The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-214 G - City, 0 ENGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Sand Rep lenishment/Stormw terlCoOmplian es Subdivision Engineering April 3 2008 Traffic Engineering Attn: Torrey Pines Bank Attn- Teosla Rich 12220 El Camino Real, Suite 120 San Diego, CA 92130 RE: Mr. Ronald Watts 301 Cantle Lane APN 264-390-11 Grading Permit 214-GI Final release of security Permit 214-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary per said drawing. The Field Inspector has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, a full release of the remaining security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been returned to Torrey Pines Bank in order to complete the above instruction. Account#6330021422, in the amount of $16,035.21 is hereby released in entirety. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at(760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineer g Department. Sincerely, r--7 / f GCS Debra Geishart Engineering Specialist y Le back Subdivision Engineering Finance Manager Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Ronald Watts Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 14 recycled paper CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING SAN DIEGO,CA INC. 1441 Montiel Road RIVERSIDE,CA VENTURA,CA 12155 Magnolia Ave. 1645 Pacific Ave. TRACY,CA SACRAMENTO,CA Suite 115 Suite 6C 242 W.Larch N.PALM SPRINGS,CA Escondido,CA 92026 Suite 107 3628 Madison Ave. 19020 N.Indian Ave. Riverside,CA 92503 Oxnard,CA 93033 Suite F Suite 22 (760)746-4955 (951)352-6701 Tracy,CA 95376 Suite 2-K (760)746-9806 FAX (805)4866475 N.Highlands,CA 95660 (951)352-6705 FAX (2��?Q N.Palm Springs,CA 92258 May 1, 2QQ7 (805)486 16 W. Egg)8gg 289 F , — 0 0 FAX (760)329-4677 7 (760)328-4896-FAX - — CTE Jo . 10-8 Barratt American 20OG ii Attn:Jack Becker MAY 16 2001 5950 Priestly ` Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: 760.431.0800 I r L_ Subject: Via Facsimile: 760.929.6433 Certification of Building Pad Preparation Proposed Improvements at Watt Residence, Lot 11 Cantle and Lone Hill Lane Encinitas, California Reference: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Watt Residence Auxiliary Building, Lot I 1 Improvements 300 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California CTE Job No.: 10-8200G, dated June 22, 2006 Mr. Harvey: As requested,Construction Testing&Engineering, Inc.(CTE)has performed the necessary testing of fill materials during recent earthworks to prepare the buildin g pad area at the referenced site. This letter is provided as certification that the recent fill placement has been c observation and with the recommendations specified in the approved project soils report referenced aboveral conformance gene subject site is considered suitable for support of the proposed improvements. As a result, the Field-testing of the compacted material in the building accordance with ASTM D-2922 (nuclear method). Results of the field-testing indicate that fill pa and fill slope areas was also performed in were compacted to a minimum of 90 of the laboratory maximum dry density as determined b test method ASTM D-1557. Tabulated results of the field compaction testing 1 materials Table I, "Compaction Test Summa p y e g performed are provided in the attached "Laboratory Test Results." The attached Figure lrshows the approximate o density results are provided in Table II, performed. p e locations of the compaction tests The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please ' this office. ease do not hesitate to contact Respectfully submitted, CONS TESTING STING & ENGINEERING, INC. (Q, -� �' i�1o. d_;o5 n W cc ExF.. '12/;1/pt3 z an T. Math, GE 42665 Principal Engineer �A� x GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING I CIVIL ENGINEER ING I SURVEYING TABLE I COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY Job Name: `°`°_'___-°•-- Watt Residence ----- ---- -®- Job Address: Cantle and Lone Hill Lane,Encinitas Job No. 10-820OG Date Test Location Date: 5/1/2007 Elevation No. Density Moisture Relative Feet Soil pcf Content Compaction Type 4/27/2007 1 %Dry oho 4/27/2007 2 Building Pad N/W Limits Weight Buildin Pad East Limits 473'0 1 1 1.9 4/27/2007 3 14.6 93% 1 Buildin Pad West Limits 471.5 114.5 12.8 4/27/2007 4 472.0 95% 1 Buildin Pad S/W at To of Sloe 1 12.8 15.3 94% 4/30/2007 5 472.0 116.7 1 Buildin Pad Finish Grade 14.4 97% 1 4/30/2007 6 Building Pad Finish Grade FSG 1 13.2 11.7 4/30/2007 7 FSG 94% 1 Buildin Pad Finish Grade 113.8 12.4 95% FS 114.8 12.6 1 �*TEST FAILED, SEE RETEST 1 TABLE II LABORATORY TEST DATA fo b Name: Watt Residence _ob Address: Cantle and Lone Hill Lane,Encinitas _Job o. N � 10-8200G Sample No. Optimu -��'�`— Maximum Date 5/1/2007 m Dry Density pcf Moisture Content Soil %wt Description 1 120.0 13.0 Reddish brown silty SAND 2 CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. SAN DIEGO,CA RIVERSIDE,CA VENTURA,CA TRACY,CA SACRAMENTO,CA N.PALM SPRINGS,CA 1441 Montiel Road 12155 Magnolia Ave. 1645 Pacific Ave. 242 W.Larch 3628 Madison Ave. 19020 N.Indian Ave. Suite 115 Suite 6C Suite 107 Suite F Suite 22 Suite 2-K Escondido,CA 92026 Riverside,CA 92503 Oxnard,CA 93033 Tracy,CA 95376 N.Highlands,CA 95660 N.Palm Springs,CA 92258 gig (760)746-4955 (951)352-6701 (805)486-6475 (209)839-2890 (916)331-6030 (760)329-4677 (760)746-9806 FAX (951)352-6705 FAX (805)486-9016 FAX (209)839-2895 FAX (916)331-6037 FAX (760)328-4896-FAX June 19, 2006 L CTE Job No. 10-820OG Barratt American 2W6 Attn: Dale Harvey 5950 Priestly SERVICES Carlsbad, CA 92008 CIN TAs Telephone: 760.431.0800 Via Facsimile: 760.929.6433 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Proposed Improvements/Guest House at Watt Residence, Lot 11 Cantle and Lone Hill Lane Encinitas, California Mr. Harvey: At your request, CTE has initiated the investigation of the referenced site. Our investigation activities have included a review of pertinent documents for this site area, geologic reconnaissance, and the excavation of four exploratory test pits to adequately address the conditions at the site. We have assumed that the onsite clay soil materials are highly expansive. However, laboratory testing is still ongoing. Therefore, modifications to the recommendations herein may be required based on the laboratory test results. It appears that Quaternary Artificial Fill soils and Quaternary Colluvium overlie weathered units of Jurassic-Cretaceous age Santiago Peak Volcanics across the proposed improvement area of the subject site. The weathered volcanic rock materials are considered adequate for support of the proposed construction provided preparatory grading is conducted as recommended herein and in the preliminary geotechnical report to be issued under separate cover once complete. Fill soils and unsuitable clayey colluvium were generally found to a maximum depth of approximately 1.75 feet below grade (fbg) in the proposed structure area and will require over- excavation and recompaction. Groundwater was not encountered in any of our explorations and is not expected to affect the proposed development. Our preliminary geotechnical recommendations are presented below for your use in design of this project. However, as stated, these recommendations should be considered preliminary in nature and may require slight modifications based on results of the ongoing laboratory testing and engineering analyses. \\Cte_smer\projects\10-8200G\Ltr Prelim Geo Recs.doc GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING I CIVIL ENGINEERING I SURVEYING Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Page 2 Proposed Improvements at Watt Residence, Lot 11 Cantle and Lone Hill Lane, Encinitas, California June 19, 2006 CTE Job No 10-820OG 1.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 Grading Based on the preliminary plans provided and our understanding of the proposed development, we anticipate that the proposed buildings will be founded entirely on competent native materials or properly recompacted fill materials. In order to mitigate excessive potential differential settlements across the proposed buildings due to loose or otherwise unsuitable materials, we recommend overexcavation and recompaction of existing fill and colluvial materials to the depth of competent formational materials (weathered volcanic rock). All foundations shall be deepened to bear upon competent native materials or in properly recompacted and presaturated fill materials at a minimum depth of 30 inches below proposed grade. Suitability of the bottom of over-excavation should be verified during site grading. CTE will provide all necessary recommendations regarding grading in our preliminary geotechnical report to be submitted under separate cover when completed. 1.2 Foundations Continuous and isolated spread footings are suitable for use at this site. We anticipate that all building footings will be founded entirely upon competent native materials or entirely in properly recompacted and presaturated fill materials at a minimum depth of 30 inches below proposed grade as recommended herein. Foundation dimensions and reinforcement should be based on allowable bearing values of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for footings embedded a minimum of 30 inches below proposed grade. The allowable bearing value may be increased by one third for short duration loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. All slab-on-grade areas and footing excavations shall be presaturated to a minimum 130% of the optimum moisture content just prior to concrete or slab-on-grade underlayment placement. Minimum footing reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of four No. 4 reinforcing bars; two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom or as per the project structural engineer. The structural engineer should design isolated footing reinforcement. CTE is currently evaluating the anticipated settlements for the proposed buildings. However, based on the preliminary plans as well as the conditions observed at the site, the maximum total static settlement is expected to be on the order of 1.0 inches and the maximum differential settlement is expected to be on the order of 0.5 inches. Due to the generally dense to very dense nature of underlying materials at depth, dynamic settlement is not expected to adversely effect the proposed improvements. 1.3 Foundation Setback Footings for structures should be designed such that the horizontal distance from the face of adjacent slopes to the outer edge of the footing is a minimum of 10 feet. 1.4 Lateral Load Resistance The following recommendations may be used for shallow footings on the site. Foundations placed in competent materials may be designed using a coefficient of friction of 0.25 (total \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Ltr Prelim Geo Recs.doc Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Page 3 Proposed Improvements at Watt Residence, Lot 11 Cantle and Lone Hill Lane, Encinitas, California June 19 2006 CTE Job No. 10-820OG frictional resistance equals the coefficient of friction times the dead load). A design passive resistance value of 200 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (with a maximum value of 1200 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. 