HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 2020-0024; TOYOTA CARLSBAD; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2019-08-02GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SALES BUILDING
TOYOTA CARLSBAD
5434 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
STELLAR PROPERTIES, LLC
ATTENTION: MS. PEGGY KELCHER
TOYOTA CARLSBAD - LEXUS CARLSBAD - LEXUS ESCONDIDO
6030 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE 220
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92011
Prepared by:
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
1441 MONTIEL ROAD, SUITE 115
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92026
CTE JOB NO.: 10-15029G AUGUST 2, 2019
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
Inspection I Testing I Geotechnical I Environmental & Construction Engineering I Civil Engineering I Surveying
1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115 I Escondido, CA92026 I Ph (760) 746-4955 I Fax (760) 746-9806 I www.cte-inc.net
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope of Services .......................................................................................................... 1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 2
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................ 2
3.1 Field Investigation ........................................................................................................ 2
3.3 Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................ 3
4.0 PERCOLATION TESTING ..................................................................................................... 3
4.1 Percolation Test Methods ............................................................................................. 4
4.2 Calculated Infiltrated Rate ........................................................................................................ 4
5.0 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 5
5.1 General Setting ............................................................................................................. 5
5.2 Geologic Conditions ..................................................................................................... 6
5.2.1 Quaternary Previously Placed Fill ................................................................. 6
5.2.2 Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits ................................................................... 6
5.2.3 Tertiary Santiago Formation .......................................................................... 7
5.3 Groundwater Conditions ............................................................................................... 7
5.4 Geologic Hazards .......................................................................................................... 8
5.3.1 Surface Fault Rupture .................................................................................... 8
5.3.2 Local and Regional Faulting .......................................................................... 9
5.3.3 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Evaluation ........................................ 10
5.3.4 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation ................................................................. 10
5.3.5 Landsliding .................................................................................................. 11
5.3.6 Compressible and Expansive Soils .............................................................. 11
5.3.7 Corrosive Soils ............................................................................................. 12
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 13
6.1 General ........................................................................................................................ 13
6.2 Site Preparation ........................................................................................................... 13
6.3 Site Excavation ........................................................................................................... 15
6.4 Fill Placement and Compaction .................................................................................. 15
6.5 Fill Materials ............................................................................................................... 15
6.6 Temporary Construction Slopes ................................................................................. 16
6.7 Foundations and Slab Recommendations ................................................................... 17
6.7.1 Foundations .................................................................................................. 17
6.7.2 Foundation Settlement ................................................................................. 19
6.7.3 Foundation Setback ...................................................................................... 19
6.7.4 Interior Concrete Slabs ................................................................................ 19
6.8 Seismic Design Criteria .............................................................................................. 20
6.9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures ...................................................................... 21
6.10 Exterior Flatwork ...................................................................................................... 23
6.11 Vehicular Pavement .................................................................................................. 24
6.12 Drainage .................................................................................................................... 25
6.13 Slopes ........................................................................................................................ 26
6.14 Controlled Low Strength Materials (CLSM) ............................................................ 26
6.15 Plan Review .............................................................................................................. 27
6.16 Construction Observation ......................................................................................... 27
7.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................. 28
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2 GEOLOGIC/ EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 3 REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP
FIGURE 4 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A REFERENCES
APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION METHODS AND BORING LOGS
APPENDIX C LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS
APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
APPENDIX E PERCOLATION TO INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
AND FIELD DATA
APPENDIX F I-8 WORKSHEET
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.1 Introduction
Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. (CTE) has completed a geotechnical investigation and
report providing conclusions and recommendations for the proposed sales building with associated
parking and drive areas, flatwork, stormwater BMPs, utilities, and other associated improvements.
CTE has performed this work in general accordance with the terms of proposal G-4738 dated June 5,
2019. Preliminary geotechnical recommendations for excavations, fill placement, and foundation
design for the proposed improvements are presented herein.
1.2 Scope of Services
The scope of services provided included:
Review of readily available geologic and soils reports.
Coordination of USA utility mark-out and location.
Excavation of exploratory borings and soil sampling utilizing a truck-mounted drill rig.
Percolation testing in accordance with County of San Diego Department of Environmental
Health (DEH) procedures.
Establishing infiltration rates in general accordance with County of San Diego Storm Water
Standards (2016).
Laboratory testing of selected soil samples.
Description of the site geology and evaluation of potential geologic hazards.
Engineering and geologic analysis.
Preparation of this preliminary geotechnical report.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 2
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located at 5434 Paseo Del Norte in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The site is
bounded by Paseo Del Norte to the west, and auto dealerships to the north, south, and east. The
current site area is illustrated on Figure 1. The proposed improvement area is currently developed
with structures, pavements, utilities and other improvements associated with the existing Toyota
dealership. Based on reconnaissance and review of general site topography, it appears that the
improvement area generally descends gradually to the southwest with elevations ranging from
approximately 78 feet above mean sea level in the northeast (msl) to approximately 69 feet msl in
the southwest. The proposed site improvements are depicted on Figure 2.
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
3.1 Field Investigation
CTE performed the recent subsurface investigation on July 9, 2019 to evaluate underlying soil
conditions. This fieldwork consisted of site reconnaissance, the excavation of four exploratory soil
borings, and four percolation test holes. The borings were advanced to a maximum explored depth
of approximately 16.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Bulk samples were collected from the
cuttings, and relatively undisturbed samples were collected by driving Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) and Modified California (CAL) samplers. The borings and percolation test holes were
excavated by a CME-75 truck-mounted drill rig equipped with eight-inch-diameter, hollow-stem
augers. The percolation test holes were excavated to the depths ranging from approximately 3.0 to
5.5 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Approximate locations of the soil borings and test holes are
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 3
shown on the attached Figure 2.
Soils were logged in the field by a CTE Engineering Geologist, and were visually classified in
general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The field descriptions have
been modified, where appropriate, to reflect laboratory test results. Boring logs, including
descriptions of the soils encountered, are included in Appendix B.
3.3 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples for classification purposes, and to evaluate
physical properties and engineering characteristics. Laboratory tests included: In-place Moisture
and Density, Expansion Index, R-Value, Grain Size Analysis, Direct Shear, and Chemical
Characteristics. Test descriptions and laboratory test results are included in Appendix C.
4.0 PERCOLATION TESTING
Specific stormwater BMP locations were not known at the time of the field investigation; therefore,
testing was performed within representative and accessible locations throughout the site. The
percolation test holes were excavated to depths ranging from approximately 3.0 to 5.5 feet below the
ground surface (bgs). The attached Figure 2 shows the approximate percolation test locations. The
evaluation was performed in general accordance with Appendix C of the Model BMP Design
Manual for the San Diego Region Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements,
dated January 2016.
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 4
4.1 Percolation Test Methods
The percolation tests were performed in general accordance with methods approved by the San
Diego Region BMP Design Manual with a presoak period of approximately 20 to 21 hours.
Percolation test results and calculated infiltration rates are presented below in Table 4.2. Field Data
and percolation to infiltration calculations are included in Appendix E.
4.2 Calculated Infiltrated Rate
As per the San Diego Region BMP design documents (2016) infiltration rates are to be evaluated
using the Porchet Method. San Diego BMP design documents utilized the Porchet Method through
guidance of the County of Riverside (2011). The intent of calculating the infiltration rate is to take
into account bias inherent in percolation test borehole sidewall infiltration that would not occur at a
basin bottom where such sidewalls are not present.
The infiltration rate (It) is derived by the equation:
It = H r2 60 = H 60 r
t(r2 +2rHavg) t(r+2Havg)
Where:
It = tested infiltration rate, inches/hour
H = change in head over the time interval, inches
t = time interval, minutes
* r = effective radius of test hole
Havg = average head over the time interval, inches
Given the measured percolation rates, the calculated infiltration rates are presented with and without
a Factor of Safety applied in Table 4.2 below. The civil engineer of record should determine an
appropriate factor of safety to be applied via completion of Worksheet I-8 of County of San Diego
V ----=v
V
V
1t 1t V
1t V
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 5
Best Management Practice Design Manual, Appendix D or other approved methods. CTE does
not recommend using a factor of safety of less than 2.0.
TABLE 4.2
SUMMARY OF PERCOLATION AND INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS
Test
Location
Soil Type San Diego
County
Percolation
Procedure
Depth
(inches)
Percolation
Rate
(inches/hour)
Infiltration Rate
(inches/hour)
Recommended
Rate for Design*
(inches/hour)
P-1 Qop Case III 38 5.75 1.05 0.53
P-2 Qop Case III 64 6.00 1.11 0.55
P-3 Qop Case III 52 10.25 2.22 1.11
P-4 Qop Case III 63 2.50 0.42 0.21
NOTES Water level was measured from a fixed point at the top of the hole.
Weather was sunny and warm during percolation testing.
Qop = Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits
The test holes were six inches in diameter.
5.0 GEOLOGY
5.1 General Setting
Carlsbad is located with the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province that is characterized by
northwest-trending mountain ranges, intervening valleys, and predominantly northwest trending
active regional faults. The San Diego Region can be further subdivided into the coastal plain area, a
central mountainvalley area, and the eastern mountain valley area. The project site is located
within the coastal plain area. The coastal plain sub-province ranges in elevation from approximately
sea level to 1200 feet above mean sea level (msl) and is characterized by Cretaceous and Tertiary
sedimentary deposits that onlap an eroded basement surface consisting of Jurassic and Cretaceous
crystalline rocks that have been repeatedly eroded and infilled and by alluvial processes throughout
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 6
the Quaternary Period in response to regional uplift. This has resulted in a geomorphic landscape of
uplifted alluvial and marine terraces that are dissected by current active alluvial drainages.
5.2 Geologic Conditions
Based on the regional geologic map prepared by Kennedy and Tan (2007), the near surface geologic
unit that underlies the site consists of Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits Unit 6-7. Based on recent
explorations, Quaternary Previously Placed Fill was observed overlying the Old Paralic Deposits
with Tertiary Santiago Formation at depth. Descriptions of the geologic and soil units encountered
during the investigation are presented below.
5.2.1 Quaternary Previously Placed Fill
Where observed, the Previously Placed Fill generally consists of loose to medium dense,
reddish brown, silty fine to medium grained sand. Exploratory excavations encountered
Previously Placed Fill to a maximum observed depth of approximately 2.5 feet (bgs).
Localized areas with deeper fill may be encountered during site grading.
5.2.2 Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits
Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits, (map unit Qop 6-7 of Kennedy and Tan, 2007) were
observed in all the investigation borings. Where observed, these materials generally consist
of medium dense, reddish brown, silty fine to medium grained sands with gravel observed at
the base of the unit.
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 7
5.2.3 Tertiary Santiago Formation
Tertiary Santiago Formation was observed to the maximum explored depth in all the borings
with the exception of Boring B-1. Where observed, these materials generally consist of
dense to very dense, light gray, silty to clayey fine grained sandstone. This underlying
geologic unit was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 9.0 to 12.0 feet below
existing grades.
5.3 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings that extended to the maximum explored
depth of approximately 16.5 feet bgs. However, seepage was encountered at depths ranging from
approximately 19 to 20 feet bgs during a previous investigation performed by CTE on an adjacent
site. While groundwater conditions may vary, especially following periods of sustained
precipitation or irrigation, it is not generally anticipated to adversely affect shallow construction
activities or the completed improvements, if proper site drainage is designed, installed, and
maintained as per the recommendations of the project civil engineer of record. However, if deeper
excavations are proposed groundwater or seepage may be encountered and would need to be
addressed.
