2004-1452 CN/G/PE '= tENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Field Operations
Sand Rep lenishment/Stormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
January 25, 2005
Attn: 1'`Pacific Bank of California
3500 College Blvd
Oceanside, California 92056
RE: White Construction
1130 Second Street
APN 258-294-11
Case No. 03-159
Grading Permit 1452-G
Final release of security
Permit 1452-GI authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion
control, all as necessary to build the described project. The Field Inspector has finaled
the project. Therefore, a full release of the security deposited is merited.
Letter of Credit S. P. White Construction, Inc., in the amount of$33,348.00, is
hereby released in its entirety. The document original is enclosed.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-
2779 or in writing, attention this Department.
l
Sincerely,
4.g 4�_ha
Debra Geishart J,�y Lembach
Engineering Technician lnance Manager
Subdivision Engineering Financial Services
CC: Jay Lembach,Finance Manager
White Construction, Inc.
Debra Geishart
File
1 t`.1 ?GO r,i 3-'b[li 1.'��: i,U-!.' '.h� `irF t11�3t7 . � i;•[ I n�ini[a; ( .i�il< rnrd `�'�i'; �_i)I) 4 fECj/CIBCI�iBIJ°f
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
r�' r
fi. State of California
h ss.
County of
pn l Vet C7, `LC} O before me, 'Of� &z
Date Name and Title of Officer(e.g.,"Jane Doe,Notary Public") T
personally appeared L/r– Ld"/ V E Name(s)of Signer(s)
❑ personally known to me
T
roved to me on the basis of satisfactory s
evidence
� : MILLJOUR! TI
soon tt1389205 � to be the person(s) whose name(s) Qre
�ty�'� subscribed to the with instrument and
to 316
2007 acknowledged to me to/they executed
Mly � 6� the same in hi er/their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his er/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Place Notary Seal Above Signature oMotary ic
I\ CJI
OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by law,it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attached Q ocument ,
Title or Type of Document:
I..
Document "1 U Number of Pages:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
�5
I
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer _
Signer's Name: J/r. VF_ 6,
i ❑ Individual Top of thumb here
❑ Corporate Officer—Title(s):
partner�mited ❑ General
( ❑ Attorney in Fact
❑ Trustee
❑ Guardian or Conservator
❑ Other:
I
Signer Is Representing: 4-4–
0 1997 National Notary Association•9350 De Soto Ave.,P.O.Box 2402•Chatsworth,CA 91313-2402 Prod.No.5907 Reorder:Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827
ENGINEERING
DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECNNINAL C1VI1 SIRUC IUHAL&AHCNI,ECTURkCON&LLLANTS
Eon HLSIOEN-IAL& DMY=RCIAL CONSTHUCTION
2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477• E-mail: ENGDG @aol.com
LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
FOR THE PROPOSED NEW OFFICE BUILDINGS,
TO BE LOCATED AT 1130 2"d STREET,
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
EDG Project No. 043278-1
-- March 4, 2004
PREPARED FOR:
— Steve White
WHITE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
5937 Darwin Court, Ste. 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008 -- �
r�
1 .A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FIELD INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SUBSOIL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
GROUND WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
LIQUEFACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
EARTHWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
-- FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
RETAINING WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
SURFACE DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
MISCELLANEOUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
FIGURES
Site Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 1
Site Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 2
Location of Exploratory Trenches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 3
Logs of Exploratory Test Pits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figures No. 4-5
APPENDICES
-- References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B
Testing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C
_ Retaining Wall Drainage Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix D
SCOPE
This report gives the results of our geotechnical investigation for the property located at 1130 2nd
_ Street in the City of Encinitas, California. (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 properties, a limited subsurface investigation of the
property, field analysis, and preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property consists of a developed site that previously housed the former Encinitas Post
Office. For the purposes of this report it is assumed the property faces east. The project property
is bordered to the south and west by residential development, to the north by a commercial building,
and to the east by 2nd Street. The overall topography of the site area consists of rolling coastal
— hillside terrain. The general topography of the site itself consists of a generally flat graded pad with
grades sloping downward to the center of the property for loading dock access.
Presently the site is developed with parking areas, a loading dock, and an existing single story
masonry building. Based upon our conversations with the owner, it is our understanding that the
proposed new improvements will consist of the following:
Design and construction of new additions to the existing structure for use as new offices.
