HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 04-26; SALMEN INSURANCE BUILDING; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO:
DATE RECEIVED:
(To be completed by staff)
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: ^AL^iMSts/ I ^^iCUft->6W6^;^. 3^\Ur>\^^
2. APPLICANT: -SAP-T t^. ^H)TM ^ A)
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: (^^-2- SgcoN>p 5T
F ITc-a) '7'^^- o^^oo ^vJo>t>j\-rAS ^ c::^ ^t^z^
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: fWt? gTQgV Of^f=\c>^ ^0{L^l rJ^ *
<SL>IT&.c> <DVE:(2^ <3fR4>OhJT> LgUcY^ pAp-l-g-tHq .
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTL^LLY AFFECTED:
Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this
project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially
Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist
on the following pages.
I I Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation [31 Public Services
I I Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
I I Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources |^ Aesthetics
I I Water Q Hazards Cultural Resources
I I Air Quality Noise Recreation
l^^E- Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 06/2000
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence
that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 06/2000
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 06/2000
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (
)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (
)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(
)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (
)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (
)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (
)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
(
)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (
)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
expose people to potential impacts involving:
^o\^S> Fault rupture? (
b) Seismic ground shaking? (
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
(
e) Landslides or mudflows? (
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(
in or
)
)
soil
Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significan
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
• • • 2f
• • • [Zl
• • • [Zf
• • •
• • • r(
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • 0^
• • •
• • •
g) Subsidence of the land? ( • O
Rev. 06/2000
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
h) Expansive soils? (
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
(
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (
)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (
)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (
)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (
)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (
)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (
)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(
)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (
)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
(
)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
(
)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
(
)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (
)
d) Create objectionable odors? (
)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• • •
o
• •
• • o
• 0 o
• o 0
• o o
• o o
• 0 [Zf
• 0 0
• 0 0
0 0
• 0 0
0 0
• 0 0
\7{
0
0"
0^
Rev. 06/2000
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
( oPFi<i^ AP-r
^ )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (
)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(
)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(
)
)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)?
(
)
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts?
(
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (
)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(
)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (
)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(
)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(
)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(
)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (
)
Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significan
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
0 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
0 0 0
o 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
o
/
/
\3(
s7
"7
V
/
Rev. 06/2000
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (
)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (
)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (
)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (
)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (
)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (
)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (
)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(
)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any ofthe following areas:
a) Fire protection? (
b) Police protection? (
c) Schools? (
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(
e) Other governmental services? (
)
0 0 o
0 o •
0 0 o
0 0 0
o 0 o
0 0 0
0 0 o
0 0 o
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
rf
0-
V
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( L^PG (z-Apg, ^XIST^:;
b) Communications systems? (
)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rev. 06/2000
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( UP6t^t^ ('^)C\S\\^&)
d) Sfi^er_or septic tanks? (
e) Storm water drainage? (
f) Solid waste disposal? (
g) Local or regional water supplies? (
)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
0
o
o
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0^ 0
0 0
or 0
0" 0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
(
)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
(
)
c) Create light or glare? (
)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paieontological resources? (
)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (
)
c) Affect historical resources? (
)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(
)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (
)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
(
)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
0 0 0
o 0 0
0 0 0
o 0 0
0 0 0
0 rf
Rev. 06/2000
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the [ | [ [ [ [
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a r£u-e or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually | | [ [ | [ ^
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will | | | | [ |
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
XVIL EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
Rev. 06/2000
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact"
yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has
adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation
impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample
text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors.
AIR OUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2)
measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation
Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of transportation including
mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by
City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for
air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
10 Rev. 06/2000
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1)
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop altemative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checldist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
11 Rev. 06/2000
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - TflPRESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT
DFG 753.5a (8-03)
Lead Agency: City Of Carisbad
270742
Date: 05/11/2006
County / State Agency of Filing: San DlegO
Project Title: Salmen Insurance
Document No.:
Project Applicant Name: Bart M. Smith Phone Number: (760) 753-2464
Project Applicant Address: 682 2nd St, Encinitas, CA 92024
Project Applicant (c/7ec/(appropr/afe 6ox): Local Public Agency |^ School District j | Other Special District | |
State Agency |^ Private Entity
CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:
$850.00
$1,250.00
$850.00
$850.00
$25.00
) Environmental Impact Report
) Negative Declaration
) Application Fee Water Diversion (Sfafe Wafer Resources Control Board Only)
) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs
) County Administrative Fee
/) Project that is exempt from fees
' ^ TOTALRECEIVED
Signature and title of person receiving payment:
WHITE - PROJECT APPLICANT YELLOW - DFG/FASB PINK - LEAD AGENCY GOLDENROD - STATE AGENCY OF FILING
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
955 GRAND AVENUE
CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR
SALMEN INSURANCE
955 GRAND AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
W.O. 4397-A-SC JUNE 21, 2004
Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental
5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760)438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915
June 21,2004
W.O. 4397-A-SC
Salmen Insurance
955 Grand Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Phil Salvagio
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 955 Grand Avenue, Carlsbad, San
Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Salvagio:
In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a preliminary
geotechnical evaluation of the subject site. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the
onsite soils and geologic conditions and their effects on the proposed site development
from a geotechnical viewpoint.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on our review ofthe available data (see Appendix A), field exploration, laboratory
testing, and geologic analysis, business development of the property appears to be
feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the
text ofthis report are properly incorporated into the design and construction ofthe project.
The most significant elements of this study are summarized below:
• The proposed development will consist demolition ofthe existing one-story building
and construction of a two-story structure, as well as underground utility
Improvements. The first floor will be a parking facility with a small office, and stairs
and elevator for access to the second floor.
• The foundation system should be completely embedded into competent
unweathered terrace deposits or compacted fill. In general, unsuitable surficial soils
are on the order of ±1 foot. However, localized deeper removals to mitigate
potentially compressible soils cannot be precluded.
The expansion potential of tested onsite soils is generally very low. Conventional
foundations may likely be utilized for these soil conditions; however, based on field
mapping in the vicinity of the site, the presence of numerous paleoliquefaction
features ("sand blows," liquefaction craters, sand filled fissures and injection dikes,
sand vents, etc.), may exist within the site. Potential liquefaction of such areas in
the future that may impact surface Improvements is considered very low, provided
thatthe recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design
and construction of the project. Mitigation for structures may be provided by the
use of post-tensioned slabs. Mitigation in other areas may be accomplished by
overexcavation and/or geotextiles, as evaluated In the field durinq grading, based
on proposed development and use.
If paleoliquefaction features exist, post-tensioned foundations would be most
suitable for this project. However, this recommendation would be based on
conditions disclosed during grading.
At the time of this report, corrosion testing results had not been received for the
subject site. An addendum report, presenting those results, will be provided when
lab testing is complete.
In general, and based upon the available data to date, groundwater is not expected
to be a major factor in development ofthe site; however, perched water may occur
during construction and/or after site development, and should be anticipated. To
mitigate the potential for water vapor problems owing to the possibility of perched
water, the use of 4,500 psi concrete, with an altered water-cement ratio (0.45) is
additionally recommended.
Our evaluation indicates there are no known active faults crossing the site.
The seismic acceleration values and design parameters provided herein should be
considered during the design of the proposed development.
Adverse geologic features that would preclude project feasibility were not
encountered.
The recommendations presented in this report should be incorporated into the
design and construction considerations of the project.
Salmen Insurance W.O. 4397-A-SC
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page TwO
GeoSoilSj Inc.
The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions
concerning this report, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact any of the undersigi
Respectfully submitted,
GeoSoils, Inc.
Donna Gooley
Engineering Geologist, RG
fJohn P. Franklin
Engineering Geologist,
DG/JPF/DWS/jk/jh
Distribution: (3) Addressee
^ David W.Ske
Civil Engineer, RCE 47
Salmon Insurance
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge
W.O. 4397-A-SC
Page Three
G^oSoflSy Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE OF SERVICES 1
SITE CONDITIONS/PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1
FIELD STUDIES 1
REGIONAL GEOLOGY 3
EARTH MATERIALS 3
Topsoil/Colluvium 3
Terrace Deposits 3
MASS WASTING 4
FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY 4
Faulting 4
Seismicity 4
Seismic Shaking Parameters 6
Seismic Hazards 7
GROUNDWATER 7
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 8
LABORATORY TESTING 9
General 9
Moisture-Density Relations 9
Shear Testing 9
Expansion Potential 9
Corrosion Testing 10
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 10
EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 10
General 10
Site Preparation 10
Removals (Unsuitable Surficial Materials) 11
Fill Placement 11
Transitions/Overexcavation 11
Subdrains 11
RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS 12
Preliminary Foundation Design 12
Bearing Value 12
Lateral Pressure 13
GeoSoilSf Ine.
Foundation Settlement 13
Footing Setbacks 13
Construction 13
Very Low Expansion Potential (E.I. 0 to 20) 14
POST-TENSIONED SLAB SYSTEMS 15
Post-Tensioning Institute Method 15
UTILITIES 17
WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS 17
Conventional Retaining Walls 17
Restrained Walls 17
Cantilevered Walls 17
Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage 18
Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions 22
TOP-OF-SLOPE WALLS/FENCES/IMPROVEMENTS 22
Slope Creep 22
Top of Slope Walls/Fences 23
DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 24
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 26
Slope Deformation 26
Slope Maintenance and Planting 26
Drainage 27
Toe of Slope Drains/Toe Drains 27
Erosion Control 28
Landscape Maintenance 28
Gutters and Downspouts 31
Subsurface and Surface Water 31
Site Improvements 31
Tile Flooring 32
Additional Grading 32
Footing Trench Excavation 32
Trenching 32
Utility Trench Backfill 32
SUMMARYOF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND
TESTING 33
Salmen Insurance Table of Contents
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page ii
GeoSoils, Inc.
OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS 34
PLAN REVIEW 34
LIMITATIONS 35
FIGURES:
Figure 1 - Site Location Map 2
Figure 2 - California Fault Map 5
Detain - Typical Retaining Wal! Backflll and Drainage Detail 19
Detail 2 - Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail Geotextile Drain 20
Detail 3 - Retaining Wall and Subdrain Detail Clean Sand Backfill 21
Detail 4 - Schematic Toe Drain Detail 29
Detail 5 - Subdrain Along Retaining Wall Detail 30
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A - References Rear of Text
Appendix B - Hand Auger Boring Logs Rear of Text
Appendix 0 - EQFAULT. EQSEARCH. and FRISKSP Rear of Text
Appendix D - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines Rear of Text
Plate 1 - Boring Location Map Rear of Text in Folder
Salmen Insurance Table of Contents
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page III
GeoSoilSj Inc,
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
955 GRAND AVENUE
CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our services has included the following:
1. Review of the available geologic literature for the site and vicinity (see Appendix A).
2. Subsurface exploration consisting of excavation of two exploratory hand auger
borings for geotechnical logging and sampling (see Appendix B).
3. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface
exploration program.
4. General areal seismicity evaluation (see Appendix C).
5. Appropriate engineering and geologic analysis of data collected and preparation
of this report.
SITE CONPrnONS/PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The site consists of a rectangular lot located on the south side of Grand Avenue in the City
of Carisbad, California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). The site is surrounded on the
remaining sides by residential property. Topographically, the site slopes very gently to the
west and elevation at the site is approximately 75 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL). Drainage
appears to be directed westward.
Proposed site development is anticipated to consist of demolition ofthe existing one-story
structure for construction of a two-story parking and business structure, as well as
underground utility Improvements. It is anticipated that the planned building will use
continuous footings and slab-on-grade floors, or post-tension foundations, with
wood-frame and/or masonry block construction. Building loads are assumed to be typical
for this type of relatively light structure. It is also our understanding that sewage disposal
is proposed to be accommodated by tying into the regional municipal system.
FIELD STUDIES
Field studies conducted by GSI consisted of geologic mapping of the site, and the
excavation of two exploratory hand auger borings for evaluation of near-surface soil and
geologic conditions. The borings were logged by a geologist from our firm, who collected
representative bulk and undisturbed samples from the borings for appropriate laboratory
testing. The logs ofthe borings are presented in Appendix B. The locations ofthe borings
are presented on Plate 1.
GeoSoiUf Inc.
Base Map: The Thomas Guide, San Diego County Street Guide and Directory, 2004 Edition by Thomas Bros. Maps, page 1106, 1"=1/2 mile '
0
Scale
1/2
Miles ISI
Rftproduotd with parmiasion arantsd by Thomas Bcos. Maps.
This map la copyrightad by Thomas Broa. Maps. It is uniawfui to eopy or raproduca all or any part thereof, whether for
personai usa or resale, without permission. All rights reserved.
W.O.
4397-A-SC
SITE LOCATION MAP
Figure 1
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in
southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep,
elongated mountain ranges and valleys that trend northwesteriy. The mountain ranges are
underlain by basement rocks consisting of pre-Cretaceous metasedimentary rocks,
Jurassic metavolcanic rocks, and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the southern California
batholith.
In the San Diego region, deposition occurred during the Cretaceous Period and Cenozoic
Era in the continental margin of a forearc basin. Sediments, derived from Cretaceous-age
plutonic rocks and Jurassic-age volcanic rocks, were deposited into the narrow, steep,
coastal plain and continental margin ofthe basin. These rocks have been uplifted, eroded,
and deeply incised. During early Pleistocene time, a broad coastal plain was developed
from the deposition of marine and terrestrial terrace deposits. During mid to late
Pleistocene time, this plain was uplifted, eroded, and incised. Alluvial deposits have since
filled the lower valleys, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited/eroded
within coastal and beach areas. The site is generally underlain by terrace deposits.
EARTH MATERIALS
Earth materials onsite consist of topsoil/colluvium and Pleistocene-age terrace deposits.
A description of each material type is presented in the following discussion.
Topsoil/Colluvium
Topsoil/colluvium underlies the site to a depth of approximately 1 foot below existing
ground surface. The topsoil/colluvial materials encountered onsite consist of light brown,
silty sand. The materials generally were dry, loose, and porous. These materials are
considered unsuitable forthe support of settlement-sensitive improvements in their existing
state.
Terrace Deposits
Pleistocene-age terrace deposits underlie the site at shallow depth. Where encountered,
these materials are typically orange brown, dry to moist, and medium dense to dense.
Unweathered dense terrace deposits are considered suitable for structural support.
Based on our site exploration, terrace deposits appear relatively massive. Elsewhere in the
vicinity, It has been our experience that bedding structures within terrace deposits are
relatively flat lying and therefore adverse bedding conditions are not anticipated.
Salmen Insurance W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
Flle:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 3
GeoSoils, Inc.
MASS WASTING
No evidence of any significant pre-existing mass wasting features were indicated or
observed during field exploration or during a review of available publications.
FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY
Faulting
The site is situated in a region of active as well as potentially-active faults. Our review
indicates that there are no known active faults crossing the site within the areas proposed
for development (Jennings, 1994), and the site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone
(Hart and Bryant, 1997).
There are a number of faults in the southern California area that are considered active and
would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking should they be the source
of an earthquake. These faults include, but are not limited to: the San Andreas fault; the
San Jacinto fault; the Elsinore fault; the Coronado Bank fault zone; and the
Newport-Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone. The location of these, and other major
faults relative to the site, are indicated on Figure 2 (California Fault Map). The possibility
of ground acceleration or shaking at the site may be considered as approximately similar
to the southern California region as a whole.
The following table lists the major faults and fault zones in southern California that should
have a significant effect on the site should they experience significant activity.
ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME APPROXIMATE DISTANCE
MILES (KM)
Rose Canyon 5.4 (8.7)
Newport-Inglewood-Offshore 5.4 (8.7)
Coronado Bank-Agua Blanca 21.4 (34.4)
Elsinore-Temecula 23.9 (38.4)
San Jacinto-Anza 46.4 (74.7)
Seismicitv
The acceleration-attenuation relations of Sadigh, et al. (1997) Horizontal Soil, Bozorgnia.
Campbell, and Niazi (1999) Horizontal-Soil-Correlation, and Campbell and Bozorgnia (1997
Rev.) Soft Rock have been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake. 2000a). For this study,
peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated atthe site were determined based on the
Salmen Insurance
955 Grand Avenue
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge
GeoSoils, Inc,
W.O. 4397-A-SC
June 21, 2004
Page 4
CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
Salmen
1100
1000 --
900 --
800 --
700
600 --
500
-100
400
300 --
200 --
100 --
-300 -200 100 200 300 400 500 600
W.O. 4397-A-SC Figure 2
GeoSoils, Ine.
random mean plus 1 - sigma attenuation curve and mean attenuation curve developed by
Joyner and Boore (1981, 1982a, 1982b, 1988, 1990), Bozorgnia, Campbell, and
Niazi (1999), and Campbell and Bozorgnia (1997). EQFAULT is a computer program by
Thomas F. Blake (2000a), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using up
to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources.
The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a given site. If a fault
is found to be within a user-selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground
acceleration that may occur at the site from an upper bound ("maximum credible")
earthquake on that fault. Site acceleration (g) is computed by one of many user-selected
acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT. Based on the EQFAULT
program, peak horizontal ground accelerations from an upper bound event atthe site may
be on the order of 0.55g to 0.63g.
Historical site seismicity was evaluated with the acceleration-attenuation relations of
Campbell and Bozorgnia (1997 Rev.) Soft Rock and the computer program EQSEARCH
(Blake. 2000b). This program performs a search of the historical earthquake records for
magnitude 5.0 to 9.0 seismic events within a 100-mile radius, between the years
1800 through December 2003. Based on the selected acceleration-attenuation
relationship, a peak horizontal ground acceleration Is estimated, which may have effected
the site during the specific event listed. Based on the available data and the attenuation
relationship used, the estimated maximum (peak) site acceleration during the period
1800 through 2003 was 0.26g. Site specific probability of exceeding various peak
horizontal ground accelerations and a seismic recurrence curve are also
estimated/generated from the historical data. Computer printouts of pertinent portions of
the EQSEARCH program are presented in Appendix 0.
A probabilistic seismic hazards analyses was performed using FRISKSP (Blake, 2000c),
which models earthquake sources as three-dimensional planes and evaluates the site
specific probabilities of exceedance for given peak acceleration levels or pseudo-relative
velocity levels. Based on a review of these data, and considering the relative seismic
activity ofthe southern California region, a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.31 g
was calculated. This value was chosen as it corresponds to a 10 percent probability of
exceedance in 50 years (or a 475-year return period).
Seismic Shaking Parameters
Based on the site conditions, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code ([UBC],
International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 1997), the following seismic
parameters are provided:
Salmen Insurance W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 6
GeoSoils, Inc.
Seismic zone (per Figure 16-2*) 4
Seismic Zone Factor (per Table 16-1*) 0.40
Soil Profile Type (per Table 16-J*) SD
Seismic Coefficient C, (per Table 16-Q*) 0.44 N,
Seismic Coefficient C^ (per Table 16-R*) 0.64 N,
Near Source Factor (per Table 16-S*) 1.0
Near Source Factor N^ (per Table 16-T*) 1.05
Seismic Source Type (per Table 16-U*) B
Distance to Seismic Source 5.4 mi (8.7 km)
Upper Bound Earthquake (Rose Canyon) M« 6.9
* Figure and table references from Chapter 16 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997).
Seismic Hazards
The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered during
our evaluation ofthe site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely
mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, and typical site development
procedures:
• Tsunami
• Dynamic Settlement
• Surface Fault Rupture
• Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture
It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of a maximum probable or credible
earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would
occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely
be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's
mass than from those induced by the hazards considered above. This potential would be
no greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate
vicinity.
GROUNDWATER
Subsurface water was not encountered within the property during field work performed in
preparation of this report. Subsurface water is not anticipated to adversely affect site
development, provided thatthe recommendations contained in this report are incorporated
into final design and construction. These observations reflect site conditions at the time
Salmen Insurance
955 Grand Avenue
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge
W.O. 4397-A-SC
June 21,2004
Page 7
GeoSoils, Inc.
of our investigation and do not preclude future changes in local groundwater conditions
from excessive irrigation, precipitation, or that were not obvious, at the time of our
investigation. Regional groundwater is estimated to be at least 60 feet in depth, below the
site.
Seeps, springs, or other indications of a high groundwater level were not noted on the
subject property during the time of our field investigation. However, seepage may occur
locally (as the result of heavy precipitation or irrigation) in areas where any fill soils overiie
terrace deposits or impermeable soils. Such conditions may occur during grading or after
the site is developed, and should be anticipated. A sump pump may be required in any
proposed below-grade parking.
LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Seismically-induced liquefaction is a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by
earthquake-induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in soils. The soils may
thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, and lead to lateral movement, sliding, sand
boils, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, and other damaging deformations.
This phenomenon occurs only below the watertable; but after liquefaction has developed,
it can propagate upward into overlying, non-saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates.
Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential at depths greater than 45 feet and is
virtually unknown below a depth of 60 feet.
The condition of liquefaction has two principal effects. One is the consolidation of loose
sediments with resultant settlement of the ground surface. The other effect is lateral
sliding. Significant permanent lateral movement generally occurs only when there is
significant differential loading, such as fill or natural ground slopes. No such loading
conditions exist onsite.
Liquefaction susceptibility is related to numerous factors and the following conditions
should be concurrently present for liquefaction to occur: 1) sediments must be relatively
young in age and not have developed a large amount of cementation; 2) sediments
generally consist of medium to fine grained relatively cohesionless sands; 3) the sediments
must have low relative density; 4) free groundwater must be present In the sediment; and,
5) the site must experience a seismic event of a sufficient duration and magnitude, to
induce straining of soil particles.
Since at least one ortwo ofthe five required concurrent conditions discussed above do not
have the potential to affect the site, and evidence of paleoliquefaction features was not
directly observed, our evaluation indicates thatthe potential for liquefaction and associated
adverse effects within the site is low, even with a future rise in groundwater levels. The site
conditions will also be improved by removal and recompaction of low density near-surface
Salmen Insurance W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 8
GeoSoils, Inc.
soils, and if evidence for paleoliquefaction is encountered during grading, the use of
post-tension slabs.
LABORATORY TESTING
General
Laboratory tests were performed on a representative sample ofthe onsite earth materials
in order to evaluate their physical and engineering characteristics. The test procedures
used and results obtained are presented below.
Moisture-Densitv Relations
The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for representative site
soils was determined according to test method ASTM D-1557. A maximum dry density of
128.0 pcf at an optimum moisture content of 9.5 percent was determined for a bulk
composite sample obtained from the site. Field moisture and density determinations were
also performed. The results of these determinations are presented on the Boring Logs in
Appendix B.
Shear Testina
Shear testing was performed on a representative, remolded sample of site soil, in general
accordance with ASTM Test Method D-3080, in a Direct Shear Machine ofthe strain control
type. The shear test results are summarized below:
SAMPLE
LOCATION
PRIMARY RESIDUAL .
SAMPLE
LOCATION COHESION
(PSF)
FRICTION ANGLE
(DEGREES)
COHESION
(PSF)
FRICTION ANGLE
(DEGREES)
B-1 @0-4feet 180 31 63 32
Expansion Potential
Expansion testing was performed on a representative samples of site soil In accordance
with UBC Standard 18-2. The results of expansion testing are presented in the following
table.
Salmen insurance
955 Grand Avenue
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 4397-A-SC
June 21,2004
Page 9
LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL
B-1 (S 0 - 4 feet 0 Very Low
Corrosion Testing
Laboratory test results for soluble sulfates. pH. and corrosion to metals have not been
received as of the date of this report. Testing will be presented as an addendum upon
receipt ofthe results. Additional testing of site materials is recommended when proposed
grading is complete, to further evaluate the findings.
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
Based upon our site reconnaissance test results, it is our opinion that the subject site
appears suitable forthe proposed business development. The following recommendations
should be Incorporated Into the construction details.
EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
General
All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the
UBC, the requirements ofthe City, and the Grading Guidelines presented In Appendix D,
except where specifically superceded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, a GSI
representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional
grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule.
During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of
the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of
GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed
by this office and, if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be
offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry
safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act
should be met.
Site Preparation
Debris, vegetation, existing structures, and other deleterious material should be removed
from the building area prior to the start of construction. Sloping areas to receive fill should
be properiy benched in accordance with current industry standards of practice and
guidelines specified in the UBC.
Salmen Insurance W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 10
GeoSoils, Inc.
Removals (Unsuitable Surficial Materials)
Due to the relatively loose condition of topsoil and weathered terrace deposits, these
materials should be removed and recompacted in areas proposed for settlement-sensitive
structures or areas to receive compacted fill. At this time, removal depths on the order of
1 foot (including topsoil and weathered terrace deposits) below existing grade should be
anticipated throughout a majority ofthe site; however, locally deeper removals cannot be
precluded. Due to the relatively loose and porous condition ofthe topsoil/colluvial, these
materials should be removed, moisture conditioned, and recompacted and/or processed
in place. Removals should be completed below a 1:1 projection down and away from the
edge of any settlement-sensitive improvements and/or limits of proposed fill. Once
removals are completed, the exposed bottom should be reprocessed and compacted to
90 percent relative compaction.
Fiil Placement
Subsequent to ground preparation, onsite soils may be placed in thin (±6-inch) lifts,
cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to a least optimum moisture content, and
compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. If soil importation is
planned, a sample ofthe soil import should be evaluated by this office prior to importing,
in order to assure compatibility with the onsite site soils and the recommendations
presented in this report. Import soils for a fill cap should be very low expansive (Expansion
Index [E.I.] less than 20). The use of subdrains at the bottom of the fill cap may be
necessary, and subsequently recommended based on compatibility with onsite soils and
proximity and/or suitability of an outlet.
Transitions/Overexcavation
Cut portions of cut/fill transition pads should be overexcavated a minimum 3 feet below
pad grade. Areas with planned fills less than 3 feet should be overexcavated in order to
provide a minimum fill thickness of 3 feet, or 2 feet below the foundation, whichever is
greater. Where the ratio of maximum to minimum fill thickness below a given structure
exceeds 3:1, overexcavation should be completed to reduce this ratio to 3:1. or less.
Subdrains
In general, and based upon the available data to date, groundwater is not anticipated to
be a factor In development of the site. However, due to the nature of the site materials,
seepage may be encountered throughout the site, along with seasonal perched water
within any drainage areas. Seepage may also be encountered in "daylighted" joint
systems within the terrace deposits. Thus, subdrain systems are recommended within
shallow groundwater areas. In addition, subdrainage systems for the control of localized
groundwater seepage should be anticipated, should such conditions develop during or
Salmen Insurance W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 11
GeoSoils, Inc.
after grading. Should such conditions develop, this office should be contacted for
mitigative recommendations.
Local seepage along the contact between the bedrock and overburden materials, or along
jointing patterns ofthe bedrock, will likely require a subdrain system. Where removals are
below the subdrain fiowline. the removal materials may be reused as compacted fill
provided they are granular, and at a moisture content of at least 2 percent over optimum
moisture content (or 1.2 times optimum moisture content, whichever is greater).
RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS
Preliminarv Foundation Design
In the event that the information concerning the proposed development plans are not
correct, or any changes in the design, location, or loading conditions of the proposed
structures are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are
forthe subject site only and shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed
and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office.
The information and recommendations presented in this section are considered minimums
and are not meant to supercede design(s) by the project structural engineer or civil
engineer specializing in structural design. Upon request. GSI could provide additional
consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. They are
considered preliminary recommendations for proposed construction, in consideration of
our field investigation, and laboratory testing and engineering analysis.
Our review, field work, and recent and previous laboratory testing indicates that onsite soils
have a very low expansion potential range (E.I. 0 to 20). Preliminary recommendations for
foundation design and construction are presented below. Final foundation
recommendations should be provided atthe conclusion of grading based on laboratory
testing of fill materials exposed at finish grade.
Bearing Value
1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with
guidelines presented in the latest edition of the UBC.
2. An allowable bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for
design of continuous footings 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep and for design
of isolated pad footings 24 Inches square and 18 inches deep founded entirely Into
compacted fill or competent formational material and connected by grade beam or
tie beam in at least one direction. This value may be increased by 20 percent for
Salmon insuranco W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 12
GeoSoils, Inc.
each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum value of 2,500 psf. The above
values may be increased by one-third when considering short duration seismic or
wind loads. No increase in bearing for footing width is recommended.
Lateral Pressure
1. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.35 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a
concrete to soil contact when multiplied bythe dead load.
2. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of
250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). with a maximum earth pressure of 2.500 psf.
3. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure
component should be reduced by one-third.
Foundation Settlement
Foundations systems should be designed to accommodate a worst case differential
settlement of 1 inch in a 40-foot span.
Footinq Setbacks
All footings should maintain a minimum 7-foot horizontal setback from the base of the
footing to any descending slope. This distance is measured from the footing face at the
bearing elevation. Footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3
(H=slope height) from the base ofthe footing to the descending slope face, and no less
than 7 feet nor need to be greater than 40 feet. Footings adjacent to unlined drainage
swales should be deepened to a minimum of 6 inches below the invert of the adjacent
unlined swale. Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so
as to extend below a 1:1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be
designed to accommodate structural loads from buildings or appurtenances as described
in the Retaining Wall section ofthis report.
Construction
The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum
criteria from a soils engineering standpoint. The onsite soils expansion potentials are
generally very low (E.I. 0 to 20). Recommendations for very low expansive soil conditions
are presented herein.
Recommendations by the project's design-structural engineer or architect, which may
exceed the soils engineer's recommendations, should take precedence over the following
minimum requirements. Final foundation design will be provided based on the expansion
potential of the near surface soils encountered during grading.
Salmon insurance W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 13
GeoSoils, Inc.
Very Low Expansion Potential (E.I. 0 to 20)
1. Exterior and interior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches
for one-story floor loads, 18 inches for two-story floor loads, and 24 inches for
three-story floor loads below the lowest adjacent ground surface. Isolated column
and panel pads, or wall footings, should be founded at a minimum depth of
24 inches. All footings should be reinforced with two No. 4 reinforcing bars, one
placed near the top and one placed near the bottom ofthe footing. Footing widths
should be as indicated in the UBC (ICBO. 1997); width of 12 inches for one-story
loads, 15 inches for two-story loads, and 18 Inches for three-story loads.
2. A grade beam, reinforced as above, and at least 12 inches wide should be provided
across large (e.g., doorways) entrances. The base ofthe grade beam should be at
the same elevation as the bottom of adjoining footings. Isolated, exterior square
footings should be tied within the main foundation in at least one direction with a
grade beam.
3. Residential concrete slabs, where moisture condensation is undesirable, including
garage slabs, should be underiain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of
10 mil polyvinyl chloride or equivalent membrane with all laps sealed per the
UBC/CBC. This membrane should be covered above and below with a minimum
of 2 inches of sand (total of 4 inches) to aid in uniform curing of the concrete and
to protect the membrane from puncture.
4. To further mitigate the potential for water vapor problems owing to the possibility
of perched water, the use of 4,500 psi concrete, with an altered water-cement ratio
(0.45) is additionally recommended.
5. Residential and garage concrete slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick, and
should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bar at 18 inches on center in both
directions. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure placement near
the vertical midpoint ofthe concrete. "Hooking" of reinforcement is not considered
an acceptable method of positioning the reinforcement.
6. Garage slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick and should be reinforced as
above and poured separately from the structural footings and quartered with
expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings should be
maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement.
7. Specific presaturation is not required for these soil conditions; however, GSI
recommends that the moisture content ofthe subgrade soils should be equal to or
greater than optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches in the slab areas
prior to the placement of visqueen.
Salmon Insuranco W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 14
GeoSoils, Inc.
POST-TENSIONED SLAB SYSTEMS
Post-tension foundations are specifically recommended if paleoliquefaction features ("sand
blows," liquefaction craters, sand filled fissures and injection dikes, sand vents, etc.) are
encountered during grading. The recommendations presented below should be followed
in addition to those contained in the previous sections, as appropriate. The information
and recommendations presented below in this section are not meant to supercede design
by a registered structural engineer or civil engineer familiar with post-tensioned slab
design. Post-tensioned slabs should be designed using sound engineering practice and
be in accordance with local and/or national code requirements. Upon request, GSI can
provide additional data/consultation regarding soil parameters as related to post-tensioned
slab design.
From a soil expansion/shrinkage standpoint, a common contributing factor to distress of
structures using post-tensioned slabs Is fluctuation of moisture in soils underlying the
perimeter ofthe slab, compared to the center, causing a "dishing" or "arching" ofthe slabs.
To mitigate this possibility, a combination of soil presaturation and construction of a
perimeter cut off wall should be employed. To further mitigate the potential for water vapor
problems owing to the possibility of perched water, the use of 4,500 psi concrete, with an
altered water-cement ratio (0.45) is additionally recommended.
Perimeter cut-off walls should be a minimum of (18 inches deep for medium expansive
soils. The cut-off walls may be integrated into the slab design or independent ofthe slab.
The concrete slab should be a minimum of 6 inches thick. Slab underfayment should
consist of 4 inches of washed sand with a vapor barrier consisting of 10-mil polyvinyl
chloride or equivalent placed mid-depth within the sand.
Post-Tensioning Institute Method
Post-tensioned slabs should have sufficient stiffness to resist excessive bending due to
non-uniform swell and shrinkage of subgrade soils. The differential movement can occur
at the corner, edge, or center of the slab. The potential for differential uplift can be
evaluated using the 1997 UBC, Section 1816, based on design specifications of the
Post-Tensioning Institute. The following table presents suggested minimum coefficients
to be used in the Post-Tensioning Institute design method.
Salmon Insuranco W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 15
GeoSoils, Inc.
Thornthwaite Moisture Index -20 inches/year
Correction Factor for Irrigation 20 inches/year
Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7 feet
Constant soil Suction (pf) 3.6
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (pci) 75
Moisture Velocity 0.7 inches/month
The coefficients are considered minimums and may not be adequate to represent worst
case conditions such as adverse drainage and/or improper landscaping and maintenance.
The above parameters are applicable provided structures have positive drainage that is
maintained away from structures. Therefore, it is important that information regarding
drainage, site maintenance, settlements, and effects of expansive soils be passed on to
future owners.
Based on the above parameters, the following values were obtained from figures or tables
ofthe 1997 UBC Section, 1816. The values may not be appropriate to account for possible
differential settlement of the slab due to other factors. If a stiffer slab is desired, higher
values of ym may be warranted.
EXPANSION
INDEX OF
SOIL SUBGRADE
VERY LOW
EXPANSION
(E.I. = 0-20)
e^ center lift 5.0 feet
e^ edge lift 2.5 feet
y^, center lift 1.0 inch
y^ edge lift 0.3 inch
Deepened footings/edges around the slab perimeter must be used to minimize
non-uniform surface moisture migration (from an outside source) beneath the slab. An
edge depth of 12 inches should be considered a minimum. The bottom ofthe deepened
footing/edge should be designed to resist tension, using cable or reinforcement per the
structural engineer. Other applicable recommendations presented under conventional
foundation and the California Foundation Slab Method should be adhered to during the
design and construction phase of the project.
Salmon Insuranco
955 Grand Avenue
File: e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge
W.O. 4397-A-SC
June 21,2004
Page 16
GeoSoils, Inc.
UTILITIES
Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible
connections to accommodate differential settlement and any potentially expansive soil
conditions. Due to the potential for differential settlement, air conditioning (NC) units
should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation or
constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for plumbing and electrical lines. A/C
waste waterlines should be drained to a suitable outlet.
WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Conventional Retaining Walls
The design parameters provided below assume that either non expansive soils (Class 2
permeable filter material or Class 3 aggregate base) or native materials (up to and
including an E.I. of 65) are used to backfill any retaining walls. The type of backfill (i.e.,
select or native), should be specified by the wall designer, and clearly shown on the plans.
Building walls, below grade, should be water-proofed or damp-proofed, depending on the
degree of moisture protection desired. The foundation system for the proposed retaining
walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this and
preceding sections of this report, as appropriate. Footings should be embedded a
minimum of 18 inches below adjacent grade (excluding landscape layer, 6 inches) and
should be 24 inches in width. There should be no increase in bearing for footing width.
Recommendations for specialty walls (i.e., crib, earthstone. geogrid, etc.) can be provided
upon request, and would be based on site specific conditions.
Restrained Walls
Any retaining walls that will be restrained priorto placing and compacting backfill material
or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid
pressure (EFP) of 65 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or
re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice
the height of the wall (2H) laterally from the corner.
Cantilevered Walls
The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet
high. Design parameters for walls less than 3 feet in height may be superseded by City
and/or County standard design. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall
design, provided the top ofthe wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent
fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall.
Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained
material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions due to traffic,
Salmon insuranco W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 17
GeoSoils, Inc.
structures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are
finalized, the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon
request.
SURFACE SLOPE OF
RETAINED MATERIAL
(HORIZONTALVERTICAL)
EQUIVALENT
FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F.
(SELECT BACKFILL)^
EQUIVALENT
FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F.
(NATIVE BACKFILL)
Level*
2 tol
35
50
45
60
* Level backfill behind a retaining wall is defined as compacted earth materials,
properly drained, without a slope for a distance of 2H behind the wall.
Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage
Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls In the form of gravel wrapped
in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls
that are 2 feet or greater In height. Details 1.2, and 3, present the back drainage options
discussed below. Backdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS
pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or y2-inch to y4-inch gravel wrapped
in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). For low expansive backfill, the filter
material should extend a minimum of 1 horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and
upward at least 1 foot. For native backfill that has up to medium expansion potential,
continuous Class 2 permeable drain materials should be used behind the wall. This
material should be continuous (i.e.. full height) behind the wall, and It should be
constructed in accordance with the enclosed Detail 1 (Typical Retaining Wall Backfill and
Drainage Detail). For limited access and confined areas, (panel) drainage behind the wall
may be constructed in accordance with Detail 2 (Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain
Detail Geotextile Drain). Materials with an E.I. potential of greater than 65 should not be
used as backfill for retaining walls. For more onerous expansive situations, backfill and
drainage behind the retaining wall should conform with Detail 3 (Retaining Wall And
Subdrain Detail Clean Sand Backfill).
Outlets should consist of a 4-inch diameter solid PVC or ABS pipe spaced no greater than
±100 feet apart, with a minimum of two outlets, one on each end. The use of weep holes
in walls higher than 2 feet should not be considered. The surface ofthe backfill should be
sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted with native soil (E.I. <.90). Proper
surface drainage should also be provided. For additional mitigation, consideration should
be given to applying a water-proof membrane to the back of all retaining structures. The
use of a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry joints.
Salmon insuranco
955 Grand Avenue
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge
W.O. 4397-A-SC
June 21,2004
Page 18
GeoSoils, Inc.
DETAILS
N.T.S.
Provide Surface Drainage
(Dwaterproofing
Membrane (optional)
(D Weep Hole
Finished Surface
(D WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional):
Liquid boot or approved equivalent.
(D ROCK:
3/4 to 1-1/2" (inches) rock.
® FILTER FABRIC:
Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent; place fabric flap behind core.
® PIPE:
4" (inches) diameter perforated PVC. schedule 40 or approved alternative with minimum of
1% gradient to proper outlet point.
(D WEEP HOLE:
Minimum 2" (inches) diameter placed at 20' (feet) on centers along the wall, and 3" (inches)
above finished surface. (No weep holes for basement walls.)
TYPICAL RETAINING WALL BACKFILL
AND DRAINAGE DETAIL
DETAIL 1
Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental
DETAILS
N.T.S.
Provide Surface Drainage
(Dwaterproofing
Membrane (optional)
Weep Hole
Finished Surface
1 or Flatter
<3) WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional):
Liquid boot or approved equivalent.
(D DRAIN:
Miradrain 6000 or J-drain 200 or equivalent for non-waterproofed walls.
Miradrain 6200 or J-draln 200 or equivalent for waterproofed walls.
® FILTER FABRIC:
Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent; place fabric flap behind care.
® PIPE:
4" (inches) diameter perforated PVC. schedule 40 or approved alternative with minimum
of 1% gradient to proper outlet point.
(D WEEP HOLE:
Minimum 2" (Inches) diameter placed at 20' (feet) on centers along the wall, and 3" (inches)
above finished surface. (No weep holes for basement walls.)
RETAINING WALL BACKFILL
AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL
GEOTEXTILE DRAIN
DETAIL 2
Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental
DETAILS
N.T.S.
Provide Surface Drainage
(D Clean
Sand Backfill
® WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional):
Liquid boot or approved equivalent.
(D CLEAN SAND BACKFILL:
Must have sand dequivalent value of 30 or greater; can be densified by water jetting.
(D FILTER FABRIC:
Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent.
® ROCK:
1 cubic foot per linear feet of pipe or 3/4 to 1-1/2" (Inches) rock.
(D PIPE:
4" (Inches) diameter perforated PVC. schedule 40 or approved alternative with minimum of
1% gradient to proper outlet point.
® WEEP HOLE:
Minimum 2" (inches) diameter placed at 20' (feet) on centers along the wall, and 3" (inches)
above finished surface. (No weep holes for basement walls.)
RETAINING WALL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL
CLEAN SAND BACKFILL
DETAIL 3
Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental
Wall/Retaining Wail Footing Transitions
Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the
recommendations in this report. Should wall footings transition from cut to fill, the civil
designer may specify either:
a) A minimum of a 2-foot overexcavation and recompaction of cut materials for a
distance of 2H, from the point of transition.
b) Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints
or crack control joints) such that a angular distortion of 1/360 for a distance of 2H
on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be
sealed with a flexible, non-shrink grout.
c) Embed the footings entirely into native formational material (i.e., deepened
footings).
If transitions from cut to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than
45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should follow recommendation "a" (above) and
until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment.
TOP-OF-SLOPE WALLS/FENCES/IMPROVEMENTS
Slope Creep
Soils at the site may be expansive and therefore, may become desiccated when allowed
to drv. Such soils are susceptible to surficial slope creep, especially with seasonal
changes In moisture content. Typically In southern California, during the hot and dry
summer period, these soils become desiccated and shrink, thereby developing surface
cracks. The extent and depth of these shrinkage cracks depend on many factors such as
the nature and expansivity of the soils, temperature and humidity, and extraction of
moisture from surface soils by plants and roots. When seasonal rains occur, water
percolates into the cracks and fissures, causing slope surfaces to expand, with a
corresponding loss in soil density and shear strength near the slope surface. With the
passage of time and several moisture cycles, the outer 3 to 5 feet of slope materials
experience a very slow, but progressive, outward and downward movement, known as
slope creep. For slope heights greater than 10 feet, this creep related soil movement will
typically Impact all rear yard flatwork and other secondary Improvements that are located
within about 15 feet from the top of slopes, such as swimming pools, concrete flatwork.
etc., and in particular top of slope fences/walls. This influence is normally In the form of
detrimental settlement, and tilting ofthe proposed improvements. The dessication/swelling
and creep discussed above continues over the life of the improvements, and generally
Salmon Insuranco W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 22
GeoSoils, Inc.
becomes progressively worse. Accordingly, the developer should provide this information
to any homeowners and homeowners association.
Top of Slope Walls/Fences
Due to the potential for slope creep for slopes higher than about 10 feet, some settlement
and tilting ofthe walls/fence with the corresponding distresses, should be expected. To
mitigate the tilting of top of slope walls/fences, we recommend that the walls/fences be
constructed on deepened foundations without any consideration for creep forces, where
the E.I. of the materials comprising the outer 15 feet of the slope is less than 50, or a
combination of grade beam and caisson foundations, for expansion indices greater than
50 comprising the slope, with creep forces taken into account The grade beam should
be at a minimum of 12 inches by 12 inches in cross section, supported by drilled caissons,
12 inches minimum in diameter, placed ata maximum spacing of 6feet on center, and with
a minimum embedment length of 7 feet below the bottom ofthe grade beam. The strength
ofthe concrete and grout should be evaluated by the structural engineer of record. The
proper ASTM tests for the concrete and mortar should be provided along with the slump
quantities. The concrete used should be appropriate to mitigate sulfate corrosion, as
warranted. The design of the grade beam and caissons should be in accordance with the
recommendations of the project structural engineer, and include the utiiizatlon of the
following geotechnical parameters:
Creep Zone: 5-foot vertical zone below the slope face and projected upward
parallel to the slope face.
Creep Load: The creep load projected on the area of the grade beam
should be taken as an equivalent fluid approach, having a
density of 60 pcf. For the caisson, it should be taken as a
uniform 900 pounds per linear foot of caisson's depth, located
above the creep zone.
Point of Fixitv:
Passive Resistance:
Located a distance of 1.5 times the caisson's diameter, below
the creep zone.
Passive earth pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth per foot of
caisson diameter, to a maximum value of 4.500 psf may be
used to determine caisson depth and spacing, provided that
they meet or exceed the minimum requirements stated above.
To determine the total lateral resistance, the contribution ofthe
creep prone zone above the point of fixity, to passive
resistance, should be disregarded.
Salmon Insuranco
955 Grand Avenue
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge
W.O. 4397-A-SC
June 21,2004
Page 23
GeoSoils, Inc.
Allowable Axial Capacitv:
Shaft capacity : 350 psf applied below the point of fixity over the surface area
of the shaft.
Tip capacity: 4,500 psf.
DRIVEWAY. FLATWORK. AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
The soil materials on site may be expansive. The effects of expansive soils are cumulative,
and typically occur over the lifetime of any improvements. On relatively level areas, when
the soils are allowed to dry, the dessication and swelling process tends to cause heaving
and distress to flatwork and other improvements. The resulting potential for distress to
improvements may be reduced, but not totally eliminated. To that end, it is recommended
that the developer should notify any homeowners or homeowners association ofthis long-
term potential for distress. To reduce the likelihood of distress, the following
recommendations are presented for all exterior flatwork:
1. The subgrade area for concrete slabs should be compacted to achieve a minimum
90 percent relative compaction, and then be presoaked to 2 to 3 percentage points
above (or 125 percent of) the soils' optimum moisture content, to a depth of
18 Inches below subgrade elevation. If very low expansive soils are present, only
optimum moisture content, or greater, is required and specific presoaking is not
warranted. The moisture content of the subgrade should be verified within
72 hours prior to pouring concrete.
2. Concrete slabs should be cast over a non-yielding surface, consisting of a 4-inch
layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand, that should be compacted and level
prior to pouring concrete. If very low expansive soils are present, the rock or gravel
or sand may be deleted. The layer or subgrade should be wet-down completely
prior to pouring concrete, to minimize loss of concrete moisture to the surrounding
earth materials.
3. Exterior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. Driveway slabs and
approaches should additionally have a thickened edge (12 inches) adjacent to all
landscape areas, to help impede infiltration of landscape water under the slab.
4. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints are recommended to help
control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two ways to
mitigate such cracking are: a) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel,
increasing tensile strength of the slab; and, b) provide an adequate amount of
control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage
and expansion.
Salmon insurance W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
Flle:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 24
GeoSoils, Inc.
In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, slabs should be reinforced at
mid-height with a minimum of No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center, in each
direction. The exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut, Vz to % inches deep,
often enough so that no section is greater than 10 feet by 10 feet. For sidewalks or
narrow slabs, control joints should be provided at intervals of every 6 feet. The
slabs should be separated from the foundations and sidewalks with expansion joint
filler material.
5. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have
been properiy cured to within 75 percent of design strength. Concrete compression
strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi.
6. Driveways, sidewalks, and patio slabs adjacent to the house should be separated
from the house with thick expansion joint filler material. In areas directly adjacent
to a continuous source of moisture (i.e., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints should
be additionally sealed with flexible mastic.
7. Planters and walls should not be tied to the house.
8. Overhang structures should be supported on the slabs, or structurally designed
with continuous footings tied in at least two directions. If very low expansion soils
are present, footings need only be tied in one direction.
9. Any masonry landscape walls that are to be constructed throughout the property
should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20 feet long. These
segments should be keyed or doweled together.
10. Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible
connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions.
11. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Finish grade on the lots
should provide a minimum of 1 to 2 percent fall to the street, as indicated herein.
It should be kept In mind that drainage reversals could occur, including
post-construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not
periodically maintained by the homeowner or homeowners association.
12. Air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into
the building foundation or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for
plumbing and electrical lines. NC waste water lines should be drained to a suitable
non-erosive outlet.
13. Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finishing and curing practices
are not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the
Portland Cement Association Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate rate of
Salmon Insurance W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 25
GeoSoils, Inc.
curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of
soils, and fertilizers used on site.
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Slope Deformation
Compacted fill slopes designed using customary factors of safety for gross or surficial
stability and constructed in general accordance with the design specifications should be
expected to undergo some differential vertical heave or settlement in combination with
differential lateral movement in the out-of-slope direction, after grading. This
post-construction movement occurs in two forms: slope creep, and lateral fill extension
(LFE). Slope creep is caused by alternate wetting and drying of the fill soils which results
in slow downslope movement. This type of movement is expected to occur throughout the
life of the slope, and is anticipated to potentially affect improvements or structures (i.e.,
separations and/or cracking), placed near the top-of-slope, up to a maximum distance of
approximately 15 feet from the top-of-slope, depending on the slope height. This
movement generally results in rotation and differential settlement of improvements located
within the creep zone. LFE occurs due to deep wetting from irrigation and rainfall on
slopes comprised of expansive materials. Although some movement should be expected,
long-term movement from this source may be minimized, but not eliminated, by placing
the fill throughout the slope region, wet ofthe fill's optimum moisture content.
It is generally not practical to attempt to eliminate the effects of either slope creep or LFE.
Suitable mitigative measures to reduce the potential of lateral deformation typically include:
setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the 1997 UBC and/or California
Building Code), positive structural separations (I.e., joints) between improvements, and
stiffening and deepening of foundations. All of these measures are recommended for
design of structures and improvements. The ramifications of the above conditions, and
recommendations for mitigation, should be provided to each homeowner and/or any
homeowners association.
Slope Maintenance and Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the Inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope
stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away
from slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain
plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should be avoided as It can
adversely affect site improvements, and cause perched groundwater conditions. Graded
slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be
minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable
vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend
to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected for
Salmon Insuranco W.O. 4397-A-SG
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 26
GeoSoils, Inc.
landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are
capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Jute-type matting or other fibrous covers may
aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing plants other than those
recommended above will increase the potential for perched water, staining, mold, etc., to
develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented.
Irrigation of natural (ungraded) slope areas Is generally not recommended. These
recommendations regarding plant type, Irrigation practices, and rodent control should be
provided to each homeowner. Over-steepening of slopes should be avoided during
building construction activities and landscaping.
Drainage
Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of
adverse performance of foundations, hardscape, and slopes. Surface drainage should be
sufficient to prevent ponding of water anywhere on a lot, and especially near structures and
tops of slopes. Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during
fine grading, landscaping, and building construction. Therefore, care should be taken that
future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions.
Positive site drainage within lots and common areas should be provided and maintained
at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water
should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the
ground. In general, the area within 5 feet around a structure should slope away from the
structure. We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum
gradient of 1 percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be
above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of
planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Pad drainage should be
directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical
requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized to
control roof drainage. Down spouts, or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet
from structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due
to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen
this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect
could be provided upon request.
Toe of Slope Drains/Toe Drains
Where significant slopes intersect pad areas, surface drainage down the slope allows for
some seepage into the subsurface materials, sometimes creating conditions causing or
contributing to perched and/or ponded water. Toe of slope/toe drains may be beneficial
in the mitigation of this condition due to surface drainage. The general criteria to be
utilized by the design engineer for evaluating the need for this type of drain is as follows:
• Is there a source of irrigation above or on the slope that could contribute to
saturation of soil at the base of the slope?
Salmon Insuranco W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 27
GeoSoils, Inc.
• Are the slopes hard rock and/or impermeable, or relatively permeable, or; do the
slopes already have or are they proposed to have subdrains (i.e., stabilization fills,
etc.)?
• Was the lot at the base of the slope overexcavated or is it proposed to be
overexcavated? Overexcavated lots located at the base of a slope could
accumulate subsurface water along the base of the fill cap.
• Are the slopes north facing? North facing slopes tend to receive less sunlight (less
evaporation) relative to south facing slopes and are more exposed to the currently
prevailing seasonal storm tracks.
• What is the slope height? It has been our experience that slopes with heights in
excess of approximately 10 feet tend to have more problems due to storm runoff
and irrigation than slopes of a lesser height.
• Do the slopes "toe out" into a residential lot or a lot where perched or ponded water
may adversely impact its proposed use?
Based on these general criteria, the construction of toe drains may be considered by the
design engineer along the toe of slopes, or at retaining walls in slopes, descending to the
rear of such lots. Following are Detail 4 (Schematic Toe Drain Detail) and Detail 5
(Subdrain Along Retaining Wall Detail). Other drains may be warranted due to unforeseen
conditions, homeowner irrigation, or other circumstances. Where drains are constructed
during grading, including subdrains. the locations/elevations of such drains should be
sun/eyed, and recorded on the final as-built grading plans by the design engineer. It is
recommended thatthe above be disclosed to all interested parties, including homeowners
and any homeowners association.
Erosion Control
Cut and fill slopes will be subject to surficial erosion during and after grading. Onsite earth
materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Consideration should be given to
providing hay bales and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water, from a
geotechnical viewpoint.
Landscape Maintenance
Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided.
Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site improvements. We
would recommend that any proposed open-bottom planters adjacent to proposed
structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-
bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom ofthe planter, could
be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If
Salmon Insuranco W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 28
GeoSoils, Inc.
DETAILS
N.T.S.
SCHEMATIC TOE DRAIN DETAIL
Pad grade
Drain Pipe
Drain May Be Constructed into,
or at, the Toe of Slope
12"
12" Minimum
24"
Minimum
NOTES:
1. ) Soil Cap Compacted to 90 Percent Relative
Compaction.
2. ) Permeable Material May Be Gravel Wrapped in
Filter Fabric (Mirafi 140N or Equivalent).
3. ) 4-Inch Diameter Perforated Pipe (SDR 35 or
Equivalent) with Perforations Down.
4. ) Pipe to Maintain a Minimum 1 Percent Fail.
5. ) Concrete Cutoff Wall to be Provided at Transition
to Solid Outlet Pipe.
6. ) Solid Outlet Pipe to Drain to Approved Area.
7. ) Cleanouts are Recomended at Each Property
Line.
SCHEMATIC TOE DRAIN DETAIL
DETAIL 4
Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic • Environmental
TOP OF WALL
RETAINING WALL
FINISHED GRADE
JJ^III^
WALL FOOTING
DETAILS
N.T.S.
2:1 SLOPE (TYPICAL)
BACKFILL WITH COMPATED
NATIVE SOILS
MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC
OR EQUAL
3/4" CRUSHED GRAVEL
4" DRAIN
NOTES:
1. ) Soil Cap Compacted to 90 Percent
Relative Compaction.
2. ) Permeable Material May Be Gravel
Wrapped in Filter Fabric (Mirafi 140N
or Equivalent).
3. ) 4-inch Diameter Perforated Pipe
(SDR-35 of Equivalent) with
Perforations Down.
4. ) Pipe to Maintain a Minimum 1
Percent Fall.
5. ) Concrete Cutoff Wall to be Provided
at Transition to Solid Outlet Pipe.
6. ) Solid Outiet Pipe to Drain to
Approved Area.
7. ) Cleanouts are Recommended at
Each Property Line.
8. ) Compacted Effort Should Be
Applied to Drain Rock.
1-T0 2'
SUBDRAIN ALONG RETAINING WALL DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
SUBDRAIN ALONG RETAINING WALL DETAIL
DETAIL 5
Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic • Environmental
planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom ofthe planter should
be provided with a moisture barrier to prevent penetration of irrigation water into the
subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters
without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope areas
should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be given tothe
type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (i.e., some
trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a
geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. Ifthe
surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be
recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction.
Gutters and Downspouts
As previously discussed in the drainage section, the installation of gutters and downspouts
should be considered to collect roof water that may othen/vise infiltrate the soils adjacent
to the structures. If utilized, the downspouts should be drained into PVC collector pipes
or non-erosive devices that will carry the water away from the house. Downspouts and
gutters are not a requirement; however, from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided that
positive drainage is incorporated into project design (as discussed previously).
Subsurface and Surface Water
Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that
the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and
construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated
into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting
permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor
drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should perched
groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide
the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions.
Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other
factors.
Site Improvements
Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork design and construction can be provided
upon request. If in the future, any additional Improvements (e.g., pools, spas, etc.) are
planned forthe site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects
of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. This
office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or trench
backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility
trench, and retaining wall backfills.
Salmon Insuranco W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 31
GeoSoils, Inc.
Tile Flooring
Tilefiooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small
cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. Therefore, the designer should
consider additional steel reinforcement for concrete slabs-on-grade where tile will be
placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible
cracking of the tile such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane
(approved by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute) are recommended
between tile and concrete slabs on grade.
Additional Grading
This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of
the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes
completion of grading in the street and parking areas and utility trench and retaining wall
backfills.
Footing Trench Excavation
All footing excavations should be observed by a representative ofthis firm subsequent to
trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the
observations is to verify that the excavations are made into the recommended bearing
material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction. If loose
or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper footing or
removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended atthattime.
Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should
be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, if not removed from the
site.
Trenching
Considering the nature ofthe onsite soils, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing
could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the
trench walls at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and
should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives
and minimally conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes.
Utilitv Trench Backfill
1. All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to at least 2 percent above
optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent ofthe laboratory standard. As an alternative for shallow
(12-inch to 18-inch) under-slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of
Salmon Insuranco W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 32
GeoSoils, Inc.
30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing
and testing should be provided to verify the desired results.
2. Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1:1 plane
projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath
hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of
the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should
not be used in these backfill areas. Compaction testing and observations, along
with probing, should be accomplished to verify the desired results.
3. All trench excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes.
4. Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass
below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass
through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations ofthe
structural engineer.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
GEOTECHNiCAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING
We recommend that obsen/ation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the
following construction stages:
• During grading/recertiflcation.
• During significant excavation (i.e., higher than 4 feet).
• During placement of subdrains, toe drains, or other subdrainage devices, prior to
placing fill and/or backfill.
• After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls
footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.
• Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaking/presaturation of building
pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing
steel, capillary break (i.e.. sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor barriers (i.e., visqueen,
etc.).
• During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement.
• During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches,
and retaining wall backfill.
Salmon Insuranco W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 33
GeoSoils, Inc.
During slope construction/repair.
When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction
operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report.
When any developer or homeowner improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools,
walls, etc., are constructed.
A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the
conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear
documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements.
OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS
The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post-tension designer, architect, landscape
architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein.
Incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit
reference, make this report part of their project plans. In order to mitigate potential
distress, the foundation and/or improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the
governing agency, in writing, that the proposed foundations and/or improvements can
tolerate the amount of differential settlement and/or expansion characteristics and design
criteria specified herein.
PLAN REVIEW
Final project plans should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that
construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report.
Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical studies
may be warranted.
Salmon Insuranco W.O. 4397-A-SC
955 Grand Avenue June 21, 2004
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 34
GeoSoils, Inc.
LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed
representative ofthe area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between
excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site
conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors.
Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory
data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions
have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is
expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes
no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or
work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our
recommendations have been properiy implemented. Use of this report constitutes an
agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding
any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to
review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of
services for this project.
Salmon insuranco
955 Grand Avenue
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge
W.O. 4397-A-SC
June 21.2004
Page 35
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Blake, T.F., 2000a, EQFAULT, A computer program forthe estimation of peak horizontal
acceleration from 3-D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version.
, 2000b, EQSEARCH, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal
acceleration from California historical earthquake catalogs; Windows 95/98 version.
, 2000c, FRISKSP, A computer program for the probabilistic estimation of peak
acceleration and uniform hazard spectra using 3-D faults as earthquake sources;
Windows 95/98 version.
Bozorgnia. Y., Campbell, K.W.. and Niazi, M., 1999, Vertical ground motion:
Characteristics, relationship with horizontal component, and building-code
implications; Proceedings of the SMIP99 seminar on utilization of strong-motion
data, September, 15, Oakland, pp. 23-49.
Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y. 1997, Attenuation relations for soft rock conditions; jn
EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration
from 3-D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version, Blake, 2000a.
, Y., 1994, Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration from worldwide
accelrograms recorded from 1957 to 1993; Proceedings, Fifth U.S. National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Volume III, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, pp 292-293.
Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A. 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo
earthquake fault zoning act with Indexto Earthquake Fault Maps; California Division
of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997. Uniform building code: Whittier,
California, vol. 1, 2, and 3.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California
Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No. 6, scale 1:750.000.
Joyner, W.B, and Boore, D.M., 1982a. Estimation of response-spectral values as functions
of magnitude, distance and site conditions, io eds., Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W.,
and Blake, T.F.: AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18,1994.
, 1982b, Prediction of earthquake response spectra, U.S. Geological Survey Open-
File Report 82-977, 16p.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Parker, Claude B., Geotechnical Consultant, Preliminary geotechnical report for proposed
residential structure, 5480 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
California, Job no. 82-471P, dated August 22,1982.
Sadigh, K., Chang, C.-Y., Egan, J.A., Makdisi, F., and Youngs, R.R., 1997, Attenuation
relations for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California strong motion data,
Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68. No. 1. pp. 180-189.
Treiman. J.A., 1993, The Rose Canyon fault zone, southern California: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Open File report OFR 93-02.
, 1991, Rose Canyon fault zone, San Diego county, California: California division of
Mines and Geology, fault Evaluation Report FER-216, July 10, revised
January 25,1991,14p.
Weber. F.H., 1982, Geologic map of north-central coastal area of San Diego County,
California showing recent slope failures and pre-development landslides: California
Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, OFR 82-12 LA.
Wilson, K.L., 1972, Eocene and related geology of a portion of the San Luis Rey and
Encinitas quadrangles, San Diego County, California: unpublished masters thesis.
University of California, Riverside.
Salmon Insurance Appendix A
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 2
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX B
HAND AUGER BORING LOGS
BORING LOG
GeoSoils, Inc.
PROJECT: SALMEN
955 Garnet Avenue
W.O. 4397-A-SC
BORING B-1
Sample
11
m Z33
OT5
" E
3 w
.t: a. c ^ D
O
D>i»T££X'CAW\rED
S/IMPLE METHOD: HAND AUGER
SHEET 1 OF 1
6-11-04
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
2 Groundwater
Description of Material
SM TOPSOIL:
(g 0' SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose.
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS:
@ V SILTY SAND, red brown, damp, medium dense.
104.4 5.4 24.4
5-
Total Depth = 4'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled 6-11-2004
955 Garnet Avenue GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-1
BORING LOG
GeoSoils, Inc.
PROJECT: SALMEN
955 Garnet Avenue
W.O. 4397-A-SC
BORING B-2
Sample
IS m
O E
OT ^ D OT a OT
DATEEXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD: HAND AUGER
SHEET 1 OF 1
6-11-04
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
2 ^ Groundwater
Description of Material
SM TOPSOIL:
(g 0' SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose.
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS:
@ 1' SILTY SAND, red brown, damp, medium dense.
5-
Total Depth = 3'
No Groundwater Encountered
Backfilled 6-11-2004
955 Garnet Avenue GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-2
APPENDIX C
EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, AND FRISKSP
MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKES
Salmen
c o
CO
0)
CD O O
<
.1
01 -=
001
.1 1 10
Distance (mi)
100
W.O. 4397-A-SC Plate C-1
EARTHQUAKE RECURRENCE CURVE
(0 0)
tn •*->
c
> LU
0
E
z
0) .>
E
E
o
Salmen
100
10
.01
.001
3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0
Magnitude (IVI)
W.O. 4397-A-SC Plate C-2
p
(O
I
>
I
o
RETURN PERIOD vs. ACCELERATION
CAMP. & BOZ. (1997 Rev.) SR 1
1000000
(0
TD
O
0)
Q.
c
01
2
0)
O
100000
10000
1000
100
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Acceleration (g)
1.25 1.50
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
CAMP. & BOZ. (1997 Rev.) SR 1
100
25 yrs
75 yrs
50 yrs
100 yrs
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Acceleration (g)
W.O. 4397-A-SC Plate C-4
APPENDIX D
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
General
These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading
as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to filled,
placement of fill, installation of subdrains and excavations. The recommendations
contained in the geotechnical report are part ofthe earthwork and grading guidelines and
would supercede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations
performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new
recommendations which could supersede these guidelines or the recommendations
contained in the geotechnical report.
The contractorls responsible forthe satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance
with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and
engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide
observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration ofthe
project.
EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Geotechnical Consultant
Priorto the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer
and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork
procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the
geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and
ordinances.
The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination
may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of
the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work
schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly.
All clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be
observed and documented bythe project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior
to placing and fill. It is the contractors's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist
and soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation.
Laboratorv and Fieid Tests
Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed
in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation
D-1557-78. Random field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test
method ASTM designation D-1556-82, D-2937 or D-2922 and D-3017. at inten/als of
approximately 2 feet of fill height or every 100 cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria
GeoSoils, Inc.
would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size ofthe project. The location and
frequency of testing would be at the discretion ofthe geotechnical consultant.
Contractor's Responsibility
All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted
by the contractor, with observation by geotechnical consultants and staged approval by
the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the
ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place,
spread, moisture condition, mix and compact the fill In accordance with the
recommendations ofthe soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non-
earth material considered unsafisfactory by the soil engineer.
It is the sole responsibility ofthe contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods
to accomplish the earthwork In accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or
agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and
compacfion equipment should be provided by the contractor with due considerafion for
the fill material, rate of placement, and climafic condifions. If, in the opinion of the
geotechnical consultant, unsafisfactory conditions such as quesfionable weather,
excessive oversized rock, or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are
resulfing in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will Inform the
contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop
work until condifions are satisfactory.
During construcfion, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good
drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to
control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas unfil such fime as permanent
drainage and erosion control measures have been installed.
SITE PREPARATION
All major vegetafion, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other
deleterious material should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be
concluded prior to placing fill. Exisfing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials
determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in-place
should be removed prior to fill placement. Depending upon the soil condifions, these
materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials Incorporated as part of the
compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer.
Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, sepfic
tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading are to be removed
or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly
fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface
processing cannot adequately improve the condifion should be overexcavated down to
Salmon Insurance Appendix D
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 2
GeoSoils, Inc.
firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compacfion and filling operafions
confinue. Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and
moisture condifioned should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compacfion as
specified in these guidelines.
Exisfing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be
scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches or as directed by the soil engineer. After the
scarified ground is brought to opfimum moisture content or greater and mixed, the
materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is grater that
6 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts
restricted to about 6 inches in compacted thickness.
Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be
overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report or by the on-site soils engineer
and/or engineering geologist. Scarificafion, disc harrowing, or other acceptable form of
mixing should confinue unfil the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods,
until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollow, hummocks, or
other uneven features which would inhibit compaction as described previously.
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, which will act as a key,
should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material,
and approved by the soli engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope
conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet
with the key founded on firm material, as designated bythe Geotechnical Consultant. As
a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the Soil Engineer, the
minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to VT. the height of the slope.
Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable
material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood
that the vertical height ofthe bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered
for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness.
All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toe of fill
benches should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering
geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properiy placed and compacted unfil
design grades (elevafions) are attained.
COMPACTED FILLS
Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be ufilized in the fill
provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer.
These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter or other
Salmon insuranco Appendix D
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 3
GeoSoils, Inc.
deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed
by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradafion, undesirable expansion potenfial, or
substandard strength characterisfics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable
and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material.
Fill materials derived from benching operafions should be dispersed throughout the fill
area and blended with other bedrock derived material. Benching operafions should not
result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away
from the fill/bedrock contact.
Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum
dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills unless the locafion
of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer.
Oversized material should betaken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendafions
ofthe soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material
should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevafion) or within 20 feet
horizontally of slope faces.
To facilitate future trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundafion
excavafions, future ufilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by
the soil engineer and/or the developers representafive.
If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be
ufilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to
determine its physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is
encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis ofthis material should be conducted
by the soil engineer as soon as possible.
Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal
layers that when compacted should not exceed 6 inches in thickness. The soil engineer
may approve thick lifts if testing Indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate
compaction Is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread
evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction.
Fill layers at a moisture content lessthan opfimum should be watered and mixed, and wet
fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be blended with drier material.
Moisture condifion, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should confinue unfil the fill
materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture.
After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned and mixed, it should be
uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by
ASTM test designafion, D-1557-78. or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer.
Compacfion equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed
for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficienfiy achieve the specified degree of
compacfion.
Salmon Insuranco Appendix D
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 4
GeoSoils, Inc.
Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the
required relative compacfion, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or
portion shall be re-worked unfil the required density and/or moisture content has been
attained. No addifional fill shall be placed in an area unfil the last placed lift of fill has been
tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the
soil engineer.
Compacfion of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet
horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Tesfing
shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compacfion as the fill core is being
developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill
slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose
materials with appropriate equipment. Afinal determinafion of fill slope compacfion should
be based on observafion and/or tesfing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill
slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), specific material types, a
higher minimum relafive compacfion, and special grading procedures, may be
recommended.
If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected,
then special effort should be made to achieve the required compacfion in the outer 10 feet
of each lift of fill by undertaking the following:
1. An extra piece of equipment consisfing of a heavy short shanked sheepsfoot should
be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes confinuously as fill Is placed. The
sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and
extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope.
2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is
compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be
trimmed off or be subject to re-rojiing.
3. Field compacfion tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) 2 to 8 feet of the slope
at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compacfion operafions.
4. After complefion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor
and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compacfion to near the slope face.
Subsequent to tesfing to verify compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to
achieve compaction to the slope face. Final tesfing should be used to confirm
compacfion after grid rolling.
5. Where tesfing indicates less than adequate compacfion, the contractor will be
responsible to rip, water, mix and re-compact the slope material as necessary to
achieve compaction. Additional tesfing should be performed to verify compacfion.
Salmon Insuranco Appendix D
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 5
GeoSoils, Inc.
Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil
engineer in compliance with ordinances ofthe controlling governmental agencies,
and/or in accordance with the recommendafion ofthe soil engineer or engineering
geologist.
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION
Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate
alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locafions or
materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical
consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct
changes in subdrain line, grade and drain material In the field, pending exposed
condifions. The locafion of constructed subdrains should be recorded by the project civil
engineer.
EXCAVATIONS
Excavafions and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering
geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavafions or overexcavafion
and re-filling of cut areas should be performed and/or remedial grading of cut slopes
should be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise
approved, the cut portion ofthe slope should be observed by the engineering geologist
prior to placement of materials for construction ofthe fill portion of the slope.
The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes and should be notified by the
contractor when cut slopes are started. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen
adverse or potential adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering
geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate and make recommendations to
treat these problems. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based
on in-grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anficipated or not.
Unless OthenA/ise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be
excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling
governmental agencies. Addifionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the
contractors responsibility.
Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed bythe project civil engineer and
should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances ofthe controlling governmental
agencies, and/or In accordance with the recommendafions of the soil engineer or
engineering geologist.
Salmon insuranco Appendix D
Flle:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 6
GeoSoils, Inc.
COMPLETION
Observafion, tesfing and consultafion bythe geotechnical consultant should be conducted
during the grading operafions in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are
graded in accordance with the approved project specificafions.
After complefion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have
finished their observafions ofthe work, final reports should be submitted subject to review
by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavafion or filling should be
undertaken without prior notificafion of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist.
All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted In
accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape
architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as pracfical after
complefion of grading.
JOB SAFETY
General
At GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) getting the job done safely Is of primary concern. The following is
the company's safety considerafions for use by all employees on mulfi-employer
construcfion sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality
on grading and construcfion projects. GSI recognizes that construcfion activifies will vary
on each site and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however,
everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all fimes. To achieve our goal of
avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor and GSI personnel must
be maintained.
In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical tesfing and observafion, the
following precaufions are to be Implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading
and construction projects:
Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractors regularly
scheduled and documented safety meefings.
Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by GSI personnel at
all fimes when they are working in the field.
Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one Is to be
affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the
spoil pile on all test pits.
Salmon Insuranco Appendix D
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 7
GeoSoils, Inc.
Flashing Lights: All vehicles stafionary in the grading area shall use rotafing or fiashing
amber beacon, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field tesfing.
While operafing a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher
on the vehicle shall be acfivated.
In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not
following the above, we request that it be brought to the attenfion of our office.
Test Pits Location. Orientation and Clearance
The technician is responsible for selecfing test pit locations. A primary concern should be
the technicians's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locafions with the grading
contractors authorized representafive, and to select locafions following or behind the
established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized
representafive (dump man. operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.) should direct
excavafion of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be
the soil technicians safety and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill.
Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away form oncoming traffic,
whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite
the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained In a driveable condifion.
Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test
holes, particulariy in small fill areas or those with limited access.
A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment
should enter this zone during the tesfing procedure. The zone should extend
approximately 50 feet outward from the center ofthe test pit. This zone is established for
safety and to avoid excessive ground vibrafion which typically decreased test results.
When taking slope tests the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the
test locafion. If this is not possible, a prominent fiag should be placed at the top of the
slope. The contractor's representative should effecfively keep all equipment at a safe
operafion distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this tesfing.
The technician Is directed to withdraw from the active portion ofthe fill as soon as possible
following tesfing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in
a highly visible locafion, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor
should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors
that may affect site access and site safety.
In the event that the technicians safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the
contractors failure to comply with any ofthe above, the technician is required, by company
policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractors
representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solufion. However, in the
Salmon Insuranco Appendix D
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 8
GeoSoils, Inc.
interim, no further tesfing will be performed unfil the situafion is rectified. Any fill place can
be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompacfion or removal.
In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established
safety guidelines, we request that the contractor brings this to his/her attenfion and notify
this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors
representafive and the soils technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the
above safety plan.
Trench and Vertical Excavation
It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compacfion
tesfing is needed.
Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavafion or vertical cut which: 1) is 5 feet or
deeper unless shored or laid back; 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose
rock or other debris which could fall into the trench; or 3) displays any other evidence of
any unsafe condifions regardless of depth.
All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters,
should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with
CAL-OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any
trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment.
If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compacfion tesfing, our
company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor.
The contractors representafive will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solufion.
All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to
reprocessing and/or removal.
If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or
vertical excavafion, we have a legal obligafion to put the contractor and owner/developer
on nofice to immediately correct the situafion. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then
has an obligafion to notify CAL-OSHA and/or the proper authorities.
Salmon Insuranco Appendix D
File:e:\wp9\4300\4397a.pge Page 9
GeoSoils, Inc.
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
TYPE A
PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL
NATURAL GROUND
COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE)
TYPICAL BENCHING '/^^.
\^ BEDROCK
SEE ALTERNATIVES
TYPE B
PROPOSED COMPACTED RLL
NATURAL GROUND
COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM iREMOVEl
l/Z/ggi^W'
BEDROCK
TYPICAL BENCHING
SEE ALTERNATIVES
NOTE: ALTERNATIVES. LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SUBDRAINS SHOULD BE DETERMINED
BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING.
PLATE EG-1
CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS
ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL
A~1
• MINIMUM
12" MINIMUM
FILTER MATERIAL: MINIMUM VOLUME
/LINEAR FT. ^ ABS OR PYC PIPE
SUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM 8 Il/A"^PERFS.
LINEAR FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE.
ASTM D2751. SDR 35 OR ASTM D1527. SCHD, AO
ASTM D303A, SDR 35 OR ASTM D17B5. SCHD, AO
FOR CONTINUOUS RUN IN EXCESS OF 500 FT.
USE B-JBT PIPE
6-MINIMUM
B-1
FILTER MATERIAL.
SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING
1 INCH :100
3/A INCH .90-100
3/8 INCH AO-lOO
NQ. A 25-AO.
NO. 8 18-33
.NO. 30 -.5-15
NO. 50 .0-7
NO. 200 0-3
ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL AND.FILTER FABRIC
6 • MINIMUM OVERLAP 6" MINIMUM OVERLAP
6* MINIMUM COVER
=A* MINIMUM BEDDING
A-2
A" MINIMUM BEDDINGZir, —
GRAVEL MATERIAL 9 FP/UNEAR FT. g_2
PERFORATED PIPE: SEE ALTERNATE 1
GRAVEL CLEAN 3/A INCH ROCK OR APPRC3VED SUBSTITUTE
FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 1A0 OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE
I
PLATE EG-2
DETAIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT
ON FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON
TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN
ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE
RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL
BACKCUT\.YARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS.^
BACKCUT ^VKSHOULD BE MADE NO ^
STEEPER THAlisi:! OR AS NECESSARY -<>
FOR SAFETY i^/NMr-mcoATinMc / CONSIDERATIONS y
ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE
COMPACTED RLL
ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL
DEPTH PER SOIL ENGMEER.
r PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM TOE OF
SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMEMDED
REMOVAL DEPTH. SLOPE HEIGHT. SITE CONDITIONS AMD/OR
LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE FLATTER PROJECTIONS.
REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL
ADJOINING CANYON HLL
COMPACTED RLL LIMITS LINE
^,,FOR DRAINAGE ONLY
^> Qaf /^Q\ (TO BE REMOVED),
(EXISTING.COMPACTED FILL) ^\ /
7?7^^^jlf^l^ / Tn DP DCiuinvtrn otrcnDC TO BE REMOVED BEFORE
PLACING ADDITIONAL
COMPACTED RLL
LEGEND
Qaf ARTIFICIAL RLL
Qal ALLUVIUM
PLATE EG-3
TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL
OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT 100'MAXIMUM INTERVALS. AND SHALL EXTEND
12" BEYOND THE FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF.ROUGH GRADING COMPLETION.
BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED
BY THE SOIL ENGINEER
TYPICAL BENCHING
A" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE
AND BACKDRAIN (SEE ALTERNATIVES)
>
H
m m o
I
^ W=15*MINIMUM OR H/2
BEDROCK
3'MINIMUM KEY DEPTH
TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL
A- MINIMUM 2" MINIMUM
PIPE
L' MINIMUM
PIPE
r"
>
m
m
o
I
2- MINIMUM
FILTER MATERIAL MINIMUM OF FIVE Fl'/LINEAR Ft OF PIPE
OR FOUR FP/LINEAR F! OF PIPE WHEN PLACED IN SQUARE
CUT TI^ENCH.
ALTERNATIVE IN LIEU OF RLTER MATERIAL: GRAVEL MAY BE
EMCASED IN APPROVED FILTER FABRIC. FILTER FABRIC
SHALL BE MIRAFI IAO OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC
SHIALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12' ON ALL JOINTS.
MINIMUM A-DIAMETER PIPE: ABS-ASTM D-2751. SDR 35
OR ASTM D-1527 SCHEDULE AO PVC-ASTM D-303A.
SpR 35 OR ASTM D-1785 SCHEDULE AO WITH A CRUSHING
STRENGTH OF 1,000 POUNDS MINIMUM. AND A MINIMUM OF
8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE
INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS OF BOTTOM OF PIPE.
PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2%
TO OUTLET PIPE. OUTLET PIPE TO BE CONNECTED TO
SUBDRAIN PIPE WITH TEE OR ELBOW.
NOTE: 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKRLLED • WITH ON-SITE SOIL 2. BACKDRAINS AND LATERAL DRAINS SHALL BE LOCATED AT ELEVATION OF EVERY BENCH DRAIN. . RRST DRAIN LOCATED AT ELEVATION JUST ABOVE LOWER LOT GRADE. ADDITIONAL DRAINS MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS * ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST.
FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE OF
THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION
OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT:
1 INCH 100
3/A INCH 90-100
3/8 INCH A0-100
NO. A 25-AO
NO. 8 18-33
NO. 30 5-15
NO. 50 0-7
NO. 200 0-3
GRAVEL SHALL BE OF THE
FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR
AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT:
SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING
1 1/2 INCH 100
NO. A 50
NO. 200 8
SAND EQUIVALENT: MINIMUM OF 51
FILL OVER NATURAL DETAIL
SIDEHILL FILL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADINO PLAN
PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM
DESIGN TOE OF SLOPE TO TOE OF KEY
AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT
"D
>
m
m
o
I
cn
NATURAL SLOPE TO
BE RESTORED WITH
COMPACTED FILL
BACKCUT VARIES
|iW?rj7. MINIMUM
15* MINIMUM KEY WIDTH
2*X 3* MINIMUM KEY DEPTH
2'MINIMUM IN BEDROCK OR
APPROVED MATERIAL
BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY
* «
"^'.MINIMUM
NOTE: 1. WHERE THE NATURAL SLOPE APPROACHES OR EXCEEDS THE
DESIGN SLOPE RATIO. SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE
PROVIDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER.
2, THE NEED FOR AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WOULD BE DETERMINED
BY THE SOILS ENGINEER BASED UPON EXPOSED CONDITIONS.
RLL OVER CUT DETAIL
H
nUT/RLL CONTACT
1. AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN
2. AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT
ORIGINAL TOPOGRAPHY
MAINTAIN MINIMUM 15* RLL SECTION FROM
BACKCUT TO FACE OF RNISH SLOPE
CUT SLOPE
^^^^ BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
LOWEST BENCH WIDTH
15* MINIMUM OR H/2
BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY
r-
>
m
m o
I
NOTE: THE CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE SHOULD BE EXCAVATED AND
EVALUATED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING THE FILL PORTION.
STABILIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL
EXPOSED IN PORTION OF CUT SLOPE
TJ r-
>
m
m o
I
oo
%lPnSFn FINISHED GRADE
'^^^y/^/ UNWEATHERED BEDROCK
OR APPROVED MATERIAL
^^^^OMPACTED STABILIZATION RLL
•MINIMUM TILTED BACK
IF RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENOINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST. THE REMAINING CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE MAY
REQUIRE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT WITH COMPACTED RLL
NOTE: 1. SUBDRAINS ARE NOT REQUIRED UNLESS SPECIFIED BY SOILS ENOINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST,
2 -Wr SHALL BE EQUIPMENT WIDTH (15'l FOR SLOPE HEIGHTS LESS THAN 25 FEET. FOR SLOPES GREATER'
THAN 25 FEET "W" SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER AND /OR ENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST. AT NO TIME SHALL 'W BE LESS THAN H/2.
SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND
ORIGINAL SLOPE
2'MINIMUMj^ _r-<^^jg?^ |
KEY DEPTH ^/V^
15'MfNIMUM KEY WIDTH
ROPOSED FINISH GRADE
15* MINIMUM TO BE MAINTAINED FROM
PROPOSED RNISH SLOPE FACE TO BACKCUT
PROPOSED FINISH SLOPE xS^y^ ^//^/^ BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
^ 3'MINIMUM KEY DEPTH
m
m o
I
CD
NOTE: 1. THE NEED AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WILL BE DETERMINED! BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS.
2 PAD OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED TO BE
NECESSARY BY THE SOILS ENOINEER AND/OR ENGINEERINO GEOLOGIST.
DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL
RECONSTRUCT COMPACTED RLL SLOPE AT 2:1 OR FLATTER
(MAY INCREASE OR DECREASE PAD AREA).
OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
REPLACEMENT RLL
AVOID AND/OR CLEAN UP SPILLAGE OF
MATERIALS ON THE NATURAL SLOPE
LANKET RLL
<^/^ <^^y^^^T^ BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
TYPICAL BENCHINO
ORADIENT„,>
r-
>
m m o
I
MOTE: 1. SUBORA.N AND KEY WIDTH REaUIREMENTS WILL BE DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURPACE
CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN. „^T.ou,„cn NFrESSARY BY
2. PAD OVER EXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED NECESSARY
THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST.
TRANSITION LOT DETAIL
CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION)
NATURAL GRADE
COMPACTED RLL
OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
^J5J5^^ MINIMUM*
^ UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
TYPICAL BENCHING
CUT-FILL LOT (DAYUGHT TRANSITION)
PAD GRADE
NATURAL GRADE '^'^ 5'MINIMUM
OVEREXCAVATE
AND RECOMPACT
/j^m^ww^W^^^^' ^^^^^^^
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
TYPICAL BENCHING
NOTE: * DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER
AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEEP CUT-RLL TRANSITION AREAS.
PLATE EG-11
SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL
2'X 2'X 1/A" STEEL PLATE
STANDARD 3/A- PIPE NIPPLE WELDED TO TOP
OF PLATE.
3/A" X 5* GALVANIZED PIPE. STANDARD PIPE
THREADS TOP AND BOTTOM, EXTENSIONS
THREADED ON BOTH ENDS AND ADDED IN 5"
INCREMENTS.
3 INCH SCHEDULE AO PVC PIPE SLEEVE, ADD IN
5'INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS.
RNAL GRADE
MAINTAIN 5'CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT,
MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2*VERTICAL
-rV LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND
J ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER.
MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIAL 5'
VERTICAL WITHIN A 5* RADIUS OF PLATE BASE.
BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT
PROVIDE A MINIMUM V BEDDING OF COMPACTED SAND
NOTE:
1. LOCATIONS OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHOULD BE CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY
VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS. 2 C0NT^(:T0R SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE OF A 5'RADIUS OF PLATE BASE AND
KN 5- (VERTI^^^^^^ EQUIPMENT. RLL
BE HAND-COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIRCATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE
APPROVED BYTHE SOILS ENGINEER. ^ .......r.... A .r.=Ani..e
3. AFTER 5'(VERTICAL) OF RLL IS IN PLACE. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN A 5_JRADIUS
EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE FROM RISER.
A. PLACE AND MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT INITIAL 2'OF RLL PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING
THE INITIAL READING.
5. IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO THE SETTLEMENT PLATE OR EXTENSION RESULTING
FROM EQUIPMENT OPERATING WITHIN THE SPECIFIED CLEARANCE AREA. CONTRACTOR
SHOULD IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR RESTORING THE SETTLEMENT PLATES TO WORKING ORDER.
6. AN ALTERNATE DESIGN AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE
DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER.
PLATE EG-U
TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT
RNISH GRADE
3-6'
DIAMETER X 3 1/2'LENGTH HOLE
3/8" DIAMETER X B" LENGTH
CARRIAGE BOLT OR EQUIVALENT
CONCRETE BACK RLL
PLATE EG-15
TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM
SIDE VIEW
( NOT TO SCALE 1
TOP VIEW
100 FEET
APPROXIMATE CENTER
OF TESTPIT
1 NOT TO SCALE )
PLATE EG-16
OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL
VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE
OO
20'MINIMUM
oo
oo
J5* MINIMUM (AJL^
*r MINIMUM (C) oo
PROPOSED FINISH GRADE
MINIMUM (E)
CP
15* MINIMUM (A)
oo CX)
(G)
C50 cxaU=)
BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE
PROPOSED FINISH GRADE
FROM _ MINIMUM <C)
BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
NOTE: (A)
(B)
(C)
ID)
(E)
(R
IG)
ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET.
HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF
EQUIPMENT. LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100'MAXIMUM.
IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST.
WINDROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIAL OR BEDROCK
PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION,
ORIENTATION OF WINDROWS MAY VARY BUT SHOULD BE AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING OF
WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED.
CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES. FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS.
ALL FILL OVER AND AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 9 0%
RELATIVE COMPACTION OR AS RECOMMENDED.
AFTER FILL BETWEEN WINDROWS IS PLACED AND COMPACTED WITH THE LIFT OF
FILL COVERING WINDROW. WINDROW SHOULD BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A
D-9 DOZER OR EQUIVALENT.
VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH
AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY RLLED IN. PLATE RD"" 1
ROCK DISPOSAL PITS
VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH
AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY RLLED IN.
RLL LIFTS COMPACTED OVER
ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT
GRANULAR MATERIAL
COMPACTED RLL
SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE
COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE
ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS
GRANULAR SOIL TO RLL VOIDS.
DENSIRED BY FLOODING
LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH V
^OMPACTED RLL
Jo-PROPOSED RNISH GRADE
MINIMUM OR BELOW LOWEST UTIU
OVERSIZE LAYER ^ ^
COMPACTED FILL
PROFILE ALONG LAYER
LOPE FACE
MINIMUM
OCXD0000C0COC5COC=OO=ac^
CLEAR ZONE 20'MINIMUM
LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH
PLATE RD-2