The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRP 92-10A; BLUEWATER GRILL; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2016-02-08SMS GEOTECIINICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers ,& Geologists 1645 S. Rancho Santa Fe Road, Suite 208 San Marcos, C'aZfornia 92078 Office: 760-761-0799 smsgeosol. inc@gm all, coin Project No. GI-16-01-105 February 8, 2016 Mr. George W. Kelley, AlA Kelly Architects 2404 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite I E Los Angeles, California 90057 Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California Pursuant to your request,,SMS Geotechnical Solutions Inc. has completed the attached Geotechnical Investigation Report for the proposed Bluewater Grill Restaurant building expansion and parking improvements at the above-referenced property. The following report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploratory test borings, field in-situ testing and sampling, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and provides conclusions and recommendations for the proposed new construction,. as understood. From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the planned restaurant building expansion and parking improvements at the project property are feasible, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The conclusions and recommendations provided in this study are consistent with the site indicated geotechnical conditions and are intended to aid in preparation of final plans and allow more accurate estimates of construction costs. If you have any questions or need clarification, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Reference to our Project No. GI-16-01-105 will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. SMS Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS L INTRODUCTION .1 II. SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................................1 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................2 IV. FIELD INVESTIGATION ................................................2 V. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ........................................3 Earth Materials .....................................................3 Groundwater and Surface Drainage ....................................3 Faults/Seismicity ....................................................3 Seismic Ground Motion Values ........................................6 Geologic Hazards and Slope Stability ....................................7 Field and Laboratory Tests and Test Results .............................7 VI. SITE CORROSION ASSESSMENT ........................................10 VII. STORMWATER BMPs ................................................11 VIII. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................12 IX. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................15 Grading and Earthworks .............................................15 Footings and Slab-On-Grade Floors ...................................20 Soil Design Parameters ..............................................21 Exterior Concrete Slabs and Flatwork .................................22 Asphalt and PCC Pavement Design .....................................23 General Recommendations ...........................................25 X. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD (GER) .......................27 XL LIMITATIONS .........................................................27 FIGURES RegionalIndex Map ...........................................................1 SiteDemo Plan ...............................................................2 ProposedSite Plan .............................................................3 TestPit Logs .............................................................4 & 5 Fault - Epicenter Map ..........................................................6 Typical Isolation Joints and Re-Entrant Corner Reinforcement ......................7 New Slab at Existing Slab/Footing Detail .........................................8 Typical Retaining Wall Back Drainage Detail ......................................9 APPENDIX GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED BUILDING EXPANSION AND PARKING IMPROVEMENTS BLUE WATER GRILL RESTAURANT 417 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION The project property investigated herein consists of an existing older development currently supporting the Fish House Vera Cruz restaurant building (closed) with the associated structures and improvements. The property is located west of Interstate 5 Freeway, east of Carlsbad Boulevard on the south side of Carlsbad Village Drive in the downtown area ofthe City of Carlsbad. Approximate property location is shown on a Regional Index Map attached to this report as Figure 1. The approximate site coordinates are 33.1591°N latitude and -117.3488°W longitude. We understand that restaurant modifications including a new building extension and perimeter parking improvements are planned at the project property. Consequently, the purpose of this investigation was to determine soil and geotechnical conditions at the proposed new building extension and parking improvement areas, and to ascertain their influence upon the planned construction. Subsurface explorations utilizing test borings, in-situ testing, soil sampling, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis were among the activities conducted in conjunction with this effort which has resulted in the remedial grading and foundation recommendations presented herein. The scope of this work was limited to those areas planned for anew building extension and parking improvements as specifically delineated in this report. Other areas of the property including the existing structures and improvements, not investigated, were beyond the scope of this work. SITE DESCRIPTION A Site Demo Plan depicting the existing site conditions is included with this report as Figure 2. A Proposed Site Plan showing the planned building modifications, new extension and parking improvements is also reproduced herein as Figure 3 The property and surrounding areas are generally characterized by nearly level surfaces near Carlsbad Village Drive street grades, which bounds the property along the northern site margin. Existing asphalt parking improvements surround the building along the south and west perimeter. The western parking improvements and internal drive lane lay within the North County Transit District right-of-way which borders the property along the building western margin (see Figures 2 and 3). The southern parking improvements and internal drive lanes lie within the City of Carlsbad right-of-way. An existing retail building is directly behind the project building eastern wall. Large mature trees, planters, and ornamental shrubs are also present as delineated on the attached Figure 2. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, IBluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village DriveCarlsbad Page 2 The existing level pad surface was apparently developed by minor grading efforts and currently supports an older single-story Fish House Vera Cruz restaurant building (closed). Engineering and grading records pertinent to the original pad development and existing building construction are not available. Drainage at the project property generally sheet flows over perimeter improved surfaces to local drainage facilities. Excessively moist to wet ground surface conditions were not noted at the time of our field investigations. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed new building extension and parking improvements are shown on the enclosed Proposed Site Plan, Figure 3. As shown, the existing parking spaces and paved surfaces south of the building will be demolished and removed to allow for construction of a building extension. The new extension will include kitchen and restaurant expansions, new restrooms, dining patio, and a trash enclosure. Associated improvements include new added parking stalls in the areas of existing planters to the west. We also understand that the project redevelopment will also include installation ofstormwaterBMP facilities which may consist ofbioretentionlbioswales, infiltration pits or similar type systems. Significant ground modifications or the creation of large new graded embankments are not anticipated in connection with the planned site redevelopment. However, minor or fine grading efforts are expected for establishing a level pad and achieving final design grades. Majority of site earthwork operations are expected to mainly consist of remedial grading and foundation soil preparation. Construction and remedial grading within the off site properties and right-of-ways will be performed by obtaining permission from the respective property owner(s) under separate permit from the governing agencies. Detailed foundation and construction plans are not yet available. However, conventional wood- frame with exterior stucco building type construction supported on shallow stiff concrete footings and slab-on-grade floor foundations are anticipated. FIELD INVESTIGATION Our field investigation included exploratory boring excavations as well as performing a Double Ring Infiltrometer (DRI) test as described below: A. Exploratory Borings: Subsurface conditions at the project portions of the study site were chiefly determined by the excavation of two exploratory test borings drilled with a truck- mounted hollow stem auger rotary drill rig. Boring locations were constrained and very limited by the existing numerous underground utilities and improvements. At least one boring was extended a minimum of 10 feet into the underlying Terrace Deposits or 10 feet below the anticipated new building pad grade, whichever is more. Borings were logged by Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Iniprovenients, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 3 our project engineer, who also supervised in-situ testing and the collection of representative soil samples at selected intervals for subsequent laboratory testing. Boring locations are shown on the enclosed Figures 2 and 3. Logs of the exploratory borings are attached to this report, as Figures 4 and 5. Laboratory test results and engineering properties of selected representative soil samples are summarized in following sections. B. Double Ring Inifitrometer Test (ASTM D3385): A Double Ring Infiltrometer (DRI) test was performed in substantial accordance with ASTM D3385 at the bottom of a test pit excavated 3 feet below the existing adjacent ground surfaces (BGS) in the southwestern planter, as delineated on the attached Figures 2 and 3. DRI test excavation was completed in an attempt to expose native undisturbed or similar earth deposits at the bottom of the test pit. DRI tests directly measures the soil infiltration rate at the bottom of a proposed infiltration BMP facility. It consists of two 20-inch high stainless steel rings; a 12-inch (inner ring) and a 24-inch outer ring. The procedure uses the constant head method utilizing 3,000 cc and 10,000 cc capacity Mariotte tubes to maintain the constant head. The rings incorporate a welded double edge on the top for increase stability when driving into the soils. The tubes are supported on a steel plate. MM Divisions on the side of the Mariotte tubes are used for determining the flow rate. The infiltration rate is recorded in selected time intervals for both the inner ring and annular space until relatively constant rate is obtained. Test results suggest soil infiltration rate (uncorrected) of about 5.83 in./hr. However, considering an approximated safety factor of 4 for Suitability Assessment and Design Related Considerations, a corrected (adjusted) design soil infiltration rate of about 1.45 in./hr. may be used. The safety factor, and consequently the actual design infiltration rate, may be revised by the project design consultant based on final site conditions, as deemed appropriate. V. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The project site is underlain at shallow depths by natural Terrace Deposits that are widely exposed along coastal areas of Carlsbad. Instability which could preclude the planned new building extension and parking improvements are not in evidence. The following earth materials were recognized: A. Earth Materials Terrace Deposits (Qt): Pleistocene age Terrace Deposits, typical of local coastal areas, underlay the property at relatively shallow to modest depths. As exposed in our exploratory borings, the Terrace Deposits typically consist of yellow to orange-red brown colored fine to medium grained sandstone deposits that were generally found in weathered loose to medium dense conditions near the upper exposures becoming dense to very dense with depth overall. Underlying Terrace Deposits include interbedded layers of tan to white-gray medium to coarse clean sand deposits, typically encountered at the depths below 9 feet. Geotechuical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Buewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 4 Perched groundwater table was noted in both borings within the clean sand layer at the depths of approximately 13.5 to 14 feet. Project underlying dense to very dense Terrace Deposits below the upper weathered zone will adequately support new fills, structures, and improvements. Fill/Disturbed Natural Ground: A relatively shallow to modest section of undifferentiated fill/disturbed natural ground mantles site Terrace Deposits. Based on our subsurface explorations, site fill/disturbed natural ground mantle is typically on the order of 3','2 to 4'/2 feet thick, at the exposed locations, and chiefly consists of yellow brown poorly graded fine to medium sand that occur in a slightly moist to moist and loose to medium dense conditions overall. Site existing surficial undifferentiated fill/disturbed natural ground deposits are not suitable for structural support in their present condition and should be regraded where appropriate under the new building and improvements, as outlined in following sections. Detailed logs of the exploratory borings are provided in the attached to Boring Logs, Figures 4 and 5. Groundwater and Surface Drainage Subsurface groundwater was encountered in both our test borings at the depths of 13 '/2 to 14 feet below the existing ground surfaces (BGS), perched in the interbedded clean medium to coarse sand layers of the underlying Terrace Deposits. The perched groundwater, as encountered beneath the site, is sufficiently deep and is not expected to be impacted by the remedial grading and new construction, nor be a factor in the future performance of redeveloped property. The proper control of surface drainage at the property, however, is an important factor in the continued stability and future performance of planned new building extensions and parking improvements. Ponding of surface run-off near foundations should not be allowed and over- watering of site vegetation should be avoided. Perimeter surfaces should direct run-off away from the building foundations and site improvements in a positive manner. Surface run-off should be properly captured and discharged into approved storm drainage facilities as shown on the project plans. Faults/Seismicity Faults or significant shear zones are not indicated on or near proximity to the project site. As with most areas of California, the San Diego region lies within a seismically active zone; however, coastal areas of the county are characterized by low levels of seismic activity relative to inland areas to the east. During a 40-year period (1934-1974), 37 earthquakes Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 5 were recorded in San Diego coastal areas by the California Institute of Technology. None of the recorded events exceeded a Richter magnitude of 3.7, nor did any of the earthquakes generate more than modest ground shaking or significant damages. Most of the recorded events occurred along various offshore faults which characteristically generate modest earthquakes. Historically, the most significant earthquake events which affect local areas originate along well known, distant fault zones to the east and the Coronado Bank Fault to the west. Based upon available seismic data, compiled from California Earthquake Catalogs, the most significant historical event in the area of the study site occurred in 1800 at an estimated distance of 11.3 miles from the project area. This event, which is thought to have occurred along an offshore fault, reached an estimated magnitude of 6.5 with estimated bedrock acceleration values of 0.11 8g at the project site. The following list represents the most significant faults which commonly impact the region. Estimated ground acceleration data compiled from Digitized California Faults (Computer Program EQFAULT VERSION 3.00 updated) typically associated with the fault is also tabulated. TABLE I . ...,,Vz MAMUM FAULT ZONE XDISTANCawmSITE - .* - PROBABI,E'- I ACCEflERTION (RJ) Rose Canyon Fault 4.6 miles 0.256g Newport-Inglewood Fault 4.7 miles 0.254g Coronado Bank Fault 20.8 miles 0.186g Elsinore-Julian Fault - 24.5 miles 0.140g The location of significant faults and earthquake events relative to the study site are depicted on a Fault - Epicenter Map attached to this report as Figure 6. More recently, the number of seismic events which affect the region appears to have heightened somewhat. Nearly 40 earthquakes of magnitude 3.5 or higher have been recorded in coastal regions between January 1984 and August 1986. Most of the earthquakes are thought to have been generated along offshore faults. For the most part, the recorded events remain moderate shocks which typically resulted in low levels of ground shaking to local areas. A notable exception to this pattern was recorded on July 13, 1986. An earthquake of magnitude 5.3 shook County coastal areas with moderate to locally heavy ground shaking resulting in $700,000 in damages, one death, and injuries to 30 people. The quake occurred along an offshore fault located nearly 30 miles southwest of Oceanside. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 6 A series of notable events shook County areas with a (maximum) magnitude 7.4 shock in the early morning of June 28, 1992. These quakes originated along related segments of the San Andreas Fault approximately 90 miles to the north. Locally high levels of ground shaking over an extended period of time resulted; however, significant damages to local structures were not reported. The increase in earthquake frequency in the region remains a subject of speculation among geologists; however, based upon empirical information and the recorded seismic history of County areas, the 1986 and 1992 events are thought to represent the highest levels of ground shaking which can be expected at the study site as a result of seismic activity. In recent years, the Rose Canyon Fault has received added attention from geologists. The fault is a significant structural feature in metropolitan San Diego which includes a series of parallel breaks trending southward from La Jolla Cove through San Diego Bay toward the Mexican border. Test trenching along the fault in Rose Canyon indicated that at that location the fault was last active 6,000 to 9,000 years ago. More recent work suggests that segments of the fault are younger having been last active 1000 - 2000 years ago. Consequently, the fault has been classified as active and included within an Aiquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone established by the State of California. Fault zones tabulated in the preceding table are considered most likely to impact the region of the study site during the lifetime of the project. The faults are periodically active and capable of generating moderate to locally high levels of ground shaking at the site. Ground separation as a result of seismic activity is not expected at the property. D. Seismic Ground Motion Values Seismic ground motion values were determined as part of this investigation in accordance with Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) and ASCE 7-10 Standard using the web-based United States Geological Survey (USGS) ground motion calculator. Generated results including the Mapped (Ss, Si), Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) adjusted for Site Class effects (SMs, SMI) and Design (Sos, SD!) Spectral Acceleration Parameters as well as Site Coefficients (Pa, F) for short periods (0.20 second) and 1-second period, Site Class (based on average field SPT penetration resistance), Design and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response Spectrums, Mapped Maximum Considered Geometric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects (PGAM) and Seismic Design Category based on Risk Category and the severity of the design earthquake ground motion at the site are summarized in the enclosed Appendix. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 7 Geologic Hazards and Slope Stabiifty Geologic hazards are not presently indicated at the project site. Significant slopes are not present at or in close proximity to the project property, nor are any are planned in conjunction with the proposed building extensions and new parking improvements. The most significant geologic hazards at the property will be those associated with ground shaking in the event of a major seismic event. Liquefaction or related ground rupture failures are not anticipated. Field and Laboratory Tests and Test Results Earth deposits encountered in our exploratory test excavation were closely examined and sampled for laboratory testing. Based upon our test pit and field exposures site soils have been grouped into the following soil type: TABLE 2 Soil Type I Descnptidn Yellow brown to orange medium sand (Fill/Disturbed Natural Ground/Terrace Deposits) 2 White-grey medium to coarse clean sand (Terrace Deposits) The following tests were conducted in support of this investigation: I. Standard Penetration Tests: Standard penetration tests (SIPT) were performed at. the time of borehole drilling in accordance with ASTM standard procedure D-1586 using rope and cathead. The procedure consisted of a standard 51 MM outside diameter sampler without liner, 457 MM in length and 35 MM in inside diameter driven with a 140-pound hammer, dropped 30 inches using 5-foot long AW drill rods. The bore hole was 200 MM (8 inches) in diameter and drill fluid or water was not necessary to aid drilling. The test results are indicated at the corresponding locations on the attached Boring Logs. 2. Grain Size Analysis: Grain size analyses was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 1. The test results are presented in Table 3 below. TABLE 3 Sieve Size J I" VI' . #10 1 _:#20... #40 .. #20. Location J Soil Type IL Percent Passing Li -2 @3 1 1 JI 100 I 100 I 100 I 100 I80 I n I - Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 8 Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content: The maximum thy density and optimum moisture content of Soil Type 1 was determined in accordance with ASTM. - D-1557. The results are presented. in Table 4. - - TABLE4 . 47i B-2 @3' I ) 133.5 -a Moisture-DensitvTests (Undisturbed Ring Samples): In-place dry density and - moisture content of representative soil deposits beneath the site were determined from ' relatively undisturbed ring using weights and measurements test method. Results hre. presented in Table 5 and tabulated on the attached Boring Logs at corresponding - locations. .' . - TABLE 5 . - 11"i Coiitèiit.'. T.Déñit ' R1 Réliti Siitioi . .TYPE B-1 @3' 1 5 113 133.5 85 . 28__— B-1 @6' 1 8 111.6 133.5 .84 42 B-2@3' 1 7 112.8 133.5 84 . 39 i 9 113.8 133.5 - 85 - 51 Assumptions and relationships-.. In-place Relative Compaction = (Td - Tm) Xl 00 '- Gs=2.70 . e= (Gs To— Td) -1 . ,.'.. S(Gs) - e Expansion Index Test: One expansion index (El) test was performed, on & representative sample of Soil Type I in accordance with the ASTM D-4829. The test results are presented in Table 6 4 : ..,:t. •;, .-.. / -. r . • - - . . - . - I • •. - - - . . • ,. ., •-..- . -' - - - •. .• * ,,'.. _ - .. - .- . ...• ., ,- - --- $ '4:.It S ! IeId Moisture,, SFIe'd Bryf 1aJDz In-Placi Degr4 of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 9 TABLE6 - $ r (%) ' - .- - 2(%) cusitauon. ' I - I - - I - Non-plastic T Non-expansive () moisture content in percent. E150 = Elineas - (50 - Smeas) ((65 + Elmeas) — (220 - Smeas)) Expansion Index (El) Expansion Potential - 0-20 Very Low • 21-50 Low 51 -90 Medium 91-130 High )130 Very High 6. Direct Shear Test: One direct shear test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 1 in substantial accordance with ASTM D3080. The prepared specimen was soaked overnight, loaded with normal loads of 1, 2, and 4 kips per square foot respectively, and sheared to failure in an undrained condition. The test result is presented" in Table 7. . . -• TABLE7 ç ' - Vt - r1ng1e oh ..t ii .4 (Apparent SanpI '-' -Location ' Soil .IypC ' SaipIe --1 .. c,.Densitv, Lit:1ric:c' Coheson:j , B-2 @ 3' I Remoldedto 90% ofYrn % opt I 131.6 31 1 - 0 11 7 R-' alue Test A R-value test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 1 in accordance with the California Test Method 301. The test result is presented in Table 8 below. TABLE8 II B-i ® 3' I Yellow to Orange-Red Brown Fine to Medium Sand 64 8. pH and Resistivity Test: pH and resistivity of a representative sample of Soil Type 1 ' ,.. was determined using "Method for Estimating the Service Life of Steel Culverts," in - accordance with the California Test Method (CTM) 643. The test result is tabulated in, - Table 9. .