The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-148 G PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. WAR.YNE A. CE 295770 JOSEPHYUHAS 535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A P.L.S.5211 SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 W.JUSTIN SUITER it (858) 259-8212 R.C.E.68964 FAX (858) 259-4812 April 24, 2006 PE 1476 Engineering Department City of Encinitas 505 So. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS FOR 2274 EDINBURG AVENUE, CARDIFF, CA The purpose of this letter is to address the hydrology and hydraulics of the improvements associated with a proposed development at 2274 Edinburg Avenue. HYDROLOGY All proposed grading for this project will be for the construction of the proposed residence and no drainage patterns will be significantly altered as a result of the grading. Runoff will continue to be collected and conveyed to both the alley to the west and to Edinburg Avenue as it does in the current condition. Additionally, there is no measurable increase in the volume of runoff generated as a result of the proposed improvements. HYDRAULICS The only proposed hydraulic entity on site is the sump pump to handle the drainage in the light wells. Specifications for this pump have been added to the plans. The existing topography and drainage structures are adequate to convey and contain Q100 as they did prior to the proposed work. Also, the proposed alley improvements have been designed to insure that runoff will continue to be conveyed to the south in both the interim and ultimate alley build out. Based on the discussion in this letter it is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering, Inc. that the existing drainage system on the corresponding Grading Plan will function to adequately intercept, contain and convey flow from a 100 year storm to the appropriate points of discharge. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, PASCO N INEERING, INC. rn Justin S iter, Vice-President ; RCE 68 964 ENGINEERING MDESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL L STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS FOR RESIDENTIAL 6 COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069- (760) 839-7302- Fax: (760) 480-7477 - E-mail: ENGDG@aol.com LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT 2274 EDINBURG AVENUE, COMMUNITY OF CARDIFF BY THE SEA ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA - EDG Project No. 063842-1 February 27, 2006 PREPARED FOR: ANTONIO AND TRACY GRAYEB 2274 Edinburg Avenue Cardiff By The Sea, CA 92007 ENGINEERING - DESIGN GROUP GEOTECRNICAL,CIVIL 6 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS FOR RESIDENTIAL d COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477• E-mail: ENGDG @aol.com Date: February 27, 2006 To: Antonio and Tracy Grayeb 2274 Edinburg Avenue Cardiff By The Sea, CA 92007 Re: Proposed New Residence to be Located at 2274 Edinburgh Avenue in the Community of Cardiff By The Sea, California Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Report In accordance with your request and our Work Authorization and Agreement dated December 16, _ 2005, we have prepared this getotechnical report for the proposed residential development. The findings of the inve�I ation, earthwork recommendations and foundation design parameters are presented in ifs rep rt. In general, it is our opinion that the proposed construction, as described herein, is feasi a from a geotechnical standpoint,provided the recommendations of this report and generally ac pted construction practices are followed. If you ve any que ions regarding the following report please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sin erely, GI RING DESIGN GROUP even Norris __ Erin't Rist G 2590,CEG #2263 - -_- RICE#6512 _' i � �,� ;+ � ��\ 1 Rn P E S SAO E. C47672 t 2590 ?i `? N0. 65122 -XP. 12-31 n7 =z l� 0 fT � rr�� E_ T 1_ ) w t '1 .7 / ' �� . Exp 9!301200' OF CA, IV I <r.