The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP 90-05G; Palomar Place Retail Center; Conditional Use Permit (CUP)Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY To: Attention: Subject: July 2, 2012 MERI Palomar Plaza, LLC. c/o SKLZ 2081 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, Califronia 92008 Mr. Nick Foussianes Project No. 042609-001 Geotechnical Update for the Proposed New Building, and Improvements to the Existing Oscar's Building, 965 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, California In accordance with your authorization, this letter presents Leighton's limited geotechnical update for the proposed new building and store front improvements to the existing Oscar's Building, which is located at the southwest corner of Palomar Airport Road and Armada Drive, in Carlsbad, California. The purpose of this update study was to review previous site geotechnical reports (Leighton, 2000a and 2000b), and to provide seismic design parameters in accordance with the 2010 CBC. We also performed a site visit on June 29, 2012 to observe current conditions. As background, Leighton and Associates (Leighton) performed the initial geotechnical investigation of the subject site in 2000 (Leighton, 2000a). Subsequently, the site was graded between November and December 2000 with grading observations and testing performed and documented by Leighton (Leighton, 2000b). Based on our understanding of the site conditions and review of the referenced project geotechnical document, the geotechnical conditions of the subject site have not changed since the completion of grading and construction of the exist building. Therefore, it is our professional opinion that the geotechnical recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical documents are still applicable for its intended use, provided the following updated seismic recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed new building and improvements for the existing building. 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 8205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.292.8030 • Fax 858.292.0771 • www.leightongroup.com 042609-001 Seismicity The following seismic design parameters for the site (latitude 33.1216, longitude -117.3144) have been determined in accordance with the 2010 California Building Code (CBC) and the USGS Ground Motion Parameter Calculator (Version 5.10). CBC Seismic Design Parameters Description Values CBC Reference Site Class D Table 1613.5.2 Short Period Spectral Acceleration Ss 1.280 Figure 1613.5(3) 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration 51 0.484 Figure 1613.5(4) Short Period Site Coefficient Fa 1.0 Table 1613.5.3(1) 1-Second Period Site Coefficient Fv 1.516 Table 1613.5.3(2) Adjusted Short Period Spectral Acceleration SMs 1.280 Equation 16-36 Adjusted 1-Second Period Acceleration SM1 0.733 Equation 16-37 Design Short Period Spectral Response Sos 0.854 Equation 16-38 Design 1-Second Period Spectral Response So1 0.489 Equation 16-39 Summary of Original Foundation Recommendations The proposed additions may be supported by conventional continuous or isolated spread footings. Footings should extend a minimum of 18 inches beneath the lowest adjacent finish grade. At these depths, footings may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The allowable pressure may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. The minimum recommended width of footings is 15 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for square or round footings. Reinforcement of footings should be per the structural engineer's design and have a minimum of four No. 5 reinforcement bars (two top and two bottom). Limitations Recommendations contained in this limited report are based on our site reconnaissance, background review, and present knowledge of the proposed construction. It is possible that soil conditions vary between or beyond the points -2- leighton 042609-001 explored. If soil conditions are encountered during grading or foundation excavation, which differ from those described in the original geotechnical reports, our firm should be notified immediately in order that a review may be made and any supplemental recommendations provided. Our firm has performed our services in substantial accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice as it exists in the site area at the time of our study. No warranty is made or intended. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions related to this report, please contact our office at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES, I Mike D. Jensen, CEG 2457 Project Geologist Distribution: (4) Addressee Appendix A-References -3- William D. Olson, RCE, 45283 Associate Engineer leighton 042609-001 APPENDIX A REFERENCES Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2000a, Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Proposed Oscar's Restaurant, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 040198-001, dated August 25, 2000. ----, 2000b, As-Graded Geotechnical Condition and Addendum Geotechnical Recommendations of the Proposed Oscar's Restaurant, 965 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 040198-002, dated December 11, 2000. A-1 Leighton A GTG Company Leighton and Associates GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, PROPOSED OSCAR'S RESTAURANT, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Project No. 040198-001 August 25, 2000 Prepared For SCHUSS CLARK, INC. 94 74 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 215 San Diego, California 92126 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, #8205, San Diego, CA 9213·442.5 (619) 292·8030 • FAX (619) 292·0771 • www.leightongeo.com ~~~A=--~u --:: ....... ~-• --= Leighton and Associates A GTG Company GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS To: Attention: Subject: August 25, 2000 Schuss Clark, Inc. 9474 Keamy Villa Road, Suite 215 San Diego, California 92126 Mr. Howard Schuss Project No. 040 198-001 Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Proposed Oscar's Restaurant, Carlsbad, California In accordance with your request and authorization, we have conducted a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed Oscar's Restaurant located south\vest of the intersection between Palomar Airp011 Road and Annada Drive in Carlsbad, California. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the existing site geotechnical conditions and to provide conclusions and recommendations concerning the development of the site. Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation, it is our professional opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed improvements. If you have any questions regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Vice President/Principal Geologist Distribution: ( 6) Addressee 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, #9205, San Diego, CA 9213-4425 (619) 292·8030 • FAX (619) 292-0771 • www.leightongeo.com 040! 9R-OO I TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ I 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ....................................................................................................................................... l 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRl!'TION ................................................................................................................. I 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 SURFACE INVESTJGAT!Ol\' AND LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................. 2 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 4 3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING ......................................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 4 3.2.1 Artiflcia~fi/1 (MapSymbol-Af) ............................................................................................................. 4 3.2.2 TertiaJySantiagoFormation (Map Symbol-Ts) .............................................. ":':: .... ~ ............................. 5 3.3 GEOLOGIC STRliCTtJRE .......................................................................................................................................... 5 3.4 LANDSLIDES AND SURFICIAL FAILURES .......................................................................................................... 5 3.5 GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................................... 5 3.6 CUT-FILL TRANSITIONS .................................................................................................................................. 5 3.7 EXPANSIVE SOILS ............................................................................................................................................ 6 4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ......................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 FAULTJNG ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 4.2 SErSMIC!TY AND UBC SEJSMIC CRITERIA ....................................................................................................... 7 4.2.1 Shallow Ground Rupture ...................................................................................................................... 8 4.2.2 Liquefaction and Dynamic Seu/ement .................................................................................................. 