1.5 Concrete Slab-On-Grade Lightly loaded concrete slabs should be a minimum of five inches thick. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of#4 reinforcing bars placed on 18-inch centers, each way, at mid- slab height. In moisture sensitive floor areas, a vapor barrier of ten-mil visqueen with all laps sealed or taped, shall be installed. Slabs subjected to heavier loads may require thicker slab sections and/or increased reinforcement. All slab-on-grade areas and footing excavations shall be presaturated to a minimum 130% of the optimum moisture content just prior to concrete or slab-on-grade underlayment placement. 1.6 Walls Below Grade For the design of subterranean structure walls where the surface of the backfill is level, it may be assumed that the soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 42 pcf. The active pressure should be used for walls free to yield at the top at least 0.2 percent of the wall height. For walls restrained so that such movement is not permitted, an equivalent fluid pressure of 62 pcf should be used, based on at-rest soil conditions. The recommended equivalent fluid pressures should be increased by 25 pcf for walls retaining soils inclined at 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). Walls below the water level are not anticipated for the subject site. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, 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 normal street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet or a distance equal to the retained soil height from the subject walls, whichever is less, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. The project architect or structural engineer should determine the necessity of 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; such materials may require importing from a suitable source. 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 compaction equipment, which could cause distress to walls, should not be used. \\Cte_server\project5\10-8200G\Ltr_Prelim Geo Recs.doc Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Page 4 Proposed Improvements at Watt Residence, Lot 11 Cantle and Lone Hill Lane, Encinitas, California June 19, 2006 CTE Job No. 10-820OG 1.7 Preliminary Pavement/Driveway Section Due to the anticipated very poor engineering qualities of the onsite clay materials, we recommend a minimum preliminary driveway pavement section of either: 1) 4.5 inches of asphalt concrete, upon properly prepared subgrade; or 2) 3.0 inches of asphalt concrete, upon 4.0 inches of Class 2 aggregate base, upon properly prepared subgrade. As indicated, the above sections are anticipated to be adequate for the subject site; however, site conditions may necessitate the use of the aggregate base layer or additional section thicknesses. The appropriateness of the sections must be confirmed during construction. 2.0 SITE NEAR SOURCE FACTORS AND SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS In accordance with the 2003 California Building Code, Volume 2, Figure 16-2, the referenced site is located within seismic zone 4 and has a seismic zone factor of Z=0.4. The nearest active fault, the Rose Canyon Fault, is approximately 13 kilometers to the southwest and is considered a Type B seismic source. Based on the distance from the site to the Rose Canyon Fault, near source factors of Nv=1.0 and N,,1.0 are appropriate. Based on the subsurface explorations, the site has a soil profile type of Sc and seismic coefficients Cv=0.56 and Q'=0.40. A complete geotechnical report will be issued under separate cover as soon as laboratory testing and our final engineering analyses have been completed. Should you have any questions or need further information please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. ?,OF ESS/0N T 4f,9'q�F � Xy ti Dan T. Math, GE #2665 ± P.'o. 2665 m Geotechnical Engineer ^yp. 12/31/06 �r \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Ltr Prelim Geo Recs.doc CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. SAN DIEGO,CA RIVERSIDE,CA VENTURA,CA TRACY,CA SACRAMENTO,CA N.PALM SPRINGS,CA 1441 Montiel Road 12155 Magnolia Ave. 1645 Pac'dic Ave. 242 W.Larch 3628 Madison Ave. 19020 N.Indian Ave. Suite 115 Suite 6C Suite 107 Suite F Suite 22 Suite 2-K 'i Escondido,CA 92026 Riverside,CA 92503 Oxnard,CA 93033 Tracy,CA 95376 N.Highlands,CA 95660 N.Palm Springs,CA 92258 (760)746-4955 (951)352-6701 (805)486-6475 (209)839-2890 (916)331-6030 (760)329-4677 (760)746-9806 FAX (951)352-6705 FAX (805)486-9016 FAX (209)839-2895 FAX (916)331-6037 FAX (760)328-4896-FAX PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED WATT RESIDENCE AUXILIARY BLDG., LOT 11 IMPROVEMENTS 301 CANTLE LANE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: _ 1 BARRAT AMERICAN '- ATTENTION: DALE HARVEY 5950 PRIESTLY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 PREPARED BY: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 1441 MONTIEL ROAD, SUITE 115 ESCONDIDO, CA 92026 CTE JOB NO. 10-820OG JUNE 22, 2006 GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING I CIVIL ENGINEERING I SURVEYING TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page INVESTIGATION SUMMARY .....................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ....................................................................2 1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................2 1.2 Scope of Services...........................................................................................................2 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................3 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS.................................................................3 3.1 Field Investigations........................................................................................................3 3.2 Laboratory Investigation................................................................................................4 4.0 GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................................4 4.1 General Setting...............................................................................................................4 4.2 Site Geologic Conditions...............................................................................................5 4.2.1 Quaternary Artificial Fill (Qaf).............................................................................5 4.2.2 Quaternary Colluvium (Qcol)...............................................................................5 4.2.3 Cretaceous-Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics (KJsp) ..........................................5 4.3 Groundwater Conditions................................................................................................6 4.4 Geologic Hazards...........................................................................................................6 4.4.1 General Geologic Hazards Observation................................................................6 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting.................................................................................6 4.4.3 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Evaluation.................................................7 4.4.4 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation..........................................................................7 4.4.5 Landsliding or Rocksliding...................................................................................8 4.4.6 Compressible and Expansive Soils.......................................................................8 4.4.7 Corrosive Soils......................................................................................................8 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................9 5.1 General...........................................................................................................................9 5.2 Grading and Earthwork..................................................................................................9 5.3 Site Preparation..............................................................................................................9 5.4 Site Excavations...........................................................................................................10 5.5 Fill Placement and Compaction...................................................................................1 l 5.6 Fill Materials................................................................................................................11 5.7 Temporary Construction Slopes...................................................................................12 5.8 Foundations and Slab Recommendations....................................................................13 5.8.1 Foundations.........................................................................................................13 5.8.2 Foundation Settlement........................................................................................14 5.8.3 Foundation Setback.............................................................................................14 5.8.4 Concrete Slab-on-Grade......................................................................................14 5.8.5 Walls Below Grade.............................................................................................14 5.9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures........................................................................15 5.10 Site Near-Source Factors and Seismic Coefficients ..................................................16 5.11 Exterior Flatwork.......................................................................................................16 5.12 Drainage.....................................................................................................................17 5.13 Vehicular Pavements .................................................................................................18 5.14 Slopes.........................................................................................................................19 5.15 Construction Observation ..........................................................................................19 5.16 Plan Review...............................................................................................................20 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION ..................................................................................20 FIGURES FIGURE 1 INDEX MAP FIGURE 2 EXPLORATION LOCATION/GEOLOGIC MAP 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 Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22, 2006 CTE Job No 10-820OG INVESTIGATION SUMMARY Our investigation was performed to provide site-specific geotechnical information for the proposed auxiliary building located in the vacant eastern portion of the existing Watt Residence property located at 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California. Our investigation found that artificial fill and colluvial materials overlie weathered volcanic rock. The volcanic rock became less weathered and very dense with depth. However, it is considered that standard excavation equipment can be used to excavate the rock material to the maximum explored depth of approximately four feet below existing grade. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test pits. Although perched groundwater levels may develop and fluctuate during periods of precipitation, groundwater is not expected to affect the proposed development if proper site drainage is maintained. With respect to geologic and seismic hazards, the site is considered as safe as any within San Diego County(an area of high seismic risk). In general,the results of our review indicate that the proposed project can be constructed as planned provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest-doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 2 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22 2006 CTE Job No. 10-820OG 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.1 Introduction This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation and provides conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical engineering criteria for the proposed auxiliary building and driveway to be constructed at the referenced site. It is our understanding that the driveway will parallel the eastern border of the property running approximately southwest to northeast. The proposed auxiliary building will be constructed in the northeast corner of the property. Figure 2 shows the approximate layout and topography of the site. Our investigation included field exploration, laboratory testing, geologic hazard evaluation, and engineering analysis. Specific recommendations for site grading and structure design for the proposed improvements are presented in this report. Cited references are presented in Appendix A. 1.2 Scope of Services The scope of services provided included: • A review of available geologic and soils reports pertinent to the site and adjacent areas. • An exploration of subsurface conditions to the depths influenced by the proposed construction. • Laboratory testing of representative soil samples to provide data to evaluate the geotechnical design characteristics of the soils. • Definition of the general geology and evaluation of potential geologic hazards at the site. • Soil engineering design criteria for the proposed improvements. • Preparation of this summary report of the investigations performed including geotechnical construction recommendations. \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest-doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 3 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22 2006 CTE Job No. 10-820OG 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed site is located at the existing Watt Residence property at the northeast corner of Cantle Lane and Lone Hill Lane, Encinitas, California. Land use in the area is primarily rural residential. Site elevations in the area of proposed improvements range from approximately 444 to 485 feet above mean sea level (msl). Site area topography slopes down to the south,toward Lone Hill Lane. Figures 1 and 2 are drawings showing the approximate location and configuration of the site. 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS 3.1 Field Investigations Field explorations, conducted on June 16, 2006 included site reconnaissance and the excavation of four exploratory test pits to assess the condition of the subsurface soil materials. The test pits were excavated using a mini excavator to a maximum explored depth of approximately four feet below grade (fbg). Soils were logged in the field by a Geologist and visually classified using the Unified Soil Classification System. The field descriptions have been modified,where appropriate,to reflect laboratory test results. Exploration logs including descriptions of the soil are included in Appendix B. Approximate exploration locations are shown on Figure 2. Bulk soil samples were collected from the test pits for geotechnical laboratory analysis. Samples collected in this manner were placed in sealed plastic bags and transported to the CTE geotechnical laboratory for analysis. \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest-doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 4 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22, 2006 CTE Job No 10-820OG 3.2 Laboratory Investigation Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples for classification purposes and to evaluate physical properties and engineering characteristics. Tests conducted on select soil samples include: particle-size analysis, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content (Modified Proctor analysis), chemical analysis,Atterberg and expansion index. Test method descriptions and laboratory results are included in Appendix C. 4.0 GEOLOGY 4.1 General Setting San Diego is located with the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province that is characterized by its northwest-trending mountain ranges, intervening valleys, and predominantly northwest trending active regional faults. The San Diego Region can be further subdivided into the coastal plain area,a - central mountain—valley area and the eastern mountain valley area. The project site located at the juncture between the eastern margin of the coastal plain area and the central mountain area. The coastal plain subprovince ranges in elevation from approximately sea level to 1200 feet above mean sea level and is characterized by Cretaceous and Tertiary sedimentary deposits that onlap an eroded basement surface consisting of Jurassic and Cretaceous crystalline rocks.The central—mountain area ranges in elevation from approximately 500 to 5000 feet above mean sea level and is characterized by Cretaceous and Jurassic crystalline ridges and mountains with intermontane basins that generally underlain with moderate thickness of alluvium and residual soils. \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest-doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 5 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22, 2006 CTE Job No 10-820OG 4.2 Site Geologic Conditions According to mapping by Tan and Kennedy(1996), soils at the site consist of units of Cretaceous- Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics (KJsp). Our explorations were consistent with the mapping of Tan and Kennedy(1996),however,a relatively thin layer of Quaternary Fill and Colluvium were found to overlie the Santiago Peak Volcanics. 4.2.1 Quaternary Artificial Fill (Qaf) Artificial fill soils were encountered in all four of our test pit explorations at depths ranging from 0 to 2.0 fbg. These soils generally consist of soft, dry, light brown, silty to fine sandy CLAY(CL)with gravel and cobbles. These soils will need to be overexcavated to a depth of competent native materials,however,they are suitable for reuse as engineered fill if screened of significant organics and cobbles larger than 3", properly moisture conditioned, and compacted as recommended herein. 4.2.2 Quaternary Colluvium (Qcol) Colluvial soils were encountered in all four of our test pit explorations at depths ranging from 1.5 to 4.0 fbg. Colluvial soils generally consist of stiff, moist, brown, sandy CLAY. These soils are suitable for reuse as engineered fill if screened of significant organics, properly moisture conditioned, and compacted as recommended herein. 4.2.3 Cretaceous-Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics (KJsp) Weathered Cretaceous-Jurassic age volcanic rock was encountered in all four of the test pits below the colluvial materials at the site. These formational materials were generally found to consist of dense,weathered volcanic rock; excavating as a dense to very dense,dry to slightly \\Cte_s erver\projects\I 0-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Inves t..doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 6 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 1 I Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22, 2006 CTE Job No 10-820OG moist, mottled yellow, red, and gray brown clayey SAND to sandy CLAY (SC-CL). These materials are considered suitable to receive additional fills and improvements. 4.3 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was not encountered to a maximum explored depth of four fbg, and depth to groundwater is anticipated to be relatively deep based on the site's elevation. However, during seasonal weather changes, areas of local saturation may be encountered. From a review of preliminary project plans, we do not anticipate that groundwater will influence construction operations or affect the proposed development as long as proper site drainage is maintained. However, upgradiant subdrain installation may be required during preparatory site grading. 4.4 Geologic Hazards 4.4.1 General Geologic Hazards Observation From our investigation it appears that geologic hazards at the site are primarily limited to those caused by violent shaking from earthquake generated ground motion waves. The potential for damage from displacement or fault movement beneath the proposed structure should be considered negligible. 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting Based on our site reconnaissance, evidence from our explorations, and a review of digital images of official earthquake fault zones (CDMG, 2000-2003), it is our opinion that no known active fault traces underlie the site. The nearest active fault, the Rose Canyon Fault, is approximately 13 kilometers to the southwest and is considered a Type B seismic source. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, a fault is zoned active if it \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest-doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 7 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22, 2006 CTE Job No 10-820OG displays evidence of activity in the last 11,000 years (Hart, 1994). Other principal active regional faults include the Elsinore Fault System, Coronado Bank,Earthquake Valley Fault System, Rose Canyon, San Jacinto Fault System, and San Andreas Fault System (Blake, 1996). 4.4.3 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Evaluation Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine-grained sands or silts lose their physical strengths during earthquake induced shaking and behave 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. The site is underlain by dense to very dense formational materials. In addition, the groundwater table is anticipated to be relatively deep. Therefore, it is our opinion that the potential for damage resulting at the site due to liquefaction or seismic settlement is negligible. 