ Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǧ
ǡ
ǡ ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥǡ
Dz
dz
Ǥ Ǧ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡǦǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǯ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǯ
ǡ
ǯ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥǡ
ǡ Ǧ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǯ
Ǥ
Work Plan
Ǥ
ǦȀǡ
ǯ Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥǯ
ǯ
Ǥǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǯ
Ȁ
Ǥ ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ ǡ
Ȁ
ǯ
Ǥǡ Ǧǡ Ǧ
ǯ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ Ǧǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
Project Organization and Staffing
Project Management
ǯ
ǡ Ǥ Ǥ
ǤǤ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ ǡ
ǡǯ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡǤ
ǡ
ǡ
ǤǤ
ǯ
͵Ͳ
ǡ
ǤǤ
Ǥ
ǣ
ǯ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǤǤ
ǡǡ
ȋͻͶͻǦͶͳʹǦͲͶͺȌ
ȋ
̷
Ǥ
ȌǤǤ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ǤǤ
ǯ
ʹͷ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
±± ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
Resumes for Key
Technical Team Members
KEVIN B. COLSON, CEG, PG
EDUCATION
x ǤǤǡ
ǡǡǡǡͳͻͻ x ǤǤǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡǡͳͻͻ͵
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
x ǡ
ǡ
ʹʹͳͲ
x ǡ
ǡ
ͳͳͻ
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
ǡ Ǥ ʹͷ
Ǥ
ǣǡ
ǡǡǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ ǯ
ǣ Ǣ ȋ
ȌǢ Ǣ Ǣ
Ǣ
ǢǢǤǤ
ǣ
Ǧ
Ǧ
ǢǦ
Ǣ Ǣ
Ǣ
ǤǤǡ
Ǥ
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
x
ǡǤ
ʹͲʹ͵ǡ
ǤǤ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǧ
Ǧ
Ǥ
ǤǤ ǡ
ǤǦ
Ǧ
ͻͺǡͳͲͲǦǦ
ǡǤ
ǡ
ǤǤ
ǤǤ
ǡ ǡ Ǥ
x
ͻͷǦ
ǡ Ǥ
ǡ
ǡǦ
Ǧǡ
Ǧǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǤǤ
Ǥ
x
ǡ
ǤǤ
ǡ
ǦǤǦǦǤ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ Ǥ
ǤǤ
Ǥ
x
ǡ
Ǧ
Ǧ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǧ
ǤǦǦǤ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
ʹͳǡ ͳʹͲǦǦ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǤǤ
Ǥ
x
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǦǤǦ Ǧ Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ Ǧ
ǦǤ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
x
ǡ
ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǧǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ͳͶͺǡ ͳʹͲǦǦ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǤǤ
Ǥ
x
Ǧ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǦǤǦǦǤ
Ǥ
ǡ
ȋȌǤ ǡ
Ǧ
Ǧ
Ǥ
x
ǡǤ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ʹͶͺǡ ʹͲͲǦǦ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǤǤ
Ǥ
x
ͶͶͲǦ
ǡ Ǥ
ͳ
ʹǤ
ǣ
Ǧ ͷͶǦ
Ǣ Dz
dz
ʹͶͳȀʹͳǢǦ Ǧ
ʹͶͳȀʹͳǢǦǢ Ǣ ǢǢǢ
Ǣ
ǢǤǤ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǣ
Ǣ ͲǦǦ
ͳǤͷǣͳǢ
Ǥ
x
ͺͶǦ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ͳͲͷ͵ʹͲǡ
Ǥ
x
Ǥ
ǡ ǡ
ʹͲǦǦ
ͺͲͲ Ǥ
Ǧ
Ǥ
x
ͳͲͲǦ
ǡǤ ǡ
ͳǡʹͲͲ
Ǥ
Ǥ
x
ͳͷͲǦ
ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡǡ
Ǥ
x
ͶͳͲǦ
ǡ Ǥ
ͳͺ
ȋͺǡͷͳͲȌ Ǧ
Ǥ
x
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ ǡ ǡ
Ǥ
x
ǡ
ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ ǦǦ
ǡ
Ǥ
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
ʹͲͳͲǦǣ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥǡǡ
ʹͲͲǦ
ʹͲͳͲǣ
ǡƬ
ǡ
Ǥǡǡ
ʹͲͲʹǦʹͲͲǣ
ǡƬ
ǡ
Ǥǡ
ǡ
ʹͲͲͳǦʹͲͲʹǣ
ǡƬ
ǡ
Ǥǡǡ
ͳͻͻͶǦʹͲͲͳǣ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥǡǡ
PUBLICATIONS
ǡǤǤǡ
ǡǤǡͳͻͻͶǡ
ǡ
ǡǣ
ǡǤʹǡǤʹǡǤͶͷǤ
ǡǤǤǡ
ǡǤǤǡǡǤǤǡǡ
ǤǤǡͳͻͻͷǡ
Ǧ
ǡǡǣ
ǡǤʹǡǤͷǡǤͳͳǤ
ǡ Ǥǡ ǡ ǤǤǡ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǥǡ ͳͻͻͷǡ
ǡ
ǡǡǡ
ǤǤǡǡǤǤǡǡǤǤǡǤǡ
ǣǤǤǤǤǡ
ǤǡͷͷǦǤ
DENNIS BORATYNEC, GE, PE
EDUCATION
x Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡǡǡǡǡʹͲͲ͵ x Ǥ
Ǥǡǡǡǡǡͳͻͻͷ
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
x ǡ
ǡ
ʹͲ
x ǡǡͲͳ
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
ǡ Ǥ
ǤǤ
ǯ
ʹͷ
Ǥ
ǣ ǡ
ǡǡǡ
ǤǤ
ǯ
ǣ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǧ
ǤǤ
Ǥ Ǥ
ǡǡǡǤ
SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
x
Ȁǡ͓ͶǡǤ
Ǥ
x
Ȁǡ ̶ǡdz Ǥ
ǡǤ
x
Ȁǡ ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ x
Ȁǡ
ǡ ǡ Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
x
Ȁǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
x
Ȁǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
x
Ȁǡ
ǡǤ
Ǥ
x
Ȁǡ ǡ Ǥ
ǡǡ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
x
Ȁǡ ǡ Ǥ
ͳͳͷ
ǡ
Ǥ
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
ʹͲͳͲǦǣ
ǡ
Ǥǡǡ
ʹͲͲǦ
ʹͲͳͲǣ
ǡ Ƭ
ǡ
Ǥǡ ǡ
ʹͲͲͳǦʹͲͲǣ
ǡ Ƭ
Ǥǡ
ǡ
ͳͻͻͺǦʹͲͲͳǣ
Ȁǡ ǡ ǡ
ǡ
Ǥǡ
ǡ
ͳͻͻǣ
ǡǦǡ
ǡ
HONORS AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
