Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 83-16; Santa Fe Ridge; Soils Report; 1983-10-07EBERHART & STONE, INC. DAN R. EBERHART, CEG GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS GERALD L. STONE, RCE 221 I E. WINSTON ROAD, SUITE F . ANAHEIM. CA 92806 . ,714) 991 -0163 6353 EL CAMINO REAL. SUITE C . CARLSBAD. CA 92008 . ,714) 438.9416 CEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SANTA FE RIDGE. C.T. - d-LO% I . CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ES- IL W.O. 1265 October 7, 1983 Prepared for: The Anden Group 6544 Corte Montecito Carlsbad, California 92008 Anden W.O. 1265 TABLE OF CONTENTS TEXT REPORT ON INVEST~JGATION Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 Proposed Site Development ;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 Topography Vegetation Drainage Previous Land Use Field Investigation and Subsurface Exploration.. . . . . . . Page 2 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2 Setting Surficial Units Bedrock Unit Faulting Landsliding Ground Water Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3 Ground Shaking Liquefaction Ground Rupture OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Geology and Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5 Ceotechnical Parameters for Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5 Shrinkage, Bulking and Subsidence Slopes Transition Lots Excavation Characteristics -~- Canyon Subdrain EBERHART 8 STONE, INC. Anden W.O. 1265 TABLE OF CONTENTS TEXT Crading..............i............................... Page 6 Observation and Testing Clearing Alluvial Removal Subdrain Placement Fill Placement Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7 Bearing Value Expansive Soil Guidelines Foundations Adjacent a Top-of-Slope Grading Plan Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page a Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page a APPENDIX References.. .............................................. A-l Description of Laboratory Tests ........................... A-2 Location Map.. ................. ..! ........................ Plate 1 Seismicity Maps.. .......................................... Plates 2a through tc Seismic Parameters ........................................ Table I Summary of Laboratory Test Data .......................... Table II Unified Soil Classification.. ................................ Plate A Log of Backhoe Trenches ................................. Plates A-l through A-4 Boring Logs.. ............................................. Plates B-l through B-6 Guidelines for Residential Foundations Based on Soil Expansion ....................................... Table III Standard Specifications for Grading Projects.. ............. Pages 1 through 13 EBERHART 8 STONE, INC. Anden W.O. 1265 TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX Grading Details ........................................... Plates CD-1 through CD-6 Geologic Map (pocket enclosure). .......................... Plate 3 Geologic Cross-Sections (pocket enclosure). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plate 4 EBERHART 8 STONE. INC. Anden -l- W.O. 1265 REPORT ON INVESTIGATION PURPOSE AND SCOPE Presented herein is a report on this firm’s Geotechnical Investigation for Santa Fe Ridge, C.T. 83-9, Carlsbad, California. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the nature of the earth materials underlying the site in consideration of the proposed grading and residential development. The scope of this investigation included the following: Review of the published and unpublished geotechnical and seismic data within and near the site. Review of aerial photographs. Review of the tentative tract map. General site reconnaissance and geologic mapping. Exploratory trenching and drilling. Selective sampling. Laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Discussion of site seismicity. Preparation of this report. PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT The tentative map indicates that the site will be developed for the construction of 174 single-family residential structures, open space, and interior streets. Cut-and-fill grading is proposed to create level building pads for the proposed structures. Cut and fill slopes are proposed at a slope ratio of 2:l (horizontal to vertical). Side slopes less than 5 feet high are proposed at 1.5:l. The maximum heights of cut and fill slopes are 36 feet and 31 feet, respectively. The proposed structures will be slab-on-grade, wood-framed, one- and two- story residential dwellings, yielding light structural loading. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is an irregular-shaped parcel of land consisting of about 50 acres of undeveloped land in the city of Carlsbad, California. The site is bounded on the south by Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, by an existing residential development on the west, and by undeveloped land on the northern and eastern sides of the site. The site in relation to the surrounding area is shown on the accompanying Location Map, Plate 1. EBERHART 8 STONE. INC. Anden -2- W.O. 1265 Topography Topography at the site consists of north-south trending rolling hills, with an intervening valley and tributary side canyon swales. The site slopes gently to the south, with maximum relief on the order of 120+ feet. Natural slopes vary to a maximum slope ratio of 4:l. Veqetation Vegetation at the site may be divided into two distinct areas. The southern half of the site is covered with a light to moderate growth of grasses and weeds, 12 inches to 18 inches high. In contrast, the northern half of the site is covered with a thick growth of grasses, brush and weeds up to about ten feet high. Scattered large trees parallel the canyon bottom. Drainage Onsite drainage is controlled by topography, directing surface runoff to tributary swales, then south within the major canyon bottom offsite. Previous Land Use Based on this field investigation and a review of aerial photographs, the southern half of the site had been dry farmed in the past. FIELD INVESTIGATION AND SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION The subsurface geotechnical conditions were explored during July and August, 1983. Exploration consisted of excavating 12 backhoe trenches, 5 feet to 14 feet deep, and 4 bucket-auger borings to a maximum depth of 34 feet. The approximate locations of the trenches and borings are shown on the accompany- ing Geologic Map, Plate 3. Visual and tactile identifications were made of the materials encountered, and descriptions are presented on the boring logs and logs of backhoe trench excavations. Bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were obtained and transported to this firm’s laboratory for testing. GEOLOGY Sett inq The site is located on the western flanks of the Peninsular Range Province. The site consists of an alluviated north-south trending valley, with gently rolling hills to the east and west comprised of marine Eocene sandstone bedrock. Surficial Units Topsoil (no map symbol) : Residual topsoil mantles the bedrock and ranges from one foot to two feet thick. It consists of brown to dark brown silty sand to clayey sand, which is dry to moist, loose, desiccated, and porous. EBERHART 8 STONE, INC. Anden -3- W.0 1265 Alluvium (Qal) : Recent alluvium occupies the valley bottoms and tributary swales of the site. Exploratory borings and backhoe trenches within alluviated areas indicate that the thickness of this unit varies 5 feet to 15 feet. These deposits consist of brown to orange-brown, fine silty sand and fine sand. These materials were consistently dry to moist and low in density. Bedrock Unit Delmar Formation (Tdm) : The gently rolling hills, east and west of the canyon bottom, are underlain by marine sediments of Eocene age. These deposits consist of fine to medium grained sandstone, with minor siltstone interbeds. The sandstone is gray to yellow-brown, locally friable to moderately indurated, and dense to very dense. Siltstone is gray to brown, moist, hard, and massive. Structure within the Delmar Formation’ is poorly developed and locally cross- bedded. Well-developed planar features were also lacking. Locally, bedding is undulatory, with shallow dips ranging from 5 degrees to 30 degrees toward the southwest on the west side of the main canyon, and 10 degrees to 20 degrees toward the north on the east side of the main canyon. Faulting Geologic literature and field exploration do not indicate direct evidence of faulting within or near the site. A review of aerial photographs for the site indicates that a fault may be present in the main canyon bottom. The estimated location of this possible fault is-shown on the enclosed Geologic Map, Plate 3. No indication of recent movement along this possible fault was observed in this field investigation, nor on the aerial photographs. Movement along this possible fault is estimated