— FIELD INVESTIGATION
Our field investigation of the property, conducted February 28, 2004, consisted of a site
reconnaissance, site field measurements, observation of existing conditions on-site and on adjacent
sites,and a limited subsurface investigation of soil conditions. Oursubsurface investigation consisted
of visual observation of two exploratory test pits in the approximate area of the proposed building
improvements, logging of soil types encountered in the proposed pad area, and sampling of soils for
laboratory testing. We also observed an existing test pit at the upper loading dock, exposing an
existing footing. The locations of the test pits are given in Figure No. 3, "Approximate Location of
_ Exploratory Trenches". The logs of our exploratory test pit excavations are presented in Figures No.
4-5, " Test Pit Logs".
SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
Materials consisting of topsoil, and weathered materials underlain by sandstone were encountered
WHITE CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT Page No.1
1130 2nd STREET,ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Job No.043278-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS
during our subsurface investigation of the site. Soil types within our test pit excavations are described
as follows:
Topsoil and Fill:
Topsoil and weathered materials were found to extend to depths ranging between 2-2-
_ 1/2 feet below adjacent grade in the area of the proposed improvements. Topsoil
consists of dark brown to light brown, moist, medium dense, slightly silty sand, with
some small roots. Topsoil and weathered materials are not considered suitable
for the support of structural or cosmetically sensitive improvements, but
materials may be used as re-compacted fill during mitigative grading in areas
of new slabs. Topsoil and weathered materials classify as SW-SP according to the
Unified Classification System and, based on visual observation and our experience,
possess expansion potentials in the low range.
Sandstone
Sandstone materials were found to underlie the topsoil and weathered profiles within
our trench excavations. Sandstone materials consisted of rust brown, moist, dense
to very dense, sandstone in various stages of decomposition. Sandstone materials
are considered suitable for the support of structures and structural
improvements, provided the recommendations of this report are followed.
Sandstone materials classify as SW-SP according to the Unified Classification
System, and based on visual observation and our experience, possess expansion
potentials in the low range.
For detailed logs of soil types encountered in our test pit excavations, as well as a depiction of our
test pit locations, please see Figure No. 3, "Approximate Location of Exploratory Trenches", and
Figures No. 4-5, "Test Pit Logs".
GROUND WATER
Ground water was not encountered during our subsurface investigation of the site. Ground water is
not anticipated to be a significant concern to the project provided the recommendations of this report
are followed.
LIQUEFACTION
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.
WHITE CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT Page No.2
1130 2n1 STREET,ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Job No.043278-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS
-- Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes.
Research and historical data indicate that loose, granular soils underlain by a near-surface ground
water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most silty clays and clays is not
adversely affected by vibratory motion. Because of the dense nature of the soil materials
underlying the site and the lack of near surface water, the potential for liquefaction or
seismically-induced dynamic settlement at the site is considered low. 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.
WHITE CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT Page No.3
1130 2nd STREET,ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Job No.043278-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
In general, it is our opinion that the proposed construction, as described herein, is feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations of this report and generally accepted
construction practices are followed.
Based upon our observation of the exposed existing foundation, it appears existing foundations are
constructed on competent formational sandstone material. It would be our general recommendation
to maintain a uniform building pad between the existing structure and new additions. New
foundations should also be founded on competent formational sandstone material. We anticipate
local removal and recompaction through topsoil and weathered profiles, anticipated to be 2-2-1/2 feet
below grade in the area of proposed slab on grade improvements. New footings shall be deepened
through recompacted fill, anticipated to be 2-2-1/2 feet below grade, to competent formational
sandstone material.
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
In areas of slab on grade improvements, topsoil and weathered profiles found to mantle the site will
require removal and recompaction. Soil removals should extend through topsoil and weathered
profiles, and are anticipated to be approximately 2-2-1/2 feet deep in the area of the proposed
additions. Where removals cannot be made as described above, the non-conforming condition
should be brought to the attention of the Engineering Design Group, in writing, prior to construction
of the building foundations so modified recommendations may be provided.
1. Site Preparation
_ Prior to any grading, areas of proposed improvement should be cleared of surface and
subsurface debris (including organic topsoil). Removed debris should be properly
disposed of off-site prior to the commencement of any fill operations. Holes resulting
from the removal of debris, existing structures, or other improvements which extend
below the undercut depths noted, should be filled and compacted using on-site
material or a non-expansive import material.
