The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 2020-0004; MUHE ADDITION; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2019-05-17Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. Inspection l Testing I Geotechnical I Environmental & Construction Engineering I Civil Engineering I Surveying GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED THIRD STORY ADDITION 2373 JEFFERSON STREET CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: AAA PRIVATE MONEY LLC ATTENTION: MR. CLINT MUHE 2173 SALK A VENUE, SUITE 250 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Prepared by: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 1441 MONTIEL ROAD, SUITE 115 ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92026 CTE JOB NO.: 10-148820 MAY 17, 2019 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115 I Escondido, CA 92026 I Ph (760) 746-4955 I Fax (760) 746-9806 I www.cte-inc.net TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Services .......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 2 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................ 2 3 .1 Field Investigation ........................................................................................................ 2 3.2 Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................ 3 4.0 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 3 4.1 General Setting ............................................................................................................. 3 4.2 Geologic Conditions ..................................................................................................... 4 4.2.1 Quaternary Previously Placed Fill ................................................................. 4 4.2.2 Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits ................................................................... 5 4.2.3 Tertiary Santiago Formation .......................................................................... 5 4.3 Groundwater Conditions ............................................................................................... 5 4.4 Geologic Hazards .......................................................................................................... 6 4.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture .................................................................................... 6 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting .......................................................................... 7 4.4.3 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Evaluation .......................................... 8 4.4.4 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation ................................................................... 8 4.4.5 Landsliding .................................................................................................... 9 4.4.6 Compressible and Expansive Soils .............................................................. 10 4.4.7 Corrosive Soils ............................................................................................. 10 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 11 5.1 General ........................................................................................................................ 11 5.2 Site Preparation ........................................................................................................... 12 5 .3 Site Excavation ........................................................................................................... 13 5 .4 Fill Placement and Compaction .................................................................................. 13 5.5 Fill Materials ............................................................................................................... 13 5.6 Temporary Construction Slopes ................................................................................. 14 5.7 Foundations and Slab Recommendations ................................................................... 15 5.7.1 New Foundations ......................................................................................... 16 5. 7 .2 Foundation Settlement ................................................................................. 16 5.7.3 Foundation Setback ...................................................................................... 17 5. 7.4 Interior Concrete Slabs ................................................................................ 17 5.8 Seismic Design Criteria .............................................................................................. 18 5. 9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures ...................................................................... 19 5.10 Exterior Flatwork ...................................................................................................... 21 5.11 Vehicular Pavement .................................................................................................. 22 5 .12 Drainage .................................................................................................................... 23 5.13 Slopes ........................................................................................................................ 24 5.14 Controlled Low Strength Materials (CLSM) ............................................................ 24 5 .15 Plan Review .............................................................................................................. 25 5 .16 Construction Observation ......................................................................................... 25 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................. 26 FIGURES FIGURE 1 FIGURE2 FIGURE2A FIGURE 3 FIGURE4 APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIXB APPENDIXC APPENDIXD APPENDIXE SITE LOCATION MAP GEOLOGIC/ EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP CROSS SECTION A-A' REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL REFERENCES FIELD EXPLORATION METHODS AND BORING LOGS LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2 3 7 3 Jefferson Street Page 1 May 17, 2019 CTE Job No. 10-148820 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.1 Introduction Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. (CTE) has completed a geotechnical investigation and report providing conclusions and recommendations for the proposed improvements at the subject site in Carlsbad, California. It is understood that the proposed improvements are to consist of a third story addition to the existing residential structure. CTE has performed this work in general accordance with the terms of proposal G-4688 dated April 8, 2019. Preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the proposed improvements are presented herein. 1.2 Scope of Services The scope of services provided included: • Review of readily available geologic and soils reports. • Coordination of USA mark-out and location. • Obtaining appropriate San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) Boring Permits. • Excavation of exploratory borings and soil sampling utilizing a truck-mounted drill rig and limited-access manually operated drilling equipment. • Laboratory testing of selected soil samples. • Description of the site geology and evaluation of potential geologic hazards. • Engineering and geologic analysis. • Preparation of this geotechnical report summarizing the investigation findings and recommendations. \\ESC _ SERVER\Projects\ 1 O-l 4882G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION Page 2 CTE Job No. 10-148820 The subject site is located at 23 73 Jefferson Street in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1 ). The site is bounded by Jefferson Street to the east, Buena Vista Lagoon at the base of an approximate 60 feet high descending slope to the west, and residences to the north and south. The site layout is illustrated on Figure 2. The improvement area is currently developed with a two story-story residential structure with associated flatwork, landscaping, utilities and other minor improvements. Based on reconnaissance and review of topography, it appears that the improvement area is on the edge of a terrace at an approximate elevation of 60 feet above mean sea level (ms!). An approximately 60 feet high 1.5: 1 (horizontal: vertical) slope descends to the west. 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 3 .1 Field Investigation CTE performed the subsurface investigation on April 24 and 26, 2019 to evaluate underlying soil conditions. This fieldwork consisted of site reconnaissance, and the excavation of three exploratory soil borings. The borings were advanced to a maximum explored depth of approximately 51 feet below ground surface (bgs). Bulk samples were collected from the cuttings, and relatively undisturbed samples were collected by driving Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Modified California (CAL) samplers. One boring was excavated with a CME-95 truck-mounted drill rig equipped with eight-inch-diameter, hollow-stem augers. The other borings were advanced in less accessible areas with a limited-access manually operated auger that extended to the depth of refusal (approximately 4.5 feet bgs) in both borings. Approximate locations of the soil borings and test \\ESC _ SERV ER\Projects\ I O-l 4882G\Rpt_ Geotechnical .doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 holes are shown on the attached Figure 2. Page 3 CTE Job No. 10-14882G Soils were logged in the field by a CTE Engineering Geologist, and were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The field descriptions have been modified, where appropriate, to reflect laboratory test results. Boring logs, including descriptions of the soils encountered, are included in Appendix B. The approximate locations of the borings are presented on Figure 2. 3.2 Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples for classification purposes, and to evaluate physical properties and engineering characteristics. Laboratory tests included: In-Place Moisture and Density, Expansion Index, Grain Size Analysis, Direct Shear, and Chemical Characteristics. Test descriptions and laboratory test results are included in Appendix C. 4.0 GEOLOGY 4.1 General Setting Carlsbad is located with the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province that is characterized by northwest-trending mountain ranges, intervening valleys, and predominantly northwest trending active regional faults. The San Diego Region can be further subdivided into the coastal plain area, a central mountain-valley area, and the eastern mountain valley area. The project site is located within the coastal plain area. The coastal plain sub-province ranges in elevation from approximately \\ESC _ SERVER\Projects\ I 0-14882O\Rpt_ Geotechnical .doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 Page4 CTE Job No. 10-148820 sea level to 1,200 feet above mean sea level (msl) and is characterized by Cretaceous and Tertiary sedimentary deposits that onlap an eroded basement surface consisting of Jurassic and Cretaceous crystalline rocks that have been repeatedly eroded and infilled and by alluvial processes throughout the Quaternary Period in response to regional uplift. This has resulted in a geomorphic landscape of uplifted alluvial and marine terraces that are dissected by alluvial drainages . 4.2 Geologic Conditions Based on the regional geologic map prepared by Kennedy and Tan (2007), the near surface geologic unit that underlies the site consists of Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6-7 over Tertiary Santiago Fonnation. Based on recent explorations, Quaternary Undocumented Fill was observed overlying the noted formational units. Descriptions of the geologic and soil units encountered during the investigation are presented below. Surficial geologic materials are depicted on Figure 2 and a generalized geologic cross-section is presented on Figure 2A. 4.2.1 Quaternary Previously Placed Fill Where observed, the Previously Placed Fill generally consists of loose to medium dense, reddish brown to brown, silty to clayey fine to medium grained sand and sandy clay with gravel. The fill depth in the area of the building pad was observed to be approximately 3.5 feet bgs, although isolated areas of deeper fill may be encountered throughout the site during grading. \\ESC _ SERVER \Projects\ IO-J 4882G\Rpt_ Geotechnical .doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 4.2.2 Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits Page 5 CTE Job No. 10-148820 Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits were observed throughout the upper portion of the site. Where observed, these materials generally consist of medium dense to dense, reddish brown, silty fine to medium grained sandstone that were encountered to a maximum depth of approximately 18 feet in Boring B-1. 