to have occurred more than 2 million years ago. Landslidinq Geologic literature, review of aerial photographs, and field exploration, do not indicate the presence of landsliding at the site. Ground Water Heavy seepage was encountered in one backhoe trench excavation (TR-11) at 3 feet, within alluvium. Ground water was not encountered in the boring excavations; however, localized very moist to wet areas were observed at the alluvium/bedrock contact. SEISMICITY Ground Shaking The Southern California area is seismically active. Because of the proximity of the site to several nearby active and potentially active faults, moderate ground shaking could occur at the site as a result of an earthquake on any one of them. The fault zone capable of producing the strongest shaking at the EBERHART 8 STONE, INC. Anden -4- W.O. 1265 site is the Rose Canyon. The site in relation to the active and potentially active faults in the region, as well as epicenters of previous earthquakes, is presented on Plates 2b and 2c, respectively. Ground response during a seismic event may be estimated for a particular site on the basis of previous ground motion studies, data from previous earth- quakes, activity of the faults influencing the site, and current state-of-the-art understanding of seismic forces. Seismic parameters for active and potentially active faults within a loo-km radius of the site are presented in Table I. The probability of any site in California experiencing seismic accelerations of varying levels during a loo-year period has been computed by Housner as follows : Acceleration (%g) % Probability (100 yrs) 5.0 99 10.0 98 15.0 87 20.0 63 25.0 37 30.0 19 35.0 8.7 The seismic parameters listed in Table I for the Rose Canyon fault zone indicate bedrock beneath the site may experience repeatable accelerations of 0.189. The probability of this occurring, based on Housner’s calculations, is 73 percent during a loo-year period. Liquefaction Since the factors generally considered to contribute to liquefaction are not present at the site, the potential for liquefaction is considered nil. Ground Rupture Since no active faults lie within or adjacent the site, ground rupture at the site due to fault displacement is not anticipated. EBERHART 8 STONE. INC. Anden -5- W.O. 1265 OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations in this report are opinions based upon this firm’s exploration, testing, and professional judgment. Opinions and recommendations are applicable to the proposed development of the site under the purview of this report, and should be incorporated into project design and construction practice. Based on this investigation, the site may be developed for future residential use, as indicated on the tentative map, provided that the recommendations and speci- fications presented herein are incorporated into design and construction practice. Grading should be conducted in accordance with local codes, this firm’s standard grading specifications, and the recommendations within this report. GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY No adverse effects are anticipated due to ground water. No evidence of previous landsliding was encountered, nor is it anticipated. Cut slopes with adversely oriented planar features are not anticipated. Ground rupture due to fault displacement is not anticipated. Moderate ground shaking could occur at the site as a result of an earthquake. Proposed structures should be designed to resist seismic forces in accordance with the criteria contained in the 1982 Uniform Building Code for seismic zone 4. CEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS FOR GRADING Shrinkage, Bulking and Subsidence Based on the results of laboratory testing and evaluation of the proposed grading, shrinkage and bulking factors for each material type are estimated as follows: Material Type Shrinkage Bulking Topsoil 8% -- Alluvium 8% Bedrock -- Subsidence in fill areas is anticipated to be negligible. -- 1% Slopes Cut and fill slopes up to 40 feet high may be constructed at a ratio of 2:l (horizontal to vertical). Side yard slopes less than 5 feet high may be constructed at a ratio of l.5:1. EBERHART 8 STONE. INC. Anden -6- W.O. 1265 The proposed cut slopes are not anticipated to expose adversely oriented planar features. Should localized areas of adversely oriented planar features be encountered during grading, replacement with stabilization fill will be recommended. Details for stabilization fills are presented on Plate CD-3. Fill slopes should be keyed into firm materials. Details for fill keys are presented on Plate CD-4. Transition Lots Where a transition of cut-to-fill exists within a proposed building area, and five feet beyond the perimeter, the cut portion should be overexcavated about three feet and replaced with compacted fill. Details for removal of transition lots are presented on Plate CD-5. Excavation Characteristics Earth materials at the site may be readily excavated by conventional heavy-duty earthmoving equipment, with moderate ripping required in bedrock areas. Blasting and generation of oversized materials are not anticipated. Canyon Subdrain A subdrain system will be required beneath proposed fills in canyon areas. Details for canyon subdrains are presented on Plate GD-1. GRADING Observation and Testing Prior to the start of grading, a meeting should be held at the site with the developer, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical consultant to discuss the work schedule and geotechnical aspects of the grading. Grading, including clearing, alluvial removal and fill placement, shall be accomplished under the full-time observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. Clearing Vegetation, trash, and other deleterious materials should be removed within areas to be graded and wasted from the site. Alluvial Removal Alluvium is present within canyon bottoms and swale areas and ranges from 5 feet to 13 feet deep. Limits and depths of these materials at boring and trench locations are indicated on the geologic map, Plate 3. These materials are considered unsuitable in their present state for support of the proposed compacted fill and/or structures. Therefore, overexcavation of these materials to firm underlying bedrock will be required. Overexcavated alluvium, free of vegetation or other deleterious materials, may be utilized as comoacted fill. EB’ERHART 8 ‘STO:NE, l;?lC. ._L_-. Anden -7- W.O. 1265 Prior to fill placement, overexcavated areas should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned to near optimum, and compacted to 90% or more of the laboratory maximum density. Subdrain Placement Subsequent to alluvial removal, a subdrain system should be placed in the canyon bottoms. Details for subdrain construction are presented on Plate CD-l. The final location of the subdrain will be determined by the geotechnical consultant during grading. Fill Placement Subsequent to alluvial removal and subdrain placement, fill placement may proceed. Fill should be placed in loose lifts restricted to about six inches in thickness. Each lift should be moisture-conditioned as needed to obtain near-optimum conditions, then compacted to 90% or more of the laboratory maximum density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired rough grades are achieved. FOUNDATIONS The following preliminary recommendations have been developed for the construc- tion of the proposed one- and two-story single-family residences. Wood-framed, slab-on-grade construction yielding light structural loading is anticipated. Based on the proposed grading and anticipated light structural loading, post- construction settlement should be within generally accepted tolerable limits. Foundations for an individual structure should be embedded, within the same bearing material, such as entirely within bedrock or entirely within compacted fill. Based on soluble sulfate content of the onsite materials, Type II cement should be utilized in concrete for foundations. Bearing Value For preliminary design purposes, an allowable bearing .value of 2000 pounds per square foot, based on an embedment of 12 inches into compacted fill or bedrock, may be used for continuous footings or square pad foundations. This value is for dead load plus live load conditions and may be increased by one-third in consideration of wind or seismic loadings of short duration. In designing to resist horizontal soil loadings, a lateral bearing resistance of 200 pounds per square foot, per foot of embedment, and a friction factor of 0.3 may be utilized for foundations embedded in compacted fill or bedrock. EBERHART 8 STONE. INC. Anden -8- W.O. 1265 Expansive Soil Guidelines The potential expansion of the onsite soils ranges from Very Low to Low for sandstone and Medium for alluvium and siltstone. General guidelines for residential foundations based on soil expansion are presented in Table Ill. Upon completion of rough