Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDEV 2016-0070; DEMPSEY RESIDENCE; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED DEMPSEY RESIDENCE; 2016-12-30I I CljE Inc.Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. Inspection | Testing | Geotedinica! | Environmental & Construction Engineering | Chril Engineering | Surveying r GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED DEMPSEY RESIDENCE APN: 215-491-36-00, BOLERO STREET CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECORD COPY Initial Oate Prepared for: ATTENTION: MR. JOHN DEMPSEY 1835 ASTON AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Prepared by: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 1441 MONTIEL ROAD, SUITE 115 ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92026 RECEIVED JUL 1 4 20iv LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING CTEJOBNO.; 10-13435G December 30, 2016 1441 Montiel Road. Suite 115 | Escondido. OA 92026 | Ph (760) 746^955 | Fax (760) 746-9806 | www.cte-inc.riet TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCnON 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 3.3 Percolation Testing 3 4.0 GEOLOGY 5 4.1 General Setting 5 4.2 Geologic Conditions 5 4.2.1 Quaternary Previously Placed FiU (Qppf) 5 4.2.2 Residual Soil (unmapped) 6 4.2.3 Metasedimentary and Metavolcanic Rocks Undivided (Mzu) 6 4.3 Groundwater Conditions 6 4.4 Geologic Hazards 6 4.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture 7 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting 7 4.4.3 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Evaluation 7 4.4.4 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation 8 4.4.5 Landsliding 8 4.4.6 Compressible and Expansive Soils 8 4.4.7 Corrosive Sods 9 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 5.1 General 10 5.2 Site Preparation 10 5.3 Site Excavation 12 5.4 Fill Placement and Compaction 12 5.5 FUl Materials 13 5.6 Temporary Construction Slopes 14 5.7 Construction Shoring 15 5.8 Foimdation and Slab Recommendations 17 5.8.1 Foundations 17 5.8.2 Foundation Settlement 18 5.8.3 Foundation Setback 18 5.8.4 Interior Concrete Slabs 19 5.9 Seismic Design Criteria 20 5.10 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures 21 5.11 Exterior Flatwork 23 5.12 Drainage 24 5.13 Slopes 24 5.14 Plan Review 25 5.15 Construction Observation 25 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTTGATTON 26 FIGURES FIGURE 1 nGURE2 FIGURES nGURE4 SITE INDEX MAP GEOLOGIC/EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E REFERENCES EXPLORATION LOGS LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING WORKSHEETS D.5-1 and 1-8 Geotechnical Investigation Page 1 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30, 2016 CTE Job No. 10-13435G 1.0 INTRODUCnON AND SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.1 Introduction This report presents results ofthe geotechnical investigation, performed by Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. (CTE), and provides preliminary conclusions and recommendations for the proposed improvements at APN: 215-491-36-00 in Carlsbad, California. This work has been performed in general accordance with the terms of Proposal No. G-3934. CTE imderstands that site grades are to be raised with approximately 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fidl soils and that proposed improvements are to include a one- to two-story residence with flatwork, retaining walls, utilities, and other associated minor improvements. Preliminary geotechnical recommendations for overexcavations, fill placement, and foimdation design for the proposed improvements are presented in this report Selected references pertinent to this project are provided in Appendix A. 1.2 Scope of Services The scope of services provided included: • Review of applicable geologic and geotechnical maps and reports. • Excavation of exploratory borings and soil sampling utilizing a truck-mounted drill rig. • Laboratory testing of selected soil samples. • Percolation testing in general accordance with the Coimty of San Diego procedures. • Description of site geology and evaluation of potential geologic hazards. • Engineering and geologic analysis. • Preparation of this prelinunary geotechnical investigation report \\Esc_server\pn)jects\10-13435G\Rpt_Oeotechnical.doc Greotechnical Investigation Page 2 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30,2016 CTE JobNo. 10-13435G 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site, ■vvliich is identified as APN: 215-491-36-00, is located west of Bolero Street in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The site is bounded by Bolero Street to the east, existing residences to the north and south, and a descending slope to the west. Existing site conditions are illustrated on Figures 1 and 2. The proposed improvement area currently consists of an undeveloped lot. Based on reconnaissance and review of site topogr^hy, the site descends to the southwest with elevations ranging from approximately 393 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the northeast to approximately 365 feet above msl in the southwest 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 3.1 Field Investigation CTE performed the field investigation on November 22 and 23,2016. The field work consisted of site reconnaissance and excavation of three borings and three percolation test holes. The borings were advanced to a maximum depth of approximately 11 feet below groimd surface (bgs) before reaching practical refusal to further excavation in very dense metavolcanic rock. Bulk samples were collected from the cuttings, and relatively undisturbed samples were collected by driving Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Modified California (CAE) samplers. The Borings were advanced with a CME-75 truck-mounted drill rig equipped with eight-inch-diameter, hollow-stem augers. Additionally, three test holes were excavated to depths ranging from ^proximately 2.5 to 5.0 feet bgs for the purpose of percolation testing. The approximate location of the exploratory soil borings and percolation test holes are shown on attached Figure 2. \\Esc_servei\projects\10-13435Gf\Rpt_GeotechnicaLdoc Geotechnical Investigation Page 3 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30,2016 CTE JobNo. 10-13435G The sods 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 soUs encountered, are included in Appendix B. The approximate locations of the borings are presented on Figure 2. 3.2 Laboratorv Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples for classification purposes, and to evaluate physical properties and engineering characteristics. Laboratory tests included: Expansion Index (El), Gradation, and Chemical Characteristics. Test descriptions and laboratory test results are included in Appendix C. 3.3 Percolation Testing Three percolation tests were performed for potential storm water infiltration design and/or evaluation. These tests were performed in general accordance with the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (SD DEH) procedures. The tests were specifically performed in accordance with SD DEH Case 1 and Case HI methods. The Case 1 Method is performed when presoak water remains in the test hole overnight and Case in method is performed when presoak water infiltrates through the test hole overnight The approximate percolation test locations are presented on Figure 2. The percolation test results are presented ha the table below. The infiltration rates have been calculated utilizdng a factor of safety of 3.5 based on the completed worksheet D.5-1 (Appendix E). If necessary, the project storm water or basin designer may modiJfy the factor of safety based on an independent evaluation of Worksheet D.5-1 attached in Appendix E. The \\Esc_servei\pn)jects\10-13435Q\Rpt_Qeotedmical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30,2016 Page 4 CTE JobNo. 10-13435G infiltration feasibility information is also presented on the completed 1-8 Worksheet attached in Appendix E. Test Location Soil Type San Diego County Percolation Procedure Depth (ft) Percolation Rate (minutes/inch) Infiltration Rate (inches per hour) P-1 Residual SoU Case 1 5.0 Did Not Perc - P-2 Residual Soil Case in 3.7 240 0.014 P-3 Residual Soil/Mzu Case 1 2.5 Did Not Perc - Mzu = Metasedimentary and Metavolcanic Rock The percolation test results were obtained in general accordance with City and County standards (County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Land and Water Quality Division) and performed with the standard of care practiced by other professionals in the area. However, percolation test results can significantly vary laterally and vertically due to shght changes in soil type, degree of weathering, secondary mineralization, and other physical and chemical variabilities. As such, the test results are considered to be an estimate of percolation and converted infiltration rates for design purposes. No guarantee is made based on the percolation testing related to the actual fimctionality or longevity of associated BMP devices designed fiom the presented infiltration rates. \\Esc_server\prqjocts\10-13435Q\Rpt_OeotechnicaLdoc Geotechnical Investigation Page 5 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30,2016 GTE Job No. 10-13435G 4.0 GEOLOGY 4.1 General Setting Carlsbad 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, a central mountaine-valley area and the eastern mountain valley area. The site is located on the western margin of the central moxmtain valley area that is characterized by a locally eroded basement surface consisting of Jurassic and Cretaceous crystalline rocks. 