2008-10045 GLine: iLq A)-ko 7
r = + ■' C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT i} i
505 S. VULCAN AVE.
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 1 045GI
PARCEL NO. : 260 - 264 -1600
JOB SITE ADDRESS: 1660 BRAHMS RD.
APPLICANT NAME BUSICK, RONALD & CATHERINE
MAILING ADDRESS: 14071 ARBOLITOS DR.
CITY: POWAY STATE: CA ZIP
CONTRACTORx : SEBASTIAN MARISCAL CONSTRUCTION
LICENSE NO.: 904307
ENGINEER : CE CONSTRUCTION TESTING
PERMIT ISS AT'• 6/09
PERMIT E E: 4 /10 PERMIT ISSUED
INSPECTO EN OLI
----- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS
PLAN NO.: 10045G
CASE NO.: 08097 / CDP
PHONE NO.: 858 -558 -2100
92064-
PHONE NO.: ova
LICENSE TYPE: B Z
PHO NO.: /��
1.
PERMIT FEE
.00
2.
GIS MAP FEE
.00
3.
INSPECTION FEE
3,071.00
4.
INSPECTION DEPOSIT:
.00
5.
NPDES INSPT FEE
614.00
6.
SECURITY DEPOSIT
61,430.00
7.
FLOOD CONTROL FE
47.00
8.
TRAFFIC FEE
.00
9.
IN -LIEU UNDERGRN
.00
10.IN
-LIEU IMPROVMT
.00
ll.PLAN
CHECK FEE
.00
12.PLAN
CHECK DEPOSIT:
.00
-- --------- -------- - -- - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK -------------------------------
?ERMIT ISSUED TO VERIFY PERFORMANCE OF GRADING AND DRAINAGE PER APPROVED
PLAN 10045 -G. 'CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL PER W.A.T.C.H.
STANDARDS OR CITY APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. WORK IN PUBLIC R -O -W
REQUIRES AN ADDITIONAL CITY PERMIT. LETTER DATED APRIL 2, 2009 APPLIES.
- - -- INSPECTION ---------- - - - - -- DATE -- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - --
INITIAL INSPECTION $ O
COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED 2 _
ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED _
ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION
FINAL INSPECTION _ r�
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND
LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING
ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT
'IGNATURE
I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE
AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE
AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF
TO THIS APPLICATION.
04. /6 . or
DATE SIGNED
PAVlZN/+TLZ�,-VA lfg.5' 8.2/00 /Y Ile
PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER
CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 0 AGENT 3. OTHER
C- (Ilk
a''1'
April 2, 2009
Ronald L. Busick and Catherine D. Busick
645 Amphitheatre Drive
Del Mar, CA 92014
Re: Permit issuance requirements for:
Application 10045 -G
Case # 08 -097 CDP
Site Address: 1660 Brahms Road
APN: 260- 264 -16
This letter summarizes the requirements for pulling your Engineering Permit for drawing 10045 -G. Your
approved plan will remain valid for one year. If the permit is not issued within six months from the date of
approval of the drawings, the plans will be subject to review by City staff for compliance with current codes
and regulations before a permit can be issued, and changes to the approved plans as well as additional
fees may be required.
Please read through this letter carefully and contact the City with any questions you may have. It
contains information about many requirements that may apply to your project and can make the
process clearer and easier for you.
In order to obtain the permits to construct the work shown on your approved plans, you will need to satisfy
the requirements below. All of the items listed below must be submitted to the Engineering front counter
in one complete package at the time the applicant comes in to pull the permit Partial submittals of any
kind will not be accepted. Your project planchecker will not accept any of the documents listed on behalf
of the Engineering front counter staff; all items must be submitted to the front counter directly together and
at one time. The correct number of each of the requested documents must be provided; copies of
documents submitted to the City during plancheck do not reduce the necessary quantities listed below.
(1) Provide 4 print sets of the approved drawing 10045 -G
Provide 2 copies of soils report entitled "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Busick
Residence, 1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California" prepared by CTE Construction
Testing & Engineering dated April 7, 2008 (Project #10- 9448G).
Submit 2 copies of the approved, signed (not draft) Resolution of Approval or Notice of Decision
for Planning Case #08 -097 CDP to be routed by the City to inspector and file.
(2) Post Security Deposits to guarantee all of the work shown on your approved drawings. The
amounts of security deposits are determined directly from the Approved Engineer's Cost Estimate
generated by your engineer according to a set of predetermined unit prices for each kind of work
shown on your plans, titled "Bonding Estimate" and dated April 2, 2009- You will be required to
post security deposit(s) as follows:
(a) Security Deposit for Grading Permit 10045 -G: in the amount $61.430.00 to guarantee both
performance and labor/ materials for earthwork, drainage, private improvements, and erosion
control.
(b) nla
(c) We
(d) n/a
A minimum of 20% and up to 100% of the amount listed in item(s) 2(a) must be in the form of
cash, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or an assignment of account. Up to 60% of the amount
listed in item 2(a) may be in the form of auto - renewing Performance and Labor and Materials
Bonds issued by a State of California licensed surety company.
Up to 100% of the amount(s) listed in item(s) 2(b), 2(c), and /or 2(d) may be in the form of auto -
renewing Labor and Materials bonds issued by a State of California licensed surety company.
Cash, certificates of deposit, letters of credit, and assignments of account are also acceptable
financial instruments.
If a certificate of deposit (CD) will be obtained to secure the entire amount(s) listed in item(s) 2(a)
and /or 2(b), two separate CD's for 25% and 75% of the amount(s) listed in item(s) 2(a) and/or
2(b) should be obtained in order to facilitate any future partial release of those securities. CD's
posted may be of any term but must be auto - renewing and must specify the City of Encinitas as a
certificate holder and include a clause that until the City of Encinitas provides a written request for
release of the CD, the balance shall be available to the City upon its sole request.
The format of any financial instrument is subject to City approval, may be in the owner's name
only, and must list the City of Encinitas as a Certificate Holder.
For any questions regarding how to post securities, bonding, or the required format of securities
please contact Debra Geishart at 760- 633 -2779.
(3) Pay non - refundable fees as listed below:
Fee Type
Amount
Grading Inspection
$3,071.00
NPDES Inspection (Grading)
614.00
Flood Control
$47.00
Permanent Encroachment Permit
10045 -PE
$290.00
The grading and improvement inspection fees are calculated based on 5% of first $100,000.00 of
the approved Engineer's cost estimate titled "Bonding Cost Estimate" and dated April 2, 2009 and
3% of the cost estimate over $100,000.00. The NPDES inspection fee is assessed as 1% of the
first $100,000.00 of the approved Engineer's cost estimate and 0.6% of the cost estimate over
$100,000.00. The flood control fee is assessed at a rate of $0.21 per square foot of net new
impervious surface area for driveway and parking areas as created per the approved plan
(4) Provide the name, address, telephone number, state license number, and license type of the
construction contractor. The construction of any improvements within the oublic
right -of -way or public easements is restricted to qualified contractors possessing the
required state license as listed in the table below. The contractor must also have on file with
the City current evidence of one million dollar liability insurance listing the City of Encinitas as co-
insured. Additional requirements are described in the handout "Requirements for Proof of
Insurance" available at the Engineering front counter.
(5)
(6)
Type
Description
Work to be Done
A
General Engineering
any & all
C -8
Concrete
a ron /curbl utterlram /sidewalk
C -10
Electrical
lighting/signals
C -12
Grading & Paving
any surface, certain drain -
basins /channels
C -27
Landscaping
planting/irrigation /fencing & other
amenities
C -29
Masonry
retaining walls
C -32
Parking &Highway
Improvement
signage /striping /safety
C -34
Pipeline
sanitary sewer /storm drain
Permits are valid for no more than one year from the date of issuance and may expire earlier due
to expirations of letter of credit and /or insurance policies.
This project does not propose land disturbance in excess of one acre and is exempt from the
State Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirement. An erosion control plan shall
be implemented per the approved grading plan.
Preconstruction Meeting: A preconstruction meeting at the project site is mandatory for all projects.
The preconstruction meeting may not be scheduled until the Engineering permit(s) have been issued, and
the applicant/contractor must give the assigned Engineering inspector a minimum of 48 hours advance
notice prior to the scheduled meeting time.
Right -of -Way Construction Permit: A separate right -of -way construction permit will be required for any
work in the public right -of -way or public easements. Typically, this work may include construction or
reconstruction of a portion of the driveway within the public right -of -way, excavation, backfill, and
resurfacing to install electric, gas, telephone, and cable television lines, or water and sewer connections.
A permit fee of $300.00 per application and a site plan, preferably the work order issued by the public
utility, will be required. Contractor license and insurance requirements apply. Permits must be issued at
least 48 hours in advance of the start of work.
Haul Routes, Traffic Control Plans, and Transportation Permits: These separate permits may be
required for your project and are handled by the Traffic Engineering Division. A fee of $250.00 is required
for traffic control plans. For more details, contact Raymond Guarnes, Engineering Technician, at (760)
633 -2704.
Release of Project Securities: The partial or complete release of project securities is initiated
automatically by the City after submission of satisfactory as -built drawings to the City and approval by the
project Engineering inspector. Applicant requests cannot be addressed without release approval from the
proiect inspector. The processing and release of securities may take up to 4 weeks after the release
process is initiated by the project Engineering inspector. Any cash releases will be mailed to the address
on this letter unless the City is otherwise notified, and all letters mailed to a financial institution will be
copied to the owner listed hereon. Satisfactory completion of Final Inspection certified by the project
Engineering inspector is a prerequisite to full release of the Security Deposit assigned to any Grading
Permit. A sum in the amount of 25% of the securities posted for improvement permits will be held for a
one -year warranty period, and a release is automatically initiated at the end of that warranty period.
Construction Changes: Construction changes prepared by the Engineer of Work will be required for all
changes to the approved plans. Requests for construction change approval should be submitted to the
Engineering Services Department front counter as redlined mark -ups on 2 blueline prints of the approved
Drawing. Changes are subject to approval prior to field implementation. Substantial increases in valuation
due to the proposed changes may be cause for assessment and collection of additional inspection fees
and security deposits. Construction change fees of $200.00 and $350.00 will be assessed for minor and
major construction changes, respectively. Construction changes necessitating a new plan sheet will be
assessed the per -sheet plancheck and NPDES plancheck fees in lieu of the construction change fee.
Construction changes not previously approved and submitted as as -built drawings at the end of the
construction process will be rejected and the securities release will be delayed.
Change of Ownership: If a change of ownership occurs following approval of the drawing(s), the new
owner will be required to submit to the City a construction change revising the title sheet of the plan to
reflect the new ownership. The construction change shall be submitted to the Engineering front counter
as redline mark -ups on two biueline prints of the approved drawing together with two copies of the grant
deed or title report reflecting the new ownership. Construction change fees apply. The current owner will
be required to post new securities to replace those held by the City under the name of the former owner,
and the securities posted by the former owner will be released when the replacement securities have been
received and approved by the City.
Change of Engineer of Work: If a change in engineer of work occurs following the approval of the
drawing(s), a construction change shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering
Department. Two copies of the forms for the assumption of responsibility by the new engineer and the
release of responsibility by the former engineer shall be completed and submitted to the City.
Construction change fees apply.
As- builts: Project as -built drawings prepared by the Engineer of Work will be required prior to Final
Grading acceptance by Engineering Services. Chances to the approved plans require a construction
change to be submitted to the City prior to field implementation. Construction changes may not be
submitted as as- builts at the end of the construction process.
This letter does not change owner or successor -in- interest obligations. If there should be a substantial
delay in the start of your project or a change of ownership, please contact the City to request an update.
Should you have questions regarding the posting of securities, please contact Debra Geishart, who
processes all Engineering securities, at (760) 633 -2779.
Should you have any other questions, please contact me at (760) 633 -2780 or visit the Engineering
Counter at the Civic Center to speak with an Engineering Technician.
Sincerely,
*��
Ruben Macabitas
Assistant Civil Engineer
cc Von Reiter Group Civil Engineering Consultants, Beth Reiter, Engineer of Work
Debbie Geishart, Engineering Technician
Masih Maher, Senior Civil Engineer
permit/file
Eric Application
Requirements for Proof of Insurance
Security Obligation Agreements (various)
APPLICATION NO.
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
JOB SITE ADDRESS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.
ILQUD P hm5 Qj g2601 am -2CvQ - Ilp -ob
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE, 47P CODE TELEPHONE NO. CFTY, STATE, ZIP CODE TELEPHONE
(656p, —ZIC6
STATE LICENSE NO. & TYPE
•fa f,
1 SIA t uP-+ IELtPHUNE NO. CITY, STATE, ZIP TELEEHONE NO.
REGISTRATION NO. REGISTRATION NO.
PLANNING CASE NUMBER —0 Zr � C
FOR GRADING PLANS:
VOK FOR PLAN CHECK
PLANNER
I:kioskhandouls/ErxyEng. Dev. App
FOR FINAL MAPSIPARCEL MAPS
FINAL MAP
PARCEL MAP
10 �7 o B
DATE
Mr. and Mrs. Ronald L. Busick
14071 Arbobtos Drive
Poway, CA 92064
Date: July 7, 2008
Order No. 968116 -33
CALIFORNIA TITLE COMPANY
9915 Mira Mesa Blvd., #110
San Diego, California 92131
(858) 437 -0714
Thank you for allowing us to serve your title insurance needs. Attached, please find the following:
X Original Policy (ALTA Homeowner's Policy)
Copy Policy
Wizard Report Endorsement
Duplicate Original Policy
Endorsements(s)
Other
CLTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance (6/2/98)
ALTA homeowners Policy of Title Insurance (10/17/98)
J OAT 2 1 2X03
I -
Alta Homeowner's Insurance Policy
Schedule A
Liability:
$ 1,125,000.00
Fee: $1,727.00
Order No.:
968116 -33
Policy: FTE 348146
Date of Policy:
May 12, 2008
Time:
4:03 P.M.
Deductible Amounts and Maximum Dollar Limits of Liability for Covered Risk 14, 15, 16 and 18:
Your Deductible Amount
Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability
Coveted Risk 14:
1% of Policy Amount
$10,000.00
Or
$2,500.00 (Whichever is Less)
Covered Risk 15
1% of Policy Amount
$25,000.00
Or
$5,000.00 (Whichever is Less)
Covered Risk 16
1% of Policy Amount
$25,000.00
Or
$5,000.00 (whichever is Less)
Covered Risk 18
1% of Policy Amount
$5,000.00
Or
52,500.00 (Whichever is Less)
Property address:
1660 Brahma Road, in the Area of Cardiff By the Sea, County of San Diego, State of California
1. Name of insured:
Ronald L. Busick and Catherine D. Busick, husband and wife as community property with rights of survivorship
2. The estate or Interest in the Land Described in Schedule "A" and which is covered by this policy is:
A fee.
CLTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance (6/2/98)
ALTA homeowners Policy of Title Insurance (10/17/98)
Omer No. 9681 16-33
Alta Homeowner's Insurance Policy
Schedule A (continued)
3. The land referred to in this report is situated in the state of California county of San Diego and is described as follows:
Lot "Q" in Block 85 of Cardiff Villa Tract, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no.
1469, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 10, 1912.
CLTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance (6/2/98)
ALTA homeowners Policy of Title Insurance (10/17198)
Order No. 968116 -33
Alta Homeowners Insurance Policy
Schedule B - Part I
Exceptions from Coverage
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the company will not pay cost. attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by
reason of
General and Special taxes for the fiscal year 2008- 2009, including any assessments collected with taxes. A lien
not yet payable.
2. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to the provisions of section 75, et seq. of the revenue
and taxation code of the State of California.
3. A Deed of Trust to secure an indebtedness of
Amount:
$417,000.00
Ttustor.
Ronald L. Busick and Catherine D. Busick, husband and wife as community
property with rights of survivorship
Trustee:
California Title Company
Beneficiary:
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. MERS is a separate corporation that
is acting solely as a nominee for Rancho Financial, Inc., a California Corporation
and its successors and assigns.
Dated:
May 8, 2008
Recorded:
May 12, 2008 as Instrument No. 08 -0254622, Official Records.
The beneficial interest under said Deed of Trust was assigned
To: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (HERS), its successors and assigns
By Assignment
Recorded: May 12, 2008 as Instrument No. 08 -0254623, Official Records.
End of Schedule B
12151
CLTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance (612/98)
ALTA homeowners Policy of Title Insurance (10/17/98)
Date: April 02, 2009
Site Address: 1660 Brahms Road
A.P.N:260 -264 -16-00
BONDING ESTIMATE
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
QUANTITY
UNIT
AMOUNT
2
6" Flush Curb
LF
I
COST
$1,170.00
GRADING & IMPROVEMENTS
1
Excavation & Export
CY
1,400
$27.50
$38,500.00
2
6" Flush Curb
LF
45
$26.00
$1,170.00
3
Driveway, Type G -14
SF
72
$5.00
$360.00
4
Turtblock
SF
225
$3.00
$675.00
5
4" AC Paying & Base
SF
150
$1.75
$262.50
6
sump Pump
EA
1 3
$500.00
$1,500.00
7
Catch Basin (Private)
EA
1
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
8
Stabilized Construction Ent.
