The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-88 G NGINEERING SERVICES DEPAR TMENT cityo Encinitas District Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering December 5, 2006 Attn: California Bank and Trust 135 Saxony Road Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Moonlight Beach Villas L.P. (David Grey) 175 Florita Avenue APN 256-391-13 Grading Permit 88-GI Partial release of security Permit 88-GI authorized earthwork,private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved rough grade. Therefore, release of the remainder of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account#2300003040 in the amount of$45,597.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns,please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sin c ely, ebra Geishart y mbach Engineering Te ician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Moonlight Beach Villas L.P. Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper ►�.�-�� Biii/iii��riiiir, live. CIVIL,GEOTECHNICAL,&QUALITY ENGINEERING C 0 i FOUNDATION DESIGN*LAND SURVEYING*SOIL TESTING CLIENT: GRAY PROJECT: GRA PAD-CERT DATE: 7 SEPTEMBER 2006 G & S BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. 315 South Coast Highway, #U-26 Encinitas, CA. 92024 Attention: Mr. Dave Gray Subject: Rough Grading Pad Certification for the 2 lots located at 175 Florita Street and 169 La Veta Ave., Encinitas, CA. (APNs: 256-391-13 & 14)(Grading Plan No. 0088-G) Gentlemen: Pursuant to Section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for the subject project. On 25 August 2006, we performed a field survey of the rough graded subject lots. Various finish grade spot elevations were shot on the pads and the following are the results of our survey: Design Pad Elevation = 68.0 Point A = 68.0 (N. Pad) Point C = 68.0 (S. Pad) Point B = 68.1 (N. Pad) Point D = 68.0 (S. Pad) As indicated above, the subject rough graded house pads were found to be within 0.1 foot of the design elevation. I hereby state that all rough grading for the subject site has been completed in conformance with the approved plans and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. Should you have uestions regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact us. NpL LANps S P. eF 9GF 4 acv`' 99 o Sincerely, � 9 * PLS 6140 >k Np Exp. 3-31 -08 9 Q� ennis P. Beard PLS �OP O President 1611-A SO.MELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)945-4221 N —� A/d A/r, EIVGINE�RING SEF.VICES DERt1RT►1EN _ r 1 capftoi improvement Projects \ I DisbiCt.Support Services �• City 0! Reid Operations r, r Subdivision Engineering .7roffic Engineering GRADING. CONDIrrmXAL -APPROVAL f� To: Subdivision Engineering Public Service counter FROM:. Field.Operations Private Contract inspection. T RE: Grading Permit No • i Name•f Project Name of Developer Site Location I _ suffix!. .110 t1 (blagJ. •(addfess :number ..sueer name', ~ The .. Tr:oposed .gradi-rag::of-:•the:,ubject:srte,.wiil req.►�ire�t�etairiin9 vtratts�sato p _ Waltz that a•re•also,blitlding avails:The in the :done' by the Fieid-Operations Divisiodmfi etarnn9 wal sgi Stobe done.bv the However; the.inspeetion.-of ,.th.e: bull g Building Inspection Division f he Building Community ermit Development, �npo dee to Therefore, issuance of the necessary facilitate the completion of rough grading. NO t111SPE0,-IONS BEYOND FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATION ARE ROUGH PROVIDED By BUILDING 1NSP.ECTION UNTIL A NOTICE GRADING APPROVAL, WITHOUT HOUT CONDITIONS ANDP�OHB DEED THE ENGINEERING INS ECTi O , IS RECEIVED. FRAMING IS . r atei (signature of Engin r r spector) !Signature of Senior Cavil Engineer., orw if appropiatel (Bate! Reference: Building Permit No. --- s both engineering Special Note: Submit -boxes.this ememberr toedo to counter staff grading approval and submit that paperwork, when technicians' in-boxes. rough gra g PP coordination.andle the appropiate reductions in security, if any, and coordination.with Building completed. Office staff Krill h Inspection.Thank you. JSG/fieldldocl t mnrrisd naner /T1 ENGINEERING ,EF.VICE,DEPAP,- JVENT l f t' Caprfaf Improvement Projects \ 0 Disinct.Support Services v Of Fieid Operations \ a Encinitas* Subdivision Engineering .Traffic Enaineering - 7� o -PnTjaH C-RADING. -CONDITIONAL APPROVAL To: Subdivision r-ngineering Public service Counter FROM". Field.operations private Contract Inspection . REM: Grading Permit No. (° Name of Project 7 Narne of Developer _ X15 L � o ire , Site Location Suffix!. (lot! " JbidgJ. . -(address : .::number ...srreer name, TY�e ..proposed .grading:°=of:the:�ubiect:si�te,,:WHI_r-equire:�.constructi:on of:::retaining walistrlat are•also,buildin•g 'JVails The inspection..o€t-h,e.sitt-retaiiiing*.W-9ls as to"be: done- by::ti�e field Operations Division of-:`eta nirawallsgi stobe .done the. However; the. inspeetian-of '.th:e.. building re 9 Building Inspection: Division of the uPermiteiserequested�D.•inpordere to Therefore, issuance of the necessary Building facilitate the completion of rough grading. NO INSPEC�IONS BEYOND FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATION ARE TO BE PROVIDER By BUILDING* INSPECTION UNTIL. A NOT EO THE GRADING APPROVAL, WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND SIGNED ENGINEERING INS ECT 0 , IS RECEIVED. FRAMING IS PROHEI T ED.. C ( ate! (Signature of Engin r Spector) i only, (Date) (Signature of Senior Cvil Fngneer, Reference: Building Permit No- --- r Special Nate Submit this form if completed, to counter staff ff merely by placing a copy of it in both engineering' technicians' in-boxes. Please remember to do a frill rough din ap val and submit that paperwork, when completed. Office staff brill handle the appropiate reductions in security, if any, and coordination.with Building Inspection.Thank you. JSG/fieidldoc1 Tfl . rigid naner Iz f 71- 0/o ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTASENT capital improvement Proiects city Of District �operations . Encb2itas Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL TO: subdivision.Engineering Public Service Counter FROM:• Field Operations private Contract Inspection RE: Grading Permit No. ^7- Name of Project Name of Developer i/ -7r - site Location Q 5� Ci01?, 1 7 - • (addressr:. --.number. ...street-name.. .. . _ ..