4.2 Geologic Conditions Regional geologic mapping by Keimedy and Tan (2007) indicates the near surface geologic unit underlying the site consists of imdivided Metasedimentary and Metavolcanic rock. Based on the recent reconnaissance and site explorations. Quaternary Previously Placed Fill and Residual Soil were encovmtered at the surface with the Metasedimentary and Metavolcanic rock at depth throughout the site. Descriptions of the geologic units encoimtered are presented below. 4.2.1 Quatemarv Previouslv Placed Fill (Oppf) Quaternary Previously Placed Fill was observed on the eastern portion of the site. This unit generally consists of loose to medium dense, sUty to clayey fine to medium grained sand with gravel. This fill unit appears to support the existing Bolero Street improvements. \\Esc_servei\projects\10-13435G\Rpt_Gecrtecfanical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Page 6 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30, 2016 CTE JobNo. 10-13435G 4.2.2 Residual Soil (unmapped") Residual Soil was observed at the surface in aU the explorations. This iinit generally consists of medium dense, silty to clayey fine grained sand with angular gravel. This unit is relatively thin and blankets the imderlying Metasedimentary and Metavolcanic rock. 4.2.3 Metasedimentarv and Metavolcanic Rocks Undivided (Mzul Undivided Metasedimentary and Metavolcanic rock was observed at depth throughout the site. Where encountered, this bedrock unit consists of very dense, reddish brown, clayey fine grained sandstone and metavolcanic rock. 4.3 Grotmdwater Conditions During the recent investigation, groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory borings, which were advanced to a maximum ejqilored depth of approximately 11 feet bgs. While groundwater conditions may vary, especially during or foUowing periods of sustained precipitation or irrigation, it is generally not anticipated to affect the proposed construction activities or the completed improvements, if proper site drainage is designed, installed, and maintained as per the recommendations of the project civil engineer. 4.4 Geologic Hazards Geologic hazards that were considered to have potential impacts to site development were evaluated based on field observations, literature review, and laboratory test results. It spears that geologic hazards at the site are primarily limited to those caused by shaking fixim earthquake-generated ground motions. The foUowing paragraphs discuss the geologic hazards considered and their potential risk to the site. \\Esc_servei\projects\10-13435G\Rpt_Geotechmcal.doc Geotechnical Investigation Page 7 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, CaUfomia December 30,2016 CTE JobNo. 10-13435G 4.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture Based on reconnaissance and review of referenced literature, the site is not within a State of California-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Studies Zone, and no known active fault traces underlie or project toward the site. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, a fault is active if it displays evidence of activity in the last 11,000 years (Hart and Bryant, revised 2007). Therefore, the potential for smface rupture from displacement or fault movement beneath the proposed improvements is considered to be low. 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting The California Geological Survey (CGS) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) broadly group faults as "Class A" or "Class B" (Cao, 2003; Frankel et al., 2002). Class A faults are identified based upon relatively well-defined paleoseismic activity, and a fault-slip rate of more than 5 millimeters per year (mm/yr). In contrast. Class B fruits have comparatively less defined paleoseismic activity and are considered to have a fault-slip rate less than 5 mm/yr. The nearest known Class B fault is the Rose Canyon Fault, which is located approximately 11.4 kilometers west of the site (Blake, T.F., 2000). The nearest known Class A fault is the JuUan segment of the Elsinore Fault that is located approximately 38.0 kilometers northeast of the site. 4.4.3 Liquefrction 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 \\Esc_serveI^p^ojects\10-13435G\Rpt_Qeotechnical.(Joc Geotechnical Investigation Page 8 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, CaUfomia December 30,2016 CTE JobNo. 10-13435G intensity and duration of ground shaking. Seismic settlement can occur with or without liquefaction and results from densification of loose soUs. The site is underlain at relatively shallow depths by dense to very dense bedrock and the relatively loose near-surface soUs are to be overexcavated and recompacted beneath proposed improvement areas, as recommended herein. Therefore, the potential for hquefection or significant seismic settlement at the site is considered to be neghgible. 4.4.4 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation According to http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/lnimdation Maps/Pages/Statewide_Maps.aspx the site is not located within a tsunami inundation zone based on its elevation above sea level. Damage resulting from oscillatory waves (seiches) is considered unlikely due to the absence of large nearby confined bodies of water. 4.4.5 Landsliding According to mapping by Tan (1995), the site is considered only "Generally Susceptible" to landshding and no landslides are mapped in the site area. In addition, landshdes or similar associated features were not observed during the recent field exploration. Based on the investigation findings, landsliding is not considered to be a significant geologic hazard at the subject site. 4.4.6 Compressible and Expansive Soils Based on observations and testing, the existing near-surfrce residual soils and imdocumented fills, if encountered, are considered to be potentially compressible. Therefore, it is recommended that these soUs be overexcavated to the depth of competent underlying \\Esc_servei\projects\10-13435GF\Rpt_Qeotechnical.(loc Geotechnical Investigation Page 9 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30,2016 CTE JobNo. 10-13435G material ^d properly re-compacted as recommended herein. Based on the site observations and experience with similar soUs in the vicinity ofthe site, the underlying bedrock unit is not anticipated to be subject to significant compressibility under the proposed loads. Based on site observation and material properties, soils at the site are anticipated to exhibit Medium expansion potential (with Expansion Index of generally 70 or less). Recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential adverse impacts of medium expansion soils. Additional evaluation of potential expansive soU conditions may be conducted during grading to confirm that the soils encountered or placed as compacted fill are as anticipated. 4.4.7 Corrosive SoUs Testing of representative site soils was performed to evaluate the potential corrosive effects on concrete foimdations 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 (ACl) 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 of200 ppm generally indicate a corrosive environment for buried metallic utilities and untreated conduits. \\Esc_servei\pn)jccts\10-13435G\Rpt_GeotechnicaLdoc Geotechnical Investigation Page 10 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30, 2016 CTE JobNo. 10-13435G Chemical test results indicate that near-surface soils at the site present a low corrosion potential for Portland cement concrete. As such, the use of Type-ll cement should be adequate for structural site concrete. Based on resistivity testing, the site soils have been interpreted to have a severe corrosivity potential to buried metallic improvements. Therefore, it would likely be prudent for buried utilities to, at a minirrmm, utilize plastic piping and/or conduits, where feasible. It should be noted that CTE does not practice corrosion engineering. Therefore, if corrosion of 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 development of the site is feasible fix)m a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project Recommendations for the proposed earthwork and improvements are included in the foUowing sections and Appendix D. However, recommendations in the text of this report supersede those presented in Appendix D should variations exist. These recommendations should either be confirmed as appropriate or updated based on actual conditions exposed following demolition or during earthwork operations at the site. 5.2 Site Preparation Prior to grading, the proposed improvement areas should be cleared of existing debris and deleterious materials. Debris, vegetation and other materials not suitable for structural backfill \\Esc_servei\projcct8\10-13435Q\Rpt_Gcotechmcal.doc Geotechnical Investigation Page 11 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30,2016 CTEJobNo. 