4.2.3 Tertiary Santiago Formation Tertiary Santiago Formation was encountered beneath the Old Paralic Deposits and was observed in exposed areas in the lower portion of the site. Where observed, these materials generally consist of very dense, yellowish brown, clayey fine to medium grained sandstone. 4.3 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was not encountered in the recent borings that were advanced to a maximum explored depth of approximately 50.9 feet bgs. While groundwater conditions may vary, especially following periods of sustained precipitation or irrigation, it is generally not anticipated to adversely affect shallow construction activities or the completed improvements, if irrigation is limited and proper site drainage is designed, installed, and maintained per the recommendations of the project civil engmeer. \\ESC _ SERVER\Projects\ I 0-148820\Rpt_ Geotechnical .doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 4.4 Geologic Hazards Page 6 CTE Job No. 10-148820 Geologic hazards considered to have potential impacts to site development were evaluated based on field observations, literature review, and laboratory test results. The following paragraphs discuss geologic hazards considered and associated potential risk to the site. 4.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture In accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, (ACT), the State of California established Earthquake Fault Zones around known active faults. The purpose of the ACT is to regulate the development of structures intended for human occupancy near active fault traces in order to mitigate hazards associated with surface fault rupture. According to the California Geological Survey (Special Publication 42, Revised 2018), a fault that has had surface displacement within the last 11 ,700 years is defined as a Holocene- active fault and is either already zoned or pending zonation in accordance with the ACT. There are several other definitions of fault activity that are used to regulate dams, power plants, and other critical facilities, and some agencies designate faults that are documented as older that Holocene (last 11,700 years) and younger than late Quaternary (1 .6 million years) as potentially active faults that are subject to local jurisdictional regulations. Based on the site reconnaissance and review of referenced literature, the site is not located within a within a State-designated Earthquake Fault Zone, no known active fault traces underlie or project toward the site, and no known potentially active fault traces project toward the site. \\ESC _ SERVER\Projects\ 10-148820\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting Page 7 CTE Job No. 10-148820 The United States Geological Survey (USGS), with support of State Geological Surveys, and reviewed published work by various researchers, have developed a Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of faults and associated folds that are believed to be sources of earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 6.0 that have occurred during the Quaternary (the past 1.6 million years). The faults and folds within the database have been categorized into four Classes (Class A-D) based on the level of evidence confirming that a Quaternary fault is of tectonic origin and whether the structure is exposed for mapping or inferred from fault related deformational features. Class A faults have been mapped and categorized based on age of documented activity ranging from Historical faults (activity within last 150 years), Latest Quaternary faults (activity within last 15,000 years), Late Quaternary (activity within last 130,000 years), to Middle to late Quaternary (activity within last 1.6 million years). The Class A faults are considered to have the highest potential to generate earthquakes and/or surface rupture, and the earthquakes and surface rupture potential generally increases from oldest to youngest. The evidence for Quaternary deformation and/or tectonic activity progressively decreases for Class B and Class C faults. When geologic evidence indicates that a fault is not of tectonic origin it is considered to be a Class D structure, such as joints, fractures, landslides, or erosional and fluvial scarps that resemble fault features, but demonstrate a non-tectonic origin. \\ESC _ SERVER\Projects\ 10-148820\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 Page 8 CTE Job No. 10-148820 The nearest known Class A fault is the Newport-Inglewood Fault (<15 ,000 years), which is approximately 5.0 kilometers southwest of the site. The attached Figure 3 shows regional faults and seismicity with respect to the site. 4.4.3 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Evaluation Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine-grained sands or silts lose their physical strengths during earthquake-induced shaking and behave like a liquid. This is due to loss of point-to-point grain contact and transfer of normal stress to the pore water. Liquefaction potential varies with water level, soil type, material gradation, relative density, and probable intensity and duration of ground shaking. Seismic settlement can occur with or without liquefaction; it results from densification of loose soils. The site is underlain at shallow depths by dense Old Paralic Deposits and Tertiary Santiago Formation. Based on the noted subsurface conditions, the potential for liquefaction or significant seismic settlement at the site is considered to be low. 4.4.4 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation According to McCulloch (1985), the potential in the San Diego County coastal area for "100-year" and "500-year" tsunami waves is approximately five and eight feet, or less. This suggests that there is a negligible probability of a tsunami reaching the site based on elevation. The site is not located in a zone of potential tsunami inundation based on emergency planning maps prepared by California Emergency Management Agency and \\ESC _ SERVER\Projects\ IO-J 4882G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 Page 9 CTE Job No. 10-148820 CGS. In addition, oscillatory waves (seiches) are considered unlikely to impact the site improvements due to their elevated position above Buena Vista Lagoon. 4.4.5 Landsliding The project site is located near the top of an approximately 60 foot high 1.5: I (horizontal: vertical) slope that descends to the west. According to mapping by Tan (1995), the site is located in area 4.1, which is described as "Generally Susceptible" to landsliding. However, Kennedy and Tan (2007) do not indicate the presence of mapped landslides at the subject site. In addition, on site field observations did not indicate the presence of deep gross instabilities. Based on the investigation findings, the potential for deep seated landslides at the subject site is considered to be low. The final input and output from the limited evaluation of slope stability are presented in Appendix E. For the analysis, the existing slope was modeled based on topographic and geologic conditions. Based on laboratory direct shear testing, the Old Paralic Deposits yielded soil strength values of phi = 39.2° and cohesion= 70 psf and the Santiago Formation exhibited values of phi = 35.4° and cohesion = 910 psf. To be conservative, Old Paralic Deposits values of phi = 35.0° and cohesion = 50 psfand Santiago Formation values of phi = 35.0° and cohesion = 700 psf were utilized for the analysis. Based on the findings , the existing slope condition is anticipated to exhibit a global factor of safety in excess of 1.5. However, it is anticipated that surficial soils will continue to erode and may develop shallow slumps and failures on the slope face. \\ESC _ SERVER\Projcctsl IO-I 4882G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 4.4.6 Compressible and Expansive Soils Page 10 CTE Job No. 10-148820 If grading is proposed, the near surface Previously Placed Fill soils encountered at the site are considered to be compressible in their current condition. Therefore, it is recommended that these soils be overexcavated and properly compacted beneath proposed improvement areas as recommended herein and as determined to be necessary during construction. Based on the field data, site observations, and CTE's experience with similar soils in the vicinity of the site, dense native soils underlying the site are not considered to be subject to significant compressibility under the anticipated loads. Based on laboratory testing of representative subgrade materials, near surface soils at the site are anticipated to generally exhibit Low expansion potential (Expansion Index of 50 or less). Additional evaluation of near-surface soils should be performed based on field observations during grading and excavation activities, if performed. 4.4.7 Corrosive Soils Testing ofrepresentative site soils was performed to evaluate the potential corrosive effects on concrete foundations and buried metallic utilities. Soil environments detrimental to concrete generally have elevated levels of soluble sulfates and/or pH levels less than 5.5. According to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Table 318 4.3.1, specific guidelines have been provided for concrete where concentrations of soluble sulfate (S04) in soil exceed 0.1 O percent by weight. These guidelines include low water: cement ratios, increased compressive strength, and specific cement type requirements. A minimum resistivity value less than approximately 5,000 ohm-cm and/or soluble chloride levels in excess of 200 ppm \\ESC _ SERVER\projectsl IO-I 4882G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 Page 11 CTE Job No. 10-148820 generally indicate a corrosive environment for buried metallic utilities and untreated conduits. Chemical test results indicate that near-surface soils at the site generally present a negligible corrosion potential for Portland cement concrete. Based on resistivity and chloride testing, the site soils have been interpreted to have a moderate corrosivity potential to buried metal improvements. Based on the results of the limited testing performed, it is likely prudent to utilize plastic piping and conduits where buried and feasible. However, CTE does not practice corrosion engineering. Therefore, if corrosion of metallic or other improvements is of more significant concern, a qualified corrosion engineer could be consulted. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General CTE concludes that the proposed improvements on the site are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the preliminary recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Recommendations for earthwork, if performed, and improvements are included in the following sections and Appendix D. However, recommendations in the text of this report supersede those presented in Appendix D should conflicts exist. These preliminary recommendations should either be confirmed as appropriate or updated based on observations during \\ESC _ SERVER\Projectsl I O-l 4882G\Rpt_ Geotechnical .doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 site preparation. 