The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 02-56; WALTERS RESIDENCE; PROPOSED POOL INSTALLATION; 2006-11-06I ·OZ-10 't./7-1 I . ENGINEERING ~.---------- DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CML & STIIUCTURAL CONSULTANTS FOR RESIOfNTJAL _& COM_MERCIAL CONSTRUCTION . , 2121' Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 94069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 • E-mail: ENGDG@aol.com ~~ . . Date: To: Re: November 6, 2006 Ciro's Landscaping, Inc. Attention: Ciro Delgadillo 1908 Don Lee Place Escondido, CA 92029 Proposed New Pool, Walters Residence Located at 5305 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, California Subject Reference: Addendum ·Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation, Proposed Pool Installation at the Walters Resid~nce, Located at 5305 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, California" Prepared by Engineering Design Group Dated October 4, 2006, Project Number 064012-1 Engineering Design Group has re-examined differential settlement expectations-recommendations p,rovided in the referenced report Recommendations have been modified as follows: 1} The pool may be designed for negljgible levels of differential settlement provided the . following conditions a~e met (to be confirmed in the field by Engineering Design Group}: , The entire ·pool excavation bottom is into competent formational sandstone, as determined by the Engineering Design Group (confirmed in the field prior to placement of reinforcement). Based upon our investigations to date, it is anticipated this condition ~n be met in the field provided the pool is not over excavated d1:,1ring construction. • All fill soil placed· along trench line in the bottom of the pool be compacted to a minimum of 95% per ASTM 1557_. - . ProjectNo. 0f14012-1 E:\2006\CIRO-WALTERS POOL, 064012-1\SOILS ADDENDUM LTR.wpd 1"1 ·11 11 ll I] 11 I] IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ. ll IJ 11 ~ IJ IJ IJ, 11 f O'i -/tJf/'J-'I ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEO TECHNICAL, CIVIL & STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS FOR RESIDENTIAL & COMMERC~L CONSTRUCTION I ---·~ --"- . < 2121 Montie!' Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 • E-mail: ENGDG@aol.com ~ ' ' . '<·. , > GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION, · PROPOSED POOL INSTALLATION AT THE WALTERS.RESIDENCE, . LOCATED AT 5305 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA EDG Project Number 064012-1 Dated: October-4, 2006 PREPARED FOR: CIRO'S LANDSCAPIN~, INC. Attention: Ciro Delgadillo ·· 1908 Don Lee Place Escondido, CA 92029 11 11 11 11 11 11 I] - IJ IJ 11 IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ lj TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SCOPE ......... : ........................................................ 1 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .... : ...... -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 BLUFF DESCRIPTION .............................................. : . . . . . . . 1 GEOLOGIC UNITS ........... -.......... · ..................................... 2 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE .................. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FAULTS ................................................................. 3 · TSUNAMI ..... · ............... , ... ·-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER ........ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 COASTAL BLUFF RETREAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 4 COASTAL BLUFF-EDGE RETREAT RA TE.S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... _. . . . . . . . . . . 1 GEOLOGIC AND GEO TECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 -BLUFF RETREAT· ...........•... : .................................... 7 SLOPE STABILITY AND EROSION ...................................... 7 POOL FOUNDATIONS AND DESIGN .................................... _ 8 PIERS ..................... · .... · ...... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 SURFACE DRAINAGE .......................................... 10 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVA T/ON AND TESTING ..................... : . . . . 11 MISCELLANEOUS ............. .' . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . , ATTACHMENTS Site Vicinity Map ............. ~ ........................ _. .... . Site Location M_ap .......................................... ·. Figure No. 1 Figure No. 2 References ......... · ........ : .................................. Appendix A General Earthwork and· Grading Specifications ........... _ .... ·. . . . . . . Appendix B Testing Procedures ......... : ... .' ..............•.... ; .......... Appendix C Retaining Wall Drainage Detail .............. · .. -.....•............. Appendix D Photos ............................. _ . , .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix E 11 11 I] 11 ll 11 IJ 11 IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ Ii J ·IJ IJ IJ SCOPE This report presents the results of our updated geologic reconnaissance and geotechnical investigation for the proposed pool installation and rear yard improvements for 5305 Carlsbad Boulevard, in the City of Carlsbad, California. Please see Figure No. 1, "Site Vicinity Map", and Figure No. 2, "Site Location Map". The purpose of our work was_ to provide updated geologic and geotechnical evaluation and design parameters for the proposed construction. The scope of our work has included the following: · > > > > ·> > Review of aerial photographs, t0pographic maps, geologic literature, in house reports and project plans pertaining to the site and general vicinity. A list of the items reviewed is presented.in Appendix A. Geologic reconnaissance to observe the existing site· conditions including the coastal bluff and general vicinity. Review· of proposed yard improvement plan~ Photo documentation of conditions observed. Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained including a computer-generated slope stability analysis of the coastal bluff. Preparation of this report SltE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION For the purpose of this report, the front of the residence is assumed to face· east. The subject property consists of a rectangular lot located on the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard, in the City. of Carlsbad, California. The property is bordered to the· north and south by similarly developed residential properties, to the west by a descending coastal bluff (approximately 35 feet high), and to the east Carlsbad Boulevard. The topography of the site is gently sloping from the east, with the exception of the approximate 45 degree bluff bounding the rear of the l<;>t. Prop·osed improvements will consist of a· small pool, flatwork and landscape improvements extending from the rear wall of the residence, toward the top of the rear descending bluff. BLUFF DESCRIPTION Ob~ervation Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September 20, 2006 Approximate Bluff Height(total): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 to 40 feet Overall Gradient ...... ·. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Approx. 45 degree Lower. Bluff (Elevation from 0-10 ft.) -Santiago Formation Starting at beach level, the bluff ascends vertically approximately 10 ft. high to an approximately WALTERS RESJDENCE 5305 CARLS8AD BOULEVARD., CARLSBAD, CA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRucruRAf & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Page No.1 Job No. 064012-1 IJ 11 11 . IJ 11: I] -IJ IJ IJ -1_1 IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ .IJ IJ I IJ 5 to 15 ft. wide bench which is the approximate.contact between the underlying Santiago Formation and overlying. Terrace deposits. This section of bluff is generally non-vegetated where exposed, -locally armored with gunite (Northern +/-50 % ), subject to wave action and very locally uncut (minor) along a distinct bedding layer. During our reconnaissance; we observed no significant indications of sea cave development. Upper Bluff (Elevation from 10-40 ft.)· Terrace:Deposits Terrace deposits ascend from the bench level approximately 30 ft., at an approximate face angle of 30 -40 degrees, to an existing site wall along top of bluff. Terrace deposits, where exposed, are locally rilled to· depths of +/-4 to 6 inches and sparsely vegetated. · A soil slump, measuring approximately 10 ft. (wide) x 14 ft. (long) x 3 ft. (deep) exists in the lower section of Terrace Deposits, at the approximate center point of the lot. Po_rtions of the Terrace Deposits are armored with gunite (Northern +\-30% -see photos). Photographs depicting the general configuration of the bluff are provided in the enclosed Appendix E. The following is a summary of the onsite bluff conditions. · GEOLOGIC UNITS Based .on our review of geologic maps for the area and ·onsite observations, the site is underlain by the Santiago Formation overlain by terrace Depo_sits. Descriptions of materials observed are_ summarized as follows: Santiago Formation: · The Santiago Formation is exposed in the near vertical seacliff along the base of the bluff. · Where exposed, the Santiago Formation consists of light grey-brown, well cemented, slightly silty sandstone. The primary weathering mode for this unit is wave action. Immediately bounding the property to the west, the Santiago formation is well exposed along the base of the bluff, and serves as revetment, limiting retreat along the overlying Terrace Deposits. Immediately south of the site, the Santiago Formation dips resulting in more rapid erosion of the overlying Terrace deposits and a steepening .of the bluff. Te~race Deposits: Terrace Deposits overlie the Santiago Formation in the exposed bluff. Terrace Deposits consist of rust to light brown, dense but friable, slightly silty sand. The primary weathering modes for this unit are surface erosioh, undermining from below and rare direct wave action (very large surf). WALTERS RESJDENCE 5305 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD., CARLSBAD, CA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNl9AL; CIVIL, ~RUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS PageNo.2 Job No. 064012-1 11 fl 11 ll l~I 1·} I] I] 11 11 IJ IJ l.l IJ 11 IJ I· IJ Ii. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURIE · The Santiago Formation exposed in the wave-cut platform in the yicinity of the subject property is nearly flat-lying across the lot and dipping to the south. In the general vicinity, bedding in the Quarternary terrace deposits can be observed as alternating rriore resistant and less resistant beds. Where observed on site and in the general site vicinity, the Santiago Formation appears to be ne~rly horizontally bedded with localized cross bedding. No major out-of-slope dip components were noted on site that would indicate adverse slope conditions. Indications of deep-seated landslide features were not observed during our research studies or site visits. FAULTS Our review of geologic literature (Appendix A)' pertaining to the general sit~ area indicates that there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity·of the site. Indications of active faulting or adversely-oriented joints were not observed in ·the subject coastal bl1Jff. The nearest known active faults are the Rose Canyon fault located offshore approximately 4 miles west -of the site, the Coronado Bank fault located ·offshore approximately 19.5 miles west, and the Elsinore fault located approximately 25 miles northeast of the site. The San Andreas fault is located approximate.ly 62 miles northeast of the site. TSUNAMI Tsunami are sea waves generated by submarine earthquakes; landslides, or volcanic action. Submarine earthquakes are common along the edge of the Pacific Ocean and coastal areas are subject to potential inundation by tsunami. Most of the 19 tsunami recorded on the San Diego Bay tidal gauge (between 1854 to 1872 and 1906 to 1977) have only been a few tenths of a meter in height (Appendix A). The larges~ San Diego area tidal gauge-excursion ( 1 meter) was associated · with the tsunami of May 22; 1960 and was recorded at La Jolla (Scripps Pier) (Appendix A). the tsunami was generated by a Richter magnitude 8.5 earthquake in Chile. For comparison, the diurnal range of tides at San Diego Bay is 1.7 meters. The possibility of a destructive tsunami along the San Diego coastline is considered low (Appendix A). However tsunami or storm waves (associated with winter storms), in conjunction with high tides, may overtop the rock rip rap and erode the friable terrace deposits that compromise the coastal bluff face but generally are not anticipated to-have the potential for inundation of the bluff-top building site. GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER Groundwater seepage was not observed on site or in the general site vicinity during our site visits. WALTERS RESIDENCE 5305 CARLSBAD BOUL'EVARD., CARLSBAD, CA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Page No.3 Job No. 064012-1 11 11 11 11 11 .ll IJ ·1J IJ I] IJ · IJ 11 11 IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ Based on our experience and observations, groundwater is estimated to lie at or near sea level at the base of the coastal bluff. Groundwater levels can be expected to fluctuate with the tides, precipitation and irrigation at the subject ?