10-13435G should be properly disposed of off-site. In areas to receive structures, existing loose or disturbed soils should be removed to the depth of competent dense native material. In order to provide uniform conditions under proposed structures, overexcavation should extend to a minimum depth of two feet below proposed foimdations, to the depth of competent native materials, or 1/3 the maximum depth of fill beneath the structure, whichever is deepest. Where feasible, overexcavation should extend laterally at least five feet beyond the limits of the proposed improvements or a distance equaling the depth of fill (1:1 from bottom of footing), whichever is greater. Actual lateral removal limits should be evaluated during construction based on exposed conditions. As an alternative to performing the overexcavations recommended herein, or if the proposed structure wiU utidize a basement or deepened foundations, all foundations may be deepened to bear entirely within competent dense native materials. Should foundations on native materials be optioned, overexcavation beneath the proposed building need only extend to competent native materials and a minimum 12 inches beneath all slab-on-grade materials, whichever is deeper. If proposed, excavations in pavement or flatwork areas should be conducted to a minimum depth of two feet below proposed subgrade, or to the depth of suitable underlying materials, whichever depth is shallower. Prior to placement of fiU, overexcavation areas should be approved by a CTE geotechnical representative in order to verify the presence of suitable underlying material. \\Esc_scrvei\projccts\10-13435G\Rpt_GeotechnicaL(Joc Geotechnical Investigation Page 12 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30, 2016 CTE JobNo. 10-13435G Existing below-ground utilities should be redirected around the proposed structure. Abandoned pipes exposed by grading should be securely capped to prevent moisture Sum migrating beneath foundation and slab soils or should be filled with minimum two-sack cement/sand slurry. A CTE geotechnical representative should observe the exposed ground surfaces at the overexcavation bottom to evaluate the exposed conditions. The exposed subgrades to receive fill should be scarified a minimum of eight inches, moisture conditioned to a minimum of three percent above optimum, and properly compacted prior to additional fill placement based upon recommendations of CTE's field representative. 5.3 Site Excavation Generally, excavation of site materials may be accomplished with heavy-duty construction equipment under normal conditions; however, the underlying weathered bedrock wiU become increasingly difficult to excavate with depth and deeper excavations may not be feasible with standard heavy-duty equipment Therefore, if deep excavations are proposed, some specialized rock breaking or excavation equipment use could be required. Though not generally anticipated, large hard and dense "core stones" could also be encoimtered in weathered bedrock masses resulting in localized, very difficult to impenetrable excavation conditions. 5.4 Fill Placement and Compaction Following recommended overexcavation of loose or disturbed soils, the areas to receive fills or improvements 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 \\Esc_servei\projects\10-13435G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Page 13 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30, 2016 GTE Job No. 10-13435G at a moisture content of at least three percent above optimum as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The optimum lift thickness for fiU soil wUl depend on the t)^ 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. 5.5 Fill Materials Properly moisture-conditioned low to medium expansion potential soils derived fiom the on-site excavations are anticipated to be suitable for reuse on the site as compacted fiU. Irreducible materials greater than three inches in maximum dimension generally should 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 of 30 or less (ASTM D 4829). Imported fill soils for use in structural or slope areas should be evaluated by the soils engmeer before being imported to the site. \\Esc_servei\projccts\10-13435O\Rpt_GeotechnlcaLdoc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30,2016 Page 14 CTEJobNo. 10-13435G Retaining wall backfill located within a 45-degree wedge extending up fi-om the heel of the wall should consist of soil having an Expansion Index of 30 or less (ASTM D 4829) with less than 30 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The upper 12 to 18 inches of waU backfiU should consist of lower permeability soils, in order to reduce surface water infiltration behind walls. The project stractural engineer and/or architect should detail proper waU backdrains, including gravel drain zones, fills, filter fabric, and perforated drain pipes. 5.6 Temporarv 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 the table below. TABLE 5.6 RECOMMENDED TEMPORARY SLOPE RATIOS SOIL TYPE SLOPE RATIO (Horizontal: vertical)MAXIMUM HEIGHT B (Weathered Metavolcanic and Metasedimentary rock)1:1 (OR FLATTER)10 Feet C (Previously Place Fill and Residual Soil)1.5:1 (OR FLATTER)5 Feet In general, the above temporary slopes are anticipated to be appropriate above a maximum four-foot taU vertical excavation. However, actual field conditions and soU 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 \\Esc_servci\projec<3\10-13435Q\Rpt_GeotechnicaI.doc Geotechnical Investigation Page 15 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30,2016 CTE JobNo. 10-13435G vehicular traffic, equipment or materials. Appropriate surcharge setbacks must be maintained from the top of all unshored slopes. 5.7 Construction Shoring If construction shoring is required or desired, a typical soldier beam and lagging shoring system is anticipated to be suitable for the subject site. However CTE can provide alternative shoring system recommendations if deemed necessary by the design/construction team. It should be noted that if shoring improvements are to extend to significant depths, excavation or drilling into dense formational materials could be difficult and/or impractical with standard- or even heavy duty equipment. Active or at-rest pressures provided herein may be used for design of permanent shoring. Temporary shoring design may be based on the active or at-rest pressures provided herein, but may be reduced by 30 percent as they are not for permanent use. For conventional soldier beam and lagging shoring systems, soldier beams, spaced at least three diameters on center, may be designed using an allowable passive pressure of 400 psf per foot of depth, up to a maximum of 6,000 psf, for the portion of the soldier beam embedded in eompetent dense to very dense formational materials and below the bottom of the proposed excavations. The passive pressure may be assumed to be applied over a distance equal to twice the diameter of the roimded or drilled soldier beam element. However, provisions should be made to assure firm contact between the beam and the surrounding soils. Concrete placed in soldier beams below the proposed excavation should have adequate strength to transfer the imposed pressures. A lean \\Esc_servei\projects\10-13435G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Page 16 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, CaHfomia December 30, 2016 CTEJobNo. 10-13435G concrete mix may be used ia the soldier pile above the base of the proposed excavation. Soldier beam installations should be observed by CTE. Due to the locally erodible nature of onsite materials, continuous timber or precast concrete lagging between soldier beams is recommended. Lagging should be designed for the recommended earth pressures but be limited to a maximum pressure of400 psf due to arching in the sods. Voids created behind lagging by sloughing of locally eohesionless soU layers shall be grouted or slurry filled, as feasible. In addition, generally the upper two to four feet of lagging shall be grouted or slurry-filled to assist in diverting surfece water jfrom migrating behind the shoring walls. Adequate surface protection fix)m drainage should be maintained at all times. Monitoring of settlement and horizontal movement of the shoring system and adjacent improvements should occur on a weekly basis during construction in order to confirm that actual movements are within tolerable limits. The number and location of monitoring points shall be indicated on the shoring plans; CTE will review such locations and the proposed monitoring schedule once prepared and provided by the shoring contractor. Additional shoring recommendations can be provided in an update geotechnical report(s), to be submitted imder separate cover as grading and structural plans are developed, and if necessary. \\Esc_servei\projects\10-13435G\Rpt_Gcotechnical. do c Geotechnical Investigation Page 17 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30,2016 CTE JobNo. 10-13435G 5.8 Foundation and Slab Recommendations The following recommendations are for preliminary design purposes only. These recommendations should be reviewed after completion of earthwork to document that conditions exposed are as anticipated and that the recommoided structure design parameters are appropriate. Foundations should not transition from cut to compacted fill materials. Therefore, once proposed plans are more developed, these recommendations should be reviewed and updated as appropriate to determine if all foundations will bear entirely in compacted fill soils (prepared as recommended herein), or if all foundations will be deepened to bear entirely in competent dense formational materials as recommended herein. 