2. Removals
In general, grading should consist of the removal of the fill to competent subgrade
materials, scarification of subgrade to a depth of 12 inches, and the re-compaction of
WHITE CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT Page No.4
1130 2-STREET,ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Job No.043278-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS
-- fill materials to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Excavated fill materials are
suitable for re-use as fill material during grading, provided they are cleaned of debris
and oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter (oversized material is not
— anticipated to be of significant concern) and are free of contamination.
Any structural sensitive improvements should be constructed on a uniform
— building pad. We anticipate the new structure will be founded on footings
bearing on competent formational sandstone. Where a cut/fill transition may
occur in areas of slab on grade floors, Engineering Design Group should be
notified to provide case specific detailing.
3. Fills
All fill soils should be brought to+2%of optimum moisture content, and re-compacted
to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-91). Compacted
fills should be cleaned of loose debris, oversize material in excess of 6 inches in
diameter, brought to near optimum moisture content, and re-compacted to at least
90% relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-91). Surficial, loose or soft soils
exposed or encountered during grading (such as any undocumented or loose fill
materials) should be removed to competent formational material and properly
compacted prior to additional fill placement.
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(EI<30)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
The following design parameters may be utilized, assuming all foundations are founded on competent
formational materials.
— 1. Footings bearing in competent formational materialsl, may be designed utilizing maximum
allowable soils pressure of 2,000 psf.
2. Seismic Design Parameters:
g
:IflliC �na Fctr 4
brl Profile Tyke 5'd
Near',Soiaroe Distance' - 3:8 km
- (Distance to Closest Rose Canyon Fault
Active Fault
WHITE CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT Page No.5
1130 2""STREET,ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Job No.043278-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
«.. GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS
5 id- ource Type . B
') .,
Bearing values may be increased by 33% when considering wind,
seismic, or other short duration loadings.
3. The following parameters should be used as a minimum, for designing footing width and
depth below lowest adjacent grades:
Nc of Flaars Minimum F�� i ng 1111id#h lVlinimum F #tn f3
E
Below Loves#Ac! ce�It`
" _ E
rvIK
ff
, Ave.
*Foundations may require deepening in the field, beyond that identified above
to bear into competent formation material.
4. 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).
5. All isolated spread footings should be designed utilizing the above given bearing values and
footing depths, and be reinforced with a minimum of #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.
6. For footings adjacent to slopes, a minimum 10 feet horizontal setback in a formational
material or properly compacted fill should be maintained. A setback measurement should be
taken at the horizontal distance from the bottom of the footing to slope daylight. Where this
condition cannot be met, it should be brought to the attention of the Engineering Design
Group for review.
7. All excavations should be performed in general accordance with the contents of this report,
applicable codes, OSHA requirements and applicable city and/or county standards.
8. All foundation subgrade soils and footings shall be pre-moistened 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 office building addition. The following
WHITE CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT Page No.6
11302-STREET,ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Job No.043278-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS
design parameters should be utilized as minimums for slab on grade floors founded on recompacted
fill material.
1. Concrete slabs on grade of the building should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches (5
inches at garage and driveway locations) and should be reinforced with#4 bars at 18 inches
o.c. placed at the midpoint of the slab. 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.
• Water to cement Ratio - 0.5 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. Where remedial grading is not performed in areas of settlement sensitive improvements a
structural slab should be designed by the structural engineering consultant, and all
foundations deepened appropriately.
4. 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 moisture sensitive areas, a visqueen layer(10 mil) should be placed mid-
- height in the sand bed to act as a vapor retarder.
5. 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.
-- 6. All subgrade soils to receive concrete flatwork are to be presoaked to 2 percent over optimum
moisture content to a depth of 18 inches.
7. Brittle floor finishes placed directly on slab on grade floors may crack if concrete is not
adequately cured prior to installing the finish or if there is minor slab movement. To minimize
potential damage to movement sensitive flooring, we recommend the use of slip sheeting
techniques (linoleum type) which allows for foundation and slab movement without
transmitting this movement to the floor finishes.
8. Exterior concrete flatwork, parking lot and driveway slabs, due to the nature of concrete
WHITE CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT Page No.7
1130 2nd STREET,ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Job No.043278-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 8 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS
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 priorto the pouring of concrete. The
level of presoaking should be a minimum of 2% over optimum moisture to a
— depth of 18 inches.
• Concrete may be poured with a 10 inch deep thickened edge. Where concrete
flatwork is poured along the top of a slope, a footing should be excavated
along the outside edge to achieve a minimum of 7 feet distance to daylight.
