The URL can be used to link to this page

1997-5161 G ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT cit of Capital Improvement Projects i' District Support Services — Encinitas Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering March 26, 2000 Traffic Engineering attn: Josie Marois Eldorado Bank 135 Saxony Road Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Tract 89 -058 (TPM) "resubdivision portion Rancho Las Encinitas & Colony olivenhain" .�l81G1 (286'kfio Santa Fe Rd N / Dodds, Joseph S. or Dorothy G. A.P.N. 259-231 -77 Final release of security Permit 5161 GI authorized the earthwork, storm drainage, single driveway, site retaining walls, and erosion control necessary to build a single family residence and apartment within the named subdivision. Final inspection has been completed to the satisfaction of the Field Operations Division. Therefore, release of the posted security deposit is merited. Certificate of Deposit Account 356016865, in the initial amount of $19,168.00 and since reduced to $4,792.00, has been endorsed by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released in its entirety for payment to the depositor. The original instrument is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Jeff Garami at (760) 633 -2780 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, 1 Greg {shields Y eslie Suelter Senior Civil Engineer Financial Services Manager Field Operations Financial Services cc Leslie Suelter, Financial Services Manager Joseph S. & Dorothy G. Dodds, Property Owners enc PGS /rb /jsg /gi5161 f.doc 1 "rEL 760- 633 -2600 / FAX 760 -633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avcnuc, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 -633 -2700 q0 recycled paper ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Capital Improvement Projects City Of District Support Services Field Operations Encinitas Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering February 1, 1999 attn: Josie Marois Eldorado Bank 135 Saxony Road Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Tract 89 -058 (TPM) "resub por Rho Las Enc & Col Oli" Grading Permit 5161GI {286 Rho Santa Fe Rd N/Dodds, Joseph S. or Dorothy G.) A.P.N. 259-231-77 Partial release of security Permit 5161 GI authorized the earthwork, private drainage improvements, site retaining walls, and erosion control necessary to build a single family residence within the named subdivision. Rough grading approval has been granted by the Field Operations Division. Therefore, a reduction in the posted security deposit is merited. Certificate of Deposit Account 356016865, in the amount of $19,168.00, may be reduced by 75% to $4,792.00. Released funds are hereby available for payment to the depositor. Written acknowledgement is requested. The original document shall be retained by the City until such time it is fully released or exchanged A prerequisite of full release is the satisfactory completion of final grading inspection. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Jeff Garami at (760) 633 -2780 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Greg Shields Leslie Sucher Senior Civil Engineer Financial Services Manager Field Operations Financial Services cc Leslie Suelter, Financial Services Manager Joseph S. & Dorothy G. Dodds, Property Owners PGS /jsg/gi5161.doc 1 TEL 760- 633 -2600 / FAX 760 - 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 - 633 -2700 � recycled paper ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ti City �� Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services EY initas Field Operations Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL TO: Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter FROM: Field Operations Private Contract Inspection RE: Grading Permit No. 6 1 0 (r y T Name of Project V OE V OL c d0 pos �1 Name of Developer P4 Df 1 -f w A Site vocation 2 86 ( -fU f/ /7 'I (address ._.number ...street name ...suffix) (lot) (bldg) I have inspected the grading at the subject site and have verified certification of the pad by the Engineer of Work,� LE1CSAN0" p 7iCNdated _ 1_- w - and certification of soil - compaction by the Soil Engineer, �4 U jjgLU;M xiated I -- i! - -- . I am hereby satisfied that the rough grading has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, Chapter 23.24 of the Municipal Code, and any other applicable • engineering standards and specific project requirements. Based on my observation and the certifications, I take no exception to the issuance of a building permit for the lot(s) as noted or Phase , if any, but only in so far as grading is concerned. However, this release is not intended to certify the project with respect to other engineering concerns, including public road, drainage, water, sewer, park, and trail improvements, and their availability, any other public improvements, deferred monumentation, or final grading. Prior to final inspection of the Building Permit(s) and legal occupancy, I need to be further advised so that I can verify that final grading (i.e., finished precise grading, planting and irrigation) has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. 1 � 1 1' 1 1dj�3 , 1 --- ( ignature of Engineering Insp r) (Date) (Signature of senior Civil Engineer, only if appropiate) (Date) Reference: Building Permit No. - -- Special Note: Submit this form, if completed, to counter staff merely by placing a copy of it in both engineering technicians' in- boxes. Please remember to do a final inspection of the grading permit and submit that paperwork, when completed. Office staff will handle the appropiate reductions in security, if any, and coordination with Building Inspection. Thank you. Ct �� • JSG /fieldIdoc 1 TEL 760- 633 -2600 / FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760- 633 -2700 � recycled paper LANG SPACE ENGINEERING, INC. PLANNING — CIVIL ENGINEERING — SURVEYING 201 EAST GRAND AVE., SUITE 2 -F - ESCONDIDO, CA 92025 PHONE (760) 741 -2689 FAX (760) 741 -2616 5 199 August 21, 1998 r City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024-3 63 3 Subject: Grading Compliance Tract 89 -058 (TPM) Grading Plan 5161 GR (284 Rancho Santa Fe Rd./Dodds, Joseph) A.P.N. 259- 231 -77 • This is to certify grading p that the radin operation for Parcel No. 2 of TPM 89 -058 has been completed in accordance with Grading Plan No. 5161 -GR and also in compliance with the applicable City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance Sections. The pad elevation per design is 131.0 and we found the rough graded pad elevation to be within 0.7 feet, at 131.7. Q RpE ESSio* Respectfully Submitted, ��a OARo A�� L U ' c9 m UJ 4 NO 32734 2 EX? 6/30/A� Aleksandar Pantich C I V I R.C.E. 32734 9 lF p C \EO�� Exp. 6.30.02 9705 /cert.Itr LAND SPACE ENGINEERING, INC. PLANNING — CIVIL ENGINEERING — SURVEYING 201 EAST GRAND AVE., SUITE 2 -F - ESCONDIDO, CA 92025 PHONE (760) 741 -2689 FAX (760) 741 -2616 JAN January 6, 1999 City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 -3633 Subject: Grading Compliance Tract 89 -058 (TPM) Grading Plan 5161GR (284 Rancho Santa Fe Rd./Dodds, Joseph) A.P.N. 259- 231 -77 This is to certify that the grading operation for Parcel No. 2 of TPM 89 -058 has been completed in accordance with Grading Plan No. 5161 -GR and also in compliance with the applicable City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance Sections. The pad elevation per design is 131.0 and we found the rough graded pad elevation to be within 0.1 feet, at 131.05. Respectfully Submitted, Q0pfESS /0�, SOAR t- UJ r „ J `'" 4 2 NO 32734 K Aleksandar Pantich EXP 6/30/0Z R.C.E. 32734 Exp. 6.3 0.02 S0F 9705 /cert2.ltr C ONSTRUCTION r � , STING & ENGINEERING, INC. 1 � s SAN DIEGO, CA RIVERSIDE, CA VEN MRA, CA TRACY, CA LANCASTER, CA G� �+ 2414 Vineyard Ave. 490 E Princeluid Ct. 1645 Puific Ave 392 W. larch Rd. 42156 10th St W. Suite G Suite 7 Suite 105 Suite 19 Unit K G Escondido, CA 92029 Corona, CA 91719 Oxnard, CA 93033 Tracy, CA 95376 Lancaster, CA 93534 (76o) 7464955 (909) 371 -1890 (805) 4866475 (209) 839-2890 (805) 7269676 ENGINEERING, INC. (7 7469806 FAX (909) 371 -2168 FAX (805) 4869016 FAx (209) 83}2895 FAX (805) 7269676 FAX January 15, 1999 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 Mr. Joseph Dodds 3459 Manchester Avenue, #21 Cardiff, California 92007 Subject: Updated Report for Testing of Compacted Backfill for Building Pad Proposed Dodds Residence Oliverdmin, California Dear Mr. Dodds: At your request, we have performed compaction testing of backfill material placed at the referenced site. Submitted is the summary of the testing performed on the fill materials. Our engineering services consisted of the following items: • Testing of compacted fill materials in accordance with ASTM D -2922 and D -3017. • Laboratory testing to evaluate maximum density in accordance with ASTM D -1557. • Preparation of this summary. The results of our testing are tabulated in Table I, "Compaction Test Summary". Results of the laboratory maximum density and optimum moisture content determinations for the soils encountered are provided in Table II, "Laboratory Test Results ". Based on observations at the site, it appears that the remedial grading of slopes we requested earlier has been performed. We recommend that a geologist or engineer from this office should be called upon to verify that the footings are in material suitable for the planned construction. Footings for structures should be designed such that the minimum horizontal distance from the face of adjacent slopes to the outer edge of the footing is a minimum of 10 feet. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the testing conducted, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. �c�k C FO L' y. Q % •��• THq O � �`` ! �' `' J �t an Goo � e� RG #6 t�4 Rodney D. Ballard, GE #217� 3 �, rr7 t Geotechnical Engineering Managerl u, cc f.o- 2 S c S nior Geolog tIr No. 6143 up.6 /3:;O'uu 1 rr u 'k O �r c F� r� I 9J 0 M A G`� t1� F1,10- 249011-tr_UpdatedCompactio CA GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION TABLE COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY Job Name: PROPOSED DODDS RESIDENCE Job No. 10 -2490 Job Address: RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIFORNIA Date: 9/8/98 Date Test Location Elevation Density Moisture Relative Soil No. (See map) Feet pcf Content Compaction Type % Dry % Weight 6/25/98 1 S. END OF WALL BACKFILL 2.5 111.0 13.5 90% 1 6/25/98 2 30'N. OF S. END OF WALL BKFL 7.5 113.0 13.0 91% 1 6/25/98 3 N. END OF WALL BACKFILL 2.0 112.5 14.0 91% 1 6/26/98 4 N. END OF WALL BACKFILL T.O.W. 113.0 13.0 91% 1 6/26/98 5 20'E. OF N. END OF WALL BKF1 T.O.W. 112.5 14.0 91% 1 11/4/98 6 SURFACE GRADE WEST CORNE SURFACE 107.2 9.9 86 % ** 1 11/4/98 7 RETEST OF NUMBER 7 SURFACE 111.7 9.9 90% 1 11/4/98 8 EAST LIMIT OF PAD SURFACE 115.3 10.4 93% 1 1/14/99 9 NE CORNER OF PAD SURFACE 120.0 11.3 97% 1 1/14/99 10 SE CORNER OF PAD SURFACE 119.1 8.9 96% 1 1/14/99 11 NW CORNER OF PAD SURFACE 116.0 10.4 94% 1 1/14/99 12 SW CORNER OF PAD ENTRANC SURFACE 120.9 1 12.5 98% 1 ** TEST FAILED, SEE RETEST 1 TABLE II LABORATORY TEST DATA Job Name: PROPOSED DODDS RESIDENCE Job No. 10 -2490 Job Address: RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIFORNIA Date 9/8/98 Maximum Optimum Sample No. Dry Density Moisture Soil pcf Content Description %wt 1 124.0 12.0 Light gray to tan, silty sand 2 CONSTRUCTION STING & ENGINEERING, INC. SAP DECO, CA RLIVER ME, CA VENWK CA TRACY, CA LANCASTER, CA �+ 2414 Vineyard Ave. 490 E Princeland Ct. 1645 Pacific Ave. 392 V. Larch Rd. 4215610th St. W. o � tr Suite G Suite 7 Suite 105 Suite 19 Unit K G Escondido, CA 92029 Corona, CA 91719 Oxnard, CA 93033 Tracy, CA 95376 Lancaster, CA 93534 (760) 7464955 (909) 371.1890 (805) 4866475 (209) 839.2890 (805) 7269676 ENGINEERING, INC. (760) 7469806 FAX (909) 37 -2168 FAX (805) 4869016 FAX (209) 839-2895 FAX (805) 7269676 FAX May 12, 1999 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 W Joseph Dodds ' { 3459 Manchester Avenue, #21 Cardiff, California 92007 3 Subject: Reconnaissance Geotechnical Report Proposed Guest House at Dodds Residence Olivenhain, California Dear Mr. Dodds: At the request of your contractor, we have performed a geologic reconnaissance of the proposed guest house area at the site. We understand that the proposed guest house will be sited in the northern corner of the site. Based on our reconnaissance observations and a review of previous reports for this site, we believe that geotechnical recommendations provided in our October 6, 1997 report for the main house apply also to the guest house. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. Rodney D. Ballard, GE #2173 renior n Goodmacher, RG #6143 Geotechnical Engineering Manager Geolog ist cc Rao. 2 .. '. Up. 6WUO Of CAl.1F \\ CTE_ SERVER \Projects \10- 2490\Ltr_Guest House Reconnaissmee.doc GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT City Capital Improvement Projects l� District Support Services —_ Encinitas Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering March 26, 2000 attn: Josie Marois Eldorado Bank 135 Saxony Road Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Tract 89 -058 (TPM) "resubdivision portion Rancho Las Encinitas & Colony Olivenhain" d� � x''16101 {285'Pho Santa Fe Rd N / Dodds, Joseph S. or Dorothy G. A.P.N. 259-231 -77 Final release of security Permit 5161 GI authorized the earthwork, storm drainage, single driveway, site retaining walls, and erosion control necessary to build a single family residence and apartment within the named subdivision. Final inspection has been completed to the satisfaction of the Field Operations Division. Therefore, release of the posted security deposit is merited. Certificate of Deposit Account 356016865, in the initial amount of $19,168.00 and since reduced to $4,792.00, has been endorsed by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released in its entirety for payment to the depositor. The original instrument is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Jeff Garami at (760) 633 -2780 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, s 1 ( Greg !Shields eslie Suelter Senior Civil Engineer Financial Services Manager Field Operations Financial Services cc Leslie Suelter, Financial Services Manager Joseph S. & Dorothy G. Dodds, Property Owners enc PGS /rb /jsg /gi5161 f.doc 1 'rEL 760 -633 -2600 / FAX 760 -633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avcnuc, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 -633 -2700 recycled paper ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT z Capital Improvement Projects \ a' City Of District Support Services Field Operations Encinitas Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering February 1, 1999 attn: Josie Marois Eldorado Bank 135 Saxony Road Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Tract 89 -058 (TPM) "resub por Rho Las Enc & Col Oli" Grading Permit 5161GI (286 Rho Santa Fe Rd N/Dodds, Joseph S. or Dorothy G.) A.P.N. 259-231-77 Partial release of security Permit 5161 GI authorized the earthwork, private drainage improvements, site retaining walls, and erosion control necessary to build a single family residence within the named subdivision. Rough grading approval has been granted by the Field Operations Division. Therefore, a reduction in the posted security deposit is merited. Certificate of Deposit Account 356016865, in the amount of $19,168.00, may be reduced by 75% to $4,792.00. Released funds are hereby available for payment to the depositor. Written acknowledgement is requested. The original document shall be retained by the City until such time it is fully released or exchanged A prerequisite of full release is the satisfactory completion of final grading inspection. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Jeff Garami at (760) 633 -2780 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Greg Shields Leslie Suelter Senior Civil Engineer Financial Services Manager Field Operations Financial Services cc Leslie Suelter, Financial Services Manager Joseph S. & Dorothy G. Dodds, Property Owners PGS /jsg/gi5161.doc 1 TEL 760 - 633 -2600 / FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 - 633 -2700 � recycled paper _ = ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT - city of District Improvement Projects District Support Services • Encinitas Field Operations Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL TO: Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter FROM: Field Operations Private Contract Inspection RE: Grading Permit No. 5-l�1 y M Name of Project (TOE ['d0 OPS Name of Developer V O F Da O,.( A 76& 6WA VOWTUTy Site Location 2 S6 2 '�Gf f/ / yer � " - �, , (address ...number ...street name ...suffix) (lot) (bldg) have inspected the grading at the subject site and have verified certification of the pad by the Engineer of Work,4L,=KS,4AJD/h2 p T1L ,Hdated t - -- fo - and certification of soil compaction by the Soil Engineer, P D ljg�L�;� Jtiated ( - i5 -. I am hereby satisfied that the rough grading has been completed in accordance with= the approved • plans and specifications, Chapter 23.24 of the Municipal Code, and any other applicable engineering standards and specific project requirements. Based on my observation and the certifications, I take no exception to the issuance of a building permit for the lot(s) as noted or Phase , if any, but only in so far as grading is concerned. However, this release is not intended to certify the project with respect to other engineering concerns, including public road, drainage, water, sewer, park, and trail improvements, and their availability, any other public improvements, deferred monumentation, or final grading. Prior to final inspection of the Building Permit(s) and legal occupancy, I need to be further advised so that I can verify that final grading (i.e., finished precise grading, planting and irrigation) has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. ► - -- 2 � - -- ( ignature of Engineering Insp r) (Date) (Signature of senior Civil Engineer, only if appropiate) (Date) Reference: Building Permit No. - -- Special Note: Submit this form, if completed, to counter staff merely by placing a copy of it in both engineering technicians' in- boxes. Please remember to do a final inspection of the grading permit and submit that paperwork, when completed. Office staff will handle the appropiate reductions in security, if any, and coordination with Building Inspection. Thank you. • JSG /field1doc 1 TEL 760- 633 -2600 / FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760- 633 -2700 � recycled paper LANG SPACE ENGINEERING, INC. PLANNING — CIVIL ENGINEERING — SURVEYING 201 EAST GRAND AVE., SUITE 2 -F • ESCONDIDO, CA 92025 PHONE (760) 741 -2689 FAX (760) 741 -2616 I � ` 6�CJ Jf`1 _ _ _9 r .✓ August 21, 1998 { `" City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 -3633 Subject: Grading Compliance Tract 89 -058 (TPM) Grading Plan 5161GR (284 Rancho Santa Fe Rd./Dodds, Joseph) A.P.N. 259- 231 -77 • This is to certify that the grading operation for Parcel No. 2 of TPM 89 -058 has been completed in accordance with Grading Plan No. 5161 -GR and also in compliance with the applicable City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance Sections. The pad elevation per design is 131.0 and we found the rough graded pad elevation to be within 0.7 feet, at 131.7. Q �,pf ESS /0 Respectfully Submitted, o �pAR A { F < , t Cy iU rn 4 NO 32734 2 EX? 6 /30 /AZ AleksandarPantich CIVIC R.C.E. 32734 9lF OF C Ni Exp. 6.30.02 • 9705 /cert.ltr LAND SPACE ENGINEERING, INC. PLANNING — CIVIL ENGINEERING — SURVEYING 201 EAST GRAND AVE., SUITE 2 -F • ESCONDIDO, CA 92025 PHONE (760) 741 -2689 FAX (760) 741 -2616 ,JA 7 i January 6, 1999 City of Encinitas Engineering Department 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 -3633 Subject: Grading Compliance Tract 89 -058 (TPM) Grading Plan 5161 GR (284 Rancho Santa Fe Rd./Dodds, Joseph) A.P.N. 259- 231 -77 This is to certify that the grading operation for Parcel No. 2 of TPM 89 -058 has been completed in accordance with Grading Plan No. 5161 -GR and also in compliance with the applicable City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance Sections. The pad elevation per design is 131.0 and we found the rough graded pad elevation to be within 0.1 feet, at 131.05. Respectfully Submitted, Q ga, pFESSlp�, 3 Zl c0 w n r*+ K 4 NO 32734 2 � Aleksandar Pantich EXP 6130 /c'az R.C.E. 32734 CPl L, I I V Exp. 6.30.02 \0F OPt�FO�` 9705 /cert2.1tr CONSTRUCTION STING & ENGINEERING, INC. �4�G a rt, SAN DIEGO CA • RIVERSIDE CA • VENTURA, CA • TRACY, CA LANCASTER, CA 2414 Vineyard Ave. 490 E. Princeland Ct. 1645 Pacific Ave 392 W. Larch Rd. 42156 10th St. W. Suite G Suite 7 Suite 105 Suite 19 Unit K G Escondido, CA 92029 Corona, CA 91719 Oxnard, CA 93033 Tracy, CA 95376 Lancaster, CA 93534 (760) 7464955 (909) 371.1890 (805) 486.6475 (209) 839-2890 (805) 726 -9676 ENGINEERING, INC. (760) 7469806 rex (909) 371 -2168 r,+x (805) 4869016 rex (209) 839.2895 FAX (805) 7269676 r,tx January 15, 1999 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 Mr. Joseph Dodds 3459 Manchester Avenue, #21 Cardiff, California 92007 Subject: Updated Report for Testing of Compacted Backfill for Building Pad Proposed Dodds Residence Oliver min, California Dear Mr. Dodds: At your request, we have performed compaction testing of backfill material placed at the referenced site. Submitted is the summary of the testing performed on the fill materials. Our engineering services consisted of the following items: • Testing of compacted fill materials in accordance with ASTM D -2922 and D -3017. • Laboratory testing to evaluate maximum density in accordance with ASTM D -1557. • Preparation of this summary. The results of our testing are tabulated in Table I, "Compaction Test Summary". Results of the laboratory maximum density and optimum moisture content determinations for the soils encountered are provided in Table II, "Laboratory Test Results ". Based on observations at the site, it appears that the remedial grading of slopes we requested earlier has been performed. We recommend that a geologist or engineer from this office should be called upon to verify that the footings are in material suitable for the planned construction. Footings for structures should be designed such that the minimum horizontal distance from the face of adjacent slopes to the outer edge of the footing is a minimum of 10 feet. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the testing conducted, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. .� H Rodney D. Ballard, GE #2173 ? �, `_ J at an Goo e RG #6�'4 ., Mana ger U' C Pao. 2` %. ': Geotechnical Engineering , b � � S nior Geolog t* No. 6143 >f �Q N 9 0 0O G'r O ` FO F110 -2490` Ltr U dated Com actin CAL GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION TABLE I COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY Job Name: PROPOSED DODDS RESIDENCE Job No. 10 -2490 Job Address: RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIFORNIA Date: 9/8/98 Date Test Location Elevation Density Moisture Relative Soil No. (See map) Feet pcf Content Compaction Type % Dry % Weight 6/25/98 1 S. END OF WALL BACKFILL 2.5 111.0 13.5 90% 1 6/25/98 2 30'N. OF S. END OF WALL BKFL 7.5 113.0 13.0 91% 1 6/25/98 3 N. END OF WALL BACKFILL 2.0 112.5 14.0 91% 1 6/26/98 4 N. END OF WALL BACKFILL T.O.W. 113.0 13.0 91% 1 6/26/98 5 20'E. OF N. END OF WALL BKFf T.O.W. 112.5 14.0 91% 1 11/4/98 6 SURFACE GRADE WEST CORNE SURFACE 107.2 9.9 86 % ** 1 11/4/98 7 RETEST OF NUMBER 7 SURFACE 111.7 9.9 90% 1 11/4/98 8 EAST LIMIT OF PAD SURFACE 115.3 10.4 93% 1 1/14/99 9 NE CORNER OF PAD SURFACE 120.0 11.3 97% 1 1/14/99 10 SE CORNER OF PAD SURFACE 119.1 8.9 96% 1 1/14/99 11 NW CORNER OF PAD SURFACE 116.0 10.4 94% 1 1/14/99 12 SW CORNER OF PAD ENTRANC SURFACE 120.9 12.5 98% 1 ** TEST FAILED, SEE RETEST 1 TABLE II LABORATORY TEST DATA Job Name: PROPOSED DODDS RESIDENCE Job No. 10 -2490 Job Address: RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIFORNIA Date 9/8/98 Maximum Optimum Sample No. Dry Density Moisture Soil pcf Content Description %wt 1 124.0 12.0 Light gray to tan, silty sand 2 CONSTRUCTION RSTING& ENGINEERING, INC. �4� �rrG SAN DIEGO, CA RIVERSIDE, CA VENTURA, CA TRACY, CA LANCASTER, CA G� �• 2414 Vineyard Ave. 490 E Princeland Ct. 1645 Pa ik Ave 392 w. larch Rd. 4215610th St. W. O $ Suite G Suite 7 Suite 105 Suite 19 Unit K G Escondido, CA 92029 Corona, CA 91719 Oxnard, CA 93033 Troy, CA 95376 Lancaster, CA 93534 (760) 746.4955 (909) 371 -1890 (805) 4866475 (209) 839-2890 (805) 7269676 ENGINEERING, INC. (760) 7469806 FAX (909) 371.2168 FAX (805) 4869016 FAX (209) 835~2895 FAX (805) 7269676 FAx May 12, 1999 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 W. Joseph Dodds 3459 Manchester Avenue, #21 Cardiff, California 92007 3 Subject: Reconnaissance Geotechnical Report Proposed Guest House at Dodds Residence Olivenhain, California Dear Mr. Dodds: At the request of your contractor, we have performed a geologic reconnaissance of the proposed guest house area at the site. We understand that the proposed guest house will be sited in the northern corner of the site. Based on our reconnaissance observations and a review of previous reports for this site, we believe that geotechnical recommendations provided in our October 6, 1997 report for the main house apply also to the guest house. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. Rodney D. Ballard, GE #2173 renmor n Goodmacher, RG #6143 Geotechnical Engineering Manager Geolog ist p a Rao. 2 G Exp. 673f1;'()U i7 �AFCt4N��' t y�1' j OF \\ CTE_ SERVER \Projects \10- 2490\Ltr _Guest House Recormaissance.doc GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION Street Address Category Serial # Name Description Plan ck. # Year ��o CONSTRUCTION INSTING& ENGINEERING, INC. 1 �4� SAN DIEGO, CA RIVERSIDE, CA VENTURA, CA TRACY, CA LANCASTER, CA C.� �+ 2414 Vineyard Ave. 490 E. Princeland Ct. 1645 Pacific Ave. 392 W. larch Rd. 4215610th St. W. E Suite G Suite 7 Suite 105 Suite 19 Unit K ' G Escondido, CA 92029 Corona, CA 91719 Oxnard, CA 93033 Tracy, CA 95376 Lancaster, CA 93534 (760) 746 -4955 (909) 371 -1890 (805) 486.6475 (209) 839.2890 (805) 7269676 NGINEERING, INC. (760) 7469806 F Ax (909) 371 -2168 FAx (805) 4869016 FAx (209) 839 -2895 mx (805) 7269676 F Ax UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ' PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SAN DIEGO COUNTY A.P.N. 259- 231 -75 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA ' r: Prepared for: o ' MR. JOSEPH DODDS 4407 MANCHESTER AVENUE, SUITE 21 ' CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA 92007 OCT 0 1097 1 ' Prepared by: t CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, SUITE G ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92029 ' CTE JOB NO. 10 -2490 October 6, 1997 ' GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION 1 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................. ............................... Page 1 ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................ Page 2 1.1 Introduction ..................... ............................... Page 2 1.2 Scope of Services ................ ............................... Page 2 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ................... ............................... Page 2 ' 3.0 INVESTIGATIONS .................... ............................... Page 3 ' 4.0 GEOLOGY ........................... ............................... Page 3 4.1 General Setting .................. ............................... Page 3 ' 4.2 Geologic Conditions .............. ............................... Page 4 4.2.1 Undocumented Fills Page 4 4.2.2 Quaternary Colluvium ..... ............................... Page 4 ' 4.2.3 Del Mar Formation ........ ............................... Page 5 4.3 Groundwater Conditions ........... ............................... Page 5 4.4 Geologic Hazards ................ ............................... Page 5 ' 4.4.1 General Geologic Hazards Observation ....................... Page 5 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting Page 5 4.4.3 Earthquake Accelerations .. ............................... Page 7 4.4.4 Liquefaction Evaluation .... ............................... Page 7 4.4.5 Seismic Settlement Evaluation .............................. Page 8 4.4.6 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation ............................ Page 8 ' 4.4.7 Landsliding or Rocksliding . ............................... Page 8 4.4.8 Compressible and Expansive Soils .......................... Page 9 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ Page 9 5.1 General ........................ ............................... Page 9 5.2 Grading and Earthwork :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : . Page 9 :::::::: 5.3 Site Preparation Page 10 5.4 Site Excavation ................. ............................... Page 10 ' 5.5 Fill Placement and Compaction .... ............................... Page 11 5.6 Fill Materials Page 11 5.7 Temporary Construction Slopes .... ............................... Page 12 5.8 Foundations and Slab Recommendations ............................ Page 13 5.8.1 Foundations Page 13 5.8.2 Foundation Settlement .... ............................... Page 14 5.8.3 Foundation Setback ...... ............................... Page 14 5.8.4 Interior Concrete Slabs ... ............................... Page 14 5.9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures .............................. Page 15 ' 5.10 Exterior Flatwork .............. ............................... Page 16 5.11 Drainage ..................... ............................... Page 16 ' 5.12 Slopes ....................... ............................... Page 17 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued. ' 5.13 Asphalt Pavements .............. ............................... Page 17 5.14 Construction Observation Page 18 5.15 Plan Review .................. ............................... Page 19 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION .... ............................... Page 19 ' FIGURES ' FIGURE 1 SITE INDEX MAP FIGURE 2 GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE 3 BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL DETAIL ' FIGURE 4 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL ' APPENDICES APPENDIX A REFERENCES CITED APPENDIX B EXPLORATION LOGS APPENDIX C STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS I, ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 1 Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California ' October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We performed this investigation to provide site - specific geotechnical information for the proposed single- family house in Encinitas, California. This project is considered feasible if the ' recommendations presented in this report are carried out. Based on previous work at this site, soils ' consist of undocumented fills, Quaternary Colluvium, and units of the Eocene Torrey Sandstone and Del Mar Formations. It appears that the undocumented fills were placed without engineering ' supervision. These fills are generally loose and will require removal and recompaction before ' placing additional fills or structures at this site. Groundwater was not encountered during previous explorations. Although groundwater levels will ' likely fluctuate during periods of precipitation, groundwater is not expected to affect the proposed ' development if recommendations regarding drainage are carried out during construction. With respect to geologic and seismic hazards, the site is considered as safe as any within the San ' Diego County area. San Diego County is an area of moderate to high seismic risk. Based on the geologic findings and reference review no active surface faults are known to exist at the site. C APROJECTS\ 10- 2490\GTRPOI . W PD Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 2 Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.1 Introduction This report presents the results of our update investigation and provides conclusions and ' geotechnical engineering criteria for the proposed development. It is our understanding that the site is to be developed by constructing a single -story conventional, residential structure and associated improvements (e.g., drive areas, utilities, and landscaping). Specific recommendations for ' excavations, fill placement, and foundation design for the proposed construction are presented in this ' report. The investigation for this report included field exploration, laboratory testing, geologic ' hazard evaluation, and engineering analysis. Appendix A contains a list of references cited in this report. ' 1.2 Scope of Services The scope of services provided included: ' Review of readily available geologic and soils reports pertinent to the site and adjacent areas including a previous geotechnical investigation by Western Soil and Foundation ' Engineering, Inc. (hereafter Western; 1989). • Definition of the general geology and evaluation of potential geologic hazards at the site. • Soil engineering design criteria for the proposed improvements. • Preparation of this summary report of the investigations performed including geotechnical construction recommendations. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ' The site is approximately 360 feet west of Rancho Santa Fe Road on a paved private road in the ' Olivenhain area of the City of Encinitas, California. The site is bounded on the south and east by ' CAPROJECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTP P01. WPD ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 3 Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 the paved private road. Single - family homes bound the site to the west and north. Land use in the area is generally residential. Figure 1 is an index map showing the location of the site. ' This irregularly- shaped property is at an approximate elevation at 130 feet above mean sea level. A graded building pad occupies the majority at the site. The graded pad is elevated above the private road at its eastern side; along the southern portion of the site the private road's elevation increases ' until it is generally level with the site. Approximately 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) slopes descend from ' the graded pad to the private road along its eastern boundary and to a single - family residence to the ' northeast. A similar ascending slope separates the graded pad from the single - family residence west of the site. The height of these slopes ranges from approximately five to 15 feet. ' 3.0 INVESTIGATIONS A reconnaissance of the site was conducted on October 1, 1997 to assess its condition. Subsurface ' explorations were previously carried out for this site by Western (1989). Western excavated several ' test pits on this site and the adjacent site. Copies of their test pit logs are included in Appendix B. 1 4.0 GEOLOGY ' 4.1 General Settina Geomorphically, the site lies at the northern margins of an alluvial valley leading to Escondido Creek (approximately 1/4 miles south). 1 ' C APROJ ECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTRPO 1. W PD ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 4 Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California ' October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 4.2 Geologic Conditions ' Based on mapping by Tan and Kennedy (1996) surface soils at the site consist of units of the Eocene Del Mar Formation. However, based on Western's work at this site (1989), surface soils consist of ' undocumented fills, Quaternary Colluvium, and units of the Eocene Torrey Sandstone and Del Mar ' Formations. The nature of the basement rocks underlying the Eocene -age materials is unknown. Figure 2 is a copy of the geologic map of the site area. 4.2.1 Undocumented Fills Undocumented fills were apparently observed to a maximum depth of approximately 11 feet ' w during previous site work. These fills consisted generally of moist sand Belo grade (fbg) g p g y y ' clay and silty clay with asphalt and other debris. Apparently these fills were placed without ' engineering supervision and are generally loose. We recommend that these materials be excavated and removed before placing fills or structures at the site. ' 4.2.2 Quaternary Colluvium Quaternary Colluvium apparently consisted of loose to medium dense silty fine sands. ' However uatern Colluvium materials were not encountered in all previous excavations. Q asY P ' Where observed these materials were up to approximately 2 feet thick. CAPROJECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTRPO 1. W PD ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 5 Proposed Single Family Residence ' Encinitas, California October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 ' 4.2.3 Eocene Torrey Sandstone and Del Mar Formations ' Eocene -aged materials consist of siltstones and sandstones. Apparently these materials are dense to very dense. 4.3 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was not encountered in previous explorations to the maximum explored depth of ' approximately 13.5 fbg. (Western, 1989). 4.4 Geologic Hazards 4.4.1 General Geologic Hazards Observation ' From our observations and previous investigations it appears that geologic hazards at the ' site are primarily limited to those caused by violent shaking from earthquake generated ground motion waves. The potential for damage from displacement or fault movement ' beneath the proposed structures should be considered low. ' 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting Based on our site reconnaissance, evidence from our explorations, and a review of ' appropriate geologic literature, it is our opinion that the site is not on known fault traces. ' Additionally, the site is not within a State -of- California designated Fault- Rupture Hazard Zone. The Rose Canyon Fault, approximately six miles to the west, is the closest known CAPROJECTS\ f 0- 2490 \GTRPO I . W PD ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 6 Proposed Single Family Residence ' Encinitas, California October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 active fault (Jennings, 1987). Other principal active regional faults include the Coronado ' Banks, San Clemente, Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas faults. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, a fault is active if it displays evidence of activity in the last 11,000 years (Hart, 1994). Table 1 is a summary, including the seismic characteristics, of the principal regional faults considered most likely to rupture and ossibl induce strong round shaking at the site during the useful life of the proposed P Y gg P P construction. Estimated probable earthquake magnitudes are from California Division of ' Mines and Geology Website (January 14, 1997) except the San Clemente Fault (from Greensfelder, 1974). ' TABLE I SEISMICITY FOR MAJOR FAULTS ' FAULT ZONE ESTIMATED ESTIMATED PEAK BEDROCK REPEATABLE DISTANCE (miles) PROBABLE ACCELERATION HIGH GROUND AND DIRECTION EARTHQUAKE (in G- forces) ACCELERATION FROM SITE MAGNITUDE (in G- forces) Rose Canyon 6W 6.9 0.52g 0.34g ' Coronado Banks 19 SW 6.7 0.23g 0.15g Elsinore 25 NE 6.7 0. 