5.2 Site Preparation Page 12 CTE Job No. 10-148820 If grading is proposed, areas to receive distress sensitive improvements should be cleared of existing debris and deleterious materials. Objectionable materials, such as construction or demolition debris and vegetation not suitable for structural backfill should be properly disposed of off-site. Soils should be excavated to a minimum depth of 18 inches below proposed new foundations, or to the depth of competent native materials, whichever is greatest. Remedial excavations should extend laterally at least five feet beyond the limits of the proposed improvements, where feasible. If overexcavations encroach upon property lines or adjacent structures the temporary excavation should generally be sloped at a 1: 1 (horizontal to vertical) down to the prescribed overexcavation depth. Depending upon proximity, overexcavation in slots may be recommended by the geotechnical engineer. A geotechnical representative from CTE should observe the exposed ground surface prior to placement of compacted fill or improvements, to verify the competency of exposed subgrade materials. After approval by this office, the exposed subgrades to receive fill should be scarified a minimum of nine inches, moisture conditioned, and properly compacted prior to fill placement. \\ESC _ SERVER\Projects\ I 0-14882O\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 5.3 Site Excavation Page 13 CTE Job No. 10-148820 Based on CTE's observations, shallow excavations at the site should be feasible using well- maintained heavy-duty construction equipment run by experienced operators. However, excavations within the Old Paralic Deposits could encounter zones that are sensitive to caving and/or erosion, and may not effectively remain standing vertical or near-vertical, even at shallow or minor heights and for short periods of time. 5.4 Fill Placement and Compaction If proposed, areas to receive fills should be scarified approximately mne inches, moisture conditioned, and properly compacted. Fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent at a moisture content of at least two percent above optimum, as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The optimum lift thickness for fill soil depends on the type of compaction equipment used. Generally, backfill should be placed in uniform, horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness. Fill placement and compaction should be conducted in conformance with local ordinances, and should be observed and tested by a CTE geotechnical representative. 5.5 Fill Materials Properly moisture-conditioned very low to low expansion potential soils derived from the on-site excavations are considered suitable for reuse on the site as compacted fill. If used, these materials should be screened of organics and materials generally greater than three inches in maximum dimension. Irreducible materials greater than three inches in maximum dimension should generally \\ESC _ SERVER\projects\ I 0-14882O\Rpt_ Geotechnical .doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 Page 14 CTE Job No. 10-148820 not be used in shallow fills (within three feet of proposed grades). In utility trenches, adequate bedding should surround pipes. Imported fill beneath structures, flatwork, and pavements should have an Expansion Index of20 or less (ASTM D 4829). Proposed import fill soils for use in structural or slope areas should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer before being transported to the site. If retaining walls are proposed, backfill located within a 45-degree wedge extending up from the heel of the wall should consist of soil having an Expansion Index of20 or less (ASTM D 4829) with less than 30 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The upper 12 to 18 inches of wall backfill should consist of lower permeability soils, in order to reduce surface water infiltration behind walls. The project structural engineer and/or architect should detail proper wall backdrains, including gravel drain zones, fills, filter fabric, and perforated drain pipes. However, a conceptual wall backdrain detail, which may be suitable for use at the site, is provided as Figure 4. 5.6 Temporary Construction Slopes The following recommended slopes should be relatively stable against deep-seated failure, but may experience localized sloughing. On-site soils are considered Type B and Type C soils with recommended slope ratios as set forth in Table 5.6. \ \ESC _ SERVER\Projectsl IO-I 4882G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 SOIL TYPE B (Old Paralic Deposits and Santiago Formation) C (Previously Placed Fill) SLOPE RATIO (Horizontal: vertical) 1:1 (OR FLATTER) J.5:1 (OR FLATTER) Page 15 CTE Job No . 10-148820 MAXIMUM HEIGHT JO Feet 10 Feet Actual field conditions and soil type designations must be verified by a "competent person" while excavations exist, according to Cal-OSHA regulations. In addition, the above sloping recommendations do not allow for surcharge loading at the top of slopes by vehicular traffic, equipment or materials. Appropriate surcharge setbacks must be maintained from the top of all unshored slopes. 5.7 Foundations and Slab Recommendations Based on site observations in accessible areas, existing footings apparently consist of conventional spread foundations, with pier foundations where the structure extends over the edge of the slope. Dense near surface formational material was observed in the existing structure areas and, as such, the foundations are generally anticipated to be founded in this competent native material. Based on these site conditions, a bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot is considered to be appropriate for evaluation of existing footings that are anticipated to be founded a minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent surface grade. \\ESC _ SERVER\Projectsl I 0-14882O\Rpt_ Geotechnical .doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 5.7.1 New Foundations Page 16 CTE Job No. 10-148820 If new foundations are proposed, following the recommended preparatory building pad area grading, continuous and isolated spread footings are anticipated to be suitable for use at this site. Foundation dimensions and reinforcement should be based on allowable bearing values of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for minimum 15-inch wide footings embedded a minimum of 24-inches below lowest adjacent sub grade elevation. Isolated footings should be at least 24 inches in minimum dimension. The allowable bearing value may be increased by one-third for short-duration loading, which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. Based on the recommendations provided, it is anticipated that all footings will bear in properly placed engineered fill or extended to bear in competent native material. Footings should not span cut to fill interfaces. Minimum footing reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of four No. 5 reinforcing bars; two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom or as per the project structural engineer. The structural engineer should design isolated footing reinforcement. Footing excavations should be maintained at above optimum moisture content until concrete placement. Foundation excavations that are allowed to desiccate may require presoakingjust prior to concrete placement. 5.7.2 Foundation Settlement The maximum total static settlement for improvements founded on properly embedded footings is expected to be on the order of one inch and the maximum differential settlement is expected to be on the order of 0.5 inch over a horizontal distance ofapproximately 40 feet. \\ESC _ SERVER\Projects\ IO-l 4882G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 Page 17 CTE Job No. 10-148820 Due to the generally dense nature of underlying materials, dynamic settlement is not expected to significantly affect the proposed improvements. 5.7.3 Foundation Setback If new structural footings are proposed, they should be designed such that the horizontal distance from the face of adjacent slopes to the outer edge of the footing is at least 12 feet. In addition, footings should bear beneath a l: 1 plane extended up from the nearest bottom edge of adjacent trenches and/or excavations. Deepening of affected footings may be a suitable means of attaining the prescribed setbacks. 5.7.4 Interior Concrete Slabs Lightly loaded concrete slabs should be a minimum of 5.0 inches thick. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of #4 reinforcing bars placed on maximum 18-inch centers, each way, at or above mid-slab height, but with proper cover. More stringent recommendations per the project structural engineer could be provided. In moisture-sensitive floor areas, a suitable vapor retarder of at least 15-mil thickness (with all laps or penetrations sealed or taped) overlying a four-inch layer of consolidated aggregate base or gravel ( with SE of 30 or more) should be installed. An optional maximum two-inch layer of similar material may be placed above the vapor retarder to help protect the membrane during steel and concrete placement. This recommended protection is generally considered typical in the industry. If proposed floor areas or coverings are considered especially sensitive to moisture emissions, additional recommendations from a specialty \\ESC _ SERVER\Projects\ I 0-14882O\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 Page 18 CTE Job No. 10-14882G consultant could be obtained. CTE is not an expert at preventing moisture penetration through slabs. A qualified architect or other experienced professional should be contacted if moisture penetration is a more significant concern. Slabs subjected to heavier loads may reqmre thicker slab sections and/or increased reinforcement. A 110-pci sub grade modulus is considered suitable for elastic design of minimally embedded improvements such as slabs-on-grade. Sub grade materials should be maintained or brought to a minimum of two percent or greater above optimum moisture content until slab underlayment and concrete are placed. 5.8 Seismic Design Criteria The seismic ground motion values listed in the table below were derived in accordance with the ASCE 7-10 Standard and 2016 CBC. This was accomplished by establishing the Site Class based on the soil properties at the site, and calculating the site coefficients and parameters using the United States Geological Survey Seismic Design Maps application and site coordinates of 33.1721 ° north latitude and -117 .3491 ° longitude. These values are intended for the design of structures to resist the effects of earthquake ground motions. \ \ESC _ SERVER\Projects\ I 0-14882O\Rpt_ Geo technical .doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 .. Page 19 CTE Job No. 10-14882G TABLE5.8 SEISMIC GROUND MOTION VALUES PARAMETER VALUE CBC REFERENCE (2016) Site Class C ASCE 7, Chapter 20 Mapped Spectral Response 1.143 Figure 1613.3.1 (I) Acceleration Parameter, Ss Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, S1 0.438 Figure 1613.3.1 (2) Seismic Coefficient, F. 1.000 Table 1613.3.3 (I) Seismic Coefficient, Fv 1.362 Table 1613.3.3 (2) MCE Spectral Response 1.143 Section 1613 .3.3 Acceleration Parameter, SMs MCE Spectral Response 0.597 Section 1613 .3.3 Acceleration Parameter, SM1 Design Spectral Response 0.762 Section 1613.3.4 Acceleration, Parameter Sos Design Spectral Response 0.398 Section 1613 .3.4 Acceleration, Parameter S01 PGAM 0.451 ASCE 7, Equation 11.8-1 5.9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures Lateral loads acting against structures may be resisted by friction between the footings and the supporting soil or passive pressure acting against structures. If frictional resistance is used, allowabl e coefficients of friction of0.30 (total frictional resistance equals the coefficient of friction multiplied by the dead load) for concrete cast directly against compacted fill is recommended. A design passive resistance value of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (with a maximum value of 1,500 pounds per square foot) may be used. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as \\ESC _ SERVER\Projects\ I 0-148820\Rpt_ Geotechnical .doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 Page 20 CTE Job No. 10-14882G the sum of the frictional resistance and the passive resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance. If proposed, retaining walls backfilled using granular soils may be designed using the equivalent fluid unit weights given in Table 5.9 below. SLOPE BACKFILL WALL TYPE LEVEL BACKFILL 2:1 (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL) CANTILEVER WALL (YIELDING) 35 55 RESTRAINED WALL 55 65 Lateral pressures on cantilever retaining walls (yielding walls) over six feet high due to earthquake motions may be calculated based on work by Seed and Whitman (1970). The total lateral earth pressure against a properly drained and backfilled cantilever retaining wall above the groundwater level can be expressed as : For non-yielding (or "restrained") walls, the total lateral earth pressure may be similarly calculated based on work by Wood (1973): \\ESC _ SERVER\Projccts\ I O-l 4882G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 Where P Alb = Static Active Earth Pressure = GhH2/2 PK/b = Static Restrained Wall Earth Pressure= GhH2/2 ~p AFlb = Dynamic Active Earth Pressure Increment = (3/8) kh yH2/2 ~Pw b = Dynamic Restrained Earth Pressure Increment = kh yH2/2 b = unit length of wall (usually 1 foot) kh = 2/3 PGAm (PGAm given previously Table 5.8) Gh = Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (given previously Table 5.9) H = Total Height of the retained soil y = Total Unit Weight of Soil :::::: 135 pounds per cubic foot Page 21 CTE Job No. 10-148820 The static and increment of dynamic earth pressure in both cases may be applied with a line of action located at H/3 above the bottom of the wall (SEAOC, 2013). These values assume non-expansive backfill and free-draining conditions. Measures should be taken to prevent moisture buildup behind all retaining walls. Drainage measures should include free- draining backfill materials and sloped, perforated drains. These drains should discharge to an appropriate off-site location. Figure 4 shows a conceptual wall backdrain detail that may be suitable for walls at the subject site. Any waterproofing should be as specified by the project architect. 