HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 86-21; California Builders; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)FEE: $175.00
^ RECEIPT NO:
BWIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - Part I
^jp/Zy "^'^c^^ Be Completed by APPLICANT)
-^k%o. CASE NO
Applicant: Leon & Sonja Perl
Address of Applicant: 215 North Palm Drive. Beverlv Hills. CA 90210
Phone Number: (213 ) 938-3820
Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than
Applicant): Charles F. Rowe dba California Builders 2910 Jeffer.c^nn .qt- Rt-p9n9
Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 434-3125
GENERAL INFORMATION;
Description of Project: A two storv office building with nne IPVPI nf
below grade parking. Building area is 18,000 sq.ft. of office space with
parking provided onsite for 69 cars. Project is planned fnr th^ ^n-rr.^-r
ot Jetterson and Grand. Central courtyard provides garage access and light
to lobby/circulation areas. Large landscape area at corner pnd ^rill^^a
scale ot tacades and materials are reflected in this project.
Project Location/Address:
17,70 lots: 1) 785 Grand Avenue, Carlsbad,CA 92008 2)2937 Jefferson Street. Carlsbad. CA 92008
Assessor Parcel Number: D 203-,303-19 . 2) 203-303-20
Zone of Subject Property: C-2,Village Redevelopment Overlay
Proposed Use of Site: Medical & General Lease Offices
List all other applicable applications related to this project
Major Redevelopment Permit
2. Describe the activity area, including distiguishing natural and man-
made characteristics; also provide precise slope analysis when
appropriate.
Site is located at the corner of Jefferson and Grand Avenue in the
Village Redevelopment Area. The site is presently occupied by two
dilapidated single family residences. The site slopes approximately 2.5
feet westward and 1.5 feet down northward. There are no distinguishing
features on the site with the exception that it is an eyesore.
3. Describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design
and/or operation of the project.
Highly efficient building envelope, consideration of daylight utilization
to reduce lighting and heating loads, and a thorough suncontrol strategy
for the exterior fenestration.
4. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes,
range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected.
N/A
5. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or
regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading
facilities.
N/A
6. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and
loading facilities.
N/A
7. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per
shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits
to be derived from the project. 90 occupants gross (per UBC B-2 occupancy]
The building is intended to provide lease office space for professionals.
The ground floor lease area (5400 net s.f.) is intended for medical offices.
The second level is intended for other professional tenants (not Medical)
The tenants will provide Medical services to their patients as well as a
full range of professional services to the community. The addition of these
individuals to the village environment „• 11 ^«^«,T«I ^r^«,«•«^- ^-F^^^V-I-O
° will benejit redevelopment errorts.
-2-
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Answer the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate
space. (Discuss all items checked "yes". Attach additional sheets as
necessary.)
YES NO
1) Could the project significantly change present
land uses in the vicinity of the activity? x
2) Could the activity affect the use of a recreational
area, or area of important aesthetic value? x
3) Could the activity affect the functioning of an
established community or neighborhood? x
4) Could the activity result in the displacement of
community residents? x
7) Are any of the natural or man-made features in the
activity area unique, that is, not found in other
parts of the county, state or nation?
8) Could the activity significantly affect an
historical or archaeological site or its settings?
13) Could the activity change existing features of
any of the city's lagoons, bays, or tidelands?
15) Could the activity result in the erosion or
elimination of agricultural lands?
16) Could the activity serve to encourage development
of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop-
ment of already developed areas?
-3-
5) Could the activity increase the number of low and X
modest cost housing units in the city?
6) Could the activity decrease the number of low and
modest cost housing units in the city? X.
X
X
9) Could the activity significantly affect the
potential use, extraction, or conservation of a
scarce natural resource? ^
10) Does the activity significantly affect the
potential use, extraction, or conservation of a
scarce natural resource? ^
11) Could the activity significantly affect fish,
wildlife or plant life? X.
12) Are there any rare or endangered plant species
in the activity area? ^
14) Could the activity change existing features of
any of the city's beaches? ^
-X-
YES NO
17) Will the activity require a variance from
established environmental standards (air, water,
noise, etc.)? X
18) Will the activity require certificatiion, authoriza-
tion or issuance of a permit by any local, state or X
federal environmental control agency?
19) Will the activity require issuance of a variance
or conditional use permit by the City? X
20) Will the activity involve the application, use, or
disposal of potentially hazardous materials? X
21) Will the activity involve construction of
facilities in a flood plain? X
22) Will the activity involve construction of
facilities in the area of an active fault? X
23) Will the activity involve construction of
facilities on a slope of 25 percent or greater? X
24) Could the activity result in the generation of
significant amounts of noise? X
25) Could the activity result in the generation of
significant amounts of dust? X
26) Will the activity involve the burning of brush,
trees, or other materials? X
27) Could the activity result in a significant change
in the quality of any portion of the region's air
or water resources? (Should note surface, ground X
water, off-shore.)
28) Will the project substantially increase fuel
consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)?
29) Will there be a significant change to existing X
land form?
(a) Indicate estimated grading to be done in
cubic yards: 5,400 ^.u. yards cut. for basement parking garage
(b) Percentage of alteration to the present
land form: .
(c) Maximum height of cut or fill slopes:
SJ
30) Will the activity result in substantial increases
in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets?
31) Is the activity carried out as part of a larger
project or series of projects? X
-4-
II. STATEMENT OF NON-SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions in Section
I but you think the activity will have no significant environmental
effects, indicate your reasons below:
III. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IN SECTION I
(If additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach
additional sheets as needed.)