15g 0.15g ' San Clemente 51 SW 7.0 0.07g 0.07g San Jacinto 48 NE 6.7 0.06g 0.06g ' San Andreas 70 NE 7.3 0.04g 0.04g ' C APROJECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTRPO l . W PD ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 7 Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 ' 4.4.3 Earthquake Accelerations We have analyzed the possible bedrock accelerations at the site using procedures outlined in Ploessel and Slosson (1974). For the intended use, it is our opinion that the most significant seismic events would be 6.9 moment magnitude earthquakes on the Rose Canyon ' Fault. These events could produce estimated peak bedrock accelerations of 0.52g and repeatable high ground accelerations of 0.34g. ' 4.4.4 Liquefaction Evaluation ' Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine- grained sands or silts lose their physical strengths during earthquake induced shaking and behave as a liquid. This is due to loss of ' point -to -point grain contact and transfer of normal stress to the pore water. Liquefaction ' potential varies with water level, soil type, material gradation, relative density, and probable intensity and duration of ground shaking. ' Because of the generally dense to very dense and fine- grained nature of the Eocene -age soils, and the apparent lack of a shallow groundwater table, it is our opinion that the potential for ' liquefaction should be considered low in all areas of the project. Additionally, we anticipate q P J Y� P ' that loose soil materials will be mitigated during grading operations at this site. C APROJECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTRPO l . W PD ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 8 Proposed Single Family Residence ' Encinitas, California October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 ' 4.4.5 Seismic Settlement Evaluation t Seismic settlement occurs when loose to medium dense granular soils densify during seismic events. The underlying Eocene -aged materials were generally dense to locally very dense ' and are not considered likely to experience significant seismic settlement. Therefore, in our ' opinion, the potential for seismic settlement resulting in damage to site improvements should be considered low. Additionally, we anticipate that loose soil materials will be mitigated ' during grading operations at this site. ' 4.4.6 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation The site is not near any significant bodies of water that could induce seiche (oscillatory waves) damage. Additionally, the potential for tsunami damage at the site is considered low due to the site's elevation ( approximately 130 feet above msl) and distance from the ocean (approximately four miles). ' 4.4.7 Landsliding or Rocksliding The potential for landsliding or rocksliding to affect the site is considered remote. Active ' landslides were not encountered and have not been mapped in the immediate area of the site ' (Tan and Kennedy, 1996). C: \PROJECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTRP01. W PD 1 ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 9 Proposed Single Family Residence ' Encinitas, California October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 ' 4.4.8 Compressible and Expansive Soils ' Based on geologic observation the Quaternary Colluvium soil materials exhibit moderate compressibility characteristics and the Eocene Torrey Sandstone and Del Mar Formations ' materials exhibit low compressibility characteristics. These materials are considered suitable for the proposed structure. As indicated we expect that loose soils will be mitigated during grading of the site. ' Based on previous laboratory testing fill soils are moderately expansive. Clayey Quaternary Colluvium materials should also be considered moderately expansive. However, the Eocene materials should not generally be considered expansive. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General We conclude that the proposed construction on the site is feasible from a geotechmcal standpoint, ' provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design of the project. Recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed structure are included below. ' 5.2 Grading and Earthwork Upon commencement of construction, Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. should continuously observe the grading and earthwork operations for this project. Such observations are ' CAPROJECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTRPO I . W PD ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 10 Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California ' October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 ' essential to identify field conditions that differ from those predicted by this investigation, to adjust ' designs to actual field conditions, and to ensure that the grading is in overall accordance with the recommendations of this report. Our personnel should perform adequate observation and sufficient ' testing of fills during grading to support the Geotechnical Consultant's professional opinion regarding compliance with compaction requirements and specifications contained herein. Appendix contains standard grading specifications. 5.3 Site Preparation ' Before grading, the site should be cleared of any existing debris and other deleterious materials. Expansive, surficial eroded, desiccated, burrowed, or otherwise disturbed soils should be removed ' to the depth of the competent formational soils. Based on previous work (Western, 1989) removals ' of up to 11.5 fbg may be expected. Organic materials not suitable for structural backfill should be disposed of off -site or placed in non - structural planter or landscape areas. Following removal of ' unsuitable soil, the exposed surface should be scarified to a depth of nine inches, moisture ' conditioned and compacted, before placement of fills. 5.4 Site Excavation Excavations in site materials should be feasible with heavy -duty construction equipment under normal conditions. Irreducible materials greater than six inches encountered during excavations should not be used in fills on the site. Where site grading and required removals create transitional C 1PROJ ECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTRP0I . W PD ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 11 Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 ' bearing conditions, overexcavation of cut areas to a minimum depth of three feet below finish pad ' grades is recommended. Any such overexcavations should extend five feet laterally beyond proposed improvement limits. Figure 3 shows procedures to be followed for benching fills over ' native soil materials. ' 5.5 Fill Placement and Compaction ' The geotechnical consultant should verify that the proper site preparation has occurred before fill placement occurs. As indicated, areas to receive fills should be scarified to a depth of nine inches, ' moisture conditioned and ro erl compacted. Fill and backfill p p y p should be compacted to a minimum ' relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D1557 at a moisture content between ' optimum and 4 percent above optimum. The optimum lift thickness for backfill soil will be dependent on the type of compaction equipment used. Generally, backfill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8- inches in loose thickness. Backfill placement and compaction should be done in overall conformance with geotechnical recommendations and local ordinances. ' 5.6 Fill Materials Moderately expansive materials derived from the onsite soils are considered suitable for reuse on the site as compacted fill. If used, these materials must be screened of organic materials and CAPROJECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTRPO l . W PD ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 12 Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 materials greater than six inches in a maximum dimension. If encountered, clayey native soils may be blended with granular soils and reused in non - structural fill areas. ' Imported fill beneath structures, pavements and walks should have an expansion index less than or ' equal to 50 with less than 35 percent passing the no. 200 sieve. Imported fill soils for use in structural or slope areas should be evaluated by the soil engineer to decide strength characteristics ' before placement on the site. 5.7 Temporary Construction Slopes ' Sloping recommendations for unshored temporary excavations are provided. The recommended P g P �' p ' slopes should be relatively stable against deep- seated failure, but may experience localized ' sloughing. Site soils are considered Type A and C soils. Recommended slope ratios are set forth in Table 2 below. TABLE 2� RECOMMENDED TEMPORARY ` SLOPE 'RATIOS ' SOILS TYPE SLOPE RATIO MAXIMUM HEIGHT (Horizontal: vertical A (Eocene -aged Materials) 3/4:1 10 feet C (Fills/Quaternary Colluvium) 1.5:1 10 feet Actual field conditions and soil type designations must be verified by a "competent person" while ' excavations exist according to Cal -OSHA regulations. Also, the above sloping recommendations C:\PR0JECTS\10-2490\GTRP01.WPD ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 13 Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 ' do not allow for surcharge loading at the top of slopes by vehicular traffic, equipment or materials. Appropriate surcharge setbacks must be maintained from the top of all unshored slopes. ' 5.8 Foundations and Slab Recommendations The following recommendations are for preliminary planning purposes only. Based on the low to moderate expansion potential of on -site soils, recommended foundations consist of reinforced footings and concrete slabs -on -grade or post- tension systems. Recommendations provided below ' are for standard reinforced footings and concrete slabs -on- grade. If post- tension foundation systems are selected, additional recommendations will be provided. Foundation recommendations should be ' reviewed after completion of earthwork and soil . testin P g 1 ' 5.8.1 Foundations Continuous and isolated spread footings are suitable for use at this site. However, footings should not straddle cut/fill interfaces; we anticipate all building footings will be founded ' entirely in a recompacted fill or entirely in native Eocene -aged materials. ' Foundation dimensions and reinforcement should o d be based on allowable bearing values of ' 2000 pounds per square foot (psf) for footings bearing on compacted fills or 3000 psf for footings bearing on Eocene -aged materials. The allowable bearing value may be increased by one third for short duration loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. C: \PROJECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTRP01. W PD Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 14 Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 Footings should be at least 12 inches wide and installed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent subgrade. Minimum reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of four #4 reinforcing bars; two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom. Isolated ' footing reinforcement should be designed by the project structural engineer. The structural ' engineer should also provide recommendations for reinforcement of any deepened spread footings and footings with pipe penetrations. 5.8.2 Foundation Settlement The potential for foundation settlement should be analyzed once actual foundation loads and ' final as-graded conditions are known. In general, f g g or the anticipated residential construction, maximum total and differential settlement are expected to be on the order of 1 inch and ' inch. 5.8.3 Foundation Setback ' Footings for structures should be designed such that the minimum horizontal distance from the face of adjacent slopes to the outer edge of the footing is a minimum of 10 feet. 5.8.4 Interior Concrete Slabs ' Lightly loaded concrete slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of #3 reinforcing bars or # 4 reinforcing bars placed on 18 -inch C: \PROJECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTRPO 1. W PD ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 15 Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California ' October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 ' or 24 -inch centers, respectively, each way at mid -slab height. A vapor barrier of ten mil visqueen overlying a three -inch layer of compacted clean sand or gravel should be installed beneath all slab areas. At a minimum, a one inch layer of clean coarse sand should be placed ' above the visqueen to protect the membrane during steel and concrete placement. 5.9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures The following recommendations may be used for shallow footings on the site. Foundations may be designed using a coefficient of friction of 0.35 total frictional resistance equals coefficient g g ( fficient of ' q ' friction times the dead load). A design passive resistance value of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (with a maximum value of 1200 pounds per square foot) may be used. The allowable ' lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and the passive resistance, ' provided the passive resistance does not exceed two - thirds of the total allowable resistance. ' Retaining walls up to ten feet high and backfilled using generally granular soils may be designed ' using the equivalent fluid weights given in Table 3 below. ' TABLE 3 EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHTS ( per cubic foot) WALL TYPE LEVEL BACKFILL SLOPE BACKFILL 2:1 (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL) CANTILEVER WALL 38 60 (YIELDING) RESTRAINED WALL 58 90 C: \PROJECTS\10- 2490 \GTRPO M ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 16 Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 ' The above values assume non - expansive backfill and free draining conditions. Measures should be taken to prevent a moisture buildup behind all retaining walls. Drainage measures should include ' free draining fill g bac fi 1 materials and perforated drains. Figure 4 is a recommended gravel and ' perforated pipe drainage system. These drains should discharge to an appropriate offsite location. 