5.10 Exterior Flatwork Flatwork should be installed with crack-control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the project architect to reduce the potential for cracking in exterior flatwork caused by minor movement of sub grade soils and concrete shrinkage. Additionally, it is recommended that flatwork be installed with at least number 4 reinforcing bars at 24-inch centers, each way, at or above mid-height of slab, \\ESC _ SERVER\projects\ I O-J 4882G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 Page 22 CTE Job No. 10-148820 but with proper concrete cover, or with other reinforcement per the applicable project designer. Flatwork that should be installed with crack control joints includes driveways, sidewalks, and architectural features. All subgrades should be prepared according to the earthwork recommendations previously given before placing concrete. Positive drainage should be established and maintained next to all flatwork. Subgrade materials should be maintained at a minimum of two percent above optimum moisture content before concrete placement. 5.11 Vehicular Pavement The proposed improvements include paved vehicle drive and parking areas. Presented in Table 5.11 are preliminary pavement sections utilizing estimated Resistance "R" Value and traffic index. The upper 12 inches of subgrade and all base materials should be compacted to 95% relative compaction in accordance with ASTM D1557, and at a minimum of two percent above optimum moisture content. Traffic Area Automobile Parking Areas Assumed Traffic Index 5.0 Preliminary Subgrade "R"-Value 30+ * Caltrans class 2 aggregate base it MENT THlCKNESS Asphalt Pavements AC Class II Thickness (inches) 3.0 Aggregate Base Thickness (inches) 6.0 Portland Cement Concrete Pavements, on Subgrade Soils (inches) 6.5 * * Concrete should have a modulus of rupture of at least 600 psi \\ESC _ SERVER\Projectsl I 0-148820\Rpt_ Geotechnical .doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 23 73 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 Page 23 CTE Job No. 10-148820 During or following rough site grading, CTE recommends laboratory testing at-grade soils for as- graded "R" -Value. Asphalt paved areas should be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the recommendations of the Asphalt Institute, or other widely recognized authority. Concrete paved areas should be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the American Concrete Institute or other widely recognized authority, particularly with regard to thickened edges, joints, and drainage. The Standard Specifications for Public Works construction ("Greenbook") or Cal trans Standard Specifications may be referenced for pavement materials specifications. 5 .12 Drainage Surface runoff should be collected and directed away from improvements by means of appropriate erosion-reducing devices and positive drainage should be established around the proposed improvements. Positive drainage should be directed away from improvements at a gradient of at least two percent for a distance of at least five feet. However, the project civil engineers should evaluate the on-site drainage and make necessary provisions to keep surface water from affecting the site. Generally, CTE recommends against allowing water to infiltrate building pads or adjacent to slopes. CTE understands that some agencies are encouraging the use of storm-water cleansing devices. Use of such devices tends to increase the possibility of adverse effects associated with high groundwater including slope instability and liquefaction. \\ESC _ SERVER\Projects\ l 0-148820 \Rpt_ Geotechnical .doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 5.13 Slopes Page 24 CTE Job No. 10-148820 Based on observed conditions and soil strength characteristics, cut and fill slopes, if proposed at the site, should be constructed at ratios of 2: 1 (horizontal : vertical) or flatter. These fill slope inclinations should exhibit factors of safety greater than 1.5. Although properly constructed slopes on this site should be grossly stable, the soils will be somewhat erodible. Therefore, runoff water should not be permitted to drain over the edges of slopes unless that water is confined to properly designed and constructed drainage facilities . Erosion-resistant vegetation should be maintained on the face of all slopes. Typically, soils along the top portion of a fill slope face will creep laterally. CTE recommends against building distress- sensitive hardscape improvements within five feet of fill slope crests. 5.14 Controlled Low Strength Materials (CLSM) Controlled Low Strength Materials (CLSM) may be used in lieu of compacted soils below foundations, within building pads, and/or adjacent to retaining walls or other structures, provided the appropriate following recommendations are also incorporated. Minimum overexcavation depths recommended herein beneath bottom of footings, slabs, flatwork, and other areas may be applicable beneath CLSM if/where CLSM is to be used, and excavation bottoms should be observed by CTE prior to placement of CLSM. Prior to CLSM placement, the excavation should be free of debris, loose soil materials, and water. Once specific areas to utilize CLSM have been determined, CTE should review the locations to determine if additional recommendations are appropriate. \\ESC _ SERVER\Projects\ I 0-148820\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 Page 25 CTE Job No. 10-148820 CLSM should consist of a minimum three-sack cement/sand slurry with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of I 00 psi ( or equal to or greater than the maximum allowable short term soil bearing pressure provided herein, whichever is higher) as determined by ASTM D4832. If re- excavation is anticipated, the compressive strength of CLSM should generally be limited to a maximum of 150 psi per ACI 229R-99. Where re-excavation is required, two-sack cement/sand slurry may be used to help limit the compressive strength. The allowable soils bearing pressure and coefficient of friction provided herein should still govern foundation design. CLSM may not be used in lieu of structural concrete where required by the structural engineer. 5.15 Plan Review CTE should be authorized to review the project grading and foundation plans pnor to commencement of earthwork in order to provide additional recommendations, if necessary. 5 .16 Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions observed in the soil borings. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked by CTE during construction with respect to anticipated conditions. Upon completion of precise grading, if necessary, soil samples will be collected to evaluate as-built Expansion Index. Foundation recommendations may be revised upon completion of grading, and as-built laboratory tests results. Additionally, soil samples should be taken in pavement subgrade areas upon rough grading to refine pavement recommendations as necessary. \ \ESC _ SERVER\Projectsl IO-l 4882G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 Page 26 CTE Job No. 10-148820 Recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding and assumption that CTE will provide the observation and testing services for the project. All earthwork should be observed and tested in accordance with recommendations contained within this report. CTE should evaluate footing excavations before reinforcing steel placement. 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION The field evaluation, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis presented in this report have been conducted according to current engineering practice and the standard of care exercised by reputable geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction. This report is prepared for the project as described. It is not prepared for any other property or party. The recommendations provided herein have been developed in order to reduce the post-construction movement of site improvements. However, even with the design and construction recommendations presented herein, some post-construction movement and associated distress may occur. \\ESC _ SERVER\Projects\ IO-l 4882G\Rpt_ Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May .17, 2019 Page 27 CTE Job No. 10-148820 The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside CTE' s involvement. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. CTE's conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions. If conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, CTE should be notified and additional recommendations, ifrequired, will be provided subject to CTE remaining as authorized geotechnical consultant of record. This report is for use of the project as described. It should not be utilized for any other project. CTE's conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions. If conditions different from those described in this report are encountered during construction, this office should be notified and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided. \\ESC _ SERVER\Projectsl I 0-14882G\Rpt_ Geotechnical .doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Third Story Addition 2373 Jefferson Street May 17, 2019 Page 28 CTE Job No. 10-14882G CTE appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. Dan T. Math, GE #2665 Principal Engineer Aaron J. Beeby, CEG #2603 Project Geologist 9,1,~ Jay F. Lynch, CEG #1890 Principal Engineering Geologist \\ESC _ SERVER\Projects\ I 0-14882O\Rpt_ Geotechnical .doc ~ -~ "" fut~~~ 'i-&_,; • ~ ~ ff_;_,._.qA~ F.u.t~--~v,f ••. f-.,:W!.IS.<l'hl CJ~ ... Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ~'C, 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 SITE INDEX MAP PROPOSED THIRD STORY ADDfflON 2373 JEFFERSON STREET CARISBAD, CALIFORNIA SCALE: AS SHOWN GTE JOB NO.: 10-14882G DATE: 4/19 FIGURE: 1 Ol ~ "O C'l Cl) I... ::, Ol G: / c., N co co v I 0 / en -4J 0 Q) ·o LEGEND B-3 ~ Approximate Boring Location Qop Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits Tsa Tertiary Santiago Formation .... ' --..,,,. ' Approximate Geologic Contact I... a. / ~ A J-----1 A' Cross Section 30' 0 15' 30' i1r------::::d.Es::---------------------.------:-------.::i---,==~==-==~=-:=:====' ~~~1-~ _ _J ~ c~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. GEOLOGIC/EXPLORATION LOCATION MAPll!!Onl..-----1 ~ '-. .. !J.. N,,,.;c: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDmON 1· = 30' / ~ 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 2373 JEFFERSON STREET CARISBAD, CAIJFORNIA O'I ~ "'O ,,..._ C 0 :;:; u (I) (/) (J) (J) 0 ... () '-" <{ N (I) ... :J O'I 5 c., N (XJ (XJ st I 0 / (J) ..., u -~ 0 ... 0.. / ... (I) > ... (I) (J) I u (J) ~ / Qppf Qop Tsa LL .... , .,,, __ .,,,,,. A Existing Residence A! 70 70 60 ' ' : ........................ ······························r ·Oop + 50 --~ __l .J. ~ . . 40 30 20 rn 0 1··················1············· , .................. ,... ····l··················<····················i··················••··················•·················L ................. ; ..................•................ ; .................. I ... ···········<•················••i••····································•·············••I--•10 ·······i············ ·•····································i·················>·················•··············l···················•·················•·················•··················>··················•···················<·················•··················•·················'···············>·················•················•·l-"20 -30 -+--+-----,r---+----;--+----+---+-----,r---+---+--~__;.--+--~----,-___.;..._...;....._l--__;_-_.;...._..:..___;_~_...;...