The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPD 2025-0006; NOEL RESIDENCE ADU; LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2025-04-10UES Professional Solutions, Inc. 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115 Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com Environmental Consulting | Geotechnical Engineering | Materials Testing & Inspections Occupational Health & Safety | Building Sciences & Code Compliance | Virtual Design Consulting March 10, 2025 UES Job No. A25165.00039.000 Steve Noel 2715 Greenock Court Carlsbad, California 92010 Phone: 760.535.7847 / Email: steve@2n5studio.com Subject: Limited Geotechnical Investigation Noel Residence Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) 2715 Greenock Court, Carlsbad, California References: Appendix A Mr. Noel: According to your request, UES has conducted a limited geotechnical investigation for the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at 2715 Greenock Court in Carlsbad, California. The purpose of our investigation was to assess the site soil conditions in order to provide recommendations for construction of the proposed improvements. CTE (2020) previously issued design recommendations for construction of a retaining wall at the site. This letter also serves as a Change of Engineer (COE) notice that UES (previously CTE) assumes responsibility as the geotechnical engineer of record for the project 1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site consists of a graded building pad that supports an existing one-story, single-family residence with an approximately 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) descending slope bordered by a 0.8- to 5-foot high CMU (concrete masonry unit) retaining wall to the south and west. According to the site plan by Civil Landworks (2023), site elevations range from 216 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the building pad to variable elevations ranging between 215 and 209.4 feet msl at the top of the retaining wall as shown in Figure 1. According to the project plans by 2N5 Studio (2025), the proposed 960 square-foot ADU will be located in the southwest area of the site in the vicinity of the existing retaining wall (see Figure 1) and will consist of a split-level, one-story, wood-frame structure supported by shallow strip footings to the east, by an intermediate retaining wall in the middle, and by drilled caissons to the west. 2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING UES performed a limited subsurface investigation at the site on March 4, 2025, which included geologic mapping of an approximately 5-foot-high cut performed at the location of the proposed intermediate retaining wall. Figure 1 shows the backcut area and the locations of logs BL-1 and BL-2. The backcut logs are presented in Appendix B. Bulk samples were collected from soil cuttings and submitted for laboratory analysis. Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C. Limited Geotechnical Investigation - Noel Residence ADU Project No. A25165.00039 March 10, 2025 Page 1 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115, Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com 3.0 GEOLOGY 3.1 General Setting The project site is located within the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province that is characterized by northwest-trending mountain ranges, intervening valleys, and predominantly northwest trending regional faults. The greater San Diego Region can be further subdivided into the coastal plain area, central mountain–valley area and eastern mountain and valley area. The project site is located within the coastal plain area. The coastal plain sub-province ranges in elevation from approximately sea level to 1,200 feet above mean sea level (msl) and is characterized by Cretaceous and Tertiary sedimentary deposits that superimpose an eroded basement surface consisting of Jurassic and Cretaceous crystalline rocks that have been repeatedly eroded and infilled by alluvial processes throughout the Quaternary Period in response to regional uplift. This has resulted in a geomorphological landscape of uplifted alluvial and marine terraces that are dissected by current active alluvial drainages. 3.2 Geologic Conditions According to the regional geologic map by Kennedy and Tan (2007), the geologic unit at the site consists of Tertiary Santiago Formation. Based on our observations, the site is mantled by Quaternary Previously Placed Fill underlain by residual soil and Santiago Formation materials. Descriptions of the geologic units encountered during the investigation are presented below. 3.2.1 Quaternary Previously Placed Fill (map symbol Qppf) Quaternary Previously Placed Fill was encountered at the surface (Pad El. 216 ft. msl) and extended to approximate depths of 2.75 to 3.5 ft. bgs. The fill materials generally consisted of loose to medium dense, moist, light gray brown, silty, fine-grained sand with trace clay, roots, and debris. Areas with deeper fill may be encountered during site grading. 3.2.2 Tertiary Santiago Formation (Map symbol Tsa) An approximately 6-inch-thick layer of residual soil derived from the Santiago Formation underlies the fill and consists of dense, moist, red brown, clayey, fine-grained sand. As observed, the Santiago Formation consists of dense to very dense, moist, light gray brown, silty, fine-grained sandstone with trace clay, mottled with oxidation nodules. Oxidized interbeds/laminations of red brown clay were encountered within the Santiago Formation. 3.3 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface investigation. Groundwater conditions may vary, especially following periods of sustained precipitation or irrigation, however, it is generally not anticipated to adversely affect shallow construction activities or the completed improvements, if proper site drainage is designed, installed, and maintained as recommended by the project civil engineer. Limited Geotechnical Investigation - Noel Residence ADU Project No. A25165.00039 March 10, 2025 Page 2 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115, Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com 3.4 Compressible and Expansive Soils Based on observed site conditions and investigation findings, the surficial previously placed fill may be potentially compressible in their current condition. According to the results of Expansion Index (EI) testing (ASTM D4829), the formational soil sampled from BL-1 exhibits an EI value of 36, which classifies as “Low” expansion potential (EI of 50 or less). Laboratory analyses are representative only of the soils in the immediate area where sampling was conducted. Therefore, the presence of “Medium” to “High” expansion potential soil within the fill and formational materials cannot be precluded. Clayey soils are present in the site area and verification of expansion potential should be performed during site excavations and grading. 