2002-6840 I i I
I '
I I
1 I I I I I I
ifil � 1111 Ji i
1i ; i ill { ! '. j ilJ � lli
l i i i1 I i i ; i GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
i , II ' ; ail ; I ; i
CARDIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1 .
: I ; i I � filllil
MODERNIZATION / ADDITION
CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA
i i 1 I l i I i I
I
, ill 1 I Ji � i { il � i
i i I sJ lil ► jij '
li
ril j j I i ilil I
I I I ! i l i l
; 1 I
� j
!� 1
! T N IC;0! O R t :T Er D ,
! G TC IC k
� N ULI' ; i ! PREPARED FOR
AMTS
' CARDIFF SCHOOL DISTRICT
Ji , ' II , il � i ►
CARDIFF BY THE SEA CALIFORNIA
' Ili lllll � llii ri
i i i
I i j I I I i
1 I
l i J i l l ;.
JUNE 2000
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
`E
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS '
Project No. 06523-42-01
June 21, 2000
Cardiff School District
1888 Montgomery Avenue
Cardiff By The Sea, California 92007
' Attention: Mr.Roger Smith
Subject. CARDIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
MODERNIZATION/ADDITION
CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your authorization of our proposal (LG-00278) dated April 20, 2000, we have
performed a geotechnical.investigation for the proposed modernization/addition to the Cardiff
Elementary School. The accompanying report presents the findings of our study, and our conclusions
and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of developing the site as proposed.
Based on the results of our investigation, it is our opinion that the site can be developed as proposed,
provided the recommendations of this report are followed.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of f irther'service,please contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yon,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
-� James L. Brown Dale Hamelehle Rodney. Mikesell
GE 2176 CEG 1760 55080
,��RED QF QQpFESS�O,�,�
- RCM:DH:JL$:dmc eP01. 81C N5 SALEM, ��O G.
�S A0�Eye N
(2) Addressee fW � y . CERTIFIED —i a Not 066080
(4/del) HMC Group q 002176 +� ENGWEEgIN(i * E
Attention: Ms. Andrea Buchs v r t � �r L+ Q2►�r
7r H � O ��OQ �
/e,
6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 92 .phone (858) 558 Fax (858) 558-6159
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE.....................................................................................................................1
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................1
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................2
3.1 Topsoil .......................................................................................................................................2
3.2 Terrace Deposit..........................................................................................................................2
4.GROUNDWATER..............................................................................................................................2
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .....................................................................................................................3
5.1 Landslides..................................................................................................................................3
5.2 Faulting......................................................................................................................................3
5.3 Seismicity-Deterministic Analysis ............................................................................................3
5.4 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis......................................................................................4
5.5 Seismicity-Spectral Analysis.....................................................................................................5
5.6 Soil Liquefaction........................................................................................................................5
5.7 Tsunamis and Seiches................................................................................................................5
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................6
6.1 General.......................................................................................................................................6
6.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics...........................................................................................6
6.3 Seismic Design Criteria.............................................................................................................7
6.4 Grading.......................................................................................................................................8
6.5 Foundations.................'..............................................................................................................9
6.6 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade.........................................................................................................10
6.7 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads..........................................................................................11
6.8 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations...............................................................................12
6.9 Site Drainage............................................................................................................................13
6.10 Foundation and Grading Plan Review...................................................................................13
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1,Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Site Plan
Figures 3-4,Earthquake Design Spectra
Figure 5,Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail
Figure 6,Retaining Wall Drainage Detail
APPENDIX.A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A-1—A-5, Logs of Borings
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Table B-I, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results
Table B-II, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results
Table B-III, Summary of Laboratory Water Soluble Sulfate Test Results
Table B-IV, Summary of Laboratory pH and Resistivity Test Results
Table B-V, Summary of Laboratory Resistance Value (R-Value)Test Results
Figures B-l—B-2,Consolidation Curves
APPENDIX C
PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS
APPENDIX D
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
LIST OF REFERENCES
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for proposed new additions on the
campus of Cardiff Elementary School in Cardiff By The Sea, California (see Vicinity Map,
Figure 1). The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate subsurface soil and geologic conditions
within and near the footprint of the proposed new structures and,based on conditions encountered,to
provide conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of constructing the
buildings.
The scope of the field investigation consisted of a site reconnaissance, review of pertinent
geotechnical literature, and excavation of five small-diameter exploratory borings. A detailed
discussion of the field investigation is presented in Appendix A.
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained during the investigation to
evaluate their pertinent physical properties. Appendix B presents a summary of the laboratory test
results. The results of laboratory in-place dry density and moisture content test results are presented
on the boring logs.
The recommendations presented herein are based on an analysis of the data obtained duringjthe
investigation and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions in the Cardiff area.
References reviewed for this report are provided in the List of References section of this report.
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Cardiff Elementary School campus is located on the west side of the intersection of
Montgomery Avenue and Mozart Avenue east of San Elijo Avenue in Cardiff By The Sea,
California. The approximate location is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The campus, within
the area of the planned construction, is currently occupied in part by several permanent structures,
relocatable classroom/office buildings, a retaining wall, concrete hardscape, asphalt concrete and
landscaping. Planned development includes constructing a relatively large administration building
west of existing Buildings C, D and E, a new classroom/library building west of Building H, and two
smaller additions to Buildings B and F (see Site Plan, Figure 2). It is anticipated that existing
buildings that conflict with the planned new construction will be removed and/or relocated.
It is anticipated that the proposed new structures will be single-story, wood-frame with stucco
exterior and/or masonry block construction supported on conventional shallow footings with a slab-
Project No.06523-42-01 - 1 - June 21,2000
on-grade flooring. A finish floor elevation of 93 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) is planned for the
administration building. A finish floor elevation that varies from 89.5 feet to 92.5 feet is planned for
the classroom/library building. The finish floor elevation of the additions to Buildings B and F will
closely match existing floor elevations. Grading is anticipated to be minor with cuts and fills of less
than 3 feet to produce level building pads.
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Based on our field investigation, the materials underlying the site consist of native Terrace Deposits.
A minor amount of topsoil was encountered in one of the borings.These units are described below.
3.1 Topsoil
A minor amount of topsoil was encountered in Boring B-1 to a depth of approximately 1.5 feet. The
topsoil was comprised of loose silty sand with roots. The topsoil is compressible and not suitable for
support of the planned new buildings and should be removed and recompacted during grading. It is
anticipated that the topsoil is of limited depth and extent.
