Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 2017-0009; Eco-Friendly Auto Spa; Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash; 2016-09-16Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. lospecti.on I Testing I Geotechnical I Environmental & Construction Engineering I Civil Engineering I Surveying GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED CARLSBAD TOYOTA CAR WASH 6010 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: TOYOTA CARLSBAD MS. PEGGY KELCHER 5424 PASEO DEL NORTE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Prepared by: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 1441 MONTIEL ROAD, SUITE 115 ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92026 CTE JOB NO.: 10-13214T RECEIVED JUL 19 2017 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION RECORD COPY Cf()._ /fV' ~l 4 • (~ r ~ Initial Date September 16, 2016 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115 I Escondido, CA92026 I Ph (760) 746-4955 I Fax (760) 746-9806 I www.cte-inc.net TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................... I l . I Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Services .......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 2 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................ 2 3 .1 Field Investigation ........................................................................................................ 2 3.2 Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................ 3 4.0 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 3 4.1 General Setting ............................................................................................................. 3 4.2 Geologic Conditions ..................................................................................................... 3 4.2.1 Quaternary Undocumented Fill (unmapped) ................................................. 4 4.2.2 Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits (Qop) ......................................................... 4 4.3 Groundwater Conditions ............................................................................................... 4 4.4 Geologic Hazards .......................................................................................................... 4 4.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture .................................................................................... 5 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting .......................................................................... 5 4.4.3 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Evaluation .......................................... 6 4.4.4 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation ................................................................... 6 4.4.5 Landsliding .................................................................................................... 7 4.4.6 Compressible and Expansive Soils ................................................................ 7 4.4. 7 Corrosive Soils ............................................................................................... 7 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 9 5.1 General .......................................................................................................................... 9 5.2 Site Preparation ............................................................................................................. 9 5.3 Site Excavation ........................................................................................................... 10 5.4 Fill Placement and Compaction .................................................................................. 11 5.5 Fill Materials ............................................................................................................... l I 5.6 Temporary Construction Slopes ................................................................................. 12 5. 7 Foundations and Slab Recommendations ................................................................... 13 5.7.1 Foundations .................................................................................................. 13 5.7.2 Foundation Settlement ................................................................................. 14 5.7.3 Foundation Setback ...................................................................................... 14 5.7.4 Interior Concrete Slabs ................................................................................ J 5 5.8 Seismic Design Criteria .............................................................................................. 16 5.9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures ...................................................................... 17 5. IO Exterior Flatwork ...................................................................................................... 19 5.11 Pavements ................................................................................................................. 19 5.12 Drainage .................................................................................................................... 20 5.13 Slopes ........................................................................................................................ 21 5 .14 Plan Review .............................................................................................................. 22 5.15 Construction Observation ......................................................................................... 22 6.0 LIMIT A TIO NS OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................. 23 FIGURES FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FIGURE4 APPENDICES APPENDlXA APPENDIX B APPENDJXC APPENDIX D TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE LOCATION MAP GEOLOGIC/EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP CONCEPTUAL RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE REFERENCES FIELD EXPLORATION METHODS LOGS LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS ST AND ARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Geotechnical Investigation Page I Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 CTE Job No.: 10-13214T 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.1 Introduction This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation, performed by Construction Testing and Engineering, 1nc. (CTE), and provides preliminary conclusions and recommendations for the proposed improvements at the subject site located in Carlsbad, California. This investigation was performed in general accordance with the terms ofCTE proposal £16 111 , dated June 15, 2016. CTE understands that the proposed site improvements are to consist of a car wash structure, paved parking and tlatwork, shade structures, associated uti lities, landscaping, and ancillary improvements. Preliminary recommendations for excavations, fill placement, and foundation design for the proposed improvements are presented in this report. Reviewed references are provided in Appendix A. 1.2 Scope of Services The scope of services provided included: • Review of readily available geologic and geotechnical reports. • Coordination of utility mark-out and location. • Excavation of exploratory borings and soil sampling util izing a truck-mounted drill rig. • Laboratory testing of selected soil samp.les. • Description of site geology and evaluation of potential geologic hazards. • Engineering and geologic analysis. • Preparation of this geotechnical investigation report. \\Esc_scrver\projccts\ I O-l 32 I 4T\Rpt_ Geotcchnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 Page 2 CTE Job No.: 10-13214T 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located at 6010 A venida Encinas in Carlsbad, California (Figure l ). The site is bounded by A venida Encinas to the southwest, Carlsbad Parts and Service Center to the southeast, and National University to the north. The project area generally descends to the southwest with approximate elevations ranging from approximately 60 feet msl (above mean sea level) in the northeastern portion of the site to approximately 53 feet ms! in the southwestern portion of the site. 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 3.1 Field Investigation CTE performed the field investigation on August 12, 20 l 6. The field work consisted of a site reconnaissance and excavation of three exploratory borings. The maximum explored depth was approximately 20.0 feet below ground surface (bgs) in Boring B-1 . Bulk samples were collected from the cuttings, and relatively undisturbed samples were collected by driving Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Modified California (CAL) samplers. The Borings were advanced with a CME-75 truck-mounted drill rig equipped with eight-inch-diameter, hollow-stem augers. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are presented on Figure 2. The soils were logged in the field by a CTE Engineering Geologist and were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The field descriptions have been modified, where appropriate, to reflect laboratory test results. Boring logs, including descriptions of the soils encountered, are included in Appendix B. The approximate locations of the borings are presented on Figure 2. \\Esc_server\projccts\l 0-132 I 41\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 A venida Encinas, Carlsbad, Cali fornia September 16, 2016 3.2 Laboratory Testing Page 3 CTE Job No.: 10-13214T Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples for classification purposes, and to evaluate physical properties and engineering characteristics. Laboratory tests included: Gradation, Expansion Index (El), Resistance "R"-Value, Consolidation, and Chemical Characteristics. Test descriptions and laboratory test results for the selected soils are included in Appendix C. 4.0 GEOLOGY 4.1 General Setting Carlsbad is located within the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province that is characterized by northwest-trending mountain ranges, intervening valleys, and predominantly northwest trending regional faults. The greater San Diego Region can be further subdivided into the coastal plain area, a central mountain-valley area and the eastern mountain valley area. The project site is located within the coastal plain area that is characterized by Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary sedimentary deposits that onlap an eroded basement surface consisting of Jurassic and Cretaceous crystalline rocks. 4.2 Geologic Conditions Based on the regional geologic map prepared by Kennedy and Tan (2005), the near surface geologic unit underlying the site consists of Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6-7. Based on the site explorations, Undocumented Fill was observed overlying the Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits. Descriptions of the geologic and soil units encountered are presented below. I\Esc_scrvcr\projccts\ I 0-1 32141\Rpt_ Gcotcchnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 60 IO A venida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 4.2.1 Quaternary Undocumented Fill (unmapped) Page 4 CTE Job No.: 10-13214T Where observed, the Quaternary Undocumented Fill generally consists of loose to medium dense or stiff, brown, fine grained silty to clayey sand and sandy clay. This unit was found to extend to a depth of approximately 11 feet bgs in Boring B-1 during the investigation. The Undocumented Fill is anticipated to increase in thickness to the west and localized deeper fills may be encountered during grading. 