SF
180
$5.25
$945.00
9
Sump Pump Vault (Basement)
EA
1
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
10
12" Trench Drain
LF
28
$125
$3,500.00
11
Vegetated Swale
LF
200
$5.50
$1,100.00
12
Silt Fence
LF
125
$1.60
$200.00
13
Masonry Retaining Wall (per separate
permit)
SF
190
$29.65
$5,633.50
f^C
Richard E. Mattel(/Jr,
RCE 68281, Exp. 9/30/2009
11110 negley avenue
san diego, ca 92131
teeth. mite On vonreiter.com
w .vonrencrxom
phone (858) 232 -4580
fax (866) 297.0312
4 -7 -01
Date
SUBTOTAL= $55,845.50
10% CONTINGENCY= $5,584.55
TOTAL BONDING ESTEWATE= $61,430.05
No. 68281
E %P 9- 90.2oo9
YON REITER GROUP
Civil Engineering Consultants
April 3, 2009
CONSTRUCTION
TESTING
&
ENGINEERING
1111 MON11Et ROAD, SUITE 115 1 ESCHDID6, CA 11206 1 766.741.!1155 I FAX 7111.716.11111
Ronald and Catherine Busick
14071 Arbolitos Drive
Poway, California 92064
Subject: Review of Grading Plans
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road
Cardiff by the Sea, Encinitas, California
References: Response to City of Encinitas Comment
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road
Cardiff by the Sea, California
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road
Cardiff by the Sea, California
CTE Job No.: 10- 9448G, dated November April 7, 2008
Grading & Improvement Plans for: 1660 Brahms Road
Ronald & Catherine Busick
APN: 260 - 264 -16 -00
5 Sheets
Prepared by Von Reiter Group, Undated
Mr. and Mrs. Busick:
CTE Job No. 10 -94486
11'
At the request of Sebastian Mariscal Studio and the Von Reiter Group, Construction Testing &
Engineering, Inc. (CTE) is pleased to present this review of the referenced grading and improvement
plans. We have reviewed these plans for conformance with the recommendations of our report of
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, also referenced above.
The plans appear to conform to our recommendations, with the following exception. Surface
drainage/infiltration features appear to be proposed over the backfill of underground garage retaining
walls. Where these features are proposed within 10 feet of a retaining wall, we recommend that they
be underlain by an impervious barrier to prevent infiltration into the backfill. Without such a barrier,
the backfill could become saturated, which increases the pressure on the retaining wall and increases
INC.
SAN DIEGO I ESCONOIDO I RIVERSIDE I VENTURA I MERGED I TRACY I SACRAMENTO I PALM SPRINGS I PHOENIX
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING I CIVIL ENGINEERING I SURVEYING
Review of Grading & Improvement Plans Page 2
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
April 3, 2009 CTE Job No.: 10 -9448G
the likelihood that water may inf- iltrate into the underground garage. Please reference this review
letter, and illustrate such a barrier, on the plans.
Though it is not apparently a part of the grading plans, a swimming pool is proposed in close
proximity to the underground garage retaining walls. As indicated in our referenced Response to
City of Encinitas Comment, it may be appropriate to design these walls for hydrostatic pressures, or
install a cut -off or chimney drain system between the walls and the pool. Recommendations for the
design of such a drain system can be provided upon request if deemed necessary. Particular attention
should also be paid to the waterproofing, the specification of which is outside the scope of
geotechnical engineering, of these walls.
Please send us a revised copy of these plans when they become available. If we can be of further
service please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
Mark B. Catlin, GE #2179 ; :P 4o. 217P Martin E. Siem, CEG #2311
Senior Geotechnical Engineer *' .y ,,,;;,, ,� Senior Engineering Geologist
(2) Addressee O
(1) Von Reiter Group, Civil Engineering Consultants, Attention: Beth Reiter,
_ licr.com
(1) Sebastian Mariscal Studio, Attention: Pavlina Ilieva
tWvlina(a'.eha.i rruinariscal.coll! y\o* poi
O
d GE�TI�IR -I ^IG
E.NCa�r.`c
t' GE ^ QGaT Q
:PT
\E r, �lgp,•1C �R
Q
gTFOf CPL�to
r
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
1441 MONTIEL ROAD, SUITE 115 1 ESCONDIDO, CA 92016 1 780.716.1955 1 FAX 760.7161608
O$,��
March 18, 2009 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
Ronald and Catherine Busick
14071 Arbolitos Drive
Poway, California 92064
Subject: Response to City of Encinitas Comment
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road
Cardiff by the Sea, California
Reference: Review of Foundation Plan Sheets SO. 1, S0.2, S0.3, S1.0, St. 1, and S2.1
Proposed Phoenix House (Former Busick Residence)
1660 Brahms Road
Cardiff By the Sea, California
DCI Engineers, dated December 15, 2008
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road
Cardiff by the Sea, California
CTE Job No.: 10- 9448G, dated November April 7, 2008
Addendum: Lateral Pressures for Retaining Walls Due to Earthquakes
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road
Cardiff by the Sea, California
CTE Job No. 10- 9448G, dated January 29, 2009
Ronald and Cathering Busick:
At the request of the civil engineer, Von Reiter Group, Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
(CTE) is providing this response to a City of Encinitas Review Comment. The comment was
reiterated to us via the civil engineer, and reads "Please provide a letter from soils engineer that the
building walls have been designed to withstand hydrostatic pressure." In addition, a copy of a
portion of plan sheet 10045 -G, sheet 2 of 4 was provided that shows a detail of a basement wall with
a sump pump behind the wall and an outlet pipe penetrating the wall. The above comment is hand-
written next to the drawing detail, and is assumed to be the original comment from the City. This
plan sheet has not been previously reviewed by CTE. A copy of this detail is attached for reference.
SAN DIEGO I ESCONDIDO I RIVERSIDE I VENTURA I MERCED I TRACY I SACRAMENTO I PALM SPRINGS I PHOENIX
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING I CIVIL ENGINEERING I SURVEYING
Response to City of Encinitas Comment Page 2
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
March 18, 2009 CTE Job No.: 10 -9448G
The above question posed by the City of Encinitas falls outside our scope, as Geotechnical
Engineers. We redirected the question to the structural engineer, DCI Engineers. It is our
understanding that the basement wall was not designed for hydrostatic pressures, primarily because
groundwater was not encountered during our preliminary geotechnical investigation.
Based on our present understanding of the groundwater conditions at the site, hydrostatic pressures in
the soil column adjacent to the basement walls are not anticipated. However, as stated in our
preliminary geotechnical investigation "measures should be taken to prevent moisture build up
behind all retaining walls. Drainage materials should include free draining backfill materials and
perforated drains. The drains should discharge to an appropriate location. In addition, basement wall
waterproofing should be specified by the project architect."
At this time, we do not know the location of the proposed swimming pool and spa. If these features
are located up- gradient of the basement walls, then it may be appropriate to re- design the walls for
hydrostatic pressures, or install a cut -off or chimney drain system between the walls and the pool.
Specific details for the design of such a drain system can be provided upon request if deemed
necessary.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions or
need further information please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Respectfully submitted,
CONSTRUCTION TESTING &
Mel
Martin E. Siem, CEG #2311
Senior Geologist
Distribution: (2) Addressee NN
(1) Von Reiter Group, Civ
beth.reiter@vonreiter.com
>•.IC Fpr
,.,, , L
wak ,PC
its.
e,�
Consultants, Beth Reiter,
\T w_scmc4mjmtsM.9448G\Ltr_Rccpome to Flydmmtic Pres m doc
:0
4
A I
E E
�Y
f7
10' (VARIES)
'!DE TOANSITION
I el
;Omply
IN
AE EXTENT
-lECK OR
PLANS
,HN;CAL
THE
TAE
-RS,
THE
eF5S
7 OF
OF
0 �
t- /A v 11N
CA
TW FG 189�75
�Al
II
��9-
B w 189.55
ex-
'k OF
ASPHALT
C4
E NT
6
V)
<
Lo
CL
Z)w C4
Oti LE. PIPE a
CL
M
0 ;c CS
0-0
IALE
"Y
MIN.
it
p
?EP (MIN) - BASEMENT
SUMP ump
AD IE-b2. 0
bREGATE)
CTION C --c
DoT :c 7SCAI E
ENT DRAWING
No.
,UNIT 1P ENG INE ING SEI-,NIUL�)
..
ANS FOR: BRAHVS ROAD
lew C
DONALD & CAI
10045
AP'N: 260-264-16-01'�
SHEET 2 OF
4
7CDP
;Omply
IN
AE EXTENT
-lECK OR
PLANS
,HN;CAL
THE
TAE
-RS,
THE
eF5S
7 OF
OF
0 �
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
w ww G
MR DED6, G
RWRsm. G
V E N .a
1P 'm
SBI.4MIENR). G
N F SNWGS. G
MF 0' G
IHI MmNnl Rd
121ESA368n
11539M "
1815P.dlt M.
2QWI RB.
3823M.- ft
IBDN Mn M.
305888�9n1998D,
Sub 115
Sub18 s C
Sub A
Sub IN
S F
Sue 22
Sub 2-P
Ilsud. G 94itl
EAMidOJ. a92028
N city. G 918N R .0 W518
U m89613
Tb .a 85901
N. X14YEMe. G MD N Pin sP .U82258 (N) 398-0831
(a)1161855
(819)81 &10W
(451) 511 -1081
(M) 1888175
cm) m2990
(918)3314600
(]!0)323188
(209)91 m w
( 180) 118 -BNB F88
(519)W31419 m
( 451)5114188 W
(8051M 018 W
[209) 8332885 FA11
(916)WI 07 FAY
(1®)32618® (AY
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED BUSICK RESIDENCE
1660 BRAHMS ROAD
CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
RONALD AND CATHERINE BUSICK
14071 ARBOLITOS DRIVE
POWAY, CALIFORNIA 92064
Prepared by:
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
1441 MONTIEL ROAD, SUITE 115
ESCONDIDO, CA 92026
CTE JOB NO. 10-9448G
APRIL 7, 2008
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND TESTING I CIVIL ENGINEERING I SURVEYING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ..................................... ..............................1
1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... ..............................1
1.2 Scope of Services ........................................................................... ...............................
1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ ...............................
2
3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS ................................. ...............................
2
3.1 Field Investigation .......................................................................... ...............................
2
3.2 Laboratory Investigation ................................................................ ...............................
3
4.0 GEOLOGY ................................................................................................ ............................... 3
4.1 General Setting ............................................................................... ...............................
3
4.2 Geologic Conditions ...................................................................... ...............................
4
4.2.1 Topsoils ............................................................................ ..............................5
4.2.2 Quaternary Terrace Deposits ........................................... ...............................
5
4.3 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................ ...............................
6
4.4 Geologic Hazards ........................................................................... ...............................
6
4.4.1 Local and Regional Faul ting ............................................ ..............................6
4.4.2 Seismic Design Criteria .............................................................. ...............................
8
4.4.3 Liquefaction Eval uation ................................................ ...............................
10
4.4.4 Seismic Settlement Evaluation ..................................... ...............................
10
4.4.5 Tsunamis, Seiche, and Flooding Evaluation ................. ...............................
10
4.4.6 Landsliding or Rocksl iding ........................................... ...............................
11
4.4.7 Compressible and Expansive Soil s ............................... ...............................
11
4.4.8 Corrosive Soils .............................................................. ...............................
11
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. ...............................
12
5.1 General ......................................................................................... ...............................
12
5.2 Site Preparation ............................................................................ ...............................
12
5.3 Site Excavation ............................................................................ ...............................
13
5.4 Fill Placement and Compaction ................................................... ...............................
13
5.5 Fill Materials ................................................................................ ...............................
14
5.6 Temporary Construction Slopes ................................................... ...............................
14
5.7 Foundations and Slab Recommendations .................................... ...............................
15
5.7.1 Foundations ................................................................... ...............................
15
5.7.2 Foundation Settlement .................................................. ...............................
16
5.7.3 Foundation Setback ....................................................... ...............................
16
5.7.4 Interior Concrete Slabs .................................................. ...............................
17
5.8 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures ........................................ ...............................
17
5.9 Exterior Flatwork ......................................................................... ...............................
18
5.10 Drainage ..................................................................................... ...............................
19
5.11 Sl opes ......................................................................................... ...............................
19
5.12 Construction Observation .......................................................... ...............................
20
5.13 Plan Review ............................................................................... ...............................
20
6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION .................................................. ...............................
21
Ot s awrox s ID 94486 P.p1_c�J&c
FIGURES
FIGURE I
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
SITE INDEX MAP
EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP
REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP
REFERENCES CITED
EXPLORATION LOGS
LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
k1CIe_we eA"Ws\IOAa SGVtpl Ce tmhnicg o
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
Page 1
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.1 Introduction
This report presents the results of Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. ( "CTE ") preliminary
geotechnical investigation for the proposed development located at 1660 Brahms Road, in Cardiff by
the Sea, San Diego County, California. It is our understanding that the property is to be developed
by constructing a single - family two -story residence with one underground level for parking and
basement area. Additional proposed construction includes a pool and spa and associated landscaping
improvements and utilities. The investigation for this report included field exploration, laboratory
testing, geologic hazard evaluation, engineering analysis, and preparation of this report. Our report
provides conclusions and engineering criteria for the proposed development with specific
recommendations for excavations, fill placement, and foundation design for the proposed structures.
Cited references are presented in Appendix A. Boring logs are located in Appendix B. Appendix C
contains our laboratory methods and results. Figures 1 and 1 A are index maps showing the
approximate site location. Figure 2 shows approximate locations of subsurface explorations and
generalized site geologic conditions. Figure 3 shows the regional faulting and seismicity for the area.
1.2 Scope of Services
The scope of services provided included:
• Review of readily available geologic and soils reports pertinent to the site and adjacent areas.
• 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.
C., 10 .v SG
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 2
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
• 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.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located in the residential community of Cardiff by the Sea, at 1660 Brahms Road (APN
260- 264- 16 -00). Presently, a single - family residence with a deck is situated on the site. This
residence is surrounded by landscaping (softscape) and an asphalt parking area. It is our
understanding that the existing residence will be demolished and replaced with the proposed three-
story residential structure consisting of a two -story above -grade residence over a basement.
Site elevations range from approximately 189 feet above mean sea level in the north side of the
property to 186 feet above mean sea level on the west side of the property. This results in a slight
west surface gradient across the site.
3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
3.1 Field Investigation
Our field exploration was conducted on March 11, 2008, and included a visual site reconnaissance
and the excavation of three exploratory soil borings to evaluate the condition of the underlying soil
materials. The borings were advanced within accessible areas of the subject site using a limited-
access drill rig equipped with continuous flight augers to the maximum explored depth of 20 feet
below existing grade. Select undisturbed soil samples were collected using a modified California
rtc_x.."oro sILL9"SG aw cep «mc,ia«
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
Page 3
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No 10 -9448G
sampler and disturbed soil samples were collected with a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler,
Bulk samples were collected from drill cuttings and stored in burlap sample bags.
Soils were logged in the field by a CTE geologist and visually classified in accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System. Samples were transported to the CTE Certified Geotechnical
Laboratory in Escondido, California for analysis. The field descriptions have been modified, where
appropriate, to reflect laboratory test results. Exploration logs including descriptions of the soils
encountered are included in Appendix B. Approximate exploration locations are shown on Figure 2.
3.2 Laboratory Investigation
Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples for classification purposes and to
evaluate physical properties and engineering characteristics. Soil samples were analyzed for Particle -
Size Distribution, Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture Content, Expansion Index, Atterberg
Limits, and Select Chemical Characteristics Analysis (pH, resistivity and soluble sulfates/chlorides).
Test method descriptions and laboratory test results are included in Appendix C.
4.0 GEOLOGY
4.1 General Settin¢
San Diego County is located within the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province, which is
characterized by northwest - trending mountain ranges, intervening valleys, and predominantly
northwest - trending regional faults. The San Diego Region can be further subdivided into the coastal
plain, a central mountain — valley, and the eastern mountain- valley areas. The project site lies within
1101 _u'"Ipr i� 11M"SG\Rpi Ge j.M J.&o
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 4
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
the coastal plain an area of low relief that slopes gently toward the Pacific Ocean. The coastal plain,
has undergone uplift since early Pleistocene time and is characterized by geomorphic landforms
known as marine terraces, which are erosion surfaces or abrasion platforms cut by ocean—wave
processes along past coastlines. These surfaces are recognized today as the relatively flat -lying
mesas and terraces that range in elevation across the coastal plain of San Diego. The elevation
differences of these marine terraces are the result of sea level changes that are associated with glacial
retreat and advance throughout the Pleistocene Era, and uplift associated with activity on the Rose
Canyon Fault Zone (RCFZ), as well as faults of the La Nacion Fault complex over the past two
million years (Figure 3). The mesas or terraces have been incised by westward- flowing drainages that
have adjusted to the relative sea level changes. The combined effect of these processes is that older
marine terraces are found at progressively higher elevations. The marine terraces are typically
covered with marine sediments, which are covered with non -marine terrestrial deposits. The site
currently is situated on a mesa at an approximate elevation of 187 feet above mean sea level, that
correlates with elevations consistent with the Party Grove terrace with Quaternary terrace deposits
approximately 413,000 years old. This terrace is bounded by westward - sloping drainages including
the Canyon Encinitas to the north and Encinitas Creek and San Elijo Lagoon to the south.