4.4.4 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation Potential tsunami damage is not a factor at the site due to its distance from the ocean and elevation (approximately 452 feet above mean sea level). Damage caused by oscillatory waves (seiche) is considered unlikely, as the site is not near any significant bodies of water that could produce such a phenomenon. \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest-doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 8 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22, 2006 CTE Job No 10-820OG 4.4.5 Landsliding or Rocksliding Based on our knowledge of the site and nearby mapping by Tan and Giffen (1995), the site materials are considered generally susceptible to landsliding. Slope hazards are possible within steeper slopes in the area, but are considered rare. No evidence of landsliding was encountered during our explorations at the site. As per the preliminary plans, some on-site slopes will be graded at maximum inclinations of 3:1 (horizontal: vertical). Therefore,upon completion of proper site grading,landsliding is not considered a significant hazard within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development. 4.4.6 Compressible and Expansive Soils Based on observation and our knowledge of site vicinity geology, it is our opinion that onsite formational soils are not subject to significant compressibility. The upper colluvial soil materials will be overexcavated and recompacted as competent engineered fill minimizing the potential for consolidation. Based on geologic observation and laboratory testing of site soils, materials are anticipated to exhibit low to high expansion characteristics (EI= 30 to 100). Special design and construction recommendations are provided herein. 4.4.7 Corrosive Soils Analytical test results indicate that materials have a moderate potential to corrode Portland cement concrete. It also appears that materials may have a severe potential to corrode buried normal grade ferrous metals due to their electrical resistivity. Soluble chlorides in the materials indicate a low to moderate corrosive potential. CTE does not practice corrosion engineering. Therefore,a corrosion consultant shall be retained for additional information or recommendations, if deemed necessary. \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest..doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 9 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22, 2006 CTE Job No 10-820OG 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General We conclude that the proposed construction on the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design of the project. The major geotechnical factor affecting the proposed development is the presence of loose and disturbed, colluvial soil,and the presence of anticipated highly expansive clay materials.Recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed improvements are included herein. 5.2 Grading and Earthwork CTE should continuously observe any grading and earthwork operations for this project. Such observations are essential to identify field conditions that differ from those predicted by this investigation, to adjust designs to actual field conditions, and to verify that the grading is in overall accordance with the recommendations of this report. Our personnel should perform adequate observation and sufficient testing of fills during grading to support our professional opinion regarding compliance with compaction requirements and specifications. 5.3 Site Preparation Before grading, the site should be cleared of any topsoil, existing debris, and other deleterious materials. Upon completion of clearing and grubbing, the site should be excavated to the depth of competent dense native materials. In order to mitigate excessive potential differential settlements across the proposed building,due to loose or otherwise unsuitable material, and to properly prepare expansive clay materials, we recommend overexcavation and recompaction of existing fill and \\Cte_s erver\projects\10-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest-doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 10 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22, 2006 CTE Job No 10-820OG colluvial materials to the depth of competent dense formational materials(weathered volcanic rock). All foundations shall be deepened to bear upon competent native materials or a minimum 30 inches below proposed grade. In pavement and other non-landscape improvement areas,the site should be excavated to remove dry surficial soils, scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted;removal and scarification to a depth of 24 inches below proposed grades is anticipated to be adequate. In areas to receive fills, the proposed surface should be scarified, moisture-conditioned, and recompacted. Over-excavations should also extend a minimum of five feet beyond the limits of the proposed improvements, where feasible. Before placing fill, exposed over-excavated areas should be observed by the geotechnical representative to verify compliance with recommendations. We anticipate onsite material will be suitable for use as properly placed compacted fill if screened of organic material,and rock fragments greater than three inches in diameter. Any material deemed unsuitable for structural backfill should be disposed of off-site or placed in non-structural planter or landscape areas. All materials excavated and removed should be disposed of at a legal disposal site. 5.4 Site Excavations Excavations in site materials should generally be accomplished with heavy-duty construction equipment under normal conditions. However, deeper excavations may require additional effort and/or rock breaking equipment. Irreducible materials greater than three inches encountered during excavations should not be used in shallow structural fills on the site. Before placing fill the exposed bottom of all excavations should be scarified, properly moisture conditioned and recompacted. \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest-doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 11 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22, 2006 CTE Job No 10-820OG Based on the recommended site preparation and existing conditions, it is anticipated that all proposed footings would be founded at depth of competent dense formational materials. 5.5 Fill Placement and Compaction The geotechnical consultant should verify that the proper site preparation and required over- excavation have occurred before fill placement occurs. As indicated above, areas to receive fill or improvements should be scarified,properly moisture conditioned and recompacted. Fill and backfill should be compacted between 90 and 95 percent relative compaction as evaluated by ASTM D 1557 at moisture contents a minimum three percent above optimum. The optimum lift thickness for backfill soil will be dependent 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. 5.6 Fill Materials Existing fill soils derived from on-site are considered suitable for reuse on the site as compacted fill, provided they are screened of organic materials and materials greater than three inches in maximum dimension,and properly moisture conditioned to a minimum three percent above optimum moisture content. All proposed fill slopes should be properly keyed and benched into competent underlying native materials. Imported fill beneath structures, pavements and walks should have an expansion index less than or equal to 30(per UBC 18-1-B) with less than 35 percent passing the no. 200 sieve. Imported fill soils \\Cte_server\projects\I0-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest-doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 12 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22, 2006 CTE Job No 10-820OG for use in structural or slope areas should be evaluated by the soils engineer to determine strength characteristics before placement on the site. 5.7 Temporary Construction Slopes Provided below are slope recommendations for unshored temporary excavations. The recommended slopes should be relatively stable against deep-seated failure, but may experience localized sloughing. The recommended slopes are based on the assumption that excavation sidewalls will consist of non-cemented silty sands and sandy silts. Onsite soils are to be considered Type B with recommended slope ratios as set forth in Table 1 below. � � k�� it �s E +� � �a �"'�✓,'�k P I�B a t E C a 1 I Y 4�1 � '�1 SOILS TYPE SLOPE RATIO MAXIMUM HEIGHT (Horizontal:Vertical) B (Santiago Peak Volcanics) 1:1 (MAXIMUM) 15 FEET 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. \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest-doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 13 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22, 2006 CTE Job No 10-820OG 5.8 Foundations and Slab Recommendations The following recommendations are for preliminary planning purposes only. These recommendations should be reviewed after completion of earthwork to verify that conditions exposed are as anticipated. Deepened spread foundations and a thickened slab-on-grade are suitable for the subject site. Post-tension foundations are also considered suitable for the subject site. 5.8.1 Foundations Deepened continuous and isolated spread footings are suitable for use at this site. We anticipate that all building footings will be founded entirely upon competent native materials at a minimum depth of 30 inches below proposed grade, as recommended herein. Foundation dimensions and reinforcement should be based on allowable bearing values of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for footings embedded a minimum of 30 inches below proposed grade. The allowable bearing value may be increased by one third for short duration loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. All slab-on-grade areas and footing excavations shall be presaturated to a minimum 130% of the optimum moisture content just prior to concrete or slab-on-grade underlayment placement. Minimum footing reinforcement for continuous footings shall consist of four No. 4 reinforcing bars; two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom or as per the project structural engineer. The structural engineer should design isolated footing reinforcement. \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest-doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 14 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22 2006 CTE Job No. 10-820OG 5.8.2 Foundation Settlement Based on the preliminary plans as well as the conditions observed at the site, the maximum total static settlement is expected to be on the order of 1.0 inches and the maximum differential settlement is expected to be on the order of 0.5 inches. Due to the generally dense to very dense nature of underlying materials at depth, dynamic settlement is not expected to adversely effect the proposed improvements. 