3.5 Corrosive Soils Testing of representative site soils was performed to evaluate the potential corrosive effects of site soil 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 (SO4) in soil exceed 0.10 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 generally indicate a corrosive environment for buried metallic utilities and untreated conduits. Based on the laboratory test results presented in Appendix C, near-surface soils at the site generally present a negligible corrosive potential for Portland cement concrete. It is also interpreted that site soils may have a mildly corrosive potential to buried metallic improvements. Therefore, it would likely be prudent for buried utilities to utilize plastic piping and/or conduits, where feasible. UES does not practice corrosion engineering. If corrosion of improvements is of more significant concern, a qualified corrosion engineer could be consulted. 3.6 Geologic Hazards Geologic hazards that were considered to have potential impact on site development were evaluated based on field observations, literature review, and laboratory test results. It appears that geologic hazards at the site are primarily limited to those caused by shaking from earthquake-generated ground motions. The following paragraphs discuss the geologic hazards considered and their potential risk to the site. 3.6.1 Surface Fault Rupture Based on site reconnaissance and review of referenced literature, the site is not located within a State or local designated Earthquake Fault Zone. No known active or potentially active fault traces underlie or project toward the site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture from displacement or fault movement beneath the proposed improvements is considered low. Limited Geotechnical Investigation - Noel Residence ADU Project No. A25165.00039 March 10, 2025 Page 3 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115, Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com 3.6.2 Local and Regional Faulting The nearest known active faults are the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon, and Oceanside fault zones located approximately 6.7 and 10.3 miles west of the site, respectively. The site could be subjected to significant shaking in the event of a major earthquake on any of the faults listed above or other faults in southern California or northern Baja California. 3.6.3 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. Based on the lack of shallow groundwater and the presence of dense formational materials, liquefaction potential at the site is considered low. Seismic settlement can occur with or without liquefaction; it results from densification of loose soils. Based on the grading recommendations provided herein, the site will be underlain by compacted fill and shallow formational materials, therefore the seismic settlement potential at the site is low. 3.6.4 Landsliding According to geologic mapping by Tan (1995), the site is considered “Generally Susceptible” to landsliding. However, no landslides are mapped in the site area and were not encountered during the recent field exploration. Based on the preliminary investigation findings, landsliding is not considered to be a significant geologic hazard at the site. 3.6.5 Flooding, Tsunamis, and Seiches Based on Federal Emergency Management Agency mapping (FEMA 2012), the subject property is located within Zone X corresponding to an area with minimal flood hazard. According to the State of California Geological Survey, Tsunami Hazard Area Map (CGS, 2022) and the Cal My Hazards (Cal OES, 2015), the site is not located in a tsunami inundation zone based on its distance and elevation above sea level. Damage resulting from oscillatory waves (seiches) is also considered unlikely due to the absence of large nearby confined bodies of water. 3.7 Seismic Design Criteria Based on our observations during subsurface exploration, the site may be classified as Seismic Site Class D consisting of a stiff soil profile. The seismic ground motion values listed below were derived using the ASCE Hazard Tool application in accordance with the ASCE 7-16 Standard that is incorporated into the 2022 California Building Code. Seismic ground motion values are based on approximate site coordinates of latitude 33.1594°N and longitude 117.3013°W. These values are intended for the design of structures to resist the effects of earthquake ground motions. Limited Geotechnical Investigation - Noel Residence ADU Project No. A25165.00039 March 10, 2025 Page 4 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115, Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com TABLE 3.7 2022 CBC AND ASCE 7-16 SEISMIC GROUND MOTION VALUES (CODE-BASED) PARAMETER VALUE 2022 CBC/ASCE 7-16 REFERENCE Site Class D ASCE 16, Chapter 20 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SS 0.969 Figure 1613.2.1 (1) Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, S1 0.355 Figure 1613.2.1 (2) Seismic Coefficient, Fa 1.113 Table 1613.2.3 (1) Seismic Coefficient, Fv N/A1 Table 1613.2.3 (2) MCE Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SMS 1.078 Section 1613.2.3 MCE Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SM1 N/A1 Section 1613.2.3 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SDS 0.718 Section 1613.2.5(1) Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SD1 N/A1 Section 1613.2.5 (2) Site Modified Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.497 ASCE 16, Section 11.8.3 Seismic Design Category N/A1 ASCE 16, Tables 11.6-1, -2 Note: 1 Site specific ground motion hazard analysis may be required (see ASCE 7-16, Supplement 3, Section 11.4.8) unless, per Exception 1, the value of the parameter SM1 determined by Eq. (11.4-2) is increased by 50% for all applications of SM1 and the resulting value of the parameter SD1 determined by Eq. (11.4-4) shall be used for all applications of SD1. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS UES concludes that the proposed improvements are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Standard recommendations for the proposed earthwork 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 variations exist. These recommendations should be confirmed as appropriate through updated plan development/refinement and/or following rough grading at the site. 4.1 Site Excavations and Earthwork Generally, excavation of site materials may be accomplished with heavy-duty construction equipment under normal conditions. Very dense/cemented conditions may be encountered resulting in localized, difficult excavation, which could potentially require special equipment. Shallow foundations for support should be founded entirely on recompacted fill materials. It is recommended that overexcavation and recompaction of existing fill and native soils be performed to a minimum depth of three feet, to the depth of competent native materials, or to a minimum depth of two feet below the bottom of all proposed foundations, whichever is deeper. Where feasible, overexcavations should extend laterally a minimum distance equal to the excavation depth. Limited Geotechnical Investigation - Noel Residence ADU Project No. A25165.00039 March 10, 2025 Page 5 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115, Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com 4.2 Fill Placement and Compaction Following recommended removals of loose or disturbed soils, areas to receive fills should be scarified a minimum of eight inches, moisture conditioned and properly compacted. Fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent at a minimum two percent above optimum moisture (three percent above for clayey soils) as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The optimum lift thickness for fill soil will depend on the type of compaction equipment used. Generally, backfill should be placed in uniform, horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Fill placement and compaction should be conducted in conformance with local ordinances. 4.3 Fill Materials Properly moisture-conditioned “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 3 inches in maximum dimension. Irreducible materials greater than 3-inch size should generally 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 EI of 20 or less. Proposed imported fill soils for use in structural or slope areas should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer before being transported to the site. Although this report is not intended to address environmental conditions at the subject site, it is anticipated that imported soils will be screened, sampled, and tested in accordance with the Department of Toxic Substances Control guidelines for clean imported fill soils. Retaining wall backfill located within a 45-degree wedge extending up from the bottom of the foundation at the heel of the wall should consist of soil having an EI of 20 or less with lower than 30 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The upper 12 to 18 inches of wall backfill may consist of lower permeability soils, in order to reduce surface water infiltration behind walls. 4.4 Shallow Foundations The following recommendations are for preliminary design purposes only. These recommendations should be reviewed after completion of earthwork. 4.4.1 Foundation Design Following the preparatory grading recommended herein, continuous, and isolated spread footings are suitable for use at this site. The proposed footings are anticipated to bear entirely on compacted fill materials. Footings should not straddle transitions from cut to fill materials. Foundation dimensions and reinforcement should be based on an allowable bearing value of 2,500 pounds per square foot for footings embedded a minimum of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent subgrade elevation. The above bearing values may also be increased by one third for short duration loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. The structural engineer should design isolated footing reinforcement. Footing excavations should generally be maintained at above optimum moisture content until concrete placement. Limited Geotechnical Investigation - Noel Residence ADU Project No. A25165.00039 March 10, 2025 Page 6 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115, Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com 4.4.2 Foundation Settlement The maximum total and differential static settlement for foundations embedded in compacted fill materials is expected to be less than 1.0 and 0.5 inches over 40 ft, respectively. 4.4.3 Foundation Setback Footings for structures should be designed such that the horizontal distance from the face of adjacent slopes to the outer edge of the footing is at least 10 feet. In addition, footings should bear beneath a 1:1 plane extended up from the nearest bottom edge of adjacent trenches and/or excavations. Deepening of footings may be a suitable means of attaining the prescribed setbacks. 4.4.4 Interior Concrete Slabs Lightly loaded non-traffic area concrete slabs on properly prepared subgrade should be a minimum of five 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 supersede these recommendations, as applicable. 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 consultant could be obtained. UES is not an expert at preventing moisture penetration through slabs. A qualified architect or other experienced professional should be contacted if moisture penetration is significant concern. Subgrade 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. 4.5 Drilled Pile Foundations The portion of the building located in the vicinity of the existing retaining wall may be supported on deep foundations consisting of cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) pile foundations bearing on competent Santiago Formation materials. 4.5.1 Cast-in-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) Piles Geotechnical recommendations presented herein for design and construction of CIDH pile foundations are preliminary and may require modifications based on conditions encountered during construction. UES representatives should observe excavations of CIDH piles to verify adequate bearing materials and depth. Foundation dimensions should be provided by the structural designer based on load requirements and the geotechnical parameters provided below: Limited Geotechnical Investigation - Noel Residence ADU Project No. A25165.00039 March 10, 2025 Page 7 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115, Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com • Bottom of drilled piers should extend a minimum of 2 feet below the bottom of the existing wall footing into competent formation as observed by the geotechnical representative. • Allowable vertical bearing value: 3,000 psf (may be increased by 1/3 for short duration loading). • Skin friction value: 400 psf for upward and downward loading (below minimum depth of 1 ft). • Vertical bearing and skin friction can be combined for resistance of static downward forces. • Allowable lateral bearing value of 250 psf per foot of depth, disregarding the top 1 foot of adjacent subgrade (for a foundation or improvements not adversely affected by a ½-inch motion at the ground surface due to short term loadings). Maximum allowable lateral passive earth pressure of 2,500 psf; may be increased by 1/3 for short duration loading. • Effective width = 2.0 times the width of the foundations (due to passive arching). • Caving of fill soil could occur during drilling. The use of casing may be considered. 4.5.2 Grade Beams Grade beams connecting drilled piers may be constructed to distribute structural loads or resist lateral loads as necessary. Grade beam reinforcement should be designed by the structural engineer. Lateral resistance of grade beams may be evaluated using the design parameters provided herein. 