The URL can be used to link to this page

2008-905 G CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. SAN DIEGO,CA RIVERSIDE,CA VENTURA,CA TRACY,CA SACRAMENTO,CA 1441 Montiel Road 14538 Meridian Parkway 1645 Pacific Avenue 242 W.Larch 3628 Madison Avenue Suite 115 Suite A Suite 107 Suite F Suite 22 Escondido,CA 92026 Riverside,CA 92518 Oxnard,CA 93033 Tracy,CA 95376 N.Highlands,CA 95660 (760)746-4955 (951)571-4081 (805)486-6475 (209)839-2890 (916)331-6030 (760)746-9806 FAX (951)571-4188 FAX (805)486-9016 FAX (209)839-2895 FAX (916)331-6037 FAX Drainage Study Bell Residence 1439 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Prepared For: °- Bell Residence 1439 Neptune Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Prepared by: Construction Testing &Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115 Escondido, California 92026 CTE Job No. 15-0122C December 5, 2007 GEOTECHNICAL•ENVIRONMENTAL•CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING•CIVIL ENGINEERING•SURVEYING TABLE OF CONTENTS Section OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1 REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 1 DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................... 1 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 2 Proposed Conditions ........................................................................... 3 SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 4 DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE ............................................. 4 APPENDIX 1 HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 —LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT 2—PRECIPITATION MAP and SOIL MAP ATTACHMENT 3—HYDROLOGY MAP—EXISTING CONDITIONS ATTACHMENT 4—HYDROLOGY MAP—PROPOSED CONDITIONS Drainage Study Page 1 Bell Residence Encinitas, CA 92024 December 5 2007 CTE Job No. 15-0122C OBJECTIVE Determine storm water runoff and site drainage collection, storage, and conveyance system components, sizing, and storm water runoff treatment required for the development of an additional basement garage and living room to an existing two storey structure at Neptune Avenue in Encinitas, California. INTRODUCTION The project site is bordered to the west by Neptune Avenue and to the east by existing residences. The project site is also bordered to the north and south by existing residences. A steep cliff borders the site to the west. The site has a moderate slope to the west till it reaches Neptune Avenue. Most of the site is covered by an existing two story residence and site flatwork. It is proposed that a basement garage and a living room be added to the existing structure towards the western part of the property. In addition, Site improvements including utilities and drainage structures shall also be constructed. REFERENCES 1. San Diego County Hydrology Manual (2003) 2. San Diego County Drainage Design Manual (May 2005) 3. Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. United States Department of Agriculture (December 1973). Sheet 24 4. CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, © 1991-2006 Version 7.6. San Diego County Control Division 2003 Manual Rational Hydrology Study. DESIGN CRITERIA The subject properties, the soil group is classified as Marina Loamy Coarse Sand (M1C), 2 to 9 - percent and hydrologic soil Group "A". (Per the Soil Survey— 1973 — Table 11. See Attachment 2. Per the San Diego County Hydrology Manual (2003) Table 3.1: ■ The existing condition is classified as Medium Density Residential (LDR) 7.3 DU/A—40 % Impervious Area. ■ The proposed condition is classified as Medium Density Residential (LDR), 7.3 DU/A - 40% Impervious Area. Per the San Diego County Hydrology Manual (2003) Rainfall Isopluvial Map: ■ 100 Year Rainfall Event—6 hours P6 = 2.5 inches/hour ■ 100 Year Rainfall Event—24 hours P21=4.1 inches/hour Drainage Study Page 2 Bell Residence Encinitas, CA 92024 December 5, 2007 CTE Job No. 15-0122C The co-efficient of roughness = 0.013 for concrete pipes, 0.015 for gutters, 0.04 for natural and proposed grass channels, and 0.03 for gravel channels. Hydrologic calculations were performed using the CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering software version 7.6 per methods outlined within the San Diego Hydrology Manual (2003). CivilCADD utilizes the Rational Method Hydrology Program which is based on the San Diego County Flood Control Division 2003 Hydrology Manual. The hydrology calculations for proposed and existing conditions may be found within the hydrology calculations section of this report. DISCUSSION Existing Conditions The surrounding areas are mixed residential developments (see attached aerial). The subject property is one hydrologic basins i.e. Basin 1; The basin flows in an east to west direction along the property. The existing runoff pattern for the project site is sheet flow around the existing two story building in a general east to west pattern. The subject property contains a two story residential house. Drainage patterns may be seen within Attachment 3 and below is a summary of pre-development criteria for the subject property: TABLE 1: PRE-DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Basin C Tc(Min.) I (in/hr) Area (acr"0.342 100(cfs) EX 0.480 7.220 5.196 0.137 1C is the Effective Runoff Co-efficient (See Civi1CADD Program Output) Drainage Study Page 3 Bell Residence Encinitas, CA 92024 December 5 2007 CTE Job No. 15-0122C Proposed Conditions The proposed drainage plan is to maintain the existing runoff and limit diversion for the subject property and to provide a storm water pollution control system to treat storm runoff. Grass lines swales or vegetated swales are proposed along the perimeters of the proposed driveway to reduce - runoff and facilitate storm water treatment. See Civi1CADD output for capacities concerning proposed: channel flow, grass lined swale and brow ditches. - Below is a summary of post development criteria for the subject property: TABLE 2: POST-DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA - Basin 1C Tc(Min.) I (in/hr) Area(acre) Q100 (cfs) PR 1 0.480 7.220 5.196 0.126 0.314 PR 2 0.480 5.050 6.542 0.012 0.038 1C is the Effective Runoff Co-efficient (See Civi1CADD Program Output) The total proposed discharge is: P =0.314 + (5.050/7.220)(0.038) =0.341cfs P=0.038 + (5.196/6.542)(0.314) =0.287 Therefore the proposed discharge =0.341cfs Below is a summary of pre-development vs. post-development hydrologic criteria: TABLE 3: PRE-POST-DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY Basin 1C Tc I Area Q Comments EX 0.480 7.220 5.196 0.137 0.342 _. PR 0.480 7.220 5.196 0.138 0.341 1C is the Effective Runoff Co-efficient(See CivilCADD Program Output) The total proposed discharge of 0.341 cfs is slightly lower than the existing discharge of - 0.342cfs. Drainage Study Page 4 Bell Residence Encinitas, CA 92024 December 5, 2007 CTE Job No. 15-0122C SUMMARY There are no nearby floodways or water courses and flows leaving the site will be slightly higher than the pre-development levels. There is no danger of erosion or siltation occurring from this development because riprap is being utilized to dissipate velocities created from the proposed - brow ditches or Grass swale. There is no impact to existing facilities and downstream public roads caused by this project. DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE I, hereby declare that I am the Engineer of Work for this project, that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the project as defined in section 6703 of the business and professions code, and that the design is consistent with current standards. I understand that the check of project drawings and specifications by the County of San Diego is confined to a review only and does not relieve me, as Engineer of Work of my responsibility for project design. ENGINEER OF WORK Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115 Escondido, CA 92026 Matthew S. Bovee Date R.C.E. 70301 Exp. 9-30-08 Drainage Study Page 5 Bell Residence Encinitas, CA 92024 December 5 2007 CTE Job No. 15-0122C SUMMARY There are no nearby floodways or water courses and flows leaving the site will be slightly higher than the pre-development levels. There is no danger of erosion or siltation occurring from this development because riprap is being utilized to dissipate velocities created from the proposed brow ditches or Grass swale. There is no impact to existing facilities and downstream public roads caused by this project. DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE I, hereby declare that I am the Engineer of Work for this project, that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the project as defined in section 6703 of the business and professions code, and that the design is consistent with current standards. I understand that the check of project drawings and specifications by the County of San Diego is confined to a review only and does not relieve me, as Engineer of Work of my responsibility for project design. ENGINEER OF WORK Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. 1441 Montiel Road, Suite 115 Escondido, CA 92026 Q(iOFESSIp S.eo I-/OCR 6 7 Matthew S. Bovee Date No. 70301 - R.C.E. 70301 * Expc Exp. 9-30-08 N� .c '9J, iVIL Q'? PC ATTACHMENT 1 LOCATION MAP !or,,. - ., Vol ,. }t, x ;e IN V t 4 o �` • 4 J'<1 vow r 0.0 M r Y y :v :v a ra � u. ATTACHMENT 2 PRECIPITATION MAPS SOIL MAP • ` - ad o wj ct CL • ` _ • to CD WAN MIME \ f \� — ■pp■14!■■!!!■•■■■■a■■�I■■■■m ! tl ■Jt[ ■X111■ ■■■i■ii■E■•B■ �8�■� IIiy� limos■t�■�E!TIMME■O1■f■1■�I■■■�51■■■■■►'��■ MME ■■lir:1�;,�1 q■Qigri3if�E!■f1!'91■�i■■!■■■WE MOM■�I�s■ia'al[/%'�■!■■=■!■I!1A ■■ iBl�ili■ai■�■■■i■!�� !. _��sii l�s ■ IN MR Him NAMEWWWWO Mum WERMEM ME IN ■ 1�■■4i■gl■■plt��'1 Pit mom mm 1 j. ,��, > "tic■�■ ■•■m it k tr, M Mlw— �� ■ ■■■ ( :�`�fl��i■■Rig NNE ■■ Qil lfplf� B■■■ ■!■f�i■ FARE WE O� . '� � 11111(..■■ ■ NEWS ■Iii1 fit..j! mm5 NEW woommmmmEMINIM "i MEN 0 COW NZWKEP NADPA MIN al IME ALI NO 05M7 am lw • _ ■�� ■■iif fir.►' `■rJ 7 ��. \ t♦ L TR �/// Y ill ■�C ■ y..a Al '' ��_... � IC'■@yam ►�j��Ji L� it■1l��j'� ■ � races ��_ � ,�H► �c'��.. yq�- �.��► �� u I ism �1 e 1 CZ��,: ,t►y ��10 '�IYr� • ��_.. WE _ 7 • U ct CL wx... � • - •.: • M OWN a ■ �C..li�' !■w1� mom ■16��1��t—!■ i ■ii ...1.1 .1--■■NEWMEHIME lo.l..i .1....p ■wiloi ■®■� a■■►��wa■■■■�il�I�w�■�■i■■ewr�w■■w , ME MWIA —NNE MEN ANN MIRMENAMEN � �■w�iltiJ.falial �limm!ME HE G�i ��t�� _!■■■Ili■ �r!■ii■�■ f � ■■■!■ ME RVAd ION MEMOUP IN pa-M-14kc,09 ■■■ I�i�� mow!■■IFi-��■■� ��y��l��■ ;,, � ��■�I'■■■I♦■ ■!I!■ ■ 19ip■!■!��!■ ■ice■� f��\ � ■19 llp 9i !■lam ■ -� lsdl�i!'IIE: '� i■�i3 Im IMMUNE S■i!I'�i mum. !�!!! ■ Mil �M° i t�!WE ■_ ■wig ®MW � I! ■ �q i! ■!!■E7•® ■ Now- ME ME &Z li"Ni1v UW MW—ME.mil■ ° a■NOME � �� 3�, IN mm ■■ ! �■ ! iiJ ■■ ■ 7■i!■■f' �t' ■ ME ME Kim Pop LAf&M1S ■ ! I '� ■ _ D[�:��,_.. �,. ;. Vii'! ,! ►�;■ "�i�"�. / ■ �II�i►ir!t.°�I�` S1� •►71 1A/ui� I� 1 ►i h 11..�C�l.,,r ► !.7 g�.��l�� a '��a��` ,� 1. pm ■■ :�. �Sa r'!'•� .a`�1 � �-� a �� RlIS�'`�t? ,- i llSfi:.u��>�- Am im MUNI ! ME ME ME NE G _ ■■■ ! e � � iii ! ■ ! ■■■ ■ ! ■ i 1 ;�;�y> CfG2 M!C _ i+ PALE J p/r✓�l�V " Cc;F; CfC .�. Jf/✓lI \\ �� `��`� 1101C 1 t 'III Q Cr Cfe MIC a 'MIE WE CfC �t Y CbD y CbB C�7 e � iE TeF,, 14 ENCI IT S � f MBE v 6 WE `r` 1c r� s . Mlc [ ss�ct \l1 1 � it i' 1 f �[.r TABLE 11.--INTERPRETATIONS FOR LAND MANAGEMENT--Continued Limitations for Map Soil Hydro- Erodibility conversion symbol logic from brush to group grass LfE Las Flores-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes: LasFlores-------------------------------------------- D Urban land-------------------------------------------- D LpB Las Posas fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes---------- D Moderate 2---- Slight. LpC Las Posas fine sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes---------- D Moderate 2---- Slight. LpC2 Las Posas fine sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, D Moderate 2---- Slight. eroded. LpD2 Las Posas fine sandy loam, 9 to 1S percent slopes, D Moderate 2---- Slight. eroded. LpE2 Las Posas fine sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, D Moderate 1--- Slight. eroded. LrE Las Posas stony fine sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent D Moderate 1--- Moderate. slopes. LrE2 Las Posas stony fine sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent D Moderate 1--- Moderate. slopes, eroded. LrG Las Posas stony fine sandy loam, 30 to 6S percent D Severe 1----- Moderate. slopes. LsE Linne clay loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes------------------ C Moderate 2--- Moderate. LsF Linne clay loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes----------------- C Severe 1----- Moderate. Lu Loamy alluvial land-------------------------------------- B Severe 16---- Slight. LvF3 Loamy alluvial land-Huerhuero complex, 9 to 50 percent slopes, severely eroded: Loamy alluvial land---------------------------------- D Severe 1----- Severe. Huerhuero-------------------------------------------- D Severe 1----- Severe. Md Made land------------------------------------------------ D —bo- MlC Marina loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes---------- A Severe 2----- Slight. MIE Marina loamy coarse sand, 9 to 30 percent slopes--------- A Severe 2----- Slight. MnA Mecca coarse sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes----------- B Severe 16 MnB Mecca coarse sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes----------- B Severe 16 MoA Mecca sandy loam, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes---------- B Severe 16 MpA2 Mecca fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, eroded----- B Severe 16 MrG Metamorphic rock land------------------------------------ D Severe 1----- Severe. MvA Mottsville loamy coarse sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes------ A Severe 2----- Slight. 