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 8
5.4 Geologic Hazards
Geologic hazards considered to have potential impacts to site development were evaluated based on
field observations, literature review, and laboratory test results. The following paragraphs discuss
geologic hazards considered and associated potential risk to the site.
5.3.1 Surface Fault Rupture
In accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, (ACT), the State of
California established Earthquake Fault Zones around known active faults. The purpose of
the ACT is to regulate the development of structures intended for human occupancy near
active fault traces in order to mitigate hazards associated with surface fault rupture.
According to the California Geological Survey (Special Publication 42, Revised 2018), a
fault that has had surface displacement within the last 11,700 years is defined as a Holocene-
active fault and is either already zoned or is pending zonation in accordance with the ACT.
There are several other definitions of fault activity that are used to regulate dams, power
plants, and other critical facilities, and some agencies designate faults that are documented as
older than Holocene (last 11,700 years) and younger than late Quaternary (1.6 million years)
as potentially active faults that are subject to local jurisdictional regulations.
Based on the site reconnaissance and review of referenced literature, the site is not located
within a State-designated Earthquake Fault Zone, no known active fault traces underlie or
project toward the site, and no known potentially active fault traces project toward the site.
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 9
5.3.2 Local and Regional Faulting
The United States Geological Survey (USGS), with support of State Geological Surveys, and
reviewed published work by various researchers, have developed a Quaternary Fault and
Fold Database of faults and associated folds that are believed to be sources of earthquakes
with magnitudes greater than 6.0 that have occurred during the Quaternary (the past 1.6
million years). The faults and folds within the database have been categorized into four
Classes (Class A-D) based on the level of evidence confirming that a Quaternary fault is of
tectonic origin and whether the structure is exposed for mapping or inferred from fault
related deformational features. Class A faults have been mapped and categorized based on
age of documented activity ranging from Historical faults (activity within last 150 years),
Latest Quaternary faults (activity within last 15,000 years), Late Quaternary (activity within
last 130,000 years), to Middle to late Quaternary (activity within last 1.6 million years). The
Class A faults are considered to have the highest potential to generate earthquakes and/or
surface rupture, and the earthquakes and surface rupture potential generally increases from
oldest to youngest. The evidence for Quaternary deformation and/or tectonic activity
progressively decreases for Class B and Class C faults. When geologic evidence indicates
that a fault is not of tectonic origin it is considered to be a Class D structure. Such evidence
includes joints, fractures, landslides, or erosional and fluvial scarps that resemble fault
features, but demonstrate a non-tectonic origin.
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 10
The nearest known Class A fault is the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone
(<130,000 years), which is approximately 4.5 kilometers west of the site. The attached
Figure 3 shows regional faults and seismicity with respect to the site.
5.3.3 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Evaluation
Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine-grained sands or silts lose their physical strengths
during earthquake-induced shaking and behave like a liquid. This is due to loss of
point-to-point grain contact and transfer of normal stress to the pore water. Liquefaction
potential varies with water level, soil type, material gradation, relative density, and probable
intensity and duration of ground shaking. Seismic settlement can occur with or without
liquefaction; it results from densification of loose soils.
The site is underlain at shallow depths by medium dense to very dense formational materials.
Based on the noted subsurface conditions, the potential for liquefaction or significant
seismic settlement at the site is considered to be low.
5.3.4 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation
According to McCulloch (1985), the potential in the San Diego County coastal area for
100-year and 500-year tsunami waves is approximately five and eight feet, or less. This
suggests that there is a negligible probability of a tsunami reaching the site based on
elevation of the area and distance from the Pacific Ocean. The site is not located in a zone of
potential tsunami inundation based on emergency planning maps prepared by California
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 11
Emergency Management Agency and CGS. In addition, oscillatory waves (seiches) are
considered unlikely due to the absence of nearby confined bodies of water.
5.3.5 Landsliding
According to mapping by Tan (1995), the site is considered to be only Marginally
Susceptible to landsliding, and no landslides are mapped in the site area. In addition,
evidence of landslides or landslide potential was not observed during the field exploration at
the relatively flat-lying site. Based on these findings, landsliding is not considered to be a
significant geologic hazard at the subject site.
5.3.6 Compressible and Expansive Soils
The Previously Placed Fill and near surface soils are considered to be compressible in their
current condition. Therefore, it is recommended that these soils be overexcavated, where
necessary, and properly compacted beneath proposed improvement areas as recommended
herein and as determined to be necessary during construction. Based on the field data, site
observations, and CTEs experience with similar soils in the vicinity of the site, dense native
underlying soils are not considered to be subject to significant compressibility under the
anticipated loads.
Based on laboratory testing and the generally granular nature of the subgrade materials, soils
at the site are anticipated to exhibit Very Low expansion potential (Expansion Index of 20 or
less). Therefore, expansive soils are generally not anticipated to present significant adverse
impacts to site development if geotechnical recommendations are properly implemented.
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 12
Additional evaluation of near-surface soils should be performed based on field observations
during grading and excavation activities.
5.3.7 Corrosive Soils
Testing of representative site soils was performed to evaluate the potential corrosive effects
on concrete foundations and buried metallic utilities. Soil environments detrimental to
concrete generally have elevated levels of soluble sulfates and/or pH levels less than 5.5.
According to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Table 318 4.3.1, specific guidelines
have been provided for concrete where concentrations of soluble sulfate (SO4) in soil exceed
0.10 percent by weight. These guidelines include low water:cement ratios, increased
compressive strength, and specific cement type requirements. A minimum resistivity value
less than approximately 5,000 ohm-cm and/or soluble chloride levels in excess of 200 ppm
generally indicate a corrosive environment for buried metallic utilities and untreated
conduits.
Chemical test results indicate that near-surface soils at the site generally present a negligible
corrosion potential for Portland cement concrete. Based on resistivity and chloride testing,
the site soils have been interpreted to have a low corrosivity potential to buried metallic
improvements.
Based on the results of the limited testing performed, it may be prudent to utilize plastic
piping and conduits where buried and feasible. However, CTE does not practice corrosion
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 13
engineering. Therefore, if corrosion of metallic or other improvements is of more significant
concern, a qualified corrosion engineer could be consulted.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
CTE concludes that the proposed improvements on the site are feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint, provided the preliminary recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design
and construction of the project. Recommendations for the proposed earthwork and improvements
are included in the following sections and Appendix D. However, recommendations in the text of
this report supersede those presented in Appendix D should conflicts exist. These preliminary
recommendations should either be confirmed as appropriate or updated following required
excavations, demolition of existing improvements, and observations during site preparation.
6.2 Site Preparation
Prior to grading, areas to receive distress sensitive improvements should be cleared of existing
debris and deleterious materials. Objectionable materials, such as construction or demolition debris
and vegetation not suitable for structural backfill should be properly disposed of off-site. Soils
should be excavated to a minimum depth of two feet below the bottom of proposed foundations or to
the depth of competent native materials, whichever is greatest. If loose or otherwise unsuitable
materials are encountered at the base of overexcavations, additional excavation to the depth of
suitable material may be necessary. Remedial excavations should extend laterally at least five feet
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 14
beyond the limits of the proposed improvements, where feasible. If overexcavations encroach upon
property lines or adjacent structures the temporary excavation should generally be sloped at a 1:1
(horizontal to vertical) down to the prescribed overexcavation depth. Depending upon proximity
and condition of exposed soils, overexcavation in slot cuts may be recommended by the geotechnical
engineer.
Overexcavations for proposed surface improvement areas, such as pavement or flatwork should be
conducted to a minimum depth of two feet below existing or proposed subgrade, whichever is
deeper.
If encountered, existing below-ground utilities should be redirected around proposed structures.
Existing utilities at an elevation to extend through the proposed footings should generally be sleeved
and caulked to minimize the potential for moisture migration below the building slabs. Abandoned
pipes exposed by grading should be securely capped or filled with minimum two-sack cement/sand
slurry to help prevent moisture from migrating beneath foundation and slab soils.
A geotechnical representative from CTE should observe the exposed ground surface prior to
placement of compacted fill or improvements, to verify the competency of exposed subgrade
materials. After approval by this office, the exposed subgrades to receive fill should be scarified a
minimum of eight inches, moisture conditioned, and properly compacted prior to fill placement.
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 15
6.3 Site Excavation
Based on CTEs observations, shallow excavations at the site should generally be feasible using
well-maintained heavy-duty construction equipment run by experienced operators. However,
excavations within the Old Paralic Deposits could encounter zones that are sensitive to caving and/or
erosion, and may not effectively remain standing vertical or near-vertical, even at shallow or minor
heights and for short periods of time.
6.4 Fill Placement and Compaction
Following the recommended overexcavation and removal of loose or disturbed soils, areas to receive
fills should be scarified approximately eight inches, moisture conditioned, and properly compacted.
Fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent at above
optimum moisture content, as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The optimum lift thickness for fill soil
depends on the type of compaction equipment used. Generally, backfill should be placed in uniform,
horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness. Fill placement and compaction should
be conducted in conformance with local ordinances, and should be observed and tested by a CTE
geotechnical representative.
6.5 Fill Materials
Properly moisture conditioned, very-low to low expansion potential soils derived from the on-site
materials are considered suitable for reuse on the site as compacted fill. If used, these materials
should be screened of organics and materials generally greater than three inches in maximum
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 16
dimension. Irreducible materials greater than three inches in maximum dimension should not be
used in shallow fills (within three feet of proposed grades). In utility trenches, adequate bedding
should surround pipes.
Imported fill beneath structures and flatwork should have an Expansion Index of 20 or less (ASTM
D 4829). Imported fill soils for use in structural or slope areas should be evaluated by the soils
engineer a minimum of two weeks before being imported to the site.
If retaining walls are proposed, backfill located within a 45-degree wedge extending up from the
bottom of the heel foundation of the wall should consist of soil having an Expansion Index of 20 or
less (ASTM D 4829) with less than 30 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The upper 12 to 18 inches
of wall backfill should consist of lower permeability soils, in order to reduce surface water
infiltration behind walls. The project structural engineer and/or architect should detail proper wall
backdrains, including gravel drain zones, fills, filter fabric and perforated drain pipes. A conceptual
wall drainage detail is provided in Figure 4.
6.6 Temporary Construction Slopes
The following recommended slopes should be relatively stable against deep-seated failure, but may
experience localized sloughing. On-site soils are considered Type B and Type C soils with
recommended slope ratios as set forth in Table 6.6.
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 17
TABLE 6.6
RECOMMENDED TEMPORARY SLOPE RATIOS
SOIL TYPE SLOPE RATIO
(Horizontal: vertical) MAXIMUM HEIGHT
B (Old Paralic Deposits and
Tertiary Santiago Formation) 1:1 (OR FLATTER) 10 Feet
C (Previously Placed Fill) 1.5:1 (OR FLATTER) 10 Feet
Actual field conditions and soil type designations must be verified by a "competent person" while
excavations exist, according to Cal-OSHA regulations. In addition, the above sloping
recommendations do not allow for surcharge loading at the top of slopes by vehicular traffic,
equipment or materials. Appropriate surcharge setbacks must be maintained from the top of all
unshored slopes.