• Concrete should be constructed with tooled joints or sawcuts (1 inch deep)
creating concrete sections no larger than 225 square feet. For sidewalks, the
maximum run between joints should not exceed 5 feet. For rectangular
shapes of concrete,the ratio of length to width should generally not exceed 0.6
(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.
RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls up to 6 feet 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, and should maintain minimum footing depths
outlined in"Foundations"section of this report. It is anticipated that all retaining wall footings
will be placed on competent formational material. Where cut-fill transitions may occurfootings
may be deepened to formational material or alternative detailing may be provided by the
Engineering Design Group on a case by case basis.
2. Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using an active equivalent fluid
WHITE CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT Page No.8
1130 2""STREET,ENCINITAS.CALIFORNIA Job No.043278-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS
pressure of 35 pcf. This assumes that non-expansive(EI<50),granular,free draining material
will be used for backfill, and that the backfill surface will be level. Onsite soils are anticipated
for use as retaining wall backfill. For sloping backfill,the following parameters may be utilized:
Backfill Sloping Condition 2:1 Slope 1.5:1 Slope
Active Fluid Pressure 50 pcf 65 pcf
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 a
uniform soil pressure of 65 psf.
4. Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 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 0.35 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 in the 'Retaining Wall
Drainage Detail", Appendix "D".
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 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 2% for a horizontal distance of 7 feet (where
possible). Area drains or surface swales should then be provided to accommodate runoff and avoid
WHITE CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT Page No.9
1130 2""STREET,ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Job No.043278-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS
any ponding of water. Roof gutters and downspouts shall be installed on the new and existing
structures 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. The project structural and
geotechnical engineers may upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during the development
of the proposed improvement(s).
1. Review of final approved structural plans and foundation plans prior to the start of work, for
compliance with geotechnical recommendations.
2. Attendance of a preconstruction meeting prior to the start of work
3. Observation of pad subgrade prior to scarification.
4. Testing of any fill placed, including retaining wall backfill and utility trenches.
5. Observation of footing excavations prior to steel placement.
°- 6. Field observation of any "field change" condition involving soils.
7. Walk through of final drainage detailing prior to final approval.
-- 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.
_ Before commencement of grading the Engineering Design Group will require a separate contract for
quality control observation and testing. Engineering Design Group requires a minimum of 48 hours
notice to mobilize onsite for field observation and testing.
— WHITE CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT Page No.10
1130 2nd STREET,ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Job No.043278-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS
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
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 r if we can be of further service, please do not
hesitate to contact us. We hope the r with nec ation to con '
Ch the project.
i `" � r ' ;� F)IDIF,'v ���,
3 t Xf N c) c�:16 i Oi
-' I S L'7 -590 1 i#
ESIGN GROUP; -' % F t� IINF,61A I
Civil Engineer: RCE#47672
California Registered Geotechnical Engineer: RGE#2590
California Certified Engineering Geologist: CEG#2263
WHITE CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT Page No.11
1130 2-STREET,ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Job No.043278-1
ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP
GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS
Y �
�i �� DE IO
/�
11 /4E DIA ut m a� 4 °Q�s . � ESC
�I �lS
I ENCINI AS'
ENCI TIS ' / �� Hn rvur:i
RANCHO s a RANCHO BERNARDO m
5. c^ n 3 r psw
CARDIFF-BY-I_ ?; G i a�o SFNTA� a �.) eEn>t
SITE r
at wry � S f I ! 4�
cu asx'vE J �arcarro
SG NA BEACH FE J EatRBANs %' RANCHO '
