The URL can be used to link to this page

2007-269 SG ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO. : 269GI PARCEL NO. 258-103-0200 PLAN NO. : 269-SG JOB SITE ADDRESS : 519 ARDEN DRIVE CASE NO. : 06147 / CDP APPLICANT NAME PHAM, MOISE MAILING ADDRESS : P.O. BOX 1994 PHONE NO. : 760-728-8661 CITY: FALLBROOK STATE: CA ZIP: 92088- CONTRACTOR : MIKE LLOYD INC PHONE NO. : 760-728-8661 LICENSE NO. : 713787 LICENSE TYPE: ENGINEER RINEHART ENGINEERING NE NO. - 85 -268-840 PERMIT ISSUE DATE : 1/17/07 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 5/04/07 PERMIT ISSUED BY: INSPECTOR: BEN OLIVER ------------------------- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------------- 1 . PERMIT FEE 900 . 00 2 . PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: . 00 3 . INSPECTION FEE . 00 4 . INSPECTION DEPOSIT: . 00 5 . PLAN CHECK FEE . 00 6 . SECURITY DEPOSIT . 00 7 . FLOOD CONTROL FEE . 00 8 . TRAFFIC FEE . 00 ------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------------- PERMIT TO GRADE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME. CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN -RAFFIC CONTROL AT ALL TIMES PER APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN OR PER .:.A.T. C.H. STANDARDS . SIMPLIFIED GRADING PLAN APPROVED BY MASIH MAHER AND PLAN CHECKED BY RUBEN MACABITIAS . 67 2 ---- INSPECTION ---------------- DATE -------- INSPECTOR' S SIGNATURE ---- INITIAL INSPECTION 3 p y COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED -?/o ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED 1/6 ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION { FINAL INSPECTION 3 ?et O ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION. NATURE DATE SIGNED rz PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER CIRCLE ONE : 1 . OWNER 2 . AGENT 3 . OTHER RINEHART ENGINEERING 6431 Cleeve Way San Diego, California 92117 Voice (858) 268-8401 Fax(858)268-3835 March 25, 2009 05225 FINAL ENG INSP.doc City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Pad Certification; 519 Arden Drive; N '/s Lot 10, Map 2141 APN: 258-103-02; Grading Permit No. 269 SG;Project No. 06147/CDP The grading under permit number 269-SG has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached 'As Graded' plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1%to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part II were constructed and are operational, together with the re maintenance covenant(s). „ i 4 En r : F. Dan Rinehart RCE 28204 ate Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature �EIU oL- ✓ER RINEHART ENGINEERING f 6431 Cleeve Way San Diego, California 92117 gym; MAR 2 2 2007 J Voice (858) 268-8401 Fax(858) 268-3835 ENG�� EERING SERVICES CITY C + ENCj"a TAS March 16, 2007 05225 PAD oc City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Pad Certification; 519 Arden Drive; N '/2 Lot 10, Map 2141 APN: 258-103-02; Grading Permit No. 269 SG; Project No. 06147/CDP Pursuant to section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for the North % of Lot 10, Map 2141. As Engineer of Record for the subject project, I hereby state all rough grading for these units has been completed in conformance with the approved plans and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. 23.24.310(B) The following list provides the pad elevations as field verification and shown on the approved grading plan: Pad Elevation Pad Elevation Lot No.10 Per Plan Per Field Measurement ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- West end of north building 173.25 ff 172.58 pad 172.43 East end of north building 175.00 ff 174.33 pad 174.16 South building 175.00 ff 174.33 pad 174.09 Garage 172.20 ff 171.54 pad 171.60 23.24.310(B)5 The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. 23.24.310(B)6 The construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. Q---F,-Dan Rinehart, RCE 28210- EXg g t OF Gl� �' -� - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Capital Improvement Projects �, CZ 0 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. Name of Project /�/� S�- P�•r�92 Name of Developer I Site Location s 44 dt (address ...number ...street name ...suffix) (lot) (bldg) have inspected the grad' g at the subject site and have venf)ed�certificatio l-of the pad by the.Engineer of Work, t ✓►'e dated 3 - l��t an certification of soil compaction by the Soil Engineer, dated - -- 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, l 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. (Signature of Engineering Inspector! (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 0 Building Inspection.Thank you. JSG/fieldIdocl TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue. Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper fJ / i n/. I3En/ aL , ✓FR SGC South/and GeotechnkahGOnsultants March 9, 2007 , ', 19 Project No. 147C73 To: Ms. Lauren Petrucci s 519 Arden Drive Encinitas, California 9 Subject: Report of Field Density Tests, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 519 Arden Drive, Encinitas, California Reference: Soils Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 519 Arden Drive, Encinitas, California, dated April 20, 2006, by Southland Geotechnical Consultants Introduction Southland Geotechnical Consultants has performed geotechnical observation and testing services during grading activities for the proposed single-family residence to be constructed at 519 Arden Drive in Encinitas. This report presents a summary of our geotechnical observations and field and laboratory test results to date. Summary of Grading Operations This report addresses site grading that was accomplished during the period of March 1 through 5, 2007. Geotechnical observation and testing of compacted fill were performed by a representative from our firm on an as-needed basis during grading. Grading of the site generally consisted of removal and recompaction of the potentially compressible onsite soils (to a minimum depth of approximately one foot below bottom of footing) for the construction of relatively level building pads for the proposed structure and improvements. The dense, formational soils exposed in the bottom of the excavations generally consisted of the geologic unit known as terrace deposits. Prior to grading, the site was generally stripped of surface vegetation and demolition debris. During grading activities, a former septic tank was found in the northwestern portion of the site. The septic tank was removed and the resulting hole was filled with properly compacted fill soils. The approximate location of the abandoned septic tank is shown on Figure 1 . Prior to placement of fill, the natural ground was scarified, brought to near-optimum moisture conditions, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Fill soils were placed in lifts, brought to near-optimum moisture conditions, and compacted by . 