3.2 Terrace Deposit
Medium dense to very dense Pleistocene native marine and lagoonal Deposits were encountered at
grade throughout the majority of the site and underlying the topsoil. For the purpose of this report
these deposits will be identified as Terrace Deposits. Some geologic literature identifies these
deposits as the "Nestor Terrace." The Terrace Deposits were comprised of brown to slightly reddish
brown, fine- to medium-grained sand within the upper 5 to 7 feet below the existing ground surface,
becoming clayey sand at depth. Laboratory consolidation curves performed on samples of the
Terrace Deposit indicate the upper portion has moderate potential for loading induced settlement.
Remedial grading consisting of removal and recompaction of the upper 5 feet of the Terrace Deposit
will be required to provide a suitable bearing strata for support of the new buildings. The lower
portion of the Terrace Deposits should provide satisfactory foundation support for both compacted
fill and proposed structural improvements.
4. GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory borings and is not anticipated to impact project
development as currently proposed.
Project No.06523-42-01 -2- June 21,2000
5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
5.1 Landslides
The nearly level ground of the site and immediate vicinity precludes any hazard derived from
landsliding or other slope failure.
5.2 Faulting
A review of geologic literature indicates that there are no known active or potentially active faults in
the vicinity of the site. The Rose Canyon Fault, located approximately 2 miles west of the site, is the
closest known active fault. An active fault is defined by the California Division of Mines and
Geology (CDMG) as a seismically active fault with evidence for activity roughly within the
last 11,000 years. The CDMG has included portions of the Rose Canyon Fault within an Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.This site is not located within such a zone.
5.3 Seismicity-Deterministic Analysis
Earthquakes that might occur on faults within the southern California and northern Baja California
area are potential generators of significant ground motion at the site. In order to determine the
distance of known faults to the site, the computer program EQFAULT, (Blake, 1997), was utilized.
Principal references used within EQFAULT in selecting faults to be included are Jennings (1975),
Anderson(1984) and Wesnousky (1986).
Within a search radius of 62 miles (100 kilometers) from the site, 15 known active faults were
identified. The results of the deterministic seismicity analyses indicate that the Rose Canyon Fault is
the dominant source of potential ground motion at the site. Earthquakes having a maximum credible
(upper bound) Magnitude of 6.9 and a maximum probable Magnitude of 5.7, are considered to be
representative of the potential for seismic ground shaking within the site (from this fault zone). The
"maximum credible earthquake" is defined as the maximum earthquake that seems possible of
occurring under the presently known tectonic framework,while the "maximum probable earthquake"
L is the maximum earthquake that is considered likely to occur during a 100-year time interval
(California Division of Mines and Geology Notes, Number 43). The estimated maximum credible
and maximum probable peak ground accelerations from the Rose Canyon Fault are approximately
0.45g and 0.27g, respectively. Presented on the following table are the earthquake events and site
acceleration's based on attenuation relationships of Geomatrix (1994) for the faults considered most
likely to subject the site to ground shaking. The seismic risk at the site is not considered significantly
greater than that of the surrounding developments.
Project No.06523-42-01 -3- June 21,2000
TABLE 5.3
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS FOR SELECTED ACTIVE FAULTS
Distance Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
Fault Name From Site Credible Probable Credible Site Probable Site
(miles) Magnitude Magnitude Accelerations Acceleration
Rose Canyon 2.3 6.9 5.7 0.45 0.27
Newport-Inglewood 12 6.9 5.8 0.20 0.10
Coronado Bank 17 7.4 6.3 0.20 0.10
Elsinore Julian 29 7.1 6.4 0.10 0.06
Earthquake Valley 42 6.5 5.7 0.04 0.02
Palos Verdes 42 7.1 6.2 0.07 0.03
' San Jacinto-Anza 52 7.2 6.9 0.06 0.04
While listing of peak accelerations is useful for comparison of potential effects of fault activity in a
region, other considerations are important in seismic design, including the frequency and duration of
motion and the soil conditions underlying the site.
5.4 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
The computer program FRISKSP (Blake, 1995, updated 1998) was used to perform a site-specific
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. The program is a modified version of FRISK (McGuire, 1978)
that models earthquakes as lines to evaluate site-specific probabilities of exceedence of given
horizontal accelerations for each line source. Geologic parameters not included in the deterministic
analysis are included in this analysis. The program operates with the assumption that the occurrence
rate of earthquakes on each mappable Quaternary fault is proportional to the fault's slip rate. Fault
rupture length as a function of earthquake magnitude is accounted for, and site acceleration estimates
are made using the earthquake magnitude and closest distance from the site to the rupture zone.
Uncertainty in each of following are accounted for: (1) earthquake magnitude, (2)rupture length for
a given magnitude, (3) location of the rupture zone, (4) maximum possible magnitude of a given
earthquake, and (5) acceleration at the site from a given earthquake along each fault. By calculating
the expected accelerations from all earthquake sources, the program calculates the total average
annual expected number of occurrences of a site acceleration greater than a specified value.
Attenuation relationships suggested by Sadigh et al. (1997) were utilized in the analysis. The results
of the analysis indicate that, for a 100-year exposure period and a 10 percent probability of
occurrence, a mean site acceleration of 0.60g may be generated. This value corresponds to a return
period of approximately 949 years. For a return period of approximately 475 years (10 percent
Project No.06523-42-01 -4- June 21,2000
probability in 50 years), a mean site acceleration of 0.41g may be generated. Graphical
representations of the analysis are presented in Appendix C.
5.5 Seismicity-Spectral Analysis
Spectral plots of pseudo-velocity and pseudo-acceleration were prepared for the proposed structures.
These plots are based on attenuation relationships suggested by Sadigh, et al., Geomatrix
Consultants, (1997). The accompanying graphs present the pseudo-absolute spectral accelerations
and pseudo-relative spectral velocities at five percent of critical damping for a selected frequency
range. Graphs (Figures 3 and 4) are provided for mean spectral accelerations and spectral velocities,
and mean plus one standard deviation for both parameters.
5.6 Soil Liquefaction
Due to the relatively dense nature of the underlying Terrace Deposit, as well as the lack of
permanent near-surface groundwater, the potential for liquefaction occurring at the site is considered
very low. It should be noted that the potential for a rise in the permanent water table and/or the
development of a perched water table due to the influx of water from landscape irrigation is
considered to be extremely low. This school, as well as the surrounding community has been fully
developed and irrigated for more than 50 years.
5.7 Tsunamis and Seiches
The site is approximately '/2 mile from the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of about 90 feet above mean
sea level. Given the distance from the ocean and elevation above mean sea level, the probability of
- damage from Tsunamis (Seismic Sea Waves) is considered to be low.