PUBLICATION
Ȉ
ǡǤ
ǤǡʹͲͲ͵ǡDz dzǡǤ ǤǤ
TIMOTHY J. LAWSON, GE, PE, CEG, PG
EDUCATION
x ǤǤȋȌ
ǡǡǡͳͻͺͷ
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
x ʹͲͲ͵Ȁ
ȀȀ
ʹʹ
x ͳͻͻͷȀȀȀͷ͵͵ͺͺ
x ͳͻͻʹȀ
ȀȀ
ͳͺʹͳ ͳͻͻͳȀ
ȀȀ
ͷ͵͵
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Ǥǯ
Ǥ
ǣ ǡ
ǡ
ǡ Ǧ
ǡ
ǡǡ
ǡǤ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǣ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ Ǥ Ǥ
ǦǦ
Ǧ Ǥ
ǣ
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
x
ǡ Ǥ
ǡǤ x ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
x
ǡǤ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
x
ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
ͺͲͲǦ
ǦǤ
ǡ
Ǥ
x
ǡǤ
ǡ
Ǥǡ
ǡǡͳͷǦǡ ͳʹ
Ǧ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ Ǥ Ǥ
x
ǡǤ
ʹǦǦǡ
ͳǦ
Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǯ
ǡ
Ǥ
x
ͷǦ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥͳ͵ Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ͶͲǦ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
x
ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
x
ǡǤ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
x
ǡǤ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
x
ǡ Ǥ Ǥ
Ǥ
ǯǡ
Ǥ
x
Ǣ Ǧ
ǡ
ǡ ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
x
Ȁ
ǡ
ǡǤǤ
ǡ
Ͷͳͻͳͳ
Ǥ
x
Ȁ
ǡ ʹͲͲͶǦʹͲͲͷǤ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
x
ǡ Ǥ Ǥ
Ǧ
ǡ
ǡǡ
ǤǤǤ Ǥ
x
Dz
dz ǡ ǡ Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
x
Ȁ
ǡ ǡǤǤ
ʹͷͲǦ
Ǥ
ǡ ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǦǦǤ
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
ʹͲͳͳǦǣ
ʹͲͲͳǦʹͲͳͳǣ ǡƬ
ǡ
Ǥǡǡ
ʹͲͲͲǦʹͲͲͳǣ
ʹͲͲͲǣ
ǡ
ǡǡ
ͳͻͻͺǦʹͲͲͲǣ
ǡ
Ȁ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ͳͻͻǦͳͻͻͺ
Ȁ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ͳͻͻͶǦͳͻͻǣ
Ȁ
Ȁ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ͳͻͺͻǦͳͻͻͶǣ ȀȀ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ͳͻͺͺǦͳͻͺͻǣ ǡ
Ƭ
ǡ
ͳͻͺͷǦͳͻͺǣ
ǡ ǡǡ
HONORS AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
x
x
SELECTED LANDSLIDE EXPERIENCE
x Ȃ
x Ȃ
Ȃ
x
ȋȌȂ x
ȋȌȂ x
Ȃ
x Ȃ
x Ȃ
x
ȋȌȂ
x Ȃ
x
Ȃ
x Ȃ
SELECTED LEGAL/EXPERT EXPERIENCE
x
ǡǡ
x
ǡǡ x
ǡǡ
x
ǡ
ǡ
x
ǡǡ x
ǡ ǡ
ǡǡ
BRAD ZELLMER, PE, GE
EDUCATION
x ǤǤǡ
ǡǡͳͻͻ
x ǤǤǡ ǡͳͻͻ͵
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS
x
ȀȀ
ʹͳͺȀʹͲͲ͵
x ȀȀͷͺͲͶȀͳͻͻͺ x
Ȁ
Ȁͳͳ
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Ǥ
ǯ
ǡ
Ǧ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡǡ
ȋ
ȌǤ
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
x ͺǤͷǦǦ Ȁ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǦǦ
Ǥ
ǡ
ȋȌǤ
Ǧ
ǡ
ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
x ǡǤ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
x ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǥ
Ǧ
ǡ
Ǥ
ʹͺ
ǦǦǤ
x ȋȌ ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
x ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ ͳͶ
Ǥ
x
ǡ Ǥ
Ǧ Ǧ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
x
ͳǤ͵ǯ ǡ
Ǥ
ǡǡ
Ǥ
x
ǡǤ
͵ͲͲǦǦ
Ǧ Ǥ
x
ͳǦ ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
x
ǡǤ
Ǥ
Ǥ
x
ǡ Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ͳͷǦǦ Ǧ
Ǥ
x
Ǧ
ǡ Ǥ
ǡ ǡ ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
ʹͲͳʹǦǣ
ǡ
Ǥǡǡ
ʹͲͲͻǦʹͲͳͳǣ ǡ
Ǥǡ ǡ
ʹͲͲͺǦʹͲͲͻǣ ǡ
Ǥǡǡ
ʹͲͲ͵ǦʹͲͲͺǣ
ǡƬ
ǡ
Ǥǡǡ
ͳͻͻǦʹͲͲ͵ǣ ȀȀ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ͳͻͻǣ
ǡ
ǡǡ
ͳͻͻͷǣ
ǡƬ
ǡ
ǡ
RYAN DOUGLAS, PE, GE
EDUCATION
x Ǥ
Ǥǡ
ǡ ǡʹͲͳͶ x Ǥ
Ǥǡ ǡʹͲͳͳ
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
x ǡ
ǡ
͵ͳͶ
x ǡǡͺͶͺͶͲ
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
ǡ Ǥ
ǤǤ ǯ
ǯ
ͳ͵
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡǡǡ
ǤǤǯ
ǡ ǡǡ
ǡ ǡ ǡ
ǡ
ǡǡǡ Ǥ
ǡ ǡ ǡ
Ǥ
SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
x
ȀǡͺǦ
ǡͷͲͲǡ Ǥ
ǡ
ȋȌ ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
x
Ȁǡ ǡ Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
x
Ȁǡ ͳǦ
ǡ Ǥ
ʹͷǤ
ǡ
Ǥ
x
Ȁǡ
ǡ Ǥ
ͳͲǦ
Ǥ
x
ǡ ͻǦ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
x
Ȁǡ
ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
x
ǡ ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ ͳǡͶͲͲ Ǥ x
Ȁǡ ǡǤ
ǯ
Ǥ
x
ǡ Ǥ
ǡ
ǯ
Ǥ
ͺ ͳʹ
ʹǡͲͲͲǤ
x
ǡ
ǡ Ǥ
ǡ
ͳǦ
ͶǡͷͲͲǤ
x
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ ͳͺ ͵Ǧ
ͳǡʹͲͲǤ
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
ʹͲͳǦǣ
ǡ
ǡ
Ǥǡǡ
ʹͲͳͳǦʹͲͳǣ
ǡǡǡ
ǡ
Ǥǡ
ǡ
PUBLICATION
x ǡǤǤǡǡǤǤǡʹͲͳͶǡDz
Ǧ ǦdzǡǤ
ǤǤ
Related Experience
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ
Ǥ
References for Plan Check:
City of San Clemente
Ǥ
ǡ
ͻͳͲ
ǡͳͲͲ
ǡͻʹ͵
ǣȋͻͶͻȌ͵ͳǦͳ͵ͷ
Geotechnical Services Provided: Plan Review Services
Ǥ ͳͷ Ǥ ǡ
Ǥ
Ǧ ǡ
ǡ Ǧ Ǥ Ǧ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ ǡ
ǡ Ǥ