4.6 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures Lateral loads acting against structures may be resisted by friction between the footings and the supporting soil or passive earth pressure. If frictional resistance is used, allowable coefficients of friction of 0.30 (total frictional resistance equals the coefficient of friction multiplied by the dead load) for concrete cast directly against compacted fill or native material is recommended. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and the passive resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance. The upper two feet of retaining wall footings should not be included in passive pressure calculations unless the finish grade is covered by a concrete slab or asphalt pavement extending horizontally at least 10 feet away from the retaining wall. Retaining walls backfilled using approved soils may be designed using the equivalent fluid unit weights given in the table below. TABLE 4.6 EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHTS (Gh,, pcf) WALL TYPE LEVEL BACKFILL SLOPE BACKFILL 2:1 (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL) CANTILEVER WALL (YIELDING) 35 55 RESTRAINED WALL 55 95 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 Limited Geotechnical Investigation - Noel Residence ADU Project No. A25165.00039 March 10, 2025 Page 8 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115, Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com against a properly drained and backfilled cantilever retaining wall above the groundwater level can be expressed as: PAE = PA + ΔPAE For non-yielding (or “restrained”) walls, the total lateral earth pressure may be similarly calculated based on work by Wood (1973): PKE = PK + ΔPKE where: PA/b = Static Active Earth Pressure = GhH2/2 PK/b = Static Restrained Wall Earth Pressure = GhH2/2 ΔPAE/b = Dynamic Active Earth Pressure Increment = (3/8) kh γH2 ΔPKE/b = Dynamic Restrained Earth Pressure Increment = kh γH2 b = unit length of wall (usually 1 foot) kh = 1/2* PGAm (PGAm given previously Table 3.7) Gh = Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (given previously Table 4.6) H = Total Height of the Retained Soil γ = Total Unit Weight of Soil ≈ 120 pounds per cubic foot *It is anticipated that the 1/2 reduction factor will be appropriate for proposed walls that are not substantially sensitive to movement during the design seismic event. Proposed walls that are more sensitive to such movement could utilize a 2/3 reduction factor. If any proposed walls require minimal to no movement during the design seismic event, no reduction factor to the peak ground acceleration should be used. The project structural engineer of record should determine the appropriate reduction factor to use (if any) based on the specific proposed wall characteristics. 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 approved select granular 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. Waterproofing should be as specified by the project architect. A retaining wall backfill and drainage detail is presented in Figure 2. 4.7 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. Limited Geotechnical Investigation - Noel Residence ADU Project No. A25165.00039 March 10, 2025 Page 9 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115, Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com Generally, UES recommends against allowing water to infiltrate building pads or adjacent to slopes. UES understands that some agencies are encouraging the use of stormwater cleansing devices. Use of such devices tends to increase the possibility of adverse effects associated with high groundwater including slope instability. 4.8 Temporary Construction Slopes The following recommended temporary 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 below. TABLE 4.8 RECOMMENDED TEMPORARY SLOPE RATIOS SOIL TYPE SLOPE RATIO (H:V) MAXIMUM HEIGHT B (Santiago Formation) 1:1 (OR FLATTER) 10 Feet C (Previously Placed Fill) 1.5:1 (OR FLATTER) 5 Feet Actual field conditions and soil type designations must be verified by a "competent person" while excavations exist, in accordance with Cal-OSHA regulations. The above sloping recommendations do not allow for surcharge loading at the top of slopes by vehicular traffic, equipment or materials or seepage. Appropriate surcharge setbacks must be maintained from the top of all unshored slopes. 4.9 Slopes Properly constructed slopes graded at a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) surface ratio on this site should be grossly stable. Site soils are susceptible to erosion; therefore, runoff water should not be permitted to drain over the slopes. Runoff should be directed 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. UES recommends against building distress-sensitive hardscape improvements within five feet of slope crests. 4.10 Exterior Flatwork Based on the results of Expansion Index testing, UES recommends that concrete flatwork be installed with crack-control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the project architect. Flatwork that should be installed with crack control joints includes driveways, sidewalks, and architectural features. As an added precaution, flatwork could be constructed with minimum eight-inch thickened edges that taper moderately back to the standard thickness of the flatwork. Positive drainage should be established and maintained next to all flatwork. Doweling and caulking flatwork joints at their intersections with existing and proposed improvements or other critical pathways could also be beneficial in resisting minor soil movement. Doweling of flatwork and/or sidewalks is also recommended to decrease minor observable soil movement. Slip-type doweling may be used if Limited Geotechnical Investigation - Noel Residence ADU Project No. A25165.00039 March 10, 2025 Page 10 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115, Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com acceptable to the project architect, civil engineer and/or structural engineer; however, resulting joints shall be caulked. Caulking of shallow saw-cut control joints is not generally considered necessary unless desired by the project design team. However, such joints should be observed during construction in order to evaluate potential concrete shrinkage to allow significant moisture intrusion. Sealing of these shallow control joints may be recommended depending upon the potential for crack induced moisture intrusion. To reduce the potential for cracking in exterior non-traffic flatwork areas caused by minor movement of subgrade soils and typical concrete shrinkage, it is recommended that such flatwork measure a minimum of 5 inches in thickness. Additionally, it is recommended that flatwork be installed with at least No. 4 reinforcing bars on maximum 18-inch centers, each way, at above mid-height of slab, but with proper concrete cover, or other reinforcement per the project consultants. All subgrades should be prepared according to the earthwork recommendations provided before placing concrete. Positive drainage should be established and maintained next to all flatwork. Subgrade materials shall be maintained at, or be elevated to, the recommended above optimum moisture content just prior to concrete placement. In general, landscape areas should be avoided next to buildings and/or flatwork areas. 