4.2.2 Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits (Qop) Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits were found to be the underlying geologic unit at the site. Where observed, these materials generally consist of medium dense, reddish brown silty to clayey and poorly graded fine grained sand. 4.3 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was not encountered in the borings that were advanced to a maximum explored depth of approximately 20 feet bgs. While groundwater conditions may vary, especially following periods of sustained precipitation or irrigation, it is not anticipated to affect the proposed construction activities or the completed improvements, if proper site drainage is designed, install ed, and maintained as per the recommendations of the project civil engineer of record. 4.4 Geologic Hazards Geologic hazards that were considered to have potential impacts to site development were evaluated based on field observations, literature review, and laboratory test results. It appears that the geologic hazards at the site are primarily limited to those caused by shaking from earthquake-generated \\Esc_server\projccts\ IO-I 32 I 4T\Rpt_ Gcotechnical.doc Geotechnical lnvestigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 Page 5 CTE Job No.: 10-1 3214T ground motions. The following paragraphs di scuss the geologic hazards considered and their potential risk to the site. 4.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture Based on the site reconnaissance and review of referenced literature, the site is not within a State of California-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Studies Zone or Local Special Studies Zone and no known active fault traces underlie, or project toward, the site. According to the Cali fornia Division of Mines and Geology, a fault is active if it displays evidence of activity in the last 11 ,000 years (Hart and Bryant, revised 2007). Therefore, the potential for surface rupture from displacement or fault movement beneath the proposed improvements is considered to be low. 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting The California Geological Survey (CGS) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) broadly group faults as "Class A" or "Class B" (Cao, 2003; Frankel et al., 2002). Class A faults are generally identified based upon relatively well-defined paleoseismic activity, and a fault-slip rate of more than 5 millimeters per year (mm/yr). In contrast, Class B faults have comparatively less defined paleoseismic activity and are considered to have a fault-slip rate less than 5 mm/yr. The nearest known Class B fault is the Rose Canyon Fault, which is approximately 7.0 kilometers west of the site (Blake, T.F., 2000). The nearest known Class A fault is the Temecula segment of the Elsinore Fault, which is located approximately 40.7 kilometers east of the site. I\Esc_scrverlprojects\ I O-l 32 I 4T\Rpt_ Geotcchnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 Page 6 CTE Job No.: I0-13214T The site could be subjected to significant shaking in the event of a major earthquake on any of the faults noted above or other faults in the southern California or northern Baja California area. 4.4.3 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Evaluation Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine-grained sands or silts lose their physical strengths during earthquake-induced shaking and behave like a liquid. This is due to loss of point-to-point grain contact and transfer of normal stress to the pore water. Liquefaction potential varies with water level, soil type, material gradation, relative density, and probable intensity and duration of ground shaking. Seismic settlement can occur with or without liquefaction; it results from densification of loose soils. The site is underlain at shallow depths by medium dense to dense Old Paralic Deposits. In addition, loose surficial soils within proposed improvement areas are to be overexcavated and compacted as engineered fill. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction or significant seismic settlement at the site is considered to be low. 4.4.4 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation According to State of California Emergency Management Agency mapping, the site is not located within a tsunami inundation zone based on distance from the coastline and elevation above sea level. Damage resulting from oscillatory waves (seiches) is considered unlikely due to the absence of nearby confined bodies of water. \\Esc _ scrvcr\projccts\ I 0-132 I 4nRpt_ Gcotechn ical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 4.4.5 Landsliding Page 7 CTE Job No.: 10-13214T According to mapping by Tan (1995), the site is considered only "Marginally Susceptible" to landsliding and no landslides are mapped in the site area. In addition, landslides or similar associated features were not observed during the recent field exploration. Therefore, landsliding is not considered to be a significant geologic hazard at the site. 4.4.6 Compressible and Expansive Soils Undocumented Fill Soils are considered to be potentially compressible. Therefore, these soils should be overexcavated to the depth of suitable material, processed, and placed as a properly compacted fi ll, as recommended herein. Based on field data and site observations the underlying Old Paralic Deposits are not considered to be subject to significant compressibility under the proposed loads. Based on observation and laboratory test results, soils at the site are generally anticipated to exhibit Very Low to Low expansion potential (Expansion Index of 50 or less). Therefore, expansive soils are not anticipated to present significant adverse impacts to site development. Additional evaluation of near-surface soils should be performed based on field observations during grading activities. 4.4. 7 Corrosive Soils Chemical testing was performed to evaluate the potential effects that site soils may have on concrete foundations and various types of buried metallic utilities. Soil environments \\Esc_server\projects\ I 0-132 J4T\Rpt_ Gcotcchnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 A venida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 Page 8 CTE Job No.: 10-13214T detrimental to concrete generally have elevated levels of soluble sulfates and/or pH levels less than 5.5. According to American Concrete Institute (ACI) Table 318 4.3.1 , specific guidelines have been provided for concrete where concentrations of soluble sulfate (SO4) in soil exceed 0.1 percent by weight. These guidelines include low water: cement ratios, increased compressive strength, and specific cement type requirements. Based on the results of the Sulfate and pH testing performed, onsite soils are anticipated to generally have a negligible corrosion potential to Portland cement concrete improvements. A minimum resistivity value less than approximately 5,000 ohm-cm, and/or soluble chloride levels in excess of 200 ppm generally indicate a corrosive environment to buried metallic utilities and untreated conduits. Based on the obtained resistivity value of 1,890 ohm-cm, onsite soils are anticipated to have a severe corrosion potential for buried uncoated/unprotected metallic conduits. Based on these results, at a minimum, the use of buried plastic piping or conduits would appear logical and beneficial, where feasible. The results of the chemical tests performed are presented in the attached Appendix C. However, CTE does not practice corrosion engineering. Therefore, a corrosion engineer or other qualified consultant could be contacted if site specific corrosivity issues are of concern. I\Esc_servcrlprojectsl I 0-132141\Rpt_ Gcotcchnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 20 J 6 Page 9 CTE Job No.: 10-13214T 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General CTE concludes that the proposed improvements at the site are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Recommendations for the proposed earthwork and improvements are included in the following sections and Appendix D. However, recommendations in the text of this report supersede those presented in Appendix D should variations exist. These recommendations should either be evaluated as appropriate and/or updated during or following rough grading at the site. 5.2 Site Preparation Prior to grading, the site should be cleared of any existing building materials or improvements that are not to remain. Objectionable materials, such as construction debris and vegetation, not suitable for structural backfill should be properly disposed of offsite. In the area of the proposed structure existing soils should be excavated to a minimum depth of tlu·ee feet below the bottom of proposed foundations, or to the depth of suitable material, whichever depth is greatest. Localized areas of loose and potentially compressible material could require overexcavation to deeper elevations, based on conditions encountered during grading. Overexcavations should extend at least five feet laterally beyond the limits of the proposed building, where feasible. \\Esc_scrver\projects\ I 0-132141\Rpt_ Geotcchnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 A venida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 Page 10 CTE Job No.: 10-13214T Excavations in proposed pavement, flatwork, or other improvement areas should be conducted to a minimum depth of two feet below proposed or existing grades, or to suitable underlying materials, whichever depth is shallowest. Existing below-ground utilities should be redirected around the proposed structure where feasible. Existing utilities at an elevation to extend through the proposed footings should generally be sleeved and caulked to minimize the potential for moisture migration below the building slabs. Abandoned pipes exposed by grading should be securely capped to prevent moisture from migrating beneath foundation and slab soils or should be filled with minimum two-sack cement/sand slurry. A CTE geotechnical representative should observe the exposed ground surface at the overexcavation bottoms to evaluate the exposed conditions. The exposed subgrades to receive fill should be proof- roll ed or scarified a minimum of nine inches, moisture conditioned to a minimum of three percent above optimum, and properly compacted prior to additional fill placement. 5.3 Site Excavation Generally, excavation of site materials may be accomplished with heavy-duty construction equipment under normal conditions. However, the Old Paralic Deposits may become increasingly difficult to excavate with depth. Materials also appear to be, at least locally, very granular and could be very sensitive to caving and/or erosion. \\Esc_scrver\projects\10-132141\Rpt_ Gcotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 5.4 Fill Placement and Compaction Page 11 CTE Job No.: 10-13214T Granular fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent at a moisture content of at least three percent above optimum, as evaluated by ASTM D I 557. The optimum lift thickness for fill soil will depend on the type of compaction equipment used. Generally, backfill should be placed in unifonn, horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness. Fill placement and compaction should be conducted in conformance w ith local ordinances. 