Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PUD 2018-0008; THREE ON CHERRY; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2018-10-26
0 -D TORO INTERNATIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION for MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING THREE ON CHERRY 160 CHERRY A VENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: DI DONATO ASSOCIATES 3939 FIRST A VENUE, SUITE 100 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92103 Prepared By: TORO INTERNATIONAL 1 LEAGUE # 61614 IRVINE, CA 92602 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING October 26, 2018 RECEIVED FEB 'l 7 2019 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION 1 LEAGUE # 61614 • IRVINE, CA 92602 • TEL. (949) 559-1582 • FAX. (949) 266-8911 0 -D TORO INTERNATIONAL October 26, 2018 Di Donato Associates 3939 First Avenue, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92103 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING TI Project No. 03-125.7 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Multi-Family Building, Three on Cherry, 160 Cherry A venue, Carlsbad, California Toro International (TI) has completed preliminary geotechnical investigation for a proposed Multi- Family Building, Three on Cherry, 160 Cherry Avenue, Carlsbad, California. This report presents our findings, conclusions and recommendations for foundation design and construction of the proposed multi-family building and its associated site preparation. It is our opinion from a geotechnical viewpoint that the subject site is suitable for construction of the proposed multi-family building provided our geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are implemented in the design and during construction. The recommendations developed in this report are based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standard of practice in California. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, TORO INTERNATIONAL Hantoro Walujono, GE 2164 Principal 1 LEAGUE # 61614 • IRVINE, CA 92602 • I TEL. (949) 559-1582 • FAX. (949) 266-8911 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 General ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Proposed Development ............................................................................................ 1 1.3 Site Description ........................................................................................................ 1 1.4 Scope of Work .......................................................................................... : .............. 3 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ............................................. .4 2.1 Field Exploration ..................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................... 4 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................ 6 3.1 Geology .................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Groundwater ............................................................................................................ 6 3.3 General Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................... 6 4.0 SEISMICITY ............................................................................................................ : .......... 7 4.1 General ..................................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Ground Motion ........................................................................................................ 7 4.3 Seismic Design ......................................................................................................... 8 4. 4 Liquefaction Potential .............................................................................................. 8 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 9 5.1 General ..................................................................................................................... 9 5.2 Overexcavations/Removals ..................................................................................... 9 5.3 Grading and Earthwork ............................................................................................ 9 5.4 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations ................... : ........................................ 11 5.5 Temporary Excavation ........................................................................................... 12 5.6 Review of Plans ..................................................................................................... 12 5.7 Geotechnical Observation and Testing .................................................................. 13 6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 14 7.0 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................. 15 0 -TORO □ INTERNATIONAL Section List of Figures Figure 1. Figure 2. List of Tables Table 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D) ILLUSTRATIONS Site Location Map .................................................................................................... 2 Boring Location Map ............................................................................................... 5 Summary of Fault Parameters .................................................................................. ? APPENDICES Appendix A -Field Exploration Appendix B -Laboratory Test Results Appendix C -Design Maps Summary Report Appendix D -Standard Guidelines for Grading 0 -TORO □ INTERNATIONAL 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General Three on Cherry October 26, 201 8 Page: I This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation performed by Toro International (Tl) for a proposed new three-story multi-family building, located at 160 Cherry Avenue, Carlsbad, California. A Site Location Map is presented in Figure 1 showing the approximate location of the project site. The purpose of the preliminary geotechnical investigation is to provide geotechnical design parameters and recommendations for construction of the new multi-family building and its associated site preparation and grading. Our preliminary geotechnical investigation was conducted based on an architectural plans, issued for Preliminary Review, entitled "Three on Cherry, 160 Cherry Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008," prepared by Di Donato Associates and dated December 12, 2018. 1.2 Proposed Development Our understanding of the proposed construction is based on the above mentioned site plans. It is our understanding that the size of the building footprint will be about 3,600 square feet. We anticipate that cut and/or fill will be minor (less than 3 feet thick). 1.3 Site Description The proposed site of the new multi-family building is currently a single family home on an about 7,000 square-feet lot. The property consists of a one-story house and its front and backyards that are covered by grasses and sparse trees. The proposed site as well as the overall site is a relatively flat area. 0 -TORO □ INTERNATIONAL 117°22'00" W z B s I<, (") I ll C> I c:.. I .:-.-. .. o1) z 8 'V 0 "' i a' 0 I ~ I ... I ..,. I ,, j ,>. I io ~ I I '[ I I o "\, ! ____ _,.~------z b 0 ~ ~ I<, .,, (") -t. .. f\l1ap eated With 'ftlllQ9 @20:)6 ''91 117°21'00" W 7 'C" ... -z. '& um 1P WGS84 117°20'00" W z B s ~ z 8 "' a' ~ z b 0 ~ I<, (") WGS84 117°20'00'' W .. u m •,m stm ll'lf'Utr~ 1N fVN TORO INTERNATIONAL Geotechnical Engineering SITE LOCATION MAP THREE ON CHERRY PROJECT: 03-125.7 FIGURE 1 Page: 2 1.4 Scope of Work Three on Cherry October 26, 20 18 Page: 3 The scope of work for this preliminary geotechnical investigation consisted of the following: • Review of published reports and geologic maps pertinent to the site • Field exploration, consisting of drilling and logging one boring to a maximum depth of21.5 feet • Laboratory testing of selected soil samples considered representative of the subsurface conditions to evaluate the pertinent engineering and physical characteristics of the representative soils • Evaluation of the general site geology, including geologic hazards which could affect the proposed development • Evaluation of ground shaking potential resulting from seismic events occurring on significant faults in the area • Engineering analyses of the collected data to develop geotechnical recommendations for seismic analyses, foundation of the proposed new multi-family building and its site preparation • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 0 -TORO □ INTERNATIONAL 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2.1 Field Exploration Three on Cherry October 26, 2018 Page:4 The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling one borehole. The depth of the borehole is about 21 .5 feet below the existing ground surface. The approximate location of the boring is shown on the Boring Location Map in Figure 2. Details of the field exploration, including the logs of the boring, are presented in Appendix A. 2.2 Laboratory Testing Soil samples considered representative of the subsurface conditions were tested to obtain or derive relevant physical and engineering soil properties. Laboratory testing included moisture content and in-situ density, sieve analyses, direct shear and soluble sulfate 'content. Moisture content and in-situ density test results are shown in the Borings Logs in Appendix A. The remaining laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. Descriptions of the test methods are also included in Appendix B. 0 -TORO □ INTERNATIONAL N'Q.1-,1 'f ! !! ·r : :; 3 II ' i ~- 8 it. S I ~ ~ I I ill ~ ~ ~ I ie 2 I , z s ~ ~ z 3 -! ~ •• w ~ . - 0 ~ ·-J .... ~. I r A ~ a ... j ·~ .. ,~ H"~f-.1 .o-.n . .