4/ MvC Mottsville loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes------ A Severe 2----- Slight. 4/ MvD Mottsville loamy coarse sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes----- A Severe 2----- Slight. 4/ MxA Mottsville loamy coarse sand, wet, 0 to 2 percent D Severe 2----- Slight. 4/ slopes. OhC Olivenhain cobbly loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes------------ D Severe 16---- Slight. OhE Olivenhain cobbly loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes----------- D Severe 16---- Slight. OhF Olivenhain cobbly loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes---------- D Severe 1----- Moderate. OkC Olivenhain-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes: Olivenhain------------------------------------------- D Urban land------------------------------------------- D OkE Olivenhain-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes: Olivenhain------------------------------------------- D Urban land------------------------------------------- D PeA Placentia sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes-------------- D Severe 9----- Slight. PeC Placentia sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes-------------- D Severe 9----- Slight. PeC2 Placentia sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded------ D Severe 9----- Slight. PeD2 Placentia sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded----- D Severe 9----- Slight. PfA Placentia sandy loam, thick surface, 0 to 2 percent D Severe 16---- Slight. slopes. PfC Placentia sandy loam, thick surface, 2 to 9 percent D Severe 16---- Slight. slopes. Py Playas--------------------------------------------------- D Moderate 2 See footnotes at end of table. 36 ATTACHMENT 3 HYDROLOGY MAP - EXISTING CONDITIONS ATTACHMENT 5 HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS EXIST San Diego County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(C)1991-2005 Version 7.5 Rational method hydrology program based on San Diego County Flood Control Division 2003 hydrology manual -- -- - Rational Hydrology Study Date: 12/06/07 --------------------------- ---------------------- EXIST ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ******"*** Hydrology Study Control Information ****** *** ------------------------------------------------------------- Program License Serial Number 6024 -------------------------- --------------------------------------------- Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100.0 English (in-lb) input data units used Ma data precipitation entered: 6 hour, precipitation(inches) = 2.500 24 hour Precipitation(inches) = 4.100 P6/P24 = 61.0% San Diego hydrology manual 'C' values used Process from Point/Station 101.000 to Point/station 102.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 [MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ] (7.3 DU/A or Less Impervious value, Ai = 0)400 Sub-Area C value = 0.480 initial subarea total flow distance = 138.000(Ft.) Highest elevation = 92.610(Ft.) Lowest elevation = 86.500(Ft.) Elevation difference = 6.110(Ft.) Slope = 4.428 % INITIAL AREA TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS: The maximum overland flow distance is 100.00 (Ft) for the top area slope value of 4.43 %, in a development type of 7.3 DU/A or Less In Accordance with Figure 3-3 Initial Area Time of concentration = 6.80 minutes TC = [1.8*(1.1-C)*distance(Ft.)A.5)/(% slopeA(1/3)] TC = [1.8*(1.1-0.4800)*( 100.000A.5)/( 4.428A(1/3)1= 6.80 The initial area total distance of 138.00 (Ft.) entered leaves a remaining distance of 38.00 (Ft.) Using Figure 3-4, the travel time for this distance is 0.43 minutes for a distance of 38.00 (Ft.) and a slope of 4.43 % with an elevation difference of 1.68(Ft.) from the end of the to p area Tt = [11.9*length(Mi)A3)/(elevation change(Ft.))]A.385 *60(min/hr) 0.427 Minutes Tt=[(11.9*0.0072A3)/( 1.68)]A.385= 0.43 Total initial area Ti = 6.80 minutes from Figure 3-3 formula plus 0.43 minutes from the Figure 3-4 formula = 7.22 minutes Rainfall intensity (I) = 5.196(in/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.480 subarea runoff = 0.342(cFs) Total initial stream area = 0.137(AC.) End Of computations, total study area = 0.137 (AC.) Page 1 PROPl San Diego County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(c)1991-2005 Version 7.5 Rational method hydrology program based on San Diego County Flood Control Division 2003 hydrology manual -Rational-Hydrology Study Date: 12/06/07 ------------------------------------------------- PROP1 ---------------- ----------------------- --------------------------------- *'******** Hydrology Study Control Information ----------------------------------------------------- Program License serial Number 6024 ------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100.0 English (in-lb) input data units used Map data precipitation entered: 6 hour, precipitation(inches) = 2.500 24 hour precipitation(inches) = 4.100 P6/P24 = 61.0% San Diego hydrology manual 'C' values used ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/station 101.000 to Point/station 102.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 [MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ] (7.3 DU/A or Less Impervious value, Ai = 0)400 Sub-Area C value = 0.480 Initial subarea total flow distance = 138.000(Ft.) Highest elevation = 92.610(Ft.) Lowest elevation = 86.500(Ft.) Elevation difference = 6.110(Ft.) Slope = 4.428 % INITIAL AREA TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS: The maximum overland flow distance is 100.00 (Ft) for the top area slope value of 4.43 %, in a development type of 7.3 DU/A or Less In Accordance with Figure 3-3 Initial Area Time of Concentration = 6.80 minutes TC = [1.8*(1.1-C)*distance(Ft.)A.5)/(% slopeA(1/3)] TC = [1.8*(1.1-0.4800)*( 100.000A.5)/( 4.428A(1/3)1= 6.80 The initial area total distance of 138.00 (Ft.) entered leaves a remaining distance of 38.00 (Ft.) Using Figure 3-4, the travel time for this distance is 0.43 minutes for a distance of 38.00 (Ft.) and a slope of 4.43 % with an elevation difference of 1.68(Ft.) from the end of the top area Tt = [11.9*length(Mi)A3)/(elevation change(Ft.))]A.385 *60(min/hr) 0.427 Minutes Tt=[(11.9*0.0072A3)/( 1.68)]A.385= 0.43 Total initial area Ti = 6.80 minutes from Figure 3-3 formula plus 0.43 minutes from the Figure 3-4 formula = 7.22 minutes Rainfall intensity (I) = 5.196(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.480 Subarea runoff = 0.314(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.126(AC.) End of computations, total study area = 0.126 (AC.) Page 1 PROP2 San Diego County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software,(C)1991-2005 version 7.5 Rational method hydrology program based on San Diego County Flood control Division 2003 hydrology manual - -------- Rational Hydrology study Date: 12/06/07 ----------------------------- PROP2 -------- -------------- ------------- --------------------------------------------- ** ****** Hydrology study Control Information ---------------------------------------------------- Program License Serial Number 6024 ----------------------- ____________________ --------------------------- Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100.0 English (in-lb) input data units used Map data precipitation entered: 6 hour, precipitation(inches) = 2.500 24 hour precipitation(inches) = 4.100 P6/P24 = 61.0% San Diego hydrology manual 'C' values used Process from Point/Station 201.000 to Point/station 202.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION *** Decimal fraction soil group A = 1.000 _. Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 [MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ] (7.3 DU/A or Less Impervious value, Ai = 0)400 sub-Area C value = 0.480 Initial subarea total flow distance = 22.000(Ft.) Highest elevation = 86.540(Ft.) Lowest elevation = 84.170(Ft.) Elevation difference = 2.370(Ft.) Slope = 10.773 % INITIAL AREA TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS: The maximum overland flow distance is 100.00 (Ft) for the top area slope value of 10.77 %, in a development type of 7.3 DU/A or Less In Accordance with Figure 3-3 Initial Area Time of concentration = 5.05 minutes TC = [1.8*(1.1-C)*distance(Ft.)A.5)/(% slopeA(1/3)) TC = [1.8*(1.1-0.4800)*( 100.000A.5)/( 10.773A(1/3)]= 5.05 Rainfall intensity (I) = 6.542(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.480 subarea runoff = 0.038(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.012(AC.) End of computations, total study area = 0.012 (AC.) Page 1 CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. SAN DIEGO,CA RIVERSIDE,CA VENTURA,CA TRACY,CA SACRAMENTO,CA 1441 Montiel Road 14538 Meridian Parkway 1645 Pacific Avenue 242 W.Larch 3628 Madison Avenue Suite 115 Suite A Suite 107 Suite F Suite 22 Escondido,CA 92026 Riverside,CA 92518 Oxnard,CA 93033 Tracy,CA 95376 N.Highlands,CA 95660 (760)746-4955 (951)571-4081 (805)486-6475 (209)839-2890 (916)331-6030 (760)746-9806 FAX (951)571-4188 FAX (805)486-9016 FAX (209)839-2895 FAX (916)331-6037 FAX PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED BELL RESIDENCE ADDITION 1439 NEPTUNE AVENUE LEUCADIA, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: MR. MITCH BELL 1439 NEPTUNE AVENUE LEUCADIA, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 1441 MONTIEL ROAD, SUITE 115 ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92026 CTE JOB NO. 10-9102G AUGUST 29, 2007 GEOTECHNICAL•ENVIRONMENTAL•CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING•CIVIL ENGINEERING•SURVEYING TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVESUMMARY .............................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ....................................................................2 1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................2 1.2 Scope of Services...........................................................................................................2 2.0 SITE BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................3 2.1 Site Location and Description........................................................................................3 2.2 Site Development...........................................................................................................3 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS................................................................4 3.1 Field Investigations........................................................................................................4 3.2 Laboratory Investigation................................................................................................4 4.0 GEOLOGY 5 - ................................................................................................................................ 4.1 General Setting...............................................................................................................5 4.2 Geologic Conditions ......................................................................................................5 4.2.1 Undocumented Fill (not mapped).........................................................................5 4.2.2 Quaternary Terrace Deposits ................................................................................6 4.3 Groundwater ..................................................................................................................6 4.4 Geologic Hazards and Assessment................................................................................6 4.4.1 Local and Regional Faulting.................................................................................7 4.4.2 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Evaluation 9 4.4.3 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation..........................................................................9 4.4.4 Landsliding ...........................................................................................................9 4.4.5 Compressible, Expansive, and Corrosive Soils ..................................................10 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................10 5.1 General.........................................................................................................................10 5.2 Grading and Earthwork................................................................................................12 5.3 Site Preparation............................................................................................................12 5.4 Excavations..................................................................................................................13 5.5 Fill Placement and Compaction...................................................................................13 5.6 Fill Materials................................................................................................................13 5.7 Temporary Construction Slopes ..................................................................................14 5.8 Temporary Shoring......................................................................................................15 5.8.1 Lateral Earth Pressures .......................................................................................16 5.8.2 Design of Soldier Beams ....................................................................................17 5.8.3 Lagging...............................................................................................................17 - 5.9 Foundations and Slab Preliminary Recommendations................................................18 5.9.1 Foundations.........................................................................................................18 5.9.2 Foundation