Loading...
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,