The URL can be used to link to this page

BCOM2015-0019 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation.� KiraZan' &ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION May 20, 2015 Ms. Katie Sanchez In -N -Out Burger, A California Corporation 13502 Hamburger Lane Baldwin Park, California 91706 RE: Update to Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report Proposed In -N -Out Burger Restaurant 78-611 Highway 111 La Quinta, California KA Project No. 112-13046 CITY 4F LA QUINTA BUILDING & SAFETY DEPT pAPpFtO EoN FOR CONS Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed In -N -Out Burger Restaurant, La Quinta, California, Project No. 112-13046, dated November 8, 2013. Dear Ms. Sanchez: In accordance with your request, we are providing this letter to update our previous Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report, KA Project No. 112-13046, dated November 8, 2013, for the above - referenced project site. Based on our review of the proposed site plan and our discussions with the project representative, we understand that the proposed project will include construction of a single -story masonry or wood framed building at the subject site. It is anticipated that the proposed building will be supported on a shallow foundation system. Based on our recent observation of the subject site, review of the previous geotechnical investigation report, and review of the proposed development site plan, the site and proposed development is consistent with the conclusions and recommendations of the previous Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report. Additional information to conform to seismic design requirements of the 2013 California Building Code (2013 CBC) is provided below. In the event these structural or grading details are inconsistent with the final design criteria, we should be notified so that we can evaluate the potential impacts of the changes on the recommendations presented in this report and provide an updated report as necessary. With Offices Serving The Western United States 1100 Olympic Drive suite 103 • Corona, California 92881 • (951) 273-1011 • Fax: (951) 273-1003 • GEIR Update Lener.doc KA Project No. 112-13010 Page No. 2 The site class, per Table 1613.5.2, 2013 CBC, is based upon the site soil conditions. It is our opinion that a Site Class D is appropriate for building design at this site. For seismic design of the structures, in accordance with the seismic provisions of the 2013 CBC, we recommend the following parameters: CALIFO"L4, BUILDING CODE ,1013 Seismic Item: Value, CBC Reference , Site Class D Table 1613.5.2 Fa 1.000 Table 1613.5.3 (1) Ss 1.549 Figure 1613.5 (3) SMS 1.549 Section 1613.5.3 SDS 1.033 Section 1613.5.4 Fv 1.500 Table 1613.5.3 (2) SI 0.732 Figure 1613.5 (4) SMI 1.099 Section 1613.5.3 SDI 0.732 Section 1613.5.4 The recommendations and limitations provided in our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report, KA Project No. 112-13046 apply to this letter and should be incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed building addition. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (951) 273-1011. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, IN . P�OESSjO QROFESS/p f M q� NO. 65092 b NO. 2902 C� J s Kellogg E EXP• 9/30/2015 EXP. 9/3012015 Managing Engineer �: IN RGE No. 2902/RCE No. 65092 �� cIVIL �� '�,� �CF4N� Cr CALI. OP CAt-�F Krazan & Associates, Inc. With Offices Serving The Western United States GEIR Update Letter.doc V A i A A i GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED IN -N -OUT BURGER RESTAURANT ! 78-611 HIGHWAY 111 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA f i PROJECT No. 112-13046 NOVEMBER 8, 2013 A PREPARED FOR: IN—N—OUT BURGER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 13502 HAMBURGER LANE BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706 ATTENTION: MS. KATIE SANCHEZ PREPARED BY: I KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1100 OLYMPIC DRIVE, SUITE 103 CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92881 (951)273-1011 Offices Serving the Western United States c I i �-� MERF40L IMAM ===,.,,,,.Krazan& ASSOCIATES, INC. I ' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING •ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED IN -N -OUT BURGER RESTAURANT 78-611 HIGHWAY 111 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..............................................'.....................................................................................1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES...............................................................................................1 1{ PROPOSEDCONSTRUCTION..............................................................................................................2 SITE LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................2 1 GEOLOGICSETTING............................................................................................................................2 ' SEISMICITY AND LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL...........................................................................3 FAULTRUPTURE HAZARD ZONES...................................................................................................3 ' OTHER HAZARDS.......................................:....................................................... SITECOEFFICIENT....................................................................................................................................4 t FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS.......:.....................................................................................5 SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.........................................................................6 GROUNDWATER.....................................................................................................................................6 SOILCORROSIVITY...................................................................................................................................6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................7 ADMINISTRATIVESUMMARY...................................................................................................................7 GROUNDWATER INFLUENCE ON STRUCTURES/C©NSTRUCTION..............................................................8 SEISMICCONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................................................8 Ground Shaking Soil Liquefaction ............. g SeismicInduced Settlement................................................................................................................ 8 EARTHWORK Site Preparation = Clearing and Stripping........'................................................................................... 9 ' Overexcavation and Recompaction..................................................................................................... 9 FillPlacement...................................................................................................................................... 9 ENGINEEREDFILL..................................................................................................................................10 FOUNDATION..........................................................................................................................................10 Settlement.........................................................:................................................................................ 11 'Lateral Load Resistance.................................................................................................................... 11 1 i Offices Serving The Western United States Y 1100 Olympic Drive, Suite 103 • Corona, California 92881 • (951) 273-1011 • Fax: (951) 273-1003 ti INO GIER I I0613.doc 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i .y KA No. 112-13046 Page No. 2 FLOOR SLABS AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK.............................................................................................11 RETAININGWALLS.................................................................................................................................12 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION STABILITY...............................................:..................................................13 UTILITY TRENCH LOCATION, CONSTRUCTION;AND BACKFILL..............................................................13 COMPACTED MATERIAL ACCEPTANCE..................................................................................................14 SURFACE DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING..............................................................................................14 PAVEMENTDESIGN................................................................................................................................14 Portland Cement Concrete (Rigid) Pavement................................................................................... 16 INFILTRATIONTESTING.........................................................................................................................17 SOILCORROSIVITY.................................................................................................................................17 ADDITIONALSERVICES.....................................................................................................................17 LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................................................18 FIGURES FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN APPENDIX A BORING LOG LEGEND BORING LOGS LABORATORY TEST RESULTS APPENDIX B GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX C GENERAL PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS Offices Serving The Western United States 1100 Olympic Drive Suite 103 • Corona, California 92881 • (951) 273-1011 • Fax: (951) 273-1003 [NO GIER 110613.doc =�=KraZan & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING :• ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION November 8, 2013 KA Project No. 112-13046 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED IN -N -OUT BURGER RESTAURANT 78-611 ' HIGHWAY 111 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA i INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the proposed construction that will include a 3,750 square foot In -N -Out Burger Restaurant. It is anticipated that the proposed construction will include a drive-thru area, trash enclosure, associated parking, and localized landscaped areas. Discussions regarding site conditions are presented herein, together with conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site preparation, grading, utility trench backfill, drainage and landscaping, foundations, concrete floor slabs and exterior concrete flatwork, retaining walls, soil corrosivity, and pavement design. A Vicinity Map showing the location of the site is presented on Figure 1. A Site Plan showing the approximate boring locations is presented on Figure 2. Descriptions of the field and laboratory investigations, boring log legend and boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Appendix A contains a description of the laboratory -testing phase of this study, along with the laboratory test results. Appendices B and C contain guide specifications for earthwork and flexible pavements, respectively. If conflicts in the text of the report occur with the general specifications in the appendices, the recommendations in the text of the report have precedence. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES This geotechnical investigation was conducted to evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the project site. Engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data was performed for the purpose of developing and providing geotechnical recommendations for use in the design and construction of the earthwork, foundation and pavement aspects of the project. Our scope of services was outlined in our proposal dated September 27, 2013 (KA Proposal No. 112042- 13) and included the following: • A site reconnaissance by a member of our engineering staff to evaluate the surface conditions at the project site. Offices Serving The Western United States 1100 Olympic Drive, Suite 103 • Corona, California 92881 • (951) 273-1011 • Fax: (951) 273-1003 INO GIER 110613.doc KA No. 112-13046 Page No. 2 • Review of selected published geologic maps, reports and literature pertinent to the site and surrounding area. ' • A field investigation consisting of drilling six (6) borings to depths ranging from approximately twenty (20) feet below the existing ground surface for evaluation of the subsurface conditions at the project site. • Performing two (2) infiltration tests at the subject site in order to determine an estimated infiltration rate for the near surface soil. i• ' Performing laboratory tests on representative soil samples obtained from the borings to evaluate the physical and index properties of the subsurface soils. f • . Evaluation of the data obtained from the investigation and engineering analyses of the data with respect to the geotechnical aspects of structural design, site grading and paving. • Preparation of this report summarizing the findings, results, conclusions and recommendations of our investigation. Environmental services,such as a chemical analysis of soil and groundwater for possible environmental contaminates, were not in our scope of services: ' PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Based on our review of the site plan and our discussions with the project representative, we understand that the construction will include a 3,750 square foot In -N -Out Burger Restaurant. The proposed restaurant will be of wood frame/stucco construction with a slab -on -grade floor. The proposed development will include a drive-thru area, trash enclosure, associated parking, and localized landscaped areas. It is anticipated that the proposed structure will be supported on a shallow foundation system. In the event these structural or grading details are inconsistent with the final design criteria, we should be notified so that we can evaluate the potential impacts of the changes on the recommendations presented in this report and provide an updated report as necessary. 1 SITE LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION The site is a roughly rectangular shaped parcel located at the southwest comer of Simon Drive and Highway 111, in the city of La Quinta, California. Presently, the site is occupied by a former automobile dealership facility. The site is occupied with several buildings and associated asphalt and concrete pavements. The site is bound to the south and east by Simon Drive and retail development beyond, to the north by Highway 111, and to the west by additional retail development. The site is relatively flat and level, with no major changes in elevation. GEOLOGIC SETTING The subject site is situated at the base of the San Jacinto Mountains at the northwestern end of the Coachella ' Valley of Southern California. Near -surface materials consist of alluvial fan deposits of sand, silt, gravel, ' Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States INO GIER 110613.doc KA No. 112-13046 Page No. 3 and cobbles derived from erosion of the Mesozoic granitic and metamorphic rocks of the adjacent San Jacinto Mountains. Numerous moderate to large earthquakes have affected the area of the subject site within historic time. Based on the proximity of several dominant active faults and seismogenic structures, as well as the historic seismic record, the area of the subject site is considered subject to relatively high seismicity. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking due to a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. The San Andreas Fault Zone is located within the vicinity of the site. Because ' of the proximity to the subject site and the maximum probable events for these faults, it appears that a maximum probable event along these fault zones could produce a peak horizontal acceleration of approximately 0.4g when uncertainty is used (mean plus one standard deviation). With respect to this hazard, the site is comparable to others in this general area within similar geologic settings. SEISMICITY AND LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Seismicity is a general term relating to the abrupt release of accumulated strain energy in the rock materials of the earth's crust in a given geographical area. The recurrence of accumulation and subsequent release of strain have resulted in faults and fault systems. Fault patterns and density reflect relative degrees of regional stress through time, but do not necessarily indicate recent seismic activity; therefore, the degree of seismic risk must be determined or estimated by the seismic record in any given region. The San Andreas Fault zone is the nearest active fault zone to the site and is located approximately 5.6 miles from the site. a Soil liquefaction is a state of soil particle suspension caused by a complete loss of strength when the effective stress drops to zero. Liquefaction normally occurs under saturated conditions in soils such as sand in which the strength is purely frictional. However, liquefaction has occurred in soils other than clean sand. Liquefaction usually occurs under vibratory conditions such as those induced by seismic events. To evaluate the liquefaction potential of the site, the following items were evaluated: 1) Soil type 2) Groundwater depth 3) Relative density 4) Initial confining pressure 5) Intensity and duration of ground shaking. A Seismic Hazard Zone Map has not been prepared by the State of California for this area. The subsurface soil conditions encountered at the' site consist of relatively dense soil. In addition, groundwater in the vicinity of the site is anticipated to exist at a depth in excess of fifty feet below site ' grades. Based on the conditions encountered, liquefaction at the subject site is not considered to be a significant concern. As such, mitigation measures relative to liquefaction are not considered warranted. FAULT RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES The Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act went into affect in March, 1973. Since that time, the act has been amended 11 times (Hart, 2007). The purpose of the Act, as provided in California Geologic Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States INO GIER 110613.doc ' KA No. 112-13046 ' Page No. 4 Survey (CGS) Special Publication 42 (SP 42), is to prohibit the location of most structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and to mitigate thereby the hazard of fault -rupture". The act was renamed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1994, and at that time, the originally ' designated "Special Studies Zones" was renamed the "Earthquake Fault Zones." The area of the subject site is not included on an Earthquake Fault Zones Map prepared by the CGS. The site is not within a Fault -Rupture Hazard Zone. The nearest zoned fault is a portion of the San Andreas fault zone located approximately 5.6 miles from the subject site. SEISMIC HAZARDS ZONES ' t In 1990, the California State Legislature passed the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act to protect public safety from the effects of strong shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure, and other hazards caused by earthquakes. The Act requires that the State Geologist delineate various seismic hazards zones on Seismic Hazards Zones Maps. Specifically, the maps identify areas where soil liquefaction and earthquake -induced landslides are most likely to occur. A site-specific geotechnical evaluation is required prior to permitting most urban developments within the mapped zones. The Act also requires sellers of real property within the zones to disclose this fact to potential buyers. A Seismic Hazard Zones Map has not been prepared for the subject site. OTHER HAZARDS Rockfall, Landslide, Slope Instability, Debris Flow: The subject site is relatively flat and level. It is our understanding that there are no significant slopes proposed as part of the proposed development. Provided the recommendations presented in this report are implemented into the design and construction of the anticipated development, rockfalls, landslides, slope instability, and debris flows are not anticipated to pose a hazard to the subject site. . Seiches: Seiches are large waves generated within enclosed bodies of water. The site is not located in close proximity to any lakes or reservoirs. As such, seiches are not anticipated to pose a hazard to the subject site. Tsunamis: Tsunamis are tidal waves generated by fault displacement or major ground movement. The site is several miles from the ocean. As such, tsunamis are not anticipated to pose a hazard to the subject site. ' Hydroconsolidation: The near surface soils encountered at the subject site were found to be loose to medium dense. Provided remedial grading recommendations presented in this report are incorporated in the design and construction, hydroconsolidation is not anticipated to be a significant concern for the subject site. SITE COEFFICIENT The site class, per Table 1613.5.2, 2010 CBC, is based upon the site soil conditions. It is our opinion that a Site Class D is appropriate for building design at this site. For seismic design of the structures, in accordance with the seismic provisions of the 2010 CBC, we recommend the following parameters: ' Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States INO GIER 110613.doc i KA No. 112-13046 Page No. 5 ".i x'2010, CALIFORNIA BUII.DINGCODE4'' 4., �t It m'� "'Valne�Reference ,;Se><smc Site Class D Table 1613.5.2 Fa 1.00 Table 1613.5.3 (1) Ss 1.500 Figure 1613.5 (3) SMS 1.500 Section 1613.5.3 SDS 1.000 Section 1613.5.4 Fv 1.50 Table 1613.5.3 (2) SI 0.600 Figure 1613.5 (4) SM1 0.900 Section 1613.5.3 SDI 0.600 Section 1613.5.4 Peak Horizontal Acceleration 0.40 g SDS/2.5 The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking due to a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. The San Andreas Fault Zone is located approximately 5.6 miles from the subject site. Because of the proximity to the subject site and the maximum probable events for these faults, it appears that a maximum probable event along these fault zones could produce a peak horizontal acceleration of approximately 0.40g when uncertainty is used (mean plus one standard deviation). With respect to this hazard, the site is comparable, to others in this general area within similar geologic settings. FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS ■ Subsurface soil conditions were explored by drilling six (6) borings using a truck -mounted drill rig to a depth . of approximately twenty feet below existing site grade. Bulk subgrade soil samples were also ■ obtained for laboratory testing. The approximate boring and bulk sample locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. These approximate boring and sample locations were estimated in the field based on pacing and measuring from the limits of existing site features. During drilling operations, penetration ■ tests were performed at regular intervals to evaluate the soil consistency and to obtain information regarding the engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Soil samples were retained for laboratory testing. The soils encountered were continuously examined and visually classified in accordance with ■ the Unified Soil Classification System. A more detailed description of the field investigation is presented in Appendix A. ■ Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The laboratory -testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of natural in-situ moisture and density, gradation, R -value, maximum dry density, resistivity, pH value, ■ sulfate and chloride contents of the materials encountered. Details of the laboratory -testing