Loading...
2004-9150 G 3WEST SURVEYING & MAPPING ..had Lansbeny 40475 Rock Mountain Drive,Fallbrook,CA 92028 Licensed Land Surveyor Office 760.723.5992 77 — Fax 760.723.5992 May 31,2005 2005 LD ls City of Encinitas Attn: Engineering Department Re: Zazen Ranch Pad Certifications (9150-G) On May 26,2005 I conducted a pad certification survey for the above referenced project. A series of nine random elevation checks were taken across the house pad(proposed pad elevation 118.0') with results being at elevations 117.98', 118.04', 117.96', 117.99', 118.09', 117.97', 117.98', 118.04', and 118.01'. Five random elevation shots were taken on the guest house pad(proposed pad elevation 106.0')with elevations being 105.95', 106.05' 105.96', 105.96', and 106.05'. The barn pad had not been completed and will be certified at a later date. Sincerely, W A 'P Chad Lansberry, L.S. 7448 �O XP 12 31 06 t4o.LS 744 ��OF Cp�� Jun U4 05 03: 43p Ch--1 7F •723-5992 p. 2 3WEST SURVEYING & MAPPING Chad Lansberry 40475 Rock Mountain Drive,Fallbrook,CA 92028 Licensed Land Surveyor Office 760.723.5992 Fax 760.723.5992 June 6, 2005 L JUN 8 2005 = Cn r"n ENPG,'EF N' SFRVICES *� M c.n C) City of Encinitas rn Attn: Engineering Department Re: Zazen Ranch Barn Pad Certification(9150-G) On June 3, 2005 I conducted a pad certification survey for the above referenced project. A series of six random elevation checks were taken across the barn pad(proposed pad elevation 102.0') with results being at elevations 101.95', 101.96', 101.92', 101.88', 101.92', and 102.03'. Sincerely, N Chad Lansberry, L.S. 7448 0 .%A RL A 3�EXP.12 3 _ NO.LS 7M8 OP CA`s i **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE re# SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001, 1985, 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL IE lg tf 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software Ver. ; Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID �. H &EP 14 2004 t Analysis prepared by: I The Mapsmith NO. Ey I 535 N. Hwy. 101, Suite G ��' c� Solana Beach, CA 92075 CPO, ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS * 04-047 ZAZE * 100 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY - D TYPE SOILS * SEE HYDROLOGY MAP ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 04-047A.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:28 09/14/2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE - 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0. 67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth) * (Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 110.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 117.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 116.40 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.10 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 12.271 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.691 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.22 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.22 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 61 -------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 116.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 106.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 300.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 10.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 5.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb-to-curb) = 0.0150 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.68 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.19 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 3.33 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 2. 98 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC. ) = 0.58 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 1.68 Tc(MIN. ) = 13.95 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.399 USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.61 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.93 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.74 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.15 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 4.99 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 3.13 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC. ) = 0.71 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.00 = 410.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.20 TO NODE 2.10 IS CODE = 21 -------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 170.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 117.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 116.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.70 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 15.255 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.208 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.38 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.38 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 52 --------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 116.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 101.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 250.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0600 NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.38 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 3.67 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 1.13 Tc(MIN. ) = 16.39 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.20 TO NODE 2.00 = 420.