Loading...
1996-4761 CN/EX/G , , Street Address ~/&<s Category I SJC6 3 ~ Serial # 41&1 g Name I Description Plan ck. # Year recdescv . '. ENGINEERING DESIGN & PlANNING CONSULTANTS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION Date: September 25, 1996 To: Terri Healy 1533 Calle Ryan Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Proposed Healy Residence to be located on Parcel 3, Camino Del Rancho, Olivenhain, City of Encinitas, CA. Subject: .compaction Report for General Site Grading Reference: "Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation Recommendations, Proposed Single Fami!y Residence, to be Located on Parcel 3, Camino Del Rancho, Olivenhain, City of Encinitas, California," Project No: 961246-1, dated April 16, 1996, prepared by Engineering Design Group. INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and authorization, we have reviewed the referenced geotechnical report, and provided geotechnical observation and compaction testing services during rough grading of the subject property. GRADING OPERATIONS Rough grading operations were conducted on-site during the period of September 18, 1996 through September 20, 1996. Prior to the start of grading, vegetation and debris were removed from the areas of proposed grading. Site grading generally consisted of cutting a keyway at the toe of proposed fill slopes, and placement of compacted fill material to finish pad grade elevations. Keyways were observed by a representative from our firm prior to the placement of compacted fill. The bottom of removals were scarified to a depth of approximately 12 inches and moisture conditioned prior to fill placement. Fill soils placed during grading were derived from on-site sources and, based on experience with similar soil types, are non-expansive in nature. During grading, fill soils were generally mixed, moisture conditioned, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM 01557-78). Fill operations were accomplished by track walking with a D6-Bulldozer, sheeps foot drum roller, and a water truck. 475 CARMEL STREET-8 SAN MARCOS, CA 8920698 (619) 752-7010 8 FAX (619) 752-7092 The subsoil conditions encountered within the subject area during site grading are generally similar to those anticipated in the referenced geotechnical report. It should be noted that the majority of the proposed building pad is located within undisturbed "cut" materials suitable for the support of settlement sensitive structures. However, the project owner and contractor should anticipate transitions between cut and fill materials within the footprint of the proposed residence and exterior flatwork improvements. As a result of the proposed grading concept, anticipated transitions were discussed with the project contractor and grading operator during the pre- grading meeting. Due to anticipated cut and fill transitions underlying the proposed settlement sensitive improvements, additional recommendations, as an addendum to the recommendations provided in the referenced geotechnical report, have been provided within the "Summary and Recommendations" section below. The approximate locations of our field density tests are presented in Figure No.1, "Field Density Test Location Map". The results of the laboratory and field tests for the referenced site are presented in Table No.1, "Laboratory and Field Test Results". Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM 01556-82 (Sand Cone Method). Our test results indicate that the fill placed, under our observation and testing, in the areas indicated in Figure No.1, "Field Density Test Location Map", have been compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, as determined by ASTM 01557-78, The reported test results are representative of the soil conditions at the locations tested. Our observation and field density testing methods are in accordance with normally accepted procedures. The accuracy of the relative compaction values are subject to the precision limitations of the ASTM test methods. The accuracy of the maximum dry density determination (ASTM 01557-78) is discussed in the 1985 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4, Volume 04.08, entitled, S2ll and Rock: Buildjng Stones. To date, ASTM has not reported on the accuracy of the field density test procedure (ASTM 01556-82). Variations of relative compaction values should be expected, laterally and vertically, from the actual test locations. '. SUMMA~DATIONS In general, it is our opinion that the fill soils placed at the site at the tested locations, were compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM 01557-78). Prior to construction, the project structural engineer should review the as-built soil conditions in order to provide any necessary modifications to the project plans. Any variations or unforseen conditions encountered during construction, should be brought to the attention of the Page No: 2 Project No: 961246-4 3) 4) '. Engineering Design Group in order to provide additional recommendations, as deemed necessary. The following recommendations should be considered as minimum requirements, and incorporated during the construction of the proposed improvements. 1) All proposed foundations should be founded within a uniform bearing strata, and meet minimum design recommendations as outlined in the referenced geotechnical report. Due to the anticipated cut and fill transitions within the footprint of the proposed residence, all footing excavations should extend through fill material and founded within undisturbed formational material. Prior to the placement of reinforcement, the Engineering Design Group should be notified in order to conduct footing excavation observations, and to prepare the associated letter of compliance (if applicable). 2) As outlined in the referenced geotechnical report, minimum requirements for concrete slabs on grade, including exterior flatwork improvements, should consist of a minimum of 4 inches thick (5 inches for driveway and garage slabs), with #3 bars at 18 inches o,c. each way. Due to the anticipated cut and fill transitions underlying the proposed concrete slabs, the above requirement should be increased to #4 bars at 18 inches O.C. each way. As an alternative, #3 bars at 18 inches O.C. may be used, However, where slabs are underlain by cut and fill transitions, the reinforcement requirements should be doubled, and span 8 feet on either side of the transition (where possible). If this alternative is utilized, the Engineering Design Group should provide additional site observations during foundation excavation observation in order to observe the soil profile and confirm locations of transitions. Adequate control joints (minimum of every 400 sJ., 1 inch vertical cut) should be installed to control the unavoidable cracking of concrete that takes place when undergoing its natural shrinkage during curing. The control joints should be well located to direct unavoidable slab cracking to areas that are desirable by the designer. Brittle floor finishes placed directly on slab on grade floors may crack if concrete is not adequately cured prior to installing the finish or if there is minor slab movement. To minimize potential damage to movement sensitive flooring, we recommend the use of slip sheeting which allows for foundation and slab movement without transmitting this movement to the floor finishes. RFACE DRAIN GE Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and often play an important role on the performance of a structure. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond Page No: 3 Project No: 961246-4 against or adjacent to footings, foundation walls, or retaining walls. The ground surface surrounding structures should be relatively impervious in nature, and slope to drain away from the building in all directions, with a minimum slope of 2 percent for a horizontal distance of 7 feet (where possible). Roof gutters and down spouts should be provided on the structure, and tight lined to outlet at a suitable location, Area drains or surface swales should be provided to accommodate runoff and avoid any ponding of water. Drainage should be diverted away from the tops of slopes to avoid erosion. Surface and area drains should not be connected to any wall drainage or underdrain system (See attached "Homeowners Maintenance Guidelines"). v We recommend that any additional fill placement, retaining wall backfill, foundation excavations, and drainage improvements be observed by a representative of this office. We request a minimum 24-hour notice prior to any observations, so that proper scheduling of our personnel can be made, If variations of site conditions are encountered during construction, this office should be notified, so that appropriate recommendations or design changes may be implemented. We appreciate the opportunity to be of professional service to you in this matter. If you have any questions regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. DESIGN GROUP Steven Norris California RCE #47672 Attachments: Table No.1, "Laboratory and Field Test Results" Figure No.1, "Field Density Test Location Map" Appendix A - Home Owners Maintenance Guidelines Page No: 4 Project No: 961246-4 . ' , TABLE NO.1 LABORATORY AND FIELD TEST RESUL TS I .L TA~t ~ØCHlltQ SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE U.S.C.S. CLASSIFICATION CPCF) (%) 1 LIGHT BROWN, SILTY SAND 128.3 10.0 SM (NATIVE) ~ TEST NO: DATE ELEVATION SOIL DRY DENSITY FIELD MOISTURE RELATIVE TYPE (PCF) (PERCENT) COMPACTION 1 9/19/96 118.5 1 124.5 11 97.0 2 9/19/96 120 1 126.0 11 98.2 3 9/19/96 121 1 121.0 12 94.3 4 9/19/96 141 1 127.7 11 99.5 5 9/19/96 121.5 1 127.9 10.5 99.7 6 9/19/96 121.5 1 126.6 11 98.7 7 9/19/96 123 1 119.7 12.5 93.3 8 9/19/96 123.5 1 123.5 11 96.3 9 9/19/96 123 1 127.8 11 99.6 10 9/19/96 123 1 122.6 11 95.6 11 9120/96 125- 1 120.5 11.5 93.9 12 9120/96 125- 1 124.0 10.5 96.7 13 9/20/96 125- 1 122.6 10.5 95.6 . - INISH PAD GRADE ¡' I ' , I , .. . , I .' , ;' I /"'..oo . \! /_,' --- > I' - -..... 'I' '/-- /'\ \ \ " I..... \ \ / ,"'" l' \ 0 - \ \ " '"L\' \ , \ . " \ I, - "0 ¡ '\ \ i " " ~\I \ I , \ \ \ \ I \ " \ I I I I . " I \ I " I ,;' \!' I ¡ " I' I I I" I I ":. I I "'\ I , / ";f I - þ' , - -Q/f~ ~ - -1.1:1"'" - - - - , '¡ I I I i I ~ , .' ! I / -""-- 1111()0? IL(ft TO CIUTIÆT /T\1!I / I \ / , / . NO~ PfIQPERTV U~ES AII£ ,PPRO"'u 1£ NORTH LEGEND 13 - APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF - FIELD DENSllY TESTS TIE EHGIIEERIWi DESIGN GROUP SITE PLAN/FIELD DENSITY TEST LOCATION MAP JOB NO:98124&4 BY:KA AGUAE NO: 1 , : a - ResidentiaJ homesites require periodic maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems to insure proper performance and overall retention of property value. Otten, homeowners are not aware of the importance of these systems and allow them to deteriorate. During the construction phase of development, governing agendes require property developers to utilize specific methods ot engineering and construction to protect the public interest. For instance, the developer may be required to grade the property in such a manner that rainwater will be drained away from the building pad, install brow ditches & terrace drains, and to plant slopes to minimize erosion. However, once the lot is purchased, it becomes the buyer's responsibility to maintain these safety features by observing a prudent program of lot care and maintenance. Failure to make regular inspection and perform necessary maintenance of drainage devices and sloping areas may cause severe financial loss. In addition to his/her own property damage, the property owner may be subject to civil liability for damage occurring to neighboring properties as a result of negligence. The following maintenance guidelines are provided for the protection of the homeowner's investment. A AU roof gutter and downspout systems, installed on the residence, should be tightfined to a suitable outlet away from the structure. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond onsite, particularly against the perimeter foundation system. Soils grades adjacent to the foundation of the structure should be sloped to direct water away from the foundation. and into a collective drainage system. Soil grades should slope at a minimum of 2% for a horizontal distance of 5 feet away from the structure. B. c. The irrigation of planter systems located immediately adjacent to the foundation should be strictly controlled to avoid over watering. Saturation of soils in these planters may result in soil settlement/expansion and associated distress. D. Care should be taken to ensure that slopes, terraces, berm, and proper lot drainage are not disturbed. E. In general, roof and yard runoff should be directed to either the street or storm drain by non-erosive devices such as sidewalks, drainage pipes, ground gutters, and driveways. Drainage systems should not be altered without expert consultation. p . K. L F. All drains shoulc;f be kept dean and undogged, induding gutters and downspout's. Terrace drains or gunite ditches should be kept free of debris to allow proper drainage. During periods of heavy rain. the performance of the drainage systems should be inspected. Problems. such as gullying and ponding. if observed. should be corrected as soon as possible. Arty leakage from pools, waterlines. etc. or surface runoff bypassing drains should be repaired as soon as possible. G. H. Artimal burrows should be elirT1inated since they may cause diversion of surface runoff, promote accelerated erosion, and even trigger shallow slope fajlures. . I. Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever a homeowner plans a topographic modification of a lot or slope, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be contacted. If unusual cracking, setUing, or earth slippage occurs on the property, the owner should consult a qualified geotechnical consultant immediately. J. The most common causes of slope erosion and shallow slope failures are as follows: . Gross neglect of the care and maintenance of onsite slopes and drainage devices . Inadequate and/or improper planting. replanted. as soon as possible. Excessive or insufficient irrigation or diversion of runoff over the slope. Barren areas should be . Property owners should not let conditions on their property adversely impact their neighbors. Cooperation with neighbors could prevent problems and increase the aesthetic attractiveness of the community. ... ,"I.! ¡ .. .' !¡\ I r" l C7 f-IYD!?OL@C>y <?Z:CI~ C === ,.9 (i'JAlS£RVA 71 vf ICY¿ RF3/JJ6?tlJF AI &z= .. (1~ C) ¡j J-/ ":Z II 7L ~ g A :=- , 69s-' L} H z-:. .g' Íe - g <: A7= ~/ð? JJ f/;z: II' Tc ~ 1-1 Ai - Q /6 ~ ~ OG (, 9) :;J, (., 7 C¡) It1? ::::: # ófo (,~) 3, c¡y ":2 ,IS- (J FI) ~-:" ..;2 I C F3 - A 2... - Q /0 ~ fô9Çfi9);1, ( 7 ~ Ic:t:J ~ (O9s-J,?) 3, '1'-/ ÂJ - -~ , 23 efS ~ , 3,-/ erg ~ a/i) Z . /õ7 (~V I,? h Q iOC' == ¡ / r (. 9) .J - 89 :-= . J2. CF5 ~ , Lf '7 CF..? - 1/ &(q~ 1)/17/1 P/l{.)1-1 ¡'ei VIL EJ-Jc.t<. JI,ÆJU1JßCLI< II 3!IJEIL 1Þ<17A C/JJ ~ Pfl,,¿JN ~I //}f)eS I!JJÇ JlY¡}fløi.-C6y ,H.QA/C/Afl-- HeALY (}.£SIVEVŒ MANNING ENGINEERING 41892 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE SO.. STE. B TEMECULA. CA 92590 PHONE (909) 676-1844 ATE I . ~'-I . I I , I t r------ -- T I I I S E.C_1IO N_A -1 ' Jon , ~ , ~ ;, ( ',~ n':~", "::f",','~,': " , L,.,,~~ , 'S<!'?~!~t:"i"'~';::,h(. ,~",".;':"!'.,,~Ji~,"ì',:,!p',:; "J"~':'4:'I"':r~';I",.. ',/¡,;"",},,'.';,:'I¡U';fi:,~:~,' , ..~ 'J";l:;;);'¡¡¡¡1'#",~ 'jT",»4.,:';! ~"rA, , \!,:;'{.i;S~~f"t';;::. ',,1"';';<\":'.,.' ~~"'~" ' , :.:~" \ ..l1&71~ ,¡r \ ',!l:f, I , , ~' :¡~"" ';,<1' , "', '" ,/' ,.1 ' , :", ", n, ': ", " ;.:~~~¡:1~:},,: , ~ , <::) , f'.'t ~ r -- h_---¡ -r- I EXISTING PRIVEWA Y ~) "'f (., " ~ ¡ -..( , ~ ~ ('\\ '.. , í ( ) '~ { I -", ,- --'-T---------' I ~OT PART OF ~16 PROPERTY) C"f) 4~ \ \ \ - \ \ N \ Q \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I I I \ ~) f¡ . :3 RA~ FENCE ~ I FL. I ~ I' -- r, --ií ~ Te' L 100 -1000 - 90 .- 900 - 80 - 800 - 70 - .- 60 -700 +- - c: CII - E - 50 a 0 - CII - - :- - - .-. ..------ ~- - 500 -- - :--.4Q-----. c "(3 ':' 35 CII. a- III - 600 +- - Q) Q) - - -400 c: - .... -~ 30 0 ,.. - - g - 350 , ....- c III - ~ - 25 :J - c: E - õ- ";: - 300 c: - - c: - 20 ,- - 19 - 18 ~-17 - :"16 c: - 15--- 0 - ,- 14 0 - ::-l3' c: .ø' g ::- 12- ,'l:\ [3 ~II // / 15 ~AO Q) - 9 E / ~ ~/8 ~/~: . 100 .... 0 - - 250 ,..... -I - .s:::. - +- 01- ~ ~ -I := -150 - 5 4 RCFC 8 WCD HYDROLOGY ÑJANUAL 30/Z1 LIMITATIONS: , 1 I. Maximum length = 1000 2, Maximum area = 10 Acres Te - 5 <t - .... cu ð 2:L 6-~ - u u ~ 1/1 <t - ::I ~ 01 0 ,!: '> 7 - ~ c: t +- 0 a.+- c: N E 'ë 100 - Ë "'-'--80 8.....~ 0 .... .... - 60 0 - 0 0 - 50 ~ cu =- 40 .-:' - ~ E CI 1/1 - 30 " Q) o.~'t:I- "/9-0 0 c ~ - 20 / (¡) ii Q) / >- ~ ~ ~ - ~o / 10 - g -. --}. 6 u.. K .Ai ~ -~j ----- II I I - Q) und,eve,opedIo Qj - 2. --- - --------. I' 12 g' Good Cover ~ - --------.:_~- ü) Und~veloped - .,'~ ft' ,8 /)3/-= 0 Fair Cover ~ ,;,_,6 ,~: \ Undevelopß(J. kó ¿3 ,'l:~ 15 2! Poor rAVI-.. ¡ E =- ,2 ----// / 16 ~ .s - /' 17 ~ E ~ .v - c: y 18 -::' .- . ,/<- 19 - Û 90 ~ 20 .:- t. c: - c ~ 0 cu - - 0 .... - .... +- - c: 25- ~ c: - 0 - u 0 KEY -- I L -H-lc -K -Tc - - - 0 30- cu ~ ,§ - I- EXAMPLE: ( ) L =5501, H =5.01, K = Single Family (1/4 Ac.) 35':" Development, Tc = 12_6 min. (2) L =550" H =5.01, K = Commercial Development, Tc = 9.7 min- 40 Reference: Bibliography item No, 35. TIME OF CONCENTRATION FOR INITIAL SUBAREA PLATE D-3 'I i [ r.. ,.. [ [ / ENGINEERING DESIGN & PLANNING CONSULTANTS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUalON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS, PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO BE LOCATED ON PARCEL 3, CAMINO DEL RANCHO, OLiVENHAIN, CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA [,,:. c l [ [ r-' Project No: 961246-1 April 16, 1996 r;:-:, Ie) (,1.) I ~! " \ <I) 'r' i 'n :;, ,,: :' " r- ,,','" , -. i" 1\" p- I, .' i,¡ -1 -- '.'- , ,.. ! ! I¡ ¡ ,,_' ..-'0 JUL 08 1996 ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENC!NITAS . . L l_. i- l__. PREPARED FOR: Terri Healy 1533 Calle Ryan Encinitas, CA. 92024 L [ , " 475 CARMEL STREET. SAN MARCOS, CA . 92069 . (619) 752-7010 . FAX (619) 752.7092 c [ 0 0 [ [ [ [ l ," I.., C [ C L l~ l.: [ [ C 'r 'I TABLE OECOlttENTS ~ SCOPE ..............................................-.......................... 3 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION ..........................................................3 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS ..........................................................3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND SEISMICITY ............................................ 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 GENERAL ................................................................ 5 EARTHWORK ............................................................. 5 FOUNDATIONS............................................................6 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE .............................................. 7 RETAININGWALLS ........................................................ 8 SURFACE DRAINAGE ...................................................... 9 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 MISCELLANEOUS..............................................................10 A IT ACHMENTS Site Vicinity Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Figure No.1 Site Location Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Figure No.2 Site Plan/Location of Exploratory Test Pits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Figure No.3 Logs of Exploratory Test Pits. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figures No.4 - 5 References......................................................AppendixA rading Specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B Laboratory Testing Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C Homeowners Maintenance Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix D .'