Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout980.2.1; Sea Point Professional Center-JVC Properties; Sea Point Professional Center; 1990-04-10GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SEA POINT PROFESSIONAL CENTER CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared For Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties 535 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 116 Encinitas, California 92024 April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 CWfN April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties 535 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 116 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Subject: Mr. Joseph V. Caracciolo GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SEA POINT PROFESSIONAL CENTER CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Caracciolo: In accordance with your request, Owen Consultants is pleased to provide this report of our geotechnical investigation for the subject property located adjacent to Old Highway 101 in Carlsbad, California. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Should you have any question. piease call. Very truly yours, OWEN CONSULTANTS L. MICHAL Senior Project Engineer RCE 42590 Expiration 3-31-92 ERNEST R. ARTIM Vice President CEG 1084 Expiration 6-30-90 JVG/JLM/ERA:ms Attachments Distribution: (6) Addressee OFFICES IN SAN DIEGO, NEWPORT BEACH. AND CONCORD. CALIFORNIA April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SEA POINT PROFESSIONAL CENTER ADJACENT TO OLD HIGHWAY 101 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION In response to your request, we have completed a geotechnical investigation of the subject site located in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the existing surface and subsurface soils, and geologic conditions within the vicinity of the site. Based upon the conditions encountered, we have, provided recommendations and geotechnical parameters for site re-development, earthwork, and the design of foundations, slabs, and pavements for the proposed facilities. 2.0 SCOPE OF STUDY The scope of study included the following tasks: * Review and analysis of available pertinent data (see Appendix A, References); * Making five exploratory test excavations; * Making one exploratory test boring and installing monitoring well to a depth of 28 feet; * Geologic logging and soil sampling of all test excavations and borings at representative locations; * Geotechnical laboratory analysis of representative soil samples; OFICES IN SAN DIEGO, NEWPORT BEACH, AND CONCORD, CALIFORNIA OWEMCCNSl Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Page 2 * Analysis of the compiled data and interpretations based upon our knowledge of similar conditions; * Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for property development. '3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS The subject site is an approximately 12.31-acre lot located 3/4 of a mile north of Poinsettia Lane adjacent to the east of Old Highway 101 in Carlsbad. The overall topography of the subject site slopes gently to the east. The site is bounded on the east by a railway, on the west by Anacapa Road, on the south by a trailer park with a 5 foot block wall separating the properties, and on the north by a marsh area. The site is currently being used for farming purposes and contains several small shacks. 3.1 Proposed Development We understand that the proposed development will include two commercial buildings and parking covering an area of 121,000 square feet or approximately three acres. The southern most building will consist of three levels of office over two below grade levels of parking and the northern building will consist of two levels of office over two below-grade levels of parking. The remaining 9 acres of the subject site (northern portion) will be landscaped and used for recreational purposes. 3.2 Subsurface Exploration Our subsurface exploration consisted of making five exploratory test excavations and one test boring to depths of 28 feet. The test excavations and boring were continuously logged by a representative of our firm who obtained soil samples for Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Pace 3 geotechnical laboratory analysis. The approximate locations of the test excavations and boring are shown on the Plot Plan, Figure 2. Logs of the exploratory excavations, borings, and laboratory test results are presented in Appendices B and C. respectively. 3.3. Laboratory Analysis Soil samples were obtained by collecting representative samples from each test exploration location. Locations of geotechnical soil samples and other data are presented on the logs in Appendix B. The following geotechnical laboratory tests were performed: * Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM: D 1557) * Expansion Index (UBC Standard No. 29-2) * Moisture Content (ASTM: D 2216) V * Dry Density (ASTM: D 2937) * Direct Shear (ASTM: D 3080-72-5.2) 4.0 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 4.1 Bedrock The ^^^^^^^•IMBMHHHplplif the Santiago Tormation. These materials C¥«NCONSULTAN:< Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Page 4 were moist to wet, very stiff, and determined by laboratory testingto be should1 indicates a T The result of direct sheer testing tion of 250 psf, with friction angle of 10 degrees. 