__l--__;__---'-__ __;_-1--30 C 50 LEGEND QUATERNARY PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION APPROXIMATE GEOLOGIC CONTACT '100 CJE:) 150 DISTI\f\CE (FEET) CROSS SECTION /\I,' 200 Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 250 300 CROSS SECTION A-A' PROPOSED THIRD STORY ADDITION 2373 JEFFERSON STREET CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA ,.., ~ :, 5'. ~ ~ CD ... ~ :;:::, ., u ~ 0 ,9-NOTES: FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA, 2010, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGIC DATA MAP SERIES MAP NO. 6; ! EPICENTERS OF AND AREAS DAMAGED BY M2 5 CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKES, 1800-1999 ADAPTED '1 AFTER TOPPOZADA, BRANUM, PETERSEN, HAIJ.Sl'ORM, CRAMER, AND REICHLE, 2000, ~ CDMG MAP SHEET 49 :;;: REFERENCE FOR ADDmONAL EXPLANATION; MODIFIED 1fITH CISN AND USGS SEISMIC MAPS 12 O 6 12 LEGEND ~r::.-t::•:.-c•:...-1~1 1 inch = 12 mi. HISTORIC FAULT DISPLACEMENT (LAST 200 YEARS) HOLOCENE FAULT DISPLACEMENT (DURING PAST 11 ,700 YEARS) LATE QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACMENT (DURING PAST 700,000 YEARS) QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT (AGE UNDIFFERENTIATED) PREQUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT (OLDER THAN 1.6 MILLION YEARS) 1800- 1868 1869- 1931 1932- 2010 ~ 7.0 0 6.5-6.9 5.5-5.9 @:) 5.0-5.4 e) • • LAST TWO DIGITS OF M > 6.5 EARTHQUAKE YEAR ->'=<'\_ ~.. . ... J't:'tt. ...... 1;;,:· :<~:' ·•:.,A • •:~ ';.. t t M E C Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP ~-----t PROPOSED THIRD STORY ADDITION 2373 JEFFERSON STREET CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA RETAINING WALL > FINISH GRADE -_,,,....,....,........,....,,..,.......,...,......,......,-,,-+,-..........,...-t:. @ > ~ > <I -/\ WALL FOOTING 12" TO 18" OF LOWER PERMEABILITY NATIVE MATERL.\L COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION CT~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. • • • ~c 1441 Mootiol Hd St!i 115, EseoodidO, CA $:1026 f>hfi'60} 74&-4955 (TtlOB!,;O: 10-.13657G RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL .. AL:.: NO SCALE D . .\ TE; FlGUR.B: 04/17 4 APPENDIX A REFERENCES REFERENCES 1. American Society for Civil Engineers, 2005, "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures," ASCE/SEI 7-05. 2. ASTM, 2002, "Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort," Volume 04.08 3. Blake, T.F., 2000, "EQFAULT," Version 3.00b, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software. 4. California Building Code, 2016, "California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2," California Building Standards Commission, published by ICBO, June. 5. California Division of Mines and Geology, CD 2000-003 "Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Southern Region," compiled by Martin and Ross. 6. California Emergency Management Agency/California Geological Survey, "Tsunami Inundation Maps for Emergency Planning." 7. Hart, Earl W., Revised 1994, Revised 2007, "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist Priolo, Special Studies Zones Act of 1972," California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42 . 8. Jennings, Charles W., 1994, "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas" with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions. 9. Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 2007, "Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California", California Geological Survey, Map No. 2. 10. Reichle, M., Bodin, P., and Brune, J., 1985, The June 1985 San Diego Bay Earthquake swarm [abs.]: EOS, v. 66, no. 46, p.9 52. 11. Seed, H.B., and R.V. Whitman, 1970, "Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads," in Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth-Retaining Structures, pp. 103-147, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. 12. Tan, S. S., and Giffen, D. G., 1995 , "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California: Oceanside and San Luis Rey Quadrangles, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 35", California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 95-04, State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California. 13. Wood, J.H. 1973, Earthquake-Induced Soil Pressures on Structures, Report EERL 73-05. Pasadena: California Institute of Technology. APPENDIXB EXPLORATION LOGS Construction Testing & Engineeringt lnc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 DEFINITION OF TERMS PRIMARY DIVISIONS GRAVELS CLEAN MORE THAN GRAVELS HALF OF < 5% FINES COARSE FRACTION IS GRAVELS LARGER THAN WITH FINES NO. 4 SIEVE SANDS CLEAN MORE THAN SANDS HALF OF < 5% FINES COARSE FRACTION IS SANDS SMALLER THAN WITH FINES NO. 4 SIEVE SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS LESS THAN 50 SIL TS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS GREATER THAN 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES, UTILE OF NO FINES SIL TY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC FlNES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES WELL GRADED SANDS, GRA YELL Y SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRA YELL Y SANDS, LITTLE OR NOFINES SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC FlNES CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES lNORGANIC SILTS, VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS, SLIGHTLY PLASTIC CLAYEY SIL TS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRA YELL Y SANDY SIL TS OR LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTJCJTY INORGANIC SlLTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS ELASTIC SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SIL TY CLAYS PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS GRAIN SIZES BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SIL TS AND CLAYS COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE 12" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200 CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING U.S. ST AND ARD SIEVE SIZE ADDITIONAL TESTS (OTHER THAN TEST PIT AND BORING LOG COLUMN HEADINGS) MAX-Maximum Dry Density GS-Grain Size Distribution SE-Sand Equivalent EI-Expansion Index CHM-Sulfate and Chloride Content , pH, Resistivity COR -Corrosivity SD-Sample Disturbed PM-Permeability SG-Specific Gravity HA-Hydrometer Analysis AL-Atterberg Limits RV-R-Value CN-Consolidation CP-Collapse Potential HC-Hydrocollapse REM-Remolded PP-Pocket Penetrometer WA-Wash Analysis DS-Direct Shear UC-Unconfined Compression MD-Moisture/Density M-Moisture SC-Swell Compression 01-Organic Impurities FIGURE: BU PROJECT: CTE JOB NO: LOGGED BY: ., C. ., ,:;-E ~ ., "' 0 " en I-' 0 !::, C ~ .c ., ~ C. .:,< > ., "3 ~ 0 Cl co @ -o ... -~ ... - ... -X ... -- ,_5_ ... - ... - ~ .. ... - ... -... t--10--I ... --... - --I ... - 1-] 5- ... - ... - ... - -- 20- ... - ... - ... - ... - t-25- ... - CTE:J} Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441. Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 C u 5 ~ ·i ~ C ., ., ... Cl ~ c ·5 Cl ~ 0 ~ [ en vi 0 vi ;:j DRlLLER: SHEET: of DRILL METHOD: DRlLLING DA TE: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION: OJ) 0 ~ BORING LEGEND Laboratory Tests u :.c C. e? 0 DESCRIPTION Block or Chunk Sample Bulk Sample Standard Penetration Test Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler (Cal Sampler) Thin Walled Army Coro. of Engineers Sample Groundwater Table r'i::--· -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 \_ ,.._ Soil Type or Classification Change -?--?--?--?--?--?--?-~ F.ormation ~hange [(A~proximat~ boundari~s queried ;?)l "SM" Quotes are placed around classifications where the soils exist in situ as bedrock FIGURE: I BL2 ~ Constru ction Testing & Engineeri ng, Inc. CTE~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 PROJECT: JEFFERSON STREET ADDITION DRILLER: BAJA EXPLORATION SHEET: I of 3 CTE JOBNO: I0-14882G DRILL METHOD: HOLLOW-STEM AUGER DRILLING DA TE: 4/24/2019 LOGGED BY: MM SAMPLE METHOD: RING, SPT and BULK ELEVATION: ~70 FEET ., Q 0 0. "' " 5 .0 ,-. E .; E ,:,.. t e >, .. BORING: B-1 "' >, 0 Laboratory Tests ., (/j f-, (/j ..J !:::, ~ C: ~ vi u C ., 2 cj :.2 ..c: ., 0 C. -" > ~ V, vi p., " ::i 8 0 c ·o ~ 0 c::i a5 Q ~ ;:i 0 DESCRIPTION -0 SM Asphalt: 0-2.5" --QUATERNARY PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL: Medium dense, slightly moist, reddish to grayish brown, silty ... -fin e to medium grained SAND, with trace concrete and asphalt debris. CHM ... - "SP-SM" QUATERNARY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: --Medium dense, slightly moist, reddish brown, poorly graded fine -s grained SANDSTONE with silt, weakly indurated. 7 7 GS --7 ... -----------"SM" Ve1y dense, slightl y moist, grayish brown, silty fine grained SANDSTONE. -- -ie--I 15 --23 ...... 28 DS --Subrounded gravel from 12 to 14 feet ---- -1 .s-[ 12 12 --15 ... - ... - "SC11 TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION: ... -Very dense, slightly moist, light yellowish brown, clayey fine to -2& ~ medium grained SANDSTONE, very well indurated, carbonate. 25 5015" DS ... - -- ... - -- -2.s- I B-1 PROJECT: CTEJOBNO: LOGGED BY: " 0. " ,-. E ,:,.. .; ., >. " VJ f-, :::., C: ~ -5 -" " ~ ,:,.. ,; > 0 " ·,: 0 co 0 ai -2::: ~ 14 ... -22 33 ... - ... - -- -3& 2 35 50/3" -- -- -- -- -35-18 28 --42 -- -- -- >-4& ~ 46 5013" ... - ... - -- -- -45-z 32 5015" -- -- - - -- -s& JEFFERSON STREET ADDITION IO-l4882G MM C' 0 u 5 .D ,-. E Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondi.do, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 DRILLER: DRJLL METHOD: SAMPLE METHOD: BAJA EXPLORATION HOLLOW-STEM AUGER RING, SPT and BULK SHEET: 2 DRILLING DA TE: ELEVATION: of 3 4/24/2019 -70 FEET 0 ~ >. Oil 0 ·;; VJ -l BORING: B-1 Laboratory Tests C: ~ czi " ~ cj 0 t'.;' ·5 czi 0 2 ;::i "SC" u :.c ,:,.. e 0 DESCRIPTION Very dense, slightly moist, light yellowish brown, clayey fine to medium grained SANDSTONE, very well indurated, carbonate. GS DS I B-1 c@= Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 PROJECT: JEFFERSON STREET ADDITION DRILLER: BAJA EXP LORA TJON SHEET: 3 of 3 CTE JOB NO: J0-14882G DRILL METHOD: HOLLOW-STEM AUGER DR[LLING DA TE: 4/24/2019 LOGGED BY: MM SAMPLE METHOD: RING, SPT and BULK ELEVATION: -70 FEET " C 0 u Q. ., -::: .0 e ~ ~ -::;-c.. -~ e 00 BORING: B-1 " "' >, 0 Laboratory Tests " C/) I-C/) ...l !::, ~ C " vi u " ..., -= ~ a a cJ :.a ..,. ~ "' c.. c.. -; -~ 0 ~ ·o vi ~ " a a:l 0 co a ::a ::i 0 DESCRIPTION -5~ I 33 "SC" Very dense, slightly moist, light yellowish brown, clayey fine to 5015" medium P"Tained SANDSTONE verv well indurated carbonate. .... Total Depth: 50.9' --No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled with Bentonite Grout and Chips .... - .... - .-55- .... --- .... - -- --6tr -- .... - -- - -65- -- -- - - -- -1<r -- .... - -- -- -75- I B-1 ~ Construction Testing & Engineering , Inc. CT~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 PROJECT: JEFFERSON STREET ADDJTlON DRILLER: AJB SHEET: I of I CTEJOBNO: I0-14882G DRlLL METHOD: HAND AUGER DRILLING DA TE: 4/26/2019 LOGGED BY: AJB SAMPLE METHOD: BULK ELEVATION: -35 FEET ., C 0 (.) c.. ., -S ~ E ,..._ E ,..._ c.. t ~ >, Oil BORING: B-2 0 '" >, .3 Laboratory Tests ., C/) l-C/) !:::, ~ s:: ~ vi u s:: ., ~ u :.c .s -" ., ~ 0 c.. c.. ,; .2: 0 ~ ·5 C/) e ., cS iii 2'. ;::i 0 cc Cl 0 DESCRIPTION -0 CL QUATERNARY PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL: --Stiff, moist, brown, fine to medium graiend sandy CLAY with trace gravel. CHM ... --- Minor seeoa!!e ... -TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION: ~ -s-Very dense, slightly moist, reddish brown, clayey fine to medium orained SANDSTONE with !!ravel oxidized. --Total Depth: 4.3' (Refusal on gravel) ... -Minor Seepage Encountered at Approximately 3.8' -- ... - -Ht -- -- -- -- -15- ... - ... - ... - ... - >--2(}--- ... - ... - -- -2s- I B-2 ~ Construction Testing & Engineering , 1nc. CTE~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 PROJECT: JEFFERSON STREET ADDITION DRJLLER: AJB SHEET: I of I CTE JOBNO: I0-14882G DRILL METHOD: HAND AUGER DRILLING DATE: 4/26/2019 LOGGED BY: AJB SAMPLE METHOD: BULK ELEVATION: ~35 FEET " C 0 <.) 0.. " ..e, .D E ,--.. E ,--.. C. t e >, Oil BORING: B-3 .; " >, 0 Laboratory Tests " VJ f... VJ ....l ~ ~ c:: ~ ui <.) c:: " 2 c..i :.a -5 -"' " ~ 0 "' ~ C. ,; > 0 i::' 0 VJ " ·c ci5 ~ ;:i 0 ~ 0 a 0 DESCRIPTION --o SC QUATERNARY PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL: .... -Medium dense, moist, brown, clayey fine to medium grained SAND wi th trace gravel. ... - .... - -- -5-Total Depth: 4.5' (Refusal on gravel) No Groundwater Encountered -- -- -- -- .... l(t -- -- -- -- -15- ... - ... - ... - .... - .