Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDEV 2017-0197; CINNABAR WAY RIPRAP REPAIR; GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION & CONCEPT REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS; 2017-11-08I HTerra Pacific CONSULTANTS INC La Costa Greens HOA do Mr. Daniel Valdez, PE, QSD I Coffey Engineering, Inc. 9666 Businesspark Avenue, Suite 210 San Diego, CA 92131 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation & Conce I November 8, 2017 File No. 13110 RECMVE]II NOV 0 9 2017 NT surficial I Slope Failures and Slope Erosion La Costa Greens HOA Balearas (Neighborhood 1.1 2/CT 02-21) - Slope East of Alicante Road Solterra (Neighborhood 1 .3/CT 07-05) - Desilting Basin Outlet South of Cinnabar Way Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Valdez: I Per request, TerraPacific Consultants, Inc. (TCI) completed a geotechnical evaluation of the slope failures and slope erosion at the Balearas and Solterra neighborhoods, respectively, located within common areas of the La Costa Greens Homeowners Association (HOA). I The evaluation performed was in response to reports of geotechnical-related distress in the form of two surficial slope failures on an ascending slope east of Alicante Road, and erosion from storm water run-off adjacent to the desilting basin south east of the intersection of El Camino Real and Cinnabar Way. Our evaluation included a review of the approved grading plans for the project prepared by O'Day Consultants (OC) and Hunsaker I and Associates (H&A), visual reconnaissance of the subject HOA common areas, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic analysis, and preparation of this report. I 1.0 REPORTED PROBLEMS On January 22, 2017, the surficial slope failures east of Alicante Road in the Balearas neighborhood were reported to TCI by Ms. Rebecca McDonald of Walters Management, the HOA's management company. Photographs of the failures were also provided to TCI. I On January 24, 2017, soil erosion adjacent to the desilting basin outlet and emergency spillway at the southwest corner of the Solterra neighborhood was reported by Ms. McDonald. The erosion reportedly became a priority for the HOA after some members I attended a board meeting on February 2, 2017 and expressed safety concerns. 2.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT HISTORY I A review of the grading plans for the first phase of the La Costa Greens project (OC, 2006), indicated the ascending slope, east of Alicante Road in the Balearas neighborhood, was constructed as a 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) cut slope. The grading plans were approved 1 4010 Morena Boulevard, Suite 108 • San Diego, CA 92117 • (858) 521-1190 • (858) 521-1199 fax • terrapac.net rrm by the City of Carlsbad on January 16, 2003. The plans were "as-built" with multiple dates of July 28, 2005, April 26, 2006, and May 8, 2006. The plans indicate an approximate 30- to 35-foot deep cut would have been required to achieve the existing grades. Review of the initial rough grading plans for Neighborhoods 1.01 - 1.03 (H&A, 2005) within the La Costa Greens project, and the later rough grading plans for Solterra (H&A, 2011), indicate the area of erosion at the basin outlet is in a location of fill soils that were placed to construct the surrounding 2:1 slope. It should be noted that TCI has reviewed the preliminary soils report applicable to the entire I La Costa Greens project and the final as-built/compaction report for the Solterra neighborhood prepared by Geocon Inc., dated June 25, 2001 and May 12, 2009, I respectively. However, the final as-built/compaction report for the Balearas neighborhood was not available for review as of the time of this report publication. 3.0 VISUAL REVIEW OF SITE CONDITIONS — On multiple occasions in January and February 2017, the site was walked and the subject I slope areas were reviewed for signs of adverse geotechnical conditions. In general, the two surf icial failures observed in Balearas ranged from approximately 23 to 48 feet wide, 9 to 14 feet long, and 3 to 4 feet deep, and were located below a concrete drainage swale I running along the top of the 2:1 cut slope. Groundwater seepage was noted in both failure areas. A natural slope area with associated vegetation is located between the cut slope and the residences of the neighborhood above. I At Solterra, there was significant erosion in a zone approximately 5 to 10 feet wide, 25 to 30 feet long, and 5 to 7 feet deep, near the discharge outlet for a desilting basin located at I the southwest corner of the neighborhood. The erosion was located below the concrete energy dissipator, primarily along the west side and bottom of the adjacent emergency spillway for the basin. The bottom portion of the concrete spillway has been severely I undermined by erosion, leaving a void in the supporting compacted fill. In addition, the as- built dimensions of the rip rap below the concrete spillway did not appear to meet the minimum requirements of San Diego Regional Standard Drawing No. D-40 referenced on I the project plans. I 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION On February 23, 2017, subsurface exploration was performed at the site, which included the excavation of six test pits identified T-27 through T-32. The test pits were excavated I at various locations on the subject slopes in/near the areas of the failures and erosion. Test pits ranged in depth from 4.0 to 6.7 feet below ground surface (bgs). The approximate locations of the test pits are presented on the Geotechnical Plans for the I La Costa Greens • Balearas and Solterra Neighborhoods - Carlsbad, CA • FN. 13110 • November 8, 2017 -2- I I I 1 I I I 1 Balearas and Solterra neighborhoods, Sheets 1 and 2, respectively, in Appendix A. The purpose of the subsurface exploration was to observe the existing soil/bedrock conditions, collect samples for laboratory testing, and test compaction levels where fill was encountered. In general, the test pits at the Balearas surf icial slope failures (T-27 through T-30) primarily exposed shallow layers of topsoil, fill, or failure debris over sedimentary bedrock identified as the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. The fill was encountered below the concrete swale and may have been placed locally prior to pouring the swale. These near surface materials were generally limited to the upper 0.25 to 1.3 feet of the test pits and were described as sandy clay, silty clay, or clayey sand in various shades of grey and reddish brown that were moist to wet and loose in consistency. The bedrock was generally described as claystone, siltstone, or sandstone in shades of grey and reddish brown that was slightly moist to wet. The upper zones of the bedrock, i.e. upper 2 to 3 feet, were substantially fractured and soft to moderately hard in consistency. A clay seam was also observed in T-29 at a depth of 2.9 feet. The test pits at the Solterra erosion area (T-31 and T-32) primarily exposed fill soil for their entire depths, except the very bottoms where the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation bedrock was encountered. In general, the fill soil was described as clayey sand and sand in shades of grey and brown that was moist and loose to dense in consistency. The bedrock was identified at 6.5 and 6.7 feet in T-31 and T-32, respectively. It was described as tan to grey sandstone that was slightly moist and hard to very hard in consistency. More detailed descriptions of the soil conditions encountered in the test pits are presented on the Subsurface Excavation Logs in Appendix C. Relatively undisturbed, intact soil samples were collected from some of the test pits using a modified California sampler equipped with brass rings (a total of 12 rings, 1-inch in height by 2.5 inches in diameter). Sand cone density tests were also performed in T-31 and T-32 where fill soils were encountered. Representative bulk samples were also collected from the test pits. Results of the testing are discussed in the following sections. 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples collected during the field exploration were transported to our laboratory for testing. The purpose of the testing was to characterize the soil types and evaluate the engineering properties of the soils. The laboratory testing included in-situ moisture and density, maximum density, fine-grained sieve analysis, and direct shear. Each of the laboratory tests were performed in accordance with ASTM specifications or other accepted testing procedures. The results of the laboratory tests are presented in Appendix D. La Costa Greens • Balearas and Solterra Neighborhoods - Carlsbad, CA • FN. 13110 • November 8, 2017 -3- Fl I I L I I L I I I I 6.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION I Based on the visual observations made and test data collected as part of our geotechnical evaluation, we have concluded that the surficial slope failures in the Balearas neighborhood are primarily due to saturation of the near surface soils composing the slope and seepage I in the soft and/or fractured bedrock. A saturated clay seam, i.e. with seepage, was also noted in T-29 and may have provided a plane for surficial slippage to initiate. The results of our surficial stability analysis using the shear strength of the native soils, is presented in I Appendix E. I The conditions documented and test data collected at the Solterra neighborhood indicate that the resultant damages, i.e. erosion below the desilting basin, are primarily due to scouring effects of flowing water discharging from the basin. These effects were I compounded by deficiencies in the construction during initial rough grading and construction of the outlet dissipator and emergency spill way. The following section presents our recommended repair recommendations for reconstruction of the surficial slope failures and erosion. Additional recommendations for replacement of the vegetation, where required, should be provided by the HOA's Landscaper or Landscape Architect. 