% `\, OF CtL\FUG "V' �b 4 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 LIQUEFACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 EARTHWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 RETAINING WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 SURFACE DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 MISCELLANEOUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 FIGURES Site Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 1 Site Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 2 Boring Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 3 Boring Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boring Log No. 1 Test Pit Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Test Pit Log No. 1 Proctor Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 4 -- 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 our recommendations for the proposed development to be located at 2274 Edinburgh Avenue in the Cardiff By The Sea community of 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 properties and surrounding areas, laboratory testing and preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION For the purposes of this report the front of the property is assumed to face east. The subject property appears to be a rectangular shaped lot located at 2274 Edinburg Avenue in the Cardiff by the Sea community of the City of Encinitas,California. The property is bordered to the north and south by single family residential homes, to the west by an alley, and to the east by Edinburgh Avenue. The general topography of the site area consists of coastal hillside terrain. The site generally slopes gently descending from east to west. At the time of this report the lot is improved with an existing single story single family residence. Based upon our conversations with the project architect and review of the project site plan we understand that development will consist of the following: • Design and construction of a new duplex structure with below grade basement level. • Demolition of the existing residential structure. SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Based upon our subsurface investigation of the property the site soil profiles and soil types are described as follows: Fill: Topsoil and weathered fill consisting of silty to slightly silty sands with small roots were encountered at the subject site. These material profiles extend to depths of approximately 6 feet below adjacent grade. Fill and weathered materials consist of dark to light brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, silty sands. Fill materials are not considered suitable for the support of structures in their present state. Slightly Silty sands classify as SW-SM according to the Unified Classification System, and based on visual observation generally possess potentials for expansion in the low range. Grayeb Development Page No. 1 2274 Edinburgh Avenue,Encinitas, California Job No.063842-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP "` GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Sandstone Sandstone materials underlie the weathered fill profiles at the subject site. Sandstone materials consisted of rust brown, very moist,dense,slightly silty to silty sandstone. 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-SM according to the Unified Classification System, and based on visual observation and our experience possess potentials for expansion in the low range. GROUND WATER Ground water was not encountered as part of our subsurface investigation. Groundwater is not anticipated to be a significant concern to the project provided the recommendations of this report are followed. However, in our experience groundwater conditions can develop where no such condition previously existed. 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 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. Grayeb Development Page No.2 2274 Edinburgh Avenue,Encinitas,Califomia Job No.063842-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL.STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL It is our opinion that the proposed construction,as described herein, is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report and generally accepted construction practices are followed. In general we anticipate earthwork will be limited to excavations for the full footprint basement foundation. We anticipate all new retaining wall foundations will be founded on competent formational sandstone profiles. In general, cut-fill transitions between competent formational sandstone and compacted fill/backfill should be avoided to minimize associated transition related cracking. Where new shallow foundations are located in the backfill wedge of a retaining wall, foundations shall be extended to competent formational sandstone. Based upon our site reconnaissance shoring may be required along the north and south property lines. In general, a minimum 1:1 temporary backcut should be allowed between the bottom of adjacent footings and the bottom of the proposed excavation. The project contractor shall ensure all adjacent foundations are secured from undermining prior to the start of excavations. EARTHWORK We anticipate all new foundations will be founded on competent formational sandstone. Upon initial review of the project site plan and elevations we anticipate earthwork will be limited to backfill operations of the proposed basement retaining walls. 