program are discussed in Appendix A. The results of the laboratory tests are presented on the boring logs or on the test reports, which are also included in Appendix A. This information, along with the field observations, ■ was used to prepare the final boring logs in Appendix A. ■ Krazan &'Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States INO GIER 110613.doc ' KA No. 112-13046 + Page No. 6 SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on our findings, the subsurface conditions encountered appear typical of those found in the ' geologic region of the site. Ground surface at each boring location consisted of approximately four inches of either Portland cement concrete or asphalt pavement. In general, the subsurface soils generally consisted of medium dense, poorly graded sand alluvium to the maximum depth explored, twenty feet ' below site grade. No significant fill material was encountered in the borings. However, undocumented fill materials may be present at the site between our boring locations. Verification of any fill material should be determined during site grading. ' Field and laboratory tests suggest that the ,soils encountered are moderately strong and slightly compressible. Penetration resistance, measured by the number of blows required to drive a Modified ' California sampler or a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler, ranged from 7 to 43 blows per foot. Dry densities ranged from 90 to 115 pcf. Representative soil samples had angles of internal friction of 30 degrees. A representative soil sample had a maximum dry density of 119 pcf. One representative near surface soil sample was found to be non expansive. The above is a general description of soil conditions encountered at the site in the borings drilled for this investigation. For a more detailed description of the soil conditions encountered, please refer to the boring logs in Appendix A. GROUNDWATER Test boring locations were checked for the presence of groundwater during and immediately following ' the drilling operations. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings drilled as part of this investigation. Historic groundwater depths for the vicinity indicate groundwater depths in excess of fifty feet below ground surface. It should be recognized that water table elevation might fluctuate with time. The depth to groundwater g P can be expected to fluctuate both seasonally and from year to year. Fluctuations in the groundwater level ' may occur due to variations in precipitation, irrigation practices at the site and in the surrounding areas, climatic conditions, flow in adjacent or nearby canals, pumping from wells and possibly as the result of other factors that were not evident at the time of our investigation. Therefore, water level observations at the time of our field investigation may vary from those encountered during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report. Long-term monitoring in observation wells, sealed from the influence of surface water, is often required to more accurately define the potential range of groundwater conditions on a site. SOIL CORROSIVITY Corrosion tests were performed to evaluate the soil corrosivity to the buried structures. The tests consisted of minimum resistivity, sulfate content and chloride content, and the results of the tests are included as ' follows: ' Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The western United States INO GIER 110613.doc KA No. 112-13046 Page No. 7 'Parameter, Resnits��A� Nest=Methodrx. Resistivity 0.05 million ohms -cm CALTRANS Sulfate 0.02 percent EPA 9038 pH Value 7.7 EPA 9045C CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings' of our field and laboratory investigations, along with previous geotechnical experience in the project area, the following is a summary of our evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations. ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY In brief, the subject site and soil conditions appear to be conducive to the development of the project. Based on the data collected during this investigation and from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements may be made as anticipated provided that the recommendations presented in this report are considered in the design and construction of the project. To reduce post -construction soil movement and provide uniform support for the proposed building, overexcavation and recompaction within the proposed building footprint area should be performed to a minimum depth of three (3) feet below existing grades or one (1) foot below the bottom of the proposed footings, whichever is deeper. The actual depth of the overexcavation and recompaction should be determined by our field representative during construction. The overexcavation and recompaction should also extend laterally five (5) feet beyond edges of the proposed footings or building limits. Any undocumented fill encountered during grading should be removed and replaced with Engineered Fill. ' Within the proposed exterior flatwork and pavement areas, the overexcavation and recompaction should be performed to a depth of at least one (1) foot below existing grade or finish subgrade, whichever is deeper. , ' Fill material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. All fill material should be moisture conditioned to within two percent of the optimum 1 moisture content. The limit of grading and the proposed building footprint should be established in the field prior to construction. Additional remedial grading will be required if the building edges exceed the grading limit. The grading envelope should be at least 5 feet beyond the outer edges of the building footprint. The near surface soils were found to have an expansion index (EI) of 0 and considered non expansive. The exterior slabs should be at least 5 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 rebar at 18 inches on - center, each way. Although the near surface soil was found to posses a low expansion index, the on-site soil was found to possess varying clay content and as such there is the potential for expansive soil to be Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States INO G1ER 110613.doc ' KA No. 112-13046 Page No. 8 ' encountered. The soil placed in the upper 18 inches of the building pad should include non expansive soil. The proposed structures, including walls and other foundation elements may be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing on a minimum of one (1) foot of newly placed Engineered Fill. Spread and continuous footings can be designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure, dead plus live load, of 2,300 psf. GROUNDWATER INFLUENCE ON STRUCTURES/CONSTRUCTION Based on our findings and historical records, it is not anticipated that groundwater will rise within the zone of structural influence or affect the construction of foundations and pavements for the project. However, if earthwork is performed during or soon after periods of precipitation, the subgrade soils may become saturated, `.`pump," or not respond to densification techniques. Typical remedial measures include: discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with dryer materials; removing ' and replacing the soil. with an approved fill material; or mixing the soil with an approved lime or cement product. Our firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to observe the unstable subgrade conditions and provide appropriate recommendations. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS . Ground Shaking Although ground rupture is not considered to be a major concern at the subject site, the site will likely be ' subject to at least one moderate to severe earthquake and associated seismic shaking during its lifetime, as well as periodic slight to moderate earthquakes. Some degree of structural damage due to stronger seismic shaking should be expected at the site, but the risk can be reduced through adherence to seismic design codes. Soil Liquefaction ■ The conditions encountered at the boring locations indicated relatively dense material. In addition, groundwater was not encountered within the upper fifty (50) feet below existing site grades. Based on our ' findings, it is our opinion that the potential for seismic -induced soil liquefaction within the project site is low due to relatively dense native deposits and absence of shallow groundwater. Therefore, measures to mitigate liquefaction potential are not considered necessary. Seismic Induced Settlement ' One of the most common phenomena during seismic shaking accompanying any earthquake is the induced settlement of loose unconsolidated soils. Based on site subsurface conditions and the moderate to high seismicity of the region, any loose fill materials at the site could be vulnerable to this potential ' hazard. However, this hazard can be mitigated by following the design and construction recommendations of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (over -excavation and rework of the loose soils and/or fill). Based on the moderate penetration resistance measured, the native deposits ' underlying the surface materials do not appear to be subject to significant seismic settlement. ' Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States [NO GIER 110613.doc ' KA No. 112-13046 Page No. 9 EARTHWORK Site Preparation — Clearing and Stripping . General site clearing should include removal of vegetation and existing utilities, structures (footings and slabs); existing pavements; trees and associated root systems; rubble; rubbish; and any loose and/or saturated materials. Site stripping should extend to a minimum depth of 2 to 4 inches, or until all t organics in excess of 3 percent by volume are removed. Deeper stripping may be required in localized areas. These materials will not be suitable for reuse as Engineered Fill. However, stripped topsoil may ' be stockpiled and reused in landscape or non-structural areas. Any excavations that result from clearing operations should be backfilled with Engineered Fill. Krazan ' & Associates' field staff should be present during site clearing operations to enable us to locate areas where depressions or disturbed soils are present and to allow our staff to observe and test the backfill as it is placed. If site clearing and backfilling operations occur without appropriate observation and testing by a qualified geotechnical consultant, there may be the need to over -excavate the building area to identify uncontrolled fills prior to mass grading of the building pad. As with site clearing operations, any buried structures encountered during construction should be properly u removed and backfilled. The resulting excavations should be backfilled with Engineered Fill. Overexcavation and Recompaction To reduce post -construction soil movement, provide uniform support for the proposed building, and addressed anticipated disturbed material resulting from demolition activities, overexcavation and recompaction within the proposed building footprint area should be performed to a minimum depth of three (3) feet below existing grades or one (1) foot below the bottom of the proposed footings, whichever is deeper. The actual depth of the overexcavation and recompaction should be determined by our field representative during construction. The overexcavation and recompaction should also extend laterally five (5) feet beyond edges of the proposed footings or building limits. Any undocumented fill ' encountered during grading should be removed and replaced with Engineered Fill. Within the proposed exterior flatwork and pavement areas, the overexcavation and recompaction should be performed to a depth of at least one (1) foot below existing grade or finish subgrade, whichever is deeper. This compaction effort should stabilize the surface soils and locate any unsuitable or pliant areas not found during our field investigation. Fill Placement Prior to placement of fill soils, the upper 12 inches of native subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture - conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Fill material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. The upper soils, during wet winter months, may become very moist due to the absorptive characteristics of ' the soil. Earthwork operations performed during winter months may encounter very moist unstable soils, ' Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States [NO GIER 110613.doc KA No. 112-13046 Page No. 10 1 which may require removal to grade a stable building foundation. Project site winterization consisting of placement of aggregate base and protecting exposed soils during the construction phase should be performed. ENGINEERED FILL The organic -free, on-site, native soils are predominately sand and silty sand. These soils will be suitable for reuse as Engineered Fill, provided they are cleansed of excessive organics and debris. The preferred materials specified for Engineered Fill are suitable for most applications with the exception of exposure to erosion. Project site winterization and protection of exposed soils during the construction phase should be the sole responsibility of the contractor, since they have complete control of 1 the project site at that time. Imported Fill material should be predominately non -expansive granular material. This material should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to use and should typically possess the following characteristics: a�aF�s•Nb,a.nw.x+A�.