Signature
(Person Completrrrg Report/) y vu7 c Tii
Date Si
-5-
CITY OF CARLSBAD
A Municipal Corporation of
the State of California
by:
MARTIN ORENYAK, Community
Development Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR., City Attorney
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-6-
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
GRAND AVENUE OFFICE BUILDING
GRAND AVENUE AND JEFFERSON STREET
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
California Builders
Post Office Box 142
Carlsbad, California 92008
PREPARED BY:
Southern California Soil A Testing, Inc
Post Office Box 20627
6280 Riverdale Street
San Diego, California 92120
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL
6280 RIVERDALE ST. SAN DIEGD, CALIF. 9212D • TELE 2BD-4321
67B ENTERPRISE ST. ESCDNDIDO, CALI
AND TESTING, INC.
p.D. BDX 2D627 SAN DIEDD, CALIF. 92120
92025 • TELE 746-4^544
December 11, 1986
California Builders
Post Office Box 142
Carlsbad, California 92008
SCS&T 8621218
Report No. 1
SUBJECT:
Gentlemen:
Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Grand Avenue Office
Building, Southwestern Intersection of Grand Avenue and
Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California.
In accordance with your reques, we have performed a geotechnical
investigation for the project. The findings and recommendations of our
study are presented herewith.
In general, we found the site suitable for the proposed development
provided the recommendations presented in the attached report are followed.
If you have any questions regarding this report please do not hesitate to
contact our office.
Respectfully submi
SOUTHERN CAUIF )IL & TESTING, INC.
Daniel B.
DBA:CRB:mw
cc: (6) Submitted
(1) SCS&T, Escondido
ay/^ r>^-y7t/
Curtis R. Burdett, C.E.G. #1U9U
'C£F;TiFii;.
. ENGINFFP:
GEOLOC;:^
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, I N C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction and Project Description 1
Project Scope 1
Findings 2
Site Description 2
General Geology and Subsurface Conditions 3
Geologic Setting and Soil Description 3
Tectonic Setting 3
Geologic Hazards 4
General 4
Groundshaicing 4
Groundwater 5
Conclusions and Recommendations 5
General 5
Grading 5
Site Preparation 5
Drainage 6
Earthwork 6
Temporary Slopes 6
General 6
Temporary Shoring 6
Foundations 7
General 7
Rei nforcement 7
Concrete Slabs-on-Grade 7
Uplift 8
Expansive Characteristics 8
Fuondation Excavation Observation 8
Foundation Plan Review 8
Earth Retaining Structures 8
Passive Pressure 8
Active Pressure 9
Baclcfill 11
Factor of Safety 11
Limitations 11
Review, Observation and Testing 11
Uniformity of Conditions 11
Change in Scope 12
Time Limitations 12
Professional Standard 12
Client's Responsibility..... 13
Field Explorations 13
Laboratory Testing 14
AHACHMENTS
PUTES
Plate 1 Plot Plan
Plate 2 Subsurface Exploration Legend
Plate 3-7 Boring and Trench Logs
Plate 7 Grain Size Distribution
Plate 8-9 Direct Shear Summary
Plate 10 Consolidation Test
Plate 11 Single Point Consolidation
APPENDIX
Recommended Grading Specification and Special Provisions
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
6280 RIVERDALE ST. SAN DIEGD, CALIF. 92120 • TELE 2BO-4321 • P.O. BDX 2D627 SAN DIEGD, CALIF. 9212D
67B ENTERPRISE ST. ESCDNDIDD, CALIF. 92025 • TELE 746-4544
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
GRAND AVENUE OFFICE BUILDING
GRAND AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for a
proposed office building to be located at the southeastern intersection of
Grand Avenue and Jefferson Street, in the City of Carlsbad, California.
It is our understanding that the site will be developed to receive a three
story office building of masonry and wood-frame construction. Shallow
foundations as well as conventional slab-on-grade floor systems are
anticipated. The first level will consist of an underground paricing garage
which will extend ten feet below grade.
To assist in this investigation we were provided with a set of undated
plans of unknown origin. The site configuration and approximate locations
of our subsurface explorations are shown of Plate Number 1 of this report.
PROJECT SCOPE
This investigation consisted of: surface reconnaissance, subsurface
explorations, obtaining representative disturbed and undisturbed samples,
laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory data, research of
SOUTHERN CALIFGRNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Page 2
available geological literature pertaining to the site, and preparation of
this report. More specifically, the intent of this analysis was to:
a) Explore the subsurface conditions to the depths influenced by the
proposed construction.
b) Evaluate, by laboratory tests, the pertinent engineering
properties of the various strata which will influence the
development, including their bearing capacities, expansive
characteristics and settlement potential.
c) Describe the general geology at the site including possible
geologic hazards which could have an effect on the site
development.
d) Address potential construction difficulties and provide
recomnendations concerning these problems.
e) Develop soil engineering criteria for site grading and provide
recomnendations regarding the stability of temporary cut slopes.
f) Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of
structures anticipated and develop soil engineering design
criteria for the recommended foundation design.
FINDINGS
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site consists of a nearly square parcel of land located at the
southwestern corner of Grand Avenue and Jefferson Street in the City of
Carlsbad. The site is bounded by Grand Avenue to the north, Jefferson
Street to the east, residential property to the south and an alley to the
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Page 3
west. The lot is essentially level, and drainage is accomplished by
sheetflow. A single story house which is to be removed exists on the
northeast portion of the site. On-site vegetation is limited to ivy and
grass growth north and east of the existing structure respectively.
GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
GEOLOGIC SEHING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: The project site is located in the
Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County and is underlain
by the Eocene Santiago Fonnation, Quaternary terrace deposits and topsoil.
Specific soil conditions as encountered during our explorations consisted
of a one half to one foot layer of brown, dry to humid, loose, silty sand
topsoil which covers the site and is underlain by orange-tan to gray, dry
to humid, dense sand to silty sand terrace deposits to a depth of sixteen
to twenty and a half feet below the surface. The underlying Santiago
Fonnation consists of light olive gray to gray-tan, humid, very dense sand
to silty sand in excess of 30 feet below the surface.