1. 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 _ sandstone 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. Grayeb Development Page No.3 2274 Edinburgh Avenue, Encinitas,California Job No.063842-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP ""' GEOTECHMCAL,CNIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 2. Slopes Permanent slopes may be cut to a face ratio of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Permanent fill slopes shall be placed at a maximum 2:1 slope face ratio. All temporary cut slopes shall be excavated at a maximum slope face ratio of 1:1 and be cut in accordance with all OSHA requirements. Subsequent to grading planting or other acceptable cover should be provided to increase the stability of slopes, especially during the rainy season (October thru April). FOUNDATIONS The following design parameters may be utilized for new foundations extended to formational sandstone. 1. Footings bearing in competent formational or compacted fill material may be designed _ utilizing maximum allowable soils pressure of 2,000 psf. 2. Seismic Design Parameters: Seistnlc Zart3actgr 4 $od I?rafileYlSd (1'abje Near `ce Astre "4'Icri (Dis#ante td Closes# ; Rose iCahynn "Active Fault; , SeisrrlI butce Type B .abl® 16U 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 new footing width and depth below lowest adjacent grade: No'. of-Floors Mlnlmum Fa0! 'Width ,z *Minimum Foot tag Depth Su ` orted :! Belovri Lowest Ad cont,Grade 1 1aaiitiches 1adrtches`> f 3 —24"" h, 24 inches *Footing depths to be confirmed in the field by a representative of Engineering Design Group prior to the placement of steel. Grayeb Development Page No.4 2274 Edinburgh Avenue, Encinitas,California Job No.063842-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP '"'° GEOTECHNICAL.CIVIL.STRUCTURAL.&ARCWTECTURAL CONSIITANTS 4. All footings founded into competent formational sandstone 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). 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. - 6. For footings adjacent to slopes, a minimum of 12 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 2% over optimum to a minimum of 18 inches in depth prior to the pouring of concrete. CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE Concrete slabs on grade should use the following as the minimum design parameters. 1. Concrete slabs on grade of the building should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches (5 inches at garage and driveway locations, not anticipated)and should be reinforced with#4 bars at 18 inches o.c. placed at the midpoint of the slab. • Sluma: Between 3 and 4 inches maximum • Aggregate Size: 3/4 - 1 inch • Air Content: 5 to 8 percent • Non-Moisture Sensitive Areas: Compressive Strength = 2500 psi minimum. • Moisture Sensitive Areas: Water to cement Ratio - 0.5 maximum Compressive Strength =4,000 psi minimum (No special inspection required for water to cement ratio purposes, unless otherwise specified by the structural engineer) - Moisture retarding additive in concrete at concrete slab on grade floors and moisture sensitive areas. 2. In moisture sensitive areas (i.e. interior living space where slab vapor emission is a concern), the slab concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi (non-special inspected)and a maximum water to cement ratio of 0.5. This recommendation is intended to achieve a low permeability concrete. Grayeb Development Page No.5 2274 Edinburgh Avenue, Encinitas,California Job No.063842-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 3. 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, as described in the Earthwork section of this report. 4. In consideration of the below surface groundwater condition a beneath slab waterproofing and a slab underdrain system should be designed. 5. 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 a 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. The visqueen layer should lap a minimum of 6 inches, sealed along all laps,and extend down the interior edge of the footing excavation a minimum of 12 inches. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 forfoundation and slab movementwithout transmitting this movement to the floor finishes. 9. 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. Flatwork adjacent to top of a slope should be constructed with a outside footing to attain 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 Grayeb Development Page No.6 2274 Edinburgh Avenue,Encinitas,California Job No.063842-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 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 12 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 sandstone. Where cut-fill transitions may occur footings 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 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. Where soil with potential for expansion is not very low(E.1. >50)a new active fluid pressure will be provided by the project soils engineer. Backfill materials should be considered prior to the design of the retaining walls to ensure accurate detailing. We anticipate onsite material will be utilized 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 an additional uniform at-rest soil pressure of 65 psf. 4. 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 Grayeb Development Page No.7 2274 Edinburgh Avenue, Encinitas,California Job No.063842-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 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 soil with a very low expansion potential, 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 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. Over watering can adversely affect site improvements and cause perched groundwater conditions. Irrigation should be limited to only the amount necessary to sustain plant life. Low flow irrigation - devices as well as automatic rain shut-off devices should be installed to reduce over watering. Irrigation practices and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems are an important component to the performance of onsite improvements. 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. Grayeb Development Page No.8 2274 Edinburgh Avenue, Encinitas, California Job No.063842-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHMCAL,CML,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 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 prior to the start of work, for compliance with - geotechnical recommendations. 2. Attendance of a pre-grade/construction meeting prior to the start of work. 3. Testing of any fill placed, including retaining wall backfill and utility trenches. 4. Observation of footing excavations prior to steel placement. 5. Field observation of any"field change" condition involving soils. 6. 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. 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 Grayeb Development Page No.9 2274 Edinburgh Avenue,Encinitas, California Job No.063842-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL.CML,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 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 provides you with necessary information to continue with the development of the project. Grayeb Development Page No. 10 2274 Edinburgh Avenue, Encinitas,California Job No.063842-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS u kPq " � f 3 P 'i Irk U II al { f '§ >'1 S3 •V �y 8t W cK *APPROXIMATE LOCATION(NOT TO SCALE) SITE VICINITY MAP PROJECT NAME GRAYEB NEW RESIDENCE PROJECT ADDRESS 2274 EDINBURG AVENUE,CARDIFF BY THE SEA,CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE ..__ GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 063842 2121 bbntlel Road,San Marcos,C4 92069 1 Phone:(760)839-7302 Fax(760)180-7477 E:\FORMSII FRM120001MASTER-SITE VICINITY-FIG 1.wWd M F S 3 �- � ♦ 2 4 ¢fs � 3 �3 C ' f � .. .. '�WWWVTEQ *APPROXIMATE LOCATION(NOT TO SCALE) SITE LOCATION MAP PROJECT NAME GRAYEB NEW RESIDENCE PROJECT ADDRESS 2274 EDINBURG AVENUE, CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE — GEOTECWCAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 063842 P oe:'eloje 9-7302" m6,7o)4ea°ai7 2 EAFORMS\1 FRMMM\MASTER-SITE LOCATION-FIG 2.wpd ir fMY��Op�q{��Ne,� NW _ bRllf.lyeb Lapp iV � �- � iw'NW aa.ilece l�1VV�R�INt�NIi` EFAWlfiff NAWBfr11 �y «laic arrlallde IVIS TA. rVaeeC�M.lblfpl 1 rR eue T.rwaar :Ji!4 `�'�. +ter► .}�� r+E%'i". �i'!