5.8.1 Foundations Continuous and isolated spread footings are anticipated to be suitable for use at this site. It is anticipated that the proposed footings wfil either be founded entirely on at least 24 inches of properly compacted fill placed as recommended herein or entirely on dense bedrock materials. If deeper footings are proposed, additional overexcavation and compaction may be recommended in order to provide a minimum of 24 inches of fill beneath aU foundation elements, or aU footings can be deepened to bear entirely upon competent dense native materials. As indicated herein, footings should not straddle cut-fill interfaces. Foxmdation dimensions and reinforcement should be based on an allowable bearing value of 2,500 povmds per square foot (psf) for footings founded entirely in suitable fill materials, or 3,500 psf for footings founded entirely in dense native materials. Footings should also be embedded a minimum of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent rough subgrade elevation. If \\Esc_servei\projccts\10-13435G\Rpt_Oeotechnical.(loc Geotechnical Investigation Page 18 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30,2016 CTEJobNo. 10-13435G utilized, continuous footings should be at least 15 inches wide; isolated footings should be at least 24 inches in least dimension. If deepened spread or pier footings are proposed, the bearing value may be increased by 250 psf for each additional six inches of embedment up to a maximum static value of 3,000 psf for footings embedded in competent fill materials or 4,000 psf for footings embedded entirely in competent dense native materials. The above bearing values may also be increased by one third for short duration loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. Minimum footing reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of four No. 4 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 generally be maintained above optimum moisture content until concrete placement If materials are allowed to desiccate, presoaldng may be required. 5.8.2 Foundation Settlement The maximum total static settlement is expected to be on the order of one inch and the maximum differential static settlement is expected to be on the order of 1/2 inch over a distance of approximately 40 feet. Based on the noted site conditions, dynamic settlement is not expected to adversely affect the proposed improvements. 5.8.3 Formdation 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 15 feet In addition, footings \\Esc_servei\projecte\10-13435O\Rpt_Qeotechnical.(Joc Geotechnical Investigation Page 19 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30,2016 GTE Job No. 10-13435G should bear beneath a 1:1 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. 5.8.4 Interior Concrete Slabs Lightly loaded concrete slabs 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 above mid-slab height, but with proper cover. Slabs subjected to heavier loads may require thicker slab sections and/or increased reinforcement. Subgrade materials should be maintained above optimum moisture content until slab imderlayment or concrete are placed. Subgrade soils should be at least three percent over optimum moisture content just prior to concrete or imderlayment placement. If materials are allowed to desiccate, presoaking may be required. 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 consohdated minimum /4-inch crushed aggregate gravel should be installed per the current building code. An optional maximum two-inch layer of similar aggregate material may be placed above the v^x)r retarder to further protect the membrane during steel and concrete placement, if desired. However, best performance with respect to minimizing moisture intrusion is anticipated to result via placement of concrete directly upon the vapor retarder. These recommended moisture protections are generally considered typical of the area. However, CTE is not an expert at preventing moisture penetration through slabs. If proposed floor \\Esc_servei\projects\10-13435O\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc ; I Geotechnical Investigation Page 20 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30, 2016 CTE JobNo. 10-13435G areas or coverings are considered especially sensitive to moisture emissions, additional recommendations from a specialty consultant could be obtained. A qualified architect or other experienced professional should be contacted if moisture penetration is a more significant concem. 5.9 Seismic Design Criteria The seismic ground motion values listed in the table below were derived m accordance with the ASCE 7-10 Standard. This was accomplished by establishing the Site Class based on the soU properties at the site, and then calculating the site coefficients and parameters using the United States Geological Survey Seismic Design Maps apphcation for the 2013 and 2016 CBC values. These values are intended for the design of structures to resist the effects of earthquake groimd motions for the site located at coordinates 33.0967°N latitude and -117.2456°W longitude, as underlain by soils corresponding to site Class C. \\Esc_servei\projects\10-13435G\Rpt_GeotechnicaI.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30, 2016 Page 21 CTE JobNo. 10-13435G TABLE 5.9 SEISMIC GROUND MOTION VALUES PARAMETER VALUE CBC REFERENCE (2013) She Class C ASCE 7, Chapter 20 Mapped Spectral Response AccelCTation Parameter, Ss 1.034 Figure 1613.3.1 (1) Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, Si 0.400 Figure 1613.3.1 (2) Seismic Coefficient, F,1.000 Table 1613.3.3 (1) Seismic Coefficioit, Fy 1.400 Table 1613.3.3 (2) MCE Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, Sms 1.034 Section 1613.33 MCE Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, Smi 0.560 Section 1613.3.3 Design Spectral Response Acceleration, Parameter Sds 0.689 Secticm 1613.3.4 Design Spectral Response Acceleration, Parameter Sdi 0.374 Section 1613.3.4 Peak Ground Accelaation PGAm 0.399 ASCE 7, Section 11.8.3 5.10 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, CTE recommends an allowable friction coefficient of 0.30 (total frictional resistance equals the coefficient of friction multiplied hy the dead load) for concrete cast directly against compacted fill. A design passive resistance value of250 pormds per square foot p>er foot of depth (with a maximum value of2,000 pounds per square foot) may be used. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the fiictional resistance and the passive resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance. \\Esc_server\projccts\10-13435Q\Rpt_Gcotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, Califomia December 30, 2016 Page 22 CTE JobNo. 10-13435G Retaining waUs backfilled using granular very low expansion soils may be designed using the equivalent fiuid weights given in Table 5.10 below. TABLE 5.10 EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHTS (pounds per cubic foot) WALL TYPE LEVEL BACKFILL SLOPE BACKFILL 2:1 (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL) CANTILEVER WALL (YIELDING)35 55 RESTRAINED WALL 55 65 1 Lateral pressures on cantilever retaining waUs (yielding walls) due to earthquake motions may be calculated based on work by Seed and Whitman (1970). The total lateral thrust against a properly drained and backfilled cantilever retaining wall above the groimdwater level can be expressed as: Pae = Pa + APae For non-yielding (or "restrained") walls, the total lateral thrust may be similarly calculated based on work by Wood (1973): Pre = Pk + APke Where Pa = Static Active Thrust (given previously Table 5.10) Pk = Static Restrained Wall Thrust (given previously Table 5.10) APae = Dynamic Active Thrust Increment = (3/8) k), APke = Dynamic Restrained Thrust Increment = kh yH kh = 2/3 Peak Ground Acceleration = 2/3 (PGAm) H = Total Height of the Wall y = Total Unit Weight of Soil -135 pounds per cubic foot The increment of dynamic thrust in both cases should be distributed triangxilarly with a line of action located at H/3 above the bottom of the wall (SEAOC, 2013). \\Esc_servei\projects\10-13435G\Rpt_Qeotedmical.doc I ' ; j Geotechnical Investigation Page 23 Proposed Detapsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30,2016 CTE JobNo. 10-13435G These values assume non-expansive backfill and firee-draining conditions. Measures should be taken to prevent moisture buildup behind all retaining walls. Drainage measures should include fi^e- draining backfill materials and sloped, perforated drains. These drains should discharge to an qjpropriate ofif-site location. The project structural engineer and/or architect should design the appropriate retaining wall drainage details. Waterproofing should be as specified by the project architect or the waterproofing specialty consultant. 5.11 Exterior Flatwork To reduce the potential for cracking in exterior flatwork caused by minor movement of subgrade soils and typical concrete shrinkage, it is recommended that such flatwork be installed with crack- control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the project architect and measure a minimum five inches in thickness. Additionally, it is recommended that flatwork be installed with at least number 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. Flatworic, which should be installed with crack control joints, includes sidewalks, and architectural features. Doweling of flatwork joints at critical pathways or similar could also be beneficial in resisting minor subgrade movements. 