TECTONIC SETTING: No faults are known to traverse the subject site but
it should be noted that much of Southern California, including San Diego
County, is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones which
typically consist of several en echelon faults that generally strike in a
northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the
individual faults within the zone) are classified as active while others
are classified as only potentially active according to the criteria of the
California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those
which have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch
(the most recent 11,000 years) while potentially active fault zones have
demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 2 million
years before the present) but no movement during Holocene time.
A review of available geologic maps reveals the presence of several
unnamed, northeast trending faults in the general vicinity. These small
fault traces are generally considered to be inactive and should not create
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Page 4
a potential hazard. In addition, the site is located approximately six
miles east of the northern offshore extension of the Rose Canyon Fault
Zone. Other fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the
site include the San Clemente Fault Zone to the west and the Elsinore and
San Jacinto Fault Zones to the northeast.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
GENERAL: The site is located in an area which is relatively free of
potential geologic hazards. Hazards such as tsunamis, seiches,
liquefaction, and landsliding should be considered negligible or
nonexistent.
GROUNDSHAKING: The most likely geologic hazard to affect the site is
groundshaking as a result of movement along one of the major, active fault
zones mentioned above. The maximum bedrock accelerations that would be
attributed to a maximum probable earthquake occurring along the nearest
portion of selected fault zones that could affect the site are summarized
in the following table.
TABLE I
Fault Zone Distance
Maximum Probable Bedrock Design
Earthquake Acceleration Acceleration
Rose Canyon
El si nore
San Jacinto
6 miles
23 miles
46 miles
6.0 magnitude
7.3 magnitude
7.8 magnitude
0.35 g
0.21 g
0.14 g
0.24 g
0.14 g
0.10 g
Earthquakes on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone are expected to be relatively
minor. Major seismic events are likely to be the result of movement along
the San Jacinto or Elsinore Fault Zones.
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Page 5
GROUNDWATER: Groundwater was encountered at approximately twelve to
thirteen feet below grade: however, it should be recognized that this level
is variable depending on such factors as irrigation in the general vicinity
and seasonal precipitation.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOIMENDATIONS
GENERAL
In general, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed
development provided the recommendations contained herein are implemented.
The anticipated foundation soils consist of nondetrimentally expansive
silty, sandy terrace deposits with low compressibility potential. However,
portions of this material to be exposed in temporary cut slopes consist of
slightly silty sands with poor cementation. This condition will result in
relatively flat temporary slopes. This requirement, coupled to the
proximity of the underground parking garage perimeter to the property lines
may require temporary shoring. An additional consideration is the presence
of a perched groundwater table at elevations ranging from 12 feet to 13.5
feet below existing grade. The field explorations were performed in the
summer time. Therefore, a higher groundwater table may occur after the
rainy season. It is suggested that an additional boring be extended after
the rainy season to monitor the groundwater table elevation. Design
recommendations reflecting this condition are provided herein.
GRADING
SITE PREPARATION: Site preparation should consist of the scarification
of any existing loose topsoils underlying access ramps. This material
should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, watered thoroughly and
compacted to at least 90 percent as detennined in accordance with ASTM
D-1557-78 Method A or C.
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Page 6
DRAINAGE: * The site should be graded and maintained such that surface
drainage is directed away from the structures into swales or other
controlled drainage devices.
EARTHWORK: All earthwork and grading contemplated for site preparation
should be accomplished in accordance with the attached Recommended Grading
Specifications and Special Provisions. All special site preparation
recommendations presented in the sections above will supersede those in the
Standard Recommended Grading Specifications. All embankments, structural
fill and fill should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction at or
slightly over optimum moisture content. Utility trench backfill should be
compacted to minimum of 90% of its maximum dry density. The maximum dry
density of each soil type should be determined in accordance with A.S.T.M.
Test Method D-1557-78, Method A or C.
TEMPORARY SLOPES
GENERAL: Due to the cohesionlesss nature of some of the terrace deposits
anticipated in proposed cut slopes, it is our opinion that temporary slopes
should be constructed at an inclination not steeper than 0.5 (horizontal to
vertical). These slopes should have an adequate factor of safety with
respect to deep seated failure but may experience some localized sloughing.
All temporary cut slopes should be observed by our representative. If
large zones of cohesionless sand are encountered, flatter slopes may be
necessary. The aforementioned inclination is considered frora the top of
temporary cut slopes. A minimum setback of five feet should exist between
the top of temporary slopes and existing structures. No equipment and
heavy loads should not be located within five feet from the top of
temporary slopes. It is the contractor's responsibility to provide for a
safe working environment.
TENPORARY SHORING: In order to maximize the working area inside the
excavation, it is our opinion that a shoring system consisting of H-piles
and wooden lagging will be the most suitable for the subject project. This
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Page 7
system consists of drilling borings with a minimum diameter of 18 inches
and extending to a minimum depth of three feet below the bottom of the
excavation. An H-pile is placed in the borings and the hole is backfilled
with concrete to the bottom of the excavation and grout thereafter. Wooden
lagging is placed between the H-pile as the excavation progresses. Design
recomnendations for this shoring system are provided in the earth retaining
section of this report.
FOUNDATIONS
GENERAL: Conventional shallow footings are recommended for the support
of the proposed structure. Said footings should have a minimum depth of 18
inches below lowest adjacent pad grade and should have a minimum width of
12 inches and 24 inches, for continuous and isolated footings,
respectively. A soil bearing pressure capacity of 3000 psf may be utilized
for foundation design. The bearing pressure may be increased by one-thrid
when considering wind and/or seismic loading.
REINFORCEMENT: It is recomnended that minimum reinforcement consist of
at least two continuous No. 5 reinforcing bars, one located near the top of
the footing and one near the bottom. This reinforcement is based on soil
characteristics and is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement
necessary to satisfy structural considerations.
CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE: Concrete slabs-on-grade should have a minimum
thickness of four inches and be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars
placed at 36 inches on center each way. A 6''x6''-W1.4xW1.4 welded wire mesh
may be used in lieu of the rebar. It is imperative that the mesh be placed
near the middle of the slab. A four-inch-thick layer of crushed rock
should be placed under the slab. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings
are planned, the rock should be overlain by a visqueen moisture barrier.
Two-inch-thick layer of clean sand should be provided above the visqueen
and/or rock to allow proper concrete curing.
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Page 8
UPLIFT: The grouncK^ater table encountered in our borings exists at a
depths ranging from 12 feet to 13.5 feet below existing grade. Anticipated
seasonal variations in this height should be in the order of one foot to
three feet. These elevations are approximately the anticipated bottom of
the footings. A subdrain and sump-pump system is recommended behind
proposed retaining walls. Therefore, uplift pressures should not be a
consideration. However, it is recomnended that water relief values be
installed on the concrete slab in case of a temporary pump malfunction.
EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: The expansive characteristics of the
prevailing foundation soils were found to be nonexpansive. This condition
is reflected in the recommendations of this report.
FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION: All footing excavations should be
observed by the soils engineer prior to forming to ascertain that the
recommendations provided in this report are implemented.
FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW
This office should review the foundation plans to ascertain that the
recommendations provided in this report are implemented and that the
assumptions utilized in deriving said recommendations are valid.
EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES
PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for prevailing soil conditions
may be considered to be 300 pounds per square foot of depth up to a maximum
of 2500 psf. This pressure may be increased one-third for seismic loading.
The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil raay be assumed to be 0.43
for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and
passive resistance, the latter should be reduced by one-third.
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Page 9
ACTIVE PRESSURE: The active soil pressure for the design of earth
retaining structures with level backfills may be obtained from the
following diagrams. These values assume a granular and drained backfill
condi tion.
H
22H
0.1 H
0.7 H
0.2H
H
18H
FI6URE 2
ACTIVE PRESSURE OIAGRAH
No Scale
Surcharge loads may be calculated utilizing the folloMing diagram.
NO SCALE
1^ QL(LINE LOAD)
EGLECT BEYOND
THiS PLANE
^2
_^PR (RESULTANT FORCE)
FIQURE 2
SURCHARGE ON RETAINING WALLS
No Scale
PR=1/3 QL
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Page 10
BACKFILL: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90%
relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for
backfill material within a distance of five feet from the back of the wall.
The retaining structure should not be backfilled until the materials in the
wall have reached an adequate strength.
FACTOR OF SAFETY: The above values, with the exception of the soil to
concrete friction coefficient, do not include a factor of safety.
Appropriate factors of safety should be incorporated into the design of all
earth retaining structures to reduce the possibility of overturning and
sliding.
LINITATIONS
REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review
of final plans and specifications. The soil engineer and engineering
geologist should review and verify the compliance of the final grading plan
with this report and with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code.
It is recommended that Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. be retained
to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork
operations. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts,
specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event
that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of
construction.
UNIFORNITY OF CONDITIONS
The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best
estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the
subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Page 11
locations and the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate
appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the
performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be influenced
by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may
occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not
covered in this report that may be encountered during site development
should be brought to the attention of the soils engineer so that he may
make modifications if necessary.
CHANGE IN SCOPE
This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or
proposed site grading so that it may be detennined if the recomnenda tions
contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or
modified by a written addendum.
TINE LINITATIONS
The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the
condition of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time,
whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or
adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the State-of-the-Art and/or
Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this
report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control.
Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two
years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions
and recommendations.
PROFESSIONAL STANDARD
In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level
of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession
currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality.
The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Page 12
encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations
are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations are based
solely on the infonnation obtained by us. We will be responsible for those
data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible
for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our
services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no
warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in
connection with the work perfonned or to be perfonned by us, or by our
proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or
written reports or findings.
CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY
It is the responsibility of California Builders, or their representatives
to ensure that the infonnation and recommendations contained herein are
brought to the attention of the engineer and architect for the project and
incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further
their responsibility to take the necessary measures to ensure that the
contractor and their subcontractors carry out such recommendations during
construction.
FIELO EXPLORATIONS
Four subsurface explorations were made at the locations indicated on the
attached Plate Number 1 on October 28 and 31, 1986. These explorations
consisted of three borings made by a truck mounted continuous flight auger
and a backhoe trench. The field work was conducted under the observation
of our engineering geology personnel.
The explorations were carefully logged when made. These logs are presented
on the following Plates Nuraber 3 through 7. The soils are described in
accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System as illustrated on
the attached simplified chart on Plate 2. In addition, a verbal textural
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Page 13
description, the wet color, the apparent moisture, and the density or
consistency are provided. The density of granular soils is given as either
very loose, loose, medium dense, dense, or very dense. The consistency of
silts or clays is given as either very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff,
very stiff, or hard.
Disturbed and undisturbed samples of typical and representative soils were
obtained and returned to the laboratory for testing.
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were perfonned in accordance with the generally accepted
American Society for Testing and Materials (A.S.T.M.) test methods or
suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed is
presented below:
a) NOISTURE-DENSITY: Field moisture content and dry density were
determined for representative samples obtained. This
information was an aid to classification and permitted
recognition of variations in material consistency with depth.
The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and
the field raoisture content is determined as a percentage of the
soil's dry weight. The results are summarized in the boring and
trench logs.
b) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the
laboratory by visual examination. The final soil
classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System.
c) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION: The grain size distnbution was
determined for representative samples of the native soils in
accordance with A.S.T.M. Standard Test D-422. The results of
these tests are presented on Plate Number 7.