7.0 REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS In order to restore the affected areas within HOA limits, the following geotechnical recommendations have been developed for both the surficial slope failures in the cut slope I at Balearas and the erosion at the outlet and spill way at Solterra. Refer to the Geotechnical Plans, Sheets 1 and 2 in Appendix A, for the approximate locations of the I recommended repair areas and additional details. In addition to the geotechnical recommendations contained herein, the details and specifications contained in the respective grading plans for both repair areas prepared by Coffey Engineering, Inc. I (References 7 and 8) should be reviewed by the repair contractor and incorporated into the sequence of construction. 7.1 Balearas Surf icial Slope Failures Repair should consist of reconstructing the portion of the cut slope with the two surficial I failures identified on Sheet 1 in Appendix A with properly compacted fill and subsurface drainage facilities. A surficial slope stability analysis of the repair section using conservative shear strength values for fill soils is provided in Appendix E. Additional I details regarding earthwork that may be applicable during reconstruction which is not outlined below, can be found in the Standard Grading Guidelines in Appendix F. The slope reconstruction should generally consist of the following steps. I La Costa Greens • Balearas and Solterra Neighborhoods - Carlsbad, CA • FN. 13110 • November 8, 2017 -4- 111 11 Excavate a minimum 10-foot wide key at the bottom of the failure areas. The bottom of the keyways should slope a minimum of 2 percent back into the slope. The keyways should be approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to drain installation or fill placement/compaction. Install heel drains at the back of the keyways with outlets to suitable disposal, e.g. rip-rap energy dissipator or storm drain system. The heel drains should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter SDR-35 or Sch. 40 perforated PVC pipe (perforations facing down) sloped a minimum of 1 percent to discharge point. The pipe should be set on approximately 2 inches of 3/4-inch clean drainage rock, with a minimum of 2 cubic feet of rock per linear foot of drain pipe. Both the pipe and drainage rock should be wrapped with Mirafi 140N (or equivalent) filter fabric overlapped a minimum of 12 inches on top. Vertical chimney drains should be installed along the backcut of the repair areas consisting of Mirafi G200N geo-composite drainage boards or gravel bags. A minimum of 1 chimney drain per failure or 30 feet on center maximum spacing should be installed. The slope should be rebuilt to original plan grade with compacted fill soil placed at a minimum of 90 percent of the ASTM D-1 557 maximum dry density value, and moisture-conditioned at or slightly above optimum. The fill soil should be placed in loose lifts approximately 8 inches thick. The fill soil may consist of material that can be removed from the failure area, provided it is clean of oversize rock, debris, or deleterious material and/or import soil. Import soil should be approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to transporting to the site. Existing improvements removed to enact repair (i.e. concrete V-ditch) should be replaced in like kind. Restore vegetation and irrigation in the repair area. 7.2 Solterra Slope Erosion Area Restoration of the slope erosion at the southwest corner of the Solterra project should consist of removing and replacing loose/eroded fill soil and a portion of the concrete spillway, and installation of proper rip rap to protect the slope from erosion in the approximate location presented on Sheet 2 in Appendix A. Additional details regarding earthwork that may be applicable during reconstruction which is not outlined below, can be found in the Standard Grading Guidelines in Appendix F. The slope erosion area should generally be restored in the following manner. La Costa Greens • Balearas and Solterra Neighborhoods - Carlsbad, CA • FN. 13110 • November 8, 2017 - 5 - L I I Remove existing rip rap (rock) and loose soils from the area of erosion. The removals should expose firm, unyielding soil, and/or bedrock conditions at the bottom and sidewalls of the repair area (to be approved by the geotechnical consultant). This will also require the removal of the end of the existing spill way to the nearest control joint. Backfill the excavated area with properly moisture conditioned and compacted fill soils (i.e. minimum 90 percent of ASTM D-1 557 maximum dry density value at/slightly above optimum moisture content). In lieu of compacted fill, controlled density fill consisting of a minimum 125 pcf sand-cement slurry can be placed to bring the grade up to the bottom of the new rip rap (i.e. within approximately 5.4 feet of grade). Reconstruct the removed section of the spillway end over the properly compacted fill and/or slurry in like kind as the existing. Replace rip rap energy dissipator per the plans prepared by Coffey Engineering, Inc. 8.0 GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING DURING REPAIRS Observation by TCI, or another company's geotechnical representative, is essential during the repairs to confirm soil conditions anticipated by the preliminary investigation, to adjust designs to actual field conditions, and to determine that earthwork is conducted in general accordance with our recommendations. In addition, all excavations should be reviewed for conformance with the plans prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement, or concrete. Observation, compaction testing, and engineering consulting services are provided by our firm and should be budgeted within the cost of the repair. Inspection and testing of concrete or steel, if required, can be coordinated TCI by subcontracting an outside testing firm/laboratory. 9.0 CLOSURE The findings and recommendations are based on the work performed to date, as described above. The information and recommendations provided may be subject to change based on the results of further investigation and/or additional information provided. Our investigation was performed using the skill and degree of care ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and engineering geologists practicing in I this or similar localities. The samples taken and used for testing, and the observations made, are believed representative of the site conditions; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between test excavations and surface exposures. 1 La Costa Greens • Balearas and Solterra Neighborhoods - Carlsbad, CA • FN. 13110 • November 8, 2017 -6- I 1 I tu The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, the conditions can change with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works I of man. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be ' invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside of our control. This report is subject to review and should be updated after a period of 2 years. I Finally, it is the client and or contractor's responsibility to obtain the necessary construction permits for the repair work described herein. If additional documentation or construction details are required by the public agency or by the contractor performing the I work, we should be contacted to provide the necessary information. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions or I comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, fic Consultants 4scotth!eny,GE 2400 I Ta Inc. " 072 M Expires II I Matthew H. Marquez, P 2 Senior Engineer Principal Engineer OF DO 2400 NpIres 613011Z./ I OF La Costa Greens • Balearas and Solterra Neighborhoods - Carlsbad, CA • FN. 13110 • November 8, 2017 -7- I I I I APPENDIX A Figures 11 APPENDIX B References I REFERENCES I 1. Grading Plans for La Costa Greens Phase 1 (CT 99-03), prepared by O'Day Consultants, As-Built date July 28, 2005. I 2. Grading Plans for La Costa Greens Neighborhood 1.12 (CT 02-21), prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, As-Built date August 20, 2008. Grading and Erosion Control Plans for La Costa Greens Neighborhood 1.01-1.03 (CT 1 99-03), prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, Approval date November 23, 2005. Rough Grading and Precise Grading Plans for La Costa Greens Neighborhood 1.3 (CT 1 07-05), prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, As-Built date July 7, 2011. Update Soil and Geologic Investigation, Villages of La Costa - The Greens, Carlsbad, I California, Volumes I and II, prepared by Geocon, Inc., dated June 25, 2001. Final Report of Testing and Observations Services Performed During Site Grading, I Villages of La Costa, The Greens, Neighborhood 1.03, Lots 1 through 39, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon, Inc., dated May 12, 2009. Grading Plans for La Costa Greens HOA, Alicante Road, Project No. DEV 2017-0198, Drawing No. 507-4A, (4 sheets), prepared by Coffey Engineering, Inc., received November 3, 2017. Grading Plans for La Costa Greens HOA, Cinnabar Way, Project No. DEV 2017-0197, Drawing No. 507-3A (4 sheets), prepared by Coffey Engineering, Inc., received November 3, 2017. I I APPENDIX C Subsurface Excavation Logs 0 j TerraPadf'lc CONSULTANTS INC Test Pit Log Test Pit No: T-27 Project No: 13110 Project Name: La Costa Greens Location: First Slope Failure -5' From South Wall - Balearas CT 02-21 (1.12) Sample Method: Modified California Sampler Instrumentation: None installed Elevation: - Date: 2/23/17 Logged By: D. Thomas Excavating Company: Mansolf Excavator: George/Harry Excavation Method: Hand labor Hammer Wt. & Drop: 35 lbs. for 30' 'C iF Lithology DESCRIPTION & REMARKS .! ' tsl_. U) o C) 0 —o TOPSOIL: From 0.0', Sandy clay, reddish brown, moist to wet, loose, fine grained, with - some 3" clast - NATIVE (Santiago Formation): From 0.25', Claystone, reddish brown, moist to wet, soft, j - - very fine to fine grained, highly fractured —1 2 7. —2 ©2.O',Seepage - sIll::::: 3 —3 - . From 3.0', Claystone/siltstone, light gray to olive gray, moist to wet, soft to moderately - hard, very fine grained, oxidation/iron staining, slightly fractured - 4 - 4.0', Seepage - From 4.5', Sandstone, light gray to olive gray, slightly moist to moist, hard to very hard, - dense, oxidation/Iron staining, slightly fractured, very fine to fine grained 6 —6 7 F-7 8 10 L__1 Bulk - - - Ring 50 for 6" 98.8 19.3 50 for 5" Total Depth: 6.0' Test Pit Water: Seepage @ 2.0' and @ 4.0' T-27 Caving: No Footing Dimensions: N/A Page 1 of 1 TerraPacific CONSULTANTS INC Test Pit Log Test Pit No: T-28 Project No: 13110 Project Name: La Costa Greens Location: First Slope/Below Failure - Balearas CT 02-21 (1.12) Sample Method: Modified California Sampler Instrumentation: None installed Elevation: - Date: 2/23/17 Logged By: D. Thomas Excavating Company: Mansolf Excavator: George/Harry Excavation Method: Hand labor Hammer Wt. & Drop: 35 lbs. for 30" l,, Lithology DESCRIPTION & REMARKS a, E 0, ' ' ! 