(nd neighboring properties. Groundwater is not considered a constraint to proposed new rear yard improvements. COASTAL BLUFF RETREAT The coastline in the vicinity of the subject property is generally straight with slight indentations (immediately south) along its length (see Figure 1.). The site is located on one of the headlands along the coast. Mechanisms for coastal bluff retreat at the site include: 1) Surface erosion and rilling of Terrace Deposits ·from runoff over the top of bluff. Bluff retreat rates for surface erosion is highly unprediqtable and .dependent upon drainage conditions at the top of the bluff. Based on our site observations, it is our opinion this type of retreat mechanism is responsible for face rilling and the shallow soil slump in the Terracf;l Deposits. This type of retreat mechanism is primarily limited to Terrace Deposit$. Prior to site development, drainage from Carlsbad Boulevard flowed across ~he site to the west over the top of bluff. It is our opinion, much of the face erosion identified in the . Terrace Deposits occurred during that time_. Since development, a collective drainage system has been installed onsite, outletting close to beach level, limiting this type of bluff retreat. 2) Wave Action and Undercutting of th(;) Santiago Formation, primarily along weaknesses in the Santiago Formation, result in mass removal along the sea cliff and undermining of the terrace deposits. The existing gunite armor (currently in moderate conditipn) reduces the potential for erosion of the onsite . coastal bluff. . Immediately south of the site (offsite), the Santiago Formation, which serves as ·a revetment to the bluff, dips (nearly disappearing) causing increased rates of erosion in the overlying Terrace Deposits. This process is evi.denced in near vertical configuration of the Terrace Deposits and coastal ·indentation, suggesting more rapid retreat in this area. Storm surf and high tides. contribute to the natural· process of marine erosion. Other factors affecting the rate of retreat of the coastal blliff include degree of fracturing, jointing, consolidation of sediments, steepness of slope, groundwater and surface water conditions, · vegetation or lack of, and intensity of pedestrian and animal traffic. In response to the landward retreat of the bluff, the overlying coastal bluff. becomes undermined and al.so retreats landward. Mechanisms contributing to bluff retreat include failure of overhanging bedrock projections, shallow fai!ure of over steepened portior:is of the bluff-face terrace deposits,' and rilling and. ravelling of the terrace deposits.. Portions of coastal bluffs are also exposed to · precipitation, wind, pedestrian/animal.erosion, variations in landscape, landscape maintenance, and other activities by humans. · WALTERS RES.IDENCE 5305 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD., CARLSBAD, CA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS PageNo-4 Job No. 064012-1 ll 11 11 11 11 11 IJ IJ IJ 11 IJ IJ IJ 11 11 II 11 11 IJ During our studies we did not observe indications of deep.-seated instability, such as ancient or active landslides, on or in the immediate vicinity of the site, and the geologic formations that comprise the coastal bluff at the site are not known to be prone to large, deep-seated failures. the terrace deposits are friable and commonly rill in over steepened slope conditions, however they are not prone to deep-seated failures. COASTAL BLUFF-EDGE RETREAT RA TES The rate and magnitude of coastal bluff' retreat at a specific site are dependent on a variety of factors, both natural and manmade. Many of these factors are ongoing processes and historical documentation can be helpful in estimating general retreat rates along similarly-affected coastal bluff areas. However, there are other factors affecting· coastal bluff retreat that cannot be estimated from historic documentation. Such factors include future human activities or possible extreme variations in regional weather patterns. Detrimental changes in factors affecting bluff-edge retreat, such as misdirected drainage, water line breaks, heavy storm surf, and/or precipitation, could increase the rate of erosion. However, · favorable changes ih the factors affecting bluff-edge retreat could also decreas_e the rate of erosion. Some of these include proper maintenance of a bluff-stabilizing vegetative cover, enhanced site drainage provisions and beach sand replenishment. Research studies along the San Diego coast and historic photograph and map review are components in providing an estimation o_f the rate· of bluff-edge retreat. We assume that the historical retreat rate may give an indication of the future retreat rate a't a particular site. However, accurate and clear photographic and map documentation for measuring retreat is not always available or are of fairly short time intervals so changes may not be noticeable. Lee and others (Appendix A), performed research studies of regional.historic sea cliff retreat and estimated a maximum annual bluff-edge retreat rate of 0.22 to 0.3~ feet per year. Over a 75-year period (assumed to be the ec_onomic lifetime of the new construction), this equates to a conservative estimate of bluff-edge retreat of a maximum of 16.5 to 24.8 feet. This maximum is based on research studies of regional historic bluff retreat that includes coastal bluffs with generally favorable conditions, a_s well as coastal bluffs that are affected by more adverse conditions (highly fractured, sea caves, groundwater seepage, human activities, etc.). The estimated values of maximum retreat are very conservative, and the actual rate of bluff retreat at the subject property is expected to be less considering the site conditions and historic bluff retreat at tl:le site. Sea cave formation and subsequent collapse are localized factors in the bluff retreat process . . Indications of sea cave development were not observed at the subject property" during our site visits. · It is very difficult to predict the future and the magnitude of bluff-edge retreat that may occur in one year, during pne storm event or over the 75-year assumed economic lifetime of the new construction. The rate of coastal bluff retreat over a particular interval of time ( day, year, decade, etc.) may vary from very little to sev~ral tenths of a foot. However, severe erosion _is generally WALTERS RESIDENCE . 