5.5 Fill Materials Properly moisture-conditioned very low to low expansion potential soils derived from the on-site excavations are considered suitable for reuse on the site as compacted fill. Ifused, these materials should be screened of organics and materials generally greater than three inches in maximum dimension. Irreducible materials greater than three inches in maximum dimension should generally not be used in shallow fills (within three feet of proposed grades). In utility trenches, adequate bedding should surround pipes. Imported fill beneath structures, flatwork, and pavements should have an Expansion Index of 20 or less (ASTM D 4829). Imported fill soil s for use in structural or slope areas should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer before being imported to the site. Retaining wall backfill located within a 45-degree wedge extending up from the beet of the wall should consist of soil having an Expansion Index of 20 or less (ASTM D 4829) with less than 30 \\Esc_scrvcr\projcc1s\ I 0-132141\Rpl_ Gcotcchnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 201 6 Page 12 CTE Job No.: I 0-132l4T percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The upper 12 to 18 inches of wall backfill could consist oflower permeability soils, in order to reduce surface water infiltration behind walls. The project structural engineer and/or architect should detail proper wall backdrains, including gravel drain zones, fills, filter fabric, and perforated drain pipes. However, a conceptual wall backdrain detail, which may not be suitable for use at the site, is provided as Figure 4. 5.6 Temporary Construction Slopes The following recommended slopes should be relatively stable against deep-seated failure, but may experience localized sloughing. On-site soils are considered Type B and Type C soils with recommended slope ratios as set forth in Table 5.6. However, due to the at least locally granular and erodible nature of the onsite soils, maximum l .5: 1 temporary slopes are anticipated to be more reliable, and vertical excavations may not remain standing, even at shallow or minor heights. TABLE5.6 RECOMMENDED TEMPORARY SLOPE RATIOS SOIL TYPE SLOPE RATIO MAXIMUM HEIGHT (Horizontal: vertical) B (Old Paralic Deposits) I: I (OR FLATTER) IO Feet C (Undocumented Fill) I .5: I (OR FLA TIER) 10 Feet \\Esc _ scrvcr\projecls\ 1 0-132 I 41iRpt_ Geotechn ical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 Page 13 CTE Job No.: 10-13214T Actual field conditions and soil type designations must be verified by a "competent person" while excavations exist, according to Cal-OSHA regulations. In addition, the above sloping recommendations do not allow for surcharge loading at the top of slopes by vehicular traffic, equipment or materials. Appropriate surcharge setbacks must be maintained from the top of all unshored slopes. 5.7 Foundations and Slab Recommendations The following recommendations are for preliminary design purposes only. These recommendations should be reviewed after completion of earthwork to document that conditions exposed are as anticipated, and that the recommended structure design parameters are appropriate. 5.7.1 Foundations Following the preparatory grading recommended herein, continuous and isolated spread footings or deepened pier footings are anticipated to be suitable for use at this site. It is anticipated that building footings will be founded entirely in properly compacted fill with low to very low expansion potential. Foundation dimensions and reinforcement should be based on an allowable bearing value of 2,500 pounds per square foot for footings founded entirely upon properly placed compacted fill materials embedded a minimum of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent subgrade elevation. If utilized, continuous footings should be at least 15 inches wide; isolated footings \\Esc_scrver\projects\10-1 32 I 4T\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 Page 14 CTE Job No.: 10-13214T should be at least 24 inches in least dimension. The above bearing values may be increased by one third for short duration loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. Minimum reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of four No. 5 reinforcing bars; two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom or as per the project structural engineer. The structural engineer should design isolated footing reinforcement. Footing excavations should generally be maintained above optimum moisture content until concrete placement. 5.7.2 Foundation Settlement The maximum total settlement is expected to be on the order of one inch and the maximum differential settlement is expected to be on the order of 1/2 inch over a distance of approximately 40 feet. Due to the absence of a shallow groundwater table and the generally dense nature of underlying materials, dynamic settlement is not expected to adversely affect the proposed improvements. 5. 7.3 Foundation Setback Footings for structures should be designed such that the horizontal distance from the face of adjacent slopes to the outer edge of the footing is at least 10 feet. In addition, footings should bear beneath a I: 1 plane extended up from the nearest bottom edge of adjacent trenches and/or excavations. Deepening of affected footings may be a suitable means of attaining the prescribed setbacks. \\Esc_server\projects\ I O-l 32 I 4T\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 A venida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 5.7.4 Interior Concrete Slabs Page 15 CTE Job No.: 10-13214T Lightly loaded concrete slabs should be a minimum of 5.0 inches in thickness. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of #4 reinforcing bars placed on maximum 18-inch centers, each way, at above mid-slab height, but with proper concrete cover. Subgrade materials should generally be maintained at above optimum moisture content until slab underlayment and concrete are placed. Slabs subjected to heavier loads may require thicker slab sections and/or increased reinforcement. A 120-pci subgrade modulus is considered suitable for elastic design of minimally embedded improvements such as slabs-on-grade. 1n moisture-sensitive floor areas, a suitable vapor retarder of at least 15-mil thickness (with all laps or penetrations sealed or taped) overlying a four-inch layer of consolidated crushed aggregate or gravel (with SE of30 or more) should be installed, as per the 2013 CBC/Green Building Code. An optional maximum two-inch layer of similar material may be placed above the vapor retarder to help protect the membrane during steel and concrete placement. This recommended protection is generally considered typical in the industry. If proposed floor areas or coverings are considered especially sensitive to moisture emissions, additional recommendations from a specialty consultant could be obtained. CTE is not an expert at preventing moisture penetration through slabs. A qualified architect or other experienced professional should be contacted if moisture penetration is a more significant concern. \\Esc_server\projects\ I 0-132141\Rpt_ Gcotcchnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carl sbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 5.8 Seismic Design Criteria Page 16 CTE Job No.: 10-13214T The seismic ground motion values listed in the table below were derived in accordance with the ASCE 7-10 Standard and 2013 CBC. This was accomplished by establishing the Site Class based on the soil properties at the site, and then calculating the site coefficients and parameters using the United States Geological Survey Seismic Design Maps application using the site coordinates of 33.1 204 degrees latitude and -11 7 .3240 degrees longitude. These values are intended for the design of structures to resist the effects of earthquake ground motions. TABLES.9 SEISMIC GROUND MOTION VALUES PARAMETER VALUE CBC REFERENCE (2013) Site Class D ASCE 7, Chapter 20 Mapped Spectral Response 1.165 Figure 1613.3.1 (1) Acceleration Parameter, Ss Mapped Spectral Response 0.449 Figure 1613.3.1 (2) Acceleration Parameter, S1 Seismic Coefficient, F, 1.034 Table 16 I 3 .3 .3 (I) Seismic Coefficient, F, 1.551 Table 1613.3.3 (2) MCE Spectral Response 1.205 Section 1613.3.3 Acceleration Parameter, SMs MCE Spectral Response 0.696 Section 1613.3.3 Acceleration Parameter, SM, Design Spectral Response 0.803 Section 1613.3.4 Acceleration, Parameter Sos Design Spectral Response 0.464 Section 1613.3.4 Acceleration, Parameter S01 Peak Ground Acceleration PGAM 0.484 ASCE 7, Section 11.8.3 \\Esc _scrver\projccts\ IO-I 3214T\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 5.9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures Page 17 CTE Job No.: 10-1 3214T Lateral loads acting against retaining walls may be resisted by friction between the footi ngs and the supporting compacted fill soil and/or Old Paralic Deposits or passive pressure acting against structures. If frictional resistance is used, an allowable coefficient of friction of0.30 (total frictional resistance equals the coefficient of friction multiplied by the dead load) is recommended for concrete cast directly against compacted fill. A design passive resistance value of250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (with a maximum value of 2,000 pounds per square foot) may be used. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and the passive resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance. If proposed, retaining walls up to approximately eight feet high and backfilled using granular soils may be designed using the equivalent fluid weights given below. TABLE 5.10 EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHTS (pounds per cubic foot) SLOPE BACKFILL WALL TYPE LEVEL BACKFILL 2:1 (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL) CANTILEVER WALL 30 48 (YIELDING) RESTRAINED WALL 60 75 \\Esc_scrverlprojectsl I 0-132141\Rpt_ Geotcchnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Page 18 Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 CTE Job No.: 10-13214T Lateral pressures on cantilever retaining walls (yielding walls) due to earthquake motions may be calculated based on work by Seed and Whitman (1970). The total lateral thrust against a properly drained and backfilled cantilever retaining wall above the groundwater level can be expressed as: For non-yielding (or "restrained") walls, the total lateral thrust may be similarly calculated based on work by Wood (1973): Where PA= Static Active Thrust (determined using Table 5.9) PK = Static Restrained Wall Thrust (detennined using Table 5.9) ~p AE = Dynamic Active Thrust Increment= (3/8) kh yH2 ~PKe = Dynamic Restrained Thrust Increment = kh yH2 kh = 2/3 Peak Ground Acceleration = 2/3 (PGAM) H = Total Height of the Wall y = Total Unit Weight of Soil ~ 135 pounds per cubic foot The increment of dynamic thrust in both cases should be distributed triangularly with a line of action located at H/3 above the bottom of the wall (SEAOC, 2013). These values assume non-expansive backfill and free-draining conditions. Measures should be taken to prevent moisture buildup behind all retaining walls. Drainage measures should include free- draining backfill materials and sloped, perforated drains. These drains should discharge to an appropriate off-site location. A general or conceptual detail for Retaining Wall Drainage, which may be appropriate for the subject site based on the review of the project structural engineer and architect, is attached as Figure 4. Waterproofing should be as specified by the project architect or the waterproofing specialty consultant. \\Esc_scrver\projecls\ I 0-132141\Rpt_ Gcotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 60 IO A venida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 5. IO Exterior Flatwork Page 19 CTE Job No.: 10-13214T To reduce the potential for cracking in exterior non-traffic flatwork areas caused by mmor movement of subgrade soils and typical concrete shrinkage, it is recommended that such flatwork measure a minimum 5.0 inches thick and be installed with crack-control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the project architect. Additionally, it is recommended that flatwork be installed with at least No. 4 reinforcing bars on maximum 18-inch centers, each way, at above mid-height of slab but with proper concrete cover, or other reinforcement per the project consultants. Doweling of flatwork joints at critical pathways or similar could also be beneficial in resisting minor subgrade movements. Subgrades should be prepared according to the earthwork recommendations previously given, before placing concrete. Positive drainage should be established and maintained next to all flatwork. Subgrade materials shall be maintained at, or be elevated to, above optimum moisture content prior to concrete placement. 5.1 1 Pavements Pavement sections provided are based on pre! iminary Resistance "R" -Value results, estimated traffic indices, and the assumption that the upper foot of compacted fill subgrade and overlying aggregate base materials are properly compacted to a minimum 95% relative compaction at a minimum of two percent above optimum moisture content (as per ASTM D 1557). Beneath proposed pavement areas, loose, clayey, or otherwise unsuitable soils are to be removed to the depth of competent \\Esc_scrvcr\projects\ l O-l 32 l 4T\Rpt_ Gcotcchnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 Page 20 CTE Job No.: 10-13214T underlying material as recommended in Section 5.2. R-Value of subgrade material should be verified during grading and pavement sections may be modified as necessary. TABLE 5.12 RECOMMENDED AC OR PCC PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESSES Traffic Area Assumed Preliminary Asphalt Pavements Portland Cement Traffic Index Subgrade AC CalTrans Class IT or Concrete "R"-Value Thickness Crushed Miscellaneous Pavements On (INCHES) Aggregate Base Subgrade Thickness (INCHES) (INCHES) Auto Parking 4.5 5 4.0 6.0 6.5 Areas Drive Areas 6.0 5 4.0 12.0 7.5 Asphalt paved areas should be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with, for example, the recommendations of the Asphalt Institute, or other widely recognized authority. Concrete paved areas should be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the American Concrete Institute or other widely recognized authority, particularly with regard to thickened edges, joints, and drainage. The Standard Specifications for Public Works construction ("Greenbook") or Caltrans Standard Specifications may be referenced for pavement materials specifications. 5.12 Drainage Surface runoff should be collected and directed away from improvements by means of appropriate erosion-reducing devices, and positive drainage should be established around proposed improvements. Positive drainage should be directed away from improvements and slope areas at a I\Esc_server\projects\l O-I 32 I 4T\Rpt_ Gcotcchnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 Page 21 CTE Job No.: 10-l3214T minimum gradient of two percent for a distance of at least five feet. However, the project civil engineer should evaluate the on-site drainage and make necessary provisions to keep surface water from affecting the site. Generally, CTE recommends against allowing water to infiltrate building pads or adjacent to slopes and improvements. However, it is understood that some agencies are encouraging the use of stonn- water cleansing devices. Therefore, if storm water cleansing devices must be used, it is generally recommended that they be underlain by an impervious barrier and that the infiltrate be collected via subsurface piping and discharged off site. If infiltration must occur, water should infiltrate as far away from structural improvements as feasible. Additionally, any reconstructed slopes descending from infiltration basins should be equipped with subdrains to collect and discharge accumulated subsurface water (Appendix D contains general or typical details for internal fill slope drainage). 5.13 Slopes Based on observed conditions and anticipated soil strength characteristics, cut and fill slopes, if proposed at the site, should be constructed at ratios of 2: 1 (horizontal: vertical) or fl atter. These fill slope inclinations should exhibit factors of safety greater than 1.5. Although properly constructed slopes on this site should be grossly stable, the soils wi ll be somewhat erodible. Therefore, runoff water should not be pe1mitted to drain over the edges of slopes unless that water is confined to properly designed and constructed drainage facilities. Erosion-resistant vegetation should be maintained on the face of all slopes. Typically, soils along \\Esc_scrver\projects\ IO-I 32 I 4T\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 A venida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 Page 22 CTE Job No.: 10-13214T the top portion of a fill slope face wi 11 creep laterally. CTE recommends against building distress- sensitive hardscape improvements within five feet of slope crests. 5.14 Plan Review CTE should be authorized to review the project grading and foundation plans prior to commencement of earthwork to identify potential conflicts with the intent of the geotechnical recommendations. 5 .15 Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions observed in the explorations performed. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Foundation recommendations may be revised upon completion of grading and as-built laboratory test results. Recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding and assumption that CTE will provide the observation and testing services for the project. All earthwork should be observed and tested to verify that grading activities have been performed according to the recommendations contained within this report. CTE should evaluate all footing trenches before reinforcing steel placement. \\Esc _server\projects\ I 0-132141\Rpt_ Geotechnical .doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 20 I 6 Page 23 CTE Job No.: 10-1 3214T 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analysis presented in this report have been conducted according to current engineering practice and the standard of care exercised by reputable geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction. The recommendations presented herein have been developed in order to help reduce the potential adverse effects of expansive soils and transitional bearing conditions. However, even with the design and construction precautions provided, some post-construction movement and associated distress should be anticipated. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. \\Esc_server\projects\ IO-I 32 I 4T\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Carlsbad Toyota Car Wash 6010 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California September 16, 2016 Page 24 CTE Job No.: 10-J3214T CTE's conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions. If conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, this office should be notified and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided. The opportunity to be of service on this project is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. ~ Dan T. Math, GE #2665 Principal Engineer Aaron J. Beeby, CEO #2603 Project Geologist AJB/JFL/DTM:nri Jay F. Lynch, CEO #1890 Principal Engineering Geologist \\Esc _server\projec1s\ I 0-132141\Rpt_ Geotcchnical.doc ActMI Atlw•t1cum H CranFit 700 urkbild, uiltfor ... Cl~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ~'C 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph {760) 746-4955 SITE INDEX MAP PROPOSED CARLSBAD TOYOTA CAR WASH 8010 AVBNIDA ENCINAS CARIBBAD, CALll'ORNIA SCALE: AS SHOWN CTE JOB NO.: 10-12390'1' DATE: 03/15 FIGURE: 1 I , I ' I I I f I I ' J , I I I ........... ~ I '...__ ~ ..,'v·· / I ---+. ---~-.-:-::--,. I I ....., ,, ' : ~---·------"', :'/~ ! I l ~~..:; __,,_,.____, ... ... I f / l ··,~', .... , I I>, ' I, '-IJ V-~Boorr(U'_W) / ~ lf' --♦ ~-♦-.... ~~ '4f-~ I : • U V~Boom(H'_W) I I / ,. ~ ~~~ I : I 1 ---◄-------◄---I I I t,./ I I l LEGEND B-3 ~ Approximate Boring Location Qop Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits S ITE L AYO UT 40' 0 20· 40' 1-s--------- , I Cl~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ~'C 1441 Monllet Rd ste 116, Eaoondido, CA 92026 Ph (780) 746-4965 GIOLOGIC/DPLORATION LOCATION KAP SCALE: DATE: PROPOSED CARLSBAD TOYOTA CAR WASH 1•=fO' B/l6 6010 AVENIDA ENCINAS CTE JOB NO.: FlGURE: CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 10-132UT 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I . \' ~ .· r ~ ~ \ I \ \ ' '\ \ ' \ I J \ \ \ \ \ APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION \ '\ \ \ OTES: FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CAIJFORNIA, 2010, CAIJFORNIA GEOLOGIC DATA MAP SERIES MAP NO. 6; EPICENTERS OF AND AREAS DAMAGED BY 1125 CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKES, 1800-1999 ADAPTED AFTER TOPPOZADA, BRANUM, PETERSEN, HALISl'ORM, CRAMER, AND REICHLE, 2000, CDMG MAP SHEET 49 REFERENCE FOR ADDmONAL EXPLANATION; MODIFIED me CISN AND USGS SEISMIC MAPS I -. LEGEND -1 inch = HISTORIC FAULT DISPLACEMENT (LAST 200 YEARS) 6 12 i I 12 mi. HOLOCENE FAULT DISPLACEMENT (DURING PAST 11 ,700 YEARS) -----·· ••• ? •• LATE QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACMENT (DURING PAST 700,000 YEARS) QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT (AGE UNDIFFERENTIATED) PREQUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT (OLDER THAN 1.6 MILLION YEARS) ·~~~~~R~. ~ PERIOD r w --0 ::> !::: .:: 7.0 6.5-6.9 5.5-5.9 5.0-5.4 1800- 1868 0 0 0 0 1869- 1931 • • 1932- 2010 0 0 ~ LAST TWO DIGITS OF M ?: 6.5 ~ EARTHQUAKE YEAR I .,_,. /• • )·:N, , I 1\ { . I' I Jl :ti I /\1 , ,J/: • ;'i; ''!' ,:, ,_ I ·. .. 1 I .,.,.lf:..,. •~f;--WJll!.f '-'1 'S.. -"""Z-z·. -----✓-,, ~ :,......_ • '!'-,, .. ,. • r :--._ .,;/,' I l . ·. . ~--:·: t:. . .. ✓...,,,,,_ • :-, --I •·. i \ --.. ,, .. ,.J, ,.. ; '·. ..., , I ~ .,,, ---~J-._ • .-0:i.' ,, \_ .• /,., 11 •• l ~ !--✓.:.. ,,...,-/2'!-';,. . . ;; ,\·//, \ /J.'s"'('~;:·~~-·--... --... 111: ~--A-,' A -,: • L'" ---, ----------• , ---., t t ~ :1'.--------------------- M E CJ~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 a C RETAINING WALL FINISH GRADE -~-...--.........,...........,......,.....,....,..