Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 15-42; Corbin House; PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 4398 YUKI LANE; 2015-09-09ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP C.fOTfCf./liC~J CIVIl. 5TftttClUflA~ t AA(.Id£:TUII.H GfliGIJll~lll~ fQO R[510Etll"tl. CCM~lRCl>l COillfhUCllOil 2121 Montiel Road , San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 ·Fax: (760) 480-7477 • www.designgroupca.com Date: September 9, 2015 To: Re: Dale & Debra Corbin 2255 Primrose Avenue Vista, CA 92083 e: hnhcorbin@gmail.com p: Dale (760) 214.1129 p: Debra (760) 214.3032 Proposed new residence to be located at 4398 Yuki Lane, Carlsbad, California References: 1. Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Report, prepared by Engineering Design Group, dated September 9, 2015. 2. Foundation Plan, sheet 5, prepared by Hiram S. Andrade & Associates, undated. We have prepared this letter as part of our geotechnical review of the project structural sheets referenced above. ·we find the plans are in general conformance with the above referenced updated preliminary geotechnical report with the following additional comments. 1. Visqueen does not meet the ASTM standards for a vapor barrier. Any reference to vapor barrier should eliminate the reference to visqueen. 2. The plan references an expired soils report. The reference· should be changed to the updated report, noted herein. Any design changes to project architectural, civil and structural design should be incorporated into the project plans. 3. The horizontal distance to daylight recommended is 10 feet in competent compacted material. 4. As a general reminder, at concrete slab on grade floors in moisture sensitive area (i.e. floors, below grade walls, moisture sensitive flooring covers, etc.) we recommend a maximum water to cement Ratio -0.45 maximum Compressive Strength "' 4,000 psi minimum. No special inspection is required, as this recommendation is intended to achieve a low permeability concrete. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP Erin Rist Project Engineer RECEIVED SEP 16 2015 CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DIVISION Project No. 155440-1 V:\2015\CORBIN, OALE & DEBRA-4398 YUKI LANE -155517-1 \REPORTS, LETTERSIPLAN REVIEW L TR.docx GINEERING DESIGN GROUP hFOTFC~f!:A!. ::Nil STRUCiLR.I.l f, AACHHfCTU~l COUStJD .. 'lTS ~fOR~RW:_:'D!~Nl:_:"l.:_:H=""'=~Af=AClAL.=C:::CHS:_:rn:::UC~T:O~.:_! ------------ 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 • www.designgroupca .com Date: February 10, 2014 To: Re : Subject: References: Lucy Ann Hall Trust PO Box 4230 Carlsbad, CA 92018 Proposed Subdivision located at 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, California Plan Review Response Letter 1) "Updated Geotechnical Investigation & Foundation Recommendations, Proposed Subdivision located at 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, California." Prepared by Engineering Design Group, dated October 30, 2014. 2) Emailed pictures of redline comments from the City of Carlsbad on civil drawings. We have prepared this letter as our response to red line comments submitted to us via email of comments made on the civil sheets. Our responses are as follows: 1. Page 4 of the soils report provides a maximum bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. 2. The SDRSD C-7 design data provides for an equivalent fluid pressure of 36 pcf/lffor walls with level backfill. The design data for walls with a 1.5:1 backfill slope an angle, denotes the walls are designed utilizing an internal friction of 33 degrees. An angle of internal friction of 33 degrees and soil density of 120 pcf has a resulting equivalent fluid pressure of 78 pcf, which exceeds than the 65 pcf provided for in our report. 3. We recommend a debris fence be installed at the time of development of the structures. Debris fencing should be designed in consideration of the building locations relative to the over steepened slope. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP Erin Rist Project Engineer RCE 65122 RECEIVED JUN 2 9 2016 LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING Project No. 135229-1 Z:\2013\HALL, LUCY ANN TRUSTEE -4400 PARK DRIVE ·135229-1\REPORTS, LETTERS\PLAN REVIEW LTR 2-10-14.wpd :. ENGINEERING GI:ORC~ICAI.. Cl'fl.. STRUCt.F.Al & AIICIIIHCrUAAL COIISUJ.UHS tOH IESIOO:IIAL &CO~ll.lt:Kt.:IAI. CO'iSTI!IJo';I!:M IQ DFSIGN GROUP 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 • www.designgroupca.com UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION & FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 4400 PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA EDG Project No. 135229-1 October 30, 2013 PREPARED FOR: Lucy Ann Hall Trust Lucy Ann Hall and Allen Sweet P.O. Box 4230 Carlsbad, CA 92018 RECEIVED SEP 1 8 2015 CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DIVISiON ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOIECHHlCAL CiVIL SIRIJCIURi\1. & ARCHIIECTURAL COIISUll.Vll'i f!lll R!SIDEJIIIAl ! COMM!RCIAl r~IISTRUCJI()fl --------------------------2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 • www.designgroupca.com -·~ Date: To: October 30, 2013 Lucy Ann Hall Trust Lucy Ann Hall and Allen Sweet P.O. Box4230 Carlsbad, CA 92018 luann.hall@sbcglobal.net Re: New development to be located at 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, California Subject: Updated Geotechnical Investigation and Report In accordance with your request and our signed proposal, dated August 6, 2013, we have performed a limited subsurface investigation of the subject site for the proposed new residence. The findings of the investigation, earthwork recommendations and foundation design parameters are presented in this report. In general it is our opinion 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. If you have any questions regarding the following report please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP Steven Norris California G£#2590 Erin E. Rist California RCE #65122 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 SCOPE ...................................•................................................. 1 2 SITE AND PROJEcr DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION .......................................................................... 1 4 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 GROUND WATER .............................................................................. 