E EN GARDENS ° ajfi° L , a
RANCH 1 �1 I c.PENtSe11roS
EY b NEt
DEL MAR ''. oj '0 0 RD
f.ARMEL E > �DWAY'
VALLE 1 GE' w S6
TORREY PINES `'Er
STATE RESERVE ETMW �hy�
._ ��- -
SA
120
`ep+ S ENfiO
SORRENTO o ME "�7i ��
J d�`
t PI QpR +o @ s 'I. r
SITE VICINITY MAP
PROJECT NAME PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING
PROJECT ADDRESS 1130-2 ND STREET(APN 258-294-1100), ENCINITAS, CA 92024
JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE
GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS
2121 Montiel Road,San Marcos,CA 92069
043278 Phone:(760)839-73b2 Fax (760)480-7477
\\Main\file on main\FORMS\1 FRM\2000XMASTER-SITE VICINITY-FIG 1.wpd
1�YG � t^�\ ADELE
Joci�vial
PACIFIC
I ARROY�1
400
LV AI_ TRIL-
A
S no
�IMt)kE c <
I� ENCINITAS; a
N � �
(FC -j�N B1 ST N
t,v �f awrssa
��lnaarerr rnx
419
AM
ST RW
MOONLIGHT s m
BEACH �I z io Er D ST
W o ST •ue� 08 o
`p8 EST g
' QOO JOO 2O'J
ST °8 O
pp F
'I LJ W F ST E R E ST
g
H STREET W G ST E G>T °� I a K
n
VIEWPOINT!'44�,' W✓I
E H
xME A
srarrr\' W R sT RD
vrrnorxT 1 ST ..a �� °o
I STREET e
VIEWPOINT 5 °
x w -
SITE PARK
J STREET
VIEWPOINT
P'_
swAMrs a M SUMIT RUBE
BEACH a
\' s� ST 5uMI7 PL
SW Is I d covE w�
PARK S(
9y /�
I iP
i
SAN '\
SITE LOCATION MAP
PROJECT NAME PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING
PROJECT ADDRESS 1130-2 ND STREET(APN 258-294-1100), ENCINITAS, CA 92024
JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE
GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS
2121 Montiel-- 043278 Phone:(760)839-7302an Fax:(76)4 9020697 2
\\Main\file on main\FORMS\l FRM\2000\MASTER-SITE LOCATION-FIG 2.wpd
I
0
Ile z I
I Z I
,y
I �
3
1
cn
' I
1 t � I
PH
' I
I
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCHES
PROJECT NAME PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING
PROJECT ADDRESS 1130-2 ND STREET(APN 258-294-1100), ENCINITAS, CA 92024
JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE
GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 8 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS
2121 Montiel Road 043278 Phone:(760)839-73'02en ax(760)480-7477 3
\\MainVile on main\FORMS\1 FRM\2000\MASTER-FIG.wpd
Z r
Z LV
4) 41
C
— F
a
W ;
c U)
O a)
Z >
� r
10 j €
co
R
3
I
3
� F
0
0
C 2M £ a
F
O C
co
cu f k
U� V k to
O W E
w C O Z
k
0 Co O
00
0 co
00 L cn D L
QW � 0 3 aunt
aa>>
o ao
a> ti LL
L
>s N co a) m cV +
> O fn N Z ?
p
i 00 Y Z O
O I Q' (a U) �
c� W m w Ld
LLI
0
m �
a u a ~ T- N
o N m w O Q U)W elf
a W J O W W 0 0 r N M L CD
LL
N U) r
O O
0 Z r
Z W
J LL y
H
F-
N
W
c cn
O °
i
a a
i
cu 3
v co
C
ca C I 3 'g ✓.
O =
cn F
(D [
v E "'
LQ
CD
E
2 j
L
w N N
V Ri O N °
E O w E
Cy J 3 ° OZ
k O ° F o
O U) cls
eo d Y Z I A
QW 00 3 cQi� �
Cam.
p co s
N
7
01
I- U-
�r LO
co
O Cn 0 N C\i e
d p Q 3
O L H N
00 Y Z
N w co � a
N W Co w
O rZ' w
2 m O U
Q �' ( 0 w y
9 af
Lo. W J O W J W Iz (D O r N m co
L
APPENDIX -A-
-- 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. Hart, Michael, June 17, 1994, Gelogic Investigation, 7505 Hillside Drive, La Jolla,CA, File N0: 153-
94.
4. Engineering Design Group, Un-published In-House Data.
5. Ploessel, M.R. and Slossan, J.E., 1974 Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes:
California Geololgy, Vol. 27, No. 9, P.195-199.
6. State of California, Fault Map of California, Map No:1, Dated 1975.
7. State of California, Geologic Map of California, Map No:2, Dated 1977.
APPENDIX -B-
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 Testina
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 contractorto 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
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.
c
-1-
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.
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.
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 Recom ap ction: 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-
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.
— 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 .
ma era .
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.
-3-
4.3 Import: if importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material
should meet the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be given
to allow the geotechnical consultant to observe (and test, if necessary) the
proposed import materials.
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 necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum.
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 (unless otherwise specified). Compaction
equipment-shouldbe-adequately-sized-anrf-be-either-specifically designed-far-
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.
-4-
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.