Setback.............................................................................................19 5.9.3 Concrete Floor Slabs...........................................................................................19 5.10 Seismic Design Criteria.............................................................................................20 5.11 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures......................................................................21 5.12 Retaining Walls..........................................................................................................21 5.13 Exterior Concrete Flatwork........................................................................................23 5.14 Drainage.....................................................................................................................23 5.15 Groundwater ..............................................................................................................23 5.16 Slopes.........................................................................................................................24 5.17 Construction Observation..........................................................................................24 5.18 Addendum Geotechnical Report and Plan Review....................................................24 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION..................................................................................25 FIGURES FIGURE 1 INDEX MAP _ FIGURE 2 GEOLOGIC/EXPLORATION MAP FIGURE 2A CROSS-SECTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 3 REGIONAL FAULTS AND SEISMICITY MAP FIGURE 4 SHORING DESIGN PRESSURES FIGURE 5 RECOMMENDED ACTIVE WEDGE APPENDICES APPENDIX A REFERENCES CITED APPENDIX B FIELD METHODS AND EXPLORATION LOGS APPENDIX C LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 1 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California ` August 29 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation was performed to provide an assessment and recommendations for the proposed Bell residence addition located at 1439 Neptune Avenue in Leucadia, California. The proposed development consists of the addition of a first floor living room, a basement level garage, and the associated improvements (e.g. subterranean retaining walls, utilities, concrete driveway, etc.). The proposed development is feasible from a _ geotechnical perspective provided the recommendations of this report are implemented. Earth materials underlying the site consist of generally shallow Undocumented Fill that overlies the Quaternary Terrace Deposits that are correlative with the Quaternary Bay Point Formation. Laboratory tests indicate the site soils predominantly consist of silty sands. The site fill soils are considered to be compressible in their present condition, and should be removed and placed as engineered compacted fill in areas to receive structures and improvements. The Quaternary Terrace Deposits are suitable in their present condition for support of the proposed structures and improvements; however, they will require local removal and compaction in order to provide uniform bearing conditions for the proposed structure. Surface springs or seeps were not observed and groundwater was not encountered by our subsurface explorations. Groundwater is not anticipated to adversely affect the site, provided surface and subsurface drains are installed during site grading and/or construction. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 2 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G The site is not located within a state defined Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone, and based on our site reconnaissance, evidence from our explorations, and a review of the referenced literature, no known active fault traces underlie or project toward the site. 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.1 Introduction This report presents the results of our preliminary investigation and provides site-specific _ conclusions and geotechnical engineering criteria for construction of the proposed Bell residence addition located at 1439 Neptune Avenue in Leucadia, California. Our work was authorized through the CTE proposal G-1506, dated April 25, 2007 and signed on the same day. Geotechnical recommendations for excavation, fill placement, and foundations for the proposed structure are presented in this report. Our investigation included field exploration, laboratory testing, geologic hazard evaluation, engineering analysis, seismic analysis, and preparation of - this report. Cited references are presented in Appendix A. Boring logs are located in Appendix B. Appendix C contains our laboratory methods and results. Figure 1 is an index map showing the approximate site location. Figure 2 shows generalized site geologic conditions and the approximate location of subsurface explorations. Figure 2A depicts a cross-section for the proposed development. Figure 3 shows regional faulting and seismicity. 1.2 Scope of Services Our scope of services included: • Review of readily available geologic reports and documents pertinent to the site area. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 3 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G • Field exploration by a hand auger and hand-driven samples were obtained to evaluate site subsurface conditions. • Laboratory testing of select soil samples to provide data for evaluation of geotechnical characteristics of the site foundation soils. • Assessment of site geologic conditions pertinent to the site. • Preparation of this report providing a summary of the investigation performed, and conclusions and geotechnical engineering recommendations for the site. 2.0 SITE BACKGROUND 2.1 Site Location and Description The proposed project is located at 1439 Neptune Avenue in Leucadia, California. The subject site is relatively flat with an average elevation of approximately 95 feet above mean sea level (msl). Surface drainage at the proposed building site is toward the west at an estimated surface gradient of less than two percent. 2.2 Site Development The proposed development consists of the addition of a first floor living room, a basement level garage and the associated improvements (e.g. subterranean retaining walls, utilities, concrete driveway, etc.). Demolition of the existing west structure wall and door are tentatively planned. Temporary shoring of the basement level garage area is anticipated, as well. A cross-section of the proposed improvements is depicted on Figure 2A. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 4 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS 3.1 Field Investigations Field exploration was conducted on July 16, 2007 and included site reconnaissance and the excavation of two subsurface borings using a hand auger. Explorations extended to a maximum explored depth of approximately 12.3 feet below grade (fbg). Soils were logged in the field by a CTE geologist and visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Relatively undisturbed samples were collected by a hand-driven Modified California sampler. Samples were transported for testing to the CTE geotechnical laboratory in Escondido, California. Exploration logs, including descriptions of the soils encountered, are presented in Appendix B. Field descriptions presented on the exploration logs have been modified, where appropriate, to reflect laboratory test results. Approximate field exploration locations are shown on Figure 2. 3.2 Laboratory Investigation Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples for classification purposes and to evaluate physical properties and engineering characteristics. Laboratory tests conducted for this investigation included: In-Place Moisture and Density, gradation/sieve analysis, Modified Proctor, and Sand Equivalent. Test method descriptions and laboratory results are included in Appendix C. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 5 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G 4.0 GEOLOGY 4.1 General Setting Leucadia is located within the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province that is characterized by northwest-trending mountain ranges, valleys, and intervening regional faults. The San Diego Region can be subdivided as the coastal plain, central mountain—valley and eastern mountain- valley area. The project site lies within the coastal plain area which is characterized by wave cut erosion surfaces (abrasion platforms) creating a series of terraces that step down to the Pacific Ocean. The terrace surface is generally at a two percent surface gradient inclined down to the west (toward the ocean). The terrace elevations are controlled by past ocean elevation in combination with tectonic (fault) activity. The wave cut terraces have been incised by westward flowing drainages, and are typically covered with marine sediments and/or non-marine (terrestrial) deposits. 4.2 Geologic Conditions Regional mapping by Tan and Kennedy (1996), indicates surface and near-surface bedrock at the site consist of relatively friable sandstone consisting of Quaternary Terrace Deposits that have been correlated with the Quaternary Bay Point Formation. Our observations and field explorations at the site encountered Undocumented Fill overlying the Quaternary Terrace Deposits. The site earth materials are further described in the following text. 4.2.1 Undocumented Fill (not mapped) Undocumented Fill soils were encountered in both of our explorations and were observed to extend to a maximum depth to approximately four fbs. However, locally deeper fills Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 6 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G cannot be precluded. The soil generally consists of loose, very moist, dark brown, silty sand with fine to medium grains and scattered rootlets. All areas of Undocumented Fill are considered to be unsuitable for the support of improvements, but are anticipated to be removed to facilitate construction of the subterranean garage level. 4.2.2 Quaternary Terrace Deposits Quaternary age terrace deposits were encountered beneath the Undocumented Fill in both of the explorations advanced for this geotechnical investigation. The Quaternary Terrace Deposits extended to the maximum depth of the explorations (approximately 12.3 feet). The site terrace deposits were observed to consist of medium dense, moist, yellow brown, silty sand. This material is considered suitable for the support of the proposed improvements, as recommended herein. 4.3 Groundwater Surface springs or seeps were not observed and groundwater was not encountered by our subsurface explorations. Groundwater is not anticipated to adversely affect the site, provided surface and subsurface drains are installed during site grading and/or construction. Temporary dewatering during construction cannot be precluded, but would only be locally anticipated 4.4 Geologic Hazards and Assessment The following subsections discuss the typical geologic hazards that were considered pertinent to the site, and an assessment of the potential impacts these hazards could have concerning site location and proposed improvements. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 7 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G 4.4.1 Local and Regional Faulting The site is not located within a state defined Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone, and based on our site reconnaissance, evidence from our explorations, and a review of the referenced literature, no known active fault traces underlie or project toward the site. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, a fault is active if it displays evidence of activity in the last 11,000 years (Hart and Bryant, 1997). The site is not located within a state defined Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone. - The California Geological Survey broadly groups faults as "Class A" or "Class B" (CDMG, 1996). Class A faults are identified based upon relatively well constrained paleoseismic activity, and a fault slip rate of more than 5 millimeters per year (mm/yr). In contrast Class B faults have comparatively less defined paleoseismic activity and are considered to have a fault slip rate less than 5 mm/yr. The nearest known Class A faults to the site are the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore Fault which are approximately 43.7 kilometers northeast of the site. The closest Class B faults are the Rose Canyon and offshore Newport-Inglewood faults, which are approximately 5.5 kilometers west of the site. Following Table 1 presents the six nearest faults to the site, include magnitude and fault classification. Attached Figure 3 shows regional faults and seismicity with respect to the site. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 8 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G TABLE 1 NEAR SITE FAULT PARAMETERS DISTANCE MAXIMUM FAULT NAME FROM SITE EARTHQUAKE CLASSIFICATION (KILOMETERS) MAGNITUDE Rose Canyon Fault&Newport- 5.5 7.2 B Inglewood Coronado Bank 29.4 7.6 B Elsinore-Julian 43.7 7.1 A Elsinore Temecula 43.7 6.8 A Palos Verdes 63.4 7.3 B California Geologic Survey, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page (on line pshamap.asp) indicates ground motions with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years for the site, as underlain by soft bedrock, are as shown on Table 2 below. TABLE SITE CrRb�1V1(OT)r0)\I WIM 10%PROBA$II ITY QP R tr'EEI AN IN SO YRARS PARAMETER UNIT GRAVITY Ground Acceleration 0.297 Spectral Acceleration at Short(0.2 second)Duration 0.707 Spectral Acceleration at Long(1.0 second)Duration 0.321 The site could be subjected to significant shaking in the event of a major earthquake on any of the faults listed above or any other local or distant seismic sources. However, the seismicity of the site is similar to conditions throughout the Leucadia area. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 9 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G 4.4.2 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Evaluation Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine-grained sands or silts lose their physical strengths during earthquake induced shaking and behave as a liquid. This is due to loss of point-to-point grain contact and transfer of normal stress to the pore water. Liquefaction potential varies with water level, soil type, material gradation, relative density, and probable intensity and duration of ground shaking. Due to the generally medium dense nature of the native site materials and anticipated minor compacted fill, - the potential for liquefaction and/or seismic settlement damage to proposed improvements is very low. 4.4.3 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation According to McCulloch (1985), the tsunami potential in the San Diego County coastal area for one-in-100 and one-in-500 year tsunami waves are approximately four and six feet. This suggests that there is a low probability of site damage due to the elevation of the site, approximately 95 feet above msl. In addition, damage caused by oscillatory waves (seiche) is considered unlikely due to the site elevation, and distance from up gradient water bodies. 4.4.4 Landsliding Regional mapping by Tan (1995), indicates the general area of the site is "generally susceptible" to landsliding. However, landslides were not encountered during our investigation and have not been mapped in the vicinity of the site. Consequently, we expect the potential for pre-existing landslides at the site to be very low. - Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 10 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G 4.4.5 Compressible, Expansive, and Corrosive Soils Undocumented Fill is considered to be at least locally compressible in its present condition. However, sandstone of the Quaternary Terrace Deposits at the site is medium dense and typically has a low compressibility. Undocumented Fill will be removed from the proposed building area during site preparations. Our observations indicate the site soils anticipated to be encountered during proposed - grading and construction have a generally low Expansion Index (Expansion Index less than 50). Laboratory tests conducted on nearby terrace sandstone of similar physical characteristics - indicate site soils may have a low potential (according to Table 19A-A-4 of the 2003 California Building Code) for sulfate corrosion of Portland cement concrete. Resistivity testing of such materials indicate that the site soils may have a moderate corrosive potential to buried ferrous metal improvements. A qualified corrosion specialist should be consulted to provide recommendations for protection of buried metallic facilities should corrosion sensitive materials be utilized for this project. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General The site can be developed from a geotechnical perspective provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Undocumented Fill soils are unsuitable for support of structures or structural fill in their present condition. Therefore, in areas to receive structures or structural fill Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 11 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G these soils should be excavated, objectionable materials removed, and processed as a compacted fill placed under observation and testing of CTE. It is anticipated that these materials will be removed during excavation for construction for the underground garage. Prior to placement of compacted fill, a suitable surface should be exposed under the observation and testing of a CTE representative. On-site native sandstone and compacted fill placed under testing and observation of an engineer are suitable for support of structures and/or improvements. However, structure foundations should be wholly embedded in competent native materials. Locally saturated areas or groundwater may be encountered and subterranean structures should be designed and constructed with typical collection and dispersal facilities. Fluctuations in groundwater level should be anticipated in construction and long term performance of subterranean structures. Temporary dewatering during construction may also be locally necessary. Gravel drainage trenches and sumps are anticipated to be adequate to facilitate construction, if/as necessary. Recommendations for the proposed earthworks and improvements are included in the following sections and Appendix D. However, recommendations in the text of this report supersede those presented in Appendix D. The recommendations may require modifications based on the conditions encountered during grading or as presented in any appropriate addendums prepared prior to grading, as proposed property use and plans become more defined. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 12 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G 5.2 Grading and Earthwork Upon commencement of work for the demolition, CTE personnel should continuously observe the grading and earthwork operations for this project. CTE personnel should perform observation and testing of soil removal, processing, and placement during grading as they pertain to the Geotechnical Consultant's professional opinions and recommendations contained herein. 5.3 Site Preparation _ The site should be cleared of any existing debris, improvements not to remain, and other deleterious materials including the previously placed Undocumented Fill. Objectionable materials, such as construction debris and vegetation, should be removed from the materials prior to placement as compacted fill. In areas to receive structures or distress-sensitive improvements, expansive, surficial eroded, desiccated, burrowed, or otherwise loose or disturbed soils should be removed to competent native materials. These native materials should be fine without overexcavation and recompaction. An engineer or geologist from CTE should observe the exposed ground surface prior to placement of any compacted fills. Removals should continue until suitable materials are encountered. Organic and other deleterious materials not suitable for structural backfill should be disposed of offsite at a regulated disposal site. It is not anticipated, but select grading to reduce expansion qualities of the site soils may also be necessary depending upon materials encountered or imported to the site. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 13 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G 5.4 Excavations Excavation of Undocumented fill to competent Quaternary Terrace Deposits is recommended in areas to receive structures, structural fill and/or improvements. Excavations in site materials are considered feasible with standard heavy-duty grading equipment under normal conditions. However, excavations extending to depths greater than those explored during our investigation could encounter more dense or hard materials. 5.5 Fill Placement and Compaction The Geotechnical Consultant should observe that site preparation has occurred before placement of compacted fill. Subsequent to removal of loose, disturbed, or vegetation containing soils, areas to receive fills should be scarified, moisture conditioned as recommended, and compacted fill placed. Fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D1557 at moisture contents a minimum two percent above optimum. The optimum lift thickness for backfill soil will depend on the type of compaction equipment used. Generally, backfill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness. Backfill placement and compaction should be done in overall conformance with geotechnical recommendations and local ordinances. The Geotechnical Consultant should evaluate the exposed surfaces prior to placement of compacted fill. 5.6 Fill Materials Low Expansion Index soils derived from the onsite materials are generally considered suitable for reuse on the site as compacted fill. If used, these materials should be screened of significant construction debris, vegetation matter and materials greater than three inches in diameter. Preliminary Geotechnical hlvestigation Page 14 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G Screened deleterious materials and oversize irreducible particles should be removed from the site and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations and ordinances. Irreducible materials generally greater than three inches in diameter should not be used in shallow fills on the site. The Geotechnical Consultant should further evaluate oversize particle dimensions and quantity during grading as it applies to placement in site fills. Adverse effects of moderately to highly expansive clay soils, if encountered, should be removed from the site. Imported fill beneath structures, pavements and walks should have an Expansion Index of 30 or less with less than 35 percent passing the no. 200 sieve. Imported fill soils for use in structural or slope areas should be evaluated by the soils engineer before placement on the site. 5.7 Temporary Construction Slopes Sloping recommendations for unshored temporary excavations are provided herein. The recommended slopes should be relatively stable against deep-seated failure, but may experience localized sloughing. Recommended slope ratios are set forth in Table 3. T"M� 3 TM AR's SLOK 11 AT-10S SOILS TYPE SLOPE RATIO MAXIMUM HEIGHT (Horizontal: Vertical) C (Undocumented Fills/ 1.5:1 (MAXIMUM) 20 FEET Native Sandstone) Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 15 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G A "competent person" must verify actual field conditions and soil type designations while temporary excavations exist according to Cal-OSHA regulations. In addition, the above sloping recommendations do not allow for surcharge loading at the top of slopes by vehicular traffic, equipment or materials. Appropriate surcharge setbacks must be maintained from the top of all unshored slopes. 5.8 Temporary Shoring _ Due to the proposed depth of the excavations and proximity to adjacent streets and private developments, as well as our preliminary discussions with the project design team, it is anticipated that the majority of the shoring would consist of cantilevered soldier piles, with continuous timber lagging. The shoring contractor should be experienced in the design and construction of similar shoring systems and demonstrate proven competence on projects of similar size and magnitude. Upon request, CTE can provide information regarding shoring contractors experienced in design and construction of the recommended shoring systems. The shoring designer and contractor should anticipate locally saturated cohesionless materials subject to sloughing. If desired, mechanical anchors and tendons extending beyond the property boundary may require special permitting from the City of Encinitas. Additionally, care should be taken to protect underground facilities in private and public right of way. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 16 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G 5.8.1 Lateral Earth Pressures For design of braced shoring, we recommend the use of a trapezoidal distribution of earth pressure as shown on Figure 4. Additionally the indicated pressures and a triangular distribution may be used for unbraced shoring. If shoring will be permanent the active and at-rest pressures in Section 5.12 should be used for design, and shoring should be properly protected from corrosion. In addition to the recommended earth pressures, the upper 10 feet of shoring adjacent to streets or other traffic areas should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot (psf) that results from an assumed 300-psf surcharge behind the shoring due to typical street or other traffic. For traffic that remains more than 10 feet away from shoring, surcharge loading may be neglected. Shoring designed as recommended herein should deflect less than one inch at the top of the shored embankment. These deflections should be within tolerable limits for adjacent improvements such as buried pipes and conduits, or sidewalks and streets, provided these improvements are in generally good structural condition. Friction tieback anchors and/or a greater active design pressure may be used to reduce the amount of deflection at the face of the shoring. CTE should review the final shoring calculations and drawings. In addition, observation by this office is recommended during shoring installation activities. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 17 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No 10-9102G Weekly monitoring of settlement and horizontal movement of the shoring system and adjacent improvements should be performed during construction. The number and location of monitoring points should be indicated on the shoring plans and reviewed by CTE. 5.8.2 Design of Soldier Beams For conventional soldier beam and lagging shoring systems, soldier beams, spaced at least three diameters on center, may be designed using an allowable passive pressure of 400 psf per foot of depth, up to a maximum of 4,000 psf, for the portion of the soldier beam embedded in competent native materials. Provisions should be made for firm contact between the beam and the surrounding soils. Concrete placed in soldier beams below the proposed excavation should have adequate strength to transfer the imposed pressures. A lean concrete mix may be used in the soldier pile above the base of the proposed excavation. Soldier beam installations should be observed by CTE. 5.8.3 Lagging Due to the locally erodible nature of onsite materials, continuous timber lagging between soldier beams is recommended. Lagging should be designed for the recommended earth pressures but be limited to a maximum pressure of 450 psf due to arching in the soils. Voids created behind lagging by sloughing of locally cohesionless soil layers should be - grouted or slurry filled, as necessary. In addition, generally the upper two to four feet of lagging should be grouted or slurry-filled to assist in diverting surface water from migrating behind the shoring walls. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 18 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G 5.9 Foundations and Slab Preliminary Recommendations The following recommendations are for preliminary structure design purposes only. An appropriate addendum should be prepared once a property use and/or final plans are prepared. The additional document would provide additional foundation recommendations, as necessary. The project engineer should evaluate all footing trenches before reinforcing steel placement. Upon completion of rough grading, Expansion Index testing should be completed and the - recommendations herein modified, if necessary, in the Building Pad As-Graded Report. 5.9.1 Foundations Continuous and isolated spread footings should be designed based on an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf. The bearing value may be increased by 1/3 for short duration loadings. Following are foundation minimum recommendations for one- to two- story structures. Foundations designed and constructed as outlined below are expected to have maximum total and differential settlements on the order of 1.0 and 0.5 inches, respectively. Moisture in foundation excavations and slab-on-grade areas should be maintained until overlying improvements are placed. One- and two-story structures can be constructed with minimum 15-inch wide and 18- inch deep (below lowest adjacent grade) continuous footings reinforced with four number 4 bars, two at the top and two at the bottom. Isolated footings should have minimum 24- inch depths and widths. Retaining wall foundations should generally be designed as recommended herein. The garage floor slab should be at least five inches thick and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 19 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No 10-9102G reinforced with minimum number 3 bars, spaced no greater than 18 inches, on center, both ways, at the slab mid-point. 5.9.2 Foundation Setback Footings for structures or retaining walls should be designed such that the horizontal distance from the face of nearby slopes to the outer edge of the footing is at least 10 feet. 5.9.3 Concrete Floor Slabs _ Concrete slabs-on-grade should be designed for the anticipated loading, but measure a minimum five inches thick. If elastic design is used, an uncorrected modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 psi/in is appropriate for slab on competent dense native materials. Light to moderately loaded concrete slabs-on-grade should be reinforced with #4 reinforcing bars placed on 18-inch centers, each way, at mid-slab height. The project structural engineer and/or architect should provide recommendations regarding aggregate base underlayment for concrete curing or other purposes. The project architect should evaluate the necessity of a visqueen or other moisture deterrent or waterproofing membranes beneath the proposed garage or other slabs-on- grade proposed for the subject development. Periodic local groundwater should be anticipated. It is recommended that all concrete slabs be moist-cured for at least five days in accordance with methods recommended by the American Concrete Institute. Onsite concrete quality control should be utilized during the concrete cure period. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 20 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No 10-9102G 5.10 Seismic Design Criteria The following table summarizes seismic design parameters from the California Building Code (CBC, 2003). The values listed in Table 4 are applicable to faults listed in Table 1. TABLE 4 SCI MIC DVSIGN PARAM ETE PARAMETER VALUE CBC REFERENCE Seismic Zone Factor 0.4 Figure 16-2 Soil Profile Type Sp Table 16-J Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.44 Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient,Cv 0.76 Table 16-R Near-Source Factor,Na 1.0 Table 16-S Near Source Factor,Nv 1.18 Table 16-T Seismic Source B Table 16-U The following table summarizes seismic design parameters from the International Building Code (IBC, 2006). The values listed in Table 5 are applicable to faults listed in Table 1. TABLES S$1C5MIC=D)EISIGN PAI,2A11?I1�TERS _ PARAMETER VALUE IBC REFERENCE Site Class D Table 1615.1.1 Spectral Response Acceleration Coefficient,SS 0.6 Figure 1615(3) Spectral Response 1.75 Figure 1615(4) Acceleration Coefficient,S, Seismic Coefficient,Fa 1.68 Tables 1615.1.2(l) Seismic Coefficient,F, 1.5 Tables 1615.1.2(2) Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 21 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No 10-9102G 5.11 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures The following recommendations may be used for shallow footings on the site. Foundations may be designed using a coefficient of friction of 0.30 (total frictional resistance equals the coefficient of friction times the dead load). A design passive resistance value of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (with a maximum value of 1250 pounds per square foot) may be used. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and the - passive resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance. 5.12 Retaining Walls Retaining walls up to approximately twelve feet high and backfilled using granular soils (Expansion Index less than 20) may be designed using the equivalent fluid weights given in Table 6 below. TABLE 6 EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHTS founds per cubic foot) WALL TYPE LEVEL BACKFILL SLOPE BACKFILL 2:1 (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL) CANTILEVER WALL 35 55 (YIELDING) RESTRAINED WALL 55 85 An additional pressure of 25 pcf should be added to the above pressures for walls that will retain a sloped soil backfill inclined at 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 22 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29 2007 CTE Job No 10-9102G In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper 10 feet of subterranean structure walls adjacent to the streets or other traffic loads should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf. This is the result of an assumed 300-psf surcharge behind the walls due to typical street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet from the subject walls, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. The project architect should consider the necessity for waterproofing the subterranean structure walls to reduce moisture infiltration. We recommend that all walls be backfilled with soil having an expansion index of 20 or less. The backfill area should include the zone defined by a 1:1 sloping plane, extended back from the base of the wall. Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, based on ASTM D1557-91. Backfill should not be placed until walls have achieved adequate structural strength. Heavy equipment, which could cause distress to walls, should not be used in compacting soils behind retaining walls. The above values assume non-expansive backfill and free draining conditions. Measures should - be taken to prevent a moisture buildup behind all walls below grade. Drainage measures should include free draining backfill materials and perforated drains. Drains should discharge to an approved offsite location or sump. The project architect or structural engineer should determine the necessity of waterproofing the subterranean structure walls to reduce moisture infiltration. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 23 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G 5.13 Exterior Concrete Flatwork Exterior concrete slabs for pedestrian loads should measure a minimum four inches thick and have minimal reinforcement of number 3 bar on 18-inch centers (both ways). Reinforcement should be placed in the upper one-third of the slab and with appropriate minimum cover. Flatwork should be installed with reinforcement and crack control joints. Expansive, surficial eroded, desiccated, burrowed, or otherwise loose or disturbed soils should be removed to the depth of competent formational materials or at least 12 inches below the bottom of exterior slab whichever is greater. Compacted fill with a low Expansion Index (E.I. less than 51) should be placed in the resulting volume, if feasible. Pre-soaking of flatwork areas may also be necessary - based on post-graded site conditions. Positive drainage to convey water away from all flatwork to the front of the lot should be established and maintained. 5.14 Drainage Surface runoff should be collected and directed away from improvements by means of appropriate erosion reducing devices and positive drainage should be established around the proposed improvements. Positive drainage should be directed away from improvements at a gradient of at least two percent for a distance of at least five feet. The project civil engineer should evaluate the on-site drainage and make necessary provisions to convey water off the property through positive flow gradients in a non erosive device. 5.15 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in our explorations and indications of seepage or springs were not observed. Consequently, groundwater is not anticipated to affect construction of the site Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 24 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G improvements. However, positive surface drainage and non erosive collection/conveyance devices should be installed to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of groundwater at the site. 5.16 Slopes Though not anticipated, slopes at this site should be constructed at 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter surface ratio. Surface water should not be permitted to drain over the edges of slopes unless that water is confined to properly designed and constructed drainage facilities. Erosion _ resistant vegetation should be maintained on the face of all 2:1 slopes. 5.17 Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the proposed earthworks and the subsurface conditions found in the exploratory boring locations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction. Recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding and assumption CTE will provide observation and testing services for the project. All geotechnical related work should be observed and tested as they pertain to recommendations contained within this report. All foundation excavations and slope support measures (including tiebacks, etc.) should be evaluated by a CTE representative. 5.18 Addendum Geotechnical Report and Plan Review An appropriate addendum report should be prepared as project use and plans are more defined and available. The addendum report would provide additional geotechnical recommendations, as Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 25 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No 10-9102G necessary, for the development-specific project proposed. This addendum report may also incorporate a review of the project grading/improvement and/or foundation plans. 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION The recommendations provided in this report are based on the anticipated construction and the subsurface conditions found in our explorations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction. Recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding and assumption that CTE will provide the observation and testing services for the project. All earthworks should be observed and tested in accordance with the recommendations of contained within this report. The project Geotechnical Engineer or their designated representative should evaluate all footing trenches before reinforcing steel placement. The field evaluation, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis presented in this report have been conducted according to current geotechnical engineering practice and the standard of care exercised by reputable Geotechnical Consultants performing similar tasks in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction. The scope of this report does not include - an evaluation of environmental conditions at the site. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 26 Proposed Bell Residence Addition 1439 Neptune Avenue, Leucadia, California August 29, 2007 CTE Job No. 10-9102G Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the observed conditions. If conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be notified and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided upon request. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING &ENGINEERING, INC. Dan T. Math, GE#2665 �o PROF' > Martin E. Siem CEG #2311 Principal Engineer ��P PN�E� �� Senior Geologist sOR w No.2665 Z M Shane M. Chambers 9r FCHN. ' P Staff Geologist T SC:DTM:MES:nri Dist: (5) Addressee L 20o m 600 ft PIccacluly lid ti vatk�,, t`� p c°> o a p APPROXIMATE ` SITE LOCATION t 3aW 5 c Z z 8flfl m 5 2404 it v !u r ry 0 7s r ro Leucadia L"pasVN%J% cY "n 2CO7 VapCucsl Irk divas 2007N"TEt? c C)ceian Le ca ►t L_ te%l o0146 L+---ucadia Blvd 1 Z c ti t r� r, �tp G 2CO7 MapOucsl Irc 2001 NAVIEO CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION 1441 NIONTIEL ROAD.STE 115 ESCONDIDO CA.92026!7601 7464955 TE JOB NO SITE INDEX MAP 10-9102G PROPOSED BELL RESIDENCE ADDITION SCALE 1439 NEPTUNE AVENUE AS SHOW N LEUCADIA,CALIFORNIA DATE I FIGURE 1 08/07 ' I I N CA W o'rt° w H o I ILCA'�i I W a .1 r'�♦1r' '� �/wo II// W¢U • -.