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Page 14
d) CONPACTION TEST: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content of typical soils were determined in the laboratory in
accordance with A.S.T.M. Standard Test D-1557-78, Method A. The
results of these tests are presented below.
Sample Nunber: = Tl 0 2'-3'
Maximum Dry Density: = 130.8 pcf
Optimum Moisture Content: = 8.1%
e) DIRECT SHEAR TESTS: Direct shear tests were perfonned to
determine the failure envelope based on yield shear strength.
The shear box was designed to accomodate a sample having
diameters of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0
inch. Samples were tested at different vertical loads and a
saturated moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a
constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inch per minute.
The results of these tests are presented on the attached Plates
Number 8 and 9.
f) CONSOLIDATION TEST: Consolidation tests were perfonned on
selected "undisturbed" samples. The consolidation apparatus was
designed to accomodate a 1-inch-high by 2.375-inch or 2.500-inch
diameter soil sample laterally confined by a brass ring. Porous
stones were placed in contact with the top and bottom of the
sample to permit the addition or release of pore fluid during
testing. Loads were applied to the sample in a geometric
progression after vertical moveraent ceased, and resulting
deformations were recorded. The percent consolidation for each
load cycle is reported as the ratio of the amount of vertical
compression to the original one-inch sample height. The test
sample was inundated at some point in the test cycle to
determine its behavior under the anticipated footing load as
soil moisture increases. The results of this test are presented
in the form of a curve on Plate Number 10.
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Page 15
g) CONSOLIDATION TEST: Single point consolidation tests were
perfonned on selected "undisturbed" samples. The consolidation
apparatus was designed to accomodate a 1-inch-high by 2.375-inch
or 2.500-inch-diameter soil sample laterally confined by a brass
ring. Porous stones were placed in contact with the top and
bottom of the sample to pennit the addition or release of pore
fluid during testing. Selected loads were applied to the
samples and the resulting deformations were recorded. The
percent consolidation for each load cycle is reported as the
ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original
one-inch sample height. The test samples were inundated to
determine their behavior under the anticipated footing load as
soil moisture increases. The results of these tests are
presented on Plate Number 11.
MAND AVE.
Bl
T 1
LEQEND
• •ORINO LOCATION*
— TRENCH LOCATION
B 2
f \
A
N
^I^^C^ JRif fU
r T
I
m
23,
ft.
e 10 M S« M •0
SOUTHIRN CALIFORNIA
SOIL A TISTINQ,INC.
Grand Avenue Office Building SOUTHIRN CALIFORNIA
SOIL A TISTINQ,INC. BY: DBA DATE: 11-25-86
SOUTHIRN CALIFORNIA
SOIL A TISTINQ,INC.
JOB NUMBER: S621218 Plate No. 1
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEND
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUP SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES
I. COARSE GRAINED, more than half
of material is larger than
No. 200 sieve size.
GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels, gravel-
More than half of sand mixtures, little or no
coarse fraction is fines.
larger than No. 4 GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel
sieve size but sand mixtures, little or no
smaller than 3". fines.
GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels, poorly graded
(Appreciable amount gravel-sand-silt mixtures.
of fines) GC Clayey gravels, poorly
graded gravel-sand, clay
mixtures.
SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sand, gravelly
More than half of sands, little or no fines.
coarse fraction is SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly
smaller than No. 4 sands, little or no fines.
sieve size.
SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands, poorly graded
(Appreciable amount sand and silty mixtures.
of fines) SC Clayey sands, poorly graded
sand and clay mixtures.
II. FINE GRAINED, more than
half of material is smaller
than No. 200 sieve size.
SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very
fine sands, rock flour, sandy
silt or clayey-silt-sand
mixtures with slight plas-
ticity.
Liquid Limit CL Inorganic clays of low to
less than 50 medium plasticity, gravelly
clays, sandiy clays, silty
clays, lean clays.
OL Organic silts and organic
silty clays or low plasticity.
SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts, micaceous
or diatomaceous fine sandy
or silty soils, elastic
silts.
Liquid Limit CH Inorganic clays of high
greater than 50 plasticity, fat clays.
OH Organic clays of medium
to high plasticity.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly
organic soils.
— Water level at time of excavation
or as indicated
US — Undisturbed, driven ring sample
or tube sample
CK — Undisturbed chunk sample
BG — Bulk sample
SP — Standard penetration sample
y\^SOUTHBRN CALIFORNIA
SOIL A TESTINQ, INC.
Grand Avenue Office E uildima y\^SOUTHBRN CALIFORNIA
SOIL A TESTINQ, INC. BY: DBA DATE: 11-25-86
y\^SOUTHBRN CALIFORNIA
SOIL A TESTINQ, INC.
JOB NUMBER: 8621218 Plate No. 2
Q.
UJ O
UJ
O.
>
UJ
-J
a. z <
z
o
<
d -
o 5
CO CO
(0
<
-J
o
BORING NUMBER 1
140# Hamncr
ELEVATION 30" Drop
DESCR IPTION
I- UJ
Z oc
UJ 3
oc H
< v>
Q. —
O. O
< 2
>
O z
UJ
h-
(O
z
O o
z
o
<
tc
I-
UJ z
UJ a.
z
UJ _
O u a >• ~ oc o
Ul «^
oc
I- z
CO UJ
2 O
o
z
o
o <
0.
o o
SM
2 i
4
6
8
10-
12 -
14 -
16 -
18
20
22
24 1
26
US
BAG
SM/SP
US
US
N
SP
us SP/SN
US SM
30
Brown SILTY SAND
(TOPSOIL)
Moist
Red Tan Slightly SILTY
SAND (TERRACE DEPOSITS)
Yellow Tan
Water
Table
Loose
to
Medium
Dense
Humid Medium
Dense
35
54 99.5 7.1
Tan Grey Friable Sand
Light Olive Grey Sligthl
SILTY SAND (SANTIAGO
FORMATION)
Grading into SILTY SAND
Boring ended at 30.5"
Medium
Dense
to
Dense
Satur-
ated
Dense 77 97.1 25.7
Humid Very
Dense'
140/
gn
50/4"
50/4"
jTK SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
N^h^ SOIL ATESTING,INC.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG jTK SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
N^h^ SOIL ATESTING,INC. LOGGED BY: GS DATE LOGGED: 10-31-86
jTK SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
N^h^ SOIL ATESTING,INC.