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 fiatworic Subgrade materials shall be maintained at, or be elevated to, above optimum moisture content prior to concrete placement \\Esc_server\projects\10-13435GVRpt_GeotechnicaLdoc Geotechnical Investigation Page 24 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30, 2016 CTEJobNo. 10-134350 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 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. However, the project civil engineer should evaluate the on-site drainage and make necessary provisions to keep surface water from affecting the site. Generally, GTE recommends against allowing water to infiltrate building pads or adjacent to slopes and improvements. However, it is understood that some agencies are encouraging the use of storm- water cleansing devices. Therefore, if storm water cleansing devices must be used, it is recommended that they be underlain by an impervious barrier and that the infiltrate be collected via subsurface piping and discharged off site. If infiltration must occur, water should infiltrate as far away from structural improvements as feasible. Additionally, any reconstructed slopes descending from infiltration basins should be equipped with subdrains to collect and discharge accumulated subsurface water (Appendix D contains details for internal fill slope drainage). 5.13 Slopes Based on anticipated soil strength characteristics, cut and fill slopes should be constructed at slope ratios of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. These fill slope inclinations should exhibit gross stability factors of safety greater than 1.5. \\Esc_server\projects\10-13435G\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Page 25 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30,2016 CTEJobNo. 10-13435G 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 improvements within five feet of slope crests. 5.14 Plan Review CTE should be authorized to review the project grading, shoring, and foundation plans (as applicable) before commencement of earthwork for a comparison with the intent of the recommendations provided. 5.15 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 exploratory borings. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction to document that conditions are as anticipated. Upon completion of rough grading, soil san^les may be collected to evaluate as-buUt Expansion Index of near-grade soils. Foundation and other recommendations may be revised upon completion of grading, and as-built laboratory test results. \\Esc_servei\pn)jccts\10-13435Q\Rpt_GeotcchnicaI.doc Geotechnical Investigation Page 26 Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30,2016 GTE Job No. 10-13435G Recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding and assumption that CTE will provide the observation and testing services for the project. Earthwork should be observed and tested to document that grading activity has been performed according to the recommendations contained widiin this report A CTE representative should evaluate all footing trenches 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 encoimtered during construction. The recommendations provided herein have been developed in order to reduce the potential adverse impacts of expansive site soils and differential bearing conditions associated with hillside grading and development However, even with the design and construction precautions herein, some post- construction movement and associated distress could occur and should be anticipated. The findings of this report are vahd 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 ^propriate standards may occur, whether they result fium legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the \\Esc_scrva\projects\10-13435Q\Rpt_Geotechnical.doc Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Dempsey Residence APN: 215-491-36-00, Bolero Street, California December 30, 2016 Page 27 GTE Job No. 10-134350 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. 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, this office should be notified and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided. We 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. ^Math, GE #2665 Principal Engineer /id F/L^ich, CEG #1890 Pnriieipal Engineering Geologist certifiedengineering / Colm J. Kenny, RCE #84406 Project Engineer AJB/CJKyjFL/DTM:nri Aafgh'J. Beeby, CEG #2603 Project (*ologist cerhfied ERING CLOGIST \\Esc_scn'er\projects\10-I3435G\RpLGeotechnical (5-17).doc I i Ihipotft VI an Gn^ Noodlts & Cotvpary f ^0.'/i.*^0 ci^ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.1441 MonM Rd Ste 115, Eaconddo. CA 92026 Ph (780) 746-4B5S SITE INDEX MAP PROPOSED DEHPSEY RESIDENCE APN: 215-401-36-00. BOLERO STREET CAR1£BAD. CAUFORNU SCALE: AS SHOWN CTE JOB NO.: 10-13435G DATE: 12/16 HGURE: 1 r B-3 Approximate Boring Location P-3 Approximate Percolation Test Location Qppf Quaternary Previously Placed Fill MZU Metasedlmentary and Metavolcanic Rock ^ ^ ^ ^ Approximate Geologic Contact Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.CTE Inc.1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115. Escondido. OA 92026 Ph {760) 746-4955 6SOLOGIC/KZPLOIUT10N LOCATION MAP PROPOSED DEUPSEY RESIDENCE APN: 215-491-36-00. BOIZRO STREFT CARISBAD, CAUPORNU SCALE: r=5o* CTE JOB NO.: 10-134356 DATE: 12/16 nOURE: 2 12 12 LEGEND 1 Inch = 12 ml. fit ■■• '« •Wwcr j»f^ HISTORIC FAULT DISPLACEMENT (LAST 200 YEARS) -A. HOLOCENE FAULT DISPLACEMENT (DURING PAST 11.700 YEARS) —fc. LATE QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACMENT (DURING PAST 700,000 YEARS) g^ai. " Icn^K It 0^1 V nn -X , "V C^ \ \ . v\ U) o: cr/; %..A. QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT (AGE UNDIFFERENTIATED) ....A. y-j IV PREQUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT (OLDER THAN 1.6 MILLION YEARS) PERIOD 1800- 1868 1869- 1931 193 'ii'' :X-fl^.4.1 \M' \ .'-'0..S I y. /r-■ .'CMeoty .^• % <h ?c i \ /. 1 %LU.^1 Q D1- 2."Ml O< 2- 2010 > 7.0 i-iii r*->- X N ^ . J\ \ \\ -.v^Vx; ' \ '. ' I APPROXIMATE^ V. A xJ SITE LOCATION t \\ \ \ Xa ^CvVv \ \)\ ®ii'v \\\ i\ <4^ ~\~ 4A. rad ;<V ■*'K V/J 'f V y-It' K Mfo LAST TWO DIGITS OF M > 6.5 EARTHQUAKE YEAR AX \yv v;; w_A - 1%'■W19S ;/^- "VatfLi Ai'■ - ■X x: T ■f,''V- A>X- M R I :.i^' 'J// V^OTES: FAULT ACTIVITY HAP OF CAUFORNIA, 2010. CAUFORNU GEOLOGIC DATA MAP SERIES MAP NO. 6; EPICENTERS OF AND AREAS DAMAGED BY 1<>5 CAUFORNU EARTHQUAKES, 1800-1M9 ADAPTEDAfTER TOPPOZADA, BRANUM. PETERSEN, HAUkORM, CRAMER, AND REICHlf. 2000, CDMG MAP SHEET 40 REFERENCE FOR ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION: MODIFIED WITH CISN AND USGS SEISMIC MAPS \ ' hi ^ ' ■ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 ManM Rd 8te 115, Escondkjo, OA 92026 Ph (760)7404955 REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICnY MAP PROPOSED DEMPSEY RESIDENCEAPN: 215-491-36-00, BOLERO STREETCARLSBAD. cAUFORNU IRJBHB:10-13435G scant — 1 inch = 12 miles ineuc:It , ir12/16 I 12" TO 18" OF LOWER PERMEABILITY NATIVE MATERIAL COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION RETAINING WALL- FINISH GRADE TO BE Y ARCHITECT PERFORATED PVC ::^PE (SCHEDULE 40 OR ' QUIVALENT). MINIMUM 1% GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET WALL FOOTING Construction Testing & Engineering . Inc.Ole M:1441 Montie) Ra Ste 115. EsconOido, OA 92026 P^ (760) 746^955 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL en- JOH \'o 10-13435G SCALI" NO SCALE IlATi; MGI Ki . 12/16 4 ; APPENDIX A i ! n ' . n " ' REFERENCES REFERENCES 1. ASTM, 2002, "Te^ Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort," Volume 04.08 2. Blake, T.F., 2000, "EQFAULT," Version 3.00b, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software. 3. California Building Code, 2013, "California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2," California: Building Standards Commission, published by ICBO, Jvme. 4. California Division of Mines and Geology, CD 2000-003 "Digitd Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolp Earthquake Fault ^hes of California, Southern Region," compiled by Martin and Ross. 5. Frankel, A;D., Petersen, M.D., MueUer, C.S., Haller, K.M., Wheeler, R.L., Leyendecker, E.V., Wesson, ILL. Harmsen, S.C., Criamer, C.H., Perkins, D.M., and Rukstales, K.S., 2002, Documentation for the 2002 update of the National Seismic Hazard M^s: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-420, 33 p. 6. Hart, Earl W., and Bryant, William A., 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. 7. Jennings, Charles W., 1994, "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas" with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions. 8. Keimedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 2007, "Geologic M^ of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California", California Geological Survey, M^ No. 2, Plate 1 of 2. 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 KV. 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 iStructures, pp. 103-147, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. 11. Tan, Siang S. and Giffen, Desmond G., 1995, "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of The San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangle (Plate E), DMG Open-File Report 95-04, Plate; 35E. 12. Wood, J.H. 1973, "Earthquake-Induced Soil Pressures on Structures," Report EERL 73-05. Pasadena; California Institute of Technology. APPENDIX B EXPLORATION LOGS Inc. Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 DEFINITION OF TERMS PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS (0 <du.E CO u. — 5Z§liJ Uj lij < CM 5|£i8^1 GRAVELS MORE THAN HALF OF COARSE FRACTION IS LARGER THAN NO. 4 SIEVE SANDS MORE THAN HALF OF COARSE FRACTION IS SMALLER THAN NO. 4 SIEVE CLEAN GRAVELS <5% FINES GRAVELS WITH FINES 3ST 15?ji^ GW }^>o GP WELL GRADED GRAVELS. GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES. LITTLE OF NO FINES SILTY GRAVELS. GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES. NON-PLASTIC FINES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES. PLASTIC FINES CLEAN SANDS < 5% FINES WELL GRADED SANDS. GRAVELLY SANDS, LTTTLE OR NO FINES SP POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS. LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS WITH FINES SM SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES. NON-PLASTIC FINES »>»» sc CLAYEY SANDS. SAND-CLAY MIXTURES. PLASTIC FINES 3 < I o uj a: y ^So!^ I SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS LESS THAN 50 ML INORGANIC SILTS. VERY FINE SANDS. ROCK FLOUR. SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS. SLIGHTLY PLASTIC CLAYEY SILTS SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS GREATER THAN 50 OL ++++ MH -H- INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY. GRAVELLY. SANDY. SILTS OR LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS. MICACEOUS OR DLATOMACEOUS FINE ^NDY OR SILTY SOILS. ELASTIC SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICfTY, FAT CLAYS ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT tamiimiui PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS GRAIN SIZES BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL COARSE FINE SAND COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILTS AND CLAYS 12" 3" 3/4" CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING 4 10 40 200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE ADDITIONAL TESTS (OTHER THAN TEST PIT AND BORING LOG COLUMN HEADINGS) MAX- Maximum Dry Density GS- Grain Size Distribution SE- Sand Equivalent El- 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:) BLI Inc. Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 PROJECT: CTE JOB NO: LOGGED BY: DRILLER: DRILL METHOD: SAMPLE METHOD: SHEET: DRILLING DATE: ELEVATION: of CQ £ O BORING LEGEND DESCRIPTION Laboratory Tests -0- -5n -10- -15- 20- -25- I "SM" 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 9 — Formation Change [(Approximate boimdaries queried (?)1 Quotes are placed around classifications where the soils exist in situ as bedrock FIGURE: | BL2 Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 PROJECT: CTE JOB NO; LOGGED BY: DEMPSEY RESIDENCE 10-13435G AJB DRILLER: DRILL METHOD: SAMPLE METHOD: BAJA EXPLORATION HOLLOW-STEM AUGER RING. SPT and BULK SHEET: I of 1 DRILLING DATE: 11 /22/2016 ELEVATION: -373 FEET - E it >s C CO d & Q o BORING: B-1 DESCRIPTION Laboratory Tests -0-SM RESIDUAL SOIL: Medium dense, dry to slightly moist, light reddish brown, silty fine grained SAND, oxidized. Becomes dark reddish brown El "SC" -5- -1^ 19 17 14 METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK: Dense, slightly moist, reddish brown, clayey fine grained SANDSTONE with trace angular gravel, oxidized, severely weathered.CHM 50/4"Gravel Total Depth: 1T (Refusal on Gravel) No Groundwater Encountered -15- -2<^ -25" B-1 Inc. Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, OA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 PROJECT: CTE JOB NO: LOGGED BY: DEMPSEV RESIDENCE 10-134350 AJB DRILLER: DRILL METHOD; SAMPLE METHOD: BAJA EXPLORATION HOLLOW-STEM AUGER RING. SPT and BULK SHEET: 1 of 1 DRILLING DATE: 11 /22/2016 ELEVATION: -378 FEET CO CQ t- a g >% 6/5 6/5 U 6/5 b o BORING: B-2 DESCRIPTION Laboratory Tests -0-SM/SC RESIDUAL SOIL: Medium dense, d^ to slightly moist, light reddish brown, silty to clayey fine grained SAND with angular gravel, oxidized. "SC"METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK: -5- Z Dense, slightly moist, reddish brown, clayey fine grained SANDSTONE with trace angular gravel, oxidized, severely weathered. 46 50/4" Total Depth: 8' (Refusal in Dense Formation) No Groundwater Encountered -10- -15- -20- -25- B-2 Inc. Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 PROJECT: CTE JOB NO: LOGGED BY; DEMPSEV RESIDENCE 10-I3435G AJB DRILLER: DRILL METHOD: SAMPLE METHOD: BAJA EXPLORATION HOLLOW-STEM AUGER RING. SPTand BULK SHEET: I of 1 DRILLING DATE: 11 /22/2016 ELEVATION: -375 FEET H CQ 5 O BORING: B-3 DESCRIPTION Laboratory Tests -0-SM/SC RESIDUAL SOIL: Medium dense, dty to slightly moist, light reddish brown, silty to clayey fine grained SAND with trace angular gravel, oxidized. U5_ "SC" CL METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCK: Dense, slightly moist, reddish brown, clayey fine grained SANDSTONE with trace angular gravel, oxidized, severely weathered. Gravel OS Total Depth: 8' (Refusal on Gravel) No Groundwater Encountered -1^ -15- -20- -25- B-3 APPENDIX C LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS APPENDIX C LABORATORY 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 rhetbods of the American Society for Testing Materials or other accepted standaixis. The foUowing 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 supplement^ by laboratory testing of selected samples according to ASTM D2487. The soil classifications are shown on the Exploration Logs in Appendix B. : Expansion Index Expansion testing was performed on selected samples of the matrix of the on-site soils according to ASTMD4829. Particle-Si2e Analysis Particle-size analyses were performed on selected representative samples according to ASTM D 422. Chemical Analysis Soil materials were collected with sterile sampling equipment and tested for SuLfete and Chloride content, pH, Corrosivity, and Resistivity. Inc. Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115. Escondido, OA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 UXATION B-1 EXPANSION INDEX TEST ASTM D 4829 DEPTH EXPANSION INDEX (feet) 0-5 54 EXPANSION POTENTIAL MEDIUM SULFATE LOCATION B-1 DEPTH (feet) RESULTS EE21 594.1 CHLORIDE LOCATION DEPTH (feet) RESULTS PPm B-1 181.5 p.H. LOCATION DEPTH (feet) RESULTS B-1 7.14 LOCATION RESISTIVITY CALIFORNIA TEST 424 DEPTH (feet) RESULTS ohms-cm B-1 1480 LABORATORY SUMMARY CTE JOB NO. 10-13435G 100 90 80 70 £• 60 50 40 30 20 10 100 U)s ♦-r-m--«t- 00 ^ U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE <o o s 2 S 8 10 0.1 PARTICLE SIZE (mm) 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ">'*41 Montiel Rd Ste 115. Escondido. OA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 Sainpli! Dcsi^ation Sample Depth (fcci)S>mbol Liquid Lunit |%)Plasiiciiv Index classifieaiioQ B-3 5 •0 0 CL CTE JOB NUMBER: I0-13435G nOURE: C-1 APPENDIX D STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Appendix D Page D-1 Standard Specifications for Grading Section 1 - General Construction Testing & Engmeering, Inc. presents the following standard recommaidations for grading and other associated operations on construction projects. These guidelines should he 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 chent or his authorized representative. The Ghent should be chiefly responsible for aU aspects of the project He or his authorized representative has the responsibhity 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 woric and/or provide services. During grading the Chent or his authorized r^)resentative should remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible to ah 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 complehon of ah grading and other associated operahons 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 he arranged by the owner and/or chent 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 chent or contractor should obtain the required approvals fi:x)m the controhing authorities for the project prior, during and/or after demohtion, site preparation and removals, etc. The appropriate approvals should he 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 shoxild consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, root of trees and otherwise deleterious natural materials fixim the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the oiitside of all proposed excavation and fill areas. Demohtion should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations, resavoirs, utilities (including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, etc.) and other man-made surface and subsurface improvements fix>m the areas to be graded. Demohtion of utfiities should include proper capping and/or rerouting pipelines at the project perimeter and cutoff and capping of weUs in accordance with the requirements of the governing authorities and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant at the time of demohtion. Trees, plants or man-made improvements not planned to be removed or demohshed should be protected by the contractor fix)m damage or injury. Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or danohtion operations should be wasted fi^m areas to be graded and disposed off-site. Clearing, grubbing and demohtion 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 concemed parties, completion of a portion of the project shoiild 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 chent and the regulating agencies. Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the woik site frnm flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions shoxild be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away frnm and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water dming 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., badccuts) 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 improtected slopes fix)m 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, aU 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 fiinctured, 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 obsawe cut slope excavation and if these excavations expose loose cohesionless, significantly fi:actured 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 fix)m 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 ditdi) 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 fix)m the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a beim drainage swale and/or an appropriate pad gradient A gradient in soil areas away fix)m 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 cortq)action as specified below or as approved by the geotechnical consultant 7.1 Fill Material Ouahtv Excavated on-site or import materials which are acceptable to the geotechnical consultant may be irtilized as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are ranoved prior to placement All import materials anticipated for use on-site should be sampled tested and qjproved prior to and placement is in conformance with the requirements outlined. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 4 of 26 Appendix D 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 rode voids. The amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent hy 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 he placed within an engineered fill, special handling in accordance with the recommendations below. Rocks greater than four feet should he 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 he scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches. The scarified material should he conditioned (i.e. moisture added or air dried hy continued discing) to achieve a moisture content at or sUghtly 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 hy 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 shghtly above optimum and thoroughly compacted hy mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should he 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 tiie 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 ia horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal: vertical), horizontal keys and vertical hendbes should he excavated into the adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should he sufficient to provide at least six-foot wide benches and a minimum of four feet of vertical bendi height within the firm natural ground, firm bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should he placed in an area after keying and benching until the geotechnical consultant has reviewed the area. Material generated hy the benching operation should he moved sufficiently away finm 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, tranporary slopes (felse 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 reconq)acted 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 utiUzed in the compacted fill provided the fill is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around aU 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, ovCTsized 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 geotechnieal 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 cHent FiU should be tested by the geotechnieal 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 geotechnieal consultant 7.3 Fill Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnieal 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 geotechnieal consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be inCTeased until the desired compacted slope surfiace 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 geotechnieal consultant, slope face compaction may be attempted by conventional construction procedures including backroUing. The procedure must create a firmly contacted 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 eompactive effort to the outer edge of the slope. Each hft 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 finm the placanent of mdividual 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 capabihty of available equipment, whichever is less, fiU slopes should be thoroughly dozer trackxolled. For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away fix)m 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 consoUdated by jetting, flooding or by mechanical means. If on-site materials are utilized, they should be wheel-rolled, tamped or otherwise eompacted to a firm condition. For minor interior trenches, density testing may he deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on review of backfill operations during construction. If utihty contractors indicate that it is imdesirable to use compaction equipment in close proximity to a biiried conduit, the contractor may elect the utilization of fight weight mechanical compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean, granular material, whieh 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, die 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 aceordance with CTE's recommendations during grading. Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilization or sidehill masses, should he installed in accordance with the speeifications. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING Page 8 of 26 Appendix D Page D-9 Standard Specifications for Grading Roofi 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 fiwm 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 Califomia 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 aU 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 feilures 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 Mlure 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, q)propriate 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 BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL FILL SLOPE 5'MIN 4' TYPICAL 2'MIN 2%MIN TYPICAL 15" MIN. (INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE) 10' BENCHING FILL OVER CUT SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL FINISH FILL SLOPE FINISH CUT SLOPE 0^' 2% MIN 10' 4' TYPICAL v: "ttpicaP 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 2% MIN 15" MINIMUM BASE KEY WIDTH FILL k 4" 10'TYPICAL BENCH / ««*■ r-v If-^ / / r MINIMUM DOWNSLOPE KEY DEPTH COMPETENT EARTH MATERIAL 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 w H > Z □>33 □ W TJTO mw o CD Z! _L Ow >° S-h O N) ZO) W -nO 33 Q □ Z Q REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM, AND CREEP MATERIAL FROM TRANSmON GUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON "AS-BUILr NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY CUT SLOPE* FILL 4' TYPICAL 10' TYPICAL 15' MINIMUM ^ BEDROCK OR APPROVED FOUNDATION MATERIAL *NOTE: CUT SLOPE PORTION SHOULD BE MADE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL NOT TO SCALE FILL SLOPE ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL SURFACE OF COMPETENT MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING COMPACTED FILL SEE DETAIL BELOW DETAIL FIEMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL INCUNE TOWARD DRAIN AT 2% GRADIENT MINIMUM MINIMUM 9 FT" PER LINEAR FOOT OF APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL ._CL MINIMUM 4' DIAMETER APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE (PERFORATIONS DOWN) 6" FILTER MATERIAL BEDDING " MINIMUM CALTRANS CLASS 2 PEFIMEABLE MATERIAL FILTER MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL: SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING r 100 %■90-100 %"40-100 NO. 4 25-40 NO. 8 18-33 NO. 30 5-15 NO. 50 0-7 NO. 200 0-3 APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40 POLY-VINYL-CHLOFUDE (P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 psi PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, SUBJECT TO FIELD FIEVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTEFIED DURING GRADING LENGTH OF RUN INITIAL 500" 500' TO 1500' > 1500' PIPE DIAMETER 4" 6" 8" NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 14 of 26 CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS x-' ^ TYPICAL BENCHING COMPACTED FILL SURFACE OF COMPETENT MATERIAL SEE DETAILS BELOW REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN AT 2% GRADIENT MINIMUM TRENCH DETAILS 6" MINIMUM OVERLAP OPTIONAL V-DITCH DETAIL MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL 6" M N MUM OVERLAP 24" MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM 9 FP PER LINEAR FOOT OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL 60° TO 90° MINIMUM 9 FT" PER LINEAR FOOT OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40 POLY- VINYLCHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STFLENGTH 1000 PSI. DRAIN MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, SUBJECT TO FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING NOT TO SCALE 1X2"88-100 LENGTH OF RUN PIPE DIAMETER 1"5-40 INITIAL 500'4" %"0-17 500' TO 1500'6" %■0-7 > 1500'8" NO. 200 0-3 GEOFABRIC SUBDRAIN STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 15 of 26 FRONT VIEW CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL" SUBDRAIN PIPE 24" MIn. 6" MIn. 6" MIn. 6"Min. SIDE VIEW CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL SCHLD SUBDRAIN PIPE TBOor 12" MIn. -T k ' k ' 6" MIn. 6" MIn. PERFORATED SUBDRAIN PIPE' ft, ' * , SOW TSOW NOT TO SCALE RECOMMENDED SUBDRAIN GUT-OFF WALL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 16 of 26 FRONT VIEW SUBDRAIN OUTLET PIPE (MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER) 24" MIn. 24" MIn. SIDE VIEW CONCRETE HEADWALL ALL BACKFILL SHOULD BE COMPACTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. COMPACTION EFFORT SHOULD NOT DAMAGE STRUCTURE -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 TYPICAL SUBDRAIN OUTLET HEADWALL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 17 of 26 15" MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE BACKDRAIN 4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED PIPE LATERAL DRAIN SLOPE PER PLAN FILTER MATERIAL 2% MIN -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 15'MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE BACKDRAIN 4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED PIPE LATERAL DRAIN SLOPE PER PLAN FILTER MATERIAL BENCHING 2% MIN 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 FINAL LIMIT OF EXCAVATION DAYLIGHT LINE 20' MAXIMUM OVEREXCAVATE FINISH PAD OVEREXCAVATE 3' AND REPLACE WITH COMPACTED FILL COMPETENT BEDROCK 2% MIN 2' MINIMU OVERBURDEN (CREEP-PRONE) 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 NATURAL GROUND PROPOSED GRADING 1.5. 