4.2 Coastal Terrace Deposits The entire site is underlain by a veneer of Coastal Terrace deposits which is a sub-unit of the Bay Point Formation. This sub- unit comprises the portion of the marine and nonmarine terrace deposits that is closest to the seacoast. These terrace deposits consist mainly of nonmarine-appearing, cross-bedded, brown to gray pebbly sand with some cobbles. Some layers of fine-and even-grained sand with a yellowish tint appear to be marine in origin. 4.3 Topsoil/Residual Soil The soil is a reddish-brown silty sand and a sandy clay. The material is low to moderately expansive, porous with plant roots and matter. The unit is potentially subject to consolidation when saturated. This material is not suitable for structural support and should be removed and replaced as compacted fill in all areas prior to placing any fill or engineered structures. 4.4 Groundwater The subject site is located at an elevation of approximately 55 feet. Because of the site elevation and location, no permanent groundwater is believed to be present within the zone of anticipated construction, but a CNKWCGNC Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Page 5 •»•""> ]»* :t. We installed a piezometer be to_a depth of 28 feet in B-6. The Mluefuations.^M^^^^^^^^^^^^Mj^dB^flu^^^^^^^^^^^ 4.5 Geologic Setting 4.5.1 Regional Geologic Setting The subject site is located in the Peninsular Range Province, a California geomorphic province with a long and active history in Southern California. The Peninsular Range Province is traversed by several major active faults. The Elsinore and San Jacinto faults are the major tectonic features. Both are strike-slip faults with predominantly right-lateral movements. The major tectonic activity appears to be a result of the right-lateral movements on faults within the San Andreas fault system. 4.5.2 Regional and Local Faulting The principle seismic considerations for development of the subject site are surface rupturing of fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking or seismically-induced ground settlement. The potential for any or all of these hazards depends upon the recency of fault activity and proximity of the fault to the subject property. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered unlikely since no active faults are known to cross the site and no evidence of faulting OW8NCONSU HANTS Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Page 6 4.5.: was noted during our investigation. Review of geologic literature indicates that there are no known faults mapped that transect the property and no evidence of faulting was observed during our investigation. The nearest major active faults are the Elsinore Fault and off-shore Coronado Banks Fault, located approximately 25 miles northeast and about 20 miles southwest of the site, respectively and the off-shore extension of the Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 5 to 10 miles west of the site. The maximum probable event for the Rose Canyon Fault is about 6.5 Richter magnitude. Seismicity The seismic hazard most likely to impact the subject site is ground shaking following a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. The Rose Canyon Fault is the most likely to affect the site with ground shaking, should an earthquake occur on the fault. A maximum probable event on the Rose Canyon Fault could produce a peak horizontal acceleration of less than about 0.5g at the site. With respect to this hazard, the site is comparable to others in this general area in similar geologic settings. 4.5.4 Liquefaction Liquefaction of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion in response to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose near-saturated granular soils at depths shallower CWBMCCNSUL'Ai, Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Page 7 than about 100 feet are the most susceptible to liquefaction. It is our opinion that the on-site natural materials (Santiago Formation and Coastal Terrace deposits) are not considered susceptible to liquefaction or sudden loss of soil strength. 4.5.5 Other Geologic Hazards No other significant geologic hazards such as landslides are known to exist on the subject site. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our geotechnical study at the site, it is our opinion that development of the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. There appear to be no significant geotechnical constraints on-site that cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design, and utilization of sound construction practices. The engineering properties of the soil and bedrock materials, and surface drainage offer favorable conditions for site development. The following sections discuss the principal geotechnical concerns which should be considered for site development and our recommendations for earthwork and foundations. 5.1 Faulting and Seismicity The principal seismic considerations for most structures in Southern California are surface rupturing of fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking or seismically-induced ground settlement. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered minimal since no active faults are known to cross the site. Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Page 8 The seismic hazard most likely to impact the subject site is ground shaking following a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. The Rose Canyon Fault is the most likely to affect the site with ground shaking, should an earthquake occur on the fault. The maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration on the site is estimated to be less than about 0.5g based on a maximum probable earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault. For design purposes, two-thirds of the maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration may be assumed for the repeatable ground accelerations. Y"" The effects of seismic shaking can be minimized by adhering to the ..j— Uniform Building Code or state-of-the-art design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. 5.2 Liquefaction As mentioned previously, because of the dense nature of the "" underlying formations, the potential for liquefaction or seismically- induced dynamic settlement at this site is considered unlikely. 5.3 Groundwater ^ Because the site is located in an area known to have fluctuations of seasonal groundwater, a piezometer was installed to a depth of 28 feet in B-6. This piezometer should be monitored for at least i- three months to one year to evaluate the actual location (depth) of the water table and fluctuations. Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Page 9 5.4 Earthwork Grading and earthwork should be performed in accordance with the following rerommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines included in Appendix D. 5.4.1 Site Preparation Prior to grading, the site should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions including any existing construction or building debris, landscaping topsoils, buried abandoned utilities and other obstructions. Removed debris should then be disposed of off-site. Landscaped topsoils can be stockpiled and utilized for the project development. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions which extend below finished site grades should be filled with suitable compacted fill. 5.4.2 Removal of Expansive and Compressible Topsoils The subject site was found to contain compressible and expansive topsoil to depths of 2-1/2 feet but locally up to 5 feet. Soil volume changes due to variations in soil moisture content and building loads in these clays may cause damage to foundations, slabs, and sidewalks. These soils should be removed to firm natural ground prior to placement of fill and/or engineered structures. Removals should be evaluated by a representative of this office during grading. Areas of removals should extend beyond the limits of structures and improvements to a minimum distance equal to the depths of removal. Sea Point Professional Cenier c/o JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Page 10 5.4.3 Fills ^MripVfcfAre suitable for re-use as compacted fill, provided they are free of organic materials and debris. ***/*' All areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to at least 2 percent over optimum moisture conditions and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM: D 1557). If required, import soils for near-surface soils should be predominately granular, possess a low or very iow expansion potential, and be approved by the geotechnical engineer. Lift thickness will be dependent on the size and type of equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches. Placement and compaction of fill should be conducted in accordance with the local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. We suggest that fill soils be placed at moisture contents at least 2 percent over optimum and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM: D 1557). Materials placed within 3 feet of finished grades should contain no rock fragments over 6 inches in dimension. Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Page 11 »- 5.4.4 Excavations and Backfill Shallow excavations 3 to 5 feet deep at the project "~ site can be readily excavated using conventional construction equipment in good operating condition. To satisfy OSHA requirements and for """ workmen's safety, it might be necessary to shore excavations deeper than 5 feet or they might be laid back to inclinations of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) if workers are to enter such excavations. B—i ^ The on-site soils already mentioned may be used as trench backfill provided that they are screened "*" of sizes over 6 inches in dimension and organic j» matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 6 inches in thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative — compaction (ASTM: D 1557) and 2 percent over _ optimum moisture. "" Flooding or jetting of backfill should not be *. permitted. Backfill placed behind retaining walls should be compacted to a minimum relative " compaction of 90 percent (ASTM D 1557). The — use of heavy compaction equipment in close ^ proximity to retaining structures can result in excess wall movement. In this regard, the contractor "" should take appropriate precautions during the «. backfill placement. OVfcEN Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Page 12 5.4.5 Seepage and Subsurface Drainage Placement of drains behind retaining walls should be in accordance with the design detail provided in the accompanying General Grading and Earthwork Specifications, Appendix D. Minimum backdrainage for retaining walls should consist of a 4 inch perforated pipe surrounded by at least 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of filter rock wrapped in geofabric. 