The site is not located adjacent to or downslope of any large bodies of water that could adversely
affect the site in the event of earthquake-induced failures or seiches (wave oscillations in an enclosed
or semi-enclosed bodies of water).
Project No.06523-42-01 -5- June 21,2000
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
6.1.1 It is our opinion that no soil or geologic conditions were encountered during the
investigation that would preclude the development of the improvements as proposed
provided the recommendations of this report are followed.
6.1.2 It is estimated the site could be subjected to a maximum horizontal acceleration of
approximately 0.45g in the event of a Magnitude 6.9 earthquake along the Rose Canyon
Fault Zone. The acceleration with a ten percent probability of occurring in a 100-year
period is 0.60g. The seismic risk at the site however is not considered significantly greater
than that of the surrounding developments. Seismic design for the site should be
performed in accordance with 1998 California Building Code Title 24 criteria.
6.1.3 Due to the compressible nature of the upper Terrace Deposits, remedial grading consisting
of the removal and recompaction of the upper 5 feet of soil below existing grade should be
performed within the building footprint area.
6.1.4 Import soils, if needed, should have an Expansion Index (EI) less than 50. Geocon
Incorporated should be notified of the import source and should perform laboratory testing
prior to arrival to determine its suitability as fill material.
6.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics
6.2.1 The majority of the soils in the upper 5 feet encountered in the field investigation are
considered to have a "low" expansion potential (Expansion Index [EI] of 50 or less) as
defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table No. 18-I-B. Recommendations
presented herein assume that the site will be graded such that soils with an EI of less than
50 will be present to a minimum depth of 5 feet below finish grade. If soils with an EI
greater than 50 are exposed near finish grade, modifications to the foundation and/or slab-
on-grade recommendations presented herein may be required.
6.2.2 Water soluble sulfate testing was conducted on samples of the site materials to check
whether the soil contains high enough sulfate concentrations that could damage normal
Portland cement concrete. Table B-III of Appendix B summarizes the sulfate test results.
The results of the tests indicate a very low sulfate content with a corresponding
"negligible" sulfate rating based on Table 19-A-4 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
Project No.06523-42-01 -6- June 21,2000
UBC guidelines should be followed in determining the type of concrete to be used. The
presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic, therefore,
other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over
time landscaping activities (i.e. addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect
the concentration.
- 6.2.3 Potential of Hydrogen (pH) and resistivity tests were performed on samples of the site soil
to determine if the soils are corrosive to buried metal. The tests were performed in
accordance with California Test Method No. 643. The test results indicate the soil sampled
has a "less corrosive" potential. The results are presented in Table B-IV of Appendix B.
The soil conditions should be considered in the design of buried metal pipes and
underground structures.
6.2.4 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore,
further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be needed to incorporate the necessary
precautions to avoid premature corrosion on underground pipes and buried metal in direct
contact with the soils.
6.2.5 The in situ soils can be excavated with light to moderate effort by conventional heavy-duty
grading equipment.
6.2.6 It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that all excavations and trenches are
properly shored and maintained in accordance with applicable OSHA rules and regulations
in order to maintain safety and maintain the stability of adjacent existing improvements.
6.3 Seismic Design Criteria
6.3.1 The following table summarizes site design criteria obtained from the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC). The values listed in Table 6.3 are for the Rose Canyon Fault
(located approximately 2.3 miles west of the site)which is identified as a Type B fault and
is more dominant than the nearest Type A fault (Elsinore-Julian) due to its proximity to
the site.
Project No.06523-42-01 -7- June 21,2000
TABLE 6.3
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value UBC Reference
Seismic Zone Factor 0.40 Table 16-I
Soil Profile Type Sc Table 16-J
Seismic Coefficient,C. 0.45 Table 16-Q
Seismic Coefficient,C, 0.77 Table 16-R
Near-Source Factor,N. 1.1 Table 16-S
Near Source Factor,N„ 1.4 Table 16-T
Seismic Source B Table 16-U
6.4 Grading
6.4.1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading
Specifications contained in Appendix C. Where the recommendations of Appendix C
conflict with this section of the report, the recommendations of this section take
precedence.
6.4.2 Prior to commencing grading, a pre-construction conference should be held at the site with
the owner or devei)per, grading contractor, civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, and
county and state inspection officials in attendance. Special soil handling and/or grading
x plans can be discussed at that time.
6.4.3 The site should be cleared of any deleterious material, vegetation, asphalt, concrete and
debris prior to commencing grading. Any organic or unsuitable material generated should
be exported from the site.
6.4.4 The existing topsoil and/or Terrace Deposit should be removed and recompacted to a
depth of at least 5 feet below the existing ground surface within the proposed new building
footprint areas. Where planned finish pad grade results in cuts in excess of 2 feet from the
existing grade, the overexcavation should be extended in depth to provide a minimum 3-
foot compacted fill mat throughout the building pad. The overexcavation should extend a
minimum of 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the footing lines. For the additions to
Buildings B and F, the overexcavation should extend down from the outside edge of the
building at an inclination of 1:1 to the base of the overexcavation.
Project No.06523-42-01 -8- June 21,2000
6.4.5 In general, the soils generated during on-site excavations are suitable for reuse as fill if
cleaned of vegetation, debris, and other deleterious matter.
6.4.6 Prior to placing fill, the natural ground and/or bottom of the overexcavation should be
scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary, and
compacted. Fill soils may then be placed and compacted in layers to the design finish
grade elevations. The layers should be no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and
compaction. All fill (including scarified ground surfaces and wall and utility trench
backfill) should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density at optimum
moisture content or slightly above, as determined by ASTM Test Procedure D1557-91.
The placement of fill soil should be observed and tested by a representative of Geocon
I
Incorporated during grading operations.
6.5 Foundations
6.5.1 It is anticipated that the new structures will be founded on conventional foundations
consisting of continuous strip or isolated spread footings founded on properly compacted
fill. The following recommendations are based on the assumption that the prevailing soils
within 5 feet of finish grade will consist of very low to low expansive materials (EI less
than 50). If medium to high expansive soils are encountered during grading, foundation
recommendations may require modification.
6.5.2 It is recommended that conventional continuous footings have a minimum embedment
depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. The footings should be at least 12
inches wide. Spread footings should be at least 2 feet square and founded at least 18 inches
below lowest adjacent pad grade. Typical footing dimensions are presented in Figure 5.
6.5.3 Footings proportioned as recommended may be designed for an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot(psf).This soil bearing pressure may be increased
by 300 psf and 500 psf for each additional foot of foundation width and depth,
respectively, up to a maximum allowable soil bearing of 4,000 psf.