-... H'O..f-,1 ,(), 1d ,n~ l..~.~ZS<;N I -I e t l " = I I ~ ~ -! I I rv I 1 I L ~ I I I ~ = ';;; I I! = ~ -~ -. I :I I•.-~ l~i l ~ 1------ I --I --= I I = ,_-,_ -l l -t:;,, 11 _........;.. -~ -I ' ~ ,-~ I lit. ;.,_ ~ I i -~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ -I I -I , --I ~ .~ I~ - ~ -I ~ -! ·~ -~ I I= . I I -== I = I J I J --= =~ ;\ ~ I ---@ ~ l_cr -I ,_I~ I ~ I I i /---I I t I ~I ~ J ;I ' l 1 I I •i .,_ .... Tcf L,n>• ~W,9l,'li'lil'4 MU.t-,I "i -~ i /© ~ <o I ~-" <o g --,.0-,lt -~· I I Z • :s J !l. -w .• I-., -, <fl - LEGEND TORO INTERNATIONAL • B-1: Approximate Location of Boring No. B-1 Geotechnical En ineerin BORING LOCATION MAP THREE ON CHERRY PROJECT NO. 03-125.7 FIGURE 1 Page: 5 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Geology Three on Cherry October 26, 2018 Page: 6 The subject site is located approximately 56 feet above mean sea level. The site is located within the Pleistocene Marine and Terrace Marine Deposits (Rogers, 1992). The marine and marine terrace deposits are Quaternary in age and the thickness is probably over than one hundred feet. The marine materials consist primarily of a mixture of silt and sand. 3.2 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during our field exploration; however the maximum depth of the borehole is about 21.5 feet below the existing ground surface. 3.3 General Subsurface Conditions In general, the proposed multi-family building is underlain primarily by silty sand and silty sand to sand materials. The silty sand and silty sand to sand materials are classified as SM and SM-SP, respectively according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The consistency of the coarse-grained soils is primarily medium dense. The equivalent Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow-counts of the subsurface materials ranges from 13 to 22 blows-per-foot (bpf) with an average of about 19 bpf. The moisture content of the coarse-grained soils ranges from 2.2 to 8.4 percent with an average of about 5. 5 percent. 0 -TORO 0 INTERNATIONAL ------ - - ---- --------------.. -.. .. --- 4.1 General 4.0 SEISMICITY Three on Cherry October 26, 2018 Page: 7 Seismicity is a general term relating to the abrupt release of accumulated strain energy in the rock materials of the earth's crust in a given geographical area. The recurrence of accumulation and subsequent release of strain have resulted in faults and systems of faults. The subject site is in seismically active California. 4.2 Ground Motion California Building Code (CBC). The most widely used technique for earthquake-resistant design applied to low-rise structures is the California Building Code (CBC). The basic formulas used in the CBC require determination of the site class, which represents the site soil properties at the site of interest. The nearest active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault, which is approximately 7.0 km away (Blake, T. F., 1998). This fault and other nearest 7 faults, which could affect the site and the proposed development, are listed in the following "Summary of Fault Parameters" as shown in Table 1. TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Fault Name Rose Canyon Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) Coronado Bank Elsinore-Temecula Elsinore-Julian Elsinore-Glen Ivy Palos Verdes Earthauake Valley Approximate Distance (km) 7.0 7.7 33.0 39.6 40.0 54.7 56.9 71.3 0 -TORO Source Type (A,B,C) B B B B A B B B D INTERNATIONAL Maximum Magnitude (Mw) 6.9 6.9 7.4 6.8 7.1 6.8 7.1 6.5 Slip Rate Fault Type (mm/yr) (SS,DS,BT) 1.50 ss 1.50 ss 3.00 ss 5.00 ss 5.00 ss 5.00 ss 3.00 ss 2.00 ss 4.3 Seismic Design Three on Cherry October 26, 2018 Page: 8 The 2016 CBC seismic zone for use in the seismic design formula is Site Class D. The Design Maps Summary Report is included in Appendix C. 4.4 Liquefaction Potential The subsurface soil consists predominantly of medium dense silty sand and silty sand to sand. Groundwater was not encountered during our drilling; however the maximum depth of the borehole is about 21.5 feet below the ground surface due to refusal encountered at that depth. Therefore, based on the above-mentioned information, the subsurface soil materials at the proposed site are considered not likely to liquefy during an earthquake. 0 -TORO □ INTERNATIONAL -------• • --• -• ---• - • • -- ---- -.. --.. - --------- --... --... -- --- ---.. .. -.. ----- 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General Three on Cherry October 26, 2018 Page:9 Based on the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion from a geotechnical viewpoint that the subject site is suitable for the proposed development and its associated grading provided our geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are implemented. The remainder of this report presents our recommendations in detail. These recommendations are based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standard of practice in Southern California. Other professionals in the design team may have different concerns depending on their own discipline and experience. Therefore, our recommendations should be considered as minimum and should be superseded by more restrictive recommendations of other members of the design team or the governing agencies, if applicable. 5.2 Overexcavations/Removals The upper 24 to 36 inches of subsurface soils may consist of roots and organic. Therefore, we recommend that all deleterious materials including uncertified fill materials should be discarded off site and the upper three feet of the subsurface materials be removed and replaced with compacted fills. Upon completion of removal of the upper three feet of subsurface soil materials, the geotechnical consultant should evaluate the bottom of the excavation and may make further recommendations accordingly. Onsite soils may be reused. The extent of the removal should be within the proposed additional building footprint and 3 feet beyond them, if possible. The removal bottom and compacted fill should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations stated in Section 5.3 below. 5.3 Grading and Earthwork General. All earthwork and grading for site development should be accomplished in accordance with the attached Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects (Appendix D), Appendix J of the CBC, and requirements of the regulatory agency. All special site preparation recommendations presented in the following paragraphs will supersede those in the attached Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects. Site Preparation. Vegetation, organic soil, roots and other unsuitable material should be removed from the building areas. Prior to the placement of fill, the existing ground should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, and recompacted . 0 -TORO □ INTERNATIONAL Three on Cherry October 26, 2018 Page: 10 Prior to pouring concrete, the subgrade soil for the concrete slab area should be wetted to a slightly higher than the optimum moisture to a depth of 6 inches from the surface. Fill Compaction. All fill and backfill to be placed in association with site development should be accomplished at slightly over optimum moisture conditions. The minimum relative compaction recommended for fill is 90 percent relative compaction based on maximum dry density performed in accordance with ASTM D-1557. Fill should be compacted by mechanical means in uniform horizontal loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Fill Material. The on-site soils can be used for compacted fill. However, during grading operations, soil types other than those analyzed in the geotechnical reports may be encountered by the contractor. The geotechnical consultant should be notified to evaluate the suitability of those soils for use as fill and as finished grade soils. Imported fill materials should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to importing. Soils exhibiting any expansion potential should not be used as import materials. Both imported and on-site soils to be used as fill materials should be free of debris, organic and cobbles over 6 inches in maximum dimension. Site Drainage. Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on how well runoff waters drain from the site. This is true both during construction and over the entire life of the structure. The ground surface around structures should be graded so that water flows rapidly away from the structures without ponding. In general, we recommend impermeable areas such as paved and concrete flatwork within a minimum distance of 10 feet from a building (measured perpendicular to the face of the wall) should be sloped away at a minimum gradient of 2%. Other areas such as lawn and vegetated areas should have minimum descending gradients of at least 5% within 10 feet of the building (measured perpendicular to the face of the wall) Utility Trenches. Bedding materials should consist of sand having Sand Equivalent not less than 30, which may then be jetted. Existing soils may be utilized for trench backfill provided they are free of organic materials and rocks over 6 inches in dimension. The backfill should be uniformly compacted to at least 90% relative compaction based on maximum density performed in accordance with ASTM D-1557. 0 -TORO □ INTERNATIONAL • • -• -• -- • - • .. -• • • --• -• • -• • .. -• -.. .. -- -- --.. .... .. .. .. -.. - --- -------.. • -.. .. - 5.4 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations Three on Cherry October 26, 2018 Page: 11 The following foundation recommendations were prepared without any information about the structural configuration and maximum and average column loads of the new multi-family building. Once the information is available, the following recommendations may be revised to reflect the actual conditions of the proposed building . In California, the foundation criteria given below have been generally observed to be practical in mitigating the potential structural damage due to expansive soil pressures. The recommendations below are based on our results of expansion index tests that indicate very low expansivity as defined by the Section 1803 of CBC . Additional expansion index tests need to be performed after completion of grading to verify that the worst expansion index of the underlying soils is very low. If the test results indicate that the worst condition of the underlying soils are not classified as very low, the recommendations below may be adjusted accordingly. Footing Design. The following minimum criteria should be adopted for the footing design in order to maintain potential differential settlement less than ¼ inch: a. Allowable Bearing Capacity: qan = 1,750 psf b. Minimum Footing Width: 18 inches c. Minimum Footing Depth: 24 inches d. Minimum Reinforcement: 2 # 4 bars at both the top and bottom in continuous footings 1. 11. 111. lV. Depth of footing is measured from the lowest adjacent grade. Allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one-third for short-term loadings. The above-mentioned footing dimension recommendations should not be considered to preclude more restrictive criteria of regulating agencies or by a structural engineer/architect. The design of the foundation system should be performed a structural engineer, incorporating the geotechnical parameters described above. Slab Design. The laboratory test results of the representative subgrade soils indicate that the expansion index is 8, which falls within the very low expansion potential classification as defined by the Section 1803 of current CBC. Therefore, no presaturation is required provided the compacted fill will be placed in with moisture content one to two percent above the optimum . 0 -TORO □ INTERNATIONAL Three on Cherry October 26, 20 I 8 Page: 12 The following recommendations should be incorporated for the slab-on~grade design: a. b. C. d. e. The minimum thickness of slab-on-grade should be 5 inches. The minimum steel reinforcement for slab-on-grade should be #3 located at mid- height on 18-inch centers both ways A modulus of sub grade reaction of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be utilized for the slab design. Modulus of Elasticity of Soil (Es): 1,000 pounds per square inch (psi) Polyethylene Moisture Barrier (minimum IO-mil visqueen or equivalent) should be placed-in below the slab; with approximately 2 inches of clean sand above the moisture barrier and 2 inch of clean sand below the moisture barrier. Cement Type. Based on the soluble sulfate test result, Type II cement and water-cement ratio of 0.45 or less may be used for concrete in contact with the on-site soils. 5.5 Temporary Excavation Temporary excavation should be sloped back adequately to protect workers and protect against sloughing. Based on our laboratory testing result and engineering analyses, the maximum gradient for the temporary cut is 1: 1 (horizontal:vertical) for onsite materials. Otherwise, temporary cut on the onsite materials should be shored. Shoring should be designed and implemented by a specialty contractor and should conform to the current Caltrans Trenching and Shoring Manual. Surcharge loads due to the existing structure loading should be included in the design of the shoring, if any. 5.6 Review of Plans The geotechnical consultant should review the final foundation and grading plans once they become available in order to update and to provide detail and specific geotechnical recommendations for the elements of the proposed development. The plans will also be compared to the site plan currently used in the preparation of this report in order to evaluate the effect of any major changes with respect to the geotechnical recommendations given in this report. 0 -TORO □ INTERNATIONAL -- • --• -• -• • • • • • • • -• • -• -- • • .. - -• .. .. -.. --.. --... -... -... - - -- ... -- • .. .. • 5.7 Geotechnical Observation and Testing Three on Cherry October 26, 2018 Page: 13 It is recommended that geotechnical observations and testing be performed by representatives of Toro International at the following stages: • • • • • • Upon completion of remedial removals, prior to fill placement During removal bottom scarification During fill placement Upon completion of any footing excavation prior to pouring concrete During backfilling of any utility trenches When any unusual conditions are encountered ) The geotechnical engineering firm providing geotechnical observation/testing shall assume the responsibility of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. 0 -TORO □ INTERNATIONAL 1. 2. 3 6.0 REFERENCES Three on Cherry October 26, 2018 Page: 14 Blake, T. F., 1998,"UBCSEIS", A Computer Program for the Estimation of Uniform Building Code Coefficients Using 3-D Fault Sources", January 1998 California Building Code (CBC), 2016 Rogers, Thomas H., 1992, "Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet," 1992 0 -TORO 0 INTERNATIONAL -- -.. • - .. • .. • • • .. • -• • • • - -• - • - .. .. ---.. ------------------------- .. .. .. -.. --- 7.0 LIMITATIONS Three on Cherry October 26, 2018 Page: 15 This report is intended for the use of Di Donato Associates for the proposed multi-family building, Three on Cherry, at 160 Cherry Avenue, Carlsbad, California. This report is based on the project as described and the information obtained from the borings and other field investigations at the approximate locations indicated on the plans. The findings are based on the results of the field, laboratory, and office investigations combined with an interpolation and extrapolation of conditions between and beyond the boring locations. The results reflect an interpretation of the direct evidence obtained. The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that an appropriate level of field review ( observations and tests) will be provided during construction. Toro International should be notified of any pertinent changes in the project plans or if subsurface conditions are found to vary from those described herein. Such changes or variations may require a re-evaluation of the recommendations contained in this report. The soil samples collected during this investigation are believed representative of the areas sampled. However, soil conditions can vary significantly between and away from the locations sampled. As in most projects, conditions revealed by additional subsurface investigations may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the geotechnical engineer must evaluate the changed condition, and adjust the conclusions and recommendations provided herein, as necessary. The data, opinions, and recommendations of this report are applicable to the specific design element(s) and locations(s) which is (are) the subject of this report. They have no applicability to any other design elements or to any other locations and any and all subsequent users accept any and all liability resulting from any use or reuse of the data, opinions, and recommendations without the prior written consent of Toro International. Toro International has no responsibility for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions or programs in connection with the construction, for the acts or omissions of the contractor, or any other person performing any of the construction, or for the failure of any of them to carry out the construction in accordance with the Final Construction Drawings and Specifications. Services performed by Toro International have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locMity under similar conditions. No other representation, express or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended . 0 -TORO □ INTERNATIONAL APPENDIX A -Field Exploration Subsurface conditions were explored on October 11, 2018 by drilling one boring to a maximum depth of approximately 21. 5 feet below the existing grade below the existing grade. The drilled borehole was advanced by an 8-inch-diameter-hollow-flight-auger drilling rig mounted to a truck. The drilled borehole was located in the field by tape measurements from known landmarks. Its location as shown is therefore within the accuracy of such measurements. The field explorations were performed under supervision of our engineer who prepared detailed logs of the borings, classified the soil encountered, and obtained soil samples for laboratory testing. Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained by means of driving a 2.5-inch diameter sampler having a hammer weight and drop of 140 pounds and 30 inches, respectively. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) tests were also carried out at alternating intervals with the drive sampler. The sampling/SPT interval is about 5 feet. Small bulk samples obtained from the SPT tests were collected for further evaluation in the laboratory. The Boring Logs show the type of sampler, weight and drop of the hammer, number of hammer blows and soil stratigraphy. The soils were classified based on visual observations during the field investigation and results of the laboratory testing. Soil classifications were conducted in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. ---.. -·--• -• ---.. -• • • -• • • -• • -., - • • .. .. -• -.. . , .. -.. _, • .. .. -.. .. -.. -----.. ------------ -----.. .. .. --.. - Project Name Project Number Equipment verage Drop Hole Diameter a:: a:: <.) :E ,5· 01) 0 i ~ C. ....l " w Ci C, 5 51 10 46 15 41 20 36 25 31 30 " 0 c.. z § " c.. er, " § .:: er, 0 S-3 TORO INTERNATIONAL Three on Cherry 03-125.7 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Site Address Date 160 Cherry A venue, Carlsbad 10/11/2018 Hollow Stem Flight Auger 30 inches Drive Weight Elevation (ft) 140 lbs 56 (Assumed) 8 inches En ineer/Geolo ist HW ... <.) ';!f_ a:: C. o. u:i .; cf " a c.i GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION ;;: " 0 Ci "' u:i al i5 ·s ;:i ::E PLEISTOCENE MARINE AND MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS 20 Ill 2.2 SM @ 2': Brown fine silty sand, dry to damp, medium dense 24 111.2 6.8 SM-SP @ 5': Dark brown fine silty sand to sand, damp, medium dense 22 102.8 8.4 SM-SP @ 10': Reddish brown fine to medium silty sand to sand, damp to moist, medium dense 20 5.4 SM-SP @ 15': Grayish brown fine silty sand to sand, damp, medium dense 22 4.7 SM-SP @20': Reddish brown fine to medium silty sand to sand, damp, medium dense Total Depth: 21.5 feet No Groudwater was Encountered BORING NO. B-1 Sheet 1 of 1 APPENDIX B -LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS Moisture Content and Dry Density Moisture content was determined for small bulk and relatively undisturbed ring samples. Dry Density was determined for relatively undisturbed ring samples only. The test procedure is in accordance with ASTM 2216-90. The results of moisture content and dry density are presented in the Boring Logs. Expansion Index Expansion Index tests were performed using California Building Code Test Method 29-2. The results of the tests are shown in Table B-1. Soluble Sulfate Content Soluble Sulfate Content test was run in accordance with the California Test Methods (CTM) 417. The test result is shown in Table B-2 Sieve Analyses Sieve analyses were performed on granular materials in accordance with ASTM D 422. Graphs showing relationship of the various sizes of soil particles versus percentage passing are shown in Figure B-1. -• -• -• -• ---• -• • • • - - • • .. .. -.. -.. - .. TABLE B-1. EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS Boring Number Depth (feet) Soil Description Expansion Expansion Index Classification B-1 0-5 Brown Silty Sand 8 Very Low TABLE B-2. SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT Boring Number Depth (feet) Soil Description Soluble Sulfate Content (ppm) B-1 0-5 Brown Silty Sand 126 100 90 80 70 :E CJ) 60 "iii ~ >, .0 CJ) C: 50 "iii VI "' c.. -C: 40 Cl) !::! Cl) c.. 30 ~ \ 20 ~ • 10 I I 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Particle Diameter in Millimeters Boring No. Sample No. Sample Depth Percent Passing (ft) No. 200 Sieve Soil Type 8-1 S-1 10 12.0 SM-SP TORO INTERNATIONAL GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE ASTM D422 Project Name: Three on Cherry Project No.: 03-125.7 Fiaure: B-1 5000 4000 c;:--(I) .S: 3000 Cl) Cl) w 0:: I-/,: Cl) 0:: <( w 2000 ::c //. ... Cl) ~ • • l •• 1000 ~- V 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 NORMAL STRESS (psf) I • Peak I ♦ Relaxed Boring No. Sample Depth Friction Angle Cohesion Condition (ft) (degrees) (pst) B-1 5 31 0 Peak 29 0 Relaxed TORO INTERNATIONAL DIRECT SHEAR TEST ASTM D3080 Project Name: Three on Cherry Project No.: 03-125.7 Fioure: B-< APPENDIXC DESIGN MAPS SUMMARY APPENDIXD STANDARD GUIDELINES for GRADING PROJECTS . ·,-.. , STANDARD GU! DELI~1tS ?OR GRAD I~1G ??.OJECTS GENERAL . ,··; v· . l .1 ~epresencacives of t~e Geocechnical Consulc~nc should be presenc on-site during grading operations in order to make observacions Qnd oeriorm cescs so chat professional opinions can.be developed. The opinion will address whether grading has proceeded in accordance wich the Geotechnical Consulcant's recommendations and applicable project specifications; if the site soil and geologic cond i cions _are as . , ....... · .. ,anticipa:ted · · i:n '·-che .. ·prel i-miriii"ry ·'thv·eii'itg·it'!on;·• \iind-'if.... · .. ~· . · ... addicional recommendations are warranted by any unexpected site condicions. Services do noc ~nclude supervision or direction of :~e accual ~ork oi :~e concraccor. ~is e~pioyees or ~~encs. 1 .2 The guidelines contained herein and the scanciard details attached hereco represenc this firm's standard recommendations for grading and ocher associaced operations on construction projeccs. These guidelines should be considered a portion of the report co which they are appended. 1 .3 All plates attached hereto shall be considered as pare of these guidelines. 1 .4 The Contraccor should noc ·Jary from ·chese guidelines without prior ~ecommenciacion by the Geocechnical Consulcant and the approval cf the Client or ~is auchori:ed represenca~:ve. 1 • 5 ., ........ . 7hese Standard G,adi~2 Guicieli~es and Standard Deca~ls rc.a.y . .b.e-.rnadi,f ieci· a-na-/or -superseded by . tec·onnneri'dati·o"n·s .. -- contained ln the texc ~f t~e F=elirninary geotec~nical report and/or s ubsequent ~epor~s. 1 .6 !f dispuces arise ouc of the incerprecacion of these gradin~ guidelines or standard details. the Geocech- nical Consultant shouid deter:=ine the appropriate interpretacion. · 2. DE,FI NITIONS OF TERMS 2.1 ALLUVIUM --Unconso l icaced d ecri::a l deposits resulting from flow of ~acer, ~~eluding sediments deposited in river beds, canyons. :lood plains. l akes, :ans ac the foot of slopes and estuaries. Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 2 2.2 AS-GRADED (AS-BUILn --7he surface and subsurface conditions at completion of grading. 2.3 BACKCUT --A temporary construction slope at t~e rear of earth retainin~ structures such as buct~esses, shear keys, stabilization fills or retaining walls. 2.4 . :, .. :, .. · .. 2.5 BACKDRAHI --Generally a pipe and ~ravel or similar drainage system placed behind earth retaining structures such buttresses, stabilization fills, and retaining walls. ... , .... ·.· .. , .•.. , ..... ; .... _.., .. ,·., ... , ....... · .. : ,:·.·· .... .'.,. •. •. ~ • • ,,· :. ·• .• ....,. II• ••.•.. : .. • ... .,·,• • BEDROCK --A more or less solid. relatively undis- turbed rock in place either at the surface 0r beneath superi:cial deposits of soil. 2.6 BENCH --A relacivelv level step and near vertical rise excavated into sloping ground on which fill is to be placed. 2.7 BORROW (Imporc) --Any fill material hauled to the project site from off-site areas. 2.8 BUTTRESS FILL --A fill mass, the configuration of which is designed by en~ineering calculations to retain slope conditions containing adverse ~eologic features. A buttress is generally specified by minimum key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A buttress normally contains a backdrainage system. 