. Job No. 961246-1 Page No.2 ] t ~ [~ ¡~ I . S_C~eE This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation and evaluation for the proposed residence to be located on Parcel 3, east of Camino Del Rancho, Olivenhain, City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, California. Please see Figure No, 1, "Site Vicinity Map," and Figure No.2, "Site Location Map." The scope of our work, conducted on-site to date, has included conversations with the project owner and contractor, a visual reconnaissance of the property and neighboring sites, a limited subsurface investigation of the property, laboratory testing, and preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. u c [ s The subject property consists of an irregular shaped lot located to the east of Camino Del Rancho, Olivenhain, City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, California. The site is bordered to the south by a developed residential property, to the east by undeveloped land, to the north by a private drive, and to the west by Camino Del Rancho. ¡- i. The topography of the site area consists of gently to moderately rolling terrain, The topography of the site consists of gently sloping terrain from the center portion to the east and west. The site is currently undeveloped. Vegetation consists primarily of native grasses and weeds. I. Based on conversations with the project owner and contractor, it is our understanding that the proposed construction will consist of a single story family residence and associated improvements. It is anticipated that the structure will consist of a standard shallow foundation system; slab on grade floors, and conve~tional wood framing. r L. ,[ [ Our field i,nvestigation of the property, conducted on April 11, 1996, consisted of a site reconnaissance, observation of existing on-site conditions and on adjacent sites, site field measurements, and a limited subsurface investigation of soil conditions. Our subsurface investigation consisted of visual observation of two test pit excavations, logging of soil types encountered, and sampling of soils for laboratory testing. Logs of the test pits are presented in Figures 4 - 5 of this report. Test pits were excavated by hand, under the direction of a registered civil engineer. The locations of the test pits are given in Figure No.3, "Site Plan/Location of Exploratory Test Pits." , , I ... [ ! . L L L SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Materials consisting of topsoil underlain by decomposed granite, were encountered during our subsurface investigation of the site. Soil types encountered in our test pits are described as follows: Topsoil .'. Job No. 961246.1 Page No.3 '" t .. ... Topsoil materials consisted of brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense, silty sand, with organics within the upper six inches, Based on our field observations, these materials are considered unsuitable for the support of structures or improvements in their present state, but may be used for structural fill during grading. Topsoil classifies as SM according to the Unified Classification System, and based on visual observation, is generally nonexpansive in nature. "" I L. Decomposed Granite: , ì L. Decomposed granite was found to underlie topsoil across the site, Decomposed granite materials' consisted of brown, moist, dense; clayey silty sand. These materials are considered suitable for the support of structures and structural improvements, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Decomposed granite materials classify as SM-SC according to the Unified Classification System, and based on visual observation, are low to medium expansive in nature. i' f . l L.. For detailed logs of soil types encountered in our test pits, as well as a depiction of our test pit locations, please see Figure No.3, "Site Plan/Location of Exploratory Test Pits," and Figures No.4 - 5, "Test Pit Logs." [ GJ;Q)...OGIC HAZARDS AND SEISMICITY ! . I i A review of pertinent published geologic maps, suggests no geologic hazards such as faults, potential landslides, or areas of suspected soils liquefaction exist within the project boundaries. Based on this information, it appears that no active or potentially active faults exist at or in the immediate vicinity (250 ft.) of the site, and none were observed during our invéstigation. The nearest known active faults are the Rose Canyon, Elsinore, and San Jacinto fault zones which are located approximately 25 miles and 70 miles to the southwest, and 80 miles to the northeast of the site. It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake along any of the faults mentioned above or other faults in the southern California region. However, the seismic risk at this site is not significantly greater than that of the surrounding developed area. We believe that the proposed development will have no more negative geologic consequence than the existing or surrounding development if the guidelines in this report are followed, and other good development techniques are used. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. The adverse effects of seismic. shaking can be reduced by adhering to code requirements given in the most recent edition L [ Job No. 961246-1 Page No.4 . . " j '" 'of the Uniform Building Coder and design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California, ..,. .. '" CONCLUÂlQ~SAriDJiE-C-OMMENDA TlmLS ... GENERAL ., In general, it is our opinion that site development, as described, is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report and generally accepted construction practices are followed. "" .. '... , ; l.d ~ I t I Site earthwork and grading will be necessary for the proposed site improvements. Grading should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, pertinent county/city standards, and grading specifications provided in Appendix B of this report. l 1. Site Preparation: ,- I Prior to grading, areas of proposed improvement should be cleared of surface and subsurface debris and stripped of vegetation. Removed vegetation and debris should be properly disposed of prior to the commencement of any fill operations. Holes resulting from the removal of debris, existing structures, or other improvements which extend below the undercut depths noted, should be filled and compacted using on-site material õr a nonexpansive import material. L [ 2.. Removals: i . Topsoils found to mantle the site in our exploratory test pits are not suitable for structural support of buildings or improvements in their present state, and will require removal and recompaction, or the building foundation will have to be extended to formational materials. Topsoils are suitable for re-use as fill material during grading, provided they are cleaned of debris and oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter. 1-0 L [ [ Depths of removal below existing grade for fill soils can be inferred from inspection of the test pit logs (Figures 4 - 5), and will most likely range up to 2 feet below existing grade. If foundations are to be founded on recompacted fills, removals should extend a minimum of five feet beyond the footprint of