6.5.4 The allowable bearing pressures recommended for continuous strip footings and isolated
spread footings may be increased by up to one-third for transient loads due to wind or
seismic forces. Settlements due to footing loads are expected to be less than 1/2 inch.
Project No.06523-42-01 -9- June 21,2000
6.5.5 No special subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled to maintain a moist
condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
6.6 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
6.6.1 Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be at least 4 inches thick. Point loads or line loads
from bookshelves should be considered during structural design of the slabs-on-grade.
Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of No. 3 steel reinforcing bars placed 24
inches on center in both horizontal directions and positioned near the slab midpoint. The
concrete slabs-on-grade should be underlain by at least 4 inches of clean sand (Sand
Equivalent greater than 30) and, where moisture sensitive floor coverings are planned, a
visqueen moisture barrier placed at the midpoint of the sand cushion should be provided.
6.6.2 Crack control joints should be spaced at intervals not greater than 12 feet and should be
constructed using sawcuts or other methods as soon as practical following concrete
placement. Crack control joints should extend a minimum depth of one-fourth the slab
thickness. Construction joints should be designed by the project structural engineer.
6.6.3 Exterior slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced with 6x6-W2.9/W2.9
(6x6-6/6) welded wire mesh. The mesh should be placed within the upper cne-third of the
slab. Proper mesh positioning is critical to future performance of the slab. It has been our
experience that the mesh must be physically pulled up into the slab after concrete
placement. The contractor should take extra measures to provide proper mesh placement.
Prior to construction of slabs, the subgrade should be moisture conditioned to at least
optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
6.6.4 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs due to differential settlement of fills of varying thickness. However, even with the
incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and
slabs-on-grade placed on such soil conditions may exhibit some cracking due to soil
movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent
of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled
by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the
placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab
comers occur.
Project No.06523-42-01 - 10- June 21,2000
I
6.7 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
6.7.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of
30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2:1
(horizontal:vertical), an active soil pressure of 45 pcf is recommended. These soil
pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1
plane extending upward from the base of the wall will have an EI of less than 50.
6.7.2 Restrained walls are those that are not allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H
equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where
walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf
should be added to the above active soil pressure. Traffic loads should be modeled as a
surcharge of an additional two feet of soil above the wall.
6.7.3 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup
of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The
use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended
where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact the property adjacent
to the base of the wall. A typical drainage detail is presented on Figure 6. The above
recommendations assume a properly compacted granular (EI less than 50) backfill
material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than
those described are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon
Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations.
6.7.4 Wall foundations bearing in compacted fill should conform to the recommendations given
under Item 6.5, "Foundations" above. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope
steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Geocon Incorporated
should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated.
6.7.5 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure
assumes a horizontal surface extending away from the base of the wall at least 5 feet or
three times the height of the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is.greater,
from the base of the wall. The upper 12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or
pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An allowable friction
coefficient of 0.4 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This
Project No.06523-42-01 - 1 I - June 21,2000
friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth pressure when
determining resistance to lateral loads.
6.7.6 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 10 feet. In the event that
walls higher than 10 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib-type walls,
Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
6.8 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations
6.8.1 The following pavement sections are based on an R-Value f 70 value determined from
laboratory testing). Actual pavement sections should be calculated once subgrade
elevations have been attained and R-Value testing on subgrade samples is performed.
Pavement thicknesses were determined following procedures outlined in the California
Highway Design Manual (Caltrans) and the Flexible Pavement Structural Section Design
Guide for California Cities and Counties. It is anticipated that the majority of traffic will
consist of automobile traffic and minor heavy truck-traffic.
TABLE 6.8
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN SECTIONS
Location Estimated Asphalt Class 2
Traffic Index Concrete Aggregate Base
(TI) (inches) (inches)
Automobile Parking and Driveways 1 4 3 5
Heavy Truck Traffic/Bus Areas 6 4 5
6.8.2 Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for
Public Works Construction (Green Book). Class 2 aggregate base materials should
conform to Section 26-1.02A of the Standard Specifications of the State of California,
Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
6.8.3 Prior to placing base material, the subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned and
recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. The depth of compaction
should be at least 12 inches. The base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent
relative compaction.
Project No.06523-42-01 - 12- June 21,2000
6.8.4 The performance of pavements is highly dependent upon providing positive surface
drainage away from the edge of pavements. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the
pavement will likely result in saturation of the subgrade materials and subsequent
pavement distress. If planter islands are planned, the perimeter curb should extend at least
12 inches below the bottom of the Class 2 aggregate base.
6.8.5 Loading aprons such as trash bin enclosures should be constructed of Portland cement
concrete with a minimum thickness of 7 inches. The concrete pavement should be
reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches on center in both directions
placed at the slab midpoint.The concrete should extend out from the loading dock or trash
bin such that both the front and rear wheels of the trash truck will be located on reinforced
concrete pavement when loading.
6.9 Site Drainage
6.9.1 Adequate drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion
and subsurface seepage.Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent
to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is
directed away from the structure and the top of slopes into swales or other controlled
drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed onto splashblocks or
into conduits that carry runoff away from the;roposed structure.
6.9.2 Landscaping planters immediately adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the
potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base
course. Either subdrains, which collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage
structures, or impervious, above-grade planter boxes should be used. In addition, where
landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, it is recommended that consideration be
given to providing a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 12
inches below the base material.
6.10 Foundation and Grading Plan Review
6.10.1 Geocon Incorporated should review the grading plans and foundation plans prior to final
design submittal to determine if additional analysis and/or recommendations are required.
Project No.06523-42-01 - 13- June 21,2000
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon
the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the
investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during
construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon
Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The
evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was
not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated.
2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner,or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are
brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the
plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry
out such recommendations in the field.