̈́ͷͲǤ
ʹͲͳͲǤ
City of San Juan Capistrano
Ǥǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
͵ʹͶͲͲ
ͻʹͷ
ǣȋͻͶͻȌͶͺǦͶ͵ͳ͵
Geotechnical Services Provided: Plan Review Services
ͳͷǤ
ͷ
͵Ͳ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǧ
Ǥ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ Ǧ
ǡ Ǥ
̈́͵Ͳ Ǥ
ʹͲͳͲ
Ǥ
Ǥ
References for City Administered Development:
City of San Clemente
Ǥǡ
ͻͳͲ
ǡͳͲͲ
ǡͻʹ͵
ǣȋͻͶͻȌ͵ͳǦͳ͵Ͳ
Geotechnical Services Provided: Consulting on Various City of San Clemente Improvements
ͳͷǡ
Ǥ
ǣ
ǡ
ǡ Ǧ
ǣ Ǧ
Ǣ ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ȋ
ǡ Ȍ ǡ
ͻǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
̈́ͳͲǤ
ʹͲͳͲ Ǥ
Ǥ
Sample Plan Review Correction Lists & Forms
Ǧ
ȋȌǤ
Project Schedule
ǯǯ ͳʹ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
DzǦ ǡdzDzǦ
dzDz
dzǤ
Cost Data
ǦǦ
Ǥ ǡ
Ǧ
ȋ͵Ȍ
̈́ͳǡͺͲͲǤ
Ǥ
ʹͲʹͶ
ȋ
Ȍ Ǥ
Statement of Compliance
ǡ
Ǥ
Local Experience Matters
Ǧ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǯ
Ǥ
ǡ Ǧ
ǡ
ǡ ǡ Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǧǡ
Ǥ
ǯ
Ǥ
NonǦDiscrimination
ǡ
Ǧ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡ
ǡǡǡǡ
Ǥ
Sample Plan Review Correction
Lists & Forms
131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com October 19, 2018 Project No. 10113-01
Mr. Zak Ponsen
City of San Clemente
910 Calle Negocio, Ste. 100
San Clemente, California 92673
Subject: Third-Party Geotechnical Review, Updated Geotechnical Evaluation, Slope Repair, 715, 717, and 719 Avenida Columbo, of Tract 898, San Clemente, California Introduction
In accordance with your request, LGC Geotechnical has geotechnically reviewed the provided geotechnical response report (Nicoll, 2018e) to third-party geotechnical review comments regarding the proposed landslide repair west of 715, 717, and 719 Avenida Columbo of Tract 898, San Clemente, California (LGC Geotechnical, 2018c). Our review comments are based on the referenced documents and are in the context of our knowledge of the site and our experience in the vicinity of the site and with projects with similar geotechnical conditions.
Action
Geotechnical Report Recommended for Approval.
Geotechnical Report Recommended for Approval with the Following Conditions.
Geotechnical Report NOT Recommended for Approval and Requires Revisions and/or Additional Information. Please See Comments/Questions on the Following Page(s).
General Comment
It is and has been our opinion, that the model presented would be well served with additional subsurface evaluation and laboratory testing of the site materials to confirm the site conditions and parameters. This would enable “sizing” of the mitigation to be specific to the site conditions. Instead, it appears that the consultant has recommended a mitigation large enough, that any concerns regarding possible discrepancies in the model should inherently be mitigated. The consultant must still demonstrate, through appropriate analysis and utilizing justifiable parameters, that the completed site will be suitably stable for the reviewer to recommend the submittal for approval.
If the site geologic conditions are not well understood and soil parameters utilized in slope stability analysis are not representative of the actual site materials, the calculated factor of safety for temporary slope stability analysis could be misleading. Through appropriate analysis, utilizing justifiable parameters, the consultant Project No. 10113-01 Page 2 October 19, 2018
must demonstrate that they understand and recognize the temporary stability risks and will address them appropriately.
It should be considered that ultimately a comprehensive geotechnical report will be needed for use during site grading. The multiple submittals to date, would not serve well as a suitable guide to addressing the geotechnical aspects of the project during site grading.
The following comments should be addressed regarding the proposed development at the site. Responses to comments should be distributed to the third-party geotechnical reviewer LGC Geotechnical, Inc. (1 copy) and to the City of San Clemente (2 copies).
Based on our review, we have prepared the following preliminary list of our comments regarding the subject grading to be addressed by the project geotechnical consultant. 1) For Geologic Cross-Section A-A’: the eastern limit of the landslide depicted on the cross-section does not match the limits on the geotechnical map, please correct; please update the corresponding slope stability analysis accordingly.