6.7 Foundations and Slab Recommendations
The following recommendations are for preliminary design purposes only. These foundation
recommendations should be re-evaluated after review of the project grading and foundation plans,
and after completion of rough grading of the building pad areas. Upon completion of rough pad
grading, Expansion Index of near surface soils should be verified, and these recommendations
should be updated, if necessary.
6.7.1 Foundations
Foundation recommendations presented herein are based on the anticipated very low
expansion potential of site soils (Expansion Index of 20 or less).
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 18
Following the recommended preparatory grading, continuous and isolated spread footings
are anticipated to be suitable for use at this site. Foundation dimensions and reinforcement
should be based on allowable bearing values of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for
minimum 15-inch wide footings embedded a minimum of 24-inches below lowest adjacent
subgrade elevation. Isolated footings should be at least 24 inches in minimum dimension.
The provided bearing value may be increased by 250 psf for each additional six inches of
embedment up to a maximum static value of 3,500 psf. The allowable bearing value may be
increased by one-third for short-duration loading, which includes the effects of wind or
seismic forces. Based on the recommended preparatory grading, it is anticipated that all
footings will be founded entirely in properly compacted fill materials. Footings should not
span cut to fill interfaces.
Minimum reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of four No. 5 reinforcing
bars; two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom, or as per the project structural
engineer. The structural engineer should design isolated footing reinforcement. An
uncorrected subgrade modulus of 130 pounds per cubic inch is considered suitable for elastic
foundation design.
The structural engineer should provide recommendations for reinforcement of any spread
footings and footings with pipe penetrations. Footing excavations should generally be
maintained above optimum moisture content until concrete placement.
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 19
6.7.2 Foundation Settlement
The maximum total static settlement is expected to be on the order of one inch and the
maximum differential settlement is expected to be on the order of 0.5 inch. Due to the
generally dense nature of underlying materials, dynamic settlement is not expected to
adversely affect the proposed buildings.
6.7.3 Foundation Setback
Footings for structures should be designed such that the horizontal distance from the face of
adjacent slopes to the outer edge of the footing is at least 10 feet. In addition, footings
should bear beneath a 1:1 plane extended up from the nearest bottom edge of adjacent
trenches and/or excavations. Deepening of affected footings may be a suitable means of
attaining the prescribed setbacks.
6.7.4 Interior Concrete Slabs
Lightly loaded concrete slabs for non-traffic areas should be a minimum of 5.0 inches thick.
Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of #4 reinforcing bars placed on maximum 18-
inch centers, each way, at or above mid-slab height, but with proper cover. More stringent
recommendations per the project structural engineer supersede these recommendations, as
applicable.
In moisture-sensitive floor areas, a suitable vapor retarder of at least 15-mil thickness (with
all laps or penetrations sealed or taped) overlying a four-inch layer of consolidated aggregate
base or gravel (with SE of 30 or more) should be installed. An optional maximum two-inch
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 20
layer of similar material may be placed above the vapor retarder to help protect the
membrane during steel and concrete placement. This recommended protection is generally
considered typical in the industry. If proposed floor areas or coverings are considered
especially sensitive to moisture emissions, additional recommendations from a specialty
consultant could be obtained. CTE is not an expert at preventing moisture penetration
through slabs. A qualified architect or other experienced professional should be contacted if
moisture penetration is a more significant concern.
Slabs subjected to heavier loads may require thicker slab sections and/or increased
reinforcement. A 110-pci subgrade modulus is considered suitable for elastic design of
minimally embedded improvements such as slabs-on-grade.
Subgrade materials should be maintained or brought to a minimum of two percent or greater
above optimum moisture content until slab underlayment and concrete are placed.
6.8 Seismic Design Criteria
The seismic ground motion values listed in the table below were derived in accordance with the
ASCE 7-10 Standard. This was accomplished by establishing the Site Class based on the soil
properties at the site, and calculating the site coefficients and parameters using the United States
Geological Survey Seismic Design Maps application. These values are intended for the design of
structures to resist the effects of earthquake ground motions for the site coordinates 33.1329°
latitude and 117.3255° longitude, as underlain by soils corresponding to site Class C.
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 21
TABLE 6.8
SEISMIC GROUND MOTION VALUES (CODE-BASED)
2016 CBC AND ASCE 7-10
PARAMETER VALUE 2016 CBC/ASCE 7-10
REFERENCE
Site Class C ASCE 7, Chapter 20
Mapped Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter, SS
1.151 Figure 1613.3.1 (1)
Mapped Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter, S1 0.442 Figure 1613.3.1 (2)
Seismic Coefficient, Fa 1.000 Table 1613.3.3 (1)
Seismic Coefficient, Fv 1.358 Table 1613.3.3 (2)
MCE Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter, SMS
1.151 Section 1613.3.3
MCE Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter, SM1 0.601 Section 1613.3.3
Design Spectral Response
Acceleration, Parameter SDS 0.767 Section 1613.3.4
Design Spectral Response
Acceleration, Parameter SD1
0.400 Section 1613.3.4
Peak Ground Acceleration PGAM 0.459 ASCE 7, Section 11.8.3
6.9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures
Lateral loads acting against structures may be resisted by friction between the footings and the
supporting soil or passive pressure acting against structures. If frictional resistance is used,
allowable coefficients of friction of 0.30 (total frictional resistance equals the coefficient of friction
multiplied by the dead load) for concrete cast directly against compacted fill or native material is
recommended. A design passive resistance value of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth
(with a maximum value of 2,000 pounds per square foot) may be used. The allowable lateral
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 22
resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and the passive resistance, provided the
passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance.
If proposed, retaining walls backfilled using granular soils may be designed using the equivalent
fluid unit weights given in Table 6.9 below.
Lateral pressures on cantilever retaining walls (yielding walls) over six feet high due to
earthquake motions may be calculated based on work by Seed and Whitman (1970). The total
lateral earth pressure against a properly drained and backfilled cantilever retaining wall above
the groundwater level can be expressed as:
PAE = PA + PAE
For non-yielding (or restrained) walls, the total lateral earth pressure may be similarly
calculated based on work by Wood (1973):
PKE = PK + PKE
TABLE 6.9
EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHTS (Gh)
(pounds per cubic foot)
WALL TYPE LEVEL BACKFILL
SLOPE BACKFILL
2:1 (HORIZONTAL:
VERTICAL)
CANTILEVER WALL
(YIELDING) 35 55
RESTRAINED WALL 55 65
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 23
Where: PA/b = Static Active Earth Pressure = GhH2/2
PK/b = Static Restrained Wall Earth Pressure = GhH2/2
PAE/b = Dynamic Active Earth Pressure Increment = (3/8) kh H2/2
PKE/b = Dynamic Restrained Earth Pressure Increment = kh H2/2
b = unit length of wall (typically one foot)
kh = 2/3 PGAm (PGAm given previously Table 6.8)
Gh = Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (given previously Table 6.9)
H = Total Height of the retained soil
= Total Unit Weight of Soil 135 pounds per cubic foot
The static and increment of dynamic earth pressure in both cases may be applied with a line of
action located at H/3 above the bottom of the wall (SEAOC, 2013).
These values assume non-expansive backfill and free-draining conditions. Measures should be taken
to prevent moisture buildup behind all retaining walls. Drainage measures should include free-
draining backfill materials and sloped, perforated drains. These drains should discharge to an
appropriate off-site location. Waterproofing should be as specified by the project architect.
6.10 Exterior Flatwork
Flatwork should be installed with crack-control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the
project architect to reduce the potential for cracking in exterior flatwork caused by minor movement
of subgrade soils and concrete shrinkage. Additionally, it is recommended that flatwork be installed
with at least number 4 reinforcing bars at 18-inch centers, each way, at or above mid-height of slab,
but with proper concrete cover, or with other reinforcement per the applicable project designer.
'Y
'Y
'Y
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 24
Flatwork that should be installed with crack control joints, includes driveways, sidewalks, and
architectural features. All subgrades should be prepared according to the earthwork
recommendations previously given before placing concrete. Positive drainage should be established
and maintained next to all flatwork. Subgrade materials should be maintained at a minimum of two
percent above optimum moisture content until the time of concrete placement.
6.11 Vehicular Pavement
The proposed improvements include paved vehicle drive and parking areas. Presented in Table 6.11
are preliminary pavement sections utilizing laboratory determined Resistance R Value. Actual
traffic area slab sections to be provided by the structural designer. Beneath proposed pavement
areas, the upper 12 inches of subgrade and all base materials should be compacted to 95% relative
compaction in accordance with ASTM D1557, and at a minimum of two percent above optimum
moisture content.
TABLE 6.11
RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT THICKNESS
Traffic Area
Assumed
Traffic Index
Preliminary
Subgrade
R-Value
Asphalt Pavements
Portland Cement
Concrete
Pavements, on
Subgrade Soils
(inches)
AC
Thickness
(inches)
Class II
Aggregate Base
Thickness
(inches)
Drive Areas &
Infrequent
Emergency
Vehicle Access
6.0 50 3.5 5.0 7.0
Parking Areas 5.0 50 3.0 4.0 6.0
* Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base
** Concrete should have a modulus of rupture of at least 600 psi
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 25
Following rough site grading, CTE laboratory testing of representative subgrade soils for as-graded
R-Value should be performed to verify adequacy of pavement sections.
Asphalt paved areas should be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the
recommendations of the Asphalt Institute, or other widely recognized authority. Concrete paved
areas should be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the American
Concrete Institute or other widely recognized authority, particularly with regard to thickened edges,
joints, and drainage. The Standard Specifications for Public Works construction (Greenbook) or
Caltrans Standard Specifications may be referenced for pavement materials specifications.
6.12 Drainage
Surface runoff should be collected and directed away from improvements by means of appropriate
erosion-reducing devices and positive drainage should be established around the proposed
improvements. Positive drainage should be directed away from improvements at a gradient of at
least two percent for a distance of at least five feet. However, the project civil engineers should
evaluate the on-site drainage and make necessary provisions to keep surface water from affecting the
site.
Generally, CTE recommends against allowing water to infiltrate building pads or adjacent to slopes.
CTE understands that some agencies are encouraging the use of storm-water cleansing devices. Use
of such devices tends to increase the possibility of adverse effects associated with high groundwater
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 26
including slope instability and liquefaction. See Appendix E for further discussion of site
infiltration.
6.13 Slopes
Based on anticipated soil strength characteristics slopes, if proposed, should be constructed at ratios
of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. These slope inclinations should exhibit factors of safety
greater than 1.5.
Although properly constructed slopes on this site should be grossly stable, the soils will be
somewhat erodible. Therefore, runoff water should not be permitted to drain over the edges of
slopes unless that water is confined to properly designed and constructed drainage facilities.
Erosion-resistant vegetation should be maintained on the face of all slopes.
Typically, soils along the top portion of a fill slope face will creep laterally. CTE recommends
against building distress-sensitive hardscape improvements within five feet of slope crests, and
against using thickened edges in this area.
6.14 Controlled Low Strength Materials (CLSM)
Controlled Low Strength Materials (CLSM) may be used in deepened footing excavation areas,
building pads, and/or adjacent to retaining walls or other structures, provided the appropriate
following recommendations are also incorporated. Minimum overexcavation depths recommended
herein beneath slabs, flatwork, and other areas may be applicable beneath CLSM if/where CLSM is
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 27
to be used, and excavation bottoms should be observed by CTE prior to placement of CLSM. Prior
to CLSM placement, the excavation should be free of debris, loose soil materials, and water. Once
specific areas to utilize CLSM have been determined, CTE should review the locations to determine
if additional recommendations are appropriate.