3. 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 be 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 our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and
should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
Project No.06523-42-01 June 21,2000
• n�rr x d N HE RD 121X1 ' CEGASO-
•xww r 1 '6 ST L I 1111 $ $ $ $MELBA 61 �.�•"n W Eg �..< °� $� �ids $SI?� rA
/IE� J I= <_15 or dIro "N'I°LL'' . 4 oR
►AR ep 1 �+Si TER PAS K 4 v x olAox Eyt ry a 1
\ $� ^w FE tIF SANTA s» Iw ; oAAr EK
AlIM75 ■ N 9Xrltr t FAITH AV IIOI G $ f`.., ;Y nunttl aXd
IFAOI _ ..IMMEVAR ' .p
SG"�. M 1—�1 G111Y AD 1.11 M y b o _Ivr Ell$ $
OR
VFF S ~K 1 I SI C11m w GIAl1DE°�
-____--- lAlq
CT OR DR SYCAMM IN
—ell I Y11OShc "OR
M' ?i ,w r Cr
W
"�
y� \uolETr '-?4
900 DR a, CARDIFF TEXNts C
v$ ` A IOEM � r � � DR DR
PILL twm W 7
Ij a JLRIr
23
��..�r. ELIJO low a4 ),,n DR
y STATE
BEA°L ` '° °� a N ENC N IT,;
� �� •� �, d � r
....[ i �LAS ME AV g DM
ISAS p�
s
ESTE
a yi W rj. r1RA
y&ITT
vt`T` jry n
J .o i O an LErr
a .
i
P h
\,s �NCHE Tr V
26
SAN
CARDIFF EL NO
STATE LAGOON
BEAM 1
'T
y�
SEE�! 19 01A �P� /Arty R1�L °d o
VILLA ApOSA R A rAmolLID cr P L
IAMIa w 11 Liwas a AV
4
1AlVAlA a a RAW a s
Iw Ica a IGOAA a
TANLa a N L43 A S r= A 62q S$
SALTILL a IS LAS CAMS LL
ULIII.LO a if AL Is rlltAt
•..' ...___.___ SXLIM I1XIi R a ALLE 4 a E C IFF � .y
sIXAIwcA a a CRAIA a TIDE
l Lenm,L a a OrAAIA a
1 salmw m aM(L a BEAOI f L FS S TA
1 Ilmlm a V KLICIAS a > i$ ..rr
i MTAm m a ra4 i SKLLO a PARK + �- JR Itf Ame Ffl
1 w LAS w m OWNUAm a T13S SINT
L Imu ct a o"'AA o w w r S
nleswlu � 1 ___
SOURCE: 2000 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION GRANTED BY THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS.
THIS MAP IS COPYRIGHTED BY THOMAS BROS.MAPS. IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COPY
OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF,WHETHER FOR PERSONAL USE OR
RESALE.WITHOUT PERMISSION NO SCALE
GE O C ON � VICINITY MAP
INCORPORATED
CARDIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
6960 FLANDERS CONSULTANTS CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
RCM/AML DSK/DOOOD DATE 06-21-2000 T PROJECT NO.06523-42-0-1 FIG. 1
ivlcT
ESTIMATED SPECTRAL ORDINATES
CARDIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PSEUDO-ABSOLUTE ACCELERATION(g)
Me &9 R• MEAN VALUES AT 5%DAMPING
3.7 km ROCK SITE, STRIKE-SUP FAULT
1.40
1.20
S
Z 1.00
F
W
J
�
0.80.
U
Q
W
H
p 0.60
N
m
4
o
a
w 0.40
N
a
0.20
0.00
0.01 0.1 SPECTRAL PERIOD(sec) 1 10
O-GEOMATNR.1991
ESTIMATED SPECTRAL ORDINATES
CARDIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PSEUDO-ABSOLUTE ACCELERATION(g)
M.6.9 Re 3.7 km MEAN♦1 STD DEV AT 5%DAMPING ROCK SITE, STRIKE-SLIP FAULT
2.oV
�I
2.00
rn
-- z
O
Q
o:
W
W 1'50
U
H
J
Q
m 1.00
4
._ o
W
N
o.
1
0.50
0.00
0.01 0.1 SPECTRAL PERIOD(sec) 1 10
t GE09MTRIF.1991
GE O C ON EARTHQUAKE DESIGN SPECTRA
INCORPORATED ICU) CARDIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS MODERNIZATION/ADDITION
PHONEL11 1 558-6900 FAX 8518 558-6159 CALIFORNIA R 92121 2974 CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA
RM/JMW I DSK/DOOOD DATE 06-21-2000 1 PROJECT NO. 06523-42-01 1 FIG. 3
X/R1411 DRAFTING/JIMW/625/CARDELE3
ESTIMATED SPECTRAL ORDINATES
CARDIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PSEUDO-RELATIVE VELOCITIES
MEAN VALUES AT S%DAMPING
M. 8.9 Rs 3.7 km ROCK SITE, STRIKE-SUP FAULT
70.00
60.00
u
O 40.00
J
W
l
W
g 30.00
Ir
0
:.a O
LA
H 20.00
a
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 SPECTRAL PERIOD(ssc) 1 t0
—O—GEOMNTMX 1991
ESTIMATED SPECTRAL ORDINATES
CARDIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PSEUDO-RELATIVE VELOCITIES
M. 9.9 R- 8.7 km MEAN♦1 STD DEV AT 5%DAMPING ROCK SITE, STRIKE-SLIP FAULT
120.00
100.00
u
•
}� 80.00
t
O
w
W 60.00
5
OF
p 40.00
W
N
a
20.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 SPECTRAL PERIOD(ssc) 1 10
• _ -e-oEGMUTrot 1»t
GE O C ON EARTHQUAKE DESIGN SPECTRA
INCORPORATED CARDIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS MODERNIZATION/ADDITION
FLANDERS
PHONE 858 8 0558.6900 FAX 858 558 6159ORNIA 92121 2974 CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA
RM/JMW DSK/DOOOD DATE 06-21-2000 PROJECT NO. 06523-42-01 FIG. 4
X/R1411 DRAFTING/JIMW/625/CAROELE4
WALL FOOTING
CONCRETE SLAB
o, o, a .o. o •o.
_ SAND p 0 PAD GRADE
o. p. o
VISDUEEN yt 0 Q
O o.
F- a
00 wa .•.O. °. .'.O.
FOOTING
WIDTH
COLUMN FOOTING
CONCRETE SLAB
°. . .0. °. . .0. °. . .b. °.'. .0. °. c .b.
o •O.' .'o �4.' ..'o •O.' .'o •O.' .'o •4.' .'o •0.' , .'o �0.' . .'o •O.' .'o -0.' � .•o
O 0 ' . . A ',O . o � '� 0. 0 � oO .p 0. 0 ..