-2& .... - .... - -- .... - -2s- I B-3 APPENDIX C LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS LABO RA TORY METHODS AND RESULTS Laboratory Testing Program Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to detect their relative engineering properties. Tests were performed following test methods of the American Society for Testing Materials or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the various test methods used. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classifications were supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples according to ASTM D2487. The soil classifications are shown on the Exploration Logs in Appendix B. In-Place Moisture and Density To determine the moisture and density of in-place site soils, a representative sample was tested for the moisture and density at time of sampling. Expansion Index Expansion testing was performed on selected samples of the matrix of the on-site soils according to ASTM D 4829. Particle-Size Analysis Particle-size analyses were performed on selected representative samples according to ASTM D 422. Direct Shear Direct shear tests were performed on either samples direct from the field or on samples recompacted to a specific density. Direct shear testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D 3080. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. Chemical Analysis Soil materials were collected with sterile sampling equipment and tested for Sulfate and Chloride content, pH, Corrosivity, and Resistivity. LOCATION B-2 LOCATION B-1 B-1 LOCATION B-1 B-2 LOCATION B-1 B-2 LOCATION B-1 B-2 LOCATION B-1 B-2 LABORATORY SUMMARY Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 EXPANSION INDEX TEST ASTM D4829 DEPTH (feet) EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL 0-4.3 31 IN-PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY DEPTH (feet) 10 20 SULFATE DEPTH (feet) 0-5 0-5 CHLORIDE DEPTH (feet) 0-5 0-5 p.H. DEPTH (feet) 0-5 0-5 RESISTIVITY CALIFORNIA TEST 424 DEPTH (feet) 0-5 0-5 %MOISTURE 2.0 10.4 RESULTS ppm 130.7 76.2 RESULTS ppm 36.9 3.1 RESULTS 9 8.38 RESULTS ohms-cm 4460 NIA LOW DRY DENSITY 99.0 107.4 CTE JOB NO. 10-148820 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE ~ :t ~ !!? 0 0 N co~ <DO 00 0 0 0 ~ (") (") V ~N Mv <() ~ N 100 . ---- ---,.. -,.. - -~ -...._ ~ r-.,1\ 90 \ \ I\ 80 ' \ \ \ 70 \ \ ~ :::!:! 60 ' \ . ' \ (!) z \ in f/) <( 50 CL \ ~\ I-z w u a:: 40 w ' CL ~~ 30 \ - 20 ....__ ~t'-. • 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE (mm) PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS CJE~ Sample Designation Sample Depth (feet) Symbol LiquKi Limit (%) Plasticity Index Classification Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. B-1 5 • 0 0 SM ,. ... ,..,,.,,...,..,,., .............................. w ••.•.• -.. B-1 25 • 0 0 SC 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 CTE JOB NUMBER: 10-148820 FIGURE: C-1 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE ~ ~ ~ 10 0 0 N ::.. ?i <X)~ <O 0 00 0 0 0 (") '<t ..-N (") '<t '° ..... N 100 -l's 1'9-~ ;_ 90 r----..... ~ 80 ' '\I\ 70 1\1 \ \ C 60 ~ (!) \ \ z iii Ill ct 50 CL \ I-z i\_ w u 0:: 40 w ~' CL 30 '\ 1• 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE (mm) PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ~ Sample Designation Sample Depth (feet) Symbol Liquid Limit(%) Plasticity Index Classification Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 8-3 0-4.5 • 0 0 SC CTE~c ,.,., ......... .• ,., .......................... ,.,. ........ , ............................ -., .... -••.• , ............. -...... w ................ .. ........... ............ --........... ,,,.,.,. ...... , ............ ,. ........................ 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 CTE JOB NUMBER: I0-14882G FIGURE: C-2 PRECONSOLIDATION SHEARING DATA 0.027 5000 ' 0.027 - 11l 4000 ---• ~ ~ I -...- 0.028 C' , ., ., ~ cu ~ "' 3000 ~ , (,.) 0.028 "' ~ ~ w I a: .... ,_ z "' , ~ 0.029 a: 2000 ~ V ' ~ .... , ... w "' ::r 0.029 "' 1"1-1000 ' 1/v 0.030 ,.,,_ 0 0 2 4 6 • 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.030 0.1 1 10 100 --1000ps;J STRAIN(%) TIME (minutes) I VERTICAL --3000psf STRESS -5000psf FAILURE ENVELOPE 5000 I~ 4000 C' ., ~ "' 3000 "' w a: .... "' C) 0 z ii: 2000 ~ w ::r "' 1000 d,•0.1200 mm./min I 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 VERTICAL STRESS (psf) SHEAR STRENGTH TEST-ASTMD3080 Job Name: Third Sto!}'. Addition Initial Dry Density (pct): 99.0 Project Number: 10-14882 Sample Date: 4/24/2019 Initial Moisture(%): 2.0 Lab Number: 29482 Test Date: 5/9/201 9 Final Moisture(%): 12.5 Sample Location: B-1 @JO' Tested by: JNC Cohesion: 70 psf Sample Description: Moderate Grel SM Beach Sand Angle Of Friction: 39.2 PRECONSOLIDATION SHEARING DATA 0.012 5000 0.013 .. ~ I" ~ 4000 I 0.014 ... c.=- " IA U) .e II> lllli.. II) 3000 .r:. I ' " 0.015 II) I ~ C: w 111111~ IX -~ I-z II) ~ 0.016 IX 2000 ~ ' <( I-, .... w r--.. II) J: 0.017 II) -"• 1000 ~ ..._ 0.018 0 0 2 4 6 • 10 12 14 16 16 20 0.019 0.1 1 10 100 __ 1000 psfl STRAIN(%) TIME (minutes) I VERTICAL --3000psf STRESS -5000 psf FAILURE ENVELOPE 5000 I ► 4000 c.=-IA .e II) 3000 II) w IX I-II) C) z ii: 2000 <( w J: II) • 1000 d, ... 0.1200 mm./min I ~ 0 C1&c 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 VERTICAL STRESS (psf) SHEAR STRENGTH TEST-ASTMD3080 Job Name: Third Sto!l'. Addition Initial Dry Density (pct): 107.4 Project Number: 10-14882 Sample Date: 4/24/201 9 Initial Moisture(%): 10.4 Lab Number: 29482 Test Date: 5/13/201 9 Final Moisture(%): 14.0 Sample Location: B-1 @ 20' Tested by: JNC Cohesion: 910 psf Sample Description: Li~ht Grei'. SM-SC Angle Of Friction: 35.4 PRECONSOLIDATION SHEARING DATA 0.029 5000 0.030 -... r 0.031 4000 I ~ .. ;-., """"' 'iii' 0.032 .e: / " a, ~-- II) 3000 .l: I ;' u II) C: 0.033 w a: ~ I-z 0.034 II) ~ a: 2000 1/ 1'111.. c( I-0.035 w II) ' J: ~ II) 1000 0.036 V • ""---"""' 0.037 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.038 0.1 1 10 100 I __ 1000psf:I STRAIN(%) TIM E (minutes) VERTICAL --3000psf STRESS -5000psf FAILURE ENVELOPE 5000 0 4000 ;-., 0 .e: II) 3000 II) w a: I-II) C> z ii: 2000 c( w J: II) u 1000 d,•O. 1200 mm.Imm I ~ 0 CTE INc 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 VERTICAL STRESS (psf) ~ SHEAR STRENGTH TEST -ASTM D3080 Job Name: Third Sto!l'. Addition Initial Dry Density (pct): 11 8.5 Project Number: 10-14882 Sample Date: 4/24/2019 Initial Moisture(%): 7.5 Lab Number: 29482 Test Date: 5/2/20 19 Final Moisture(%): 13.3 Sample Location: B-1 @ 30' Tested by: INC Cohesion: 500 psf Sample Description: Li~ht Gre~ Sm-SC Angle Of Friction: 39.7 APPENDIXD ST AND ARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Appendix D Page D-1 Standard Specifications for Grading Section 1 -General Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. presents the following standard recommendations for grading and other associated operations on construction projects. These guidelines should be considered a portion of the project specifications. Recommendations contained in the body of the previously presented soils report shall supersede the recommendations and or requirements as specified herein. The project geotechnical consultant shall interpret disputes arising out of interpretation of the recommendations contained in the soils report or specifications contained herein. Section 2 -Responsibilities of Project Personnel The geotechnical consultant should provide observation and testing services sufficient to general conformance with project specifications and standard grading practices. The geotechnical consultant should report any deviations to the client or his authorized representative. The Client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his authorized representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his authorized representative should remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. The Contractor is responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading and other associated operations on construction projects, including, but not limited to, earth work in accordance with the project plans, specifications and controlling agency requirements. Section 3 -Preconstruction Meeting A preconstruction site meeting should be arranged by the owner and/or client and should include the grading contractor, design engineer, geotechnical consultant, owner's representative and representatives of the appropriate governing authorities. Section 4 -Site Preparation The client or contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, during and/or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The appropriate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with grading operations. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 1 of 26 Appendix D Page D-2 Standard Specifications for Grading Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, root of trees and otherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of all proposed excavation and fill areas. Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations, reserv01rs, utilities (including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, etc.) and other man-made surface and subsurface improvements from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities should include proper capping and/or rerouting pipelines at the project perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the requirements of the governing authorities and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant at the time of demolition. Trees, plants or man-made improvements not planned to be removed or demolished should be protected by the contractor from damage or injury. Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or demolition operations should be wasted from areas to be graded and disposed off-site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant. Section 5 -Site Protection Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the responsibility of the contractor. Unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties, completion of a portion of the project should not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the requirements for site protection until such time as the entire project is complete as identified by the geotechnical consultant, the client and the regulating agencies. Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall. Rain related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress and other adverse conditions as determined by the geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as unsuitable materials and should be subject to overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 2 of 26 Appendix D Page D-3 Standard Specifications for Grading The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g., backcuts) are made in consideration of stability of the completed project and, therefore, should not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the contractor. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude requirements that are more restrictive by the regulating agencies. The contractor should provide during periods of extensive rainfall plastic sheeting to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated and unstable. When deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant or governing agencies the contractor shall install checkdams, desilting basins, sand bags or other drainage control measures. In relatively level areas and/or slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot; they should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1.0 foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture conditioning in-place, followed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein may be attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the slope repair recommendations herein. If field conditions dictate, the geotechnical consultant may recommend other slope repair procedures. Section 6 -Excavations 6.1 Unsuitable Materials Materials that are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to, dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible natural soils and fractured, weathered, soft bedrock and nonengineered or otherwise deleterious fill materials. Material identified by the geotechnical consultant as unsatisfactory due to its moisture conditions should be overexcavated; moisture conditioned as needed, to a uniform at or above optimum moisture condition before placement as compacted fill. If during the course of grading adverse geotechnical conditions are exposed which were not anticipated in the preliminary soil report as determined by the geotechnical consultant additional exploration, analysis, and treatment of these problems may be recommended. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 3 of 26 Appendix D Page D-4 Standard Specifications for Grading 6.2 Cut Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal: vertical). The geotechnical consultant should observe cut slope excavation and if these excavations expose loose cohesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, the materials should be overexcavated and replaced with a compacted stabilization fill. If encountered specific cross section details should be obtained from the Geotechnical Consultant. When extensive cut slopes are excavated or these cut slopes are made in the direction of the prevailing drainage, a non-erodible diversion swale (brow ditch) should be provided at the top of the slope. 6.3 Pad Areas All lot pad areas, including side yard terrace containing both cut and fill materials, transitions, located less than 3 feet deep should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and replaced with a uniform compacted fill blanket of 3 feet. Actual depth of overexcavation may vary and should be delineated by the geotechnical consultant during grading, especially where deep or drastic transitions are present. For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm drainage swale and/or an appropriate pad gradient. A gradient in soil areas away from the top-of-slopes of 2 percent or greater is recommended. Section 7 -Compacted Fill All fill materials should have fill quality, placement, conditioning and compaction as specified below or as approved by the geotechnical consultant. 7 .1 Fill Material Quality Excavated on-site or import materials which are acceptable to the geotechnical consultant may be utilized as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are removed prior to placement. All import materials anticipated for use on-site should be sampled tested and approved prior to and placement is in conformance with the requirements outlined. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 4 of 26 AppendixD Page D-5 Standard Specifications for Grading Rocks 12 inches in maximum and smaller may be utilized within compacted fill provided sufficient fill material is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock to effectively fill rock voids. The amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry weight passing the 3/4-inch sieve. The geotechnical consultant may vary those requirements as field conditions dictate. Where rocks greater than 12 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill, special handling in accordance with the recommendations below. Rocks greater than four feet should be broken down or disposed off-site. 7 .2 Placement of Fill Prior to placement of fill material, the geotechnical consultant should observe and approve the area to receive fill. After observation and approval, the exposed ground surface should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches. The scarified material should be conditioned (i .e. moisture added or air dried by continued discing) to achieve a moisture content at or slightly above optimum moisture conditions and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density or as otherwise recommended in the soils report or by appropriate government agencies. Compacted fill should then be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness prior to compaction. Each lift should be moisture conditioned as needed, thoroughly blended to achieve a consistent moisture content at or slightly above optimum and thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. The contractor should have suitable and sufficient mechanical compaction equipment and watering apparatus on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed m consideration of moisture retention properties of the materials and weather conditions. When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5: 1 (horizontal: vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least six-foot wide benches and a minimum of four feet of vertical bench height within the firm natural ground, firm bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area after keying and benching until the geotechnical consultant has reviewed the area. Material generated by the benching operation should be moved sufficiently away from STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 5 of 26 Appendix D Page D-6 Standard Specifications for Grading the bench area to allow for the recommended review of the horizontal bench prior to placement of fill. Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate fills , temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as above described. At least a 3-foot vertical bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved compacted fill prior to placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in at least 3-foot vertical increments until the desired finished grades are achieved. Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other grading delay, the exposed surface or previously compacted fill should be processed by scarification, moisture conditioning as needed to at or slightly above optimum moisture content, thoroughly blended and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Where unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than one foot, the unsuitable materials should be over-excavated. Following a period of flooding, rainfall or overwatering by other means, no additional fill should be placed until damage assessments have been made and remedial grading performed as described herein. Rocks 12 inch in maximum dimension and smaller may be utilized in the compacted fill provided the fill is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. No oversize material should be used within 3 feet of finished pad grade and within 1 foot of other compacted fill areas. Rocks 12 inches up to four feet maximum dimension should be placed below the upper 10 feet of any fill and should not be closer than 15 feet to any slope face. These recommendations could vary as locations of improvements dictate. Where practical, oversized material should not be placed below areas where structures or deep utilities are proposed. Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a clean, overexcavated or unyielding compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded over and around all windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material should be staggered so those successive strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane. It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rock as field conditions dictate and as recommended by the geotechnical consultant at the time of placement. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 6 of 26 Appendix D Page D-7 Standard Specifications for Grading The contractor should assist the geotechnical consultant and/or his representative by digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. The contractor should provide this work at no additional cost to the owner or contractor's client. Fill should be tested by the geotechnical consultant for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing should conform to ASTM Method of Test D 1556-00, D 2922-04. Tests should be conducted at a minimum of approximately two vertical feet or approximately 1,000 to 2,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. Fill found not to be in conformance with the grading recommendations should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 7.3 Fill Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal: vertical). Except as specifically recommended in these grading guidelines compacted fill slopes should be over-built two to five feet and cut back to grade, exposing the firm, compacted fill inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the desired results are not achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the guidelines of the geotechnical consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased until the desired compacted slope surface condition is achieved. Care should be taken by the contractor to provide thorough mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface. At the discretion of the geotechnical consultant, slope face compaction may be attempted by conventional construction procedures including backrolling. The procedure must create a firmly compacted material throughout the entire depth of the slope face to the surface of the previously compacted firm fill intercore. During grading operations, care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer edge of the slope. Each lift should extend horizontally to the desired finished slope surface or more as needed to ultimately established desired grades. Grade during construction should not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It may be helpful to elevate slightly the outer edge of the slope. Slough resulting from the placement of individual lifts should not be allowed to drift down over previous lifts. At intervals not STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 7 of 26 Appendix D Page D-8 Standard Specifications for Grading exceeding four feet in vertical slope height or the capability of available equipment, whichever is less, fill slopes should be thoroughly dozer trackrolled. For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished using a berm and pad gradient of at least two percent. Section 8 -Trench Backfill Utility and/or other excavation of trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction should be a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. Within slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches up to one foot wide and two feet deep may be backfilled with sand and consolidated by jetting, flooding or by mechanical means. If on-site materials are utilized, they should be wheel-rolled, tamped or otherwise compacted to a firm condition. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on review of backfill operations during construction. If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, the contractor may elect the utilization of light weight mechanical compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean, granular material, which should be thoroughly jetted in-place above the conduit, prior to initiating mechanical compaction procedures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon review of the geotechnical consultant at the time of construction. In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by the geotechnical consultant. Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not recommended in slope areas. Section 9 -Drainage Where deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant, canyon subdrain systems should be installed in accordance with CTE's recommendations during grading. Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilization or sidehill masses, should be installed in accordance with the specifications. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 8 of 26 Appendix D Page D-9 Standard Specifications for Grading Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and areas of structures to suitable disposal areas via non-erodible devices (i.e., gutters, downspouts, and concrete swales). For drainage in extensively landscaped areas near structures, (i.e., within four feet) a minimum of 5 percent gradient away from the structure should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 percent should be maintained over the remainder of the site. Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of the project. Property owners should be made aware that altering drainage patterns could be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance. Section 10 -Slope Maintenance 10.1 -Landscape Plants To enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting should be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope planting should consist of deep-rooting vegetation requiring little watering. Plants native to the southern California area and plants relative to native plants are generally desirable. Plants native to other semi-arid and arid areas may also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect should be the best party to consult regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration. 