5.8.3 Foundation Setback If applicable, footings for structures 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. 5.8.4 Concrete Slab-on-Grade Lightly loaded concrete slabs shall be a minimum of five inches thick. Minimum slab reinforcement shall consist of#4 reinforcing bars placed on maximum 18-inch centers,each way, at mid-slab height. In moisture sensitive floor areas, a vapor barrier of minimum ten- mil visqueen, with all laps sealed or taped, shall be installed. Slabs subjected to heavier loads may require thicker slab sections and/or increased reinforcement. All slab-on-grade areas and footing excavations shall be presaturated to a minimum 130%of the optimum moisture content just prior to concrete or slab-on-grade underlayment placement. 5.8.5 Walls Below Grade For the design of subterranean structure walls where the surface of the backfill is level, it may be assumed that the soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest-doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 15 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22 2006 CTE Job No. 10-820OG with a density of 42 pcf. The active pressure should be used for walls free to yield at the top at least 0.2 percent of the wall height. For walls restrained so that such movement is not permitted, an equivalent fluid pressure of 62 pcf should be used, based on at-rest soil conditions. The recommended equivalent fluid pressures should be increased by 25 pcf for walls retaining soils inclined at 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). Walls below the water level are not anticipated for the subject site. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, 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 normal street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet or a distance equal to the retained soil height from the subject walls, whichever is less, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. All walls shall be constructed with appropriate backdrains. The project architect or structural engineer should determine the necessity of waterproofing the subterranean structure walls to reduce moisture infiltration. 5.9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures The following recommendations may be used for shallow footings on the site. Foundations placed in competent materials may be designed using a coefficient of friction of 0.25(total frictional resistance equals the coefficient of friction times the dead load). A design passive resistance value of 200 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (with a maximum value of 1200 pounds per square foot) may be used. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest..doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 16 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22 2006 CTE Job No. 10-820OG the passive resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance. 5.10 Site Near-Source Factors and Seismic Coefficients In accordance with the 2001 California Building Code,Volume 2,Figure 16-2,the referenced site is located within seismic zone 4 and has a seismic zone factor of Z=0.4. The nearest active fault, the Rose Canyon Fault, is approximately 13 kilometers to the southwest and is considered a Type B seismic source. Based on the distance from the site to Rose Canyon Fault near source factors of Nv=1.0 and Na=1.0 are appropriate. Based on the subsurface explorations,the site has a soil profile type of Sc and seismic coefficients Cv=0.56 and Ca=0.40. 5.11 Exterior Flatwork To reduce the potential for distress to exterior flatwork caused by minor settlement of foundation soils,we recommend that such flatwork be installed with crack-control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the project architect. Flatwork, which should be installed with crack control joints, includes driveways, sidewalks, and architectural features. Doweling of flatwork to adjacent structures at critical pathways is recommended. Positive drainage should be established and maintained adjacent to all flatwork. All subgrade should be prepared according to the earthwork recommendations previously given before placing concrete. Flatwork areas shall be presaturated to a minimum 130% of the optimum moisture content just prior to concrete placement. \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest-doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 17 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22 2006 CTE Job No. 10-820OG 5.12 Drainage Foundation performance depends greatly on how well the runoff waters drain from the site. This is true both during construction and over the entire life of the structure. The ground surface around structure should be graded so that water flows rapidly away from the structures without ponding. The surface gradient needed to do this depends on the landscaping type. In general, the pavements and flowerbeds within five feet of building should slope away at gradients of at least two percent. Densely vegetated areas should have minimum gradients of five percent away from buildings if doing so is practical. Planters should be constructed so that water from them will not seep into the foundation areas or beneath slabs and pavement. In any event, the site maintenance personnel should be instructed to limit irrigation to the minimum actually necessary to sustain the landscaping plants properly. Should excessive irrigation, waterline breaks, or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones and groundwater may develop. Consequently,the site should be graded so that water drains away readily without saturating the foundation or landscaped areas or cascading over slope faces. A potential source of water,such as water pipes and drains should be frequently examined for signs of leakage or damage. Any such leakage or damage should be repaired promptly. The project Civil Engineers should thoroughly evaluate the on-site drainage and make provisions as necessary to keep surface waters from affecting the site. \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest-doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 18 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22 2006 CTE Job No. 10-820OG 5.13 Vehicular Pavements The upper foot of subgrade beneath proposed pavements and aggregate base materials should be appropriately moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 95% of the laboratory determined maximum density. Pavements should be constructed according to industry standards. Preliminary pavement sections presented below are based on conservative Resistance "R" Value. The asphalt pavement design is based on California Department of Transportation Highway Manual and on anticipated light residential traffic as indicated in Table 3 below. If these assumptions are incorrect, this office should be contacted to obtain further pavement recommendations. Upon completion of finish grading, "R" Value sampling and testing of subgrade soils should occur and the pavement section modified, if necessary. a+ti y - "T i ,a I lull aiuu r 'r' J rr. .=��a{1{rte�,r{' t 9°{ + azK .t e { l,e > 1 t' ]I7r S t +' + e r P• fit,+ s ,;"{ { k1 rtittP{Aja+M1} ✓� dt Nx y 7 14 77 9PAP �rp�Fz. A+ S ki N° ax xSy P as w a �d NTr Traffic Area Assumed Design FCC AC Class II Traffic Index Subgrade R- Thickness Thickness Aggregate Base Value (inches) (inches) Thickness Auto Parking and (inches) Drive Areas 4'S �5 6.0 3.0 8.0 Pavements are to be constructed according to industry standards. Due to the necessity to presaturate clay subgrade materials, keyed or doweled joints are highly recommended. Thickened edges (minimum eight inches) along major travel areas/intersections may also be prudent \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest-doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 19 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22 2006 CTE Job No. 10-820OG 5.14 Slopes Based on anticipated soil strength characteristics,fill slopes should be constructed at slope ratios of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. However, based on review of the preliminary grading plan, it appears that slopes will be constructed at maximum ratios of 3:1. These fill slope inclinations should exhibit factors of safety greater than 1.5. All proposed fill slopes should be properly keyed and benched into competent native materials. Internal slope drains may also be required. Although graded and existing slopes on this site should be grossly stable,the soils will be somewhat erodible. Therefore,runoff water should not be permitted to drain over the edges of slopes unless that water is confined to properly designed and constructed drainage facilities. Erosion resistant vegetation should be maintained on the face of all slopes. Typically, soils along the top portion of a fill slope face will tend to creep laterally. We do not recommend distress sensitive hardscape improvements be constructed within five feet of slope crests in fill areas. 5.15 Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions found in our exploratory test pit locations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction to verify that conditions are as anticipated. \\Cte_server\projects\10-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest.doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 20 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22 2006 CTE Job No. 10-820OG 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 to verify that grading activity has been performed according to the recommendations contained within this report. 5.16 Plan Review CTE should review the project grading and foundation plans before commencement of earthwork to identify potential conflicts with the recommendations contained in this report. 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION The field evaluation, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis presented in this report have been conducted according to current engineering practice and the standard of care exercised by reputable geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions,recommendations and opinions expressed in this report. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction. Our recommendations for mitigation of expansive soils have been provided in order to minimize heave. However, even with the recommendations herein, some post-construction heave of shallow improvements may occur. \\Cte_server\projects\I 0-8200G\Rpt_Geotech.Invest-doc Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 21 Proposed Watt Residence, Lot 11 Improvements 301 Cantle Lane, Encinitas, California June 22 2006 CTE Job No. 10-820OG Our conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of 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. an T. Math, GE#2665 � Martin E. Siem, CEG #2311 Geotechnical Engineer ti z Senior Geologist 5\oNqL F 2665 m �gOB Cxp: 12131/06 � MARTIN E.SIEM a CERTIFIED -4 his A. Kill ri :�'i 0TECHN�G ��P * ENGINEERING rT. P Shane M. Chambers GEOLOGIST Q Project Geologist of cAVFO Staff Geologist NA Exp.6130/011 Or 0 \\Cte_s erver\projects\10-8200G\R pt_Geotech. Invest..doc d t! f r __ ,_-__:'_ _ APPROXIMATE I .. SITE LOCATION Ttr V. , h 7 .