SAND o '. .0. °. . .0. :°. O. :°.'.'.O. :°- . .O .o
VISDUEEN °' •O.0 O. ° .0.0 0. O.0 ,O. o
p a o.
o •o. o •o. o • . .'o o
FOOTING WIDTH
......SEE REPORT FOR FOUNDATION WIDTH AND DEPTH RECOMMENDATION NO SCALE
WALL / COLUMN FOOTING DIMENSION DETAIL
GEOCON C( CARDIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
INCORPORATED
MODERNIZATION/ADDITION
6960 FLANDERS CONSULTANTS CARDIFF BY THE SEA CALIFORNIA
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 ,
PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558-6159
RM/JMW I DSK/GTYPD DATE 06-21-2000 PROJECT NO. 06523-42-01 FIG. 5
X/R14110RAF'nNG/JIMWf625r-ARDELE5
GROUND SURFACE
PROPERLY COMPACTED
BACKFILL
CONCRETE 2.0
BROWDITCH 11
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL 1
3/4
o 'o 0 o MIFARI 140 FILTER FABRIC
0 O (UR EQUILALENT)
2/3 H o. ° 3/4" CRUSHED GRAVEL
0 ..
• A n .o.
5' MAX.
PROPOSED GRADE o of
77 FOOTING 1
\� 4"DIA. PERFORATED PVC PIPE
MIN. 1/2% FALL TO APPROVED OUTLET
NOTE: DRAIN MUST LEAD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET
NO SCALE
TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL
GEOCON ` CARDIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
INCORPORATED
MODERNIZATION/ADDITION
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS CARDIFF BY THE SEA CALIFORNIA
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE -SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 /
PHONE 619 558-6900 - FAX 619 558-6159
RM/JMW I DISK/G0000 DATE 06-21-2000 PROJECT NO.06523-42-01 FIG.!j
X/R14/1 DRAFTING/JIMW/625/CARDELE6
APPENDIX 449
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on May 30, 2000, and consisted of a site reconnaissance and
the excavation of five small-diameter borings. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings
are shown on Figure 2. The borings were excavated to depths varying from 16 feet to 26 feet below
the existing ground surface using a CME 55 truck mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch-diameter
hollow-stem auger. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained with the drill rig by driving a 3-
inch O. D., split-tube sampler 12 inches into the undisturbed soil mass with blows from a 140-pound
hammer falling 30 inches. The split-tube sampler was equipped with 1-inch-high by 21/8-inch-
diameter, brass sampler rings to facilitate sample removal and testing. Disturbed bulk samples were
obtained from drill cuttings.
The soil conditions encountered in the borings were visually examined, identified, and logged in
general conformance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice for
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D 2488).Boring logs are presented
on Figures A-1 through A-5. The logs depict the soil types encountered and indicate the depths at
which samples were obtained.
Project No.06523-42-01 June 21,2000
PROJECT NO. 06523-42-01
BORING B 1 z W^ �.
DEPTH 3 SOIL H Z.- H^ W"
IN SAMPLE O 0 CLASS ¢¢U- Z� =F-
No. � z ELEV. (MSL.) 88 DATE COMPLETED 5130100 o!Nrn w� Nz
FEET H O (USCS) a 0 HW
CD EQUIPMENT CEME 55 wwm >_a 0z
CL •• C3 v
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
1. -I SM TOPSOIL
Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium
2 SAND, roots
B1-1 SP-SM TERRACE DEPOSITS 12 96.1 5.5
Medium dense, very moist, brown, fine to medium
4 SAND with silt
--- - --- - - - - - - - - - ---- - - -- - - - - - - - - - --- -
-
6 B1-2 / Medium dense, very moist, brown, very Clayey 14 122.6 14.8
SAND
8
10
B1-3 SC -Becomes dense, slightly reddish brown with black 47 122.8 12.0
mottling, less clay at 10 feet
12 j
Dense, moist, slightly reddish brown with gray, Silty,
B1-4 -i E fine to medium SAND with trace clay 48
16
i SM
18
20 :I- -T 70 123.3 14.0
B1-5 ]'- -Becomes very dense at 20 feet
BORING TERMINATED AT 21 FEET
Figure A-1, Log of Boring B 1 CARE1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ❑ ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 10 ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ,,, DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE D ... CHUNK SAMPLE 1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 06523-42-01
BORING B 2 Z „ >_
0" . W X
DEPTH OJ 3 SOIL �Z� (n
IN SAMPLE O C] CLASS QQ\ ZW =1—
NO. = Z ELEV. (MSL.) 89 DATE COMPLETED 5130100 W(n(n w F—Z
FEET H =O (USCS) HH3 C]V BMW
J ED EQUIPMENT CEME 55 Wwm >_a Eo
0- o v
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
5 INCHES ASPHALT
B2-1 5 INCHES BASE MATERIAL
2 TERRACE DEPOSIT
B2-2 SP-SM Medium dense, moist, brown(dark brown from 1 to 11 107.1 5.5
2.5 feet) fine to medium SAND with silt
4
B2-3 14 91.3 7.2
6
8
- - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dense, moist, brown with gray, Clayey, fine to
medium SAND
10 B2-4 l f SC 36 116.0 16.8
12
14
B2-5 -Becomes very clayey at 15 feet
16 50 116.0 16.8
��
18
20 B2-6 f -Becomes coarse-grained at 20 feet
37
22 �
24 f
26 B2-7 :�� 49
BORING TERMINATED AT 26 FEET
` Figure A-2, Log of Boring B 2 CARE1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE Z ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 06523-42-01
cr
BORING B 3 Z „ „
CD C
DEPTH SAMPLE p � SOIL ¢Q
Z. N� ?"
CLASS
FEET NO. ,'-, o (usc S ELEV. (MSL.) 95 DATE COMPLETED 5/30/00 xH3 n� F_Z
CD EQUIPMENT CEME 55 W Wm a: E0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
ASPHALT
TERRACE DEPOSITS
2 Medium dense, moist, slightly reddish brown, (dark
B3-1 SP-SM brown from 0 to 2.5 feet) fine to medium SAND with 12
silt
4
133-2 13 110.3 6.6
6 B3-3
- -- - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- --
8 Dense, very moist, reddish brown to gray, Clayey,
fine to medium SAND
10 133-4 SC 43 112.3 18.8
12 �j
14
B3-5 X 31
16
`-- 18
20 B3-6 18
22
24
B3-y :_ -Becomes less clay at 25 feet 44
26
BORING TERMINATED AT 26 FEET
Figure A-3, Log of Boring B 3 CARE1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 10 ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE D ... CHUNK SAMPLE t ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 06523-42-01
W BORING B 4 o W^ ^
DEPTH OJ 3 SOIL
SAMPLE O p CLASS ¢¢\ z� pI-
IN NO. = ELEV. (MSL.) 92 DATE COMPLETED 5130100 INcn w� Nz
FEET p (USCS) W H� p HW-
J 0 EQUIPMENT CEME 55 w w m > E z
n.W`� p CO-)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
3 INCHES ASPHALT
B4-1 TERRACE DEPOSIT
2 Medium dense, moist, brown, (dark brown 0 to 2.5
feet), fine to medium SAND with silt
SP-SM
4
B4-2 14
6
--- - - - --- - - ---- - - - -- - - - - - - - - --- - - -- ---
Very dense, moist, brown with gray, Clayey, fine to
8 medium SAND
10 B4-3 Sc 66
12
14
B4-4 43
16
BORING TERMINATED AT 16 FEET
Figure A-4, Log of Boring B 4 CARE1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS - SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I0 ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE D ... CHUNK SAMPLE 1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 06523-42-01
BORING B 5 Z .