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 81 --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< --------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.063 USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.42 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.97 TC(MIN) = 16.39 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.20 TO NODE 3.10 IS CODE = 21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 70.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 131.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 122.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 9.50 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 4.104 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.856 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.32 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.12 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.32 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.10 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 122.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 97.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 480.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0510 NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.32 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 3.39 (PER LACFCD/RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 2.36 Tc(MIN. ) = 8.36 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 3.20 TO NODE 3.00 = 550.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.10 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 81 ------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.728 USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.92 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.08 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.40 TC(MIN) = 8.36 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.04 TC(MIN. ) = 8.36 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.40 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS 85TH PERCENTILE PEAK FLOW AND VOLUME DETERMINATION Modified Rational Method - Effective for Watersheds < 1.0 mil Note:Only Enter Values in Boxes-Spreadsheet Will Calculate Remaining Values Project Name Zazen Residence Work Order MS#-2004-1 Jurisdiction City of Encinitas BMP Location Grassy pad 85th Percentile Rainfall = 1 0.65 inches (from County Isopluvial Map) Developed Drainage Area= 9.3 acres Natural Drainage Area = 0.0 lacres Total Drainage Area to BMP = 9.3 acres Dev. Area Percent Impervious Overall Percent Impervious= 20 % ` N0. Dev.Area Runoff Coefficient= 0.45 Nat. Area Runoff Coefficient= 0.45 ` `f Runoff Coefficient= 0.45 Clv%\. \P Time of Concentration = 874 minutes QF CA1.1 (from Drainage Study) RATIONAL METHOD RESULTS Q = CIA where Q = 85th Percentile Peak Flow(cfs) C = Runoff Coefficient I = Rainfall Intensity(0.2 inch/hour per RWQCB mandate) A= Drainage Area (acres) V= CPA where V= 85th Percentile Runoff Volume (acre-feet) C = Runoff Coefficient P= 85th Percentile Rainfall (inches) A= Drainage Area (acres Using the Total Drainage Area: '1 C = 0.45 1 = 0.2 inch/hour 1 P = 0.65 inches ! FE ? 1 - A= 9.3 acres ' Q= 0.84 cfs V= 0.23 acre-feet Using Developed Area Only: C = 0.45 1 = 0.2 inch/hour P = 0.65 inches A= 9.3 acres Q= 0.84 cfs V= 0.23 acre-feet Grassy Swale Design Spreadsheet S Given: Height V Design flow 0.84 cfs QPeak=peak flow rate,d!s d Residence time(req) 8.36 minutes ssl SS2 Trapezoid Channel Design Parameters: y 0.25 feet lip w J t 52 feet b 50 feet Diagram of Swale Variables Used in Spreadsheet z 4 fVft A 12.75 sq ft Find Amax of channel: Find Vek:oity in channel V=Q/A Q= (1.49/n)'A'R^(213)'s".5 Therefore: n 0.2 V= 0.065882 fps s 0.02 ftfft(long.Slope) r 0.246377 ft Q= 5278361 cfs Required Length of Channel: L=vt -- Therefore: /� L= 33.04659 _ ®� N 01 cow.. �P ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL STRUCTURAL E ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS _ FOR RESIDENTIAL&COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 •www.designgroupca.com ,gym LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ZAZEN RANCH DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED ON OLIVENHAIN FARMS ROAD (APN 264-270-08), ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA EDG Project No. 043381-1 August 18, 2004 PREPARED FOR: SKIP COMBER c/o Rancho Productions, Inc. SEP 580 Second Street, Suite 200 Encinitas, CA 92024 I - � TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 FIELD INVESTIGATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 LIQUEFACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 EARTHWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 RETAINING WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 POOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 SURFACE DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 MISCELLANEOUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 FIGURES Site Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 1 Site Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 2 Approximate Location of Test Pits Figure No. 3 Test Pit Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figures No. 4-8 Expansion Index Test Results . . . Figure 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 limited geotechnical investigation for the property located on Olivenhain Farms Road (APN 264-270-08), 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 surrounding areas, a limited subsurface investigation of the property in the area of proposed building improvement,field analysis, soil testing and preparation of this report presenting our findings,conclusions,and recommendations. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property appears to be an irregular shaped approximately 10 acre lot located on Olivenhain Farms Road (APN 264-270-08), in the Olivenhain Community of the City of Encinitas, California. The site is bordered to the north by a custom developed property,to the east by a natural drainage,to the south by a private road and to the west by Olivenhain Farms Road. The topography of the site area consists of moderately sloping foothill terrain. The topography of the site itself consists of a previously graded cut-fill building pad located in the area of the proposed main house that sits as a local high point. The remaining portions of the lot are gently sloping. At the time of this report the areas of proposed structural improvement are vacant. Presently the lot is developed with wood framed stables and a temporary unit in the northeast corner of the property. Based upon our conversations with the project architect,we understand that development will include the following: 1. Design and construction of new main residence. 2. Design and construction of new barn structure. 3. Design and construction of a new guest house. FIELD INVESTIGATION Our field investigation of the property,conducted July 16, 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. Our subsurface investigation consisted of visual observation of five test pits in the general areas of proposed construction, logging of soil types encountered, and sampling of soils for laboratory testing. The locations of our test pits are given in Figure No. 3, "Site Plan, Approximate Location of Test Pits". Logs of the exploratory test pits are presented in Figures No. 4-8, "Test Pit Logs". SUBSOIL CONDITIONS At the time of our investigation five (5) trenches were excavated around the site in the anticipate locations of the various proposed structures. Materials consisting of fill and weathered alluvium Zazen Ranch Page No. 1 Olivenhain Farms Road, Encinitas, California Job No.043381-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS underlain by siltstone were encountered during our subsurface investigation of the site. Soil types are described as follows: Fill Fill materials generally consisted of silty sands and sandy silts with small roots, metavolcanic cobbles. Fills were found to extend to depths of between 3-6 feet below existing pad grade in the areas of our test pits. Fill soils consist of dark to rust brown, moist, medium dense to medium stiff, silty sands to sandy silts. Fill materials are not considered suitable for the support of structures in their present state. These materials can be used as compacted fill during removal and recompaction at depths greater than 4 feet below adjacent grade (i.e. cannot cap pad). Silty sands to sandy silts classify as SM-MH according to the Unified Classification System, and based on visual observation and laboratory testing generally possess potentials for expansion in the medium- high range. Alluvium Alluvial soils,associated with drainage's flanking the east and west property lines, were encountered in our tests pits for the proposed barn and guest house. Alluvial materials extend to depths between 5-15 feet below existing pad grade in the areas of our test pits. These materials consists of dark to rust brown to grey, moist to very moist, medium dense to medium stiff, clayey sands to sandy silts. These materials are not considered suitable for the support of structures in their present state. These materials may be suitable as compacted fill, provided they are property dried and organic matter is removed, at depths greater than 4 feet below adjacent grade. Silty sands to sandy silts classify as SM-MH according to the Unified Classification System,and based on visual observation and laboratory testing generally possess potentials for expansion in the medium-high range. Siltstone Siltstone and claystone material was found to underlie the topsoil fill material within the test pit excavations. Siltstone materials consisted of white to grey, slightly moist sandstone and were exposed along the western portion of the property. Siltstone materials consisted of green to grey, moist, stiff, siltstone. Sandstone and claystone materials are considered suitable for the support of structures and structural improvements,provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Siltstone materials classify as SM according to the Unified Classification System, and based on visual observation and our experience possess potentials for expansion in the medium-high range. (EI=77) Zazen Ranch Page No.2 Clivenhain Farms Road, Encinitas, California Job No.043381-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS For detailed logs of soil types encountered in footing excavations,as well as a depiction of observed locations, please see Figure No. 3, "Approximate Location of Test Pits", and Figures No. 4-7, "Test Pit Logs". GROUND WATER Ground water was not encountered during our subsurface investigation of the site. Ground water may impact removals in the alluvial areas for the barm and guest house if work is conducted during the winter. Groundwater is not anticipated to be a significant concern for the main pad area. 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. 