•_I a' i`''IIPi - UUS Thoma Bros M ris z= i e 0 ;ry / P ,, III , 8 ri ^i 'r. @2005 Thomas Bras Maps „ CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION 1441 MONTIFI ROAD.STE 11S FSCONDIDO CA W026 17f17;746-4955 SITE INDEX MAP CTE JOB NO PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SCALE: 10-820OG 301 CANTLE LANE AS SHOWN ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA DATE FIGURE 1 06/06 APPENDIX A REFERENCES CITED REFERENCES CITED 1. 2001 California Building Code, "California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1", California Building Standards Commission, published by ICBO, 2002. 2. ASTM, 2002, "Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort", Volume 04.08. 3. Blake, T.F., 1996, "EQFAULT," Version 2.20, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software. 4. California Division of Mines and Geology, CD 2000-003 "Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Southern Region," compiled by Martin and Ross. 5. Hart, Earl W., Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist Priolo, Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, revised 1994. 6. Tan, S.S. and Giffen,D.G., 1995, "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangle, Plate E," California Division of Mines and Geology. 7. Tan, S. S. and M. P. Kennedy, 1996, "Geologic Maps of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles", in: Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 95-04. 8. TOPO!, 2000, "Seamless USGS Topographic Maps on CD-ROM",California,Disc 11 of 11: San Diego, Wildflower Productions. APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION LOGS CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING INC. ,IUIECHNICAL I CONSTRUCT ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION I41 MONIIEL AO4O,SUITE 115 I ESCOX OIDO.LA 94046 ]60.716.1955 DEFINITION OF TERMS PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS GRAVELS SECONDARY DIVISIONS CLEAN - < o WELL GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES z MORE THAN GRAVELS A GW 9 v� ¢ HALF OF - LITTLE OR NO FINES COARSE 5%FWES -4 GP O . POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES, W FRACTION IS GRAVELS RES,LITTLE OF NO FINES GM SILTY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTU w LARGER THAN WITH FINES NON-PLASTIC FINES ¢ a w NO.4 SIEVE GC CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, S = " SANDS PLASTIC FINES 0 CLEAN Mr-e WELL GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SANDS,LITTLE OR NO W �j ¢ ° MORE THAN SANDS -=S W -={HALF OF FINES p w z0 COARSE 5%FINES SP r POORLY GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SANDS,LITTLE OR ¢ NO FIN FRACTION IS ES SANDS SM SILTY SANDS,SAND-SILT MIXTURES,NON-PLASTIC FINES SMALLER THAN WITH FINES NO.4 SIEVE SC CLAYEY SANDS,SAND-CLAY MIXTURES,PLASTIC FINES w ML INORGANIC SILTS,VERY FINE SANDS,ROCK FLOUR,SILTY p SILTS AND CLAYS OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS,SLIGHTLY PLASTIC CLAYEY SILTS O ¢ w LIQUID LIMIT IS CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, `q w LESS THAN 50 I GRAVELLY,SANDY,SILTS OR LEAN CLAYS ¢ oo OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY x LV F- ¢ U w z SILTS AND CLAYS MH INORGANIC SILTS,MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE W_ Z LIQUID LIM IT IS SANDY OR SILTY SOILS,ELASTIC SILTS GREATER THAN 50 CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAYS OR ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ORGANIC SII TY CLAYS PT PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS GRAIN SIZES BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM SILTS AND CLAYS 12" 3° 3/4" FINE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING 4 40 200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE ADDITIONAL TESTS (OTHER THAN TEST PIT AND BORING LOG COLUMN HEADINGS) MAX-Maximum Dry Density GS- Grain Size Distribution G- Permeability S PP-Pocket Penetrometer SE- Sand Equivalent SG- Specific Gravity WA-Wash Analysis EI-Expansion Index HA-Hydrometer Analysis DS-Direct Shear R-Val CHM-Sulfate and Chloride AL- erg Limits UC-Unconfined Compression Content ,pH,Resistivity RV- -Value MD-MOisture/Density COR-Corrosivity CN-Consolidation M-Moisture SD- Sample Disturbed CP-Collapse Potential SC-Swell Compression HC-Hydrocollapse OI- Organic Impurities REM-Remolded FIGURE: BL 1 CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING INC. bE OTEC NNICAL I G NS TR OC TION EN OINEERING TESTING ANO INSPECTION I441 A9ORTIEL 00A9,SUITE 115 1 ESCONOIRR,CA 91026 760.7!6.1955 PROJECT: - DRILLER: SHEET: of CTE JOB NO: LOGGED BY: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION: u w -� BORING LEGEND Laboratory Tests L G N V v :3 0 DESCRIPTION Block or Chunk Sample Bulk Sample 5 - Standard Penetration Test 1 Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler(Cal Sampler) Thin Walled Army Corp. of Engineers Sample - 15 Groundwater Table L ------------------------------------------- Soil Type or Classification Change 2 Formation Change [(Approximate boundaries queried (?)1 Quotes are placed around classifications where the soils 25 exist in Situ as bedrock FIGURE: BL2 c �1 v; � O � � O Ccl O Q z o z � w U > LXU LLLI OA c3 tb a Z o o x � o C7 W .� W z � CZ W <� 0 o wU ¢ W o > b Ln oa e -- U > z LID cn L z = O O l `W > > F Q Q a W X U V o X X LLJ W n a i U G Cl. ❑ b � O w Qad C1 uanuQ a(dwuS Nin8 p 0 3j)gida4 3 O Q t?o-1 argdu.I[) pgw�(S'S•D.S.n m (°lo)a.mas[ow LL1 O U O m C7 (jad),CalsuaQ,(1Q a U O o CA r � � H rr vi o o a z o Z Q o > Q w X J w w 3 0 U •� ww •E z d I F" a C R. •� x 3 6 Q � 0 4 U 2 Z ¢ U :'4f z C c� o (U 3 Z 0 ; N a LU ¢ a U v W •, U 3 W _Z o Q o ..o GEW� v� o m ze QO O o U 3 a 0 z z° Ex r- ct O o Z U .c ro ti w =_ z W a Q o r° �b o v] vQ Ua x ,X, > > wU U ' ww v, C/1 = w p o� , M O � }o C7aG a � i W , i U � , z ' w , Q ad,Cj uanuQ cn aIdUl ling v H O (laad)gIcbe O lid 3 oc [o9w�S.S'�•S•n O >- Z m (�/o)alnasiow U m n w OC�7 (}:)d),Itsjp(j,aQ a U � F- v L T Q ^ Z O z U > w w ° >, �4 41 'b 'O W o Z t o U p �+ o > 3 _ Z a s J H >° X W a >W U Li q u" o � GO a o u V) G (U Z ° - I > o �" GY, U a� C/) cz 0 � � ..Wad" ti U Q > CIS > C'3 W x Q ;t oju , Q o � S o � Z o S Ca U oo u 7 r? U > o a O L.uw z w a Q o ova Ua j x > n C) u Z2 ° Fu ¢ ¢ z c) Z; ¢ ¢ a w C1C - z U i °I O �s C7 Ed a 1 i z z W W , � od CZ uanu(I V) a(dw Nin8 p 0J)gadaQ Q � 3 0 901 Z)igdeirJ rogw,�S'S.J.S.n m °6)amasioW U m C] w O v 0 F U (did) L � d T Lij c q z o z �= o > ¢ w u > � o LLI Cj O N T U U _Z 16 z 'd O > Tlt Q cc U L v T T W o U cm Zen Oz � U ° ¢ LJJ W v Cq O �o_n Q H U o b o2S = D O LLI W_ z o �- > > C/1 w X LLI � — C; O o� � i U ' 0. ' G1. t/] i O v u W � ' W ' U z w Q ad CZ UQAI aIdmeS �[ng U E o� Oaad)gadaQ o 3 Q Jo-1 aigdl3lo fogw,CS'S.D.S.Cl majnasioW U m D m O v O m U (j3d),4isuaQ,GQ 0. � � 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. Expansion Index Test Expansion Index Testing was performed on selected samples of the matrix of the onsite soils according to United Building Code Standard No. 18-2. Particle-Size Analysis Particle-size analyses were performed on selected representative samples according to ASTM D422. Modified Proctor To determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, a soil sample was tested in accordance with ASTM D-1557. Chemical Analysis Soil materials were collected with sterile sampling equipment and tested for Sulfate and Chloride content, pH, Corrosivity, and Resistivity. Atterberg Limits The procedure of ASTM D4518-84 was used to measure the liquid limit,plastic limit and plasticity index of representative samples. CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECNNICR I CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING ANO INSPECTION I 411 MONTIEL AGAR.SURE 115 I ESCONDIDO,CA 92026 1 160.1 46.4955 200 WASH ANALYSIS LOCATION DEPTH PERCENT PASSING CLASSIFICATION (feet) #200 SIEVE TP 2 0-2 49.5 SC-CL TP-4 0-2 49.2 SC-CL EXPANSION INDEX TEST UBC 18-2 LOCATION DEPTH EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION (feet) POTENTIAL TP-2 0-2 37 LOW SULFATE LOCATION DEPTH RESULTS (feet) ppm TP-2 0-2 273.9 CHLORIDE LOCATION DEPTH RESULTS (feet) ppm TP-2 0-2 198 CONDUCTIVITY CALIFORNIA TEST 424 LOCATION DEPTH RESULTS (feet) us/cm TP-2 0-2 672 RESISTIVITY CALIFORNIA TEST 424 LOCATION DEPTH RESULTS (feet) ohms/cm TP-2 0-2 1270 MAXIMIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (MODIFIED PROCTOR) LOCATION DEPTH OPTIMUM MOISTURE DRY DENSITY (feet) (%) (pcf) TP-2 0-2 13 121 ATTERBERG LIMITS LOCATION DEPTH LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX CLASSIFICATION TP-1 1 63 48 CH TP-2 0-2 39 23 CL LABORATORY SUMMARY CTE JOB NO. 10-820OG 145 \x1 140 135 130 \ 125 \ \ \ \ a120 115 3 Ito a \ \ \ \ A 105 \ \_ 100 95 90 \ \� 85 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 PERCENT MOISTURE (%) ASTM D1557 METHOD © A ❑ B ❑ C MODIFIED PROCTOR RESULTS MAXIMUM OPTIMUM LAB SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION DRY DENSITY MOISTURE NUMBER NUMBER (FEET) (PCF) CONTENT(%) 16405 TP-2 0-2 REDDISH BROWN SILTY 121.0 13.0 SAND CTE JOB NO: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. DATE: 6/06 p GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION 10-8200G 1441 MONTIEL ROAD,STE 115 ESCONDIDO CA.92026(760)746-4955 FIGURE: C-1 APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 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 conformance with project specifications and standard grading practices. The geotechnical consultant should report any deviations to the client or his authorized representative. The Client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his authorized representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his authorized representative should remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. The Contractor 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 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 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 performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall. Rain related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress and other adverse conditions as determined by the geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as unsuitable materials and should be subject to overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 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 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 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 uniform at or above optimum moisture condition before placement as compacted fill. If during the course of grading adverse geotechnical conditions are exposed which were not anticipated in the preliminary soil report as determined by the geotechnical consultant additional exploration, analysis, and treatment of these problems may be recommended. 