-sutflxi :Uo1�•°: (bldpl .l have.Anspected the grading,'at:thesubject.,site an6have.vectflted'&ertlf c:gtibnwf. la ad.b ' a: i; r- dated: �_: Oi6 al�d•certification of the,:Engineer.of Work,• " : compaction by the soil Engineer, 4, datWd Lti ?-�' ,:i:am,hereby Y. . ding•has:been completedi:il.:accordarice wit�hltriie:approved -4; . at cl~a eci#icattons,-Chapter.,�3. -of the ,Municipal Code-4-and�:any'ot�rer<appltcatrle 13lans arid-sp •engineering:standards and=•s ecific project r equirem�tt3. .Baseol.;on:rny observation and the.certifications•:i;take no.exception to,-the issuance building permit for the lot(s) as noted or•Phase , if any, but only in so far as grading is concerned. However., this release is not intended to certify the project with respect to other.engineering concerns, including ,public road, drainage; water, sewer, park, and trail improvements, and their' availability, any other public improvements, deferred monumentationi or final grading'. Prior to final inspection-of the Building Permit(s) and legal occupancy, I need to be further advised so that I can verify that final grading (i.e., finished precise grading, planting and Irrigation) has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. 7� (S nature of Engineering 1 ectorl (Date!- (Signature of senlor Civil Engineer, only if appropiate) (Date) Reference: Building Permit No. --- Special Note: Submit this form, if completed, to counter staff merely by placing a copy of it in both engineering technicians'in-boxes,please remember to do a final inspection of the grading permit and submit that paperwork, when completed. office staff will handle the appropiate reductions in security, if any, and coordination with Building Inspection.Thank you. JSG/fieldMocl alifornia 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 re ed paper TEL 760-633-2600 I FAX 760-633-2627 505 s. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas. C FORCE Construction Quality Assurance Management Engineering Materials Testing Inspection Staffing "Your QuaU ner" Ci f�( DVBE SB `-' January 16, 2004 Project No. GF10939-01 Ms. Megan Kornacker Marino Construction 4405 Manchester Ave, Ste 106 Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report for the Proposed KnafcAResidence, Located at Basil Street in Leucadia, California. Dear Ms. Kornacker: This report presents the results of our limited geotechnical engineering evaluation performed on the subject project. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide recommendations pertaining to geotechnical aspects of the project. Our report includes earthwork, foundation, and slab on grade recommendations for the proposed development. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our engineering services to you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to contact the undersigned at 619.583.6633. Respectfully, QoF �c, "G" FORCE ,WJ o l a No•GE 3` R Doug o ins, G OEOTF- \�o esus Cruz, EIT. S- rE of �P� Senior Staff En V ce Pr e Engin Bring Divisi gineer Distribution: (3) Addressee 8788 Balboa Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 619-583-6633 Fax 619-583-6654 536 Concours Avenue, Suite I10 Ontario, CA 91764 909-481-6833 Fax 909-481-4642 uvunv.gforceca.com Knafo Residence January 16, 2004 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Project No. GF10939-01 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pane 1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES............................................................................................ 1 3. SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 2 4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...............................................................................2 5. SUBSURFACE EVALUATION ................................................................................. 2 6. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................3 6.1. ALLUVIUM.......................... .........................3 ............................................................................................... 6.2. BAYPOINT FORMATION...............................................................................................................................3 6.3. GROUNDWATER............................. ...................................................3 7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS...........................................................................................3 7.1. SURFACE RUPTURE.....................................................................................................................................3 7.2. SEISMICITY AND GROUND MOTION.............................................................................................................4 7.3. LIQUEFACTION............................................................................................................................................4 7.4. LANDSLIDES................................................................................................................................................4 7.5. SEICHES AND EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED FLOODING......................................................................................5 7.6. ALQUIST-PR10LO ZONES.............................................................................................................................5 