JOB NUMBER: 8621218 Plate No. 3
X »-a.
UJ
O
UJ a >
UJ
_i
Q.
2
<
0
2
4
6
8 -1
z
o
<
J O
o ^
(0
<
-J
o
BORING NUMBER 2
ELEVATION
DESCR IPTION
Brown SILTY SAND (TOPSOIll) Humid
(- UJ
z oc
UJ 3
OC K
< (0
a —
Q. O
< 2
z
< o
•:
(0
z
UJ «-O o a
oc a
UJ
oc
3
I-
V)
O
2
Z
UJ »-z o o
z
o »-o < a.
2
O
O
10
12
14
16
18
20
US
BAG
SM Loose
SM Orange Tan SILTY SAND
(TERRACE DEPOSITS)
Humid Medium
Dense
SP/SN Grey Orange Tan Slightly
SILTY SAND «
^— Water
Humid Dense 77/11"
Table
SP Grey Frialbe Sand Satur-
ated
Dense
SP/S^ Light Olive*GRey Slightl| Humid
SILTY SAND (SANTIAGO
FORMATION)
Very
Dense
50/5"
Boring ended at 20.5'
j/\ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Nnn>^ SOIL &TESTING,INC.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG j/\ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Nnn>^ SOIL &TESTING,INC. LOGGED BY: QS DATE LOGGED: 10-31-86
j/\ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Nnn>^ SOIL &TESTING,INC.
JOB NUMBER: 8621218 Plate No. 4
z
Q.
UJ
Q
0 -
2 rtAG
4
6
8
10
12 -
14-
16
18
20
UJ
O.
>-
lU
_l
0.
2 <
C/)
z
O
<
o 5
to (o
(0
<
BORING NUMBER 3
ELEVATION
DESCRIPTION
i- UJ
Z QC
UJ 3
QC H
< (0
Q. -Q. O
< 2
UJ Z
Ui
OC
<
Q. <0 Q
2 ^
^ O §
52 2
z
o
<
OC
H-
UJ z UJ a.
c
UJ >
o z
< o
t- ^ to — to
UJ cc
»-
CO z
UJ
O u a > ~"
QC
O
UJ ifi. UJ z
QC > o 3 h-
1-Z 1-H-
to UJ < o — »-_J < O z UJ Q.
2 CO QC COM SM
SM
US SM
US^
SP
Light Brown SILTY SAND
(TOPSOIL)
Humid Loose
Red Brown SILTY SAND
(TERRACE DEPOSITS)
Humid Dense
Red Tan Orange Grey Tan
SILTY SAND
^r- Water
- Table
Moist Dense 78 118.9 9.5
Grey Tan SAND Satur-
ated
Dense 35?
SM
US
Light Grey Tan 6ILTY SAND
(SANTIAGO FORMATION)
Humid Very
Dense
50/2'
Boring ended at 20
j/\ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL ATESTING, INC.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG j/\ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL ATESTING, INC. LOGGED BY: QS DATE LOGGED: 10-31-8
j/\ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL ATESTING, INC.
JOB NUMBER: 8621218 Plate No. 5
a
Ul o
0.
Ul
a. 2 <
to
z
o
<
o
o ^ to
TRENCH NUMBER 1
ELEVATION
DESCRIPTION
K Ul
Z S
< (0
S o
< s
Z
Ul oc < a a. <
It
UJ o>
H Z
0) IU
O
O o >•
M Z _
Ul
>-
OC
o
Ul ^
c
i'
s o
o
Ul o
I- o
Ul 2
O
O
4-
6-
8-
10 [
12
SM Brown SILTY SAND (TOPSOIL) Humid Loose
SM&
SM/
SP
Red Brown & Yellow Brown
SILTY SAND & Slightly SILTY
SAND (TERRACE DEPOSITS)
Humid to
Moist
Medium
Dense
CK
CK
BAG
Trench ended at 12'
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
MjSjr SOIL A TESTING,INC.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
MjSjr SOIL A TESTING,INC. LOGGED BY: DATE LOGGED:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
MjSjr SOIL A TESTING,INC.
JOBNUMBrR: g^^izis Plate No. 6
I
b
•
I
I-
<
_2 o 25 9>
I'
CJJ »
o
(0 *
I i $ i i \
J0UU lUQOjdj
-o
o
••• •• ! • •:T:T.T
: ; ! 1 \ 8 1 i
• • ' • 1 . . . ; ;
1 :••••!••••
: i '''-""••••\-; 9 : r • • '
i i 1 i - 1 -.1 1 • • • -1 •• y T \
j
-"•^—^
1
• • • • ••••j j
1
i
i 1 —1 —i—
1
1 'y
.... i.....
f \
\
... yy r 1
!
I
-o
•o
o o
<0
I-
UJ
N
u
-J
o
QC
<
CL
< -J
o
K
O
1-
• Fin o AN E
to 3
i
• Coort •
e
-1
UJ
> < Q:
•
s
Ui
.J 0 (D O O
""fi"
o
Jt 8 0
CNJ
UJ
N
to
UJ
>
UJ
to
o
< o z
I-tn
to
3
y/crV SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
VMM/ BOIL A TESTING, INC.