8 4.2. 3 Tsunamis and Seiches ........................................................................................................................... 9 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 10 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................... I 1 6.1 EARTHWORK ................................................................................................................................................. 11 6. 1. I Site Preparation .................................................................................................................................. I 1 6. 1.2 Excavations and Oversize Material .................................................................................................. I I 6. 1.3 Fill Placement and Compaction ......................................................................................................... /2 61.4 Transition Mitigation and Deepend FooJings ..................................................................................... 12 6.2 CONVENTIONAL fOUNDATION AND SLARCONSIVERAT!ONS ........................................................................ 13 6.2.1 Shallow Spread Footings Foundations .............................. , .............................................................. 13 6.2.2 Floor Slabs ................ __ ........................................................................................................................ I 4 6.2. 3 Settlement ...................................................... --......................................... ___ ........................................ 14 040 19&-00 I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 6.3 POST-TENSIONED FOlJNDATION SYSTEM ...................................................................................................... 14 6.4 MAT FOUNDATION ........................................................................................................................................ 15 6.5 LATERA!..EARTI!PRESSlJRES ........................................................................................................................ 16 6.6 GEOCIIEMICALCONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................. 17 6. 7 SURFACE DRAINAGE AND EROSION .............................................................................................................. 17 6.8 CONCRETE FLAT\VORK .................................................................................................................................. 17 6.9 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN ................................................................................................................ 18 6.10 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION ..................................................................................................................... 19 6.11 PLAN REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................... 19 7.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 20 TABLES TABLE 1 -SEISMIC PARAMETERS FOR ACTIVE FAULTS-PAGE 3 TABLE 2-POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS-PAGE 15 TABLE3-STATIC EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT(PCF)-PAGE 16 FIGURES FIGURE l-SITE LOCATION MAP-PAGE 3 FIGURE 2-GEOTECHNICAL MAP-PAGE REAR OF TEXT APPENDJCES APPENDIX A -REFERENCES APPENDIX B • BORING LOGS APPENDIX C ·LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND TEST PROCEDURES APPENDIX D-GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1:0R ROUGH GRADING ii ---u• ;;;; =--~ .. -;;::iS:;::;: 040198-001 l.O INTRODUCTION I .l Purpose and Scope This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed Oscar's Restaurant located southwest of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Armada Drive in Carlsbad, California. The purpose of our investigation was to identify and evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions present at lhc site and to provide conclusions and geotechnical recommendations relative to the proposed development. Our scope of services included: • Review of available pertinent, published and unpublished geotechnical literature and map. (Appendix A). • Field reconnaissance of the existing onsite geotechnical conditions. • A subsurface investigation consisting of geologic logging and samplii1g of 5 small diameter borings (Appendix B). • Laboratory testing of representative soil samples (obtained from the borings) to determine the characteristics of the on-site soils (Appendix C). • Compilation and analysis of the geotechnical data obtained from the literature review, subsurface investigation, and field reconnaissance. • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations with respect to the as-graded geotechnical conditions and design and construction of the proposed improvements. 1 .2 Site Location and Description The site is situated with the northeast corner of the existing Costco parking lot, at the southwest corner of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Annada Drive in Carlsbad, California (Figure I). According to our review of records at the City of Carlsbad, the proposed site along with the Costco parking lot was graded in the late 1980's. Topographically, the site consists of a relatively level sheet-graded pad. Elevations of the graded pad range from approximately 79 feet mean sea level (msl) at the southwest comer of the pad to approximately 81 feet msl at the northeast comer. An approximate 5-foot high slope descends from the building pad on the south side to a paved driveway. The entrance road is located directly east ofthe building pad. Along the east entrance ramp, the slope along the south side of the pad transitions to an ascending slope in a northerly direction. An approximately IS-foot tall slope ascends from the north side of the building pad to Palomar Airport Road. Parking spaces and driveways arc present to the west. -I- 040198-00 I 1.3 Proposed Development Proposed improvements (based on the conceptual grading plan prepared by Fuscoe Engineering) will consist of an Oscar's restaurant, concrete patio and walkways, a loading dock, trash enclosure and associated landscaping. In addition, we understand that a portion of the existing driveway to the west will be replaced with a concrete paver drop-off area. In addition, 19 additional pm·king spaces will be provided along the south-facing slope northwest of the building pad and on the northwest side of the restaurant. 1.4 Surface Investigation and Laboratorv Testing Our subsurface investigation consisted of the excavation, logging and sampling of five small- diameter borings (utilizing a hollow-stem auger drill rig) to a maximum depth of approximately26 feet. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2). After the subsurface investigation, the borings were backfilled. Appropriate laboratory testing was perfonned on representative soil samples obtain during our subsurface investigation. The laboratory tests included moisture/density detenninations, pH and resistivity, expansion index, soluble sulfate content, and compression/swell tests. A discussion of the tests performed and a summary of the results are presented in Appendix C. The density/moisture determinations of the undisturbed samples obtained from the borings are shown on the boring logs (Appendix B). -2- NORTH BASE MAP : Thomas Bros. GeoFinder for Windows, San Diego County, 1995, Page 1126 Oscar's Restaurant Palomar Airport Road Carlsbad, California 1"=2,000' SITE LOCATION MAP 0 1000 2000 4000 ~~~J b Scale in Feet Project No. 040198-001 Date August 2000 II Figure No. 1 040198-001 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 3.1 Geologic Setting The site is located in the coastal section of the Peninsular Range Province, a geomorphic province with a long and active geologic history throughout Southern California. Throughout the last 54 million years, the area known as "San Diego Embayment" bas undergone several episodes of marine inundation and subsequent marine regression, resulting in the deposition of a thick sequence of marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks on the basement rock of the southern Califomia batholith. Gradual emergence of the region from the sea occurred in Pleistocene time, and numerous wave· cut platfonns. most of which were covered by relatively thin marine and nonmarine terrace deposits, formed as the sea receded from the land. Accelerated fluvial erosion during periods of heavy rainfall, coupled with the lowering of the base sea level during Quaternary times, resulted in the rolling hills, mesas, and deeply incised canyons which characteriz~:~the landforms we see in the general site area today. 3.2 Site-Specific Geology Based on our review of pertinent geologic literature and maps and our subsurface investigation, the subject site is underlain by the Tertiary Santiago Formation. Artificial fill soils were also encountered on the southem end of the building pad (outside the limits of the proposed development). These fill soils are thought to be backfill soils associated with the existing storm drain that crosses the southemmost portion of the pad in an east-west direction. A brief description of the geologic units encountered on the site ·is presented below. The approximate locations of the geologic contacts between the units are mapped on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2). 