2) The removal depths indicated on Cross-Sections A-A’ and G-G’, at their intersection are not consistent. Please correct; please update the corresponding slope stability analysis accordingly. 3) For Geologic Cross-Section B-B’: the eastern limit of the landslide depicted on the cross-section does not match the limits on the geotechnical map, please correct; please update the corresponding slope stability analysis accordingly. The revised section depicts a large portion of the landslide approximately 15-20’ shallower than previous; what new data justifies this revision? 4) The removal depths indicated on Cross-Sections B-B’ and G-G’, at their intersection are not consistent. Please correct; please update the corresponding slope stability analysis accordingly. 5) The rupture surface depths indicated on Cross-Sections B-B’ and F-F’, at their intersection are not consistent. Please correct; please update the corresponding slope stability analysis accordingly. 6) For Geologic Cross-Section C-C’: The cross-section and map both show proposed five to twentyfoot deep removals planned for Lot 6. Will temporary shoring be provided to protect the adjacent Lot 5 during remedial grading, which appears to be about ten feet higher in elevation than the subject lot? Please provide recommendations and parameters accordingly. 7) The removal depths indicated on Cross-Sections D-D’ and G-G’, at their intersection are not consistent. Please correct; please update the corresponding slope stability analysis accordingly. 8) The rupture surfaces and removal depths indicated on Cross-Sections F-F’ and G-G’, at their intersection are not consistent. Please correct; please update the corresponding slope stability analysis accordingly.
9) The removal depths and key elevation indicated on Cross-Section G-G’ are not consistent with the Geotechnical Map. Please reconcile.
10) With respect to the response to previous Comment No. 16 (LGC Geotechnical, 2018c) addressing temporary stability, please discuss the assumption used in the temporary stability calculations that fill within the shear key grading has progressed to an approximate elevation of roughly 480 feet.
This appears to be an interim condition.
11) Our records indicate that several previous third-party reviews have been provided for the subject project. Please reference and acknowledge consideration and address of the previous review sheets and associated comments.
Project No. 10113-01 Page 3 October 19, 2018
12) Please provide a final summary table of soil strength parameters for site soils (e.g., compacted fill, bedrock along and cross bedding, etc.) utilized for design. The response to previous Comment No. 14 (LGC Geotechnical, 2018c) provided a summary of factors of safety with respect to varying shear strengths of compacted fill.
13) We are in agreement that a significant amount of import will be required for the proposed grading.
However, it also appears that much of the fill to be placed will be derived from onsite materials.
Please verify that the required increase in shear strength for compacted fill can be achieved by performing laboratory testing of site materials remolded to 92 percent relative compaction.
Laboratory testing should be per applicable American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and industry standards. Laboratory testing should reflect the stress range of the proposed buttress fill. Please present laboratory test results in your response to this review sheet. 14) Based on the required shear strength necessitated by the slope stability analysis for the majority of the site fills, it would appear that specific requirements for imported material will be necessary.
Please provide a description of appropriate import material and explain the confirmational laboratory testing (type & frequency) to be performed to confirm compliance. 15) Please depict on the geotechnical map and applicable cross-sections the lateral and vertical extent of the area requiring an increased relative compaction criteria to 92 percent relative compaction. 16) The submittal indicates removals to bedrock material. Please provide temporary slope stability analysis for the condition with complete removal (i.e. no interim fill wedge to 480 feet). 17) Geotechnical consultant must review grading plans prior to construction to verify that their recommendations are implemented.
Limitations
Our limited evaluation of the subject report was intended to determine if the major geotechnical aspects of the project were reasonably analyzed and addressed within the general standard of care in our industry. No additional analysis nor independent investigation were performed. As with all geotechnical projects of this type, it is critical that the project geotechnical consultant confirm their provisional findings and recommendations during construction. The fact that we have reviewed the subject plans and report should not be considered an endorsement by LGC Geotechnical of these documents or of the construction operations that result from them.
Closure
Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report.
It should be understood that LGC Geotechnical has relied on the accuracy of documents, verbal information, and other material and information provided by you and other associated parties in preparation of this report.
LGC Geotechnical makes no warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy or completeness of information obtained from or compiled by others.
Project No. 10113-01 References October 11, 2018
References
California Geological Survey, 2002a, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the San Clemente 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 062, dated 2002. , 2002b, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, San Clemente Quadrangle, Official Map, Released:
June 21, 2002.
G.A. Nicoll, 2015, Response to Third-Party Review, Repair of Columbo Landslide, 715, 717, and 719 Avenida Columbo, Lots 6,7 and 8, Tract 898, San Clemente, CA, Project 6893-04.1, dated July 7, 2015. , 2016a, Updated Geotechnical Evaluation, Slope Repair Plans, 715, 717, & 719 Avenida Columbo, Tract 4942, San Clemente, California, Project 6893-04.2, dated March 23, 2016. , 2016b, Response to Review Sheet, Second Third Party Review, Repair of Columbo Landslide, 715, 717, and 719 Avenida Columbo, Lots 6, 7 and 8, Tract 898, San Clemente, California, Project 6893-
04.2, dated March 23, 2016.
, 2017a, Response to Geotechnical Review Sheet, Third, Third Party Geotechnical Review, Repair of Columbo Landslide, 715, 717, and 719 Avenida Columbo, Lots 6, 7, and 8 of Tract 898, San Clemente, California, Project 6893-04.3, dated February 24, 2017. , 2017b, Response to Geotechnical Review Sheet, dated March 29, 2017: Third Party Geotechnical Review, Repair of Columbo Landslide, 715, 717, and 719 Avenida Columbo of Tract 898, San Clemente, California, Project 6893-04.3, dated September 25, 2017. , 2018a, Addendum to G. A. Nicoll and Associates, Inc. Report Dated September 25, 2017, Response to Geotechnical Review Sheets dated March 29, 2017 and May 9, 20016 Revised Geotechnical Map and Cross Sections as requested., Project 6893-04.3, dated January 5, 2018. , 2018b, Avenida Columbo Slide Repair, San Clemente, California, Revised Geotechnical Map & Cross Sections, Project No. 6893-04.3, dated January 2018. , 2018c, Response to Third Party Review and Comments from LGC, Updated Geotechnical Evaluation, Slope Repair Plans, 715, 717, and 719 Avenida Columbo – Tract 898, San Clemente, California, dated November 17, 2017 Project No. 10113-01, G.A. Nicoll Project 6893-04-3, dated March 15, 2018.