Grand Avenue Office Building
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
BY
DBA
DATE
12-4-86 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION JOB NO
8621218 Plate No. 7
DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY
LJ. to
:^
to"
to
cc h-to
u X to
2M 1 L 2 2L 3 4
NORMAL STRESS, KSF
ill. , 1 1 1 1 I 1 . i > . . . 1 1 ; 1 1 •
i 1 -»—»—*—'—*—#—t—t— • 1 ' \ i 1 \ lliii iiiiiiii 1 ' . 1 : 1 llll' • ' 1 ( •
i 1 1 • 1 M M i i j '• ' I ' ! i ! 1 1 i ' ' i : 1 ' • 1 i i 1 j
; 1 . , , I M • • i 1 • T • 1
1
! • i
M 1 : ; I i ! 1 , . , , .
. ! , i 1 i : ' ' 1 • ; 1 ; ' ; i i 1 . . 1 : 'iiill
• 1 I I : : 1 1 ; 111.! i 1 '
i i
i ] i i ! ! 1 . i i i 1 ll'l Iiiil . 1 ) ! 1 i ' ' 1 ! ! Mil!;
' ' 1 ' Ili' iiiii M 1 ! . 1 . i 1 1 ! ! 1 i ! ^ ' ! 1 1 1 i ; j : ! ' ! r 1 1 : 1 1 ' i 1 i ' ' 1 i : • • ' i 1 ' i
1 1 ( : j ^ •; i i i i 1 i i ' , 1 -• • ! 1 1 i 1 :
i ! : M , ' i ' 1 ' 1 i i i i i 1 ' 1 iiiiil ! i ' ' 1 1 • : ; 1 i i ! 1 j 1 i 1 i 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 i ' ' i
lii iii' 1 1 i \ C \ • : i i 1 i i 1 i 1 ' * ^ • • ^ - 7 \\ y ! ! ; • li i ' 1 1 ; 1 1 i i 1 ! ' i i 1 Ml \yy T . .L\ . 1 ; ; : 1 1 , ! ^ ; M i i 1 1 i i i , ' i \ . ' ' 1 : i 1 1 i 1 1 1 ) i 1 ; • 1 1 1
- ; 1
. i
i I Mil!' 1 '
1 i i i ! liiii iif ; i i i
1
, 1 1 iii-i ! ^ ' 1 ' 1 ' • 1 1 1 il ! I ' 1 ; • 1 ! 1 f 1 1 i ' ' I i '
! •
i'i ! ! 1 i i , i I ; . ! ' 1
. • i 1 • iii i i 1 ; . 1 i • i Ill j j j 1 i j i 1 ;> I : ) ; liil
! ' i ^ i 1 • —( 1 •ill ! 1 iiiiii IL>^ i : i ! ;!!•(_[ 1 ' ' 1 ' 1 i 1 1 ;
: 1 1 ' i 1 1 : . 1 i M 1 ! i i 1 ' V" i i 1 1 i > ' i ' ' ;
1 . , : 1 ; 1 ! !
' : \ •
1 . ! • 1 ,
• • i \ : 1 J M ; i : • ; i i i 1 i T7^\ i ; • ' ' • • i i 1 ; . 1 i ljl ,, 1 1 1 • i 1 : i. ^1 1 ; i i 1 ; • ; I 1 1 1
! 1 ' i ! ' : ; ' • ' ' 1 i ^y , • : 1 • i M 1 ! 1 j
1 1 • 1 ; : ' • \ • W 1 i 1 ; . 1 1 . i yri • • • . : i 1 1 • .illil
1 1 : ! 1 : 1 1 1 , i : . : : ! 1 1
! ' lii''''' I ! ' ' ' • ' I i \ ' \ \ ' \ ' : I'i ' ' • • 1
• !
: 1 '
i I i i,,; i ' 1 1 1 i , i 1 • ^ 1 i 1 1 •
1 , ' ' ' 'Jr' ^ ' 1 1 1
. i 1 ' • i 1 : •
I 1 i i i iiii 1 • 1 , ' 1 : 1 :
' 1 ! 1 !
7\ \ 1 ' • t
1 ; 1 1 1 1 I 1 ' ' M iiii : M M M ' ' . ; : ! ! i i i'i' y i, M ' • ! ' .ill; 1 1 i ' ' liil
'ill'. ! i I'l'
' ' i ' i i : , 1 • i , ^ •
yT' i i M , : i ' ' y 1 ' : ' M ! i • ' i 1 1 i ' 1 : ' , . . , , 1 .
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
ANGLE OF INTERNAL
FRICTION (**)
COHESION INTERCEPT
(psf)
Bl@10.5 Undisturbed 35 100
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL & TESTING, INC.
asao RiVKRDALE BTREET
EAN OIEOO, CALUBORNIA BBiaO Grand Avenue Office Building
BY
JOB NO.
DBA
8621218
DATE 12-4-86
Plate No. 8
to
to"
QC
tO
DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY
SAMPLE
NORMAL STRESS, KSF
ANGLE OF INTERNAL
DESCRIPTION FRICTION {•) COHESION INTERCEPT
Tl@2'-3' Remolded to 90% 33 150
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Grand AvenueOffice Building
SOIL A TESTINQ,INC. DBA
BY:
12-4-86
DATE: SOIL A TESTINQ,INC.
JOB NUMBER: ^621218 Plate No. 9
LOAD kips/8q.ft
^^1^ 2out(i6/in CaCi^o/inia
testing SEabo/iatorty, ^nc.
Grand Avpnu flffirp R Jl 1 Hi ny ^^1^ 2out(i6/in CaCi^o/inia
testing SEabo/iatorty, ^nc.