8. LABORATORY TESTING........................................................................................5 _ 9. CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................5 10. RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................6 10.1. PLAN AND SPECIFICATION REVIEW.............................................................................................................6 10.2. EXCAVATION AND GRADING OBSERVATION...............................................................................................6 10.1 EARTHWORK...............................................................................................................................................6 10.3.1. SITE PREPARATION.................................................................................................................................7 10.3.2. FILL COMPACTION .................................................................................................................................8 10.3.3. FILL SLOPES...........................................................................................................................................8 10.3.4. MATERIAL FOR FILL ..............................................................................................................................8 10.3.5. CUT/FILL TRANSITIONS..........................................................................................................................9 10.3.6. BULK/SHRTNK CHARACTERISTICS.......................................................:..................................................9 10.3.7. TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS...................................................................................................................9 10.3.8. SLOPES...................................................................................................................................................9 10.3.9. ADDITIONAL EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................9 10.4. SURFACE DRAINAGE...................................................................................................................................9 10.5. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................10 10.5.1. BEARING CAPACITY.............................................................................................................................10 10.5.2. LATERAL LOADS..................................................................................................................................11 10.5.3. Fob-NDATION SETBACK........................................................................................................................11 10.6. UBC SEISMIC PARAMETERS......................................................................................................................11 10.7. QN-GRADE SLABS...................................................................................................................I.................12 10.7.1. 'VIOISTURE PROTECTION FOR SLABS.....................................................................................................12 10.8. SOIL CORROSIVITY...........................................................................................................................I........13 GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Report 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego. CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 • Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue. Suite 110 • Ontario. CA 9I764 # 909-481-6833 # Fax 909-48I-4642 www.gforceca.com Knafo Residence January 16, 2004 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Project No. GF10939-01 10.9. EARTH-RETAINING STRUCTURES..............................................................................................................14 10.10. PAVEMENTS .........................................................................................................................................14 10.11. CONCRETE..................................................................................................... ......................................1 11. LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................15 SELECTEDREFERENCES............................................................................................17 Illustrations Figure 1 — Site Location Map Figure 2 —Test Pit Location Map Aooendices Appendix A — Logs of Exploratory Excavations Appendix B — Laboratory Testing Appendix C — Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Appendix D — Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property Owners GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Report 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego, CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 • Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue, Suite 110 • Ontario. CA 91764 • 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481-4642 www._qforceca.com January 16, 2004 Knafo Residence Project No. GF10939-01 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface evaluation for the proposed residence. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on our subsurface exploration, review of available geological reports and plans, laboratory testing of soil samples collected from the site, and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. The scope of services provided during this evaluation was generally as described in our Proposal No. GF10939-01, dated December 2, 2003 authorized by you. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES Our scope of services for this project consisted of the following: • Coordination with you on the proposed project. • Review of readily available geologic and geotechnical documents and literature, and geologic hazard maps. • Performance of a subsurface geotechnical evaluation including excavation, sampling and logging of seven shallow test pits at the site. The purpose oft e subsurface of geolog cork was to better characterize the subsurface materials fo r groundwater, soil classification, soil strength, relative density and other geotechnical considerations. The excavations were backfilled after excavation. • Laboratory testing of the samples obtained to evaluate the following parameters: soil classification, in place moisture, shear strength, expansion index, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, and soil corrosivity including pH, resistivity, sulfate and chloride content. • Geotechnical analysis of the field and laboratory data obtained. • Preparation of this geotechnical report which includes the following discussion and recommendations: Recommendations for plan and specification review. Recommendations for observation and testing during construction. Recommendations for excavation, including excavatability of the soils that may be encountered, and temporary excavations. Recommendations for suitability of on site soil for use as fill or backfill. A discussion on groundwater levels. Recommendations for subgrade preparation and grading for building pad and general site preparation, including backfill and compaction. Anticipated shrinkage and bulking factors for the on-site soils. Slope inclination and stability recommendations. Recommendations for surface drainage. 1 GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Report 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego. CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 • Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue. Suite 110 0 Ontario. CA 91764 # 909-481-6833 # Fax 909-481-4642 www.gforceca.com Knafo Residence January 16, 2004 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Project No. GF10939-01 Foundation recommendations including allowable soil bearing pressures, lateral capacities, foundation dimensions, and anticipated settlement or heave. Recommendations for floor slabs on grade, moisture protection and exterior concrete walkways. An assessment of geologic hazards including seismicity and the effects of earthquakes on the proposed structure, landslides, flooding, soil liquefaction, and subsidence. Analysis of on-site soils to aid-in the evaluation of the presence of corrosive or reactive soils, including pH, resistivity, sulfate and chloride characteristics. Active and passive pressures for walls. 3. SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed site is located on Basil Street in Leucadia, California. There are small businesses to the east of the residence and residential developments the north, south, and west of the site. The general location of the residence is shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. The area of the proposed improvements is currently undeveloped. The area is a relatively flat lot with an approximate elevation of 57 feet above mean sea level. The approximate dimensions of the lot are 64 feet by 216 feet, with the shorter dimension on Basil Street. 4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Based on discussions with the property owner, and review of the documents, we understand that the anticipated construction for the residence is expected to consist of shallow concrete foundation and slab-on-grade floors. The proposed structure is to have electrical, mechanical, and plumbing systems typical of similar structures. The project scope includes earthwork and grading, landscaping, pavement, and other appurtenant structures. S. SUBSURFACE EVALUATION Our field exploration consisted of excavating seven exploratory test pits with a Case 580L Extend-a-hoe. Our field exploration was performed on December 19, 2003. The test pits were 24 inches (600-mm) wide and were excavated to depths of up to approximately 13 feet below existing grade. The approximate test pit locations are shown on Figure 2, Test Pit Location Map. Logs describing the observed subsurface conditions are presented in Appendix A. The lines designating the interface between different lithologic soil units on the test pit logs were determined by interpolation and are rough approximations. The actual transition between the materials may be abrupt or gradual. Further, soil conditions between the test pits may be substantially different from those at the test pits. It should also be recognized that soil conditions could change with the passage of time. GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Report Z 8788 Balboa Avenue # San Diego. CA 92123 • 6I9-583.6633 # Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue, Suite 110 • Ontario. CA 91764 • 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-482-4642 www.g fo rc ec a.co m Knafo Residence January 16, 2004 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Project No. GF10939-01 Test pit locations and elevations were established in the field by pacing and taping from existing improvements shown on the referenced plans. The locations shown should not be considered more accurate than the precision implied by the method of measurement used. 6. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is located near the coast. The site is underlain, within likely construction depths, by an alluvium composed of silty sands, which in turn is underlain by more competent silty sandstone of the Baypoint formation. The soils are described below in order of increasing age and depth. 6.1.Alluvium Alluvium composed of silty sands is encountered in each of the test pits and appears to generally overly the site. Where observed, the alluvium was generally reddish brown, damp to moist, loose silty sand. The alluvium generally appeared to be approximately five feet thick. Roots were abundant within this topsoil. 