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 clayey and 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. Zazen Ranch Page No.3 Olivenhain Farms Road, Encinitas, California Job No. 043381-1 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. We understand in the area of the new proposed main house the proposed grades will be lowered approximately 6 feet from the existing grade. At this elevation we anticipate the house will be founded on a primarily cut formational pad. Our laboratory tests indicate at this elevation the expansion index of the underlying soil classify as medium-high expansive (EI=77). We recommend the main house pad be capped with 4 feet of non-expansive import soil. In the area of the new guest house and barn pad alluvial soil were encountered to depths of 13-15 feet. Considering the depth of alluvial soil, utilizing removal and recompaction methods to prepare these pads may prove expensive and difficult. Ideally,work in these areas would not occur during the rainy season. As an alternative,the siting of the barn and guest house may be modified, moving the buildings up slope, or the buildings designed at grade with a deepened foundation system. Depending on the option chosen, additional investigation utilizing a small diameter drill rig may be required prior to finalizing the foundation design recommendations. 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 structural or cosmetically sensitive improvements fill found to mantle the site will require removal and recompaction. 1. Site Preparation Prior to any removals, areas of proposed improvement should be cleared of old structures and surface/subsurface organic debris (including 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 only to depths greater than 4 feet below adjacent grade. In areas of slab on grade floors a non-expansive soils(E.I. <50)should be imported for a minimum cap depth of 4 feet below adjacent grade. Zazen Ranch Page No.4 Olivenhain Farms Road, Encinitas, California Job No.043381-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 8 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 2. Removals Fill and alluvium found to mantle the site in the test pit excavations(i.e., upper 1-6 feet & 5-15 feet, respectively), are not suitable for the structural support of buildings or improvements in its present state, and will require removal and re- compaction in areas of proposed new settlement sensitive improvements. In general, grading should consist of the excavation of unsuitable soil to competent subgrade, scarification of subgrade to a depth of 12 inches, and the re- compaction of fill materials to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Removal/undercuts should extend to a minimum of 1 foot below foundations. Excavated fill materials are suitable for reuse as fill material below the 4 ft. import cap. Excavated materials should be 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. Improvements should be constructed on uniform building pad. Where cut/fill transition occurs,the building pad should be undercut to a minimum of 3 feet or 1 foot below deepest footing, whichever is greater. Removals and undercuts should extend a minimum of 5 feet or to a distance at least equal to depth of fill removals, whichever is greater beyond the footprint of the proposed structures and settlement sensitive improvements. Removals could be up to 15 feet at some locations on the property. Where this condition cannot be met it should be reviewed by the Engineering Design Group on a case by case basis. Removal depths should be visually verified by a representative of our firm prior to the placement of fill. 3. Fills Areas to receive fill and/or structural improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and 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 have very low potential for expansion (E.I. < 50) 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. Zazen Ranch Page No. 5 Olivenhain Farms Road, Encinitas, California Job No.043381-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 8 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS FOUNDATIONS The following design parameters may be utilized for new foundations founded in recompacted fill material with a non-expansive import cap. 1. Footings bearing in compacted fill formational material may be designed utilizing maximum allowable soils pressure of 1,800 psf. 2. Seismic Design Parameters: Seismic Zone Factor 4 Soil Profile Type Sd (Table 16-J) Near Source Distance 16 km (Distance to Closest Rose Canyon Active Fault Seismic Source Type B (Table 16-U) 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 grade: No. of Floors Minimum Footing Width *Minimum Footing Depth Supported Below Lowest Adjacent Grade 1 18 inches 18 inches 2 18 inches 18 inches 3 24 inches I 24 inches 4. All footings founded into recompacted fill should be reinforced with a minimum of two#5 bars at the top and two#5 bars at the bottom (3 inches above the ground). For footings over 30 inches in depth, additional reinforcement, and possibly a stemwall system will be necessary, and should be reviewed by project structural engineer prior to construction. 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 and depth of 24 inches. Zazen Ranch Page No.6 Olivenhain Farms Road, Encinitas, California Job No. 043381-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 8 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 6. For footings adjacent to slopes,a minimum 15 feet horizontal setback in 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 can not 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 to 4% over optimum to a minimum of 18 inches in depth prior to the pouring of concrete. 9. Deepened foundations,extending to formational soil (up to 10+ft. deep), raised wood floors and structural slabs may be utilized in lieu of site grading. CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE(Import Can Areas Only) The following design parameters are provided for a minimum of 4 foot of non expansive import cap below slab. 