pad grades, a lot-by-lot evaluation of foundation bearing materials will be made at which time specific recommendations for construction will be presented. Foundatlms Adjacent a Top-of-Slope The bottom outer edge of foundations adjacent a top-of-slope should be set back from the slope surface a horizontal distance of one-half the slope height under consideration. The horizontal distance should not be less than five feet and may be limited to ten feet. GRADING PLAN REVIEW When grading plans have been prepared, they should be provided to the geotechnical consultant for review and comment to determine their compliance with the intentions of this report. SUMMARY The opinions and recommendations presented in this report are based upon site conditions as they existed at the time of this firm’s investigation, and further assume that exploratory trenches and borings are representative of subsurface conditions throughout the site. Although not anticipated, materials adjacent and/or beneath those observed may have different characteristics. This firm’s opinions and recommendations are further based upon laboratory testing, experience with similar projects, and professional judgment. No warranty is expressed nor implied. This report is subject to review by the controlling governmental body. Respectfully submitted, Dan R. Eberhart President CEC 965 RJF/DRE/GLS/bw EBERHART P STONE. INC. and Vice President RCE 32233 Anden EBERHART 8 STONE, INC. W.O. 1265 APPENDIX Anden A-l REFERENCES W.O. 1265 Publications Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Accelerations from Earth- quakes in California, C.D.M.G., MS-23. Hayes, Walter W., 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions, U.S.G.S., Professional Paper 1114. Housner, G.W., 1970, Strong Ground Motion, Earthquake Engineering, edited by R.W. Wiegel. Hutton, L. Katherine, Allen, Clarence R. and others, Southern California Array for Research on Local Earthquakes and Teleseims (SCARLET), Preliminary Epicenters for 1975 through 1980, CalTech - U.S.G.S. Jennings, Charles W., 1975, Fault Map of California, C.D.M.G., Map No. 1. Moran, D.E., Slosson, J.E., Stone, R.O., Yelverton, C.A., 1973 Geology Seismicity and Environmental Impact, A.E.G., Special Publication. Moyle, W.R. Jr., 1974, Geohydrologic Map of Southern California, U.S.G~.S., Water Resources Investigations 48-73 open file. Ploesel , M. R . , and Slosson, J.E., 1974, Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from Earthquakes, California Geology. Real, C.R., Toppozada, T.R., and Parke, D.L., 1978, Earthquake Epicenter Map of California, C.D.M.G., MS-39. Rogers, T. H . , 1965, Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet, C.D.M.G. Schnabel, P.B. and Seed, H.B., 1973, Accelerations in Rock for Earthquakes in Western United States, S.S.A., Vol. 63, No. 2. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M. and Kiefer, F.W., 1968, Characteristics of Rock Motions During Earthquakes, E.E.R.C., 68-5. Previous Reports Geotechnical Investigation for the Major Roads Project, Ranch0 La Costa, City of Carlsbad, California; including portions of Alga Road, Melrose Avenue, Corintia Street, La Costa Avenue, Mission Estancia, and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road, by Eberhart-Axten and Associates, Inc., dated October 19, 1980 (W.O. 1140). EBERHART 8 STONE, INC. Anden W.O. 1265 Aerial Photos Flown by Rick Engineering: 4-11-53 Flight #AXN-8M. 16-17-18 10-31-73 Flight #73/20, 21 and 22. Flown by Robert J. Lung & Associates: 4-i-83 Flight #153.64, l-l and l-2 EBERHART 8 STONE, INC. Anden W.O. 1265 A-2 DESCRIPTION OF LABORATORY TESTS Classification Field classifications were verified in the laboratory’ by visual and tactile identi- flcation. Soils have been classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classifi- cation System. Moisture-Density Moisture-density determinations were conducted on relatively undisturbed samples. The results are presented in Table II and on Plates B-l through B-4. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture were determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-70 and are presented in Table II. Potential Expansion Determinations of potential soil expansion were made on representative samples in accordance with ASCE Expansion Index Test (UBC Standard 29-2). The results are presented in Table I I. Sulfate Content Determinations of soluble sulfate content were made on representative samples, by Soil and Plant Laboratory, Inc., in accordance with California Method of Test No. 417A. The results are presented in Table II. Direct Shear Direct shear tests were conducted on relatively undisturbed as well as remolded samples. The samples were tested in brass rings with 2.5-inch inside diameters. The rate of strain used was 0.05 in. /min. The specimens were inundated for approximately 24 hours under normal loads and during shearing. The results are presented in Table II. EBERHART 8 STONE, INC. LOCATION MAP FROM: RANCH0 SANTA FE AND ENCINITAS, CA. 7.5’ QUADRANGLE, U.S.G.S. SANTE FE RIDGE EBERHART 8 STONE INC. GEOTECHNlCAL CONSULTANTS 731 I FAsr WLNSTON ROAD.S”ITL F .ANA”LIH. CALIFORNIA99ZBO W.O. 1265 1 DATE: 10/7/83 SITF I OCATION 1 PLATE: I EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS FOR SEISMICITY MAPS FAULT MAP, PLATE : 2-b ACTIVE AND POTENTIALLY ACTIVE FAULTS -.*..*.” TOTAL LENGTH OF FAULT ZONE THAT BREAKS PUATERNARY DEPOSITS OR THAT HAS HAD SEISMIC ACTIVITY FAULT SEGMENT WITH SURFACE RUPTURE DURING A HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE, OR WITH ASEISMIC FAULT CREEP. (From A.E.G. Recently Active Faults In So. Callf. Raglon Map, 1973) EPICENTER MAP, PLATE:2-c APPROXIMATE EPICENTER LOCATIONS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION WITH ASSIGNED MAGNITUDES GREATER THAN 5.0 cl 5.0 - 5.9 0 6.0 - 6.9 n 7.0 - 7.9 0 8.0 or Greater (From U.S.G.S. Earthquake Eplesnter Map of Colltornla,l978 8 CalTech-U.S.G.S. Prsllmlnary Epicenters for I-75 tnru 12-SD) / 1211 tbs WNSTON ROAD. SUITS F . ANA”LIH. CALIIORNIA oao SEISMIC MAPS UPDATED THRU: IO-81 3 . . . . . . 1. /’ ‘.. ‘... . . . . . ‘...... g ‘.. = -I - d- c D D..Qe s A.+* ‘$4> ‘.I?’ \ u 5 m Y u s,z*- b ii \ -- 100 km radius -0 d 9 0 S -n c, \ -1 % q q lcILOYE,L”I I APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION7 I M P E R I A L I c!!? q cp 7 f ) / .-- -iI i i :, ( .-c, ------T / f cl q Cl u \ \ ii t( cl cl 0 0 Cl Cl q q o q q o Q Q q 0 q 0 G q G q N N cl cl Ql Ql q q 0 0 A 100 km radius ;J” /--- ---7 ,j L !-+ “R!ZO B so &$~4 1 1 lie n,l”rll L >up / , TABLE .’ ‘W.O. ,265 ’ SEISMIC PARAMETERS APPROXIMATE MAXIMUM CREDIBLE 0TENTIA.L DISTANCE LENGTH RICHTER AGE OF EARTHQUAKE MAXIMUM PROBc,BLE EARTHOUAME blrS.%TI”E FROM SITE OF MAGNITUDE MO.sT RECENT FAULT TO FAULT FAULT RICHTER OF SURFACE PEAK RICHTER WOR!ZONTAL ORO”NomOC*~ PRCOOMINANT O”RAT,ON HAONlTUDE HOR1ZONTAL bnl0.I) ,rnlll,, HlSTOR,CAL DISPLA.CEMENT M*oNIT”OE ACCELERATION Gmrlt”, PER800 OF STRONO INcd.2, ORO”Nomosk, EARTHQUAKES ACCLLERATION wet. 4, mot. 3, AT SITE SnAKtNG A1 ,S.CO”d., SlTE,t..sO”dl (Note,, ,or*at.r Iho” 5~0, INO,. I, ~ora~1; J ! PEAK REPEATABLE (Not. 5, tk.t* 6) an Jacinto 46NE 130-2112 7.00 (1999) 1960 7.50 .ll 6.60 (1916) 7.00 .06 .06 .32 26 Anden TABLE II W.O. 1265 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA TEST DEPTH IN SITU IN SITU MAX. ANGLE OF DRY MOISTURE DRY OPT. INTERNAL SOL. DENSITY CONTENT DENS. MOIST. COHESION FRICTION EXPANSION SULF. EXCA. (feet) uses Ipcf) (%I ( pcf) [%I c (psf) -8- (deg.) INDEX ( %I TR-1 TR-1 TR-1 TR-1 O-6 2.0 4.5 6.5 TR-2 3.0 121.0 11.5 110 33 95 10 16 116 16 92 21 TR-3 O-8 TR-4 TR-4 l-4 4.0 SMlSP SM SM -- SM SM SMISC SC 104 14 TR-5 6.0 89 21 TR-5 8.0 106 10 TR-9 3.0 SM 98 19 TR-9 6.0 -- 96 8 B-l 5.0 B-l 10.0 B-l 15.0. B-l 20.0 B-l 25.0 B-l 30.0 B-l 31-34 -- -- -- CL 118 12 113 12 112 12 115 9 117 12 108 16 111.0 16.0 90 33 7 0.0267 120.5 11.0 29 0.0126 385 28 70 Anden TABLE II W.O. 1265 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA IN SITU IN SITU MAX. ANGLE OF DRY MOISTURE DRY OPT. INTERNAL SOL. TEST DEPTH DENSITY CONTENT DENS. MOIST. COHESION FRICTION EXPANSION SULF. EXCA. (feet) uses ( pcf) (%) (pcf) 1%) c (psf) -0- (deg.1 INDEX (%I B-2 5.0 B-2 10.0 B-2 15.0 B-2 20.0 B-3 5.0 B-3 15.0 B-4 5.0 B-4 7.0 B-4 10.0 B-4 15.0 B-4 20.0 -- -- -- -- SC SC SC -- -- 112 14 116 12 115 11 114 9 115 7 118 5 108 16 101 12 110 11 103 19 105 21 150 36 Unified Soil Classitic.tion (Including Identification and Description) - T,pir.l Namn I 5 d ii ,* ,.I < * ,-‘i ; ‘. -z :‘i; c ;$” w f ;a 3 2 1 2 .5 : ’ r $ j; r ‘i 6 t - 5 8 * n 3 1 5 a . * .- 1 !: .I jE E ,.: .f ‘j i-j : 3 !D : *i’i ;j je I- 0 r 3 : 5 4 Sib C.~d.. I”.‘l.Y”d.lill Ini,,“.... 0Ay.y ~.1.&. ~r~..l-“ndch, Ink. tun. w.II.,r.rlrd ,.“dS.’ #.Wdl, Y”d,. little 0. no liner Wide ranjr i” pin .i..l rod I”h.m”tial l nlOY”ts of ZII I”Wmwdi.L. 1 prrtvie li..,. Poxl~.~d.d .sml,. *n..oy ,mdr. lit,,. 0, “0 nner. P,cdomi”.“,l, one ,i*. or a rrncr of Sk, ri,k 3ornC mlemmdlatr size, mi,,in,y. Sill, Y.dl. und.