2 6 LIQUEFAcriON.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7.1 GENERAL. ................................................................................ 3 7.2 EARTHWORK ...........................•................................................. 3 7.3 FOUNDATIONS ............................................................................ 4 7.4 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE ................................................................ 6 7.5 RETAINING WALLS ......................................................................... 7 7.6 SURFACE DRAINAGE ....................................................................... 9 8 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ...................................................... 9 9 MISCELLANEOUS ............................................................................. 10 FIGURES Site Vicinity Map ......................................................................... Figure No. 1 Site Location Map ........................................................................ Figure No. 2 Site Plan.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3 Boring Logs ........................... : .................................................. Borings 1-4 Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 APPENDICES References.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A General Earthwork and Grading Specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B Retaining Wall Drainage Detail ............................................................. Appendix C 1 ~ This updated report gives our recommendations for the proposed lot division located at 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, California. (See Figure No. 1, "Site Vicinity Map", and Figure No. 2, "Site Location Map"). The scope of our work conducted onsite to date has included a visual reconnaissance of the property and surrounding areas, a limited subsurface investigation of the subject property, review of past reports, research at City of Carlsbad, and preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations. At the time of this report the preliminary grading plan was available for review although building plans have not been developed. 2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property is generally in a similar condition to that described in our original report (Ref. No. 7}. The property is bordered to the north, south and east by similar single family dwellings, and to the west by Yuki Lane. The general topography of the site area consists of coastal foothill terrain. The topography of the site itself consists of a relatively flat, previously graded, upper building pads at the residence and detached garage, a graded driveway and a lower pad the generally descends sloping east to west and north to south. The northern portion of the upper pad is flanked by an oversteepened slope of approximately 20 feet. The property is currently developed with a pre-existing single family dwelling constructed on a slab on grade foundation and detached garage structure. Our review of tax records indicates the existing structure was constructed in approximately 1961. Based upon our discussions with the owner and review of the preliminary grading plan we understand the development will consist of the division of the property into three lots and grading associated with the lot creation. 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION Our field investigation of the property consisted of a site reconnaissance, site field measurements, observation of existing conditions on-site and on adjacent sites, and a limited subsurface investigation of soil conditions. Our subsurface investigation consisted of visual observation of four exploratory boring excavations in the general areas of proposed construction, logging of soil types encountered, and sampling of soils for laboratory testing. The locations of our borings are given in Figure No.3, "Boring Location Map". 4 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Based upon our subsurface investigation of the property the site soil profiles and soil types are described in general as follows: Fill/Weathered: Fill and weathered soil profiles consisting of slightly silty sands. These profiles extend to depths between approximately 8 to 15 feet below adjacent grade. The materials consist of dark to light brown, slightly moist, medium dense, silty sands with roots. Fill and weathered 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. Hall Development 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, by the Sea, California ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS Page No.1 Job No. 135229-1 LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES Moisture and Density Tests: Moisture content and dry density determinations were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings and/or trenches. The results of these te·sts are presented in the boring and/or trench logs. Wh~re applicable, only moisture content was determined from· "undisturbed" or distu~bed samples. · · · · Classification Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain-size analysis by wet sievi:ng from U. S. Standard brass screens (ASTM 0422.-65). Hydrometer analyses were performed where appreciable quantities of fi:nes 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 and/or trench 1 ogs. · Atterberg limits: The Atterberg limits were determined in accordance with ASTM 04318-84 for engineering classification of the fine-grained materials. Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests were performed on selected remolded and/or undisturbed samples which were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. After transfer of the sample to the shear box, and reloading the sample, pore pressures set up in the samp 1 e due to the transfer were a 11 owed to dissipate for a period of approximately 1 hour prior t(} application of shearing force. The samples were tested under various normal loads, a different specimen being used for each normal load. The samples were s.heared in a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus at a strain rate of 0.05 inch per minute. After a travel of 0.300 inch of the direct shear machine, the motor was stopped and the sample was allowed to "relax" for approximately 15 minutes. The "relaxed" and "peak" shear values were recorded. It is anticipated that, in a majortty of samples tested, the 15 minutes relaxing of the sample is sufficient to allow dissipation of pore pressures set up in the samples due to application of shearing force. The relaxed values are therefore judged to be a good estimation of effective strength parameters. The test results were plotted on the "Direct Shear Summary". For residual direct shear test, the samples were sheared, as described in the preceding paragraph, with the rate of shearing of 0.001 inch per minute. The upper portion of the specimen was pulled back to the original position and the shearing process was repeat!