3 .2.1 Artificial fill (Map Svmbol-AO Artificial fill soils are present in the southemmost portion of the site. These fill soils have been placed as storm drain backfil1 during previous grading. An as-graded report applicable to the placement of the fill soils was not available at the time of this report. However, it appears that the fill soils are outside the limits of the proposed structural improvements. The upper portion of the fill soils appears to be desiccated/disturbed. The observed fill soils consisted of dry to damp, light gray to off-white, silty medium sand. · -4-~u•=-~ --..........__~..._......-~-= 040198-0{)1 3.2.2 Tcrtiarv Santia!!o Formation (Map Symbol-Ts) The Tertiary Santiago Formation underlies the entire site. As encountered during our subsurface investigation, the ~nit consisted of massive to poorly bedded sandstone with rninor interbedded claystone and clayey sandstone. The sandstone encountered consisted primarily of light gray to off-white and gray-brown, damp, dense to very dense, silty very fine-to medium-grained sandstone. The sandstone was generally friable, slightly micaceous and massive. The claystone consisted of green, damp, stiff to hard silty claystone. Based on our subsurface. investigation, the upper 6 to 12 inches of the Santiago Formation on the building pad is found to be desiccated and potentially compressible. 3.3 Geologic Structure Based on our review of the geologic literature applicable to the general vicinity and our professional experience on nearby sites, bedding on site is anticipated to be slightly dippThg (on the order of 5 to 10 degrees) to the west. Localized steeper bedding, which can be attributed to cross bedding, may be present. Based on our field explorations and our review of published geologic maps of the site and general vicinity, no active or potentially active faults have been mapped or were encountered on or immediately adjacent to the site. The significance of faulting is discussed in the Section 4.0. 3 A Landslides and Surficial Failures Based on our review of the geologic literature (Appendix A) and our geologic mapping, indications of landslides of other surficial failures within the subject property were not observed. 3.5 Groundwater No groundwater was encountered during our site field mapping or subsurface investigation .. 3.6 Cut-Fill Transitions Based upon our review of the preliminary grading plans, cuts and fills Jess than 2 feet are anticipated to fi11c grade the level building pad. Remedial measures to mitigate these conditions are discussed in Section 6.1.5. Geologic mapping of site indicated fill soils (and a cut-fill transition) is present in the southernmost portion of pad, but will be outside the limits of the proposed structure. 3.7 Expansive Soils Based upon our subsurface investigation and the results of laboratory tests of representative samples collected during our subsurface investigation, on site soils generated from excavation in the Santiago Formation are expect to possess a low to medium expansion potential. Highly -5- ~01::--~ --~~-~== 040 198-00 I expansive clay soils are present beneath the building pad at depths on the order of 5 to I 5 feet below the existing grade. 3.8 Corrosivity ofthc On-Site Soils Soluble sulfate testing was performed on a sample of the on-site soils utilizing UBC criteria, the soils possess a negligible sulfate content resistivity and pH testing of the on-site soils, indicate the soils possess a high potential for corrosion of buried metal piping. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C. -6- 040\9!\-001 4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY 4.1 Faulting Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of Califomia legislation and policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults. By definition of the California Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last II ,000 years). The state geologist has defined a gotentiallv active fault as any fault considered to have been active during Quaternary time (last 1,600,000 years). This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and as subsequently revised in 1997. The intent · of this act is to assure that unwise urban development and certain habitable structures do not occur across the traces of active faults. The subject site is not included within any Earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist-.Priolo Act (Hart, 1997). . . .,. Our review of available geologic literature (Appendix A) indicates that there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest active regional fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 4.3 miles west of the site. 4.2 Seismicitv and UBC Seismic Criteria The site can be considered to lie within a seismically active region, as can all of southern California. Site specific evaluation of the earthquake hazard was performed using a detenninistic approach. The earthquake source data used for deterministic evaluation of the ground motion was obtained from the California Division of Mining and Geology (CDMG. Open File Report 96~08). A summary of our detern1inistic evaluation is provided in Table 1. ··- Fault Rose Canyon Fault Zone Newport- Inglewood Fault i Zone l Coronado Bank Fault Zone Table 1 Seismic Parameters for Active Faults (Blake, 1996.and 1998, CDMG. 1996) 1· Distance ·· Maximum Magnitude Earthquake from Fault to Moment Peak Ground Acceleration l Site (Miles) Magni1llde (g) 4.3 6.9 0.50 7 6.9 0.41 20 7.4 0.24 -7- ~ t ~ ~u•;;;;-........ --~~......._~= 040198-00 l Based on a deterministic approach, Table I presents the peak ground accelerations that we postulate could be produced by the an earthquake of the maximum moment magnitude on the respective fault. The maximum moment magnitude earthquake. is defined as the maximum event that a fault is capable of producing considering the known tectonic setting. Site-specific seismic parameters reported are the distances to the causative faults, earthquake magnitudes, and expected peak ground accelerations. 'As indicated in Table l, the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered to have the most significant affect at the site from a design standpoint. The maximum moment magnitude earthquake is expected to produce a peak ground surface acceleration at the site of0.50g. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered a Type B seismic source according to Table 16-Ll of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The site is located within Seismic Zone 4 as desigl}ated by the Uniform Building Code (lCBO, 1997, Figure 16-2). The soil profile designation for the site is estimated to be type Sc per the 1997 UBC, Table 16-J. Near source factors Na and Nv for the site equal to 1.0 and 1.12, respectively, are appropriate based on the seismic setting and criteria cif Tables 16-S and 16-T of the 1997 UBC. The effect of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the Uniform Building Code and state-of-n'le-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. Secondary effects that can be associated with severe ground shaking following a relatively large earthquake include shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction and dynamic settlement, seiches and tsunamis. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are discussed in the following sections. 4.2.1 Shallow Ground Rupture Ground rupture because of active faulting is not likely to occur on site due to the absence of known active faults. Cracking due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site. 4.2.2 Ligoefaction and Dynamic Settlement . Liquefaction and dynamic settlement ofsoils can be caused by strong vibratory motion . due to earthquakes. Both research arid historical data indicate that loose, saturated, granular soils are susceptible to liquefaction and dynamic settlement. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby causing the soil to liquefy. This effect may be manifested by excessive settlements and sand boils at the ground surface. The Santiago Fonnation is not considered liquefiable due to its very high-density characteristics and indurated nature. -8-~II=-~ --;;~.