2.9 CIVIL £NGINEER --The Keg1stered C~vil Eng1~eer or cons':1lting firm. respo:1~ .. ~~~~-to:. -~r~_P? .. r..a_t~~n. of -~~~-.. ,._.,., .. -. ~r.a-d:1ng'·pla:ns·, .. -surve·y1ng an·d ven.fy1ng as-graded · topographic conditions. 2.10 COLLUVIUM --Generally loose deposits usually found near the base of slopes and brought there chiefly by gravi r:.y through slope continuous downhill cree? (also s e e S lop e t.J as h ) • 2.11 COMPACTION --Is the densification of a fill by mechanical means. 2.12 CONTRACTOR --A person or company under contract or otherwise retained bv the Client :o perform demolation, grading and or.her site improvements. •: •••.. • ..• , •. > candard Guidelines or Grading Projects 2.13 DEBRIS --All ?rociuccs of cieari~e. zrubbing. demoiition. contaminated soil material unsuitable for reuse as compacted fill and/or any other ~acerial so designated by the Geocechnical Consultant. 2.14 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST --A Geologist holdin~ a v~lid certificate of re~istration in the specialty oc Engineering Geolo~y. 2.15 ENGINEERED FILL --A fill of which the Geocechnical Consultant or his rep res ~n.t;a_t,;., ".'e ., .... c:!4.?;~_qg ._.,g;ra.~.i,.~~ ... -.. has . .. ,. .. · ,, ·· ·tna-d-e·•·sufftc·fenf . tehfs . c·o·· enable .•him ·co conclude that the fill has been placed in substantial compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant and the governing aeencv requirements. 2.16 EROSION --The wearing awav of the ground suriace as a result of the movement of wind. ~acer. and/or ice. 2.17 EXCAVATION The mechanical removal of earth macerials. 2.18 EXISTING GRADE The ground surface configuration prior co grading. 2.19 FILL --Any deposits of soil. rock, soil-rock blends or other similar materials placed by man. 2.20 fINISH GRADE --The ground surface configuration at which time the surface elevations conform to the approved plan. 2.21 GEOFABRIC --Any en~ineering textile utilized in . ... ,.·~ --... ~eotechnical·-a-ppliczciohS "•1nc-li.id'f.ng' 'sub'g·ra·cre·' ... , .. ,. · stabilization and :iltering. 2.22 GEOLOGIST --A representative of the Geotechnical Consultant educated and trained in the field of geolO!;Y• ...... ,a, ....... . 2.23 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT --The Geotechnical Engineer- ing and Engineering Geology consultin~ firm retained to provide technical services for the pro.i ect. For the purpose of these guidelines. observations by the Geotechnical Consultant .include observations bv the Geotechnical Engineer, Sngineeri~~ Geologist and those performed by persons employed by and responsible to the Geocechnical Consultants. Standard Guidelines for Gradin~ Projects Page 4 -~; . • • , • •• . ,' . , . l-~ 2.24 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER --A licensed Civil Engineer ~ho applies scientific methods, engineering principles and professional experience co the acquisition, :.nter- precacion and use of knowiedge of materials of the earth's cruse for che evaluation of engineering problems. Geotechnical Engineerin~ encompasses many of the engineering asoects of soil mechanics, r-ock mechanics , geology, geophysics, hydrology and related sciences. 2. 2_5 ... , GRA_D_U~~-.--: .. f.\i:i.Y ._.c?._P.~ r~_t;_i o,n . c; 9!1S i s-t .i.nS;• .of .-exc.a.lla t i,on., .. · .-. , ... •·· · · :,• · ~. · ·· ftlling or··coriibinacions thereof and associated operations. 2.26 LANDSLIDE DEBRIS --:-~acerial , generally porous and of low density, produced :ram i nstability or nacural o i man-made slopes. 2.27 MAXIMUM DENSITY --Standard laboratory test for maximum dry unic weight. lJn'less otherwise specified, the maximum dry unit weighc shall be determined in accordance with ASTM Method of Test D1557. 2.28 OPTIMUM MOISTURE --Test moisture content ac the maximum density. 2.29 RELATIVE COMPACTION --The degree of compaction (expressed as a percencage) of dry unit we i ghc of a material as compared to the maximum dry unit ~eight of the material. 2 .30 ROUGH GRADE --The ~round surface c ontiguration ac which time t h~ surface elevations aoproxtrnate Lv .. · .:•·-: .... ···•·.· conf:o·rm· ta · th~.r app'2oved ·-p1.an·;"· ....... ~,.... ... --... ·-·· ..... ~ .. 2 .3 1 SITE --The oarci cul ar ?arcel of l and where grading is being perforined. 2.32 SHEAR KEY --Similar co buttress, however, i t is generally constructed by excavating a sloe within a natural slope in order co stabilize the upper ?Orcion of the slope without grading encroach~ng into che lower ·portion of che slope. 2 .33 SLOPE --rs an i nclined ground s urface the steepness of which is general l y S?ecified as a ratio of hori.:oncal :verci cal (e.g., 2:1). 2.34 SLOPE WASH --Soil and/or rock material chac has been transported down a slope by mass wasting assisced by runoff wacer noc c onfined by channels (also see Colluvium). . .. . . . candara Guicieli~es or Gracing ?~ejects ?age 5 2.35 ~OIL --Naturallv occurring cieoosi:s or sand, silt, clay, etc., or combinations chereof. 2 .36 SOlL ENGINEER --Licensed Civil Engineer exoerienced in soil mechanics (also see Geocechnical En~ineer). 2.37 ··.: .. · ... -: :-·. STABILIZATION FILL --A fill mass, the configuration of which is typically related co slope height and is specified by the standards of practice for enhancing the stability of locally adverse conditions. A scabilizacio_I\ fill i,s . oorma.lly ~S-P~.ci_f.;..ed.-~y: -m:ini.mum ··•··: ·'l<ey: wld th ·and .. depth ·and· by niax·imum backcuc , angle. A stabilization fill may or may not have a backdraina~e system specified. 2.38 SUBDRAIN --Generallv a pipe and gravel or similar drainage system placed beneath a fill in the alig~ment of canyons or former drainage channels. 2.39 SLOUGH --Loose, noncompacted fill material generated during gradin~ operations. 2.40 TAILINGS --Nonengineered fill which accumulates on or adjacent co equipment haul-roads. 2.41 TERRACE --Relatively level seep constructed in the face of graded slope surface for drainage control and maintenance purposes. 2.42 TOPSOIL --The presumably fertile ·upper zone of soil which is usuall~ darker i n color and loose. 2.43 ~INDROW --A sering of large rpck buried _w~chin ~ .. ,· · · .~ ·ang·i:ne ere d· f i"ll ··i·n '·actorcianc·e .... ff en-:• gui'. d·e 11 ne·s 'set. forth by the Geotechnical Consulcanc. 3. SITE PREPARATION 3.1 Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, roots co trees and ocherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be ~raded. Clearing and ~rubbing should extend to the outside of all proposed excavation and fill areas. 3.2 Demolition should include removal of buildings, struc- tures, foundations, reservoirs, utilities (including underground pipelines, septic canks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, minin~ shafts, tunnels, etc.) and ocher man-made surface and subsurface improvements .. · ....... Standard Guidelines :or Gradin2 Pro j ects Pa~e 6 from tje areas to be graded. ;emoiicion of utilities should include proper ca~pin2 and/or re-routing pipe- lines at the project perimecer and cutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the requirements of the ~overning authorities and the recommendations of the Geocechnical Consultant at the time of demolition. 3.3 Debris generated during clearing. grubbing and/or demolition operations should be wasted from areas co be graded and disposed off-site. Clearing, grubbing ..; :· ... . . and_ .. _ i;i emo l_i ~~9~ _o_p er~ t; ~-~_t:is._. ~ ~-qu l_q i ~ e_ P._e_rf 9.pn_ed_ •. -~i:ider .. •:· · ' ·the· ·obs·erVatiori of "the Geocechnical Consul cant • ~. SITE PROTECTION 4.1 The Contractor should be respotisible for the stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the Geotechnical Consulcanc pertaining co temporary excavations (e.g., backcuts) are made in consideration of stability of the completed project and, therefore, should nee be considered co preclude the responsibil- ities of the Contractor. Recommendations by the Geotechnical Consultant should not be considered to preclude more restrictive requirements by the regulating agencies. 4.2 Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading co protect the work site from flooding. ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainai;e. r·emporary provisions should be made durine the rainv ~eason co adequately · direct su rface drain~ge aw~y i~om ~nd off the work site • • .., .... -.. .,,.. •• •· u ... •, • .,_; • ,•. . -" .. .; .. .. "' ... ; ..... -.... , .. 4.3 During ?eriods of r~infall, the Geocechnical Consultant should be kept informed ~y the Contractor as co the nature of remedial or preventative work being performed (e.g •• pumping, placement of sandba~s or plastic sheeting, ocher labor, dozing. etc.). 4.4 . Following periods of rainiall. che Contractor should concact the Geocechnical Consultant and arrange a review of ·the site in order to visuallv astess rain related damage. The Geocechnical Cons~ltant may also recommend excavations and cescing in order to aid in his assessments. 