5.5 Foundation and Slab Design Foundation and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. If selective grading is utilized and finish grades completed with less expansive soils then recommendations provided below can be revised. 5.5.1 Foundation Design The proposed building and structures may be supported by conventional, continuous, or isolated spread footings. Footings should be founded 36 inches beneath the lowest adjacent finished grade. Based on the proposed building structure, footings founded in formational soil or compacted fill at this depth may be designed for an allowable soil bearing value of 2,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration, including wind or seismic forces. Continuous perimeter footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches. They should be Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Page 13 reinforced with No. 5 rebars (two top and two bottom) or in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements. Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches connected by reinforced grade beams to continuous footings and be reinforced. The maximum total and differential settlements for footings designed in accordance with the above should be within tolerable limits. 5.5.2 Slabs Slabs should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches (actual) and be underlain by a 1 inch layer of clean sand or gravel over a 10-mil visqueen moisture barrier underlain bv a 3 inch layer of clean sand* r> or gravel. Slabs should be reinforced. We recommend that the slabs be reinforced with No. 3 bars placed at 12 inches on center in both directions at mid-height in the slabs. We recommend that the steel be supported on concrete blocks (lifters or cradles) to assure proper placement at mid-height in the slab. Misplacement of the steel would result in insufficient reinforcement of the slab. The steel should extend from the foundations into the slabs at 12 inch spacings, and be embedded into the foundations for a distance of at least 12 inches. The use of low-slump concrete is recommended to reduce the potential for shrinkage-type cracking following concrete placement. Minor slab cracking is normal and possible. OVtfxN Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Page 15 c -V" may be assumed. These values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration, including wind or seismic forces. 5.5.6 Lateral Earth Pressures Cantilever walls (yielding) retaining non-expansive, granular soils may be designed for an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained walls (non-yielding) should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pounds per cubic foot. These values assume a level backfill with non-expansive granular soils and free-draining conditions. If sloping backfills are planned, we should be consulted to provide design lateral pressures. Any future surcharge from adjacent loadings should be evaluated by the geotechnical and structural engineers. The horizontal distance between foundation elements providing passive resistance should be a minimum of 3 times the depth of the elements to allow full development of these passive pressures. All retaining structures should be provided with a drainage blanket and weepholes or drains. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance with local codes and structural considerations C¥»ICCNSUUANTS Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Page 16 5.5.7 Preliminary Pavement Design The appropriate pavement sections depend primarily on the subgrade soils, shear strength, traffic load, and planned life. Final pavement designs should be confirmed by R-Value testing on final subgrade materials during construction. Asphalt concrete (AC) and Class II rock base should conform to, and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications. Prior to placing the pavement sections, the subgrade soils should have a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. We also recommend that the base course be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM: D 1557). In areas where rigid (concrete) pavement is desired to be implemented, design of the rigid pavement section should be provided by a structural engineer. 5.6 Surface Drainage Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from structures, toward the street, or suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to structures. If pavement areas are planned adjacent to landscaped areas, we recommend that the amount of irrigation be kept to a minimum and a subdrain system installed to reduce the possible adverse effects of water on pavement subgrade. Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Page 17 We recommend that measures be taken to properly finish grade that building areas, such that Planting areas at grade should be provided with positive drainage away from buildings. Planters adjacent to structures should have closed bottoms and should have provisions for drainage such as catch basins and pipe drains. Drainage and subdrain design of such planters should be provided by the design civil engineer and/or architect. The provisions of adequate surface drainage features is essential to minimize ponding of water adjacent to .foundations. In addition to positive lot drainage, drainage improvements often employed include roof gutters (with downspouts discharging away from foundations into suitable devices), subdrains around buildings and shallow area drains. 6.0 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND LIMITATIONS The recommendations provided in this report are based upon our observations. The interpolated subsurface conditions by a representative of Owen Consultants. We recommend that all foundation excavations and grading operations be observed by a representative of this firm so that construction is performed in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Preliminary and final project drawings should be reviewed by this office prior to construction. The recommendations contained in this report are based on our field exploration, laboratory tests, and our understanding of the proposed construction. If any soil conditions are encountered at the site which are different from those assumed in the preparation of this report, our firm should be immediately notified so that we may review the situation and make supplementary recommendations. In addition, if the scope of the proposed structure changes form that described in this report, our firm Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Page 18 should also be notified. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices within the greater Southern California area. Professional judgments presented herein are based partly on our evaluations of the technical information gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction, and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. Our engineering work and judgments rendered meet current professional standards. We do not guarantee the performance of the project in any respect. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel on the site during construction; therefore, the safety of personnel on-site during construction is the -responsibility of the contractor during construction. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. SITE LOCATION MAP - SEA POINT PROFESSIONAL CENTER CONSULTANTS PKOJCCJNO. aao.z.FIGURE NO 1 OWHNCCNSUJANrS Sea Point Professional Center c/o JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Page 14 Footing excavations and slab subgrades should be moistened prior to placement of concrete. We recommend that all foundation excavations be observed by a representative of Owen Consultants prior to placement of steel and concrete. Effort should be made to prevent moisture content variations of the underlying foundation soils by providing positive drainage away from buildings, foundations, and basement wall. 5.5.3 Exterior Concrete Slabs Where feasible, exterior concrete slabs should conform to the requirements for interior floor slabs. Crack control joints should be provided at regular intervals. Some slab cracking is inevitable. 5.5.4 Utility Lines Beneath Slabs Where utility lines are placed beneath the slab, they should be thoroughly tested and inspected prior to slab pour as directed by the supervising engineer or architect so that leakage resulting from defective materials or poor workmanship may be avoided. In addition, corrosion tests should be performed to evaluate the corrosion potential of the subgrade soils. 5.5.5 Lateral Load Resistance The footings or slabs founded in natural soils or compacted fill may be designed for a passive lateral bearing pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot at depth. A coefficient of friction against sliding between concrete and soil of 0.35 TP-5t$- SCALE: 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET 0 50 1OO OWWCONSULTANTS TEST BORING ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE PLOT PLAN SEA POINT PROFESSIONAL CENTER PROJECT NO. 980.2.1 FIGURE NO. 2 u APPENDIX A JVC Properties April 10, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Appendix A, Page 1 APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1. Tan, S.S., 1986, "Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report. 2. Weber, F.H., 1982, "Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides, and Related Geology of the North-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California," CDMG Open File Report 82-12 LA, dated July 1, 1982. 3. Abbott. P.L., (ed.) 1985, "On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in the Northern San Diego County, California," San Diego Association of Geologists Publication, dated April 13. 1985. 