CLSM should consist of a minimum three-sack cement/sand slurry with a minimum 28-day
compressive strength of 100 psi (or equal to or greater than the maximum allowable short term soil
bearing pressure provided herein, whichever is higher) as determined by ASTM D4832. If re-
excavation is anticipated, the compressive strength of CLSM should generally be limited to a
maximum of 150 psi per ACI 229R-99. Where re-excavation is required, two-sack cement/sand
slurry may be used to help limit the compressive strength. The allowable soils bearing pressure and
coefficient of friction provided herein should still govern foundation design. CLSM may not be used
in lieu of structural concrete where required by the structural engineer.
6.15 Plan Review
CTE should be authorized to review the project grading and foundation plans prior to
commencement of earthwork in order to provide additional recommendations, if necessary.
6.16 Construction Observation
The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the
proposed construction and the subsurface conditions observed in the soil borings. The interpolated
subsurface conditions should be confirmed by CTE during construction with respect to anticipated
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 28
conditions. Upon completion of precise grading, if necessary, soil samples will be collected to
evaluate as-built Expansion Index. Foundation recommendations may be revised upon completion
of grading, and as-built laboratory tests results. Additionally, soil samples should be taken in
pavement subgrade areas upon rough grading to refine pavement recommendations as necessary.
Recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding and assumption that CTE
will provide the observation and testing services for the project. All earthwork should be observed
and tested in accordance with recommendations contained within this report. CTE should evaluate
footing excavations before reinforcing steel placement.
7.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION
The field evaluation, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis presented in this report have been
conducted according to current engineering practice and the standard of care exercised by reputable
geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in this area. No other warranty, expressed or
implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report.
Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered
during construction. This report is prepared for the project as described. It is not prepared for any
other property or party.
The recommendations provided herein have been developed in order to reduce the post-construction
movement of site improvements. However, even with the design and construction recommendations
presented herein, some post-construction movement and associated distress may occur.
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 29
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a
property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works
of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards
may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the
findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside CTEs involvement.
Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
CTEs conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions. If
conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, CTE should be notified and
additional recommendations, if required, will be provided subject to CTE remaining as authorized
geotechnical consultant of record. This report is for use of the project as described. It should not be
utilized for any other project.
The percolation test results were obtained in accordance with regional standards and were performed
with the standard of care practiced by other professionals practicing in the area. However,
percolation test results can significantly vary laterally and vertically due to slight changes in soil
type, degree of weathering, secondary mineralization, and other physical and chemical variabilities.
As such, the test results are only considered as an estimate of percolation and converted infiltration
rates for design purposes. No guarantee is made based on the percolation testing to the actual
functionality or longevity of associated infiltration basins or other BMP devices designed from the
presented infiltration rates.
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Sales Building at Toyota Carlsbad
5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California
August 2, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-15029G
\\ESC_SERVER\Projects\10-15029G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc
Page 30
CTE appreciates this opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions
regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
Dan T. Math, GE #2665 Jay F. Lynch, CEG #1890
Principal Geotechnical Engineer Principal Engineering Geologist
Aaron J. Beeby, CEG #2603
Project Geologist
DTM/JFL/AJB/CJK:nri
SITE
-
Roll-N-Stone
Express
Trud::i g
CTE ~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955
SITE INDEX MAP
PROPOSED TOYOTA CARISBAD SALES BUIIDING
5.:34-PASEO DEL NORTE
CMW!BAD, CALIFORNIA
SCALE: DATE:
AS SHOWN 7/19
CTE JOB NO.: FIGURE:
1O-15O29G 1
P-1
P-2
P-4
Qop
Tsa
P-3
B-3
B-1
B-2
B-4
Qop
Tsa
B-4 Approximate Boring Location
LEGEND
Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits overQop
Tsa
P-4 Approximate Percolation Test Location
Tertiary Santiago Formation
"' 3t "O c--i
~ ::,
"' 5-(!)
(l)
N 0 Ii)
I 0
/ 2 0 .!!,
0 ~ 50' 0 25' 50'
~ ~ ~ I
jr------::~;e~::----------------------T-=------:-----_;=========•==::::._-"'lllll"'llr.----1
"' CT£~~\\ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. GEOLOGIC/EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP....,.,........;;.;.;;;,;,,;..---11 ~ '---[Ji,C PROPOSED TOYOTA CARISBAD SALES Bun.DING
/ ~ 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 5434 PASIO DEL NORTE CARIBBAD, CAIJFORNIA
APPROXIMATESITE LOCATION
LEGEND
HISTORIC FAULT DISPLACEMENT (LAST 200 YEARS)
HOLOCENE FAULT DISPLACEMENT (DURING PAST 11,700 YEARS)
LATE QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACMENT (DURING PAST 700,000 YEARS)
QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT (AGE UNDIFFERENTIATED)
PREQUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT (OLDER THAN 1.6 MILLION YEARS)
>7.0
6.5-6.9
5.5-5.9
5.0-5.4
PERIOD 1800- 1869- 1932-
1868 1931 2010
LAST TWO DIGITS OF M > 6.5
EARTHQUAKE YEAR
MA
G
N
I
T
U
D
E
\ \
\, ,\ \ ,.: ',<\ t_\
\ ~ \
"'--. I
'
I' \ \ \ • •.
\ \"
l I\
\ \
12 0 12 ~-c-I 1 inch = 12 mi.
[o •o o e o 0 e 0 0 e 0
RETAINING WALL
FINISH GRADE
WALL FOOTING
V -<
'
> -
12" TO 18" OF LOWER
PERMEABILITY NATIVE
MATERIAL COMPACTED TO 90%
RELATIVE COMPACTION
CT~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955
CTE JOBNO: 10-15029G
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL ALE:
NO SCALE
DATE: FIGURE: 07/19 4
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
CITED REFERENCES
1.ASTM, 2002, Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using
Modified Effort, Volume 04.08
2.Blake, T.F., 2000, EQFAULT, Version 3.00b, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and
Software.
3.California Building Code, 2016, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2
of 2, California Building Standards Commission, published by ICBO, June.
4. California Division of Mines and Geology, CD 2000-003 Digital Images of Official Maps
of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Southern Region, compiled by
Martin and Ross.
5. Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc, 2018, Proposed Three-Story Parking Structure,
Toyota/Lexus of Carlsbad, 5434 Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad, California, Job No. 10-14470G,
dated October 11.
6. Hart, Earl W., Revised 1994, Revised 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California,
Alquist Priolo, Special Studies Zones Act of 1972, California Division of Mines and
Geology, Special Publication 42.
7.Jennings, Charles W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with
Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions.
8.Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30 x 60 Quadrangle,
California, California Geological Survey, Map No. 2.
9.McCulloch, D.S., 1985, Evaluating Tsunami Potential in Ziony, J.I., ed., Evaluating
Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region An Earth-Science Perspective, U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360.
10.Riverside County of, Revised 9/2011, Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook
Appendix A-Infiltration Testing.
11. Reichle, M., Bodin, P., and Brune, J., 1985, The June 1985 San Diego Bay Earthquake
swarm [abs.]: EOS, v. 66, no. 46, p.952.
12.San Diego, County of, February 2016, Storm Water Design Manual Appendix D,
Approved Infiltration Rate Assessment Methods for Selection of Storm Water BMPs.
13.Seed, H.B., and R.V. Whitman, 1970, Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic
Loads, in Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and
Design of Earth-Retaining Structures, pp. 103-147, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.
14.Tan, S. S., and Giffen, D. G., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San
Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California: Oceanside and San Luis Rey
Quadrangles, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 35, California Department of
Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 95-04, State of California,
Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California.
15.Wood, J.H. 1973, Earthquake-Induced Soil Pressures on Structures, Report EERL 73-05.
Pasadena: California Institute of Technology.
APPENDIX B
EXPLORATION LOGS
GW
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT ISLESS THAN 50
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT IS
GREATER THAN 50
SANDS
MORE THAN
HALF OF
COARSE
FRACTION IS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE
GRAVELS
MORE THAN
HALF OF
COARSE
FRACTION IS
LARGER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE
CLEAN
GRAVELS
< 5% FINES
GRAVELS WITH FINES
CLEAN
SANDS
< 5% FINES
SANDSWITH FINES
CO
A
R
S
E
G
R
A
I
N
E
D
S
O
I
L
S
MO
R
E
T
H
A
N
H
A
L
F
O
F
MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
I
S
L
A
R
G
E
R
T
H
A
N
NO
.
2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
S
I
Z
E
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT
FI
N
E
G
R
A
I
N
E
D
S
O
I
L
S
MO
R
E
T
H
A
N
H
A
L
F
O
F
MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
I
S
S
M
A
L
L
E
R
TH
A
N
N
O
.
2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
S
I
Z
E
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
SILTS AND CLAYSCOBBLESCOBBLESBOULDERS
~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. CT~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955
DEFINITION OF TERMS
PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS
t!<f< -.,a-4 WELL GRADED ORA VELS, ORA VEL-SAND MIXTURES
f~ -~u J~ LITTLE OR NO FINES
n4------~◄ir-POORLY GRADED ORA VELS OR ORA VEL SAND MIXTURES, ~,; ~J,,. LITTLE OF NO FINES i1 ··--· SILTY ORA VELS, ORA VEL-SAND-SIL T MIXTURES,
"_, NON-PLASTIC FINES r~,, u
,~/// ;/ CLAYEY ORA VELS, ORA VEL-SAND-CLA Y MIXTURES,
r,, ' -~,, PLASTIC FINES :--------- -~---WELL GRADED SANDS, ORA YELL Y SANDS, LITTLE OR NO :.~-· :.~-----·-------___ -c FINES
) ) POORLY GRADED SANDS, ORA YELL Y SANDS, LITTLE OR
NO FINES
Ill TIii SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC FINES
~-~~ CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES
I r-: INORGANIC SILTS, VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY
OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS SLIGHTLY PLASTIC CLAYEY SIL TS
'% .,,----, ___ ~.,,1/'., INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, .,~ ., .,~., ., ORA VELLY SANDY SILTS OR LEAN CLAYS
•-■"l"■-1"!.I ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
,~1 11-1 i·1
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE
SANDY OR SILTY SOILS ELASTIC SILTS
// II II ~,;
{0,---~ INORGANIC CLAYS OF IDGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS
7'.7.7 1/-,,, -7,~ ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO IDGH PLASTICITY,
&#--,,, -~~ ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS
~~~~~~~~~ m~~~~~~~ PEAT AND OTHER IDGHL Y ORGANIC SOILS
GRAIN SIZES
GRAVEL I SAND I
COARSE I FINE I COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE I
12" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200
CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
ADDITIONAL TESTS
(OTHER THAN TEST PIT AND BORING LOG COLUMN HEADINGS)
MAX-Maximum Dry Density PM-Permeability PP-Pocket Penetrometer
GS-Grain Size Distribution SG-Specific Gravity WA-Wash Analysis
SE-Sand Equivalent HA-Hydrometer Analysis DS-Direct Shear
EI-Expansion Index AL-Atterberg Limits UC-Unconfined Compression
CHM-Sulfate and Chloride RV-R-Value MD-Moisture/Density
Content , pH, Resistivity CN-Consolidation M-Moisture
COR -Corrosivity CP-Collapse Potential SC-Swell Compression
SD-Sample Disturbed HC-Hydrocollapse OI-Organic Impurities
REM-Remolded
FIGURE:I BLI
~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. CT~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955
PROJECT: DRILLER: SHEET: of
CTEJOBNO: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE:
LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION:
., C' 0 l (.) ., -.e, ,-.. 'e Z' ?: .c ~ "° BORING LEGEND ., 0 ;,-, 0 Laboratory Tests ., U'.l 0 ·;;; U'.l .-a e:,, ~ i:l ~ en :E .,
,fl i:l Ci c..i ~ ., :ct "' g fr ;> i!' ·s en ::, 8 0
Ci a:i aS Ci :::; ;:::i
DESCRIPTION
-0
--~ Block or Chunk Sample
-----X Bulk Sample
---
-5-
--
--~"" --Standard Penetration Test
--....