*ilt mi=ture.. Ch”., ,anch. .and<h, rni‘I”RI, 1 .:a u j: a x ss I= HL l $- ,2 7; VI CL Oi**“ic tilt, an.3 O.,a.iC ,a,, day, 0, low y!zti.it,. ,nor,lnv lilts. “iCY.OU, 0. diaorna- CCOY, bnr randr or 111%, 1011% .h,LiC S,i.hl to mcdivn ) 5tor 10”D”C 1 22;:: 1 haaay,ic cbr, 0, bi,h phtici,,, I,, R.n&,, idrn,i6d b, cob.. 0.30,. ,Dow, feel and ,rrp”mtl, by hbrou, ICXIUrc. Przt rnd dler hilhb owmic IOIlS. Hi& Or,anic Soils P, , Bounds,, c,a,,idc.mm*: 5Olh Qosx,.in. ‘ , c.ml.“~tial c.8 ,.“U, ,vntobr 1 L: PO, rumplr CW.CC. rrllw~dcd I’ad.,and nix,tlw “llh <II, Ibinder. ,1I All Il<“C .i.CI cm this chart an U.S. ,U”tid. CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION SP - W&d&d Penetration R- F;R;I’,“ly Undisturbel B- Bulk Sample IJ-- Stabillred Groundwatel - Groundwater Seepage Gyoy/a r C%z;ive Bedrock Loose Soft Soft Medlum Dense Firm Mcdetately Hard Dense Stiff Hard Hard Very Hard Moisture Condition DV Damp Moist Very Moist Wet B e a - Blow count for 6” interval5 EBERHART 8 STONE IN6 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 1111 tK.TWlNSTON ROA.D.SUTE F.ANAWEIM.C*L,FORN,A 92806 12 - Blow c0unt for 12” interval V.O. 1265 1 DATE: 10/7/83 i PLATF A Anden W.O. 1265 LOG OF BACKHOE TRENCHES Trench No. uses Symbol Depth (ft.) Field Description 1 SM ISP o-4.5 ALLUVIUM: Silty Sand to Sand, fine grained, brown, slightly moist, medium dense; roots. SM SM O-6.0 SP 6.0-12.0 4.5-6.0 6.0-10.0 12-O-14.0 Silty Sand, fine grained, gray- brown, moist to very moist, loose to slightly dense; minor porosity, slight caving. BEDROCK : Clayey Sandstone, firm to medium grained, gray to orange- brown, moist, medium dense to dense; weathered, minor caliche. Total Depth 10.0 feet No ground water Minor caving 4.5-6.0 feet ALLUVIUM : Silty Sand, fine grained, gray-brown, dry to slightly moist, loose; desiccated, local roots. Sand, fine grained, gray to orange- brown slightly moist to moist, loose to medium ‘dense; moderate to heavy caving 6.0-12.0 feet, becomes wet at 12.0 feet. BEDROCK : Sandstone, fine grained. gray, moist, medium dense to dense; weathered, oxidized, massive. Total depth 14.0 feet No ground water Caving 6.0-12.0 feet EBERHART 8 STONE. INC. Plate A-,1 Anden Trench No. uses Symbol Depth (ft.) Field Description W.O. 1265 3 O-8.0 BEDROCK: Sandstone, very fine grained, light gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense; poorly developed bedding, near- horizontal, minor iron ozidation staining. @ 3 feet B: Horizontal @ 3 feet J: N5E, 84E @ 6 feet B: N-S, 5W Total depth 8 feet No ground water No caving 4 SMISC O-4.0 4.0-7.0 SP/SM O-5.0 5.0-10.0 SM O-2.0 ALLUVIUM: Silty Sand/Clayey Sand, find grained, brown to red-brown, dry to moist, loose to medium dense; desiccated, abundant roots O-2 feet. BEDROCK : Sandstone, fine grained, gray, damp to moist, dense to very dense; poorly developed near- horizontal planar features, oxidation staining. Total depth 7 feet No ground water No caving ALLUVIUM: Sand/Silty Sand, fine to medium orained, brown, moist to very moilst, medium dense;~ minor caving 2-4 feet. BEDROCK : Sandstone, fine grained, gray to orange-brown, moist, medium dense; massive. Total depth 10 feet No ground water Minor caving 2-4 feet ALLUVIUM: Silty Sand, fine to medium grained, brown, dry to wet, loose; roots. EBERHART 8 STONE. INC. Plate A-2 Anden W.O. 1265 Trench No. uses Symbol Depth (ft.) Field Description 6 (cont.) SC 2.0-8.0 Clayey Sand, fine to medium grained, orange-brown, moist to very moist, loose to medium dense; minor caving 2-4 feet, minor seepage @ 3 feet. 8.0-9.0 BEDROCK : Sandstone, tine grained, gray to orange- brown, moist, dense; massive. Total depth 9 feet Minor seepage @ 3 feet Minor caving 2-4 feet SM SC SM SC O-2.5 2.5-5.0 5.0-7.0 O-2.0 2.0-6.0 6.0-10.0 ALLUVIUM: Silty Sand, fine to medium grained, gray-brown, dry to wet, loose. Clayey Sand, fine grained, orange- brown, moist, loose to medium dense. BEDROCK : Sandstone, fine grained, gray, moist, dense; massive. Total depth 7 feet No ground water No caving ALLUVIUM: Silty Sand, fine grained, dark gray to black, dry to moist, loose; abundant roots to 3-inch diameter. Clayey Sand, fine grained, medium brown to gray-brown. moist to wet @ 3 feet, loose to medium dense. BEDROCK : Sandstone, fine grained, gray to orange-brown, damp to moist, dense; oxidation staining. Total depth 10 feet Minor seepage 2-3 feet No caving EBERHART 8 STONE, INC. Plate A-3 Anden W.O. 1265 Trench No. uses Symbol 9 SM 10 11 12 SM SM SP EBERHART 8 STONE, INC. Depth (ft.) Field Description 6.0-8.0 O-6.0 ALLUVIUM: Silty Sand, fine grained, brown to orange-brown, dry to moist, loose to medium dense, roots in the upper 2 feet. BEDROCK : Sandstone, fine grained, gray, damp to moist, dense to very dense; massive, minor oxidation staining. Total depth 8 feet No ground water No caving O-1.0 1.0-6.0 O-5.0 O-5.0 5.0-8.0 TOPSOIL: Silty Sand, fine to medium grained, brown, dry, desiccated, porous, roots. BEDROCK : Sandstone, fine grained, gray to orange-brown, damp to moist, dense; massive, moderately weathered, oxidation staining. Total depth 6 feet No ground water No caving ALLUVIUM: Silty Sand, fine grained, gray-brown, dry, loose, roots, becomes moist to wet at 3 feet; abundant caving O-5 feet, seepage at 3 feet. Total depth 5 feet Seepage at 3 feet Caving O-5 feet ALLUVIUM: Sand, fine to medium grained, brown, dry to damp, loose, minor caving 3-5 feet. BEDROCK : Sandstone, fine grained, gray, damp, dense to very dense, massive. Total depth 8 feet No ground water No caving Plate A-4 BORING LOG No. 6-t W.O. 1265 cllem / Project: &siplg9 FE p?lfW Date: 49/s/ss Locatlon: cARLSm?&; CA. s-met: / of 2 Est. Surface Elev: - / TQ 2 Total Depth: 34 ’ Rig Type:&C&5CZ~4~.zX? .% ‘,,/ r fl “O/d. BORING LOG No. s-f !C&J W.O. /as Client / Project: AMH/ aivnf /FRY&E c!!RlmD, Cf. Date: @/a Locatlon: Sheet:& of 2 Est. Surface Elev: Total Depth: @-’ Rlg Type: .4/!?Z7 As:‘;= 2.$ ‘.‘z s/1. , - z IL” I c ‘; 2 ?5 - - E a u i al - ; :s 22 5: SIC a..: 32 - 2 ?% z-8 Y ‘5 j5 ;i ip to l- -i : -* : f. I. FIELD DESCRIPTION BY: RJlr I - CL 3 0 H D surface Condltlons: jubsurface Condltlonr Classlficatlon, color, moisture tightness; etc. Remarks - ‘of G - Notes: ..- BORING LOG No. 6-2 client / Project: AmeN, G4v;rA FEAwm&E s&MB I CA. ::~~ Locatlon: Sheet:Iof / Est. Surface Elev: _ - l- T Total Depth: 20’ Rig Type:&Q”&?~ &‘c,;1 . 1 FIELD DESCWPTION BY: KXF 5. D : 1 i I i + j : T Surface Condltlons: /g /uth grm- 2 Et & Subsurface Conditions: Classlficatlon, color. moisture tightness; etc. Remarks E a ” 4 m ‘5 IG ‘I ?L 0, - - r - - 5, 112 Ii4 - - DY/ .a?-/, r/L’ h Ak7;; ! 67 * fi7 /fl,’ I- ~‘,rr.-~*~ ,, i . . ?>~ ..;it,,,.~‘. b! / b - G <‘/,‘<P, .~ /‘-.,: d, I CY., j&J-y ,,., L/,< p&,&; ‘,“‘ 4 * , nc -qYf?i’,&7’, Gr//,, ’ -2, 1 ‘~>,. v u d’ ~,I / Q’P&W+ ~-,,3;...;-~ :, I~, <:- - - = - Notes: BORING LOG No. 8-3 Client/ Project: W.O. /265 t 6tawzFzR/M Date: @/q/&3 Location: CA- CA. Sheet:!of 2 Est. Surface Elev: p=_4 Total Depth: Rig Type:-d/&Z- ..,!U~ z$ ‘:7/& 30’ - - - - FIELD DESCRIPTION BY: RTY I s” surface Condltlons: ; i a / i : i 2 ; j I - - - 5 - 3. 5 - - - - e - ,’ 3m’flk ’ d. yti I, , ’ &wi 1 7 I’ 1 /-P&kc! .&n /, , /A(~, ;,&7 <>I&< / - - Notes: m,-.- A-. %J Est. Surface Elev: BORING LOG No. 8-3fiafi~+ FE .rnrnE a a Sheet-&of 7 Total Depth: 2 ’ Rig Type: &XX57~L~~ 2 “h;. E a ” 2 m - - FIELD DESCRIPTION BY: /gp Surface Condltlons: t ; i 2 i I : ; I + ; : r Subsurface Condltlons: Classification, color, molsture tiohtness, etch Remarks I , - - b - - - - I--’ Notes: Client / Project: Locatlon: Est Surface Elev: BORING LOG No.&+ pp Sheet:Lof / ? C,~?‘ .‘:-3 _ ~- Total Depth: 20’ Rig Type:. &Q+;E,~;+- - c-9 -7;’ %~A . E 0’ 0 3 m 5 ‘06 ‘01 ‘la (03 ‘05 - - - - 4” 0 5 45 ; - - e - FIELD DESCRIPTION BY: #F surface Condltlons: Subsurface Condltlons: Classlficatlon. color. moisture tightness; etc. Remarks I I Notes: Plate 8-4 BORING LOG No. a-5 w.0. /j4D Client / Project: 7Qwct-/D srt oJ7z I% Fm!D Date: :c -/6 -‘go Locatlon: CL?RLSL34D , Leg Sheet: / of / \37-1 .Y Est. Surface Elev: Total Depth: .‘J ’ Rig Type:2 L’&s + fi..‘< r .g I’ 3’,&, Notes: BORING LOG No. e-7 w.0.. ; g ,T- , Client / Project: .-: A// ‘,&, ‘m d .--if d’ <Ps ., /T,’ “,-= --r.,‘,. _-. . .f?~,+?,, Date: /D -// 7’s’6’0 Location: CXL58//7 , CA Shset:/of 2 Est.Surface Elev: il * c r , 3.- Total Depth: ;“-si Rlg Type:- _=;/,:+gT &-.:.~ ;.,y 2&, i - - - - ;‘,;I - - - - - c ,. 4 s 3 ” 4 m. - - T - FIELD DESCRIPTION By: ‘.’ ..-- ,‘..!2 \ - s” - surface Condillons: ‘j&l,y I,,- ,,‘. -.,1$&r L:^/,//;,“~~~ -1’ _. 3 A+.;* /Js ,; I <-.. ? ir, .7 ,~->-‘-, > _* 3 , , , -- Notes: BORING LOG No, 2. ~-7’ W.O. //do Client / Project: A??Nti0 3q:/‘7;7 FL p/p/i Date: /L? - /7- .m LocatIon: Sheet:Zof z Est. Surface Elev:- j’< -- - - - - - - - - - - 4 - r, - - - - - - - - E a ” 2 m - - s” 0 ‘0 z (3 - - FIELD DESCRIPTION Bv: .Kdb- I surface Conditions: surface Conditions: subsurface Conditlonr Classlflcatlon. color, molsture subsurface Conditlonr Classiflcatlon. color, molsture tightness; etc. tightnessi etc. Remarks Remarks -e , f-71 !I ./y/J,! ,q d/P?