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021 . (619)442-8022 • FAX (619)442-7859 Project No. 147C73C mechanical means to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Field and Laboratory Tests Field density tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D1556 (Sand- Cone Method). The results of the field density tests are presented in Table 1 (Summary of Field Density Tests). The approximate locations of the field density tests are shown on Figure 1 (Field Density Test Location Map). The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a representative sample of the fill soils placed at the site were determined in general accordance with ASTM test designation D1557. The results of the laboratory test are summarized in Table 2 (Laboratory Test Results). Conclusions Our geotechnical observations and field and laboratory test results indicate that the fill soils placed to date have been compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, as evaluated using test methods ASTM D1556 and ASTM D1557. The onsite fill soils generally consist of dark brown and orange-brown, silty fine to medium sand. The fill soils were visually and texturally evaluated to be generally similar to soils found to have a very low expansion potential when tested in general accordance with UBC test standard 18-2. Field density testing of any additional compacted fill should be performed by the geotechnical consultant. 2 SGC Project No. 147C73C If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Charles . Corbin, PE 36302 Project Engineer ! CO F W Nd. 30302 ^+ t� o� qlf OF CA`,i�Q. Attachments: Table 1 - Summary of Field Density Tests Table 2 - Laboratory Test Results Figure 1 - Field Density Test Location Map Distribution: (3) Addressee 3 SGC Project No. 147C73C TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS APPROX FIELD DRY MAXIMUM FIELD OPTIMUM RELATIVE TEST DRY LOCATION SOIL DATE ELEVATION DENSITY MOISTURE MOISTURE COMPACTION NOTES NO. (feet) (see Figure 1) TYPE (pcf) DENSITY (%) (%) (%) (pcf) 1 3/2/07 171 SW PAD A 114.4 132.2 8.3 9.6 87 FG Retest on 6 2 3/2/07 170 NW PAD A 122.4 132.2 8.2 9.6 93 CF 3 3/2/07 171 NW PAD A 119.3 132.2 5.9 9.6 90 FG 4 3/2/07 173 SE PAD A 118.6 132.2 7.7 9.6 90 CF 5 3/5/07 173 NE PAD A 121.6 132.2 7.8 9.6 92 CF 6 3/5/07 171 SW PAD A 118.6 132.2 7.4 9.6 90 FG Retest of 1 7 3/5/07 174 NE PAD A 119.5 132.2 6.0 9.6 90 FG 8 1 3/5/07 174 SE PAD A 119.9 132.2 7.8 9.6 91 FG NOTES: CF-Compacted Fill FG - Finished Grade TABLE 2 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Sample Sample Maximum Optimum Number Description Dry Density Moisture Content A Orange-brown silty fine to 132.2 pcf 9.6% medium sand (SP) SGC g.� ai� yF5 RENEW GRADE IS QU IRED TO PANYEFOR ME W 1NSTACLANTON(SEE NOTE 3J S 89026;58 E 144.87' 11k sr- ..,e;;. „\ / o o?o1N•c6' ,6. 172�_ .. -_._ •' ® T L� COF :tee 9 ____'• �•—� ,CL,, 1 s6 ,,pp�.�, + L ® / II.! o•• r 171.79 f5 1 K v.=6uaaRaaE \1 1\E 10 \E r S ,rs, 1.3 FC 21.• A � '�'• � 0 _ 11�5�� A ';PA AO \�i,�t .SUec�an \� \ Ssd=Zx + ,_ 1;F1 j ✓,`� �1kg� '"pry 11•�k� `'''r ,'' k •h i' / 1 �,yl f s' j . --- - .' h ., 1,6�;`� _ =�_l •Fa'- 1 9 �' f I i E5 , % /� i i� / / � `: !; \t ARCH bRAmwNGS- ll1L.S 175 FF • � � ./e, � � � � .� `� / i� �'V \E Sly ,�y3_sic': ]G\. .� Ssd �Iti4�'� � q,. Ssa�&�4$' L,.,� g �i- —='SsT��''SSX \1�'• _ \19.9 ' 6471 E #� 0� \11\�S \161ryy11tr 9$ �• ti9 15• 1\• � �-�� ' 0y\183 n FIELD DENSITY TEST LOCATION MAP N LEGEND Project No. 147C73 • Approximate location of 591 Arden Drive 8 field density test Encinitas, California Approximate limits of fill placed and compacted Scale (approximate): 1 inch = 20 feet during grading and reported herein Base Map: Simple grading plan, i Septic tank demolished, prepared by Rinehart Engineering, ®removed and replaced with dated July 21, 2006 compacted fill soils FIGURE 1 SGC �Ery oL- ✓ER 0 L RINEHART ENGINEERING f —�I 6431 Cleeve Way San Diego, California 92117 { MAR 2 2 2007 Voice (858) 268-8401 Fax(858) 268-3835 ( _ March 16, 2007 05225 PAD . oc City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Pad Certification; 519 Arden Drive; N '/2 Lot 10, Map 2141 APN: 258-103-02; Grading Permit No. 269 SG; Project No. 06147/CDP Pursuant to section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for the North `/z of Lot 10, Map 2141. As Engineer of Record for the subject project, I hereby state all rough grading for these units has been completed in conformance with the approved plans and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. 23.24.310(B) The following list provides the pad elevations as field verification and shown on the approved grading plan: Pad Elevation Pad Elevation Lot No.10 Per Plan Per Field Measurement ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- West end of north building 173.25 ff 172.58 pad 172.43 East end of north building 175.00 ff 174.33 pad 174.16 South building 175.00 ff 174.33 pad 174.09 Garage 172.20 ff 171.54 pad 171.60 23.24.310(B)5 The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. 