4.5 Rain related damage should be considered co include. but rnay not be limiced to. erosion. silting. saturation, swelling, structural distress and ocher adverse conciitions identified by the Geotechnical Standard Guidelines for Grading Pro j ects ?age 7 Consultant. Soil adverselv affected should be classified as Unsuitable Materials and should be subject to overexcavacion and reoiacement ~ith compacted fill or ocher remedial· ~rading as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 5. EXCAVATIONS 5.l UNSUITABLE MATERIALS 5. l. 1 Materials which are unsuitabl.e shoµld .he ......... • .. . ·-·• .... -· -~ ': .. .. •:: ,, · · · .••· ... :., · ., , ···exca,;a·c·ed' '\.iiia·er' · ob·s-~ .. ,rv·a.1c ... iOl1' arld 'r·eco'IIlriie·naaciOns· . . --. '••. of the Geocechnical Consulcant. Unsuitable materials include. but may not be limited to, dry, loose, soft, wee. 0rganic compressible natural soils and fractured, weathered. ~oft bedrock and nonengineered or otherwise deleterious fill materials. 5.1.2 Material identified by the Geotechnical Consultant as unsatisfactory due to its moisture conditions should be overexcavated. watered or dried, as needed, and thorou~hly blended to a uniform near optimum moisture condition (as per guidelines reference 7.2.l) prior to placement as compacted fill. 5.2 CUT SLOPES 5. 2. 1 Unless otherwise recommended by the G~otech- nical Consultant and approved by t~e reg~lating agenci·es, perma·nenc cue ·slopes should no c: ::ie steeper :San 2: 1 (horizoncal:vertical). . ..... .. : : : .· . .. .. •. ·. . . ~ ·. . .. . .. ' . .. .. . '\ . . . •,, ........ , . 5.2.2 If excavations :~r cut slopes expose loose. cohesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, overexcavation and replacement of the unsuitable materials with a compacted stabilization fill should be accomplished as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultanc. Unless otherwise specified by the Geotechnical Consultanc. stabilization fill construction·should conform to the requirements of the Standard Decails. 5.2.J The Geotechnical Consultant should review cut slopes durin~ excavation. The Geotechnical Consultanc should be notified by the concractor prior to be~inning slope excavations. .,;.. .... • . Stanaa~c Guidelines for Grading Projects Page 8 5.2.~ If, juring che course of ~rading, ~dverse or potenciaily adverse geocechnical conditions are encountered ~hich ~ere noc anticipated in che preliminary report, :he Geocechnical Consultant should explore, analyze and make recommen- dations to creac these problems. 6. COMPACTED FILL All fill materials should be compacted co ac lease 90 percent of max~l!]Um qen~_i _cy_ ,(,:'>?.°f}~_ .. D.155..7.) .. unless ... o?he.t:w:i :se ... · .... • ....... •. · •· .. · recommended b'y' ··che· Geoi: ec.hn i cal Consui'tan c • 6.1 PLACEMENT 6.1 .1 Prior to placement of compacted fill, che Contractor should request a review by che Geocechnical Consultant of the exposed ~round surface. Unless otherwise recommended, the exposed ground surface should then be scarified (6-inches minimum). watered or dried as needed, thoroughly ~lended co achieve near optimum moisture conditions. then thoroughly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of _the maximum density. 6.l .2 Compacted fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts. Each lift should be watered or dried as needed, blended co achieve near optimum moisture conditions then compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum pf 90 percent of laboratory maximum tjry density. Sach lift should be treated in a like manner uncil the • J. . .. • • • • -.. • . ... ., • • .• 'I. • • • ~· • • • • • • • ·:. ; ·. -.. •. ·. -·.,. ··:· ·· ··d·e~ir'"ed firli"sh'ed "grad·es are achleved.· 6.1 .3 When placing fill Ln horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal: vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into che adjacent slope area .. Keyin~ and benching should be sufficient to provide at least 6-fooc ~ide benches and a minimum of U-feet of vertical bench height within the firm natural ground, firm bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area subsequent co keying and benching until the area has been reviewed by the Geocechnical Consultant. Material generated by the benching operation should be moved sufficiently away from che bench area co allow for the recommended review of the horizontal bench prior to placement .... ,·••: ... ~tanaara Guidelines :or Grading Projects ?age 9 6. l • 4 fill. Typical ~eying ~nd benching details have been i~cluded within :je accompanying Standard Details. Within a single fill area where graalng procedures dictate two or more separate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false slope, benchin~ should be conducted in the same manner as above described. At least a 3-foot vertical bench should be established within the firm ...... .. .. , .... ··•. core .. adj.acer-it ..appr.o.ved •-.compac-ce<t, fi·l-1··.vr'iOr···to··· · ·.· ·· . placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in at lease 3-foot vertical increments until the desired finished grades are achieved. --. 6.1.5 Fill should be tested for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing should conform to accepted cest methods. Density testing frequency should be adequate for the geotechnical consultant to provide professional opinions regardings fill compaction and adherence co recommendacions. Fill found not to be in conformance with the grading recommendation should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 6.1 .6 The Contractor should assist the Geotechnical Consultant and/or his representative by digging test pits for removal deter.minations nnd/or for testing compacted fill. A.s ·re~c~m~~~-ded b~···th~ ·c ·e~tech~i~~i-.c~~-~ui~~~~. the Contractor may need to remove ~rading equipment from an area being tested if personnel safety is considered to be a problem. 6.2 MOISTURE 6.2.1 For field testing purposes "near optimum" moisture will vary with mac~rial type and other factors including compaction procedure. "Near optimum" may be specifically recommended in Preliminary Investigation Reports and/or may be evaluated during grading. 6.2.2 Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or ocher grading delay, the exposed surface or previously compacted . •.• 1-.:. Scanoard Guidelines ~or Grading P~oieccs Page 10 6.2.3 fill should be processed by scarification, watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to near-optimum moisture conditions, then recornpacced co a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. lfuere wee, dry, or ocher unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than one foot,· the unsuitable materials should be overexcavaced. Following a period of floodin~, rainfall or overwaterin~ bv ocher ~eans, no additional fill .... ....... ··•·· . .. .. . . .. .. . _: .. -.. .. should-.. he .· p.lac~d . unc-i·l · dama·ge 'a·s·ses·s1r,en·t•s·· ha~j"e . been made and remedial grading performed as described under Section 5.6 herein. · .. · ..... Fi.3 :=-ILL :-:ATERIAL 6.3. l Excavated on-sice materials which are considered suitable co the Geocechnical Consultant mav be utilized as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and ocher deleterious materials are removed prior to placement. 6.3.2 Where import fill materials are required for use on-~ite, the Geotechnical Consultant should be notified in advance of importin~. in order to sample and test materials from proposed borrow sites. No import fill materials should be delivered for use on-~ite without ~rior samplin~ and testing notificacion by · Geocechnical Consultant .. 6.3.3 '.v'h.er e oversized .. rock-. o.r .. s.imiJ-ar-i.-r-:~eduei-ble -·· · -· ··· · . matifr"(al ·I~. gen.erated durin~ grading' i t is recommended, ~nere practical, to ~asce such material off-site or on-site in areas designated as "nonstructural rock disposal areas". Rock placed in disposal areas should be placed wich sufficient fines to fill voids. The rock should be compacted in lifts to an unyielding condition. The disposal area should be covered with at lease three feet of • compacted fill. which is free of oversized material. The upper three feet should be placed in accordance with the guidelines for compacted fill herein. 6.3.4 Rocks 12 inches in maximum dimension and smaller may be utilized within the compacted fill, provided they are placed in such a manner .... Standard Guidelines :or Grading Projeccs Pae;e 11 6.3.5 thac nesc.ing or t:he rock~~ avoided. Fill should be µlaced and choroughly compacced over and around all rock. The amount oi rock should noc exceed 40 percenc by ory weighc recained on che 3/4-inch sieve size. The i2-inch and 40 percent recommenciacions herein may vary as field condicions dictace. Where rocks or similar irreducible macerials of greater than 12 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension are generaced during ..... gr_a<;U.ij~ •... or. .. ~t:.herw.i.se• .desir.ed . .