1.5 COMPACTED FILL BASE WIDTH "W" DETERMINED BY SOILS ENGINEER 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. NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL SHEAR KEY DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 21 of 26 FINISH SURFACE SLOPE 3 FT' MINIMUM PER LINEAR FOOT APPROVED FILTER ROCK* COMPACTED FILL GRAD ENT CONCRETE COLLAR PLACED NEAT 2.0% MINIMUM A-i 4" MINIMUM DIAMETER SOLID OUTLET PIPE SPACED PER SOIL ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS DURING GRADING TYPICAL BENCHING 4" MINIMUM APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE** (PERFORATIONS DOWN) MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT TO OUTLET BENCH INCUNED TOWARD DRAIN DETAIL A-A TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL MINIMUM 12" COVER DOMPACTEC BACKFILL 12" MINIMUM ^ MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED SOLID OUTLET PIPE **APPROVED PIPE TYPE: SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI *FILTER ROCK TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL: SIEVE SIZE 1" %■ %' NO. 4 NO. 30 NO. 50 NO. 200 PERCENTAGE PASSING 100 90-100 40-100 2&40 5-15 0-7 0-3 NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL BACKDRAIN DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFIGATIONS FOR GRADING Page 22 of 26 FINISH SURFACE SLOPE MINIMUM 3 FT* PER UNEAR FOOT OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE* TAPE AND SEAL AT COVER CONCRETE COLLAR PLACED NEAT COMPACTED FILL 2.0% MINIMUM GRADIENT A- MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER SOLID OUTLET PIPE SPACED PER SOIL ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS TYPICAL BENCHING MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL MINIMUM APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE (PERFORATIONS DOWN) MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT TO OUTLET BENCH INCLINED TOWARD DRAIN DETAIL A-A TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL MINIMUM 12" COVER *NOTE: AGGREGATE TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL SIEVE SIZE 1* %• %' NO. 200 PERCENTAGE PASSING 100 5-40 0-17 0-7 0-3 lOMPACTEP BACKFILL id 12" MINIMUM ' MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED SOLID OUTLET PIPE NOT TO SCALE BACKDRAIN DETAIL (GEOFRABIC) STANDARD SPECIFIGATIONS FOR GRADING Page 23 of 26 SOIL SHALL BE PUSHED OVER ROCKS AND FLOODED INTO VOIDS. COMPACT AROUND AND OVER EACH WINDROW. CLEAR ZONE ^ EQUIPMENT WIDTH ^ ^ STACK BOULDERS END TO END. DO NOT PILE UPON EACH OTHER. FILL SLOPE 10' MIN STAGGER ROWS NOT TO SCALE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 24 of 26 FINISHED GRADE SLOPE FACE A BUILDING NO OVERSIZE, AREA FOR FOUNDATION. UTILITIES AND SWIMMING POOLSn -^5 ■o WINDROW J 5' MINIMUM OR BELOW DEPTH OF DEEPEST UTILITY TRENCH (WHICHEVER GREATER) TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (EDGE VIEW) GRANULAR SOIL FLOODED TO FILL VOIDS HORIZONTALLY PLACED COMPACTION FILL PROFILE VIEW NOT TO SCALE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFIGATIONS FOR GRADING Page 25 of 26 GENERAL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS CUT LOT 5' TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM AND WEATHERED BEDROCK UNWEATHERED BEDROCK •ORIGINAL GROUND 5' MIN 3' MIN OVEREXCAVATE AND REGRADE CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION) COMPACTED FILL TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM -AND WEATHERED BEDROCK ^ UNWEATHERED BEDROCK ORIGINAL .^GROUND M N 3' MIN OVEREXCAVATE AND REGRADE NOT TO SCALE TRANSITION LOT DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 26 of 26 APPENDIX E WORKSHEETS D.5-1 and 1-8 Appendix D: Approved Infiltration Rate Assessment Methods Worksheet D.5-1: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Rate Worksheet Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Rate Worksheet Worksheet D.5-1 Factor Category Factor Description Assigned Weight (w) Factor Value (v) Product (p) p = WX V Soil assessment methods 0.25 1 0.25 Predominant soil texture 0.25 2 0.50 A Suitability Site soil variability 0.25 2 0.50 Assessment Depth to groundwater / impervious layer 0.25 1 0.25 Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, Sa = 2)p 1.5 Level of pretreatment/ expected sediment loads 0.5 2 1.0 B Design Redundancy/resiliency 0.25 2 0.50 Compaction during construction 0.25 2 0.50 Design Safety Factor, Sb = £p 2.0 Combined Safety Factor, Sto«a]= Sa x Sb 3.5 Observed Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, Kobserved (corrected for test-specific bias)0.050 Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, Kdesign = Kobswcd / Stotai 0.014 Supporting Data Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms: Infiltration rates were determined by performing percolation tests in accordance with the DEH method. All of the percolation tests were performed in native material and two of the tests did not percolate. D-17 Worksheet 1-8 : Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Worksheet 1-8 Part 1 - Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective widiout any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. X Provide basis: The NRCS soils across the site are all Type D soils with high surface runoff. The site soils are consistent with the NRCS mapped soil types based on site explorations and percolation testing. Two soil types were present in the area of the proposed development. Residual Soil and Metavolcanic/ Metasedimentary rock. Three percolation tests were completed, with two tests performed within the native soils and one performed in the Previously Placed Fill. The calculated infiltration rates (with an applied factor of safety of 3.5) ranged from not infiltrating to 0.014 inch per hour. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source apphcability. Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: Not Applicable. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source apphcability. C-11 Worksheet 1-8 Page 2 of 4 Criteria Screening Question Yes No 3 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Not Applicable. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. 4 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing potential water balance issues such as change of seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis; Not Applicable. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. , etc. Provide Parti Result* If all answers to rows 1 - 4 are '^Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration If any answer from row 1-4 is "No", infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "fuU infiltration" design. Proceed to Part 2 *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by Cit)' Engineer to substantiate findings. C-12 Worksheet 1-8 Page 3 of 4 Part 2 — Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. X Provide basis: to the native soils not percolating it is unlikely that any appreciable volume of water will infiltrate. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: Due to the minimal pemieability of the geologic units encountered at the site, surface water would likely migrate laterally or moimd locally. This could result in the water migrating into utility trench backfill or saturating down gradient foundations or other improvement areas. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of smdy/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. C-13 Worksheet 1-8 Page 4 of 4 Criteria Screening Question Yes No Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. X Provide basis:According to Geotracker, the nearest known "Open" LUST cleanup site is over 4,000 feet away from the site. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. X Provide basis: San Marcos Creek is the nearest down gradient drainage with surface water and is over 900 feet from the site. Due to the significant distance to the drainage it is unlikely to be impacted by infiltrating site water. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Part 2 Result* If all answers from row 1-4 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibilit}' screening category is Partial Infiltration. If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by City Engineer to substantiate findings C-14