10--
--I Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler (Cal Sampler) ---
--I -Thin Walled Army Corp. of Engineers Sample
--
-15-
Groundwater Table --
--~
----------1\_ ---Soil Type or Classification Change
20-
-?--?--?--?--?--?--?---
\__ F~rmation ~hange r(A~proximat~ boundari~s queried ;?)l --
--
--"SM" Quotes are placed around classifications where the soils
-25-exist in situ as bedrock
--
FIGURE: I BL2
PROJECT:
CTEJOBNO:
LOGGED BY:
-0
--
--
--
--
-5--I 11
--15
18 ---
--
--
-l(t If 19
50/6" -
--
--
--
-IS-
--
--
--
--
-2(t
--
--
--
--
-25-
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955
PROPOSED SALES BUILDING
10-150290
DRILLER: BAJA EXPLORATION
DRILL METHOD: HOLLOW-STEM AUGER
SHEET: of
DRILLING DATE: 7/19/2019
AJB
Q 0 Q 5 .c ,--. 8
-~ ~ ;,.. bl) e.., lZl 0 ~ 5 ~ c,_i Q
Cl .a u :a "' 0. B ·a c,_i e ~ :::i c:i
SM
"SM11
SAMPLE METHOD: RING, SPT and BULK ELEVATION: ~74Feet
BORING: B-1
DESCRIPTION
Asphalt: 0-2"
Base Material: 2-7"
QUATERNARY PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL:
Loose to medium dense, moist, reddish brown, silty fine to medium
inPrl c;: A. ND
QUATERNARY OLD P ARALIC DEPOSITS:
Medium dense to dense, moist, light reddish brown, silty fine to
medium grained SAND, oxidized mottling, massive, friable.
Becomes light gray
Gravel
Total Depth: 11' (Refusal on gravel)
No Groundwater Encountered
Laboratory Tests
I B-1
PROJECT:
CTEJOBNO:
LOGGED BY:
PROPOSED SALES BUILDING
10-150290
AJB
Q 0 Q 5 .c ,--. 8
-~ ~ ;,.. bl) e.., lZl 0 ~ 5 ~ c,_i Q
Cl .a u :a "' 0. B ·a c,_i e ~ :::i c:i
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955
DRILLER: BAJA EXPLORATION SHEET: of
DRILL METHOD: HOLLOW-STEM AUGER DRILLING DATE: 7/19/2019
SAMPLE METHOD: RING, SPT and BULK ELEVATION: ~75 Feet
BORING: B-2 Laboratory Tests
DESCRIPTION
-o---------------...,........,......,.,.....,,...,,....,,.,,.....---------------------1---------Asphalt: 0-2.5"
--
--
--
--
-5-
--
--
--
--
-l(t
--
--
--
--
-IS-
--
--
--
--
-2(t
--
--
--
--
6
9
12
6
10
29
SM
"SP-SM"
"SM"
QUATERNARY PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL:
Loose to medium dense, moist, reddish brown, silty fine grained
SAND.
QUATERNARY OLD P ARALIC DEPOSITS:
Medium dense to dense, moist, light reddish brown, poorly graded
fine to medium grained SAND with silt, oxidized, massive, friable.
Becomes light gray
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Dense, slightly moist, light gray, silty fine grained SANDSTONE,
massive micaceous.
Total Depth: 11.5'
No Groundwater Encountered
GS
GS
I B-2
PROJECT:
CTEJOBNO:
LOGGED BY:
-0
--
--
--
--
-5-,...
I 13
--18 -26
--
--
--
-l(t '"~ 16
38 --50/3"
--
--
--
-IS-
--
--
--
--
-2(t
--
--
--
--
-25-
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955
PROPOSED SALES BUILDING
10-150290
DRILLER: BAJA EXPLORATION
DRILL METHOD: HOLLOW-STEM AUGER
SHEET: of
DRILLING DATE: 7/19/2019
AJB
Q 0 Q 5 .c ,--. 8
-~ ~ ;,.. bl) e.., lZl 0 ~ 5 ~ c,_i Q
Cl .a u :a "' 0. B ·a c,_i e ~ :::i c:i
SM
"SM"
"SC"
SAMPLE METHOD: RING, SPT and BULK ELEVATION: ~74Feet
BORING: B-3
DESCRIPTION
Asphalt: 0-3.5"
QUATERNARY PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL:
Loose to medium dense, moist, reddish brown, silty fine to medium
grained SAND.
QUATERNARY OLD P ARALIC DEPOSITS:
Medium dense to dense, moist, light reddish brown, silty fine to
medium grained SAND, oxidized mottling, massive, friable.
Gravel
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Very dense, slightly moist, light gray, clayey fine grained
SANDSTONE, massive, micaceous.
Total Depth: 11.5'
No Groundwater Encountered
Laboratory Tests
MD,DS
I B-3
PROJECT:
CTEJOBNO:
LOGGED BY:
-0
--
--
--
--
-5 7
9 --15
--
--
--
-l(t ~ 46
--50/3"
--
--
--
-IS-17
32 --~0/'.l"
--
--
--
-2(t
--
--
--
--
-25-
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955
PROPOSED SALES BUILDING
10-150290
DRILLER: BAJA EXPLORATION
DRILL METHOD: HOLLOW-STEM AUGER
SHEET: of
DRILLING DATE: 7/19/2019
AJB
Q Q 5 ,--.
-~ ~ e..,
5 ~
Cl .a "' B ·a
~
0 .c 8 ;,.. bl)
lZl 0 ~ c,_i Q u :a 0. c,_i e :::i c:i
SM
"SM11
"SC"
-------
SAMPLE METHOD: RING, SPT and BULK ELEVATION: ~76Feet
BORING: B-4
DESCRIPTION
Asphalt: 0-3.5"
QUATERNARY PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL:
Loose to medium dense, moist, dark reddish brown, silty fine to
·;, irrainerl <::A.ND
QUATERNARY OLD P ARALIC DEPOSITS:
Medium dense to dense, moist, light reddish brown, silty fine to
medium grained SAND, oxidized mottling, massive, friable.
Becomes light gray and very dense
Gravel at 9-10 feet
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Dense, slightly moist, light gray, clayey fine grained SANDSTONE,
massive, micaceous.
Laboratory Tests
EI,RV,CHM
"SM" Very dense, slightly moist, light olive gray, silty fine grained
SANDSTONE, micaceous.
GS
Total Depth: 16.5'
No Groundwater Encountered
I B-4
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS
LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS
Laboratory Testing Program
Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to detect their relative engineering
properties. Tests were performed following test methods of the American Society for Testing
Materials or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the various test
methods used.
Classification
Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual
classifications were supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples according to ASTM
D2487. The soil classifications are shown on the Exploration Logs in Appendix B.
In-Place Moisture and Density
To determine the moisture and density of in-place site soils, a representative sample was tested for
the moisture and density at time of sampling.
Expansion Index
Expansion testing was performed on selected samples of the matrix of the on-site soils according to
ASTM D 4829.
Resistance R-Value
The resistance R-value was determined by the California Materials Method No. 301 for
representative subbase soils. Samples were prepared and exudation pressure and R-value
determined. The graphically determined R- value at exudation pressure of 300 psi is the value
used for pavement section calculation.
Particle-Size Analysis
Particle-size analyses were performed on selected representative samples according to ASTM D 422.
Direct Shear
Direct shear tests were performed on either samples direct from the field or on samples recompacted
to a specific density. Direct shear testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D 3080. The
samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions.
Chemical Analysis
Soil materials were collected with sterile sampling equipment and tested for Sulfate and Chloride
content, pH, Corrosivity, and Resistivity.
LOCATION
B-4
LOCATION
B-3
LOCATION
B-4
LOCATION
B-4
LOCATION
B-4
LOCATION
B-4
LOCATION
B-4
LABORATORY SUMMARY
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 7 46-4955
EXP ANSI ON INDEX TEST
ASTMD4829
DEPTH
(feet)
EXP ANSI ON INDEX
0-5 0
IN-PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY
DEPTH %MOISTURE
(feet)
5 5.1
RESISTANCE "R"-VALUE
CALTEST 301
DEPTH R-VALUE
(feet)
0-5 59
SULFATE
DEPTH RESULTS
(feet) ppm
0-5 57
CHLORIDE
DEPTH RESULTS
(feet) ppm
0-5 4
p.H.
DEPTH RESULTS
(feet)
0-5 6.88
RESISTIVITY
CALIFORNIA TEST 424
DEPTH RESULTS
(feet) ohms-cm
0-5 11 ,800
EXPANSION
POTENTIAL
VERY LOW
DRY DENSITY
112.3
CTE JOB NO. 10-15029G
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZErq ~ ~ ~ 00 0 0 0 1-. co;! "'0 ;! 0 ~ "' .... ~"' "' .... .,, "' -----------"" -'I\ ----r---,_
rs I\
.... r---. \
~
l \\
Cl t z iii U) ~ l\ I-z w (.) a: w \\ Q.
\ \\
\__ I\
jli
'r--i.
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
~ Sample Designation Sample Depth (feet) Symbol Liquid Limit(%) Plasticity Index Classification
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. B-2 5 • 0 0 SP-SM CT~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115. Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 B-2 10 ■ 0 0 SM
CTE JOB NUMBER: 10-15029G FIGURE: C-1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZErq ~ ~ ~ 00 0 0 0 1-. co;! "'0 ;! 0 ~ "' .... ~"' "' .... .,, "' -------,_ ---,_ -r--,~
r-.....
"" I\
\
l
Cl ' z iii U) ~
I-z w • (.) a: w Q.
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
~ Sample Designation Sample Depth (feet) Symbol Liquid Limit(%) Plasticity Index Classification
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. B-4 15 • 0 0 SM CT~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115. Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955
CTE JOB NUMBER: 10-15029G FIGURE: C-2
0.035
0.035
0.036
0.036
0.037
0.037
0.0380.1 1 10 100
ST
R
A
I
N
(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
TIME (minutes)
PRECONSOLIDATION
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
SH
E
A
R
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
p
s
f
)
STRAIN (%)
SHEARING DATA
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
SH
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
p
s
f
)
VERTICAL STRESS (psf)
FAILURE ENVELOPE
VERTICAL STRESS
1000 psf
3000 psf
5000 psf
\. ~~ ~ I ' , ..