�,w-w � NON=EXPANSIVE FiL!P&OPE1!kR Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve 10 to 50 Plasticity Index (PI) 12 maximum Liquid Limit 35 maximum UBC Standard 29-2 Expansion Index 20 maximum Imported Fill should be free from rocks and clods greater than 4 inches in diameter. All Imported Fill material should be submitted to the Soils Engineer for approval at least 48 hours prior to delivery to the site. Fill soils should be placed in lifts approximately 6 inches thick, moisture -conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to achieve at least 95 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable. FOUNDATION The proposed structures, including walls and other foundation elements may be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing on a minimum of one (1) foot of newly placed Engineered Fill. Spread and continuous footings can be designed for the following maximum allowable soil bearing pressures: .. k#�Load9.'14� ow�aSbie LoaSSEgt Dead Load Only 1,750 psf Dead -Plus -Live Load 2,300 psf Total Load, including wind or seismic loads 3,000 psf Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States INO GIER 110613.doe KA No. 112-13046 Page No. 11 The footings should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below pad subgrade (soil grade) or adjacent exterior grade, whichever is deeper. Minimum footing widths should be 15 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for isolated footings. The footing excavations should not be allowed to dry out any time prior to placement of concrete. It is recommended that the foundation for the proposed structure be placed entirely within compacted fill materials or entirely within alluvium or bedrock. Footings shall not transition from one bearing material to another. It is recommended that all foundations contain steel reinforcement of at least two (2) number four (#4) bars, one (1) top and one (1) bottom. It is recommended that all foundations be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from the top of all adjacent slopes or deepened to maintain at least five (5) feet between the bottom of the footing and the slope face. Additionally, all footing set back criteria, should conform to 2010 CBC Section 1805.3.2 and Figure 1805.3.1. It is recommended that all footings be cleared of all loose soil and construction debris prior to pouring concrete. Settlement Provided the site is prepared as recommended and that the foundations are designed and constructed in accordance with our recommendations, the total settlement due to foundation loads is not expected to exceed 1 inch. The differential settlement is anticipated to be less than %Z inch in 20 feet. Most of the settlement is expected to occur during construction as the loads are applied. However, additional post - construction settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated. Lateral Load Resistance Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable friction factor of 0.30 acting between the base of foundations and the supporting subgrade. Where a vapor barrier material is used below concrete slabs -on -grade, a coefficient of friction should be provided by the vapor barrier manufacturer. Lateral resistance for footings can alternatively be developed using an allowable 1 equivalent fluid passive pressure of 250 pounds per cubic foot acting against the appropriate vertical footing faces. Where equivalent fluid pressure against the sides of the footings or embedded slab edge are to be used, the footing or slab edge must be cast directly against undisturbed soils or the soils surrounding the structure must be recompacted to the requirements for Engineered Fill presented above. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. A one-third increase in the value above may be used for short duration, wind, or i, seismic loads. FLOOR SLABS AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK The interior slabs -on -grade should be designed at least five inches (5") in thickness. It is recommended that the slabs be reinforced with number three (0) bars, eighteen inches (18") on center in both ' directions. Exterior slabs -on -grade should be designed at least five inches (5") in thickness. It is recommended that the slabs be reinforced with number three (0) bars, eighteen inches (18") on center in both directions. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States INO GIER 110613.doc KA No. 112-13046 Page No. 12 ' The exterior floors should be poured separately in order to act independently of the walls and foundation system. All fills required to bring the building pads to grade should be Engineered Fills. ' It is recommended that the slabs should be underlain by six inches (6") of compacted Class 2 Aggregate Base with a minimum 15 mil polyolefin membrane vapor barrier (i.e. Stego Wrap or equivalent) placed with two inches (2") of clean sand on top of the vapor barrier. As an alternative, well graded non ' expansive compacted fill may be used directly below the slab on grade. Moisture within the structure may be derived from water vapors, which were transformed from the moisture within the soils. This moisture vapor can travel through the vapor membrane and penetrate the slab -on -grade. This moisture vapor penetration can affect floor coverings and produce mold and mildew in the structure. To minimize moisture vapor intrusion, it is recommended that a vapor retarder be installed in accordance with ASTM guidelines. It is recommended that the utility trenches within the structure be compacted, as specified in our report, to minimize the transmission of moisture through the utility trench backfill. Special attention to the immediate drainage and irrigation around the building is recommended. ' Positive drainage should be' established away from the structure and should be maintained throughout the life of the structure. Ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to the structure. Over -irrigation within landscaped areas adjacent to the structure should not be performed. In addition, ventilation of the structure (i.e. ventilation fans) is recommended to reduce the accumulation of interior moisture. ■ RETAINING WALLS ' For retaining walls with level ground surface .behind the walls, we recommend that retaining walls capable of deflecting a minimum of 0.1 percent'of its height at the top be designed using an equivalent fluid active pressure of 40 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. Walls that are incapable of this deflection or walls that are fully constrained against deflection may be designed for an equivalent fluid at -rest pressure of 60 pounds per square foot per foot per depth. This is anticipated to apply to the loading dock walls. A passive lateral pressure of 250 pounds per square foot may be used to calculate sliding resistance. If walls are to be constructed above descending slopes, our office should be contacted to discuss further reduction in allowable passive pressures for resistance of lateral forces, and for overall retaining wall foundation design. The surcharge effect from loads adjacent to the walls should be included in the wall design. The surcharge load for walls capable of deflecting (cantilever walls), we recommend applying a uniform surcharge pressure equal to one-third of the applied load over the full height of the wall. Where walls are restrained the surcharge load should be based on one-half of the applied load above the wall, also distributed over the full height of the wall. For other surcharges, such as from adj acent foundations, point loads or line loads, Krazan & Associates should be consulted. Expansive soils should not be used for backfill against walls. The zone of non -expansive backfill ' material should extend from the bottom of each retaining wall laterally back a distance equal to the height of the wall, to a maximum of five (5) feet. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States [NO GIER 110613.doc KA No. 112-13046 Page No. 13 The active and at -rest earth pressures do not include hydrostatic pressures. To reduce the build-up of hydrostatic pressures, drainage should be provided behind the retaining walls. Wall drain should consist of a minimum 12 -inch wide zone of drainage material, such as 3/ -inch by Y2 -inch drain rock wrapped in a non -woven polypropylene geotextile filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent. Alternatively, drainage may be provided by the placement of a commercially produced composite drainage blanket, such as Miradrain, extending continuously up from the base of the wall. The drainage material should extend from the base of the wall to finished subgrade in paved areas and to within about 12 inches below the top of the wall in landscape areas. In landscape areas the top 12 inches should be backfilled with compacted native soil. A 4 -inch minimum diameter, perforated, Schedule 40 PVC drain pipe should be placed with holes facing down in the lower portion of the wall drainage material, surrounded with drain rock wrapped in filter fabric. A solid drainpipe leading to a suitable discharge point should provide drainage outlet. As an alternative, weep holes may be used to provide drainage. If weep holes are used, the weep holes should be 3 inches in diameter and spaced about 8 feet on centers. The backside of the weep holes should be covered with a corrosion -resistant mesh to prevent loss of backfill and/or drainage material. TEMPORARY EXCAVATION STABQ.ITY All excavations should comply with the current requirements of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). All cuts greater than 5 feet in depth should be sloped or shored. Temporary excavations should be sloped at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, up to a maximum depth of 10 feet, and at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) for cuts greater than 10 feet. Heavy construction equipment, building materials, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic should not be allowed within five feet of the top (edge) of the excavation. Where sloped excavations are not feasible due to site constraints, the excavations may require shoring. The design of the shoring system is normally the responsibility of the contractor or shoring designer, and therefore, is outside the scope of this report. The design of the temporary shoring should take into account lateral pressures exerted by the adjacent soil, and, where anticipated, surcharge loads due to adjacent buildings and any construction equipment or traffic expected to operate alongside the excavation. The excavation/shoring recommendations provided herein are based on soil characteristics derived from our test borings within the area. Variations in soil conditions will likely be encountered during the excavations. Krazan & Associates, Inc. should be afforded the opportunity to provide field review to evaluate the actual conditions and account for field condition variations, not otherwise anticipated in the preparation of this recommendation. UTILITY TRENCH LOCATION, CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL To maintain the desired support for existing or new foundations, new utility trenches should be located such that the base of the trench excavation is located above an imaginary plane having an inclination of 1.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical, extending downward from the bottom edge of the adjacent footing. Utility trenches should be excavated according to accepted engineering practices following OSHA standards by a contractor experienced in such work. The responsibility for the safety of open trenches should be borne by the contractor. Traffic and :vibration adjacent to trench walls should be kept to a minimum; cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side slopes should be avoided. Depending upon the 1 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States [NO GIER 110613.doc KA No. 112-13046 Page No. 14 location and depth of some utility trenches, groundwater flow into open excavations could be experienced, especially during or shortly following periods of precipitation. For purposes of this section of the report, backfill is defined as material placed in a trench starting one foot above the pipe; bedding and shading (also referred to as initial backfill) is all material placed in a trench below the backfill. With the exception of specific requirements of the local utility companies or building department, pipe bedding and shading should consist of clean medium -grained sand. The sand should be placed in a damp state and should be compacted by mechanical means prior to the placement of backfill soils. Above the pipe zone, underground utility trenches may be backfilled with either free -draining sand, on-site soil or imported soil. The trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. COMPACTED MATERIAL ACCEPTANCE Compaction specifications are not the only criteria for acceptance of the site grading or other such activities. However, the compaction test is the most universally recognized test method for assessing the performance of the Grading Contractor. The numerical test results from the compaction test cannot be solely used to predict the engineering performance of the compacted material. Therefore, the acceptance of compacted materials will also be dependent on the moisture content and the stability of that material. The Geotechnical Engineer has the option of rejecting any compacted material regardless of the degree of compaction if that material is considered to be too dry or excessively wet, unstable or if future instability is suspected. A specific example of rejection of fill material passing the required percent compaction is a fill which has been compacted -with in-situ moisture content significantly less than optimum moisture. Where expansive soils are present, heaving of the soils may occur with the introduction of water. Where the material is a lean clay or silt, this type of dry fill (brittle fill) is susceptible to future settlement if it becomes saturated or flooded. SURFACE DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING The ground surface should slope away from building and pavement areas toward appropriate drop inlets or other surface drainage devices. We recommended that adjacent paved exterior grades be sloped a minimum of 2 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from structures. Ideally, asphalt concrete pavement areas should be sloped at a minimum of 2 percent, with Portland cement concrete sloped at a minimum of one percent toward drainage structures. These grades should be maintained for the life of the project. Roof drains should be designed to avoid discharging into landscape areas adjacent to the building. Downspouts should be directed to discharge directly onto paved surfaces to allow for surface drainage into the storm systems or should be connected directly to the on-site storm drain. PAVEMENT DESIGN Based on the established standard practice of designing flexible pavements in accordance with State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for projects within California, we have developed pavement sections in accordance with the procedure presented in Caltrans Standard Test Method 301. This pavement design procedure is based on the volume of traffic (Traffic Index) and the soil resistance "R" value (R -value). 1 L . i Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States INO GIER 110613.doc KA No. 112-13046 Page No. 15 Asphalt Concrete (Flexible) Pavements One (1) near -surface soil sample was obtained from the soil borings at the project site for laboratory R - Value testing. The sample was tested in accordance with California Test 301. Results of the test are as follows: Al k W-VALUK7EST RESULTS Sample'�� '=SampleR=Value ' Descriptions _; '- at`. r, Number. De �th ft � t +: T. *n ` a;. E ti r Index a _ e . Y a •. . , . 1111111r1Um RV #1 0-3' Sand 40 The Civil Engineer should consult with the client to confirm the truck count prior to assigning the Traffic Index and selecting the pavement sections for incorporation into the project plans. Based on our understanding of the project specifications, a Traffic Index of 5.5 has been used for design of pavements for automobile parking lots and drive lanes. Based on a review of the boring logs and the R -value data presented above, the near surface soil of the site consists of poorly graded sand with an R -value of 40. If site grading exposes soil other than that assumed, we should perform additional tests to confirm or revise the recommended pavement sections for actual field conditions. Various alternative pavement sections based on the Caltrans Flexible Pavement Design Method are presented below: �,, ` rz=ASPHAC LT-ONCRETE'( FLEXIBEE)`�PAVEMENTS Subgrade R -value= =40 Traffic / PavementY?� Traffic • `Asphalt Coucret0 *Class 2 Aggregate ;Depth"of Compacted ` Designation<` ti r Index f f ;(inches) ;-��Base (inches) rh ;, ,, Subgrade �,M4 STANDARD DUTY 5.5 4.0 6.0 12.0 We recommend that the subgrade soil be prepared as discussed in this report. The compacted subgrade should be non -yielding when proof -rolled with, a loaded ten -wheel truck, such as a water truck or dump truck, prior to pavement construction. Subgrade preparation should extend a minimum of 2 feet laterally Ibehind the edge of pavement or back of curbs. Pavement areas should be sloped and drainage gradients maintained to carry all surface water off the site. A cross slope of 2 percent is recommended in asphalt concrete pavement areas to provide good surface drainage and to reduce the potential for water to penetrate into the pavement structure. Unless otherwise required by local jurisdictions, paving materials should comply with the materials specifications presented in the Caltrans Standard Specifications Section. Class 2 aggregate should comply with the materials requirements for Class 2 base found in Section 26. The mineral aggregate shall be Type B, Yz-inch or 3/ -inch maximum, medium grading, for the wearing course and 3/ -inch maximum, medium grading for the base course, and shall conform to the requirements set forth in Section 39 of the Standard Specifications. The asphalt concrete materials should comply with and be placed in accordance with the specifications presented in Section 39 of the Caltrans Standard Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States INO GIER 110613.doc KA No. 112-13046 Page No. 16 Specifications, latest edition. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 96 percent of the maximum laboratory compacted (kneading compactor) unit weight. ASTM Test procedures and should be used to assess the percent relative compaction of soils, aggregate base and asphalt concrete. Aggregate base and subbase, and the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent based on the Modified Proctor maximum compacted unit weight obtained in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Compacted aggregate base should also be stable and unyielding when proof -rolled with a loaded ten -wheel water truck or dump truck. Portland Cement Concrete (Rigid) Pavement A six-inch layer of compacted Class 2 aggregate base should be placed over the prepared subgrade prior to placement of the concrete. Based on soil conditions and project specifications, we recommend that the rigid pavement be a minimum of five (5) inches thick. The final rigid pavement design and section should be determined by the project Structural Engineer. �Ala0.0RIGID PAVEMENT Traffc/Paveme�0p, t:n tla`nd Ce entClass 2 Aggregate M�.D&i nation, ��, ,Concrete inches, l ' .;._,Base (inches i� : Compacted ',hSub rade orches Standard Dyt y 5.0 6.0 12.0 Prior to the construction of any rigid pavement, we recommend that concrete mix histories with flexural strength data be obtained from the proposed supplier. In the absence of flexural strength history, we recommend that laboratory trial batching and testing be performed to allow for confirmation that the proposed concrete mix is capable of producing the required flexural strength. The concrete pavements should be designed with both longitudinal and transverse joints. The saw -cut or formed joints should extend to a minimum depth on one-fourth of the pavement thickness plus '/ inch. Joint spacing should not exceed 15 feet. Steel reinforcement of all rigid pavements is recommended to keep the joints tight and to control temperature cracking. Keyed joints are recommended at all construction joints to transfer loads across the joints. Joints should be reinforced with a minimum of %z inch diameter by 48 -inch long deformed reinforcing steel placed at mid -slab depth on 18 -inch center -to -center spacing to keep the joints tight for load transfer. The joints should be filled with a flexible sealer. The sealer should be fuel -resistant where placed at the gasoline station facility. Expansion joints should be constructed only where the pavements abut structures or fixed objects. Smooth bar dowels, with a diameter of d/8, where d equals the thickness of the concrete, at least 14 inches in length, placed at a spacing of 12 inches on centers, may also be considered for construction joints to transfer loads across the joints. The dowels should be centered across the joints with one side of the dowel lubricated to reduce the bond strength between the dowel and the concrete and fitted with a plastic cap to allow for bar expansion. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States INO GIER 110613.doc ' KA No. 112-13046 Page No. 17 INFILTRATION TESTING Infiltration testing was conducted in accordance with the procedures described in ASTM Test Method D3385, Standard Test Method for Infiltration Rate of Soils in Field Using Double -Ring Infiltrometer. Results of the testing are presented in the attachment to this report. The data, which is presented in tabular format, indicates varied infiltration rates. The soil absorption or infiltration rates are based on tests conducted with clear water. The infiltration rates may vary with time as a result of soil clogging from water impurities. ' A factor of safety should be incorporated into the design and evaluation of the infiltration areas to compensate for these factors. This factor of safety should be based on the application 1 of the existing infiltration areas. The average infiltration rate for the tests indicated infiltration rates ranging from approximately 5.7 to 6.2 inches per hour. Based on the final results of the infiltration testing, an infiltration rate of 5.7 inches per hour should be considered for the design of the infiltration areas. The shallow soil conditions present at the subject site were evaluated by drilling shallow borings in the vicinity of the infiltration tests. The borings drilled at the site indicated sands and silty sands. SOIL CORROSIVITY ' Excessive sulfate in either the soil or native water may result in an adverse reaction between the cement in concrete (or stucco) and the soil. HUD/FHA and UBC have developed criteria for evaluation of sulfate levels and how they relate to cement reactivity with soil and/or water. Soil samples were obtained from the site and tested in accordance with State of California Materials Manual Test Designation 417. The sulfate concentrations detected in these soil samples were less than 0.02 percent and are below the maximum allowable values established by HUD/FHA and UBC. 1 Therefore, no special design requirements are necessary to compensate for sulfate reactivity with the cement. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Krazan & Associates should be retained to review your final foundation and grading plans, and specifications. It has been our experience that this review provides an opportunity to detect misinterpretation or misunderstandings with respect to the recommendations presented in this report prior to the start of construction. Variations in soil types and conditions are possible and may be encountered during construction. In order to permit correlation between the soil data obtained during this investigation and the actual soil conditions encountered during construction, a representative of Krazan & Associates, Inc. should be present at the site during the earthwork and foundation construction activities to confirm that actual subsurface conditions are consistent with those contemplated in our development of this report. This will allow us the opportunity to compare actual conditions exposed during construction with those encountered in our investigation and to expedite supplemental recommendations if warranted by the exposed conditions. This activity is an integral part of our service, as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction testing and stability of the material. Krazan & Associates, Inc. will not be responsible for grades or staking, since this is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States INO GIER 110613.doc KA No. 112-13046 Page No. 18 All earthworks should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report, or as recommended by Krazan & Associates during construction. Krazan & Associates should be notified at least five working days prior to the start of construction and at least two days prior to when observation and testing services are needed. Krazan & Associates, Inc. will not be responsible for grades or staking, since this is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor. 1 The review of plans and specifications, and the 'observation and testing of earthwork related construction activities by Krazan & Associates are important elements of our services if we are to remain in the role of Geotechnical Engineer -Of -Record. If Krazan & Associates is not retained for these services, the client and the consultants providing these services will be assuming our responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during or after construction. I LIMITATIONS Geotechnical Engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil Engineering is constantly improving as new technologies and understanding of earth sciences advance. Although your site was analyzed using appropriate and current techniques and methods, undoubtedly there will be substantial future improvements in this branch of engineering. In addition to advancements ' in the field of Geotechnical Engineering, physical changes in the site due to site clearing or grading activities, new agency regulations, or possible changes in the proposed structure or development after issuance of this report will result in the need for professional review of this report. Updating or revisions to the recommendations report, and possibly additional study of the site may be required at that time. In light of this, the Owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report without critical review. Although the time limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that two years be considered a reasonable time for the usefulness of this report. Foundation and earthwork construction is characterized by the presence of a calculated risk that soil and groundwater conditions have been fully revealed by the original foundation investigation. This risk is derived from the practical necessity of basing interpretations and design conclusions on limited sampling ' of the earth. The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those disclosed during our field investigation. The logs of the exploratory borings do not provide a warranty as to the conditions that may exist beneath the entire site. The extent and nature of subsurface soil and groundwater variations may not become evident until construction begins. It is possible that variations in soil conditions and depth to groundwater could exist beyond the points of exploration that may require additional studies, consultation, and possible design revisions. If 1 conditions are encountered in the field during construction, which differ from those described in this report, our firm should be contacted immediately to provide any necessary revisions to these recommendations. IThis report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, which was conducted for the purpose of evaluating the soil conditions in terms of foundation and retaining wall design, and grading and paving of the site. This report does not include reporting of any services related to environmental studies conducted to assessment' the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands. Any statements in this report or on any boring log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed, are 1 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States INO GIER 110613.doc KA No. 112-13046 Page No. 19 strictly for descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey professional judgment regarding the presence of potential hazardous or toxics substances. Conversely, the absence of statements in this report or on any boring log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed, does not ' ' constitute our rendering professional judgment regarding the absence of potentially hazardous or toxics substances. The conclusions of this report are based on the information provided regarding the proposed construction. We emphasize that this report is valid for the project as described in the text of this report and it should not be used for any other sites'or projects. The geotechnical engineering information presented herein is based upon our understanding of the proposed project and professional interpretation of the data obtained in our studies of the site. It is not warranted that such information and interpretation cannot be superseded by future geotechnical engineering developments. The Geotechnical Engineer should be notified of any changes to the proposed project so the recommendations may be reviewed and re-evaluated. The work conducted through the course of this investigation, including the preparation of this report, has been performed in accordance with the generally accepted standards of geotechnical engineering practice, which existed in geographic area of the project at the time the report was written. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner chooses the risk they wish to bear by the expenditures involved with the construction alternatives and scheduling that are chosen. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (951) 273- r 1011. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, ��.arFss�o � QROF�Ssip �' r?0 ) c 0 2 > NO. 65092 Ga NO.2902 G) .Ke to n Jam s , GE EXP 9/30/2015 EXP. 9/30!2015 Managing Engineer. RCE No. 65092 RGE No. 290 ' CP CAtoE�� OF CA�� Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States INO GIER 110613.doc 0 1 cn U City Nails N : t Beer Hunter ,� q Sports Pub t t. Yogurt Island ° �, n , y� Y/a 'N Sleek Nr a �� s° t F Garl's=Jr/ ©' Green'8urtAo:t��;F� w` '' rr��``••,,,,Ls Quints Oentel �' r . . F1sFieririan's �y ands 'D c{ Market &Grifl Oratiodonircs ,,,Red Rob" ' •Gourmet Burgers .•oa o� p % SITE .)J'Ja3'/'r • � �A�tq�. � Pizza=s. Nxr�•' . � t'w 1 � �� ; 1 s•4 \\\ 1 0. fA ea�tiir,�py's Goll Che C Ch, 4. Scale: GFOTFCHNICAL FWGIPVIMINGIMTMGATION NTS PROPOSFD 1N-N•OLrT BURGFR Drawn by: IA ��IJINT-A, CAMA I.IFORJ � Prue VICLV I'Y MAP 1 M-13046 Z-13046 Dote: Nov. 6; 2013 nt+� Arcved by: an SITE DIEV U, P-A4R T E,ATGM.ERS roCl�ao (Wires Serving the Western United States LIM N— GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INM77GA770& PROPOSED IN N OUT BURGEW Scale: NIS Urown Syr Date: Nov. 6, 2013 I roq,-- -x-az an rn Appved t'y� LA JIM Jmx -S] TE ` OPAMWTENCTMERS Proiect riwe SITF PLAN 112-13046 j I Offices Serving the Westem I Anited States 1-4 L iAPPENDIX A FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS Field Investigation Our field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program j consisted of drilling, logging and sampling a total of six (6) borings. The depth of exploration was approximately 20 feet below the existing site surface. A member of our staff visually classified the soils in the field as the drilling progressed and recorded a continuous log of each boring. Visual classification of the soils encountered in our exploratory borings was made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487). ' A key for the classification of the soil and the boring logs are presented in this Appendix. During drilling operations, penetration tests were performed at regular intervals to evaluate the soil consistency and to obtain information regarding the engineering properties of the subsoils. Samples were obtained from the borings by driving either a 2.5 -inch inside diameter Modified California tube sampler fitted with brass sleeves or a 2 -inch outside diameter, 1 -3/8 -inch inside diameter Standard Penetration ("split -spoon") test (SPT) sampler without sleeves. Soil samples were retained for possible laboratory testing. The samplers were driven up to a depth of 18 inches into the underlying soil using.a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler was recorded for each 6 -inch penetration interval and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches are shown as blows per foot on the boring logs. The approximate locations of our borings and bulk samples are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. These approximate locations were estimated in the field based on pacing and measuring from the limits of existing site features. Laboratory Investigation The laboratory investigation was programmed to determine the physical and mechanical properties of the soil underlying the site. The laboratory -testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of in-situ moisture, density, gradation, shear strength, consolidation potential, and R - value of the materials encountered. In addition, chemical tests were performed to evaluate the soil/cement reactivity and corrosivity. Test results were used in our engineering analysis with respect to site and building pad preparation through mass grading activities, foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, pavement section design, evaluation of the materials as possible fill materials and for possible exclusion of some soils from use at the structures as fill or backfill. ' Select laboratory test results are presented on the boring logs, with graphic or tabulated results of selected tests included in this Appendix. The laboratory test data, along with the field observations, was used to prepare the final boring logs presented in the Appendix. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States UNIFMD SOEL CLASSIFICATION SYSTE:Nf UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND MOOL CHART COARSE-GRAINED BOILS (more Oran 60% Of mderlal M MW then No. 200 sieve an.) Clean GravelsOAU then 5% lirree '! OW YNell graded gmva. smakow GRAVELS mkkm. bills or no Ana More ffran b0% ap P00*jradsd yraaeis. sm"iiand d codes ndxhmee. Hills or no Anse fraction larpsr ftn No. 4 GnMb with Ana Moe then 12% tlna slew alae GM Sft graysts. oavdsand-1111 rnbdwes GC der MbdUM Clean Bands Is then 5% ams)- awa' Qrsvally sorbs' a SANDS no iMlosmdod ttltls graven► rinds, Sp pa 50% or nrae d woo ro�fbdsome. Ikon snr fm No. 4 s Wall ors thon 12% load - sleve she SM Sltq► sends. Iandstl mixtum Bc Cisysy swak sdoday m6mna FINE-GRAIN® SOILS (60% or mor d mdmW le smaller than No. 200 slave dee.) c aft said very Ant sands, rook SILTS Ml Immol of p send) or OM AND tHls wlh sW iclly kapnb days of low to medium CLAYS Liquid HmH CL PWftl4►. Pmgy ch". sandy drys, less Qren silly dM ban aM 60% OL Orpenic Ills and swrk slly wrap of IIw P""* kwgwk sills, mlceesotrs or MH torous Mrs Undy or Illy sols, S1LTf8 �� AND ° d high Idastlody, tet CLAYS Liquid Qmlt CH 60% Orgarrto *P Of medium In Ash or greater OH DleNICMy. onwic eNb NIONLY ORGANIC PT Pad and other hlghy organic ops . SOILS 0 an s 40 20 +o 0 PLABTICtTY QHART LXM LWIT RL111c1 D Log of ®rill Hole B-1 Project: INO La Quinta Project No: 11213046 Client: In -N -Out Figure No.: A-1 Location: La Quinta, California Logged By: EB Depth to Water: Not Encountered Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test j blows/ft a m c Water Content (°k) Description o m o n E E CL W rn E E Z 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface i Portland Cement Concrete 4', No discemable base material 2 ' ? Sand (SP) 7 Poorly graded, with silt, medium dense, R 6.9 ■ light brown; dry to damp 4' 9 �`s R 6.3 ■ 9 8 SPT 6.2 ■ g :» �'!• SPT 5.9 ■ ; 35 ,. SPT 4.2 15 12 �} Y.. t, i 14 .'t!Msi- I 12 16 SPT 8.9 I vi r 18- M •' 19 20 i' i� SPT 3.2 ■ End of Borehole 22 No water encountered i Boring backfilled with soil cuttings ' 24 Drill Method: HSA Driller: BE Krazamand Associates Drill Date: 10/30/13 Sample Method: SPT Sheet: 1 of 1 Log of ®bill Hole B-2 Project: INO La Quinta Project No: 11213046 Client: In -N -Out Figure No.: A-2 : Location: La Quinta, California Logged By: EB Depth to Water: Not Encountered Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test ^ blowst t CL o Water Content (%) ,-. Description p o? o m CL m a >n y m p 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 :. Ground Surface Portland Cement Concrete 4', No discernable base material 2 Send (SP) 9 5;.sir : P. Poorly graded, with sift, medium dense, R 6.6 ■ light brown, dry to damp i R 8.1 8 ■ 9 6 rz SPT 6.8 ■ rM.5)' SPT 7.e xI.- s�<:• 10 SPT 5.6 10 ■ 12—: ,s' M�. 14 ' 1 16h'`. SPT 6.2 9 C ■ ;)prat 18 ""i 20 ' SPT 9.2 ■ 11 End of Borehole . 22 No water encountered + Boring backfilled with soil cuttings 24 Drill Method: HSA Driller: BE Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 10/30/13 Sample Method: SPT Sheet: 1 of 1 Log of ®bill bole Bm3 Project: INO La Quinta Project No: 11213046 Client: In -N -Out Figure No.: A-3 Location: La Quinta, California Logged By: EB Depth to Water: Not Encountered Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test blows/R CL Water Content (%) �. Description o m n B m m Io q m mZ E E 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface Portland Cement Concrete 4 .z!f 4", No discernable base material ?:• 2(!',�;�,, � Sand (SP) g ' Poorly graded, with sift, medium dense, R 8.3 ■' ,< light brown, dry to damp 4 >rery R 5.1 10 j ■ 6 SPT 4.6 i ■ 6 8 .>' SPT 6.2 43 ! ■ ty`' 1010 SPT 2.2 ■ s r. 'r 12 14 sr 16 SPT 4.2 10 i i ■ ti 20- 20 SPT 4.8 i ■ 11 End of Borehole r No water encountered Boring backfilled with soil cuttings 24 Drill Method- HSA Driller: BE Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 10/30/13 Sample Method: SPT Sheet: 1 of 1 Log of ®frill hole B-4 Project: INO La Quinta Project No: 11213046 Client: In -N -Out Figure No.: A4 Location: La Quinta, California Logged By: EB Depth to Water: Not Encountered Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test blows/ft CL m Water Content(°k) Description 'g �� m CL E pZ E E m 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface Asph/at Concrete 3 f 4", No discernable base material 2 " Sand (SP) 8 M IR Poorly graded, with silt, medium dense, R 2.9 ■ 3 light brown, dry to damp ^•:i• i.�3 R 4.8 12 ■ u•t 6 :>?NS�; SPT 5.1 ■ 26 •3>,; SPT 4.6 ■ 14 ti�th- 10 SPT 5.2 8 I ■ ' , 112- 2 14 33 14 s3 SPTJE 9.9 i 11 16 s V.- i 18 :?. 20-�" SPT 6.0 ■ 12 End of Borehole 22 No water encountered Boring backfilled with soil cuttings ! , 24 Drill Method: HSA Krazan and Associates Driller: BE Drill Date: 10/30/13 Sample Method: SPT Sheet: 1 of 1 Log of ®rill Hole B-5 Project: INO La Quinta Project No: 11213046 Client: In -N -Out Figure No.: A-5 Location: La Quinta, California Logged By: EB Depth to Water: Not Encountered Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Penetration Test ^ blows/ft c Water Content (%) Description CD p Q N m O m CL m CL > a E E E 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 3 3. 3 i Ground Surface Asph/at Concrete 4", No discernable base material f 2 �:• i �t Sand (SP) E 8 gi p. Poorly graded, with silt, medium dense, R 2.5 ■ light brown, dry to damp 4 f ' R 2.4 g I 11 6,•St. c SPT 4.8 ■ qi 13 3} 8 •Sfsj SPT 4.2 ■ ` 12 SPT 3.9 j ■ 12 k 14f 16 •33P SPT 4.6 I ■ g 3 a.. •ii �Tr, 41 18 F I.Ldj 20 SPT 6.2 i ■ ' 11 End of Borehole 22 No water encountered Boring backfilled with soil cuttings 24 k Drill Method: HSA Driller: BE Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 10/30/13 Sample Method: SPT Sheet: 1 of 1 Log of Drill Dole B-6 Project: INO La Quinta Project No: 11213046 Client: In -N -Out Figure No.: A-6 Location: La Quinta, California Logged By: EB Depth to Water: Not Encountered Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE g SAMPLE Penetration Test ^ blows/ft CL m ° Water ContentCL Description p m a a W a o U) EE m m ° z 20 40 60 10 20 30 40 Surface lowGround Asphlat Concrete M6 4", No discernable base material Sand (SP) 2}; 8 Poorly graded, with silt, medium dense, R 3.7 ■ ;7 s? light brown, dry to damp 4 R 6.7 10 ■ '7e 6.i SPT 5.1 ■ 21 8 > `i 8 SPT 4.8 ■ 10 SPT 5.2 ■ 12- X; i 10 16 7 SPT 7.4 ( ■ X 11 11 20 SPT 5.3 ■ End of Borehole 22 No water encountered Boring backfilled with soil cuttings 24 ' Drill Method: HSA Driller: BE Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 10/30/13 Sample Method: SPT Sheet: 1 of 1 Shear Strength Diagram (Direct Shear) ASTM D - 3080 / AASHTO T - 236 Project Number Boring No. & Depth Soil Type Date 112-13046 B-1 2' Sand 11/612013 Krazan Testing Laboratory i 1 1 Expansion Index Test ASTM D - 4829/ UBC Std. 18-2 Project Number E: 11213046 Project Name INO La Quinta Date :11/l/2013 Sample location/ Depth B-2 0-3 Sample Number Soil Classification ': Sand Trial # 1 2 3 Weight of Soil & Mold, gms 586.9 Dial Reading — -- Weight of Mold, gms 170.9 _ 0 Weight of Soil, gms 416.0 Wet Density, Lbs/cu.ft. 125.5 Weight of Moisture Sample (Wet), gms 300.0 Weight of Moisture Sample D ms 274.0 Moisture Content, % 9.5 Dry De nsity, Lbs/cu.ft. 114.6 Specific Gravity of Soil 2.7 Degree of Saturation, % 54.5 A Time . Inital 30 min 1 hr 6hrs 12 hrs 24 hrs Dial Reading — -- _ _ _ 0 Expansion Index measured = 0 Expansion Index 50 = 0.0 Expansion Index = 0 Expansion Potential Table Exp. Index Potential Exp. 0-20 Very Low 21-50 Low 51-90 Medium 91-130 High >130 I Very Hi h Krazan Testing Laboratory Consolidation Test Project No BoringNo. & Depth Date Soil Classification 11213046 1 B-125 11/1/2013 ' Sand Load in Kips per Square Foot 0.1 1 10 900 0.00 % Consolidation @ 21(sf: 2.1 % ! 1.00 �a •■ 2.00 .e 3.00 e _ _ I 4.00 z C 0 'o 0 5.00 0 c d a - 6.00 I 7.00 8.00-- .0010.00 10.00., . Krazan Testing Laboratory { Consolidation Test Project No Bori n -g No. & Depth I Date I Soil Classification 11213046 B-2@5 . 111/1/20131 Sand Load In Kips per Square Foot 0.1 1 10 100 0.00 % Consolidation @ 21(sf: 1.8% I I 1.00 1 2.00 1 3.00 4.00 0 32 0 m 0 5.00 v c m P, m IL 6.00 7.00 t 8.00 I 10.00 1 Krazan Testing Laboratory ' t � 5 1 a Consolidation Test Project No I Boring No. & Depth I Date I oil Classification 11213046 j B-3@5 Ill/l/20131 Sand Load to Kips per Square Foot 0.1 1 � 10 100 0.00 9 % Consolidation @ 2Ksf: 1.9 % 1.00 2.00 - '• . 3.00 4.00 c 0 a m v 0 .e c 5.60- .006.00 6.001 — 7.00 8.00 i 9.00 — i i i 10.00 Krazan Testing Laboratory 1, 1 f i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i U Consolidati®n Test Project No Boring No. & Depth I Date I Soil Classification 11213046 B-6@5 Ill/l/20131 Sand Load in Kips per Square Foot 0.1 1 10 100 0.00 % Consolidation @ 21(sf: 2.5% 1.00 — ' 2.00 • • .00 3.00.- -4.00 4.00 _ 0 S m 'fl O m c 5.00 _ v m d 6.00 7.00 - - i 8.00 — - 9.00 i ii 10.00 Krazan Testing Laboratory Project # Test Location 11213046 INO La Quinta Constants Inner Ring Area (CM) 707 L Depth of Liquid(cm) NA Liqurd Containers No. Vol/Delta H 1 707 Liqurd Used Water Annular Ring 2106 NA 2 2106 Tested By JMK Infiltration Test No. 1 Depth to Water Table >30 Test Depth -1.5 Penetration of Rings into Subgrade (in.) Inner 6 Annular 6 Reading No. Date Time (hr:min.) Elapsed Time (hr) Flow Reading Inner Ring Annular Space Liqurd Temp Incr. Infiltration Rate Inner Annular Ground Temp /Depth Remarks Reading Flow Reading Flow (cm) (CM3) (cm) (CM3) °C Cm/Hr Cm/Hr 'C/cm 1 11/6/13 8:00 0.000 36 - 36 2 11/6/13 8:15 0.25 31 3535 32 8424 20.00 16.00 3 11/6/13 8:30 0.50 27 2828 28 8424 16.00 16.00 4 11/6/13 8:45 0.75 23 2828 24 8424 16.00 16.00 5 11/6/13 9:00 1.00 19 2828 20 8424 16.00 16.00 6 11/6/13 9:30 1.50 12 4949 12 16848 14.00 16.00 7 11/6/13 10:00 2.00 36 36 8 11/6/13 10:30 2.50 29 4949 29 14742 14.00 14.00 9 11/6/13 11:00 3.00 22 4949 22 14742 14.00 14.00 10 11/6/13 11:30 3.50 15 4949 14 16848 14.00 16.00 11 11/6/13 12:00 4.00 8 4949 8 12636 14.00 12.00 12 11/6/13 12:30 4.50 36 36 13 11/6/13 13:00 5.00 29 4949 30 12636 14.00 12.00 14 11/6/13 13:30 5.50 23 4242 22 16848 12.00 16.00 15 11/6/13 14:00 6.00 16 4949 15 14742 14.00 14.00 16 11/6/13 14:30 6.50 9 4949 8 14742 14.00 14.00 17 11/6/13 15:00 7.00 36 36 18 11/6/13 15:30 7.50 29 4949 29 14742 1 14.00 14.00 19 11/6/13 16:00 8.00 22 4949 23 12636 14.00 12.00 20 11/6/13 16:30 8.50 15 4949 15 16848 14.00 16.00 21 11/6/13 17:00 9.00 8 4949 8 14742 14.00 14.00 Average of Reading in Inches per hour 5.74 5.74 Project # Test Location 11213046 INO La Quinta Constants Inner Ring Area (cm2) 707 Depth of Liquid(cm) NA Liqurd Containers No. Vol/Delta H 1 707 Liqurd Used Water Annular Ring 2106 NA 2 2106 Tested By JMK Infiltration Test No. 2 Depth to Water Table >30 Test Depth -1.5 Penetration of Rings into Subgrade (in.) Inner 6 Annular 6 Reading No. Date Time (hr:min.) Elapsed Time (hr) Flow Reading Inner Ring Annular Space Liqurd Incr. Infiltration Rate Temp Inner Annular Ground Temp /Depth Remarks Reading Flow Reading Flow (cm) (CM) (cm) (CM) °C Cm/Hr Cm/Hr °C / cm 1 11/6/13 9:00 0.000 36 - 36 - - - 2 11/6/13 9:15 0.25 30 4242 31 10530 24.00 20.00 3 11/6/13 9:30 0.50 25 3535 27 8424 20.00 16.00 4 11/6/13 9:45 0.75 21 2828 23 8424 16.00 16.00 5 11/6/13 10:00 1.00 17 2828 19 8424 16.00 16.00 6 11/6/13 10:30 1.50 9 5656 12 14742 16.00 14.00 7 11/6/13 11:00 2.00 36 36 8 11/6/13 11:30 2.50 29 4949 28 16848 14.00 16.00 9 11/6/13 0:00 3.00 21 5656 20 16848 16.00 16.00 10 11/6/13 0:30 3.50 14 4949 12 16848 14.00 16.00 11 11/6/13 3:00:00 Ph 4.00 7 4949 6 12636 14.00 12.00 12 11/6/13 3:30:00 Ph 4.50 36 36 13 11/6/13 14:00 5.00 29 4949 28 16848 14.00 16.00 14 11/6/13 14:30 5.50 21 5656 20 16848 16.00 16.00 15 11/6/13 15:00 6.00 13 5656 13 14742 16.00 14.00 16 11/6/13 15:30 6.50 6 4949 6 14742 14.00 14.00 17 11/6/13 16:00 7.00 36 36 18 11/6/13 16:30 7.50 28 5656 29 14742 16.00 14.00 19 11/6/13 17:00 8.00 21 4949 22 14742 14.00 14.00 20 11/6/13 17:30 8.50 14 4949 15 14742 14.00 14.00 21 11/6/13 18:00 9.00 6 5656 8 14742 16.00 14.00 Average of Reading in Inches per hour 6.25 5.97 L� a 0 �• suoi�n��'i�adS � �aorrt�{�a�a� 1�aaaua� Appendix B ' Page B. 1 APPENDIX B ' EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the recommendations in the report have precedence. SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork associated with the site rough grading, including, but not limited to, the furnishing of all labor, tools and ' equipment necessary for site clearing and grabbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill, excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and backfill materials to the lines and grades shown on the project grading plans and disposal of excess materials. PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthworks in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and tested by a representative of Krazan and Associates, Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as the Geotechnical Engineer and/or Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades, when achieved, shall be certified by the project Civil Engineer. Both the Geotechnical Engineer and the Civil Engineer are the Owner's representatives. If the Contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements ' embodied in this document and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary adjustments until all work is deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Geotechnical Engineer and the Civil - Engineer. No deviation from these specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the ' Geotechnical Engineer, Civil Engineer, or project Architect. No earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Geotechnical Engineer. The Contractor shall notify the Geotechnical Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork. The Contractor agrees that he shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the sole negligence of the Owner or the Engineers. ' TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materials shall be densified to the minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. Soil moisture content requirements presented in the Geotechnical ' Engineer's report shall also be complied with. The maximum laboratory compacted dry unit weight of each soil placed as fill shall be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557-00 (Modified Proctor). The optimum moisture content shall also be determined in accordance with this test method. The terms "relative compaction" and "compaction" are defined as the in-place dry density of the compacted soil divided by the laboratory compacted maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557-00, expressed as a percentage as specified in the technical portion of the Geotechnical Engineer's report. The location and frequency of field density tests shall be as determined ' by the Geotechnical Engineer. The results of these tests and compliance with these specifications shall be the basis upon which the Geotechnical Engineer will judge satisfactory completion of work. ' Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States f Appendix B Page B. 2 SOILS AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report. The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report and the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability under the Contract for any loss sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work. ' DUST CONTROL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off-site if caused by the Contractor's operation either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including court costs of codefendants, for all claims related to dust or wind-blown materials attributable to his work. SITE PREPARATION Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grubbing, over -excavation of the proposed building ' pad areas, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill, construction of Engineered Fill including the placement of non -expansive fill where recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project earthwork all structures, both surface and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter and all other matter determined by the Geotechnical Engineer to be deleterious. Site stripping to remove organic materials and organic -laden ' soils in landscaped areas shall extend to a minimum depth of 2 inches or until all organic -laden soil with organic matter in excess of 3 percent of the soils by volume are removed Such materials shall become the property of the Contractor and shall be removed from the site. Tree root systems in proposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to such an extent that would permit removal of all roots greater than 1 inch in diameter. Tree roots ' removed in parking areas may be limited to the upper 1 %: feet of the ground surface. Backfill of tree root excavation should not be permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Geotechnical Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction. Burning in areas that are to receive fill materials shall not be permitted. Excavations required to achieve design grades, depressions, soft or pliant areas, or areas disturbed by demolition activities extending below planned finished subgrade levels should be excavated down to firm, undisturbed soil and backfilled with Engineered Fill. The resulting excavations should be backfilled with Engineered Fill. ' EXCAVATION: Following clearing and grubbing operations, the proposed building pad area shall be over -excavated to a depth of at least two feet below existing grades or one foot below the planned foundation bottom levels, whichever is deeper, and the remaining areas of the building and adjoining exterior concrete flatwork or pavements at the building perimeter shall be over -excavated to a depth of at least one foot below existing grade. The areas of over -excavation and recompaction beneath footings and slabs shall extend out laterally a minimum of five feet beyond the perimeter of these elements. All excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over -excavation below the grades specified shall be backfilled at the „ 5 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Aw Appendix B ' Page B.3 Contractor's expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable TECHNICAL ' REQUIREMENTS. SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive Engineered Fill or to support structures directly, shall be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted in accordance with the TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, above. Loose soil areas and/or areas of disturbed soil shall be should be excavated down to firm, undisturbed soil, moisture -conditioned as necessary and backfilled with Engineered Fill. All nits, hummocks, or other uneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement of any fill materials. All areas that are to receive fill materials shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of any of the fill material.' FILL AND BACKFELL MATERIAL: No, material shall be moved or compacted without the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for construction of site fills, with the limitations of their use presented in the Geotechnical Engineer's report, provided the Geotechnical Engineer gives prior approval. All materials utilized for constructing site fills shall be free from vegetation or other deleterious matter as determined by the Geotechnical ' Engineer, and shall comply with the requirements for non -expansive fill, aggregate base or aggregate subbase as applicable for its proposed used on.the site as presented in the Geotechnical Engineer's report. , PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: The placement and spreading of approved fill materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. Fill materials should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, each not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Due to equipment limitations, thinner lifts may be necessary to achieve the recommended level of compaction. Compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jetting shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Geotechnical Engineer. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density (relative compaction) or if soil conditions are not stable. The compacted subgrade in pavement areas should be non -yielding when proof -rolled with a loaded ten -wheel truck, such as a water truck or dump truck, prior to pavement construction. I Both cut and fill shall be surface -compacted to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer prior to final acceptance. ' SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing, or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Geotechnical Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed fill is as specified. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States .- �, D �' suoi��i�'i�adS � �uir��a� 1naauarJ APPENDIX C PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS ' 1. DEFINITIONS -. The term "pavement" shall include asphalt concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. The term "subgrade" is that portion of the area on which surfacing, base, or subbase is to be placed. The term "Standard Specifications": hereinafter referred to is the January 1999 Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation, and the "Materials Manual" is the Materials Manual of Testing and Control Procedures, State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways. The term "relative compaction" refers to the field density expressed as a percentage of the maximum laboratory density as defined in the ASTM D1557-00. ' 2. SCOPE OF WORK - This portion of the work shall include all labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary for, and reasonably incidental to the completion of the pavement shown on the plans and as herein specified, except work specifically notes as "Work Not Included." 3. PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE - The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the plans. The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement courses. ' 4. UNTREATED AGGREGATE BASE - The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate base material shall conform to the requirements of Section 26 of the Standard Specifications ' for Class 2 material, %-inches maximum size. The aggregate base material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted in accordance with Section 26 of the Standard Specifications. The aggregate base material shall be spread in layers not exceeding 6 inches and each layet of aggregate material course shall be ' tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers. 5. AGGREGATE' SUBBASE - The aggregate subbase shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate subbase material shall conform to the requirements of Section 25 of the Standard Specifications for Class II material. The aggregate subbase material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent, and it shall be spread and compacted in accordance with Section 25 of the Standard r Specifications. Each layer of aggregate subbase shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States Appendix C ' Page C. 5 6. ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACING - Asphalt concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture of ' mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at a central mixing plant and spread and compacted on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The viscosity grade of the asphalt shall be AR -8000. The mineral aggregate shall be Type B, '/Z -inch or 3/ - inch maximum, medium grading, for the wearing course and 3/ -inch maximum, medium grading for the ' base course, and shall conform to the requirements set forth in Section 39 of the Standard Specifications. The drying, proportioning, and mixing of the materials shall conform to Section 39. ' The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture shall conform to the applicable chapters of Section 39, with the exception that no surface course shall be placed when the atmospheric temperature is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing shall be rolled with a combination steel -wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in Section 39-6. The surface course shall be placed with an approved self-propelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine. ' 7. ,FOG SEAL COAT - The fog seal (mixing type asphalt emulsion) shall conform to and be applied in accordance with the requirements of Section 37.