4.2 Geologic Conditions
Published regional geologic mapping (Kennedy and Tan, 2005), indicates that the site and immediate
vicinity are underlain by marine and non -marine Quatemary-aged (middle to late Pleistocene) terrace
deposits that consist of undivided interfingering paralic deposits including strandline, beach,
„ate sc,�s.woiu+wo-wascRpp GcomaMme�.aoc
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 5
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
estuarine, and colluvial deposits composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium grained, pale
brown to reddish brown siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate.
Our observations and field explorations are consistent with the regional mapping and identified
Quaternary Terrace Deposits at or near the surface with a thin (less than one foot) cover of
turf/topsoil. The site earth materials are further described in the following text.
4.2.1 Topsoils
A thin layer of lawn/topsoil was observed to extend typically less than one foot below grade
throughout the site. This soil consisted of loose to medium dense, moist, silty fine - grained
SAND with abundant organics. These materials are not considered suitable for support of the
proposed improvements primarily because of their high organic content. However, these
materials are anticipated to be removed during construction grading activities for the
proposed structures.
4.2.2 Quaternary Terrace Deposits
Quaternary Terrace Deposits were observed underlying the topsoils. This material primarily
consisted of medium dense to very dense, moist, red- brown, orange- brown, brown, silty to
clayey fine- to medium - grained sand. These materials were encountered to the maximum
explored depth of 20 feet below existing grade. These soils are considered suitable for
support of the proposed structure and the addition of fill, as recommended herein.
�,c,� w��.o�r.io9eaecub� c�m�v.e�
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 6
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
4.3 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was not encountered in any of our borings to the maximum explored depth of 20 feet
below existing grade. While groundwater conditions will likely vary, especially during periods of
sustained precipitation, is not expected to affect the proposed improvements if proper site drainage is
maintained. However, subdrains may still be required, depending on our observations during grading
and/or construction.
4.4 Geologic Hazards
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 structures is considered low.
4.4.1 Local and Regional Faulting
Based on our site reconnaissance, evidence from our explorations, and a review of the
referenced literature, no known active fault traces underlie or project toward the site.
According to the California Geological Survey, a fault is active if it displays evidence of
activity in the last 11,000 years (Hart and Bryant, 1997). This site is not located within an
Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
The California Geological Survey broadly groups faults as "Class A" or "Class B" (Cao et
al., 2003). Class A faults are identified based upon relatively well defined paleoseismic
activity, and a fault slip rate of more than 5 millimeters per year (mm /yr). In contrast Class B
�Mle_sma�yrajec�s 10.94d8G�Rpt_GLmech t l.do
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 7
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
faults have comparatively less defined paleoseismic activity and are considered to have a
fault slip rate less than 5 mm /yr. The nearest known Class A fault to the site is the Julian
segment of the Elsinore Fault which is approximately 46.2 kilometers northeast of the site.
The closest Class B fault is the Rose Canyon Fault which is approximately 4.9 kilometers
northwest of the site. The following Table 1 presents the six nearest faults to the site,
including magnitude and fault classification. The attached Figure 3 shows regional faults and
seismicity with respect to the site.
TABLE 1
NEAR SITE FAULT PARAMETERS
FAULT NAME
DISTANCE FROM
SITE
(KILOMETERS)
MAXIMUM
EARTHQUAKE
MAGNITUDE
CLASSIFICATION
Rose Canyon Fault
4.9
7.2
B
Newport- Inglewood
19.8
7.1
B
Coronado Bank
27.8
7.6
B
Elsinore - Julian
46.2
7.1
A
Elsinore - Temecula
46.3
6.8
A
Palos Verdes
67.4
7.3
B
The California Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion
Page (on line pshamap.asp) indicates ground motions with 10% probability ofexceedance in
50 years for the site, as underlain by alluvium (site Class D soil types) are as shown on Table
2 below.
Cif urvcr.prG, '&I0' a SGJlq Geaiahoinl.doc
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
Page 8
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No 10 -9448G
TABLE2
SITE GROUND MOTION WrM 10% PROBABUITY OF EXCEEDANCE IN SO YEARS
PARAMETER
UNIT GRAVITY
(alluvium)
Ground Acceleration
0.327
Spectral Acceleration at Short (0.2 second) Duration
0.786
Spectral Acceleration at Long (1.0 second) Duration
0.394
The site could be subjected to significant shaking in the event of a major earthquake on any
of the faults listed above or other regional faults in the southern California or northern Baja
California area. However, the seismicity of the site is similar to conditions throughout the
San Diego area.
4.4.2 Seismic Design Criteria
The following table summarizes seismic design parameters from the California Building Code
(CBC, 2001). The values listed in Table 3 are applicable to faults listed in Table 1.
rm_K�a:pmi «u��ovaaec xpi GemirLnktl EOa
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 9
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
TABLE 3
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
VALUE
CBC REFERENCE
Seismic Zone Factor
0.4
Figure 16 -2
Soil Profile Type
So
Table 16 -J
Seismic Coefficient, C.
0.479
Table 16-Q
Seismic Coefficient, C,
0.768
Table 16 -R
Near- Source Factor, N.
1.09
Table 16-S
Near Source Factor, N,
1.2
Table 16 -T
Seismic Source
B
Table 16 -U
The following table summarizes seismic design parameters from the most current International and
California Building Codes (IBC, 2006 and CBC, 2007). The values listed in Table 4 are applicable to
faults listed in Table 1, and site coordinates of 33.02860 N and - 117.28360 W.
TABIB4
SEISWC DESIGN PARAhOn'ERS
PARAMETER
VALUE
IBC REFERENCE
Site Class
D
Table 1613.5.2
Spectral Response
Acceleration Coefficient, Ss
1.409
Figure 1613.5(3)
Spectral Response
Acceleration Coefficient, SI
0.534
Figure 1613.5(4)
Seismic Coefficient, F,
1.0
Tables 1613.5.3(1)
Seismic Coefficient, F,
1.5
Tables 1613.5.3(2)
"Tte smer:p Oo s 109 SG\Ppt Ce to k,e"I.dm
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 10
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
4.4.3 Liquefaction Evaluation
Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine - grained sands or silts lose their physical strengths
during earthquake- induced shaking and behave as a liquid. This is due to loss of
point -to -point grain contact and transfer of normal stress to the pore water. Liquefaction
potential varies with water level, soil type, material gradation, relative density, and probable
intensity and duration of ground shaking.
Due to the absence of shallow groundwater and the medium dense to dense nature of the
underlying native soils, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction should be
considered low in all areas of the project.
4.4.4 Seismic Settlement Evaluation
Seismic settlement occurs when loose to medium dense granular soils densify during seismic
events. We anticipate that loose surficial topsoils will be removed during grading. The
underlying site materials were generally found to be dense and are not considered likely to
experience significant seismic settlement. Therefore, in our opinion, the potential for seismic
settlement resulting in damage to site improvements should be considered low.
4.4.5 Tsunamis, Seiche, and Flooding Evaluation
The potential for tsunami damage at the site is very low due to the site elevation (greater than
180 feet above 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.
Cie a aro"s'10- 4 90'Api GeotechvcLLdoc
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
Page 11
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No 10 -9448G
4.4.6 Landslidine or Rocksliding
According to Tan and Giffen (1995), the site area is designated as generally susceptible to
landsliding. However, no landslides have been mapped in the general area of the site, and no
evidence of active landsliding was observed during our site investigation. In addition, the
site is mapped within an urbanized boundary and it appears that grading in the vicinity of the
site has been properly performed. Therefore, the potential for landsliding or rocksliding to
affect the site is considered remote.
4.4.7 Compressible and Expansive Soils
Based on geologic observation, the observed Quaternary Terrace Deposits materials exhibit
very low to low compressibility characteristics and are considered suitable for support of fill
and improvements.
On site materials were tested and determined to have an expansion index ranging between 4
and 9, which corresponds to a material with very low expansion potential. Therefore, the
presence of expansive materials should not affect the proposed development.
4.4.8 Corrosive Soils
Laboratory tests conducted for this report indicate site soils and bedrock have a low potential
for sulfate corrosion to Portland cement concrete. Soluble chloride and resistivity testing
indicates that the site soils and bedrock may have a low to moderate corrosive potential to
buried ferrous metal improvements. A qualified corrosion specialist could be consulted to
cie. Yn rox l &io-9448G Nq GmIe Mi Iaoc
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
Page 12
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
provide recommendations for protection of metallic facilities in contact with earth, should
corrosion- sensitive materials be utilized for this project.
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 construction of the project.
Recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed improvements are presented in the
subsequent sections of this report.
5.2 Site Preparation
Before any grading occurs, the site should be cleared of existing debris and other deleterious
materials. In areas to receive shallow founded structures or distress - sensitive improvements, all
topsoils, surficially eroded, desiccated, burrowed, or otherwise loose or disturbed soils should be
removed to the depth of the competent native materials. CTE recommends the removal of the
generally loose to medium dense and unsuitable high- organic- containing soils at the surface of the
site. Organic and other deleterious materials not suitable for structural backfill should be disposed
offsite at a legal disposal site. Since basement improvements are proposed beneath the residential
structure, overexcavation and recompaction does not appear to be required, as all foundations will be
extended to bear at depth in competent native materials.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 13
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
Thought not anticipated, proposed slab -on -grade areas may require scarification of nine to 12 inches
and recompaction at a minimum of two percent above optimum moisture content. If slab -on -grade
improvements are proposed near present grades, overexcavation and recompaction to competent
native materials will be required.
Organic or oversize materials (greater than three inches in maximum dimension) not suitable for
structural backfill within three feet of proposed grade should be disposed of off -site or placed in non-
structural planter or landscape areas
5.3 Site Excavation
Based on our observations, shallow excavations in site materials will generally be feasible with
heavy -duty construction equipment under normal conditions. An engineer or geologist from CTE
should evaluate the subgrade to verify that mitigative measures (removal of unsuitable soils) have
been properly carried out. Irreducible materials greater than three inches in maximum diameter were
not identified in the preliminary investigation; however if such materials are encountered they should
not be used in shallow fills (within three feet of proposed grades) on the site. In utility trenches,
adequate bedding should surround pipes.
5.4 Fill Placement and Compaction
The geotechnical consultant should verify that the proper site preparation has occurred before fill
placement occurs. Following removal of any loose, disturbed soils, areas to receive fills or
improvements should be scarified to a depth of one foot, moisture conditioned, and properly
Clc smmyropcts I W48G RN (ieotaEOa l dm
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 14
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
compacted. Fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent
(as evaluated by ASTM DI 557) at moisture contents greater than two 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, horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose
thickness. Backfill placement and compaction should be done in overall conformance with
geotechnical recommendations and local ordinances.
5.5 Fill Materials
The very low to non- expansive soils derived from the on site materials are considered suitable for
reuse on the site as compacted fill. If used, these materials should be screened of organic materials
and materials greater than three inches in a maximum dimension. If encountered, clayey, native soils
may be blended with granular soils and reused in non - structural fill areas.
Although not anticipated, imported fill beneath structures, pavements and walks should have an
expansion index less than or equal to 50 (per UBC 18 -1 -13) with less than 35 percent passing the no.
200 sieve. Imported fill soils for use in structural or slope areas should be evaluated by the soils
engineer to determine strength characteristics before placement on the site.
5.6 Temporary Construction Slimes
Sloping recommendations for unshored temporary excavations are provided. The recommended
slopes should be relatively stable against deep - seated failure, but may experience localized
sloughing. On site soils are considered Type B and Type C soils with recommended slope ratios as
-ca s apoj� Io-W&G pt d«
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 15
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
set forth in Table 5 below.
TANX5 _.
RB( OM TEe&ARYSLMERATM
SOIL TYPE
SLOPE RATIO
(Horizontal: vertical)
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
B (Formational Soils)
1:1 (MAXIMUM)
10 Feet
C (Topsoils/Fills)
1.5:1 (MAXIMUM)
10 Feet
Actual field conditions and soil type designations must be verified by a "competent person" while
excavations exist, according to Cal -OSHA regulations. In addition, the above sloping
recommendations do not allow for surcharge loading at the top of slopes by vehicular traffic,
equipment or materials. Appropriate surcharge setbacks must be maintained from the top of all
unshored slopes.
5.7 Foundations and Slab Recommendations
The following recommendations are for preliminary planning purposes only. These foundation
recommendations should be reviewed after completion of earthwork.
5.7.1 Foundations
Continuous and isolated spread footings are suitable for use at this site. However, footings
should not straddle cut/fill interfaces; we anticipate all structural footings will be founded
entirely upon competent native materials a minimum three feet below the lowest adjacent
exterior grade. Foundation dimensions and reinforcement should be based on allowable
c.._M.�.a.ox��s�avaaeasa! ueo�an�wao�
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 16
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
bearing values of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable bearing value may be
increased by one third for short- duration loading, which includes the effects of wind or
seismic forces.
Footings should be at least 15 inches wide for two- and three -story improvements, and
founded at least 36 inches below the lowest adjacent exterior grade. Reinforcement for
continuous footings should consist of at least four #4 reinforcing bars; two placed near the
top and two placed near the bottom. The structural engineer should provide
recommendations for reinforcement of any deepened spread footings and footings with pipe
penetrations. Foundation excavations should generally be maintained at above optimum
moisture content until concrete placement.
5.7.2 Foundation Settlement
In general, for the proposed construction, the maximum post - construction compression
settlement is expected to be less than 1.0 inch. Maximum differential settlement of
continuous footings is expected to be on the order of 0.5 inch across the building.
5.7.3 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. Excavations for
utility trenches within 10 lateral feet should not encroach within a 1:1 plane extending
downward from the closest bottom edge of adjacent footings.
,Ctc xn Vrojsns IPWgG,Rpt GmucMinl.d
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 17
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
5.7.4 Interior Concrete Slabs
Lightly loaded concrete slabs should be designed for the anticipated loading, but be a
minimum of 4.5 inches thick. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of #3 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), overlying a
maximum two -inch layer of consolidated aggregate base (Sand Equivalent greater than 30)
should be installed. A one- to two -inch layer of similar material may be placed above the
visqueen to protect the membrane during steel or concrete placement. Slab areas subject to
heavier than typical vehicular loads may require increased thickness and reinforcement. This
office should be contacted to provide additional recommendations where actual service
conditions warrant further analysis. Subgrade materials should be maintained at slightly
above optimum moisture content until slab underlayment or concrete are placed.
5.8 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures
The following recommendations may be used for shallow footings on the site. Foundations placed in
firm, well - compacted fill material may be designed using a coefficient of friction of 0.30 (total
frictional resistance equals coefficient of friction multiplied by the dead load). A design passive
resistance value of 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (with a maximum value of 1500
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. Retaining walls up to 10 feet high and backfilled using
granular soils may be designed using the equivalent fluid weights given in Table 6 below.
��('le smer�rajecls110.9448G�Rq _Gmrecluu<al.doc
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 18
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
TABLE6
EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHTS
(pounds per cubic foot)
SLOPE BACKFILL
WALL TYPE
LEVEL BACKFILL
2:1 (HORIZONTAL:
VERTICAL
CANTILEVER WALL
(YIELDING)
35
60
RESTRAINED WALL
55
90
The values above assume non - expansive backfill and free - draining conditions. Measures should be
taken to prevent moisture buildup behind all retaining walls. Drainage measures should include free
draining backfill materials and perforated drains. These drains should discharge to an appropriate
location. Basement wall waterproofing should be specified by the project architect.
5.9 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. Additionally, we recommend that flatwork be installed with at
least minimal reinforcement. Flatwork, which should be installed with crack control joints, includes
driveways, sidewalks, and architectural features. All subgrades should be prepared according to the
earthwork recommendations previously given, before placing concrete. Positive drainage should be
established and maintained next to all flatwork. Subgrade materials shall be maintained at slightly
above optimum moisture content until concrete placement.
e�� Krvagroja�s Ia4ae8GR0i Gmi.clw�.l dir�
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 19
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
5.10 Drainaee
Surface runoff should be collected and directed away from improvements by means of appropriate
erosion - reducing devices and positive drainage should be established around the proposed
improvements. Positive drainage should be directed away from improvements at a gradient of at
least two percent for a distance of at least five feet. We understand that some agencies are
encouraging the use of storm -water infiltration devices. Use of such devices tends to increase the
possibility of high groundwater and slope instability. If infiltration devices must be used, the
proposed location should be re- evaluated to make sure they are not compromising the structure
foundations and /or slope stabilities. The project civil engineers should evaluate the on -site drainage
and make necessary provisions to keep surface water from affecting the site
5.11 Slopes
Significant slopes are not anticipated at the site. Based on anticipated soil strength characteristics,
fill slopes should be constructed at slope ratios of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. These fill slope
inclinations should exhibit factors of safety greater than 1.5.
Although properly constructed slopes on this site should be grossly stable, the soils will be somewhat
erodible. Therefore, runoff water should not be permitted to drain over the edges of slopes unless
that water is confined to properly designed and constructed drainage facilities. Erosion resistant
vegetation should be maintained on the face of all slopes.
C��_xnn projxu 10 9"99 Gm�aMiul On<
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 20
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
Typically, soils along the top portion of a fill slope face will creep laterally. We do not recommend
distress- sensitive hardscape improvements be constructed within five feet of slope crests in fill areas
or that thickened edges be employed there.