^ DBA DATE 12-4-86
^^1^ 2out(i6/in CaCi^o/inia
testing SEabo/iatorty, ^nc. JOB NO. 8621218 Plate No. 10
SINGLE POINT CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULT
SAMPLE NUMBER B3@10.5'
. INITIAL MOISTURE, % 9.5
- INITIAL DENSITY, PCF 118.9
- % CONSOLIDATION AFTER WATER ADDED 1.3
- % CONSOLIDATION BEFORE WATER ADDED 1.9
- FINAL MOISTURE, % 14.8
- AXIAL LOAD, KSF 2.58
SOUTHIRN CALIFORNIA
SOIL « TltriNO.INC.
Grand Avenue Office Building
•v: OATI: 12-4-86
JOi NUMBIR: 8621218 Plate No. 11
GRAND AVENUE OFFICE BUILDING, GRAND AVENUE AND JEFFERSON STREET, CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS
GENERAL INTENT
The Intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing,
compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled, and placing and
compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans.
The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation
report and/or the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended
Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained
hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be
used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part.
No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where
specified in the geotechnical soil report or in other written communication
signed by the Soil Engineer.
OBSERVATION AND TESTING
Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., shall be retained as the Soil
Engineer to observe and test the earthworlc in accordance with these
specifications. It will be necessary that the Soil Engineer or his
representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide an
opinion that the work was or was not accomplished as specified. It shall
be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the soil engineer and to
keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data
so that he may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual
conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary soil report
are encountered during the grading operations, the Soil Engineer shall be
contacted for further recommendations.
If, in the opinion of the Soil Engineer, substandard conditions are
encountered, such as; questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable
(R-10/85)
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Appendix, Page 2
moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc.,
construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or
corrected or he shall recommend rejection of this work.
Test methods used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed
in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials
test methods:
Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content - A.S.T.M. D-1557-78.
Density of Soil In-Place - A.S.T.M. D-1556-64 or A.S.T.M. D-2922.
All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as
determined by the foregoing A.S.T.M. testing procedures.
PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL
All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations
shall be removed, and legally disposed of. All areas disturbed by site
grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from
unsightly debris.
After clearing or benching, the natural ground in areas to be filled shall
be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture
content, compacted and tested for the minimum degree of compaction in the
Special Provisions or the recommendation contained in the preliminary
geotechnical investigation report. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches
thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is defined as natural
soils which possesses an in-situ density of at least 90% of its maximum dry
density.
When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20% (5
horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped
(R-10/85)
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Appendix, Page 3
or benched. Benches shall be cut to a finm competent soil condition. The
lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1 1/2 times the the equipment
width which ever is greater and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a
gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches should be at
least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted
prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted natural ground.
Ground slopes flatter than 20% shall be benched when considered necessary
by the Soil Engineer.
Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must
be totally removed. All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any
proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure
and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above
described procedures should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is
compacted to the requirements of the Soil Engineer. This includes, but is
not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm
drains and water lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be
abandoned should be brought to the attention of the Soil Engineer so that
he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary.
All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in
accordance to the requirements set forth by the Soil Engineer. The top of
the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the
bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the
diameter of the well and should be determined by the Soil Engineer and/or a
qualified Structural Engineer.
FILL MATERIAL
Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Soil Engineer
and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances.
Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids.
(R-10/85)
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 /ppendix. Page 4
The definition and disposition of oversized rocks, expansive and/or
detrimental soils are covered in the geotechnical report or Special
Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low
strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to
provide satisfactory fill material, but only with the explicit consent of
the soil engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Soil
Engineer before being brought to the site.
PLACING AND CONPACTION OF FILL
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in
layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall
have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction
effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of
compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to a minimum specified
degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically
compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically
designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree
of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions
or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical
investigation report.
When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed
to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the
minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is
achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural
fills and in non-structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report,
when applicable.
Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction
of the fill will be taken by the Soil Engineer or his representative. The
location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Soil Engineer's
(R-10/85)
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Appendix, Page 5
discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is
less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to
the satisfaction of the Soil Engineer and until the desired relative
compaction has been obtained.
Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other
suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot rollers shall be at vertical
intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at
ratios of two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be traekrolled.
Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut-back to finish contours
after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall
result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished
face of the slope having a relative compaction of at least 90% of maximum
dry density or that specified in the Special Provisions section of this
specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued
until the Soil Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be stable in
regards to surficial stability.
Slope tests will be made by the Soils Engineer during construction of the
slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where
failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be
notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the Soil
Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report.
If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the
Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor shall
rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is
obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Soils Engineer.
(R-10/85)
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Appendix, Page 6
CUT SLOPES
The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or
lithified fonnational material during the grading operations at intervals
determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the
preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined
strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding,
joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions
shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soil Engineer to
determine if mitigating measures are necessary.
Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall
be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the
controlling governmental agency.
ENGINEERING OBSERVATION
Field observation by the Soil Engineer or his representative shall be made
during the filling and compacting operations so that he can express his
opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with acceptable standards
of practice. The presence of the Soil Engineer or his representative or
the observation and testing shall not release the Grading Contractor from
his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of
compaction.
SEASON LIMITS
Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work
is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until
the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be
achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God
shall be repaired before acceptance of work.
(R-10/85)
SCS&T 8621218 December 11, 1986 Appendix, Page 7
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PROVISIONS
The nlnlaui degree of coapactlon to be obtained in compacting natural
ground, in the compacted fill, and in the compacted backfill shall be at
least 90 percent.
Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as soil which will swell more
than 3 percent against a pressure of 150 pounds per square foot from a
condition of 90 percent of maximum dry density and air dried moisture
content to saturation, or by a soil having an expansion index greater than
30.
Oversized fill Material is defined as rocks or lumps over 6 inches in
diameter. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No. 4
U.S. Standard Sieve.
TRANSITION LOTS: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the
proposed building pad, the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one
foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural
backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical
report, special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing
reinforcement and undercutting may be required.
(R-10/85)