-- 8.0 Quantt 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
DRAINAGE DETAIL
FINAL WATERPROOFING SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS TO BE PROVIDED
BY PROJECT ARCHITECT
i
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) MASTIC NOT TO BE
- EXPOSED TO SUNLIGHT
SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO 90%
RELATIVE COMPACTION
-- 2_ 7. PER REFERENCE #1
ZZz '
O j —� i •—I i - / PROPOSED SLOPE BACKCUT
PER OSHA STANDARDS
6
ND MIRADRAIN (top) '.LAP'- OR PER ALTERNATIVE SLOPING
I: AREA DRAIN PLAN, OR PER APPROVED
RETAINING WALL SYSTEM SHORING PLAN
I— +
MIRADRAIN MEMBRANE 4, FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES ' . .y: FILTER FABRIC OR
- SPECIFICATIONS OVER MASTIC •j'`-:MI ;. APPROVED EQUIVALENT)
WATERPROOFING - HLM 5000 I _ 12* MIN. LAP
OR EQUIVALENT
3/4" - 1 1/2" CLEAN
' II_ GRAVEL
I_I I I_, I I o 4'X4' (45d) CONCRETE CANT
_ I O FOOTING/WALL CONNECTION
(UNDER WATER PROOFING)
11-11 III—I i I l a — 4' (MIN.) DIAMETER
II I ! i=III — I PERFORATED PVC PIPE
(SCHEDULE 40 OR EQ.)
I I =III WITH PERFORATIONS
, I_ ORIENTED DOWN AS
DEPICTED MIN. 2%
< GRADIENT TO SUITABLE
�OMPACTED FILL x .< OUTLET.
DR BEDROCK WALL FOOTING i
END MIRADRAIN (bottom)
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR FILL MATERIAL
- AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT i
—ROJECT NUMBER ENGINEERING DETAIL/FIGURE
NUMBER
ROJECT NAME DESIGN GROUP
-ROJECT ADDRESS 810 WEST LOS VALLECITOS BLVD.
SUITE "A"
RAWN BY: SAN MARCOS, CA 92069
ALE: (760) 752-7010 FAX (760) 752-7092 DATE
SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
EXISTING GROUND /
SURFACE
i
FINISHED SLOPE FACE FINISHED CUT PAD
_ PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE
FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO
OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY -__--- --------- i 4 it
-COMPACT_L=D�__-
OVERBURDEN OR
UNSUITABLE ___ ==_ -r 'Y == PAO OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH
MATERIAL -__-- - 7?=_ ��� - AND RECOMPACTION MAY BE
RECOMMENDED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
BENCH BASED ON ACTUAL.FIELD
Z# is, MIN. COMPETENT BEDROCK OR
MIN. LOWEST MATERIAL AS EVALUATED
KEY BENCH BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
DEPTH
(KEY) CONSULTANT
NOTE: Subdrain details and key width recommendations to be provided based
on exposed subsurface conditions
STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL
OUTLET PIPES
4' 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
'^ 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY - BACK CUT
1:1 OR FLATTER
BENCH
1.�_ SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH
DETAIL
LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD
COMp7li:1593_ -� BE SITUATED AS LOW AS
__ _ POSSIBLE TO ALLOW
_ _-- SUITABLE OUTLET
KEY =__=_____` % --_ = ` PERFORATED 10' MIN.
DEPTH jj -____?_____ hliN.______ 1 EACH SIDE
_L ----------=-- - .� PIPE
A=o '"_ CAP
. ====a% MIN:= _ NON-PERFORATED
u_ii,� - '-_ - ,�- ►�_ OUTLET PIPE
KEY WIDTH T—CONNECTION DETAIL
AS NOTED-O-14-41RAOING PLANS .
15' MIN.
* IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL 1S USED IN PLACE OF
3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC
SEE T-CONNECTION MAY BE DELETED
8' MIN. DETAIL
OVERLAP ,—� SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
3/4'-1-1/2' CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
CLEAN GRAVEL 8' MIN.
(3f,t3/ft. MIN.) �� 1� COVER U.S. Standard
4' !d ' • , , 4' Sieve Size ro Passing
NON-PERFORATED PERFORATED 1" 100
PIPE. ° PIPE 3/4" 40-100
3/8" 40-100
FILTER FABRIC SS MIN• No. 4 25-40
ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 4' MIN. No. 8 18-33
140N OR APPROVED BEDDING No. 30 5-15
EQUIVALENT)* No. 50 0-7
SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL No. 200 0-3
Sand Equivalent>75
NOTES:
For buttress dimensions, see geotechnical report/plans. Actual dimensions of buttress and subdrain
may be changed by the peotechnical consultant based on field conditions.