5.12 Construction Observation
The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the
proposed construction and the subsurface conditions found in the exploratory boring locations. The
interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction to verify that
conditions are as anticipated.
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 earthwork should be observed
and tested to verify that grading activity has been performed according to the recommendations
contained within this report. The project engineer should evaluate all footing trenches before
reinforcing steel placement.
5.13 Plan Review
CTE should review the project foundation plans and grading plans before commencement of
earthwork to identify potential conflicts with the recommendations contained in this report.
i'm_ ". po % 10A BGflq Gm¢cAne [.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 21
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
April 7, 2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION
The recommendations provided in this report are based on the anticipated construction and the
subsurface conditions found in our explorations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be
checked in the field during construction.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a
property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of
man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may
occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the
findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control.
Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
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.
rm u ff roj u ) U9 W Rp cemcc dm
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 22
Proposed Busick Residence
1660 Brahms Road, Cardiff by the Sea, California
Anil 7.2008 CTE Job No. 10 -9448G
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. CTE should review
project specifications for all earthwork and foundation related activities prior to the solicitation of
construction bids.
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,
CONSTRUCTIOI'
Mark 4Ctlin, G.
Senior Geotechnic
Martin Siem, CEG# 2311
Certified Engineering Geologist
SgxONAL G
MARTIN E SIF•,r0�0
a No 311 61
CERTIFIEt in
14 ENGINEERIN
N.A GEp�pGIS- 1i
\oF.... 4;0��/
\ \Cm urvtAyrojMr \10.9448GVtp Gealechmcelda
z CaHiff -by -mew r z
-
ai � o
ooh
-sAN.
wo
Solana Beaeh.�.
o i o
sotwra� , ••'
., eauarr rNia, y- ll s gnsm� _�.:_•,. :.%
117 30000° W 117.29333° W 117.26667° W WG594117.26000• W
Tx ?,Mx a �lut
VIT f�6aI1 A aO 1®4nf16
PmJtl6a TOPoIOiID WiUb.a PCanvf.w�mwmW
TOP , map printed on 02/15/05 hom - Callforna tpo" end "Onttkd.tpg"
117.30000° w
z
117.28333° W 117.2667° W
WG594117.25000° W
WIM
Z
Vie.
.
.�•'�'. 1. • -. i �
`_.�
f � . - c, a '- �
m
:' ""` .•,
APPROXIMATE
Z
M
SITE L CATION',
z CaHiff -by -mew r z
-
ai � o
ooh
-sAN.
wo
Solana Beaeh.�.
o i o
sotwra� , ••'
., eauarr rNia, y- ll s gnsm� _�.:_•,. :.%
117 30000° W 117.29333° W 117.26667° W WG594117.26000• W
Tx ?,Mx a �lut
VIT f�6aI1 A aO 1®4nf16
PmJtl6a TOPoIOiID WiUb.a PCanvf.w�mwmW
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
City Of Capital Improvement Projects
Encinitas District Support Services
Field Operations
Sand Rep leni shment/Stormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
February 17, 2011
Attn: rNSCO/DICO Insurance Services, Inc.
17780 Fitch
Suite 200
Irvine, California 92614
RE: Ronald Lee and Catherine D. Busick
1660 Brahms Road
APN 260 - 264 -16
CDP 08.097
Grading Permit 10045 -GI
Release of security- 75%
Grading permit 10045 -GI authorized earthwork, private improvements, and erosion
control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has
approved rough grade. Therefore, a release of a portion of the security deposit is merited.
Performance Bond 729158P, in the amount of $49,144.00, may be reduced by 75%
to $12,286.00. The document original will be kept until completion.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-
2779 or in writing, attention this Department. A
Sincerey,
1Geis� De bra art
Engineering Technician
Subdivision Engineering
CC Jay Lembach, Finance Manager
Cathy Busick
Debra Geishart
File
Financial Services
TEL 760 - 633 -2600 / FAX 760 - 633 -2627 505 5. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760- 633 -2700 Q recycled paper
I 1 110 negley avenue A Certified SLBE do SBE Company
son diego, ca 92131
bethscita@vomeiter.com
phone(958)232 -4580
fax(858)737 -2154
w .vonreiter.00m
VON REITER GROUP
Civil Engineering Consultants
March 27, 2012
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
RE: Engineer's Final Grading Certification
For Grading Permit No. 10045 -G
The grading under Grading Permit No. 10045 -G has been performed in substantial conformance
with the approved grading plan As -Built drawing set.
Final Grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved
grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1% to the street and /or an appropriate
drainage system.
All the Low Impact Development, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management
Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part 11
were constructed and are operational. Maintenance covenants are in place, as required.
By: %�✓fN� 03127/2012
Richard E. Matter, Jr. - Engineer of Record Date
Verification by the Engineering Inspector of the above statements is documented by the
inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped; this
does not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility.
Engineering Inspector
Date
X
x
0
/K
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X x
x
0
X
X
X
X:{
x
X
X
x
7
x
A�B -1
x
x
X
d x x x
LEGEND
B 1 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
s \18- 9118G\Plo 2dso 1/9/2008 1IQ321 MI PDT
J
n
O
D
x
0
X
0
X
X
X:{
x
X
X
LEGEND 0 1 2
HISTORIC FAULT MOVEMENT
�' ` >�♦ > V�r . HOLOCENE (ACTIVE) FAULT MOVEMENT
r� LINEAR ALIGNED EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS SCALE 1" = 12 MILES
QUATERNARY FAULT (YOUNGER THAN 1.6 MILLION YEARS) DISPLACEMENT, AGE UNDIFFERENTIATED
PRE- QUATERNARY (OLDER THAN 1.6 MILLION YEARS) DISPLACEMENT FAULT
�` \`5 28 ; ts• ,'' ,�j.• +L. - * ♦ PERIOD 1800 1869 1932-
1,- 1868 1931 1999
�j
it t j ~ 6.5 -6.9
0 0 0
N-11 '4Y.�4 i. \ \•'\ / ♦ ':� 5.5 -5.9
r` 5.0 -5.4 O O
a :♦ '� 'fie. -+ ". TL�- \ `�� /� _ .' �.. \ \ —
'� o� . ^ O LAST TWO DIGITS OF M > 6.5
EARTHQUAKE YEAR
,
.,, `� ♦ f fll^ L F \\ \`\ u \`� ppp�w / 1 �� �� \� \\•:� ~�\ C t / *a �H� •y
N" /,/ j
7.
f]S 28
/�►o _ 5 -04
yr. h > . � � i "'� /� �\ + , , ♦ � � i Csai':
APPROXIMATE
SP F,'Iv CATION - �,� / 1 �.. / L •. 3. 0
Lk
\ ) ,
`I �� '1 W1�92 < . `1 ♦ ♦ \ ai, ~! `ll / i! 1 N,� ` \+ I •'�'
I. t ; . ,► Ih, , 4 0
\k "' �Vlp• \lam
NOTES: FAULT MAP ADAPTED AFTER JENNINGS. 1994, CDYG MAP N0. 6;
REFERENCE FOR ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP 10 -94480
EPICENTERS OF AND AREAS DAMAGED BY N>5 CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKES. 1800 -1999 ADAPTED CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. PROPOSED BUSICK PROPERTY
AFTER TOPPOZADA, BRANUM, PETERSEN, HAILSTORM, CRAMER, AND REICHLE, 2000, PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING -LAND SURVEYINGGEOTECNNICAL 1660 BRAHMS ROAD 1 inch = 12 miles
CLING NO SHEET 49 I 441 NONTIEL ROAD. SUITE 115 ESCONDIDO CA. 92026. PH (?I 716 - /9SS CARDIFF BY THE SEA CALIFORNIA 4/08 3
\ \Cte server \orolects \Geoloo Moos \FM T MNPS(fin 3).aea ] /t3 />mT mn,.< u, PtT
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES CITED
=ate .mR�WO }au�i 044480 PI ceotftMk iaoc
REFERENCES CITED
Blake, EQFAULT Version 3.00, 2000. Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and
Software.
2. Cao, T.; Bryant, W.W.; Rowshandel, B.; Branum, D.; and Wills, C.J.; 2003, The Revised
2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps June 2003
Hart, Earl W., Revised 1994, "Fault- Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist Priolo,
Special Studies Zones Act of 1972," California Division of Mines and Geology, Special
Publication 42.
4. Jennings, Charles W., revised 1994, "Fault Map of California with Locations of
Volcanoes, Thermal Springs and Thermal Wells."
5. Tan, S. S., and Giffen, 1995, "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego
Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California: Landslide Hazard Identification Map No.
35 ", California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open -File
Report 95 -04, State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California.
6. Tan, S. S., and Kennedy, M. P, 1996, Geologic Map of the Oceanside, San Luis Rey, and San
Marcos 7.5 Minute Quadrangles, San Diego County, California ", California Department of
Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open -File Report 96 -02, State of California,
Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California.
Kennedy, M.P.; and Tan, S.S; 2005, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30'x60' Quadrangle,
California (Scale 1:100,000).
cie W�U,p Oo s I69U6c,Rq G tmi xsl d
CONSTRUCTION TESTING &ENGINEERING, INC.
6T, MININ SUE C0I311 YI 11 ES LN IDO FRINp . 1;I XB IYp IYSi[C IIpX
IIU YIXIIFI AUI, 3411E 111 I FS[pYplpp. U Slpll 1 111 LI1113
DEFINITION OF TERMS
PRIMARY DIVISIONS
SYMBOLS
SECONDARY DIVISIONS
GRAVELS
CLEAN
A < GW �,�
WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES
MORETHAN
GRAVELS
`"� - "' "'
LITTLE OR NO FINES
!�14 GP 1 - •
POORLY GRADED L SAND MIXTURES,
Z
HALF OF
< 5 °h FINES
OO
COARSE
LITTLE FONO FINES
GRAVELS
am
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES,
t=„ w
r„ c N
FRACTION IS
4,
W c0y 0
LARGER THAN
WITH FINES
NON - PLASTIC FINES
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND-CLAY MIXTURES,
z S < >
ZZ W
NO. 4 SIEVE
GC
PLASTIC FINES
SANDS
CLEAN
{ _
WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO
C Q h ti
Q
~ °
,.,
MORE THAN
SANDS
" -SSW
FINES
SP
POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR
HALF OF
< 5% FINES
ARSE
COARSE
NO FINES
U
FRACTION IS
SANDS
SM
SILTY SANDS, SAND -SILT MIXTURES, NON - PLASTIC FINES
SMALLER THAN
WITH FINES
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES
NO. 4 SIEVE
SC
INORGANIC SILTS, VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR SILTY
Ip. u�i N
SILTS AND CLAYS
ML
OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS SLIGHTLY PLASTIC CLAYEY SILTS
w
LIQUID LIMIT IS
CL
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,
a
h
LESS THAN 50
GRAVELLY SANDY SILTS OR LEAN CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
y v-i
zz2'°
I%
t� Sy -3 ry
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE
L�j ~ z Z
SILTS AND CLAYS
MI-1
SANDY OR SILTY SOILS ELASTIC SILTS
OF FAT CLAYS
Otom- za
LIQUID LIMIT IS
INORGANIC CLAYS HIGH PLASTICITY,
GREATER THAN SO
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,
nH
ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
GRAIN SIZES
GRAVE
BOULDERS
COBBLES
SILTS AND CLAYS
COARSE
FINE
COARSE MEDIUM
FINE
12" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200
CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
ADDITIONAL TESTS
(OTHER THAN TEST PIT AND BORING LOG COLUMN HEADINGS)
MAX- Maximum Dry Density
PM- Permeability PP- Pocket Penetrometer
GS- Grain Size Distribution
SG- Specific Gravity WA- Wash Analysis
SE- Sand Equivalent
HA- Hydrometer Analysis DS- Direct Shear
El- Expansion Index
AL- Atterberg Limits UC- Unconfined Compression
CHM- Sulfate and Chloride
RV- R -Value MD- Moisture/Density
Content , pH, Resistivity
CN- Consolidation M- Moisture
CDR - Corrosivity
CP- Collapse Potential SC- Swell Compression
SD- Sample Disturbed
HC- Hydrocollapse OI- Organic Impurities
REM- Remolded
FIGURE: BLI
CONSTRUCTION TESTING &ENGINEERING, INC.
CONSTRUCTION I
fI1iIF[( fE1t1114 FFO IYS PINE
1r1 YOY1111 1010. iultl 111 I !E(OYf 141 LI 11111 I r„ 111 X114
PROJECT: DRILLER: SHEET. Of
CTE JOB NO DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE:
LOGGED BY SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION:
c
o
n
N
u
"s
n
E
BORING LEGEND
Laboratory Tests
L
C
V
❑
h
U
t
DESCRIPTION
Block or Chunk Sample
Bulk Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Modified Split - Barrel Drive Sampler (Cal Sampler)
Thin Walled Army Corp. of Engineers Sample
Z
Groundwater Table
---
--- ---- ------- ----- ------------ -------- ------_____--'------------------
Soil Type or Classification Change
Formation Change I(Approximate boundaries queried MI
'Ism"
Ouotes are placed around classifications where the soils
LLFIGURE:
exist in situ as bedrock
BL2
CONSTRUCTION TESTING &ENGINEERING, INC.
oml[[nxl[u I Co"' RU ION Fxclx[[xlxo TISOnc nno Ixvfi uax
1111 Y1Y11[l PYIO SYI11 II! 1 Fif 1Y1101 f! Illlf 11lY llf If!!
PROJECT: 1660 BRAHMS RD., CARDIFF DRILLER: PACIFIC DRILLING SHEET: I of I
CTE JOB NO 10 -9448G DRILL METHOD: TRI -POD DRILLING DATE: 3/11,2008
LOGGED BY: D. RTES SAMPLE METHOD: RING, SPT, BULK ELEVATION: 187
�
°
n
n
a
E
BORING. B -1
Laboraton'lcs[s
fn
V
6
C
In
6
DESCRIPTION
0
0 -0.3' TURF:
0.3' OUARTERNARY TERRACE DEPOSIT (Otd):
MD. El
Medium reddish brown, medium dense, moist, silty to clayey
SAND (SM -SC), fine to medium grained.
CH LM
WA
s
Becomes dense.
I t
24
1
Becomes medium dense.
W ,A
13
is
-
I :
Becomes dense.
WA, At
16
i Sand percentage increasing, less silt and clayey fraction.
y
Becomes medium dense.
T.
I3
Total depth 19.5'
-0
No groundwater
Borehole backfilled with bentonite chips and capped with soil
_
B-
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
G[of[sxu of I [ax[ixu[rmx Fx Eixu rixe lesn«e exo Ixv¢nox
uu Y >IVH AO[0 Sroi(1 iif i !f(BAOi4L G 11011 r[I of rl[5
PROJECT: 1660 BRAHMS RD.. CARDIFF DRILLER: PACIFIC DRILLING SHEET: 1 of I
CTE JOB NO: 10 -944BG DRILL METHOD: TRI -POD DRILLING DATE: "I IRo08
LOGGED BY: D. RIES SAMPLE METHOD: RING, SPT, BULK ELEVATION: 188
c
$
E
N
6
BORING: B -2
Laboratory Tests
8
Z
1
C
3
y
c
DESCRIPTION
0
0 -0.3' TURF:
0.3' OUARTERNARY TERRACE DEPOSIT (Otd):
Medium dense, moist, medium reddish orange brown,
silty to clayey SAND (SM -SC), fine to medium grained.
S
7
II
WA
AL
0
Becomes very dense.
�y
v,
E
I.
Becomes dense.
19
9
Ii
17
Total depth 20'
No groundwater
Borehole backfilled with bentonite chips and capped with soil
B -2
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
0 101[OOI101 I cum n nuc I ox LNG I N II IYO r( a;j1G u111 1 o IxV[CI ON
IS,, MONM1 OOIO. S0I11 I'1 I FICM.P. CC 111)f )11 ICI
PROJECT: 1660 BRAHMS RD., CARDIFF DRILLER: PACIFIC DRILLING SHEET: I of 1
CTE JOB NO 10 -9448G DRILL METHOD: TRI -POD DRILLING DATE: 3/112008
LOGGED BY. D. RIES SAMPLE METHOD: RING, SPT, BULK ELEVATION: 189
u
�
o
c
n
GO
u
s
c
r
E
°
BORING: B -3
Laboratory Tests
GS
F
o
e
5
Y
>
;
o
❑
.6
v
�+
z
ma
AP
❑
m
p
m
❑
�
❑
V
DESCRIPTION
0
0 -0.3' TURF:
0.3' OUARTERNARY TERRACE DEPOSIT (Std):
5
Dense, moist, medium reddish orange brown, silty to clayey
16
SAND (SM -SC), fine to medium grained.
32
0
RA
16
ie
7
Becomes medium dense.
s
is
Total depth 18'
No groundwater
Borehole backfilled with bentonite chips and capped with soil
0
2.
B -3
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS
rmw%aproms iawascxot. 6ry1nh Cldoc
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.
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.
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.
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 ASTMD -1557.
Atterberrp Limits
The procedure of ASTM D4518 -84 was used to measure the liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity
index of representative samples.
Chemical Analysis
Soil materials were collected with sterile sampling equipment and tested for Sulfate and Chloride
content, pH, Corrosivity, and Resistivity.