=!d unti-l no further decrease in shear strength was observed with continued shearing (at least three times resheared). There are two methods to obtain the shear values: (a) the shearing process was repeated for each normal load applied and the shear value for each normal load was recorded. One or more· than one specimen can be used in this method; (b) only one specimen was needed, and a very high normal load (approximately 9000 psf) was applted from the beginning of the shearing process. After the equilibrium state was reached (after "relaxed1'), the shear value for that normal load was recorded. The norma l loads were then reduced gradually without shearing the sample (the motor was stopped). The shear values were recorded for different normal loads after they were reduced and the sample was 11 rel axed••. 3040 689 APPENDIX C Sandstone: Sandstone materials were found to underlie the fill and weathered material within our boring excavations. These materials consisted reddish brown to tan to grey, moist, dense to very dense slightly 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, laboratory testing and our experience possess potentials for expansion in the low range. Detailed logs of our exploratory borings are attached herein Boring Logs Nos. 1-4. 5 GROUND WATER Static ground water was not identified in our subsurface investigations. 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. If groundwater conditions are encountered during site excavations, a slab underdrain systems may be required. In consideration of the clean, friable sand layer encountered during the subsurface investigation, onsite infiltration shall be limited. Any proposed bioretention facilities shall be lined with an impervious vapor barrier. Proper surface drainage and irrigation practices will play a significant role in the future performance of the project. Please note in the "Concrete Slab on Grade" section of this report for specific recommendations regarding water to cement ratio for moisture sensitive areas should be adhered. The project architect and/or waterproofing consultant shall specifically address waterproofing details. 6 LlaUEFACfiON 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 cohesion less 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. Hall Development 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, by the Sea, California ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAl, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS Page No.2 Job No. 135229-1 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 GENERAL In general it is our opinion the proposed construction, as discussed and described herein, is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Based upon our review of past grading plans and our subsurface investigation we anticipate removals and recompaction on the order of 8-15 feet in the lower pad area. In consideration of the oversteepened slope condition at the north portion of the property and the observed erosion along the toe of the steep hillside a sufficient horizontal setback from the toe of the hillside on the order of 10 feet should be maintained. In addition a debris fence or wall should be constructed at the toe of the slope at the time of building development to limit erosion toward building structures. 7.2 EARTHWORK Grading should be conducted in accordance with the recommendations below as well as Appendix B of this report, as applicable. 7.2.1 Site Preparation Prior to any grading, the areas of proposed improvement should be cleared of surface and subsurface debris (including organic topsoil, vegetative and construction debris). Removed debris should be properly disposed of off- site prior to the commencement of any fill operations. Holes resulting from the removal of debris, existing structures, or other improvements which extend below the undercut depths noted, should be filled and compacted using onsite material or an import material with a very low potential for expansion. 7.2.2 Removals Fill and weathered profiles found to mantle the site in our boring excavations, upper approximately 8-15 feet on the lower pad, as observed in the field, are not suitable for the structural support of buildings or structural improvements in their present state. In general we recommend a removal and recompaction in the areas of new settlement sensitive improvements. In consideration of the depth of unsuitable profiles and the proposed new slopes and improvement limits, we anticipate the new building pads will be re-graded. In general grading should consist of the removal of unsuitable soil profiles to establish suitable keyways and subgrade bottoms, scarification of subgrade to a minimum depth of 12 inches, benching out of pre-existing unsuitable profiles and there-compaction of fill materials to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Where new slopes and walls support new driveways, removals are anticipated along the edge of existing fill slopes. Excavated fill materials are suitable for re-use as fill material during grading provided they are cleaned of debris and oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter (oversized material is not anticipated to be of significant concern) and are free of contamination. Hall Development 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, by the Sea, California ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS Page No.3 Job No. 135229-1 7.2.3 Transitions To limit transitional movement, we anticipate new foundations will extend to recompacted fill material. In consideration of the proposed pad cut-fill transitions, additional undercuts may be necessary, depending on the final building layout. Undercut depths should be based upon maximum depth of fill onsite, and should be approximately one half the maximum fill depth with a minimum depth of three feet. Removals for future buildings should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the footprint of the proposed structures and settlement sensitive improvements. Where this condition cannot be met it should be reviewed by the Engineering Design Group on a case by case basis. Removal depths should be visually verified by a representative of our firm prior to the placement of fill. 7.2.4 Fills All fill should be brought to +2% of optimum moisture content and re-compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557). Excavated sandy materials are suitable for re-use as fill material during fill operations, provided they are cleaned of debris and oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter (oversized material is not anticipated to be of significant concern) and are free of contamination. Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 6-8 inches in thickness. If the import of soil is planned, soils should have a low potential for expansion {EI<SO), 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. 7.2.5 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 in accordance with OSHA requirements and shall not undermine adjacent property or structures without proper shoring. 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 founded on competent material. 7.2.6 Footings bearing in competent sandstone material or recompacted fill material may be designed utilizing maximum allowable soils pressure of 2,000 psf. 7.2.7 Seismic Design Parameters Site Class D Spectral Response Coefficients SMS (g) 1.248 Hall Development 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, by the Sea, California ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS Page No.4 Job No. 135229-1 Spectral Response Coefficients SMl (g) 0.719 Sos (g) 0.832 Sot (g) 0.479 7.2.8 Bearing values may be increased by 33% when considering wind, seismic, or other short duration loadings. 7.2.9 The parameters in the table below should be used as a minimum for designing new footing width and depth below lowest adjacent grade. Footing depths to be confirmed in the field by a representative of Engineering Design Group prior to the placement of form boards, steel and removal of excavation equipment. No. of Floors Supported Minimum Footing Width *Minimum Footing Depth Below lowest Adjacent Grade 1 15inches 18 inches 2 15 inches 18inches 3 18inches 24inches 7.2.10 All footings founded into competent material 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. 7.2.11 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. 7.2.12 For footings adjacent to slopes a minimum of 10 feet (sandstone material) and horizontal setback in competent material or properly compacted fill should be maintained. All slope setbacks above the oversteepened cut slope at the driveway should be taken based upon a project 2:1 slope from the existing toe. 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. 7.2.13 All new buildings shall maintain a minimum of H/2 setback from the toe of the very steep slope along the north side of the property. Any reduction in the horizontal setback shall based upon a specific review of the site plan and building layout. 7.2.14 All excavations should be performed in general accordance with the contents ofthis report, applicable codes, OSHA requirements and applicable city and/or county standards. 7.2.15 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. Hall Development 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, by the Sea, California ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS Page No.5 Job No. 135229-1 7.3 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE All new concrete slab on grade floors should be placed on recompacted fill material shall use the following as the minimum design parameters. 7.3.1 Concrete slabs on grade of the building and driveway should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches and should be reinforced with #4 bars at 18 inches o.c. placed at the midpoint of the slab. Slump: Between 3 and 4 inches maximum • Aggregate Size: 3/4-1 inch • Non-Moisture Sensitive Areas: Compressive Strength = 2,500 psi minimum. • Moisture Sensitive Areas: Water to cement Ratio -0.45 maximum Compressive Strength " 4,500 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. 7.3.2 In moisture sensitive areas, the slab concrete should have a minimum water to cement (w/c) ratio of 0.45, generally resulting in a compressive strength of approximately 4,500 psi (No special inspection required for water to cement ratio purposes, unless otherwise specified by the structural engineer) as determined by the w/c ratio. This recommendation is intended to achieve a low permeability concrete. 7.3.3 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, and as described in the Earthwork section of this report. 7.3.4 A one inch layer of coarse sand material, Sand Equivalent (S.E.) greater than 50 and washed clean of fine materials, should be placed beneath the slab in moisture sensitive areas, above the vapor barrier. There shall be not greater than a Y. inch difference across the sand layer. 7.3.5 In moisture sensitive areas, a vapor barrier layer (15 mil) should be placed below the upper one inch of sand. The vapor barrier shall meet the following minimum requirements: Permeance of less than 0.01 perm [grains/(ff hr in/Hg)] as tested in accordance with ASTM E 1745 Section 7.1. • Strength per ASTM 1745 Class A. The vapor barrier should extend down the interior edge of the footing excavation a minimum of 6 inches. The vapor barrier should lap a minimum of 8 inches, sealed along all laps with the manufacturer's recommended adhesive. Beneath the vapor barrier a uniform layer of 3 inches of pea gravel 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. 7.3.6 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. 