DEPTH SAMPLE p p SOIL ¢ZQ U- NW ?"
CLASS
I N NO. = ELEV. (MSL.) 93 DATE COMPLETED 5/30/00 O:(n cn W U (z
FEET H (USCS) F-I I3 O �W
J EQUIPMENT CEME 55 WWm oa EU
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
2-1/2 INCHES ASPHALT
B5-1 TERRACE DEPOSIT
2 Medium dense, moist, reddish brown, fine to medium
SAND with silt
SP-SM -Becomes dark brown from 3 to 4 feet
4
B5-2 17 111.3 7.2
6
- - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- --
8 �� Dense, moist, grayish brown, Clayey, fine to medium
SAND
10
135-3 �- SC 46 130.4 10.8
12 f j
14 �f
135-4 48
16
�j
18
20
135-5 �f 40 121.5 14.1
BORING TERMINATED AT 21 FEET
Figure A-5, Log of Boring B 5 CARE1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 11 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 10 ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE Z ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
APPENDIX '
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected
undisturbed and bulk soil samples were tested for their direct shear strength, expansion and
consolidation characteristics, soluble sulfate, pH and resistivity. A resistance value (R-Value) test
was also performed on a sample of anticipated pavement subgrade. The results of laboratory tests
performed are summarized in tabular form on Tables B-I through B-V, and graphically on Figures
B-1 and B-2.
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080-90
Sample No. Dry Density Moisture Content Unit Cohesion Angle of Shear
(PC') (/o) (psf) Resistance(degrees)
B5-2 111.3 7.2 20 37
TABLE B-II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829-88
Sample No. Moisture Content Dry Density Expansion Index
(pcf)
Before Test(%) After Test(%)
132-1 1 9.7 15.5 114.1 1 0
TABLE B-III
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST 417
Sample No. Water Soluble Sulfate(%)
B2-1 0.040
B5-1 0.011
Project No.06523-42-01 -B-1 - June 21,2000
TABLE B-IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY pH AND RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST 643
Sample No. pH Resistivity(ohm-cm)
B2-1 7.5 5740
B5-1 7.3 7340
4.- TABLE B-V
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESISTANCE VALUE (R-VALUE) TEST RESULTS
Sample No. Soil Description R-Value
B4-1 Reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with trace gravel 70
Project No.06523-42-01 -B-2- June 21,2000
PROJECT NO. 06523-42-01
SAMPLE NO. B1-2
-4
-2
0
z
O Z
H
H
O
H
J
O
W 4
O
U
H
z
W
U
w 6
0-
g
10
12
0.1 1 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE (ksfl
Initial Dry Density ( cf) 122.6 Initial Saturation(%) 100+
Initial Water Content(%) 14.8 Sample Saturated at(kst) 1.0
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
CARDIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
MODERNIZATION/ADDITION
CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA
CARE1 Figure B-1
PROJECT NO. 06523-42-01
F- SAMPLE NO. B3-2
4
2
0
- z
O 2
H
H
Q
O
H
J
O
U) 4
O
U
H
z
W
U
w 6
10
12
0.1 1 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE (ksfl
Initial Dry Density ( fl 110.3 Initial Saturation (%) 34.6
Initial Water Content(%) 6.6 [Sample Saturated at(ksfl 1.0
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
CARDIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
MODERNIZATION/ADDITION
CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA
CARE1 Figure B-2
APPENDIX
APPENDIX C
PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS
FOR
CARDIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
MODIFICATION / ADDITION
CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 06523-42-01
Ln o
i
N
Y
U I
O �
� N
z
i7 Ln
o � °
Q `V �- z
J m
W Q O
J
W w
a�
Q a°
a V)
z
> 00 o
W ° Q
U I I I I r" rK
Q w
0 1� U
W o U
W Q
U `"
x o
W I-
Li o
O >,T
O O Ln O
00 0 O 0 O O O O O 00 Or°
(�) ]ONVOI]OX] A0 /.ilT8d80�1d
ui
L �
W 0 0
D
�N�
X
W
Ln o
N
d-
N
Ln
w
O
z
O N O
Z
Qm
W
� o
W
U T
U rn
Q o z
U) 00 O
LLJ
� ° Q
0 ow
O �
w
W ° U
2 Q
Ln
z °
w
o
W N
CD ° Y
Q U
O
W O
Q
O
m �O N O b f N m m f N O ° C)
r
O O O O LLJ
O O :2 -�
O — W Q
_ � J
(SJEDa 001dld N�inii�j :isv�i:iAv w w
o �
ro
QQ
U to
APPENDIX �
APPENDIX D
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
CARDIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
MODIFICATION/ADDITION
CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 06523-42-01
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. GENERAL
1.1. These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the
Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The recom-
mendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and
grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case
of conflict.
1.2. Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be
employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these
specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and
observation services so that he may determine that,in his opinion, the work was performed
in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the
Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes
so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
1.3. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency
ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather,and so forth, result in a quality of work
not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject
the work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped until the unacceptable
conditions are corrected.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1. Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading
work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading
performed.
2.2. Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
2.3. Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer
or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying
as-graded topography.
GI rev.8/98
2.4. Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm
retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
2.5. Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner,
who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be
responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's
work for conformance with these specifications.
2.6. Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained
by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site
grading.
2.7. Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report(including all addenda) which may include
a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the
development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are
intended to apply.
3. MATERIALS
3.1. Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or
imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction
of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills,soil-rock fills or rock fills, as
defined below.
3.1.1. Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12
inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of
material smaller than 3/4 inch in size.
3.1.2. Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4
feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow
for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as
specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12
inches.
3.1.3. Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet
in maximum dimension and containing Iittle or no fines. Fines are defined as
material smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall
be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.
GI rev.8/98
3.2. Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the
Consultant shall not be used in fills.
3.3. Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as
defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9
and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall
not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous
materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to
suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner
the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading
operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the
suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
3.4. The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of
properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to
the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil
layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes.
This procedure may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner
and Consultant.
3.5. Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory
by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and,
where appropriate, shear strength,expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.