23.24.310(B)6 The construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. Sin F. Dan Rinehart, RCE 28201 t cl V. SGC South/and Geotechnical Consultants SOILS INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 519 ARDEN DRIVE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Project No. 147C73 April 20, 2006 FG-RDDE P8 2006 EPJG 'v ;? 6C SERUiCES Prepared for: MS. LAUREN PETRUCCI 519 Arden Drive Encinitas, California 92024 • 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021 • (619)442-8022 • FAX(619)442-7859 SGC South/and Geotechnic& Consultants April 20, 2006 Project No. 147C73 To: Ms. Lauren Petrucci 519 Arden Drive Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Soils Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 519 Arden Drive, Encinitas, California Introduction Southland Geotechnical Consultants has performed a soils investigation for the single- family residence proposed to be constructed at 519 Arden Drive in Encinitas. This report presents the results of our soils investigation and provides our conclusions and recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, relative to the proposed project. Purpose and Scope The purpose of our soils investigation was to evaluate the soil conditions at the property and provide recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, regarding the design and construction of the proposed project. The scope of our soils investigation included the following: - Review of geologic maps and literature pertaining to the site and general vicinity. A list of the documents reviewed is included in Appendix A. Review of preliminary project plans. - Field reconnaissance to observe the existing surficial soil conditions at the subject property and nearby vicinity. Investigation of the subsurface soil conditions by manually excavating, logging and sampling four exploratory borings at the site. Laboratory sulfate and chloride content testing of soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings. Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained. Preparation of this report summarizing the results of our soils investigation and presenting conclusions and recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, regarding design and construction of the proposed project. • 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021 . (619)442-8022 . FAX(619)442-7859 z Project No. 147C73 Proiect Description The subject property is located on the east side of Arden Drive, south of East D Street in Encinitas (see Figure 1). The site is bounded to the north and south by developed residential properties. An alley borders the property to the east. The eastern majority of the roughly rectangular site is relatively level. The westernmost portion of the site slopes gently to the west. The site is developed with a single-family residence, detached garage and associated improvements. We understand that the existing residence, except for the detached garage, will be razed. A two-story, single-family residence and associated improvements are proposed to be constructed at the site. Some site grading will likely be performed to prepare the building area and attain design finished grades. Building loads are assumed to be typical of residential construction. Subsurface Investigation On March 29, 2006, four exploratory borings were manually excavated at the site to a maximum depth of approximately 36 inches below the existing ground surface. The borings were logged by a geologist from our firm and samples of the soils encountered during the subsurface investigation were obtained for visual soils classification and laboratory testing. Subsequent to logging and sampling, the borings were backfilled. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are shown on the Exploratory Boring Location Map (Figure 2). Logs of the exploratory borings are presented in Appendix B. Soil/Geologic Units f Based on our review of geologic maps and as encountered in our exploratory borings, the subject property appears to be underlain by fill soils, natural topsoil and the geologic unit known as terrace deposits. Brief descriptions of these units follow: - Fill Soils - Fill soils, apparently associated with the existing site improvements, were encountered in all of our exploratory borings. As encountered, the fill soils generally consisted of dark brown, slightly clayey, silty fine sand. In our exploratory borings, the fill soils were encountered to a maximum depth of approximately 9 inches below the existing ground surface. Localized deeper accumulations of fill soils may exist at the site. The fill soils are considered potentially compressible and, in their present state, should not be relied upon for the support of fill and/or structural loads. Based on our visual and textural evaluation, the fill soils are similar to soils found to have a very low expansion potential when tested in general accordance with UBC test standard 18-2. 2 SGC Project No. 147C73 Natural Topsoil - A natural topsoil was encountered underlying the fill soils in exploratory borings 1 , 3 and 4. The topsoil encountered generally consisted of brown and dark brown, silty very fine to fine sand, and dark brown, slightly clayey, silty fine sand. The natural topsoil is developed on and gradational with the underlying terrace deposits. The topsoil was encountered to a maximum depth of approximately 21 inches below the existing ground surface. Localized thicker accumulations of topsoil may exist at the site. The topsoil is considered potentially compressible and, in its present state, should not be relied upon for the support of fill and/ or structural loads. Based on our visual and textural evaluation, the natural topsoil is similar to soils in the general site vicinity found to have a very low expansion potential when tested in general accordance with UBC test standard 18-2. Terrace Deposits - The Quaternary-aged terrace deposits were encountered underlying the fill soils and the natural topsoil in our exploratory borings. The terrace deposits is the geologic unit interpreted to underlie the entire site. As encountered