7.3.7 All subgrade soils to receive concrete slabs and flatwork are to be pre-soaked to 2 percent over optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches. Hall Development 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, by the Sea, California ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAl, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS Page No.6 Job lllo. 135229-1 7.3.8 Exterior concrete flatwork and driveway slabs, due to the nature of concrete hydration and minor subgrade soil movement, are subject to normal minor concrete cracking. To minimize expected concrete cracking, the following may be implemented: • Concrete slump should not exceed 4 inches. • Concrete should be poured during "cool" (40 -65 degrees) weather if possible. If concrete is poured in hotter weather, a set retarding additive should be included in the mix, and the slump kept to a minimum. • Concrete subgrade should be pre-soaked prior to the pouring of concrete. The level of pre-soaking should be a minimum of 2% over optimum moisture to a depth of 18 inches. • Concrete may be poured with a 10 inch deep thickened edge. 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 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 3ft. wide). Joints should be cut at expected points of concrete shrinkage (such as male corners), with diagonal reinforcement placed in accordance with industry standards. Isolation joints should be installed at exterior concrete where 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. 7.4 RETAINING WALLS New site and/or building retaining walls up to 6 feet may be designed and constructed in accordance with the following recommendations and minimum design parameters. 7.4.1 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 recompacted fill material or competent sandstone. Where cut-fill transitions may occur footings may be deepened to competent material and alternative detailing may be provided by the Engineering Design Group on a case by case basis. 7.4.2 In moisture sensitive areas (i.e. interior living space where vapor emission is a concern), we recommend any building retaining walls be designed as poured in place concrete in lieu of masonry to limit vapor emissions. 7.4.3 Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. This assumes that granular, free draining material with very low potential for expansion (E.I. <20) will be used for backfill, and that the backfill surface will be level. Where soil with potential for expansion is not low (E.I. >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 Hall Development 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, by the Sea, California ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSUL TMHS Page No.7 Job No. 135229-1 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. 7.4.4 If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement, they should be designed for an uniform at- rest soil pressure of 65 psf. 7.4.5 Retaining walls shall be designed for additional lateral forces due to earthquake, where required by code, utilizing the following design parameters. • Yielding Walls = PE= (3/8) kAE (y) H2 -applied at a distance of 0.6 times the height (H) of the wall above the base • Horizontal ground acceleration value kH = 0.25g. Where non-yielding retaining walls are proposed, the specific conditions should be brought to the attention of Engineering Design Group for alternative design values. • The above design parameters assume unsaturated conditions. Retaining wall designs for sites with a hydrostatic pressure influence (i.e groundwater within depth of retaining wall or waterfront conditions) will require special design considerations and should be brought to the attention of Engineering Design Group. 7.4.6 Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf. This value assumes that the soil being utilized to resist passive pressures, extends horizontally 2.5 times the height of the passive pressure wedge of the soil. Where the horizontal distance of the available passive pressure wedge is less than 2.5 times the height of the soil, the passive pressure value must be reduced by the percent reduction in available horizontal length. 7.4.7 A coefficient of friction of 0.33 between the soil and concrete footings may be utilized to resist lateral loads in addition to the passive earth pressures above. 7.4.8 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. 7.4.9 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. The waterproofing elements shown on our details are minimums, and are intended to be supplemented by the waterproofing consultant and/or architect. The recommendations should be reviewed in consideration of proposed finishes and usage, especially at basement levels, performance expectations and budget. If deemed necessary by the project owner, based on the above analysis, and waterproofing systems can be upgraded to include slab under drains and enhanced waterproofing elements. 7.4.10 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. Hall Development 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, by the Sea, California ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS Page No.8 Job No. 135229-1 7.5 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. Any french drains, backdrains and/or slab underdrains shall not be tied to surface area drain systems. 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 on site 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. 8 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by the investigation and our general experience in 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). 8.1 Review of final approved grading and structural plans prior to the start of work for compliance with geotechnical recommendations. 8.2 Attendance of a pre-grade/construction meeting prior to the start of work. 8.3 Observation of subgrade, keysways and excavation bottoms. 8.4 Testing of any fill placed, including retaining wall backfill and utility trenches. 8.5 Observation of footing excavations prior to steel placement and removal of excavation equipment. 8.6 Field observation of any "field change" condition involving soils. 8.7 Walk through of final drainage detailing prior to final approval. The project soils engineer may at their discretion deepen footings or locally recommend additional steel reinforcement to upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during site observations. Engineering Design Group shall, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, issue in writing that the above inspections have been Hall Development 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, by the Sea, California ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS Page No.9 Job No. 135229-1 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. 