5.10 Exterior Flatwork To reduce the potential for distress to exterior flatwork caused by minor settlement of foundation ' soils, we recommend that such flatwork be installed with crack - control joints at appropriate spacings as designed by the project architect. Additionally, we recommend that flatwork be installed with t reinforcement similar to that outlined in Section 5.8.4 above for interior concrete slabs i.e. 43 reinforcing bars or # 4 reinforcing bars placed on 18 -inch or 24 -inch centers each way. Flatwork, which should be installed with crack control joints, includes driveways, sidewalks, and ' architectural features. All subgrades should be prepared according to the earthwork ' recommendations previously given before placing concrete. Positive drainage should be established and maintained next to all flatwork. ' 5.11 Drainage Surface runoff should be collected and directed away from improvements by means of appropriate erosion reducing devices and positive drainage should be established around the proposed C APROJECTS\ 10- ?490 \GTRPO 1. W PD ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 17 Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California ' October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 improvements. Positive drainage is drainage away from improvements at a gradient of at least two percent for a distance of at least five feet. The project civil engineers should evaluate the on -site drainage and make necessary provisions to keep surface water from affecting the site. g �'P p g ' 5.12 Slopes Based on anticipated soil strength characteristics, if fill slopes should be constructed at this site a ' slope ratio of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter should be used. These fill slope inclinations should ' exhibit factors of safety greater than 1.5. Runoff water should not be permitted to drain over the edges of slopes unless that water is confined ' to properly designed and constructed drainage facilities. Erosion resistant vegetation should be ' maintained on the face of all slopes. ' Typically soils along the top portion of a fill slope face will tend to creep laterally. Distress sensitive hard scape improvements should not be constructed within five feet of slope crests in fill areas. ' 5.13 Asphalt Pavements ' Preliminary pavement sections presented below are based on a Resistance "R" Value testing of surficial materials. The asphalt pavement design is based on California Department of ' Transportation Highway Manual and on an assumed traffic index as indicated in Table 4 el p g y be w. b o C APROJECTS\ l 0- 2490 \GTRPO I . W PD ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 18 Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California ' October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 ' Upon completion of finish grading, "R" Value sampling and testing of subgrade soils should occur and the pavement section modified, if necessary. ' TABLE 4 ASPHALT PAVEMENT' ' Traffic Area Assumed Traffic Subgrade AC Class II Index "R" Value Thickness Aggregate Base (inches) Thickness (inches) Truck Drive Areas 6.0 11 3.0 14.0 (e.g. garbage trucks) Auto Parking / 4.5 I 1 2.5 11.0 ' Drive Areas ' 5.14 Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the ' construction and proposed the subsurface conditions found in the exploratory boring locations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction to verify that ' conditions are as anticipated. Recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding and assumption that CTE ' will provide the observation and testing services for the project. All earthwork should be observed and tested to verify that grading activity has been performed according to the recommendations C APROJECTS\ f 0- 2490 \GTRP01. W PD ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 19 Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California ' October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 contained within this report. All footing trenches should be evaluated by the project engineer before reinforcing steel placement. ' 5.15 Plan Review CTE should review the project foundation plans and grading plans before commencement of earthwork to identify potential conflicts with the recommendations contained in this report. ' 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION The field evaluation, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis presented in this report have been ' conducted according o current engineering practice and the standard of care ex S g g p exercised by reputable geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in this area. No other warranty, expressed or ' implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered ' during construction. 1 Our conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions. If conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be notified ' and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided upon request. We appreciate this ' opportunity to be of service on this project. CAPROJECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTRPO L W PD ' Update Geotechnical Investigation Page 20 Proposed Single Family Residence Encinitas, California 1 October 6, 1997 CTE Job No. 10 -2490 ' Respectfully submitted, ' CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. ' "odnee allard, GE # 73 3 nathan Goodmacher, RG #6143 Geotechnical Engineering Manager nior Geologist � �EQ Gtr < 0 zo a 1! o s,..... A '0' ' C APROJECTS\! 0- 2490 \GTRP01. MM ' .N IN�� w R cc� �� •- •��+ I q:' �•' �" x ,.4 -'� SmR stymie t - ��• ;k ! - .. „ 1M : F n �.� .•• } 3 I nc soNtsA E l4 RA Ii R' , vix r ' . ttpMM�k - �l - -- O 3: G� � ✓ t ` rAS4°•+1ltY r ✓ Rr F t � G SSA �/ w u' • f �. � - *- �pGt��' - �:t��c 's ' .. CIR '��. •tr. Dc p r `�• �r 4 ur l c'ta _'r G _ M r�oE a A R ' ' SITE �,�,�ANCH VE LA PLAM g $ R T r �S glrrNrra OR VASEO CI to / s600 C '�J• . a a T QG 1 G U .� M w I srp� NIAS ' ♦ VA.. ! sNauww ul 1 V $ ~ �'7'' /L'( /�y� G�,`�'�I Q• al t W Ir`t of .1. , I • j� F � t p I r !t :_' , lau of EL a IpEpHiLLOR r � arr. � A ,f � ' ..: log / � • :.. c �4J i� " Ky is Ti LA ��"� , � 1 � � A tNQr.. � •fJ� Soo :.,�• f pr . 4Y 11)) 5500 (�„� t✓ 4 IL .�� / 8 o f ys MIRAVILIA �! ` • G IAS SFrIC _ 3 •� f i} o � AVENtOA 'Yr• Q OSA i� a ' N 00.5rA' �.� / // I �d VQ`Jr OS x EL SECq�,; 0 1/4 12 1 MILES F � CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION ' U 1320 2640 52so FEET 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, STE G ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760) 746 -4955 CIE JOB NO: V CNCINBERING,INf SITE INDEX MAP 10 -2490 SOI IR CF. - THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ' 1996 SAN DIEGO EDITION APN: 259- 231 -75 D ATE: ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 10/97 1 \\GRAPHICS I\PROIECTS \10- 2490 \INDEXMAP.CV5 a1 'y T' }, • lA ,.., _._ -..✓ "�. �, . .' r_ � Ra i ' / "• _ .;,,;;; SITE ME pv 1 llV % L 4 r�. ' LEGEND ' Qt l _4 Terrace deposits; Qal Alluvium and Colluvium; reddish brown, poorly bedded poorly indurated Unconsolidated silt, clay, sand and gravel. sandstone, siltstone and conglomerate. (4 indicates - oldest deposits) Ql Landslide arrows; ' Tt Santiago Formation; J \/ indicate general direction of movement. light - colored, poorly- bedded, poorly - indurated, fine -to ' medium - grained sandstone interbedded with landslide- prone siltstone and claystone. Contact Td Del Mar Formation; (dashed where approximately located; ' Poorly- bedded, poorly - indurated, landslide -prone dotted where concealed) sandy claystone interbedded with medium to coarse grained sandstone. \ zs ' Kl Lusardi Formation, � Poorly- bedded, moderately - indurated cobble and boul- Strike, direction, and amount of der conglomerate with thin lenses of medium - grained dip of minor fault plane. ' sandstone. CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, STE G ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760) 746.4955 ` ENG hU1NGJNC. CrE JOB NO: GEOLOGIC MAP 10 -2490 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 11Q SCALE ' APN: 259 - 231 -75 ' SOURCE: CDMG OPEN -FILE REPORT 96 -02 DATE: ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 10197 2 \ \GRAPHICS I\PROJECCS \10- 2190 \Geology Map of Site.CV5 1 ' SURFACE OF COMPETENT EARTH MATERIAL FILL SLOPE J4'TYPICAL 10' TYPICAL L 15' MINIMUM. (INCLINED @ 2% INTO SLOPE) I I, ' o= Any CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHMCAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION ENGm�uNG. NC. 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, STE G ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760) 746-0955 TE JOB NO: BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL DETAIL 10 -2490 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NO SCALE ' APN: 259- 231 -75 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA DA TE: 0/97 I 3 RAPw I 10-0% AI V RETAINING WALL o p p WALL BACKFILL COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE DENSITY 0 • o o p 3/4" GRAVEL SURROUNDED a - BY FILTER FABRIC NHZAFI • 0 140 N, OR EQUIVALENT) 4 I I MIN - O • 1 FINISH GRADE Z7 0 a P. a • • , &0 I' v 0 o a 4" DIA. PERFORATED PVC \�� \ PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR 0 9 / / o EQUIVALENT). MINIMUM 1% GRADIENT TO SUITABLE > D ° /�� OUTLET \ �/ -A a - ' WALL FOOTING MINMUM 6" LAYER OF C ' \�� \� FILTER ROCK UNDERLYING ' PIPE r �'� CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING INC. �`'' GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION v 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, STE G ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 60) 746.4955 y - NGINEERINQIN(' RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL 10 -2490 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NO SCALE ' APN: 259- 231 -75 A ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 10/97 4 \ \GRAPHICS I\ PROJECTS \10- 2258\RE7ALYTNGWALL.CV5 ' APPENDIX A ' REFERENCES CITED I' 1 ' REFERENCES CITED 1 1. California Division of Mines and Geology Websrte, January 15, 1997, California Fault 1 Parameters. 2. Greensfelder, R., 1974, "Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in ' California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. 3. Hart, Earl W., Revised 1994, "Fault- Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist Priolo, 1 Special Studies Zones Act of 1972," California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. 1 4. Jennings, Charles W., revised 1987, "Fault Map of California with Locations of Volcanoes, Thermal Springs and Thermal Wells." 1 5. Ploessel, M.R. and Slosson, J.E., 1974, "Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from Earthquakes - Important Design Criteria," California Geology, p. 195 -199. 1 6. Tan, S.S. and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report No. 96 -02. 1 7. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc. 1989, "Geotechnical Investigation, Ghyner Property, A.P.N. 259 - 231 -75, West of Rancho Santa Fe Road, Encinitas, California" [Consultant Report]. 1 1 I 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 r i ' APPENDIX B WESTERN'S EXPLORATION LOGS 1 r 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 L r r r r r ' W a O TRENCH NUMBER T -1 W F- v F- w o w W a ELEVATION 125± Z Z Z cn > Z J U W' W W Z L► z — O_ W — Cr !- � � W Z F.... ►- a N N SAMPLING a N a cn ° n N _ Q CL 2 N METHOD Ford 550 Backhoe a. 0 a Z } o z w a W a a a 40 a: 2 O 2 ' A N w � DESCRIPTION ° o c - = - Brownish -Green Silty Clay Interlayered Very Medium ' with Olive Green Slightly Sandy Clay Moist Stiff B 99.6 15.6 81. 1 - - ' 2 CH — 3 with Sporadic Chunks of Asphalt 103.3 13.9 84. - I 4 - — 5 - — — Soft to Medium 6 Stiff 93.4 15.3 76. Increasing Occurrence of Asphalt and I Clay Pipe Pieces 8 ' 10- _- 11 I ' (Fill) C1I - Brownish Yellow Very Clayey Medium Sand Very Medium _ - 12 � to Sandy Clay Moist Dense t (Del Mar Formation) Stiff ' 13 Bottom of Trench ' 14 - B = Bulk Sample ' 15 ' ' JOB NUMBER DATE LOGGED LOGGED BY 89 -52 RHYNER PROPERTY 5 -31 -89 V.G. ' SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG PLATE NO. 3 Z W } 0 TRENCH NUMBER T -2 e F' W W 1 - U V W ELEVATION 128± z ac z Z cn Cr > o lWi I.- ELEVATION W W W Z ti _ W -� F- W U F- 2 ~ ;- SAMPLING a cn a - o a 0 CL J c; N METHOD Ford 550 Backhoe a o a Z } `" o Z W a a a a a 4 2 0 x2 O N v DESCRIPTION v - - Olive -Brown Sandy Clay Interlayered with - - Brownish -Green Silty Clay with Sporadic Very Soft Chunks of Asphalt Moist to ` CH - - Medium 2 - - - Stiff 91.4 16.0 74. 3 - (Fill) L oose t 4 SC Dark Brown Very Clayey Medium Sand Very Medium (Colluvium) Moist Light Brown Fine San 5 - C 105.6 14.3 - MH - Light Green Sandy Siltstone Very Very �;. 