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. A uniform layer of 4 inches of coarse 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. Coarse sand material should have an Sand Equivalent (S.E.)greater than 50, and be washed clean of fine materials. In moisture sensitive areas, a visqueen layer(10 mil)should be placed mid-height in the sand bed to act as a vapor retarder. Sand should be rounded to avoid puncture of visqueen vapor retarder. 4. Adequate control joints should be installed to control the unavoidable cracking of concrete that takes place when undergoing its natural shrinkage during curing. The control joints should be well located to direct unavoidable slab cracking to areas that are desirable by the Zazen Ranch Page No. 7 Olivenhain Farms Road, Encinitas, California Job No.043381-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 8 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS designer. Where the cosmetic appearance of the slab on grade floor finish may be of concern joints should be spaced every 225 s.f. of slab area. 5. All subgrade soils to receive concrete flatwork are to be pre-soaked to 2 percent over optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches. 6. Cap subgrade should slope at a minimum of 2%to a low point outside the building footprint, where it is captured by a french drain and directed to a suitable outlet point. 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 and driveway slabs, due to the nature of concrete hydration and minor subgrade soil movement, are subject to normal minor concrete cracking. To minimize expected concrete cracking, the following may be implemented: • Concrete slump should not exceed 4 inches. • Concrete should be poured during "cool' (40 - 65 degrees) weather if possible. If concrete is poured in hotter weather,a set retarding additive should be included in the mix, and the slump kept to a minimum. Concrete subgrade should be pre-soaked prior to the pouring of concrete. The level of pre-soaking 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. Zazen Ranch Page No. 8 Olivenhain Farms Road, Encinitas, California Job No.043381-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 8 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls up to 10 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 "Foundation" section of this report. 2. Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. This assumes that granular,free draining material with low potential for expansion (E.I. <50) will be used for backfill, and that the backfill surface will be level. 3. 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. 4. If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement, they should be designed for an at rest soil pressure of 65 psf. 5. Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 250 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. 6. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 between the soil and concrete footings may be utilized to resist lateral loads in addition to the passive earth pressures above. 7. 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. 8. 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. Zazen Ranch Page No. 9 Olivenhain Farms Road, Encinitas, California Job No.043381-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS g. Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the"Earthwork" section of this report. Backfill shall consist of soil with a very low expansion potential, granular, free draining material. POOLS Where new pools are proposed the following design constraints should be followed. 1. Pools should be designed for soils with expansion potential in the medium to high range. Location specific expansion test can be conducted in the area of the pool prior to final pool design and subsequent to rough grading. 2. Pools should be founded on a uniform pad with no cut fill transitions. PAVEMENT We have conducted preliminary pavement design calculations for the proposed driveway sections. Utilizing an anticipated T1=6 and an assumed R-value of 15(conservatively)the following parameters may be utilized for pavement sections. R-value testing shall be conducted at the time of construction to confirm the values utilized herein at final driveway locations. Section Thickness AC (in) Class 11 (in) Decomposed Options Granite (in) A 6 12 - B 9 8 C _ - 20 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 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 Zazen Ranch Page No. 10 Olivenhain Farms Road, Encinitas, California Job No.043381-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 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. Attendance of a pre-grade/construction meeting prior to the start of work. 2. Review of final approved structural plans prior to the start of work, for compliance with geotechnical recommendations. 3. Testing of any fill placed, including retaining wall backfill and utility trenches. 4. Observation of footing excavations prior to steel placement. 5. Final review of pool plans prior to pool excavation. 6. Observation of pool subgrade. 7. Field observation of any"field change" condition involving soils. 8. 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. 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. 