1998-5659 G Street Address
Serial #
Category
Name Description
Plan ck. # Year
- -� PASCO ENGINEERING, INC.
535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
(619) 259 -8212 WAYNE A. PASCO
FAX (619) 259 -4812 R.C.E. 29577
August 7, 1998 PE> 16
City of Encinitas
505 So. Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024 t
Attn: Hans Jensen
RE: MANCHESTER ESTATE GRADING PLAN — HYDROLOGY &
HYDRAULICS REPORT
Dear Mr. Jensen:
We are submitting this letter and the attached hydrology and hydraulic calculations as the
hydrology report for the above referenced property.
The property is known as A.P.N. 259- 200 -19 and is located on Manchester Avenue north
of Trabert Ranch Road (see grading plan for vicinity map).
The property consists of "D" and "A" type soils. It slopes downward and from west to
east. The "D" type soils classification was used in the attached calculations to be
conservative.
The drainage design as shown on the above grading plan consists entirely of surface
swales and browditches. All drainage is ultimately collected in the brow ditches and
conveyed to the edge of Manchester Avenue where it is discharged across an AC apron
that can easily be removed and replaced with a curb outlet upon construction of ultimate
improvements for Manchester Avenue. (See the attached calculations for 100 -year storm
runoff calculations and ditch capacity calculations.)
Based on the data contained in the attached calculations, it is the professional opinion of
Pasco Engineering that the drainage design as shown on the above referenced grading
plan, will adequately intercept, contain and convey Q 100 to an appropriate point of
discharge.
If you have any questions in reference to the above, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
PASCO ENGINEERING INC. RQFSSp���'
Wayne Pasco, President c s Q`�',
No. � --7
RCE 29577 �
k' ,� Exp.3/31/99 �
********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: San Diego COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.3A Release Date: 3/06/92 License ID 1388
Analysis prepared by:
Pasco Engineering, Inc.
535 North Hwy. 101, Suite A
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Ph. (619) 259 -8212 Fax (619) 259 -4812
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
* 100 Year hydrology analysis. * PE 816
* See drainage area map and soils group map
* Private Grading Plan for Robert Murphy * 8 -7 -98 ms
******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
FILE NAME: 816A.DAT
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 13:12 8/ 7/1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985 San Diego MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00
6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE (INCH) = 3.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .95
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"- VALUES USED
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<< <<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 450.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 205.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 45.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 160.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 7.549
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.656
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.41
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.34 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.41
********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
a
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<< <<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 450.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 157.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 45.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 112.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 8.502
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.238
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.15
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.76 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.15 TC(MIN.) = 8.50
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE
(C) Copyright 1982 -92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 3.1A Release Date: 2/17/92 License ID 1388
Analysis prepared by:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 13:21 8/ 7/1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
* Check capacity of type "B" brow ditch at min. grade
* and max. flow (4.15 cfs.)
* 100 year storm * 8 -7 -98 ms
******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
>> >>PIPEFLOW HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) = 2.000
PIPE SLOPE(FEET /FEET) _ .0500
PIPEFLOW(CFS) = 4.15
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .015000
CRITICAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) _ .71
CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 1.008
CRITICAL FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FEET) = 1.917
CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 51.84
CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.116
CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) _ .26
CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) _ .53
CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) _ .98
NORMAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) _ .42
FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) _ .47
FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FEET) = 1.623
FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 75.73
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 8.781
FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 1.197
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) _ .29
FROUDE NUMBER = 2.868
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 1.61
TABLE 2
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD)
DEVELOPED AREAS (URBAN)
Coeffi C
Soil Group (1)
Land Use
A B C 0
Residential:
Single Family .40 .45 .50 .55
Multi -Units .45 .50 .60 .70
Mobile homes .45 .50 .55 .65
Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre) .30 .35 .40��
Comme rc i a] (2) .70 .75 .80 .85
- 80% Impervious
Industrial( .80 .85 .90 .95
1 90% Impervious
r
NOTES:
( ' ) Soil Group mans are available at the offices of the Department of Public Works.
( actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated impervious-
ness values of 80% or 90% the values given for coefficient C, may be revised
by multiplying 80% or 90% by the ratio of actual imperviousness to the
tabulated imperviousness. However, in no case shall the final coefficient
be less than 0.50. For example: Consider commercial property on D soil group.
Actual imperviousness - 50%
Tabulated imperviousness = 80%
Revised C = $O x 0.85 = 0.53
IV -A -9
APPENDIX IX -B
Rev. 5/81
• e
CD C-4
d
cr
Ln
L
1 -
1. - � �� ww.• _ � / � . / �- // �. tl"i i > M
/"Zr N
L _ O
L ai 000'
' C
Cain
)
cc
CD cm
IK
mow! ` 1.►r� / �• vWi M
M a
Ell
_ y 1 U �z
I z
O Z W
O O
O
L 00
e
z u M
Q O O M
N M ! w G 0
O LA O \ N o U
z q
O
CL. O M w
O W J
I \ N
u
� I hi
a
a
II-A-7
v
_
CES C-5
cn
cm
co
T ° N
I 1
W
a�rr.
co
:
LW c
p `
1 a Zh
Z x o
O U
► + 3. U6 - -
a �
CcJ Z :J � y
G N i o o
<�
r U- -j
f i
00
Co W O uj UU u
Z{ o
c- C> hW
C) W -a <
UDU- Z O
h
N
1
<
v
u
TABLE 11. -- INTERPRETATIONS FOR LAND MANAGEMENT
[Numerals indicate soil properties or qualities that affect erodibility. Numeral 1 refers to slope; 2 to
surface layer texture; 9 to depth to hard rock, or a hardpan, or any layer that restricts permeability;
16 to grade of structure in the surface layer. Absence of rating means no valid interpretations can
be made]
Limitations for
Map Soil }lydro- Erodibility conversion
symbol logic g� from brush to
group grass
AcG Acid igneous rock land ----------- -- ------ D Severe 1 - - - -- Severe.
AtC Altamont clay, 5 to 9 percent slopes----------- ---- ------ D Slight- - - - - -- Slight. l/
AtD Altamont clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes g T
P D Slight- - - - - -- Slight. 1/
At D2 Altamont clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded ------------ D Slight- - - - - -- Slight. T/
AtE Altamont clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes------------- -- ---- D Moderate 1 - -- Slight. T/
AtE2 Altamont clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded----- - - - - -- D Moderate 1 - -- Slight. T/
AtF ltamo to 50 percent — slopes - ------------------- Severe Moderate. 1 /
AuC Anderson very gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent A Severe 16 - - -- Slight.
slopes.
AuF Anderson very gravelly sandy loam, 9 to 45 percent A Severe 16 - - -- Moderate. 2/
slopes. _
AvC Arlington coarse sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes- - - - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight.
AwC Auld clay, 5 to 9 percent slopes-------- ----- ------ ------ D Slight- - - - - -- Slight.
AwD Auld clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes ---- -- - --- D Slight- - - - - -- Slight.
AyE Auld stony clay, 9 to 30 percent slopes---------- -- - -- - -- D Moderate 1 - -- Slight.
BaG Badland------- - - - --- g
------------------------------- - - - - -- D Severe 1 - - - -- Severe.
BbE Bancas stony loam, 5 to 30 percent slopes---------- - - ---- C Severe 16 - - -- Moderate.
BbE2 Bancas stony loam, 5 to 30 percent slopes, eroded-- - - - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Moderate.
BbG Bancas stony loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes--------- - - - - -- C Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate.
BbG2 Bancas stony loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, eroded- - - - - -- C Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate.
BeE Blasingame loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes------------ - -- - -- D Severe 16 - - -- Slight.
BgE Blasingame stony loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes ------------ D Severe 16 - - -- Moderate.
BgF Blasingame stony loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes ----------- D Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate.
BIC Bonsall sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes---------- - - - - -- D Severe 9 - - - -- Slight.
B1C2 Bonsall sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes, eroded-- - - - - -- D Severe 9 - - - -- Slight.
B1D2 Bonsall sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded- - - - - -- D Severe 9 - - - -- Slight.
BmC Bonsall sandy loam, thick surface, 2 to 9 percent D Moderate 2 - -- Slight.
slopes.
BnB Bonsall - Fallbrook sandy loams, 2 to 5 percent slopes:
Bonsall------------------------ - - - - -- D Severe 9 - - - -- Slight.
Fallbrook----------------------- -- ------------- - - - - -- C Severe 9 - - - -- Slight.
BoC Boomer loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes -- ------ C Moderate 2 - -- Slight.
BoE Boomer loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes-------------- -- --- - -- C Moderate 1 - -- Slight.
BrE Boomer stony loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes---------- - - - - -- C Moderate 1 - -- Slight.
BrG Boomer stony loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes--------- - - - - -- C Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate.