0 [ tI— O 0 —u FAILURE DEBRIS: From 0.0', Silty day, olive gray, moist to wet, loose, fine grained, with - roots and rootlets - - t 1.0', Slight seepage - - - - NATIVE (Santiago Formation): From 1.0', Claystone/siltstone, olive gray, moist, soft to - moderately hard, very fine to fine grained, oxidationluron staining, fractured - —2 - Bulk - - - —'-'7 From 2.0', Claystone/siltstone, olive gray, slightly moist to moist, hard to very hard oxidationfiron staining, slightly fractured - - Ring 50 for 4" 103.1 13.1 50 for 3" —4 —5 —6 —7 —8 —9 _a Total Depth: 4.0' Test Pit Water: Seepage @ 1.0, in plant matter T-28 Caving: No Footing Dimensions: N/A Page 1 of 1 I 2 3 5 7 10 0 '77~. TerraPadfic CONSULTANTS INC Test Pit Log Test Pit No: T-29 Project No: 13110 Date: 2/23/17 Project Name: La Costa Greens Logged By: D. Thomas Location: Second Slope Failure (North Corner of Failure) Balearas CT 02-21 (1.12) Excavating Company: Mansolf Sample Method: Modified California Sampler Excavator: George/Harry Instrumentation: None installed Excavation Method: Hand labor Elevation: - Hammer Wt. & Drop: 35 lbs. for 30" E utimlogy DESCRIPTION & REMARKS 0 E CL . to co c U :i _IH - - FILL: From 0.0', Clayey sand, reddish brown, moist, loose, fine grained, with roots and rootlets - - -. @1.0', PVC pipe - : NATIVE (Santiago Formation): From 1.0', Claystone, reddish brown, moist to wet, soft to :. moderately hard, very fine grained, with some coarse sand, highly fractured From 2.7', Claystone, olive brown, moist to wet, soft to moderately hard, very fine : : : : grained, slightly fractured, oxidationfuron staining © 2.9', Clay seam, very moist, (seepage) I I I I From 3.0', Sandstone, light gray to olive gray, moist, moderately hard to hard, fine IIII. grained, poorly cemented, slighlty fractured, friable, with oxidationfuron staining 7 9 10 Bulk - - - Ring 19/48 98.8 21.5 Ring 13/37 95.1 25.2 Total Depth: 6.0' Test Pit Water: Seepage @ 2.9' at clay seam T-29 Caving: No Footing Dimensions: N/A Page 1 of 1 I I I I I Te rra Pa c i f i c CON&LJLTANTS INC Test Pit Log Test Pit No: T-30 Project No: 13110 Project Name: La Costa Greens Location: Second Failure (Below Failure) - Balearas CT 02-21 (1.12) Sample Method: Modified California Sampler Instrumentation: None installed Elevation: - Date: 2/23/17 Logged By: D. Thomas Excavating Company: Mansolf Excavator: D. Thomas Excavation Method: Hand labor Hammer Wt. & Drop: 35 lbs. for 30" I E Lithology I DESCRIPTION & REMARKS . E ' U . 0 0 —o - FAILURE DEBRIS: From 0.0', Clayey sand, light gray to olive gray, wet, loose, fine - - - - grained, with roots and rootlets - @ 1.3', Roots and rootlets, seepage - NATIVE (Santiago Formation): From 1.3', Sandstone, light gray, moist, moderately hard - to hard, fine grained, with oxidation/iron staining, with gypsum, poorly cemented, friable 2 —2 ©2.7', Increase ingypsum 4 :1:1:1:1: 4 5 - 8 9 10 L_1 Ring / 15/28 93.1 27.0 Bulk Ring 30/50 for 4" 95.7 23.6 Total Depth: 5.0 Test Pit Water: Seepage © 1.3 T-30 Caving: © 1.0- 1.3' Footing Dimensions: N/A Page 1 of 1 TerraPacifilc CONSULTANT! 1 PlC Test Pit Log Test Pit No: T-31 Project No: 13110 Date: 2/23/17 Project Name: La Costa Greens Logged By: D. Thomas Location: Left Side of Spillway - Solterra CT 07-05 (1.3) Excavating Company: Mansoif Sample Method: Modified California Sampler Excavator: George/Harry Instrumentation: None installed Excavation Method: Hand labor Elevation: - Hammer Wt. & Drop: 35 lbs. for 30" . g Utliology CL cc DESCRIPTION & REMARKS E o o C) , 0 Bulk / - 89.0 20.4 SC Bulk - - - Bulk! - 86.3 19.3 SC Bulk - - - SC - 93.0 13.4 Total Depth: 6.6' Test Pit Water: No T-31 Caving: No Footing Dimensions: N/A Page 1 of 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I —o FILL: From 0.0', Clayey sand, medium brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to - -- coarse grained, with roots and rootlets —1 - - @1.3', Survey stake —2 From 2.0', Clayey sand, light brown to olive gray, moist, loose to medium dense, fine grained, with daystone clast S __ —3 —4 - - From 4.9', Clayey sand, reddish brown, moist, medium dense to dense, fine grained, with - - - - some 3/4" rock - —6 NATIVE (Santiago Formation): From 6.5', Sandstone, olive gray to light gray, slightly moist, hard to very hard, fine grained ® 6.6', Refusal 8 9 10 `77~, TerraPacific CON5IILTAITS INC Test Pit Log Test Pit No: T-32 Project No: 13110 Date: 2/23/17 Project Name: La Costa Greens Logged By: D. Thomas Location: Bellow Spillway/Right Side - Solterra CT 07-05 (1.3) Excavating Company: Mansolf Sample Method: Modified California Sampler Excavator: George/Harry Instrumentation: None installed Excavation Method: Hand labor Elevation: - Hammer Wt. & Drop: 35 lbs. for 30" 9J ' E Lithology DESCRIPTION & REMARKS 06 CL ' ft FILL: From 0.0', Clayey sand, medium brown, moist, medium dense to dense, fine to —u - medium grained, with claystone clast up to 2" - —1 - 2 Bulk! - 103.0 17.1 @ 2.8', Trash/construction debris —3 sc k I sc - 91.0 8.7 From 4.0', Sand. tan, slighty moist, medium dense, fine to medium grained —5 @5.5',Rip-rap/mesh for rip-rap —6 - NATIVE (Santiago Formation): From 6.7', Sandstone, tan, slightly moist, hard to very hard, fine to medium grained, moderately cemented —8 —9 Total Depth: 6.7' Test Pit Water: No T-32 Caving: No Footing Dimensions: N/A Page 1 of 1 I 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 I I I I I APPENDIX D Laboratory Test Results I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Summary of Laboratory Test Results La Costa Greens - Balearas & Solterra FN:13110 Sample Location ASTM D 422 ASTM D 1556 ASTM D 1557 ASTM D 3080 ASTM D 2937 ASTM D 4318 Location Sample Depth (tt) Sample Type IJSCS Classif. Passing No. 200 1%) Dry Density 1pcfl Moisture Content 1%) Maximum Dry Density 1pcfl Opt. Moist Content 1%) Peak p (degrees) Peak c (psf) Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%l Liquid Limit 1%) Plasticity Index 1%) T-27 V-3' L Bulk MH 71.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 74 24 T-27 5.0' Ring -- -- -- -- -- -- 37.0 300 98.8 19.3 -- -- T-28 2'-3.0' L Bulk -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- T-28 3.0' Ring -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 103.1 13.1 -- -- T-29 O'-l.O' S Bulk -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- T-29 4.0' Ring -- -- -- -- -- -- 35.0 300 98.8 21.5 -- -- 1-29 5' Ring -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 95.1 25.2 -- -- T-30 2.3' Ring -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 93.1 27.0 -- -- T-30 2.3'-3.5' L Bulk -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- T-30 3.5' Ring -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 95.7 23.6 -- -- T-31 2.0' Sc -- -- 89.0 20.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- T-31 2'-3.5' L Bulk -- -- -- -- 120.0 12.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- T-31 3.6' Sc -- -- 86.0 19.3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- T-31 3.6'-5.0' L Bulk -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- T-31 5.3' sc -- -- 93.0 13.4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- T-31 5'-6' L Bulk -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- T-32 1.8' Sc -- -- 103.0 17.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- T-32 1.8'-3.5' L Bulk -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1-32 4.0' sc -- -- 91.0 8.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- T-32 4.0'-5.0' L Bulk -- -- -- -- 116 12.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- File Name: La Costa Greens Slope Failure DIRECT SHEAR TEST File No.: 13110 Laboratory Report Date: 3/2/2017 Technician: JS 2500------------- - 2000 1500 .-- —500PSF —1000 PSF —2000PSF [I ---4 ixlo - 500 U) — a — — — — — — — a) cf) 0 - — — — — -- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Strain (%) 3500 3000 2500 U) 2000 U) 1500 1000 500 - — —r 4000 4000 I - --1 Peak Strength Test Results AUltimate Strength Test -- - i - - Results - -- tH TFF - - -. - - All — 14 0 -- 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Normal Stress (PSF) 3000 3500 Sample No.& T-27 @ 5 Location: F Peak Ultimate Friction Angle V (deg) 37 37 Cohesion C (psf) 300 150 In-Situ As-Tested Dry Density (pcf) #DIV/01 #DIV/ol Strain Rate Moisture Content (%) #DIV/0! #DIV/0l (in/mm) Preparation: Soil Description: Greenish/Grey clayey sand Sample Type: Intact Specimen Inundated TerraPacilic CISC Cno 110010 io 401 0 Moreno Borrieonr0. Snite 108. Sen DIego. CA 92 ill Phone 858: 521-1190 Sex 8081 521-1199 File Name: La Costa Greens Slope Failure DIRECT SHEAR TEST File No.: 13110 Laboratory Report Date: 3/2/2017 Technician: JS 2500 • — ILL ----------------------- -500PSF 2000 - -1000PSF — 1500 -2000PSF -------—-------—----—H - 1000 I I ---- - ---- - - CID 500 ------- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Strain (%) 4000 JJ I I FE TTT U Peak Strength Test 3500 Results A Ultimate Strength Test - Results - .. . I 1 3000 - 1_ •f- — — — 2500 ILL — — ,- cn . .. .. . ::_ 4- 1000 :•- •- T th-1 111 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Normal Stress (PSF) Sample No .