---.--.' Geotechiucal Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 10 TABLE9 B-i &3 1 2800 6.5 9. Sulfate Test: A sulfate test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 1 in accordance with the California Test Method (CTM) 417. The test result is presentedin • Table 10. . • TABLE 10 . .: ..• I J1i t JS S. I ti BI @ 3' 1 0.001 7 10 Chloride Test A chloride test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Tye I in accordance with the California Test Method (CTM) 422 The test result is presented in Table 11. .. .' ,..• S I ., - a? • ,* •.a 5'••' TABLE 11 '4 4. I B-I @2' 2 1 0.012 • • . '/1 SITE CORROSION ASSESSMENT A site is considered to be corrosive to foundation elements, walls and drainage structures if one or more of the following conditions exist r * Sulfate concentration is greater than or equal to 2000 ppm (0.2% by weight) * Chloride concentration is greater than or equal to 500 ppm (0.05 % by weight) * pH is less than 5.5. • .. . For structural elements, the minimum resistivity of soil (or water) indicates the relative quantity of. soluble salts present in the soil (or water). In general, a minimum resistivity value for soil (or water). less than 1000 ohm-cm indicates the presence of high quantities of soluble salts and a higher propensity for corrosion. Appropriate corrosion mitigation measures for corrosive conditions should be selected depending on the service environment, amount of aggressive ion salts (chloride or sulfate), pH levels and the desired service life of the structure -. • . - - . . , - 5* •j 5, *' -f • .--'. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 provements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 11 Results of limited laboratory tests performed on selected representative site samples indicated that the minimum resistivity is greater than 1000 ohm-cm suggesting presence of low quantities of soluble salts. Test results further indicated that pH levels are greater than 5.5, sulfate concentration is less than 2000 ppm and chloride concentration levels are less than 500 ppm. Based on the results of the corrosion analyses, the project site is considered non-corrosive. However, due to the close proximity of the project site the ocean,, corrosion protection and mitigation are recommended to be considered, as necessary and as applicable. Based upon the result of the tested soil sample, the amount of water soluble sulfate (SO4) was found to be 0.001 percent by weight which is considered negligible according to ACI 318 (SO Exposure Class with Not Applicable severity). However, due to the site close proximity to the ocean, Portland cement Type II and concrete with minimum 28 days compressive strength (Ps) of 4000 psi and 0.50 water-cement ratio as well as adequate reinforcement cover may be considered, unless determined otherwise or specified by the project design engineer. VH. STORM WATER BMPs We understand stormwater BMP facilities are considered in connection with the project redevelopment. Details and locations of the planned stormwater BMP facilities are not yet known, however, bioretentionlbioswales, infiltration pits, or similar type systems are anticipated. Infiltration pits typically consist of excavated pits filed with 3A-inch rocks, provided with a riser pipe(s) and 0.20-inch diameter orifice at the bottom. Captured water will partially infiltrate into native ground with excess potions slowly discharging via a solid storm drain pipe to existing public storm drain facility. Subsurface conditions exposed in our DRI test pit excavation indicated relatively homogeneous poorly graded sandy deposits at the bottom (3 feet BGS) similar to the undisturbed native ground Terrace Deposits which maybe classified as Hydrologic Soil Group A/B. Results of Double Ring Infiltration (DRI) test suggests an uncorrected infiltration rate of about 5.83 in./hr. However, a corrected (adjusted) design soil infiltration rate of about 1.45 in./hr. maybe considered appropriate, unless otherwise modified by the project design engineer as discussed herein. In our opinion, the project site is generally considered suitable for installation of infiltration stormwater BMPs facilities from a geotechnical view point. The proposed facilities should be designed by the project design consultant, however, the following comments and recommendations are appropriate and should be incorporated in the final designs and implemented during the construction phase, where appropriate and as applicable. A. For design purposes, an infiltration rate of 1.45 in./hr. may be considered, when using a safety factor of 4 for uncertainties with regards to pretreatment and future maintenance and upkeep of the system. The proposed stormwater BMP facilities should be designed and properly sized for adequate storage capacity by the project design consultant. Actual safety factor and consequently infiltration rate may also be revised by the project design consultant based on final conditions, as determined appropriate. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drives Carlsbad Page 12 The proposed facility should treat runoff from relatively clean, none sanded or silted paved or road surfaces, or pretreatment should be considered, as appropriate. Infiltration basins/pits should be provided with impervious liner on the sides to ensure vertical infiltration only from the bottom, disallowing adverse impacts on the adjacent properties and public right-of-way, or saturating foundation bearing and subgrade soils Lateral migration of water from sides of the infiltration pits shall not be allowed. Infiltration basins/pits should have a minimum 10 feet clear distance from adjacent buildings, with the bottom extended at least 3 feet below the ground surface (BGS) or a minimum of 18 inches below the bottom of the lowest nearby foundation, whichever is more. In some cases concrete cut-off may be necessary along the sides of infiltration basins/pits to protect nearby foundations and improvements. Perched groundwater was encountered at the depths of 13Y2 to 14 feet below the existing ground surfaces (BGS). There should be at least 10 feet clear distance between the bottom of infiltration basins/pits and high groundwater elevation, unless otherwise approved. More specific recommendations should be provided by the project geotechnical engineer at the final plan review phase when details of the proposed infiltration facilities are known. Periodic inspections, upkeep and continued maintenance of the project stormwater BMP infiltration facilities will be required to assure proper functioning and uninterrupted continuous discharge flow of the captured runoff water. Improper functioning of the proposed infiltration pits or prolonged ponding can adversely impact nearby foundations improvements and adjacent properties, or potentially result in failures, and shall be avoided. A well-established maintenance program which includes careful management of the infiltration facilities and testing for proper functioning of the underdrainloutlet pipes should be set in-place and followed by the current and future home owners. As a minimum, a maintenance schedule consisting of at least two times a year, before and after the annual rainy season should be considered. In the event poor or under performing conditions appear to be developing, as noted during the scheduled maintenance program, appropriate repairs, maintenance and mitigation should be immediately carried out as necessary. Viii. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the foregoing investigation, the proposed restaurant building extensions and new parking. improvements, as currently planned at the project property, are substantially feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint. The project property is generally underlain by sandstone Terrace Deposits at relatively shallow to modest depths overlain by a section of loose undifferentiated fill/disturbed natural ground cover. The following factors are unique to the property and will most impact project construction procedures and associated costs from a geotechnical viewpoint: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bhiewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 13 The existing graded pad at the property is generally characterized by relatively level surfaces which currently support an existing restaurant building with the associated improvements. Records of engineering observation and testing pertaining to the original site development, as well as subsequent building constructions are unavailable. Evidence of landslides, faults, liquefaction, seismically induced settlements or other adverse geologic hazards which could preclude the planned restaurant building extension and new parking improvements were not indicated at project property. A relatively shallow to modest section of loose to medium dense fill/disturbed natural ground deposits, on the order of 3 '/ to 4',4 feet maximum, mantle the project property in the planned new building extension and parking improvement areas, as exposed in our exploratory test borings. Below the upper fill/disturbed natural ground mantle, natural sandstone Terrace Deposits occur. Underlying Terrace Deposits typically occur in a weathered loose to medium dense condition near the upper exposures becoming dense to very dense with depth overall. Underlying natural Terrace Deposits below the upper weathered zone are competent deposits which can suitably support the planned new fills, structures and improvement. Site fill/disturbed natural ground mantle and upper weathered section of the underlying Terrace Deposits are loose deposits not suitable for structural support and should be stripped (removed) to the underlying dense Terrace Deposits, as approved in the field, and placed back as properly compacted fills in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Stripping and recompaction remedial grading work will be required under all proposed new constructions and improvements in order to construct uniform bearing and subgrade soil conditions throughout, as specified in the following sections. There should be at least 18 inches ofwell-compacted fills below bottom of the deepest footing(s), and site improvements through, unless otherwise approved. Large natural or graded slopes are not present on or near the immediate vicinity of the project site. Significant grade modifications or the creation of large graded slopes is also not planned in connection with the proposed building extension and parking improvements. Consequently, slope stability is not considered a geotechnical factor in the planned construction at the project property. Project earthwork operations are expected to chiefly consist of remedial grading and foundation bearing and subgrade soil preparation. Minor fine grading on the order of 2 feet maximum may also be expected for establishing final design grades and achieving level building and improvement surfaces. All earthworks, remedial and fine grading efforts should be completed in accordance with requirements of the following sections. Geotecknical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 14 Soils generated from the project stripping, removals and over-excavations will generally consist of sand deposits which typically work well as site new fills and backfihls, provided they are adequately processed and prepared in accordance with the requirements of this report. Construction debris generated from the demolition of site existing structures, foundations and improvements should be properly removed and disposed of from the site. Onsite soils may also be expected to shrink, when removed and recompacted as specified herein. Import soils, if necessary to complete grading and achieve final grades should conform to the requirements of this report, as specified below. Based on our field observations and laboratory testing, final bearing and subgrade soils at the project property are expected to chiefly consist of sandy to silty sand (SP-SM/SP) deposits with very low expansion potential (expansion index less than 20) based on ASTM D-4829 classification. Expansive soils are not considered to be a major geotechnical factor in the planned new construction. Added care will be required to avoid any damages to the existing nearby on and off site structures and improvements due to site excavations, remedial earthwork grading and construction works. Adjacent public and private properties and right-of-ways should also be properlyprotected as necessary and appropriate. For this purpose, completing excavations and remedial grading adjacent to the existing foundations, structures and improvements in a limited section(s) may become necessary based on actual field conditions and should be anticipated. Permission to perform off-site or near property line grading works shall also be obtained from neighboring property owners and public agencies as necessary and appropriate. Perched groundwater conditions were encountered at the depths ranging from 13 Meet to 14 feet (BGS), as recorded in our exploratory test borings. Recorded groundwater is sufficiently deep and is not expected to be a factor in the planned new construction or impact future performance of the new building extension and parking improvements. As with all graded sites, the proper control of surface drainage and storm water is a critical component to overall site and building performance. Run off water should not pond upon graded surfaces, and irrigation water should not be excessive. Over-watering of site vegetation may also create perched water and the creation of excessively moist areas at finished surfaces and should be avoided. Storm water and drainage control facilities should be designed and installed for proper control and disposal of surface water as shown on the approved grading or drainage improvement plans. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 15 Soil collapse and post construction settlements are not expected to be a major geotechnical concern provided our remedial grading and foundation recommendations are followed. Post construction settlements are expected to be less than approximately 1 inch and should occur below the heaviest loaded footing(s). The magnitude of post construction differential settlements of site fill deposits, as expressed in terms of angular distortion, is not anticipated to exceed V2-inch between similar adjacent structural elements. Minor cracking and separations may typicallybe anticipated between the new extensions and existing buildings, where the two structures adjoin. Improvements to such normal features for this type of construction can be made by tying the footing/slabs of existing building to the adjacent new extensions, as recommended in the following sections. IX. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are provided based on the available geotechnical data generated during this effort and scheme of the proposed redevelopment and new building construction, as understood. Added or modified recommendations may also be appropriate and should be provided at the time of final plan review phase: A. Grading and Earthworks Significant grade alterations are not anticipated and site earth work operations are expected to mostly consist of relatively minor to modest remedial and fine grading efforts in order to achieve final design grades and construct safe and stable building and improvement surfaces. All site excavations, grading, earthwork, construction, and bearing/sub grade soil preparation should be completed in accordance with Chapter 18 (Soils and Foundations) and Appendix "J" (Grading) of the 2013 California Building Code (CBC), City of Carlsbad Ordinances, the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, and the requirements of the following sections wherever applicable. 1. Existing Underground Utilities and Structures: All existing underground waterlines, sewer lines, pipes, storm drains, utilities, tanks, structures, and improvements at or nearby the project site should be thoroughly potholed, identified and marked prior to the initiation of the actual site excavations, grading and earthworks. Specific geotechnical engineering recommendations maybe required based on the actual field locations, invert elevations, backfill conditions, and proposed grades in the event of a grading conflict. Utility lines may need to be temporarily redirected, if necessary, prior to earthwork operations and reinstalled upon completion of pad constructions. Alternatively, permanent relocations may be appropriate as shown on the approved plans. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 16 Abandoned irrigation lines, pipes, and conduits should be properly removed, capped or sealed off to prevent any potential for future water infiltrations into the foundation bearing and subgrade soils. Voids created by the removals of the abandoned underground pipes, tanks and structures should be properly backfilled with compacted fills in accordance with the requirements of this report. Clearing and Grubbing: Remove all existing surface and subsurface structures, improvements, pipes and conduits, old foundations, asphalt pavings, vegetation, tress, roots and stumps, and all other unsuitable materials and deleterious matter from all areas proposed for new fills, improvements, and structures plus a minimum of 3 horizontal feet outside the perimeter, where possible and as approved in the field. All trash debris and unsuitable materials generated from site demolitions and clearing efforts should be properly removed and disposed of from the site. Trash, vegetation and construction debris should not be allowed to occur or contaminate new site fills and backfills. The prepared grounds should be inspected and approved by the project geotechnical consultant or his designated field representative prior to grading and earthworks. Stripping and Removals: All existing loose upper surficial fill/disturbed natural ground deposits and upper weathered section of underlying Terrace Deposits in areas of the planned new fills, structures and improvements plus a minimum of 3 horizontal feet outside the perimeter, where possible and as directed in the field, should be stripped (removed) to the underlying dense and competent Terrace Deposits and placed back as properly compacted fills. Actual stripping depths should be established and approved by the project geotechnical consultant based on field observations and testing of bottom exposures. However, based on the available exploratory test borings, typical stripping depths are expected to be on the order of 31/2 to 4V2 feet below the existing grades, or 18 inches below the bottom of deepest footing(s), whichever is more. There should be at least 18 inches of well compacted (minimum 90%) fills below bottom of the deepest footing(s) throughout, unless otherwise approved. There should also be a minimum of 18 inches of compacted fill below rough finish subgrade in the planned parking and improvement areas, unless otherwise directed in the field. Locally deeper removals may also be necessary based on the actual field exposures and final grades and should be anticipated. Bottom of all striping and removal exposures should be additionally ripped, processed and recompacted to a minimum depth of 6 inches, as a part of initial fill lift placement, as directed in the field. The exposed stripping and removal bottoms should be observed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant or his designated field representative prior to fill placement. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 17 Excavation Setbacks and Temporary Slopes: Temporary open excavations and trenching necessary for the project remedial grading works and constructions are expected to be relatively shallow to be on the order of 4'/2 feet deep maximum. Consequently, significant construction impacts on the nearby off-site structures and improvements are not anticipated. However, adjacent public and private properties and right-of-ways should also be properly protected, and permission to excavate and grade offsite or near adjacent property lines and public right-of-ways obtained from the respective owner(s) and public agencies, as necessary and appropriate. Excavations and removals adjacent to the existing foundations, improvements and structures should be performed under observations of the project.geotechflical engineer. Undermining existing adjacent foundations, structures, improvements and underground utilities to remain should not be allowed by the project removals and earthwork operations. Temporary excavations and trenching less than 4% feet maximum may be developed at near vertical gradients, unless otherwise noted or directed in the field. However, performing excavations and remedial grading in limited sections (one-half or one-third lengths) may be expected along the existing building foundations and off site improvements, as determined in the field based on the actual field exposures: For this purpose, we recommend some pot-holing in the impacted margins of remedial grading areas prior to completely developing removal excavations along the entire length. Limited shoring support may also become necessary for protection of adjacent public and private properties and right-of-ways, and may be anticipated. More specific recommendations should be given in the field by the project geotechnical consultant based on actual site exposures. Revised temporary excavation and trenching recommendations including laid back slopes, larger setbacks, completing excavations and remedial grading in smaller limited sections and the need for temporary shoring/trench shield support may be necessary and should be anticipated. The project contractor shall also obtain appropriate permits, as needed, and conform to Cal-OSHA and local governing agencies' requirements for trenching/open excavations and safety of the workmen during construction. FilllBackfihl Materials, Shrinkage and Import Soils: Site stripping, removals, and excavations will chiefly generate sandy to silty sandy soil deposits which typically work well as site new fills and backfihls, provided that it is adequately prepared, processed, placed and compacted in accordance,with the requirements of this report. Vegetation, roots and stumps, buried pipes and conduits, construction debris, and organic matter, where encountered, should be throughly removed and separated from the fill/backfill mixture to the satisfaction and approval of the project geotechnical consultant. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 18 Onsite soils may be expected to shrink nearly 10%, on volume basis, when compacted (minimum 90%) as specified herein. Import soils, if required to complete grading and achieve final grades, should be good quality sandy granular non-corrosive deposits (SM/SW) with very low expansion potential (100% passing 1-inch sieve, more than 50% passing #4 sieve and less than 18% passing #200 sieve with expansion index less than 20). Import soils should be inspected, tested as necessary, and approved by the project gebtechnical engineer prior to delivery to the site. Import soils should also meet or exceed engineering characteristic and soil design parameters as specified in the following sections. Fill/Backfill Placement, Spreading and Compaction: Uniform bearing and subgrade soil conditions should be constructed throughout the building and improvement surfaces by remedial and fine grading operations. Site soils should be adequately processed, thoroughly mixed, moisture conditioned to slightly (2%) above the optimum moisture levels, or as directed in the field, placed in thin (8 inches maximum) uniform horizontal lifts and mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90% of the corresponding laboratory maximum dry density per ASTM D-1557, unless otherwise specified. The upper 12 inches of subgrade soils beneath the aggregate base layer under asphalt parking areas should be compacted to at least 95% compaction levels. Surface Drainage and Erosion Control: A critical element to the continued stability of graded building pads and improvement sites is an adequate stormwater and surface drainage control. Surface water should not be allowed to flow toward and pond near the building foundations or impact developed building and improvement sites. Surface water should flow away from the building foundations and site improvements in a positive manner. Roof gutters and area drains should be installed. Over-watering of the site landscaping should also not be allowed. Only the amount of water to sustain vegetation should be provided. Site drainage improvements should be shown on the project approved plans. Engineering Observations: All remedial grading, bearing and subgrade soil preparations, and earthworks operations including stripping and removals, suitability of earth deposits used as compacted fills and backfills, and compaction procedures should be continuously observed and tested by the project geotechnical consultant and presented in the final as-graded compaction report. The nature of finished bearing and subgrade soils should be confirmed in the final compaction report at the completion of grading. Geotechnical engineering observations should include but not limited to the following: * Initial observation - After the site clearing and staking of project limits but before grading/brushing starts. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 19 * Bottom of stripping (removal) Observation - After dense and competent Terrace Deposits are exposed and prepared to receive fill or backfill, but before fill or backfill is placed. Fill/backfill observation - After the fill/backfill placement is started but before the vertical height of fill/backfill exceeds 2 feet. A minimum of one test shall be required for each 100 lineal feet maximum, in every 2 feet in vertical gain. Finish rough and final pad grade tests shall be required regardless of fill thickness. Foundation trench and subgrade soils observation - After the foundation trench excavations and prior to the placement of steel reinforcing for proper moisture and specified compaction levels. There should be at least 18 inches of compacted fills below bottom of the deepest footing(s) throughout, unless otherwise approved. There should also be a minimum of 18 inches of compacted fill below rough finish subgrade in the planned parking and improvement areas. * Geotechnical foundation/slab steel observation - After the steel placement is completed but before the scheduled concrete pour. * Underground utility/plumbing trench observation - After the trench excavations but before placement of pipe bedding or installation of the underground facilities. Local and Cal-OSHA safety requirements for open excavations apply. Observations and testing of pipe bedding may also be required by the project geotechnical engineer. * Underground utility/plumbing trench backfill observation - After the backfill placement is started above the pipe zone but before the vertical height of backfill exceeds 2 feet. Testing of the backfill within the pipe zone may also be required by the governing agencies. Pipe bedding and backfill materials shall conform to the governing agencies' requirements and project soils report if applicable. All trench backfills should be mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90% compaction levels unless otherwise specified. Plumbing trenches more than 12 inches deep maximum under the floor slabs should also be mechanically compacted and tested for a minimum of 90% compaction levels. Flooding or jetting techniques as a means of compaction method should not be allowed. * Improvement subgrade observation - Prior to the placement of concrete for proper moisture and specified compaction levels. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 20 B. Footings and Slab-on-Grade Foundations The following recommendations are consistent with the anticipated sandy to silty sand (SP- SMJSP) bearing soils with very expansion potential (expansion index less than 20), and site indicated geotechnical conditions. All design recommendations should be further confirmed and/or revised as necessary at the final plan review phase, and at completion of remedial grading works based on actual testing of final bearing and subgrade soils: Conventional shallow stiff concrete footings and slab-on-grade floor type foundations maybe considered for support of the new restaurant building extension. All foundations should be supported on well-compacted fills, placed in accordance with the requirements of this report. There should be at least 18 inches of compacted fills below bottom of the deepest footing(s) throughout, unless otherwise approved. Perimeter and interior continuous strip footings should be sized at least 15 inches wide and 18 inches deep. Spread pad footings, if any, should be at least 30 inches square and 12 inches deep. Exterior continuous footings should enclose the entire perimeter. Perimeter continuous and interior strip foundations should be reinforced by at least four #4 reinforcing bars. Place a minimum of two #4 bars 3 inches above the bottom of the footing and a minimum of two #4 bars 3 inches below the top. Reinforcement details for spread pad footings should be provided by the project architect/structural engineer. Existing perimeter footings should be tied near the top and bottom to the new adjacent continuous footings with a minimum 18 inches long #4 dowels, with 6 inches deep drill and epoxy grout to existing footings and 12 inches into new footings. New interior continuous strip and spreadpad footings, if anyproposed, should also be structurally tied to the surrounding adjacent existing concrete floor slabs, where sawcut and removed, with minimum 16 inches long #4 dowels spaced at 18 inches on centers maximum, drill and epoxy grouted at least 4 inches into surrounding slabs and 12 inches into new footings, unless otherwise specified or noted. Interior slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches in thickness reinforced with minimum #3 reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches on center maximum each way placed mid-height in the slab. Provide re-entrant corner reinforcement for all interior slabs based on slab geometry and/or interior column locations, as generally depicted on the enclosed Figure 7. Slabs should be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand (SE 30 or greater) which is provided with a well-performing moisture barrier/vapor retardant (minimum 10-mu Stego) placed mid-height in the sand. Alternatively, a 4-inch thick base of compacted Y2-inch clean aggregate provided with the vapor barrier (minimum 15-mil Stego) in direct contact with (beneath) the concrete may also be considered provided a concrete mix which can address bleeding, shrinkage and curling are used. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 21 New interior slabs adjacent to existing footings/slabs, if any, should be provided with a minimum 8 inches wide by 8 inches deep thickened edge reinforced with a minimum 1- #4 contiguous bar near the bottom, and tied with #4 dowels as previously specified placed at same spacing as the slab reinforcement (also see New Slab at Existing Slab/Footing Detail Schematic, Figure 8). Provide "soficut" contraction/control joints consisting of sawcuts spaced 10 feet on centers each way for the all interior slabs. Cut as soon as the slab will support the weight of the saw and operate without disturbing the final finish which is normally within two hours after final finish at each control joint location or 150 psi to 800 psi. The sawcuts should be minimum 1-inch in depth but should not exceed 1 'A-inches deep maximum. Anti-ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. Avoid wheeled equipments across cuts for at least 24 hours. 4. Foundation trenches and slab subgrade soils should be inspected and tested for exposing suitable bearing strata, proper moisture and specified compaction levels and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to the placement of concrete. C. Soil Design Parameters The following soil design parameters are based upon tested representative samples of on-site earth deposits. All parameters should be re-evaluated when the characteristics of the final as-graded soils have been specifically determined: Design soil unit weight = 132 pcf. Design angle of internal fiction of soil = 31 degrees. Design active soil pressure for retaining structures 42 pcf (EFP), level backfill, cantilever, unrestrained walls. Design at-rest soil pressure for retaining structures = 63 pcf (EFP), non-yielding, restrained walls. Design passive soil resistance for retaining structures 412 pcf (EFP), level surface at the toe. Design coefficient of friction for concrete on soils = 0.40. Net allowable foundation pressure (minimum 15 inches wide by 18 inches deep footings) 2000psf. Allowable lateral bearing pressure (all structures except retaining walls) = 200 psf/fi. Notes: Use a minimum safety factor of 1.5 for wall over-turning and sliding stability. However, because large movements must take place before maximum passive resistance can be developed, a minimum safety factor of 2 may be considered for sliding stability particularly where sensitive structures and improvements are planned near or on top of retaining walls. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 22 When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance the passive component should be reduced by one-third. The indicated net allowable foundation pressure provided herein was determined based on a minimum 15 inches wide by 18 inches deep footings and may be increased by 20% for each additional foot of depth and 20% for each additional foot of width to a maximum of 5500 psf. The allowable foundation pressures provided herein also apply to dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loading. * The lateral bearing earth pressures may be increased by the amount of designated value for each additional foot of depth to a maximum 1500 pounds per square foot. D. Exterior Concrete Slabs and Flatwork All exterior slabs (walkways, patios) supported on potentially very low expansive subgrade soils should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness, reinforced with #3 bars at 18 inches on centers in both directions placed mid-height in the slab. The subgrade soils ,should be compacted to minimum 90% compaction levels at the time of fine grading and before placing the slab reinforcement. Reinforcements lying on subgrade will be ineffective and shortly corrode due to lack of adequate concrete cover. Reinforcing bars should be correctly placed extending through the construction joints tying the slab panels. In construction practices where the reinforcements are discontinued or cut at the construction joints, slab panels should be tied together with minimum 18 inches long #3 dowels at 18 inches on centers placed mid-height in the slab (9 inches on either side of the joint). 2. Provide "tool joint" or "softcut" contraction/control joints spaced 10 feet on center (not to exceed 12 feet maximum) each way. The larger dimension of any panel shall not exceed 125% of the smaller dimension. Tool or cut as soon as slab will support weight, and can be operated without disturbing the final finish which is normally within 2 hours after final finish at each control joint location or 150 psi to 800 psi. Tool or softcuts should be a minimum of 1-inch but should not exceed 1!/4-inch deep maximum. In case of softcut joints, anti-ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. Avoid wheeled equipments across cuts for at least 24 hours. Joints shall intersect free-edges at a 90° angle and shall extend straight for a minimum of I Y2 feet from the edge. The minimum angle between any two intersecting joints shall be 80°. Align joints of adjacent panels. Also, align joints in attached curbs with joints in slab panels. Provide adequate curing using approved methods (curing compound maximum coverage rate = 200 sq. ft./gal.). Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 23 All exterior slab designs should be confirmed in the final as-graded compaction report. Subgrade soils should be tested for proper moisture and specified compaction levels and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to the placement of concrete. E. Asphalt and PCC Pavement Design 1. Asphalt Concrete (AC) Pavement Structural Section Design: The following pavement structural section design is based on minimum R-value of 64 for the tested representative onsite subgrade soils, and design traffic index (TI) of4.5 for parking stalls and TI of 5.0 for travel ways. A minimum section of 4 inches asphalt (AC) over 6 inches of Class 2 crushed aggregate base (AB), or the minimum section required by the City of Carlsbad, whichever is more, will be required when a lesser pavement section is indicated by design calculations, as presented in the table below: Deigii TrafficIndex (Ti) I I Pes!gl 1 [ R,Vá1Uë 4.5 (Parking Stalls) I 5.0 (Travel Ways) I 64 4" AC over 6" AB I 4" AC over 6" AB 1 AC = Asphalt Concrete. AB = Aggregate Base. The asphalt concrete layer (4-inch total section) may consist of 2:5 inches of a binder/base course (3,4-inch aggregate) asphalt concrete and 1.5 inches of finish top course (3/a-inch aggregate) topcoat, placed in accordance with the applicable local and regional codes and standards. The Class 2 aggregate base shall meet or exceed the requirements set forth in the current California Standard Specification (Caltrans Section 26-1.02). Base materials should be moisture conditioned to slightly above the optimum moisture levels and mechanically compacted to a minimum 95% of the corresponding maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). Subgrade soils beneath the asphalt paving surfaces should also be compacted to a minimum 95% of the corresponding maximum dry density within the upper 12 inches, as specified. Base materials and subgrade soils should be tested for proper moisture and minimum 95% compaction levels and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to theplacement of the base and/or asphalt layers. 