{m smmpnpm I0.9a 86SRps Groi¢Mial,dm
CONSTRUCTION TESTING &ENGINEERING, INC.
Bfm aRim l I CYm•ua m• Ifuxf MUf iff uxc f.6 lanfam•
,111 YallLll le,i. 11111 IO 1 f1if11alO. G fifif 1 161 »f Oii
200 WASH ANALYSIS
LOCATION
DEPTH
(feet)
PERCENT PASSING
#200 SIEVE
CLASSIFICATION
B -1
5
15.6
SM -SC
B -1
10
16.5
SM -SC
B -1
15
10
SP -SM
B =2
5
17.3
SM -SC
B -3
10
16.7
SM -SC
EXPANSION INDEX TEST
UBC 18 -2
LOCATION DEPTH EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION
(feet) POTENTIAL
B -1 24 4 VERY LOW
B -2 12 -14 9 VERY LOW
ATTERBERG LIMITS
LOCATION DEPTH LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX CLASSIFICATION
B -I 15 NON - PLASTIC
B -2 5 NON - PLASTIC
MAXIMUM DENSITY
(MODIFIED PROCTOR)
LOCATION DEPTH OPTIMUM MOISTURE DRY DENSITY
SULFATE
LOCATION
DEPTH
RESULTS
(feet)
ppm
B -I
5
58.1
CHLORIDE
LOCATION
DEPTH
RESULTS
(feet)
ppm
B -1
5
57.4
CONDUCTIVITY
CALIFORNIA TEST 424
LOCATION
DEPTH
RESULTS
(feet)
us/cm
B -I
5
100.1
RESISTIVITY
CALIFORNIA TEST 424
LOCATION
DEPTH
RESULTS
5
9990
.5
LABORATORY SUMMARY CTE JOB NO. 10 -9448G
I�-
1n
13<
130
125
6 120
F
S
V Its
w
3
F
Z
110
7
}
C
D
n1s
90
85
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
PERCENT MOISTURE ( %)
ASTM D1557 METHOD ® A ❑ B ❑ C
MODIFIED PROCTOR
RESULTS
LAB SAMPLE DEPTH MAXIMUM OPTIMUM
NUMBER NUMBER (FEET) SOIL DESCRIPTION DRY DENSITY MOISTURE
(PCF) CONTENT ( %)
18083 B_1 2.4 REDDISH BROWN SILTY 131.5 10.0
FINE SAND
CTE JOB NO: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. DATE: 04/08
GEOTECRNICAI MIDCONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INWEC71 N
10 -9448G 1441NIONTIEIROAO.STEIIS ESCONDIDOCAiMWS(160174"O66
FIGURE: C -2
APPENDIX D
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Appendix D Page D -1
Standard Specifications for Grading
Section I - General
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. presents the following 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 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 is 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 Meetine
A preconstruction site meeting should be arranged by the owner and/or client and should include
the grading contractor, design engineer, geotechnical consultant, owner's representative and
representatives of the appropriate governing authorities.
Section 4 - Site Preparation
The 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.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 1 of 24
Appendix D Page D -2
Standard Specifications for Grading
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
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.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 2 of 24
Appendix D Page D -3
Standard Specifications for Grading
The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations.
Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g.,
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.
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.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 3 of 24
Appendix D
Standard Specifications for Grading
Page D -4
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.
6.3 Pad Areas
All lot pad areas, including side yard terrace containing both cut and fill materials,
transitions, located less than 3 feet deep should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and
replaced with a uniform compacted fill blanket of 3 feet. Actual depth of overexcavation
may vary and should be delineated by the geotechnical consultant during grading,
especially where deep or drastic transitions are present.
For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established
away 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 Oualiri
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.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 4 of 24
Appendix D
Standard Specifications for Grading
Page D -5
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 the recommendations 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 observe and
approve the area to receive fill. After observation 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,
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
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 5 of 24
Appendix D
Standard Specifications for Grading
Page D -6
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
Mont 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 10 feet of any fill and should not be closer than 15 feet to any
slope face. These recommendations could vary as locations of improvements dictate.
Where practical, oversized material should not be placed below areas where structures or
deep utilities are proposed. Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a clean,
overexcavated or unyielding compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native
or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded
over and around all windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized
material should be staggered so those successive strata of oversized material are not in
the same vertical plane.
It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rock as field conditions dictate and as
recommended by the geotechnical consultant at the time of placement.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 6 of 24
Appendix D
Standard Specifications for Grading
Page D -7
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 -00, D 2922 -04. Tests should be conducted at
a minimum of approximately two vertical feet or approximately 1,000 to 2,000 cubic
yards of fill placed. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. Fill found
not to be in conformance with the grading recommendations should be removed or
otherwise handled as recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
7.3 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 two to five feet and cut back to grade, exposing the firm, compacted
fill inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If
the desired results are not achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and
reconstructed under the guidelines of the 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
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
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 7 of 24
Appendix D Page D -8
Standard Specifications for Grading
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 two
percent.
Section 8 - Trench Backfill
Utility and/or other excavation of trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be
compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction
should be a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density.
Within slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches up to one foot wide and two
feet deep may be backfilled with sand and 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 with CTE's recommendations during grading.
Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilization or sidehill masses, should be
installed in accordance with the specifications.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 8 of 24
Appendix D
Standard Specifications for Grading
Page D -9
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).
For drainage in extensively landscaped areas near structures, (i.e., within four feet) a minimum
of 5 percent gradient away from the structure should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2
percent should be maintained over the remainder of the site.
Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life
of the project. Property owners should be made aware that altering drainage patterns could be
detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance.
Section 10 -Slope Maintenance
10.1 - Landscane Plants
To enhance surfrcial 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 - Renair
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.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 9 of 24
Appendix D
Standard Specifications for Grading
Page D -10
In the accompanying Standard Details, appropriate repair procedures are illustrated for
superficial slope failures (i.e., occurring typically within the outer one foot to three feet of
a slope face).
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 10 of 24
BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL
SURFACE OF FIRM
EARTH MATERIAL
FILL SLOPE
J
�TERIAL l
5' MI rF—TVYP�I�CALS I E M 4' TYPICAL
_ 2' MIN 2% MIN 10
15' MIN. (INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE)
BENCHING FILL OVER CUT
SURFACE OF FIRM
EARTH MATERIAL
FINISH FILL SLOPE
FINISH CUT
SLOPE /E MASER
/UNgU�TA% 4'TYPICAL
REMOVE
l /
2% MIN 10'
/ TYPICAL
15' MIN OR STABILITY EQUIVALENT PER SOIL
ENGINEERING (INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE)
NOT TO SCALE
BENCHING FOR COMPACTED FILL DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 11 of 24
TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
FILL
1 �
i
L 2% MIN
MINIMUM --/ 15' MINIMUM BASE KEY WIDT
DOW NSLOPE
KEY DEPTH
BENCH
COMPETENT EARTH
MATERIAL
TYPICAL BENCH
HEIGHT
PROVIDE BACKDRAIN AS REQUIRED
PER RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOILS
ENGINEER DURING GRADING
WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 5:1 OR LESS,
BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY. FILL IS NOT TO BE
PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL.
NOT TO SCALE
FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL GROUND DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 12 of 24
REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM,
AND CREEP MATERIAL FROM
TRANSITION
CUT /FILL CONTACT SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
FILL
cn
�' I
Z
D
CUT /FILL CONTACT SHOWN
��iPi �pJOVi
GR
ON "AS- BUILT"
PNO
O
M
v
0? S 05l,GOV��'
4'TYPICAL
-0 m
0 n
NATURAL _
1 C7
TOPOGRAPHY �'
�' 2 %MIN �_
10' TYPICAL
w D
O A
O
N) z
��
15'MINIMUM
I���
CUT SLOPE'
BEDROCK OR APPROVED
m
O
FOUNDATION MATERIAL
L7
D
_o
Z
G7
'NOTE: CUT SLOPE PORTION SHOULD BE
MADE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL
NOT TO SCALE
FILL SLOPE
ABOVE CUT SLOPE
DETAIL
SURFACE OF
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
\ \ COMPACTED FILL /
TYPICAL BENCHING
\ v /
/ REMOVE UNSUITABLE
O MATERIAL
SEE DETAIL BELOW
INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN
AT 2% GRADIENT MINIMUM
DETAIL
MINIMUM 9 FT PER LINEAR FOOT
OF APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL
14"
FILTER MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING
SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL:
SIEVE SIZE
1"
Y4•
ye-
NO. 4
NO, 30
NO. 8
NO. 50
NO, 200
PERCENTAGE PASSING
100
90 -100
40 -100
25-40
18 -33
5 -15
0 -7
MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED
PERFORATED PIPE (PERFORATIONS
DOWN)
6" FILTER MATERIAL BEDDING
APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40
POLY - VINYL - CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR
APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH
STRENGTH 1000 psi
PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA, SUBJECT TO
FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING
LENGTH OF RUN PIPE DIAMETER
INITIAL 500' 4"
0 -3 NOT TO SCALE
500' TO 1500' 6"
> 1500' 8"
TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 14 of 24
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS
SURFACE OF
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
\ COMPACTED FILL
\ \
TYPICAL BENCHING \ /
\ / REMOVE UNSUITABLE
G MATERIAL
SEE DETAILS BELOW
INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN
AT 2% GRADIENT MINIMUM
TRENCH DETAILS
_ 6" MINIMUM OVERLAP
—
T-
V -DITCH DETAIL II II/ MINIMUM 9 ED PER LINEAR FOOT
rrr OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL
MIRAFI 140N FABRIC
OR APPROVED EQUAL
W MINIMUM OVERLAP
0
24"
MINIMUM
NO
24"
MINIMUM
MINIMUM 9 F73 PER LINEAR FOOT
OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL
60° TO 90°
DRAIN MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING
SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL:
SIEVE SIZE
PERCENTAGE PASSING
1 %z"
88 -100
1"
5-40
Y4"
0 -17
y"
0 -7
NO. 200
0 -3
MIRAFI 140N FABRIC
OR APPROVED EQUAL
APPROVED PIPE TO BE
SCHEDULE 40 POLY -
VINYLCHLORIDE (P.V.C.)
OR APPROVED EQUAL.
MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH
1000 PSI.
PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA, SUBJECT TO
FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING
LENGTH OF RUN
INITIAL 500'
500' TO 1500'
> 1500'
NOT TO SCALE
GEOFABRIC SUBDRAIN
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 15 of 24
PIPE DIAMETER
4"
6"
8"
2'
4" DIAMETER PERFORATED
PIPE BACKDRAIN
4" DIAMETER NON - PERFORATED
PIPE LATERAL DRAIN
SLOPE PER PLAN
FILTER MATERIAL
15' MINIMUM
2.0%
AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN
AT MID -SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR
SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH.
KEY - DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER
(GENERALLY 1/2 SLOPE HEIGHT. 15' MINIMUM)
DIMENSIONS ARE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED
NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL SLOPE STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL
I STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING I
Page 16 of 24
2'
4" DIAMETER PERFORATED
PIPE BACKDRAIN
4" DIAMETER NON - PERFORATED
PIPE LATERAL DRAIN
SLOPE PER PLAN
FILTER MATERIAL
15' MINIMUM
2.0%
BENCHING
H/2
ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT
MID -SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED
FOR SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40
FEET HIGH.
KEY - DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER
DIMENSIONS ARE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED
NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 17 of 24
FINAL LIMIT OF DAYLIGHT
EXCAVATION LINE
OVEREXCAVATE
20' MAXIMUM
191
FINISH PAD
OVEREXCAVATE T
AND REPLACE WITH
COMPACTED FILL
COMPETENT BEDROCK
TYPICAL BENCHING
OVERBURDEN �_ LOCATION OF BACKDRAIN AND
(CREEP- PRONE) OUTLETS PER SOILS ENGINEER
AND /OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST
DURING GRADING. MINIMUM 2%
FLOW GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE
LOCATION.
EQUIPMENT WIDTH (MINIMUM 15')
NOT TO SCALE
DAYLIGHT SHEAR KEY DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 18 of 24
PROPOSED GRADING
BASE WIDTH "W" DETERMINED
BY SOILS ENGINEER
NATURAL GROUND
COMPACTED FILL
NOT TO SCALE
1
1
PROVIDE BACKDRAIN, PER
BACKDRAIN DETAIL. AN
ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN
AT MID -SLOPE WILL BE
REQUIRED FOR BACK
SLOPES IN EXCESS OF
40 FEET HIGH. LOCATIONS
OF BACKDRAINS AND OUTLETS
PER SOILS ENGINEER AND /OR
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST
DURING GRADING. MINIMUM 2%
FLOW GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE
LOCATION,
TYPICAL SHEAR KEY DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 19 of 24
FINISH SURFACE SLOPE
3 FT' MINIMUM PER LINEAR FOOT
APPROVED FILTER ROCK'
CONCRETE COLLAR
PLACED NEAT
4" MINIMUM DIAMETER
SOLID OUTLET PIPE
SPACED PER SOIL
ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS
DURING GRADING
COMPACTED FILL
4" MINIMUM APPROVED
PERFORATED PIPE**
(PERFORATIONS DOWN)
MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT
TO OUTLET
TYPICAL `— BENCH INCLINED
BENCHING TOWARD DRAIN
DETAIL A -A
TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL
MINIMUM MINIMUM 12" COVER I rBACKFILL� � SOLID OUTLEET p PEER APPROVED
"APPROVED PIPE TYPE:
SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
(P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL.
MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI
12"
MINIMUM
'FILTER ROCK TO MEET FOLLOWING
SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL.
NOT TO SCALE
SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING
1"
Y4"
3/6"
NO.4
NO. 30
NO. 50
NO. 200
100
90 -100
40 -100
25-40
5 -15
0 -7
0 -3
TYPICAL BACKDRAIN DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 20 of 24
FINISH SURFACE SLOPE
MINIMUM 3 FT' PER LINEAR FOOT
OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE`
TAPE AND SEAL AT COVER
CONCRETE COLLAR
PLACED NEAT
MINIMUM 4' DIAMETER
SOLID OUTLET PIPE
SPACED PER SOIL
ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM
12' COVER
"NOTE: AGGREGATE TO MEET FOLLOWING
SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL:
SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING
1 Y' 100
1" 5-40
i" 0 -17
COMPACTED FILL
TYPICAL �
BENCHING
MCTAU A A
BACKFILL
12"
" 0 -7
NOT TO SCALE
NO. 200 0 -3
J ' MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR
APPROVED EQUAL
�-- 4" MINIMUM APPROVED
PERFORATED PIPE
(PERFORATIONS DOWN)
MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT
TO OUTLET
BENCH INCLINED
TOWARD DRAIN
� TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL
MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED
SOLID OUTLET PIPE
BACKDRAIN DETAIL (GEOFRABIC)
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 21 of 24
FILL SLOPE
CLEAR ZONE
SOIL SHALL BE PUSHED OVER EQUIPMENT WIDTH
ROCKS AND FLOODED INTO
VOIDS. COMPACT AROUND
AND OVER EACH WINDROW.
STACK BOULDERS END TO END.
DO NOT PILE UPON EACH OTHER.
10'
FILL SLOPE
O O o
/ 10' MIN STAGGER
15' ROWS
O O
COMPETENT MATERIAL
VL�l�C�I.Y�7•�
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 22 of 24
FINISHED GRADE
BUILDING I
NO OVERSIZE, AREA FOR
10 FOUNDATION, UTILITIES,
SLOPE FACE AND SWIMMING POOLS
/ V �_ ----o —�
4#242
5' MI� M OR BELOW
DEPTH OF DEEPEST
UTILITY TRENCH
(WHICHEVER GREATER)
O O
15' 4
WINDROW
TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (EDGE VIEW)
PROFILE VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 23 of 24
GENERAL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
CUT LOT
— ORIGINAL
GROUND
I0mvk f.l
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK AND REGRADE
CUT /FILL LOT (TRANSITION)
ORIGINAL
,-�', GROUND
'MIN
i
COMPACTED FILL ' i T MIN
i
OVEREXCAVATE
i
AND REGRADE
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK
/ NOT TO SCALE
TRANSITION LOT DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 24 of 24
cojiyd -� 11104 neu)
�'Ch
11110 negley avenue
san diego, ca 92131
beth.reiter@vonreiter.com
phone(858)232 -4580
fax (866) 297 -0312
Hydrology Study
JAN 21 �
i
"11 '.S
imn Rrahmg Rnarl
City of Encinitas, CA
App- ?An_ ?r%4_iA -nn
qnp nR-147 / 1nndri-;R
Prepared For:
I7nna1ri R Gathering Rlkirk
645 Ampitheatre Drive
Del Mar. CA 92014
Created: October 15. 2008
Updated: January 16, 2009
68281
Exp.9-30 -2009
CIV \L
VON REITER GROUP
Civil Engineering Consultants
TABLE OF CONTENTS
niar��aainn•
Purpose and Scope
Project Description
Study Method
Project Design
(.nnrI ginnc
Ralredafinna•
Existing Hydrology
Developed Hvdrologv
111 Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Hvdroloav Map
Exhibit B: Detentionlirriaation Facility
Exhibit C: Vegetated Swale
I. DISCUSSION
PURPOSE AND SCOPE:
The purpose of this report is to publish the results of hydrology and hydraulic computer
analysis for the proposed Busick Residence located at 1660 Brahms Road. The project
proposes the demolition of an existing single family residence and the construction of a
new single family residence with underground parking garage facility, drainage,
landscaping and right -of -way improvements. The scope involves the study of the existing
and developed hydrology and hydraulics as it influences existing and proposed storm
drain system in the vicinity during a 100 -year frequency storm event. For purpose of this
report, the project will be referred as the " Busick Residence ".