BsC Bosanko clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes---------------- -- - - -- D Moderate 16 -- Slight. l/
BsD Bosanko clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes------------ ---- - ---- D Moderate 16 -- Slight. T/
BsE Bosanko clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes-------------- ------ D Moderate 1 - -- Slight. T/
BtC Bosanko stony clay, 5 to 9 percent slopes---------- - - ---- D Moderate 16 -- Slight. 3/
BuB Bull Trail sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes------- - - -- -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. 4/
BuC Bull Trail sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes------- - - - --- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. 4/
BuD2 Bull Trail sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. 4/
BuE2 Bull Trail sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight. 4/
CaB Calpine coarse sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes--- - - - - -- B Moderate 2 - -- Slight. 4/
CaC Calpine coarse sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes--- - - - - -- B Moderate 2 - -- Slight. 4/
CaC2 Calpine coarse sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, B Moderate 2 - -- Slight. 4/
eroded. _
See footnotes at end of table.
32
TABLE 11.-- IN'ri'RPRETATIONS FOR LAND MANAGEMENT -- Continued
Limitations for
ap Soil Hydro- Erodibility conversion
y mbo1 logic from brush to
group grass
aD2 Calpine coarse sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, B Moderate 2 - -- Slight. 4/
eroded. —
g Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes - - - - -- C Severe 2 - - - -- Slight.
bC Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 5 to 9 percent slopes - - - - -- _Q Severe 2 - - - -- Slight.
bD Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes - - - -- C Severe 2 - - - -- Slight.
bE Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes - - -- C Severe 2 - - - -- Slight.
c C Carlsbad-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes- - - - - -- D
E Carlsbad-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes - - - - -- D
C Carrizo very gravelly sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes-- - - - - -- A Severe 2
fg Chesterton fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes-- - - - - -- D Severe 9 - - - -- Slight.
C Chesterton fine sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes-- - - - - -- D Severe 9 - - - -- Slight.
D2 Chesterton fine sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, D Severe 9 - - - -- Moderate.
eroded.
C Chesterton-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes:
Chesterton - - - - -- D
Urban land - - - - -- D
A Shino fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes------- - - - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight.
B Zhino fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes------- - - - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Slight.
A hino silt loam, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes----- - - - - -- C. Moderate 2 - -- Moderate.
D2 ieneba coarse sandy loam, S to 15 percent slopes, B Severe 16 - - -- Severe.
eroded.
E2 ieneba coarse sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, B Severe 16 - - -- Severe.
eroded.
GZ Cieneba coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes, B Severe 1 - - - -- Severe.
eroded.
2 Cieneba rocky coarse sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent B Severe 16 - - -- Severe.
slopes, eroded.
G Cieneba very rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent B Severe 1 - - - -- Severe.
slopes.
E2 ieneba - Fallbrook rocky sandy loams, 9 to 30 percent
slopes, eroded:
Cieneba---------------------------------------- - - - - -- B Severe 16 - - -- Severe.
Fallbrook-------------------------------------- - - - - -- C Severe 16 - - -- Severe.
G2 ieneba - Fallbrook rocky sandy loams, 30 to 65 percent
slopes, eroded:
Cieneba---------------------------------------- - - - - -- B Severe 1 - - - -- Severe.
Fallbrobk-------------------------------------- - - - - -- C Severe 1 - - - -- Severe.
layey alluvial land------------------------------- - - - - -- D Moderate 2 - -- Slight.
oastal beaches------------------------------------ - - - - -- A Severe 2
B orralitos loamy sand, 0 to S percent slopes------- - - - - -- A Severe 2 - - - -- Slight.
C lorralitos loamy sand, 5 to 9 percent slopes ------------- A Severe 2 - - - -- Sli ht.
orralitos loamy sand, 9 to 1S percent slopes------ - - - - -- A Severe 2 - - - -- Slight.
E Crouch coarse sandy loam, 5 to 30 percent slopes--- - - - - -- B Severe 16 - - -- Slight.
F Crouch coarse sandy loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes-- - - - - -- B Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate.
E Crouch rocky coarse sandy loam, 5 to 30 percent B Severe 16 - - -- Moderate.
slopes.
G Crouch rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 70 percent B Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate.
slopes.
Crouch stony fine sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent B Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate.
slopes.
Diablo clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes----------------- - - - - -- D Slight-- - - - - -- Slight. l/
Diablo clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes---------------- - - - - -- D Slight-- - - - - -- Slight. 1/
Diablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes--------------- - - - - -- D Moderate - - - - -- Slight. 1/
2 Diablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded------- - - - - -- D Moderate 1 - -- Slight. 1 /
Diablo clay, 30 to 50 percent slopes--------------- - - - - -- D Severe 1 - - - -- Moderate l/
footnotes at end of table.
33
f �^
Sc N6 $, -�u Q /�Atp! HfC H D2
.CsC
47
.r }
r
CfC * Cfc t ,R t HrD2
',LfB�^ Fy r `*�•�` r HrC2
IN
a 'CtC, . tpr " ♦ -CSD / '��1�/ " # " fi T `4 ^.. , :*aiti HrD t
s ° s" # n� t a ..,i ,HrE2 IN,
" a 9fp. .a`ti X a s A At rP `
a
A
13 4 s,. o �P Rq 41 qi SAn
E 46 f fir �u 1• _'^+ 4� < ti `` ^ �`', Re
CsD At
CsD L a «ar
AtE +� "� • HrD ' �' � `P
At=E2f� �� �
�� 1 . shy F e
�A`�" G ,�, `, ;. $ HrC �a�:•r, , °A'� �, �'< '` Ht�., .�� � ...� + =.�\ `..eJ ` ''�p. r1
AP
cSC
b +'
a
„ w A
CtD2`i.. ..r �, f3 .{ .� x . �, AMtE' -r ,;,,� �, �,�'• �.
b ` � ' Y`�+ ±� > � � �� �� '" _ tiw.•�tE r ' ` : rC`,f° . �� � a r � .� v�
kA ;,:.w ar' .:� ..., , t • .
y
V. '4- ° 1G- � •r��� ':It - ^tt °' t a .d, � _, � - i
f [g°
� �- r � A E w� �Ir•. � � � J D z 1 ` ���
"° , I�D2\ r � � r �+!� �' ..,�f r. '�," `• i► t� "l r �,
1 11 ,
,Y*
� f +� '�� s• + �., i r+ t , � '_ '. 1 t4;T,'H. '�`�'f � h
'�� =� 'ft �' ♦ r '� 4 A � C
i 1
44:
��, � � t , GsC � �, a. � � v � • T .. �
h
r a '° •t • . 1a r ' „ ° CsC ' �' •t,
�" .k7 • t <3.4 a 3s &.� ,� " ��. � s '�'' ���� ,. '11 k � fi � i�y �.1�Mi7#'+ �. it
Pt
TuB
pin
7 y
l Q �l# r.
.:� /"• - . it ✓ ��+Fir ;��� �1r^• '�, � s
! D �p t 1..� trr ,. �••
as
R. 4 W. I R. 3 W. t f00000 FEFT Tu
it Survey by USDA, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation
i fb t'I(' TTn 1t•M•cif ., rnr n - , ..! , ..,1111 =•.,1 T..... 1 , rr, ,
$.. > , r� ' •� 1 ` 'w'° i_ ���r. y aw i
y f P
��, � �� ,Ifs P a6• -.fA i i
te a* a� E OA I
44
It
re f
. � �' .t '� �'RY b� � @�8�y ...F, ul� { 7 i • � y�y �' 'i�1g R � ���,yw� � aR l ; g * s � .}
aRCO m.. i+AFpI�bIBq
�wQ A yY r P.N
1p i
lk
Y'
{ � � •�<« 'i Vii.. �.:'j 4 � ..�, a ��
�, s
' � , a ��A� ya ° � >� ,_ •`"+
a -so'F. ,i 5
k
� k ji w ': t f �• P
o
rk.
1 ENGl`1EERING
DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS
FOR RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION
810 W. Los Vallecitos, Ste A • San Marcos CA-92069 (760) 752- 7010•Fax (760) 752 -7092
t
' GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS,
FOR THE PROPOSED MURPHY RESIDENCE,
' TO BE LOCATED ON A PORTION OF BLOCK 2 OF OLIVENHAIN COLONY
IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
ACCORDING TO MAP NO. 326 (A.P.N. 259 - 200 -19)
f f;J
q 1
S I
' Project No.: 981804 -1
'
July 20 1998
1
PREPARED FOR:
' Robert Murphy
c \o Marotta Construction
2120 Jimmy Durante Blvd., Suite V
' Del Mar, CA 92014
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SCOPE............................. ............................... 3
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..... ............................... 3
' FIELD INVESTIGATION .
SUBSOIL CONDITIONS ................. ............................... 4
' GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND SEISMICITY ... ............................... 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. 6
' GENERAL
' EARTHWORK ........................ ............................... 6
FOUNDATIONS....................... ............................... 7
' CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE ............. .