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 Zazen Ranch Page No. 11 Olivenhain Farms Road, Encinitas, California Job No. 043381-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 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 report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. We hope the report prov' Ep G�'th necessary information to continue with the development of the project. �,R OHO C7 STEVEN B. NORRIS Sincerely, 4, Na 2253 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP ENGINEERING _� E�5122 rn cP� GEJIOGIST e� ch m p�OFESS� EKP. 9 � Y r d O Q -- � N C Clvt W cm m 2590 �vtN No�� N", OF CA�- s d' EXP. 12-31-05 � ? C47672 EXP 12 Steven Norris CALF �, Erin E. Rist California Registered Geotechnical Engineer: GE#2 CIVIC.. �Q RCE#65122 California Registered Civil Engineer: RICE#47672 TF OF CAL�F�4� California Certified Engineering Geologist: CEG#2263 Zazen Ranch Page No. 12 Olivenhain Farms Road, Encinitas, California Job No.043381-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS O OCEAN a BU 9 �" 1. w 1 N l, � �p 1 NO �� � �1J�Cpl •p A 6 - ,D� ., LA a' vZ ° dOST RD �T135 EL a DEL�I0 11 IA t r 4 {o ESC LAKE ENCINI AS EKD TAMS RANCHO s a Rh'NCHO BERNARDO m F cd ( _°OIFF-BY E-S SF AR, BE�APDO y4p o J o SITE E I J atAfff PAW A A cu Nrsmh< J DIMM SO NA BEACH *E FE A. J FARBANICS ' ' RANCHO E EN GARDENS ° i° a�xu u o t N r 1 1 rx EY �bI Ha j DEL MAR ESL CARMEL F i 'POWAY' VAI IF Si n SITE VICINITY MAP PROJECT NAME ZAZEN RANCH PROJECT ADDRESS OLIVENHAIN FARMS ROAD(APN 264-270-08), ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 043381 Phone: 780)B39-77302an�(7)4eo°an 1 EAFORMS\l FRWOOO\MASTER-SITE VICINITY-FIG 1.wpd r� Rm V 0.`F.CAST € NIDA PANZ60 F� sri ' 1L , r OJ Qp,SEO x /t xf r Q' 'lam ,�`� n 's r� ri sg ^t , }y gy "' xL� •';,+ t�tJ 1�_ SITE i u ,� T O • r.. 9Ty o � RANCH O INO IpCE CN �O ✓ v, N C ANN E s y S �NDOS 4 .3 PASEO CIELO 600 CgFSCF` O�`' LA RY CT fyl � ��• Y��,rF'` M SITE LOCATION MAP PROJECT NAME ZAZEN RANCH PROJECT ADDRESS OLIVENHAIN FARMS ROAD(APN 264-270-08), ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL,GVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 043381 Phone::(760)839-7302" "�(760)480 7477 2 E:\FORMS\t FRM\2000\MASTER-SITE LOCATION-FIG 2.wpd s � I myth'` � 1 �-• �'�'ir. � /I Lc if A. I o'0 4led / �,�,•� by I' I �`-- f�J I a► . j a - t I � c APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF COMPACTION TESTS PROJECT NAME ZAZEN RANCH PROJECT ADDRESS OLIVENHAIN FARMS ROAD(APN 264-270-08), ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 8 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 043381 Phone:(760)839-7302 Fw(�)4eo-iae7 3 E:\FORMS\1 FRM\2000\MASTER-FIG.wpd ctq p v- 0 O 2 — Z : ) Cl) A LLI - � / ) ) ) CO k ] - k 2 k } ! } 0 2 m | } ) ! � - - . i ) ! U) \ \ - § @ # ) . ƒ \ ] . a U) 7 � - r 0) % k - . \ 3 E Z $ � k 0 0) Q k // k$ 0 C))k k Q W e : n z - . Q . / n 2 E a % £ © . . « k LL ; , / / \o / k 2 \ n 9 k -C z . F- -Y- 0 / $ . » & co ƒ . § J i . & . ! , m @ k C) . . k o a CL O k % — z w Cl) � | i W E n . { 2 / . ] ) I ) ( ) Q) \ Co { { | } 7 § ) { | � k % c 7 tt:F ! . E @ ) k ( D U') § ` ; \ 0) � f cn /_ / k a / : . ) - \ g_ > L ; ( £ z ± a c 2 0 � 2 3 ° 2 0 ( ) p 3 2 2 e o 1q, / � $ 2 r 2 £ / « 00 L a 04 ■ q / / / C14 # § ( co 2 / . / j E co ƒ { I 2 . . . 2 m § / A . . . 2 2 2 it 2 W A o o (N n t ® .® } M Ln Z W 6 — e t N W � 7 F- c a ' Z > i V v� o 3 f J Z 0 n t { o '0 k x Z E E ir rn E cn 0 0 Cl) , Q Z EC :3 ; O o E m y N v E c I `C Sc J y W c L LL c a ti � 3 �' Z �' 3 G k Dom poi '�� 3 } C^ (w1r lO Q W OJ 'D U) � .y 1. Z 00 iTL rn (° N ( o A ° (0 zp 3 CD f- z C> la- �c Z i co Cw z W m W Z d V G1 m 'v7 cx U � CL a� a W J Q W J W (D o cq co v U-) co t-- LL LU LU a) Z U) U) 0 LO (10 0 ac) -0 la) E i:� cn =3 a) 0 E co 41) 0 E .2 cu Mn 0 cc): Co rn 0) E C6 C: C: 0 cu co Av co co � U- C :g)fo 0 :3 0 0 E V; co E C"u —i =3 -,:c uj 0 < 0 OD iTL w CY) CY) or) C) Q Z r L) cu ui m IL Cc (a as k (N M IZ I J C) Lo CD p- M M — — — — — • 00 O 0 ji c 0 Z CO U) U) 10 C9 r Co fl U') gg An -o OL 5 a CL E co 0 O C cn > co An y A lz 0 E L) cu L) Co 75 0 (n > 0 c E co Q fl C: -0 Y Co m 0 co ca cn '0 1 a 0 U- ca oar-0 a) 0 :3 o O E ol co :3 D 0 (I —j cn 0 E Lu E 0 Z Z U') < co co 'D (D (D 0 O (D C) L: z O w cu U) W ED UJ c,- 0 -Z A) 1p y fa -C 0 o (t 6 a CO M d LO J 0 CD CN M LO co r— CO 0) — — — — — — ' JOB DATE- JOB NAME:`!�M&*WJIW LOCATION: Zazan Ranch LAB WORK SHEET EXPANSION INDEX TEST Cl IANGE DATA ON YELLOW ONLY ASTM D4829-95 TRIAL To Get 50% WET WEIGH 382.06 DRY WEIGHT grs 342.47 WEIGHT OF RING qrs 366.70 366.70 WEIGHT OF SOIL LbS 0.824757709 0.841541644 VOLUME OF SOIL of 0.0072722 0.0072722 . WET DENSITY Pef 113.41 115.72 DRY DENSITY Pelf 103.73 103.73 EXPANSION READING POST TEST,W DATE TIME: INITIAL READING INCH LOW 21-60 DRY ANT SOIL 13-15f.r. MEDIUM 61 -90 FINAL READING HIGH 91-130 %WMOIST VERY HIGH 130> EXPANSION INDEX 2.-%SATURATIION MUST BE BETWEEN 45%AND 55% El at saturation between 40-60% Measured Satumtlor El at 50%Saturation., 77 EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS PROJECT NAME ZAZEN RANCH PROJECT ADDRESS OLIVENHAIN FARMS ROAD(APN 264-270-08), ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE 2121 kbnbel Fbad,San Woos,CA 92069 043381 Phone:(760)839-7302 Fbx(760)480-7477 9 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 Testing Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24 hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No grading operations should be performed without the knowledge of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical consultant is aware of all grading operations. It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, recommendations in the geotechnical report, and the approved grading plans not withstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant. If, in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical report and the specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction should be performed in general accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing and Materials test method ASTM D1557. 