3.6. During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the
Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be
notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition
4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
4.1. Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of
complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made
structures and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried
logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and
other projections exceeding 1-1/2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet
below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to
provide suitable fill materials.
GI rev.8/98
4.2. Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly
disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing
steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3
of this document.
4.3. After clearing and grubbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or porous
soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of
removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the
Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of
6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent
uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
4.4. Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6:1 (horizontal:vertical), or
where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in
accordance with the following illustration.
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
Finish Grade Original Ground
\` 2
Finish Slope Surface
Remove All
Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By Slope To Be Such That
Soil Engineer Sloughing Or Sliding
Does Not Occur y
See Not e See Note 2 J
No Scale
DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width 'B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or sufficiently wide to
permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the
key should be graded horizontal,or inclined slightly into the natural slope.
(2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial
material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is
exposed in the bottom of the key,the depth and configuration of the key may be
modified as approved by the Consultant.
GI rev.8/98
4.5. After areas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the surface should be
disced or bladed by the Conti actor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area
should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content,and compacted
as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications.
5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
5.1. Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel
wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be
capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the
specified moisture content.
5.2. Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.
6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
6.1. Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.1.1. Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should
generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be
thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture
in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts.
Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in
accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.
6.1.2. In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the
optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557-91.
6.1.3. When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant,
water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range
specified.
6.1.4. When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the
Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction,the soil fill shall be aerated by
the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture
content is within the range specified.
GI rev.8/98
6.1.5. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly
compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.
Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place
dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as
determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-91. Compaction shall be continuous
over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that
the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the
entire fill.
6.1.6. Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in fills if placed at
least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content
generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material.
4. a
6.1.7. Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To
achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at
least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered
preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
6.1.8. As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a
heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height
intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer
or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least
twice.
6.2. Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2,shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance
with the following recommendations:
6.2.1. Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be
incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured
15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or
3 feet below the deepest utility,whichever is deeper.
6.2.2. Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be
individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock
fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar
methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in
maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and
shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
GI rev. 8/98
6.2.3. For individual placement,sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow
for passage of compaction equipment.
6.2.4. For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in
properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4
feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be
filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and
should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an
"open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should
first be approved by the Consultant.
6.2.5. Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either
parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site
geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet
center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next
overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall
be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher
windrow.
6.2.6. All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the
windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his representative.
6.3. Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3., shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.3.1. The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2
percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable
subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during
` construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The
subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to
control post-construction infiltration of water.
6.3.2. Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock
trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently
placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the
rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall
consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying
water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with
compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory
roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the
GI rev.8/98
required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be
utilized. The number of passes to be made will be determined as described in
Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional
rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.
6.3.3. Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D1196-64, may be performed in
both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number of
passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a minimum of
three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill
(minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be
performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the
compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock
fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the
soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection variation with number of
passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be
performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than
that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required
number of passes be less than two.
6.3.4. A representative of the Consultant shall be present during rock fill operations to
verify that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is
being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The
actual number of plate bearing tests wiij be determined by the Consultant during
grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each approximately
' 5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed.
6.3.5. Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that,
in his opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are
properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be
required in the rock fills.
- 6.3.6. To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil
fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the
uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock
should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The
gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is
being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the
Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the
commencement of rock fill placement.
GI rev.8/98
6.3.7. All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by
representatives of the Consultant.
7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
7.1. The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests during
clearing, grubbing, filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in
vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density
test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test
shall be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and
compacted.
7.2. The Consultant shall perform random field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock
fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted
as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any
disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion
thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be
reworked until the specified density has been achieved.
7.3. During placement of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that the minimum number of
passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant shall
request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the
placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing
an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been
applied to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on
the surface of the most-recently placed lift. Plate bearing tests will be performed to provide
a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The
maximum deflection in the rock fill determined in Section 6.3.3 shall be less than the
maximum deflection of the properly compacted soil fill. When any of the above criteria
indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected
layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient
moisture applied.
7.4. A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of
rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as
recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project
Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed
during grading.
GI rev.8/98
7.5. The Consultant shall observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage devices
have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.
7.6. Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:
7.6.1. Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:
7.6.1.1. Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556-82, Density of Soil In-Place By the
Sand-Cone Method
7.6.1.2. Field Density Test,Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922-81,Density of Soil and
Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
7.6.1.3.Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D1557-91, Moisture-Density
Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer
and 18-Inch Drop.
7.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2, Expansion
Index Test.
7.6.2. Rock Fills
7.6.2.1.Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D1196-64 (Reapproved 1977) Standard
Method for Nonrepresentative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils-and Flexible
Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and
Highway Pavements.
8. PROTECTION OF WORK
8.1. During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide
positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be
controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The
Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until
such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas
subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the
Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
8.2. After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further
excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the
Consultant.
GI rev. 8/98
9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
9.1. Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil
Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of
elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot
horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of
subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan
of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should veri fy the proper outlet for the
subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
9.2• The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report
' satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report
should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating
that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance
with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.
GI rev.8/98
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Anderson J. G. Synthesis of Seismicity and Geological Data in California, U.S. Geological
Survey Open-file Report 84-424, 1984,pp. 1-186.
2. Blake, T. F., EQFAULT, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak
Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, version 2.20, 1997.
3. Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, California, California Division of
Mines and Geology Publication, 1963.
4. Jennings, C. W., Fault Map of California with Locations of Volcanoes, Thermal Springs,
and Thermal Wells, California Division of Mines and Geology Data Map No. 11975 (revised
1987).
5. Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California, California
Division of Mines and Geology, open-file report 86-8, 1986.
6. Pleistocene Marine Terrace and Eocene Geology, Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe
Quadrangles, San Diego County, California, San Diego Association of Geologists
Guidebook, 1985.
7. Ploessel, M. R. and J. E. Slosson, Repeatable High Ground Accelerations From
Earthquakes, California Geology, September 1974.
8. Preliminary Fault Evaluation Map of California, California Division of Mines and Geology
Publication, 1992.
9. Remodel Site Plan, Cardiff Elementary School, Modernization/Addition, Cardiff Elementary
School District, 1888 Montgomery Avenue, Cardiff By The Sea, California, prepared by
HMC Group, undated.
10. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey, San Diego
County, California, 1973.
11. Wesnousky, S. G., Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazards in California,
Journal of Geophysical Research,Vol. 91,No.B12, 1986,pp. 12, 587-12, 631.
Project No.06523-42-01
June 21,2000