= 040 l98-00 l 4.2.3 Tsunamis and Seiches Based on the distance between the site and large, open bodies of water, and the elevation of the site with respect to sea level, the possibility of seiches and/or tsunamis is considered to be very low. -9· 04019R-00l 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Ba~ed on the results of our geotechnical investigation of the site, it is our professional opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the following conclusions and recommendations arc incorporated into 'the project plans and specifications. The following ts a surmnary of the significant geotechnical factors that we expect may affect development of the site. • The existing building pad is comprised of formational materia! generally consisting of silty sandstone with claystone and clayey sandstone present below an approximate depth of 5 feet below the existing grade. • The upper 6 to 12 inches of the building pad was found to be desiccated and potentially compressible. • Fill soils associated with the storm drain backfitl arc present in the southe.rr.. most portion of the building. Based on the current site development plans, the proposed improvements are outside the fill limits. • No landslides or other surficial failures were observed on the site. • Ground water was not encountered. • Based on laboratory testing, onsite materials are expected to generally possess a low to medium expansion potential (expansion index less than 90). Highly expansive clayey soils are present below an approximate depth of S feet below the existing grade of the building pad. • Active or potentially active faults are not known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. • A peak ground acceleration of 0.50g is postulated as a result of the maximum moment magnitude earthquake along the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. UBC seismic criteria are presented in Section 4.0. • · Based on laboratory testing, onsite soils are expected to have a negligible potential for sulfate attack on concrete and high potential for corrosion of buried metal piping. -I 0- 040198-001 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Earthwork We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, excavation, the placement of minor fill soils. We recommend that earthwork on the site be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading included in Appendix D. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those in Appendix D. 6.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to grading, all areas to receive structural fill, engineered structures, or hardscape should be cleared of surface alld subsurface obstructions, including any existing debris and undocumented or loose fill soils, and stripped of vegetatiotf:'Removed vegetation and debris should be properly disposed off site. Due to the desiccated and potentially compressible nature of the near-surface soils on the existing building pad, we recommend that the all areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to above optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557. If fill soils are placed above the existing grade ofthe building pad, additional removals/scarification may need to be performed in order to provide a uniform fill thickness across the building limits. Additional recommendations are presented in Section 6.1.4. 6.1 .2 Excavations and Oversize Material Shallow excavations of the onsite materials may generally be accomplished with cOJ)ventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. Localized heavy ripping or breaking may be required if cemented and concretionary lenses are encountered in deeper excavations (such as utility fine trenches). -- Shallow, temporary excavations, such as utility trenches with vertical sides, in the engineered fill and formational materials should remain stable for the period required to construct the utility, provided they arc free of adverse geologic conditions or seeps. However, all excavations should be made in accordance with the current OSHA requirements. -1 l" 040198-001 Although we do not anticipate that oversize material will be generated Juring onsite excavations, recommendations for treatment of oversize material are included in the attached General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading (Appendix D). In addition, oversize material may be lltilized in approved surface applications or hauled off site .. 6.1.3 Fill Placement and Compaction All fill soils should be brought to a moisture content at or above the optimum and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on laboratory standard ASTM Test Method 01557. ln pavement and hardscape areas, the upper 12 inches of sub grade and all aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent. The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. ~· The onsite surficial soils typically possesses a moisture content below optimum and may require moisture conditioning prior to use as compacted fill. Fills placed on slopes steeper than 5: l (horizontal to vertical) should be keyed and benched into competent fonnational soils as indicated in the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading presented in Appendix D. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with the current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practice, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading presented in Appendix D. 6.1.4 Transition Mitigation and Deepened Footings Frol11 review of the preliminary grading plan (Fuscoe, 2000), shallow cuts and fills are anticipated to fine grade the buildipg pad. Because fonnational material will be present at shallow depth we recommend all footing be deepened to extend at least 18 inches below the west adjacent grade, or at least 12 inches into competent for fonnation whichever is deeper. If additional depth beyond the design footing depth is required to attain the recommended embedment, the additional depth may be fill with a 2 sack- sand/cement slurry or concrete. As an alternative, the structural engineer can provide details to allow for any additional depth to be constructed monolithic with the building foundation. This monolithic approach may be preferable for footing that will be situated near the planned storm drain or grease vault. According to preliminary grading plans, the stom1 drain will be 5 to I 0 feet below the pad grade. Details or the grease interceptor vault were not provided. Where the excavation will be within 4 feet of foundations, we recommend footings be deepened to the depth of the excavation bottom. Where the edge of trench is at least 4 feet away from the edge of footings, the footing should be deepened so below a l :5:1 -12- 040198-001 plane extending up from the bottom of the excavation. As an alternative to deepening structure footings, the excavation could be backfilled with a 2-sack sand/cement slurry, if permissible to the project civil and City of Carlsbad. 6.2 Conventional Foundation and Slab Considerations Shallow-spread footings or post-tension slabs arc considered suitable for support of the restaurant structure. The foundation and slab should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils encountered within 5 feet of pad grade have a medium potentia! for expansion with an expansion index less than 70. 6.2.1 Shallow Spread Footings Foundations The proposed structure may be supported by conventional, co1ttin·uous perimeter, or isolated spread footings. Footings should extend a minimum of 18 inches beneath the lowest adjacent subgrade, not including the slabs and slab underlayment. At these depths, footings founded in properly compacted fill soils or formational material may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The allowable pressures may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. The minimum recommended width of footings is 15 inches for continuous footings and 24 i11ches for square or round footings. Footings should be designed in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements and have a minimum reinforcement of four No. 5 reinforcing bars (two top and two bottom). We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural footings and settlement-sensitive structures. This distance is measured from the outside edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall) and shouid be a at least 10 feet. Please note that the soils within the structural setback area possess poor lateral stability, and improvements (such. as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavements, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. -13- 040 19!!-001 6.2.2 Floor Slabs The slab-on-grade should he at least 4 inches thick and be reinforced with No. 3 rebars 18 inches on center each way {minimum), placed at mid-height in the slab. The slab should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand. The sand layer should be additionally underlain by a 10-mil visqueen moisture barrier underlain by an additional 2 inches of sand. Sand should possess a sand equivalent of 30 or greater. We recommend control joints be provided across the slab at appropriate intervals as designed by the project architect. Prior to placement of the vapor barrier, the upper 18 inches of slab subgrade should be moisture conditioned to a moisture content at or above the laboratory determined optimum. The potential for slab cracking may be further reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios. The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of!ilabs. We recommend that a slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if grouted tile, marble tile, or other crack- sensitive floor covering is planned directly on concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. If heavy vehicle or equipment loading is proposed for the slabs, greater thickness and increased reinforcing may be required. 6.2.3 Settlement The recommended allowable-bearing capacity for the restaurant structure is based on maximum total and differential settlements of 3/4 inch and. 1/2 inch, respectively. Since settlements are a function of footing size and contact bearing pressures, some differential settlement can be expected between adjacent columns or walls where a large differential loading condition exists. With increased footing depth to width ratios, differential settlement should be less. 6.3 Post-Tensioned Foundation Svstem We recommend that the post-tensioned slab be designed in accordance with the following design parameters presented in Table 2 and the criteria of the !997 edition of the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1997). -14- 040198-001 Tab!e2 Post-Tensioned Foundation Design Recommendations ···-Expansion Index (UBC 18-2) Design Criteria E.l. < 90 Edge Moisture Variation, ern I Center Lift: 5.5 feet I EdgcLift: 3.0 feet Differential Swell, Ym l Center Lift: ! 