& T29 Location: Peak Friction Angle (deg) 35 Ultimate 35 Greenish/grey sandy clay with reddish Soil Description: Cohesion C (psf) 300 100 streaks _______________________ In-Situ As-Tested Sample Type. Intact Dry Density (pcf) [Moisture Content (%) I #DIV/0! I #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Strain Rate #DIV/01 (in/mm) Specimen Inundated Preparat ion: 40 i 0 More am lerraPacific errPctc 8Ied $ie 108, Ser 0ego CA 92 il/ Phore 858. 521-1190 F 858 521-1199 COMPACTION TEST ASTM D 1557 Project Name: La Costa Greens Modified Proctor Project No. : 13110 Boring No.: T-31 @ 2-3.5' Technician: JS Date: 3/6/2017 Visual Sample Description I X I Manual Ram Ram Weight 10 LBS Drop 18 inches TESTNOT 1 1-2 3 4 5 6 A ri Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.) 3710.00 3870.00 3810.00 3720.00 B Wt. of Mold (gm 1820.00 1820.00 1820.00 1820.0 C Net Wt. of Soil (gm.) I AB 18900 1 2050.00 1990.00 1900.00 D Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 1022.7 1075.9 805.5 1 871.1 E Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 937.6 979.5 726.3 765.6 F Wt. of Container (gm.) 1 152.6 189.811 192.5 153.3 G Moisture Content (%) _____ 10.8 12.2 14.8 17.2 -- 7 , 6 ___r HWet Density (pd) ' 124.0 134.5 - 130.6 124.7 I Dry Density (pcf) H/(1+G'lool 111.9 119.9 113.7 106.3 Maximum Dry Density (pcf)I 120.0 I Optimum Moisture Content 1500 1450 1400 1350 1300 C-) CL 1250 1200. ci c 1150 110.0 1050 100.0 95.0 PROCEDURE USED Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4 4.75 rnml Sieve Mold 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers 5 (Five) Blows per layer 25 twenty-five) May be used it No.4 retained < 20% Procedure B Soil Passing 3/8 in. Sieve Mold 4 in. 101.6 mm) diamet Layers 5 (Five) Blows per layer 25 twenty-five) May be used if No.4 retained > 203 0.0 5.0 10.0 15,0 20.0 Moisture Content (%) TerraPacific Consultants, Inc 4010 Morena Boulevard, Suite 108, San Diego, CA 92117 / Phone 18581 521-1190 Fax 8581 521-1199 &0 TrpPc,c 150.0 145,0 1400 135.0 1300 CL () 125.0 1200 C o 1150 1100 1050 100.0 95 0 00 50 10.0 150 Moisture Content (%) rcTM fl i Project Name: La Costa Greens Project No. : 13110 Boring No.: T-32 @ 4-5 Technician: JS Date: 3/1/2017 Visual Sample Description I X I Manual Ram Ram Weight 10 LBS Drop 18 inches TEST NO. i 2 A Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.) 3690.00 3740.00 3810.00 3740.00 B Wt. of Mold (gm.) L2000 1 1820.00 1820.00 1820.00 C Net Wt. of Soil (gm.) - AB 1870.00 1920.00 1990.00 1920.00 D Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g m.) 1311,6 1357.8 -_1109.3 1181.1 E Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 1221.0 1238.9 1006.5 1049.0 F Wt. of Container (gm.) 153.1 152.5 i 197.9 152.4 G Moisture Content (9/) [IDFllE-Fll/lE 8.5 10.9 12.7 --14.7 H Wet Density )pcf) 122.7 J 126.0 130.6 126.0 I Dry Denty )pcf) - - Hil1+G/1ool131 113.5 115.8 109.8 Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 116.0 I Optimum Moisture Content PROCEDURE USED Procedure A Soil Passinij No. 4 4.75 mml Mold 4 in. 101.6 mm) div Layers S (Five) Blows per layer 25 twenty May be used it No.4 retained Procedure B ScsI Passing 3/8 in. Sieve Mold 4 In. 101.6 mm 1 Layers 5 (Five) Blows per layer 25 twenty II,. May he used if No.4 retained :. 20 lerraHc c I I I I F I APPENDIX E Slope Stability Analysis 1 I I I 11 INPUT PARAMETERS Friction Angle (CD) 25 [DEGREES] Cohesion (CD) 100 [PSF] Dry Unit Weight 108 [PCF] Water Content 13 [%] Slope Surface Specific Gravity 2.65 Slope Angle X 2.00 X H CALCULATED PARAMETERS Void Ratio 0.53 F.S. = + H(7- y) cos2(f3) tan4 Moist Unit Weight 122 [PCF] sinJ3 cosD Saturated Unit Weight 130 [PCF] Friction Angle 0.44 [RADIANS] Slope Angle 0.46 [RADIANS] 1 SURFICIAL STABILITY (After Abrahamson et. al, 1996) 6.00 (H) [FT) F.S. 0.50 4.34 0.75 3.05 1.00 2.41 1.25 2.03 1.50 1.77 1.75 1.59 2.00 1.45 2.25 1.34 2.50 1.26 2.75 1.18 3.00 1.13 3.25 1.08 3.50 1.03 3.75 1.00 4.00 0.97 4.25 0.94 4.50 0.91 4.75 0.89 5.00 0.87 5.25 0.85 5.50 0.83 5.75 0.82 6.00 0.81 6.25 0.79 6.50 0.78 5.00 w LL 4.00 , 3.00 (I, 0 2.00 U U- 1.00 0.00 L- 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Depth of Wetted Zone (H) [Feet] File No. 13110 SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY La Costa Greens - Balearas APPENDIX F Standard Grading Guidelines I I STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL........................................................................................................... F-i DEFINITIONS OF TERMS ......................................................................................F-i OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES . F-4 SITEPREPARATION ............................................................................................F-4 SITEPROTECTION ..............................................................................................F-5 EXCAVATIONS...................................................................................................F-6 Unsuitable Materials...................................................................................F-6 CutSlopes................................................................................................F-6 PadAreas.................................................................................................F-6 COMPACTEDFILL, ... .................. ...................................................................... ...F-7 Placement................................................................................................F-7 Moisture..................................................................................................F-8 FillMaterial...............................................................................................F-8 Fill Slopes ............................................................................................... F-iO Off-Site Fill .............................................................................................F-i i DRAINAGE.......................................................................................................F-il STAKING.........................................................................................................F-li SLOPE MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................F-i 2 LandscapePlants ..................................................................................... F-i 2 Irrigation................................................................................................F-i 2 Maintenance...........................................................................................F-i 2 Repairs..................................................................................................F-i 2 TRENCHBACKFILL ............................................................................................ F-13 STATUSOF GRADING .......................................................................................F-i3 I I I I I Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects GENERAL I The guidelines contained herein and the standard details attached hereto represent this firms standard recommendations for grading and other associated operations on construction projects. These guidelines should be considered a portion of the project specifications. I All plates attached hereto shall be considered as part of these guidelines. The Contractor should not vary from these guidelines without prior recommendation by the I Geotechnical Consultant and the approval of the Client or his authorized representative. Recommendation by the Geotechnical Consultant and/or Client should not be considered to preclude requirements for approval by the controlling agency prior to the execution of any changes. These Standard Grading Guidelines and Standard Details may be modified and/or superseded by recommendations contained in the text of the preliminary geotechnical report and/or subsequent reports. If disputes arise out of the interpretation of these grading guidelines or standard details, the Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the governing interpretation. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS ALLUVIUM - Unconsolidated soil deposits resulting from flow of water, including sediments deposited in river beds, canyons, flood plains, lakes, fans and estuaries. AS-GRADED (AS-BUILT) - The surface and subsurface conditions at completion of grading. BACKCUT - A temporary construction slope at the rear of earth retaining structures such as buttresses, shear keys, stabilization fills or retaining walls. BACKDRAIN - Generally a pipe and gravel or similar drainage system placed behind earth retaining structures such buttresses, stabilization fills, and retaining walls. BEDROCK - Relatively undisturbed formational rock, more or less solid, either at the surface or beneath superficial deposits of soil. BENCH - A relatively level step and near vertical rise excavated into sloping ground on which fill is to be placed. BORROW (Import) - Any fill material hauled to the project site from off-site areas. BUTTRESS FILL - A fill mass, the configuration of which is designed by engineering calculations to retain slope conditions containing adverse geologic features. A buttress is generally specified by minimum key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A buttress normally contains a back-drainage system. CIVIL ENGINEER - The Registered Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topographic conditions. CLIENT - The Developer or his authorized representative who is chiefly in charge of the project. He shall have the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations made by the Geotechnical Consultant and shall authorize the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. F-I Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects COLLUVIUM - Generally loose deposits usually found near the base of slopes and brought