' RETAINING WALLS ................... ............................... 11
SURFACE DRAINAGE ........ .
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING .......................... 12
MISCELLANEOUS .................... ............................... 13
' ATTACHMENTS
Site Vicinity Map ............. ............................... Figure No. 1
' Site Location Ma Figure N
t Site Plan /Location of Test Pit Excavations ........................ Figure No. 3
Test Pit Logs ....................... ........................Figures No. 4 -5
References ................. ............................... Appendix A
Grading Specifications ........ ............................... Appendix B
' Homeowners Maintenance Guidelines ........................... Appendix C
' SCOPE
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation and evaluation for the
proposed Murphy Residence, to be located on the west side of Manchester Avenue
between Trabert Ranch Road and Colony Terrace, Encinitas, California. Please see
' Figure No. 1, "Site Vicinity Map ", and Figure No. 2, "Site Location Map ". The scope of our
work, conducted on -site to date, has included a visual reconnaissance of the property and
' neighboring sites, a limited subsurface investigation of the property, and preparation of this
report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
' SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property consists of a rectangular shaped lot located on west side of
Manchester Avenue in the City of Encinitas, California. The subject site is bordered to the
north, south and east by similar developed rural properties and to the west by open space.
' The general topography of the site area consists of moderately sloping terrain. The site
has been brushed in the recent past.
Based on our discussions with the project owner, it is our understanding that the proposed
site development will consist of new two story single family dwelling with associated
' improvements.
' FIELD INVESTIGATION
Our field investigation of the property, conducted July 8, 1998, consisted of a site
' reconnaissance, site field measurements, observation of existing conditions onsite and on
adjacent sites, and a limited subsurface investigation of soil conditions. Our subsurface
investigation consisted of visual observation of two test pit excavations, logging of soil
types encountered, and sampling of soils for laboratory testing; logs of the test pit
excavations are presented in Figures 4 -5 of this report. The test pits were excavated under
the direction of a registered civil engineer from our firm. The locations of the test pit
excavations are given in Figure No. 3 "Site Plan /Location of Test Pit Excavations ".
Page No. 3
Job No. 981804 -1
11Sandy%f 1eUOBS11 JOBS1981981804 -1 MAROTTA - MURPHY RESIDENCE - ENCINITAS - MANCHESTER - NEW RESIDENCE.wpd
r
' SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
r Materials consisting of topsoil underlain by formational sandstone were encountered during
our subsurface investigation of the site. Soil types encountered within our test pit
' excavations are described as follows:
Topsoil:
r Topsoil materials were found to extend to depths ranging from approximately 3 ft.
to 7 ft. below existing grade within our test pits. Topsoil was found to be shallow
and less developed toward the topographically high portions of the lot
r (approximately 3 ft. deep), and thickened toward the lower flanks of the lot (to
approximately 7 ft. deep).
Topsoil materials consist of loose to medium dense, dark brown dam to moist,
,
silty sand. These materials are not considered suitable for the support of
structures or structural improvements in their present state, however may be
utilized as recompacted fill during grading, provided the recommendations
of this report are followed. Topsoil materials classify as SM -ML according to the
Unified Classification System, and based on experience and observations, are
considered to possess expansion potentials in the medium range (to be confirmed
' after mass grading).
Formational Sandstone:
r Formational sandstone was found to underlie the topsoil materials within our test
pit excavations. These materials consists of rust brown to grey brown, moist, dense
sandstone. These materials are considered suitable for the support of
r structures and
structural improvements, provided the recommendations of
this report are followed. Formational sandstone and siltstone materials classify
I as SW -ML according to the Unified Classification System, and based on visual
observation and our experience, possess expansion potentials in the low to
medium range.
For detailed logs of
g soil types encountered within the test pit excavations, as well as a
r depiction of the test pit locations, please see Figure No. 3 "Site Plan /Location of
Exploratory Test Pits" and Figures No. 4 -5, "Test Pit Logs ".
1
r Page No. 4
Job No. 981804 -1
' 11Sandy%fileUOBS11 JOBS1981981804 -1 MAROTTA - MURPHY RESIDENCE - ENCINITAS - MANCHESTER - NEW RESIDENCE.wpd
1
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND SEISMICITY
A review of pertinent published geologic maps, suggests that no geologic hazards such as
faults, potential landslides, or areas of suspected soils liquefaction exist within the project
' boundaries. Based on this information, it appears that no active or potentially active fault
exists at or in the immediate vicinity (250 ft.) of the site, and none were observed during
our investigation.
It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in
the event of a major earthquake along any of the faults in the Southern California region.
However, the seismic risk at this site is not significantly greater than that of the surrounding
developed area. We believe that the proposed development will have no more negative
geologic consequence than the existing or surrounding development if the guidelines in
this report are followed, and current standard construction techniques are utilized.
The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an
earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. The adverse effects of seismic
shaking can be reduced by adhering to code requirements given in the most recent edition
of the Uniform Building Code, and design parameters of the Structural Engineers
Association of California.
■
Page No. 5
Job No. 981804 -1
11Sandy%f IeUOBS11 JOBS1981981804 -1 MAROTTA - MURPHY RESIDENCE - ENCINITAS - MANCHESTER - NEW RESIDENCE.wpd
' CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
' GENERAL
It is our opinion that site improvements, as described herein, are feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report and generally
accepted construction practices are followed.
' The following recommendations should be considered as minimum design parameters, and
shall be incorporated within the project plans and utilized during construction, as
' applicable.
' EARTHWORK
Loose topsoil found to mantle the site will require removal and re- compaction during
' grading, or structures will require deepened foundation systems to penetrate the topsoil
horizons onsite. Removals should extend to a minimum distance of 5' outside the footprint
' of the proposed structure or at a 45 degree projection from the bottom of footing
(whichever is greater).
' For removals at driveways and flatwork, options may exist from shallow removals (2' below
grade) and bridging of topsoils, to complete removals and re- compaction. Final decisions
regrading the extent of removals for non - structural improvements should be made by the
' owner, after considering the cost/benefit of the various options available. Engineering
Design Group will be available to provide input on this matter upon request.
t Any grading should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations,
pertinent county /city standards, and grading specifications provided in Appendix B of this
report.
' 1. Site Preparation:
' Prior to grading, areas of proposed improvement should be cleared of surface
and subsurface debris. Removed vegetation and debris shall be properly
' disposed of prior to the commencement of any fill operations. Holes resulting
from the removal of debris, existing structures, or other improvements which
extend below the undercut depths noted, are to be filled and compacted using
' an onsite material or a non - expansive import material.
' Page No. 6
Job No. 981804 -1
11Sandy1flleWOBS11 JOBS1981981804 -1 MAROTTA - MURPHY RESIDENCE - ENCINITAS - MANCHESTER - NEW RESIDENCE.wpd
1
2. Removals
' Topsoil materials found to mantle the site within our exploratory test pit
excavations are not suitable for structural support of settlement sensitive
improvements. Within the building footprint, fills /topsoil should be removed to
' competent sandstone, subgrade scarified, moisture conditioned, and fill
materials replaced and recompacted in accordance with the recommendations
' of this report. Fills shall be cleaned of unsuitable debris and oversized
material in excess of 6 inches in diameter.
' Removal depths should be visually verified by a representative of our
office prior to re- compaction.
' 3. Fills:
Areas to receive fill and /or structural improvements should be scarified to a
' minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and
recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM
D1557 -78). Compacted fills should be cleaned of loose debris, oversize
' material in excess of 6 inches in diameter, brought to near optimum moisture
content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based
on ASTM D1557 -78). All fill slopes should be compacted to 90 percent
' relative compaction to slope face, and planted in order to avoid erosion and
sloughage.
' Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness.
If the import of soil is planned, soils should be non - expansive and free of
' debris and organic matter. Prior to importing, soils should be visually
observed, sampled and tested at the borrow pit area to evaluate soil suitability
as fill.
FOUNDATIONS
' In deriving foundation recommendations for this site the subsoil conditions encountered
during our limited subsurface evaluation were evaluated. We anticipate that the proposed
' building foundation system will utilize continuous perimeter footings and concrete slab on
grade floor systems. The following foundation recommendations assume a medium
' expansive subsoil condition (to be confirmed after grading). Minimum design parameters
for foundations are as follows:
' Page No. 7
Job No. 981804 -1
11Sandy%fileWOBS%1 JOBS1981981804 -1 MAROTTA - MURPHY RESIDENCE - ENCINITAS - MANCHESTER - NEW RESIDENCE.wpd
1. Footings bearing in competent formational materials or properly compacted fill may
y
be designed based on a maximum allowable soils pressure of 2,000 psf.
' 2. Bearing values may be increased b 33% when considering g wind, seismic, or
other short duration loadings.
' 3. All loose soil found at the base of footings, when the excavation is opened, shall
be removed and extended to firm, undisturbed soils. The owner and /or contractor
III' should carefully locate the foundation so that no isolated pads or corners of
footings are located over loose subgrade material.