2. PCC Pavings: PCC driveways and parking supported on very low expansive (expansion index less than 20) granular subgrade soils should be a minimum of 5Y2 inches in thickness, reinforced with #3 reinforcing bars at 16 inches on centers each way placed at mid-height in the slab. Subgrade soils beneath the PCC driveways and parking should be compacted to a minimum 90% of the corresponding maximum dry density, unless otherwise specified. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 24 Reinforcing bars should be correctly placed extending through the construction (cold) joints tying the slab panels. In construction practices where the reinforcements are discontinued or cut at the construction joints, slab panels should be tied together with minimum 18 inch long (9 inches on either Side of the joint) #3 dowels (dowel baskets) at 16 inches on centers placed mid-height in the slab. Provide "tool joint" or 'soficut" contraction/control joints spaced 10 feet on center (not to exceed 15 feet maximum) each way. The larger dimension of any panel shall not exceed 125% of the smaller dimension. Tool or cut as soon as the slab will support the weight and can be operated without disturbing the final finish which is normally within 2 hours after final finish at each control joint location or 150 psi to 800 psi. Tool or soficuts should be a minimum of 1-inch in depth but should not exceed 1 '4-inches deep maximum. In case of soficut joints, anti-ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. Avoid wheeled equipments across cuts for at least 24 hours. Joints shall intersect free-edges at a 90° angle and shall extend straight for a minimum of 1 V2 feet from the edge. The minimum angle between any two intersecting joints shall be 801. Align joints of adjacentpanels. Also, align joints in attached curbs with joints in slab panels. Provide adequate curing using approved methods (curing compound maximum coverage rate = 200 sq. ft./gal.). PICP and Pervious Concrete Pavings: Specific geotechnical recommendations for Permeable Interlocking Concrete Payers (PICP) and/or previous concrete type pavements, if considered as part of the project stormwater BMPs, should be provided by the project geotechnical engineer at the time of final plan review phase, as necessary and appropriate. General Paving: Base section and subgrade preparations per structural section design, will be required for all surfaces subject to traffic including roadways, travelways, drive lanes, driveway approaches and ribbon (cross) gutters. Driveway approaches within the public right-of-way should have 12 inches subgrade compacted to a minimum of 95% compaction levels and provided with a 95% compacted Class 2 base section per the structural section design. Base layer under curb and gutters should be compacted to a minimum of 95%, while subgrade soils under curb and gutters, and base and subgrade under sidewalks should be compacted to a minimum of 90% compaôtion levels, unless otherwise specified. Base section may not be required under curb and gutters, and sidewalks, in the case of very low to non-expansive subgrade soils (expansion index less than 20). More specific recommendations should be given in the final as-graded compaction report. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Blue water Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 25 F. General Recommendations The minimum foundation design and steel reinforcement provided herein are based on soil characteristics and are not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary for structural considerations. Adequate staking and grading control are critical factors in properly completing the recommended remedial and site grading operations. Grading control and staking should be provided by the project grading contractor or surveyor/civil engineer, and is beyond the geotechnical engineering services. Staking should apply the required setbacks shown on the approved plans and conform to setback requirements established by the governing agencies and applicable codes for off-site private and public properties and property lines, utility easements, right-of-ways, nearby structures and improvements, leach fields and septic systems, and graded embankments. Inadequate staking and/or lack of grading control may result in illegal encroachments or unnecessary additional grading which will increase construction costs. Open or backfihled trenches parallel with a footing shall not be below a projected plane having a downward slope of I-unit vertical to 2 units horizontal (50%) from a line 9 inches above the bottom edge of the footing, and not closer than 18 inches from the face of such footing. Where pipes cross under-footings, the footings shall be specially designed. Pipe sleeves shall be provided where pipes cross through footings or footing walls, and sleeve clearances shall provide for possible footing settlement, but not less than 1-inch all around the pipe. All underground utility and plumbing trenches should be mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density of the soil unless otherwise specified. Care should be taken not to crush the utilities or pipes during the compaction of the soil. Non-expansive, granular backfill soils should be used. Trench backfill materials and compaction levels beneath pavements within the public right-of-way shall conform to the requirements of governing agencies. 6. New retaining walls are not planned. In general, expansive clayey soils should not be used for backfihling of any retaining structure. All retaining walls should be provided with a 1:1 wedge of granular, compacted backfill measured from the base of the wall footing to the finished surface and a well-constructed back drainage system as shown on the enclosed Figure 9. Planting large trees behind site building retaining walls should be avoided. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 26 7. Site drainage over the finished pad surfaces should flow away from structures onto the street in a positive mariner. Care should be taken during the construction, improvements, and fine grading phases not to disrupt the designed drainage patterns. Roof lines of the buildings should be provided with roof gutters. Roof water should be collected and directed away from the buildings and structures to a suitable location. Final plans should reflect preliminary recommendations given in this report. Final foundations and grading plans may also be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant for conformance with the requirements of the geotechnical investigation report outlined herein. More specific recommendations may be necessary and should be given when final grading and architectural/structural drawings are available. All foundation trenches should be inspected to ensure adequate footing embedment and confirm competent bearing soils. Foundation and slab reinforcements should also be inspected and approved by the project geotechnical consultant. The amount of shrinkage and related cracks that occurs in the concrete slab-on-grades, fiatworks and driveways depend on many factors, the most important of which is the amount of water in the concrete mix. The purpose of the slab reinforcement is to keep normal concrete shrinkage cracks closed tightly. The amount of concrete shrinkage can be minimized by reducing the amount of water in the mix. To keep shrinkage to a minimum the following should be considered: * Use the stiffest mix that can be handled and consolidated satisfactorily. * Use the largest maximum size of aggregate that is practical. For example, concrete made with 3/8-inch maximum size aggregate usually requires about 40-lbs. more (nearly.5-gal.) water per cubic yard than concrete with 1-inch aggregate. * Cure the concrete as long as practical. The amount of slab reinforcement provided for conventional slab-on-grade construction considers that good quality concrete materials, proportioning, craftsmanship, and control tests where appropriate and applicable are provided. A preconstruction meeting between representatives of this office, the property owner or planner, city inspector as well as the grading contractor/builder is recommended in order to discuss grading and construction details associated with site development. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 27 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD (GER) SMS Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. is the geotechnical engineer of record (GER) for providing a specific scope of work or professional service under a contractual agreement unless it is terminated or canceled by either the client or our firm. In the event a new geotechnical consultant or soils engineering firm is hired to provide added engineering services, professional consultations, engineering observations and compaction testing, SMS Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. will no longer be the geotechnical engineer of the record. Project transfer should be completed in accordance with the California Geotechnical Engineering Association (CGEA) Recommended Practice for Transfer of Jobs Between Consultants. The new geotechnical consultant or soils engineering firm should review all previous geotechnical documents, conduct an independent study, and provide appropriate confirmations, revisions or design modifications to his own satisfaction. The new geotechnical consultant or soils engineering firm should also notify in writing SMS Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. and submit proper notification to the City of Carlsbad for the assumption of responsibility in accordance with the applicable codes and standards (1997 UBC Section 3317.8). LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations provided herein have been based on available data obtained from the review of pertinent reports and plans, subsurface exploratory excavations as well as our experience with the soils and formational materials located in the general area. The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory testing are believed representative of the total area; however, earth materials may vary in characteristics between excavations. Of necessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or natural exposures. It is necessary, therefore, that all observations, conclusions, and recommendations be verified during the remedial grading operation bearing soil preparations. In the event discrepancies are noted, we should be contacted immediately so that an inspection can be made and additional recommendations issued, if required. The recommendations made in this report are applicable to the site at the time this report was prepared. It is the responsibility of the owner/developer to ensure that these recommendations are carried out in the field. It is almost impossible to predict with certainty the future performance of a property. The future behavior of the site is also dependent on numerous unpredictable variables, such as earthquakes, rainfall, and on-site drainage patterns. The firm of SMS Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical conditions of the property such as changing final grades, addition of -fill soils, added cuts, or modifying drainage patterns which occur without our inspection or control. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Building Expansion and Parking February 8, 2016 Improvements, Bluewater Grill Restaurant, 417 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad Page 28 This report should be considered valid for a period of one year and is subject to review by our firm following that time. If significant modifications are made to your plans, especially with respect to building layout and finish pad grades, this report must be presented to us for review and possible revision. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner or his representative is responsible for ensuring that the information and recommendations presented herein are provided to the project architect, civil and structural engineer so that they can be incorporated into the pertinent plans, as applicable and appropriate. Necessary steps shall also be taken to ensure that the project general contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. SMS Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., warrants that this report has been prepared within the limits prescribed by our client with the usual thoroughness and competence of the engineering profession. No other warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, is included or intended. Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Reference to our Project No. GI-16-01-105 will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. SMS Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. Steven J. Melzer CEG #2362 Addressee (3, e-mail). SMS GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists REFERENCES - Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4 - Construction, Volume 04.08: Soil and Rock (I); D 420 - D 5876, 2012. - Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4 - Construction, Volume 04.09: Soil and Rock (II); D 5876 - Latest, 2012. - Highway Design Manual, Caltrans. Fifth Edition. - Corrosion Guidelines, Caltrans, Version 1.0, September 2003. - California Building Code (CBC), California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Volumes I& 2, 2013, International Code Council. - "The Green Book" Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Public Works Standards, Inc., BNi Building News, 2015 Edition. - California Geological Survey, 2008 (Revised), Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A, 108p. - California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (California Geological Survey), 1986 (revised), Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geology Reports: DMG Note 44. - California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (California Geological Survey), 1986 (revised), Guidelines to Geologic and Seismic Reports: DMG Note 42. - EQFAULT, Ver. 3.00, 1997, Deterministic Estimation of Peak Acceleration from Digitized Faults, Computer Program, T. Blake Computer Services and Software. - EQSEARCH, Ver 3.00, 1997, Estimation of Peak Acceleration from California Earthquake Catalogs, Computer Program, T. Blake Computer Services and Software. - Tan S.S. and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, Plate(s) 1 and 2, Open File-Report 96-02, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1:24,000. - "Proceeding of The NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance Soils," Edited by T. Leslie Youd and Izzat M. Idriss, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, Dated December 31, 1997. - "Recommended Procedures for Implementation ofDMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigation Liquefaction in California," Southern California Earthquake center; USC, March 1999. REFERENCES (continued) - "Soil Mechanics," Naval Facilities Engineering Command, DM 7.01. - "Foundations. & Earth Structures," Naval Facilities Engineering Command, DM 7.02. - "Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Robert D. Holtz, William D. Kovacs. - "Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Geotechnical Engineering," George F. Sowers, Fourth Edition. - "Foundation Analysis and Design," Joseph E. Bowels. - Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 29, 1998. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map Series, No. 6. - Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California, Special Report 131, California Division of Mines and Geology, Plate I (East/West), 12p. - Kennedy, M.P. and Peterson, G.L., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 200, 56p. - Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 1977, Geology of National City, Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Map Sheet 24, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1:24,000. - Kennedy, M.P., Tan, S.S., Chapman, R.H., and Chase, G.W., 1975, Character and Recency of Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Areas, California: Special Report 123, 33p. - "An Engineering Manual for Slope Stability Studies," J.M. Duncan, A.L. Buchignani and Marius De Wet, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, March 1987. - "Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils," Daniel Pradel, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 124, #4,1998. - "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures," ASCE 7-10, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). TOPO! map printed on 01/13/16 from SanDiego.tpo and UnbtIed.tpg' ii,v'j vv W(i5t411/(.iO(JW REGIONAL INDEX MA p1 4 c\m Elcacfi rn N~. V sewage Disposal 6-7~'15 Shg , N ~N'di 6-M I .''s-L%/ S \- ? : JL\ I 1 169 '\rJ?n1 ': \ \i-4 ,• ) \ . o PO ~rf~ 4 ' \ ( H kJby \\ 'S \\ : ch J, Hf9hSchG -5. 0 14 tdd 4 Stp \ fn 50 \ "\\ ç/ ,-rS\ • I '_1 0 fl \ ) \ \ c S -- ° \ {FIGURE ii- "'_'\Reservoir '---' 117°2100" W W(S84 11707nnn" W 4 0 IMn1 IIIc — lOcaFEET 0 -' OOOm V Printed from TOPO! ggg witti1owee Productions (wwotopo.com) KEYNOTES S. (E)P2TtERTdTgStiTEETEndSATP2.5 . 2. (E) MASSIVE pasting Epstein be TEsnd. c S. (E) 0152. Ink inndng omsneb,. 4. (E)calidbafllth somaLi. 0. (E)LAMSEEPL1QU(OTS4IA. (Li) eobindalmelallAellinkt 7. (b)UglSpIVETb,nd2.. 6. (5) MeSgn RImTAJRT. on 0. (E) S, 0 10. (R)TmosIArasnEk1. S ii. )E)dnIawanhto IEESlEAR dISpels 01005(2.5 0 — 02. ilnsob(b)P1tp07yUmo. . . STATS STREET Ii. Un500(E)innslsang. - II. (E(PbrAkç lobe SiTCOM End (splICEd, 1.. 4 Tb. )E)TISTETOCTSI. 015 EM belams lobe raTtlEd: p.pata lot TEE. SEMiS. 16. (E)Tloltldnflthlobo(ml000d. 24G4w1125115 blo&odrelo ________________ I?. )E) LCEOSO aIR pAnting To Ca rETRACEd. (CS 5025(51, 02 95(575310 21. Xx~/z, I SITE PLAN LEGEND . . 0 FIRE,nnoisndln - ] - PeRKINS SISTER - IiIEOJACE0TP2CS0RL0T - . . - psopsrn'y uris ____ .I.JJ.J....1.....J....!.I..]..1,,ii: -ZLD IF o U) 0 ir;.sAtl.m O SITE (DEMO PLAN I 0 TEOIEIOSEaI 1. SCALE: 1110a1'.O . C") 0 C=; U - - 4 • I— in OS - - z * !ll -- Al Q HO a a t WHIRR iII Uip z 0 Ill: : 1PRO .3 ::: SUED FOR DATE 1 Dr. Ir K..-E il Y.. KEY TO BORING / TEST PT LOGS DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS: Spilt Spoon - 1-/8" LD., 7 0.0., unless other4se noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger Cl Chunk Sample ST: Thin-Walled Tube -7 0.0., unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger Density mat Ping Sampler - 2.375 .0., 2.5 0.0., Unless otheiwise noted Hk Hand Auger Sandcone DB: Diamond Bit Coring - 4.', N. B RB: Rock Bit 19 Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB: Wash Boring or Mud Rotary The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch penetration with a 140-pound hammer failing 30 inches is considered the Standard Penetration! or 14-value". For 2.5"O.D. ring samplers (RS) the penetration value is reported as the number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches, reported as'blows per foot." and is not considered equivalent tO the Standard Penetration 'or "N-value? WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL Water Level WS: While Sampling N/E Not Encountered WCI: Wet Cave in WI): While Drilling DCI: Dry Cave In 8CR: Before Casing Recroval AS: Pd'ler Boring ACR: AfterCasing Removal Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured In the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations. DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION; Soil classification is based on the Unified Classification System, Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts If they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their In-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency. CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS Unconfined Standard compressive Fencitratlonor SILenoth, ypIue1SS) Consistency PSf Blows/Ft. <500 <2 Very Soft 500 - 1.000 2-3 Soft 1,001 - 2,000 4.6 Medium Stiff 2,001 - 4,000 7-12 Stiff 4,001 - 8,000 13-26 Very Stiff 8,000+ 26+ Hard' RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND Wffk Descriy T D_rm_JgJ of other Percent of constituents Dry Wejg Trace <15 With 15-29 Modifier >30 RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES Descriptive Term(s) of other Percent of constItuents Dry Weight Trace <5 With 5-12 Modifiers >12 LATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS Standard P.tMp!19 RIn SamIer N-value ($5)(RS) BbWS/FL Relatilve Density B'ows/Ft 0.8 Very Loose 4-9 7-18 Loose 10-29 19-58 Medium Dense 30-45 59-98 Dense 50+ 99+ Very Dense GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Malor.Componerit of Sample Particle Size Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm) Cobbles l2 in. to3 in. (300rnmto75mm) Gravel 3 in. to#4 sieve (75cncnt04.75mm) Sand #4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm) Silt or Clay Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm) PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Term PlasticIty Index Non.-plastic 0 Low 1-10 Medium 11-30 High 30+ UNIFIED SOL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using LaboratotyTeatsa soil Classification Group Symbol Group Mamse Clean Gravels Cua4 and 1:5CcS35 6W Well-gradedgravel ______________________________________ _ _ _ _ Gravft Less than 5% llnes< Cu <4 and/or 1> Cc, 3E op Poorly graded waysi' WI,%U MICII UUfl UI IAJd1bt fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Fines classify as ML orMH GM Silty gravet" Coarse aine4.Sgiill More than 12% llnese Fines classify aSCL0rCH CC gravisf-61 More than 50% retained Clean Sands CuSS and 1:;Ccs3l SW Well-graded sand on No. 200 sieve Less than 5% fines0 cuc6andlorl> Cc, 3° SR Poorly graded sand' 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4sieve Sands with Fin es Fines dasslfyesMLorMH SM sntysand More than 12% fines' Fines Classify as CL or CH sc Clayey sand"-4' Pl>7 and plots onor above WOne' CL Lsanday M inorganic Silts and Clays Pl<4or plots beIow'Wllne ML Sift'" Liquid limit less than 50 Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clay'' Fine-Grained Sails organic <07$ OL Liquid limit — not dried Organic slt?<0 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve inorganic RI plots on or above A' line OH Fat cley<4 Sib and Clays Pt plots below A' line MH Liquid ll 50 or Liquid limit— oven dried organic clay' organic <0.75 OH Liquid intl - not dried Organic 5L&Q Highly organic soils Prleronly organic matter, dark In color, and organic odor p-r Peat 'Based on the material passing the 34n. (75-mm) sieve "If fines are organic, add 'with organic fines' to group name. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add 'with cobbles or boulders, or If soil contains k 15% gravel, add 'With graveR to group name. both' to group name. If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. Gravelswith 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW- 511 soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add 'with Sand' or 'with CC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt. GP-GC poorly gravel,' whichever is predominant graded gravel with clay. L If soil contains 530% plus No. 200 predomInantly sand, add 58ond5 with S to 12% fines require dual symbo4s. SW-SM welt-graded sand with silt, SW-SC to group name. welJ-graded sand with clay. SR-SM poorly graded sand with alit, SP-SC poorly graded sand If soil contains ~ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add with day gravalfy' to group name. (D,o) Np154 and plots on' or above Wfine. ECu=DSDs CcIC DioX Me °Pl<4or plots below WOne; 'P1 plots on or above A line. 'If soil contains 515% sand, add 'With sand' to group name. °Pi plots belowA' line. If lines classlly as uL-ML use cum symbol GC-GM, Or so For ciaufficWon of RMVair" 5° Equation of am -.s Uj z Verticall at U, 16 to PI=7. TT T11 20 iL or 10 L or 4 IX LIQUID LIMIT (W GeotGchflici Solutions, Inc. 5 Yellow-brown to orange-red sandstone Silty. Fine to medium grained. Moist to slightly moist. Denseto very 6 :. dense. Poorly graded. Becomes very dense to 6'. ST-1 34-50 8 111.6 84 42 .9 Changes to white-gray, medium to coarse grained sand at 9. Clean. Poorly graded. Moist. Dense to very dense. ST-2 15-16-17 (33) sp 11_ "\ \\ -cJ;4-----\---\ __ -1 0 ( - -. L\ -. '' •_ \. - ' NK Vl~- I IL Nft- ir all N (I J SITE r N vo ' • . i 1 • S i;i /- "•..••ET centro. 0 t' Earthquake MagnitU e \N 0 0 4.0 TO 4.9 .-5.OTO5.9 . \••'.. ._-- 6.0 106.9 .