4. "Comprehensive Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin 1975 Abstract," by the State of California Water Resources Control Board and the California Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, dated July 1975. \5. "County of San Diego, Topographic Survey," by Rick Engineering, Scale: 1:2400, dated September 17, 1975. APPENDIX B BACKHOE COMPANY ITNif R;j",KF" SiZE DATE. 5-2C-9C — »— , UJ U - — - 10 O f —i -^^c05 X ^/ > ^ h— — i Z LJU., h- >—^~ ™° *•— Q 2 2.^ li> — — - LJ 1— ^ Z_^< I ] f-^ ^ ^ >? -? ^ ^-^0 0 IT.: 3C.3 CO < to1 ' ^ V—J _J ^ U) CL CL ELEVATION JEST PIT NO. 1 SOIL DESCRIPTION - SAJITI7.GO FOPKATIONj Olive tc dark gray clay, very racist tc wet, soft - Total Depth: 5 ft. Ho Water No Caving Backfilled; 3-2C-90 - -ELEVATION JEST pjj NQ 2 SOIL DESCRIPTION - 10 iX ^r~7XV 9.4 SH CH TCFEOILi Reddish-brown silty sand, moist, loose - SANTIAGO FORMATION! Gray sandy clay, very moist, stiff to very stiff, ~ fine gravel si?e chalk inclusions Total Depth: 5 ft. No Water No Caving Backfilledi 3-20-90 - TEST PIT LOGS PROJECT NO. 980.002.1 SEA POINT PROFESSIONAL CENTER FIGURE NO. B~1 B4CKHGE COMPANY. :-:.£ BUCKET SIZE ^ATF .'---I--'. • . . — _ - 10 - 10 tiJ C rH< Sa 5 \ /A X x \ /A t— — i —CO (f) •_J •— 1—1 > -T; -:r w o'^ ^_ 2. — — __ ? z z o 2s .e =7.S CO CJ ^ o 2 LI CH ELEVATION JEST PIT NO. 3 SOIL DESCRIPTION 'i'CPSGIL: iJork brow: sii'uy clay, :r,ci£- tu very poist, soft _ ££i;Ti;,GO FCHKATIONI Olive saucy clay, very :r,t'ist, sti.ff - Total Depth; 5 ft. Ilo VJater Ko Caving _ Backfilleci 2-2C-90 - ELEVATION TEST p|T NQ_ 4 SOIL DESCRIPTION — — 16.0 2C.7 CL CH TOPSOIL; Dark brown to reddish-brown sandy, clay, moist, soft SANTIAGO FORMATION; Olive sandy clay, very moist, very stiff - - Total Depth; 5 ft. No Water No Caving _ Backfilled; 3-20-90 - TEST PIT LOGS PROJECT NO. 980.002.1 SEA POINT PROFESSIONAL CENTER FIGURE NO. B~2 CMfiNCONSULTANTS 34CKHOE COMPANY :,c:.^ 5UCKE 3.ZE. DATE :-_ JT uj §^ 10 LJAGSAMPLExx >i— f c/i2, ^ > c w ~053c — — 1—S "Z. 5 o ~s u y.3 9.5 ww *-; < CO U ^ ^D0 = C/} SK SM ELEVATION JEST PIT NO. 5 SOIL DESCRIPTION TCPSOIL: Dark reddish-trowr. silty s&s-d, moist, loose, iron-oxide stiiinin^ — COASTAL TERBACE DEPOSITS! Orsuige-browr eilty i,*.nd, moist, dense. Total Depth: 5 ft. No Water He Caving _ Backfilledi 3-2C-90 ELEVATION TEST p,T N0 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION D ^""^ 10 1 - TEST PIT LOGS PROJECT NO. 980.002.1 SEA POINT PROFESSIONAL CENTER FIGURE NO. B-3 OWrH CONSULTANTS XIL^.G ....^A-:. M.5.. WE:: cc:.^Tr.LC.:oN RIG i;Ti-i LE;.VER ^ATS --r--; BORING DIAMETER j» /E .VE onT •.$• DROP- EL-I/ATION ^ c. X X X! X ~x~ > — — 3 tl f~\ ' V) "< CO 5 S EC ci; SH EP TEST BORING NO. 6 SOIL DESCRIPTION TO^SOILt Dark redci£h-hrov.T. , clayey silty sand, very moist, loose SANTIAGO FGRHfTION: Light olive silty clay, very moist. to vet, very stiff - @ 1C.O ft. Becomes hard L r @ 18.0 ft. Becomes olive-yellow, clayey to silty sand, moist to very moist, fine- to mediuc-grained @ 20.0 ft. Becomes light yellow sand, moist to very moist, friable, dense, fine- to medium-grained, no clay binder ' Total Depths 28.0 ft. Ho Caving TEST BORING LOG PROJECT NO. 980.2.1 SEA POINT PROFESSIONAL CENTER FIGURE NO B-4 CWSNCONSULTANTS APPENDIX C MAXIMUM DENSITY SAMPLE LOCATION TP-1 @ 0.5 - 1.5' TP-3 @ 2.5 - 5.C1 TP-5 6 3.0 - 5.0* SOIL DESCRIPTION Brown to reddish-brown sendy clay (CL) Olive sandy clay (CH) Reddish-brown silty sand (SM) MAXIMUMDRY DENSITY tocM 116.0 112.0 123.0 OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 12.0 12.0 9.0 EXPANSION INDEX SAMPLE LOCATION TP-1 @ 0.5 - 1.51 TP-3 @ 2.5 - 5.01 INITIAL MOISTURE (%) 1.8 3.3 COMPACTED DRY DENSITY (pcf) 106.9 102.3 FINAL MOISTURE (%) 23.3 34.6 \ VOLUMETRIC SWELL (%) 7.4 13.7 EXPANSION INDEX 74 137 EXPANSIVE CLASS. Medium Very High MAXIMUM DENSITY & EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS O^KMCONSULTANTS PROJECT NO.980.002.1 FIGURE NO.C-l SHEAR STRENGTH (PSF)o en w w wjr^ ^^ 3 SYMBOL • ^* ^^^ ^^ ^ ^^ *^ ^" ^"^ •^ ^^-^•f^ 5OO 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) SAMPLE LOCATION TP-1 @ 0.5 - l.S1 COHESION (psft 200 FRICTION ANGLE 1°) 22.5° REMARKS @ Peak Loads DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS G^SNCONSULTANTS PPOJECTNO. 980.002.1 FIGURE NO. C-2 SHEAR STRENGTH (PSF)-. _• tO K) t.— - ^"^ . • — •»- ' — — - * — — ^* H 3 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 \ NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) SYMBOL SAMPLE LOCATION • TP-3 @ 2.5 - 5.0' COHESION (psft 250 FRICTION ANGLE <°1 10.0° REMARKS @ Peak Loads DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ^^N G^SNCONSULTANTS PPOJECTNO. sso.002.1 FIGURE NO. C' SHEAR STRENGTH (PSF)-i -; NJ w L./ x^ / 3 SYMBOL * / / / ir^ S XS ' S s ss J S S / / /" x" 1 I 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 V NORMAL PRESSURE (PSF) SAMPLE LOCATION TP-5 @ 3.0 - 5.0' COHESION |psf) 100 FRICTION ANGLE (°) 33.5° REMARKS @ Peak Loads DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS OWSMCONSULTANTS PVQJECTNO. 