+,-.........,...J t:. ~~ ) ~ > <I -/\ WALL FOOTING 12" TO 18" OF LOWER PERMEABILITY NATIVE MATERIAL COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION ,...,.~. Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ". ~: 1441 Montiel RQ ste 115, e$Cl)0,:iQo, CA 92028 Ph (700) 74&-4955 (TtoJOB NO: I0-132.14T RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL "ANO SCALE DATE. PH1l\RE: 8i l6 4 APPENDIX A REFERENCES REFERENCES 1. American Society for Civil Engineers, 2010, "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures," ASCE/SEI 7-10. 2. ASTM, 2002, "Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort," Volume 04.08 3. Blake, T.F., 2000, "EQFAULT," Version 3.00b, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software. 4. California Building Code, 2013, "California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2," California Building Standards Commission, published by ICBO, June. 5. California Division of Mines and Geology, CD 2000-003 "Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Southern Region," compiled by Martin and Ross. 6. California Emergency Management Agency/California Geological Survey, "Tsunami Inundation Maps for Emergency Planning. 7. Frankel, A.D., Petersen, M.D., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Wheeler, R.L., Leyendecker, E.V., Wesson, R. L., Hannsen, S.C., Cramer, C.H., Perkins, D.M., Rukstales,K.S.,2002, Documentation for the 2002 update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2002-420, 39p 8. Hart, Earl W., Revised 2007, "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist Priolo, Special Studies Zones Act of 1972," California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. 9. Jennings, Charles W., 1994, "Fault Activity Map of Cali fornia and Adjacent Areas" with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions. 10. Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 2008, "Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California", California Geological Survey, Map No. 2, Plate I of 2. 11. Reichle, M., Bodin, P., and Brune, J., 1985, The June 1985 San Diego Bay Earthquake swarm [abs.]: EOS, v. 66, no. 46, p.952. 12. SEAOC, Blue Book-Seismic Design Recommendations, "Seismically Induced Lateral Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures and Basement Walls," Article 09.10.010, October 2013. 13 . Seed, H.B., and R.V. Whitman, 1970, "Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads," in Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth-Retaining Structures, pp. 103-147, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. APPENDIX B EXPLORATION LOGS Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 DEFINITION OF TERMS PRIMARY DIVISIONS GRAVELS CLEAN MORE THAN GRAVELS HALF OF < 5% FINES COARSE FRACTION IS GRAVELS LARGER THAN WITH FINES NO. 4 SIEVE SANDS CLEAN MORE THAN SANDS HALF OF < 5% FINES COARSE FRACTION IS SANDS SMALLER THAN WITH FINES N0.4 SIEVE SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS LESS THAN 50 SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS GREATER THAN 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OF NO FINES SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC FINES CLAVEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC FINES CLAVEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES INORGANIC SIL TS, VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SIL TY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS, SLIGHTLY PLASTIC CLAVEY SILTS INORGANIC CLA VS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY, SANDY SILTS OR LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC CLA VS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SIL TS, MICACEOUS OR DIA TOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS INORGANIC CLA VS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDTIJM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS GRAIN SIZES BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SIL TS AND CLAYS COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE 12" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200 CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE ADDITIONAL TESTS (OTHER THAN TEST PIT AND BORING LOG COLUMN HEADINGS) MAX-Maximum Dry Density GS-Grain Size Distribution SE-Sand Equivalent El-Expansion Index CHM-Sulfate and Chloride Content , pH, Resistivity COR -Corrosivity SD-Sample Disturbed PM-Permeability SG-Specific Gravity HA-Hydrometer Analysis AL-Atterberg Limits RV-R-Value CN-Consolidation CP-Collapse Potential HC-Hydrocollapse REM-Remolded PP-Pocket Penetrometer WA-Wash Analysis OS-Direct Shear UC-Unconfined Compression MD-Moisture/Density M-Moisture SC-Swell Compression OJ-Organic Impurities FIGURE: BL l PROJECT: CTEJOB NO: LOGGED BY: " C. " E Q. .; ., >. 0 " Cl) I-0 !::, C ~ -5 -" " ;l: Q. > " "5 ·c: 0 0 a:i 0 iii C' 0 _e, ~ ·;;; C: " 0 ~ 0 -0 --~ -- --~ --- -5- -- -- -- --.. 10-- --I --- --I -- -1 5- -- -- -- -- 20- ... - ... - ... - ... - 25- ... - ~ ~ e ~ ·s ~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 DRJLLER: SHEET: of DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION: 0 ..c E eo >. 0 Cl) ..J c,i BORING LEGEND Laboratory Tests 0 c,i :::i 0 :.c Q. E 0 DESCRIPTION Block or Chunk Sample Bulk Sample Standard Penetration Test Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler (Cal Sampler) Thin Walled Army Corp. of Engineers Sample Groundwater Table r'=-Soil Type or Classification Change --------------------------------- ...--? ---? ---? ---? ---? ---? ---? - \__ F.ormation ~hange f(A~proximat~ boundari~s Queried ;?)l "SM" Quotes are placed around classifications where the soils exist in situ as bedrock FIGURE: I BL2 PROJECT: CTEJOB NO: LOGGED BY: " 0. " E ~ !:: .; " " Cl> I-~ C -5 "" " C. ::i > " ·c: Cl a) Cl -o -- -- -- -- -5 --/ --- -- -- -- -- -- ------- --l -2;; -- -- ---- -2.s- ~ <n 3: 0 ai 7 7 7 5 7 15 8 8 12 7 13 14 CJ~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 TOYOTA OF CARLSBAD CAR WASH 10-132 l4T AJB C' 0 5 .0 ~ DRILLER: DRILL METHOD: SAMPLE METHOD: BAJA EXPLORATION HOLLOW-STEM AUGER RING, SPT and BULK SHEET: I DRILLING DA TE: ELEVATION: of I 8/12/2016 -58 FEET ~ c ~ 0/) j ·;;; Cl> ~ BORING: B-1 Laboratory Tests C " £l Cl c ·o Cl ~ vi " u :.a C. vi ~ ;j 0 CL --------SM/SC -------CL "SC" -------- DESCRJPTION Asphalt: 0-4" Base Material: 4-7" QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL: Stiff~ mois~ brown~ fine_g_rained sandy CLAY. __________________ _ Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, silty to clayey fine grained SAND. Stiff to very stiff, moist, brown, fine grained sandy CLAY. QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: Medium dense, moist, reddish brown, clayey fine grained SANDSTONE, oxidized, massive. SM/SC Medium dense, moist, reddish brown, silty to clayey fine grained --------SP-SM SANDSTONE, oxidized, massive. Medium dense, moist, reddish brown, poorly graded fine grained SANDSTONE with silt, massive, friable, abundant mafics. Total Depth: 20' No Groundwater Encountered El,CHM CN GS I 8-1 ~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. C~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 PROJECT: TOYOTA OF CARLSBAD CAR WASH DRILLER: BAJA EXPLORATION SHEET: I of I CTEJOB NO: I0-13214T DRILL METHOD: HOLLOW-STEM AUGER DRILLING DA TE: 8/12/2016 LOGGED BY: AJB SAMPLE METHOD: RING, SPT and BULK ELEVATION: -60 FEET " C' 0 C. 0 -3: .,, s ! ~ s c t >, eJ) BORING: B-2 ;; ~ 0 Laboratory Tests ., ·;;; v:, ...J ~ ~ C: ~ vi 0 C: vi " 2 u :.c -5 -"' " ;I: 0 "' C. C. :i > 0 c ·o vi e " ·c 0 co 0 ai 0 ~ ::i 0 DESCRJPTION 0 Asphalt: 0-4.5" SC Base Material: 4.5-7.5" -QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL: Loose to medium dense moist brown clavev fine "rained SAND. --"CL" QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: --Very stiff, moist, reddish brown, fine grained sandy CLA YSTONE, oxidized, massive, carbonate nodules. -- -5-[ 4 --6 GS 10 ----------"SC" Medium dense, moist, reddish brown, clayey fine grained SANDSTONE, oxidized, massive. -- -- -l(t -I 7 --II Sandy clay interbeds -24 -- ---------Medium dense, moist, reddish brown, poorly graded, tine grained "SP-SM" --SANDSTONE with silt, massive, friable. -15- T 6 --7 GS 9 --Total Depth: 16.5' ... -No Groundwater Encountered -- -2& ... - ... - ... - ... - '"25- I B-2 PROJECT: CTE JOB NO: LOGGED BY: ., ii "' E ~ ~ " '" ., C/l I-!::.. 'D C: '° ..c: "' ~ 0.. ~ > ., ::, ·c 0 0 cc 0 iii >-0 ... - ... - ,-- -- >-5-.... ,..~ 7 ... -7 II ,-- ,-- ... - ... I <t-7 9 --13 ... - ,-- -- ... I 5- ,-- ,-- ,-- -- .-2e- ,-- ,-- -- ... - --25- CJ~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 TOYOTA OF CARLSBAD CAR WASH I0-13214T AJB 0 0 <.) 5 .r, ~ E DRILLER: DRILL METHOD: SAMPLE METHOD: BAJA EXPLORATION HOLLOW-STEM AUGER RING, SPT and BULK SHEET: I DRILLING DATE: ELEVATION: of I 8/12/2016 ~60 FEET t ~ el> >, 0 C/l ..J ~ BORING: B-3 Laboratory Tests C: ., 0 c ·5 0 2 v:i (.I u :.a C. vi E ::i 0 SC "CL" DESCRIPTION Asphalt: 0-3" Base Material: 3-6" QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL: Loose to medium dense, moist, brown to reddish brown, fine grained SAND. QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: Very stiff, moist, reddish brown, fine grained sandy CLA YSTONE, oxidized, massive. --------"SC" Medium dense or very stiff, moist, reddish brown, clayey fine grained SANDSTONE/ sandy CLA YSTONE, oxidized, massive . Total Depth: 11 .5' No Groundwater Encountered I B-3 APPENDIXC LABO RA TORY METHODS AND RESULTS APPENDIXC LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS Laboratory Testing Program Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to detect their relative engineering properties. Tests were performed following test methods of the American Society for Testing Materials or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the various test methods used. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classifications were supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples according to ASTM D2487. The soil classifications are shown on the Exploration Logs in Appendix B. Particle-Size Analysis Particle-size analyses were performed on selected representative samples according to ASTM D 422. Expansion Index Expansion testing was performed on selected samples of the matrix of the on-site soils according to ASTM D4829. Consolidation To assess their compressibility and volume change behavior when loaded and wetted, relatively undisturbed samples ofrepresentative samples from the investigation were subject to consolidation tests in accordance with ASTM D 2435. Resistance "R" Value The resistance "R"-value was measured by the California Test. 30 I. The graphically determined "R" value at an exudation pressure of 300 pounds per square inch is the value used for pavement section calculation. Chemical Analysis Soil materials were collected with sterile sampling equipment and tested for Sulfate and Chloride content, pH, Corrosivity, and Resistivity. LOCATION 8-1 LOCATION 8-3 LOCATION B-1 LOCATION 8-1 LOCATION 8-1 LOCATION 8-1 LABORATORY SUMMARY Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 EXPANSION INDEX TEST ASTM D 4829 DEPTH (feet) EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL 0-5 RESISTANCE "R"-VALUE DEPTH (feet) 0-3 DEPTH (feet) 0-5 DEPTH (feet) 0-5 DEPTH (feet) 0-5 CALTEST301 SULFATE CHLORIDE p.H. RESISTIVITY CALIFORNIA TEST 424 DEPTH (feet) 0-5 25 RESULTS m 185.5 RESULTS pm 87.8 RESULTS 8.92 RESULTS ohms-cm 1890 LOW R-VALUE 5 CTE JOB NO. 10-13214T U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE ~ ?i ~ ~ 0 0 1-.J co~ coo 00 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ '<I" ~N (")'<j" .,., -N 100 --------.. -.. -... .. -....... ~~ ........ ~ 90 \ \ ~ 80 \ 70 I\_ 1 \ a "'o' \ ~ 60 \ (!) I\ z II iii 1/) ~ 50 \ I-z w (.) 0:: 40 w a. 30 \ \ 20 ~' 10 • 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE (mm) PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ~ Sample Designa1ion Sample Depth (feet) Symbol Liqui<I Limit ('Y,) Plasticity Index Chmification Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 8-1 18.5 • 0 0 SP-SM CT~c 1441 Monllel Rd Ste 115, Escondido. CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 B-2 5 ■ 0 0 CL CTE JOB NUMBER: I0-13214T FIGURE: C-1 U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE ' ' ' ~ 0 0 • "l :::!: ~ co;: <DO 00 0 0 0 N ~ ;_ C') ~ '<t ~N C') '<t U") ~ N 100 ---------,----r--,1 I\ 90 ~ \ 80 \ \ 70 ~ 60 \ 0 C) \ z ii5 II) f 50 I-\ z w u a:: 40 w \ Q. 30 20 \ " 10 r--i. 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE (mm) PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS CT~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. Sample Designation Sample Depth (fee,) Symbol Liquid Limit(%) Plasticity Index Classification 8-2 15 • 0 0 SP-SM ~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115. Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 CTE JOB NUMBER: I0-1321 4T FIGURE: C-1 ~ CT~c Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. Inspection I Testing I Geotechnical I Environmental & Construction Engineering I Civil Engineering I Surveying 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 1 nAO/_ ~ K 3.00% '-.... "1 • 3.1 ~% I~--~~~ % 4.00% -----~ --1 ~ AB% t.--z -0 --in -' 5.00% --1/) ' w ' ' cc: ' ' Q.. ' ' :E ' ' 0 ., 5.6 % u ' ' 6.00% ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 1~-s..a % ' ' ' 7.00% --' -' ---~°Ii \ --♦~3 .. 7.4 :ii.. __ 6% 8.00% 9.00% 10.00% 1000 10000 100000 VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (psf) FIELD MOISTURE ---------SAMPLE SATURATED ------REBOUND Swell/Consolidation Test ASTM D2435 Project Name: Carlsbad To~ota New Car Wash Project Number: 10-13214T Sample Date: 8/1 2/201 6 Initial Moisture(%): 11.4 Lab Number: 2656 1 Test Date: 8/19/2016 Final Moisture(%): 12.7 Sample Location: B-1 @ 5' Tested By: Chase Velarde Initial Dry Density (PCF): 11 1.9 Sample Description: Dark Brown SC Final Dry Density (PCF): 11 8.7 APPENDIX D STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... ... .. ... .. .. - AppendixD Page D-1 Standard Specifications for Grading Section 1 -General Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. presents the following standard recommendations for grading and other associated operations on construction projects. These guidelines should be considered a portion of the project specifications. Recommendations contained in the body of the previously presented soils report shall supersede the recommendations and or requirements as specified herein. The project geotechnical consultant shall interpret disputes arising out of interpretation of the recommendations contained in the soils report or specifications contained herein . Section 2 -Responsibilities of Project Personnel The geotechnical consultant should provide observation and testing services sufficient to general conformance with project specifications and standard grading practices. The geotechnical consultant should report any deviations to the client or his authorized representative . The Client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his authorized representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his authorized representative should remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. The Contractor is responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading and other associated operations on construction projects, including, but not limited to, earth work in accordance with the project plans, specifications and controlling agency requirements . Section 3 -Preconstruction Meeting A preconstruction site meeting should be arranged by the owner and/or client and should include the grading contractor, design engineer, geotechnical consultant, owner's representative and representatives of the appropriate governing authorities. Section 4 -Site Preparation The client or contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, during and/or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The appropriate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with grading operations . STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 1 of 26 Appendix D Page D-2 Standard Specifications for Grading Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, root of trees and otherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of all proposed excavation and fill areas. Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations, reserv01rs, utilities (including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, etc.) and other man-made surface and subsurface improvements from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities should include proper capping and/or rerouting pipelines at the project perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the requirements of the governing authorities and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant at the time of demolition. Trees, plants or man-made improvements not planned to be removed or demolished should be protected by the contractor from damage or injury. Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or demolition operations should be wasted from areas to be graded and disposed off-site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant. Section 5 -Site Protection Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the responsibility of the contractor. Unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties, completion of a portion of the project should not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the requirements for site protection until such time as the entire project is complete as identified by the geotechnical consultant, the client and the regulating agencies. Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall. Rain related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress and other adverse conditions as determined by the geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as unsuitable materials and should be subject to overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 2 of 26 -,., .. - - -.. - -.. -.. - - - - - - .. - • ... ... - ... ... .. .. .. .. ... .. ... Appendix D Page D-3 Standard Specifications for Grading The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant pertaining to temporary excavations ( e.g., backcuts) are made in consideration of stability of the completed project and, therefore, should not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the contractor. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude requirements that are more restrictive by the regulating agencies. The contractor should provide during periods of extensive rainfall plastic sheeting to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated and unstable. When deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant or governing agencies the contractor shall install checkdams, desilting basins, sand bags or other drainage control measures . In relatively level areas and/or slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot; they should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1.0 foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture conditioning in-place, followed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein may be attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the slope repair recommendations herein. If field conditions dictate, the geotechnical consultant may recommend other slope repair procedures. Section 6 -Excavations 6.1 Unsuitable Materials Materials that are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to, dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible natural soils and fractured, weathered, soft bedrock and nonengineered or otherwise deleterious fill materials. Material identified by the geotechnical consultant as unsatisfactory due to its moisture conditions should be overexcavated; moisture conditioned as needed, to a uniform at or above optimum moisture condition before placement as compacted fill . If during the course of grading adverse geotechnical conditions are exposed which were not anticipated in the preliminary soil report as determined by the geotechnical consultant additional exploration, analysis, and treatment of these problems may be recommended . STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 3 of 26 Appendix D Page D-4 Standard Specifications for Grading 6.2 Cut Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2: I (horizontal: vertical). The geotechnical consultant should observe cut slope excavation and if these excavations expose loose cohesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, the materials should be overexcavated and replaced with a compacted stabilization fill. If encountered specific cross section details should be obtained from the Geotechnical Consultant. When extensive cut slopes are excavated or these cut slopes are made in the direction of the prevailing drainage, a non-erodible diversion swale (brow ditch) should be provided at the top of the slope. 6.3 Pad Areas All lot pad areas, including side yard terrace containing both cut and fill materials, transitions, located less than 3 feet deep should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and replaced with a uniform compacted fill blanket of 3 feet. Actual depth of overexcavation may vary and should be delineated by the geotechnical consultant during grading, especially where deep or drastic transitions are present. For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm drainage swale and/or an appropriate pad gradient. A gradient in soil areas away from the top-of-slopes of 2 percent or greater is recommended. Section 7 -Compacted Fill All fill materials should have fill quality, placement, conditioning and compaction as specified below or as approved by the geotechnical consultant. 7 .1 Fill Material Quality Excavated on-site or import materials which are acceptable to the geotechnical consultant may be utilized as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are removed prior to placement. All import materials anticipated for use on-site should be sampled tested and approved prior to and placement is in conformance with the requirements outlined. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 4 of 26 - - - - - .. - - .. - .. "' - - - .. .. - ... .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ... ... ... .. .. Appendix D Page D-5 Standard Specifications for Grading Rocks 12 inches in maximum and smaller may be utilized within compacted fill provided sufficient fill material is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock to effectively fill rock voids. The amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry weight passing the 3/4-inch sieve. The geotechnical consultant may vary those requirements as field conditions dictate. Where rocks greater than 12 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill, special handling in accordance with the recommendations below. Rocks greater than four feet should be broken down or disposed off-site . 