- /Q.+-;i-’ ,h&? ;<\ ,‘- ! ‘I! ‘I ‘,’ ‘i! _I- ,~i I : - ,,-,,.J,,,’ I ,, ,- Notes: Anden TABLE 111 GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL FOUNDATION W.O. 1265 BASED ON SOIL EXPANSION a SLABS rHlCK REINFORCEMENT PRESAT. BASE COURSE 3TENTIAL KPANSION JBC 29-2) FOOTINGS EMBEDMENT REINFORCEMENT 1 STORY 12” perimeter 12” interior 2 STORY 3 STORY Jery Low :0-20) 18” perimeter 18” interior 24” perimeter 24” interior II” nom x X x X SJW ‘21-50) 12” perimeter 12” interior 18” perimeter 18” interior 24” perimeter 24” interior 11” nom optimum moisture X 2 No. 4 bars: 1 top, 1 bottom 6”x6”, #lOX#lO Vi . W . F . tedium 51-90) 18” perimeter 2” interior 18” perimeter 18” interior 24” perimeter 24” interior 2 No. 4 bars: 1 top, 1 bottom I” net 6”X6”, #6X#6 W.W.F. 0; - No. 3 bars @ 24” O.C. each way 120% of optimum moisture 4” ligh 91-1301 14” perimeter 2” interior !4” perimeter 18” interior !4” perimeter !4” interior’ 4 No. 4 bars: 2 top, 2 bottom or - 2 No. 6 bars: 1 top, 1 bottom 1” net 6”X6”, #6X#6 W.W.F. or - No. 3 bars @ 18” O.C. each way 120% of optimum moisture 4” ery High 7130) 4” perimeter 2” interior !4” perimeter 18” interior !4” perimeter !4” interior 4 No. 5 bars: 2 top, 2 bottom or - 2 No. 8 bars: 1 top, 1 bottom 6” net No. 4 bars @ 18” O.C. each way or - 120% of optimum moisture 6” No. 3 bars @ 12” O.C. each way F!otes on the followina oaoe are considered oat-t of this tnhle Anden 11 2) 3) 41 NOTES TO TABLE Ill w.0. 1265 These guidelines’are based on site soil expansion and should not preclude more restrictive structural or agency requirements. As an alternative to conventionally reinforced concrete foundations, post- tensioned structural slab systems, designed by a structural engineer, may be utilised. Footing embedments should be measured below lowest adjacent grade. At the- time of concrete placement, footing excavations should be moist and free of desiccation cracks. A reinforced concrete grade beam should be constructed across garage entrances, with similar depth and reinforcement as adjacent perimeter footings. For soil with a potential expansion greater than “Medium”, non load bearing interior isolated spread footings and/or partial length footings are not recommended. 5) ‘5) 7) 8) 9) 10) Where presaturation is recommended beneath interior slabs, the recommended moisture should penetrate to the depth of the perimeter footings. The moisture content should be tested by the geotechnical consultant 24 hours prior to the placement of concrete. Though presaturation of slab subgrade is not a requirement for Very Low and Low expansion potentials, optimum moisture conditions should be maintained or reestablished just prior to the placement of slab concrete. Below proposed slabs-on-grade in areas to be tiled or carpeted, a visqueen-type moisture barrier should be placed at grade and be overlain by one inch of protective sand cover, This moisture barrier should be heavily overlapped or sealed at splices, . Where a base course is recommended beneath interior slabs, it should consist of pea gravel, clean sand, or other granular material acceptable to the geotechnical consultant. The above moisture barrier/sand cover requirement may be included as part of the recommended base course thickness. Slab reinforcement should be supported at mid-slab height, Garage slabs should be placed separate from footings. Garage slab reinforcement may be omitted if slab cracking can be tolerated, provided that the slabs are saw cut or jointed for crack control. For soil with a potential expansion greater than “Medium”, slabs should be free-floated or structurally tied to perimeter footings. Structural ties could be provided by the placement of No. 3 bars @ 24” O.C., bent from perimeter footings about three feet into the slab. . . 7 -l- STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 GENERAL The specifications contained herein and the standard details attached hereto represent this firm’s minimum requirements for grading and other associated operations on construction projects. These specifications should be considered a portion of the pro- ject specifications. These recommendations should not be considered to preclude more restrictive requirements of the regulating agencies. The contractor, prior to any site preparation or grading, should arrange a meeting onsite among himself, the developer, the design engineer, the geotechnical consultant, and representatives of the appropriate governing authorities. All parties should be given at least 48 hours notice. The contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all grading and other associated operations on construction projects, includinq, but not limited to, all earth work in accord- ance with the proiect plans, specifications and controlling agency requirements. All plates attached hereto shall be considered as part of these specifications. These Standard Specifications for Crading Projects may be modified and/or superseded in part or all by recommendations contained in the text of the preliminary geotechnical report and/or sub- sequent reports as a result of engineering analyses and evalu- ations of laboratory data and/or grading plan changes, or con- ditions found during grading. DEFlNlTlON OF TERMS BEDROCK - a relatively solid, undisturbed or in-place rock existing at either the ground surface or beneath surficial deposits (old or recent allumium, collumiuml of soils. Bedrock will be identified in the field by the engineering geologist. COLLUVIUM - loose, incoherent deposits usually found at the toe-of- slopes and brought there chiefly by gravity. RECENT ALLUVIUM - unconsolidated detrital deposits resulting from operations of modern rivers, including sediments laid down in river beds, flood plains, lakes, fans at the foot of slopes and estuaries. OLDER ALLUVIUM -‘sameorigin as recent alluvium, except that it is older and has been lithified. EBERHART 8 STONE, INC. -2- SLIDE DEBRIS - material (bedrock, colluvium,alluvium) produced from instability of natural or manmade slopes, usually fractured, porous and of low density. DEBRIS - all products of clearing, grubbing, demolition, contamin- ated soil material unsuitable for reuse as compacted fill. FILL - any deposits of soil, rock, soil-rock blends or other similar materials placed by man. IMPORTED OR BORROW MATERIAL - any fill material hauled to the project site from offsite areas. ENGINEERED FILL. - a fill of which the soil engineer or his repre- sentative during grading has made sufficient observations and taken sufficient tests to enable him to conclude that the fill has been placed in substantial compliance with these specifications and the governing agency requirements. 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. Unless otherwise speci- fied, the maximum dry unit weight shall be determined in accordance with ASTM Method of Test D1557-70. GRADING - any operation consisting of excavation, filling or combinations thereof and associated operations. CLIENT - The developer or his authorized representative shall have the responsibility of reviewing recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant and shall authorize or cause to have authorized the contractor to perform such work as required to comply with said recommendations. CONTRACTOR - a person or company under contract or other- wise retained by the client to perform demolition, grading, and other site improvements. TRACT ENGINEER - a licensed civil engineer experienced in sub- division planning design and preparation of construction plans and overall coordination of all engineering, surveying, and construction of the project. ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST - a geologist holding a valid certificate of registration in the specialty of engineering geology. SOIL ENGINEER - a licensed civil engineer experienced in soil mechanics. CEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT - the soil engineering and engineer- ing geology consulting firm retained to provide technical services for the project. For the purpose of these specifications, including observations by the soil engineer, engineering geologist, and those performed by persons employed by and responsible to the geotechnice consultant. 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 EBERHART 6 STONE, INC. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 -3- SITE PREPARATION Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of all vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, roots of trees and all 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. Demolltion should include removal of all buildings, structures, reservoirs, utilities (including septic tank, leach field, seepage pit, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels,etc.), and all other manmade surface and subsurface improvements from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities should include proper capping or re-routing at the project perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in ac- cordance with the requirements of the governing authorities and the recommendations of the soil engineer at the time of demolition. Trees, plants or manmade improvements not planned to be removed or demolished should be protected~by the contractor from damage or injury. All deleterious material generated during clearing, grubbing and/or demolition operations should be wasted from areas to be graded and disposed offsite. All clearing, grubbing and demolition opera- tions should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant. Where applicable, the contractor should obtain approval from the controlling authorities for the project, prior, during, and/or after demolition, site preparation, and removals, etc. The appropri- ate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with grading operations. SITE PROTECTION The contractor shall be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude those requirements of the regulating agencies. Precautions should be taken during the performance of all site clearing earthwork, 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 from all sources away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall. During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting should be kept on hand to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated. Where neces- sary during periods of ra.infall, the contractor should install check- dams, desilting basins, riprap , sandbags or other devices or methods necessary to control erosion and provide safe conditions. EBERHART & STONE, INC. -4- During periods of rainfall, the geotechnical consultant should be kept continually informed by the contractor as to the nature of any work being performed (e.g., pumping, placement of sandbags or plastic sheeting, other hand labor, dozing, etc.). 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 su,ggest supplemental testing in order to complete his assessments. At the request of the geotechnical consultant, the contractor shall make all excavations as necessary to evaluate the extent of rain -related damage. Rain-related damage should be considered to include erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress, and any other adverse condition delineated by the soil engineer. Soil adversely affected should be classified as unsuitable materials, referred to herein under Section 5.1, and should be subject to overexcavation and replacement as compacted fill or other remedial grading as directed by the soil engin- eer. a) Relatively level areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion- gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot., should be over- excavated to unaffected, competent material. Where less than 1.0 foot in depth, unsuitable materials may be processed in place to achieve near-optimum moisture conditions, then thoroughly re- compacted in accordance with the applicable specifications. If the desired results are not achieved, the affected materials should be overexcavated, then replaced in accordance with the applicable specifications. b) In 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 slope repair specifications herein. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1.0 foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grad- ing by moisture conditioning in place followed by thorough re- compaction in accordance with the applicable specifications may be attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all af- fected materials should be overexcavated and replaced as com- pacted fill in accordance with the slope repair specifications herein. As field conditions dictate, slope repair may be recommended by the soil engineer in accordance with the accompanying specifi- cations for stabiliration fills. EXCAVATIONS a) Unsuitable Materials: Materials which are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and recommendations of the geo- technical consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to,dry, loose, soft, wet, compressible natural soils and fractured, weathered, soft bedrock and non-engineered or otherwise non-approved fill materials. 4.4 4.5 4.6 5.0 5.1 EBERHART & STONE, INC. -5- b) Material identified by the geotechnical consultant as unsatis- factory due to its moisture conditions should be overexcavated,. watered or dried,as needed,and thoroughly blended to a uniform near-optimum moisture condition (as per guidelines in these specifications) prior to placement as compacted fill. a) Slopes: Unlesg otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, perma- nent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:l (horizontal to vertical). b) If excavations for cut slopes expose loose, cohesionless, sig- nificantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, overex- cavation and replacement of the unsuitable materials with a compacted stabilisation fill should be accomplished as recom- mended by the geotechnical consultant. Unless otherwise spec- ified by the geotechnical ~consultant! stabilization fill con’struction should conform to the requirements of Plate 3 of these specifications. c) The engineering geologist should inspect all cut slopes at ver- tical intervals not exceeding 10 feet ,end shall be notified by the contractor when cut slopes are started and when the lo- foot intervals are anticipated. d) If, during the course of grading, adverse or potentially ad- verse geotechnical conditions are encountered which were not anticipated in the preliminary report, the geotechnical consultant should investigate, analyse, and make recommendations to treat these problems. e) For cut slopes made in the direction of the prevailing drainage, a non-erodible diversion swale (brow ditch) should be provided at the top-of-cut. a) Lot Pads: All lot pad areas, including side yard terraces, above stabilisation fills or buttresses should be overexcavated to pro- vide for a minimum of 3 feet (Plate 5) of compacted fill over the entire-pad areai Geotechnical conditions may require greater depth of overexcavation and should be delineated by the geo- technical consultant during grading. 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 overexca- vated to provide for a uniform compacted fill blanket of a min- imum of 3 feet in thickness (Plate 5). Cut areas exposing significantly varying material types should also be overexca- vated to provide for at least a 3-foot thick compacted fill blanket. b) For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilising a berm and/or an appro- priate pad gradient. An overall gradient away from top-of- slope of 2% or greater should be maintained. 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.3 EBERHART E STONE, INC. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.2 6. 2 6.2 -6- COMPACTED FILL Compaction : All fill materials should be compacted as specified below or by other methods specifically approved by the geotech- nical consultant. Unless otherwise speclfled, the minimum degree of compaction (relative compaction) should be 90% of the laboratory maximum density. a] 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-inch minimum), watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to achieve near-pptimum moisture conditions, then thoroughly compacted to a minimum of 90% of the laboratory dry density. The review by the geotechnical consultant should not be con- sidered to preclude requirement of review and evaluation by the controlling agency. b) Compacted fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding eiqht inches (bulk) in thickness prior to compaction. Each lift should be watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to achieve moisture conditions within the range of optimum moisture content and optimum moisture content plus 3% (by dry soil weight), then thorouyh!y compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90% of laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. c) The contractor shall have suitable and sufficient 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 will be “shut down” temporarily in order to permit proper compaction of fills. d) When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least five-foot wide benches and a minimum of three feet of vertical bench height within firm natural around, firm bed: rock or approved compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area subsequent to keying and benching until the area has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Typical keying and benching details have been included on the accompanying Plate 4. e) Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false slope, EDERHART & STONE, INC. -7- 6.2 6.2 benchingshall be conductedin the same manner as the above described. At least a three-foot vertical bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved com- pacted fill (i.e., the material underlying the surficial loose material) prior to placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in approximately 3-foot to 4-foot increments until the desired finished grades are achieved. f) All fill should be tested for compliance with the required rel- ative compaction and moisture conditions as recommended. Field density testing should conform to ASTM Method of Test D1556, D2922 and/or D2937. Tests should be provided for about every 2 feet or 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Fill found not to be,in conformance with the specifications should be removed, then replaced in accordance with the specifications. g) The contractor shall assist the geotechnical consultant and/or his representative in digging test pits for removal determin- ations and/or testing as compacted fill progresses, and will remove from test area, or shut down temporarily, the equip- ment during “sand cone” testing. 