10.2 -Irrigation Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces, not placed in trenches excavated into slope faces. Slope irrigation should be minimized. If automatic timing devices are utilized on irrigation systems, provisions should be made for interrupting normal irrigation during periods of rainfall. I 0.3 -Repair As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand, to protect all slope areas from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period prior to landscape planting. If slope failures occur, the geotechnical consultant should be contacted for a field review of site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair. If slope failures occur as a result of exposure to period of heavy rainfall, the failure areas and currently unaffected areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to protect against additional saturation. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 9 of 26 Appendix D Page D-10 Standard Specifications for Grading In the accompanying Standard Details, appropriate repair procedures are illustrated for superficial slope failures (i.e., occurring typically within the outer one foot to three feet of a slope face). STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 10 of 26 FINISH CUT SLOPE ------------ BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL FILL SLOPE 10' TYPICAL SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MA TE RIAL 15' MIN. (INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE) BENCHING FILL OVER CUT FINISH FILL SLOPE SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL 10' TYPICAL 15' MIN OR STABILITY EQUIVALENT PER SOIL ENGINEERING (INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE) NOT TO SCALE BENCHING FOR COMPACTED FILL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 11 of 26 -- ------ TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN FILL ______ _ -- ------ MINIMUM DOWNSLOPE KEY DEPTH ---- -co\J:>-\... - --J:>-'"{' - ----r,-?-'\-\~ ---- - -£:,\...'(;;. <c. - --$\)\\~ -----\)~ -~----------- ---1 O' TYPICAL BENCH / ___ WIDTH VARIES /11 --/':r-' --/ 1 _ -COMPETENT EARTH ~ ---MATERIAL 2% MIN --- 15' MINIMUM BASE KEY WIDTH TYPICAL BENCH HEIGHT PROVIDE BACKDRAIN AS REQUIRED PER RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOILS ENGINEER DURING GRADING WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 5:1 OR LESS , BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY. FILL IS NOT TO BE PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL. NOT TO SCALE FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL GROUND DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 12 of 26 4' U) -l )> z 0 )> JJ 0 U) 7J 7J m 0,) C') cc -ct) ::!! ..... C') uJ )> 0 :::! -+-0 I\) z Ol U'J ,, 0 JJ G) J) )> 0 z G) REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM, AND CREEP MATERIAL FROM TRANSITION CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON "AS-BUil T" N~URAL _ TOPOGRAP~Y _ ---------------CUT SLOPE* --------2%MIN- 15' MINIMUM NOT TO SCALE - 10' TYPICAL BEDROCK OR APPROVED FOUNDATION MATERIAL *NOTE: CUT SLOPE PORTION SHOULD BE MADE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL FILL SLOPE ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL _-,-------------~ -...... ' // '\''\ COMPACTED FILL /~ \\ /I \ I [ SURFACEOF COMPETENT MATERIAL \ '\ / '\ ' / I TYPICAL BENCHING SEE DETAIL BELOW MINIMUM 9 FT3 PER LINEAR FOOT OF APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL FILTER MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL: ' / "--~ -' / REMOVE UNSUITABLE DETAIL 14" MINIMUM MATERIAL INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN AT 2% GRADIENT MINIMUM MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE (PERFORATIONS DOWN) 6" FILTER MATERIAL BEDDING SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40 POLY-VINYL-CHLORIDE (P .V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 psi 1" ¾" ¾" NO.4 NO.8 NO. 30 NO. 50 NO. 200 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, SUBJECT TO FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING LENGTH OF RUN NOT TO SCALE INITIAL 500' 500' TO 1500' > 1500' PIPE DIAMETER 4" 6" 8" TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 14 of 26 CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS --~-------------~ -........ ' // <', COMPACTED FILL /~ \\ /I \ I [ SURFACE OF COMPETENT MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING \ \ / \' / / ,_,,,,, A--..__ '-------/ REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL SEE DETAILS BELOW INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN AT 2% GRADIENT MINIMUM TRENCH DETAILS 6" MINIMUM OVERLAP OPTIONAL V-DITCH DETAIL MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL 6" MINIMUM OVERLAP ---------0 24" MINIMUM MINIMUM 9 FP PER LINEAR FOOT OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40 POLY- VINYLCHLORIDE (P.V.C.) 24" MINIMUM 9 FT' PER LINEAR FOOT OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI. MINIMUM OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL DRAIN MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL: PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, SUBJECT TO FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING SIEVE SIZE 1 ½" 1" ¾· ¾" NO. 200 PERCENTAGE PASSING 88-100 5-40 0-17 0-7 0-3 LENGTH OF RUN INITIAL 500' 500' TO 1500' > 1500' NOT TO SCALE GEOFABRIC SUBDRAIN STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 15 of 26 PIPE DIAMETER 4" 6" 8" FRONT VIEW ,,_,.....,,,....,,t=" SIDE VIEW ~12"Min.~ 6"Min. CONCRETE , __ ,, __ 1--r6,, M" CUT-OFF WALL . ,·;,,. ~_-1 I in. ---~em~-~;/:~;·,,,~ ,-~m•c~- .... ','· ,j__J NOT TO SCALE RECOMMENDED SUBDRAIN CUT-OFF WALL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 16 of 26 FRONT VIEW SUBDRAIN OUTLET PIPE (MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER) SIDE VIEW ALL BACKFILL SHOULD BE COMPACTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. COMPACTION EFFORT SHOULD NOT DAMAGE STRUCTURE -► !► -'► ,'t..·,·b.·,·b.. ~-'~.,.o.., ' I -• • I ►. -, ' ' ' • -• • I ► -'► -'►-, ' • b. • ' • b. • ' 'b. ' }:. , ' A ' ' 'f'-. ' ► . -, ► . -, •. -, ,, b. • ' b. • ' b. • .0. • ' .b. . ' .or. . ' -•· -•·-.. ► -, ► -, ►-,, • b. • ,, • b. • ' • b. ' .o..,.o..,.b.., 24" Min. 24" Min. NOTE: HEADWALL SHOULD OUTLET AT TOE OF SLOPE OR INTO CONTROLLED SURFACE DRAINAGE DEVICE ALL DISCHARGE SHOULD BE CONTROLLED THIS DETAIL IS A MINIMUM DESIGN AND MAY BE MODIFIED DEPENDING UPON ENCOUNTERED CONDITIONS AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS NOT TO SCALE 24" Min. 12" TYPICAL SUBDRAIN OUTLET HEADWALL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 17 of 26 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE BACKDRAIN 4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED PIPE LATERAL DRAIN SLOPE PER PLAN FILTER MATERIAL 15' MINIMUM I == 1· ................. BENCHING H/2 AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH. KEY-DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER (GENERALLY 1/2 SLOPE HEIGHT, 15' MINIMUM) DIMENSIONS ARE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL SLOPE STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 18 of 26 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE BACKDRAIN 15' MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED PIPE LATERAL DRAIN SLOPE PER PLAN FILTER MATERIAL BENCHING ,_:: [_\l ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH. KEY-DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER DIMENSIONS ARE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 19 of 26 20' MAXIMUM FINAL LIMIT OF EXCAVATION OVEREXCAVATE OVERBURDEN (CREEP-PRONE) DAYLIGHT LINE FINISH PAD OVEREXCAVA TE 3' AND REPLACE WITH COMPACTED FILL ,/ \/\1 "-. Y.. \!.,._ ... 1 COMPETENT BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHING LOCATION OF BACKDRAIN AND OUTLETS PER SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. MINIMUM 2% FLOW GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE LOCATION. EQUIPMENT WIDTH (MINIMUM 15') NOT TO SCALE DAYLIGHT SHEAR KEY DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 20 of 26 ..... :\t. PROPOSED GRADING BASE WIDTH "W" DETERMINED BY SOILS ENGINEER NATURAL GROUND COMPACTED FILL NOT TO SCALE PROVIDE BACKDRAIN, PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL. AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR BACK SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH. LOCATIONS OF BACKDRAINS AND OUTLETS PER SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. MINIMUM 2% FLOW GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE LOCATION. TYPICAL SHEAR KEY DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 21 of 26 FINISH SURFACE SLOPE 3 FT3 MINIMUM PER LINEAR FOOT APPROVED FILTER ROCK* CONCRETE COLLAR PLACED NEAT A 2.0% MINIMUM GRADIENT 4" MINIMUM DIAMETER SOLID OUTLET PIPE SPACED PER SOIL A ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS COMPACTED FILL 4" MINIMUM APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE** (PERFORATIONS DOWN) MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT TO OUTLET DURING GRADING TYPICAL BENCH INCLINED **APPROVED PIPE TYPE: MINIMUM 12" COVER SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI BENCHING TOWARD DRAIN DETAIL A-A 12" TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED SOLID OUTLET PIPE MINIMUM *FILTER ROCK TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL: SIEVE SIZE 1" ¾" ¾" NO.4 NO. 30 NO. 50 NO. 200 PERCENTAGE PASSING 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 5-15 0-7 0-3 NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL BACKDRAIN DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 22 of 26 FINISH SURFACE SLOPE MINIMUM 3 FP PER LINEAR FOOT OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE* TAPE AND SEAL AT COVER CONCRETE COLLAR PLACED NEAT COMPACTED FILL A 2.0% MINIMUM GRADIENT A MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER SOLID OUTLET PIPE SPACED PER SOIL ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM 12" COVER *NOTE: AGGREGATE TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL: SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 1 ½" 100 1" 5-40 ¾" 0-17 ¾" 0-7 NO. 200 0-3 TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL A-A 12" MINIMUM NOT TO SCALE MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL 4" MINIMUM APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE (PERFORATIONS DOWN) MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT TO OUTLET BENCH INCLINED TOWARD DRAIN TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED SOLID OUTLET PIPE BACKDRAIN DETAIL (GEOFRABIC) STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 23 of 26 SOIL SHALL BE PUSHED OVER ROCKS AND FLOODED INTO VOIDS. COMPACT AROUND AND OVER EACH WINDROW. l FILL SLOPE l CLEAR ZONE __/ /EQUIPMENT WIDTH _J STACK BOULDERS END TO END. DO NOT PILE UPON EACH OTHER. 0 0 0 NOT TO SCALE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 24 of 26 STAGGER ROWS STREET 10' 5' MINIMUM OR BELOW DEPTH OF DEEPEST UTILITY TRENCH (WHICHEVER GREATER) FINISHED GRADE BUILDING 0 NO OVERSIZE, AREA FOR FOUNDATION, UTILITIE~~l AND SWIMMING POOLs_t 0 0 ~ ··L WINDROW~ 0 TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (EDGE VIEW) GRANULAR SOIL FLOODED TO FILL VOIDS HORIZONTALLY PLACED COMPACTION FILL PROFILE VIEW NOT TO SCALE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 25 of 26 GENERAL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS --- ----- CUT LOT -- ---ORIGINAL GROUND ---- 3'MIN ---UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OVEREXCAVATE AND REGRADE CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION) ------------COMPACTED FILL ----_.,,.-- _.,,.-- ---------TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM ~.,,. --.,,. ....-AND WEATHERED ....- BEDROCK .,,. ~,...,...,...,...,...,...,... UNWEATHERED BEDROCK NOT TO SCALE TRANSITION LOT DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 26 of 26 __---: ORIGINAL .,,. .,,. -.,,. ,.. GROUND 'MIN 3'MIN OVEREXCAVATE AND REGRADE I I APPENDIXE SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS r:: w w s z 0 t== <( > w ...J Li.J A 70 60 50 Name: Auto Locatelgsz ···•·· Meth6d:·Spencer··+··· Direction of movem~nt: Righ!Toleft Slip Surface Optioh: AutoSearch Horz'Seismic Loadi 0 Vert Seismic Load: !o 40 I i .. Factor. of Safety:J .. 513 ··+-•· ..... , ........... 1 ......................... ) ..... ····t·· .Lill • Description: Opp! Model: MohrCi,ulomb Wt: 120 . • Cohesion: 300 Phi: 25 • ·············•···p1ez-ome1r1c· B-3 B-2 30 : . . ..............•........................ ExistingProfile .. : ! Des~ription: Qya . 20 ' jBu~riaVlsfaLagoon~!:~~:C/:~~0 ~ I9 '"~ 10 ; 0 -j -10 -20 0 Phi:;25 50 100 150 DISTANCE (FEET) CROSS SECTION A-A' Existing Residence Qppf t . 200 250 Description: Qppf Model: MohrCoulomb Wt: 120 Cohesion: 300 Phi: 25 Piezometric Line: 1 B-1 300 A' 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30