7.2 Placement of Fill Prior to placement of fill material, the geotechnical consultant should observe and approve the area to receive fill. After observation and approval, the exposed ground surface should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches. The scarified material should be conditioned (i.e. moisture added or air dried by continued discing) to achieve a moisture content at or slightly above optimum moisture conditions and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density or as otherwise recommended in the soils report or by appropriate government agencies. Compacted fill should then be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness prior to compaction. Each lift should be moisture conditioned as needed, thoroughly blended to achieve a consistent moisture content at or slightly above optimum and thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved . The contractor should have suitable and sufficient mechanical compaction equipment and watering apparatus on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed m consideration of moisture retention properties of the materials and weather conditions . When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5: 1 (horizontal: vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least six-foot wide benches and a minimum of four feet of vertical bench height within the firm natural ground, firm bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area after keying and benching until the geotechnical consultant has reviewed the area . Material generated by the benching operation should be moved sufficiently away from STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 5 of 26 Appendix D Page D-6 Standard Specifications for Grading the bench area to allow for the recommended review of the horizontal bench prior to placement of fill. Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as above described. At least a 3-foot vertical bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved compacted fill prior to placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in at least 3-foot vertical increments until the desired finished grades are achieved. Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other grading delay, the exposed surface or previously compacted fill should be processed by scarification, moisture conditioning as needed to at or slightly above optimum moisture content, thoroughly blended and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Where unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than one foot, the unsuitable materials should be over-excavated. Following a period of flooding, rainfall or overwatering by other means, no additional fill should be placed until damage assessments have been made and remedial grading performed as described herein. Rocks 12 inch in maximum dimension and smaller may be utilized in the compacted fill provided the fill is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. No oversize material should be used within 3 feet of finished pad grade and within 1 foot of other compacted fill areas. Rocks 12 inches up to four feet maximum dimension should be placed below the upper 10 feet of any fill and should not be closer than 15 feet to any slope face. These recommendations could vary as locations of improvements dictate. Where practical, oversized material should not be placed below areas where structures or deep utilities are proposed. Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a clean, overexcavated or unyielding compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded over and around all windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material should be staggered so those successive strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane. It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rock as field conditions dictate and as recommended by the geotechnical consultant at the time of placement. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 6 of 26 .. .. .. - - .. ,.. - -., - - - - ... -.. .. .. .. ... .. ... .. .. .. Appendix D Page D-7 Standard Specifications for Grading The contractor should assist the geotechnical consultant and/or his representative by digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. The contractor should provide this work at no additional cost to the owner or contractor's client. Fill should be tested by the geotechnical consultant for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing should conform to ASTM Method of Test D 1556-00, D 2922-04. Tests should be conducted at a minimum of approximately two vertical feet or approximately 1,000 to 2,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. Fill found not to be in conformance with the grading recommendations should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 7.3 Fill Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal: vertical). Except as specifically recommended in these grading guidelines compacted fill slopes should be over-built two to five feet and cut back to grade, exposing the firm, compacted fill inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the desired results are not achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the guidelines of the geotechnical consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased until the desired compacted slope surface condition is achieved. Care should be taken by the contractor to provide thorough mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface. At the discretion of the geotechnical consultant, slope face compaction may be attempted by conventional construction procedures including backrolling. The procedure must create a firmly compacted material throughout the entire depth of the slope face to the surface of the previously compacted firm fill intercore. During grading operations, care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer edge of the slope. Each lift should extend horizontally to the desired finished slope surface or more as needed to ultimately established desired grades. Grade during construction should not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It may be helpful to elevate slightly the outer edge of the slope. Slough resulting from the placement of individual lifts should not be allowed to drift down over previous lifts. At intervals not STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 7 of 26 Appendix D Page D-8 Standard Specifications for Grading exceeding four feet in vertical slope height or the capability of available equipment, whichever is less, fill slopes should be thoroughly dozer trackrolled. For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished using a berm and pad gradient of at least two percent. Section 8 -Trench Backfill Utility and/or other excavation of trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction should be a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. Within slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches up to one foot wide and two feet deep may be backfilled with sand and consolidated by jetting, flooding or by mechanical means. If on-site materials are utilized, they should be wheel-rolled, tamped or otherwise compacted to a firm condition. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on review of backfill operations during construction. If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, the contractor may elect the utilization of light weight mechanical compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean, granular material, which should be thoroughly jetted in-place above the conduit, prior to initiating mechanical compaction procedures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon review of the geotechnical consultant at the time of construction. In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by the geotechnical consultant. Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not recommended in slope areas. Section 9 -Drainage Where deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant, canyon subdrain systems should be installed in accordance with CTE's recommendations during grading. Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilization or sidehill masses, should be installed in accordance with the specifications. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 8 of 26 - - - - - - - - .. - - • .. ... ... .. .. .. .. ... AppendixD Page D-9 Standard Specifications for Grading Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and areas of structures to suitable disposal areas via non-erodible devices (i.e., gutters, downspouts, and concrete swales) . For drainage in extensively landscaped areas near structures, (i.e., within four feet) a minimum of 5 percent gradient away from the structure should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 percent should be maintained over the remainder of the site . Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of the project. Property owners should be made aware that altering drainage patterns could be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance. Section 10 -Slope Maintenance 10.1 -Landscape Plants To enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting should be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope planting should consist of deep-rooting vegetation requiring little watering. Plants native to the southern California area and plants relative to native plants are generally desirable. Plants native to other semi-arid and arid areas may also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect should be the best party to consult regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration. 10.2 -Irrigation Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces, not placed in trenches excavated into slope faces. Slope irrigation should be minimized. If automatic timing devices are utilized on irrigation systems, provisions should be made for interrupting normal irrigation during periods of rainfall. 10.3 -Repair As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand, to protect all slope areas from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period prior to landscape planting. If slope failures occur, the geotechnical consultant should be contacted for a field review of site conditions and development ofrecommendations for evaluation and repair. If slope failures occur as a result of exposure to period of heavy rainfall, the failure areas and currently unaffected areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to protect against additional saturation. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 9 of 26 Appendix D Page D-10 Standard Specifications for Grading In the accompanying Standard Details, appropriate repair procedures are illustrated for superficial slope failures (i.e., occurring typically within the outer one foot to three feet of a slope face). STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 10 of 26 - - - - - - - •· • .. .. - - - - .. ... ... ... - ... .. .. .. .. ... FINISH CUT SLOPE ------------- BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL FILL SLOPE 10' TYPICAL SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL 15' MIN. (INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE) BENCHING FILL OVER CUT FINISH FILL SLOPE SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL 15' MIN OR STABILITY EQUIVALENT PER SOIL ENGINEERING (INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE) NOT TO SCALE BENCHING FOR COMPACTED FILL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 11 of 26 -- ------- MINIMUM DOWNSLOPE KEY DEPTH TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN ----FILL --------------------~ ---~~~\!)-1 --------~~r--~,~~~--- -~\..v ---5\)\\1),1 --..... --\)~ -~ ...... -------------' ---1 O' TYPICAL BENCH / ---WIDTH VARIES ~1 --- / 1 ----(--- 2% MIN --- 15' MINIMUM BASE KEY WIDTH COMPETENT EARTH MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCH HEIGHT PROVIDE BACKDRAIN AS REQUIRED PER RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOILS ENGINEER DURING GRADING WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 5:1 OR LESS, BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY. FILL IS NOT TO BE PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL. NOT TO SCALE 4' FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL GROUND DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 12 of 26 -... - - .. - ., -- .. .. .. - " • -.. -.,. - -.. .. - "' .. .. i en ~ z CJ )> :ll CJ en ""O ""Om 0J C') (C -CD "TI _.. C') w )> 0 ::::! -+, 0 I\J z O'> en "TI 0 :ll Ci) :ll )> CJ z Ci) j • j REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM, AND CREEP MATERIAL FROM TRANSITION CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON "AS-BUILT" NATURAL~ -- TOPOGRAPHY .~-------------CUT SLOPE* -- j • ' j • • i j j FILL --------------r:: .. ~o\l'c-------c~<c.<c.?-~'t;..""' --- ---\.)Wlp..~O ------co\..\..u\/' .......,--,o?so\\.., --------11...,;a..tr:------_J ------ 14 'TYPICAL I ---2%MIN - 15' MINIMUM NOT TO SCALE 10' TYPICAL BEDROCK OR APPROVED FOUNDATION MATERIAL *NOTE: CUT SLOPE PORTION SHOULD BE MADE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL FILL SLOPE ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL • TYPICAL BENCHING SEE DETAIL BELOW MINIMUM 9 FP PER LINEAR FOOT OF APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL FILTER MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL: DETAIL 14" MINIMUM INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN AT 2% GRADIENT MINIMUM MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE (PERFORATIONS DOWN) 6" FILTER MATERIAL BEDDING SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40 POLY-VINYL-CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 psi 1" ¾" ¾" NO.4 NO.8 NO. 30 NO. 50 NO. 200 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, SUBJECT TO FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING LENGTH OF RUN NOT TO SCALE INITIAL 500' 500' TO 1500' > 1500' PIPE DIAMETER 4" 6" 8" TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 14 of 26 -.. - - - - - ... - .. .. - • -.. -• .. ... .. • .. ... .. .. .. ... ... ... ... .. CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS TYPICAL BENCHING SEE DETAILS BELOW INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN AT 2% GRADIENT MINIMUM TRENCH DETAILS 6" MINIMUM OVERLAP OPTIONAL V-DITCH DETAIL MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL 6" MINIMUM OVERLAP -------0 24" MINIMUM MINIMUM 9 FT3 PER LINEAR FOOT OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40 POLY- VINYLCHLORIDE (P.V.C.) 24" MINIMUM MINIMUM 9 FT3 PER LINEAR FOOT OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI. 60° TO 90° DRAIN MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL: PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, SUBJECT TO FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING SIEVE SIZE 1 ½" 1" ¾" ¾" NO. 200 PERCENTAGE PASSING 88-100 5-40 0-17 0-7 0-3 LENGTH OF RUN INITIAL 500' 500' TO 1500' > 1500' NOT TO SCALE GEOFABRIC SUBDRAIN STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 15 of 26 PIPE DIAMETER 4" 6" 8" FRONT VIEW CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL SUBDRAIN PIPE SIDE VIEW ...._._,._ ___ ......... ~---. •. . . ' -----. ·!· -. !·· .'!·· ."!" ......... ~-. 24"Min. ~ 6" Min. ~ 12" Min.~ 6" Min. CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL __ __...,•..,··-'!··... 6"Min . . .. . . .. SOILD SUBDRAIN PIPE NOT TO SCALE 6" Min. 6" Min. RECOMMENDED SUBDRAIN CUT-OFF WALL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 16 of 26 - - - - - - .. ... .. .. .. .. .. -... .. - .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. FRONT VIEW SUBDRAIN OUTLET PIPE (MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER) SIDE VIEW ALL BACKFILL SHOULD BE COMPACTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. COMPACTION EFFORT SHOULD NOT DAMAGE STRUCTURE -► -'► -'► ,·b.·,·b.•,'t.,· 'r" . ' ~ ' ' .0. • ' • I -•' I ►. -, . ' 'I -•' I ► _ .... -'►-, ' . b. ' ' . b. . ' . h. . A,,A.,.P,.,, ► -"►-'►-, •' . b. . ' . b. . ' . h.. ' A,,A,,A., -•· -••-v• ► -,, ► -, ►-,, . b. ' ,, ' b. ' ' . h. . A_,A_,A,, 24" Min . 24"Min. NOTE: HEADWALL SHOULD OUTLET AT TOE OF SLOPE OR INTO CONTROLLED SURFACE DRAINAGE DEVICE ALL DISCHARGE SHOULD BE CONTROLLED THIS DETAIL IS A MINIMUM DESIGN AND MAY BE MODIFIED DEPENDING UPON ENCOUNTERED CONDITIONS AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS NOT TO SCALE 24" Min. 12" TYPICAL SUBDRAIN OUTLET HEADWALL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 17 of 26 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE BACKDRAIN 4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED PIPE LATERAL DRAIN SLOPE PER PLAN FILTER MATERIAL BENCHING H/2 AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH. KEY-DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER (GENERALLY 1/2 SLOPE HEIGHT, 15' MINIMUM) DIMENSIONS ARE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL SLOPE STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 18 of 26 - - " - - .. -.. - "' -.. - "' -.,,. -.. -... -.. -.. -.. .. ... -.. -... .. ... .. .. .. 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE BACKDRAIN 4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED PIPE LATERAL DRAIN SLOPE PER PLAN FILTER MATERIAL 15' MINIMUM BENCHING H/2 ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH. KEY-DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER DIMENSIONS ARE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 19 of 26 20' MAXIMUM FINAL LIMIT OF EXCAVATION OVEREXCAVATE OVERBURDEN (CREEP-PRONE) DAYLIGHT LINE OVEREXCAVATE 3' AND REPLACE WITH COMPACTED FILL COMPETENT BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHING LOCATION OF BACKDRAIN AND OUTLETS PER SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. MINIMUM 2% FLOW GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE LOCATION. EQUIPMENT WIDTH (MINIMUM 15') NOT TO SCALE DAYLIGHT SHEAR KEY DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 20 of 26 - - - - - -.. - - • .. .. .. - "' -.. • .. - .. .. • • .. -.. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. PROPOSED GRADING BASE WIDTH "W" DETERMINED BY SOILS ENGINEER NATURAL GROUND COMPACTED FILL NOT TO SCALE PROVIDE BACKDRAIN, PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL. AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR BACK SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH. LOCATIONS OF BACKDRAINS AND OUTLETS PER SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. MINIMUM 2% FLOW GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE LOCATION . TYPICAL SHEAR KEY DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 21 of 26 FINISH SURFACE SLOPE 3 FP MINIMUM PER LINEAR FOOT APPROVED FILTER ROCK* CONCRETE COLLAR PLACED NEAT A 2.0% MINIMUM GRADIENT 4" MINIMUM DIAMETER SOLID OUTLET PIPE SPACED PER SOIL A ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS COMPACTED FILL 4" MINIMUM APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE** (PERFORATIONS DOWN) MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT TO OUTLET DURING GRADING TYPICAL BENCH INCLINED TOWARD DRAIN **APPROVED PIPE TYPE: MINIMUM 12" COVER SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI BENCHING DETAIL A-A 12" TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED SOLID OUTLET PIPE MINIMUM *FILTER ROCK TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL: SIEVE SIZE 1" ¾" ¾" N0.4 NO. 30 NO. 50 NO. 200 PERCENTAGE PASSING 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 5-15 0-7 0-3 NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL BACKDRAIN DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 22 of 26 .. ... - .. .. - -.. -.. - - • • • - .. • -.. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. FINISH SURFACE SLOPE MINIMUM 3 FT3 PER LINEAR FOOT OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE* TAPE AND SEAL AT COVER CONCRETE COLLAR PLACED NEAT A COMPACTED FILL MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR 2.0% MINIMUM GRADIENT APPROVED EQUAL A MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER SOLID OUTLET PIPE SPACED PER SOIL ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM 12" COVER *NOTE: AGGREGATE TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL: SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 1 ½" 100 1" 5-40 ¾" 0-17 ¾" 0-7 NO. 200 0-3 4" MINIMUM APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE (PERFORATIONS DOWN) MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT TO OUTLET TYPICAL BENCH INCLINED BENCHING TOWARD DRAIN DETAIL A-A OMPACTE BACKFILL 12" MINIMUM NOT TO SCALE TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED SOLID OUTLET PIPE BACKDRAIN DETAIL (GEOFRABIC) STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 23 of 26 SOIL SHALL BE PUSHED OVER ROCKS AND FLOODED INTO VOIDS. COMPACT AROUND AND OVER EACH WINDROW. 10' i FILL SLOPE l CLEAR ZONE __/ rEOUIPMENT WIDTH_____,/ STACK BOULDERS END TO END. DO NOT PILE UPON EACH OTHER. 0 0 0 NOT TO SCALE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 24 of 26 STAGGER ROWS -... - -.. -.. .. .. .. - - - - • .. .. ... .. - - .. ... ... ... ... ... FINISHED GRADE BUILDING 10' SLOPE FACE 0 NO OVERSIZE, AREA FOR FOUNDATION, UTILITIE~~l AND SWIMMING POOL~ 0 O STREET ~ 4•L WINDROW~ 0 5' MINIMUM OR BELOW DEPTH OF DEEPEST UTILITY TRENCH (WHICHEVER GREATER) TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (EDGE VIEW) GRANULAR SOIL FLOODED TO FILL VOIDS HORIZONTALLY PLACED COMPACTION FILL PROFILE VIEW NOT TO SCALE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 25 of 26 GENERAL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS CUT LOT --ORIGINAL -------GROUND ---------TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM AND _ -- WEATHERED BEDROCK --------- 3' MIN ----------UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OVEREXCAVATE AND REGRADE CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION) ----------------COMPACTED FILL --------,,,,,. ,,,,,. ,,,,,. ,,,,,. .,,,..,,,,,.,,,,,.,,,,,. --------__.- TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM .-_,,,,. _,,,,. _,,,,. _,,,,. __.-AND WEATHERED "" BEDROCK _,,,,. ~ --------------------- UNWEATHERED BEDROCK NOT TO SCALE TRANSITION LOT DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 26 of 26 ___..-: ORIGINAL _,,,,._,,,,.,,,,,.-..-GROUND 'MIN 3'MIN OVEREXCAVATE AND REGRADE - - - - - - - • - -.. .. -... -... -.. - - - .. ..