2.0 inches I Edge Lift: 0.8 inches -· Differential Settlement: 1/2 inch The post-tensioned foundation and slab should be designed in accoroance with structural considerations. The slab should be at least 5 inches thick. Continuous footings (ribs or thickened edges) with a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of 18 inches below adjacent grade may be designed for a maximum ailowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot if founded in or competent formational material. The perimeter edge should extend at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The allowable pressures may be increase by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. The slab should be underlain by a minimum of 2 inches of clean sand (sand equivalent greater than 30) which is in turn underlain by a 10 mil visqueen vapor barrier and 2 inches of clean sand. The vapor barrier should be sealed at all penetrations and laps. Moisture vapor transmission may be additionaiiy reduced by use of concrete additives. Moisture. barriers can retard, but not eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slabs. We recommend that the floor covering installer test the moisture vapor flux rate prior to attempting applications of the flooring. "Breathable" floor coverings should be considered if the vapor flux rates are high. A slip- sheet or equivalent should be utilized above the concrete slab if crack-sensitive floor coverings (such as ceramic tiles, etc.) are to be placed directly on the concrete slab. The upper 18 inches of sub grade beneath the slab should be moistur·e conditioned to a moisture content at or above of the laboratory detennined optimum 6.4 Mat Foundation Although use of mat foundations is not anticipated, the following parameters are provided for consideration during planning. A soil modulus of 150 pounds per cubic inch is recommended for design of mat foundations. Mat foundations should be designed by the project structural engineer utilizing parameters outlined for post-tensioned slabs and an allowable bearing pressLJre of I ,500 psf. -15- ' I ! l I 040198-00 I 6.5 Lateral Earih Pressures For design purposes, the following lateral earth pressure values for level or sloping backfill are recommended for walls backfilled with very low to low (EI < 50) expansion potential. Select, low expansive, materials should be used within the zone defined by a l: I plane extending up from the base of the wall. · Table3 Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pd) Conditions Level 2: I Slope Active 35 55 At-Rest 55 85 Passive 300 !50 (sloaipg (Maximum of 3 ksf) down) Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls up to 10 feet in height should be designed for an active equivalent pressure value provided above. In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (nonyielding}, the at-rest pressures should be used. If conditions other than those covered herein are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual case basis by the geotechnical engineer. A surcharge load for a restrained or unrestrained wall resulting from automobile traffic may be assumed to be equivalent to a uniform pressure of 75 psf which is in addition to the equivalent fluid pressure given above. For other· unifonn surcharge loads, a uniform pressure equal to 0.3Sq should be applied to the wall (where q is the surcharge pressure in pst). Surcharge from heavy moving trucks can be analyzed by this office once design traffic loads are detennined. The wall pressures assume walls are backfilled with fre.e draining materials and water is not allowed to accommodate behind walls. A typical drainage design is contained in Appendix D. Wall backfill should be compacted by mechanical methods to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM 01557). Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance with · structural considerations. For all retaining walls. we recommend a minimum horizontal distance from the outside base ofthe footing to daylight of l 0 feet. Lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained from the passive pressure value provided above. Further. for sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. These values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic loads. The total resistance may be taken as the sum ofthe frictional and passive resistance provided that the passive p01tion does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance. -16- 040198-001 6.6 Gcochem ical Considerations Concrete in direct contact with soil or water that contains a high concentration of soluble sulfates can be subject to chemical deterioration commonly known as "sulfate attack". Results of previous testing indicated a negligible ~oluble sulfate content. Uniform Building Code Table 19- A-4 provides minimum concrete design requirements based on sulfate exposure conditions. Additional testing of the finish grade soils should be performed. The site soils are believed to present a moderate potential for corrosion of buried uncoated metal conduits and pipes. Further analyses by a corrosion engineer are recommended where buried metal is being considered. 6. 7 Surface Drainage and Erosion Surface drainage should be controlJed at all times. The proposed stru_~,ture should have an appropriate drainage system to collect roof runoff. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from the structure toward the parking lot, driveway or suitable drainage facilities. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing a minimum 2 percent gradient from. the structure. Below grade planters should not be situated adjacent to the structure or pavements unless provisions for drainage such as catch basins and drains are made. In general, ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to structures or pavements. 6.8 Concrete Flatwork In order to reduce the potential for differential movement or cracking of driveways, sidewalks, patios, or other concrete flatwork, wire mesh reinforcement is suggested along with keeping pad grade soils at an elevated moisture content. We recommend reinforcement consist of 6x6- W2.9xW2.9 (152xi52-MW19xMW19) welded-wire mesh, or heavier reinforcement. Additional control can be obtained by providing reinforce thickened edges and 4 inches of . granular base below the flatwork. Reinforq:mentshould be placed midheight in concrete. Even though the slabs are reinforced, some expansive soil-related movement (i.e., both· horizontal to vertical differential movement, etc.) should be anticipated due to the nature of the expansive soils. A uniform moisture content on the lot should be maintained throughout the service life to reduce differential heave of flatwork. -17- 040 198·001 6.9 Preliminary Pavement Design The appropriate pavement section depends primarily on the type of subgrade soil, shear strength, traffic load, and planned pavement life. Since an evaluation of the characteristics of the actual soils at pavement subgrade cannot be made at this time, we have provided the following range of pavement sections to be used for planning purposes only. The final subgrade characteristics will be highly dependent on the soils present at finish pavement subgrade. We expect that the proposed grading will expose soil derived from the Santiago Formation. These soils tend to be fine~ grained and fine-grained soils typically yield low R-Values. Expansive soils such as those present at pad grade also yield very low R· Values. For preliminary planning purposes, we have estimated R-Values of 5 and 15 for these materials. F ina I pavement design should be evaluated based on R-value tests performed upon completion of grading. Provided below arc sections for R~ Value 5 and 15 subgrade conditions. ·· Pavement Loading Traffic Index Anticipated Pavement Section Condition (20-year Life) R-Value=5 R-Value=15 Parking Areas 4.5 3 inches AC over _,. 3 inches AC over 8 inches Class 2 Base 7 inches Class 2 Base Drive Areas 5.5 3-l/2 inches AC over 3-1/2 inches AC over ~ 11 inches Class 2 Base 9 inches Class 2 Base For concrete pavements and areas subject to heavy truck loading (trash trucks), we recommend a fuiJ depth of Portland Cement Concrete (P.C.C.) section of 7 inches with appropriate steel reinforcement and crack-control joints as designed by the project structural engineer. We recommend that sections be as nearly square as possible. A 3,500 psi mix that produces a 600 psi modulus of rupture should be utilized. The actual pavement design should also be in accordance with City of Carlsbad and CI design criteria. All pavement section materials conform to and be placed in accordance with the latest revision ofthe California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (Caltrans) and American Concrete Ii!