5305 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD., CARLSBAD, CA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL &ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Page No.5 Job No. 064012-1· 11 ll. 11 I] 11 ll IJ 11 1·1 IJ ·IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ . IJ IJ episodic in nature and is dependent on the intensity of storms and combined high tides (or man's detrimental actions). It is probable that several feet of coastal bluff r:etreat could occur. at one time. However, it is also likely that there Will be periods in the future when erosion along the coast is rather insignificant and undetectable. Erosion is a naturally-occurring process that is affected by human actions. With time, the bluff edge will retreat landward. The proposed rear yard improvements, as described herein, are to lie within the 25 ft. bluff top setback, and thus will be susceptible to undermining and damage, requiring removal,· within the 15 year useful .life of the structure. . !E . av'( . ~ 1-,; t f"\J)'\ . I':',-~ r. ~f a\?~ V''\""' \'1~· {~/'I> \\)tflt-tv_ ~ ~c~ t ~ w' b tfi\i.1.J 1 ' t;t-/>r'~ tk\> (~~ --N If, t,,..v . ~ti\~ "i)~ ~" 1,,,,1!) • WALTERS RESIDENCE 5305 CARLSBAD BOU(EVARD., CARLSBAD, CA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL &ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Page No.6 Job No. 064012-1 11 11 11 11 11 IJ ,11 .i l·t J, 1·1 IJ IJ II 11 11 IJ 11 11 ,,l J CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS Bluff Retreat Based on our updated geologic reconnaissance and geotechnical investigation of the site, it is our opinion the proposed rear yard improvements are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. It is our opinion the proposed pool and flatwork. improvements (properly constructed and maintained), will not adversely impact the existing coastar bluff. Based on our field. studies, research and engineering.and geologic analysis, it is our opinion the proposed rear yard improvements· will likely be impacted (estimated ,within 1·0 to 25+ years or less depending on location) during the 75 year economic lifetime of the construction, requiring improvements to bQ ·repaired, removed or reconfigured. Any proposal to construct improvements in the bluff top setback should be done with the understanding that. the bluff top zone is a dynamic environment,.subjectto radical reconfiguration based on factors discussed herein, and may result in very short improven1ent life (unpredictable) and the. cost and nuisance of demolition. With this understanding, however, it is our opinion the construction of the improvements will not aggravate or accelerate already existing retreat conditions-expectations. SLOPE STABILITY AND EROSION 'W u;,,.l,,,,, -~~~'f-1 //'I f1te.."r Sti\-GJ11..,11'f -? . I Our geotechnical evaluation of the present overall static stability on the subject property indicates . that the bluff is grossly stable (subject to retreat). In its present state, the slope has a low to moderate potential for erosional rilling and future surficial instability. We provide the following recommendations to help reduce erosion of the bluff and to reduce potential for future instability of the bluff face. 1. Irrigation of the landscape areas on the property should be strictly maintained, and limited to manual irrigation within the coastal bluff setback zone. The amount of manual irrigation onsite should be limited to the minimum amount required to establish vegetation and · maintain plant vigor. 2. Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and will·play a critical role on the future performance of the bluff, dwelling and improvements. Under no circumstances should surface water be allowed to pond or. flow toward the .bluff. Roof gutters and downspouts should be tightlined to the area drain system. All drains should be kept clean and unclogged, including· gutters and downspouts. All surface runoff water should drain - away from the structure and top of bluff With a_ minimum slope of 2% for a horizontal WALTERS RESIDENCE. 5305 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD., CARLSBAD, CA Page No.7 Job No. 064012-1 11 11 IOJ ll 11 IJ I] IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ i IJ IJ IJ IJ distance of 7 feet (where possible). Area drains br surface swales should then be provided to accommodate runoff and avoid any ponding of water. The area drain system shall consist of non-perforated smooth wall drainage pipe (PVC SDR-35 or better) with chemically welded joints: as slzed and designed by the proje·ct civil engineer. Area drains should be kept free of debris to allow for proper drainage. During fine grading of the property, subsequent building construction, adequate clearance shall be left from finish soil grade to building framing lumber as prescribed by code. It is advisable to meet with the project landscaper during this phase of the project so that proposed import topsoil may be accounted for in determining finish grade elevation against the buil~ing stemwall. 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. 3. Pedestrian and animal traffic on the bluff f~ce and bluff edge should not be allowed since pedestrian/animal traffic increases erosion. POOL FOUNDATIONS & DESIGN : 1. Foundations embedded a minimum of -1 ft. into c<;>mpetent Terrace Deposits may be de~igned utilizing maximum allowable soils pressure of 1,000 psf. 2. The base (i.e. boijom of shell -footing) of the pool· shall maintain a minimum 15 ft. horizontal distance to daylight setback from the descending coastal bluff. This design consideration shall apply to all elements of the pool structurally tied to the pool shell (including flatwork if structurally tied). 3. Seismic Design Parameters: WALTERS RESIDENCE 5305 CARLSBAD BOUl'..EVARD., CARLSBAD, CA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Page No.8 Job No. 064012-1 11 ·11 11 11 11 IJ IJ 1-1 IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ 11 IJ IJ IJ I 4. Bearing values may be increased by 33% when considering wind, seismic, or other short duration loadings. 5. The outside (western) wall of the pool shall be designed free standing. Final pool designs should be reviewed by Engineering Design Group prior to permitting. 6. Prior to placement of reinforcing steel, the .uniformity of soil materials (i.e. uniform cut Terrace Deposits) shall be confirmed in writing by a representative of Engineering Design . Group. If non-uniform conditions.are exposed (i.e. cut-fill transitions or other unanticipated geologic conditions), if may necessitate deepening of excavations or use of piers. 