�l�JiIR —� ~! !' fNRi rwi.r wQOaac laFfbl NMiMi��R •� 1 � •fwf � 1 .: lelriea err. `'F:`. :�...^.::•'- �i ��Yf f I�� i -c•� \ e UNIT I 1 ILILr e'i4v�fNifib ��Ih.�: .m�®�..�ea.. �!'1it;'1.,• .._ /I� x— �e�ir°°`n'w.+'°°.a i1 I � IQ erla i ln.a,rep Y 6MILlM GG`e�� rnase e4eO i1V16Af Y � 'tlY• ��Ke-.,w l�, rl \ fT�1DAN0i tNKM IilN R NeM:eM.�Il4V/br•f. Aiafi�M.N01 fIff IR 1 CGO.N1t M. � olursar. T awls•aneae m frxco l.K.e. rlt aaa fN.lw rw riu i•o wNla rm�e � nii+oc•ow ria� siiiii urtre.u.rur ro . tai rw,.w.aff r.r, b��nN Owswie +a�ie�i olur'auw fwe IbRfYrMiYilpH �� uceaam.awiur cNU1CM�seYay - �aiF;w eFwces..o +•aw.n.•.c«rs.rc.+e APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORINGS PROJECT NAME GRAYEB NEW RESIDENCE PROJECT ADDRESS 2274 EDINBURG AVENUE,CARDIFF BY THE SEA,CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE _ GEOTECHMCAL,CIVIL.STRUCTURAL 6 ARCHTECTURAL CONSULTANTS 063842 Plwne:(7n60)839-302an W o7s007477 3 E:IFORMSII FRM12000\MASTER-FIG.wpd PROJECT NAME GRAYEB RESIDENCE LOG OF BORING No. @_] .'ROJECT NUMBER 063842 LOCATION 12274 EDINBURG AVE. CARDIFF, CA 92007 SHEET 1 OF 1 )ATE JANUARY 16, 2006 DRILLING METHOD TOTAL DEPTH DRILLED AND TYPE OF RIG TRIPOD RIG DRILLED (feet) 10.5 _OGGED BY ERIN RIST BACKFILLED/CONVERTED TO WELL ON(date) APPROX SURFACE N/A BACKFILLED W/ CUTTINGS 1/16/06 ELEVATION (feet) DIAMETER GROUNDWATER FIRST COMPLETION F BORING 6—INCH LEVEL (feet BGS) N/A NONE NONE TYPE OF SPT TYPE OF SAFETY WEIGHT (Ibs) DROP (in.) SAMPLER(S) CALIFORNIA HAMMER 140 30 I o CL v ? m O N Z o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND NOTES a L Am Q U 30 TOPSOIL/FILL, dark to rust brown, moist, topsoil ® top 6-12", medium F dense, slightly silty sands. (SW—SM) 1 3 FOR 12" WEATHERED SANDS, brown to rust brown, very moist, medium dense, 4 FOR 6" slightly silty sand (SW—SM) 5 SANDSTONE 2 5,5,6 11 , rust brown, very moist, dense, slightly silty sandstone. (SW—SM) 10 3 7,8,11 19 SANDSTONE, rust brown, very moist, dense, slightly silty sandstone. [ (SW—SM) L END OF DRILLING AT 10.5' NO GROUNDWATER. NO CAVING. BACKFILLED WITH CUTTINGS. 15 20 t 25 tMENGINEERING ADDITIONAL NOTES / COMMENTS: DESIGN GROUP Yorrr�. slat Ra►n L s" . CIL SMa (780) 899-7902 PAX (760) 480-7477 i�i,7ltJtill� ' ar?��Iel1i111w annuli AP64� - w#1�®�1� �?1. ■1 its '�E111119- 9 mwbb 1tL7w�� •. .e<o O f R a��ti O'i 111 1" �'t'�M•tr wL"^@:1114 L �U414 t � uldr� i� _ ■ro111S°�.�li1"eOglff' iSam r��'w�rar�■gar der■��1�Irw=r'�L'l11'SI ___ ■ MANY■O1RRA L'!71F,ga. b�a r i€w■'.V;.2, Aril UM., rr''T!Jt p�. 1Rlown w r, wwa ' rA�t�r�ira�■�ri■ Bf.'r .. ..... JIL AP�it � YlrwrrwrcL b#.etir llil #w�te�rwrw�w�rr�*IOU www��,�sr,�,. 11 11l1111£wwwwa R WNWf .rswa1.-I, iQ re illlilFir ® w iarw Poo s.� , r �[+ �i wry IPww:WO MAnuwwr-n" rr, r7f R'�IlirYls�I#I �wfi1L`rlek W 741 do a WS I's 10#241twwwrairlrry-Ior 11� ® I rBR .��.tali ltd ii ''6:i 118.lm 7r _..... wRl�raFiir�rwrr�WPaNlW'1611'_ 1•aww IX 111i1®�0•L1=wc ff"ON w.X*-Mjw#W, wrrllr�®PfLrirlraralaAA11WOnkMM"171N a tc't" 4 A Y[Ir r r■ 11 1i 111101 it nL IY 1i 9t OI w w i t a c1 ib ti,��,�1 v _ r1�1 1f��tws�rrs�1'>r�rl?11�1F�114�a�iis�Ir+ea'� "Ian , . . 4 • !w®wrlw�al:"r.��'r!Ab?k7�9b��°�!l.�L�wCLc Pitrr�� ' A�1f IW bit' 1110x1.." +>L''It III�kc EIll�waE+ir wwrrll� t161s 3511ii1}t1 rN1 Ba Irk �Rf1�i13il1ifl t� llbrrA#it�1+ Y"r�itf �zi+�a�wwia�e��wr�ar�wr�wlc w�a��war.� eP<q�' ill�wewww>IIi«��s!°a��At��+�+�7POthirwarww�sr��r•.-�.°a-.s xP�. awltcw7y��rsww•�.�r�ew�r�rrw�ri�r�+�`,�+wa�sa.a.�� ,� a�,° l.Mllriiltta�w#71:�iY1®��ili�liifirriresi�la!1�1��:��:5 wwlrMawwwa�lcwww 3o19twffltliailktYliwrwi 3as_� ., •.� •ee►rlawlt��!%rl l�wei��wwPr�rw�w lrr�,��raa��s.a�°� .��+_ • P F 't DEVELOPMENT PROJECTADDRESS 2274 EDINBURG CALIFORNIA • ENGINEE"NG DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS 2121 Montiel Road,San Marcos,CA 92069 Phone:(760)839-7302 Fax:(760)480-7477 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. Engineering Design Group, Un-published In-House Data. 4. Ploessel, M.R. and Slossan, J.E., 1974 Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes: California Geololgy, Vol. 27, No. 9, P.195-199. 5. State of California, Fault Map of California, Map No:1, Dated 1975. 6. 