-to · he ·p l·aced·. · ··· .· · wichin an engineered fill, special handling in accordance with che accompanyine; Standard Details is recommended. Rocks greater chan four feec should be broken down or disoosed off-site. Rocks up to four feec maximum dimension should be placed below che upper 10 feet of any fill and should noc be closer than 20-feet co any slope face. These recommen- dations could vary as locacions of improvements dictate. Where practical, oversized material should not be placed below areas where structures or deep utilities are proposed. Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a clean, overexcavated or unyielding compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native or imporced granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thorou~hly flooded over and around all windrowed rock, such chac voids are filled. ~indrows of oversized macerial should be sta~gered so th~c successive scraca of oversized material are not in the s'?-me ver.cical fll.ane.. ...... : .. -"· . : ~· ............ ~ .. ... . -, . . . ~ .... ·. .. . . . . . . 6.3.5 Ic may be ?OSsible co dispose of individual larger rock as field conditions dictate and as recommended by che Geotechnical Consultant ac the cime of placement. 6 . 3 • 7 The cons c ru c t ion o f a " rock f i 11" cons is t in~ primarily of rock fragments up to two feet in maximum dimension with little soil material may be feas.ible. Such macerial is typically generaced on sites where extensive blascing is required. Recommendations f or conscruccion of rock fills should be provided by the Geocechnical Consultant on a sice-specific basis. ..... .. : .· .... candard Guidelines or Gracing Projeccs ?age l 2 6.3.8 )uring graaing ooeracions, ?lacing and mixing che materials from the cue and/or borrow areas may result in soil mixcures which possess unique physical properties. Testing may be required of samples obcained directlv from che fill areas in order to decermine conformance with the specifications. Processing of these addicional samples may cake two or more working days. The Contractor may elect to move the operation to other areas within che project, or may continue placing compacted fill pending laboracorv and field tesc results. Should he ... , .· .._.el.ecc. the·_ se.c-ond • a· 1 ternaci vi!·, : fi 11 p l·a·ced ls ., · .... ·· · done so at che Contraccor's risk. ·•· .. 6.3.9 Any fill placed in areas not previously reviewed and evaluated by the Geocechnical Consultanc ~ay require removal and recom- paction. Decerminacion of overexcavations should be made upon review of field conditions by the Geotechnical Consultanc. 6.4 FILL SLOPES 6.4.1 Permanent fill slopes should not be constructed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), unless otherwise recommended by the Geocech- nical Consultant and approved by the regulating agencies. 6. 4. 2 . .. : ... ...... Fill slopes should be compacted in accordance with these grading guidelines and specific report recommendations. Two methods or slope compaction are ~vpically utilized in mass & ;:_aq i ri ~ .... lac.er .al. .i;,:v e.r-.1;,u i 1-di n g _.and· .c u-c-t: in g -b-a-ck -, ancf mechanica 1 compact ion to g·rade (i.e • sheepsfooc roller backrolling). Conscraincs such as height of slope, fill soil type, access, property lines, and available equipmenc will influence the method of slope conscruccion and compaction. The geocechnical consultanc should be nocified by che contraccor what mechod will . be employed prior co slope conscruccion. Slopes utilizing over-building and cuccing back should be constructed ucilizing horizontal fill lifts (reference Section 6) wich compaction equiprnenc working as close to the edge as prac- tical. The amount of laceral over-building will varv as field conditions dicciace. Compaccion tescin~ of slope faces will be required and Standard Guidelines for Grading P~ojects ?age 13 reconstruction of r~e slo~e ~ay resuic · - testin2 does ~oc ~eec our ~ecorn~enciations. Mechanical comoaction of t~e slope ~o grade during constru~tion should utilize two types of compactive effort. First, horizontal fill lifts should be compacted during fill placement. This equipment should provide compaccive effort to the outer ed~e of the fill slope. Sloughing of fill soils should not be permitted to drift down the slope. Secondly, at intervals not exceedin~ '.' -four .-feec . i-n vertical:-slope he-ighc ·or c-h·e· ··. ~· · · capability of available equipment, ~hichever is less, fill slopes should be backrolled with a sheepsfoot-type roller. Moisture conditions of the slope fill soils should be maintained throughout the compaction process. Generally upon slope completion, the entire slope should be compacted utilizin~ typical methods, (i.e. sheepsfooc rolling, bulldozer crackin~. or rolling with rubber-tired heavy equipment). Slope construction ~rade staking should be removed as soon as possible in the slope compaction process. Final slope compaction should be performed without ~rade sakes on the slope face. In order co monitor slope construction procedures, moisture and density tests will be cakeri at regular intervals. Failure co achieve the desired results will likelv result in a recommendation bv the Geotechnical Consultant co overexcavate the slope sur::aces ·:ollowed hy ... , .. r.,ecs,t:is.cr':1.Ct_ioo . o.f :the .sLopes .ut.iU.z.iru~ -over .... --·••.,·. •··· fillin• and cutting back procedures or further compaccive effort ~ith the conventional backrolling approach. Other recommendations may also be provided which would be commensurate with field conditions. 6.4.3 Where placement of fill above a natural slope or above a cue slope is proposed, :he fill slope configuration as presented in the accompanying Standard Details should be adopted. 6.4.4 For pad areas above fill slopes, ?Ositive drainage should be established awav from the top-of-slope, as designed by the p~oiect civil en~ineer. ... ·. ~canaard Guidelines for Grading ?rejects ?a~e 14 A.S OFF-SITE FILL 6.5.1 Off-site fill should be created in the same manner as recommended in the specifications for site preparation, excavation, drains, compaction, etc. 6.5.2 Off-site canyon fill should be placed in preparation for future additional fill, as shown in the accompanyin~ Standard Details • . . 6 •. 5. 3 Of f-s.i. te-fill · s-ubdrai-ns · cemporar·i1y· ternrin~tecr·· (up canyon) should be surveyed for future relocation and connection. ~-6 TRENCH BACKFILL ··•· ........ :-:- 6.6. l Utilitv trench backfill should, unless other- wise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction should be a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density (ASTM 01557). 6.6.2 Backfill of exterior and interior trenches extending below al :1 projection from che outer edge of ·foundations should be mechanically compacted co a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. 6.6.3 ~ithin slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches uo co one foot wide and .two feet deeo mav be backfilled with sand• (S.E .. > 30), and consolidated by jetting, :looding or .. _by .m~~h.aoical means .... ·if.on.-.s,.ic:.e .mat€r-i...als ,are .. -· ··utilized, ·ct:i.ey should be wheel-rolled, camped or ocherwise· compacceci co a firm condition. For minor interior trenches, densicv testing may be deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on review of backfill operations during conscruccion. 6.6.4 If utility contractors indicate chat it is undesirable co use compaction equipment . in close proximity co a buried conduit, the Contractor mav elect che utilization of light weight mechanical compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit ~ich clean, granular material, (S.E. > 30) which should be thoroughly moistened in the trench, prior co tanoard Guideii~es or Grading Projects ?age 1 5 :nitiating mechanical ~omoaction procedures. Other ~echods oi ucilitv ~=ench·c~moaction mav also be appropriate. upon ~eview of° the Geotechnical Consultant ~t :he time of construction. 6.6.5 In cases where clean granuiar materials are proposed for ~se i~ lieu of native materials or where flooding or jettine is proposed, the procedures should be considered subjecc to review by the Geotechnical Consultant • ............. . . ·. ; Clean granular backfill anci/or bedding are not recommended in slope areas unless provisions are made for a drainage svstern co mitigate the potential build-up of 5ee~a2e forces ~nd piping. 7. DRAINAGE 7.1 Canyon subdrain systems recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant should be installed in accordance with the Standard Details. 7.2 Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilizations .or sidehill masses, should be installed in accordance with the specifications of the accompanying Standard Details. 