proposed structures. In order to provide a uniform building "mat," settlement sensitive improvements should be underlain by a minimum of 3 feet of compacted fill (2 feet minimum for driveway and exterior flatwork improvements). Removal depths should be visually verified by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of fill. I ' ... Job No. 961246-1 Page No.5 Q t D 3. ~ j, Areas to receive fill and/or structural improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM 01557-78), Compacted fills should be cleaned of loose debris, oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter, brought to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM 01557-78). All fill slopes should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction to slope face, in order to avoid erosion and sloughage. r L. I' L [ \' (, Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. If importing of soil is planned, soils should be nonexpansive and free of debris and organic matter. Prior to importing, soils should be visually observed, sampled and tested at the borrow pit area to evaluate soil suitability as fill. ! ~ ; FOUNDATIONS [, In deriving foundation recommendations for this site, the subsoil conditions, as well as the proposed construction, were evaluated. We anticipate that the proposed building foundation system will utilize continuous perimeter footings and slab on grade floors. Foundation movement should remain within tolerable limits, 3/4 inch total and Y2 inch differential, over a horizontal distance of 15 feet, if the following design and construction precautions are observed: ! - I , 1. Footings bearing in competent formational materials or properly compacted fill may be designed based on a maximum allowable soils pressure of 2000 psf, I , .. 2. Bearing values may be increased by 33% when considering wind, seismic, or other . short duration loadings. . [ l L L t~ [ 0 Job No. 961246-1 Page No.6 '" ,j¡ '" 3. . '," 4. .. ... ,,', I:~ 5. I I I ' 6. i i. 7. l.. L r~ 8. All loose soil found at the base of footings, when the excavation is opened, shall be removed and extended to firm, undisturbed soils. The owner and/or contractor should carefully locate the foundation so that no isolated pads or corners òf footings are I' located over excavated test pits or other soft areas. If this is not possible, we should be contacted to evaluate the foundation requirements in these areas. The following parameters should be used as a minimum for designing footing width and depth below lowest adjacent grade: Floors Supported 1 2 3 Width 12 inches 15 inches 18 inches Depth Below Lowest Adjacent Grade 15 inches 18 inches 24 inches For footings adjacent to slopes, a minimum 5 feet horizontal setback, as measured horizontally from the bottom of the footing to slope daylight in formational materials or properly compacted fill, should be maintained. All footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two #4 bars at the top and two #4 bars at the bottom (3 inches above the ground). All isolated spread footings should be designed utilizing the above given bearing values and footing depths, and be reinforced with #4 bars at 12 inches O.C. in each direction (3 inches above the ground). Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches. Grading should be performed in general accordance with the contents of this report, applicable city and/or county standards, and Appendix B of this report. CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE As we understand it, concrete slabs on grade will be utilized in the construction of the new residence. Slabs will be suitable if the following guidelines are closely adhered to: \ , L [ C 1. Concrete slabs on grade should have a nominal thickness of 4 inches (5 inches for garage and driveway slabs), and should be reinforced with #3 bars at 18 inches o.C. placed at the midpoint of the slab, The bars provide better assurance of crack control and/or vertical movement if minor cracking does occur. 2. All required fills used to support slabs, should be placed in accordance with the grading section of this report and the attached Appendix B, and compacted to 90% Modified Proctor Density, ASTM 0-1557. " Job No. 961246-1 Page No.7 " " .. 3. 4. .... 5. , , I I.. A uniform layer of 4 inches of clean sand is recommended under the slab in order to more uniformly support the slab, help distribute loads to the soils beneath the slab, and act as a capillary break (interior slabs only). Properly sieved onsite materials are suitable for this purpose. In addition, a visqueen layer should be placed mid height in the sand bed to act as a vapor barrier. Adequate control joints should be installed to control the unavoidable cracking of concrete that takes place when undergoing its natural shrinkage during curing. The control joints should be well located to direct unavoidable slab cracking to areas that are desirable by the designer. Brittle floor slab finishes may crack if concrete is not adequately cured prior to installing the finish or if there is minor slab movement. It is the responsibility of the contractor chosen for the project, to properly place and cure all concrete. However, to minimize potential damage to movement sensitive flooring, we recommend the use of slip sheet which allows for foundation and slab movement without transmitting this movement to the floor finishes. RETAINING WALLS It is not known at this time if retaining walls are to be utilized in the proposed site development. Retaining walls up to eight feet may be designed and constructed in accordance with the following recommendations and design parameters: 1. 2. 0-. L C Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the allowable bearing criteriã given in the "Foundations" section of this report. Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. This assumes that granular, free draining material will be used ,for backfill, and that the backfill surface will be level. For sloping backfill, the following parameters may be utilized: Condition Active 2:1 Slope 50 1.5:1 Slope 65 Any other surcharge loadings shall be analyzed in addition to the above values. 3. If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement, they should be designed for an additional uniform soil pressure of 7XH psf, where H is the height of the wall in feet. 0 4. Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pcf. This value assumes that the soil being utilized to resist passive pressures, extends horizontally 2.5 times the height of the passive pressure wedge of the soil. Where the Job No. 961246-1 Page No.8 '" , j ~ ~ I: [ [ 5. 6. 