9 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 borings. The recommendations in this report are based on our experience in conjunction with the limited soils exposed at this site and neighboring sites. We believe that this information gives an acceptable degree of reliability for anticipating the behavior of the proposed structure; however, our recommendations are professional opinions and cannot control nature, nor can they assure the soils profiles beneath or adjacent to those observed. Therefore, no warranties of the accuracy of these recommendations, beyond the limits of the obtained data, is herein expressed or implied. This report is based on the investigation at the described site and on the specific anticipated construction as stated herein. If either of these conditions is changed, the results would also most likely change. Man-made or natural changes in the conditions of a property can occur over a period of time. In addition, changes in requirements due to state of the art knowledge and/or legislation, are rapidly occurring. As a result, the findings of this report may become invalid due to these changes. Therefore, this report for the specific site, is subject to review and not considered valid after a period of one year, or if conditions as stated above are altered. It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information in this report be incorporated into the plans and/or specifications and construction of the project. It is advisable that a contractor familiar with construction details typically used to deal with the local subsoil and seismic conditions, be retained to build the structure. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. We hope the report provides you with necessary information to continue with the development of t he project. Hall Development 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, by the Sea, California ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS PageNo.lO Job No. 135229-1 FIGURES INEERING DESIGN GROUP Project: LUANN HALL TRUST Address: 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, CA EDG Project No: 135229-1 FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map Project: LUANN HALL TRUST Address: 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, CA EDG Project No: 135229-1 FIGURE 2 Site Map 2121 Montiel Road. San Marcos. California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 • www.designgroupca.com ) Project: LUANN HALL TRUST Address: 4400 Park Drive, Carlsbad, CA EDG Project No: 135229-1 ·-. --~ .. FIGURE 3 Boring Locations PROJECT NAME LUCY ANN HAU TRUST LOG OF BORING No. w_ PROJECT NUMBER 135229-1 LOCATION 57' WEST OF E. FENCE; 20' NORTH OF S. FENCE --SHEET 1 OF ~ DATE 9/3/2013 DRILLING METHOD TOTAL DEPTH DRILLED AND TYPE OF RIG TRIPOD RIG DRILLED (feet) 13.5 LOGGED BY ER BACKFILLED/CONVERTED TO WELL ON(dote) APPROX SURFACE 91 SAME DAY ELEVATION (feet) DIAMETER 6" GROUNDWATER N/A FIRST COMPLETION OF BORING LEVEL (feet BGS) NONE NONE TYPE OF I2J SPT TYPE OF SAFETY WEIGHT {lbs) DROP (in.) SAMPLER(S) 0 CALIFORNIA HAMMER 140 30 w wa::: * (/) (_) 1-I..-... _l _!W 1-1-* ~(!) a:::z 1-..... 0... 0... Ql ~z AND NOTES ww 0... Q) a...* o...o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ~~--w~ :::!: :::!::::!: o=> cnz a? ......I ~5 o..._.. ~ <(::::> _lQ cnz Ql(_) (!) (_) : ' FILL/ WEATHERED PROFILES .· .... ·: :, .. .. ,:·· ... . . ...... ,. 1-::: .. •-;.' .. 1-4 ,......., :; _: ......... t 1 10,10, ., BROWN, DRY TO SLIGHTLY MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, SILTY SAND, SW-SM 1-5 11 ........ .. • ' ... : ··.· ···-... · ... . '···.: . ; ..... ~:-; 8 .. SANDSTONE ~ ~·'!'~-:.:~.=~:,~ 12,18, TAN TO BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, DRY ON OUTSIDE, -2 18 )1~:g;~ ..:}-~'-;,.,.;-.. DENSE, SLIGHTLY SILTY SANDSTONE, SW-SM ;~~;~:.~~ 10 ;.:."; .. ;~;-:.~ ~~ .. \',~~;~ ~·--<&:-.--... ';.,· 12 r---, f~~t~ 3 8,14, t-r.:·~~i~)~· TAN TO REDDISH BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, SLIGHTLY SILTY 19 --'l~~-~s~~ SANDSTONE, SW-SM - 1-15 - t- 1- -- 20 1-- 25 In ENGINEERING ADDITIONAL NOTES / COMMENTS: DESIGN GROUP 2121 MONTIEL ROAD SAM MARCOS, CA 92089 {780) 839-7302 NOTES: * FOR 6" FAX (760) 480-7477 ** UNCORRECTED SPT PROJECT NAME LUCY ANN HALL TRUST LOG OF BORING No. PROJECT NUMBER 135229-1 LOCATION 22' WEST OF E. FENCE; 5' NORTH OF S. FENCE SHEET 1 DATE 9/3/2013 DRILLED LOGGED BY ER DIAMETER 6" Of BORING TYPE Of SAMPLER{S) :c..-... w w~ * (J') ....J ....JW 1-1-....... a.. Cl..ID 3:Z a.. II) w2 ::E ~§5 o=> C) ......... < ....JO (J') (J')z IIJ(.) 4 1---c ~ 8,8, 1 5 9 8 ~7 5,6, 2 10 '--- 10 - ~ 12 /' 3 10,12, 40 ~ 15 -- 20 12'] SPT 0 CALIFORNIA (.) ........ :C" a..* a.. a (J)z ~....J (!) ··.· ····"": ., 0 ....... ·: •, ·.-: ...... ·· . .. ·. t ••• ,. : . " .. .. ,. ;: . ~ '• .... ·.·. . . ' . ,:.. .. , .. . . . ' • •• 1 • ~ • ::: ,. • , .. , •Z: • •, .. ,'•J> : ... . ·. ' ... .. .... ~ .·. :;.· •.: • . ' . :-.• ···. -.. " ····· .... - . ·'·' ~~~~ DRILLING METHOD TOTAL DEPTH AND lYPE OF RIG TRIPOD RIG DRILLED {feet) 13.5 BACKFILLED/CONVERTED TO WELL ON{dote) APPROX SURFACE SAME DAY ELEVATION (feet) GROUNDWATER N/A FIRST COMPLETION LEVEL {feet BGS) NONE NONE TYPE OF SAFETY WEIGHT (lbs) DROP (in.) HAMMER 140 30 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND NOTES FILLL WEATHEREQ PRQFILES BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, SLIGHTLY SILlY SAND TAN, MOIST TO VERY MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, FINE SAND SANDSTONE WHITE TO TAN TO GREY, MOIST AT LOWER 6", WET ABOVE VERY DENSE SLIGHTLY SILlY SANDSTONE WITH SMALL GRAVEL PIECES IN LOWER 6" .a2 OF 1 ~!Z ~~ 3:0 (.) 25~~--~--~--~--~--------------------------------------------L-~ In ENGINEERING ADDITIONAL NOTES / COMMENTS: DESIGN GROUP 2121 MONTIEL ROAD SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 (780) 839-7502 NOTES: • FOR 6" FAX (780) 480-7477 ** UNCORRECTED SPT PROJECT NAME LUCY ANN HALL TRUST LOG OF BORING No. PROJECT NUMBER 135229-1 LOCATION 16' S OF TOP SLOPE, 70' W OF E FENCE SHEET 1 DATE 9/3/2013 DRILLED LOGGED BY DIAMETER OF BORING TYPE OF SAMPLER(S) 10 ~ 11 ,........,/' ~ - 3 e 13 7 4 ....._ f-15 - -v 5 20 - ER 6" * U) t-~:z o=> ....10 CD 0 14, 50for6 9,11' 15 6,8, 8 6,6, 12 10,12, 40 CZ] SPT 0 CALIFORNIA t-* a..* U):z ~. . : •.. ,·· .... .:.. :· :·-: . . :·.··· ... :.:· .. ·:·· : . . . :: ..... ·:. ,.· .. :: '1, •• ••• ',•:::. , .. ........... . -· .. ·~ . ... .. ·~ • .. ... .. . . .... -~ ... ·.· : .. ·.· ... ·. · .. ·.· . . . ·.~ . :. ... ... . .. ., ·' ... : ........ .. DRILLING METHOD TOTAL DEPTH AND TYPE OF RIG TRIPOD RIG DRILLED (feet) 19.5 BACKFILLED/CONVERTED TO WELL ON(dote) APPROX SURFACE 93.5 SAME DAY ELEVATION (feet) GROUNDWATER N/A FIRST COMPLETION LEVEL (feet BGS) NONE NONE TYPE OF SAFETY WEIGHT (lbs) DROP (in.) HAMMER 140 30 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND NOTES FILL/ WEATHERED PROFILES TAN, GREY TO BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, SILTY SANDS. (MAY HAVE BEEN ON ROCK) TAN TO BROWN, SLIGHTLY TO VERY SLIGHTLY MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, SILTY SANDS. TAN TO BROWN , SLIGHTLY MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND BROWN TO TAN WEATHERED, SLIGHTLY MOIST TO VERY SLIGHTLY MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND · ··· .. ·'··· SANDSTONE .. . . ~ :•· TAN TO REDDISH BROWN, MOIST, DENSE TO VERY DENSE, SLIGHTLY SILTY SANDSTONE ~ OF 1 t-o:::z ww ~~ ~0 0 25~~--~--~--~--~--------------------------------------------~~ In ENGINEERING ADDITIONAL NOTES / COMMENTS: DESIGN GROUP 2121 MONTIEL ROAD SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 {760) 839-7302 NOTES: * FOR 6" FAX {760) 460-7477 ** UNCORRECTED SPT PROJECT NAME LUCY ANN HALL TRUST LOG OF BORING No. .6! PROJECT NUMBER 135229-1 LOCATION 5' W OF DESCENDING SLOOPE FROM D/W SHEET 1 OF 1 s· s OF nv<::rvl\lnll\li SLOPE FROM GARAGE PAD DATE 9/3/2013 DRILLING METHOD BEAVER RIG TOTAL DEPTH DRILLED AND TYPE OF RIG DRILLED (feet) 16.5 LOGGED BY ER BACKFILLED/CONVERTED TO WELL ON(dote) APPROX SURFACE 95 TO 96 SAME DAY ELEVATION (feet) DIAMETER 6" GROUNDWATER N/A FIRST COMPLETION OF BORING LEVEL (feet BGS) NONE NONE TYPE OF IZI SPT TYPE OF SAFETY WEIGHT (lbs) DROP (in.) SAMPLER(S) 0 CALIFORNIA HAMMER 140 30 w wa:: .. ~ (.) 1- j;.z-_J -IW 1-* 5:~ a::z 0... c.. co 3:Z ww 0... Q) c...* o...o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND NOTES 1-1-w~ ~ :::E:::E o=> Ulz ~--~ ~5 0 .......... < :::> -10 (f) Ulz lD(.) ~ (.) :-... :·.·:-·: FILLL WEATHERED PRQFILES . · . ... . . ·:·.! .. -.... .. . , '::,'! ·.; VERY DRY, SMALL GRAVEL & COBBLES IN UPPER 4', BROWN ..... - - .. .. .. . . . ·~· 5 ······ .·.·· .. 6 .. : . · .. '. ·.: 7 ... 1 6,10, :· !-.: TAN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, SLIGHTLY SILTY SANDS 11 .. .. .. · .. ·.· . '--' -.. ··.· ·. ·.: :· .. ...... : ' : 10 ....... ·:· v· 6,6, :~)$~~ SANQSTON!;: 2 10 TAN TO WHITE, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, COARSE GRAINED SANDSTONE f-~~t~~?;; -- 15 ~ fl -V 3 10,11, RUST BROWN TO TAN, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST, SILTY 12 SANDSTONE 1-- 20 1- 25 Ill ENGINEERING ADDITlONAL NOTES / COMMENTS: DESIGN GROUP 2121 MONTIEL ROAD SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 (760) 839-7302 NOTES: * FOR 6" FAX (760) 480-7477 ** UNCORRECTED SPT JOB NO.: 135229-1 SCALE: NOTED DATE: 10-29-13 l~r---r-----r---------.----------.---------.---------,---------.----------,-----,---, ~---~. ·.-.:-::-___ . .. !1- :.::-:.-~=----- 0+00 0+50 HALL DEVELOPMENT 4400 PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CA -· 1+00 1+50 2+00 CROSS SECTION 1-1 SCALE 1 = 20 -0" liD ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP 2121 MONTIEL ROAD PHONE: (760) 839-7302 SAN MARCOS, CA 92089 FAX: (760) 480-7477 APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1. Ben Lund Engineering, Preliminary Grading Plan, Project No. MS05-02, Drawing No. 48-4A. 2. California Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page. 3. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Rupture Zones in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 1990. 4. City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study, Map 25, dated August 1995. 5. Day, Robert W. "Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering Design and Construction." 1999. McGraw Hill. 6. Engineering Design Group, unpublished in house data. 7. Engineering Design Group, Limited Geotechnical Investigation Report, dated December 23, 2004. 8. Engineering Design Group, Response to Comments and Addendum No.3, dated October 18, 2005. 9. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974 Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. 10. Kennedy, Michael P. & Tan, Siang S., Geologic Map of the Oceanside, San Luis Rey, and San Marcos 7.5' Quadrangle, Sand Diego County, California, dated 1996. 11. Lee, L.J., 1977, Potential foundation 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. 12. Newmark sliding block analysis, Report 5, Miscellaneous Paper, S 71-17, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vickburg, Mississippi." 13. Ploessel, M.R. and Slossan, J.E., 1974 Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes: California Geology, Vol. 27, No.9, P. 195-199. 14. RB Hill & Associates, Inc., City of Carlsbad Tract No 81-23 Waterview Heights, Drawing 215-6A. 15. State of California, Fault Map of California, Map No. 1, Dated 1975. 16. State of California, Geologic Map of California, Map No. 1, Dated 1977. 17. Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) Seismology Committee, Macroseminar Presentation on Seismically Induced Earth Pressure, June 8, 2006. 18. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Shoreline Movement Data Report, Portuguese Point to Mexican Border, dated December 19. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Coastal Cliff Sediments, San Diego Region (CCSTWS 87-2), dated June. 20. Van Dorn, W.G., 1979 Theoretical aspects 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 guidebook. 21. Various Aerial Photographs. APPENDIX B FILL SLOPE KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS PROJI!CT 1 TO 1 LINE 2' MIN.L15' MIN.--J KEY ftOWEST l DEPTH BENCH (KEY) FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE CUT SLOPE (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) /.r"' EXISTING // GROUND // SURFACE~ / '?: // ?<'~? CUT SLOPE CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE / / £. ~~, .... {TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL . PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO COMPETENT MATERIAL ~---REMOVE UNSUITABLE ).tATERIAL PLACEMENT> NOTE: Back drain may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may also be altered baaed on field conditions encountered. SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL FINISHED SLOPE FACE PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY OVERBURDEN OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL I . EXISTING GROUND --SURFACE~ --__--- ..).....--.,..,..-_.... .,./..-_.... .,./ / ..- __.... --/ _.... / / FINISHED CUT PAD ...,...,., / PAD OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH AND AECOMPACTION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BASED ON ACTUAL FIELD ·-· CONDJ.T-IONS..-ENCOUNTERED. ( COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALU~TED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOTE: Subdrain details and key width recommendations to be provided based on exposed subsurface conditions STABILITY FILl I BUTTRESS DETAIL KEY FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 1 .40N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT)* OUTLET PIPES 4• ~ NONPERFORATED PIPE. 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY SEE T-CONNECTION DETAIL e• MIN. COVER ... ~ PERFORATED PIPE SUBORAIN TRENCH DETAIL NOTES: SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD BE SITUATED AS LOW AS POSSIBLE TO ALLOW SUITABLE OUTLET ,---...,_ 1 0' MIN. PERFORATED L-.L..l EACH SlOE PIPE~ CAP NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE T-CO.NNECTION DETAIL *IF CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/4"-1·1/2• GRAVEL, FIL TEA FABRIC MAY BE DELETED SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATER!AL U.S. Standard Sieve Size 1" )/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 For buttresa dlmenaiona, see geotechnical report/plans. Actual dimenaions of buttress and aubdrain ma~ 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 lnatalled SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdraln type should be Acrylon trlle Butadiene Styrene (A.B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. Claaa 125,SDR 32.5 should be used for maximum fill depths of 35 feet. Cia .. 200, SDA 21 should be uaed for maximum fill depths of 100 feet. \ CANYON SUBDRAJN DETAILS '-----exlaTINe GROUND SUR~ACI! SUBDRAIN TRENCH SEE BELOW SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAILS 314•-1-'112• CLEAN GRAVEL (9ft.3Jft. MIN.) 4• ,_,IN. BEDDING '----e• f1l MIN. ---.../ PERFORATED PIPE DETAIL OF CANYON SUBORAIN TERMINAL SUBDRAIN 314•-1·112• CLEAN GRAVEL (9ft.3 Jft. MIN.) *IF CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF 314•-1-112• GRAVEL, FlLTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL U.S. Standard Sieve Size ,; Passing 1" 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 Subdrain should be constructed only on competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical conaultant. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrain pipe should be Installed with perforations down as depicted. At locatlona recommended by the geotechnical consultant, nonperforated pipe should be lnatalled. SUBDAAIN TYPE-Subdrain type should be Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (A.S.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. Class t 25, SDR 32.5 should be uaed for maximum fill deptha of 3S feet. Claaa 200, SDR 21 should be uaed for maximum fill depth a of 100 feet. ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL PIN&aH GRADE ~-rJ­: LLC1LJ -----------.----- TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW DETAIL 1) Rock with maximum dimensions greater than 6 inches should not be used within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (or 2 teet below depth of lowest utility whichever is greater), and 15 feet horizontally of 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 geotechnical consultant. 4) Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above details Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered vertically (as depicted). 5) Rock should be placed in 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 rocks. Maximum Oensitv Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM 01557-78 (five layers). The results of these tests are presented tn the test data. Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was 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 SO percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch-titick by 4-inch .diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf siircharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the test data. Consolidation Tests: Consolidation tests were performed on selected, relatively u.ndi sturbed samples recovered from the samp 1 er. Samp 1 es were p 1 aced in a conso l i dometer and 1 oads were app 1 i ed in geometric progression. The percent consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original l-inch height. The consolidation pressure curves are presented in the test data. Where applicable, time-rates of consolidation were also recorded. A plot of these rates can be used to estimate time of consolidation. Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by the California Materials Method No. 417. "R"-Value: The resistance "R"-value was determined by the California Materials Method No. 301 for base, subbase, and basement soils. Three samples were prepared and exudation pressure and "R"·-value determined on each one. The graphically determined "R"-value at exudation pressure of 300 psi is reported. Triaxial Compression Tests: Tr1axial compression tests were performed on selected remolded and/or undisturbed samples according to ASTM 2166-85 (uncon·fined) and ASTM 2850-87 (confined). 3-040 689 APPENDIX D ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP 2121 MONTIEL RCW> PHONE: (780) 838-7302 SAN MARCOS. CALIFORNIA 92089 FAX: (780) 480-74n CD FOAM W FRIOTECTION BOARD~ ~ ~'& SFfCIFICATION ~! : ~~ ~ !1\ I:: 0 GRACE~ FLUID-APPLIED I!! .-"' ~ ILC4~ IN&TALLEP ~ ~~~ I HANF~'& SFfCIFICATION& 4 EXTEND f!EUINP CEI"ENTrrOUS !i SAC::KER BOARD. 0 GRACE U'rPRtOPUCT n,; If I IN8TALLEP ~ MAHFACTIIiiER'S SPECIFICATION& ~ FLUID-APPLIED IL£4TER;:;QXJFING 0 TEJ1il'1/NAT/Qtl BAR ~ ~s i~~ SPECIFICATION& CONCORQ'IJ ® FIL ~ FAl3RIC UV 6" MIN LAP IETW4LL FER ~4PETAIL8 ® 314" ~\IS. (1 SF I FTJ (j) 4" PIA FaiiFORATEP PflitAIN LINE (SCI-##J OR EfiJJIVJ FaiiFORATION8 ORIENTED POU.H ,_ MINII"U1 GRADIENT TO SUITAI!LE OUTLET - EXACT PIPE LOCATION TO f3E ~INEP l-l'r'PROTITE ILC4~-13Y SITE CON87RAINT8 STOPS AT COLD- JOINTS FER 1"FR ® 4'' TALL CONCii!E1E c.ANT • FTG I W4LL IN&TALLATION CQtii/ECTION (Lit/Pale /L£4 TEN JWOFING). INSTRUCTION& SLOFE TO a4QC:: EDGE a FOOTING. ® COMPAC7"EP 13Aa<FILL 9ft MIN RELATI\1£ SLAalV~ COMPACTION IN ALL ~ Alli548 UO.N. l3.4RRIER PER 6 II MAX LIFT8. ONL.,.. LIGUTUEIGHT ~~ UANP-~TEP EQJ/FHENT 8UALL f3E USED DETAILS URTUIN 3 FEET a:: TI-E eAGK FACE a:: W4LL..