7. The pool design shall include two monitoring wells (8 ft. deep), offset 1 to 2 ft. from the pool shell, along the western landscape area. Monitoring shall be constructed per County of San Diego, DEH standards, with perforated pipe, extending from 3 to 7 ft, and clay seal from .5 to 3 feet. Monitoring wells shall be periodically read (twice yearly) to evaluate "perchedn water conditions in the area of the pool, and as a first indicator to possible pool leaks. The pool should not use an autofill, but rather be filled manually with full time supervision. Water levels should be tracked, and in the event of significant water loss, the e~tire system checked for leaks .. ' 8. Extreme care shall be taken in designing and constructing the pool. The pool shell design should include minimizing ·water to cement rations and resulting permeability of the shell concrete, provisions for expected concrete shrinkage, detailing for differential settlement. cracking (long thin structure: 1 inch total differential settlement expected for 50 ft .. structure), and thickening and . extr~ reinforcement of pool structural sections to limit deflection and cracking. Plumbing penetration through the shell should be carefully detailed and special provisions taken to verify the pool is riot leaking. PIERS If piers are required to achieve distance to daylight, they may be designed as follows: s fd . ummarvo es,an va ues: · Minimum Diameter Minimum Embedment .. Bearing Capacity Allowable Passive Pressure Maximum Pier Spacing Minimum Pier Spacing WALTERS RESIDENCE 5305 CARLSBAD BOUL:'EVARD., CARLSBAD, CA .. < 36 inches (Hand cleaned) 4 feet into competent Terrace Deposits 3500 psf. to maximum of *40 kips, (neglecting pier weight) 200 pcf (pier only) 1 o. feet Edge to Edge 5 feet Edge to Edge Page No.9 Job No. 064012-1 ENGINEERING OESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSUL TAM'S 11 .IJ 11 I] 1·1 I] ll IJ IJ 11 IJ IJ IJ· IJ IJ lj 11 11 lj 1.. Pier excavations should be cleaned of all loose soil debris subsequent to excavation and prior to the placement of reinforcing steel. The contractor should utilize a hand clean method to remove loose debris in the bottom of the excavations. Pier excavations should then be visually observed by our representative in order to verify depth of embedment and cleanliness of the excavation bottom. 2. Piers should be designed with a minimum diameter of 36 inches and be reinforced in accordance with the recommendations of the struptural engineer. 3. Concrete for piers shall have a minimum ·compressive strength of ·4,000 psi, be Type 5 . cement and have a maximum water to cement ratio of 0.4. All steel reinforcement placed at or below sea level sho_uld have a minimum concrete cover of 3.5 inches. 4. The proper installation of piers will· be of great importance. Care in excavation, placement of steel, and the pouring of concrete will be essential to avoid excessive erosion of pier excavation walls within the upper Alluvium. Concrete placement by pul'l'.lping or tremie tube may be considered. Both clean out and concrete placement should be addressed in the specifications. 5. Pier excavations should _be observed by our office prior to the installation of reinforcement. Pier excavations should be properly shored prior to allowing any personnel into the ~xcavation. · · · 6. Pier reinforcement shall be per the project Structural Engineer. SURFACE DRAINAGE Adequate drainage precautions at this site $re 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 foundationwalls, or tops of slopes. The ground surface surrounding ,proposed improvements should be re!atiVely impervious i[l 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 accom~odate runoff and avoid any poi:,ding-ofwater. Roof gutters and down~pouts should be tightlined to the area drain system. All drains should be kept clean and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Area drains should be kept free of debris to allow for proper drainage. During periods of heavy rain, the performance of all drainage systems should be inspected and 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, ·1ocated adj_acerit to the foundation or exterior flat work improvements, should be strictly controlled or avoided. WALTERS RES.I DENCE 5305 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD., CARLSBAD, CA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSUL TJ\NTS Page No.10 Job No. 064012-1 1·1 11 11· 11 1·1 IJ IJ IJ IJ 11 IJ 1·1 IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING The following items shat.I be conducted prior/during construction by a representative of Engineering Design Group in order to verify compliance with the recommendations provided herein, as applicable. 1. Review of final approved pool ·plans prior to the start ~f 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 pool excavations prior to steel placement. 5. Field observation of any "field change" condition involving soils. 6. Walk through of final drainage ~etailing 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. p~otocol 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 wm 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 s~ould be expected to remain totally free of cracks and minor signs of cosmetic distress. The flexible nature of wood and steel structures all9ws them to respond to movements resulting from minor unavoidable settlement of fill or natural soils, the · swelling of clay soils, or the motions indlJced' from seismic activity. All of the above can induce movement that frequently re~;ults in cosm~tic cr~cking 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 expl9ratory 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. iherefore, 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 constructiori as stated herein. If either of these WALTERS RESIDENeE 5305 CARLSBAD BOUL'.EVARD., CARLSBAD, CA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CML, STRUCTURAL &ARCH!TECTURAL CONSULTANTS Page No.11 Job No. 064012-1 11 ll 11 ll ll :ll I] IJ IJ IJ IJ 11 . IJ I lj IJ IJ I IJ :IJ conditions is changed, the· results would also m9st 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 repre·sentative tc;> ·ensure that the information in this report be incorporated into the plans and/ or specificat_ions and construction of the project. It is advisable that a contractor familiar vyith construction details typically used to deal with the ·local subsoil and seismic conditions, be retained to build the structure. Sin EN WALTERS RE~IDENCE 5305 CARLSBADBOUt.EVARD., CARLSBAD, CA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS Page No.12 . Job No. 064012-1 --1 11 -.1 -l l.l IJ IJ ~ I] IJ IJ -] IJ IJ -l- lJ ·1J IJ lj • PROJE<;:T NAME· PROJECT ADDRESS JOB NUMBER 064012 SITE VICINITY MAP · WALTERS ~ESIDl;:NCE -POOL 5305.CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, .STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 2121 Mlntlel Road, San Marcos, CA 92069 Phone: (760)839-7302 Rix: (760)460-7477 FIGURE 1 E:\FORMS\1 FRM\2000\MASTER -SITE VICINITY· FIG 1.wpd : 1-] 11 -1 .11 11 11 ·1] IJ IJ IJ -l IJ IJ IJ IJ .IJ IJ ! IJ I - -l • PROJECT NAME PROJECT ADDRESS JOB NUMBER 064012 SITE LOCATION MAP WALTERS RESIDENCE -POOL . 