6. 3 a) Moisture: For field testing purposes, ‘;near-optimum” moisture should be considered to mean optimum moisture to 3% above optimum moisture. 6.3 bl Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight, or other grading delay, the exposed surface of previously compacted fill should be processed by scarification, watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to near- optimum moisture conditions, then recompacted to a minimum of 90% of laboratory maximum dry density. Where wet or dry or other unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than 1 foot., the unsuitable materials should be overexcavated. 6.3 6.4 6.4 -- c) 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 under Section 4.0 herein. a) Fill Material: Excavated onsite materials which are acceptable to the geotechnical consultant may be utilised as compacted. fill, provided all trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are removed prior to placement. b) Where import materials are required for use onsite, the geo- technical 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 shall be delivered for use onsite without prior sampling and testing by geotechnical consultant. EBERHART & STONE, INC. 6.4 6. 4 6,4 6.4 6.4 6.4 cl d) e) f) 9) h) -8- 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 placed and thoroughly compacted to the minumum requirement over and around all rock. During the course of grading operations, rocks, or similar irreducible materials greater than 12 inches maximum dimension (oversized material), nay be generated. These rocks should not be placed withIt! the compacted fill unless placed as rec- ommended by the geotechnical consultant. Where rocks or similar irreducible materials of greater than 12 inches, but less than 3 feet,of maximum dimension are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an approved compacted fill, special handling in accor- dance with the accompanying Plate 6 is recommended. Rocks greater than 3 feet should be broken down or disposed offsite. Rocks up to 3 feet maximum dimension should be placed below the upper 13 feet of any fill and should not be closer than 15 feet to any slope face. Where practical, oversized material should not be.placed below areas where structures or deep utilities are proposed. Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a clean, overexcavated or unyielding compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native or imported granular soil (S.E=30 or better) should be placed and/or thoroughly flooded over and around all windrowed rock, such that no voids remain. Windrows of oversized material should be stagg,ered so that successive strata of oversized material are not II-I the same vertical plane. Material that is considered unsuitable by the geotechnical con- consultant should not be utilized in the compacted fill. During grading operations, placing and mixing ;he materials from the cut (borrow) areas may result in soil mixtures which may possess different physical properties. Additional testing may be required of samples obtained directly from the fill areas in order to verify conformance with the intentions of the recommendations of the preliminary report. Processing of these additional samples may take two or more working days. The contractor may elect to move theoperation to other areas within the project, or may continue placing compacted fill, pending laboratory test results. Should he elect this second alternative, fill placed is done so at the contracter’s risk. Any fill placed in areas not previously reviewed and evaluated by the geotechnical consultant, and/or in other areas, with- out prior notification to the geotechnical consultant of his in- tentions of placing the compacted fill, may require removal and recompaction at the contractor’s expense. Determination of overexcavation should be made upon review of field con- ditions by the geotechnical consultant. EBERHART 6 STONE, INC. -9- 6.4 il Plan locations of field density tests (horizontal and vertical) should only be considered approximate. The contractor shall provide sufficient grading stakes with elevations to serve as guidelines for test location identification. 6.5 a) Slopes: Compacted fill slopes should be limited to a slope ratio of no steeper than 2:l (horizontal to vertical). 6.5 bl All compacted fill slopes shall be overbuilt and cttt 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 oeotechnical consultant. The degree of over- building shall be &creased until the desired compacted slope surface condition is achieved. Careshould be taken by the contractor to provide thorough mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface. 6.5 c] Beginning in the early stages of fill slope construction, the con- tractor shall, upon the request of the geotechnical consultant, make excavations through the overbuilt section to the proposed finished slope surface in order for the geotechnical consultant to test for conformance with these specifications. Care should be taken by the contractor not to excavate beyond the proposed finished slope surface. 6.5 d) Following the attainment of the desired slope height, the outer surface of overbuilt slopes should be cut back to a desired finished surface contour. Care should be taken by the con- tractor not to excavate beyond the desired finished slope surface. 6.5 el Where economic considerations, and /or other pertinent consider- ations,preclude overfilling and cutting back, alternative con- ventional construction procedures may be attempted. If other methods, including backrollino, are adopted, it should be recognised by all interested parties that the slopes cannot be expected to perform as well as slopes which are overbuilt and cut back. Unless slopes are overfilled and cut back to grade, the outer faces of all fill slopes shall be at least back- rolled,utilizing a sheepsfoot roller at intervals not exceeding 4 feet of vertical slope height. Vibratory methods may be required. During construction of the fill slopes, care should be taken to maintain near-optimum moisture conditions over the entire slope height. Following achievement of the desired slope height, the entire slope face may require thorough com- paction, utilising a vibratory sheepsfoot roller. Upon completion of the above procedures, the faces of all fill slopes should be grid-rolled over the entire slope height with standard grid- rolling equipment. During all above operations, near-optimum moisture conditions should be maintained. EBERHART 6 STONE, INC. 6.5 6.5 91 6.5 hl 6.6 a) 6.6 b) 6.6 cl 6.6 dl 7.0 7.1 STAKING In all fill areas, the fill should be compacted prior to the placement of the stakes. This is particularly important on fill slopes. Slope stakes should not be placed until the slope is thoroughly compacted (backrolled). 7.2 In order to allow for remedial grading operations, which could include overexcavations or slope stabilisation, appropriate staking offsets should be provided. For finished slope and stabilisation backcut areas, we recommend at least a 15-foot setback from pro- posed toes and tops-of-cut. 8.0 SLOPE MAINTENANCE 8.1 Landscaping : In order to enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting should consist of deep-rooted vegetation requiring little watering. Plants native to the Southern California area fl -lO- Following slope construction in the manner described above, if the desired uniformly compacted fill slope condition is not achieved, overfillino and cutti,ng back, as set forth~ in’ these specifications; should.be adopted. Camp leted slopes found by the-geotechnical consultant to be below the standards [moisture and density) should be overexcavated a minimum of 12 feet (horizontal) and replaced by the overfilling and cutting back procedure described above. Where placement of fill above a natural slope or above a cut slope is proposed, the fill slope configuration presented on the accompanying Plate 4, Figures 1 and 2, respectively, should be adopted. For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage shall be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be ac- complished utilising a berm and an overall pad gradient of at least 2%. Offsite Fill: Offsite fill, in general, should be treated in the same manner as recommended in these specifications for site preparation, excavation, drains, compaction, etc. Offsite canyon fill should be placed in preparation for future additional fill, as shown on Plates 7 and 8. Offsite fill subdrains temporarily terminated (up canyon) should be carefully surveyed for future relocation and connection. Surface drainage of offsite fill areas should be planned to be collected and discharged by convenient storm drain devices. EBERHART 6 STONE, INC. 