4. The following ' g parameters should be used as a minimum for designing footing
width and depth below lowest adjacent grade:
Depth Below
Lowest Adjacent
' Floors Supported Width Grade
1 15 inches 18 inches
2 15 inches 18 inches
' 3 18 inches 24 inches
' * Embedment into formational material or compacted fill.
1 5. For footings adjacent to slopes, a minimum 10 feet horizontal setback, as
measured horizontally from the bottom of the footing to slope daylight in
formational materials or properly compacted fill, should be maintained.
6. All footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two #4 bars at the top and two
#4 bars at the bottom (3 inches above the ground).
' 7. All isolated spread footings should be designed utilizing he above given bearing
9 9 9
values and footing depths, and be reinforced with #4 bars at 12 inches o.c. in each
direction (3 inches above the ground). Isolated spread footings should have a
minimum width of 24 inches.
8. Grading should be performed in general accordance with the contents of this
report, applicable city and /or county standards, and Appendix B of this report.
' 9. Concrete for the building foundation should have a minimum compressive strength
in 28 days of 2,500 psi. A large rock pump mix (i.e., 3/4 inch aggregate) should
be utilized with a fiber mix additive in an amount specified by the supplier.
Page No. 8
' Job No. 981804 -1
11Sandy%flleUOBS11 JOBS1981981804 -1 MAROTTA - MURPHY RESIDENCE - ENCINITAS - MANCHESTER - NEW RESIDENCE.wpd
10. All foundation subgrade soils shall be pre- moistened to a minimum of 18 inches
in depth prior to the pouring of concrete.
' CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE
Concrete slabs on grade are anticipated for the proposed construction. Minimum design
' parameters for concrete slabs on grade are as follows:
1. Concrete slabs on grade should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches (6 inches
for driveway), and should be reinforced with #4 bars at 18 inches o.c. placed at the
midpoint of the slab.
I All concrete shall be poured per the following:
• Slump: Between 3 and 4 inches maximum
• Aggregate Size: 3/4 - 1 inch
• Air Content: 5 to 8 percent
• Moisture retarding additive in concrete at moisture sensitive
areas. (Example Sika Red Label)
• Water to cement Ratio - .5 maximum
2. All required fills used to support slabs, should be placed in accordance with the
grading section of this report and the attached Appendix B, and compacted to 90
percent Modified Proctor Density, ASTM D -1557.
3. A uniform layer of 4 inches of clean sand is recommended under the slab in order
to more uniformly support the slab, help distribute loads to the soils beneath the
slab, and act as a capillary break. In addition, a visqueen layer (10 mil) should be
placed mid height in the sand bed to act as a vapor retarder.
4. Adequate control joints should be installed to control the unavoidable cracking of
concrete that takes place when undergoing its natural shrinkage during curing.
The control joints should be well located to direct unavoidable slab cracking to
' areas that are desirable by the designer.
' 5. All subgrade soils to receive concrete flatwork are to be pre- soaked to 3 percent
over optimum moisture content to a depth of 24 inches.
1 6. Brittle floor finishes placed directly on slab on grade floors may crack if concrete
is not adequately cured prior to installing the finish or if there is minor slab
movement. To minimize potential damage to movement sensitive flooring, we
Page No. 9
' Job No. 981804 -1
\ \Sandy \flle\JOBS\1 JOBS \981981804 -1 MAROTTA - MURPHY RESIDENCE - ENCINITAS - MANCHESTER - NEW RESIDENCE.wpd
recommend the use of slip sheeting techniques (linoleum type) which allows for
foundation and slab movement without transmitting this movement to the floor
finishes.
7. Exterior concrete flatwork and driveway slabs, due to the nature of concrete
hydration and minor subgrade soil movement, are subject to normal minor concrete
cracking. To minimize expected concrete cracking, the following may be
implemented:
• Concrete slump should not exceed 4 inches.
• Concrete should be poured during "cool" (40 - 65 degrees) weather if
possible. If concrete is poured in hotter weather, a set retarding additive
should be included in the mix, and the slump kept to a minimum.
• Concrete subgrade should be presoaked prior to the pouring of concrete.
The level of presoaking should be a minimum of 2% over optimum moisture
to a depth of 24 inches.
• Concrete may be poured with a 10 inch deep thickened edge.
• Concrete should be constructed with tooled joints or sawcuts (1 inch deep)
creating concrete sections no larger than 225 sf. For sidewalks, the
i maximum run between joints should not exceed 5 feet. For rectangular
shapes of concrete, the ratio of length to width should generally not exceed
.6 (i.e., 5 ft. long by 3 ft. wide). Joints should be cut at expected points of
concrete shrinkage (such as male corners), with diagonal reinforcement
placed in accordance with industry standards.
• Drainage adjacent to concrete flatwork should direct water away from the
improvement. Concrete subgrade should be sloped and directed to the
collective drainage system, such that water is not trapped below the flatwork.
' • The recommendations set forth herein are intended to reduce cosmetic
nuisance cracking. The project concrete contractor is ultimately responsible
for concrete quality and performance, and should pursue a cost - benefit
analysis of these recommendations, and other options available in the
industry, prior to the pouring of concrete.
• When cutting or tooling control joints, the jointing pattern should generally not
create sharp "male" type corners within the concrete.
t Page No. 10
Job No. 981804 -1
11Sandy%fileWOBS11 JOBS1981981804 -1 MAROTTA - MURPHY RESIDENCE - ENCINITAS - MANCHESTER - NEW RESIDENCE.wpd
' RETAINING WALLS
' Retaining walls may be designed and constructed in accordance with the following
recommendations and minimum design parameters:
' 1. Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the allowable
bearing criteria given in the "Foundations" section of this report.
' 2. Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using an active
equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. This assumes that granular, free draining
' material will be used for backfill, and that the backfill surface will be level. For
sloping backfill, the following parameters may be utilized:
' Condition 2:1 Slope 1.5:1 Slope
Active 45 55
' Any other surcharge loadings shall be analyzed in addition to the above values.
3. If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement, they should be
' designed for an additional uniform soil pressure of 7XH psf, where H is the height
of the wall in feet.
' 4. Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of
350 pcf. This value assumes that the soil being utilized to resist passive pressures,
' extends horizontally 2.5 times the height of the passive pressure wedge of the soil.
Where the horizontal distance of the available passive pressure wedge is less than
2.5 times the height of the soil, the passive pressure value must be reduced by the
' percent reduction in available horizontal length.
5. A coefficient of friction of .35 between the soil and concrete footings may be
' utilized to resist lateral loads in addition to the passive earth pressures above.
6. Retaining walls should be braced and monitored during compaction. If this cannot
' be accomplished, the compactive effort should be included as a surcharge load
when designing the wall.
7. All walls shall be provided with adequate back drainage to relieve hydrostatic
pressure, and be designed in accordance with the minimum standards contained
t in the "Retaining Wall Drainage Detail ", Appendix B. All wall waterproofing
systems shall be designed by the project designer - architect. The waterproofing
' Page No. 11
Job No. 981804 -1
11SandylfllelJOBS11 JOBS19M981804 -1 MAROTTA - MURPHY RESIDENCE - ENCINITAS - MANCHESTER - NEW RESIDENCE.wpd
1
' elements shown on our details are minimums, and are intended to be
supplemented by the project designer- architect. Engineering Design Group
' accepts no responsibility for design or quality control of waterproofing elements of
the building.
' 8. Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the
"Earthwork" section of this report. Backfill shall consist of a non - expansive
' granular, free draining material.
' SURFACE DRAINAGE
Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and will play a critical role on the
' future performance of the dwelling and improvements. Under no circumstances should
water be allowed to pond against or adjacent to footings, foundation walls, or tops of
slopes. The ground surface surrounding proposed improvements should be relatively
impervious in nature, and slope to drain away from the structure in all directions, with a
minimum slope of 3% for a horizontal distance of 7 feet (where possible). Area drains or
surface swales should then be provided to accommodate runoff and avoid any ponding of
water. Roof gutters and downspouts shall be installed on the new structure and tightlined
to the area drain system. All drains should be kept clean and unclogged, including gutters
' and downspouts. Area drains should be kept free of debris to allow for proper drainage.
During periods of heavy rain, the performance of all drainage systems should be inspected.
Problems such as gullying or ponding should be corrected as soon as possible. Any
' leakage from sources such as water lines should also be repaired as soon as possible.
In addition, irrigation of planter areas, lawns, or other vegetation, located adjacent to the
foundation or exterior flat work improvements, should be strictly controlled or avoided.
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
' The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed
by our investigation of the project area. Interpolated subsurface conditions should be
verified in the field during construction. The following items shall be conducted prior /during
construction by a representative of Engineering Design Group in order to verify compliance
with the geotechnical and civil engineering recommendations provided herein, as
' applicable.
' 1. Review of final approved project grading and structural plans prior to start of work.