, 2018d, Review of Geotechnical Evaluation, Slope Repair Plans, Slope Repair Plans, 715, 717, and 719 Avenida Columbo – Tract 898, San Clemente, California, dated November 17, 2017 Project No. 10113-01, G.A. Nicoll Project 6893-04, dated June 11, 2018. , 2018e, Seventh Response to Third-Party Geotechnical Review from LGC Geotechnical dated July 12, 2018 Slope Repair, 715, 717, and 719 Avenida Columbo, San Clemente, California, G.A. Nicoll Project 6893-04.3, dated August 6, 2018.
Project No. 10113-01 References October 19, 2018
LGC Geotechnical, 2012a, Third-Party Geotechnical Review, Geotechnical Submittals for Development of Portions of Tentative Parcel Map 2011-110, San Clemente, California, Project No. 10113-01, dated August 27, 2012.
, 2012b, Third-Party Geotechnical Review, Repair of Columbo Landslide, 715, 717, and 719 Avenida Columbo, Lots 6, 7, and 8 of Tract 898, San Clemente, California, Project No. 10113-01, dated November 15, 2012.
, 2015a, Third-Party Geotechnical Review, Geotechnical Submittals for Development of Portions of Tentative Parcel Map 2011-110, San Clemente, California, Project No. 10113-01, dated January 29, 2015.
, 2015b, Second Third-Party Geotechnical Review, Repair of Columbo Landslide, 715, 717, and 719 Avenida Columbo, Lots 6, 7, and 8 of Tract 898, San Clemente, California, Project No. 10113-01, dated March 18, 2015.
, 2016, Third Third-Party Geotechnical Review, Updated Geotechnical Evaluation, Slope Repair Plans, 715, 717, and 719 Avenida Columbo, of Tract 898, San Clemente, California, Project No. 10113-01, dated May 9, 2016.
, 2017a, Third-Party Geotechnical Review, Updated Geotechnical Evaluation, Slope Repair Plans, 715, 717, and 719 Avenida Columbo, of Tract 898, San Clemente, California, Project No. 10113-01, dated March 29, 2017.
, 2017b, Third-Party Geotechnical Review, Updated Geotechnical Evaluation, Slope Repair Plans, 715, 717, and 719 Avenida Columbo, of Tract 898, San Clemente, California, Project No. 10113-01, dated November 8, 2017.
, 2018a, Third-Party Geotechnical Review, Updated Geotechnical Evaluation, Slope Repair, 715, 717, and 719 Avenida Columbo, of Tract 898, San Clemente, California, Project No. 10113-01, dated February 20, 2018.
, 2018b, Third-Party Geotechnical Review, Updated Geotechnical Evaluation, Slope Repair, 715, 717, and 719 Avenida Columbo, of Tract 898, San Clemente, California, Project No. 10113-01, dated April 9, 2018.
, 2018c, Third-Party Geotechnical Review, Updated Geotechnical Evaluation, Slope Repair, 715, 717, and 719 Avenida Columbo, of Tract 898, San Clemente, California, Project No. 10113-01, dated July 12, 2018.
Peter and Associates, 1994, Geotechnical Recommendations for Repair of Property Located at 719 Avenida Columbo, San Clemente, California, JN94/G4002, dated June 9, 1994 (included within G.A. Nicoll, 2015).
, 2003, Geotechnical Recommendations for Repair of “Columbo Landslide”, Rear of Existing Peter and Adjacent Residences, 715, 717 and 719 Avenida Columbo, Lots 6, 7 and 8 of Tract 898, San Clemente, County of Orange, California, JN 00G0362, JN 03G3317, dated September 10, 2003.
Project No. 10113-01 References October 19, 2018
Peter Drilling & Contracting, Inc., 2012, Cover letter for submittal of Peter and Associates, 2003 Report, dated October 16, 2012.
Tan, 1999, Geologic Map of the San Clemente 7.5’ Quadrangle Orange and San Diego Counties, California:
A Digital Database Versions 1.0, California Division of Mines and Geology, Scale 1:24,000, dated 1999.
131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com April 29, 2021 Project No. 19206-01
Mr. Ron Nicholas
City of San Clemente
910 Calle Negocio, Suite 100
San Clemente, California 92673
Subject: ThirdǦParty Review of Geotek, Inc., Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation, Project Summer, Proposed Industrial Building, Calle Sombra & Calle Cordillera, San Clemente, Orange County, California
Reference: Geotek, Inc., 2021, Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation, Project Summer, Proposed Industrial Building, Calle Sombra & Calle Cordillera, San Clemente, Orange County, California, dated April 9, 2021.
Irvine Soils Engineering, Inc., 1997, Rough Graded Geotechnical Report Lots 4, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 13 through 16, Tract 12125, Rancho San Clemente, San Clemente, California, Job No: 01-3088-001-01-10, Log No: 7-8099, dated November 19, 1987.
Engineer: Robert Russell, GE 2042
Geologist: Edward LaMont, CEG 1892
Introduction
In accordance with your request, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. has performed a third-party geotechnical review of the above-referenced report by Geotek, dated April 9, 2021. Our review comments are based on the referenced documents and are in the context of our knowledge of the site and our experience in the vicinity of the site and with projects with similar geotechnical conditions.
Action
Geotechnical Report Recommended for Approval.
Geotechnical Report Recommended for Approval with the Following Condition (see comments below).
Geotechnical Report NOT Recommended for Approval and Requires Revisions and/or Additional Information. Please See the Following Comments/Questions.
Project No. 19206Ǧ01 Page 2 April 29, 2021
Comments
1. A copy of the Rough Graded Geotechnical Report applicable to the subject site (Irvine, 1987) was located in LGC Geotechnical’s library. For the benefit of the project, a copy has been included as an attachment to this review letter. Please review the report and update/revise the subject geotechnical evaluation report accordingly. The geologic map, cross-sections and analysis should be updated as needed, as should the project findings, conclusions and recommendations. Please prepare additional cross-sections if warranted. Please include buried geologic units, contacts, faults, and attitudes on the revised geologic map.
2. Please include proposed design grades on geologic cross-sections. Slope stability analysis should be performed based on the proposed site conditions.