~titute (ACI) codes. The upper 12 inches of subgrade soil and all aggregate base should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent (based on ASTM Test Method D 1557-91) for asphalt pavement an.d 90 percent for concrete pavements. If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, we recommend some measure of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated. It is recommended that the concrete curing separating the landscaping area from the pavement extend below the aggregate base to help seal the ends of the sections where heavy landscape watering may have access to the aggregate base. Concrete swales should be designed in roadway or parking areas subject to concentrated surface runoff. To help reduce the potential for excessive erosion of graded slopes, we recommend berms and/or swales be provided along the top of the slopes and site drainage directed such that surface runoff on the slope faces is minimized. Protective measures to mitigate excessive site erosion during construction should also be implemented in accordance with the latest City of Carlsbad grading ordinances. -\8- I 040198-00 I 6.1 0 Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information and subsurface conditions disclosed by widely spaced excavations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction. Construction observation of all onsite excavations and field density testing of all compacted till should be performed by a representative of this office so that construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report. 6.1 I Plan Review Grading and foundation plans should be checked by Leighton and Associates before grading to see that the recommendations In this report are incorporated in project plans. -I 9- 040198-001 7.0 LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based in part upon data that were obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests. Such information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many 'sites is such that differing geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. -20-~HI=-~ --............ ~...__~= ,., J LEGEND Afo ~--r1r1(ial 1111 -~;:\<i~r Ts ~f'(C1.Hy-~gr.-c' 5.H.~lilt<Jo rqrn;.,~i.,n. ;..p~rC.:l(. \O(.l~~o!'l t-.r t.~t".\gtlc c.-o:~.La(;t .;'d~~ht"f. 'tlkotrl!' i1pprGlflll41t~. dctti':d wPIP.f#- bur;ctl, que(";~d .. ro~rt unc:~:rtnir.) l.~prcn: lo(.:.l-.on 4>~ f'xp~.or"'t¢'~1 tJ(Jril'l~ ••lit-': t~~:.!1 rltp-::h ~rldi<.~ted GEOTECHNICAL MAP Oscar Is Palomar Airport Road Carlsbad. California 'Sc.r.1r.: Ertgr. /Geol. ()ratted By O•to SAC/RKW KAIIII August2000 Leighton and Associates, Inc. IR F ~gun~ No. 2 040198-001 APPENDIX A References Blake, 1996, EQFAULT, Version 2.2. --.. ···--, 1998, FR!SKSP, Version 3.01. California Building and Safety Commission (CBSC), 1998, California Building Code. CDMG, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open-File Report 96- 08. Fuscoe Engineering, 2000, Grading Plans for: Oscar's Restaurant, Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, California, dated May 3, 2000. Hart, 1997, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Special Study Zone Maps, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geqlogy, Special Publication 42. ICG, 1990, Foundation Investigation, Carlsbad Price Club, Lot 6-8, Carlsbad Ranch Business Park, Carlsbad, California, dated February 8, 1990. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) 1997, Uniform Building Code, Volume !- Administrative, Fire-and Life-Safety, and Field Inspection Provisions; Volume II-Structural Engineering Design Provisions; and Volume JII-Material, Testing and Installation Provisions: ICBO. Schuss-Clark, 2000, Site Plan, Oscar's Restaurant, Carlsbad, California, faxed copy July 31, 2000. Tan, S.S. and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, DMG Open-File Report 96-02, San Luis Rey and San Marcos Quadrangles. A-I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG KEY Date -----·-······-~-----··---Sheet 1 of _l __ Project KEY TO BORING LOG G::::R=A=P=-=HI=-::C;;..S, _____ _ Project No. Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole +I- c 0 a"' .c,..., 0 z :;::+-·-(fl +-+ .em QJ IIIQI n.llJ Ql n.o +->QJ QJQJ 1\l..J a -QJ~ o:!; a. '-z (!) E LIJ 1\1 en 0 1:0;;, ~ 1~>~~-/ I I 5 ~I T 0 ~ ~~1-1 .. IV ·:1 ~ 'p''--!0\....) r~,.,-~ f 0 \;)' -~ ~ IS f~ 1 f ~ ~ E~ 1--- r~---- 20 Ia ,.t. ~ " \ ,_ l ~\ '{..: I I;;_;;--,;; 'l5-. - - <11 505A(11/77) Type-of Rig Drive Weight ft Ref or Datum ----------~--------------~-Drop in -- :11 .-, .,.., +-..... OJX Ill • GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Ilia ·-'-"" Ill en 1/1 ...... Ill • 30 C'+-='+-ou. t;c -u Q.IO u. oa. -c.. ·-QJ en tOw '-' o+--Logged By :11 ·-:::) 0... l.. :E:c 0 ~"" Sampled By 0 u --- CL Inorganic clay of low to medium plasTicity; gravelly clay; sandy clay; silty clay; lean clay CH Inorganic clay or high plasticity; far day OL-OH Organic clay, silr or silty clay-clayey silt mi~tures SPT Sample ML Inorganic silt; very fine sand; silty or clayey fine sand; clayey silt with low plasticity MH Inorganic silt; diatomaceous fine sandy or silty &oils; elastic silt -~ IS~~~e CL-ML Low plasticity clay to silt mixture ML-SM Sandy silt to silty sand mixrurc CL-SC Sandy day to clayey sand mixrure SC-SM Clayey sand to silty sand mixrure sw Well graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines SP Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines SM Silty sand; poorly graded sand·silt ntiAture sc Clayey sand; poorly graded sand; clay mixture GW Well graded gravel; graveJ.sand mhc.ture, liltle or no fines l~~d :~~ rer ¥ GP Poorly graded grave!; gravel-sand mixrure, little oc no fines f!e fDri!lin GM Silty gravel; gravel-sand·silt mixrure GC Cla)·ey gravel; gravel-sand-clay mixture Sandstone Siltstone ClayMone Breccia (angular gravel and cobbles or matrix-support conglomerate) Conglomerate (rounded gravel and cobble clast-supported) Igneous granitic or grdnitic type rock Metavolcanic or metamurphic rock Artificial or man-made fill Asphaltic concrete Portland c~mem concrete I LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Date ----~8-..!::3:....:·0~0:..._ __ _ Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole i c ! 0_,..., u l > :;+-.cr-. ·-I +-+-.COl <UQI c..OI I c..o ;::.01 ruw <U...J w'~-o'-~-t. _ ...... '-" (!) w () ;.·)···~x /:./:z -//,f%1 I /j; ~// .· -';:..-'· .-.,. ·-r·· .... ' . •· -·I -l 75 i -. 'l :_j 5- -.. - -. . ·( 70 -· . ',: '.! . !' .·I' 10-·'i• ·.r .. i - - 65 - 15- - - .. j - - I 20- -I ! -l ! ,J i 55 - - - 50 - "' 505AC1 1/77> 8 in. +1-79 l i . I 0 z U'l w I <li .... 0 I -c.. z E ttl (/) Bag-1 @1'·2' 2 3 I ! I 4 ! I I I I I II w. I [ GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1 Sheet 1 of 1 Oscar' s/Carlsbad 040198-001 THF Drilling Project No. Type of Rig Hollow·Stem Auger -~------~1~4~0_.p'-"o""u-'-"nd~s"-----------Drop 30 in. Drive Weight ft Ref or Datum Mean Sea I evel - ~ I ~ .fi" +-:!:: w~ Ill' GEOTECHl\TJ:CAL DESCRIPTION \flo Ill,..... t. rO~ :30 C'+-I .E+ -u oU.. wo 111 c u, -L 0 c.. ·-w _(I) a::lw v a+ Logged By MDJ ·-::) a.. :ll !: c 1.. 0 J1'-' 0 u Sampled By MDJ l sc TERTIARY SA~TIAGO FORMATIO!j ·-i I @ 0': Clayey SAND: light giay to off-white. damp, dense (per driller); ront> top i I !-few inches l ! ; 50/5" Ill.(} 9.0 SM @ 2': Silty medium grained SANDSTONE: off-white, damp, very clen~c I I 90 112.4 8.6 @5': Silty medium grained SANDSTON'E: off-white, damp, very dense i 100 104.7 12.4 i I Total Depth = ll Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soils on 8/3/00 I I ! l I I l I ~ i LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 Date 8-3-00 Sheet _1_ of _1_ Project ____________ .:::.O:.::s-=ca::::rc...'s~/..:::C:.::a:.:.rl~sb:::.:a::::d=-Project No. 040198-001 Drilling Co. TIIF Drilling Type of Rig _Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight -----~---~l4_9_Qounds Drop _lQ_in. Elevation Top of Hole +I 78 ft Ref or Datum Mean Sea Level - ~ I ~ J,~ c 0 +-+-w...: GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION -~'"' 0 z 1.1'10 ·u; ~ L '-" 1,1) • .!:""' ·-1.1'1 Ill~ +-+-! ;-+-..CO") Ql l 30 C'+ I :j+-ttl(tt o..W n.o +-' Ill oLL 0.10 +-c c::;~ ,.w QJQJ lli...J 0 ! -D 0.. -~ Ql a. -L (J) QJ'+ a::; L z i E a::lQJ '-' 0 +--Logged By MDJ _v {!) ·-::) I ttl a.. :n :£: c -·-w (J) ~a 8 ~'-' !Sampled By MDJ ! ! ; -·-· O· ;7 ,, / /) ' CL WEATHERED/DISTURBED SANTlAGQ FORMATION . ~ t:,./_>'/>'J ! -1/::.,,L,'--/-1 f - - - - . ~-o:: _S~n~y _C!:·i'!. Y_; _!lr~":'_nll~e~, ~~~mp, .~c.!Is_: _______________ v//·i ! I.ERTIARY SANTIAGO F0&\1ATION ! -.-:/('1 I ;~· l 103 103.7 16.3 SM-CL @2': Silty SANDSTONE and CLAYSTONE: green to off-white, damp, dense; 75 -~:~0: claystone rragmcms within sand matrix. interbedded claysLonc layer i --t~ 1 5-J~: 2 90 114.0 11.2 SM @5': Silty medium grained SANDSTONE: off-white to light llTaY, damp, very ! dense -. ' I ! I '· W, -~ l I • '. i 70 -r:: ., @8': ' Clay cuttings at T -8' -. . . . . . . 10-... 3 80 112.4 13.2 @ 10': Silty medium grained SANDSTONE: off-while, damp, very dense; .. micaceous -. . . -... l .. -l 65 -.. I l -C?~~ 4 85 102.1 20.2 CL @ 14': CLAYSTONE: green, damp, very stiff 15 Total Depth = 15 Feet -Nu ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soils on S/03/00 - 60~ I -! l i -I 20- - --i ~5 J -! I II I 25-I -! - 50 -! ! -I l I •o 505A( 1 1/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3 Date ____ _.:;..8-.=3,...;-0::..:0'------Sheet 1 of~l- 040198-001 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole c 0""' :;::+- IIIQJ >QJ w0 w 75 50 ..c'"" (.) ·-+-+-..em O.QJ 0.0 QJQJ Ill_! o0 '-t!) 0 '' . ' . _: :-l': ' . i . -: :-:r::r -... -. . . . . . 