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.4 8.4 -11- 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. a) b) cl d) a) b) cl d) a) b) Irrigation: Slope irrigation should be minimized. If auto- matic timing devices are utilized on irrigation systems, pro- visions should be made for interrupting normal irrigation during periods of rainfall. Drip-irrigation systems may be utilized as an alternative to con- ventional irrigation systems. 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 0wne.rs 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, consistent with the provisions of these Standard Specifications, should be taken to control weeds and enhance growth of the landscape plants. Some areas may require occasional replantiny and/or reseeding. Terrace drains and downdrains should be periodically inspected and maintained free of debris. Damage to drainage improve- ments 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 and before becoming well established. Repairs: If slope failures occur, the geotechnical consultant should be contacted for a field review of site conditions. If slope failures occur, apparently 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 rain. EBERHART & STONE, INC. -12- c) Plate 9 illustrates appropriate repair procedures for super- ficial slope failures (i.e., occurring typically within the outer 1 foot to 3 feet+ of a slope face) during grading. These failures generally occur as a result of failure to comply with the in- tentions of Specification Sections 8.0 and/or 9.0 herein. DRAINAGE Canyon subdrain systems specified by the geotechnical consultant should be installed in accordance with the specifications on the accompanying Plate 1. Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilizations, or sidehill masses, should be installed in accordance with the specifications on the accompanying Plate 2. 8.4 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 All roof, pad and slbpe drainage should be directed away from slope area structures to approved disposal areas by way of nqn- erodible devices, (i.e., gutter, down spout, concrete swalesl. For drainage immediately away from structures, a minimum 5% gradient should be maintained. Overall, pad drainage of at least 2% should be maintained. Overall, pad drainage may be reduced to at least 1% for projects where no slopes exist, either natural or manmade, of greater than 10 feet in height and where no slopes are planned, either natural or manmade, steeper than 2:l (hor- izontal to vertical slope ratio). Also refer to Plate 10. Trench Backfill: Utility trench backfill can be best placed by mechanical comoaction. Unless otherwise specified, degree of com- paction shall be a minimum of 90% of the laboratory maximum density. As an alternative, where specifically approved by the soil engineer, granular material (sand equivalent greater than 30) may be thoroughly jetted in-place. Jetting should only be considered to apply to trenches no greater than 2 feet in width and, 4 feet in depth. Following jetting operations, trench backfill should be thoroughly and mechanically compacted and/or wheelrolled from the surface. Exterior and interior trenches extending below a 1 :l projection from the outer edge of foundations should be mechanically com- pacted to a minimum of 90% of the laboratory maximum density. Within slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches up to 1 foot wide and 2 feet deep may be backfilled with sand and consolidated by jetting, flooding, or by mechanical means. If on- site materials are utilized, they should be wheelrolled, tamped or otherwise compacted to a firm condition. For these minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based upon review of backfill oper- ations during construction. If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use com- paction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, the con- tractor may elect the utilisation of light weight mechanical EBERHART & STONE, INC. -13- compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean, granular material, which could 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 by the geotechnical consultant at the time of con- struction. STATUS OF GRADING Prior to proceeding with any grading operation, the geotechnical consultant should be notified at least 2 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 op- eration, the geotechnical consultant should be provided with adequate notice (i.e., 2 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 pro- vided with at least 2 working days notice in advance of commence- ment of additional grading operations. 11.0 11.1 11.2 12.0 VARIANCES FROM SPECIFICATIONS The contractor should not vary from these specifications without prior written recommendation by the geotechnical consultant and the approval of the client and/or his authorized representative. The above should not be considered to preclude requirements for approval by the controlling agency prior to the execution of any changes. EBERHART & STONE, INC. TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN Co&i.u”,AL ANO ALLuwAL RWXWA I -kl I ALTERNATIVE A- PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE C BACKHOE TRENCH DOZER V TRENCH N/“.e cudlc .-zzT 0” .--ILP-SR +zsv*L m= FoLTr c,= P,PS w,,u al. RE.OU,RSP 7 i. F/,vAL 2&t OF F7P.C .S”O”LD B.5 IKwAZRMI72B Po*,IIvz coNNscT/o”s../oYIo da PAOI/cIILp bC7barn -T/4 0, .-PAS. o/.+72n WT. ,wN. 0s e UNll=aR.yLV a.-tiD .J=mniwna ALTERNATIVE B RZR fear ,N LOLlldR -mu OP PIpr . k AMY c&a Daqcr.?, OF PP.‘?Fo/?A7mN SNOUIP 5.e L De OF F,LzcR .wTWAL. GRADING DETAIL -e- l”Cll D,A~aTvT PupcM*TLD P,R- .+xRFoal7/oM ooryd (iiL 0” PfpL w.xMr Wli7H a= c&wRAL DR4b.J & jm) I EBERHART 8 STONE INC. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 22, I E&ST WWSTON ROAD, SUITE 6. INAHEIM CALIFORNIA 9180 STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS TYPICAL SUBDRAIN FOR BUTTRESS , STABILIZATION OR SIDEHILL FILL MASSES 4f,,u, +-INCH- OIAI~~~~R, PVC OR A85 -s?-,c WTH q%v/,y”,y OF 2 “,v/FO#%yLI JPl)cro ‘49 O/Ibp7SR pLR.=zRA7/oNs *T we AN&L5 PCR l=cy)‘T OF P/Paz ,fvSTALL~D !.v&-” PeRFoR*T/avs av Bo77oq OF Pe?ez. PAOV/Ohz CAP A?- uDSnu@ PND OF PIPE. SLOF?E *T 2% m OYTLLT P,.D&. NOTES : 1. F/LTER ~,A*I.?R,AL SGcb9LD Br STATS OF CAUFORh‘/A CLASS 2 PLR~zEA~LC F,L%E,T. 2. TRINCH FOR ouT.LcT P/pLS. 7-o Bh BA.ZHF/UIO bVi’TM CO.$WACSar, OK--K SOIL. auouL0 dL PuNNeD m O”?-.&CT ABOY TM? TLRRAcE. GRADING DETAIL EBERHART & STONE INC. OE~TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 111 f LAST WNSTON ROm. WlTL F. ANAHEIM. ClUFORNll82sm siANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS PLATE CD-2 TYPICAL STABILIZ ATION FILL FIG. I F&L dLrvr .?:I OR ” .-un-sQlb- 7aG- B&we”: vam-mu 3 fe .yN. OF-- “on/.?a.s=N. 5.4 #mt TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL FIG 2 GRADING DETAIL , EBERHART & STONE INC. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 2111 EAST WNSTON ROAD.s”lTt F.m4AHEIM, CALl~ORN,AP28ix \ STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS PLATE CD-3 TYPICAL FILL OVER NATURAL SLOPE TYPICAL FILL OVER CUT SLOPE . . ‘. .‘cI-‘$.‘<:z ‘... 2 -.-y S.-r. ~- 78 CI.OTIC”,v,LAL / cQNsuL7ArM NOTES: l SLL MTL I 1. IF O~~Rsu.L.wa WD cdn-rmm - 70 GRaDA n r)DOP.TCP, ‘j,L ,y.l a **auzae 7w A2f.t &v, 1.v he CISC Aew.u~2w, s.v.LL 7”s mu rv,mr, as aqval7v L”;S 7a4.M “UF Y-as F/U #rCM”T RMfA/.W”‘% GRADING DETAIL r TYPICAL REMOVAL OF TRANSITION LOTS XW4SITION- UNSUITABLE TO FIRM YATURAL MATERIAU - f. TO.-soa, COLLUYI/YY, W..AT”B’RSD dcDmecx Wo OT”~‘R‘+%,SE u.~.sU,7-AbLh ,.,AIIT.S,WAW TOB.S R~+,LcXO 4.~. bWCYc0 70 .=h?,y “4T”RAL ORo”N‘Y lb APPROVED Sf G.sOT~C”N,S*L CO”suLT”NI. GRADING DETAIL r I EBERHART I3 STONE INC. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 2211 LA51 WNSTON AOAD.S”I~E F .*N*“EIM,CI\LI~ORN,I\92~ STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS PLATE :;D-~5’ TYPICAL ROCK WINDROW pm,-oraD ,49s”ao LiRAPI TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (edge view) PROFILE VIEW A/ ‘G~A.uUUR ,yAz%w,IL f-UC&a WD ‘ID WD n7.?-. nrrr NUlLO I EBERHART & STONE INC. -- INSULTANTS