5305 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CML,'STRIJCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS · 2121 M:>riUel Road, Sail Marcos, CA 92069 Phone: (760)839-7302 fax: (760)480-7477 FIGURE 2 E:IFORMS\1 FRM\2000\MASTER-SITE LOCATION-FIG 2.wpd ll 11 11 . ll 11 IJ 1·1 11 · · IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ ·IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ APPENDIX-A 1·1 11 ll 11 1.1 11 . i 11 j ·1J IJ I] IJ IJ IJ 11 ... I] IJ IJ II ll REFERENCES 1. "Addendum and Revision/Typographic Correction to Geotechnical Investigation, Walters Residence at 5305 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, California" by Owen Engineering Group dated January 22, 2003. 2. "Geotechnical Investigation, Walters Residence, 5305 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, California"· by Owen Engineerin Group dated January 20, 2003. ~-"Geotechnical Evaluation on Coastal Bluff Property,_ Vacant Lot South of 5303 Carlsbad Boulevard. California" dated March 10, 1997 by Southland Geotechnical Consultants, . Project No. 126G21. 4. California Department of Con.servation, Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Rupture Zones in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 1 ~90. 5. County of San Diego Ortho-Topographic Map 350-1665, dated September 17. 6. Engineering Design Group, unpublished in house data. 7. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974 Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. 8. Lee, L.J., 1977, Potentialfoundation problems associated with earthquakes in San · Diego, in Abbott, P.L. and Victoria, J.K., eds. Geologic Hazards in San Diego, . Earthquakes, Landslides, and Floods: San Diego Society of Natural History John Porter. Dexter Memorial Publication. 9. Lee, L. Pinckney, C., and Bemis, C., 1976, Sea bluff erosion: American Society of Civil Engineers, National Water Resour,ces and dcean Engineering Convention Preprint No. 2708. 10. Ploessel, M.R. and Slossan, J.E:., 1974 Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes: California Geology, Vol. 27, No. 9, P. 195-199 1.1. State of California, Fault Map of California, Map No. 1, Dated 1975. 12. · State of California, Geologic Map of California, Map No. 1, Dated 1977. 13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Sotrm and Tidal Waves Study, Shoreline Movement Data Report, Portuguese Point to Mexican Border, dated December 14. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Sotrm and Tidal Waves Study, Coastal Cliff Sediments, San Oiego Region (CCSTWS 87-2), dated June. 15. Van Dorn,. W.G.~ 19'79 Theoreticalaspects of tsunamis along the San Diego coastline, in Abbott, P.L. and Elliott, W.J., Earthquakes and Other Perils: Geological Society of America field trip guideoook. 16. Various Aerial Photographs. -] 11 ' i -1 -l 11 11 11 11 J IJ 11 1-11 J II ~ . ~ IJ lj IJ IJ IJ ~ APPENDIX --B ~ . . . . ,. 11 ll 11 11 I l 11 -] 11 IJ 11· I] IJ -1 : IJ IJ IJ •1 IJ IJ 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 responsibili~y 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 conforma~ce with the recommendations of the geotechni9al report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor "to assist the consultant and ke.ep him apprised of work schedules and change~, at least -24 hours _in advance, so that he may s9hedule 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 ~ccomplish the-work in accordance with applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, recommendations in the geotechn.ical report, and the approved grading plans not withstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical cons_µltant. 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 _geotechnica·I report and the specifications, the consultant will. be .empqwered to reject the work and recommend that con·struction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. ·Maximum dry density tests.used to evaluate the degree of compaction should be performed in gen~ral accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing'and Mate~ials test method ASTM D1557. -1- 11 ll I] 11 11 IJ I] IJ ~ 11· IJ IJ - IJ - IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ 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 - geotechriical consultant The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. _In general,_ no more than 1 percent (by volur11e) 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 $atisfactory for support of fill, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground whiqh is n·ot . $atisfactory 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 geotechhical consultant. For purposes_ of determining · quantities of materials 6verexcavated, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. 3.4 Moisture Cgnditionlng: 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 mo!sture-conditioned · should _be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or as-otherwise recommended by the-geotechnical consultant. -2- ·11 -] -] I.] IJ 11 I] IJ ,1 1·· ~ IJ IJ 11 '.:ii IJ -I . - --- -- 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 FiH 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 b_e 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 r,:1ixed_ with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 4:2 . Oversize: Oversize mater1a·1, defined as roe~ or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches, should.not be buried or 1 placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically recommendec,:f by the· geotechnical consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that ne·sting of oversize material does not OCCU·r, and SUCh that the oversize· material is COr:ripfe~efy 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 detaif. -3- 11 11 ·11 11. . 11 IJ ll 11 IJ IJ. IJ I I I' ~ I I .1. I I 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 Fm Placement and Comp·action 5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas. prepared and previously evaluated to receive fill, in near-horizontal layers approximately (,3 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 sho~ld 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 ·1ess 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 backrblling of slopes with she!3psfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation ·gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of .gradi.ng, the relative compaction .of the fill out to the slope face would be at least 90 percent. -4- I] 11 l}- 11 ll · 11 11 IJ IJ 1· u IJ IJ -j IJ IJ IJ . -f lj I ~ 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 sho~ld l;>e taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 1 O 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 ormodified·unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant, how.ever, 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 th~ subdrains. 7. 0 Excavation . . Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by ~. representative of the geotectmical co.nsultant (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- · 11· 11 I] I] 11 1.l IJ l.l IJ IJ. IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ . MINIMUM RETAINING WALL WATERPROOFING & D·RAINAGE DETAIL :• .. : ... •.