4.11 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 proposed improvements. Positive drainage should be directed away from improvements and slope areas at a minimum gradient of two percent for a distance of at least five feet. In order to minimize moisture accumulation within subgrade areas, irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to maintain landscaping. Existing site drainage should be evaluated by a civil engineer, and changes made as necessary to prevent drainage to the wall areas. Additionally, any existing drains should be inspected, maintained, and cleaned as necessary. 4.12 Plan Review and Field Observation UES should review the grading and structural plans prior to commencement of earthwork in order to provide additional evaluation and recommendations, as necessary. In addition, it is our understanding and assumption that UES will provide observation and testing services during grading and construction activities for the project. The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions observed at the site during our investigation. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be confirmed by UES once more precise project plans are available and during construction with respect to anticipated conditions. Foundation recommendations may be revised upon completion of grading, and as-built laboratory test results become available. All earthwork should be observed and tested in accordance with recommendations contained in this report. Limited Geotechnical Investigation - Noel Residence ADU Project No. A25165.00039 March 10, 2025 Page 11 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115, Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com 5.0 LIMITATIONS 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. If conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, this office should be notified and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided. 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 our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. The recommendations provided herein are intended to help mitigate the effects of potential soil settlement and expansion at the site. However, some adverse effects from soil settlement or expansion may still occur, and some minor wall distress over time should be anticipated. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding our recommendations, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, UES PROFESSIONAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Andres Bernal, GE #2715 Dennis A. Kilian, CEG #2672 Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Engineering Geologist ATTACHMENTS: Figure 1 - Geotechnical Exploration Location Map Figure 2 - Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Appendix A - References Appendix B - Backcut Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results Appendix D - Standard Specifications for Grading A SCALE 1"=20' PROPOSED ADU A25165.00039 FIGURE: 1" = 20'SCALE: DATE:2/25 UES JOB NO:SITE PLAN AND EXPLORATION LOCATION MAPACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 2715 GREENOCK COURT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 1 T-1 T-2Qppf Tsa Qppf Tsa EXPLANATION APPROXIMATE BACKCUT LOG LOCATION QUATERNARY PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL OVERTERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION T-2 Qppf Tsa I I □ 0 I I I \ 2717 GREENOCK COURT APN: 208-112-34 --_____ x ____ ~lO"E 121_12' SUB MAP NO. 9935 4738 GATESHEAD ROAD APN: 208-112-31 SUB MAP NO. 9935 --X --X ---=-)( -=====-X ~-;;-- ---. -=--=---~ X ~ 7 1111 II EX. HOUSE 2715 GREENOCK COURT APN: 208-112-33 SUB MAP NO. 9935 X I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I I I I I I I x\ '~ I I I I I I I l'j I I I I \ \ I X ;!i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 47itN~A~:~-~~AD I SUB MAP NO. 9935 X I I I 1' I I I I I I I ~ : I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1215\J G : I I 1, I I I I I )_--_-_ .... , / / I I I I I /I / / / = . H=5.2' : --------~----~--::"'.===~~"'.5";;::~'=:::~~~===~~~'=d ..::s~==--'=_=_=_=_2~-...:;::~~~.:'!'~~~E~~~~!!~~~~~ ...... ~~~~~-='~~~~~~~~~-3• MIN LANDSCAPING BETVfiN· SIDEWALK ANO RETAINING WALL TYP ENTIRE LENGTH Of WALL 10 20 INVERNESS DRIVE ! 1 1 SELECT GRANULAR WALL BACKFILL COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION 3/4" GRAVEL SURROUNDED BY FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140 N. OR EQUIVALENT) -OR- PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE BOARD FINISH GRADE RETAINING WALL WATERPROOFING TO BE SPECIFIED BY ARCHITECT 12" TO 18" OF LOWER PERMEABILITY MATERIAL COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION 1' MIN 4" DIA. PERFORATED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQUIVALENT). MINIMUM 1% GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET WALL FOOTING *CONCEPTUAL DRAWING RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAILACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 2715 GREENOCK COURT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA A25165.00039 1/25 2 AS SHOWN .... :•. .. . .. . . . ~.. . . .. : ..... . .. ·:· • ... .. ·.··.: ·•: .. . .. . . . . • .. : •: <1" . :··. :: .• . -· ... • .. •: . . . . ... .. ... .. .. - - - -.6 . :_ •. •. 11-111-111-111-•.. ••• I I ' 111 111 111 · .. <1 ~->·<·_:-: l~~ill™ill . ~ ::\::' ;. , :: .. : <1 .. . . . . --. == m m -11· -1 I i' I I I I i' I I I I ,11 1=-· -111-1 · '' LIES •• SCALE: DATE: UES JOB NO.: FIGURE: Limited Geotechnical Investigation - Noel Residence ADU Project No. A25165.00039 March 10, 2025 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115, Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1. American Society for Civil Engineers, 2016, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,” ASCE/SEI 7-16. 2. California Building Code, 2022, “California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2,” California Building Standards Commission, published by ICBO, June. 3. California Geological Survey, 2009, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California, County of San Diego. 4. Civil Landworks, 2023, Civil Plans, 2751 Greenock Court, APN 208-112-33, dated November 7, 2023. 5. CTE, 2020, Retaining Wall Recommendations, Proposed Noel Residence Retaining Wall, 2715 Greenock Court, Carlsbad, California, CTE Job No. 10-15347G, dated January 31, 2020. 