2. Observation of removal /scarification of bottom.
Page No. 12
Job No. 981804 -1
11SandylflleUOBS11 JOBS \981981804 -1 MAROTTA - MURPHY RESIDENCE - ENCINITAS - MANCHESTER - NEW RESIDENCE.wpd
' 3. Observation and testing of any fill placed, including retaining wall backfill and
pavement subgrade.
4. Foundation excavation observation prior to placement of reinforcement.
5. Observation during placement of surface and subsurface drainage systems,
including retaining wall back drains.
' 6. Field observation of any "field change" condition involving soils.
7. Walk through prior to final approval of proposed improvement(s).
The project soils engineer may at their discretion deepen footings or locally recommend
additional steel reinforcement to upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during site
observations.
Engineering Design Group shall, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, issue
' in writing that the above inspections have been conducted by a representative of their firm,
and the design considerations of the project soils report have been met. The field
inspection protocol specified herein is considered the minimum necessary for Engineering
Design Group to have exercised "due diligence" in the soils engineering design aspect of
this building. Engineering Design Group assumes no liability for structures constructed
utilizing this report not meeting this protocol.
MISCELLANEOUS
It must be noted that no structure or slab should be expected to remain totally free of
' cracks and minor signs of cosmetic distress. The flexible nature of wood and steel
structures allows them to respond to movements resulting from minor unavoidable
settlement of fill or natural soils, the swelling of clay soils, or the motions induced from
' seismic activity. All of the above can induce movement that frequently results in cosmetic
cracking of brittle wall surfaces, such as stucco or interior plaster or interior brittle slab
finishes.
Data for this report was derived from surface observations at the site, knowledge of local
conditions, and a visual observation of the soils exposed in the exploratory test pits. The
' recommendations in this report are based on our experience in conjunction with the limited
soils exposed at this site and neighboring sites. We believe that this information gives an
' acceptable degree of reliability for anticipating the behavior of the proposed structure;
however, our recommendations are professional opinions and cannot control nature, nor
can they assure the soils profiles beneath or adjacent to those observed. Therefore, no
' warranties of the accuracy of these recommendations, beyond the limits of the obtained
data, is herein expressed or implied. This report is based on the investigation at the
Page No. 13
Job No. 981804 -1
' 11SandylflleWOBS11 JOBS1981981804 -1 MAROTTA - MURPHY RESIDENCE - ENCINITAS - MANCHESTER - NEW RESIDENCE.wpd
r
r described site and on the specific anticipated construction as stated herein. If either of
these conditions is changed, the results would also most likely change.
Man -made or natural changes in the conditions of a property can occur over a period of
time. In addition, changes in requirements due to state of the art knowledge and /or
legislation, are rapidly occurring. As a result, the findings of this report may become invalid
due to these changes. Therefore, this report for the specific site, is subject to review and
not considered valid after a period of one year, or if conditions as stated above are altered.
It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information in
this report be incorporated into the plans and /or specifications and construction of the
project. It is advisable that a contractor familiar with construction details typically used to
deal with the local subsoil and seismic conditions, be retained to build the structure.
' If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please
do not hesitate to contact us. We hope the report provides you with necessary information
r to continue with the development of the project.
Sincerely,
ENGINPEftING DESI ROUP
4�. t1�;
Edw . Glenn T; ~`'
California RCE #29881
i r fJ•,` \y
r
1
1
1
Page No. 14
Job No. 981804 -1
\ \Sandy \flleWOBS \1 JOBS \98\981804 -1 MAROTTA - MURPHY RESIDENCE - ENCINITAS - MANCHESTER - NEW RESIDENCE.wpd
1
1
CARLSBAD A,. AY A
t
14` ESC N ' 5 1
OLIVENHAIN (�
1 � O fOs„� IN)I.�'if S VI-s DEL aAMH)
` ENCINI AS ` �` ,�a 4 N ,
4 4 vq ` rV/ /MO 0[ E) °S �o MPFr
e< r a` •,, + HIGH
W> c o RAP CHO r s RANCHO BERNARD(m °"
: r► r
SAPITA o a gEPI►►E� �E -
- ! u f LAKE
R� Y 11
ttAi A .. o W1Yd•• HAVE
iESnrs A +o ��y. PD 3� T13S
A + +
FEo nJ ' �d* r + 8 T1
B a
EACH FKIRBANK>
7w
GARDENS p r �� Q 99
LL
g U E K P �JM /�� 8 J�= 1 91
'A E DEL MAR POWAY / Ah +
CARMEL S FKw o � y
IT VALL SCRIPPS POWAY
S CALW PINES `' //n Q as rrnASOwms _ �' Q9 f T
STAtE 10ESERVE
ON E RD
°
120 F� MEN SA 0 P, SORRENTO �� ° N� �r SCRIPPS` T 5S
MES r - -? MMAR ,j.,
1 I f A AR p Q RANCH + + ; EUG►LYPTUS H
g
M,ssrov A l SANTEE _
12 2 7 c i
y .r� Err wwu oEEro 3 AST WSS
AIR warm EYL IOTT
UN ERSITY �► '
PF SOLEOAO KEARNY • J
LA JOLLA TI �' MESA gy
TI PR AN
g CLAIaE �,� $I P
oNAVTIL�S CLA N �`
S T � o .. . � H �
12 a
�� S ;AN o RO PHIL
0.
eE0.v� ss 1'P �p rryEtp 5 �� DEL d� r ` O WIN
PACIFIC BEACH
_ i INDA a SFRRA�4��'4 �� ��� O CE �.
MIS ION �� 'JISTA FRW $
BAY su vwc ti
MISSION BEACH mo `tea �� LEY O < SEZUHq RD ERA m
� T L. ADf ° I'
126 7 ON H L
i ,
Ln.
OAK '•/ �I
FeN C �1 !il 1 3 m
PAry • , I FM PALJ4 PR1Nr, _ : a
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
THE ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
SITE VICINITY MAP
JOB NO. 981804 -1 BY: RD FIGURE NO. 1
1 • �� �� L a W FC j
RE 900 oc �7 CL P RIAS
EY LN MIND 5 �� m 4 DR js CALLI rn 2 PEC PL \\ �N SJA •• ` _
7
~ H1LL �. IA 0 13
TER W< PL v N OR �C� ►VD DE ADELSA TAEGAN I lOp MIS p� FE WA CaEEE �� • o IEW LN
wiLL(ANIEW S CTN� d r -
• .a = te A
R Q e ., ' � �� m VYGLEN op $ s TE MAP
Pi AC OR
: GRANGE ~ HWOOD 1400 NIPERHI R
y � CT s OR DR SYCAMORE
IEW cam, 7
OR
r
WINDSOR WOD DR r� RYAN
,a EEK CT r p J
w G ls �DOpGROVE o W 1500 �i 8
E p CARDIFF TENNIS CL 8
NO l rZ m DR DR y o \
L LL EOW Wt ~
JUDY LORI ° 24 �tiP
0 W e W oc LN LN BRAND
23 ,CREST z
PARK S _
W ^ o �` r o
200 DR
1000
8 ! ~ � cps
DR NIT
I ��� P1 pEOR o E N o
a HURST- T
WY c TE , •. ti
o : ESY:`
o
0 VISTA T �-
Gl 'P uj N OQ` s ,, 64 T
' v LL
N �� r$
NI COSTA
x 1 SE VI �� MIY A NITY
O 0 00 OR :!� LLEGE 6
Ir
1 1p .�Q o RUD W� f p�� k CL
O DUCT(
' �'�� 8 � 'I STON ' '-•
r N -• x�- , Z �'
3900 � t
y
o m 26 o o �
oR
�� µ " SAN ELIJO� ° • i *� n.� ` � ,f3* ;'�� . ... C • �
^'VM"V VA le A CCOr
M
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
THE ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
SITE LOCATION MAP
JOB NO. 981804 -1 BY: RD FIGURE NO.2
1
I y - a M
' a ~ o
z
W 9L H � LLI
1
LL / O
Z � ~
° o
' Q J ao °
O ~ 0 � X LLI
X Z Z LL
0 z W ° m
1 0.
a. z z m
a Z U
I I
1 M lu °
Z
co
_
i
Go
a
H z
d, cLi y o
1 F
a
1 _ w
F
O .OL 108 W
x
1 U
1 N
F
O
1
1
1 �
i
1
1
1
' +
cn W O
W = L O
O n
W U
d �
O
d U) o
Z J N o
w m
' W Q cu
W fn cu
Z
Z J LL
W
o
rt
a
C O
Q p
Q U z w?
Q ; - p 0 W� UV �W LL O
C C w O ap za pm zv)
Z v N cc f mww - F- Oz
a. W U N p >�UaYFJ -YwH m U ja
a w0 - � z
U) y • L .., d
C d mu3UU�MammUm mUvvU 5w
H LL
O w
3 Q
F—
O O O Z L W F –
r/j y O
A :_
� 3 ccc w ��
a� � w
o .a ~ a O
LU
E co O
cc C7 v my � QO
Z 3 N 6 (�0 o O Z
' d C
p ' ~ a
M x Z N O CD � ;
W �.� C O O �! c F
�W Q O p 3 0 C O J ` w
w
F— z
F uj OQ - a o co D(o U o
0 W U m (n N < t , ` w
r v m
LLI W Z fA i c 1 w �� it ` a
J O r
b c6
c %
V1
M
a d o Z {r F
O Z ( . r F-
U) I ! N
r �
W
Q !