in our exploratory borings, the terrace deposits generally consisted of orange-brown, slightly clayey, silty fine to some medium sand. The dense terrace deposits typically exhibit favorable bearing characteristics: Based on our visual and textural evaluation, the terrace deposits are similar to soils in the general site vicinity found to have a very low expansion potential when tested in general accordance with UBC test standard 18-2. Groundwater and Surface Water Indications of a static, near-surface groundwater table were not observed during our soils investigation. Groundwater is not anticipated to be a constraint to the proposed development. However, our experience indicates that near-surface groundwater conditions can develop in areas where no such groundwater conditions previously existed, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration .; results from landscape irrigation or unusually heavy precipitation. It is anticipated that site development will include appropriate drainage provisions for control and discharge of surface water runoff. 3 SGC Project No. 147C73 Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the results of our soils investigation, it is our opinion that construction of the proposed single-family residence is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The following sections discuss the geotechnical factors affecting the site and provide recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, which should be considered for design and construction of the proposed residential development. Earthwork From our understanding of the project, some relatively minor grading will likely be performed to prepare the site and attain finished design grades. Site earthwork should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the Recommended Earthwork Specifications included in Appendix C. In the event of conflict, the recommendations presented herein supersede those of Appendix C. Site Preparation - Prior to grading and construction activities, the site should be cleared of vegetation, debris and loose soils. Vegetation and debris should be properly disposed of off site. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions which extend below finished site grades should be filled with properly compacted fill soils. Removal/Recompaction of Potentially Compressible Soils - The existing fill soils and natural topsoil are considered potentially compressible and unsuitable for the support of fill and/or structural loads in their present condition. We recommend that these soils be removed in areas planned for structures, surface improvements or fill placement. As encountered in our exploratory borings, these soils appear to mantle the majority of the site. The fill soils and natural topsoil were encountered to a maximum depth of approximately 21 inches below the existing ground surface. Localized deeper accumulations of these soils may exist on the site. The thickness and extent of these soils may vary and should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during removal of these unsuitable soils. In general, the limits of removal/recompaction should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed structure. These soils are considered suitable for re-use as compacted, structural fill provided they are free of organic material, deleterious debris and oversized materials (rocks with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches). Excavations - It is anticipated that excavation of the onsite soils can be accomplished by conventional grading equipment in good operating condition. Structural Fill Placement - Areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near-optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 90 percent 4 SGC 3 Project No. 147C73 relative compaction, based on laboratory standard ASTM D1557. Fill soils should be brought to near-optimum moisture conditions and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the size and type of construction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be observed and tested by the geotechnical consultant. In general, placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances, sound construction practices, and the Recommended Earthwork Specifications included in Appendix C. Transition (Cut/Fill) Condition) - The potential for a transition (cut/fill) condition underlying the area of the proposed structure should be checked when project plans are finalized and in the field during grading so that appropriate recommendations can be provided to reduce the potential damage due to differential settlement across the transition. Typically, we recommend that the cut (or natural) portion of the building area be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet and replaced with moisture-conditioned fill soils compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). The overexcavation and recompaction typically extends for a distance of at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed building. Trench Backfill - The onsite soils are generally suitable as trench backfill provided they are screened of organic matter and clasts over 6 inches in diameter. Trench backf ill should be compacted by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). Foundations Project plans have not been finalized, however, we understand that the proposed development will include construction of a two-story, single-family residence and associated improvements. It is anticipated that the proposed structure will be supported by continuous perimeter and spread footings with slab-on-grade and/or raised floors. Foundations should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils encountered during foundation excavation will have a very low expansion potential. The potentially compressible fill soils and natural topsoil should not be relied upon for support of fill and/or structural loads in their present state. The proposed two-story structure may be supported by continuous and/or isolated footings bearing entirely in properly compacted fill soils or entirely in dense, formational soils at a minimum depth of 18 inches beneath the lowest adjacent grade. Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches and be reinforced, at 5 SGC Project No. 147C73 a minimum, with two No. 4 rebars (one near the top and one near the bottom). Spread footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and A have a minimum width of 24 inches. g.. For footings designed in accordance with the above recommendations, an allowable soil-bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be assumed. This value may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration such as wind and seismic loads. Slabs on Grade Concrete slab-on-grade floors should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. Concrete slabs on grade underlain entirely by properly compacted fill soils or entirely by dense, formational soils with a very low expansion potential should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced at midheight with No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center each way (or No. 4 rebars at 24 inches on center each way). Care should be taken by the contractor to insure that the reinforcement is placed at slab midheight. Slabs should be designed with crack control joints at appropriate spacings for the anticipated loading. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand (sand equivalent greater than 30) which is underlain by a 10-mil moisture barrier which is underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand. The potential for slab cracking may be lessened by careful control of water/cement ratios. The use of low slump concrete is recommended. Appropriate curing precautions should be taken during placement of concrete during hot weather. We recommend that the upper approximately one foot of soil beneath concrete slabs-on-grade be moistened prior to placing the sand blanket, moisture barrier and concrete. We recommend that a slipsheet or equivalent be used if crack-sensitive flooring is planned directly on concrete slabs. Please note that our recommendations for slabs are minimum design parameters. The project structural engineer is responsible for final design of the concrete slabs on grade. In addition, our recommendations are not intended to eliminate the possibility of cracks due to concrete shrinkage. Shrinkage cracks develop in nearly all slabs which are not specifically designed to prevent them. We recommend that a structural consultant or qualified concrete contractor be consulted to provide appropriate design and workmanship requirements for mitigation of shrinkage cracks. Lateral Resistance and Retaining Wall Design Pressures Footings and slabs founded in properly compacted fill soils or in dense, formational soils may be designed for a passive lateral pressure of 350 pounds per square foot per 6 SGC Project No. 147C73 foot of depth. A coefficient of friction against sliding between concrete and soil of 0.35 may be assumed. These values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration, such as wind or seismic forces. Cantilever (yielding) retaining walls, with horizontal backfill, may be designed for an "active" equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Cantilever walls with sloping backfill may be designed for an "active" equivalent fluid pressure of 50 pounds per square foot. Retained slopes should not be steeper than 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). Retaining walls which are rigid or restrained at their upper ends (non-yielding) may be designed for an "at-rest" equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot. Walls subject to surcharge loading of vehicular traffic within a distance behind the wall equal to wall height should be designed for an additional uniform pressure of 75 psf. If walls are surcharged by adjacent structures, the wall design should take into account the surcharge load. These values assume nonexpansive granular backfill and free- draining conditions. Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the previous foundation recommendations. It is anticipated that the site retaining walls will be founded in dense terrace deposits. We recommend that retaining walls be provided with appropriate drainage provisions. Appendix C contains a typical detail for drainage of retaining walls. The walls should be appropriately waterproofed. Waterproofing treatments and alternative, suitable wall drainage products are available commercially. Design of waterproofing should be provided by the project architect. Waterproofing should be protected during construction. Wall backfill should be compacted by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). Care should be taken when using compaction equipment in close proximity to retaining walls so that the walls are not damaged by excessive loading. Seismic Considerations The principal seismic considerations for most structures in southern California are damage caused by surface rupturing of fault traces, ground shaking, seismically- induced ground settlement or liquefaction. 