6. CTE/UES, 2023, Proposed Noel Residence Retaining Wall Review and Update to Geotechnical Recommendations, 2715 Greenock Court, Carlsbad, California, CTE Job No. 10-15347G, dated November 13, 2023. 7. FEMA, 2012, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map Number 06073C1910G, San Diego County, California and Incorporated Areas dated May 16, 2012. 8. Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California, California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 2, 1:100,000. 9. SEAOC, Blue Book-Seismic Design Recommendations, “Seismically Induced Lateral Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures and Basement Walls,” Article 09.10.010, October 2013. 10. 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. 11. Tan, S.S. “Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California” dated 1995, CDMG Landslide Identification Map No. 33. 12. UES, 2023, “Response to City of Carlsbad Review Comments PROJECT ID: ROW2023‐0781, Dated December 11, 2023 (1st review),” UES/CTE Job No. 4830.2015347, dated December 14, 2023. 13. Wood, J.H. 1973, Earthquake-Induced Soil Pressures on Structures, Report EERL 73-05. Pasadena: California Institute of Technology. Limited Geotechnical Investigation - Noel Residence ADU Project No. A25165.00039 March 10, 2025 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115, Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION LOGS DEFINITION OF TERMS PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC FINES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC FINES CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES INORGANIC SILTS, VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS, SLIGHTLY PLASTIC CLAYEY SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY, SANDY, SILTY OR LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDYOR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS GRAIN SIZES GRAVEL SAND COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE 12" 3" 3/4"4 10 40 200 CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE ADDITIONAL TESTS (OTHER THAN TEST PIT AND BORING LOG COLUMN HEADINGS) MAX‐ Maximum Dry Density PM‐ Permeability PP‐ Pocket Penetrometer GS‐ Grain Size Distribution SG‐ Specific Gravity WA‐ Wash Analysis SE‐ Sand Equivalent HA‐ Hydrometer Analysis DS‐ Direct Shear EI‐ Expansion Index AL‐ Atterberg Limits UC‐ Unconfined Compression CHM‐ Sulfate and Chloride RV‐ R‐Value MD‐ Moisture/Density Content , pH, Resistivity CN‐ Consolidation M‐ Moisture COR ‐ Corrosivity CP‐ Collapse Potential SC‐ Swell Compression SD‐ Sample Disturbed HC‐ Hydrocollapse OI‐ Organic Impurities REM‐ Remolded FIGURE: BL1 GW SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS LESS THAN 50 SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS GREATER THAN 50 SANDSMORE THAN HALF OF COARSE FRACTION IS SMALLER THAN NO. 4 SIEVE GRAVELSMORE THANHALF OFCOARSEFRACTION ISLARGER THANNO. 4 SIEVE CLEANGRAVELS< 5% FINES GRAVELS WITH FINES CLEANSANDS< 5% FINES SANDSWITH FINES CO A R S E G R A I N E D SO I L S MO R E THA N HA L F OF MA T E R I A L IS LAR G E R T H AN NO . 20 0 SI E V E SI Z E GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT FI N E G R A I N E D S O I L S MO R E THA N HA L F OF MA T E R I A L I S SM A L L E R TH A N N O. 20 0 SI E V E SI Z E HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SILTS AND CLAYSCOBBLESBOULDERS ~, LIES™ un:iversal E111ginee;ri11g Sciences (UES) 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 11.5 E.scoridido, CA 92026 P-760_746-4955 I TeamllJES_com '!!c< -· ?;r-;; 1~ -~<1 !;?i .... . .. .-Fl~,i ~,: rif , :s, .--:.--~ -~-:.-.-c -.r •• . .,. __ --:,-_.__ ~-__ --:.-.-<: / '/ ,, // ~ ~~ ~ 1/ './ '// , ., ~ % ~ ~~ I?, 1/. w ~ mm '''' ~,, ·-~~ ~, ,. -~1/. ~----~ I I I l I PROJECT:DRILLER:SHEET:of UES JOB NO:DRILL METHOD:DRILLING DATE: LOGGED BY:SAMPLE METHOD:ELEVATION: De p t h ( F e e t ) Bu l k S a m p l e Dr i v e n T y p e Bl o w s / F o o t Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Mo i s t u r e ( % ) U. S . C . S . S y m b o l Gr a p h i c L o g BORING LEGEND Laboratory Tests DESCRIPTION Block or Chunk Sample Bulk Sample Standard Penetration Test Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler (Cal Sampler) Thin Walled Army Corp. of Engineers Sample Groundwater Table Soil Type or Classification Change ??????? Formation Change [(Approximate boundaries queried (?)] "SM"Quotes are placed around classifications where the soilsexist in situ as bedrock FIGURE:BL2 .... 0 .... - .... --.... -~ - -- -5- .... - .... - .... - .... - 10- .... - - - - - .... - .... 15· .... - .... - .... - .... - 20- - - - - .... - .... - 25· .... - ~, LIES .. u n:iversam E111ginee;ri 11g Sciences (U ES) 1441 Mo,nt iel Road, Suit e 11.5 Escor1d ido, CA 9202.6 P-760_ 746-4955 I TeamllJES_com ~ .. ~ .. .... I - I _y_ - \__ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - \_ I PROJECT:EXCAVATOR: UES JOB NO:EXCAVATION METHOD: LOGGED BY:SAMPLING METHOD:ELEVATION: Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Mo i s t u r e ( % ) U. S . C . S . S y m b o l Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( F e e t ) Bu l k S a m p l e Dr i v e n T y p e Laboratory Tests SM SC "SM" TOTAL DEPTH: 5 FT. FIGURE:NORTH EI, MAX, REM DS BL-1 NORTH BACKCUT DESCRIPTION 3/4/2025 DK N/A ±216 FT. MSL Contractor A25165.00039.000 Mini Excavator DATE: Noel Residence ADU 0 2 5 QUATERNARY PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qppf): Loose to medium dense,moist, light gray brown, silty, fine-grained SAND, trace clay, roots, and debris. RESIDUAL SOIL: Dense, moist, red brown, clayey, fine-grained SAND. TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa): Very dense, moist, light gray brown, silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; trace clay. Mottled with oxidation nodules. Oxidized interbeds/laminations of red brown clay up to 1/8" thick (N27W, 30SW). 