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project is located in the City of Encinitas (APN 260 - 264 -16) on the westerly side of
Brahms Road. The existing site consists of developed lands with an approx. 2% slope to
the west (rear) for much of the property. The proposed building design shall incorporate
'green roof wherever possible, and drainage improvements have been designed to
contain as much runoff onsite as the site will allow. A retention /irrigation system shall be
used as an environmentally friendly option to mitigating runoff.
Existing Condition
In the existing condition, the site is developed with a single family residence and
landscaping. The majority of the site drains in a westerly direction via landscaping, across
neighboring properties and ultimately to San Marcos Creek. The remainder of the site
drains in an easterly direction to the Right -of -Way and Brahms Road, ultimately to San
Marcos Creek. The proposed development does not alter this drainage flow direction.
Developed Condition
A small detention/irrigation facility shall be placed in the lowest portion of the lot, in the
NW comer. Vegetated bio-swales shall be placed alonq the northem, western and a
portion of the southern property line. All vegetated swales will converge at the NW corner
and empty into the holding basin. to be used for irrigation of the rear yard, with the
exception of the northeasterly most swale, which will outlet to Brahms Road and the
turfblock swale. per the 08- 097CDP conditions of approval. Regular continual watering of
the yard shall be supplemented by typical irrigation measures (sprinklers, drips, etc.)
A portion of the new driveway ramp will be exposed to the elements after construction. To
intercept runoff from this area prior to entering the underground Darkina oarage. a 12"
trench drain is proposed in the ramp. where the first level roof begins. This trench drain
shall connect to a dual sump -pump which will Dump anv collected runoff outside to a 4'x4'
rip-rap pad _prior to entering the veaetated swale. which will ultimately converae at the
catch basin inlet for the detention facility, and be used for irriqation means.
The receivina waters for the proposed project is the San Marcos Creek (904.51). a Dart of
the Carlsbad Hvdroloaic Unit (904.00).
A small amount of runoff from the front yard will sheet flow easterly to the right -of -way. All
runoff from this area shall pass through vegetation (including a turfblock swale adjacent to
the property line on Brahms Road) prior to outletting to the street. This portion of the site
accounts for a very minimal amount of the total runoff and is considered negligible.
The proposed site shall incorporate more pervious surfaces than the existing condition.
Because of this design feature, and the small lot size in comparison to the overall drainage
basin, the existing and proposed runoff values are essentially the same.
STUDY METHOD:
The method of analysis was based on the Rational Method according to the County of
San Diego Hydrology Manual. The Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis were done using
online software provided by the San Diego State University, Engineering Department.
Drainage basin areas were determined from the existing and proposed grades shown on
the Hydrology Map, shown in Exhibit A.
The Rational Method provided the following variable coefficients:
Soil type - Hydrologic Soil Group C (per the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation report,
prepared by Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. on April 7, 2008).
The runoff coefficient for:
Existing Condition = Medium Density Residential (7.3 DU /A or less) = 0.54
Developed Condition = Medium Density Residential (7.3 DU /A or less) = 0.54
Rainfall Intensity for: 100 year storm event = 2.5 in.
Table 1.1 - Comparison of Existing and Developed Peak Flow Rate
CONCLUSION:
The Busick Residence project will not increase the developed peak runoff rate. Because
retentionlrrigation facilities and vegetated swales are provided on -site, the total runoff
leaving the site shall decrease after construction.
Exhibits B & C provide detailed information on the proposed Detention/Irrigation facilities
and Vegetated Swales to be used.
T(c)
AREA
Q(100)
1660 Brahms Road
7.40 min.
0.18 acres
0.48 cfs
CONCLUSION:
The Busick Residence project will not increase the developed peak runoff rate. Because
retentionlrrigation facilities and vegetated swales are provided on -site, the total runoff
leaving the site shall decrease after construction.
Exhibits B & C provide detailed information on the proposed Detention/Irrigation facilities
and Vegetated Swales to be used.
II. CALCULATIONS
Calculation of peak discharge by the rational method, urban bydrology, Victor Miguel Po... Pagc I of 2
rational.sdsu.edu: Calculatlon of peak discharge
by the national method
.1'
I.
Box culvert at highway crossing.
INPUT DATA:
Select:
SI units (metric)
U.S. Customary units
Runoff coefficient C:
0.54
Rainfall intensity / :
5.0 in hr-1
Drainage area A : 0.18
ac
Formula:
QpnCIA
In SI Units
(metric): L
S-1, mm hr
', and
hectares
(ha).
In U.S.
Customary
Units: cfs,
in hr', and
acres (ac).
OUTPUT:
Peak discharge
Q : 0.490 cfs
Press button to Calculate or recalculate
Your request was processed at 11:55:35 pm on
October 23rd, 2008 [ 081023 23:55:35 ].
http : / /por)ce.WstLedu/rafi00al'php 10/23/2008
M4
Son Diego Ca mKy Hydrology Manuel
Data June 2003
Section: 3
Page: 12 of 26
Note that the Initial Time of Concentration should be reflective of the general Imld use at the
upstream end of a drainage basin- A single lot with an area of two or less acres does not have
a signify effect where the drainage basin area is 20 to 600 acres.
Table 3-2 provides limits of the length (Maximum Length (LM)) of sheet flow to be used in
hydrology studies. Initial T; values based on average C values for the Land Use Element are
also included. These values can be used in planning and design applications as described
below. Exceptions may be approved by the "Regulating Agency" when submitted with a
detailed study.
Table 3-2
Element'
DU/
Acre
5%
1%
2%
3%
5%
100/0
T;
Lx
T;
T
T;
T
T;
Natural
50
13.2
70
12.5
85
10.9
100
10.3
100
8.7
100
6.9
LDR
1
50
12.2
70
11.5
85
10.0
100
9.5
100
8.0
100
6.4
LDR
2
50
113
70
10.5
85
9.2
100
8.8
100
7.4
100
5.8
LDR
2.9
50
10.7
70
10.0
85
8.8
95
8.1
100
7.0
100
5.6
MDR
43
50
10.2
70
9.6
90
8.1
95
7.8
100
6.7
100
5.3
MDR
73
50
92
65
8.4
80
95
7.0
100
6.0
100
4.8
MDR
10.9
50
8.7
65
7.9
80
6.9
90
6.4
100
5.7
100
4.5
MDR
14.5
50
82
65
7A
90
6.5
90
6.0
100
5.4
100
4.3
HDR
24
50
6.7
65
6.1
75
5.1
90
4.9
95
43
100
3.5
HDR
43
50
53
65
4.7
75
4.0
85
3.8
95
3.4
100
2.7
N. Com
50
53
60
4.5
75
4.0
85
3.8
95
3.4
100
2.7
G. Com
50
4.7
60
4.1
75
3.6
85
3.4
90
2.9
100
2.4
0 .PJCom
50
42
60
3.7
70
3.1
80
2.9
90
2.6
100
2.2
Limited L
50
4.2
60
3.7
70
3.1
80
2.9
90
2.6
100
2.2
CMMMl1.
50
3.7
60
3.2
70
2.7
80
2.6
90
2.3
100
1.9
xe t aole .)-1 mr more aetaded description
3-12
�c -_--AA min
In I:g1111:•1 IIli:'III, lll:q IN
i1 �������lu I�ullllli � I��I Illil
San Diego County Hydrology Manual
Date: June 2003
Table 3 -1
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR URBAN AREAS
Section: 3
Page: 6 of 26
Land Use I Runoff Coefficient "C"
Soil Tvoe
Undisturbed Natural Terrain (Natural)
Permanent Open Space
0'
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Residential, L0 DU /A or less
10
0.27
0.32
0.36
0.41
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Residential, 2.0 DU /A or less
20
0.34
0.38
0.42
0.46
Low Density Residential (LDR)
Residential, 2.9 DU /A or less
25
0.38
0.41
0.45
0.49
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Residential, 4.3 DU /A or less
30
0.41
0.45
0.52
Residential, 7.3 DU /A or less
40
0.48
0.51
057
0.57
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Residential, 10.9 DU /A or less
45
0.52
0.54
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Residential, 14.5 DU /A or less
50
0.55
0.58
0.60
0.60
0.63
High Density Residential (HDR)
Residential, 24.0 DU /A or less
65
0.66
0.67
0.69
0.71
High Density Residential (HDR)
Residential, 43.0 DU /A or less
80
0.76
0,77
Commercial/Industrial (N, Corn)
Neighborhood Commercial
80
0.76
0.77
0.78
0.79
0,78
0.79
CommerciaVlndustrW (G. Corn)
General Commercial
85
0.80
0.80
0.81
0.82
Commercial/Industrial (O.P. Corn)
Office Professional/Commercial
90
0.83
0.84
0.84
0.85
Commercial/Industrial (Limited 1.)
Limited Industrial
90
0.83
0.84
0.84
0.85
CommorciaVlndustrial Oenenll.
General Industrial 1
95
0.87
0.87
0.87
0,87
'The values associated with 0% impervious may be used for direct calculation of the
coefficient, Cp, for the soil type), or for areas that
nmoff coefficient as described in Section 3.1.2 (representing the pervious runoff
is located in Cleveland National Forest).
will remain undisturbed in perpetuity.
Justification must be given that
the area will remain natural forever (e.g.,
the area
DU /A - dwelling units per acre
NRCS = National Resources Conservation Service
KV
k
County of San Diego
C
Hydrology Manual
OUnty
aun(y _
33 30
OEM
j
i2ainfalllsopluvials
33-1
. '
•.�
'
...,
'•.....)
',
'7.6
100 Year Ralntdl Event • 6 Hoorn
�y
..........,
t1
...ya•. .
,.
�erX�N
'•••.`
•t
.'
w
Da
{ji (lljjll
52•4V
_
�..•,
K `,
DPW
an
G IS WS
N "S
rr....:
32-W
bl
7 0 3 MYr
ii
b
County of San Diego
Hydrology Manual
:.�•,.� -ter
f.... •, 4 •.::',%'
1•}
.�•'.
_
,•- �d-�.-
y`
� 'fir.: •=
\•.
y
/
.% :•� `
Rainfalllsopluvlals
acoao. �
...+
' '.:; :: :'' •
•. ........
100 Year Raiahll Event -14 Houvs
fir
�'~
eOIMMH�b1•
�
Mp.•.
`�
.......... ea
.-r�
�,�
...
6
u•45
.w
�... .
;: ,...... i..
. ....:........
Q
a
DPW SIGN
•�,
�
.••'y �
;
,
N �1�
Ewa¢
/� _
r
32-W
97JV
L.M.. �+.�...�..�
k
3 0 3 Min
b
III. EXHIBITS
1660 BRAHMS ROAD
POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY MAP
(FREQUENCY = 100 YEARS)
LOT P
FOUND REBAR 8 PLASTIC CAP MARKED EIVIN62- 8THBIAAIMG EDGE OF ASPHALT
i$ 3065' 1NO RECORDI O 79' EAST 8 2 WOE VEGETATED PROVDE TEMP. SHORING (PER STANDARD �� PAVEYBR
1.56' NORM OF PROPERTY LINE SWALE. BTO o 3.47E DRAWNGS) DURING BASEMENT WALL APN. 260-264-12-00 ^^
OUTLET TO RETENTION CONSTRUCTION. PER SEPARATE PERMIT. FOUND REeAR 6 EAST SEWER V"
FACtIm + + ILLEGIBLE 1.56' EAST 8 0.75' 1
305E OVERFLOW RETENTION /IRRIGATION BMP FACILITY, 6•W000 .LO L4� )) PROVIDE ANSI
�MFlLTRATON `BASIN PER DETAIL SHEET 3 AND CALIFGRIA ��' 2 WIDE VApETATED NORTH OF PROPERTY TO E %. A C
STORMWATER GUAUTY ASSOC. TC -30. BCONC.0 o I I PROFm LSE • 3 SWALE, 4777iiiKKKKKK Q /.57
INLET TG= 188.03. N 78004-60" E 136.73 �g
OUTLET TO BRAN 'RD.
Seem
• • • "1rD g 0+ vim! >`1iD�Cj LL L
1 . • a . LLL`
. . • . x 189.11 ` LL LLL STORAGE 8T016BAES UP
. . s DRAGS r4 SPOTI L L
LLL LLL
Z • • `LAF1D• +nt; a LL • • • • L
•O
'24 • • LDi 1 O7RFE •.. .•.•.a LL L
2 LL`-L UP . . . . . LLLL
N LLLa_L . . . `ELECT, . p�
N LLLL A • • • • METER . �A4A1 L L L
Q W ` . `X.1 ` 2 • LLLLLL �` . ` . ` . . ` . ` . ` . ` . ` . LAYDSGAPI � X191.1• L
LL LLLLL p
Z ` . ` a . . . • LLLLLL O. 8 +� +O ELEVATOR • a a a • • . a . + .
Y Lp ) L XPAl11GNG SPACES .1
N SL • / • • ` • • 4CJ
/. . COT Y1
a x 189.3 ,
% % � I -TREE Q =0.49 . . • • 81L 5 - FIRST FLOOR
O 1 °' . �)
WOOD `. `. `, ` Q 1�'9 ALTERNATING DUAL SUMP VESTIBULE `T` LLL
DE • . , ® PUMPS. CONNECT TO `
LOT C SEWER LINE.
LL
UNDERGROUND Z LLIL_
BLOCK OoA§S - BASEMENTWALL , ` ` LLy
WALL $', 12. LAUNDRY (TYPICAL) + LL
- O ' • `
GRASS \\ . *„p ROOM THEATER ROOM a ` LL
ERN LINE •` •. ` . . . UNDERGRO NO GARAGE SEWER -GAS METER `a
` FG>•1 .75 END DRIVEWAY RETAINI
ITT GRAIN TO CLEANOUT WALL, BEGIN BASEME WALL
• AGA . . . y SEWAGE PUMP PUMP ROO INS ABOVE. TW 189.75. BW 184, % .S a
•SETS`N S 4 190. X BABE NTE�$
5' WOOD • ? , A �\ ` + sa ,
$'
FENCE ' • •.z I. .� ` 4'.4'• IP.RAP• X189.5 +, O 8.338 P' -
• • • • • PAV T RBDUCE •... �• 37 -E
. IDE SCOUR ROW _ ALTERNATING D I SUMP �RAMp DOWN lr'(RENCH DRAIIT.TD SyMP' Ql ) O 15 7G•
yECETATfiD . ` UT. PIPE PUMPS. OU TO VEGETATED w U O 15.OR PUMP BI'A£IbSC4PINC r b
FOUND 314' IRON PIPE 8 DISC + .SWALE, 72LF O R' • ® SWALE TENTION FACILITY a EL =1 79.331 • GRA E BREAX ,, • J �+ y 6
MARKED YS 2318' (NO RECORD) `• 3.07E . . ... 8'GWTT BEID 1 E BREAK .€L =18j,50 RAMP WN. I
OF PARADISE EL= 180.00 ., •• . R• A ,
1.47' EAST A 1.68' NORTH OF 5'
•� ` ® -4' PVC R, • 4
_ _ _ 0. .' =1 8.79'
PROPERTY LINE
1C3' _ •� 8' W000
willow PROPERTY LIE N 78004100m E 120.7T 8• BLOCK WALL wu �pER BUILDMN
FENCE W/ 6' W000 FENCE _PLANS AND BORED. FENCE
PROVIDE TEMP. SHORING PER ENO DRIVEWAY RETAINING FOUND% %V.1DEAgT TW R
STANDARD DRAWINGS) DURING GRAPHIC SCALE WALL BEGIN BASEMENT WALL
F)OS79iG 2- STOFIY BULOING1 1 NOftTN OF PROPERTY BW 1£
LOT B BASEMENT WALL CONSTRUCTION. TW 189.75, BW 161.50 LOT R LI PAVEMENT
PER SEPARATE PERMIT. •1��1 APN: 260 - 264 -15 -00
�w.• w
LEGEND
WATERSHED AREA DESIGNATION
A
WATERSHED AREA (ACRES)
0.18
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
MME MME
DESIGN RUNOFF
0 =0.49
CTS
wroPOLacr wo ron.