Z
W °
0
LL J cc
Z ! ` " Ol
W C l) O I
a' C9
_ O Q l J rn
j O W ! 1 O
00 00 V W
W rn W d w
W r w S
Z Z ~ r
F— F — W 0 J N U N
UU g O — _
) a W N
Q '
a a 0 C7 o 00 rn
+
U) w p
w 2 cri
n
a 0 :D
O
EL
J
z L6 °.
� IL � Ud
' w Q
") cu cu
z
(
Z
W z
Z
U) U) V)
w
CL
CL
w 0 6
y c > Up
N N Z f W
0 N "O "' O C7 V w ,n LL O
Z In N c0 F-�wtn��w ° � o�FV> Oz
H (1) Up<' w - 0ZZ g UQ
za
E N �z } mo mU�LLU
+ d �O�w O�w 0 u u n u ° u
w c 7 N d N UO LL(A�w1 low mUvvU �w
Z, L
O ='
o 3 _Q �U F—
7 LL
O p O Z Q p
-U E co p Nsas _pQ
Mn - O c
cu w ti 1 0
W o (D ow F—z
sZ � w 0
Co r-
C7 v0 o� QO
OZ o a c o �. O Z
F_ L o rn p F—
>- Y j `v� c W _ 3
X Z 7 ev
W cu O c a
t
W 0 Z o� o a J O `�� 1 Lv CL
Q _O c O Cl) - 1 `� w
C7F-LU a 3v +' w / f ��,c �/ z
w a oc � sJ u,
0 w U m v � y LL r~ II �' w
I f w
W w D - N O }
_ Z o
d Z o a
O ° Q ~ ` o
F— I
W , a
w l a
0 ,
0
U) Q n
ui cu
w 0 , N
F— co
Q d Q z in
C) o0
� O � W O
V W W
w.. w d d v
w W
QOM O N
F- F w 0 - i U U)
U U g - O =
W W n- w y CL CL
F—
a. a. W O r N m 't LO (O r- co O)
t
t
t
� APaENoa M
t
t
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
' 1. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Fault -
Rupture Zones in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 1990.
2. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from
Earthquakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet
23.
3. Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern San Diego Metropolitan
' Area, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report.
4. Engineering Design Group, Unpublished In -House Data.
5. Ploessel, M.R., and Slosson, J.E., 1974, Repeatable High Ground Acceleration
' from Earthquakes: California Geology, Vol. 27, No. 9, P. 195 -199.
6. State of California, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California: California Division
' Mines and Geology, Geologic Data, Map No. 6.
7. State of California, Geologic Map of California, Map No. 2, Dated 1977.
i
1
r
r
1
1
1
1
1
J
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
APPENDDC -8-
1
' GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
' 1.0 General Intent
These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations for
' grading and earthwork to be utilized in conjunction with the approved grading plans.
These general earthwork and grading specifications are a part of the
recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and shall be superseded by
' the recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations
performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new
recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the
' recommendations of the geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the
contractor to read and understand these specifications, as well as the geotechnical
report and approved grading plans.
' 2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testing
Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be
' employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these
specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant
' and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24 hours in advance,
so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No grading operations should be
performed without the knowledge of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall
t not assume that the geotechnical consultant is aware of all grading operations.
It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and
' methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes and
agency ordinances, recommendations in the geotechnical report, and the approved
grading plans not withstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical
' consultant. If, in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as
unsuitable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather,
' etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical
report and the specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and
recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
' Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction should be
performed in general accordance with the latest version of the American Society for
' Testing and Materials test method ASTM D1557.
' 3.0 Per oaration of Areas to be Filled
' 3.1 Clearing and Grubbing Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots and all other
deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of in a method
acceptable to the owner, design engineer, governing agencies and the
' geotechnical consultant.
The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals
' depending on specific site conditions. In general, no more than 1 percent (by
volume) of the fill material should consist of these materials and nesting of
these materials should not be allowed.
3.2 Processing The existing ground which has been evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be scarified
to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory
should be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification
should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or
clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of
uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction.
' 3.3 Overexcavation Soft, dry, organic -rich, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise
unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot
adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to
' competent ground, as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. For purposes
of determining quantities of materials overexcavated, a licensed land
surveyor /civil engineer should be utilized.
1
3.4 Moisture Conditioning Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered,
dried -back, blended, and /or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture
content near optimum.
3.5 Recompaction Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly
' mixed, screened of deleterious material, and moisture - conditioned should be
recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or as otherwise
recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
' -2
1
3.6 Benching Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1
' (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest
bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet into competent
material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Other benches should
be excavated into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical
consultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or otherwise
' overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
t 3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas All areas to receive fill, including processed areas,
removal areas, and toe -of -fill benches, should be evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement.
4.0 Fill Material
4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic
matter and other deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant prior too placement. Soils of poor gradation,
expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended by
the geotechnical consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill
material.
4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with
' a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed
in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically
recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Oversize disposal operations
' should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that
the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill.
Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade,
within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction, or within 15 feet
horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the attached detail.
1
' -3-
r
4.3 1v po : If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material
t should meet the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be given
to allow the geotechnical consultant to observe (and test, if necessary) the
1 proposed import materials.
5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
' 5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas prepared and previously
evaluated to receive fill, in near - horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in
compacted thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly
mixed to attain uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
5.2 Moisture Conditioning Fill soils should be watered, dried -back, blended,
and /or mixed, as nece ssa ry to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum.
Fill After each 5.3 Compaction of F layer has been evenly spread, moisture -
y
conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90
percent of maximum dry density (unless otherwise specified). Compaction
equipment should be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for
' soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified
degree and uniformity of compaction.
5.4 Fill Slopes Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to
normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers
at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing
satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of
the fill out to the slope face would be at least 90 percent.
t 5.5 Compaction Testing Field tests of the moisture content and degree of
compaction of the fill soils should be performed at the consultant's discretion
based on field conditions encountered. In general, the tests should be taken
at approximate intervals of 2 feet in vertical rise and /or 1,000 cubic yards of
compacted fill soils. In addition, on slope faces, as a guideline approximately
' one test should be taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and /or each
10 feet of vertical height of slope.
6.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be installed in areas previously evaluated
for suitability by the geotechnical consultant, to conform to the approximate alignment
and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials should
not be changed or modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
The consultant, however, may recommend changes in subdrain line or grade
depending on conditions encountered. All subdrains should be surveyed by a
licensed land surveyor /civil engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficient
time shall be allowed for the survey, prior to commencement of filling over the
subdrains.
' 7.0 Excavation
Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by a representative of the
' geotechnical consultant (as necessary) during grading. If directed by the geotechnical
consultant, further excavation, overexcavation, and refilling of cut areas and /or
remedial grading of cut slopes (i.e., stability fills or slope buttresses) may be
' recommended.
i 8.0 Quantity Determination
For purposes of determining quantities of materials excavated during grading and /or
determining the limits of overexcavation, a licensed land surveyor /civil engineer
should be utilized.
' -5-
MINIMUM RETAINING WALL WATERPROOFING
8c DRAINAGE DETAIL
I
FINAL WATERPROOFING SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS TO BE PROVIDED
BY PROJECT ARCHITECT
MASTIC TO BE APPLIED TO TOP OF WALL
MASTIC TYPE WATER PROOFING (HLM 5000 OR EOUIV)
INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES
TOP OF RETAINING WALL SPECIFICATIONS & PROTECTED WITH
' BACKER BOARD (ABOVE MIRADRAIN) MAS71C NOT TO BE
EXPOSED TO SUNLIGHT
SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90%
ip RELATIVE COMPACTION
2% PER REFERENCE /1
Z —
= o -
-: —
— / PROPOSED SLOPE BACKCUT
ENp MIRADRAIN (top) 6. LAP - — PER OSHA STANDARDS
OR PER ALTERNATIVE SLOPING
' AREA DRAIN PLAN, OR PER APPROVED
RETAINING WALL SYSTEM SHORING PLAN
MIRADRAIN MEMBRANE C ENVELOPE
FABRIC FILTER
INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES F I ABRI OR
SPECIFICATIONS OVER MASTIC ' 'j �'hlIIWF . j APPROVED EQUIVALENT
WATERPROOFING — HLM 5000 12" MIN. LAP )
OR EQUIVALENT i I-
j 3/4" — 1 1/2" CLEAN
_ GRAVEL
4 "X4" (45d) CONCRETE CANT
' — ' —' —'— O FOOTING/WALL CONNECTION
I _
(UNDER WATER PROOFING)
4" (MIN.) DIAMETER
PERFORATED PVC PIPE
— Y a (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQ.)