1 3 4 '' LIES™ Universal Engineering Sciences (UES) 1441 Mon iel Road, Suite 115 Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 I TeamUES.com ~~ I PROJECT:EXCAVATOR: UES JOB NO:EXCAVATION METHOD: LOGGED BY:SAMPLING METHOD:ELEVATION: Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Mo i s t u r e ( % ) U. S . C . S . S y m b o l Gr a p h i c L o g De p t h ( F e e t ) Bu l k S a m p l e Dr i v e n T y p e Laboratory Tests SM SC SM TOTAL DEPTH: 5 FT. FIGURE: Noel Residence ADU Contractor A25165.00039.000 Mini Excavator DATE:3/4/2025 DK N/A ±216 FT. MSL BL-2 SOUTHEAST CORNER BACKCUT DESCRIPTION NORTH 0 2 5 FILL: Loose to medium dense, moist, light gray brown, silty, fine SAND, trace clay, roots, and debris. RESIDUAL SOIL: Dense, moist, red brown, clayey fine SAND. TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION: Dense, moist, light gray brown, silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE. Mottled with oxidation nodules. Oxidized veins/laminations of red brown clay. 1 3 4 '' LIES™ Universal Engineering Sciences (UES) 1441 Mon iel Road, Suite 115 Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 I TeamUES.com -- I Limited Geotechnical Investigation - Noel Residence ADU Project No. A25165.00039 March 10, 2025 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115, Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS (UES, 2025) AND CTE (2020) Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their engineering properties. Tests were performed following test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials, or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the various test methods used. Laboratory results are presented in the following section of this Appendix. Classification (ASTM D2487) Earth materials encountered were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS/ASTM D2487) and ASTM D2488. Material classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory borings presented in Appendix B. Expansion Index Test (ASTM D4829) Expansion index testing was performed on selected samples of the earth materials encountered in general accordance with the ASTM D4829 test method. The test determines the expansion potential of the materials encountered. The test results are presented below. EXPANSION INDEX (ASTM D4829) Sample Location / Depth (feet) Expansion Index Expansion Potential BL-1 @ 3.0-5.0 36 LOW Laboratory Compaction Characteristics Test (ASTM D1557) Laboratory compaction characteristics testing was performed on selected samples of the earth materials encountered in general accordance with the ASTM D1557 test method. The test establishes the laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the tested materials and are also used to aid in evaluating the strength characteristics of the materials. LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS (ASTM D1557) Sample Location / Depth (feet) Maximum Dry Density (pounds per cubic foot) Optimum Moisture (percent) BL-1 @ 3.0-5.0 115.1 11.4 Direct Shear Test (ASTM D3080) Direct shear testing was performed on selected remolded samples of the earth materials encountered in general accordance with ASTM D3080 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of the materials. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. The test results are presented in the following section of this appendix. Limited Geotechnical Investigation - Noel Residence ADU Project No. A25165.00039 March 10, 2025 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115, Escondido, CA 92026 p. 760.746.4955 | TeamUES.com Soil Corrosivity Tests The water-soluble sulfate and chloride content, the resistivity, and pH of selected samples were performed by a third-party laboratory in general accordance with California Test Methods. The tests results are useful in the assessment of the degree of corrosivity of the earth materials encountered with regard to concrete and normal grade steel. The test results are presented below. CORROSIVITY (CTM 417, CTM 422 and CTM 643) Sample Location / Depth (feet) Material Type (USCS) pH Minimum Resistivity (Ohm-cm) Water Soluble Sulfates (ppm) Water Soluble Chlorides (ppm) BL-1 @ 3.0-5.0 Silty SAND (SM) 7.97 4,000 224.7 25.4 I I I I I I I M.M.Date: M.M.Date: Client Date: BL-1 @ 3'-5' Sample Description: 150 200 100 50 1 2 3 4 Dry X 3899 3932 3818 3903 Moist 1983 1983 1983 1983 1916 1949 1835 1920 X 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 181.0 177.5 184.0 174.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Drop: 10.5 12.7 8.7 14.6 126.8 129.0 121.5 127.1 114.8 114.5 111.8 110.9 X Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) May be used if No.4 retained =/< 25% Procedure B Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) May be used if 3/8" retained =/< 25% Procedure C Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six) May be used if 3/4" retained =/< 30% Plus 3/4" Plus 3/8" Plus #4 A25165.00039.000 36893 Not Submitted LABORATORY COMPACTION OF SOIL (MOD.) ASTM D 1557 Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 18 in. Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) Wet Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%) Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) PROCEDURE USED 115.1 11.4 Rock Correction Applied per ASTM D 4718 0 0.0 03/04/2025 Mold Volume (ft.3):0.03330 Mechanical Rammer Manual Rammer Moisture Added (ml) Net Wt. of Soil (g) Wt. of Mold (g) 10.0 lb. Project Name: Project Number: Lab Number: Sample Location: 02/28/2025 Noel ADU Tested By : Calculated By : Sampled By: 03/04/2025 Wt. of Container (g) Depth (ft.) TEST NO. Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (g) Hammer Weight: Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) Grey SM Preparation Method: OVERSIZE FRACTION Total Sample Weight (g):10435 Percent Retained N/A N/A Weight Retained (g) 105.0 110.0 115.0 120.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) 36893 - Proctor ,,ues .. J ,.,. J I , J • J -~ I\ ' I\ - E3 E3 SHEAR STRENGTH TEST - ASTM D3080 Job Name:Noel Residence ADU Project Number:A25165.00039 3/4/2025 Lab Number:36893 3/5/2025 Sample Location:BL-1 @ 3.0' - 5.0'LV Sample Description:Light Brown SM (Remolded 90% Max.)Friction Angle:32.1 Test Date:Final Moisture (%):15.3 Tested By:Cohesion:270 psf Initial Dry Density (pcf):103.6 Sample Date:Initial Moisture (%):11.4 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.1 1 10 100 ST R A I N ( % ) TIME (minutes) PRECONSOLIDATION 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 5 10 15 20 SH E A R S T R E S S ( p s f ) STRAIN (%) SHEAR DATA 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 SH E A R S T R E S S ( p s f ) VERTICAL STRESS (psf) FAILURE ENVELOPE dr=0.08 mm./min VERTICAL STRESS 1000 psf 3000 psf 5000 psf ' -' ~ / ~ - (__~ ~ ----v __ ---~ I I I 1, 1, ·~ I ~I LIES,. APPENDIX D STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Appendix D Standard Specifications for Grading Page D-1 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 GRADINGG Page 1 of 26 Appendix D Standard Specifications for Grading Page D-2 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, reservoirs, 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 GRADINGG Page 2 of 26 Appendix D Standard Specifications for Grading STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 3 of 26 Page D-3 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. Appendix D Standard Specifications for Grading STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 4 of 26 Page D-4 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. Appendix D Standard Specifications for Grading STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 5 of 26 Page D-5 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 in 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 Appendix D Standard Specifications for Grading STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 6 of 26 Page D-6 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. Appendix D Standard Specifications for Grading STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 7 of 26 Page D-7 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 Appendix D Standard Specifications for Grading Page D-8 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 GRADINGG Page 8 of 26 Appendix D Standard Specifications for Grading STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 9 of 26 Page D-9 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. 