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 Testinq 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 w 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. -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 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, overexravation, 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- MINIMUM RETAINING WALL WATERPROOFING & DRAINAGE DETAIL FINAL WATERPROOFING SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS TO BE PROVIDED BY PROJECT ARCHITECT MASTIC TO BE APPLIED TO TOP OF WALL MASTIC TYPE WATER PROOFING (HLM 5000 OR EQUIV) INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES TOP OF RETAINING WALL SPECIFICATIONS & PROTECTED MATH BACKER 80ARO (ABOVE MIRADRAIN) MASTIC NOT TO BE EXPOSED TO SUNLIGHT SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE OMPACTI 2% PER REFERENCE 11ON _Z a PROPOSED SLOPE BACKCUT NO MIRADRAIN (top) ;;g':I pp': - PER OSHA STANDARDS J j. AREA DRAIN OR PER ALTERNATIVE SLOPING PLAN, OR PER APPROVED RETAINING WALL SYSTEM SHORING PLAN c. l- ,:.;_. ; MIRADRAIN MEI,tBRANE 4< ( FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES - W SPECIFICATIONS� NG OVER 1� (MIRAF1 140N OR `';•ti'` -" j .:'. I ) APPROVED EQUIVALENT OR EQUIVALENT °: `;:..`;, 12' MIN. LAP ( I Q IT ^3/4- - 1 1/2- CLEAN y.. .I I GRAVEL III—I— 11-1 I I_I 1 1-1 I I=— a ::�;;.;•.;'..:,`:. 4'X4' (45d) CONCRETE CANT t O FOOTING/WALL CONNECTION II1—III •'�� I— (UNDER WATER PROOFING) -I I I—II I—) I I—III—I — a — 4' (MIN.) DIAMETER -I I—III—I PERFORATED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQ.) VIII,I I I i a I I w1TH PERFORATIONS ORIENTED DOWN AS < x ��<<<� DEPICTED MIN. :OMPACTED FILL :;<�<. xx.<� cif GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OR BEDROCK WALL FOOTING OUTLET. END MIRADRAIN (bottom) COMPETENT BEDROCK OR FILL MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SCALE: 1" = 1' -0" PROJECT NAME PROJECT ADDRESS JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 2121 Montiel Road,San Marcos,CA 92069 Phone:(760)839-7302 Fax(760)480-7477 Wvlain\file on main\FORMS\1 FRM\2000\MASTER-FIG.wpd 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 = __=v- - �r ✓��_ Ih , , OVERBURDEN OR ----- --- _-- �= UNSUITABLE -___ _ = PAD OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH MATERIAL ===== 7_?_� - l�A = AND RECOMPACTION MAY BE _' -- RECOMMENDED BY THE - GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BENCH BASED ON ACTUAL FIELD --- --___- 1r-- GONOt-T-14N�ENCOUNTERED. _. __2% MIN.-- - 2' 1 13' MIN. COMPETENT BEDROCK OR - MIN. LOWEST MATERIAL AS EVALUATED 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 PIPS 4' 0 NONPERFORATEO PIPE. -=- =___=_ 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY. 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY ======= __ BACK CUT 1:1 OR FLATTER BENCH SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH -------____ - DETAIL == =?__=?==_=- LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD __------- IEp== BE SITUATED AS LOW AS _FILL=___==== - P03318LE TO ALLOW SUITABLE OUTLET KEY _ riilt� 10' MIN PERFORATED DEPTH ___v = �!_-_ ___== PIPE -- - EACH SIDE _ - _--___________ _-— 2 CAP MIN. -------_ - =-____ _ NON-PERFORATED u.u�� ------ OUTLET PIPE KEY WIDTH .1-CONNECTION DETAIL A3 NOTED-ON-1iRAO1NG PLAITS 15' MIN. * IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC SEE T-CONNECTION MAY BE DELETED 8' MIN. DETAIL OVERLAP ,-, SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS 3/4'-1-1/2' CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL CLEAN GRAVE, g' MIN. (3ft3/ft. MIN.)" /� _ COVER U.S. Standard • it Sieve Size % g 4' !� + 4' !� p Passin NON-PERFORATED ° - + PERFORATED 1" 100 PIPE —L PIPE 3/4" 90-100 �n - 3/8" 40-100 FILTER FABRIC 5� M1N No. 4 25-40 ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 4' MIN. No. 8 18-33 140N OR APPROVED BEDDING No. 30 5-15 EOUIVALENT)* No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL _ Sand Equivalent>75 NOTES: For buttress dimensions, see geotechnical report/plans. Actual dimensions of buttress and subdrain - may be changed by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION-Subdraln pipe should be installed with perforations down as depicted. At locations recommended by the geotechnical consultant. nonperforated pipe should be Installed SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdraln type should be Acryion trite Butadiene Styrene (A.B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125.SOR 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. F CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS EXISTING GROUND SURFACE ---------- - WER - OMPACTE_D_FIL�_--_- -`___ q BENCHING ' _-- =-----------_ __--- ----------- -- _ REMOVE --- --------_---- -_ '- UNSUITABLE MATERIAL SUBDRAIN TRENCH SEE BELOW SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAILS FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE �6' MIN. OVERLAP 6' MIN. OVERLAP (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT)* a' MIN. a, MIN. I COVER COVER ill , '% 3/4'-1-1/2' CLEAN •/ =�• GRAVEL 4' MIN. BEDDING (gft3/ft. MIN.) 3/48-1-1/2' CLEAN GRAVEL (9ft.'Nft. MIN.) - 8' 0 MIN. *IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE PERFORATED MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF PIPE 3W-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 -- SEE ABOVE 1" 100 _-----Ili�===-- 3/4 90-100 ____--__- 3/8" 40-100 ___ _____________ ___=_- No. 4 25-40 -- - No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 15 MIN. 5'MIN PERFORATED No. 200 0-3 6' )z MIN. PIPE Sand Equivalent>75 NONPERFORATED e' fd MIN. Subdrain should be constructed only on competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical -- consultant. SUBORAIN INSTALLATION Subdrain pipe should be installed with perforations down as depicted. At locations recommended by the geotechnical consultant, nonperforated pipe should be Installed. SUBORAIN TYPE-Subdraln type should be Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (A.S.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125,SDR 32.5 should be used for maximum fill depths of 35 feet. Class 200,SOR 21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 feet, KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS FILL SLOPE PROJECT t TO t LINE - FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO COMPETENT MATERIAL EXISTING GROUND SURFACE REMOVE UNSUITABLE ----- _ MATERIAL BENCH 2S MIN.*- 2' MIN. 15' MINA KEY LOWEST DEPTH BENCH (KEY) OMPACTED_ ►?' ?FILL-- =— FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE EXISTING � —=x= GROUND SURFACE --- --- BENCH REMOVE UNSUITABLE _---_ -.- �i 2 LOWEST MATERIAL i MIN. BENCH a DEPTH (KEY) CUT SLOPE (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL _ PLACEMENT) j. EXISTING GROUND SURFACE CUT SLOPE CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE / " (TO BE EXCAVATED / PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) _ REMOVE — _= UNSUITABLE PROJECT 1 TO t =--�` = 'MATERIAL LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO ---f_--- COMPETENT _ OM MATERIAL FI BENCH 5' MIN EST 2' MIN LO WEST. LO KEY DEPTH BENCH (KEY) NOTE: Back drain may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may also be altered based on field conditions encountered. ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL (_FINISH GRADE SLOPE FACE E. 15 M 1 f4 fz -- --- 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. APPENDDC -D- MINIMUM RETAINING WALL WATERPROOFING & DRAINAGE DETAIL FINAL WATERPROOFING SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS TO BE PROVIDED BY PROJECT ARCHITECT MASTIC TO BE APPLIED TO TOP OF WALL MASTIC TYPE WATER PROOFING (HLM 5000 OR EQUIV) INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS & PROTECTED WITH TOP OF RETAINING WALL BACKER BOARD (ABOVE MIRADRAIN) MASTIC NOT TO BE EXPOSED TO SUNLIGHT SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION `0 27. PER REFERENCE 01 ----►. PROPOSED SLOPE BACKCUT PER OSHA STANDARDS NO MIRADRAIN (top) ,:6.TAP. . .- OR PER ALTERNATIVE SLOPING _ AREA DRAIN PLAN, OR PER APPROVED RETAINING WALL SYSTEM SHORING LAN ORING MIRADRAW MEMBRANE d. ; :' I FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES (MIRAFI 14ON OR SPECt!<1CATK1N5 OVER MASTIC APPROVED EQUIVALENT) WA7ERPI 0MNG - HLM 3000 III- 12' MIN. LAP OR EQUIVALENT 4 3/4 1 1/2- CLEAN ° GRAVEL -1 I I=1 I I-1 I I=1 I I=1 I I 0X4" LNG/ CONCRETE CANT —{ -.••• I O FOOTING/WALL CONNECTION I I=1 I I=1 I=I i=11 1-1 I (UNDER WATER PROOFING) I I=I}(—III —I ( 4- (MINA DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC. PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQ.) WITH PERFORATIONS ORIENTED DOWN AS �� DEPICTED MIN. < �Fx IC .�� r! GRADIENT TO SUIUI TABLE COMPACTED FILL ,<;�'� x ` OUTLET. DR BEDROCK WALL FOOTING END MIRAORAIN (bottom) COMPETENT BEDROCK OR FILL MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SCALE: 1" = V -0" PROJECT NAME PROJECT ADDRESS JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE ' GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 2121 Monliel Road,San Marcos,CA 92069 Phone:(760)839.7302 Fax:(780)480.7477 %\Main\file on main\FORMS\1 FRM\2000\MASTER-FIG.wpd