NTH PERFORATIONS
ORIENTED DOWN AS
X DEPICTED MIN. 29:
COMPACTED FILL GRADIENT TO SUITABLE
� -
OR BEDROCK WALL FOOTING OUTLET.
END MIRADRAIN (bottom)
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR FILL MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
i
PROJECT NUMBER ENGINEERING DETAIL /FIGUR-
7 PROJECT NAME NUMBER
DESIGN GROUP
PROJECT ADDRESS 810 WEST LOS VALLECITOS BLVD.
DRAWN BY: SUITE
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
SCALE: I _O (760) 752 -7010 FAX (760) 752 -7092 DATE
.H
' No surcharge loads within phis
area for level backfill design.
' Filter Material, 1" max. crushed
aggregate, 4 cu. ft. per 4" dia.
_ drain or 1 cu. ft. per ft. of open
' E head joints.
j' 4" dia. drain with 1/4" gals. wire mesh
screen 8' - 0" on centers, or one row
TJ horizontally of open head joints.
i
' Line of undisturbed natural soil
TYPICAL SECTION
Mortar or cast -in -place concrete 9" 12" block wall
Finished ground line 5 1/4" 8 " block wall
Vertical reinf. Vertical reinf.
Grout filled block cells
Top of footing
Horizontal reinf. thru
4key bond beam block
2" x 4" (nom
CAP DETAIL KEY DETAIL
r
x
NOTES:
1.. All masonry retaining walls shall be constructed with cap, key and f
drainage details as shown hereon. f
2. 4" diameter drain may be formed by placing a block on it's side.
THE ENGINEERING DEMN GROUP
RETAINING WALL DETAIL
e No-
I er, sw 1 FIGURE No,
DESIGN CONDITIONS: INSPECTIONS:
' Walls are to be used for the lading conditions shown for
each type wall. Design H shall not be exceeded. Call for inspections as follows:
Footing key is required except as shown otherwise or when
found unnecessary by the Engineer. A. ' When the footing has been formed, with the steel tied
' Special footing design is required where foundation material securely in final position, and is ready for the concrete
is uncapable of supporting toe pressure listed in table. to be placed.
DESIGN DATA: B. Where cleanout holes are not provided:
Reinforced Concrete: (1) After the blocks have been laid up to a height of
4', or full height for walls up to 5', with steel in
Fc = 1200 psi F'c - 3000 psi place but before the grout is poured, and .... .
' Fs = 10,000 psi n = 10
(2) After the first lift is properly grouted, the blocks
Reinforced Masonry: have been laid up to the top of the wall with the
steel tied securely in place but before the upper
F'm = 600 psi Fm = 200 psi lift is grouted.
' Fs = 20,000 psi n = 50
Earth - 120 pcf and Equivalent Fluid Pressure = 36 psf Where cleanout holes are provided:
per foot of height Walls shown for 1% :1 unlimited
sloping surcharge are designed in accordance with After the blocks have been laid up to the top of
' ankline's formula for unlimited sloping surcharge with the wall, with the steel tied securely in place, but
R d - 33 42' before grouting.
REINFORCEMENT: C. After grouting is complete and after rock or rubble wall
' Intermediate grade, hard grade, or rail steel deformation shall drains are in place but before earth backfill is -
placed.
conform to ASTM A615, A616, A617. Bars shall lap 40 D• Final inspection when all work has been completed. , unless on the plans. Bends
tshall spliced
to the Manual o Standard Practice, A.C.I.
CONCRETE GROUT AND MORTAR MIXES:
' Backing for hooks is four diameters. All bar emb s are
clear distances to outside of bar. Spacing for parallel llel bars Concrete grout shall attain a minimum compressive strength of
center to center of bars. is 2,000 psi in 28 days and mortar shall attain 1,800 psi in 28 days.
All cells shall be filled with grout Rod or vibrate grout
' MASONRY: within 10 minutes of pouring to insure consolidation. Bring
All reinforced masonry retaining walls shall be constructed of grout to a point 2" from the top of masonry units when
grouting of second lift is to be continued at another time.
regular or light weight standard units conforming to the
"Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction."
1 MORTAR KEY:
JOINTS:
To insure proper bonding between the footing and the first
Vertical control joints shall be placed at 32 foot intervals course of block, a mortar key shall be formed by embedding
maximum Joints shall be designed to resist shear and a flat 2 X 4 flush with and at the top of the fresh)
poured
other lateral forces while permitting longitudal movement footing. The 2 X 4 should be removed after the concrete has
Vortical expansion joints shall be placed at 96 foot inter. started to harden (approximately 1 hour).
vals maximum. A mortar key may be omitted if the first course of block is
CONCRETE:
set into the fresh concrete when the footing is poured, and a
' good bond is obtained.
Footing concrete shall be 5 60 —C -3250, using B aggregate WALL DRAINS:
when placing conditions permit.
BACKFILL:
1 Wall drains shall be provided in accordance with Standard
Drawing C•8.
No backfill material shall be placed against masonry retaining
walls until grout has reached design strength or until grout has
' cured for a minimum of 28 days. Compaction of backfill
material by jetting or ponding with water will not be permitted.
Each layer of backfill shall be moistened as directed by the SOIL:
Engineer and thoroughly tamped, rolled or otherwise compacted
until the relative compaction is not less than 90%. All footings shall extend at least 12 inches into undisturbed
FENCING: natural soil or approved compacted fill. Soil should be dampened
prior to placing concrete in footings.
Safety fencing shall be installed at the top of the wall as
' required by the agency.
TIME ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
RETAINING WALL DETAIL
OB NO: FIGURr NO:
N Edge of Footing
1 N
L
lay line
i
1 '
i
PLAN
1 1 1/2 : 1 sloping backfill or 1 112: 1 sloping backfill or
250 psf. live load surcharge 250 psf. live load surcharge
mortar cap H= 5' . 4" H= 3' - 8"
I � mortar cap
N 4 total 2 X 4 total 2
� Y I x �
o o
" A bars E o �2 „
M
cc \ �O8 bars
2” N 4 total 2
e
k 4 total 3
bars
►— Key
total 5 � J. • 6"
2 12 "x 12" key W/2
r— I 1 4 @ 12"
1 � � W
Key I m W/2 I 1 U L-- 4@ 12" M
_ = J 0_• Horizontal reinf. not shown TYPICAL SECTION
W 3' - 8" max.
r TYPICAL SECTION ELEVATION
over 3' - 8"
DIMENSIONS AND REINFORCING STEEL
1 H (max) 5'- 4" 3' 8,.
T (min) 0' . 10" I 0 10"
NOTES W (min) 5' - 0" ! 3'- 9"
1 1. See Standard Drawings C -7 and C -8 for A bars / 4 @ 16"
additional notes and details. B bars 1 6 @ 16" I / 4 @ 16"
2. Fill all block cells with grout.
max. toe 700 F 550
press. (psf)
THE ENGINEERING DEMN GROUP
' RETAINING WALL DETAIL
OB No: I B SN I FIGURE NO:
SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
EXISTING GROUND
SURFACE /
i
1 FINISHED SLOPE FACE
PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE / /
/ FINISHED CUT PAD
I FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO - ___-- __ - - - --
OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY
COMPACTEo-1_
OVERBURDEN OR =_= x = _ -_ 77
UNSUITABLE - - _ == _ _ _ =� PAO OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH
MATERIAL =____ _ 7 ?- _�_- I " /A I- AND RECOMPACTION MAY BE
RECOMMENDED BY THE
1 - ='s- __ GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
__= _ BENCH BASED ON ACTUAL FIELD
�_- -- -- - -__ CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED.
_2% MIN.__
_ _
Z* is MIN. COMPETENT BEDROCK OR
MIN. LOWEST MATERIAL AS EVALUATED
BENCH BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
DEPTH
1 (KEY) CONSULTANT
NOTE: Subdrain details and key width recommendations to be provided based
on exposed subsurface conditions
1
' CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS
1 BXISTINa -
GROUND 3URFACII
BENCHING
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
SUBDRAIN
TRENCH
SEE BELOW
SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAILS
1 FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE MIN. OVERLAP
g' MIN. OVERLAP (1111RAF1 140N OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)*
j
/ ��• • �' g. MIN. 1 +
• �� COVER COVER , I! 3/4'- 1 CLEAN I
GRAVEL
1
' � d i� •• (9tt 3 /ft. MIN.)