3. The geologic map and cross-sections provided in the subject evaluation report (Geotek, 2021) are not consistent with the findings on the reports boring and trench logs. Please reconcile and/or revise. In addition, the map and cross-sections should also be updated based on the consultant’s review of the attached report (Irvine, 1987). For example, but not limited to:
a. Existing landslide material was found in Boring B-1 to depths up to approximately 80 feet below existing grade over intact bedrock material. However, nearby trenches T-10 and T-11 suggests bedrock was encountered at a depth of approximately 4 feet below existing grade. Please reconcile.
b. Boring B-1 indicates landslide material was encountered to a depth of 80 feet below the surface. However, the Geotechnical Map from the attached report (Irvine, 1987) appears to indicate Monterey Formation bedrock should have been encountered at shallow depth. Please reconcile.
c. The geology depicted on Cross-Section C-C’ is not consistent with that presented on the Boring B-1 log. Please reconcile.
d. The depiction of Boring B-1 on Cross-Section C-C’ does not appear to be accurately located. Please reconcile.
e. The legend provided on Cross Section B-B’ includes “Qafu”, but “Qaf” is depicted on the section. Please reconcile.
4. Please provide two geologic cross-sections perpendicular to each other through the proposed industrial building. The cross-sections should depict the design grade, existing site topography, property lines, proposed improvements, geologic contacts, recommended remedial grading and temporary construction slopes. The cross sections should be of sufficient length to allow modelling and evaluation of nearby slopes.
5. Please provide toe of slope setback recommendations and comment on the project’s compliance with the setback.
6. The selection of slope stability shear strength parameters appears to be based on the approximate depth the laboratory test samples were obtained from. Based on review of the shear strength data, considerable variability in shear strength parameters (e.g., phi and c) Project No. 19206Ǧ01 Page 3 April 29, 2021
within each unit was found with no particular correlation to depth. Additionally, it appears portions of the landslide material were reported to have higher shear strength parameters than the intact bedrock. Please provide engineering justification for the use of depth dependent shear strength parameters for slope stability calculations and/or revise the slope stability models and calculations assuming reasonable composite shear strength data, as necessary.
7. The boring logs and test pit logs suggests existing artificial fill soils are generally fine-grained.
However, the selected shear strength for the compacted artificial fill appears to represent a granular soil. Please review and justify the shear strength parameters used for artificial fill in the slope stability calculations based on the site soil conditions.
8. Please comment on the use of a cohesion intercept for the residual shear strength of a landslide rupture surface material.
9. Cross Section C-C’ and boring B-1 suggest buttressed landslide material with a rupture surface was left in place below the site; however, the slope stability calculations present only a circular search. Please perform pre-defined and block failure slope stability analysis searches along the rupture surface to determine the static and pseudo-static safety factors of the landslide block left in place below the site.
10. Based on the provided report (Irvine, 1987) and any other applicable available data, please evaluate and comment on the stability of the slope ascending from the southern portion of the site. In particular, evaluation of the stability of the slope should be performed in consideration of the proposed excavations into it and/or adjacent to it. Additional cross-sections and field work may be warranted to appropriately model and evaluate the conditions.
11. A retaining wall is proposed, cutting into the southern ascending slope, in close proximity to a water main and its easement. Please clarify how the wall type and construction method proposed will not encroach into the easement and will protect the easement and water line for both temporary and permanent conditions.
12. The outline of the site limits depicted on the historic aerial photographs of years 1938 and 1953 appear to be inaccurate. Please relocate.
13. The consultant should review the provided compaction report (Irvine, 1987) and comment if further quantitative analysis of the existing fill is warranted.
14. Please comment on the anticipated future settlement potential of the deep compacted artificial fill.
15. The consultant should perform confirmatory expansion index and corrosion (e.g., sulfate and chloride content) laboratory testing at the completion of grading to verify the preliminary foundation design findings and recommendations. Updated recommendations may be required.
16. The consultant should provide a statement indicating that impacts to adjacent (offsite) properties, slopes, structures and improvements as a result of site grading and construction are not anticipated or provide additional recommendations to protect these offsite improvements, as necessary.
3)K 2)<C)%3;5%#9K %<;BD9C#;CK :DBCK A)E5)FK #;&K #??A<E)K C3)K .;#9K ?A<7)%CK ?9#;BK 5)K 2A#&5;2 ?9#;BK /D;&#C5<;K ?9#;BK A)C#5;5;2K F#99K ?9#;BK )C%K 5;K <A&)AK C<K E)A51K C3#CK C3)K 2)<C)%3;5%#9 A)%<::);&#C5<;BK3#E)K$));K#??A<?A5#C)9HK5;%<A?<A#C)&K#;&K?A<E5&)K#&&5C5<;#9K2)<C)%3;5%#9 A)%<::);&#C5<;BK<AK:<&5.%#C5<;BKC<KC3)K2)<C)%3;5%#9KA)?<ACK#BK;)%)BB#AH
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
DAK B)AE5%)BKF)A)K?)A*>A:)&K DB5;2K C3)K &)2A))K<*K %#A)K#;&K B8599K<A&5;#A59HK)G)A%5B)&K D;&)AK B5:59#AK %5A%D:BC#;%)BK $HKA)?DC#$9)KB<59BK);25;))ABK#;&K2)<9<25BCBK?A#%C5%5;2K5;K C35BK<AKB5:59#AK9<%#96C5)BK <K <C3)AKF#AA#;CHK)G?A)BB)&K<AK5:?95)&K5BK:#&)K#BKC<KC3)K%<;%9DB5<;BK#;(K?A<*)BB5<;#9K#&E5%)K5;%9D&)&K 5;KC35BKA)?<ACK
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
5;%)A)9HK
H#;K<D29#BKK
K
A<7)%CK;25;))AK
#::K
CC#%3:);CBK AE5;)K
K
5BCA5$DC5<;K K &'A)BB))K)9)%CA<;5%K%<?IK
)E5;KK<9B<;KK
K
!5%)K
A)B5&);CK
)*)A);%)K<:5CC)&K*<AK
&
K
131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com April 7, 2022 Project No. 19206-01
City Project No. ENG22-048
Ms. Emily Sherwood
City of San Clemente
910 Calle Negocio, Suite 100
San Clemente, California 92673
Subject: ThirdǦParty Geotechnical Review of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Duplex, 129 Avenida Florencia, San Clemente, California
Report: Global Geo-Engineering, Inc., 2021, Geotechnical Investigation Report Update, New Single-Family Residential Development, 129 Avenida Florencia, San Clemente, California, Project No. 1741-04, dated November 18, 2021.
Engineer: Mohan B. Upasani, GE 2301
Geologist: Allan Kazem
Introduction
In accordance with your request, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. has performed a third-party geotechnical review of the above-referenced report by Global Geo-Engineering, Inc., dated November 18, 2021. Our review comments are based on the referenced documents and are in the context of our knowledge of the site and our experience in the vicinity of the site and with projects with similar geotechnical conditions.