10.3 - 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. Appendix D Standard Specifications for Grading STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 10 of 26 Page D-10 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). FINISH CUT SLOPE ---- 5'MIN ---------- BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL FILL SLOPE 10' TYPICAL SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL 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) NOTTO SCALE BENCHING FOR COMPACTED FILL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 11 of 26 --- -- MINIMUM DOWNSLOPE KEY DEPTH TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN FILL __ -------------------------:"\fc.~\J)-\.. -- - -----1c. fc.J)-~'\r\ ~~-- - - -~ J)-~\.: ---~su' ~------------ ---\J ----1 O' TYPICAL BENCH / ---WIDTH VARIES ~1 ---/ 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 4' FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL GROUND DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 12 of 26 C/) -I )> z Cl )> :D Cl C/) ""CJ ""CJ m ~ (") (0 - CD :::!J ...I. (") w )> 0 :::! -h 0 1\)2 (j) C/) "Tl 0 :D G) :D )> Cl z G) - REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM, AND CREEP MATERIAL FROM TRANSITION CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON "AS-BUILT" NATURAL __ TOPOGRAPP~Y __ ------------CUT SLOPE* FILL --------------w,.o\J'c---- -£:_'c-?-~€ - ---Noc~ --- - -~\}\DWI ~ <">-I --0:S~\.. cOL:,_------1 r4' TYPICAL \ \ ----------2% MIN -/ " 1 0' TYPICAL 15' MINIMUM NOT TO SCALE BEDROCK OR APPROVED FOUNDATION MATERIAL *NOTE: CUT SLOPE PORTION SHOULD BE MADE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL FILL SLOPE ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL [ SURFACEOF COMPETENT MATERIAL --~-------------~ -....... ' /,,,,. ,'\ COMPACTED FILL /'/ '' // ' / \' / '' / / TYPICAL BENCHING ....___ ' / ,c..._.,._ 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" 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 NOTTO SCALE INITIAL 500' 500' TO 1500' > 1500' PIPE DIAMETER 4" 6" 8" TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 14 of 26 TYPICAL BENCHING CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS --....... ,,... ....... ' // [ SURFACE OF COMPETENT MATERIAL ,'' COMPACTED FILL / '/ '' // ' / \' / ,, // --,_,,,, __ ..._ ' / REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL SEE DETAILS BELOW TRENCH DETAILS 6" MINIMUM OVERLAP INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN AT 2% GRADIENT MINIMUM OPTIONAL V-DITCH DETAIL MINIMUM 9 FT3 PER LINEAR FOOT OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL 6" MINIMUM OVERLAP --------0 24" MINIMUM MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40 POLY- VINYLCHLORIDE (P.V.C.) 24" MINIMUM MINIMUM 9 FT3 PER LINEAR FOOT OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI. 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 6" Min. SUBDRAIN PIPE 6" Min. 24" Min. 6" Min. SIDE VIEW ~ 12" Min.~ 6" Min. CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL __ __.,•.,..-.'!--.. · . ' .... ' 6" Min . -.. -... . . -, ." SOILD SUBDRAIN PIPE ... ~ ... PERFORATED SUBDRAIN PIPE _·.;._·; ...... . ------,~fflr---7 ... ;·.~ ... ;·.rT---iarm:w----- .... '1;• . 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 -►. -'►. -'►. _.,, 'b."'b."'b.' ~-'~.,.o.., I . ' ' -9 • I ► -'► -'►-, ,·b.. ,·b.. ,·b. • .iib. . ' .6. • ' ~ • ' ► -'► -'►-, ,, • b. • ' • b. • ' • b. • .o..,~.,-A ., -•· -··-.. ► - , ► - , ►-., • b. • •' • b. • ' • b. • .0. • ' .0. . ' ~ . ' 1---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 BENCHING 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 4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED PIPE LATERAL DRAIN SLOPE PER PLAN FILTER MATERIAL 2%MIN 1 1 ' ........,.._I I I 111 I 11- 1 I ' BENCHING H/2 ~1 ===.. ~. IFF.:,=, ,:rr· 1 "'T""'!, ........ , • ,......,_JI" I · 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 NOTTO 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 OVEREXCAVATE 3' AND REPLACE WITH COMPACTED FILL 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') NOTTO SCALE DAYLIGHT SHEAR KEY DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 20 of 26 NATURAL GROUND PROPOSED GRADING ------------------COMPACTED FILL ----------------------------------------------- PROVIDE BACKDRAIN, PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL. AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR BACK SLOPES IN EXCESS OF BASE WIDTH "W" DETERMINED BY SOILS ENGINEER NOTTO SCALE 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 COMPACTED FILL 2.0% MINIMUM GRADIENT A 4" MINIMUM DIAMETER SOLID OUTLET PIPE SPACED PER SOIL ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS 4" MINIMUM APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE** (PERFORATIONS DOWN) MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT TO OUTLET DURING GRADING TYPICAL BENCH INCLINED TOWARD DRAIN **APPROVED PIPE TYPE: MINIMUM 12" COVER SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI BENCHING DETAIL A-A OMPACTE BACKFILL 12" MINIMUM TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED SOLID OUTLET PIPE *FILTER ROCK TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL: SIEVE SIZE 1" ¾" ¾" N0.4 NO. 30 NO. 50 NO. 200 PERCENTAGE PASSING 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 5-15 0-7 0-3 NOTTO SCALE TYPICAL BACKDRAIN DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 22 of 26 FINISH SURFACE SLOPE MINIMUM 3 FT3 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 OMPACTE BACKFILL 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. 10' i FILL SLOPE 1 CLEAR ZONE __/ EQUIPMENT WIDTH STACK BOULDERS END TO END. DO NOT PILE UPON EACH OTHER. 0 0 0 0 ~ 10' MIN O NOT TO SCALE 0 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 POOL:_i 0 0 1--d 4•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 CUTLOT ------------ ------, --UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OVEREXCAVATE AND REGRADE COMPACTED FILL ----TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM --AND WEATHERED ... BEDROCK _,,,.. _,,,.. _,,,.. _,,,.. _,,,.. _,,,.. _,,,...,. CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION) UNWEATHERED BEDROCK NOT TO SCALE TRANSITION LOT DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 26 of 26 3'MIN OVEREXCAVATE AND REGRADE