there chiefly by gravity through slow continuous downhill creep (also see Slope Wash). COMPACTION - Densification of man-placed fill by mechanical means. CONTRACTOR - A person or company under contract or otherwise retained by the Client to perform demolition, grading and other site improvements. DEBRIS - All products of clearing, grubbing, demolition, contaminated soil materials unsuitable for reuse as compacted fill and/or any other material so designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST - A Geologist holding a valid certificate of registration in the specialty of Engineering Geology. ENGINEERED FILL - A fill of which the Geotechnical Consultant or his representative, during grading, has made sufficient tests to enable him to conclude that the fill has been placed in substantial compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant and the governing agency requirements. EROSION - The wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind and/or water. EXCAVATION - The mechanical removal of earth materials. EXISTING GRADE - The ground surface configuration prior to grading. FILL - Any deposits of soil, rock, soil-rock blends or other similar materials placed by man. FINISH GRADE - The ground surface configuration at which time the surface elevations conform to the approved plan. GEOFABRIC - Any engineering textile utilized in geotechnical applications including subgrade stabilization and filtering. GEOLOGIST - A representative of the Geotechnical Consultant educated and trained in the field of geology. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT - The Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology consulting firm retained to provide technical services for the project. For the purpose of these specifications, observations by the Geotechnical Consultant include observations by the Soil Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering Geologist and those performed by persons employed by and responsible to the Geotechnical Consultants. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER - A licensed Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer who applies scientific methods, engineering principles and professional experience to the acquisition, interpretation and use of knowledge of materials of the earth's crust for the evaluation of engineering problems. Geotechnical Engineering encompasses many of the engineering aspects of soil mechanics, rock mechanics, geology, geophysics, hydrology and related sciences. GRADING - Any operation consisting of excavation, filling or combinations thereof and associated operations. F-2 I I L I [1 I I I I I I U I I I I I Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects LANDSLIDE DEBRIS - Material, generally porous and of low density, produced from instability of natural or man-made slopes. MAXIMUM DENSITY - Standard laboratory test for maximum dry unit weight. Unless otherwise specified, the maximum dry unit weight shall be determined in accordance with ASTM Method of Test D 1557-09. OPTIMUM MOISTURE - Soil moisture content at the test maximum density. RELATIVE COMPACTION - The degree of compaction (expressed as a percentage) of dry unit weight of a material as compared to the maximum dry unit weight of the material. ROUGH GRADE - The ground surface configuration at which time the surface elevations approximately conform to the approved plan. SITE - The particular parcel of land where grading is being performed. SHEAR KEY - Similar to buttress, however, it is generally constructed by excavating a slot within a natural slope in order to stabilize the upper portion of the slope without grading encroaching into the lower portion of the slope. SLOPE - An inclined ground surface the steepness of which is generally specified as a ratio of horizontal:vertical (e.g., 2:1). SLOPE WASH - Soil and/or rock material that has been transported down a slope by action of gravity assisted by runoff water not confined by channels (also see Colluvium). SOIL - Naturally occurring deposits of sand, silt, clay, etc., or combinations thereof. SOIL ENGINEER - Licensed Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in soil mechanics (also see Geotechnical Engineer). STABILIZATION FILL - A fill mass, the configuration of which is typically related to slope height and is specified by the standards of practice for enhancing the stability of locally adverse conditions. A stabilization fill is normally specified by minimum key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A stabilization fill may or may not have a back drainage system specified. SUBDRAIN - Generally a pipe and gravel or similar drainage system placed beneath a fill in the alignment of canyons or former drainage channels. SLOUGH - Loose, non-compacted fill material generated during grading operations. TAILINGS - Non-engineered fill which accumulates on or adjacent to equipment haul-roads. TERRACE - Relatively level step constructed in the face of graded slope surface for drainage control and maintenance purposes. TOPSOIL - The presumable fertile upper zone of soil which is usually darker in color and loose. WINDROW - A string of large rocks buried within engineered fill in accordance with guidelines set forth by the Geotechnical Consultant. F-3 I I I I ri I LI I U I I I I I I h I I Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES The Geotechnical Consultant should provide observation and testing services and should make evaluations in order to advise the Client on geotechnical matters. The Geotechnical Consultant should report his findings and recommendations to the Client or his authorized representative. The client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his authorized representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his authorized representative should remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading and other associated operations on construction projects, including but not limited to, earthwork in accordance with the project plans, specifications and controlling agency requirements. During grading, the Contractor or his authorized representative should remain on-site. Overnight and on days off, the Contractor should remain accessible. SITE PREPARATION The Client, prior to any site preparation or grading, should arrange and attend a meeting among the Grading Contractor, the Design Engineer, the Geotechnical Consultant, representatives of the appropriate governing authorities as well an any other concerned parties. All parties should be given at least 48 hours notice. Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, roots of trees and otherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of all proposed excavation and fill areas. Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations, reservoirs, utilities (including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, etc.) and other man-made surface and subsurface improvements from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities should include proper capping and/or re-routing pipelines at the project perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the requirements of the governing authorities and the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant at the time of demolition. Trees, plants or man-made improvements not planned to be removed or demolished should be protected by the Contractor from damage or injury. Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or demolition operations should be wasted from areas to be graded and disposed off-site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be performed under the observation of the Geotechnical Consultant. The Client or Contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, during and/or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The appropriate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with grading operations. F-4 I I n I I I I I I U I I I I I I I Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects SITE PROTECTION I Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the responsibility of the Contractor. Unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties, completion of a portion of the project should not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the requirements for site protection until such time as the entire project I is complete as identified by the Geotechnical Consultant, the Client and the regulating agencies. I The Contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the Geotechnical Consultant pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g., backcuts) are made in consideration of stability of the completed project and, therefore, should not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the Contractor. Recommendations by the I Geotechnical Consultant should not be considered to preclude more restrictive requirements by the regulating agencies. Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding, or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas can not be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall. During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting should be kept reasonably accessible to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated. Where necessary during periods of rainfall, the Contractor should install check dams, desilting basins, riprap, sand bags or other devices or methods necessary to control erosion and provide safe conditions. I During periods of rainfall, the Geotechnical Consultant should be kept informed by the Contractor as to the nature of remedial or preventative work being performed (e.g., pumping, placement of sandbags or plastic sheeting, other labor, dozing, etc.). I Following periods of rainfall, the Contractor should contact the Geotechnical Consultant and arrange a walk-over of the site in order to visually assess rain related damage. The Geotechnical Consultant may also recommend excavations and testing in order to aid in his I assessments. At the request of the Geotechnical Consultant, the Contractor shall make excavations in order to evaluate the extent of rain related damage. I Rain related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress and other adverse conditions identified by the Geotechnical Consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as Unsuitable Materials and should be subject to over-excavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial I grading as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Relatively level areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater I than 1-foot, should be over-excavated to unaffected, competent material. Where less than 1- foot in depth, unsuitable materials may be processed in-place to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, then thoroughly recompacted in accordance with the applicable specifications. If the desired results are not achieved, the affected materials should be over- excavated, then replaced in accordance with the applicable specifications. In slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1 I foot, they should be over-excavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1 foot or less below I F-5 Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture conditioning in-place, followed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein may be attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be over- excavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the slope repair recommendations herein. As field conditions dictate, other slope repair procedures may be recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. EXCAVATIONS Unsuitable Materials Materials which are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to, dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible natural soils and fractured, weathered, soft bedrock and non-engineered or otherwise deleterious fill materials. I Material identified by the Geotechnical Consultant as unsatisfactory due to its moisture conditions should be over-excavated, watered or dried, as needed, and thoroughly blended to a uniform near optimum moisture condition (per Moisture guidelines presented herein) prior to placement as compacted fill. I Cut Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant and approved by the regulating I agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). If excavations for cut slopes expose loose, cohesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, over-excavation and replacement of the unsuitable materials with a compacted stabilization fill should be accomplished as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Unless otherwise specified by the Geotechnical Consultant, stabilization fill construction should conform to the requirements of the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant should review cut slopes during excavation. The Geotechnical Consultant should be notified by the contractor prior to beginning slope excavations. If, during the course of grading, adverse or potentially adverse geotechnical conditions are encountered which were not anticipated in the preliminary report, the Geotechnical Consultant should explore, analyze and make recommendations to treat these problems. When cut slopes are made in the direction of the prevailing drainage, a non-erodible diversion swale (brow ditch) should be provided at the top-of-cut. Pad Areas All lot pad areas, including side yard terraces, above stabilization fills or buttresses should be over-excavated to provide for a minimum of 3-feet (refer to Standard Details) of compacted fill over the entire pad area. Pad areas with both fill and cut materials exposed and pad areas containing both very shallow (less than 3-feet) and deeper fill should be over-excavated to provide for a uniform compacted fill blanket with a minimum of 3-feet in thickness (refer to Standard Details). Cut areas exposing significantly varying material types should also be overexcavated to provide for at least a 3-foot thick compacted fill blanket. Geotechnical conditions may require greater depth of over-excavation. The actual depth should be delineated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. F-6 I I I I I [1 I I I I Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and/or an appropriate pad gradient. A gradient in soil areas away from the top-of-slopes of 2 percent or greater is recommended. COMPACTED FILL I All fill materials should be compacted as specified below or by other methods specifically recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Unless otherwise specified, the minimum degree of compaction (relative compaction) should be 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. Placement Prior to placement of compacted fill, the Contractor should request a review by the Geotechnical Consultant of the exposed ground surface. Unless otherwise recommended, the exposed ground surface should then be scarified (6-inches minimum), watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, then thoroughly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density. The review by the Geotechnical Consultant should not be considered to preclude requirements of inspection and approval by the governing agency. Compacted fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding 8-inches in loose thickness prior to compaction. Each lift should be watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to achieve near optimum moisture conditions then thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. The Contractor should have suitable and sufficient mechanical compaction equipment and watering apparatus on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed in consideration of moisture retention properties of the materials. If necessary, excavation equipment should be "shut down" temporarily in order to permit proper compaction of fills. Earth moving equipment should only be considered a supplement and not substituted for conventional compaction equipment. When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least 6-foot wide benches and minimum of 4-feet of vertical bench height within the firm natural ground, firm bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area subsequent to keying and benching until the area has been reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Material generated by the benching operation should be moved sufficiently away from the bench area to allow for the recommended review of the horizontal bench prior to placement of fill. Typical keying and benching details have been included within the accompanying Standard Details. Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate fills, temporary I slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as above described. At least a 3-foot vertical bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved compacted fill prior to I placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in at least 3-foot vertical increments until the desired finished grades are achieved. F-7 I Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Fill should be tested for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing should conform to ASTM Method of Test D 1556-07, and/or 6938-10. Tests should be provided for about every 2 vertical feet or 1,000 cubic yards of I D 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 I recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor should assist the Geotechnical Consultant and/or his representative by digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. I As recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant, the Contractor should "shut down" or remove grading equipment from an area being tested. The Geotechnical Consultant should maintain a plan with estimated locations of field tests. I Unless the client provides for actual surveying of test locations, the estimated locations by the Geotechnical Consultant should only be considered rough estimates and should not be utilized for the purpose of preparing cross sections showing test locations or in any case for the I purpose of after-the-fact evaluating of the sequence of fill placement. Moisture I For field testing purposes, "near optimum" moisture will vary with material type and other factors including compaction procedures. "Near optimum" may be specifically recommended in Preliminary Investigation Reports and/or may be evaluated during grading. I 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, watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to near-optimum moisture conditions, then recompacted I to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Where wet or other dry or other unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than 1 foot, the unsuitable materials should be over-excavated. I 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 I described herein. Fill Mtril Excavated on-site materials which are acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant may be utilized as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are removed prior to placement. I Where import materials are required for use on-site, the Geotechnical Consultant should be notified at least 72 hours in advance of importing, in order to sample and test materials from proposed borrow sites. No import materials should be delivered for use on-site without prior I sampling and testing by Geotechnical Consultant. Where oversized rock or similar irreducible material is generated during grading, it is I recommended, where practical, to waste such material off-site or on-site in areas designated as "nonstructural rock disposal areas". Rock placed in disposal areas should be placed with sufficient fines to fill voids. The rock should be compacted in lifts to an unyielding condition. The disposal area should be covered with at least 3 feet of compacted fill which is free of I oversized material. The upper 3 feet should be placed in accordance with the guidelines for compacted fill herein. F-8 I Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects Rocks 8 inches in maximum dimension and smaller may be utilized within the compacted fill, provided they are placed in such a manner that nesting of the rock is avoided. Fill should be I placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. The amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry weight passing the 3/4-inch sieve size. The 12-inch and 40 percent recommendations herein may vary as field conditions dictate. I During the course of grading operations, rocks or similar irreducible materials greater than 8- inches maximum dimension (oversized material) may be generated. These rocks should not be placed within the compacted fill unless placed as recommended by the Geotechnical I Consultant. Where rocks or similar irreducible materials of greater than 8 inches but less than 4 feet of I maximum dimension are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill, special handling in accordance with the accompanying Standard Details is recommended. Rocks greater than 4 feet should be broken down or disposed off-site. Rocks I up to 4 feet maximum dimension should be placed below the upper 10 feet of any fill and should not be closer than 20-feet to any slope face. These recommendations could vary as locations of improvements dictate. Where practical, oversized material should not be placed I below areas where structures or deep utilities are proposed. Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a clean, over-excavated or unyielding compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 I 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 that successive strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane. I 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. Material that is considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Consultant should not be utilized in the compacted I fill. During grading operations, placing and mixing the materials from the cut and/or borrow areas I may result in soil mixtures which possess unique physical properties. Testing may be required of samples obtained directly from the fill areas in order to verify conformance with the specifications. Processing of these additional samples may take two or more working days. I The Contractor may elect to move the operation to other areas within the project, or may continue placing compacted fill pending laboratory and field test results. Should he elect the second alternative, fill placed is done so at the Contractor's risk. Any fill placed in areas not previously reviewed and evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant, and/or in other areas, without prior notification to the Geotechnical Consultant may require removal and recompaction at the Contractor's expense. Determination of over-excavations should be made upon review of field conditions by the Geotechnical Consultant. I I I Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects I Fill Slopes I Unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Except as specifically recommended otherwise or as otherwise provided for in these grading I guidelines (Reference Fill Materials), compacted fill slopes should be overbuilt 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 I should be over-excavated and reconstructed under the guidelines of the Geotechnical Consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased until the desired compacted slope surface condition is achieved. Care should be taken by the Contractor to provide thorough I mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface. Although no construction procedure produces a slope free from risk of future movement, overfilling and cutting back of slope to a compacted inner core is, given no other constraints, I the most desirable procedure. Other constraints, however, must often be considered. These constraints may include property line situations, access, the critical nature of the development and cost. Where such constraints are identified, slope face compaction may be attempted by I conventional construction procedures including back rolling techniques upon specific recommendation by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a second best alternative for slopes of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, slope I construction may be attempted as outlined herein. Fill placement should proceed in thin lifts, (i.e., 6 to 8 inch loose thickness). Each lift should be moisture conditioned and thoroughly compacted. The desired moisture condition should be maintained and/or reestablished, where I necessary, during the period between successive lifts. Selected lifts should be tested to ascertain that desired compaction is being achieved. Care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer edge of the slope. Each lift should extend horizontally to the desired finished slope surface or more as needed to ultimately establish desired grades. Grade I 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. I Slough resulting from the placement of individual lifts should not be allowed to drift down over previous lifts. At intervals not exceeding 4 feet in vertical slope height or the capability of available equipment, whichever is less, fill slopes should be thoroughly backrolled utilizing a conventional sheeps foot-type roller. Care should be taken to maintain the desired moisture I conditions and/or reestablishing same as needed prior to backrolling. Upon achieving final grade, the slopes should again be moisture conditioned and thoroughly backrolled. The use of a side-boom roller will probably be necessary and vibratory methods are strongly I recommended. Without delay, so as to avoid (if possible) further moisture conditioning, the slopes should then be grid-rolled to achieve a relatively smooth surface and uniformly compact condition. I In order to monitor slope construction procedures, moisture and density tests will be taken at regular intervals. Failure to achieve the desired results will likely result in a recommendation by the Geotechnical Consultant to over-excavate the slope surfaces followed by reconstruction of I the slopes utilizing overfilling and cutting back procedures and/or further attempt at the conventional backrolling approach. Other recommendations may also be provided which would be commensurate with field conditions. I Where placement of fill above a natural slope or above a cut slope is proposed, the fill slope configuration as presented in the accompanying Standard Details should be adopted. F-i 0 Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of- slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and pad gradients of at least 2 percent in soil areas. flff-Sitp Fill Off-site fill should be treated in the same manner as recommended in these specifications for site preparation, excavation, drains, compaction, etc. Off-site canyon fill should be placed in preparation for future additional fill, as shown in the accompanying Standard Details. Off-site fill subdrains temporarily terminated (up canyon) should be surveyed for future relocation and connection. DRAINAGE Canyon subdrain systems specified by the Geotechnical Consultant should be installed in accordance with the Standard Details. Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilization or sidehill masses, should be installed in accordance with the specifications of the accompanying Standard Details. Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and areas of structures to suitable disposal areas via non-erodible devices (i.e., gutters, downspouts, concrete swales). For drainage over soil areas immediately away from structures (i.e., within 4 feet), a minimum of 5 percent gradient should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 percent should be maintained over soil areas. Pad drainage may be reduced to at least 1 percent for projects where no slopes exist, either natural or man-made, or greater than 10-feet in height and where no slopes are planned, either natural or man-made, steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical slope ratio). 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 can be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance. STAKING In all fill areas, the fill should be compacted prior to the placement of the stakes. This particularly is important on fill slopes. Slope stakes should not be placed until the slope is thoroughly compacted (backrolled). If stakes must be placed prior to the completion of compaction procedures, it must be recognized that they will be removed and/or demolished at such time as compaction procedures resume. In order to allow for remedial grading operations, which could include over-excavations or slope stabilization, appropriate staking offsets should be provided. For finished slope and stabilization backcut areas, we recommend at least a 10-feet setback from proposed toes and tops-of-cut. 'Ii I F-Il I I I I Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects SLOPE MAINTENANCE Landscape Plants In order to enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting should be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope planting should consist of deep-rooting vegetation requiring little watering. Plants native to the southern California area and plants relative to native plants are generally desirable. Plants native to other semi-arid and arid areas may also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect would be the best party to consult regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration. 