980.002.1 WO. C-4 APPENDIX D JVC Properties April 5, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Appendix D, Page 1 APPENDIX D «•* GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES I. GENERAL These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for grading and earthwork including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, *~ installation of subdrains, and excavations. The recommendations contained m in the geotechnical report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and should supersede the provisions contained herein in the •*" case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the w course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical """ report. «•» II. EARTHWORK OBSERVATION AND TESTING •* Prior to commencement of grading, a qualified geotechinical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the m geotechnical report and these specifications. The consultant is to provide M adequate testing and observation so that he may determine that the work was accomplished as specified. It should be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work «• schedules and changes so that the consultant may schedule his personnel m accordingly. ** The contractor is to provide adequate equipment and methods to m 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 are resulting *• in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the ^ consultant may reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. JVC Properties April 5, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Appendix D, Page 2 Maximum dry density tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials Test Method ASTM: D 1557-78. III. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED 1. Clearing and Grubbing: All brush, vegetation, and debris should be removed and otherwise disposed of. 2. Processing: The existing ground which is evaluated to be satisfactory for support of fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps 'or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. 3. Overexcavation: Soft, dry, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to firm ground, approved by the consultant. \ 4. Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 5. Recomoaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. 6. Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground should be benched. The lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, and at least 2 feet deep, expose firm material, and be approved by the consultant. Other benches should be excavated in firm material JVC Properties April 5, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Appendix D, Page 3 for a minimum width of 4 feet. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or otherwise overexcavated when considered necessary by the consultant. 7. Approval: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe-of-fill benches should be approved by the consultant prior to fill placement. IV. FILL MATERIAL 1. General: Material to be placed as fill should be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be approved by the consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed in areas designated by the consultant or mixed with other soils until suitable to serve as satisfactory fill material. 2- Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fill, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically approved by the consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade or within the range of future utilities or underground construction, unless specifically approved by the consultant. 3. Import: If importing of fill material is necessary for grading, the import material should be approved by the geotechnical consultant. V. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 1. Fill Lifts: Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 6 inches in compacted thickness. The consultant may approve thicker JVC Properties April 5, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Appendix D, Page 4 lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and should be thoroughly mixed during spreading to attain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. 2. Fill Moisture: Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or blended with drier material. Moisture- conditioning and mixing of fill layers should continue until the fill material is at a uniform moisture content at or near optimum. 3. Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture-conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. 4. Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at frequent increments of 2 to 3 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the slope out to the slope face shall be at least 90 percent. 5. Compaction Testing: Field tests to check the fill moisture and degree of compaction will be performed by the consultant. The location and frequency of tests should be at the consultant's discretion. In general, the tests should be taken at an interval not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1.000 cubic yards of embankment. JVC Properties April 5, 1990 Project No. 980.2.1 Appendix D, Page 5 VI. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrain systems, if required, should be installed in approved ground to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or as shown herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or modified without the approval of the consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend and upon approval, direct changes in subdrain line, grade, or material. All subdrains should be surveyed for line and grade after installation and sufficient time allowed for the surveys, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains. VII. EXCAVATION Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading. If directed by the consultant, further excavation or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes performed. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be made and approved by the consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. NATURAL GROUND -5' M1N.i -n~r.T<p.5>sK ^-I--~O^SO^; " M 30" MIN. "T" OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED 3Y — THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOTE: Deeper nverexcavation and recompaction shall be performed if determined to be necessary by the geotechnicoi consultant, TRANSITION LOT DETAILS OKBNCONSULTANTS GRADING AND EARTHWORK GUIDELINES SLOPE BUTTRESS OR REPLACEMENT FILL DETAIL OUTLET PIPES U" 0 Nonperforoted Pipe, 100' Max. O.C. Horizontally, 30' Max. O.C. Vertically , ,5. , 1 FILL BLAfJKET 30" //.IN. ,x BACK CUT Ly\ l:l OR FLATTER BENCHING SUBDRA1N SEE ALTERNATES A t 8 SIZE - CENEHALUY IS FEET DETAIL OF BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN TERMINAL o«.EQUitrALfffl Fill blanket, bock cut, key width and key depth are subject 1o field change, per report/plans. Key hee! subdrain, blanket drain, or vertical drain may be required at The discretion of the geolechnical consultant. SURDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdroin pipe shall be installed with perforations down or, at locations designated by the geotechnicol consultant, shall be nonperforaled pipe. SUBDRAIN TYPE - Subdrain type shall be ASTM C50B Asbestos Cement Pipe (ACP) or ASTM D275lr SDR 22.5 or ASTM D1527, Schedule 40 Acrylonitriie Butadiene Styrene (ARS) or ASTM D303A SDR 23.5 or ASTM DI7BS, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe or approved equivalent. SLOPE BUTTRESS OR REPLACEMENT FILL DETAIL OWSHCONSULTANTS GRADING AND EARTHWORK GUIDELINES FILL SLOPE r---TIT COMPACTED ^-^T------f\\ \ __ ir_-_"2% MIN.—" PROJECTED PLANE 1 lo I maximum from toe of slope to approved ground NATURAL GROUND REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL I V MIN. BENCH"* (typical) BENCH HEIGHT VARIES 5' MIN. KEY ["LOWEST BENCH NOTES: DEPTH (KEY}-I LOWEST BENCH: Depth ond width subject to field change bosed on consultant's inspection. SUBDRAINAGE: 5cck drains may be required at the discrel ion of the gcoiecnnicol consuhcnl FILL OVER CUT SLOPE NATURAL GROUND COMPACTED ri_-_-_ REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL >I *rMIN. I (lypical) BENCH HEIGHT VARIES LOWEST BENCH CUT FACE To be constructed prior 1o fill placement BENCHING DETAILS OW5NCONSULTANTS GRADING AND EARTHWORK GUIDELINES SL/B DRAIN ALTERNATE A SUBDRA1N ALTERNATE B FILTER MATERIAL C-.UIN. DIA. PERFORATED PtPE CFEBFOHATIOMS DOWN) 7-CONNECTOR . I.!" UAA. DIA, Oh FILTER FAB*!! EOUlVAUf/T) C" Mil. OVERLAP PP.OVIDE POSITIVE SEAL AT OL71LET PIPE/FABRIC RECOMPACTED FILL SELECTED BEDDING BACKFILL 0 MIK. SUBDRAtM7«, _J J NQf»-« RFORATED **" OUTLET HPE OUTLET PIPE DETAIL T-CONNECTQR DETAIL 5URDRAIN INSTALLATIOtJ - Subdroin pip* shall br insioll-d whh perforolicns down or. o1 locolions designated by the neotechnicol consuhont, shall be nonprriorated pipe. SU3DRAN TYPE - Subdroin tyoe shall b- ASTW C5D3 Asb-slos Cenienl Pipe tAr?)or A5TM D275L SDR 22.5 or A5TM DI527. Schrdule ^0 Acryloniiriie Duiodient Myrrnr (AR5) or. ASTW. D303i SDH 22.5 or ASTM DI7S5, Schedule i<0 Pniyvinyl Chloridt Pioslic fPVC) pip* or cpprovrd FILTER MATERIAL Finer material snail be Class 2 permeable material per Slate ol California Standard Soecilicsiions. or approved aliernate. Class 2 praOmg as SIEVE SIZE r PASSING 3/E' No. * NO. B No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 TOD 90-100 40-100 2&-40 15-23 5-T5 0-7 0-3 SUBDRAIN ALTERNATES CONSULTANTS GRADING AND EARTHWORK GUIDELINES SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (CALTRANS SPECIFICATIONS) SIEVE SIZE T 3/4' 3/8' No. 4 No. 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 *, PASSING 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE DENSITY* CLASS 2 PERMEABLE FILTER MATERIAL, COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE DENSITY* 1' MINIMUM WALL FOOTING 8' DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQUIVALENT). MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET MINIMUM 6' LAYER OF FILTER ROCK BENEATH PIPE BASED ON ASTM D1557-B2 RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND DRAIN DETAIL C*»CONSULTANTS GRADING AND EARTHWORK GUIDELINES H(ft) \ Desi gn Pressure Disinbution 0.7 H 75 H fast) JZ H Tieback DESIGN PRESSURE FOR RETAINING WALL M1RADRAIN FILTER FABRIC WATERPROOFING EXISTING WALL NATIVE SO.L PROPOSED POURED-IN-PLACE VERTICAL CONCRETE WALL OR SHOTCRETE PROPOSED SLAB SAND LEVELING COURSE (IF REQUIRED) M1RADRAIN SLOPED TO DRAIN EXISTING SLAB PERFORATED DISCHARGE PIPE TO SUMP PUMP M 8000 FITTING NATIVE SOIL NO SCALE SUBSURFACE DRAIN DETAIL - CELLAR, WALL, AND FLOOR CKfcWCONSULTANTS / PROJECT NO.FIGURE NO.