4' MIN. REDOING j
3/4'- 1.1/2' CLEAN
GRAVEL (Etta /ft. MIN.) g• MIN. *IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
' PERFORATED MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF I
PIPE 3/4= 1-1/2' GRAVEL. FILTER FABRIC'
MAY BE DELETED
DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
f
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
DESIGN FINISH SUBDRAIN
- U.S. Standard
Passing
GRADE ________- = TRENCH Sieve Size
SEE ABOVE 100
1"
ON QED_ 3/1^ 90 - 100
40 -100
3 1 8_ 3 3
== = = = == •' SIC . 30 0
- -- + NC. 200 0 -3
5'MIN PERFORATED
15' MIN. 1 g' 0 MIN. PIPE Sand Equi va' ent > % 5
NONPERFORATEO 6' 0 MIN. +
aluated by the geotechnical
Subdrain should be constructed only on competent material as ev
consultant.
SUBDRAIN s roco m mended by thelggeo echnica consultant. o perforated pipesshould be Install d.
At locations recomends y
SUBDRAIN TYPE type shou be A sr ;123, 1908 Bu
S
used A for maxim m
Chlorld• (PVC) or approved equivalent. C as polyv inyl
'
fill depths of 33 feet. Class 200,SDR 21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 feet.
STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL
OUTLET PIPES
4' 0 NONPERFORATEO PIPE. - =- '-
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY.
' 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY - _ BACK CUT
4 1 :1 OR FLATTER
- _----------
- "- —'-- = BENCH
_ =ZX MIN.
SEE SUBDRAIN TRENC-
___ DETAIL
____ _ _ = _ LOWEST SUBORAIN SHOUL_
cOMAAcIEQ_ _ BE SITUATED AS LOW AS
__ _ =FILL =_ - POSSIBLE TO ALLOW
_ -__ -- -?_- -- - __- - - - SUITABLE OUTLET
?_ _ __ --- __ __ - -_ - _ - �-`- -
KEY -__ _ ______
------- ------ - - _ IN
Yq�i' 10' M
__ PERFORATED '
DEPTH __ ____ - MIN_ _— - - -- I _ EACH SIDE
�r PIPE
' M2 I
M _ = - 2% MIN .- ? = CAP
___-- _ -_ -_- _ NON - PERFORATED
- --' -- OUTLET PIPE
KEY WIDTH T— CONNECTION DETAIL
AS NOTED ON GRADING PLANS
13' MIN.
*IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/4'- 1 -1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC
SEE T- CONNECTION MAY BE DELETED
'
6' MIN. DETAIL
OVERLAP , -, SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
3/4' 1 -1/2' CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
' CLEAN GRAVE l�
( MIN.) /�' COVER 8' MIN. U.S. Standard
I ,
S4eve Size :Passing
NON - PERFORATED ! PERFORATED 1" 100
PIPE ' PIPE 3/4" 90 -100
f T_ 318" 40 -100
' FILTER FABRIC 6$ MIN. No. 1 25 -40
ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 4' MIN. No. 8 18 -33
140N OR APPROVED BEDDING pio, 30 5-15
EQUIVALENT) No. to 0-7
No. 200 0- 3
SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL Sand Equivalent >75
NOTES:
For buttress dimensions, see geotechnical report /plans. Actual dimensions of buttress and subdrai.
may be changed by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions.
SUBORAIN INSTALLATION - Subdraln pipe should be Installed with perforations down as depicted.
At locations recommended by the geotechnical consultant, nonperforated pipe should be Installed
SUBDRAIN TYPE - Subdraln type should be Acrylon trile Butadlene Styrene (A.B.S.). Polyvinyl Chloride
1 (PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125.SOR 32.3 should be used for maximum fill depths of 35 fee'
Class 200,80R 21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 feet.
' KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS
' FILL SLOPE ZSi1 .t_1Z7.�Z 1
PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE =•z'�G��I�i * = :g
FROM TOE OF SLOPE -'s
MATERIAL- '_s_ } %: __
TO COMPETENT : __ f J4
' EXISTING _ z
GROUND SURFACE
REMOVE
Y�n _ _ = - '
- UNSUITABLE
" MATERIAL
- -- =___ BENCH
2 MI N.?_ _
2' MIN �15' MIN .,.
KEY LOWEST
' DEPTH BENCH
(KEY)
OPACTED
' FILL -OVER -CUT SLOPE _ __ AA FIL__L�__- -_- =
EXISTING = = - ------- --
' GROUND SURFACE -�,.:
BENCH
_2
' REMOVE
2
' - +--13 LOWEST ' UNSUITABLE
i + MATERIAL
VAIN. BENCH
' v DEPTH (KEY)
CUT SLOPE
' (TO BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL
PLACEMENT)
EXISTING
t GROUND
SURFACE
.'y
CUT-OVER -FILL SLOPE // ��� (TO BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL
PLACEMENT)
REMOVE
- � =
PROJECT 1 TO 1 = = UNSUITABLE
LINE FROM TOE
' OF SLOPE TO
COMPETENT _ '- �` - --
4MP ACT -�D�
- FIB= _
MATERIAL ==
__- =__ __- BENCH
T�3' MIN
' 2' MIN. LOWEST
KEY DEPTH BENCH
(KEY)
' NOTE: Back drain may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on
actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may
also be altered based on field conditions encountered.
1
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
PINi>!H GRADE ' SLOPE FACE _ == -_____ - r _ __ _____ _____
OMPACTED F LII-r
S.
a MAX.
OVERSIZE WINDROW
t GRANULAR SOIL (S.E.: JO) TO BE -
OENSIFIED IN PLACE BY FLOODING
DETAIL
1
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
' 1) Rock with maximum dimensions greater than 6 inches should not be used within 10 feet
vertically of finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility whichever is greater),
and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces.
' 2) Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet should not be utilized in fills.
3) Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by the
' geotechnical consultant.
4) Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above details
' Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered
vertically (as depicted).
5) Rock should be placed in excavated trenches. Granular soil (S.E. greater than or equal
' to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill voids around and beneath
rocks.
1
1
1
1
1
'1
1
1
� APaExoD(-C-
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
HOMEOWNERS MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES
1
Residential home sites require periodic maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems to
1 insure proper performance and overall retention of property value. Often, homeowners are
not aware of the importance of these systems and allow them to deteriorate.
1 During the construction phase of development, governing agencies require property
developers to utilize specific methods of engineering and construction to protect the public
interest. For instance, the developer may be required to grade the property in such a
manner that rainwater will be drained away from the building pad, install brow ditches and
terrace drains, and to plant slopes to minimize erosion. However, once the lot is
purchased, it becomes the buyer's responsibility to maintain these safety features by
observing a prudent program of lot care and maintenance. Failure to make regular
inspections and perform necessary maintenance of drainage devices and sloping areas
1 may cause severe financial loss. In addition to his/her own property damage, the property
owner may be subject to civil liability for damage occurring to neighboring properties as a
result of negligence.
1 The following maintenance guidelines are provided for the protection of the homeowner's
investment:
A. All roof gutter and downspout systems, installed on the residence, should be
tightlined to a suitable outlet away from the structure. Under no
' circumstances should water be allowed to pond onsite, particularly against
the perimeter foundation system.
' B. Soils grades adjacent to the foundation of the structure should be sloped to
direct water away from the foundation and into a collective drainage system.
Soil grades should slope a minimum of 2% for a horizontal distance of 5 feet
' away from the structure.
C. The irrigation of planter systems located immediately adjacent to the
foundation should be strictly controlled to avoid over watering. Saturation of
soils in these planters may result in soil settlement/expansion and associated
distress.
D. Care should be taken to ensure that slopes, terraces, berm, and proper lot
' drainage are not disturbed.
E. In general, roof and yard runoff should be directed to either the street or
' storm drain by non - erosive devices such a sidewalks, drainage pipes, ground
gutters, and driveways. Drainage systems should not be altered without
expert consultation.
Page No. 1
HOMEOWNERS MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES
F. All drains should be kept clean and unclogged, including gutters and
' downspouts. Terrace drains or gunite ditches should be kept free of debris
to allow proper drainage. During periods of heavy rain, the performance of
' the drainage systems should be inspected. Problems, such as gullying and
ponding, if observed, should be corrected as soon as possible.
G. Any leakage from pools, waterlines, etc. or surface runoff bypassing drains
should be repaired as soon as possible.
H. Animal burrows should be eliminated since they may cause diversion of
surface runoff, promote accelerated erosion, and even trigger shallow slope
failures.
1 I. Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever a
homeowner plans a topographic modification of a lot or slope, a qualified
geotechnical consultant should be contacted.
J. If unusual cracking, settling, or earth slippage occurs on the property, the
' owner should consult a qualified geotechnical consultant immediately.
K. The most common causes of slope erosion and shallow slope failures are as
follows:
• Gross neglect of the care and maintenance of onsite slopes and
drainage devices.
• Inadequate and /or improper planting. Barren areas should be
i replanted as soon as possible.
• Excessive or insufficient irrigation or diversion of runoff over the slope.
L. Property owners should not let conditions on their property adversely impact
their neighbors. Cooperation with neighbors could prevent problems and
increase the aesthetic attractiveness of the community.
r
i Page No. 2