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION-Subdratn pipe should be Installed with perforations down as depicted.
At locations recommended by the peotechnical consultant, nonperforated pipe should be Installed
SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdrain type should be Acrylon trile Butadiene Styrene (A.B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride
(PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125,SDR 32.5 should be used for maximum fill depths of 35 feet.
Class 200,SDR 21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 feet.
a CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
_ _ _ _
—= _ -
- _ --
!'-�_ � �I
BENCHING
REMOVE
-_ -- ___-------- --- UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
SUBDRAIN
TRENCH
SEE BELOW
SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAILS
FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE �Go MIN. OVERLAP
8' MIN. OVERLAP (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)*
as
• 8 MIN. COVER
COWER j 3/4'-1-1/2' CLEAN
�� =I• . GRAVEL
4' MIN. BEDDING (9ft3/ft. MIN.)
314'-1-112' CLEAN
GRAVEL (9110/ft. MIN.)
-- So 0 MIN. *IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
PERFORATED MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF
PIPE 3/4=1-1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC
MAY BE DELETED
DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
DESIGN FINISH __= U.S. Standard
GRADE _____ SUBDRAIN
TRENCH Sieve Size % Passing
=_==
-- --___--------p_�SEE ABOVE 1" 100
F�l_L_-====- 3/4" 90-100
---____ =
KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS
- FILL SLOPE _____ -
PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE _=
FROM TOE OF SLOPE
TO COMPETENT MATERIAL
EXISTING !M-
GROUND SURFACE __
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
—=� BENCH
MIN.
-_-
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
FINISH eAADE
SLOPE FACE
.MIN.
=__=_====-==___ ==_==
APPENDIX -C-
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
Direct Shear Test Direct shear tests are performed on remolded and/or relatively undisturbed
samples which are soaked for a minimum of 24 hours prior to testing. After transferring the
sample to the shearbox, and reloading, pore pressures are allowed to dissipated for a period of
"- approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples are sheared in a motor-
driven, strain controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus. After a travel of approximately 1/4 inch,
the motor is stopped and the sample is allowed to "relax" for approximately 15 minutes. Where
applicable,the"relaxed" and "peak"shear values are recorded. It is anticipated that, in a majority
of samples tested, the 15 minutes relaxing of the sample is sufficient to allow dissipation of pore
pressures set up due to application of the shearing force. The relaxed values are therefore
judged to be good estimations of effective strength parameters.
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of representative samples is evaluated by the
Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 29-2. Specimens are molded under a given
-- compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent
saturation. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent
144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water for 24 hours or until volumetric equilibrium
is reached.
Classification Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain-size analysis by
wet sieving from U.S. Standard brass screens (ASTM D422-65). Hydrometer analyses were
performed where appreciable quantities of fines were encountered. The data was evaluated in
determining the classification of the materials. The grain-size distribution curves are presented
in the test data and the Unified Soil Classification is presented in both the test data and the boring
logs.
-- APPENDIX -D-
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO
90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION*
RETAINING WALL-----,.,,
0 8 MIN. o = FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
WALL WATERPROOFING OVERLAP
PER ARCHITECT'S o 0 0 ' ---_- (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
SPECIFICATIONS ° ___
EQUIVALENT)**
1 MIN. __=- 310-1.112' CLEAN GRAVEL
FINISH GRADE o ===
0 __? 4' (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED
C , 0 PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR
EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS
- --------------- _- ------ I ' ° a ' ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED
0
____==_r----- - --- MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT
TO SUITABLE OUTLET
WALL FOOTING fr
3' MIN.
NOT TO SCALE COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CONSULTANT
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard *BASED ON ASTM 01557
_ Sieve Size % Pa
1" 100 **IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
3/4" 90-100 (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/8" 40-100 3/40-1-1/2' GRAVEL. FILTER FABRIC MAY BE
No. 4 25_40 DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
No. 8 18-33 MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90
No. 30 5_15 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION *
No. 50 0-7 NOTE.COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN
No. 200 0-3 OR J—DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR
Sand Equivalent>75 CLASS 2.INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE
WrrH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS,