Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS 01-07; CHARLES JACOBS PROPERTY; PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUTATION; 2000-12-08PRELIMINARY GEOTECHN CAL EVALUATION 3465 RIDGECREST DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FOR MSK DEVELOPMENT 5142 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 W.O. 2981 -A-SC DECEMBER 8, 2000 S9 0 Geotechnical • Geologic .' Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92908 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 December 8, 2000 W.O. 2981 -A-SC MSK Development 5142 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Ms. Donna Wilson Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 3465 Ridgecrest Drive, Carlsbad, California Dear Sir: In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a geotechnical evaluation of the subject site. The purpose of our 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 of the available data (Appendix A), as well as field exploration, laboratory testing, and geologic-and engineering analysis, development of the property appears to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the text of this report are properly, incorporated into the design and construction of the project. .The most significant elements of this study are summarized below: Based on our preliminary geotechnical investigation, minor grading appears to have been performed, to create a building pad for the existing residential structure to be removed. All colluviurn (on the order of 1 1/2 to 2 foot) and the localized undocumented fill (approximate maximum thickness of 2. feet) is generally loose and potentially compressible, and is not considered suitable for the support of settlement sensitive improvements. These materials will require removal and recompaction, if settlement sensitive improvements and/or compacted fill are proposed within their influence. Our laboratory test results indicate that soils onsite are generally very low in expansion potential. At the present time, soluble sulfate and corrosion testing results were not available. An addendum report presenting those results will be provided when lab testing is completed. Groundwater was not encountered onsite and is generally not anticipated to affect site development, providing 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. should not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected. area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. An analysis of fill slope and cut slope stability indicated that cut slopes are grossly and surficially stable to the anticipated heights at gradients of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter and that till slopes are grossly stable to the planned heights at gradients of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. Factors of safety for surilcial stability are also favorable (i.e., >1.5) where the depth *of soil saturation is less than approximately 3.0 feet, but decreases to values below the accepted industry standard to the maximum depth of saturation evaluated(i.e., 4.0 feet). It should be noted that surficial factors of safety remained greater than 1.0 in our analysis. With a decrease in the factor of safety, the potential for slope instability in the form of erosion and/or shallow slumping would increase. Conventional foundation systems utilizing slab-on-grade may be used onsite. The seismic design parameters presented herein should be considered during project planning and design. The geotechnical design parameters presented herein should be incorporated into project planning, design, and construction by the project structural engineer and architect. MSK Development W.O. 2981-A-SC F1Ie:e:wp72900\2981a.pge Page Two GeoSoils, 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 undersigned. Respectfully submitted, GeoSolls, Inc. Robert G. Crisman A David W. Skelly Engineering Geologist, CE '1 crn . / Civil Engineer, ACE 438: SSF/RGC/DWS/mo ORO J, W8.\ Distribution: (4) Addressee ift ©l4 •, ) I MSK Development W.O. 2981 -A-SC F1Ie:e:\wp729OO2981a.pge Page Three GeoSoils, Inc. F' TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES ...................................................1 SITE CONDITIONS/PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..............................1 FIELD STUDIES .........................................................3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ...................................................3 EARTH MATERIALS ......................................................3 Artificial Fill (Map Symbol - Afu) .......................................3 Colluvium (Unmapped) .............................................4 Bedrock (Map Symbol - Qt) ..........................................4 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY ......................................4 Faulting ................. 4 Seismicity........................................................6 Seismic Shaking Parameters ..........................................6 Seismic Hazards ....................................................7 LABORATORY TESTING ..................................................8 General..........................................................8 Moisture-Density Relations ..........................................8 Shear Testing ......................................................8 Expansion Potential ................................................8 Corrosion/Sulfate Testing ............................................9 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ...............................................9 Gross Stability .....................................................9 Surficial Stability ...................................................9 CONCLUSIONS .........................................................9 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS .......................10 General..........................................................10 Site Preparation ..................................................10 Removals (Unsuitable Surficial Materials) ...............................10 Fill Placement .......................................................10 Overexcavation ...................................................11 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS . -.....................................11 General...........................................................11 Preliminary Foundation Design ......................................11 Bearing Value ...............................................11 Lateral Pressure ..............................................12 Footing Setbacks ..................................................12 GeoSoils, Inc. Construction . 12 CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALLS .......................................13 General..........................................................13 Restrained Walls ...................................................14 Cantilevered Walls .................................................14 Wall Backfill and Drainage ..........................................15 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ...............................................15 Landscape Maintenance and Planting ................................15 Additional Site Improvements ........................................16 Trenching.......................................................16. Drainage.........................................................16 Utility Trench Backfill ..............................................16 PLAN REVIEW ...........................................................17 LIMITATIONS ...........................................................17 FIGURES: Figure 1 - Site Location Map .........................................2 Figure 2- California Fault Map ........................................5 ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - References .....................................Rear of Text Appendix B - Test Pit Logs ..................................Rear of Text Appendix C - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines .........Rear of Text Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map .........................Rear of Text in Pocket MSK Development Table of Contents FiIe:e:\wp729OO981 a.pge Page ii GeoSoils, Inc. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 3465 RIDGECREST DRIVE. CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: Subsurface exploration consisting of 5 test pit excavations to determine the soil/bedrock profiles, obtain relatively undisturbed and bulk samples ol representative materials, and delineate earth material parameters for the proposed development (Appendix B). Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface exploration program. - General areal seismicity evaluation. Appropriate engineering and geologic analysis of data collected and preparation of this report. Slope stability evaluation for anticipated fill and cut slopes. SITE CONDITIONS/PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The site is a relatively rectangular shaped lot located on the south side of Ridgecrest Drive, opposite to the intersection with Camden Circle in the City of Cads bad, San Diego County, California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). The site is relatively fiat to gently sloping to the north. Existing improvements onsite consist of a single-family residential structure, typical residential landscaping, and driveway access to Ridgecrest Drive. The proposed site development will consist of removing the existing structure and preparing building pads for the construction of five single family residential structures. It is also our understanding that cut and fill grading techniques would be utilized to create design grades for the proposed single-family residential structures. We further understand that cut and fill slopes, up to approximately 12 feet in height are proposed. It is anticipated that the residential development will consist of a one- or two-story structures with slab-on- grade floors and continuous footings, utilizing wood-frame and/or masonry block construction. Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light construction. The need for import soils is unknown. GeoSoils, Inc. base Map; oan LUIS uiey uudurdngu, '#dIIIVFflId--dI1 IJIeV 'U., I.0 M111ULW QW11=0 1968 (photo revised 1975), by USGS, 1":2000 TT W.O. 2981-A-SC GeoSotis. Inc. SITE LOCATION MAP 0 2000 4000 Scale Feet Figure 1 FIELD STUDIES Field work was performed on November 17, 2000 by a representative from this office and consisted of excavating 5 test pits with a rubber tire backhoe in order to evaluate near surface soil and geologic conditions. The test pits were logged by a geologist from our firm. Representative bulk and in-place samples were taken for appropriate laboratory testing. Logs of the test pits are presented in Appendix B. The approximate locations of the test pit logs are shown on Plate 1. Plate 1 has been prepared from estimated measurements made in the field during our subsurface exploration, and is not a surveyed map. 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 northwesterly. 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 of the 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 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 appears to be predominantly underlain with sedimentary bedrock deposited during the Pleistocene Epoch. EARTH MATERIALS Earth materials encountered on the site are shown on Plate '1. The materials consist of localized undocumented fill, colluvium, and sedimentary bedrock termed terrace deposits of Quatemary-age. Artificial Fill (Map Symbol - AM) Undocumented artificial fill onsite generally consists of alight gray to dark yellowish brown, dry to moist, loose to medium dense, silty to clayey sand. The maximum thickness of the material is approximately 2 feet. Artificial fill at the subject, site is considered potentially MSK Development W.O. 2981 -A-SC 3465 Ridgecrest Drive December 8, 2000 FIIe:e:\wp7\29OD2981 a.pge Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. compressible in its present state. Accordingly, these soils are considered unsuitable for. the support of additional fill and/or settlement sensitive improvements in their existing state. Colluvium (Unmapped) Colluvium onsite generally consists of a dark brown to dark yellowish brown, moist, stiff and medium dense, porous, clay to clayey sand. Thickness of the material is approximately 11/2 to 2 feet. Colluvium at the subject site is considered compressible in its present state. Accordingly, these soils are considered unsuitable for support of additional fill and/or settlement sensitive improvements in there existing state. Bedrock (Map Symbol - Qt) Sedimentary bedrock or terrace deposits underlie the entire site at depth. As encountered, the bedrock generally consists of yellowish gray to yellowish brown, silty sandstone and sandstone, and is typically slightly moist and dense with depth. Due to the weathered condition of the upper ±1 foot, these materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted and/or processed in place, should settlement-sensitive improvements or fills be proposed. 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 (Figure 2). 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 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 could have a significant effect on the site should they experience significant activity. MSK Development W.O. 2981 -A-SC 3465 Ridgecrest Drive December 8, 2000 F1Ie:e:\wp729O02981a.pge Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME APPROXIMATE DISTANCE MILES. (KM) Coronado Bank-Aqua Blanca 22 (36) Elsinore 23 (37) La Nación 25 (40) Newport-Inglewood-Offshore 9 (14) Rose Canyon 5 (9) San Diego Trough-Bahia Sol. 32 (51) Seismicity The acceleration-attenuation relations of Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1989) have been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 1997). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were determined based on the random mean and mean plus 1 sigma attenuation curves developed by Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1989). These acceleration-attenuation relations have been incorporated in EQFAULT, a computer program by Thomas F. Blake (1997), 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 user-specified file. 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 the upper bound ('maximum credible') and "maximum probable" earthquakes on that fault. Site acceleration, as a percentage of the acceleration of gravity (g), is computed by any of the 14 user-selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT. Based on the above, peak horizontal ground accelerations from an upper bound (maximum credible) earthquake may be on the order of 0.245 g to 0.679 g, and maximum probable event may be on the order of 0.199 g to 0.379 g , assuming upper bound (maximum credible) and maximum probable event of a magnitude about 6.9, on the Rose Canyon fault zone, located approximately 9 miles from the subject site.. Seismic Shaking Parameters Based on the site conditions, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials, 1997), the following seismic parameters are provided. MSK Development W.O. 2981 -A-SC 3465 Rldgecrest Drive December 8, 2000 F1Ie:o:\wp7\29002981a.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 C1 (per Table 16-0*) 0.44 N. Seismic Coefficient C, (per Table 16.R*) 0.64 N Near Source Factor N1 (per Table 16S*) 1.0 Near Source Factor N (per Table 16-T*) 1.048 Seismic Source Type (per Table 16-U*) B Distance to Seismic Source , ' 5.5 mi. (8.8 km) Upper Bound Earthquake , M, 6.9 * Figure and table references from Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (1997). Seismic Hazards The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered during our evaluation of the site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics and typical site development procedures: Liquefaction 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. MSK Development W.O. 2981 -A-SC 3465 Ridgecrest Drive December 8, 2000 F11o:e:wp7\29O0\2981 a.pge Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc. LABORATORY TESTING General Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the onsite earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. The test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. Moisture-Density Relations The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for representative site soils was determined according to test method ASTM D-1 557. A modified proctor of 123.0 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), at an optimum moisture content of 10.5 percent was determined for a composite sample of bedrock and colluvium materials. Shear Testing Shear testing was performed on a representative, natural and remolded samples of site soil in general accordance with ASTM test method D-3080 in a Direct Shear Machine of the strain control type. The shear test results are presented in the following table: I ry e oc -Cohesion (psf Dees) i (Dgrees undisturbed 180 33 151 33 304 35 137 37 ExpansIon Potential Expansion testing was performed on representative samples of site soil in accordance with UBC Standard 18-2. The results of expansion testing are presented in the following table. .LOCATION - tiEXPANSIONINbEX-1 POTENTIAL composite 1 Very Low composite 3 Very Low MSK Development W.O. 2981 -A-SC 3465 Ridgecrest Drive December 8, 2000 F1Ie:e:\wp7\29O02981 a.pgo Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. Corrosion/Sulfate Testing Typical samples of the site materials were analyzed for corrosion/soluble sulfate potential. The testing included determination of pH, soluble sulfates, and saturated resistivity. At the time of this report the results were not available. An addendum to this report will be issued when the testing is complete. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Both gross and surficial stability were evaluated for the anticipated heights of cut and fill slopes, slope gradient or inclination, and the expected geologic/soil material. All cut slopes during grading should be checked by engineering geologist from this office to make sure that the actual soil conditions comply with the expectation of this report, otherwise any necessary modifications/reevaluation or analysis should be made as necessary. Gross Stability Based on a review of the tentative map, all cut and fill slopes are planned at gradients of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), or flatter, with a maximum height of less than approximately 11 feet. With this slope height and site soil strength properties utilized herein, all fill and cut slopes are anticipated to be grossly stable. However, if either of slope height or slope gradient are increased, then this office should be consulted to investigate the gross stability in view of the changed conditions. Surf Iclal StabilIty Factors of safety for surficial stability are also favorable (i.e., >1.5) where the depth of soil saturation is less than approximately 3.0 feet, but decreases to values below the accepted industry standard to the maximum depth of saturation evaluated(i.e., 4.0 feet). It should be noted that surficial factors of safety remained greater than 1.0 in our analysis. With a *decrease in the factor of safety, the potential for slope instability in the form of erosion and/or shallow slumping would increase. It is recommended that landscape irrigation and drainage is optimized in order to minimize the degree of saturation of near surface earth- materials at the slope face. CONCLUSIONS Based upon our site reconnaissance, test results, and review of the previous report, it is our opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed residential development. The following recommendations should be incorporated into the construction details. MSK Development W.O. 2981 -A-SC 3465 Ridgecrest Drive December 8, 2000 FiIe:e:wp729OO\2981a.pge Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS General- All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the Uniform Building Code, the requirements of the City. of Carlsbad, and the Grading Guidelines presented in Appendix C, except where specifically superseded 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 and other deleterious material should be removed from the building area prior to the start of grading. Sloping areas to receive fill should be properly benched in accordance with current industry standards of practice and guidelines specified in the Uniform Building Code. Removals (Unsuitable Surf icial Materials) Due to the relatively loose/soft condition of artificial fill, colluvium, and weathered bedrock, 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 2 feet should be anticipated. However, locally deeper removals may be necessary. Removals should be completed below a 1:1 projection down and away from the edge of any settlement sensitive structure and/or limit of proposed fill. Once removals are completed, the exposed bottom should be reprocessed and compacted. Fill 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 of the soil import should be evaluated by this office prior to importing, in order to assure compatibility with the onsite soils and the recommendations presented in this report. Import soils (if any) should be low expansive (E.I. less than 50). The use of MSK Development W.O. 2981 -A-SC 3465 Ridgecrest Drive December 8. 2000 flIe:e:wp7'i29OO2981a.pge Page 10 GeoSoils, Inc. subdrains at the bottom of the fill cap may be necessary, and subsequently recommended based on compatibility with onsite soils. Overexcavatlon In order to provide for the uniform support of the structures, a minimum 3-foot thick fill blanket is recommended. Any cut portion of the pad for the residences should be overexcavated a minimum 3 feet below finish pad grade to at least 5 feet outside the footprint, or to a depth equal to 1/s the maximum fill thickness beneath the building site, whichever is greater. Areas with planned fills less than 3 feet should be overexcavated in order to provide the minimum fill thickness. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS General In the event that the information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct, or any changes in the design; location or loading conditions of the proposed structure are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid Unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. It is our understanding that slab-on-grade construction is desired for the proposed development. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by the project structural engineer. Upon request, GSI could provide additional input/consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. Preliminary Foundation Design Our review, field work, and laboratory testing indicates that onsite soils have a very low expansion potential. Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented below. Final foundation recommendations should be provided at the conclusion of grading, and based on laboratory testing of fill materials exposed at finish grade. Bearing Value The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code. An allowable bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot may be used for the design of continuous footings at. least 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep, and column footings at least 24 inches square and 18 inches deep. This value may be MSK Development W.O. 2981-A-SC 3465 Ridgecrest Drive December 8, 2000 F1Ie:e:wp7\29O02981a.pge Page 11 GeoSoils, Inc. increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum of 2500 pounds per square foot. Lateral Pressure 1.. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.35 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 pounds per cubic foot with a maximum earth pressure of 2500 pounds per square foot. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. Footing 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 of the 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 of this report. Construction The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum criteria frOm a soils engineering standpoint. The onsite soils expansion potential are generally in the very low (expansion index of maximum 20) range. Recommendations by the projects design-structural engineer or architect, which may exceed the soils engineers 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 duriig grading. Exterior and interior footings should be founded at minimum depths of 12 and 18 inches for one or two-story loads, respectively, below the lowest adjacent ground surface. Isolated column and panel pads or wall footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches. All footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No.4 reinforcing bars, one placed near the top and one placed near the bottom of the footing, and in accordance with the recommendations width per UBC. MSK Development W.O. 2981 -A-SC 3465 Ridgecrest Drive December 8, 2000 FIIe:e:\wp7\29002981a.pge Page 12 GeoSoils, Inc. A grade beam, reinforced as above, and at least 12 inches wide should be provided across large (e.g., garage or parking area) entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of adjoining footings. Concrete slabs should be underlain by a minimum of 2 inches of washed sand. Where moisture condensation is undesirable, concrete slabs should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum 10 mil, polyvinyl-chloride or equivalent membrane, with all laps sealed. This membrane should be placed on acceptable pad grade materials and the minimum 2-inch thickness of sand should be placed over the visqueen to aid in uniform curing of the concrete. If proven by testing (i.e., sand equivalent greater than 30 and less than 1/4 inch in any size dimension), some of the native sands could be utilized. Concrete slabs, including garage areas, should be minimally reinforced with No. 3 reinforcement bars placed on 18-inch centers, each way. All slab reinforcement should be supported and positioned near the vertical midpoint of the slab. "Hooking" of reinforcement is not an acceptable method of positioning the reinforcement. Garage slabs should be poured separately from adjacent footings and be quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings should be maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement. A minimum slab thickness of 4 inches is recommended. The design engineer should determine the actual thickness of the slabs based on loadings and use. Premoistening is recommended for these soils conditions, with the moisture content of the subgrade soils equal to or greater than the optimum moisture content, prior to pouring slabs and prior to placing visqueen or reinforcement. In design .of any additional concrete, flatwork, pools or walls, the potential for differential settlement of the soils should be considered. CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS General Foundations .may be designed using parameters provided in the 'Design" section of Foundation Recommendations presented herein. Wall sections should adhere to the County of San Diego guidelines. All wall designs should be reviewed by a qualified structural engineer for structural capacity, overturning and stability. MSK Development W.O. 2981-A-SC 3465 Ridgecrest Drive December 8, 2000 F1Ie:e:\wp729OO2981a.pge Page 13 GeoSoils, Inc. The design parameters provided assume that onsite or equivalent low expansive soils are used to backfill retaining walls. If expansive soils are used to backfill the proposed walls within this wedge, increased active and at-rest earth pressures will need to be utilized for retaining wall design. Heavy compaction equipment should not be used above a 1:1 projection up and away from the bottom of any wall. The following recommendations are not meant to apply to specialty walls (cnbwalis, loffel, earthstone, etc.). Recommendations for specialty walls will be greater than those provided herein, and can be provided upon request. Some movement of the walls constructed should be anticipated as soil strength parameters are mobilized. This movement could cause some cracking dependent upon the materials used to construct the wall. To reduce wall cracking due to settlement, walls should be internally grouted and/or reinforced with steel. Restrained Walls Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressures of 62 pcf for native soil, 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 laterally from the corner. Building walls below grade, should be water-proofed or damp-proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. Refer to the following section for preliminary recommendations from surcharge loads. . Cantilevered Walls These recommendations are for cantilevered retaining walls up to fifteen (15) feet high. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wail design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from. minor deflections. An empirical equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are provided for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These. do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. rSURFACE OIOF 21 1 - RETAINED MATE .RIAL': FLUID WEIGHT HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL -P.C.F.(NatIve soil) Level -77 40 2tól 57 MSK Development W.O. 2981-A-SC 3465 Ridgecrest Drive December 8, 2000 F11e:e:wp729OO2981a.pge Page 14 GeoSoils, Inc. The equivalent fluid density should be increased to 62 pounds per cubic foot for level backfill at the angle point of the wall (corner or male re-entrant) and extended a minimum lateral distance of 2H (two times the wall height) on either side of the corner. Wall Backfill and Drainage All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate gravel and pipe backdrain and outlet system (a minimum 2 outlets per wall), to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures and be designed in accordance with minimum standards presented herein. Pipe should consist of schedule 40 perforated PVC pipe. Gravel used in the backdrain systems should be a minimum of 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of % to 11/2-inch clean crushed rock encapsulated in filter fabric (Mirafl 140 or equivalent). Perforations in pipe should face down. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted to 90 percent relative compaction with native soil. Proper surface drainage should also be provided. As an alternative to gravel backdrains, panel drains (Miradrain 6000, Tensar, etc.) may be used. Panel drains should be installed per manufacturers guidelines. Regardless of the backdrain used, walls should be water proofed where they would impact living areas or where staining would be objectionable. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Landscape Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil and slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Overwatering should be avoided. Graded slopes constructed within and utilizing onsité materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surilcial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Plants selected for landscaping should be lightweight, deep rooted types which require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend to minimize short term erosion until vegetation is established. In order to minimize erosion on a slope face, an erosion control fabric (i.e. jute matting) should be considered. From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils area processed for the purpose of adding amendments they should be recompacted to 90 percent relative compaction. MSK Development S W.O. 2981 -A-SC 3465 Ridgecrest Drive December 8, 2000 F1Ie:e:\wp729002981 a.pge Page 15 GeoSoils, Inc. Additional Site improvements Recommendations for additional grading, exterior concrete flatwork design and construction, including driveways, can be provided upon request. If in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. Trenching All footing trench excavations for structures and walls should be observed and approved by a representative of this office prior to placing reinforcement. 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. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. GSl does not consult in the area of safety engineers. In addition, the potential for encountering hard spots during footing and utility trench excavations should be anticipated. If these concretions are encountered within the proposed footing trench, they should be removed, which could produce larger excavated areas within the footing or utility trenches. Drainage. Positive site drainage should be 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. Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area. Roof gutters and down spouts should be considered to control roof drainage. Down spouts should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from the proposed structure or into a subsurface drainage system. 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 of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. Utility Trench Backfill 1. All utility-trench backfill in structural areas, slopes, and beneath hardscape features should be brought to near optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Flooding/jetting is not recommended for the site soil materials. As an alternative, imported sandy material with an S.E. of 30 or greater, may be flooded/jetted in shallow (12± inch or less) under-slab interior trenches, only. MSK Development W.O. 2981 -A-SC 3465 Ridgecrest Drive December 8, 2000 F1Ie:e:wp7\29OO2981 a.pge Page 16 GeoSoils, Inc. Sand backfill, unless trench excavation material, should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing. All trench excavations should minimally conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. Soils generated from utility trench excavations to be used onsite should be compacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. This material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural area and towards the street. PLAN REVIEW Final site development and foundation plans should. be submitted to this office for review and comment, as the plans become available, for the purpose of minimizing any misunderstandings between the plans and recommendations presented herein. In addition, foundation excavations and any additional earthwork construction performed on the site should be observed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our study are believed representative of the 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. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for,work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others. The scope of work was performed within the limits of a budget. Inasmuch as our study is based upon the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analysis, the conclusion and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of pràctice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. MSK Development ' W.O. 2981 -A-SC 3465 Ridgecrest Drive December 8, 2000 F1Ie:e:wp729002981a.pge . Page 17 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A REFERENCES Blake, Thomas F., 1997, EQFAULT computer program for the deterministic prediction of horizontal accelerations from digitized California faults. Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, 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, WA. 1997, Fault-rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning act with Index to 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., 1982, Estimation of response-spectral values as functions of magnitude, distance and site conditions, in eds., Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W. and Blake, T.F., AEG short course, seismic hazard analysis, dated June 18, 1994. Petersen, Mark D., Bryant, WA., and Cramer, C.H., 1996, Interim table of fault parameters used by the California Division of Mines and Geology to compile the probabilistic seismic hazard maps of California. Sadigh, K., Egan, J., and Youngs, R., 1987, Predictive ground motion equations reported in Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1988, "Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground motion", in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II, Recent Advances in. Ground Motion Evaluation, Von Thun, J.L., ed.: American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43-102; GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX B TEST PIT LOGS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM I CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY I Major divisions Group symbols Typical mmci CRITERIA CW Well-graded gravels and Pavel- 0 sand mixtures, little or no fines 31, %W- I Poorly graded gravels and CP gravel-sand mizmres, little or no Standard Penetration Tect E Z _____ ______ finds ________________________ Peneiration I CM Silty gravels. gnvel-und.illt 12 Rcsi=n= l. Relative mixtaros (blows/ft) Density cc Clsm "e1a, mixtures Very loose 4-10. Loose SW Well..padcd sands and gravelly * 30-30 Medium . C ____ sands, little or no fines 30-50 Dense py Polled =U& ,55j Pavony >50 Very dense sands. Uttleornofines .v3z SM Sflyiaadd1Iad.,.s °' SC c3a,ysand sand-day wizur.s Inorpaic silts. very fin's sanda, ML zock8ovr,siltyorclaysyfine math Inorganic clays of low to I medium plasticity, gravelly Standard Penetration Test 1A clays CA mm Penetration Unconfined Compressive I Resistance N Strength 01. Organic silts and organic silty (blows/It) Consistency (tons/It') q dro or low *Akky Inor , <2 Very soft <0.25 MR disaommeemn San rand, or silts, 2-4 Soft 0.25-0.50 ailts _ Amin ______________ 4-8 Medium 0.50-1.00 CH clays of high plt4y, all ____ 8-15 Stiff 1.00-2.00 ki days 15-30 Very stiff 2.00-4.00 >30 Hard >4.00 OR orpnlcchyscfmedfvmto ij piassicity Highlycrpnfc Sails Pant, mod,, sad other highly I arm& saw $54 °lo '40 U.S. S?urrd tieve Cobbles CJay toll Class".coarse line coarse medium tine H ' °'. MOISTURE CONDITIONS Dry absence of moist; dusty, dry to tha touch Slightly below optimum moisture content moist for compaction Moist near optimum moisture content Vary moist above optimum moisture content Wet visible free water, below o.c.r table ATERAIL QUANTITY trim 0-52 few 5-102 little 10 -25 S WONG 25-435 OTHER SYMBOLS C Cars smonle S SPT SloplO Bulk sample 2 Groundwater BASIC LOG FORMAT: Group rums, Groun symbol. (Grain sins) • Color, Moisture, Consistency or relative Oefleity Additional comments: or, presence of roots, mica • gyp", coarse grained particlis ,stc. EXAMPLE: Sand (SF), fine to medium grains, brown, moist. laos., trace silt, litti. fine gravel few cobbles UP to 4 in size, same hair roots and rootlets W.O.2981-A-SC MSK Development November, 2000 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS (TESTJ PIT $ t.II NO' 'i- v ..•. 4l.-I (ft )1I 'i4k DEPTH L 1 '. I GROUP ' - SYMBOL- cSAMPLEX "4 DEPTH '1 -. ft )j MOISTURE . 1- ,i AN l•' FIELD Ij , DRY ............ '(pf) ji'- . - . Z4. , DESCRIPTION - . ...., .., TP-1 0-2 7 SM F- COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, dark gray, moist, loose; some shells, porous. 2-3'/2 SM . SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, dry, loose; few shells, porous. 3½-6 SP BEDROCK: SAND, brown, moist, medium dense; massive, weakly cemented. Total Depth = 6' - No groundwater encountered Backfilledll-00 TP-2 0-11/2 SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, dark grayish brown, moist, loose; porous. 11/2-2 SM/Sp S BEDROCK: SAND, brown, moist, medium dense; massive, porous, some silt, cemented. 2-4 SP SAND, brown, slightly moist, medium dense; massive, - cemented. Total Depth = 4' S No groundwater encountered Backfilled 11-00 PLATE B.1 W.O. 2981-A-SC MSK Development November, 2000 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST DEPTH :* I GROUP SAMPLE) -DEPTHL MOISTURE ,FIELDJ! IDRY £ • 'T4 -DESCRIPTION adI Y0 j,(ft)$ DENSfl Y, pcf)!Z-01 : TP-3 0-1 ½ SM . COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, dark gray brown, moist, loose; porous, roots. 1 ½-4 SP BEDROCK: SAND, brown, dry, medium dense; massive, cemented. Total Depth = 4' No. groundwater encountered Backfllled. 11-00 TP-4 0-2 SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, dark gray brown, moist, loose; porous, few roots. 2-21/2 SM/SP . BEDROCK: SAND, brown to dark yellowish brown, moist, medium dense; massive, porous, some silt. 2½-5 SP SAND, brown, slightly moist, medium dense; massive, cemented. Total Depth = 5' No groundwater encountered Rackfilled 11-pp PLATE B-2 W.O. 2981 -A-SC JL MSK Development November, 2000 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TESTJ1 ,PIT - .4.-'-' .3 .. DEPTH I.•' IfM& l GROUPr JSAMPLE DEPTH 4 fc1.kr LMOISTURE4. FIELD DRY4 ............... -. DESCRIPTION RN TP-5 011/2 SM . . COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, gray brown, slightly moist, loose; porous, roots. 1 ½-2 SP . BEDROCK: SAND, brown, dry, medium dense: massive, cemented, porous, some silt. 4 . Sp. SAND, yellowish brown, slightly moist, dense; massive, cemented. - . . Total Depth = 4' No groundwater encountered Bckfilled .11-00 . PLATE B-3 APPENDIX C GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES Li 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 of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supersede 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 contractor is responsible for the 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 of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnlcal Consultant Prior to 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 geótechnical 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 by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior to placing and fill. It isthe contractors's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field 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-1 557-78. Random field compaction tests should be performed in accordance.with test I: method ASTM designation 0-1556-82, D-2937 or D-2922 and D-3017, at intervals 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 of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the 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 of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non- earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. It is the sole responsibility of the 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 compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of, the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized'rock, or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting 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 conditions are satisfactory. During construction, 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-until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, 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. Existing 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 conditions, 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, septic 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 condition should be overexcavated down to MSK Development Appendix C F1Ie:e:\wp7\2900\2981 a.pge Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture conditioned should be re-compacted to the minimum, relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. Existing 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 optimum 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. Scarification, ,disc harrowing, or other acceptable form of mixing should continue until 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 soil 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 by the 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 1/2 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 of the 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 properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained. COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized 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 deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as .directed MSK Development Appendix C F1Ie:e:\wp7\29002981 a.pge Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics 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 operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other bedrock derived material. Benching operations 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 location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized material should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material should not be placed. .within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation)' or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces. To facilitate future trenching, rock should not be. placed within the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the developers representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized 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 of this 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 less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be blended with drier material. Moisture condition, blending, and mixing' of the fill layer should continue until 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 designation, D-1 557-78, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. MSK Development . . ' Appendix C fl1e:e:\wp7290O2981a.pgo . Page 4 GeoSoiJs Inc. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until 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. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope -configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction 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. A final determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, 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 compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy short shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously 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. . Loose fill should not be spilled, out over the face of theslope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) 2 to 8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to. verify compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm compaction after grid rolling. . Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix and re-compact the slope material as necessary.to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to verify compaction. MSK Development Appendix C FIIe:e:\wp7\29OO2981a.pge . . Page 5 GeOSoils, Inc. 6. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendation of the 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 locations 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 conditions. The location of constructed subdrains should be recorded by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation 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 of the slope should be observed by the engineering geologist prior to placement of materials for construction of the 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 anticipated or not. Unless otherwise 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. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractors responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. MSK Development Appendix C F1Ie:e:\wpl\2900¼2981a.pge Page 6 GeoSoils, Inc. COMPLETION Observation, testing and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification 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 practical after completion 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 considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities 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 times. 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 testing and observation, the following precautions 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 meetings. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by GSI personnel at all times 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. MSK Development Appendix C F1Ie:e:wp7\2900\2981a.pge Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc. Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall us_e rotating or flashing amber beacon, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractors representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technicians's safety. Efforts will be made tocoordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the• established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative (dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.). should direct excavation 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 driveáble condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly 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 testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration which typically decreased test results. When taking slope tests the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. . If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractors representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, 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 of the 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 solution. However, in the MSK Development Appendix C F11o:e:\wp729O0\2981a.pge Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill place can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction 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 attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors representative 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 compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation 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 conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which anyperson 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 compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and/or removal. If GSl personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify CAL-OSHA and/or the proper authorities. MSK Development . Appendix C FIIe:e:wp7\29002981a.pge Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. CANYON SUBORAIN DETAIL TYPE A PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL \ ,..--NATURAL GROUND - ...-COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) - _=,I -% •6 — — - - BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHING ALTERNATIVES TYPE B PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL ,x NATURAL GROUND // /i\k4 y_COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) - 00 dOo 'f ,II a — 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 SUBORAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL 12 MINIMUM 60 11INIMtlM FILTER MATERIAL MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 FT.' 4)1 !LINEAR FT. 60 9 ABS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM B (1140 0) PERFS. MINIMUM LINEAR FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE ASTM 02751. SOR 35 OR ASTM 01517. SCHD, 40 "60 MINIMUM A-i ASTM 03034, SOR 35 OR ASTM 01785 SCHO. 40 B-i FOR CONTINUOUS RUN IN EXCESS OF 5ãO FT. USE 8% PIPE FILTER MATERIAL SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING IINCH 100 314 INCH 90100 318 INCH 40-100 NO. 1* 25-40. NO.8 18-33 NO. 30 8-15 NO. 50 .0-7 NO. 200 0-3 ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL AND. FILTER FABRIC M INIMUM OVERLAP 6 MINIMUM OVERLAP MINIMUM COVER ' JII4'j =L MINIMUM BEDDING 4 MINIMUM BEDDIN GRAVEL MATERIAL 9 FVILINEAR FT. B-2 PERFORATED PIPE SEE ALTERNATE 1 GRAVEL CLEAN 3/4 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE FILTER FABRIC MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE PLATE EG-2 DETAIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN OCOMPACTED FILL ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL BACKCUT VARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS, BACKCUT AlKSHOUL0 BE MADE NO STEEPER THAls4:I OR AS NECESSARY e FOR SAFETY .,ONS1DERATIONS7 / DEPTH PER SOIL ENGINEER. .. , '%LUtUI a PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM. TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED REMOVAL DEPTH. SLOPE HEIGHT, SITE CONDITIONS ANOIOR LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE FLATTER PROJECTIONS. REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL - - - - - - - - - - - - PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED ALL COMPACTED FILLLUMITS LINE~ -7:Z%TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL )%FOR DRAINAGE ONLY Oaf '2\ Oaf / Qal (TO BE REMOVED) (EXISTING COMPACTED FILL) / LEGEND TO BE REMOVED BEFORE Oaf ARTIFICIAL ALL PLACING ADDITIONAL COMPACTED ALL Oat ALLUVIUM PLATE .EG-3 _. ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE F - ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL 15 TYPICAL OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT 100' MAXIMUM INTERVALS. AND SHALL EXTEND 12'. BEYOND THE FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OFROUGH GRADING COMPLETION. BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED 15'MINIMUM I / BY THE SOIL ENGINEER DESIGN FINISH SLOPE 10' MINIM UJ,,V$Z7/ - 25' MAX IMU TYPICAL BENCHING UTTRESS OR SIDEHILL 4 DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE AND BAKDRAIN (SEE ALTERNATIVES) BEDROCK 3' MINIMUM KEY DEPTH TOE HEEL W:15' MINIMUM OR H/2 m C) 4 MINIMUM 2 MINIMUM PIPE 4 MINIMUM PIPE 2 1 MINIMUM .p S N -U 2 MINIMUM 1 > -1 m m G) FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT: SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 INCH 100 314 INCH 90-100 3/8 INCH 40-100 NO. 4 25-1.0 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 11/2 INCH 100 NO.4 50 NO. 200 8 SAND EQUIVALENT: MINIMUM OF 50 TYPICAL STABILIZATION I BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL FILTER MATERIAL MINIMUM OF FIVE Ft'/LINEAR Ft OF PIPF OR FOUR Ft3 ILINEAR Ft OF PIPE WHEN PLACED IN SQUARE CUT TRENCH. ALTERNATIVE IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL: GRAVEL MAY BE EIICASED IN APPROVED FILTER FABRIC. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12 ON ALL JOINTS. MINIMUM 4 DIAMETER PIPE: ABS-ASTM D-2751. SOR 35 OR ASTM 0-1527 SCHEDULE 40 PVC-ASTM 0-3034. SDR 35 OR ASTM 0-1785 SCHEDULE 40 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 BACKFILLED WITH ON-SITE SOIL ?. BACKDRAINS AND LATERAL DRAINS SHALL BE LOCATED AT ELEVATION OF EVERY BENCH DRAIN. FIRST 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. FILL OVER NATURAL DETAIL SIDEHILL FILL COMPACTED FILL PROPOSED ;GRAIDE MAINTAIN MINIMUM 15' WIDTH TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN SLOSLOPE TOBENCH,BACKcUT PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM KEY •0 DESIGN TOE OF SLOPE TO TOE OF AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT Olt 7) MINIMUM NATURAL SLOPE TO BE RESTORED WITH / COMPACTED FILL / ____ • / BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY BACKCUT VARIES IT. MIN$MUM MINIMUM KEY WIOT I DESIGN SLOPE RATIO, SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE NOTE; 1. WHERE THE NATURAL SLOPE APPROACHES OR EXCEEDS THE 2. THE NEED FOR AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WOULD BE DETERMINED -U 2'X 3MINIMUM KEY DEPTH PROVIDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. I- 2' MINIMUM IN BEDROCK OR BY THE SOILS ENGINEER BASED UPON EXPOSED CONDITIONS. m APPROVED MATERIAL. C) I 0) -U I- -1 m m 0 FILL OVER CUT DETAIL CUT/FILL CONTACT MAINTAIN MINIMUM 15' FILL SECTION FROM AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN BACKCUT TO FACE OF FINISH SLOPE AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT COMPACTED FILL H ORIGINAL TOPOGRAPHY CUT SLOPE BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY 15' MINIMUM OR H/2 BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL 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 REMOVE: UNSTABLE MATERIAL NATURAL SLOPE I PQSED FINISHED GRADE UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL I H Y REMOVE: UNSTABLE STABILIZATION FILL Hi JMINIMUM TILTED BACK 'I / I IF RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING Wf GEOLOGIST. THE REMAINING CUT PORTION. OF THE SLOPE MAY W1____ REQUIRE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT WITH COMPACTED FILL —I m NOTE: 1. SUBORAINS ARE NOT REQUIRED UNLESS SPECIFIED BY SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEO L O G I S T , m 2. W SHALL BE EQUIPMENT WIDTH (151.FOR SLOPE HEIGHTS LESS THAN 25 FEET. FOR SLOPES GR E A T E R 9' THAN 25 FEET W SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER AND /OR ENGINEERING Co GEOLOGIST. AT NO TIME SHALL 'W BE LESS THAN H12. . SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND ORIGINAL SLOPE 15' MINIMUM TO BE MAINTAINED FROM PROPOSED FINISH SLOPE FACE TO BACKCUT PROPOSED FINISH SLOPE 'ROPOSED FINISH GRADE 113. MINIMUM • BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL UM KEY DEPTH V MINIMUM KEY DEPTH I 15'MIiIMUM KEY WIDTH I NOTE: 1. THE NEED AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WILL BE DETERMINED! BY THE SOILS EN G I N E E R A N D / O R ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS. 2. PAD OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE' PERFORMED IF DETERMINED TO B E NECESSARY BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL NATURAL GRADE 0 ~PROPOSED FINISH GRADE RECONSTRUCT COMPACTED FILL SLOPE AT 2:1 OR FLATTER (MAY INCREASE OR DECREASE PAD AREA). OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT REPLACEMENT FILL AVOID AND/OR CLEAN UP SPILLAGE OF MATERIALS ON THE NATURAL SLOPE 00 e0,010007 000~ P 45/ MINIMUM BLANKET FILL - BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING 2' MINIMUM % GRADIENT KEY DEPTH NOTE: 1. SUBORAIN AND KEY WIDTH REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN. rn • 2. PAD OVER EXCAVATION AND RECOP4PACTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY m 1' • THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. •. • TRANSITION LOT DETAIL CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION) NATURAL PAD GRADE I COMPACTED ALL MINIMUM OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT \\Ø 3' MINIMUM* UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL ri'wiw,' \\V'/ TYPICAL BENCHING CUT-FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION) NATURAL GRADE 5. PAD GRADE çb VOW OVER EXCAVATE. - AND RECOMPACT COMPACTED FILL Alp co DIP sol UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING NOTE: *DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEEP CUT-FILL TRANSITION AREAS. PLATE EG-11 SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL 2'X 2'X 1t1. STEEL PLATE STANDARD 311.' PIPE NIPPLE WELDED TO TOP OF PLATE. 314 X 5 GALVANIZED PIPE. STANDARD PIPE THREADS TOP AND BOTTOM. EXTENSIONS THREADED ON BOTH ENDS AND ADDED IN 5' INCREMENTS. 3 INCH SCHEDULE 1.0 PVC PIPE SLEEVE. ADD IN 5 INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS. FINAL GRADE MAINTAIN 5- CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT. I t1IL ..i.,,..MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2VERTICAL LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND — ,j ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. I 5 5 I I I 5 i I MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIAL 5 ,..3 4 _('VERTICAL WITHIN A5RADIUS OF PLATE BASE. e :.•:.:•-.y, .• BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT — — PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1 BEDDING OF COMPACTED SAND NOTE: LOCATIONS OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHOULD BE CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE OF A 5' RADIUS OF PLATE BASE AND WITHIN 5' (VERTICAL) FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. FILL WITHIN CLEARANCE AREA SHOULD BE HAND COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. AFTER 50 (VERTICAL) OF FILL IS IN PLACE. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN A 5' RADIUS EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE FROM RISER. PLACE AND MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT INITIAL 2' OF FILL PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL READING. 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. AN ALTERNATE DESIGN AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. PLATE EG-14 TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT 318DRP4ETER X 60, LENGTH CARRIAGE BOLT OR EQUIVALENT DIAMETER X 3 112* LENGTH HOLE CONCRETE BACKFiLL PLATE EG-15 Y8IICLE FLAG TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM /-CPML PILE SIDE VIEW TM PIT ( NOT TO SCALE) TOP YEW 100 Itj 50 FEET SPOIL PIT PILE APPROXIMATE CEN7ER OF Ti PIT I NOT TO SCALE ) PLATE EG-'16 OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 1O'MINIMUM (E) 00 150 MINIMUM (A) 4HIUN100 00~~TGI CD 00 ' MINIMUM (, 'MINIMUM (C) ROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE 0* MINIMUM (E) J0OMAXIMUM (B' 15' P4INI MINIMUM 15' MINIMUM S'MINIMUM (Cl FROM CA WALL ..MINIMUN (C) cc(F) BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL NOTE: (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET. HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF EQUIPMENT. LENGTH OFWINDROW.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 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION OR AS RECOMMENDED. (6) AFTER FILL BETWEEN WINDROWS IS PLACED AND COMPACTED WITH THE LIFT OF FILL COVERING WINDROW, WINDROW SHOULD BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A 0-9 DOZER OR EQUIVALENT. VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. PLATE RD-i ROCK DISPOSAL PITS VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. FILL LIFTS COMPACTED OVER ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT I - GRANU LAR MATERIAL - - S • a - - I I I I COMPACTED FILL I SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE I COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE I I I I ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS T, Oh MINIMUM GRANULAR SOIL TO FILL VOIDS. . COMPACTED FILL OENSIF1ED BY FLOODING LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH GRADE PROFILE ALONG LAYER OR BELOW LOWEST UTI OYERSIZE LAY 1L -i k? PE COMPACTEO FILL 13* MINIMUM r - Il FILL SLOPE CLEAR ZONE 20 MINIMUM LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH PLATE RD-2 IIEM' P/V 0$?vTh' RERWCE REC DATE MU L)ATE rnmlrl-IMAPV. ,1,-,, t- /u,r,r'r' r-rih n a a ,e's atv#/i a & ir , m'a, J at ,,r,-i ' a e- •. ri r,' ,•r,,,' -vi nn,w j a c, a ,'r 7ri,i i c ia . r)nbI v i tV' a T7,U, -- I) Li I I V.J 11 IVIA .[ 'W It. L.)/flhPT.J rvtT I(T/WY)MI)/(J/V M/VL) L1'..)FIT/V1J//(flY 01 ELECTRICITY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES Ji9/V V/1UC1 (/J (.L(,IIT/(, U(i OVUT /tO, r'1tfC JCi V.11. L1I.7JO ,lrrnvA. UI.. L(A..f1I/Vf V .OFESS, DESCRIPTION: POR POLE /25899 [J AERIAL AND UNDERGROUND COAIIWUMCA 17ON STRUCTURES, PAC//7C TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO BOOK 7244, PAOE 511, 0. R 09-05-1958 2' WOE LOCATION: CITY BENCH OFF 845510)00 INGRESS AND (CRESS, AND INCiDENTAL PURPOSES Z I A VENUE AT A/14EZEL LANE PUBLIC UT1L/17E5 INGRESS AND EGRESS SAN 0/EGO C4S & ELECTRIC CO. filE NO. 1960-98294, O.R. 05-11-1960 12' MOE \ C55 9oy1 RECORD FROM: # NOTE EASEMENTS PER PRELiMINARY 1/TiLE REPORT D4 TED MAY 2. 1999 BY CI-/ICACO 277ZE CC1PANY ORDER NO. .93076310-1154 ((ññ ñ fl,,, (ciI4,irdc' Irr' ELEVATION: 188.69 MS.L. 0' DESIGNED BY J.S.T. DATE OCT 10, 2000 E: AS SHOWN PROJECT CONSULTI NTS MGR 5900 Postur Court Civil Engineering ENGINEER OF WORK Suite 100 Planning Carlsbad California 92008 Processing 760-931-7700 5urveying fox, 760-931-8680 DATE JOHN P STROHMINCER RCE 55187 U4 Ul IOU wJJ, 1! l,. G'\J0BS\991021\99211D2WG 11-X-00 124750 pm EST XREFS: 99210R0. 9921HC, 9921T, 992101, 99217UTL, 9921UTh