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 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - 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 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 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 means, no additional fill should be placed until damage assessments have been made and remedial grading performed as described herein. Rocks 12 inch in maximum dimension and smaller may be utilized in the compacted fill provided the fill is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. No oversize material should be used within 3 feet of finished pad grade and within 1 foot of other compacted fill areas. Rocks 12 inches up to four feet maximum dimension should be placed below the upper 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 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 5 of 22 Page D-6 Appendix D Standard Specifications for Grading overexcavated or unyielding compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded over and around all windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material should be staggered so those successive strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane. It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rock as field conditions dictate and as recommended by the geotechnical consultant at the time of placement. 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 conformance with the grading recommendations should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 13 Fill Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). Except as specifically recommended in these grading guidelines compacted fill slopes should be over-built and cut back to grade, exposing the firm, compacted fill inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the desired results are not achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the guidelines of the geotechnical consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased until the desired compacted slope surface condition is achieved. Care should be taken by the contractor to provide thorough mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface. At the discretion of the geotechnical consultant, slope face compaction may be attempted by conventional construction procedures including backrolling. The procedure must create a firmly compacted material throughout the entire depth of the slope face to the surface of the previously compacted firm fill intercore. During grading operations, care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer edge of the slope. Each lift should extend horizontally to the desired finished slope surface or more as needed to ultimately established desired grades. Grade during construction should not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It may be helpful STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 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 firm condition. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on review of backfill operations during construction. If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, the contractor may elect the utilization of light weight mechanical compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean, granular material, which should be thoroughly jetted in-place above the conduit, prior to initiating mechanical compaction procedures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon review of the geotechnical consultant at the time of construction. In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by the geotechnical consultant. Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not recommended in slope areas. Section 9 - Drainage Where deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant, canyon subdrain systems should be installed in accordance. 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 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 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 cture should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 of 5 percent gradient away from the stru 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 and areas may also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect should be the best party to consult regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration. 10.2 - Irrigation Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces, not placed in trenches excavated into slope faces. Slope irrigation should be minimized. If automatic timing devices are utilized on irrigation systems, provisions should be made for interrupting normal irrigation during periods of rainfall. 10.3 - Repair As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand, to protect all slope areas from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This measure is strongly recommended,beginning with the period prior to landscape planting. If slope failures occur, the geotechnical consultant should be contacted for a field review of site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair. If slope failures occur as a result of exposure to period of heavy rainfall, the failure areas and currently unaffected areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to protect against additional saturation. 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 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 8 of 22 16' MINIMUM 4' DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE BACKDRAIN 4' DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED PIPE LATERAL DRAIN SLOPE PER PLAN BENCHING H/2 1' s`'711 s 'OE PROVIDE !JACK DRAIN PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL. AN ADDITIONAL BACK DRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL $E RROUIRED FOR SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 PENT NIGH. KEY-DIMENSION PER $OIL$ ENGINEER (GENERALLY 112 SLOPE HEIGHT, 18' MINIMUM) TYPICAL STABILIZATION FILL OETAIL STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 9 of 22 16' MINIMUM 4' DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE BACKDRAIN 4' DIAMETER NONE-PERFORATED PIPE LATERAL DRAIN SLOPE PER PLAN -2.0% BENCHING H/2 9' 3' 114 5 72W t/As PROVIDE BACKDRAIN PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL. AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REOUIRVD FOR $LOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH. KEY-DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 10 of 22 .SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL \` COMPACTED FILL _ TYPICAL BENCHING \ \ I IREMOVS UNSUITABLE MATERIAL INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN SEE DETAIL BELOW DETAIL fMLItN MUM 4' DIAMETER APPROVED ORATED PIPE (PERFORATIONS N) MINIMUM * FTC PER LINEAR FOOT _OF APPROVE D FILTER MATERIAL 16- FILTER MATERIAL BEDDING MINIMUM APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40 FILTER MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING POLYVINYL-CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL: APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 psi slave SIZE PERCENTAGE PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA. SUBJECT TO If 1O0 FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL 3/4' 90-100 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING 3/6' 40-100 NO.4 23-40 LENGTH OF RUN PIPE DIAMETER "0.30 5-15 UPPER SOo' 4' NO.50 0-7 NEXT 1000' d' NO.200 0-3 > 1500' 8' TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 11 of 22 FINISH SURFACE SLOPE MINIMUM 3 FT3 PER LINEAL FOOT OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE* TAPE AND SEAL AT CONTACT COMPACTED FILL A ' 8UPAC 8-P FABRIC OR 296 MINIMUM GRADIENT APPROVED EQUAL A A" MINIMUM APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE DIAMETER DOWN) 4" MINIMUM OIAMETE SOLID OUTLET PIPS MINIMUM dGRADIENT SPACED PER- SOIL TO OUTLET T EN43INEEK REQUIREMENTS BENCH INCLINED TYPICAL TOWARD DRAIN BENCHING DETAIL A-A TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL COMPACTED MINIMUM SACKFILL MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED 12" COVER SOLID OUTLET PIPE G-4 �t2" 1 MINIMUM *NOTE: AGGREGATE TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL: SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 1 112" 100 IN S-40 314" 0-17 3/8" 0--7 NO, 200 0-3 BACKDRAIN DETAIL (QEOFABRIC) STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 12 of 22 FINISH SURFACE SLOPE 3 FT3 MINIMUM PER LINEAL FOOT APPROVED FILTER ROCK` COMPACTED FILL A- -9% MINIMUM GRADISNT 4' MINIMUM APPIIOVEO A PERFORATED PIP!** (PERFORATIONS DOWN) MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT 4' MINIMUM OtAMETBR TO OUTLET SOLID OUTLET PIPET BENCH IN•OLINED TOWARD SPACED PER BOIL DRAIN ENGINEER REQUIRE- MERITS DURING GRADING \\-TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL A-A TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL COMPACTED 48 MINIMUM DIAMETER BACKFILL APPROVED SOLID OUTLET PIPE 120 MINIMUM COVER 0/ _�.J 12 MINIMUM *FILTER ROCK TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL: SIEVE PERCENTAGE PASSING 10 100 **APPROVED PIPE TYPE: 3/40 00-100 SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE 3180 40-100 (P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL. NO.4 25-40 MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI. NO.30 b-15 N0.50 0-7 NO.200 0-3 TYPICAL BACKDRAIN DETAIL STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 13 of 22 BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL SURFACE OF FIRM EARTH MATERIAL FILL SLOPE Mt11►L .._. /8�1TA$L 4' TYPICAL MIN. E O� 10 TYPICAL 10' MIN. (INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE) JENCHING FILL R CUT SURFACE OF FIRM FINISH FILL SLOPE EARTH.MATERIAL FINISH CUT SLOPE AE�1►TSR-./ 4' TYPICAL �1Z Viso TYPICAL t5' MIN. OR STABILITY EQU(VALEM'T PER SOIL ENGINEERING (INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE) BENCHING FOR COMPACTED FILL DETAIL STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 14 of 22 OVEREXCAVATE FINAL LIMIT OF DAYLIGHT EXCAVATION LINE FINISH PAD OVEREX GAVATE 3' AND REPLACE WITH COMPACTED FILL 20' MAXIMUM t t SOUND BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHING '1' MINIMUM OVERBURDEN (CREEP-PRONE) PROVIDE BACXDRAIN PER BACKDRAIN DETAIL. LOCATION OF SACKDRAIN AND OUTLETS PER $OILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING EQUIPMENT WIDTH (MINIMUM IS') DAYLIGHT SHEAR KEY DETAIL STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 15 of 22 NATURAL GROUND PROPOSED GRAOINd 1.5 1 COMPACTED FILL 1.6 Ft�NF Oia�WE,A�NE 1 8g PROVIDE 13ACKDRAIN PER •W' •pL BACKDRAIN DETAIL. AN ANE OF•INEr,�R $a. ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN 8 AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR BACK BASE WIDTH 'W' DETERUINEO SLOPES IN EXCESS OF BY SOILS ENGIN88R 40 FEET HIGH. LOCA- TIONS Of BACKDRAIN8 AND OUTLETS PER SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR EN- GINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. TYPICAL. SHEAR KEY DETAIL. STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 16 of 22 CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS SURFACE OF - FIRM EARTH k\\ COMPAGTE11 FILL TYPICAL BENCHING � MATER AL UNSUITABLE 0 INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN SEE DETAILS BELOW TRENCH DETAIL S' MINIMUM, OVERLAP MINIMUM 9 FTS PER LINEAL OPTIONAL V—DITCH DETAIL or FOOT OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL SUPAC S-P FABRIC SUPAC 5-P FABRIC OR OR APPROVED EQUAL APPROVED EQUAL 0' MINIMUM OVERLAP 24- MINIMUM 24' MINIMUM 9 FT-3 PER LINEAL FOOT MINIMUM OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL 80° TO 90° DRAIN MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING ADD MINIMUM 4' DIAMETER SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL: APPROVED PERFORATED PIPE WHEN ORADIENT 15 SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING LESS THAN 9% 11/2' 88- 100 1' 8-40 APPROVED PIPE TO BE 3/4' 0-17 SCHEDULE 40 .POLY-VINYL- CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR 3/8" 0-7 APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM NO.200 0-3 CRUSH STR6NQTH 1000 psi. GEOFASRIC SUBDRAIN STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 17 of 22 1:INAL NATURAL SLOPE LIMITS OF FINAL EXCAVATION TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN FILL elk �rr� I ter• it r' 'L�aiN� rte'' 8 r IQ' r �....'.'..._ ..._ ..�I_ r � TYPICAL EN � WIDTH VARIES ,dl COMPETENT EARTH MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCH B 1S' MINIMUM BABE KEY WIDTH HEIGHT MINIMUM DOWNBLOPE KEY DEPTH PROVIDE BACKDRAIN AS REQUIRED PER RECOM- MIENDATIONB OF SOILS ENGINEER DURING 13RADING WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 8:1 OR LESS. BENCHING 18 NOT NECS8SARY. HOWEVER. FILL 18 NOT TO BE PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUIT- ABLE MATERIAL. FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL GROUND DETAIL. STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 18 of 22 BUILDING LDING FINISHED GRADE CLEAR AREA FOR 10, FOUNDATION, UTILITIES. AND SWIMMING POOLS SLOPE FACE 0 0 10 LO STREET �WINDROW 5' OR BELOW DEPTH OF DEEPEST UTILITY TRENCH (WHICHEVER GREATER) TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (EDGE VIEW) GRANULAR SOIL FLOODED TO FILL VOIDS HORIZONTALLY PLACED COMPACTION FILL PROFILE VIEW ROCK DISPOSAL OETAIL STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 19 of 22 GENERAL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS CUT LOT ORIGINAL GROUND TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM ANO WEATHERED BEDROC�K�� 3' OVEREXCAVATE AND / UNWEATHERED BEDROCK RtaGRA08 CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION) i ORIGINAL / l/ GROUND COMPACTED FILL \—OVEREXCAVATE AND TOPSOIL, �/ REGRADE .-COLLUVIUM AND UNWEATHERED BEDROCK WEATHERED i/J BEDROCK / i i TRANSITION LOT DETAIL STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 20 of 22 D t W 1 m a 41C z w E. Z 1 4 v > a i-m CL v 11 all H 4h Ot IL 14 �i ` t 1 ;r o < 2 ul IL 0 a CC 0 i a 4c 1� it a x n a Z 1 � oz ti rH Lu* ` m oo. W �A " w � 01 a O 11 o ti as 1 W O a m 11 w � � a O ` J 1 N a x 1 .J 3: ` r. 00 G tL W x 1u r x 1 16 = c a c 16 O aOrJ¢ za U 1 CL w o c� 1 ►. F { zo OA U Jc�. z ��—`� v� 1 < wo a 1 OVZ 00 c CC �t Q :3z O 1 W Z M U Q IL c 4c <O Z �- STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 21 of 22 16' MINIMUM 4' DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE SACK DRAIN 4' DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED 770 7M PIPE LATERAL DRAIN SLOPE PER PLAN �..2.0'A BENCHING H12 1""� PROVIDE HACK DRAIN PER BACKDRAtN DETAIL. AN AOOITIO14AL SACXDIIAIN AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH. KEY-DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER (GENERALLY 112 SLOPE HEIGHT, 16' MINIMUM) TYPICAL STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 22 of 22 c� � o CQ m n .o r. �. z ~ � Uw j F.lz cli Lij ZD FIE, Ljj LO F �J �^ O d yrt� Z LLJ Of LUof L � Z; w° CD Hzw ow- �J w � . w O Z ccv W F o / W < U X ° �\ O / a. W --------------- N 1--s-1 BERMS 7:N lll. SWALE PAD I I I II . FlAW LINE PI ER PLAN . TYPICAL SECTION FOR DRAINAGE SWALE AND . EARTHEN BERMS AT THE 'TOP OF ALL FILL SLOPES 24 "MIN., U.N.O. (4 IN.) 10.2cm . rRass OR maF ot�x VARIABLE 7ur� oWOWR ---,N\ u 1% MIN ox�aREOUa OR AS , -I -I 3° WN. I-- F **, It REQUIRED ;> ' . 4N•Cy . cm ; �i - , . I. , . .. , . .' . . ; . . P , RQP; �j� - f,.� I. k'�'1C ' ORI LTI N 0 \ ..; ... ?�. " `��r ,.., ;'F. '1�(iOF Di T' �a �I:' ; ' ` ° ! \= � , i \. TL r I. �> SGiI$T1�G I�0 S r' "?d' x `:. ., __W.y'w� �' }t :: / ' ,(„ { .; t r t t I , 1 ie,;'ahnS:u,r...... .>y.......... " . I i „ i - ``'b.. '{4 \ +W ,' \. r sif �re c "\ ' / ' Si f Y'r" "> • % �` <' 'y'.. '\ . < -�f. ''t' n,c^ ,f` ~ ,..,Y� /rxx'' "\{, �, _rY �' / I i P FOR" y��•. >, YP AS S O AJ r i ". i; .M ..NfkTt._.E!.. CO 0[`I�URA' -' :x V1�N THF, t7RAYYING 74RE; SLOPES ExCE:EDING Fl OL4LIT.O NTT_ 0 s .-ALL`. I --. H........ , 'r;;.i +,., \, FTEEN 'F'.. "IFL'VERTICIIL HEIGHT .SHALL BE . � , r �y (: =,� �, , # FOR - E R ON 'S z a, FROM ALL' ROOF ,DRAINS LL {#SC � ;.. S � .. ....> . P07 ,, r M. ESE l :AND "WAS OBT N® FR M `' , r . , .+ . -.; ,,,, , ., H ONT :.fi r . `` f,; ;.., � .:::.:.::.... ..:ij': ,: , ,. :. Q , PLANTED 'WITH SHRUBS',. SP�AT< 1$iOT XCEED TEN. FEET ON'R' '<" ER � . :: ... .. ...........:: ,,- }........,- ......, 5 €,• ;.: RECOR4' tNFORM�ITK3Nc.. 4ANDSCAPE AREA,IP'RIOR TO'. dO ., , _01SC A.._..... z ,,; CENTERS; OR TR€k I i4T PiQT T EX EED1IQN kIA '� a_ ... . a .. <D .. . ; . . 9 FELT "-,> h 1WEN,TY ... QN . ....r _. ;. 3TREEr AN" GR INTO -- I LIC :' , ...... `` w ... ; . TgRS 012 A. 8 I. CEN INAT OF S I . "_ ►HE. PUM:. ..'ST'b ,' 1 M. `Gt 5E _. ". f . t :'. •: , .. _ .............._ . ,_ ., ..,... . , ,1 HISS AND . TREES AT` �QUIVAtEN T a„ ✓ .. ,, \ 11. :... ... . .. - « I.. CAPE RE' DESDGNATET� If0R -,=I "R N : , .� _..._._,.., _ ..5F'ACI _8 IN ADDITION, GRASS QR GR b ,." . +.. _ r i. r• , ? i ! ! a: '- ...- s:`KCi`iiv r' ^; .,iq ()I�ND COVER .PLfiNTS. t' :., " / Y`_ #\ r 3 t r. = >- NI L• HALT, NN0T BE '"MODNFlE WITHOU S Ax PE OFLi� _ \, ..., ROAD 1l,, . y^''I. i {s ,`.; ^rs z., .,,. s .< `9. / "Y""`> L < a'4 / ;.1> i` i= - \.. l F.3Trr_s -.&� , +� D RMI. 1 \ � t "r, s O(J, u 4 " r i ( ! \., .0 $ ' \ 'r , '+, .rf .. :d ..». , r ;x t tv°J%� i , # , .r ,,, /' i ' i i r t `\ �;e'r,_ ."-^ , , : ? ,.. _. .. ~ i` ' ' ti::=:i, i h>`. =i£ 2' ,, y....._„ SILT FEN ' € r" }� 1' �. .;r:• t 'tr:` ,,v, r- c \ ?t,..y / >'FZ'' ..�...... `r� a/` •`T:. :y ",A -.- , I `'.. .n,;_ rv, ,.{ =1 M ' -x, 1 ,t 1 ; : .: a 7.,, ( %? "\ : a: �-.^_: } / ' :t t _ y.,,. '/ t - v,(,z.. ,'1' b. },. , _,.,j- 1. \ . / , ,a, . { r ♦ -. r "i.> °. / % L`�, � l L (< -.:. ,, / • , :.: / .. }1 z _ _.:�._... yqG DO'CQ E a.' ... _„ ., < J' / ,•,: \ ✓ < `,. ., 1 i .. „ , , . , , . '.`� ?'� . /_ Al _\ S ..". 7!'! ...'T =._' "" T -_- ,�„`„',1�� .•.:�.,� „� `� V <, , y - L. / ., -_ , '_._ . , .y, :: ti:- _ _ tS IDN CONTRO 11 5 , N %' \.,.....a < z� � 'b` .r >a,,, ,,.... fxrr. -s-„" ...p. 1. .4 J }T r i.' t k,;. ' --- r,r'�''Fs r�- r.�_ '^'T'v<' � -! ... T €M ' ._. 7 ; i •.M1 i ! ! 1. , t, 1 " '+,. - , 'Y, " if ••GI \( ) "'"'•'.,o- 'YY r f' f. .% < '\ \ ) 1. x / / - ' + :t +. HP ' ROW- GRAVEL BAGS ` "z J ,3- s I.-ATTIC- a. a; " _. , . r v ; . , , _� .,. ; „, �. c S '6B ST ED: TYP _.. -'- ��_ _ - \\ \� AGK LINE (TYP) + , . BAS. H1GW' ABC { ) .n < .\ f=\ ♦ + (- .-.. k�' \\r # ,r r t ll. i "?iir,,.. $'_ 4, '"-' A`\ \. \ �,' ,''1� •* , .Z•"'" , ;,:?� , \ + " + ,, t ?_ " ..} .A..,'. f. ...! " ", ^+. / ..pk' \ , .. ... i # fi: ,t i ..,.,.,,:' ' '7 ..., .\ '1`a. \,' ed 9 `'\ �t \ " \, "st, t VARIABLE ._ - .......4 -' ' `' ? k' r. >; ^ I / . `. f ? :., \ ,. \ . , \. ., ,3.` '/� + + 4 F` ; 1% MIN fir' ;&S `' ., %: , „ „m.,. 't `.+hir�• %w\ \, .. `L wt ' w,tv+ M:y ,,` +. a., •f• f t s t /.. G'''RO-1V}34'�'v}L'iY" _. i. ../ s: �� . t ! d X r < ,.,,i. x .'° °7 \\. , ' ",t^ `` .S`.\ . ••! .."^ "' \ .}. +' ,.{.. / ! ` Tom`• ,i ,.,,.w :.n.„r•%' \; f - ^ �._,.v` i ..,, Yip, ' ' \. , *,,. ✓. `..` t 4 r ', a, i " 11 !f.. r, , FIELD vi. r I, ; , / , , T4D. ..,..... \: \ , ` \ -t: ' \. _`.«`r" , Ac + + ', c /' .<e y ,YC . t ?.r : +y l .!' a,a, % J \. i `\ ' v :.h : �I' , . `:\ ' '' f : t , \ i s t `. RE UIR L '• �;'t / / J ', \ J ;. r 2 „ J REQUIRED `Z ", ,'r." i . j .,' ) t . I` \l { `\ �. ``d'. N / . "... .� , '�/N w • .,. +.,,\ , /,wri ;Y { , r: , v . �'`r` Vie" ' \ 1 , ,� ,; , / t : x / �R r \�` ' \ . TOR \ ` , \ a, -'i . ..,. , _,; ; '.� ;J 'Y ?, .. . „ I , , '', ..ty:., .I i' PL \. ,, F .. _._ `, , 00 I r 0 . l \.,rz, r .l t'vYY'Y : V. �+t" , " E f'f ' \'~ ` ''`Y ~•\ Cn t 1 i I.,3 I ;K. 1 0.Q�' Y '\ i / \ ` ,: .r /� \ + • . ":p , ..., I. < _N O Fj C .<3.a f' ,y. r.,)J'./°: J '7 5, r, l° ♦ z \\` a . �" 1 {- .\ 1' \ t- �«;•.,' ✓'`:', y. %. ,� X' ...r: `r / r I: t;.'I / `''-�'�.,?i.b ,/ i :; ';\ c ",r/ \`' I. '`•s i' ,.'a` ., tl '{_ ;•t. -io, ....iii. - \. \� F.. 11 NOTES: (3 i I E n t \. 11 , ... 1 PLACE 3 AN H � ` C DRS PER ., ,,,,i%.s✓.l,,, 5 I k . \ r = {F t k t (i i �\ i. ''/ F � � \" `\ f.. ..\ ",.� +tom• 1 f \ � '�f .,a t '; ':,•r r,zF� ♦ !' '\ •t ` :! ` + . } \ - •.,�,,.,.,,` a...,: Y S,'`t `'. SQUARE YARD OF MA { % ;• TERIAL #I 4' I P i.. %v ,( f x: j 1 e \ \ t $ q \ S, ,+ \ j 8 Z. TO BE MAINTAINED 'i .. S C..' ' ! I ; >,�'' ? : ; F ; t 3 € / ... .., ✓ . / \\ ..'- " ', '{.' �' Ux - \ I{ " �' ^ ,h . AWED PRlVAIELY .< r %; /, ., t ,. .�. : ({ . -< % • l4 `.. AND NOT 70 H Y -ar,. r / Wit. / ( / a. a \. �+; %p. �/ .qR: Ctg y f.,.. i` t' y 11 E MODIFIED N97NOUT CITY PERMIT Orr ,S \ i f $; I ? (s \ 1 r % Fl \, + �Iy Y :4 : . `, \ \ s J K f , \/- V [ 3d3aVJ u X41;: \\ f �/�pi 2 Y" 1. i TYPICAL PRIVATE � � < f ..' . = ..: ; : (' ' �_� � _:.�, , ;< t�' TE BOP. DRAINAGE SWALE I r �. - _ ; . , ` t J , ,. / ` - , ._-:.. ,_�,.,- X , i .a 1 ..[ :. + ` i $ e':7:i s,'. . €' ` l -. . \~ \ . +' Q.. �," , f'" ♦ :y... 1 ,� NOT TO SCALE , !, r x .W -9 .. . 1 7 s.t _.A. r. f I ? i i I ,z,' :' �A, ✓p� - - 1. s. �.. \. !;` �, \'Y . ^.. f 1 F : EX. RESIDENCE \:-- + ` \:y j� jj _`� ,.,, : ri; ' c ;. ;,: , , F t - : ±:A -' �.� : TALE L \: > °I• r. , ' `t, r I I - \r 1, r ;< ..: E : +,-i;` t /` f P x + + + '' "a " ' y` ,1 ..- ., •, j, , ; 'i\�7'<f i Y f� i i � " (' } t �".3 ~`t. 3 � " -�. ;/_ QQ }ggA r v: "`F, `Y'" +' � 3 `t, 11 E 301 CAN ANE �y� •. �.w BROOKS N0.1 -RT 8 -3/4 DIA; BOX WITH C.I. COYER RNISHED GRADEI MARKED "C.O.' V PVC RISER DIRECTION OF FLOW SANITARY TEE I -PVC SEWER PER PLAN , DETAIL SEWER CLEANOLIT Q NOT TO SCALE SWALE PER THIS PLAN . PRO. PAD 12 PEDISTRIAN PP07EC77VE RAIL PER M-24 RERMS S -•� I \. !.riS.w K, ,� ,: \` tf i " - '.'f I ` e l i I ",. ,,,f/,, \ �'f. .'J` \; 3i.3 "..y ,. _ ...,., „ i. 4ti :\ , ♦ , v ", f Y ! +e '` ' ; i „^ . ..- 1 t ` t i i 3, ,1_ „J'o-,y- I \ .,+;,, v .'ix: `\ \ '`` 1.,,• \ .'` :.",,., >�,.,} J'1 1 r I " .. it l e' r t.:F _�`\. \, J / !' „ ..v, 14 ! .. , I'll -!"..,'Y*` r'by\ 1, "4x j \��1' ,Y i 't:v\ rf^ ` 1 / � + "+ {y:' _ (// `.J , 11 . °,`W „>NY ,£.....I L`v ,'nvj