5-:,: . '' -.. -J I ! 505A(11/77) I i ! Ill OJ + 0 z 8 in. Oscar's!Carlsbad Project No. Type of Rig THF DriJiing Hollow-Stem Auger ________ ....:1:...:4~0..~:P:.:=o~u=n.::=:ds~--------Drop 30 in. +1-79 ft Drive Weight Ref or Datum Mean Sea Level . 0 z QJ 0. E Ill en 2 70 lll.8 6.7 100 108.3 10.6 3 B5 110.8 16.6 4 5015" 107.4 Hi.S 5 90 114.5 13.2 I i- 1 ~ 6 I 1ro 115_2 9.9 ~ u ll SM GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By Sampled By TERTIARY MNTIAGO FORMATION MDJ MDJ @ 0': Silty medium SANDSTONE: off-white, damp, dense @ 2': Silty medium SANDSTONE: off-white, damp, dense @ 5': Same as 2': CLAYSTONE in sampler. tip -·- @ 10': Silty \'ery fine grained SANDSTONE: gray-brown, damp, very dense SC @ 15': Clayey very fine grained SANDSTONE: green-gray, damp, very dense I @ 20': Clayey fine grained SANDSTONE: green-gray, damp, very dense @ 25': Same as 20' Total D~pth = 26 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soils on 8/3/00 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES r I !-- GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B~4 Date ____ ....:oS:..c-3::...-~00~---Sheet _1_ of ~~- Projcct -~---~--------=O::..:s::..:c=a~r-='s:.:.../C=a::..:rl~s;;:.ba=-d=-------------Project No. 040198·001 Drilling Co. 'l'HF Drilling Type of Rig Hollow·Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight -~~------._:_14..:..:0"---"'-p"'ou"'"'I,_,_,td~s:._ ________ Drop _ML in. Elevation Top of Hole +/-79 ft Ref or Datum Mean Sea Level l w I i3 1 75 70 - 10- - - ! 65 1 - I IS-I I - - - 60 - 20- - - - 55 - 25-I I I -·I I - 50 - 11\· 505A(11/77l U\ Ill +-0 z . 0 z Qj a. E Ill (J) 2 3 I I - '' \ ~ H I! 'i +- Vlo 30 oLL -r.. lllru 0.. 69 90 97 i 115.2 9.9 SM 110.6 16.2 lsM-CL i - -SM I I I ! • I I ! ' ! ' ! l I I GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By Sampled By TERT!ARY SANTIAGO FORMATION MDJ MDJ @ 0': Silty medium grained SANDSTONE: off-white, damp, medium dense @ 2': Silly medium grained SANDSTONE: off-white, damp co moist, dense @ 5'; Silty medium SANDSTONE andC'LAYSTONE: off"white to green, damp, very dense; 112 sample sandstone, 1 f2 claystone @ 7.5': Silty medium to coarse grained SANDSTONE: off-white, damp, very dense Total Depth = 8.5 F~et No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soils on 813100 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5 Date ~-----=8--"3......:-0"""0'-----Sheet _1_ of I Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole c ~t I o,.., u :;::+-·-.ern t!IQj Q.QJ 0..0 >Qj w ..... 111.....! w<+ Cl....., (. ""' (!) w I 30 0 75 -.: . l· . _j .. -.:. -. ... -.. . . . . . -· '. :! . : -· ... -· 10 10-: ·;;v::-Y:::v/ - - - 65 15- - - - - 60 2()- - - - - ')5 25- - - - - ~0 ~0 505AC11/77) Ill 41 +-0 z Oscar's/Carlsbad 040198-001 THF Drilling Project No. Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger 8 in. Drive Weight ft Ref or Datum ~-~-----~1:::.40~p~o~un!!d~so:__ ________ Drop .1Q_ in. +I-80 0 z QJ a. E Ill I (/] I I +-~~'~8 3LL. I 0 1 -L Clw I 0. ' !' i d I w i Bag-1 I ! i®0'-1' l I 2 80 ::11 +-·-II! I"' C'+ IDU QQ. ..... ::ll t.. D 111.6 "' ui'"'-Qj;-.: t..'-' Ul • ::l+-ttl~ c::;c.: +-c .~ (lJ _(J) a+-:E:c ·c;=> 0 (.) oo"" SM 9.7 Mean Sea Level GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPfiON I !Logged By MDJ Sampled By MD.J TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 0': Medium grained SAND, off-while, damp @ I': Bulk sample: silty medium SAND. off-site. damp @ 5': Silty medium grained SANDSTONE:· off-white, damp, very dense; green claystone in sampler tip 3 90 103.0 19.0 SC-CL @ 10': Clayey SANDSTONE and CLAYSTONE: green-gray to g.reen, damp, I verv dense to very stiff To[lll Depth "' 11 Feet No ground water encountered ar time of drilling Backfilled with native soils on 8!3/00 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES r- - - - 1- 1- t- i I r 1- f- r- f- 1- 1- t- 040 198-00! APPEN[)JX C 1§..hm~J9lY Testing l)ocedurcs and Test Results Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of impmi fill materials was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 18-2. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately SO percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared l-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent J 44 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results ofthese tests are presented in the table below: Sample Number B-1 #! @. I-3' Sample Description Light brown silty to clayey sand Compacted Dry Density (pet) 112.9 Expansion Index 51~ Expansion Potential* Medium *Based on the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 18-1-B. Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were perfonncd in general accordance with California Test Method 643. The results are presented in the table below and on the following tables. Sample Location Sample Description pH Minimum Resistivity (ohms-em) B-1 # 1 @. i-3' Light brown silty to clayey sand 6.97 810 Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods. The test results are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sulfate Content(%) Potential Degree of Sulfate Attack"' B-l #J @ 1-3' 0.03 Negligible * Based on the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code, Table No. 19-A-4, prepared by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO, 1997). C-1 040198-001 Laboratory Testin!! Procedures and Test Results {contiJlued) Comprcssion/SweJI: Compression/Swell tests were performed on selected, relatively undisturbed ring samples. Samples were placed in a consolidomcter and a load approximately equal to the stated pressure. The percent for the load cycle was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original l-inch height. The percent swell (positive value) or collapse (negative value) is presented below: Sample Location Percent Compression/Swell B-2 # 1@ 2' +1.60@ 144 psf B-2 # l @2' -0.72@ 1400 psf B-2#4@ 14' +5.13@ 144 psf B-2#4@14' +2.04@ 1400 psf Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content and dry density determinations were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings. The results of these tests arc presented in the boring logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from "undisturbed" or disturbed samples. Lctghtun and Asso<:ia:cs, Inc. <"iENERALEARTHWORKAND GRAD!NGS!'ECIF!CATIONS Pagel of6 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, fNC. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADrNG SPECIFICA TJONS FOR ROUGH GRADING l.O General JQJ0.1094 l.l Intent These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications arc for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may resuh in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnicalreport(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall · employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). .The Geotechnical Consultants shalt be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendationspdor to the commencementofthe grading. Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review tl1e "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor(Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing. During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnicallyobserved, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of aU"remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisturc--conditioningand processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to detennine the attained !eve[ of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. Leighton and Associates, !11c. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIF!CAT10NS Pagc2of6 l .3 The Earthwork Contractor. The Earth~~rk Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, -experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioningand processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for perfonning the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications. The Contractor shaU prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall infom1 the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at lc~ast 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and -agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotecfutical report(s) and grading plan{s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled JQJI) 11)94 2.l Clearing and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, govemingagencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of tl1ese removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. If potentially hazardous materials arc encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be infom1ed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State ofCalifomia, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. Lc1ghton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 3 of6 2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has be~~~ declared satisfactory for support of fill by the ·Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably unifonn, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. 2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overcxcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.4 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than S: 1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. f..lease see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration .. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than S: 1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat sub grade · for tl1e fill. 2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. TI1e Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for detenniningelevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. 3.0 Fill Material JOJO I 0\1~ 3 .1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential; or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material docs not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within I 0 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. 3.3 J.nmort If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the l.cighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 4 of6 Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours_{2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitabilitycan be determined and appropriate tests perfonncd. 4. 0 Fi II P laccment and Compaction JOJO 109• 4 .I Fill Layers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the-grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative unifonnity of material and moisture throughout. 4.2 Fill Moisture Condition in~ Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively unifonn moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be perfonned in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method 01557-91). 4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method Dl557~91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. - 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at ·increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to· the Geotechnical Consultant. · Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D I 557~91. 4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequatecompaction(such as close to slope faces and at the filllbedrockbenches). 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing; Tests shal I be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shal! stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met. L<',ighto!l and Associates, !nc. GENERAL EARTH WOJU< AND GRADI NCi SI'ECJFICATIONS Pagc5of6 4.7 Compaction Test "'-_gcations: The Geotecj1nical Consultant shall document the approximate -elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location, The Cqntractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can detennine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of I 00 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided_ S_Q Subdrain Installation Suhdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan. and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient ti.Ple should be allowed by the Contractox:-for these surveys. 6.0 Excavation Ex~vations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during-grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.0 Trench Backfills )0)0 1()94 7.1 The Contractor shall fo!low all OHSA and Cai/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of90 percent of maximum from I foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. 7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant 7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 6 of(J )0)0 1094 7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shalL not exceed those allowed in the Standard -Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his altemativeequipmentand method. OUTLET PIPES 4"~ NON·PERFORATED PIPE, 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY BACKCUT 1:1 OR FU\.TTER • SUBORAIN INSTALLAllON • Subdrain collector pipe shall be Installed with perforations down or, unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant. Outlet pipes shall be non-perforated pipe. The subdrain pipe shall have at least a perforations unifonnly spaced per foot. Perforation shall be '/"" to W If drilled holes are used. All subdrain pipes shall have a gradient at least 2% towards the outlet. • SUBDRAIN PIPE-Subdra.in pipe shan be ASTM 02751, SDR 23.5 or ASTM 01527, Schedule 40, or ASTM 03034, SDR 23.5, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic {PVC) pipe. • All outlet pipe shall be placed In a trench no wider than twice the subdrain pipe. Pipe shall be In soil of SE>30 jetted or flooded in place except for the outside 5 feet which shall be native soil backfill. BUITRESS OR REPLACEMENT FILL SUBDRAINS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING llfl: ~[IJ. SPECIFICATIONS U STANDARD DETAILS 0 PflOJECTEO PlANE 1 TO 1 tAAXJMUN FROM TOE OF SlOPE TO APPROYEO GROUND NATURAL GROUND --- CUT FACE -·-- --- stW.L BE OONSTAUCTEO PRIOR TO FI.L flt.ACEME'Hr 10 ASSURE ADeQUATE OEOI..OGIC CONOmONS PROJECTED PLANE 1 TO f MAXJMUM FROM Toe OF SLOPE TO APPAOVEO GROUND 2'MIN. KEY DEPTH DESlGN St.OPE KEYING AND BENCHING CUT FACE RBIOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL TO BE C0NSTRJCTE0 PRIOR .,..,..... TO Fll PlACEMENT / / / FILL SLOPE FILL~OVER~CUT SLOPE CUT -OVER-FILl SLOPE For Subdrains See . Standard Detail C GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING [f][l] SPEC1FlCA 110NS U STANDARD DETAILS A REV. 4111 ,lg6 • OVersize rock is larger than a Inches In largest dimension. · • Excavate a trench in the compacted fill deep enough to bury all the rock. • Backfill with granular soil jetted or flooded In place to fill aU the voids. • Do not bury rock within 1 0 feet Of finish grade. FINISH GRADe • Windrow of buried rock shall be parallel to the finished slope fiU. ELEVATION A-A' PROFILE ALONG WINDROW JE"I'TED OR FLOODED GRANULAR MATERIAL OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL _A--_-_--- GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING [1j6 OJ SPECIFICATIONS U STANDARD DETAILS B 4/95 NATURAL :::<:-GROUND " CAL TRANS CLASS U PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK (9FT,3/FT.) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC FtL TER FABRIC ~:b~: OR'-.cOU.SCTOR-PIPE SHAll. EQUlVALENT) BE MINIMUM 6" DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED CANYON SUBCRAIN OUTLET DETAIL PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL 0 DESIGN FiNiSHED GRADE PERFORATED P\PE 6"+ MIN. CANYON SUBDRAINS FOR PIPE SPECIFICATION FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) #2 ROCK WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC OR CALTRANS CLASS II PERMEABLE. SPECIFICA noNs I' <§S. u GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING rn~ STANDARD DETAILS C 4/95 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL RETAINING WALL WALL.WATERPROOFING PeR· ARCHireci•s· SPECIFICATIONS'-~ FINISH GRADE ... WALL FOOTING---:...t-~,.. NOT TO SCALE SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL U.S. Standard Sieve Size 1" 3/4" 3/8" No. 4 No. 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200 % Passing 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 Sand Equivalent>75 SOIL BAC~FILL. COMPACTED .TO . 90 PERCENT:RELATIVE COMPACTION* .314-'-1~1/2" CLEAN GRAVEL**·. •·• ,, ' . . - . r •· .£:<M•IIi:foiAMeTeR PERFoR.t..T.eo ~PVC PiPE '(SCHEDULE 40. ORr --- EQU)VALEji'f) w•rt. PeRFoaATIONs ORIENTED'iDOWN' iAS DEPICTED MINIJiUM 1i PERCENT GRADlENT TO SUITA~LE OUTLET . 3" MIN. COMPE'fENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAl CONSULTANT *BASED ON ASTM 01557 **IF CAL TRANS ClASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/4w-1-1/2• GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED. CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL SHOUlD BE COMPACTED to 90 PERCEN't~RELATIVE COMPACTION* ' NOTE:COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR J-ORAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR CLASS 2.1NST ALLA TION SHOULD BE PERFORr-.£0 lN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. STAB1LITY FILL I BUTTRESS DETAIL . 4. Ja NON-PERFORATED , OUTLET PIPES 4• f1i NONPERFORATED. PIPE, 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY SEE T-CONNECTION · DETAIL PIPE ·" ' :.3-----FIL TEA FABRIC ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED · EOU.IVALENT)* SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL NOTES: SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL LOWEST SUBDRAlN SHOULD ' BE SITUATED AS LOW AS . POSSIBLE 1'0 ALLOW -~ · SUITABLE OUTLET. ,-......, 1 0' MIN · PERFORATED 1-..1--l EACH SIDE ·PIPE~· . . CAP NON-PERF-ORATED OUTLET PIPE T-CONNECTION DETAIL *IF CAL TRANS CLA$S 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/4•-1·1/2" GRAVEL. FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL U.S. Standard Sieve Size % Passing 1" 100 3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-100 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 Sand Equivalent>75 For buttress dimensions, see geotec.hnlcal report/plans. Actual dimensions of buttreas and. subdrain may be changed by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions. SUBORAIN INSTALLATION"!"Subdraln pipe should be Installed with perforations down as depleted. At locations recommended by the geotechnlcal~_conaultant, nonperforated pipe should be Installed SUBO~AIN TY_PE.:.Subdraln type should be Acrylon trtle Butadiene Styrene. (A.B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 126• SOR 32.6 should be used for maximum fill depths of 35 feet. Class 200, SOR 21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 feet.