7.3 Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed awav from slopes and areas of structures to disoosal areas via suitable devices desi2neci bv che oroiect civil enginee:-::i.e., ,2,Utter-s, .:O\.lTlS~OUCS, concrete swales, are a d rains , ea I;" th s w a 1 es , ~ t c .•. ~--.... , .. . . -. . .. • • . •. . . . ... • ... • 4 : • ... •• -••• ' • • • • • • _,. t • • 7.4 Draina2~ ~atterns escablished ot :~e time 0 f fine grading should be maintained throughout the Life of the project. Property owners should be made aware chat altering drainage patterns can be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance. 8. SLOPE ~INTENANCE 8.1 LANDSCAPE PLANTS In order to decrease erosion surficial slope stability problems, slope planting should be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope planting should consist of deep-rooting vegetation requiring little watering. A Landscape Architect would he the test party co consult regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration. . ... .. . tanaard Guidelines or GLading Projects >3 .2 I RRIGATION ?age 1 6 8.2.1 Slope irrigation should be minimized. I f automatic timin~ devices are utilized on irri~ation systems, ?revisions should be made for interrupting normal irrigation durine periods oi rainfall. 8.2.2 Property-owners should be made aware that . overwaterine. .of -s·lopes is detrimental to sl"ope stability and may contribute to slope seepage, erosion and siltation problems in the subdivision • • • ., • • . -c • 4• DIAMETER PERFORATED-- PIPE BACXORAIN 4• DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED- PIPE LATERAL DRAIN SLOPE PER MIN.1 ...... · __ ,,_. - 1 5' MINIMUM-- ........ aENCHING H/2 PROVIDE BACKORAIN PER B ACKORAIN DETAIL. AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MIO-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH. TYPICAL BUTTRESS OR STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL JOB NO.: DATE: FIGURE: 1 ·--..... --... JOB NO.: "'ATURAL GROUND PROPOsE·D GRADING COMPACTED FILL PROVIDE BACKDRAIN PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL. AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR BACK SLOPES IN EXCESS OF •O FEET HIGH. LOCA- TIONS -OF BACKORAINS AND OUTLETS PER SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR EN- G°INEERlNcf GEOLOG(sT···... ,. DURING GRADING. SASE WIDTH •w• DETERMINED BY SOILS ENGINEER .. _.• .... TYPICAL SHEAR KEY DETAIL FIGURE: 2 " .. JOB NO.: FINAL LIMIT OF EXCAVATION DAYLIGHT LINE OVERBURDEN (CREEP-PRONE) OVEREXCAVATE OVEREXCAVATE 3' ANO REPLACE WITH COMPACTED FILL SOUND BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHING PROVIDE BACKORAIN PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL. LOCATION OF BACKDRAIN ANO . OUTLETS .. PER . 60U.·S. E_NGJNEER .&ND/ OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING EQUIPMENT WIDTH ( MINIMUM 15') DAYLIGHT SHEAR KEY DETAIL FIGURE: JOB NO.; 1 BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL \ ·r SURFACE OF FIRM-- EARTH MATERIAL \_10• MIN. CINCUNEO 2._ MIN. INTO SLOPE) BENCHING FILL OVER CUT SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL 10· TYPICAL 15' MIN. OR STABILITY EOUIV-'LENT PER SOIL ENGINEERING (INCLINED 2'1. MIN. INTO SLOPE) BENCHING FOR COMPACTED FILL DETAIL DATE! .......... FINISH SURFACE SLOPE-. 3 FT3 MINIMUM PER LINEAL FOOT-- APPROVED FILTER ROCK* I 2'11 MINIM~~ GRADIENT COMPACTED FILL \__,. MINIMUM APPROVED PERFORATED. PIPE** (PERFORATIONS DOWN) MINIMUM 2'5 GRADIENT TO OUTLET BENCH INCLINED TOWARD DRAIN ,4• MINIMUM DIAMETER SOLID OUTLET PIPE SPACED PER SOIL ENGINEER REQUIRE- MENTS DURING GRADING TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL A-A I COMPACTED BACKFILL TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL ,4• MINIMUM DIAMETER APPROVED SOLID OUTLET PIPE .... "'FILTER ROCK TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EOUAL: ** APPROVED PIPE TYPE: SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI. SIEVE 1• 314• 315• NO.4 NO.30 NO.SO NO.200 TYPICAL BACKDRAIN DETAIL JOB NO.: DATE: PERCENTAGE PASSING 100 80-100 -40-100 25--40 5-15 0-1 0-3 FIGURE: FINISH SURFACE SLOPE - MINIMUM 3 FT 3 PER LINEAL FOOT - OPEN GRACED AGGREGATE~ TAPE ANO SEAL AT CONTACT - JOB NO.: 4• MINIMUM DIAMETER SOLJD OUTLET PIPE SPACED PER SOIL ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS COMPACTED FILL TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL A-A COMPACTED SUPAC 8-P FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL 4• MINIMUM APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE (PERFORATIONS ODWN) MINIMUM 2'l. GRADIENT TO OUTLET BENCH INCLINED TOWARD DRAIN TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL MINIMUM BACKFILL 12" COVER MINIMUM 4~ DIAMETER APPROVED SOLID OUTLET PIPE 1 }!.-,2----l 1 MINIMUM 'I * NOTE: AGGREGATE TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL: SIEVE SIZE 1 1/2" 1 .. 3/" .. 3/8" ND. 2 00 PERCENTAGE PASSING 100 5-40 0-17 0-7 0-3 BACKDRAIN DETAIL (GEOFABRIC) DATE: FIGuRE: 6 CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS --------------------------/ SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH ' '-..."'. .,,,,,..,,.,,,,. j ' ~ / / "'\ COMPACTED FILL// /1 ~\ I;~ TYPICAL BENCHING-\"' // / I \__REMOVE UNSUITABLE --...._ '-... __ _...-MATERIAL ' / INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN· SEE DETAILS TRENCH DETAIL 6~1NIM~~~p OPTIONAL V-OITCH DETAIL MINIMUM 6 FT 3 PER LINEAL FOOT OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL SUPAC 8-P FABRIC OR APPROVED EOUAL JOB NO.: l, 2 4 • i' 1 MINIMUM' 6UPAC 5-P FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL DRAIN MATERIAL SHOULD CONSIST OF MINUS 1.s•, MINUS ,·. OR MINUS .rs• CRUSHED ROCK MINIMUM 6 FTa PER LINEAL FOOT OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL ~0 ° TO ao., ADO MINIMUM 4• DIAMETER APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE WHEN LARGE FLOWS ARE ANTICIPATED APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40 POLY-VINYL- CHLORIDE (P .V .C.) OR APPROVED EOUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 p1i. GEOFABRIC SUBDRAIN DATE; FIGURE: 7 · FINAL GRADE •OE OF SLOPE SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN FILL --..---- ,,.. ,,.. "\:.o) --.• o -. ,,..-l\'lf."" -- _,,.. ~\t--\. -- ---~~Jf. -- --.. i>,1-r' ----\:... -..--e\.\:. --..-\)\1... ,.._.;;..------------~ .,-\)~s -1 o• TYPICAL BENCH ;....---~----..;._ ________ ~..,.. -WI 0TH VAR IE 8 -------/ ---------4, ------/, ---FILL COMPETENT EARTH MATERIAL --------- ------ KEY I LIMIT OF KEY EXCAVATION JOB NO.: MINIMUM BASE KEY WIDTH -r TYPICAL BENCH HEIGHT .?ROVIDE BACKDRAIN AS REQUIRED PER RECOM- MENDATIONS OF SOILS ENGINEER DURING GRADING WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 5 : 1 OR LESS. BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY. HOWEVER. FILL IS NOT TO BE PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUIT- ABLE MATERIAL. FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL GROUND DETAIL I FIGURE: 8 REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM ANO CREEP MATERIAL FROM TRAHSI flON CUT/FILL CONTACT OH GRADING PLAN CUT/Fill CONTACT ON ·As-eu1tr· NATURAL~ -- TOPOGRAPHY )------------. --CUT SLOPE Fill ---.,,.,,-----"'E.'-'o~E---p,,.. - ---cf\E-E------,..tto ---;a:\.\J~~~---TYPICAL J --. o\'-• -- --/ ~~~V~--~'-----------J~-• 10' TYPICAL---~ ~.---t-• 6' MINIMUM---{ BEDROCK OR APPROVED FOUNDATION MATERIAL - ------- • NOTE: CUT SLOPE PORTION SHALL BE MADE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF fill FILL SLOPE A~OV~ CUT SLOPE DETAIL JOB NO.: DATE; FIGURE: g · GENERAL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ------- ------ CUT LOT __ --ORIGINAL -GROUND -TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM ANO --- ------------------------------- WEATHERED BEDROCK -------- UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OVEREXCAVATE AND REGRADE CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION) ----- -ORIGINAL _.,,...-_.,,.,,,,.GROUND -......... _,,,., _,,,., -------......... ~-_,,,,,_ ......... _ ......... _ __;,.r.....t,.....:._:........~ ........ :......J...,(.~......,. .... 3-• __ --------- COMPACTED FILL ----.,,.,,. ____ ..... ...... TOPSOIL. -coLLUVIUM AND _...::.... ___ ___,j WEATHERED_,,,./ UNWEATHERED BEDROCK BEDROCK.,,.,,, .................. _,,,., - TRANSITION LOT DETAIL JOB NO.: OVEREXCAVATE AND REGRADE FIGURE: 1'0 . FINISHED GRADE CLEAR A.REA FOR r FOUNDATION. UTILITIES. AND SWIMMING POOLS BUILDING 1 o· 6LOPE FACE 1----~ 0 0 0 0 , 0 =E 1k \_WINDROW 1 5' 0 I_, 'l STREET- 5' OR BELOW DEPTH OF_/ DEEPEST UTILITY TRENCH ( WHICHEVER GREATER) TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (EDGE VIEW) JOB NO.: GRANULAR SOIL FLOODED TO FILL voros HORIZONTALLY PLACED COMPACTION FILL / / PROFILE VIEW ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL DATE: I FIGURE: 11 ·