• •. D 0 30 20 10 0 BO MILES 7.0 TO 7.9 Fault FAULT - EPICENTER MAP SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGION INDICATED EARTHQUAKE EVENTS THROUGH 75 YEAR PERIOD (1900-1974) This Map. data Is compiled from various sources including the California Division of Mines and Geology, California Institute of Technology, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This Map is reproduced from the California Division of Mines and Geology, "Earthquake Epicenter Map of California; Map Sheet 39." FIGURE 6 DLATION JOINTS )NTRACTION JOINT! (c) RE-ENTRANT CORNER CRACK RE-ENTRANT CORNER REINFORCEMENT I )S NO.3 BARS PLACED / - MID-HEIGHT IN SLAB NO SCALE] - NOTES; Isolation joints around the columns should be either circular as shown 'in (a) or diamond shaped as shown in (b). if no isolation joints are used around columns, or if the corners of the isolation joints do not meet the contraction joints, radial cracking as shown in (c) may occur (reference Ad). In order to control cracking at the re-entant corners (+/-270 degree corners), provide reinforcement as shown in (c). Re-entrant corner reinforcement shown herein is herein is provided as a general guideline only and is subject to verification and changes by the project architect and /or structural engineer based upon slab geometry, location, and other engineering and construction factors. SMS GT HCAL TYPICAL 15GLATEON JOINTS AN 1645 S. JRANCHO SANTA, FE ROAD, SUITE 20 ' CORNER SAN MARCOS, CA 92078 WFORCEM-ENIT PHONE: 767607 MA: £ PROJECT He- GIL NO-. GJ-16-01---105 SAW CUT EXISTING CONCRETE (IF SPACE AVAILABLE, CLEAN AND APPLY EPDXY BOND BEFORE POURING NEW CONCRETE) 244 BARS #3 BARS @ 18" O.C., / EDGE (TYPL ALL E.W. (SEE REPORT) EXIST. SLAB AROUND) fl — NEWCONC. SLAB DRILL" DIA, X6" DEEP HOLES @18" O.C., THOROUGHLY CLEAN DOWEL W/#4 BARS X 18" LG. & EPDXY GROUT (TYP) ,—EXISTING \ / FOOTING \ / (TYP) 11 .4. - . : :H _HHI .. -HI • HIHIH' THICKENED.J111 SLAB EDGE HI :THICKENED CONT. 7 , I CLEAN SAND iLLi çfl=r 44 CONT. MIN. NEW 10 MIL STEGO (OR EQUIVJkLENT) MOISTURE COMPACTED SUBGRADE TO 90% AT 1-3% ABOVE OPTIMUM BARRIER/VAPOR RETARDANT. THE NEW BARRIER MUST JOIN MOISTURE CONTENT PER ASTM D 1557 THE EXISTING BARRIER (IF ANY), OVERLAPPING ACCORDING (SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT) TO MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION. NOTES: L NO SAcE1 1. SAW CUT FOR ALL CORNERS SHALL BE AT 45° (90° CORNER CUT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED) HOLE SHALL BE DRILLED AT 6" AW A Y F R O M C O R N E R , A N D A MINIMUM OF ONE DOWEL SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH CORNER. ALL CONCRETE SHALL DEVELOP A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3250 PSI PER GREEN BOOK SPECIFICATION 560C-3250 REINFORCEMENT SHALL CONFIRM TO ASIM A 615 GRADE 60 DEFORMED BARS ALL JOINTS SHALL BE ENTIRELT SEALED WITH A NON-SHRINKING TWO-COMPONENT, POLYSULFIDE OR POLYURETHANE SEAL A N T W H I C H S H A L L B E BONDED TO THE CONREE AND FREE FROM VOIDS. JOINT SEALANT SHALL BE APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER S I N S T R U C T I O N S . SMS GEOTECHNKAL SOWTONS, INC. N EW SLAB AT EXISTING SLAB/FOOTING 1645 S. RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, SUITE 208 DETAIL SAN MARCOS, CA 92078 PHONE: 760-761-0799 PROJECT NAME: I FIGURE NO: EMAIL: smsgoso.c@gmil.co GI-1 6-01-105 8 SPECIFICATIONS FOR CAITRANS - GROUND SURFACE CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL RETAINING WAIL (68-1.025) 2%MIN. U.S. STANDARD I SIEVE SIZE 9' PASSING FILTER MATERIAL, 3/4° - 1° CRUSHED MIN. 90% COMPACTED FILL 1 100 ROCKS (WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC_*..x 3/4 90 100 OR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE 1 3/8 ' 40:100 MATERIALS (SEE SPECIFICATIONS) I (TYP) No. 4 25-40 _- I r1 APPROVED FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI No. 8 18-33 WATERPROOFING (TYP) -- I 12' MIN 140N) 12' OVERLAP, TYP. No. 30 5-15 .Uj Nó.50 . 0-7 FINISH GRADE I' MIN. 0 No. 200 0-3 00 ___ uj - Uj SAND EQUWALENT> ' M - 4' PVC PERFORATED PIPE MIN. - - (SCH 40 OR SDR35) MIN. 1/2% FL - FALL TO APPROVED OUTLET . (SEE REPORT) - . INOSCALE! CONCRETE-LINED DRAINAGE DITCH—. - 7 '- NATURAL OR GRADED SLOPE ' TEMPORARY RETAINING WALL 1:1 CUT SLOPE >. (TYP) r-_— PROPERLY COMPACTED'(MIN. 90%) BACKFILLED ., .. GROUND FILTER MATERIAL, 3/4° - I CRUSHED - ROCKS (WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC OR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE BENCH AND TIGHTLY KEY INTO TEMPORARY MATERIALS (SEE SPECIFICATIONS) BACKCUT AS BACKFILLING PROGRESSES lilt - APPROVED FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140N) 12° WATERPROOFING (TYP) 120 MIN. - OVERLAP, TYP.LLJ . PROPOSED GRADE-4 _J j 0 . ., LU 6" MIN. MIN. 4' PVC PERFORATED PIPE MIN. (SH 40 OR SDR35) ___ CA ___ . MIN. 1/2% FALL TO APPROVED OUTLET (SEE NO SLE - REPORT) CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS: - 1. Provide granular, non- expansive backfill soil in 1:1 gradient wedge behind wall., compact backfill to minimum 90% of laboratory standard. 2. Backdrain should consist of 4" diameter PVC pipe (Schedule 40 or equivalent) with perforations down. Drain to suitable at minimum %. Provide 3/4" - 1 " crushed rocks filter materials wrapped in fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent). Delete filter fabric wrap if Coltrans Class 2 permeable material is used. Compact Class 2 permeable material to minimum 90% of laboratory standard. - 3 Seal bock of wall with approved waterproofing in accordance with architect's speificotions. Provide positive drainage to disallow ponding of wafer above wall. Drainage to flow away from wall at minimum 2%. Provide concrete-lined drainage ditch for slope toe retaining walls. Use 17, cubic feet per foot with granular backfill soil and 4 cubic foot per foot if expansive backfill is used. - SMSGoTcHcAL SOLUTIONS, INC. TYPICAL 1645 5. ACHO SANTA ROAD, SUTI 20 . SAN MAICOS, CA 92078 .DRAHNAGE PHONE: 760-761-0799 smsgesoncmiO.com 105 IFIIGU O: Design Maps Summary Report Page 1 of IIJSGS Design Maps Summary Report User—Specified Input Report Title Mr. George W. Kelley, AlA - 417 Carlsbad Village Dr., Carlsbad Wed January 13, 2016 21:42:28 UIC Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard (which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008) Site Coordinates 33.15911N, 117.34881W Site Soil Classification Site Class D - "Stiff Soil". Risk Category 1/11/111 USGS—Provided Output S5 = 1.155 g SMS = 1.199 g SDs = 0.799 g S1 = 0.443 g S, 0.690 g S01 = 0.460 g For information on how the SS and Si values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and select the "2009 NEHRP" building code reference document. MCEFt Response Spectrum 1 20 1.00 0.96 0 84 0.72 40 0.36-- 0 012 '20 000 020 040 0.0 0.90 1.00 1 IC 140 1 GO 100 200 Period, I (sec) Design Response Spectrum 0.99 0.90 0.72 - 0.64 0.56 - 0.4a 0.40 - 0. 32 0.24 0.1 - 0 00 0.00 I I I 000 0 20 040 0 GO 020 1 00 1.20 1.40 1.0 1 90 200 Period. I (sec) For PGAM, TL, C,5, and C5, values, please view the detailed report. http://ehp 1-earthquake.cr.usgs .gov/designmaps/us/summary .php?template=minimal&latitu... 1/13/2016 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 1 of SIUM Design Maps Detailed Report ASCE 7-10 Standard (33.15910N, 117.3488°W) Site Class D - "Stiff Soil", Risk Category 1/11/111 Section 11.4.1 - Mapped Acceleration Parameters Note: Ground motion values provided below are for the direction of maximum horizontal spectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometric mean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain S5) and 1.3 (to obtain S1). Maps in the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard are provided for Site Class B. Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3. From Figure 22-1 Ss = 1.155 g From Figure 22-2 S1 = 0.443 g Section 11.4.2 - Site Class The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site-specific geotechnical data, and/or the default has classified the site as Site Class D, based on the site soil properties in accordance with Chapter 20. Table 20.3-I Site Classification Site Class v5 Nor Nd, s,, Hard Rock >5,000 ft/s N/A N/A Rock 2,500 to 5,000 ft/s N/A N/A Very dense soil and soft rock 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s >50 >2,000 psf Stiff Soil 600 to 1,200 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf Soft clay soil <600 ft/s <15 <11000 psf Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics: Plasticity Index P1> 20, Moisture content w 2! 40%, and Undrained shear strength s < 500 psf F. Soils requiring site response See Section 20.3.1 analysis in accordance with Section 21.1 For SI: lft/s = 0.3048 mIs llb/ft2 = 0.0479 kN/m2 http://ehp 1-earthquake. cr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=mjnjmal&latitude= 1/13/2016 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 2 of 6 if Section 11.4.3 - Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient F. Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period S5 :5 0,25 Ss = 0.50 S5 = 0.75 SS = 1.00 S 1.25 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 D 1.6 1.4 1.2 [ 1.1 1.0 1 E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S For Site Class = D and Ss = 1.155 g, F = 1.038 Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient F. Site Class Mapped MCE Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period 15 0.10 S1 = 0.20 S1 = 0.30 SL = 0.40 S1 > 0.50 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 - 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1,7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 D 2.4 2.0 1.8 r 1.6 1.5 E 3.5 3.2 2.8 - 2.4 2.4 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S1 For Site Class = D and S. = 0.443 g, F, = 1.557 http://ehp 1 -earthquake.cr.usgs .gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latjtude=... 1/13/2016 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 3 of 6 Equation (11.4-1): SMS = FaSs = 1.038x 1.155 = 1.199 g Equation (11.4-2): Sm = F..,S1 = 1.557 x 0.443 = 0.690 g Section 11.4.4 - Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters Equation (11.4-3): SDS = % SIS = % x 1.199 = 0.799 g Equation (11.4-4): SDI = % S1 = 2% x 0.690 = 0.460 g Section 11.4.5 - Design Response Spectrum From Figure 22-12 1" T1 = 8 seconds Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum T<T:S1 = S, (OA +0.81/70) To ST T0 =0115 T5 = 0.576 1.000 Period, T(sec) http ://ehp l-earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=mjnjmal&Iatjtude=... 1/13/2016 1.199 UI U TA 0 U U SK =O.69O U IA 4 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 4 of 6 p Section 11.4.6 - Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Response Spectrum The MCE Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by I.S. 0.115 T5= 0.575 1.000 Period, I (sec) http ://ehp l-earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=mjnjmal&1atjtude=... 1/13/2016 Op Design Maps Detailed Report Page 5 of 6 Section 11.8.3 - Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design Categories D through F From Figure 22-7 (4] PGA = 0.459 Equation (11.8-1); PGA,, = FPGAPGA = 1.041 x 0.459 = 0.478 g Table 11.8-1; Site Coefficient F Site Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA Class PGA :5 PGA = PGA = PGA = PGA > 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note; Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA For Site Class = D and PGA = 0.459 g, FA = 1.041 Section 21.2.1.1 - Method 1 (from Chapter 21 - Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures for Seismic Design) From Figure 22-17 CRS = 0.939 From Figure 22-181" CR1 = 0.991 http ://ehp 1 -earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/designrnaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=... 1/13/2016 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 6 of 6 p Section 11.6 - Seismic Design Category Table 11.6-1 Seismic Desian Catponry Bsr1 nn chnrf Prirt,i Pri Ar,Irirr, Pr,-o1-,- VALUE OF S,5 RISK CATEGORY IorII III IV S,<O.167g A A A 0.167g S,5 < 0.33g B B C 0.33g :5 SD5 < 0.50g C C D 0.50gS,5 D D 0 For RISK category = I and S, = 0.799 g, Seismic Design Category = D Table 11.6-2 Selcmlr tcinn tnrry Rør1 r,r, I -C Drie,d Qi D1-.- VALUE OF SO RISK CATEGORY or III IV S,1 <O.067g SDI A A A 0.067g S,1 < 0.133g B. B C 0.133g SDI < 0.20g C C D 0.20gS0 D D D For Risk Category = I and S = 0,460 g, Seismic Design Category = D Note: When S is greater than or equal to 0.75g, the Seismic Design Category is E for buildings in Risk Categories I, II, and III, and F for those in Risk Category IV, irrespective of.the above. Seismic Design Category "the more severe design category in accordance with Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2" = D Note: See Section 11.6 for alternative approaches to calculating Seismic Design Category. References Figure 22-1: http ://earthquake. usgs.gov/hazards/design maps/downloads/pdfs/20 1O_ASCE-7_Figure_22-1.pdf Figure 22-2: http ://earthquake.usgs.gov/haza rds/desig n maps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7 Fig ure_22-2. pdf Figure 22-12: http :1/earthquake. usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/20 1O_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 12.pdf Figure 22-7: http ://earthquake. usgs, gov/haza rds/desig nmaps/downloads/pdfs/20 1O_ASCE-7_Figure22-7. pdf Figure 22-17: http ://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/desjgnma ps/downloads/pdfs/20 1OASCE-7_Figure_22- 17.pdf Figure 22-18: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloadsjpdfs/2O1OASCE_7Fjgure22 18.pdf http://ehp l-earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/designnaaps/us/report.php?template=minjmal&latjmde=... 1/13/2016