---I /
-.... ---"'1111 ' -... .. ff ~
-....... V .. , /
I 1-I
0
j-
"
<Ir=0.1200 mm./min I ~ CT~c
SHEAR STRENGTH TEST-ASTMD3080
Job Name: Toiota Carlsbad Initial Dry Density (pct): 112.3
Project Number: 10-15029G Sample Date: 7/9/2019 Initial Moisture(%): 5.1
Lab Number: 29749 Test Date: 7/15/2019 Final Moisture(%): 19.3
Sample Location: B-3 @5' Tested by: KF Cohesion: 110 psf
Sample Description: Oran~ish Brown SM Angle Of Friction: 40.3
APPENDIXD
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 1 of 26
Appendix D Page D-1
Standard Specifications for Grading
Section 1 -General
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. presents the following standard recommendations for
grading and other associated operations on construction projects. These guidelines should be
considered a portion of the project specifications. Recommendations contained in the body of
the previously presented soils report shall supersede the recommendations and or requirements as
specified herein. The project geotechnical consultant shall interpret disputes arising out of
interpretation of the recommendations contained in the soils report or specifications contained
herein.
Section 2 -Responsibilities of Project Personnel
The geotechnical consultant should provide observation and testing services sufficient to general
conformance with project specifications and standard grading practices. The geotechnical
consultant should report any deviations to the client or his authorized representative.
The Client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his authorized
representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the
geotechnical consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have authorized the Contractor and/or
other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his
authorized representative should remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible to all
concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project.
The Contractor is responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all
grading and other associated operations on construction projects, including, but not limited to,
earth work in accordance with the project plans, specifications and controlling agency
requirements.
Section 3 -Preconstruction Meeting
A preconstruction site meeting should be arranged by the owner and/or client and should include
the grading contractor, design engineer, geotechnical consultant, owner's representative and
representatives of the appropriate governing authorities.
Section 4 -Site Preparation
The client or contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for
the project prior, during and/or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The
appropriate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with grading operations.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 2 of 26
Appendix D PageD-2
Standard Specifications for Grading
Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods,
stumps, trees, root of trees and otherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be
graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of all proposed excavation and fill
areas.
Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations, reserv01rs, utilities
(including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts,
tunnels, etc.) and other man-made surface and subsurface improvements from the areas to be
graded. Demolition of utilities should include proper capping and/or rerouting pipelines at the
project perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the requirements of the
governing authorities and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant at the time of
demolition.
Trees, plants or man-made improvements not planned to be removed or demolished should be
protected by the contractor from damage or injury.
Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or demolition operations should be wasted from
areas to be graded and disposed off-site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be
performed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant.
Section 5 -Site Protection
Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the responsibility of the contractor.
Unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties,
completion of a portion of the project should not be considered to preclude that portion or
adjacent areas from the requirements for site protection until such time as the entire project is
complete as identified by the geotechnical consultant, the client and the regulating agencies.
Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to
protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage.
Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface
drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be
kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall.
Rain related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting,
saturation, swelling, structural distress and other adverse conditions as determined by the
geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as unsuitable materials and
should be subject to overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial
grading as recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 3 of 26
Appendix D Page D-3
Standard Specifications for Grading
The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations.
Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g.,
backcuts) are made in consideration of stability of the completed project and, therefore, should
not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the contractor. Recommendations by the
geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude requirements that are more
restrictive by the regulating agencies. The contractor should provide during periods of extensive
rainfall plastic sheeting to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated and unstable.
When deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant or governing agencies the contractor
shall install checkdams, desilting basins, sand bags or other drainage control measures.
In relatively level areas and/or slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to
depths of greater than 1.0 foot; they should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in
accordance with the applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1.0
foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture conditioning in-place,
followed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein
may be attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be
overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the slope repair
recommendations herein. If field conditions dictate, the geotechnical consultant may
recommend other slope repair procedures.
Section 6 -Excavations
6.1 Unsuitable Materials
Materials that are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and
recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may
not be limited to, dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible natural soils and fractured,
weathered, soft bedrock and nonengineered or otherwise deleterious fill materials.
Material identified by the geotechnical consultant as unsatisfactory due to its moisture
conditions should be overexcavated; moisture conditioned as needed, to a uniform at or
above optimum moisture condition before placement as compacted fill.
If during the course of grading adverse geotechnical conditions are exposed which were
not anticipated in the preliminary soil report as determined by the geotechnical consultant
additional exploration, analysis, and treatment of these problems may be recommended.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 4 of 26
Appendix D PageD-4
Standard Specifications for Grading
6.2 Cut Slopes
Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the
regulating agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal:
vertical).
The geotechnical consultant should observe cut slope excavation and if these excavations
expose loose cohesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, the
materials should be overexcavated and replaced with a compacted stabilization fill. If
encountered specific cross section details should be obtained from the Geotechnical
Consultant.
When extensive cut slopes are excavated or these cut slopes are made in the direction of
the prevailing drainage, a non-erodible diversion swale (brow ditch) should be provided
at the top of the slope.
6.3 Pad Areas
All lot pad areas, including side yard terrace containing both cut and fill materials,
transitions, located less than 3 feet deep should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and
replaced with a uniform compacted fill blanket of 3 feet. Actual depth of overexcavation
may vary and should be delineated by the geotechnical consultant during grading,
especially where deep or drastic transitions are present.
For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established
away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm drainage swale
and/or an appropriate pad gradient. A gradient in soil areas away from the top-of-slopes
of 2 percent or greater is recommended.
Section 7 -Compacted Fill
All fill materials should have fill quality, placement, conditioning and compaction as specified
below or as approved by the geotechnical consultant.
7.1 Fill Material Quality
Excavated on-site or import materials which are acceptable to the geotechnical consultant
may be utilized as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious
materials are removed prior to placement. All import materials anticipated for use on-site
should be sampled tested and approved prior to and placement is in conformance with the
requirements outlined.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 5 of 26
Appendix D Page D-5
Standard Specifications for Grading
Rocks 12 inches in maximum and smaller may be utilized within compacted fill provided
sufficient fill material is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock to
effectively fill rock voids. The amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry
weight passing the 3/4-inch sieve. The geotechnical consultant may vary those
requirements as field conditions dictate.
Where rocks greater than 12 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension are
generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill,
special handling in accordance with the recommendations below. Rocks greater than
four feet should be broken down or disposed off-site.
7.2 Placement of Fill
Prior to placement of fill material, the geotechnical consultant should observe and
approve the area to receive fill. After observation and approval, the exposed ground
surface should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches. The scarified material should be
conditioned (i.e. moisture added or air dried by continued discing) to achieve a moisture
content at or slightly above optimum moisture conditions and compacted to a minimum
of 90 percent of the maximum density or as otherwise recommended in the soils report or
by appropriate government agencies.
Compacted fill should then be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in
loose thickness prior to compaction. Each lift should be moisture conditioned as needed,
thoroughly blended to achieve a consistent moisture content at or slightly above optimum
and thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of
laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the
desired finished grades are achieved.
The contractor should have suitable and sufficient mechanical compaction equipment and
watering apparatus on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed m
consideration of moisture retention properties of the materials and weather conditions.
When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5: 1 (horizontal:
vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope
area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least six-foot wide benches
and a minimum of four feet of vertical bench height within the firm natural ground, firm
bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area
after keying and benching until the geotechnical consultant has reviewed the area.
Material generated by the benching operation should be moved sufficiently away from
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 6 of 26
Appendix D PageD-6
Standard Specifications for Grading
the bench area to allow for the recommended review of the horizontal bench prior to
placement of fill.
Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate fills,
temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false
slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as above described. At least a
3-foot vertical bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved
compacted fill prior to placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in at least
3-foot vertical increments until the desired finished grades are achieved.
Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other grading
delay, the exposed surface or previously compacted fill should be processed by
scarification, moisture conditioning as needed to at or slightly above optimum moisture
content, thoroughly blended and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory
maximum dry density. Where unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than one
foot, the unsuitable materials should be over-excavated.
Following a period of flooding, rainfall or overwatering by other means, no additional fill
should be placed until damage assessments have been made and remedial grading
performed as described herein.
Rocks 12 inch in maximum dimension and smaller may be utilized in the compacted fill
provided the fill is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. No
oversize material should be used within 3 feet of finished pad grade and within 1 foot of
other compacted fill areas. Rocks 12 inches up to four feet maximum dimension should
be placed below the upper 10 feet of any fill and should not be closer than 15 feet to any
slope face. These recommendations could vary as locations of improvements dictate.
Where practical, oversized material should not be placed below areas where structures or
deep utilities are proposed. Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a clean,
overexcavated or unyielding compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native
or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded
over and around all windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized
material should be staggered so those successive strata of oversized material are not in
the same vertical plane.
It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rock as field conditions dictate and as
recommended by the geotechnical consultant at the time of placement.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 7 of 26
Appendix D Page D-7
Standard Specifications for Grading
The contractor should assist the geotechnical consultant and/or his representative by
digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. The
contractor should provide this work at no additional cost to the owner or contractor's
client.
Fill should be tested by the geotechnical consultant for compliance with the
recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing should
conform to ASTM Method of Test D 1556-00, D 2922-04. Tests should be conducted at
a minimum of approximately two vertical feet or approximately 1,000 to 2,000 cubic
yards of fill placed. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. Fill found
not to be in conformance with the grading recommendations should be removed or
otherwise handled as recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
7.3 Fill Slopes
Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the
regulating agencies, permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal:
vertical).
Except as specifically recommended in these grading guidelines compacted fill slopes
should be over-built two to five feet and cut back to grade, exposing the firm, compacted
fill inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If
the desired results are not achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and
reconstructed under the guidelines of the geotechnical consultant. The degree of
overbuilding shall be increased until the desired compacted slope surface condition is
achieved. Care should be taken by the contractor to provide thorough mechanical
compaction to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface.
At the discretion of the geotechnical consultant, slope face compaction may be attempted
by conventional construction procedures including backrolling. The procedure must
create a firmly compacted material throughout the entire depth of the slope face to the
surface of the previously compacted firm fill intercore.
During grading operations, care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer
edge of the slope. Each lift should extend horizontally to the desired finished slope
surface or more as needed to ultimately established desired grades. Grade during
construction should not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It may be helpful
to elevate slightly the outer edge of the slope. Slough resulting from the placement of
individual lifts should not be allowed to drift down over previous lifts. At intervals not
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 8 of 26
Appendix D Page D-8
Standard Specifications for Grading
exceeding four feet in vertical slope height or the capability of available equipment,
whichever is less, fill slopes should be thoroughly dozer trackrolled.
For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the
top-of-slope. This may be accomplished using a berm and pad gradient of at least two
percent.
Section 8 -Trench Backfill
Utility and/or other excavation of trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be
compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction
should be a minimum of90 percent of the laboratory maximum density.
Within slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches up to one foot wide and two
feet deep may be backfilled with sand and consolidated by jetting, flooding or by mechanical
means. If on-site materials are utilized, they should be wheel-rolled, tamped or otherwise
compacted to a firm condition. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or
spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on review of backfill operations during
construction.
If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment m close
proximity to a buried conduit, the contractor may elect the utilization of light weight mechanical
compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean, granular material, which should
be thoroughly jetted in-place above the conduit, prior to initiating mechanical compaction
procedures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon review of
the geotechnical consultant at the time of construction.
In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where
flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by the
geotechnical consultant. Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not recommended in slope
areas.
Section 9 -Drainage
Where deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant, canyon subdrain systems should be
installed in accordance with CTE' s recommendations during grading.
Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilization or sidehill masses, should be
installed in accordance with the specifications.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 9 of 26
Appendix D Page D-9
Standard Specifications for Grading
Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and areas of structures to
suitable disposal areas via non-erodible devices (i.e., gutters, downspouts, and concrete swales).
For drainage in extensively landscaped areas near structures, (i.e., within four feet) a minimum
of 5 percent gradient away from the structure should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2
percent should be maintained over the remainder of the site.
Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life
of the project. Property owners should be made aware that altering drainage patterns could be
detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance.
Section 10 -Slope Maintenance
10.1 -Landscape Plants
To enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting should be accomplished at the
completion of grading. Slope planting should consist of deep-rooting vegetation
requiring little watering. Plants native to the southern California area and plants relative
to native plants are generally desirable. Plants native to other semi-arid and arid areas
may also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect should be the best party to consult
regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration.
10.2 -Irrigation
Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces, not placed in trenches excavated into
slope faces.
Slope irrigation should be minimized. If automatic timing devices are utilized on
irrigation systems, provisions should be made for interrupting normal irrigation during
periods of rainfall.
10 .3 -Repair
As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand,
to protect all slope areas from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This
measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period prior to landscape planting.
If slope failures occur, the geotechnical consultant should be contacted for a field review
of site conditions and development ofrecommendations for evaluation and repair.
If slope failures occur as a result of exposure to period of heavy rainfall, the failure areas
and currently unaffected areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to protect against
additional saturation.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 10 of 26
Appendix D Page D-10
Standard Specifications for Grading
In the accompanying Standard Details, appropriate repair procedures are illustrated for
superficial slope failures (i.e., occurring typically within the outer one foot to three feet of
a slope face).
FINISH CUT
SLOPE
------------
5'MIN
BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL
FILL SLOPE
10'
TYPICAL
SURFACE OF FIRM
EARTH MATERIAL
15' MIN. (INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE)
BENCHING FILL OVER CUT
FINISH FILL SLOPE
SURFACE OF FIRM
EARTH MATERIAL
15' MIN OR STABILITY EQUIVALENT PER SOIL
ENGINEERING (INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE)
NOTTO SCALE
BENCHING FOR COMPACTED FILL DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 11 of 26
--
--
MINIMUM
DOWNSLOPE
KEY DEPTH
TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
FILL ___ _ ------
-------~ ...... --~ ----... ,. ...... ~~~,~ ---
--~'(\ ,,,.,r --
---~~~!),.~ ---
---.. ,su'~P..~ ~--~-u~ ------------
---1 O' TYPICAL BENCH
// ---WIDTH VARIES
4'
~1 ---/ 1 ----COMPETENT EARTH
/ --MATERIAL -
2% MIN ---
15' MINIMUM BASE KEY WIDTH
TYPICAL BENCH
HEIGHT
PROVIDE BACKDRAIN AS REQUIRED
PER RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOILS
ENGINEER DURING GRADING
WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 5:1 OR LESS,
BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY. FILL IS NOT TO BE
PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL.
NOT TO SCALE
FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL GROUND DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 12 of 26
en
~ z
0
:t>
JJ
0
en
""CJ
""CJ m
Q) C')
cc -
CD J!
...I. C')
u) :t>
0 :::!
..... 0
I\) z a, en
"Tl 0
JJ
Ci)
~ 0
z
Ci)
-
REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM,
AND CREEP MATERIAL FROM
TRANSITION
CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN
ON "AS-BUILT"
NATURAL -
TOPOGRAPP~Y _ --------------CUT SLOPE*
FILL ----.-
---------Wio\J€. --- -1c.€.~-~€ - ---l'\OC~ ---
---;\J,uW\ ~ --I
--O:s;\-, cO'-:_ -----1 14' TYPICAL
\ If" ----------2% MIN -I " 1 0' TYPICAL
15' MINIMUM
NOTTO SCALE
BEDROCK OR APPROVED
FOUNDATION MATERIAL
*NOTE: CUT SLOPE PORTION SHOULD BE
MADE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL
FILL SLOPE ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL
_-,-------------~
-, ' /.,,,,
,' \ COMPACTED FILL / '/'
\\ /I
\ I
[
SURFACEOF
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
TYPICAL BENCHING \ \ /
\' / / ,.__~ , _ / A...-.A..
SEE DETAIL BELOW
MINIMUM 9 FP PER LINEAR FOOT
OF APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL
CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
FILTER MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING
SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL:
' / REMOVE UNSUITABLE
DETAIL
14"
MATERIAL
INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN
AT 2% GRADIENT MINIMUM
MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED
PERFORATED PIPE (PERFORATIONS
DOWN)
6" FILTER MATERIAL BEDDING
SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING
APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40
POLY-VINYL-CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR
APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH
STRENGTH 1000 psi
1"
¾"
¾"
NO.4
NO.8
NO.30
NO.50
NO. 200
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA, SUBJECT TO
FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING
LENGTH OF RUN
NOT TO SCALE
INITIAL 500'
500' TO 1500'
> 1500'
PIPE DIAMETER
4"
6"
8"
TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 14 of 26
TYPICAL BENCHING
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS
--' ,-....... ' /,,,
[
SURFACEOF
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
\'-\ COMPACTED FILL /'/
\\ //
\ /
\ \ /
\' / / --,_.,,,, __ ..._ ' / REMOVE UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
SEE DETAILS BELOW
TRENCH DETAILS
6" MINIMUM OVERLAP
INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN
AT 2% GRADIENT MINIMUM
OPTIONAL V-DITCH DETAIL MINIMUM 9 FP PER LINEAR FOOT
OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL
MIRAFI 140N FABRIC
OR APPROVED EQUAL
6" MINIMUM OVERLAP --------0
24"
MINIMUM
MIRAFI 140N FABRIC
OR APPROVED EQUAL
APPROVED PIPE TO BE
SCHEDULE 40 POLY-
VINYLCHLORIDE (P.V.C.)
24"
MINIMUM
MINIMUM 9 FP PER LINEAR FOOT
OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL
OR APPROVED EQUAL.
MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH
1000 PSI.
DRAIN MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING
SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL:
PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA, SUBJECT TO
FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING
SIEVE SIZE
1 ½"
1"
¾"
¾"
NO. 200
PERCENTAGE PASSING
88-100
5-40
0-17
0-7
0-3
LENGTH OF RUN
INITIAL 500'
500' TO 1500'
> 1500'
NOT TO SCALE
GEOFABRIC SUBDRAIN
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 15 of 26
PIPE DIAMETER
4"
6"
8"
FRONT VIEW
CONCRETE
CUT-OFF WALL
SUBDRAIN PIPE
SIDE VIEW
. !· ;'!· -.'!· -. ! .-... . ' 6" Min.
, ... . ' --------~ ...... ·-·--
6" Min. ... " ....
24" Min.
6"Min.
~ 12" Min. ~ 6" Min.
CONCRETE
CUT-OFF WALL -----•·.-::~ .. • . .. ... .. 6" Min . -.... -...
SOIL□ SUBDRAIN PIPE
•.-, .,
o. • i o. • PERFORATED SUBDRAIN PIPE . .. ' ' . . . . . .
NOT TO SCALE
RECOMMENDED SUBDRAIN CUT-OFF WALL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 16 of 26
FRONT VIEW
SUBDRAIN OUTLET
PIPE (MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER)
SIDE VIEW
ALL BACKFILL SHOULD BE COMPACTED
IN CONFORMANCE WITH PROJECT
SPECIFICATIONS. COMPACTION EFFORT
SHOULD NOT DAMAGE STRUCTURE
-!·b. ,.! !·r::.. :-!·b. -. ,.
ft-' ' ~ ' ' A • ' ....
1---24" Min.
>----24" Min.
NOTE: HEADWALL SHOULD OUTLET AT TOE OF SLOPE
OR INTO CONTROLLED SURFACE DRAINAGE DEVICE
ALL DISCHARGE SHOULD BE CONTROLLED
THIS DETAIL IS A MINIMUM DESIGN AND MAY BE
MODIFIED DEPENDING UPON ENCOUNTERED
CONDITIONS AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS
NOT TO SCALE
24" Min.
12"
TYPICAL SUBDRAIN OUTLET HEADWALL DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 17 of 26
4" DIAMETER PERFORATED
PIPE BACKDRAIN
4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED
PIPE LATERAL DRAIN
SLOPE PER PLAN
FILTER MATERIAL BENCHING
AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN
I I I AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR
SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH.
KEY-DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER
(GENERALLY 1/2 SLOPE HEIGHT, 15' MINIMUM)
DIMENSIONS ARE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED
NOTTO SCALE
TYPICAL SLOPE STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 18 of 26
4" DIAMETER PERFORATED
PIPE BACKDRAIN
4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED
PIPE LATERAL DRAIN
SLOPE PER PLAN
FILTER MATERIAL BENCHING
H/2
ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT
MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED
FOR SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40
FEET HIGH.
KEY-DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER
DIMENSIONS ARE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED
NOTTO SCALE
TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 19 of 26
20' MAXIMUM
FINAL LIMIT OF
EXCAVATION
OVEREXCAVATE
OVERBURDEN
(CREEP-PRONE)
DAYLIGHT
LINE
FINISH PAD
OVEREXCAVATE 3'
AND REPLACE WITH
COMPACTED FILL
COMPETENT BEDROCK
TYPICAL BENCHING
LOCATION OF BACKDRAIN AND
OUTLETS PER SOILS ENGINEER
AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST
DURING GRADING. MINIMUM 2%
FLOW GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE
LOCATION.
EQUIPMENT WIDTH (MINIMUM 15')
NOTTO SCALE
DAYLIGHT SHEAR KEY DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 20 of 26
NATURAL GROUND
PROPOSED GRADING
-------------------COMPACTED FILL -----------------------------------------------
PROVIDE BACKDRAIN, PER
BACKDRAIN DETAIL. AN
ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN
AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE
REQUIRED FOR BACK
SLOPES IN EXCESS OF BASE WIDTH "W" DETERMINED
BY SOILS ENGINEER
NOTTO SCALE
40 FEET HIGH. LOCATIONS
OF BACKDRAINS AND OUTLETS
PER SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST
DURING GRADING. MINIMUM 2%
FLOW GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE
LOCATION.
TYPICAL SHEAR KEY DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 21 of 26
FINISH SURFACE SLOPE
3 FP MINIMUM PER LINEAR FOOT
APPROVED FILTER ROCK*
CONCRETE COLLAR
PLACED NEAT
A
COMPACTED FILL
2.0% MINIMUM GRADIENT
A
4" MINIMUM DIAMETER
SOLID OUTLET PIPE
SPACED PER SOIL
ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS
4" MINIMUM APPROVED
PERFORATED PIPE**
(PERFORATIONS DOWN)
MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT
TO OUTLET
DURING GRADING TYPICAL BENCH INCLINED
TOWARD DRAIN
**APPROVED PIPE TYPE:
MINIMUM
12" COVER
SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
(P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL.
MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI
BENCHING
DETAIL A-A
OMPACTE
BACKFILL
12"
MINIMUM
TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL
MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED
SOLID OUTLET PIPE
*FILTER ROCK TO MEET FOLLOWING
SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL:
SIEVE SIZE
1"
¾"
¾"
N0.4
NO. 30
NO.SO
NO. 200
PERCENTAGE PASSING
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
5-15
0-7
0-3
NOTTO SCALE
TYPICAL BACKDRAIN DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 22 of 26
FINISH SURFACE SLOPE
MINIMUM 3 FP PER LINEAR FOOT
OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE*
TAPE AND SEAL AT COVER
CONCRETE COLLAR
PLACED NEAT COMPACTED FILL
A
2.0% MINIMUM GRADIENT
A
MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER
SOLID OUTLET PIPE
SPACED PER SOIL
ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM
12" COVER
*NOTE: AGGREGATE TO MEET FOLLOWING
SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL:
SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING
1 ½" 100
1" 5-40
¾" 0-17
¾" 0-7
NO. 200 0-3
TYPICAL
BENCHING
DETAIL A-A
12"
MINIMUM
NOT TO SCALE
MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR
APPROVED EQUAL
4" MINIMUM APPROVED
PERFORATED PIPE
(PERFORATIONS DOWN)
MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT
TO OUTLET
BENCH INCLINED
TOWARD DRAIN
TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL
MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED
SOLID OUTLET PIPE
BACKDRAIN DETAIL (GEOFRABIC)
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 23 of 26
SOIL SHALL BE PUSHED OVER
ROCKS AND FLOODED INTO
VOIDS. COMPACT AROUND
AND OVER EACH WINDROW.
10'
i FILL SLOPE 1
CLEAR ZONE __/
EQUIPMENT WIDTH
STACK BOULDERS END TO END.
DO NOT PILE UPON EACH OTHER.
0 0 0
~ 0 0
~10'MINO
NOT TO SCALE
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 24 of 26
STAGGER
ROWS
FINISHED GRADE BUILDING
10'
SLOPE FACE
0
NO OVERSIZE, AREA FOR
FOUNDATION, UTILITIE~~l
AND SWIMMING POOL:_i_
0 0
1--d 4•L-.
WINDROW~
0
5' MINIMUM OR BELOW
DEPTH OF DEEPEST
UTILITY TRENCH
(WHICHEVER GREATER)
TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (EDGE VIEW)
GRANULAR SOIL FLOODED
TO FILL VOIDS
HORIZONTALLY PLACED
COMPACTION FILL
PROFILE VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 25 of 26
GENERAL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
CUTLOT
------------TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM AND _ ---
WEATHERED BEDROCK ---------
------... --UNWEATHERED BEDROCK
OVEREXCAVATE
AND REGRADE
COMPACTED FILL
CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION)
.,,,,..,,,,..,,,,..,,,,.
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK
NOT TO SCALE
TRANSITION LOT DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 26 of 26
3'MIN
OVEREXCAVATE
AND REGRADE
APPENDIX E
PERCOLATION TO INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS AND FIELD DATA
P 1 Total Depth: 38 inches
Time
Test
Interval
Time
Test Refill
Water
Level
Initial/Start
Water
Level
End/Final
Incremental
Water Level
Change
Percolation
Rate
Percolation
Rate
(minutes) Depth /Inches Depth /Inches Depth /Inches (inches) inches/minutes inches/hour
9:30:00 Initial None 30.00 initial
10:00:00 30 29.75 30.00 32.75 2.75 0.09 5.50
10:30:00 30 29 29.75 32.75 3.00 0.10 6.00
11:00:00 30 30 29.00 32.25 3.25 0.11 6.50
11:30:00 30 29.5 30.00 32.75 2.75 0.09 5.50
12:00:00 30 30 29.50 32.25 2.75 0.09 5.50
12:30:00 30 30 30.00 32.75 2.75 0.09 5.50
13:00:00 30 29.875 30.00 32.63 2.63 0.09 5.25
13:30:00 30 NO 29.88 32.75 2.88 0.10 5.75
P 2 Total Depth: 64 inches
Time
Test
Interval
Time
Test Refill
Water
Level
Initial/Start
Water
Level
End/Final
Incremental
Water Level
Change
Percolation
Rate
Percolation
Rate
(minutes) Depth /Inches Depth /Inches Depth /Inches (inches) inches/minutes inches/hour
9:32:00 Initial None 56.00 initial
10:02:00 30 NO 56.00 59.13 3.125 0.104 6.250
10:32:00 30 55.75 59.13 59.63 0.500 0.017 1.000
11:02:00 30 NO 55.75 59.25 3.500 0.117 7.000
11:32:00 30 NO 59.25 58.63 0.625 0.021 1.250
12:02:00 30 55.75 58.63 58.25 0.375 0.013 0.750
12:32:00 30 NO 55.75 59.25 3.500 0.117 7.000
13:02:00 30 55.875 59.25 58.88 0.375 0.013 0.750
13:32:00 30 NO 55.88 58.88 3.000 0.100 6.000
P 3 Total Depth: 52 inches
Time
Test
Interval
Time
Test Refill
Water
Level
Initial/Start
Water
Level
End/Final
Incremental
Water Level
Change
Percolation
Rate
Percolation
Rate
(minutes) Depth /Inches Depth /Inches Depth /Inches (inches) inches/minutes inches/hour
9:34:00 Initial None 44.00 initial
10:04:00 30 44 44.00 49.00 5.00 0.17 10.00
10:34:00 30 44 44.00 49.00 5.00 0.17 10.00
11:04:00 30 43.875 44.00 48.88 4.88 0.16 9.75
11:34:00 30 44 43.88 49.25 5.38 0.18 10.75
12:04:00 30 44 44.00 49.06 5.06 0.17 10.13
12:34:00 30 44 44.00 49.00 5.00 0.17 10.00
13:04:00 30 44 44.00 49.13 5.13 0.17 10.25
13:34:00 30 NO 44.00 49.13 5.13 0.17 10.25
TABLE 3.3
PERCOLATION TEST DATA
-
-
-
-
---
---
---
-
-
P 4 Total Depth: 63 inches
Time
Test
Interval
Time
Test Refill
Water
Level
Initial/Start
Water
Level
End/Final
Incremental
Water Level
Change
Percolation
Rate
Percolation
Rate
(minutes) Depth /Inches Depth /Inches Depth /Inches (inches) inches/minutes inches/hour
9:36:00 Initial None 55.00 initial
10:06:00 30 NO 55.00 55.88 0.88 0.03 1.75
10:36:00 30 54.75 55.88 56.75 0.88 0.03 1.75
11:06:00 30 NO 54.75 55.88 1.13 0.04 2.25
11:36:00 30 55 55.88 57.25 1.38 0.05 2.75
12:06:00 30 54.75 55.00 56.13 1.13 0.04 2.25
12:36:00 30 NO 54.75 55.94 1.19 0.04 2.38
13:06:00 30 54.875 55.94 57.00 1.06 0.04 2.13
13:36:00 30 NO 54.88 56.13 1.25 0.04 2.50
Inches Inches
t =30 t=30Df=32.75 Df =58.88
r =3 r =3
D0 =29.88 D0 =55.88
DT =38 DT =64
Ho =8.125 in Ho =8.125 in
Hf=5.25 in Hf=5.125 in
H =D = 2.875 in H =D = 3 inHavg=6.6875 in Havg =6.625 in
It =1.053 in/hr It =1.108 in/hr
Inches Inches
t =30 t=30Df=49.13 Df =56.13
r =3 r =3
D0 =44.00 D0 =54.88
DT =52 DT =63
Ho =8 in Ho =8.125 in
Hf=2.875 in Hf=6.875 in
H =D = 5.125 in H =D = 1.25 in
Havg =5.4375 in Havg =7.5 in
It =2.216 in/hr It =0.417 in/hr
Test Hole Radius,Test Hole Radius,
Initial Depth to Water,Initial Depth to Water,
Total Depth of Test Hole,Total Depth of Test Hole,
Percolation Rate Conversion P 3 Percolation Rate Conversion P 4
Time Interval,Time Interval,
Final Depth of Water,Final Depth of Water,
Test Hole Radius,Test Hole Radius,
Initial Depth to Water,Initial Depth to Water,
Total Depth of Test Hole,Total Depth of Test Hole,
Percolation Rate Conversion P 1 Percolation Rate Conversion P 2
Time Interval,Time Interval,
Final Depth of Water,Final Depth of Water,
--
t::. t::.
t::. t::. t::. t::. - -
--
t::. t::.
t::. t::. t::. t::. - -
APPENDIX F
I-8 WORKSHEET
I-8
I-8
X
Worksheet : Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition
-" -----" - - -----... ll'il■llln1■-.••••11 ll.K!EI-.,t111u.•n-n11uun 11 ...
Part 1 -Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria
Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable
consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
1
Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations
greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall
be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix
C.2 and Appendix D.
Provide basis: The NRCS soils across the site are all Type B soils with mediwn surface runoff. The site soils are
consistent with the NRCS mapped types based on site explorations and percolation testing. Three
soil types were present in the area of the proposed development, Quaternary Previously Placed
Fill, Old Paralic Deposits and Tertiary Santiago Formation.
Four percolation tests were completed within the Old Paralic Deposits. The calculated infiltration
rates (with an applied factor of safety of2) ranged from approximately to 0.21 to 1.11 inch per
hour. The average infiltration rate for all four tests with an applied factor of safety of 2 is 0.60.
Due to the average rate being above 0.5 inches per hour it is CTE's opinion that the site soils can
support full infiltration.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide
narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability.
2
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing
risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or
other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to
this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the
factors presented in Appendix C.2.
X
Provide basis: Provided the basins are constructed in the areas with adequate set back from proposed structural
improvements, risk of geotechnical hazards will not be significantly increased.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide
narrative discussion of study/data source applicability.
C-11
I-8
I-8
---'-l.fljTiil""l~i
Criteria Screening Question
3
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing
risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants
or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response
to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the
factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Yes No
X
Provide basis: According to Geotracker, the nearest known "Open" LUST cleanup site is over 4,000 feet away
from the site.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide
narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability.
4
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing
potential water balance issues such as change of seasonality of ephemeral
streams or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters?
The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive
evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
X
Provide basis: The nearest down gradient surface waters are the Agua Hediona Lagoon which is over 2,200 feet
from the site. Due to the significant distance to the lagoon it is unlikely to be impacted by
infiltrating site water.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide
narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability.
Part 1
If all answers to rows 1 - 4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The
feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration
Result* If any answer from row 1-4 is "No", infiltration may be possible to some extent but
would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design.
Proceed to Part 2
Full
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in
the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by City Engineer to substantiate findings.
C-12
I-8---'-l.fljTiil""l~i ~ I ' ... ~
Part 2-Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria
Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative
consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question
5
Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or
volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a
comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and
AppendixD.
Provide basis: NA
Yes
X
No
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide
narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low
infiltration rates.
6
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk
of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or
other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to
this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the
factors presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis: NA
X
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide
narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low
infiltration rates.
C-13
I-8---'-l.fljTiil""l~i
Criteria Screening Question
7
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing
significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm
water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question
shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in
Appendix C.3.
Provide basis: NA
Yes No
X
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide
narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low
infiltration rates.
8
Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights? The
response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive
evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis: NA
X
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide
narrative discussion of study/ data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low
infiltration rates.
If all answers from row 1-4 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible.
Part 2 The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration.
Result* If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be
infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration.
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in
the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/ or studies may be required by City Engineer to substantiate findings
C-14