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 possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered minimal since no active faults are known to cross the site. The potential for liquefaction or seismically-induced ground settlement due to an earthquake is considered low because of the dense nature of the underlying terrace deposits and anticipated lack of a near- surface groundwater table. The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical 7 SGC Project No. 147C73 conditions, the seismic design parameters from the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Section 1636, Tables 16-J, 16-U, 16-S and 16-T are provided below. UBC Table 16-J - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical conditions and our review of UBC Table 16-J, the soil profile type for the subject property is Sp ("Stiff Soil Profile"). UBC Table 16-U - Based on our review of the Active Fault Near-Source Zones maps (0-36) prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology, the nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault zone. The site is located easterly and within approximately 4.5 kilometers of the Rose Canyon fault. The fault is considered a seismic source type B based on UBC Table 16-U. 5 UBC Table 16-S - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical conditions and minimum distance to the nearest known active fault (Rose Canyon fault zone), the Near-Source Factor (Na) is 1 .1 . UBC Table 16-T - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical conditions and minimum distance to the nearest known active fault (Rose Canyon fault zone), the Near-Source Factor (NJ is 1 .27. Sulfate and Chloride Content A sample of the onsite soils (Boring 2 at 0 to 8 inches deep) was tested to evaluate the degree of sulfate attack on ordinary (Type ll) concrete. The test was performed in general accordance with California Test Method No. 417 and yielded a soluble sulfate content of 0.001 percent. The test results indicate a "negligible" degree of sulfate attack on concrete based on UBC Table 19-A-4 criteria. The type of concrete specified and used should be determined by the project structural engineer. A sample of the onsite soils (Boring 2 at 0 to 8 inches deep) was tested to evaluate the degree of chloride attack on ordinary (Type II) concrete. The test was performed in general accordance with California test method No. 422 and yielded a soluble chloride content of 0.003 percent. The type of concrete specified and used should be determined by the structural engineer. 8 SGC Project No. 147C73 Site Drainage Drainage at the site should be directed away from foundations, collected and tightlined to appropriate discharge points. Consideration may be given to collecting roof drainage by eave gutters and directing it away from foundations via non-erosive devices. Water, either natural or from irrigation, should not be permitted to pond, saturate the surface soils or flow over the tops of slopes. Landscape requiring a heavy irrigation schedule should not be planted adjacent to foundations or paved areas. Plan Review/Construction Observation and Testinq The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the project and interpolated subsurface conditions disclosed in our widely-spaced exploratory borings. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition at a project site. Final project drawings for the proposed residential development should be reviewed by Southland Geotechnical Consultants prior to construction to check that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the project plans. Subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction. Geotechnical observation during any site grading and field density testing of compacted fill should be performed by Southland Geotechnical Consultants. Geotechnical observation of footing excavations should also be performed by the geotechnical consultant to check that construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report. �z 9 SGC Project No. 147C73 If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact our office. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Susan E. Tanges, CEG 1386 harle Corbin, PE 36302 Engineering Geologist Pro' ct Engineer �S%pNAL GFO 3 o��SPN E. rgti l0� 4�p4 pFESS/t a No.1388 011 CERTIFIED * ENGINEERINd * 0 � w GEOLOGIST Attachments: Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Exploratory Boring Location Map Appendix A - References Appendix B - Geotechnical Boring Logs Appendix C - Recommended Earthwork Specifications Distribution: (3) Addressee 10 SGC � ! � ' � � �7 ' GxKgn Se�slrte Garden WS-a. �C"nty Park UU LIGHT ;r Encinitas "^~� San Encinita at Ho 31 ` . ' ` � ` . \07\TT� � SITE LOCATION MAP ` N Project No. 147C73 519 Arden Drive Encinitas, California Soo(o (approximate): 1 inch = 2,000 feet Base Map: Geologic maps uf the northwestern part ofSan Diego County' California, byS.S. Tan and M.P. Kennedy, 1086 FIGURE 1 , � =S_==_C rrVAA ' V O N C O W CO O) ._._............................._......................._.. -..._....... .... y ........ . U .- dt. O L O LL ..... ...................... ..... ..................... ..... ..............._.... ... ........_..;._.-..� J i zp O S X c6 O `- L O C,O. C d ui ••'s r • m LLI i•i ----------------------------9 { tit�r}•iryl"' �' 1`•JI . 1 �}'.'vixv;'.L.••ti xF . i r x ••t .::ae iii ii W r,f cr- W O �`�• !�•...—f Y,Ii T1�Ir. ��L�j•4:f•y 4; ..,.ti��i� /u /� ;fry ri::•��.r~•: W fi � y�=.�4n;T O . F r VI ��f,�•,•.i fix'. 0 W + ,';:: •;sr;'t-, CL cc " ui CD y.-L .ie�/•�i':•e •x'.�:F:��W'rrrT.:a wt.�r.P rd`••,j-,+�y�: �•_•,I;�J'.• .fit.,: 'i 4:�:..tw,,,`yt.:ti:ti`5• t: q��;.t..,��.''4 <7�C:'• (D I' v:'��r?'11':y?;.?`.ih'.'yh�'..:,7,'•''�.s Y.ti f,'�'y�•`' '}.�'�'%�t:�.,+^^t `v � ;i, .Y s�t��:• i s•.�f f.'Y:e4 .C'-`I'.�r}•^ti:'rs�:^`�� ;y:i;l�xa. is �is j�} i•:.. �i 4':'F'ti -. 'T r-.;.e N Yid:..=:.Li�%%%•'� :;�t:4:.�,j:l' .� t;�^�J:•"•,.:4•':1.'9: CL) co .:'i'i'i•' Q co iii '.;.�-�4.L,.s';:•::.�i J`jTti• C. :3 _...._..._ _._ _....._. _ ._.. .... .............. •.l''cLr.'-..Sm:lia.. a�d��; i��t ��p7ii...._..j, .. CY) CO ;n<:'eYiy�'v::_•(:i.\ _ `'Y':` _'.r:•t .ii:�c��,:.:s�j`�.t.: - - i ttx > .� C y +• - Z CD -O cc ro W ' a t {� L Z 0- In w (n CO U) 5 K, lit sec�n E§� x � .�.e,�.� -ti"'fit +rz�,,r� � ��✓'F 3-s,y On. .xkeJi "�ek f Y` 1 a s fr fi F �R y AN. MAEk v k 7 �t�3-. 31 ,$ 1 7,iul y n 4Y' S yi5 � 0 x kz tea,.. Nq ✓ �y i i, r k Project No. 147C73 APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1 . California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: CDMG Geologic Data Map No. 6. 2. Eisenberg, L., 1983, Pleistocene and Eocene geology of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe quadrangles, in Abbott, P.L., ed., On the manner of deposition of the Eocene strata in northern San Diego County: San Diego Association of Geologists, fieldtrip guidebook. 3. Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, revised. 4. Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide hazards in the northern part of the San Diego metropolitan area, San Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-file Report 95-04. 5. 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 96-02. 6. Southland Geotechnical Consultants, in-house geologic/geotechnical information. PLANS Studio E Architects, Preliminary project plans for p2 house, Encinitas, California, undated. SGC c YE fi rr�xi n'+" n Yd gc L t� � t € i I { f b'45A d S 1 VtZ„ J c N al Wt ii e I � :i C t ! �y r y h 1 Y q } •^tr' rr� k� ,,."��a^a",y"�y n r t�up s�ryx, c� y-iEi x '•kt k Sryz'"f $ f r t x r e5 k fiN GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG { Petrucci/519 Arden Drive Manually Excavated Boring No. 1 Project No. 147C73 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Sheet 1 of 1 March 29, 2006 Logged by ST Sampled by ST Depth Graphic Sample Blows Dry Water USCS in Lo No. Per Density Content Soil Geotechnical Description Feet 9 Foot (pct (%) Type 0 FILL SM @ 0"-Dark brown, dry(upper 2"damp from rain), loose to medium dense, slightly clayey, silty fine sand; with abundant roots, occasional rounded gravel/cobble, irrigation piping at 6", gradational to: NATURAL TOPSOIL 1 Bulk t SM @ 8"- Dark brown, dry to slightly damp, medium dense, slightly clayey, silty fine sand; less roots with depth, gradational to: 2 TERRACE DEPOSITS SM @ 21"-Orange-brown, damp, dense, slightly clayey, silty fine to some medium sand; uniform texture Bulk 2 3 Total depth =36 inches No groundwater encountered Backfilled 29 Mar 06 4 5 6 SGC GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Petrucci/519 Arden Drive Manually Excavated Boring No. 2 Project No. 147C73 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Sheet 1 of 1 March 29, 2006 Logged by ST Sampled by ST Depth Graphic Sample Blows Dry Water USCS in Lo No. Per Density Content Soil Geotechnical Description Feet 9 Foot (pd) (%) Type 0 FILL SM @ 0"-Mottled dark brown and orange-brown, moist, loose Bulk 1 to medium dense, slightly clayey, silty fine sand;with some roots — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 TERRACE DEPOSITS SM @ 9"-Orange-brown, damp, dense to very dense, slightly clayey, silty fine with some medium sand; uniform texture Bulk 2 2 Total depth =24 inches No groundwater encountered Backfilled 29 Mar 06 3 i . F 4 5 6 SGC GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Petrucci/519 Arden Drive Manually Excavated Boring No. 3 Project No. 147C73 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Sheet 1 of 1 March 29, 2006 Logged by ST Sampled by ST Depth Graphic Sample Blows Dry Water USCS in Per Density Content Soil Geotechnical Description Log No. Feet Foot (pct? (%) Type 0 FILL SM @ 0"-Dark brown, moist, loose, silty fine sand; with some roots, gradational to: NATURAL TOPSOIL SM @ 4"- Brown, damp(drier with depth), loose to medium dense, silty very fine to fine sand TERRACE DEPOSITS SM @ 12"-Orange-brown, dry, dense, silty fine to some medium sand; uniform texture Total depth =21 inches 2 No groundwater encountered Backfilled 29 Mar 06 *boring moved slightly due to irrigation line at 15" 3 4 5 6 SGC GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Petrucci/519 Arden Drive Manually Excavated Boring No. 4 Project No. 147C73 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Sheet 1 of 1 March 29, 2006 Logged by ST Sampled by ST Depth Graphic Sample Blows Dry Jontent in Per Density Geotechnical Description Log No. Feet Foot (pct 0 ILL 0" -Dark brown, dry, loose to medium dense, slightly clayey, silty fine sand; with abundant roots, — — — — gradational to:_ATURAL TOPSOIL Bulk 1 6"-Dark brown, dry, loose to medium dense, silty l" very fine to fine sand 1 TERRACE DEPOSITS (?) 2 SM @ 20"-appears to change in color to orange-brown,silty fine sand;however, boring terminated due to refusal on root Total depth =20 inches Refusal on root No groundwater encountered Backfilled 29 Mar 06 3 4 5 6 SGC ! ! a t � X S 7i t FF k 5eF, . W& - i 4 # s 's�, iV f s E x T I r PU R5�C,°PS ReP �t APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS 1 .0 General Intent These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations for grading and earthwork to be used in conjunction with the approved grading plans. These general earthwork specifications are considered a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and are superseded by 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 grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing fill placement for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to keep the geotechnical consultant apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24 hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No grading operations shall be performed without the knowledge of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical consultant is aware of all site 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 of the geotechnical report, and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical 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. 3.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 3.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots, and all other deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, design engineer, governing agencies and the geotechnical consultant. SGC The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. In general, no more than one percent (by volume) of the fill material should consist of these materials. In addition, 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 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 pay quantities of materials overexcavated, the services of a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer should be used. 3.4 Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried, or blended as necessary to attain a uniform near- optimum moisture content as determined by test method ASTM D1557. 