6 C - — Moist Stiff 120.7 13.6 to = grades to 7 - SM Dark Green Silty Fine to Medium Sand, Very Dense I Well Cemented with Lenses of Iron -Oxide Moist to C Stained Medium Sand Very 8 ;;•� Dense 9 (Del Mar Formation) ' 10 Bottom of Trench 11 12 C = Chunk Sample 13 l 14 15 ' JOB NUMBER DATE LOGGED LOGGED BY 89 -52 RHYNER PROPERTY 5 -31 -89 V.G. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG PLATE NO. 4 Z W o TRENCH NUMBER T -3 r \ W _ • Uj W a ELEVATION 135± Z cr Z Z cn _. = > Z J U W, W W Z F- - O W 4 F - C ~ W U F- Z ~ _ _j 0 SAMPLING a N_ a N a s cn W a u a N N Ford 550 Backhoe a a. (n _j a a N METHOD a 0 a z 0 Z w a W a a a� a0 >_ 20 e:2 c DESCRIPTION c Olive Brown Sandy Clay Interluyered with Brownish -Green Silty Clay Very Soft 1 CH = Moist to - - (Fill) Medium Contact dips east Stiff 2 1 y . 94.7 21.5 77.E _ Dark Green Waxy Siltstone, Very 3 _ ! Fractured MH Very Very Moist Stiff 4 B / C _- grades to to 21.0 14.2 5 - Hard but 6 = - Dark Green Very Fine Sandy Siltstone Fractured ML - with Interbedded Waxy Siltstone S -� a 7 - C at 113.2 17.6 8 = _ a (Del Mar Formation) 9 Dark Green Silty Fine to Medium Grained Sandstone with Iron -Oxide Stained Very Dense 10 SM. Lenses of Medium to Coarse Sand Moist 11 grades to li - ` =;:? Light Yellowish -Green Silty Fine to :SW Medium Grained Sandstone Moderately ' - Well Cemented 13 (Del Mar Formation) ' 14 - Bottom of Trench ' 15 ' JOB NUMBER DATE LOGGED LOGGED BY 89 -52 RHYNER PROPERTY 5 -31 -89 V.G. ' SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG PLATE NO. 5 aW O TRENCH NUMBER T -4 F- W F. v �- W o w W i Q ELEVATION 135± z CC z z � Cr > z U W O W W Z O W J (X �.. Cr !- W U Z = J O �' SAMPLING a Ln a N ° d y FW- Q U ~ N N METHOD Ford 550 Backhoe d 0 a Z } 0 z W a °' w a0 Cr 2O a v DESCRIPTION U ° U 0 _ - Olive Green Silty Clay 1 - — S Sof t - — at u to 2 CH r Medium _ = e Stiff d 3 - B _ _ 97.6 27.1 79.: _ (Fill) 4 - - 4- 5 Loose 97.6 5.6 79. 6 Light Brown Slightly Silty Very Fine Moist I C to Fine Sand (Colluvium ' 7 Medium Brown Very Fine to Fine Grained Very Medium C Moderately Cemented Sandstone Moist Dense 115.0 6.6 X94.0 to ' 8 SW grades to Dense i - - Dark Brown Clayey Fine to Medium ' Grained Moderately Well Cemented 9 Sandstone Very Dense I SC.:: (Torrey Sandstone) Moist - Olive Brown To Olive Green Sandy, 11 = Clayey Silt with Thin Lenses of Light Very Medium - M` Brown Fine Sand Moist Stiff 12 -- 1 - _ —_. Dark Green Sandy Siltstone a t Very 13 ML u Stiff a t to -� (Del Mar Formation) e d Hard ' 14 - Bottom of Trench i ' 15 ' JOB NUMBER DATE LOGGED LOGGED BY RHYNER PROPERTY 5 -31 -89 V.G. 89 -52 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG PLATE NO. 6 AJ W o TRENCH NUMBER T -5 }.. W f- v F- w o w Q ELEVATION 135± z it z z ., Ct > z U W J W W Z ti O J Z F- - W Cr N N SAMPLING a N a(n ° a Lo J" METHOD Ford 550 Backhoe a p a Z o Z w a a a a ao Cr. �o �� N v DESCRIPTION a !_ Dark Green Very Fine Sandy Waxy S Very Siltstone at Stiff -L —1 u r to a t Hard e d but fractured grades Less Waxy with Increasing Very Fine Sand I - i i I (Del Mar Formation) Bottom of Trench I j 0 1 , 1- 2 - i f I 3 I j - 4- ' S JOB NUMBER DATE LOGGED LOGGED BY 89 -52 RHYNER PROPERTY 5 -31 -89 ` ,. G ' SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG PLATE NO. 7 r O V w 0 w Z T -6 F w W o TRENCH N Z= z z N r-- - O ►- 135± w M� W U F' Z a� >' a ELEVATION t- a N a -� cn a J a a. o n. cn w a. = w o c - SAMPLING Ford 550 Backhoe a a o o o E. `�' a METHOD in DESCRIPTION Very Medium Brown Fine Sand Loose Moist - grades to to :.SW Light Brown Fine Sand Medium grades to Dense Dark Brown Very Clayey Fine Sand to Sandy Clay , B ::•,SC.. (Torrey Sandstone) 92.5 9.7 75.6 '4 5 Dark Green Very Fine Sandy Waxy Siltstone MH S t Very 6 - r a S tiff t (Del Mar Formation) e 7 -- Bottom of Trench io I 1_ i 12 I 1 13 14 ' 15 GGED BY DATE LOGGED LO ' j p g NUMBER RHYNER PROPERTY 5 -31 -89 V.G. 89 -52 PLATE NO- SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG ' APPENDIX C STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS ' APPENDIX D Page D -1 Standard Specifications for Grading Projects ' Section 1 - General 1 The guidelines contained herein and the standard details attached represent Construction Testing & Engineering's standard recommendations for grading and other associated operations on construction projects. These guidelines should be considered part of the project specifications. ' Recommendations contained in the body of the previously presented soils report will supersede the recommendations and/or requirements as specified herein. Disputes arising out of interpretation of the recommendations contained in the soils report or specifications contained herein will be interpreted by the project geotechnical consultant. Section 2 - Responsibilities of Project Personnel ' The geotechnical consultant should provide observation and testing services sufficient to assure that geotechnical construction is performed in general conformance with project specifications and ' standard grading practices. The geotechnical consultant should report any deviations to the client or his authorized representative. t The Client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his authorized representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the ' geotechnical consultant. He will authorize or cause to have authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his authorized representative should remain on -site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties ' to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all ' grading and other associated operations on construction projects, including, but not limited to, earth work according to the project plans, specifications and controlling agency requirements. Section 3 - Preconstruction Meeting A preconstruction site meeting will be arranged by the owner and/or client and will include the grading contractor, the design engineer, the geotechnical consultant, owner's representative and representatives of the appropriate governing authorities. ' Section 4 - Site Preparation ' The client or contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, during and /or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The appropriate approvals should be obtained before proceeding with grading operations. ' Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, root of trees and otherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be graded. ' Clearing and grubbing should extend outside all proposed excavation and fill areas. ' C APROJ ECTS\ 10 -? 490 \GTRPO I . W PD ' APPENDIX D Page D -2 Standard Specifications for Grading Projects ' Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations, reservoirs, utilities (including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, ' tunnels, etc.) and other manmade surface and subsurface improvements from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities should include proper capping and/or rerouting pipelines at the project perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells according to the requirements of the governing authorities ' and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant at the time of demolition. Trees, plants or manmade improvements not planned to be removed or demolished should be protected by the contractor from damage or injury. Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and /or demolition operations should be wasted from areas to be graded and disposed off -site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant. ' Section 5 - Site Protection Protection of the site during grading should be the responsibility of the contractor. Unless other ' provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties, completion of part of the project should not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the requirements for site protection until the entire project is complete as identified by the geotechnical consultant, the client and the regulating agencies. ' Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage ' away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall. Rain related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress and other adverse conditions as determined by the geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as unsuitable materials and I' should be subject to overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant about temporary excavations (e.g., backcuts) are ' made in consideration of stability of the completed project and, therefore, should not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the contractor. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude more restrictive requirements by the regulating agencies. The ' contractor should provide during periods of extensive rainfall plastic sheeting to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated and unstable. When deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant or governing agencies the contractor will install checkdams, desilting basins, sand bags ' or other drainage control measures. CAPROJECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTRP01. W PD 1 ' APPENDIX D Page D -3 Standard Specifications for Grading Projects ' In relatively level areas and/or slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 feet, they should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill according to the applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1.0 foot or less below ' proposed finished grades, remedial grading by moisture conditioning in- place, followed by thorough recompaction according to the applicable grading guidelines herein may be attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill according to the slope repair recommendations herein. If field conditions dictate, other slope repair procedures may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant. ' Section 6 - Excavations ' 6.1 Unsuitable Materials Materials that are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and recommendations ' of the geotechnical consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to, dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible natural soils and fractured, weathered, soft bedrock and non - engineered or otherwise deleterious fill materials. ' Material identified by the geotechnical consultant as unsatisfactory due to its moisture conditions should be overexcavated, moisture conditioned as needed, to a uniform at or ' above optimum moisture condition before placement as compacted fill. 1 If during grading adverse geotechnical conditions are exposed which were not anticipated in the preliminary soils report as determined by the geotechnical consultant additional exploration, analyzation and treatment of these problems may be recommended. 6.2 Cut Slopes ' Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). The geotechnical consultant should observe cut slope excavation and if these excavations expose loose, cohesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, the materials should be overexcavated and replaced with a compacted stabilization fill. If encountered specific cross - section details should be obtained from the Geotechnical Consultant. When extensive cut slopes are excavated or these cut slopes are made in the direction of the ' prevailing drainage, a non - erodible diversion swale (brow ditch) should be provided at the top of the slope. C: \PROJ ECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTRP01. WPD ' APPENDIX D Page D -4 Standard Specifications for Grading Projects ' 6.3 Pad Areas All lot pad areas, including side yard terrace containing both cut and fill materials, transitions, less than 3 feet deep should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and replaced with a uniform compacted fill blanket of 3 feet. Actual depth of overexcavation may vary and should be delineated by the geotechnical consultant during grading. For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top -of- slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm drainage swale and/or an appropriate pad gradient. A gradient in soil areas away from the top -of- slopes of 2 percent or greater is recommended. Section 7 - Compacted Fill All fill materials should have fill quality, placement, conditioning and compaction as specified below or as approved by the geotechnical consultant. ' 7.1 Fill Material Quality ' Excavated on -site or import materials that are acceptable to the geotechnical consultant may be used as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are removed before placement. All import materials anticipated for use on -site should be sampled tested and approved before and placement is in conformance with the requirements outlined. Rocks 12 inches in maximum and smaller may be used within compacted fills provided sufficient fill material is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock to fill rock voids effectively. Rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry weight passing the 3/4 inch sieve. The geotechnical consultant may vary those requirements as field conditions dictate. Where rocks greater than 12 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill, special ' handling according to attached Plates and described below. Rocks greater