3.0 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 Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed, screened of deleterious material, and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. -2- 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 to placement. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended by the geotechnical consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade, within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction, or within 15 feet horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the attached detail. -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 should be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree and uniformity of compaction. 5.4 Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the fill out to the slope face would be at least 90 percent. -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 Quantity Determination For purposes of determining quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or determining the limits of overexcavation, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. -5- RETAINING WA MINIMUM RE LL WATERPROOFING & DRAINAGE D ETAIL FINAL WATERPROOFING SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS TO BE PROVIDED • _ BY PROJECT ARCHITECT MASTIC TO BE APPLIED TO TOP OF WALL MASTIC ED PER MANUFACTURES PROOFING (HLM 5000 OR EQUIV) SPECIFICATIONS & PROTECTED WITH BACKER BOA RD (ABOVE MIRADRAIN) MASTIC NOT TO BE TOP OF RETAINING WALL SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO 90% PER REFERENCE #1ON `D 2%�- _- _ ? PROPOSED SLOPE BACKCUT PER OSHA STANDARDS --i — OR PER ALTERNATIVE SLOPING :6•.'6kp PLAN, OR PER APPROVED NO MIRADRAIN (top) I �: AREA DRAIN SHORING PUN RETAINING WALL - � FILTER- FABRIC ENVELOPE MIRADRAIN MIEMBRANE (MIRAFI 14ON OR INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES ,'.. ::• APPROVED EQUIVALENT) SPECMgi ,T10NS OVER MASTIC '-t11 I 12- MIN. LAP WATERPROOFLNG - HL.M 5000 3�4` _ 1 1/2- CLEAN OR EQUIVALENT .i I I i GRAVEL 4•X4- (45d) CONCRETE CANT I ! ! ! ALL CONNECTION/ (UNDER WATER_ I I=I _ PROOFING) I I—I I=i I I—III III a — 4- (MIN.) i I=I I—III =I I— DIAMETER PERFORATED PV C PIPE HEDULE 40 OR EQ.)SC —I I i i II I A e " o C I ( MATH PERFORATIONS _ C ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED MIN. < < < � 1�/!I`,!` f f' GRADIENT TO SUITABLE t if !� 'A,;c��,<e` c .� • << OUTLET. ^OMPACTED FILL WALL FOOTING 9R BEDROCK END MIRADRAIN (bottom) AS ETLUATED� MATERIAL By THE GEOTECHN CAL VA CONSULTANT SCALE: 1" = V -0" PROJECT NAME PROJECT ADDRESS FIGURE JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICALZCI IL,STRUCTU San Marcos)CA 92089E CONSULTANTS Phone:(760)839-73C2 Fax:(780)480-7477 \\Main\file on main\FORMS\1 FRM\2000\MASTER-FIG.wpd SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL EXISTING GROUND / SURFACE / /// / FINISHED SLOPE FACE FINISHED CUT PAD/ / pROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE / FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY =_ _C-ypACTEo- _== PAO OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH OVERBURDEN OR __ ___ STABILITY FILL BUTTRESS DETAIL OUTLET PIPES PIPE. 4' 0 NONPERFORATEO -_ 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, BACK CUT 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY OR FLATTER BENCH MIN------ SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD C - POSSIBLE_ BE SITUATED AS LOW AS -rOj4pXIB_Drr __ -� POSSIBLE TO ALLOW =_f=1L1L __ __ = SUITABLE OUTLET 10' MIN. PERFORATED EACH SIDE KEY -==__=___:2'�i MIN _____?= PIPE DEPTH - CAP :�i - NON 2 -PERFORATED _ _21i MIN ___ r _ OUTLET PIPE KEY WIOTH T—CONNECTION DETAIL AS NOTED O GMIN. INNG PLANS * IF MATERIAL Ss USED N PLACE OF LE CLASS 3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVEL. FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED - SEE T-CONNECTION e' MIN. DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS OVERLAP CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL CLEAN GRAVEL �. •1 e' MIN. U.S. Standard (3ft3/ft. MIN.) /• I� COVER Sieve Size p Passing 4• .� • • ' • .I 4• 1,. 100 NON—PERFORATED PERFORATED 3/4" 90-100 PIPE ° PIPE 3/8^ 40-100 No. 4 25-40 5% MIN. 18-33 FILTER FABRIC 4' MIN. No. 8 5-15 ENVELOPE (MIRAFI BEDDING No. 30 50 0-7 140N OR APPROVED No. EQUIVALENT)' No. 200 0-3 SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL Sand Equivalent>75 NOTES: For buttress dimensions, see gent al consultantrtbased on field conditions of buttress and subdrain may be changed by the geotechnica SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION-Subdrain pipe should be installed with pert o edi pipedshould a depicted.be installed At locations recommended by the geotechnical consultant. SUBDRAIN TYPE-3ubdrain type should be crylo 5r is autabe usedt re a (A.B.S. )fill, depths) ofh35itaet. (PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125,SDR Class 200,SDR 21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 feet. CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS EXIST1Na GROUND SURFACE BENC HIN __ ."_!