Action
Geotechnical Report Recommended for Approval.
Geotechnical Report Recommended for Approval with the Following Condition (see comments below).
Geotechnical Report NOT Recommended for Approval and Requires Revisions and/or Additional Information. Please See the Following Comments/Questions.
Project No. 19206Ǧ01 Page 2 April 7, 2022
Comments
1. The reviewed reports indicate that a landslide, spanning multiple lots, failed below the site in 1978. The landslide was an internal failure of a portion of a larger ancient landslide. Please provide information and documentation on how the landslide failure was mitigated.
2. Please update the project Geologic Map to include the proposed grading and construction for the proposed development. Please also include recommended remedial grading, temporary construction slopes, temporary and permanent shoring, and proposed and existing landslide mitigation measures.
3. Please update Cross-Section A-A’ to include the proposed grading and construction for the proposed development. Please also include recommended remedial grading, temporary construction slopes, temporary and permanent shoring, and proposed and existing landslide mitigation measures.
4. Please provide appropriately located and oriented, additional geologic cross-sections where significant excavation will be required in close proximity to property lines. The cross-sections shall depict the design grade, site topography, property lines, proposed improvements, existing offsite adjacent improvements, geologic contacts and structure, recommended remedial grading, temporary construction slopes, temporary and permanent shoring, and proposed and existing landslide mitigation measures.
5. The slope stability analysis provided is over 17 years old and does not reflect the proposed development. Updated slope stability analysis should be performed and demonstrate a suitable, post-development, factor of safety for both the ancient and recent landslides. The analysis should be performed based on the proposed grading and development of the site.
6. The proposed caisson design parameters should be incorporated into the slope stability analysis to demonstrate the impact the proposed caissons have on increasing the safety factor to acceptable levels.
7. Please perform slope stability analysis to demonstrate and provide appropriate recommendations and parameters to ensure that the proposed project shall not cause substantial risk or damage to the adjacent properties and improvements.
8. The bedding attitudes reported in the Capistrano Formational material are much steeper than typically encountered in this area. Please justify. Is there any concern that the steep bedding and “slight shearing” reported in bucket auger boring B-1 could be an indication of a deeper landslide?
9. The project development plans appear to depict the existing retaining wall, underlying undocumented fill and landslide debris, as well as undocumented fill and landslide debris to the south of the existing retaining wall as being left-in-place. Please comment on/discuss the suitability of this portion of the site.
10. The consultant should acknowledge and appropriately address the fact that the site is located in a Zone of Required Investigation for Earthquake-Induced Landslides for the Seismic Hazard Zone map for the Dana Point 7.5-minute quadrangle.
Project No. 19206Ǧ01 Page 3 April 7, 2022
11. Please comment on the use of site class “D” in lieu of site class “C” when considering the site is underlain by Capistrano formation bedrock at relatively shallow depths. Please update the seismic design parameters if necessary.
12. The recommendations for lateral earth pressures on retaining walls provided in the report appear to be suitable for granular soils and not highly expansive soil retaining wall backfill.
Please comment.
13. Please provide a horizontal span to apply the recommended differential static settlement.
14. Please clarify the statement:
“It should be noted that even with the deep caisson foundation, there may be a possibility of ground movement which could affect the performance of the proposed structures.”
15. Please clarify the statement:
“Any loosening of reworked or native material, consequent to the passage of construction traffic, weathering, etc., should be made good prior to further construction.”
16. Temporary and permanent shoring parameters and recommendations should be provided based on the on-site and off-site conditions. These should include consideration of the on-site and off-site left-in-place landslide debris, potential surcharge from detrimental structure within the landslide, of the rupture surface(s), and the steep bedrock bedding encountered.
Loading of adjacent structures should also be considered.
17. The geotechnical consultant must review and approve the final project plans (e.g., grading plans, foundation plans, shoring plans, retaining wall plans, etc.) in order to verify that the geotechnical recommendations have been appropriately incorporated and provide additional geotechnical recommendations or modifications to the geotechnical report, as necessary.
Limitations
Our limited evaluation of the subject report was intended to determine if the major geotechnical aspects of the project were reasonably analyzed and addressed within the general standard of care in our industry. No additional analysis nor independent investigation were performed. As with all geotechnical projects of this type, it is critical that the project geotechnical consultant confirm their provisional findings and recommendations during construction. The fact that we have reviewed the subject plans and report should not be considered an endorsement by LGC Geotechnical of these documents or of the construction operations that result from them.
Project No. 19206Ǧ01 Page 4 April 7, 2022
Closure
Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report.
It should be understood that LGC Geotechnical has relied on the accuracy of documents, verbal information, and other material and information provided by you and other associated parties in preparation of this report. LGC Geotechnical makes no warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy or completeness of information obtained from or compiled by others.
Should you have any questions regarding this review, please do not hesitate to contact our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
LGC Geotechnical, Inc.
Ryan Douglas, GE 3147 Kevin B. Colson, CEG 2210
Project Engineer Vice President
KBC/RLD/klr
Attachments: Appendix A – References
Distribution: (1) Addressee (electronic copy)
c.
7 Project No. 19206Ǧ01 Page 5 April 7, 2022
APPENDIX A
References
City of San Clemente, 1992, City of San Clemente Report Review Checklist, Geotechnical Report, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation to Evaluate Development Feasibility; Vacant lot at 129 Avenida Florencia, San Clemente, California (dated January 24, 1989), Job No. 92-3, dated March 9, 1992.
_________, 2005, City of San Clemente Report Review Checklist, Geotechnical Report, Geotechnical Investigation Report, New Single-Family Residential Development, 129 Avenida Florencia, San Clemente, California dated October 18, 2004, Project No. 1741-04, City Job No. 05-02, dated January 30, 2005.
Global Geo-Engineering, Inc., 2004, Geotechnical Investigation Report, New Single-Family Residential Development, 129 Avenida Florencia, San Clemente, California, Project 1741-04, dated October 18, 2004.
_________, 2005, Response to City of San Clemente Report Review Checklist – Geotechnical Report 129 Avenida Florencia, San Clemente California, Project 1741-04, dated March 21, 2005. _________, 2012, Geotechnical Report Update, New Single-Family Residential Development, 129 Avenida Florencia, San Clemente, California, Project 5038-04, dated April 18, 2012. _________, 2021, Geotechnical Investigation Report Update, New Single-Family Residential Development, 129 Avenida Florencia, San Clemente, California, Project No. 1741-04, dated November 18, 2021.