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 as determined by test method ASTM D1557. 3.6 Benching: Where fills are placed on ground sloping 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, excavated at least 2 feet 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. 3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, areas of removal, and fill benches should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement. SGC 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 to placement. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 4.2 Oversize Material: Oversize fill material, defined as material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location, materials, and methods are specifically recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 4.3 Import: If grading operations include importing of fill material, the import material should meet the requirements of Section 4.1 . Sufficient time should be given to allow the geotechnical consultant to test and evaluate proposed import as necessary, prior to importing to the site. 5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas properly prepared and evaluated as acceptable to receive fill. Fill should be placed 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 content throughout. 5.2 Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried or blended as necessary to attain a uniform near-optimum moisture content as determined by test method ASTM D1557. 5.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by test method r' ASTM D1557. 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: Compaction of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to normal compaction procedures, by backrolling 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, including the embankment face should be at least 90 percent as determined by test method ASTM D1557. SGC 5.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of compaction of the fill soils should be performed by the geotechnical consultant. The location and frequency of tests should be at the consultant's discretion based on observations of the field conditions. In general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in elevation gain and/or each 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. In addition, on slope faces, as a guideline, one test should be taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10-foot interval of vertical slope height. 6.0 —S -rain Construction Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be constructed in areas evaluated for suitability by the geotechnical consultant. The subdrain system should be constructed to the approximate alignment in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans or provided herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant may recommend modifications to the subdrain system depending on conditions encountered. Completed subdrains should be surveyed for line and grade by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer. 7.0 Excavations Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation, overexcavation, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes (i.e., stability fills or slope buttresses) may be recommended. 8.0 Quantity Determination The services of a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer should be retained to t determine quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or the limits of overexcavation. SGC ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL FIN&314 (3,RADE SLOPE FACE ............ 0 MIN COMPACTED # -- 2-1- .A AA -:!E� MIN. ...........11, [D-ME ME. 8" MAX OVERSIZE WINDROW GRANULAR $CIL (S.F-2:30) TO 13E DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY FLOODING DETAIL 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 geOtechnicaJ 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. SGC KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS FILL SLOPE PROJECT I TO I LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO COMPETENT MATERIAL EX13TING GROUND SURFACE a 3;--:CH i c-::-: REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL BENCH 2% MIN..' 2' MIN. I S' MIN I KEY LOWEST DEPTH BENCH (xSY) OMPACTED; FILL-OVER-CUT• SLOPE EXISTING GROUND SURFACE BENCH .Wftc--EtE REMO V E UNSUITABLE 20 �70WEST MATERIAL MIN. BENCH KEY DEPTH. (KEY) CUT SLOPE (TO SE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) EXISTING GROUND SURFACE CUT SLOPE CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) REMOVE UNSUITABLE PROJECT I TO 1 LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPS TO a�AA CD COMPETENT -FI MATERIAL BENCH -4 MIN 2' MIN. S'LOWE37 I 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 conditicrI3 encountered- SGC TRANSITION LOT DETAILS CUT—FILL LOT - EXISTING GROUND SURFACE MIN. ----------- 0 36 Ezf f-z 0 OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT CUT LOT EXISTING GROUND SURFACE EE M 0 V E UNSUITABLE —>, MATERIAL., MIN. omp ------------- 38' MIN�* ==COMPACTED AND RECOMPACT COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT *NOTE: Deeper or laterally more extensive overexca' vation and recompaction may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on actual field conditions encountered and locations of proposed improvements SGC STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL OUTLET PIPES 4' 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE, 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY ==_===_=_=--_?- BACK CUT L+ 1:1 OR FLATTER BENCH - _ SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL _ LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD COM�ACTr;D_?____=- BE SITUATED AS LOW AS _FILL-_ ___ _ POSSIBLE TO ALLOW SUITABLE OUTLET KEY _ _ ri�lti= 10' DEPTH -____ ==_2% MIN.=_'-_ -_` PERFORATED T EACH MS DE --=---- PIPE 2��'-t" I ?===?= RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION* RETAINING WALL ------------ ------__-- WALL WATERPROOFING OVERLAP _= FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE PER ARCHITECT'S o e o ,' _=