· ... · ·--~~~_;_ .. _ ..... ::··~.fe·-.-..· ... ·_ ·;,.·:·.,;·~ ..... ~ .. : .... ', : .... · h ••• ; ~-.-: • .-. :-••• ,::·.-· , ••••• • ... -.~--·---.,:·:.-·:·,.-.... :.~_:_:-: ........ :--.. -··.-.. ,.··· :• •••• : ·-•••••• : •• • • .... -.··, ... : • ....... ···-·· . F'INAL WATERPROOFING SPECIFICA Tl·ONS, & D'E:TAILS TO . BE: PROVIDED BY PROJECT .ARCHITECT . . . · TOP PF RETAINING WALL NO MIRAORAIN (top)--,-.-- RETAINING· WALL MIRAORAIN MEMSRANE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES SPECIFlq~TIONS OVER M~C WATERPROOFING -HLM ~ OR EQUIYM.ENT PROJECT NAME PROJECT ADDRESS · JOB NUMBER 4 MASTIC TO BE APPLIED. TO TOP OF WALL -----MASTIC TYPE WATER PROOFING (HLM 5000 OR EQUIV) INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES S~ECIFICA'.flONS & PROTECTED 'MTH BACKER BOARD (:ABOVE MIRADRAIN) MASTIC NOT. TO BE EXPOSED TO SUNU~HT . . SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO 90" RELA llVE COMPACTION P£R REFERENCE fl / \j. PROPOSED SLOPE BACKCUT ER OSHA STANDARDS OR PER ALTERNATIVE SLOPING PLAN, OR PER APPROVED SHORING PLAN ....._ ___ ..,,_ __ FILTER· FABRIC EN',fil.Of'E' {MIRAFI 140N OR . APPROVED EQUIVALENT) 12• MIN. LAP ....._~ _ __;__ J/4" -1 1/2" CLEAN ~Al/EL .. :;.--:..-!--!~-------4"X4" (45d) CONCRETE ·cANT 0 FOOTING/WALL CONNECTION (UNDER WAlER. PROOFI_NG) L.:..::::si.liillit~~~'i'T--------4" (MIN,) DIAMETER' PERFORATED PVC PIPE (Sa-JEOULE 40 OR EQ,) 'M:t'H PERFORA 110NS . ORIENTED DOWN AS . DEPICTED MIN. 2" · GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET. '-----END MIRAORAIN (bottom) COMPETENT BEDROCK OR FILL MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT $CALE: 1" = 1' -0" ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, CA 92069 Phone: (760)839-7302 Fax:· (760)480-7 477 ti . FIGURE ·\\Mainlfila on main\FORMS\1 FRM\2000\MASTER • FIG.wpd 11 11 11 -l 11 -l IJ ·IJ 11 ll. . IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ ,. - Sl·DE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL FINISH.ED SLOPE FACE PROJl!:CT 1 TO 1 LINE FROM TOP OF SLOPE ·TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF 'KEY OVERBURDEN OR UNSUIT AILE . MATERIAL I • /. EXISTING GROUND __. SURFACE~ __...---;,,,--" ..,,.,....,. ,,,.,,,,.. ,,,.. .,,,,.,,... ..,.,,,.,..,,.,. / .,,,- /. / ,.,,/ ./ ,,. / / ·,; FINISHED CUT PAD / / PAO OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH AND RECOMPACTION MAY BE R(;COMMENDED BY THE ( . COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIALAS.EVALU~TED . BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT . NOTE: Subdrafn detail• and key width recommend.ations to be provided based on exposed sut)surface conditions IJ 11 ll I .l IJ 11 IJ IJ 11 11 IJ IJ IJ IJ -· IJ IJ IJ I STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL OUTLIT PIPl!S ,4• 91 NONPERF·OAATED PIPE. -100' MAX. O.C. HOAfZONTALLY, 30' MAX. O.C. -YERTICALL Y SEE T-CONN~CTION DETAIL 4• gJ PEFIFORATED PIPE SUBDRAIN TRENCH. DETAIL NOTES: SEE-SUBDRAIN TRENCH . DETAIL LOWEST SUBOAAIN SHOULD BE. SITUATED AS LOW AS POSSIBLE TO ALLOW SUIT ABLE, OUTLET r----._ 10' MIN. r-1--1 EACH SIDE CAP T-CO.NNECTION O·E·TAIL * IF CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF 314•-1-112• GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL U.S. Standard Sieve Size % Passing l" 100 3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-100 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 Sand Equivalent>7s· For buttress dimension•, .see geotechnlcal report/plans. Actual dimensions of buttress and aubdrain ma~ be change4 by the g:eot,.chnlca_l consu.ltant based on fl.eld conditions. · . • , -1. SUBDRAI~ INSTALLATION-Subdraln pipe should. b, Installed· with perforations down as depicted. At locations recommended by the geote~hnlcal consultant, nonperforated pipe should be Installed SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdraln type· should be Acrylon trlle Butadlene Styrene (A.B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or approved·equlvalent. Clau 1-2s,SDR 32.5 should.be used for maximum flll depths of 35 feet. Cla11 200,SDR 21 should be used for maximum fill dep.th·• of 100 feet. 11 11 J 11 11 ll 1-, J 11 IJ 1· J ... 1· a IJ IJ IJ IJ :t I . I I! ' II _, IJ CANYON $UBORAIN DETAILS. ~----1x1•T1Ne GROUND SURl'ACI SUSORAIN TRENCH SEE BELOW SUBDRAIN TRENCH O.ETAILS A.EMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL. FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE /""e• MIN. OVERLAP (MIFJAFI 1'40N OA APPROVED \,,.L_J EQUIVALE.NT)* \ __ / e• MIN. COVER t 31,4•-1-112• CLEAN -..;.i;,.__.-GRAVEL ..... -. . . . . .. . ~-6...---'---4-:::_~---~-.l,."""· .-!.-::.~'.":.e:-:::_~'.":~~,:-:N-::G~---11----:)-!"' · ca~ .. ~11t. MIN.> . 314•-1.112• CLEAN · · '/tf:l'f.:.~-------~;;..;;.,-=----------Llllll!"9=-..,-,iw GRAVEL (9ft.31ft. MIN.) ---e• JIJ MIN. ___ ., * IF CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE PERFORATED MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE o·F PIPE 3/4•-1-112• GRAVE,L. FlLTER FABRIC. MAY BE DEL·ETED DETAIL OF CANYON SU-BDRAIN TERMINAL SPEC[FICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL . . • .. . . ------PERFORATED a• fiJ MIN. PIPE U.S. Standard Sieve Size l" 3/4" 3/8" No. 4 No. 8 No. 30 No. SO No. 200 % Passing 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 Sand Equivalent>7S Subdraln should be.constructed only on competent material as evaluated by the geotechnlcal conaultanJ. ' SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdraln pl,pe should be Installed with perforations down as depl(?ted. At lo~•t!ona recommended by the geotechnical consultant, nonp.erforated pipe should be Installed. SUBOAAIN TYPE-Subdraln type s·hould be .Acrylonltrlle Butadlene Styren.e (A~B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride '(PVC) or approved :equl~·alent. Class 125, SCA 32.5 should be used for maximum .flll depth• of 35 feet. Claia 200,SOR 21 ~hould be uHd for. maximum flll depth• of 100 feet •. 11 11 11 I]_ l"l I] IJ 11 IJ· 1· J ~ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ -- IJ KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS FILL SLOPE IXlS'nNG GROUND SURFACE PROJICT 1 TO 1 LINE ,ROM TOI OF SLOPS FILL-OVER-C.U-T SLOPE --- • I CUT-OVE·R-FILL SLOPE PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO COMPETENT MAT_ERIAL CUT SLOPt: · (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL . PLACEMENT) NOTE: Back drain. may be recommended· by the geotechnical consultant based on actual ·fleld conditions encountered •. Bench· dimension recommendations may also be altered baaed on .fle·ld conditions encountered. 11 11· 11 IJ 1·1 I ] I] 11 IJ. 11· IJ . IJ lj IJ IJ IJ -1· IJ Jl ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL PINUIH GAADE . OVERSIZE WINDROW GRANULAR SOIL (S.E.