Jacqelyn Obryan, 2022, Precise Grading Plan, Lot 4, Tract No. 820, 129 Avenida Florencia, undated, received March 23, 2022. David A. Purkis, PE, 2022, Temporary Shoring and Site Wall Structural Plan, 501 Elena Lane, San Clemente, California, Project No. 21-4237, dated January 19, 2022.
William R. Munson, Inc., 1989, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation to Evaluate Development feasibility: Vacant Lot at 129 Avenida Florencia, San Clemente, California, dated January 24, 1989.
2024 Professional Fee Schedule
131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com 2024 PROFESSIONAL FEE SCHEDULE
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
Professional Billing Rate (per hour)
Word Processing .......................................................................................................................................................................... $ 75.00 CAD Operator ................................................................................................................................................................................. 100.00 Junior Field Technician .............................................................................................................................................................. 100.00 Senior Field Technician/Field Supervisor/Operations Manager ............................................................................. 115.00 Jr./Sr. Field Technician/ Field Supervisor/Operations Manager Prevailing Wage .......................................... 160.00 Jr. Staff Engineer/Geologist ...................................................................................................................................................... 125.00 Staff Engineer/Geologist ........................................................................................................................................................... 135.00 Senior Staff Engineer/Geologist ............................................................................................................................................ 145.00 Project Engineer/Geologist ...................................................................................................................................................... 155.00 Senior Project Engineer/Geologist ........................................................................................................................................ 175.00 Geotechnical Engineer/Engineering Geologist/Project Manager ............................................................................ 185.00 Senior Geotechnical Engineer/Engineering Geologist/Project Manager.............................................................. 195.00 Vice President of Engineering/Geology/Project Management ................................................................................. 205.00 Senior Vice President of Engineering/Geology/Project Management ................................................................... 215.00 Director of Engineering/Geology ........................................................................................................................................... 225.00 Associate Engineer/Geologist ................................................................................................................................................. 235.00 Principal Engineer/Geologist .................................................................................................................................................. 250.00 Senior Principal Engineer/Geologist .................................................................................................................................... 275.00 Engineering Equipment
Field Vehicle Usage ................................................................................................................................................. $ 10.00/per hour Vehicle Mileage ......................................................................................................................................... included in vehicle usage Nuclear Soil Gauge and Inclinometer .................................................................................................. included in hourly rate Other Monitoring Equipment ..................................................................................................................................... Upon Request Laboratory Tests
Moisture Content .................................................................................................................................................................................. $ 30.00 Moisture and Density (ring samples) ................................................................................................................................................. 45.00 Maximum Dry Density (optimum moisture content) .............................................................................................................. 285.00 Maximum Density Checkpoint .............................................................................................................................................................. 85.00 Sieve Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 185.00 Hydrometer Analysis.............................................................................................................................................................................. 145.00 Sieve and Hydrometer Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 240.00 Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve ............................................................................................................................................................... 90.00 Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit ............................................................................................................................................................ 235.00 Liquid Limit – Non-Plastic (1pt) ........................................................................................................................................................ 110.00 Sand Equivalent ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 140.00 Expansion Index ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 170.00 Direct Shear (shear rate of 0.05 in./min.) ..................................................................................................................................... 385.00 Direct Shear (shear rate of lower than 0.05 in./min.) .............................................................................................................. 465.00 Single Point Shear .................................................................................................................................................................................... 140.00 Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Shear .................................................................................................................................... 225.00 Consolidation (w/o time rate) ........................................................................................................................................................... 255.00 w/time rate, add (per increment) ............................................................................................................................................. 60.00 w/extra load, add (per load) ........................................................................................................................................................ 55.00 Collapse Test (ASTM D4546-B) ......................................................................................................................................................... 140.00 R-Value (untreated) ................................................................................................................................................................................ 400.00 131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com R-Value (treated) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 440.00 Sulfate Content .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 100.00 Chloride Content ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 100.00 Corrosive Suite (minimum resistivity, pH, sulfate and chloride) ........................................................................................ 345.00 Organic Matter Content ........................................................................................................................................................................... 85.00 Caltrans 216 Compaction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 325.00 Stipulations
i All professional rates are accrued from portal to portal. i Expert witness testimony, depositions, or mediation conferences, will be billed at 2.0 times the professional billing rate.
i All geologists, engineers, and technicians will be billed at time-and-a-half for overtime. Overtime is defined as more than 8 hours in one day and any time worked on weekends, state holidays or night shifts. Double time will be billed when more than 12 hours are worked in one day or more than 8 hours on weekends, state holidays or night shifts. Scheduling Field Technicians less than 48 hours in advance may result in their hours being billed at overtime rates. i Invoices are rendered monthly, payable upon receipt.
i Proposals are valid for 30 days, unless otherwise stated. i Heavy equipment, subcontractor fees and expenses, supplemental insurance, travel, shipping, outside reproduction, and other reimbursable expenses will be invoiced at cost, plus 20 percent. i Prior to initiating our field work, client agrees to provide all information in client’s possession about actual or possible presence of underground utilities and/or hazardous materials on the site.
Client agrees to reimburse LGC Geotechnical for all costs related to unanticipated discovery of utilities and/or hazardous materials.
i Prior to initiating our field work, client agrees to provide all information in client’s possession with regard to restricted entry and/or exploration areas, such as areas of environmental contamination, hazardous soils, sensitive habitat areas, etc. Client agrees to reimburse LGC Geotechnical for all costs related to environmental contamination, hazardous soils, sensitive habitat areas, etc. i Client is responsible for providing safe and legal access to the site at all times. i LGC Geotechnical will not be liable for any loss, damage or liability to persons or property arising out of performance of our service that is not covered and paid for by our insurance. For any other loss, damage or liability which is not covered by insurance, our liability will be limited to the lessor of either $10,000 or the total amount paid by client to LGC Geotechnical on the project in question. i These rates are based on standard insurance coverage. If higher insurance limits are required client should discuss these limits, and the associated cost, with LGC Geotechnical prior to the initiation of our services.
i LGC Geotechnical’s services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted standards of care and diligence normally practiced by geotechnical consulting firms performing services of a similar nature in Southern California. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is included or intended in LGC Geotechnical’s proposals, contracts, reports, etc. i Quoted laboratory test rates assume samples are free of hazardous materials. Handling and testing of samples containing hazardous materials may include additional costs.