- . �•M ♦ /n C7> YID V /I YR 1 z LLJ G W� - /: 1: �•T.,__ OML WW / 0 O is ._ —.i_ � .i.�•„�' �_ �� __ _ . �'p�" .4 IW I 1• A' A� I �" N 0,41 E~ E IW a � Q y/•�! t7 w U Z Q I � � z . 2 .0-.tt oC,4 w 2 TZ_0z z=�m w� wzu wp a �z0 0 U=o Z9W W c - ~$O t zu� � 7 zo U€� 0. wQ .0:Q _ z� AE Con U a � r •` W o � 1 q i � Q o z f SSA, q i ' I � Q r � m cY) o) y. rn 0 Lr) m r r CFj - C CQ A II LL L LU o � o � o z r W 1 W Y �/ N W O Q ✓ t•.•'' ' O ZONE •k ' h I� LL co O r CD CD 00 00 0000 } w J W A 10 19 L9 0 �w U Z n coo � 0 4P O \vi /f ® A��` W UR4c v �/ cn z '° w Q w W �af111NJbW > G �- w I- ( l � •Cl) Q W U �._ _ }fin i E L ' z fi g `w y - w W Z „9ADOW,FLT�`� 2E D W LL >_ w D 3 We w w C7 x L.0 o ; y� In rn CD O� O ' r LIJ LU 0 EL pw cn VA— o � 5s.5.• .}1AAHtS SF4ULt - _ '.. .. - \ \j.' ..5�,,,..;• � 1\'�d�� ... -" , y l \ I.JM4 F TitNE '. ca vi vtiA ' v O O tt� !� j�� a vvv��••• 't e / / [may � v / �� A VET„ co / t r` r/ ••r z y, Lo sp, _ to oil d Cri W , ✓i i s I v / �� (z, Q�i�/ i s Cw wa w A L Y o z ACTIVE PRESSURE DIAGRAM FOR SHORING T .2H y H .6H (ft) .2H 27H (Psf) NOTES: An additional uniform lat- eral pressure of 100 psf should be applied to upper 10 feet of shoring if traffic load- ing is allowed within 10 feet of the face CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION of shoring. 1441 MONTIEL ROAD,STE 115 ESCONDIDO CA.92026(760)746-4955 Ci'E JOB NO: 1 �1 For design of unbraced shoring, a BRACED SHORING DESIGN PRESSURE SCALE 10-9102G NOTE: ALL PRESSURES ARE IN psf, NO SCALE triangular distribution Shall be used. ALL HEIGHTS ARE IN FEET DATE: F1cURE: 8/07 1 4 STRUCTURE WALL OR SHORING SURFACE ACTIVE WEDGE EFFECTIVE ZONE _ FOR TIEBACK FRICTION ANCHORS & FOUNDATION BEARING 25.00 BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION 0.8 i Li CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION 1441 MONTIEL ROAD,STE 115 ESCONDIDO CA.92026(760)7461955 Cl h JOB NO: RECOMMENDED ACTIVE WEDGE/ 10-9102G FFECTIVE ZONE FOR TIEBACK ANCHORS SCALE- SCALE NOTE: ALL HEIGHTS ARE IN FEET DATE 08!07 5 APPENDIX A REFERENCES CITED REFERENCES CITED 1. California Building Standards Commission, 2001, "California Building Code, California code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2. 2. CDMG, 1996, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California," - California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-08. 3. CDMG, 2002, "California Geomorphic Provinces," California Division of Mines and Geology, Note 36. 4. City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study, 1995 Edition. 5. Hart, Earl W. and Bryant, W.A., 1997, "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, _ -- Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps," California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. - 6. Jennings, Charles W., revised 1994, "Fault Map of California with Locations of Volcanoes, Thermal Springs and Thermal Wells." 7. McCulloch, D.S., 1985, "Evaluating Tsunami Potential" in Ziony, J.I., ed., Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region — An Earth-Science Perspective, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360. 8. Munasinghe, T., Rosenberg, P., eds., 1996, "Geology and Natural Resources of Coastal San Diego County, California," Guidebook to Accompany the 1996 Annual Field Trip of the San Diego Association of Geologists. 9. Siang S. Tan and Desmond G. Giffen, 1995, "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California: Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 35", California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 95-04, State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California. 10. Tan, S. S., and Kennedy, 1996, "Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5 Quadrangles, San Diego County, California", California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 96-02, State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California. 11. Treiman, J.A., 1993 "Fault Map Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Southern California" California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 93-02. APPENDIX B EXPLORATION LOGS CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING INC. GEOTECHN ICAt I CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION 1,41 MON11EL HOAC,SUITE 115 1 ESCONOI00 CA 92026 1 750 14a 4955 DEFINITION OF TERMS PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS GRAVELS CLEAN - < o WELL GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES MORE THAN GRAVELS - A ' GW LITTLE OR NO FINES Q HALF OF <5%FINES y=„ Gp 7 • POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES, w COARSE LITTLE OF NO FINES O O w SILTY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES, U� Is¢. z U N FRACTION IS GRAVELS GM A " LARGER THAN WITH FINES � w NON-PLASTIC FINES _ z CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, z J NO.4 SIEVE GC PLASTIC FINES SANDS CLEAN - + WELL GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SANDS,LITTLE OR NO Wz o i_: :ice_ ¢ ° MORE THAN SANDS SW-- FINES G�4 WO W O HALF OF <5%FINES Sp r POORLY GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SANDS,LITTLE OR F COARSE NO FINES U FRACTION IS SANDS SM SILTY SANDS,SAND-SILT MIXTURES,NON-PLASTIC FINES SMALLER THAN WI SIEVE WITH FINES SC CLAYEY SANDS,SAND-CLAY MIXTURES,PLASTIC FINES INORGANIC SILTS,VERY FINE SANDS,ROCK FLOUR,SILTY u w N SILTS AND CLAYS MI" OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS,SLIGHTLY PLASTIC CLAYEY SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, p [c w LIQUID LIMIT[S .a d > CL LESS THAN 50 GRAVELLY,SANDY,SILTS OR LEAN CLAYS W z N n1 J ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY z x ¢ INORGANIC SILTS,MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE w w SILTS AND CLAYS MH SANDY OR SILTY SOILS,ELASTIC SILTS p ¢ zd LIQUID LIMIT IS CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAYS w F GREATER THAN 50 OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,% ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS p i PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS GRAIN SIZES BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND I SILTS AND CLAYS COARSE I INE COARSE MEDIUM I FINE 12" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200 — CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE ADDITIONAL TESTS (OTHER THAN TEST PIT AND BORING LOG COLUMN HEADINGS) MAX-Maximum Dry Density PM-Permeability PP-Pocket Penetrometer GS-Grain Size Distribution SG-Specific Gravity WA-Wash Analysis SE-Sand Equivalent HA-Hydrometer Analysis DS-Direct Shear EI-Expansion Index AL-Atterberg Limits UC-Unconfined Compression CHM-Sulfate and Chloride RV-R-Value MD-Moisture/Density Content,pH,Resistivity CN-Consolidation M-Moisture COR-Corrosivity CP-Collapse Potential SC- Swell Compression SD-Sample Disturbed HC-Hydrocollapse OI-Organic Impurities REM-Remolded FIGURE: BLI CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING INC. G E OTECHNICAL I CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION 1441 MONTIEL ROAD,SUITE 115 I FSE GNGI D O,CA P2026 1 760.746.4955 PROJECT: DRILLER: SHEET: Of CTE JOB NO: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE: LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION: v Y o E ou F - BORING LEGEND Laboratory Tests = x > 3 Q U c ° o DESCRIPTION Block or Chunk Sample Bulk Sample Standard Penetration Test Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler(Cal Sampler) Thin Walled Army Corp. of Engineers Sample Z Groundwater Table - --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Soil Type or Classification Change Formation Change [(Approximate boundaries queried(?)) "sm" Quotes are placed around classifications where the soils exist in situ as bedrock FIGURE: BL2 CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING INC. 13ECTECHNICAL I CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION 1191 MONTIEL RDAO.SUITE 115 1 ESCONDI DO,CA 92926 1 760 716.1955 PROJECT: BELL RESIDENCE ADDITION DRILLER: C.T.E. SHEET: 1 of I CTE JOB NO: 10-9102 DRILL METHOD: HAND AUGER DRILLING DATE: 7/16/2007 LOGGED BY: D.R. SAMPLE METHOD: RING,BULK ELEVATION: -95 Ft. BORING: B-1 y Laborator Tests a o A ro Ca m Q C7 DESCRIPTION 0 SM UATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL ud : Loose, very moist,dark brown,silty SAND(SM),fine-to medium- grained with scattered rootlets. 2.0': becomes dark gray brown. MD,GS,SE QUATERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): 5 4.0': Medium dense,moist,yellow to gray brown,silty SAND(SM). MD,SE 6.0': Becomes yellow to orange brown. MAX,GS,SE 10': Same as above. Total Depth= 12.3 Fbg. No groundwater. Backfilled with excavated soil. 0 2 B-1 CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECIINICAL I CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TES/ING AND INSPECTION 1161 MONTIEL RDA6,SUITE 115 I ESCONDI60.CA 94016 1 760 746 4955 PROJECT: BELL RESIDENCE ADDITION DRILLER: C.T.E. SHEET: 1 of 1 CTE JOB NO: 10-9102 DRILL METHOD: HAND AUGER DRILLING DATE: 7/16/2007 LOGGED BY: D.R. SAMPLE METHOD: RING,BULK ELEVATION: -96 Ft. v w F v BORING: B-2 Laboratory Tests LE 2 T "o Tn Id DESCRIPTION - 0 QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL(Qudf)• Loose, very moist,dark brown,silty SAND(SM),fine-grained. QUATERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt): 2': Medium dense,moist,orange brown,silty SAND(SM),fine- grained. 5 0 10': Same as above. Total Depth= 11 Fbg. No groundwater. Backfilled with excavated soil. 1 0 °' 25 B-2 APPENDIX C LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS APPENDIX C LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to detect their relative engineering properties. Tests were performed following test methods of the American Society for Testing Materials or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the various test methods used. Laboratory results are presented in the following section of this Appendix. Classification _ Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classifications were supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples according to ASTM D2487. In-Place Moisture and Density To determine the moisture and density of in-place site soils, a representative sample was tested - for the moisture and density at time of sampling. Modified Proctor To determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, a soil sample was tested in accordance with ASTMD-1557. Particle-Size Analysis Particle-size analyses were performed on selected representative samples according to ASTM D422. Sand Equivalent The purpose of this test method is to indicate, under standard conditions, the relative proportions of clay-like or plastic fines and dusts in granular material and fine aggregates that pass the 5.00 mm sieve. A minimum sand equivalent value may be specified to limit the permissible quantity of clay-like fines in an aggregate. The test may also be used for determining changes in the quality of aggregates during production or placement. CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING INC. G C OTECHNICAL I CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPCCTION 1441 MONTIEL ROAD.SUITE 115 1 ESCONDIDO.CA 91026 1 760.745.4955 SAND EQUIVALENT LOCATION DEPTH AVERAGE SAND (feet) EQUIVALENT B-1 2.0-2.5 37 B-1 5.0-12.0 19 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY & OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (MODIFIED PROCTOR) LOCATION DEPTH OPTIMUM MOISTURE DRY DENSITY (feet) (%) (pcf) B-I 5.0-12.0 11.5 119.5 IN-PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY LOCATION DEPTH MOISTURE DRY DENSITY (feet) (%) (pcf) B-1 2.0-2.5 9.3 91.7 B-I 5.0-5.5 11.4 103.5 LABORATORY SUMMARY CTE JOB NO. 10-9102G _ _ _ - _ _ ON cn cr OV - ff 04 ` of zz uj _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ ' _ _ _ ON cn oz _ 0, ^ CD t cn _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 14s 140 -- 1 3 5 --� 130 125 v 120 Ct, x - - 115 -- rz I10 - - rx 105 - _ I 100 95 90 _- 85 -- 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 PERCENT MOISTURE (%) ASTM D1557 METHOD © A ❑ B ❑ C MODIFIED PROCTOR RESULTS LAB SAMPLE DEPTH MAXIMUM OPTIMUM NUMBER NUMBER (FEET) SOIL DESCRIPTION DRY DENSITY MOISTURE (PCF) CONTENT(%) 17509 B-1 5.12 YELLOW BROWN SILTY 119.5 11.5 SAND CTE JOB NO: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. DATE: 08/07 - GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION 10-9102G 1441 MONTIEL ROAD STE 115 ESCONDIDO CA.92026(760)746-4955 FIGURE: C-3 APPENDIX D STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Appendix D Page D-1 Standard Specifications for Grading Section 1 - General The guidelines contained herein and the standard details attached hereto represent Construction Testing & Engineering's standard recommendations for grading and other associated operations on construction projects. These guidelines should be considered a portion of the project specifications. Recommendations contained in the body of the previously presented soils report shall supersede the recommendations and or requirements as specified herein. The project geotechnical consultant shall interpret disputes arising out of interpretation of the recommendations contained in the soils report or specifications contained herein. Section 2 - Responsibilities of Project Personnel The geotechnical consultant should provide observation and testing services sufficient to assure _ that geotechnical construction is performed in general confonnance with project specifications and standard grading practices. The geotechnical consultant should report any deviations to the client or his authorized representative. The Client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his authorized representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the - geotechnical consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his authorized representative should remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. The Contractor 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, earth work in accordance with the project plans, specifications and controlling agency requirements. Section 3 - Preconstruction Meeting A preconstruction site meeting shall be arranged by the owner and/or client and shall include the grading contractor, the design engineer, the geotechnical consultant, owner's representative and representatives of the appropriate governing authorities. Section 4 - Site Preparation The client or contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, during and/or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The appropriate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with grading operations. Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, root of trees and otherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 1 of 22 Appendix D Page D-2 Standard Specifications for Grading graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of all proposed excavation and fill areas. Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations, reservoirs, utilities (including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, etc.) and other man-made surface and subsurface improvements from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities should include proper capping and/or rerouting pipelines at the project perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the requirements of the governing authorities and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant at the time of demolition. Trees, plants or man-made improvements not planned to be removed or demolished should be protected by the contractor from damage or injury. Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or demolition operations should be wasted from areas to be graded and disposed off-site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant. Section 5 - Site Protection - Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the responsibility of the contractor. Unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties, completion of a portion of the project should not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the requirements for site protection until such time as the entire project is complete as identified by the geotechnical consultant, the client and the regulating agencies. Precautions should be taken during the perfonnance of site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, purnps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall. Rain related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress and other adverse conditions as detennined by the geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as unsuitable materials and should be subject to overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g., backcuts) are made in consideration of stability of the completed project and, therefore, should not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the contractor. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude requirements that are more restrictive by the regulating agencies. The contractor should provide during periods of extensive rainfall plastic sheeting to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated and unstable. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 2 of 22 Appendix D Page D-3 Standard Specifications for Grading When deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant or governing agencies the contractor shall install checkdams, desilting basins, sand bags or other drainage control measures. In relatively level areas and/or slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot; they should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1.0 foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture conditioning in-place, followed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein - may be attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the slope repair recommendations herein. If field conditions dictate, the geotechnical consultant may recommend other slope repair procedures. Section 6 - Excavations 6.1 Unsuitable Materials Materials that are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and - recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to, dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible natural soils and fractured, weathered, soft bedrock and nonengineered or otherwise deleterious fill materials. Material identified by the geotechnical consultant as unsatisfactory due to its moisture conditions should be overexcavated; moisture conditioned as needed, to a unifonn at or above optimum moisture condition before placement as compacted fill. If during the course of grading adverse geotechnical conditions are exposed which were not anticipated in the preliminary soil report as determined by the geotechnical consultant additional exploration, analysis, and treatment of these problems may be recommended. 6.2 Cut Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). The geotechnical consultant should observe cut slope excavation and if these excavations expose loose cohesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, the materials should be overexcavated and replaced with a compacted stabilization fill. If encountered specific cross section details should be obtained from the Geotechnical Consultant. When extensive cut slopes are excavated or these cut slopes are made in the direction of the prevailing drainage, a non-erodible diversion swale (brow ditch) should be provided at the top of the slope. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 3 of 22 Appendix D Page D-4 Standard Specifications for Grading 6.3 Pad Areas All lot pad areas, including side yard terrace containing both cut and fill materials, transitions, located less than 3 feet deep should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and replaced with a uniform compacted fill blanket of 3 feet. Actual depth of overexcavation may vary and should be delineated by the geotechnical consultant during grading. For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm drainage swale and/or an appropriate pad gradient. A gradient in soil areas away from the top-of-slopes of 2 percent or greater is recommended. Section 7 - Compacted Fill All fill materials should have fill quality, placement, conditioning and compaction as specified - below or as approved by the geotechnical consultant. 7.1 Fill Material Quality Excavated on-site or import materials which are acceptable to the geotechnical consultant may be utilized as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are removed prior to placement. All import materials anticipated for use on-site should be sampled tested and approved prior to and placement is in conformance with the requirements outlined. Rocks 12 inches in maximum and smaller may be utilized within compacted fill provided sufficient fill material is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock to effectively fill rock voids. The amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry weight passing the 3/4-inch sieve. The geotechnical consultant may vary those requirements as field conditions dictate. Where rocks greater than 12 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill, special handling in accordance with attached Plates and described below. Rocks greater than four feet should be broken down or disposed off-site. 7.2 Placement of Fill Prior to placement of fill material, the geotechnical consultant should inspect the area to receive fill. After inspection and approval, the exposed ground surface should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches. The scarified material should be conditioned (i.e. moisture added or air dried by continued discing) to achieve a moisture content at or slightly above optimum moisture conditions and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density or as otherwise recommended in the soils report or by appropriate government agencies. Compacted fill should then be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness prior to compaction. Each lift should be moisture conditioned as needed, STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 4 of 22 Appendix D Page D-5 Standard Specifications for Grading thoroughly blended to achieve a consistent moisture content at or slightly above optimum and thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. The contractor should have suitable and sufficient mechanical compaction equipment and watering apparatus on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed in consideration of moisture retention properties of the materials and weather conditions. When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal: vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least six-foot wide benches and a minimum of four feet of vertical bench height within the firm natural ground, firm bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area - - after keying and benching until the geotechnical consultant has reviewed the area. Material generated by the benching operation should be moved sufficiently away from the bench area to allow for the recommended review of the horizontal bench prior to placement of fill. Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as above described. At least a 3-foot vertical bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved compacted fill prior to placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in at least 3-foot vertical increments until the desired finished grades are achieved. Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other grading delay, the exposed surface or previously compacted fill should be processed by scarification, moisture conditioning as needed to at or slightly above optimum moisture content, thoroughly blended and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Where unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than one foot, the unsuitable materials should be over-excavated. Following a period of flooding, rainfall or overwatering by other nneans, no additional fill should be placed until damage assessments have been made and remedial grading performed as described herein. Rocks 12 inch in maximum dimension and smaller may be utilized in the compacted fill provided the fill is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. No oversize material should be used within 3 feet of finished pad grade and within 1 foot of other compacted fill areas. Rocks 12 inches up to four feet maximum dimension should be placed below the upper 5 feet of any fill and should not be closer than 11 feet to any slope face. These recommendations could vary as locations of improvements dictate. Where practical, oversized material should not be placed below areas where structures or deep utilities are proposed. Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a clean, STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 5 of 22 Appendix D Page D-6 Standard Specifications for Grading overexcavated or unyielding compacted fill or firni natural ground surface. Select native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded over and around all windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material should be staggered so those successive strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane. It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rock as field conditions dictate and as recommended by the geotechnical consultant at the time of placement. The contractor should assist the geotechnical consultant and/or his representative by digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. The contractor should provide this work at no additional cost to the owner or contractor's client. Fill should be tested by the geotechnical consultant for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing should conform to ASTM Method of Test D 1556-82, D 2922-81. Tests should be conducted at a minimum of 2 vertical feet or 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. Fill found not to be in confonnance with the grading recommendations should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 7.3 Fill Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, pernanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). Except as specifically recommended in these grading guidelines compacted fill slopes should be over-built and cut back to grade, exposing the firm, compacted fill inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the desired results are not achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the guidelines of the geotechnical consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased until the desired compacted slope surface condition is achieved. Care should be taken by the contractor to provide thorough mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface. At the discretion of the geotechnical consultant, slope face compaction may be attempted by conventional construction procedures including backrolling. The procedure must create a firmly compacted material throughout the entire depth of the slope face to the surface of the previously compacted fine fill intercore. During grading operations, care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer edge of the slope. Each lift should extend horizontally to the desired finished slope surface or more as needed to ultimately established desired grades. Grade during construction should not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It may be helpful STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 6 of 22 Appendix D Page D-7 Standard Specifications for Grading to elevate slightly the outer edge of the slope. Slough resulting from the placement of individual lifts should not be allowed to drift down over previous lifts. At intervals not exceeding four feet in vertical slope height or the capability of available equipment, whichever is less, fill slopes should be thoroughly dozer trackrolled. For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished using a berm and pad gradient of at least 2 percent. Section 8 - Trench Backfill Utility and/or other excavation of trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction should be a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. _ Within slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches up to one foot wide and two feet deep may be backfilled with sand and consolidated by jetting, flooding or by mechanical means. If on-site materials are utilized, they should be wheel-rolled, tamped or otherwise compacted to a fine condition. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on review of backfill operations during construction. If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, the contractor may elect the utilization of light weight mechanical compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean, granular material, which should be thoroughly jetted in-place above the conduit, prior to initiating mechanical compaction procedures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon review of the geotechnical consultant at the time of construction. In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by the geotechnical consultant. Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not recommended in slope areas. Section 9 - Drainage Where deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant, canyon subdrain systems should be installed in accordance. Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilization or sidehill masses, should be installed in accordance with the specifications of the accompanying attached plates. Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and areas of structures to suitable disposal areas via non-erodible devices (i.e., gutters, downspouts, and concrete swales) as shown in the attached plates. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 7 of 22 Appendix D Page D-8 Standard Specifications for Grading For drainage in extensively landscaped areas near structures, (i.e., within four feet) a minimum _. of 5 percent gradient away from the structure should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 percent should be maintained over the remainder of the site. Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of the project. Property owners should be made aware that altering drainage patterns could be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance. Section 10 - Slope Maintenance 10.1 - Landscape Plants To enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting should be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope planting should consist of deep-rooting vegetation - requiring little watering. Plants native to the southern California area and plants relative to native plants are generally desirable. Plants native to other semi-arid and arid areas may also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect should be the best party to consult - regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration. 10.2 - Irrigation Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces, not placed in trenches excavated into slope faces. Slope irrigation should be minimized. If automatic timing devices are utilized on irrigation systems, provisions should be made for interrupting nonnal irrigation during periods of rainfall. 10.3 - Repair As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand, to protect all slope areas from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period prior to landscape planting. If slope failures occur, the geotechnical consultant should be contacted for a field review of site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair. If slope failures occur as a result of exposure to period of heavy rainfall, the failure areas and currently unaffected areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to protect against additional saturation. In the accompanying Standard Details, appropriate repair procedures are illustrated for superficial slope failures (i.e., occurring typically within the outer one foot to three feet of a slope face). STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 8 of 22 BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL FILL SLOPE � gLE MATERIAL � 5' MIN �OVE UNgUI� 4'TYPICAL 2' MIN 2% MIN 10 TYPICAL 15' MIN. (INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE) BENCHING FILL OVER CUT SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL FINISH FILL SLOPE FINISH CUT SLOPE B �VNgUI / 4'TYPICAL REM �— 2% MIN 10'ol - TYPICAL 15' MIN OR STABILITY EQUIVALENT PER SOIL ENGINEERING (INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE) NOT TO SCALE BENCHING FOR COMPACTED FILL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 9 of 22 TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN FILL ol R.�N M 4 vN .01 10'TYPICAL BENCH ' WIDTH VARIES �1 �00,� 1 � COMPETENT EARTH .01 MATERIAL �2 2% MIN TYPICAL BENCH MINIMUM 15' MINIMUM BASE KEY WIDTH HEIGHT 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. FILL IS NOT TO BE PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL. NOT TO SCALE FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL GROUND DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 10 of 22 \ 1 J \ \ wU- M O vs 11 Q 0 w U 7- a: 2 15. IL UJ \ a1 0 o og ' o W w F- 0- as WO LL 0 IL \\ O 00 a- O � J 00 cnw \1 0Z � � Q m ° w W \ 01 0 O \1 01 ? LU N \\0 1 O- \ \ } LLJ c/) 1 I a F- \1 11 cU) D \ 10 -z o U \N 2 o LL! \ 1 z > \ 1 O 1 m z 1 LU Dam z \ 0 J O � a � 0a z � J OU w h w 0 O U) o � 00 ) 1 J a 0w UJ 0z � 1 LL z 0 o O J O O Q 1 F-- Q F- > 1 U O U D LL J g 1 � U Q 1 jO O 1 z \ STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 11 of 22 SURFACE OF COMPETENT MATERIAL lool COMPACTED FILL ��/ TYPICAL BENCHING v REMOVE UNSUITABLE C MATERIAL SEE DETAIL BELOW INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN AT 2%GRADIENT MINIMUM DETAIL MINIMUM 9 FT PER LINEAR FOOT MINIMUM 4"DIAMETER APPROVED OF APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL PERFORATED PIPE(PERFORATIONS DOWN) 6"FILTER MATERIAL BEDDING 14" MINIMUM FILTER MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40 SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL: POLY-VINYL-CHLORIDE(P.V.C.)OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING STRENGTH 1000 psi 1" 100 PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA,SUBJECT TO s/4 90-100 FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS %8 40-100 ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING NO.4 25-40 LENGTH OF RUN PIPE DIAMETER NO. 30 18-33 INITIAL 500' 4" NO. 8 5-15 500'TO 1500' 6" NO. 50 0-7 > 1500' 8" NO.200 0-3 NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 12 of 22 CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS SURFACE OF COMPETENT MATERIAL COMPACTED FILL /�/ TYPICAL BENCHING � REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL SEE DETAILS BELOW INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN AT 2%GRADIENT MINIMUM TRENCH DETAILS 6"MINIMUM OVERLAP OPTIONAL V-DITCH DETAIL MINIMUM 9 FT3 PER LINEAR FOOT OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL MIRAFI 140N FABRIC - OR APPROVED EQUAL MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL 6"MINIMUM OVERLAP O ----------- APPROVED PIPE TO BE 24" SCHEDULE 40 POLY- O MINIMUM VINYLCHLORIDE(P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 24" MINIMUM 9 FT3 PER LINEAR FOOT 1000 PSI. -- MINIMUM OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL 60°TO 90° DRAIN MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL: FOLLOWING CRITERIA,SUBJECT TO FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING 1 X2" 88-100 LENGTH OF RUN PIPE DIAMETER 1" 5-40 INITIAL 500' 4" 0-17 500'TO 1500' 6" e.. 0-7 > 1500' 8" NO. 200 0-3 NOT TO SCALE GEOFABRIC SUBDRAIN STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 13 of 22 15' MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE BACKDRAIN 4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED PIPE LATERAL DRAIN a SLOPE PER PLAN FILTER MATERIAL -- ` m BENCHING H/2 _ o ._ r a 2/o __. Me 1 AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH. KEY-DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER (GENERALLY 1/2 SLOPE HEIGHT, 15' MINIMUM) DIMENSIONS ARE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL SLOPE STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 14 of 22 15' MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE BACKDRAIN 4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED PIPE LATERAL DRAIN - i � , SLOPE PER PLAN 2.0% FILTER MATERIAL BENCHING _ p H/2 2' M MIN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH. KEY-DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER DIMENSIONS ARE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 15 of 22 FINAL LIMIT OF DAYLIGHT EXCAVATION LINE FINISH PAD OVEREXCAVATE X AND REPLACE WITH COMPACTED FILL OVEREXCAVATE 20' MAXIMUM .. < k .. 1 COMPETENT BEDROCK 2% MIN 2' MINIMUM TYPICAL BENCHING OVERBURDEN LOCATION OF BACKDRAIN AND (CREEP-PRONE) OUTLETS PER SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. MINIMUM 2% FLOW GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE LOCATION. EQUIPMENT WIDTH (MINIMUM 15') NOT TO SCALE DAYLIGHT SHEAR KEY DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 16 of 22 NATURAL GROUND PROPOSED GRADING 2 1 1.5 COMPACTED FILL 1.5 1 l.W„ PROVIDE BACKDRAIN, PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL, AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR BACK BASE WIDTH "W" DETERMINED SLOPES IN EXCESS OF BY SOILS ENGINEER 40 FEET HIGH. LOCATIONS OF BACKDRAINS AND OUTLETS PER SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. MINIMUM 2% FLOW GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE LOCATION. NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL SHEAR KEY DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 17 of 22 FINISH SURFACE SLOPE 3 FT 3 MINIMUM PER LINEAR FOOT APPROVED FILTER ROCK* CONCRETE COLLAR PLACED NEAT COMPACTED FILL A I I 2.0% MINIMUM GRADIENT A 4"MINIMUM APPROVED 4"MINIMUM DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE** — SOLID OUTLET PIPE (PERFORATIONS DOWN) SPACED PER SOIL MINIMUM 2%GRADIENT ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS TO OUTLET DURING GRADING TYPICAL BENCH INCLINED BENCHING TOWARD DRAIN DETAIL A-A TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL MINIMUM -OMPACTEE MINIMUM 4"DIAMETER APPROVED — 12"COVER BACKFILL SOLID OUTLET PIPE n1 12" lo MINIMUM *FILTER ROCK TO MEET FOLLOWING **APPROVED PIPE TYPE: SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL: SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING (P.V.C.)OR APPROVED EQUAL. 1" 100 MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI 90-100 40-100 NO.4 25-40 NO.30 5-15 NO.50 0-7 NO. 200 0-3 NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL BACKDRAIN DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 18 of 22 FINISH SURFACE SLOPE MINIMUM 3 FT PER LINEAR FOOT OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE* TAPE AND SEAL AT COVER CONCRETE COLLAR PLACED NEAT COMPACTED FILL A MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR �— 2.0% MINIMUM GRADIENT APPROVED EQUAL A 4"MINIMUM APPROVED MINIMUM 4"DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE - SOLID OUTLET PIPE (PERFORATIONS DOWN) SPACED PER SOIL MINIMUM 2%GRADIENT ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS TO OUTLET TYPICAL BENCH INCLINED BENCHING TOWARD DRAIN DETAIL A-A TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL MINIMUM -OMPACTEE MINIMUM 4"DIAMETER APPROVED 12"COVER BACKFILL SOLID OUTLET PIPE 12" *NOTE:AGGREGATE TO MEET FOLLOWING MINIMUM SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL: SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 1 Y2" 100 1" 5-40 0-17 s� 0-7 _- NO.200 0-3 NOT TO SCALE BACKDRAIN DETAIL (GEOFRABIC) STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 19 of 22 SLOPE LOPE CLEAR ZONE SOIL SHALL BE PUSHED OVER EQUIPMENT WIDTH ROCKS AND FLOODED INTO VOIDS. COMPACT AROUND AND OVER EACH WINDROW. STACK BOULDERS END TO END. DO NOT PILE UPON EACH OTHER. 10' FILL SLOPE O o 10' MIN STAGGER 15' ROWS O O COMPETENT MATERIAL NOT TO SCALE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 20 of 22 FINISHED GRADE BUILDING NO OVERSIZE, AREA FOR 10' FOUNDATION, UTILITIES, SLOPE FACE AND SWIMMING POOLS STREET O 15' / WINDROW 5' MINIMUM OR BELOW DEPTH OF DEEPEST UTILITY TRENCH (WHICHEVER GREATER) TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (EDGE VIEW) GRANULAR SOIL FLOODED TO FILL VOIDS HORIZONTALLY PLACED COMPACTION FILL J J PROFILE VIEW NOT TO SCALE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 21 of 22 GENERAL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS CUT LOT ----ORIGINAL �— GROUND TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM AND WEATHERED BEDROCK 5' �� 5' MIN 3' IN \—OVEREXCAVATE UNWEATHERED BEDROCK AND REGRADE CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION) ORIGINAL GROUND i ' M N i i COMPACTED FILL / JT MIN i OVEREXCAVATE i AND REGRADE i i UNWEATHERED BEDROCK NOT TO SCALE TRANSITION LOT DETAIL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING Page 22 of 22 - —� SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY r DOSIING CONTOUR (MAJOR) EXIS71NG CONTOUR (MINOR) HYDROLOGIC BASIN BOUNDARY HYDROLOGIC FLOW PATH EX-1 BASIN NUMBER 0.6j AREA (ACRES) ONODE NUMBER p (J56.50) ELEVATION (FEET) O (9161) , a G NCPt 7E - sco w .y L-Tarr' L GRAPHIC SCALE 10 0 10 20 40 l 1 inch = 10 ft. i ATTACHMENT 3 EXISTING 'iHYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS CONSTRUCTION �ESTING & ENGINEERING INC. PLANNING - CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING - GEDTECHNICAL 1441 MONTIEL.ROAD, SUITE 115 ESCONDIDO CA. 92026, PH:(760) 746-4955