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. Though not a requirement, consideration should be given to the installation of near-surface moisture monitoring control devices. Such devices can aid in the maintenance of relatively uniform and reasonably constant moisture conditions. Property owners should be made aware that overwatering of slopes is detrimental to slope stability. Maintenance Periodic inspections of landscaped slope areas should be planned and appropriate measures should be taken to control weeds and enhance growth of the landscape plants. Some areas may require occasional replanting and/or reseeding. Terrace drains and down drains should be periodically inspected and maintained free of debris. Damage to drainage improvements should be repaired immediately. Property owners should be made aware that burrowing animals can be detrimental to slope stability. A preventative program should be established to control burrowing animals. As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand, to protect all slope areas from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period of time prior to landscape planting. Repairs If slope failures occur, the Geotechnical Consultant should be contacted for a field review of site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair. If slope failures occur as a result of exposure to periods of heavy rainfall, the failure area and currently unaffected areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to protect against additional saturation. In the accompanying Standard Details, appropriate repair procedures are illustrated for superficial slope failures (i.e., occurring typically within the outer 1 foot to 3 feet of a slope face). F-12 El I I Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects TRENCH BACKFILL Utility 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. Backfill of exterior and interior trenches extending below a 1:1 projection from the outer edge of foundations should be mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by the Geotechnical Consultant. Clean Granular backfill and/or bedding are not recommended in slope areas unless provisions are made for a drainage system to mitigate the potential build-up of seepage forces. STATUS OF GRADING Prior of proceeding with any grading operation, the Geotechnical Consultant should be notified at least two working days in advance in order to schedule the necessary observation and testing services. Prior to any significant expansion or cut back in the grading operation, the Geotechnical Consultant should be provided with adequate notice (i.e., two days) in order to make appropriate adjustments in observation and testing services. Following completion of grading operations and/or between phases of a grading operation, the Geotechnical Consultant should be provided with at least two working days notice in advance of commencement of additional grading operations. I I I I F-I 3 I I I I 10' MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE BACKDRAIN \. 4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED PIPE LATERAL DRAIN IL <0/,F//-- BENCHING SLOPE PER PLAN H12 //- PROVIDE BACK DRAIN PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL. .4 ................................................................ AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH. KEY-DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER (GENERALLY '/2 SLOPE HEIGHT, 10' MIN.) TYPICAL STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE BACKDRAIN \ 4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED PIPE LATERAL DRAIN SLOPE PER PLAN 10' MINIMUM 17 N CHIN G H12 I I I I I I PROVIDE BACK DRAIN PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL. AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH. KEY-DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 2 I I I I I I I I I I NATURAL GROUND 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. BASE WIDTH W" DETERMINED BY SOILS ENGINEER TYPICAL SHEAR KEY DETAIL NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 3 I I I I I I I I I I DAYLIGHT LINE I — OVER-EXCAVATE I / — FINAL LIMIT OF EXCAVATION I I — I - FINISH PAD I I — :- ------ 20' MAX. I / OVER- EXCAVATE 3'AND- I / R-EPLACE WITH COMPACTED FILL- I SOUND BEDROCK / -J / i TYPICAL BENCHING 2' MIN. EQUIPMENT WIDTH (MINIMUM 15') PROVIDE BACKDRAIN PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL AND OUTLETS PER SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. OVERBURDEN (CREEP-PRONE) DAYLIGHT SHEAR KEY DETAIL NOT TO SCALE C FIGURE 4 I I I I I I BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL 10' MIN. (INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE) BENCHING FILL OVER CUT SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL FILL SLOPE 4' TYPICAL move .........................4. 10' TYPICAL 15' MIN OR STABILITY EQUIVALENT PER SOIL ENGINEER (INCLUDING 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE) BENCHING FOR COMPACTED FILL DETAIL NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 5 FINISH SURFACE SLOPE 3 FT3 MINIMUM PER LINEAL FOOT APPROVED FILTER ROCK* COMPACTED FILL A 4" MINIMUM APPROVED 1 PERFORATED PIPE" I (PERFORATIONS DOWN) 2% MINIMUM GRADIENT MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT N TO OUTLET BENCH INCLINED I TOWARD DRAIN 4" MINIMUM DIAMETER SOLID OUTLET PIPE SPACING PER SOIL ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS DURING GRADING TYPICAL BENCHING DETAILA-A TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL 12" MINIMUM COMPACTED COVER BACKFILL 4" MINIMUM DIAMETER APPROVED SOLID OUTLET PIPE ** MINIMUM * Filter rock to meet following specifications or approved equal Sieve % Passing 1" 100 3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-100 No.4 25-40 No.30 5-15 No.50 0-7 No.200 0-3 ** APPROVED PIPE TYPE Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (P.V.C.) or approved equal. Mm. crush strength 1000 PSI. TYPICAL BACKDRAIN DETAIL NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 6 Finish surface slope 3 ft3 Min per lineal foot approved filter rock* T-Connection (see detail) A-1 2% Min Grac A' 2% Mm 4' Mm. diameter solid outlet pipe spaced per soil engineer requirements during grading Compacted fill 12 Min wide notch cut into benches at 2:1 slope. cf Filled with approved filter rock 4' Min approved perforated pipe** (perforations down mm. 2% gradient to outlet) Bench inclined toward drain 2% Mm. Typical benching * Filter rock to meet following specifications or approved equal Sieve % Passing 1" 100 3/4 90-100 3/8' 40-100 No.4 25-40 No.30 5-15 No.50 0-7 No.200 0-3 ** Approved pipe type: Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (P.V.C.) or approved equal. Mm. crush strength 1000 PSI. BACKDRAIN DETAIL (GEOFABRIC) C CE FIGURE 7 TYPICAL BENCHING N .- -- - \ SURFACE OF FIRM '1 N EARTH MATERIAL I COMPACTED FILL / REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL / SEE DETAIL BElOW ;W- '*~~ INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN DETAIL 4" DIAMETER MINIMUM APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE** (PERFORATIONS DOWN) 9 FT3 MINIMUM PER LINEAR FOOT OF APPROVED FILTER ROCK* ••••., 6" FILTER MATERIAL BEDDING MINIMUM * Filter rock to meet following specifications or approved equal Sieve % Passing ——- 1" 100 3/4" 90-100 3/8' 40-100 No.4 25-40 No.30 5-15 No.50 0-7 No.200 0-3 ** APPROVED PIPE TYPE Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (P.V.C.) or approved equal. Mm. crush strength 1000 PSI. Pipe diameter to meet hte following criteria. Subject to field review based on actual geotechnical conditions encountered during grading. Ln.gth of Run Pipe Diameter Upper 500' 4" Next 1000' 6" >1500' 8" TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 8 "S \ \ \ COMPACTED FILL \ \ TYPICAL BENCHING 5' SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL SEE DETAIL BELOW INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN TRENCH DETAIL 9 FT MINIMUM PER LINEAL FOOT OF APPROVED FILTER ROCK* SUPAC 5-P FABRIC OR OPTIONAL V-DITCH DETAIL APPROVED EQUAL SUPAC 8-P FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL / 6" MINIMUM OVERLAP MINIMUM MINIMUM 9 FT' MINIMUM PER LINEAL FOOT 600 TO 900 OF APPROVED FILTER ROCK* * Drainage material to meet following ADD MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER specifications or approved equal. APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE WHEN GRADIENT IS LESS THAN 2% APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40 POLY-VINYL-CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 psi. GEOFABRIC SUBDRAIN NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 9 Sieve % Passing 1 W' 88-100 1" 5-40 3/4' 0-17 3/8" 0-7 No.200 0-3 TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN LIMITS OF FINAL EXCAVATION FINAL NATURALSLOPE / FILL TYPICAL \3\ BENCH sol P'5 - 1f' TVDIr'AI oir'u HEIGHTS WIDTH VARIES ,ul /L/-- COMPETENT EARTH MATERIAL _--2 /0 -_____ MINIMUM DOWNSLOPE KEY DEPTH PROVIDE BACKDRAIN AS REQUIRED PER RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOILS ENGINEER DURING GRADING WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 5:1 OR LESS, BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY. HOWEVER, FILL IS NOT TO BE PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUIT- ABLE MATERIAL. I Li FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL GROUND DETAIL I NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 10 I REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM AND CREEP MATERIAL FROM TRANSITION CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN FILL CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN ON "AS-BUILT" NATURAL oges F.4'TYPICAL -.---------____I BEDROCK OR APPROVED FOUNDATION MATERIAL 16' MINIMUM CUT SLOPE* NOTE: CUT CUT SLOPE PORTION SHALL BE MADE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL FILL SLOPE ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE C FIGURE 11 3' 5, .E AND REGRADE CUT LOT UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OVEREXCAVATE AND REGRADE C.UI/F..LL .L.OT..a.RA.NS..110.N.) TRANSITION LOT DETAIL NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 12 1 6-1 co a) a) 0 Co CD C ci) D D CD BUILDING FINISHED GRADE SLOPE FACE CLEAR AREA FOR AND SWIMMING POOLS FOUNDATION, UTILITIES, 10' /: STREET WINDROW 5' OR BELOW DEPTH OF DEEPEST UTILITY TRENCH (WICHEVER GREATER) TYPICAL \MND.O \LP.TA GRANULAR SOIL (EDGE VIEW) FLOODED TO FILL VOIDS HORIZONTALLY PLACED COMPACTION FILL (PROFILE VIEW) ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 13