than four feet should be broken down or disposed off -site. ' 7.2 Placement of Fill Before placement of fill material the geotechnical consultant should inspect the area to receive fills. After inspection and approval the exposed ground surface should be scarified to a depth of six to 8 inches. The scarified material should be conditioned (i.e., moisture ' added or air dried by continued discing) to achieve a moisture content at or slightly above C:\PROJECTS\ 10-- 2390 \GTRP01. W PD APPENDIX D Page D -5 Standard Specifications for Grading Projects optimum moisture conditions and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density or as otherwise recommended in the soils report or by appropriate government agencies. ' Compacted fills should then be laced in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in P P g g loose thickness before compaction. Each lift should be moisture conditioned as needed, thoroughly blended to achieve a consistent moisture content at or slightly above optimum and thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. The contractor should have suitable and sufficient mechanical compaction equipment and watering apparatus on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed in consideration of moisture retention properties of the materials and weather conditions. ' When placing fills in horizontal lifts next to areas sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal: vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least six -foot wide benches and a minimum of four feet of vertical bench height within the firm natural ground, firm bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area after keying and i benching until the area has been reviewed by the geotechnical consultant. Material generated by the benching operation should be moved sufficiently away from the bench area to allow for the recommended review of the horizontal bench before placement of fills Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate fills, ' temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as above described. At least a 3 -foot vertical bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved compacted fill before placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in at least 3 -foot vertical increments until the desired finished grades are achieved. Before placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other grading delay, the exposed surface or previously compacted fill should be processed by scarification, moisture conditioning as needed to at or slightly above optimum moisture content, ' thoroughly blended and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Where unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than one foot, the ' unsuitable materials should be overexcavated. Following a period of flooding, rainfall or over - watering by other means, no additional fill should be placed until damage assessments have been made and remedial grading performed ' as described herein. C A PROJ ECTS\ l 0- 2490 \GTRPO I. W PD ' APPENDIX D Page D -6 Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Rocks 12 inches in maximum dimension and smaller may be used in the compacted fill provided the fill is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. No oversize material should be used within 3 feet of finished pad grade and within 1 foot of other ' compacted fill areas. Rocks 12 inches up to four feet maximum dimensions should be placed below the upper 5 feet of any fill and should not be closer than 11 feet to any slope face. These recommendations could vary as locations of improvements dictate. Where practical, oversized material should not be placed below areas where structures or deep utilities are proposed. Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a clean, overexcavated or unyielding compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded over and around all windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material should be staggered so that successive strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane. It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rock as field conditions dictate and as ' recommended by the geotechnical consultant at the time of placement. The contractor should assist the geotechnical consultant and/or his representative by digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. The contractor should provide this work at no additional cost to the owner or contractor's client. Fill should be tested by the geotechnical consultant for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing should conform to ASTM ' Method of Test D 1556 -82, D 2922 -81. Tests should be conducted at a minimum of two vertical feet or 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. Fill found not to be in conformance with the grading recommendations ' should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 7.3 Fill Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the ' regulating agencies, permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). Except as specifically recommended in these grading guidelines compacted fill slopes should be overbuilt and cut back to grade, exposing the firm, compacted fill inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the desired results are not achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the guidelines of the geotechnical consultant. The degree of overbuilding will be increased until the desired ' compacted slope surface condition is achieved. Care should be taken by the contractor to provide thorough mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface. C:`,PROJECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTRP01. W PD APPENDIX D Page D -7 Standard Specifications for Grading Projects At the discretion of the geotechnical consultant, slope face compaction may be attempted by conventional construction procedures including backrolling. The procedure must create a firmly compacted material throughout the entire depth of the slope face to the surface of the ' previously compacted firm fill intercore. During grading operations care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer edge ' of the slope. Each lift should extend horizontally to the desired finished slope surface or more as needed to ultimately established desired grades. Grade during construction should not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It may be helpful to elevate slightly the outer edge of the slope. Slough resulting from the placement of individual lifts should not be allowed to drift down over previous lifts. At intervals not exceeding four feet in vertical ' slope height or the capability of available equipment, whichever is less, fill slopes should be thoroughly dozer trackrolled. For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top -of- slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and pad gradients of at least 2 percent. ' Section 8 - Trench Backfill Utility and/or other excavation of trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction should be a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. Within slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches up to one foot wide and two feet deep may be backfilled with sand and consolidated by jetting, flooding or by mechanical means. If on -site materials are utilized, they should be wheel - rolled, tamped or otherwise compacted to a firm condition. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or spot testing may be elected ' if deemed necessary, based on review of backfill operations during construction. It utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close proximity ' to a buried conduit. the contractor may elect the utilization of light weight mechanical compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean, granular material, which should be thoroughly jetted in -place above the conduit, prior to initiating mechanical compaction procedures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon review of the geotechnical ' consultant at the time of construction. In cases where clean g ranular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where P flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by the geotechnical consultant. Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not recommended in slope areas. C APROIECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTRP01. W PD ' APPENDIX D Page D -8 Standard Specifications for Grading Projects ' Section 9 - Drainage Where deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant, canyon subdrain systems should be ' installed in accordance. Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilization or sidehill masses, should be installed in accordance with the specifications of the accompanying attached plates. ' Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and areas of structures to suitable disposal areas via non - erodible devices (i.e., gutters, downspouts, concrete swales) as shown in the attached plates. ' For drainage in extensively landscaped areas near structures, (i.e., within four feet) a minimum of 5 percent gradient away from the structure should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 percent should be maintained over the remainder of the site. Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life ' of the project. Property owners should be made aware that altering drainage patterns can be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance. ' Section 10 - Slope Maintenance ' 10.1 - Landscape Plants In order to enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting should be accomplished at the ' completion of grading. Slope planting should consist of deep- rooting vegetation requiring little watering. Plants native to the southern California area and plants relative to native plants are generally desirable. Plants native to other semi -arid and and areas may also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect should be the best party to consult regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration. 10.2 - Irri ation Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces, not placed in trenches excavated into slope faces. Slope irrigation should be minimized. If automatic timing devices are utilized on irrigation systems, provisions should be made for interrupting normal irrigation during periods of ' rainfall. 10.3 - Repair C AP RO1 ECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTRP91. W PD ' APPENDIX D Page D -9 Standard Specifications for Grading Projects ' As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand, to protect all slope areas from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period of time prior to landscape ' planting. If slope failures occur, the geotechnical consultant should be contacted for a field review of site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair. ' If slope failures occur as a result of exposure to period of heavy rainfall, the failure areas and currently unaffected areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to protect against additional saturation. ' In the accompanying Standard Details, appropriate repair procedures are illustrated for superficial slope failures (i.e., occurring typically within the outer one foot to three feet of ' a slope face). 1 C APROJECTS\ 10- 2490 \GTRP01. W PD 41 ar EARTH RETENTION CALCULATIONS "Cat MA I M 23 1998 SHEET I OF 15 mafir wp' PREPARED BY: RETAINING WALLS COMPANY 1531 GRAND AVENUE SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 (760) 471 -2500 PROJECT CONTACT: ROD SANDERSON PREPARED FOR: STEVE GARTALITY E 284 RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD OLIVENHAIN, CA y (619) 759-1512 s o. czm 5 ' � �. oaale 813g1a� � SITE: DODDS RESIDENCE PARCEL 2, PM 16603 slgrF� civi`��pQ% ENCINITAS, CA_ �_.. SOIL DATA FROM: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC 2414 VINEYARD AVE. ESCONDIDO, CA 92029 (760) 746 -4955 REPORT DATED: OCTOBER 6, 1997 LETTER DATED: MARCH 18, 1998 I PROJECT NUMBER: 10 -2490 I NOTE: THESE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS ARE ONLY VALID FOR USE BY RETAINING WALLS COMPANY. IT IS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF THESE STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS, THAT A MEMBER OF THE RETAINING WALLS COMPANY STAFF FIELD INSPECT AND APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. RETAINING WALLS COMPANY WIL — RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY PROJECT RELEASED WITHOUT C APPROVAL FROM RETAINING WALLS COMPANY �— MAR 2 5 ENGINEERING SERVICES JOB NUMBS - V1 OF ENCINITAS I i i 2/1 INDEX PAGE TYPICAL CROSS SECTION 3 BLOCK DETAILS 4 SPECIFICATIONS 5 (LEVEL BACKFILL) STABILITY ANALYSIS 5.63' HEIGHT 6 -7 STABILITY ANALYSIS 6.75' HEIGHT 8 -12 ACTIVE AND PASSIVE PRESSURES CALCULATIONS 13 -15 NOTES: SOILS VALUES ARE TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. WALL DESIGNER MUST BE NOTIFIED BY THE SOILS PROJECT ENGINEER IN THE EVENT ACTUAL SITE FRICTION ANGLES OR SURCHARGES DO NOT MEET THE ABOVE. NO SURCHARGE HAS BEEN ASSUMED WITHIN A 45 DEGREE LINE BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL SYSTEM'S HEEL. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW AND APPROVE THE SOIL PARAMETERS USED FOR THIS DESIGN, AS WELL AS, THE WALL'S BACKDRAIN. LEVEL eACI<FILL 2' SOIL CAP NOTE: �� WALL SOIL H A V EE FRICTION ANGLE OF 34 DEGREES OR ( (3 LENGTH AND TYPE PER CH A RT RT FACE EA7TER 20 (-_ONSTPUCTi(__')N TOLERANCE ±2 " j T HAND TAMPED SOIL WITHIN UNITS 3 12" MIN. WIDH' ( /4 CRUSHED PocK 18" MIN. BUF\I, I TO DAYLIGHT MhN 4 5 W . IF E AT TOE OF A SLOPE A LL) P R, EP ,F PV( LIN 1 i'l FILT FA E - ,(:j. 7 VE!-1 D T"r P I Cl_ CROSS SECTIOIN 1 E - M EN �7 —, A �,j C_" E TA L F� I-A W /,`� L L W G E C OF I E) SOI R E I N F C R C, E ME N T NO SCALE 7 f I I I Material: Precast concrete having 3,000 psi (28 days) minimum compressive strength Weight: 125 pounds. Length: 19- inches (1.64 feet). Width: 17 inches (1.48 feet). Height: 9 inches (face); 6.75 inches (side rails). STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR MODULAR FACING UNIT I i i i L - - - J L - - - J L - - - 7.5' MAXIMUM SPACING, EXCEPT FOR CURVALINEAR WALLS, WHERE SPACING MAY VARY DEPENDING ON THE HEIGHT, RADIUS, Ai�1D SLOPE OF THE WALL. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR MODULAR FACING UNIT W C W a 0 >, a c DW N L o °c n Ev W L N N O N _Y .� il N O y y c J .2 'U u E o N ° V C VI N ] C p O'er H O - C = V O C+ O c s a as G p > Z N y W L C O N- y u L u V ✓� ° x J= 1 �°' rO N 7 . . -n . ti7 ;N ^� �� 'N' OO p m N, V .• N C U W . O V - C L C O W V T = E - ,n V �. C' �' C r_ ✓� L p . ... C O C L O 0 0 v = H L G _O C .,N O.L N D T p y '7 2 O� s y O E O O O W L O D L H O N C f E_ E W V N O �_ T J J N6� W N n - NC V �W 'a O 3U Y _ CO's L fl �__ L .. Y C O L J _ 0 CL N Ol W O. C O C_ �� D W il ° O _O a u p; p` E T l 'v i 0 a L O- a 0 �_ O \ O y 9 W r ° O '. w N! 4 J N W V V m_ GJ - + V O W o O O V il a O ,Y ° il- OQ O a yi �J E n ° _ y N O C 'y Q W C OJ yrO G D.O v C il�r. N3 _ O �7� U N Vr N J W O - T.0 O_ rJ _ il n :• - 'p D- O N `-� '� _ L C a r O O C C >. O W il ; O C N p 0 C O `L 0 0 C ° 3 .." CO a. 'o vi N NNil ary -ON'CW N p �� C L C W C C y c O D O N p.. v° u= Q N W O= N L O JV °a -O W O OW W.� O y �G� .0E JO -0O T aL N �O nC:` L O YL O � u O �' il ° U �: O a _ N= E . 0 O O O a C N - O C V N �_ C - . C O O ,y N C c ... L- 3 - i O E L C Q W C ... L O -• C O N _ W = T O C y O- E O ' C N ; >` ° N O° •-• v C O - - N 0 3 E C C 0 a il L E T, - 2 F O L N °- j E E _ O ? V W W N V J L_ O� U N o. O O E W T -0 a E O =; C O N i s O T N N O y C C N Q O L O "' d N O n O 0 _° D ;: = E W �? O h V L y l _ J p N O G H V N O L V il il ' 3 ° `] d U .� C a rn C` .?: O in V•� EO vl LO-' O N O= _Q - N OC ��On° il�N U - TJO O_D a1 YN AO 'U O; - L y W _ N O C L O C O O O W O ? y '' _. - 'J L N - T W ] W.� U N N W N C CU _O OC OW�.VU L.0 ... E__W>N O J L N E r p C r W N L O N O N W O -• = Y u O O O ' 6 N NN a' L V L >. > L L L _. ✓t ° N T n y L n _ r O = C C rn �- ..• C O _ O C C N V _U - n W N _ 'J - r V C V Y vi N 0 1 a O > O` 1 O J O O V A 0 0 N? N C L E C L W V V N y° V °` a L C W - L �_ C D ti W O il >_ C Y.� _ C _ u 'W E L O N n 0 a a v a y W� - L O O O E O` il N N O E N On J O N O p J a E O r- l 0 °C 0 o v s n J v u o - 7 u o` o h u �p rn c E v - J C E c c w J m- E o c o > ,c E c5 - _c c = v .° W a - E u nWw v2^ W_J- O 3 o C O J O OO c . .� _ C \._ y U ` E v �_O `U o W s _v O u V (p V V) N J V Q .." r r' vl 1 �. L N U r N C N O a `.- E O O w a 0 c E c 0 t E-1 .` O o o- `o v o o a - s `- = o c E N o E c o a r _ i vv vi o` v� Viil Q." O -� s m m c.E`ov� ° o `> ALE] o o- Q W O il rn O 1- U a N Q V a n N Q m U C W W m Q m U C W L� N M M M N T W T f C 11 C '° _J y 0 _ 0 N N V) C c C C C _ >- N 3- ° \ E W N `- °^ 'V ? O N 1 T U N ° - 3 Q C N C T T '� y L_ T N O i E y W Oy O Q H W u Z) U p O N O N W N c C N C n u Y L._ - O Z N N y T7 W n 0 0E - O .= N N TJ - V 'fir _ T U ° _ Z W V� O Y C _W L vi W O W v' U J O u .. _ d' O L O c0 v T 'J vi O C° C .'-� °' C° 0 J T E O CD `_� O+ a 0 N O a O 3 r _c n j ,] om.'>, L pvo �v oN ° z =v^� 3: -� yY O `U N a:= O" N Em.. L N O N 3 L nV1 - L 3 _- y - C9 ° _il _ ° c v WZE v .s 'a C ' N W 'U Y G C W o p1 L L C N y- j r 0 C C N .i r= il T E� C v 3 v c y ; E_ L a�� " - v - O- �- m cc o° o c E c c ° C o N V ° " r L N O T C a T C y W p m 3 E O m °'� -a v U L 9 W J J ° N E C O aL C Tw'L .. E p J Y C r _ c a N y GU 3n O O 'U C W W N O W u u O Y- ,- O Vl - O E_ O L .0 il.0 ._ v O N N N N n rn V T J Z C O O Y E p` O O V N N] W O N y N- Y L N C W `> C .] Q O u j d v V U C ... , L H C ° j O Vl C O il C N il E O W il O il W O � �,., T= C p _ O •^ O L T O % C - O ... ^ p_ = U u ,J W C V N L O- _ O V.n N C._ O O O.. O W d p O O ;n C Y C -_ Q Y G O C U_ - N W O N_ L h O C O N L O •U W E r W ' 7 2.5 N U TJ O L ul -° U O N v JNV ND v0 C U NQr UO a- N N =� NJ0L �N -. ° E o o > > > CL s° mm c E" Ir�o O ° E c� 'o c - w c - ; U c " V) o- C ] 'V lYi O y U E; m � v i O o O O 3 'n V1 .O O'� .2 +j U° T p j D 0 C N N N C 0 ° ' L N '� N C O` T a T O'C - a O W O 0 3 U p j E C N O C O ° V T V ' W C C C C D E N u ° ° c h o N E' v - o = a _ n v ,o s o °° ° c° m = _ v Q O _ ` _ W O N = N u C _N �' J °1 J '� a W` Z ac N E -, C �� N7cnp3 v _ aQ� O � � ° UH v �.o � =H� G5 N � � �° � ter- _ �E = Q O 7 Q L° OOO p C 0 0 -� j . o N O T U O 7 O O O p O O O v0 O C O W L O C U M - V1 V1 V W a C -O m ~ W Y U Q w Q N Q m O_ Q o E vi G O v Q m U C U N 11 DODDS RESIDENCE LOFFELSTEIN RETAINING SYSTEM DESIGN 3/23/98 (Gravity Wall) Soil Data: Retained Soil: Angle of Friction 28- deg Active Earth Pressure ( Level Backfill ) P a = 27.pcf Unit Soil Weight of Soil Retained y := 125.pcf Reinforced Soil: Angle of Friction 0:z: 34. deg Active Earth Pressure ( Level Backfill ) Pa 18.pcf Unit Soil Weight of Soil Retained y r 125.pcf Foundation Soil: Angle of Friction := 28-deg Unit Soil Weight of Soil Retained 7f:= 125.pcf Allowable Bearing Pressure q := 2000-psf Passive Earth Pressure P p = 300 -psf Coefficient of Friction g = 0.40 Cohesion C 100 psf Uniform Surcharge q := 75 -psf Wall Geometry: Wall Inclination a = 20. deg Exposed Wall Height He = 4.125-ft Wall Embedment d:= 18 -in Actual Wall Height Ho = 5.625 -ft Equivalent Height due to Uniform Surcharge Hs := q Hs = 0.6 -ft 7 Total Design Wall Height Ht = (Ho + Hs) Ht = 6.23 -ft Loffel Block Width B = ?0 in Block Weight (including soil /gravel) yb : = y r + 5'pcf 7 = 130•pcf Retained Slope Angle Above Wall 0 p g R:= atan — I p= 0 -deg 2 Distance from toe of slope to face of wall ( backfill) L = B b Wall Stabiliy Analysis: OVERTURNING Forces: z P l : = P a , Ht • It P I =523-lb 2 W l = (1-lo-Bb 7b)-ft W I= 1219 -lb Fv =W1 Fv = 1219 -lb Moments: Mo: =PI Ht M°= 1086•lb.ft B M I = W 1 �tan(a)- 2 + 2 b l M I = 2263 -lb. ft M r= M 1 M r = 2263 -lb -ft M Overturning Factor of Safety — = 2.08 M SLIDING Resisitng Force z F Fv- A +P F =825-lb Inducing Force PI =523.13-lb F Sliding Factor of Safety — = 1.58 P1 LOCATION OF RESULTANT FORCE M - M B 2.B R f = — = 0.56 -ft < R f =0.97-ft < = 1.1 1 -ft Fv 3 3 FOUNDATION PRESSURES Toe Pressure Fv l4B 6-R f) . ft P toe B b 2 P toe = 381 •psf Heel Pressure 6 -R f - 2-13 b � Fv ft P heel - z P = 1081 • sf B b heel P= DODDS RESIDENCE LOFFELSTEIN RETAINING SYSTEM DESIGN 3/23/98 ( Geogrid Reinforced Wall) Soil Data: Retained Soil: Angle of Friction := 28-deg Active Earth Pressure ( Level Backfill) P 27.pcf Unit Soil Weight of Soil Retained 7 = 125 pcf Reinforced Soil: Angle of Friction := 34 deg Active Earth Pressure ( Level Backfill) Pa = 18.pcf Unit Soil Weight of Soil Retained 7 r 125.pcf Foundation Soil: Angle of Friction 28. d Unit Soil Weight of Soil Retained If = I25.pcf Allowable Bearing Pressure q = 2000 psf Passive Earth Pressure P 300 psf Coefficient of Friction µ: = tanO u = 0.53 Cohesion C 100-psf Uniform Surcharge (construction traffic) q 75-psf Wall Geometry: Wall Inclination a:= 20. deg Exposed Wall Height He = 5.25 ft X1 Wall Embedment d = 18-ill O f ` Actual Wall Height Ho = 6.75 ft Equivalent Height due to Uniform Surcharge Hs := 9 Hs =0.6 -ft 7 Total Design Wall Height Ht = (Ho + Hs) Ht = 7.35 ft i Wall System Width 1 Minimum per Height B h := ceil(Ht 0.60) B h =5 •ft A&— Minimum per Geogrid B g = 2.4.1t I B h ' B =maxi B =5•ft B Loffel Block Width B =20.0-in Reinforced Soil Width B r : =B - B b B r = 3.33 -ft Block Weight (including soil /gravel) 7 b = 7 r + 5-pcf 7 b = 130 •pcf Retained Slope Angle Above Wall (I : = atan��l p = 0 -deg 2/ Distance from toe of slope to face of wall ( backfill) L =B Backfill slope width B s := B - L B s = 3.33 ft Wall Stabiliy Analysis: OVERTURNING Forces: 1 + tan B 2 (p) s)� P1 : =P ft P1 =729 -lb 2 W1 := BrHo-1rft WI = 2813-lb W2 (Ho.B b"Ib) - ft W2 = 1463 -lb tan(p)•B � W = 2 Y r ft W3 = 0 -lb Fv : _ (WI + W2 + W3) Fv = 4275.16 Moments: M =P1.l Ht+ (tan(p)•B S ) 1 o 3 Mo= 1787•lbft M I = W l . (tan( a). H + B M I = 10486 •lb•ft 2 2l B � M 2 = W2. tan(a)-H + M 2 = 3015 -lb-ft 2 2) r 2 -B r M3 = W3 tan ( a) -Ho+ +L) ] M3 = 0 -lb-ft M =MI +M2 +M3 M 13501•lbft M Overturning Factor of Safety _— = 7.56 M SLIDING Resisitng Force z FR := Fvµ +P F =2611 -lb Inducing Force P 1 = 729.3 -lb F R Sliding Factor of Safety — = 3.58 PI LOCATION OF RESULTANT FORCE Rt = -Mo B = 1.67-ft < Rf= 2.74-ft < 2_B = 3.33 -ft Fv 3 3 FOUNDATION PRESSURES Toe Pressure (4- 13 - 6- R ft P toe - B2 P toe - 608 •psf Heel Pressure (6.R f- 2.B) . Fv ft P heel - B P heel - 1 102 •psf DODDS RESIDENCE RETAINING SYSTEM DESIGN 3/23/98 Soil Data: Soil Angle of Friction (retained area) 28-deg Angle of Friction at Back of Wall S := 3.� 6 = 9.33 -deg Coulomb Active Pressure Coefficient K =0.2133 Unit Soil Weight of Soil Retained y := 125-pcf Active Earth Pressure ( Level Backfill) P a := K a -y P a = 27 •pef Wall Geometry: Wall Face Inclination a .= 20-deg Wall Embedment d = 18 in Exposed Wall Height Ho 4.85. ft Retained Slope Angle Above Wall 0 I p q (i : = atan -/ 0 -deg 2 Internal Wall Stabiliy Analysis: Reinforcement Type: Fortrac 35/20 -20 Ultimate Tensile Strength T ULT.35 =2600. lb F.S. Creep FS CR = 1.67 ft F.S. Chemical Degradition FS CD = 1.12 F.S. Construction Site Damage FS SD := 1.05 F.S. Material Uncertanty FS UN : = 1.5 Calculate the allowable Long Term Design Load: LTDS 35 T ULT.35 LTDS 35 = 883. FS CR� CD FS SD'FS UN ft Minimum Internal Reinforcement Length, L min Rankine Failure Plane angle of Inclination P r = 45• deg + $ P r = 59 -deg 2 Coulomb Failure Plane angle of Inclination =atan - tan(o - 0) +_�tan(0 p).(tan(� 0) +cot( + +a))•(1 +tan(6- a)•cot(� +CO) 1 +tan(S - a).(tan(�- p) +cot( +a)) P c = 47.84 -deg L = Ho - 2.25. c 1t L = 2.35 -ft min tan( ) mm B from External Stability Analysis = 5.0' > 2.4' ok Use L min = 5.0•ft Note: Use Coulomb Failure plane to determine minimum length. This is a flatter plane than Rankine resulting in longer (conservative) lengths. Calculate tensile force in the geogrid layers and factor of safety tensile overstress. Geogrid 1 TS1 4.5-ft � P T =202- lb 11 2 ft Tensile overstress safety factors (1.0 required): (1.5 safety factor included in geogrid strength) LTDS 3 Geogrid 1 � =4.36 > 1.0 T sl Calculate anchorage capacity: Note: NCMA uses Coulomb failure plane p c = 47.84 -deg FHWA uses Rankine failure plane p r = 59 -deg p c For this calculation use p = min p = 47.84 -deg Pr I j 2.25. ft l ] -Lmin - (tan(a)-2.25•ft) 1 1 = 2.14-ft `tan(p) /' / p� Calculate average overburden depth: G d 1 : =(Ho- 2.25- ft) �Lmin- tan(R) �6- 2I Calculate Safety Factors for pullout (1.5 required): d 1 PS 1 PS 1 = 2.41 > 1.5 Tsl STABILITY CALCULATIONS Sheet A /5 Date: Scale 1 - - - l y � f - + r r � I i f t ._..... u i . r r z - 77 ,� COULOMB FORMULA FOR ACTIVE PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS (See Foundation Analysis & Design, by Joseph E. Bowels) PMLKIEO So lt_ Angle of Friction O : = 28• deg Angle of Slope Above 0 I g p Q : = atan —/ (3 = 0 -deg 2 Maximum Density - 1 := 125-pcf Angle at Back of Wall a := 1 10-deg a= 110•deg Failure Plain Angle 8'__ .� S =9.3 -deg 3 ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENT: 2 Ka sin(a +�) a 2 K 0.2133 1 + sin(' +b) sin(I P) sin(a) 2 sin(a 6) sin(a- 8) sin( a+ p) ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE: P =K a - 7 Pa= 27•pcf 7 / /.. COULOMB FORMULA FOR ACTIVE & PASSIVE PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS (See Foundation Analysis & Design, by Joseph E. Bowels) gi` � so t— Angle of Friction := 34-deg Angle of Slope Above 0 9 P p= atan — p 0 -deg 2 Maximum Density 7 := 125-pcf Angle at Back of Wall a:= 1 10 -deg a = 1 10•deg Failure Plain Angle 6 •� 6 = 11.3 -deg ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENT: K = sin(a+ �) z a 2 K a = 0.1446 1 + Fs ( -S) sin(- Q) sin(a) sin(a- b) 6) sin(a + p ) PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENT: K sin(a 2 P 2 K p = 14.2382 1 sin( S)sin(�+ �) sin(a) sin(a+ S) sin(a+ i)•sin(a� p)� ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE: P a = K a "/ P a = 18 •pcf PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE: Pp : =K p•% P = 1780•pcf COULOMB FORMULA FOR ' PASSIVE PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS (See Foundation Analysis & Design, by Joseph E. Bowels) - +buQDa101� K_ Angle of Friction 28. deg Angle of Slope Above /0 p = 0 -deg g p (� : = atan�— 2 Maximum Density = 125-pef Angle at Back of Wall a : = 90. deg a = 90 -deg Failure Plain Angle 6:=_ .� S = 0 -deg 3 PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENT: K sin(a- z z K P = 2.7698 sin(a) .sin(a +S) �sin(a +S)sin(a PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE: P =K 1 P = 346•pef