INSTALL S'
6 S.S WIDE
ADJACENT
IX WATEF
METER
B ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARIM
I= BRAHMS ROAD
DONALD k CATHERINE BUSICK
APN: 260 - 264 -16 -00
4
NEW AC P
MANG
0
MATCH E
—PROPERTY
080.74
Q
—TTREE
LL
cr
m
— EX SEWER
LATERAL
SEWER
G 189.75
1
CLPANOUT
W 189.3
14 NEW EOF
8a
y3O
b%
10' (VARIES)
58
OYID
EX. C
+
ANSITION
PAYINGI^
7
IYA
to'
187.98
` R
I
ASPHALT
NvW
B ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARIM
I= BRAHMS ROAD
DONALD k CATHERINE BUSICK
APN: 260 - 264 -16 -00
Retention/ Irrigation TC -12
Description
Design Considerations
Retention /irrigation refers to the capture of stormwater runoff in
s Sal for Ingtration
a holding pond and subsequent use of the captured volume for
■ Area Required
irrigation of landscape of natural pervious areas. This
s Slope
technology is very effective as a stormwater quality practice in
that, for the captured water quality volume, it provides Virtually
Envionmenlel Side- effects
no discharge to receiving waters and high stormwater
21 Trash ■
constituent removal efficiencies. This technology mimics natural
0 Metals ■
undeveloped watershed conditions wherein the vast majority of
0 Bactena ■
the rainfall volume during smaller rainfall events is infiltrated
0 Oil and Grease ■
through the soil profile. Their main advantage over other
Organics ■
infiltration technologies is the use of an irrigation system to
Legend (Removel£fliwrriverass)
spread the runoff over a larger area for infiltration. This allows
them to be used in areas with low permeability soils.
s Low ■ High
Capture of stormwater can be accomplished in almost any kind
of runoff storage facility, ranging from dry, concrete -lined ponds
_
to those with vegetated basins and permanent pools. The pump
Targeted Constituents
and wet well should be automated with a rainfall sensor to
21 Sediment ■
provide irrigation only during periods when required infiltration
rates can be realized. Generally, a spray irrigation system is
Nutr cuts ■
required to provide an adequate flow rate for distributing the
21 Trash ■
water quality volume (LCRA, 1998). Collection of roof runoff for
0 Metals ■
subsequent use (rainwater harvesting) also qualifies as a
0 Bactena ■
retention /irrigation practice.
0 Oil and Grease ■
Organics ■
This technology is still in its infancy and there are no published
Legend (Removel£fliwrriverass)
reports on its effectiveness, cost, or operational requirements.
The guidelines presented below should be considered tentative
s Low ■ High
until additional data are available.
♦ Medium
California Experience
This BMP has never been implemented in California, only in the
Austin, Texas area. The use there is limited to watersheds where
no increase in pollutant load is allowed because of the sensitive
nature of the watersheds.
Advantages
Pollutant removal effectiveness is high, accomplished
primarily by: (1) sedimentation in the primary storage
facility; (z) physical filtration of particulates through the soil
profile; (3) dissolved constituents uptake in the vegetative
root zone by the soil - resident microbial community.
January 2003 Callfornla Stormwater BMP Handbook os 5
New Development and Redevelopment
www. cabmphandbooks. com
TC -12 Retention/ Irrigation
The hydrologic characteristics of this technique are effective for simulating pre- developed
watershed conditions through: (t) containment of higher frequency flood volumes (less than
about a 2 -year event); and (2) reduction of flow rates and velocities for erosive flow events.
• Pollutant removal rates are estimated to be nearly i00% for all pollutants in the captured
and irrigated stormwater volume. However, relatively frequent inspection and maintenance
is necessary to assure proper operation of these facilities.
• This technology is particularly appropriate for areas with infrequent rainfall because the
system is not required to operate often and the ability to provide stormwater for irrigation
can reduce demand on surface and groundwater supplies.
Limitations
• Retention - irrigation is a relatively expensive technology due primarily to mechanical
systems, power requirements, and high maintenance needs.
• Due to the relative complexity of irrigation systems, they must be inspected and maintained
at regular intervals to ensure reliable system function.
• Retention - irrigation systems use pumps requiring electrical energy inputs (which cost
money, create pollution, and can be interrupted). Mechanical systems are also more
complex, requiring skilled maintenance, and they are more vulnerable to vandalism than
simpler, passive systems.
• Retention - irrigation systems require open space for irrigation and thus may be difficult to
retrofit in urban areas.
• Effective use of retention irrigation requires some form of pre- treatment of runoff flows (i.e.,
sediment forebay or vegetated filter) to remove coarse sediment and to protect the long -term
operating capacity of the irrigation equipment
• Retention /irrigation BMPs capture and store water that, depending on design may be
accessible to mosquitoes and other vectors for breeding.
Design and Sizing Guidelines
• Runoff Storage Facility Configuration and Sizing - Design of the runoff storage facility is
flexible as long as the water quality volume and an appropriate pump and wet well system
can be accommodated.
• Pump and Wet Well System - A reliable pump, wet well, and rainfall or soil moisture sensor
system should be used to distribute the water quality volume. These systems should be
similar to those used for wastewater effluent irrigation, which are commonly used in areas
where "no discharge" wastewater treatment plant permits are issued.
• Detention Time - The irrigation schedule should allow for complete drawdown of the water
quality volume within 72 hours. Irrigation should not begin within 12 hours of the end of
rainfall so that direct storm runoff has ceased and soils are not saturated. Consequently, the
length of the active irrigation period is 6o hours. The irrigation should include a cycling
factor of 1/2, so that each portion of the area will be irrigated for only 3o hours during the
2 of 5 Callfornla Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
New Development and Redevelopment
www cabmphandbock s. cam
Retention/ Irrigation TC -12
total of 6o hours allowed for disposal of the water quality volume. Irrigation also should not
occur during subsequent rainfall events.
• Irrigation System -Generally a spray irrigation system is required to provide an adequate
flow rate for timely distribution of the water quality volume.
■ Designs that utilize covered water storage should be accessible to vector control personnel
via access doors to facilitate vector surveillance and control if needed.
Irrigation Site Criteria — The area selected for irrigation must he pervious, on slopes of less
than 10 %. A geological assessment is required for proposed irrigation areas to assure that
there is a minimum of 12 inches of soil cover. Rocky soils are acceptable for irrigation;
however, the coarse material (diameter greater than 0.5 inches) should not account for more
than 30% of the soil volume. Optimum sites for irrigation include recreational and greenbelt
areas as well as landscaping in commercial developments. The stormwater irrigation area
should be distinct and different from any areas used for wastewater effluent irrigation.
Finally, the area designated for irrigation should have at least a loo -foot buffer from wells,
septic systems, and natural wetlands.
■ Irrigation Area — The irrigation rate must be low enough so that the irrigation does not
produce any surface runoff; consequently, the irrigation rate may not exceed the
permeability of the soil. The minimum required irrigation area should be calculated using
the following formula:
A=
12xV
Txr
where:
A = area required for irrigation (ft2)
V = water quality volume (ft3)
T = period of active irrigation (3o hr)
r = Permeability (in/hr)
The permeability of the soils in the area proposed for irrigation should be determined using
a double ring infiltrometer (ASTM D 3385 -94) or from county soil surveys prepared by the
Natural Resource Conservation Service. If a range of permeabilities is reported, the average
value should be used in the calculation. If no permeability data is available, a value of o.1
inches/hour should be assumed.
■ It should be noted that the minimum area requires intermittent irrigation over a period of
6o hours at low rates to use the entire water quality volume. This intensive irrigation may be
harmful to vegetation that is not adapted to long periods of wet conditions. In practice, a
much larger irrigation area will provide better use of the retained water and promote a
healthy landscape.
January 2003 Callfornla Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 5
New Development and Redevelopment
www.cabmphandbaoks.com
TC -12 Retention/ Irrigation
Performance
Ibis technology is still in its infancy and there are no published reports on its effectiveness, cost,
or operational requirements.
Siting Criteria
Capture of stormwater can be accomplished in almost any kind of runoff storage facility, ranging
from dry, concrete -lined ponds to those with vegetated basins and permanent pools. Siting is
contingent upon the type of facility used.
Additional Design Guidelines
This technology is still in its infancy and there are no published reports on its effectiveness, cost,
or operational requirements.
Maintenance
Relatively frequent inspection and maintenance is necessary to verify proper operation of these
facilities. Some maintenance concerns are specific to the type or irrigation system practice used
BM Ps that store water can become a nuisance due to mosquito and other vector breeding.
Preventing mosquito access to standing water sources in BMPs (particularly below - ground) is
the best prevention plan, but can prove challenging due to multiple entrances and the need to
maintain the hydraulic integrity of the system. Reliance on electrical pumps is prone to failure
and in some designs (e.g., sumps, vaults) may not provide complete dewatering, both which
increase the chances of water standing for over 72 hours and becoming a breeding place for
vectors. BM Ps that hold water for over 72 hours and /or rely on electrical or mechanical devices
to dewater may require routine inspections and treatments by local mosquito and vector control
agencies to suppress mosquito production. Open storage designs such as ponds and basins (see
appropriate fact sheets) will require routine preventative maintenance plans and may also
require routine inspections and treatments by local mosquito and vector control agencies.
Cost
This technology is still in its infancy and there are no published reports on its effectiveness, cost,
or operational requirements. However, O&M costs for retention - irrigation systems are high
compared to virtually all other stormwater quality control practices because of the need for: (1)
frequent inspections; (2) the reliance on mechanical equipment; and (3) power costs.
References and Sources of Additional Information
Barrett, M., 1999, Complying with the Edwards Aquifer Rules: Technical Guidance on Best
Management Practices, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Report RG -348-
http: / /www.tnrcc. state. tx.us /admin/topdoc% /.a8 /index.html
Lower - Colorado River Authority (LCRA), 1998, Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Technical
Manual, Austin, TX.
Metzger, M. E., D. F. Messer, C. L. Beitia, C. M. Myers, and V. L. Kramer. 2002. The dark side of
stormwater runoff management: disease vectors associated with structural BM Ps. Stormwater
3(2) 24-39
4 of 5 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
New Development and Redevelopment
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Retention/ Irrigation TC -12
January 2003 Calitornla Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 5
New Development and Redevelopment
www. cabmphandbooks. oom
Vegetated Swale TC -30
y ' 3
!Yri
I
n
Description
Vegetated swales are open, shallow channels with vegetation
covering the side slopes and bottom that collect and slowly
convey runoff flow to downstream discharge points. They are
designed to treat runoff through filtering by the vegetation in the
channel, filtering through a subsoil matrix, and /or infiltration
into the underlying soils. Swales can be natural or manmade.
They trap particulate pollutants (suspended solids and trace
metals), promote infiltration, and reduce the flow velocity of
stormwater runoff. Vegetated swales can serve as part of a
stormwater drainage system and can replace curbs, gutters and
storm sewer systems.
California Experience
Caltrans constructed and monitored six vegetated swales in
southern California. These swales were generally effective in
reducing the volume and mass of pollutants in runoff. Even in
the areas where the annual rainfall was only about io inches /yr,
the vegetation did not require additional irrigation. One factor
that strongly affected performance was the presence of large
numbers of gophers at most of the sites. The gophers created
earthen mounds, destroyed vegetation, and generally reduced the
effectiveness of the controls for TSS reduction.
Advantages
■ if properly designed, vegetated, and operated, swales can
serve as an aesthetic, potentially inexpensive urban
development or roadway drainage conveyance measure with
significant collateral water quality benefits.
Design Considerations
• Tribulary Area
• Area Required
• Slope
• Water Availability
Targeted Constituents
0
Sediment
0
Nutrients
•
0
Trash
•
0
Metals
•
0
Bacleria
•
0
Oil and Grease
Q
Omancs
Legend (Removal ERec6veness)
• low ■ High
♦ Medium
7SQ
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 13
New Development and Redevelopment
www. cabm phandbook s. com
TC -30 Vegetated Swale
■ Roadside ditches should be regarded as significant potential swale /buffer strip sites and
should be utilized for this purpose whenever possible.
Limitations
• Can be difficult to avoid channelization.
• May not be appropriate for industrial sites or locations where spills may occur
• Grassed swales cannot treat a very large drainage area. Large areas may be divided and
treated using multiple swales.
• A thick vegetative cover is needed for these practices to function properly.
• They are impractical in areas with steep topography.
• They are not effective and may even erode when flow velocities are high, if the grass cover is
not properly maintained
• In some places, their use is restricted by law: many local municipalities require curb and
gutter systems in residential areas.
• Swales are mores susceptible to failure if not properly maintained than other treatment
BMPs.
Design and Sizing Guidelines
• Flow rate based design determined by local requirements or sized so that 80 of the annual
runoff volume is discharged at less than the design rainfall intensity.
• Swale should be designed so that the water level does not exceed 2 /3rds the height of the
grass or q inches, which ever is less, at the design treatment rate.
• Longitudinal slopes should not exceed 2.5%
• Trapezoidal channels are normally recommended but other configurations, such as
parabolic, can also provide substantial water quality improvement and may be easier to mow
than designs with sharp breaks in slope.
• Swales constructed in cut are preferred, or in fill areas that are far enough from an adjacent
Slope to minimize the potential for gopher damage. Do not use side slopes constructed of
fill. which are prone to structural damage by gophers and other burrowing animals.
• A diverse selection of low growing, plants that thrive under the specific site, climatic, and
watering conditions should be specified Vegetation whose growing season corresponds to
the wet season are preferred. Drought tolerant vegetation should be considered especially
for swales that are not part of a regularly irrigated landscaped area.
• The width of the swale should be determined using Manning's Equation using a value of
o.2.S for Manning's u.
2 of 13 Callfornla Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
New Development and Redevelmment
www cabrnnhandbooks. con
Vegetated Swale TC -30
Cems&ucti(m/Inspectiou Cmtsidemt'imrs
• Include directions in the specifications for use of appropriate fertilizer and soil amendments
based on soil properties determined through testing and compared to the needs of the
vegetation requirements.
• Install swales at the time of the year when there is a reasonable chance of successful
establishment without irrigation; however, it is recognized that rainfall in a given year may
not be sufficient and temporary irrigation may be used.
• If sod tiles must be used, they should be placed so that there are no gaps between the tiles;
stagger the ends of the tiles to prevent the formation of channels along the swale or strip.
• Use a roller on the sod to ensure that no air pockets form between the sod and the soil.
■ Where seeds are used, erosion controls will be necessary to protect seeds for at least 75 days
after the first rainfall of the season.
Performance
The literature suggests that vegetated swales represent a practical and potentially effective
technique for controlling urban runoff quality. While limited quantitative performance data
exists for vegetated swales, it is known that check dams, slight slopes, permeable soils, dense
grass cover, increased contact time, and small storm events all contribute to successful pollutant
removal by the swale system. Factors decreasing the effectiveness of swales include compacted
soils, short nmoff contact time, large storm events, frozen ground, short grass heights, steep
slopes, and high runoff velocities and discharge rates.
Conventional vegetated swale designs have achieved mixed results in removing particulate
pollutants. A study performed by the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) monitored
three grass swales in the Washington, D.C., area and found no significant improvement in urban
runoff quality for the pollutants analyzed. However, the weak performance of these swales was
attributed to the high flow velocities in the swales, soil compaction, steep slopes, and short grass
height
Another project in Durham, NC, monitored the performance of a carefully designed artificial
swale that received runoff from a commercial parking lot. The project tracked a storms and
concluded that particulate concentrations of heavy metals (Cu, Pb, Zn, and Cd) were reduced by
approximately 5o percent However, the swale proved largely ineffective for removing soluble
nutrients.
The effectiveness of vegetated swales can be enhanced by adding check dams at approximately
17 meter (5o foot) increments along their length (.See Figure 1). These dams maximize the
retention time within the Swale, decrease flow velocities, and promote particulate settling.
Finally. the incorporation of vegetated filter strips parallel to the top of the channel banks can
help to treat sheet flows entering the swale.
Only y studies have been conducted on all grassed channels designed for water quality (Table r).
The data suggest relatively high removal rates for some vollutants, but neg_ alive removals for
some bacteria. and fair Derformance for nhosDhorus.
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 13
NPw O) Plnnmv t and Rark!velmment
www cabmohandbooks. com
TC -30 Vegetated Swale
able 1 Grossed swale pollutant removal efficiency data
Removal Efficiencies (% Removal)
Study
TSS
TP
TN
I NO.
Metals
Bacteria
Type
altrans 2002
77
8
67
66
83-90
-33
dry awa Iles
Wher 11993
67.8
45
31.4
1 42-62
-loo
grassed channel
D�sale Metro end Weahington
apartment ofEcobgy 1992
60
45
1 -
-25
1
I 2_16
-25
grassed channel
�eetUe Metro tad Washington
DepartmentofEeobgy,l992
83
29
-
I -25
46 -73
I -25
rassedchannel
Wang et at, 1981
18o
-
I -
I -
I 70 -80
( -
1dry Swale
Dorman et at, 1989
l
198
f
I 18
I
I 45
I 37 -81
I
dry Swale
Harper, 19M
87
83
84
80
88 -90
-
dryswale
-ereher et aL, 1983
99
99
99
99
99
-
ry swate
Harper, 1988.
81
17
40
52
37 -69
-
et SN.le
°00.1995
67
39
-
9
-35 to 6
-
etswale�
While it is difficult to distinguish between different designs based on the small amount of
available data, grassed channels generally have poorer removal rates than wet and dry swales,
although some swales appear to export soluble phosphorus (Harper, 1988; Koon, 1995). It is not
clear why swales export bacteria. One explanation is that bacteria thrive in the warm swale
soils.
Siting Criteria
The suitability of a Swale at a site will depend on land use, size of the area serviced, soil type,
slope, imperviousness of the contributing watershed, and dimensions and slope of the swale
system (Schueler et al., 1992). In general, swales can be used to serve areas of less than to acres,
with slopes no greater than 5 %. Use of natural topographic lows is encouraged and natural
drainage courses should be regarded as significant local resources to be kept in use (Young et al.,
1996).