~ 30) TO BE OENSIFiED IN PLACE BY .FLOODING _;:::..c::::::::::;;;,_:::,::~ DETAIL ----------------------------------------~IT JZ:210tL1---~ -~ ------------~~-------·-----' . -------------- TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW 1) Rock with max-linum dlmen·sions greater than e. inches should not be used within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility whichever is greater), and 15 feet horlzontaJly c;,f slope faces. . . 2) Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4· feet should not be utilized in fills. 3) Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by the geotachnical .consultant. · · 4) Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above details Width of windrow should not ex.ceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered vertically (as depict~d). - 5) Rock should ·be pla-c~d i'~ excavated trenches. Granular soil (S.E. greater than or equal to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill voids around and beneath rockJ. · 11 11 · 11 IJ 11 11 11 11 . IJ . IJ IJ IJ I] IJ . ~ IJ IJ lj I] APPENDIX -C_ , . ,. IJ 11 -] . IJ 11 IJ 11 IJ ll IJ. -] IJ IJ IJ -l IJ , IJ lj lj 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 subj~cted to mechanica! 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 eva·luated in· determining the classification ofthe materiais. The grain-size distribution curves are presented in the test data and the Uni~eq Soil Classification is presented in poth the test data and the boring. logs. 1·1 11 IJ ll J. 11 1·t J Ii IJ ) IJ -j 1-~ J IJ IJ If IJ IJ IJ II .,, lj APPENDIX-D 1·1 .11 1·1 11 11 IJ IJ IJ IJ ·IJ· -IJ 1· H IJ 11 IJ i IJ IJ · IJ- IJ MINIMUM RETAINING WALL WATERPROOFING & DRAINAGE DETAIL =~: .:·:.,.-: ... •"•:,~• :·:·:.,.:.:...,.,: ,·~\.,!•:,,"••,,,::•o-:,::~, .. • .... , •:-.•:• ,:· .. ,•,,:0 ':''•,~•-,• "'•,,,";,,:'uo' 000,,•, ." ,,,,••' -:,-',.?••,~4:,•'.'~:,,"",,,•,:."•.:,,•',.."\. 0 '•,•,,.•,•'' :• .... : ... : ·.,· ....... . . F"INAL· WATERPROOFIN-G SPECIFICATIONS & D.E:TAILS TO BE: PROVIDED BY PROJECT ARCHITECT . . . · TOP pr RETAINING WALL MASTIC TO BE APPLIED TO TOP Of' WALL ,------MASTIC TYPE WATER PROOFING (HLM 5000 OR EQUIV) INSTALLED PER MANUFAC1URES SF!ECIFICA'.f!ONS· & PROTECTED 'MTH BACKER BOARD (ABOVE MIRAORAIN) MAS'TIC NOT TO BE EXPOSED TO SUNLIGHT SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO 90" RELATIVE COMPACTION P~ REFERENCE #1 . ./ ~--PROPOSED SLOPE BACKCUT NO MIRA_DRAIN (top) --,----::i VER OSHA STANDARDS OR PER ALlERNATIVE SLOPING PLAN, OR PER APPROWD . SHORING PLAN . RETAINING· WALL . MIRAORAIN MMRANE INSTAU.£0 PER 1.tANUFA'CnJRES SPECIFl~TIONS 0'iER MAS11C WA 'T!RPROOFING -HLM eooo OR EQIJIVMD!T PROJECT NAME PROJECT ADDRESS JOB NUMBER .. ---.... -··----··--_____ .,,_. __ FILTER· FABRiC ENfilOPE" 4 (MIRAFI 140N' OR . APPROVED EQUIVALENT) 12• ·MIN. LAP · . .._-,t&. _ _..;.._3/4"·-·1 1/2" CLEAN GRAVEL· ~1--1-1--_..,.,.._ ____ 4•x4• (45<1) CONCRETE ·cmT 0 FOOTING/WALL CONNECTION (U~DER WATER PROOFJNG) L.:.:s:iiiiiiiji;:;.~~:ri",_.:.. _____ -:-_ ,i.• (MIN",) DIAMETER. PERFORATED PVC. PIPE .. {SCHEDULE -<lO QR EQ:) "1:TH PE8F'ORA TIONS . . ORIENlED DOWN AS DEPICTED MIN. 2:C GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET. '-----,.----EN!) lwllRADRAIN (bottom) ....__ __ COMPETENT BEDROCK OR FILL MATERIAL AS EVALUAlED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSUL TANT . · SCAl-E: 1" = 1' .. Q" . ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVlL, STRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 2121 MonUel Road, San Marcos, CA 92069 . Phone: (760)839-7302 Fax: (760)480-7477 -FIGURE I\Mainlfile on main\FORMS\1 FRM\2000\MASTER -FIG.wpd 11 11 -11 11 11 11 ·1J 11 IJ 11 IJ IJ IJ. IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ APPENDIX-E ' . ,. 11 11 11 l'l l'l 1''1 I] 11 IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ i IJ Ii PHOTO LOG Photos are oriented from left to right and top of page to bottom of_page Page.1 Photo 1 (Upper Left Comer): Photo 2: Photo 3: Photo 4: Page 2: Photos 1-3: Photo 4: Page 3 Photo 1: Photo 2: General view of bluff looking north. Subject property is newermediterranean looking structure with palm trees located along the left side of photograph. Portion of subject bluff in question is the ice plant portion and gunited portions toward the left of the page note higher rates of erosion for portion of bluff along right side of page ( offsite) as discussed in report. Alternate view, general description as in Photo 1. General viewof rilling along oversteepened bluff located south of site;.offsite. Minor sea cave development south of site. General viewofSantiago Formation reventment located immediately below bluff for subject _property. General close-up view of weakened bedding plain in Santiago Formation, primary zone along which retreat is occurring. General view of bench immediately atop Santiago Formation and portion of gunite slope along northern half of property. · General view of Santiago Formation reventment looking south_. Page No. 1 of 2 E:\2006\CIRO-WAL "J:ERS POOL, 064012-1\PHOTO LOG.wpd 11 11 . 11 'IJ 11 11 IJ IJ IJ 11 IJ- IJ IJ IJ IJ' IJ IJ IJ 11 Photo 3: Photo 4: Page4 Photo 1: Photo 2: Photo 3: Photo 4: Page5 Photo 1: Photo 2: Photo 3: General view of retreat mechanism (i.e. vertical fractures) extending through Santiago Formation to weakened plain . General view of condition of gunite along Santiago Formation. Same as previous. General view of pipes through gunite to allow for water to weep from behind -gunite. General view of gunite armoring along northern portion of property. General view of subject bluff from distance. General view of subject residence from the front. General view of already constructed improvements in the rear yard consisting· of a site wall foundation along the approximate top of bluff and newer Barbeque. Same ~s previous with wider angle view depicting . portion of bluff below. · . Page No. 2 of2 E:12006\CIRG-WALTERS POOL, 064012-1\PHOTO LOG.wpd 11 IJ 11 11 11 IJ IJ 11 •12 I-1,0 J5: 11 11 lj 1.1 11 It .J IJ ~] 11 ,,. , " /;, ,f ) -~ " , 'J ·, i1;::,' ',•-,..' en 0 l-o I Cl. I] Ii I l 11 11 11 •1 11 ·~ I-IQ UJ: a.. Ir Ii 11 -I 'lj IJ .j lj IJ ;J ,,, I ;,t ,4 I ,, ·' ,,::'t! :·"..:!1 i t 11: 'i ,f ' J :, ' ,, L, -·< ::::EI <( 'VI 01 -.i= ('I) I 0)1 (!) I 01 01 NI LO I 01 .- (/) 0 l-o a: I, '11 11 11 11 11 IJ IJ II ·~ , I-·~ II I! IJ 11 IJ 11 lj IJ IJ r, 1' ,-! en g 0 :c ll.. 11 1-] 1·1 11 1·1 l:l I] ·~ ,-.. Ii II IJ II •1 IJ ,., . ' . ~-:iE <( a>, N -.:t' ('t)I O> <01 01 01 ~I ~I cl ,..., Cl) ~ I 0. ~ <( IJ C') s:I" ;,; C') m co 11 0 0 ~ LC) 0 ,-11 11 ~ . ~p J ,J .. if-- !,· ·~· i I] f l,~?(:~ f f'-' 'l •• t > - . 11 -! ~ ,: ~~.-;.- -'.. ~ ':; 11 lkn 5 1i5 -.f 11 11 IJ IJ I J IJ lj IJ en 0 I-0 11 I 0..