7. ! . L [ I [ [ 8. horizontal distance of the available passive pressure wedge is less than 2.5 times the height of the soil, the passive pressure value must be reduced by the percent reduction in available horizontal length. A coefficient of friction of .35 between the soil and concrete footings may be utilized to resist lateral loads in addition to the passive earth pressures above. Retaining walls should be braced and monitored during compaction. If this cannot be accomplished, the compactive effort should be included as a surcharge load when designing the wall. All walls shall be provided with adequate back drainage to relieve hydrostatic pressure, and be designed in accordance with the "Retaining Wall Drainage Detail", Appendix B. All exterior site retaining walls shall have the strike mortar omitted in the lowest course to allow for drainage. Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the "Earthwork" section of this report. SURFACE DRAINAGE Adequate drainage precautions at the site are important. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond against or adjacent to footings, foundation walls or retaining walls. The ground surface surrounding the building should be relatively impervious in nature, and slope to drain away from the building in all directions, with a minimum slope of 5% for a horizontal distance of 7. -feet or to the property line. Area drains or surface swales should then be provided to accommodate runoff and avoid any ponding of water. Drainage should be diverted away from the tops of slopes to avoid erosion. Surface and area drains should not be connected to any wall drainage or underdrain system, i I : . , ¡ ¡ . l. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by our investigation of the project area. Interpolated subsurface conditions should be verified in the field during construction. To ensure construction is performed in accordance with the recommendation of the this report, the following services should be conducted by our office prior/during construction. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. i L L L Review of final project plans prior to construction, Observation of removal/undercut bottom, and keyways prior to fill placement. Observation of fill replacement and associated compaction testing. Observation of wall back drains, and surface and subsurface drainage systems. Observation of foundation excavations. Observation and compaction testing of retaining wall backfill, pavement subgrade. Job No. 961246-1 Page No.9 c ' ß I ~ Ml£CELLANEQUS . L It must be noted that no structure or slab should be expected to remain totally free of cracks and minor signs of cosmetic distress. The flexible nature of wood and steel structures allows them to respond to movements resulting from minor unavoidable settlement of fill or natural soils, the swelling of clay soils, or the motions induced from seismic activity. All of the above can induce movement that frequently results in cosmetic cracking of brittle wall surfaces, such as stucco or interior plaster or interior brittle slab finishes. : L.. Data for this report was derived from surface observations at the site, knowledge of local conditions, and a visual observation of the soils exposed in the exploratory test pits. The recommendations in this report are based on our experience in conjunction with the limited soils exposed at this site and neighboring sites. We believe that this information gives an acceptable degree of reliability for anticipating the behavior of the proposed structure. However, our recommendations are professional opinions and cannot control nature, nor can they assure the soils profiles beneath or adjacent to those observed. Therefore, no warranties of the accuracy of these recommendations, beyond the limits of the obtained data, is herein expressed or implied. This report is based on the investigation at the described site and on the specific anticipated construction as stated herein. If either of these conditions is changed, the results would also most likely change. Man-made or natural changes in the conditions of a property can occur over a period of time. In addition, changes in requirements due to state of the art knowledge and/or legislation, are rapidly occurring. As a result, the findings of this report may become invalid due to these changes. Therefore, this report for the specific site, is subject to review and not considered valid after a period of one year, or if conditions as stated above are altered. r. I , It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to insure that the information in this report be incorporated into the plans and/or specifications and construction of the project. It is advisable that a contractor familiar with construction details typically used to deal with the local subsoil and seismic conditions, be retained to build the structure. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. We hope the report provides you with necessary information to continue with the development of the project. L I '. , . , , \ I ,~ .'. ¡ L Job No. 961246-1 Page No.1 0 L ", ". a ~ 0 r .- nO_""'- CM po.", 0 1-, ..... ltDRTH (f) NOT TO SCALE THE ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP SITE VICINITY MAP JOB NO: 881248.1 BY:KR FIGURE NO.1 '" .i ~ ~ ,. ß [ " " J!Þ'¡'--A/ I: -'-c ',~' "- [ [ .-i\~~ I - ,[ ,,?,. . ; ~_. I ~ I -,- [,: I : L ,/ [ NORTH [ l~ CD NOT TO SCALE \ THE ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP SITE LOCATION MAP JOB NO: 981246-1 BY:KR FIGURE NO: 2 l r-. r=1 i j ~ ¡;¡ Q 0 ~ .t- J r-. r-: r-: PRIVATE DRIVE TP-I . ¡---- .' TP-! . ~ L_-J r:l t=:J l_.:....j r1 t::::J -..--.. .. d t::::3 LEGEND 2- Approximate Location of Test Pit Excavations NORTH (f) *NOTE: SITE PLAN NOT TO SCALE THE ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP SITE PLAN/LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS JOB NO""24&-' I BY: KIt I' FlQWIE NO:J I ü' D [ E(uipment:HAND EXCAVATED [ Dc turn: ADJACENT GRADE E evation: 0.0' 0 [ [ 11 ~ Field description ( t) 1 and classification: [ D- [ TEST PIT LOG NO.1 Dimension:1.5'x1.5Ix2.0' Date logged: 4-11-96 Groundwater depth: N/A Logged by: KAR ) Location: SEE SITE PLAN ENGINEERING PROPERTIES S Y m Sample Moist. No . ( % ) Den. (pcf) b U. S. C. S. - TOPSOIL BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, LOOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, SILTY SAND. MINOR ORGANICS CONSISTING OF ROOTLETS WITHIN UPPER 6 INCHES. SM - B@ 0.01 - 1.0' - -11 t- ... L [' , [ [ L, l l L 0 - - DECOMPOSED GRANITE BROWN,' MOIST, DENSE, CLAYEY SILTY SAND. SM- SC B@ 1. 