Selection Criteria (NCTCOG, 1993)
■ Comparable performance to wet basins
■ Limited to treating a few acres
■ Availability of water during dry periods to maintain vegetation
■ Sufficient available land area
Research in the Austin area indicates that vegetated controls are effective at removing pollutants
even when dormant. Therefore, irrigation is not required to maintain growth during dry
periods, but may be necessary only to prevent the vegetation from dying.
4 of 13 Callfornla Sturnwater 8MP Handbook 3anuary 2003
New Development and Redevelopment
www.cabmphandbooks. corn
Vegetated Swale I TC -30
The topography of the site should permit the design of a channel with appropriate slope and
cross - sectional area. Site topography may also dictate a need for additional structural controls.
Recommendations for longitudinal slopes range between 2 and 6 percent. Flatter slopes can be
used, if sufficient to provide adequate conveyance. Steep slopes increase flow velocity, decrease
detention time, and may require energy dissipating and grade check. Steep slopes also can be
managed using a series of check dams to terrace the swale and reduce the slope to within
acceptable limits. The use of check dams with swales also promotes infiltration.
Additional Design Guidelines
Most of the design guidelines adopted for swale design specify a minimum hydraulic residence
time of q minutes. This criterion is based on the results of a single study conducted in Seattle,
Washington (Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology, 1992), and is not well
supported. Analysis of the data collected in that study indicates that pollutant removal at a
residence time of .r, minutes was not significantly different, although there is more variability in
that data. Therefore, additional research in the design criteria for swales is needed. Substantial
pollutant removal has also been observed for vegetated controls designed solely for conveyance
( Barrett et al, 1gg8); consequently, some flexibility in the design is warranted.
Many design guidelines recommend that grass be frequently mowed to maintain dense coverage
near the ground surface. Recent research (Colwell et al., 2000) has shown mowing frequency or
grass height has little or no effect on pollutant removal.
Ssmmary ofBlesign Rmummendations
1) The swale should have a length that provides a minimum hydraulic residence time of
at least 10 minutes. The maximum bottom width should not exceed 10 feet unless a
dividiue berm is provided. The depth of flow should not exceed 2i,-irds the height of
the grass at the peak of the water quality design storm intensity. The channel slope
should not exceed 2.5%.
21 A design grass height of 6 inches is recommended.
3) Regardless of the recommended detention time, the swale should be not less than
1ou feet in length.
q) The width of the swale should be determined using Manning's Equation, at the peak
of the design storm, using a Mannini s u of u.2..
5) The Swale can be sized as both a treatment facility for the design storm and as a
conveyance system to pass the peak hvdrauhc flows of the luo-vear storm if it is
located "on- line." The side slopes should be no steeper than ;}:1(H:V).
6) Roadside ditches should be regarded as significant potential swale/buffer strip sites
and should be utilized for this ouroose whenever oossible. If flow is to be introduced
through curb cuts, place pavement slightly above the elevation of the vegetated areas.
Curb cuts should be at least 12 inches wide to prevent clogging.
7) Swales must be vegetated in order to provide adequate treatment of runoff. It is
important to maximize water contact with vegetation and the soil surface. For
general purposes, select fine, close- growing, water - resistant grasses. If possible,
divert runoff ( other than necessary irrigation) during the period of vegetation
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 13
New Development and Redevelopment
www.cabmphandbooks.com
TC -30 Vegetated Swale
establishment. Where runoff diversion is not possible, cover graded and seeded
areas with suitable erosion control materials.
Maintenance
The useful life of a vegetated swale system is directly proportional to its maintenance frequency.
If properly designed and regularly maintained, vegetated swales can last indefinitely. The
maintenance objectives for vegetated swale systems include keeping up the hydraulic and
removal efficiency of the channel and maintaining a dense, healthy grass cover.
Maintenance activities should include periodic mowing (with grass never cut shorter than the
design flow depth), weed control, watering during drought conditions, reseeding of bare areas,
and clearing of debris and blockages. Cuttings should be removed from the channel and
disposed in a local composting facility. Accumulated sediment should also be removed
manually to avoid concentrated flows in the swale. The application of fertilizers and pesticides
should be minimal.
Another aspect of a good maintenance plan is repairing damaged areas within a channel. For
example, if the channel develops ruts or holes, it should be repaired utilizing a suitable soil that
is properly tamped and seeded. The grass cover should be thick; if it is not reseed as necessary.
Any standing water removed during the maintenance operation must be disposed to a sanitary
sewer at an approved discharge location. Residuals (e.g., silt, grass cuttings) must be disposed
in accordance with local or State requirements. Maintenance of grassed swales mostly involves
maintenance of the grass or wetland plant cover. Typical maintenanre activities are
summarized below:
■ Inspect swales at least twice annually for erosion, damage to vegetation, and sediment and
debris accumulation preferably at the end of the wet season to schedule summer
maintenance and before major fall runoff to be sure the swale is ready for winter. However,
additional inspection after periods of heavv runoff is desirable. The Swale should be checked
for debris and litter, and areas of sediment accumulation.
• Grass height and mowing frequency may not have a large impact on pollutant removal.
Consequently. mowing may only be necessary once or twice a year for safety or aesthetics or
to suppress weeds and woodv vegetation.
• Trash tends to accumulate in swale areas, particularly along highways. The need for litter
removal is determined through _periodic inspection, but litter should always be removed
nnor to mowing.
• Sediment accumulating near culverts and in channels should be removed when it builds up
to 7S mm (q in.) at anv soot or covers vegetation.
• Regularly inspect swales for pools of standing water. Swales can become a nuisance due to
mosquito breeding in standing water if obstructions develop (e.g. debris accumulation.
invasive vegetation) and /or if proper drainage slopes are not implemented and maintained.
6 of 13 Callfornla Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
Nwr D) Pena t F ci Rxiavalnnmant
www. rnhmnhanrihooks. eom
Vegetated Swale TC -30
Cost
Construction Cost
Little data is available to estimate the difference in cost between various swale designs. One
study (SWRPC, 1991) estimated the construction cost of grassed channels at approximately
$0.25 per ft2. This price does not include design costs or contingencies. Brown and Schueler
(1997) estimate these costs at approximately 32 percent of construction costs for most
stormwater management practices. For swales, however, these costs would probably be
significantly higher since the construction costs are so low compared with other practices. A
more realistic estimate would be a total cost of approximately $O.So per ft2, which compares
favorably with other stormwater management practices.
)anuary 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 7 of 13
New Development and Redevelopment
www.cabmphandbooks.com
TC -30 Vegetated Swale
Table 2 Swale Cost Estimate (SEWRPC, 1991)
80=0 (K*Rvu, 1w1)
Note: Mobilatonkternobairatbm calm to thaorganimlim and planning inaolvod in astabbahing a vagetafire swalo
'Swale has a bottom width of 1.0 foot, a top width d 10 feet wilh 1 3 side sbpes, and a 1.000 -fool langth.
° Area cleared = (top width + 10 feet) x swale length.
Area grubbed = flop width x Swale length).
'Volume excavated = (0.67 x top width x sivale depth) x Swale length (parabolic cross - section).
' Area dlled = (top width + 5(swale deoth9 x swale lens (parabolic cross - section).
3(top width)
Area seeded = area cleared x 0. 5,
T Area sodded = area cleared x 0.5.
8 of 13 Callfornla Stormwater 8MP Handbook January 2003
New Development and Redevelopment
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Unit Cost
MENOMINEE
Total Cost
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
High
ComporlaM
Unit
Extant
Mobilization /
Swale
1
$107
$274
Sol
$107
$4T4
1441
Dernobiliahon -fight
Sib Preparation
C- ._.........
Ago
05
$2200
$3.600
$5.400
$1,100
$1,900
$270o
Grbt lg'. "" ° ° "°
Gainers
Acre
0.25
$3.800
$5.200
$6.600
$050
$1,300
$1,650
Exavellon' . ... ......
Yd'
372
$2.10
$3.70
$5,30
$751
$1,376
$1,972
Laval and TIIII .....
YQ'
210
$020
$0.35
$0.50
$242
$124
$605
Sibs Darolopment
5:1vi d Topsoil
5 ad and Mulch'..
Yd'
'.210
$oAO
$1.00
$1.60
$464
$1,210
$1936
Bodo ,....................
Yd'
1.210
$120
5240
$&Ito
$1.452
52,904
$4355
Subtaal
-
-
--
-
--
$5,116
$0.366
$13,880
Contingencies
Swab
1
26%
25%
25%
$1279
$2,347
$3415
Told
$6.395
11 735
17 OTS
80=0 (K*Rvu, 1w1)
Note: Mobilatonkternobairatbm calm to thaorganimlim and planning inaolvod in astabbahing a vagetafire swalo
'Swale has a bottom width of 1.0 foot, a top width d 10 feet wilh 1 3 side sbpes, and a 1.000 -fool langth.
° Area cleared = (top width + 10 feet) x swale length.
Area grubbed = flop width x Swale length).
'Volume excavated = (0.67 x top width x sivale depth) x Swale length (parabolic cross - section).
' Area dlled = (top width + 5(swale deoth9 x swale lens (parabolic cross - section).
3(top width)
Area seeded = area cleared x 0. 5,
T Area sodded = area cleared x 0.5.
8 of 13 Callfornla Stormwater 8MP Handbook January 2003
New Development and Redevelopment
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Vegetated Swale TC -30
Table 3 Estimated Maintenance Costs (SEWRPC, 19911
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 9 of 13
New Development and Redevelopment
www, cabmphandbooks. com
Swale Site
(Depth and Top Ndth)
Component
Unit Cost
1.5 Foot Depth, One-
afoot Depth. 3 -Foot
Comment
Foot Bottom Width,
Bottom Width, 21 -Foot
10 -Foot Top Wldlh
Top Width
LawnMowhg
$0.8511.000ft'1 Toot ng
$0.141Inarfddl
$021Anserfoot
Lem milnt•trartnarial
width • 10 NO x length. How
eight times per yew
Go naval Lawn Care
S9.0011,000 fFl year
50.181 linear foal
$02811 Over toot
Lawn meinterm arm •(top
width • 10 fea0 x length
Swale Debris and Uttar
$0.10 flnoar foot/yes
$0.1011Yneerfool
$0.1011 hoer toot
—
Remml
Grace Raseading with
Mulch and Fortiltmr
50 301 yd'
$0 01 l lhoerfdol
$0.01 11 rear toot
Area megolebad cq usis I%
cflawn malmananoo area par
year
Program Adininistrallonand
b' 0.15lllnoartotIyes r.
50.1511basrfoot
50.15llwar foot
Inepsatfour times paryear
Swale Irapecton
plus $251 irapecton
Total
—
$0.%/ lines toot
$ 0.751linear loot
January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 9 of 13
New Development and Redevelopment
www, cabmphandbooks. com
TC -30 Vegetated Swale
Mart tea an ce Coat
Caltrans (2oo2) estimated the expected annual maintenance cost for a Swale with a tributary
area of approximately 2 ha at approximately $2,700. Since almost all maintenance consists of
mowing, the cost is fundamentally a function of the mowing frequency. Unit costs developed by
SEWRPC are shown in Table 3. In many cases vegetated channels would be used to convey
runoff and would require periodic mowing as well, so there may be little additional cost for the
water quality component. Since essentially all the activities are related to vegetation
management, no special training is required for maintenance personnel.
References and Sources of Additional Information
Barrett, Michael E., Walsh, Patrick M., Malina, Joseph F., Jr., Charbeneau, Randall J, 1998,
"Performance of vegetative controls for treating highway runoff," ASCE Journal of
Environmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 11, pp. 1121 -1128.
Brown, W., and T. Schueler. 1997. The Economics of Stormwater BMPS in the Mid-Atlan tic
Region. Prepared for the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Edgewater, MD, by the Center for
Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.
Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1996. Design of Stormwater Filtering Systems.
Prepared for the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Solomon, MD, and USEPA Region V,
Chicago, II, by the Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.
Colwell, Shanti R., Homer, Richard R., and Booth, Derek B., 2000. Characterization of
Performance Predictors and Evaluation ofMowing Practices in Biofrltration Swales. Report
to King County Land And Water Resources Division and others by Center for Urban Water
Resources Management, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA
Dorman, M.E., J. Hartigan, R.F. Steg, and T. Quasebarth. 1989. Retention, Detention and
Overland Flow for Pollutant Removal From Highway Stormwater Runoff. Vol 1. FHWA/RD
89/202. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Goldberg. 1993. Dayton Avenue Swale Biofiltration Study. Seattle Engineering Department,
Seattle, WA
Harper, H. 1988. Effects of Stormwater Management Systems on Groundwater Quality.
Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, FL, by
Environmental Research and Design, Inc., Orlando, FL.
Kercher, W.C., J.C. Landon, and R. Massarelli. 1983. Grassy swales prove cost - effective for
water pollution control. Public Works, 16: 53 -55
Koon, J. 1995. Evaluation of Water Quality Ponds and Swales in the Issaquah/East Lake
Sammamish Basins. King County Surface Water Management, Seattle, WA, and Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA
Metzger, M. E., D. F. Messer, C. L. Beitia, C. M. Myers, and V. L. Kramer. 2002. The Dark Side
Of Stormwater Runoff Management Disease Vectors Associated With Structural BMPs.
Stormwater 3(2): 24- 39.0akland, P.H. 1983. An evaluation of Stormwater pollutant removal
10 of 13 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
New Development and Redevelopment
www.cabmphandbooks.com
Vegetated Swale TC -30
through grassed swale treatment In Proceedings of the International Symposium of Urban
Hydrology, Hydraulics and Sediment Control, Lexington, KY. pp. 173 -182.
Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory. 1983. Final Report Metropolitan Washington
Urban Runoff Project. Prepared for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Washington, DC, by the Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory, Manassas, VA-
Pitt, R., and J. McLean. 1986. Toronto Area Watershed Management Strategy Study: Humber
River Pilot Watershed Project. Ontario Ministry of Environment, Toronto, ON.
Schueler, T. 1997. Comparative Pollutant Removal Capability of Urban BMPs: Areanalysis.
Watershed Protection Techniques 2(2):379 -383.
Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology. 1992- Biofiltration Swale Performance:
Recommendations and Design Considerations. Publication No. 657. Water Pollution Control
Department, Seattle, WA-
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWRPC). 1991. Costs of Urban
Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Measures. Technical report no. 31. Southeastern
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Waukesha, WI.
U.S. EPA, 1999, Stormwater Fact Sheet Vegetated Swales, Report a 832- F- 99 -o06
h=:// www .epa.gov /owm /mtb /verswale.pdf Office of Water, Washington DC.
Wang, T., D. Spyridakis, B. Mar, and R. Horner. 1981. Transport, Deposition and Control of
Heavy Metals in Highway Runoff. FHWA- WA- RD- 39 -10. University of Washington,
Department of Civil Engineering, Seattle, WA-
Washington State Department of Transportation, 1995, Highway Runoff Manual, Washington
State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington.
Welborn, C., and J. Veenhuis. 1987. Effects of Runoff Controls on the Quantity and Quality of
Urban Runoffin Two Locations in Austin, TX. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report
No. 87 -4004. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Yousef, Y., M. Wanielista, H. Harper, D. Pearce, and R. Tolbert. 1985. Best Management
Practices: Removal of Highway Contaminants By Roadside Swales. University of Central
Florida and Florida Department of Transportation, Orlando, FL.
Yu, S., S. Barnes, and V. Gerde. 1993. Testing of Best Management Practices for Controlling
Highway Runoff. FHWA/VA- 93 -R16. Virginia Transportation Research Council,
Charlottesville, VA
Iw jbrmateox Resources
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2000. Maryland Storm water Design
Manual. www.mde. state. md. us/ eiivironment/wma /sbDrmwatermanual. Accessed May 22,
2001.
Reeves, E. 1994 Performance and Condition of Biofilters in the Pacific Northwest. Watershed
Protection Techniques 1(3):117 -119.
January 2003 Callfornia Stormwater BMP Handbook 11 of 13
New Development and Redevelopment
www.cabmphandbooks.com
TC -30 Vegetated Swale
Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology. 1992. Biofiltration Swale Performance.
Recommendations and Design Considerations. Publication No. 657. Seattle Metro and
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA
USEPA 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources ofNonpoint Pollution in
Coastal Waters. EPA- 84o -B -92 -002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
Washington, DC.
Watershed Management Institute (WMI). 1997. Operation, Maintenance, and Management of
Stormwater Management Systems. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water. Washington, DC, by the Watershed Management Institute, Ingleside, MD.
12 of 13 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003
New Development and Redevelopment
www.cabmpharKbooks.com
Vegetated Swale TC -30
Wsde fir xvur
pnu iL.�
- -_
IY/ (nM wfIFM O(NM[ +M�ell[t \4L
MEMO=:
L + Ihrk liO— PWdMArlq M *Wcnkr rk+ erwak W#mmm�w
M +aM1��M�+IY UiU
• aT+liMMrYi4A
•aOlYwrMAlAdn�k�lU1
7� •ar. • O�W k waW alry� k+rk W. \kP IMO
January 2003 Callfornla Stormwater BMP Handbook 13 of 13
New Development and Redevelopment
www.calomphandbooks.com