--_"`-_,fir=== REMOVE ---- -- UNSUITABLE MATERIAL SUBORAIN TRENCH SEE BELOW SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAILS 8' MIN. OVERLAP FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE � 8' MIN. OVERLAP (MIRAFIEQ ROVED UIVALENT* r as MIN. �- • . 1. • g MIN. COVER 3140-1-1/2' CLEAN ° ' ' ' • C COVER GRAVEL �� •' (fift3/ft. MIN.) • 4' MIN. BED DING 3/4'-t-1/2' CLEAN GRAVEL (9ft3/ft. MIN.) g• jo MIN. *IF CA LTRANS GLASS 2 PERMEABLE PERFORATED MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF PIPE 314=1_1/20 GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL SPECIFICATIONS BIFORMATERIANS CLASS 2 ard 30 DESIGN FINISH _= gUBDRAIN e Passin 'N 0 101 8 18-33 GRADE __= TRENCH 100 - SEE ABOVE 40-100 25-40 --- --- - No. 50 0-3 �5'MIN PERFORATED 15' MIN. e' 0 MIN. PIPE Sand Equivalent>75 NONPERFORATED So 0 MIN. gubdrain should be constructed only on competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. hnical consultant, nonperforated pipe should be Installed. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrain pipe should be installed with Perforations down as depicted. At locations recommended by the geotec vinyl SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdrain type should.be Acryionitr 25,30R 32 5dshou dtbeeussdAfor Maximum Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. fill depths of 33 feet. Class 200,SOR 21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 foot, KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS F FILL SLOPE I LINE _ - "== PROJECT t TO =z:GbM�i'�'' 1�D FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO COMPETENT MATERIAL EXISTING -- GROUND SURFACE -__?_-- --__z__-�_-_, ►__a= REMOVE _ UNSUITABLE MATERIAL BENCH 2' MIN. --�5' MIN KEY LOWEST DEPTH BENCH (KEY) _-FILL z FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE EXISTING GROUND SURFACE BENCH -- REMOVE UNSUITABLE �y 2• LOWEST MATERIAL KEY B(KEY) DEPTH CUT SLOPE (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) EXISTING GROUND gURFACE----_,�, / CUT SLOP1: TED (TpR OR TOAFILL CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE / PLACEMENT) REMOVE UNSUITABLE -�_-'__ 'MATERIAL PROJECT 1 TO i LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO pMpACT COMPETENT _F It, -- MATERIAL BENCH f= x = n 2' MIN. LOWEST KEY• DEPTH BENCH (KEY) NOTE: Back drain may be recommended YBenchedimensionirecommendat ons may actual field conditions encountered. also be altered based on field conditions encountered. ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL FINLBN eRADE SLOPE FACE -=_' _====== _=== ====== ==_=?_ lets- ---------- �uwi�.eirr =•13T�iAlt�: GMP_ACfIg F_1 C':!-- ===_= mMin -- ---- - _-= == ------ MAX_ OVERsiZE WINDROW _ _- GRANULAR SOIL (S.E.'-30) TO BE — DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY FLOODING DETAIL TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW t) Rock with maximum dimensions greater than 6th ofelo should u not whichever Is greater), 10 er t andil5ifeet horizon ally ofrslope faces,~ dep Flocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet should not be utilized in fills. 2) R Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by t e 3) P geotechnical consultant. 'mum size and spacing of windrows should be in ws shou d be with staggebede details 4) Maxl Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Wln vertically (as depicted). 5) Rock should be placed in excavated trenches.completely f ll voids ater than or beneath ual to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to comp e Y rocks. APPENDIX -C- LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES Direct Shear Test Direct shear tests are performed on remolded and/or After eansferri undisturbed samples which are soaked for a min imuome pressures ape allowed to dissipated for a period of sample to the shearbox, and reloading, p ximatel 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples are oxima eln 1/4 inch, motor- approximately Y apparatus. After a travel of app Y driven, strain controlled, direct-shear testing app travel of 15 minutes. Where the motor is stopped and the sample is allowed to "relax"for approximately ab , ority le the"relaxed" and "peak" shear values are recorded• it sufficient to alpl w ated that, in a dissipation fjpore of samples of samples tested, the 15 minutes relaxing of the sample is su i s pressures set up due to application of the shearing force. The relaxed values are therefore judged to be good estimations of effective strength parameters. Ex an sion Index Tests: The expansion potential of representative a are molded evaluated by the given Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 29-2. specimens approximately 50 percent compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and app Y saturation. The prepared oxim thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 4 sf surcharge and are inundated with tap water for 24 hours or until volumetric equilibrium 14 p is reached. Classification Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain-size analysis by Cla Hydrometer analyses were wet sieving from U.S. Standard ant brass of fines(we a encountered. The data was evaluated in performed where appreciable quantities determining he classification of the materia esented is. The grain-sizenbot both h the test data and the boring in the test data and the Unified Soil Classification is pr logs. APPENDDC -D- RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION* RETAINING o e' MIN. a FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE I OVERLAP WALL WATERPROOFING (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED o 0 0 ==�- PER ARCHITECT'S =___ EQUIVALENT)** SPECIFICATIONS 0 0 , 1' MIN. ==