0'- 2.0' - ~ -11 . . TOTAL DEPTH = 2.0 FEET NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED pc Hand penetration test (unconfined strength TSF) Þ Disturbed sample Þ Undisturbed sample LL Liquid limit PL Plastic limit PI Plastic index NP Non plastic 200 % .,passing the #200 sieve Job Name: PROPOSED HEALY RESIDENCE Site location: CAMINO DEL RANCHO, PARCEL 3, OLIVEHAIN, CA. Job No: 961246-1 Figure No.: 4 f1iS . U a 0 C 0 [ [ c r L [ 0 L " TEST PIT LOG NO.2 Eq~ipment:HAND EXCAVATED Dimension:1.5Ix1.5'x2.0' Date logged: 4-11-96 Da~um: ADJACENT GRADE Groundwater depth: N/A Logged by: KAR Elßvation: C Hand penetration test (unconfined strength TSF) D Disturbed sample ~ Undisturbed sample .JL Liquid limit 'L Plastic limit ÞI Plastic index ~P Non plastic -goo % passing the #200 sieve I e :¡;: t r (it) 1 c - I.. I I L. I L- I. L \ . I ,- - - - -I - - -I 0.0' S Y m Location: SEE SITE PLAN ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Sample Moist. No. (%) Den. (pcf) b u. S. C. S. 0 Field description and classification: TOPSOIL BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, LOOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, SILTY SAND. MINOR ORGANICS CONSISTING OF ROOTLETS WITHIN UPPER 6 INCHES. SM DECOMPOSRD GRANITE BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, CLAYEY SILTY SAND. SM- SC . . TOTAL DEPTH = 2.0 FEET NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED Job Name: PROPOSED HEALY RESIDENCE Site location: CAMINO DEL RANCHO, PARCEL 3, OLIVEHAIN, CA. Job No: 961246-1 Figure No.: 5 ü . ' D ß 0 0 0 C C [ C [ [ ,r. - [ l L l [ \ . l_. ,. ",.,. APPENDIX -A- ". , f' . ',;;., a ' ß [ r 1. [ 2. I.. 3. l~ 4. I.. 5. I. I 6. L... !~: 7. [ [ [ [ l l .'. [ [ APPENDIX A REFERENCES California Department of Conservation. Division of Mines and Geology. Fault-Rupture Zones in California. Special Publication 42. Revised 1990. Greensfelder. A.W.. 1974. Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology. Map Sheet 23. Hart. Michael. June 17. 1994. Geologic Investigation. 7505 Hillside Drive. La Jolla. CA. File No: 153-94. Engineering Design Group. Unpublished In-House Data. Ploessel. M.A.. and Siosson. J.E.. 1974. Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes: California Geology. Vol. 27. No.9. P. 195-199. State of California. Fault Map of California. Map No: 1. Dated 1975. State of California, Geologic Map of California. Map No: 2. Dated 1977. " . '.. 1 . U ~ ß ~ 0 0 0 [ [ '[ [ [ [ [ [ L L L L APPENDIX -8- " . "",' , ", IJl D [ , ., \ ¡ . \ . L [ , L . ! - L. L L 0:,7 i '" GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1.0 General Intent These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations for grading and earthwork to be utilized in conjunction with the approved grading plans. These general earthwork and grading specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and shall be superseded by the recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to read and understand these specifications, as well as the geotechnical report and approved grading plans. " I I 2.0 Earthwork Observation and~ Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24 hours in adva[1ce, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No grading operations should be performed without the knowledge of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical consultant is aware of all grading operations. . It shall be the sole responsibility of thf¡) contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, recommendations in the geotechnical report, and the approved grading plans not withstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant. If, in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical report and the specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction should be performed in general accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing and Materials test method ASTM 01557. A -1- u ' a r . ' I ì. r~ i ' L ! - i . , i . r ¡ L~ f ' L. L l [ 0 .', 3.0 3.3 3.4 3.5 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 3.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots' and all other deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, design engineer, governing agencies and the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. In general, no more than 1 percent (by volume) of the fill material should consist of these materials and nesting of these materials should not be allowed. 3.2 Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. Overexcavati.QQ: Soft, dry, organic-rich, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise _unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot . adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining quantities of materials overexcavated, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed, screened of deleterious material, and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. A-2- û' n ~~ i í , . i . , [ . ' ¡ ! , [ n L 4.0 L. f- , i to [ [ ¡ l_- I[ .'. L 3.7 3.6 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Other benches should be excavated into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5: 1 should be benched or otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe-of-fill benches, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement. Fill Material 4.1 4.2 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior too placement. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended by the geotechnical consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade, within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction, or within 15 feet horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the attached detail. " . A-3- "" ., ... ,.. ". -- 5.0 4.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material should meet the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be given to allow the geotechnical consultant to observe (and test, if necessary) the proposed import materials. £.ill..fIacement and CompactÏQ[l 5.1 Fill Ufts: Fill material should be placed in areas prepared and previously evaluated to receive fill, in near-horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 5.2 Moisture Cond.ffiQQlng: Fill soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 5.3 ~: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture- conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (unless otherwise specified). Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified . -degree and uniformity of compaction. 5.4 Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedure~, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the fill out to the slope face would be at least 90 percent. A-4- a . a r~ I, [ [ 6.0 . L. [ 7.0 " II !, L [ 8.0 I . [ l [ [ C 5.5 Compaction Testino: Reid tests of the moisture content and degree of compaction of the fill soils should be performed at the consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. In general. the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1.000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils. In addition. on slope faces, as a guideline approximately one test should be taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems. if recommended. should be installed in areas previously evaluated for suitability by the geotechnical consultant. to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant. however, may recommend changes in subdrain line or grade depending on conditions encountered. All subdrains should be surveyed by a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficient time shall be allowed for the survey, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains. Excavation Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant (as necessary) during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation, overexcavation, and refilling of cut areas and/or remedial grading of cut slopes O.e., stability fills or slope buttresses) may be ,recommended. For purposes of determining quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or determining the limits of overexcavation. a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. A-5- D' ' D ß D D II I] 0 10 [ [ 0 [ [ [ [ l [ [ " ',.,,- APPENDIX -C. ,~ . u n [ [ APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTI NG PROCEDU RES . . I L Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests are performed on remolded and/or relatively undisturbed samples which are soaked for a minimum of 24 hours prior to testing. After transferring the sample to the shearbox, and reloading, pore pressures are allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples are sheared in a motor-driven, strain controlled, direct- shear testing apparatus. After a travel of approximately 1/4 inch, the motor is stopped and the sample is allowed to "relax- for approximately 15 minutes. Where applicable, the "relaxed" and "peak" shear values are recorded. It is anticipated that, in a majority of samples tested, the 15 minutes relaxing of the sample is sufficient to allow dissipation of pore pressures set up due to application of the shearing force. The relaxed values are therefore judged to be good estimations of effective strength parameters. , ' ! Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of representative samples is evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 29-2. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 pst surcharge and are inundated with tap water for 24 hours or until volumetric equilibrium, is reached. L Classification Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain-size analysis by wet sieving from U.S. Standard brass screens (ASTM 0422-65). Hydrometer analyses were performed where appreciable quantities of fines were encountered. The data was evaluated in determining the classification of the materials. The grain-size distribution curves are presented in the test data and the Unified Soil Classification is presented in both the test data and the boring logs. l L I ,- ¡ . I L~ I . '- L ü ~ " . D 0 ß D ß 0 [ 0 [ [ [ 0 [ [ [ [ [ 0 APPENDIX -D- '" '.." Residential homesites require periodic maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems to insure proper performance and overall retention of property value. Often, homeowners are not aware of the importance of these systems and allow them to deteriorate. During the construction phase of development, governing agencies require property developers to utilize specific methods of engineering and construction to protect the public interest. For instance, the developer may be required to grade the property in such a manner that rainwater will be drained away from the building pad, install brow ditches & terrace drains, and to plant slopes to minimize erosion. However, once the lot is purchased, it becomes the buyer's responsibility to maintain these safety features by observing a prudent program of lot care and maintenance. Failure to make regular inspection and perform necessary maintenance of drainage devices and sloping areas may cause severe financial loss. In addition to his/her own property damage, the property owner may be subject to civil liability for damage OCCUrring to neighboring properties as a result of negligence. G'. .. I, '" I. , D ß i ~ , , . . I l,. The following maintenance guidelines are provided for the protection of the homeowner's investment. . . , l I'. A. B. c. D. E. All roof gutter and downspout systems, installed on the residence, should be tightlined to a suitable outlet away from the structure. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond onsite, particularly against the perimeter foundation system. Soils grades adjacent to the foundation of the structure should be sloped to direct water away from the foundation. and into a collective drainage system. Soil grades should slope at a minimum of 2% for a horizontal distance of 5 feet away from the structure. The irrigation of planter systems located immediately adjacent to the foundation should be strictly controlled to avoid over watering. Saturation of soils in these planters may result in soil settlement/expansion and associated distress. Care should be taken to ensure that slopes, terraces, berm, and proper lot drainage are not disturbed. In general, roof and yard runoff should be directed to either the street or storm drain by non-erosive devices such as sidewalks, drainage pipes, ground gutters, and driveways. Drainage systems should not be altered wtthout expert consultation. ,.. .. "'" ~ L 0 . . I' I. J. K. L F. AJI drains shoul<;t be kept dean. and undogged, ¡ndudlng gutters and downspout's. Terrace drains or gunite ditches should be kept free of debrta to aJlow proper drainage. During periods of heavy rain. the performance of the drainage systems should be inspected. Problems. such as gullying and pending. if observed. should be corrected as soon as possible. Any leakage from pools. waterlines. etc. or surface runoff bypassing drains should be repaired as soon as possible. G. H. AnimaJ burrows should be eliminated since they may caus~ diversion of , . surface runoff. promôte accelerated erosion. and even trigger shallow slope failures. Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever a homeowner plans a topographic modification of a lot or slope. a qualified geotechnicaJ consultant should be contacted. If unusual cracking. settling. or earth slippage occurs on the property. the owner should consult a qualified geotechnical consultant immediately. The most cornmon causes of slope erosion and shaJlow slope failures are as follows: . Gross neglect of the care and maintenance of onsite slopes and drainage devices . Inadequate and/or improper planting. replanted. as soon as possible. Excessive or insufficient irrigation or diversion of runoff over the slope. Barren areas should be . Property owners should not let conditions on their property adversely . impact their neighbors. Cooperation with neighbors could prevent problems and increase the aesthetic attractiveness of the community.