6.2.Baypoint Formation The Baypoint Formation contains silty sandstone which was encountered in each of the test pits. Sandstone is assumed to be present at depth below the alluvium. The sandstone is generally described as mottled yellowish brown and reddish brown, damp to moist, weakly to moderately cemented, silty sandstone. 6.3.Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits. Groundwater is not expected to effect the grading operations at the site. Fluctuations in future groundwater levels and perched water could develop as a result of rainfall, irrigation, or changes in site drainage. 7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The subject site is not located within an area previously known for geologic hazards, including active faulting, nor was evidence of past soil failures or faulting noted in our evaluation. However, the site is located in an active seismic region. Seismic hazards may be induced by ground shaking during seismic events on nearby or distant active faults. 7.1.Surface Rupture Surface rupture is the result of movement on an active fault reaching the surface. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault, which is located approximately 2.5 miles (4 km) west of the subject site. No faults were observed during our exploration of the site. Based on our observations and review of the referenced geotechnical and geologic literature, it is our opinion that there is little probability of surface rupture due to faulting GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Report 3 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego, CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 • Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Contours Avenue. Suite 110 • Ontario. CA 91764 * 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481-4642 www._forceca.corn January 16, 2004 Knafo Residence Project No. GF10939-01 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation beneath the site. However, lurching and ground cracking are a possibility as a result of a significant seismic event on a regional active fault. The risk at this property is not significantly different than other nearby properties. 7.2.Seismicity and Ground Motion According to www.mapblast.com, the subject site is located at an approximate latitude of 32.0591 north, and an approximate longitude of 117.3010 west. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault zone that is located approximately 2.5 miles (4 km) west of the subject site. In order to provide an estimate of the potential peak ground acceleration that structures founded at the site may experience in time, we performed an evaluation of the site seismic parameters. To estimate the design ground accelerations for this project, we reviewed data made available by the United States Geological Survey, National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project. The results of our review indicated that ground accelerations for the Design Basis Earthquake (10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years) are estimated to be 0.30g (30 percent of gravity). Additional seismic parameters can be provided upon request. 7.3.Liquefaction Liquefaction is a process in which soil grains in a saturated deposit lose contact due to _ earthquakes or other sources of ground shaking. The soil deposit temporarily behaves as a viscous fluid; pore pressures rise, and the strength of the deposit is greatly diminished. Sand boils, lateral spread, and post-liquefaction settlement often accompany liquefaction as the pore pressures dissipate. Soils susceptible to liquefaction typically consist of cohesionless sands and silts that are loose to medium dense, and saturated. To liquefy, soils must be subjected to a ground shaking of sufficient magnitude and duration. Clayey soil deposits do not liquefy because the soil skeleton is not supported by grain-to-grain contact, and is therefore not subject to densification by shaking. Given the relative lack of groundwater encountered, the results of our evaluation indicate that the risk of liquefaction from ground shaking caused by the Design Basis Earthquake is considered low. Lateral spreading is a phenomenon that typically occurs on very gently sloping ground or on flat ground adjacent to bodies of water. Due to the relative lack of nearby bodies of water and the relatively flat nature of the site, the risk of liquefaction-related lateral spreading is considered low. 7.4.Landslides The site topography is relatively flat. The site does not contain bluffs, steep slopes or topographic features susceptible to landslides and landslides were not mapped in the "nafo Residence Geotechnical Report 4 8788 Balboa Avenue # San Diego. CA 92123 # 619-583-6633 i Fax 619-583-6654 3536 Concours Avenue, Suite I I0 • Ontario. CA 91764 # 909-481-6833 # Fax 909-481-4642 www.gforceca.com Knafo Residence January 16, 2004 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Project No. GF10939-01 literature reviewed. Accordingly, the potential for deep-seated landslides to occur at the site is low. 7.5.Seiches and Earthquake-Induced Flooding Seiches are defined as earthquake-induced waves that develop in enclosed bodies of water during seismic events. Nearby bodies of water are not observed or mapped. Accordingly, the risk of earthquake induced flooding from Seiches is considered remote. 7.6.Alquist-Priolo Zones The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act is to regulate development near active faults so as to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture. Based on our review of the referenced literature, the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo special study zone. 8. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on selected bulk and relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the exploratory excavations to further characterize the geotechnical conditions encountered at the site. The results of our laboratory tests are incorporated into the test pit logs in Appendix A, and are further described and summarized in Appendix B. 9. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this evaluation, it is our opinion that construction of the residence is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the following recommendations and applicable building codes are followed. Geotechnical considerations for the design and construction of the project include the following; • There are no known surface expressions of active faults underlying the site. Potential seismic hazards at the site will likely be associated with ground shaking from an event along nearby active faults, such as the Rose Canyon fault zone. • The upper approximately five feet (1.5 meters) of the existing soils, including alluvium, and topsoil, are loose to medium dense and are not considered suitable for support of structures in their present state. • Recommendations are presented in the following sections for recompacting of the existing soils to support anticipated loading. • In general, shallow excavations in the surficial fill soils at the site should be achievable using standard heavy earthmoving equipment in good-working order with experienced operators. Oversize materials and more competent rock may exist and, if encountered in the existing soils, may require extra effort or blasting, to excavate. GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Report 5 8798 Balboa Avenue • San Diego, CA 92123 # 619-583-6633 • Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue, Suite 110 • Ontario. CA 91764 • 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481-4642 www.gforceca.corn Knafo Residence January 16, 2004 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Project No. GF10939-01 ■ The on-site materials are, in general, suitable for reuse in compacted fills provided they are free of contamination, organic matter, debris, or rock fragments or lumps larger than 6 inches (152 mm). Expansive soils were not encountered in test pits. Recommendations are presented in this report to reduce the effects of the expansive soils, if encountered. ■ Groundwater is not anticipated to significantly impact construction of the proposed improvements as presently planned. 10.RECOMMENDATIONS The remainder of this report presents recommendations for grading, and construction of foundations and slab. These recommendations are based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standard of practice at similar projects in southern California. If a specific subject is not addressed in this report, or if something is unclear, we encourage the reader to contact our office for clarification. 10.1. Plan and Specification Review We recommend that the final foundation, grading plans and earthwork specifications be reviewed by "G" FORCE to evaluate conformance with the intent of the recommendations of this report. Significant changes in the locations, layout of the proposed improvements may require additional geotechnical evaluation. 10.2. Excavation and Grading Observation An experienced geotechnical consultant should observe foundation excavations and site grading. During grading, the geotechnical consultant should provide observation and testing services. Such observations are considered essential to identify field conditions that differ from those anticipated from the geotechnical evaluation, to adjust designs to actual field conditions, and to determine that the grading is accomplished in general accordance with the geotechnical recommendations and contract documents. The geotechnical consultant should perform sufficient observations and testing during grading to support their professional opinion as to compliance with grading recommendations. Recommendations presented in this report are presented with the understanding that "G" FORCE will be performing such services, or at a minimum, providing oversight and review of the field-testing during the grading operations. Sufficient testing of fill should be performed during grading, as specified herein, to support our professional opinion as to compliance with compaction recommendations. 10.3. Earthwork Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the applicable local grading ordinance and the 1998 California Building Code. The following recommendations are provided regarding specific aspects of the proposed earthwork construction. These GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Report 6 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego. CA 92123 • 6I9-583-6633 • Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue. Suite 110 # Ontario, CA 91764 • 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481-4642 www.gforceca.com January 16, 2004 Knafo Residence Project No. GF10939-01 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation recommendations should be considered subject to revision based on field conditions observed by the geotechnical consultant during grading. 10.3.1. Site Preparation General site preparation should include the removal of unsuitable and deleterious materials, existing structures, or other improvements from areas that will be subjected to structural or fill loads. Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation including brush, - grass, weeds, wood, stumps, trees, tree otherwise o more feet beyond fr materials the limits areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend t of grading. Unsuitable materials include vegetation, trash, construction debris, topsoil, rocks more than 6 inches (152 mm) in greatest dimension, contaminated soils, other soil in structural areas subject to settlement due to bio-degradation, or other undesirable materials. The removal of unsuitable materials should be conducted under the observation of the geotechnical consultant to evaluate the competency of the exposed materials for support of structural and fill loads. The excavation of unsuitable materials should be conducted in a way that minimizes the disturbance of competent materials. Unsuitable materials should be hauled off-site and legally disposed. All structures, foundations, utilities (above and below ground), and ancillary improvements within the grading limits that are not to be saved, should-be demolished, hauled off-site and legally disposed of. Demolition of pipelines may consist of capping or rerouting at the project perimeter, and removal within the project perimeter. Existing utilities that are to be removed, should have the resulting trenches compacted as described in Section 10.3.2. If appropriate, abandoned utilities he observation bof, filled with geotechng or slurry Therecommended by, and under contractor should protect trees or man-made improvements from damage. Due to the presence of loose to medium dense materials within the upper five feet of alluvial soils, we recommend that the existing materials be over-excavated to a depth of five feet below existing grade in the area of the proposed building. The overexcavation should extent to distance of five feet beyond the building footprint or improvement areas. In areas to receive paving, we recommend soils be removed in the upper 12 inches (300 mm) of final subgrade elevation and be replaced with low expansive materials (expansion index less than 50). After making the recommended removals and prior to fill placement, the exposed ground surface should be examined and probed by the geotechnical consultant to identify that a stable, firm, unyielding base has been achieved to place compacted fill. Loose, soft areas may be improved by the use of stabilization fabrics or gravels, or by combination of both. After removing the upper five feet of excavation, then the exposed ground surface may be compacted in place by scarifying to a depth of approximately twelve inches (300), moisture 7 GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Report 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego, EA 92123 • 619-583-6633 • Fax 6I9-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue. Suite I10 • Ontario. CA 91764 • 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481.4642 u:u;w.gforceca.com Knafo Residence January 16, 2004 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Project No. GF10939-01 conditioning, and blending to a uniform consistency. The subgrade should be brought to above optimum moisture content, and compacted to not less than 90 percent relative compaction, as evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The excavations may then be brought up to desired grade with soil compacted as recommended herein. 10.3.2. Fill Compaction Fill and backfill should be placed at or above optimum moisture content using_ equipment that is capable of compacting the entire fill lift. Fill materials at less than optimum moisture should have water added and the fill mixed until the material is uniformly above optimum moisture content. Fill materials that are too wet should be aerated or mixed with dryer material to achieve uniformly moisture-conditioned soil. The fill and backfill should be placed in horizontal lifts at a thickness appropriate for the equipment spreading, mixing, and compacting the material. The lift should generally not exceed 8 inches (200 mm) in loose thickness. In general, the relative compaction recommended for fill and backfill is not less than 95 percent of maximum dry density based on ASTM D 1557. Prior to placing new pavement, the soil within the upper 1-foot (0.3 meters) of pavement subgrade should be scarified to a depth of not less than 12 inches (300 mm), moisture-conditioned, and compacted to not less than 95 percent relative compaction. 10.33. Fill Slopes No fill slopes are anticipated for this project. Recommendations for fill slopes can be provided upon request. 10.3.4. Material For Fill In general, the on-site materials may be used in the on-site fills. Deleterious materials, rocks more than 6 inches (152 mm) in greatest dimension, and contaminated soils should not be used. Soils with an Expansion Index of greater than 20 should not be used as wall backfill. Soils with an Expansion Index of greater than 50 should not be placed in the upper 12 inches (305 mm) of finished subgrade of paving areas. As such, any clayey residual soil that may be encountered may need to be selectively graded. This clayey soil should not be used in the upper three feet of building pad, or within five feet laterally of slope faces. Imported fill sources, if needed, should be observed prior to hauling onto the site to determine their suitability for use. Representative samples of imported materials and on-site soils should be tested to evaluate their engineering properties for the planned use. Imported fill soils should have an Expansion Index of not more than 20. During grading operations, soil types other than those evaluated in the geotechnical report may be encountered. The geotechnical consultant should be contacted to evaluate the suitability of these soils for use as fill or backfill. GFID939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Report 8 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego. CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 • Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Contours Avenue. Suite 110 • Ontario. CA 91764 • 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481-4642 www.grorceca.com Knafo Residence January 16, 2004 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Project No. GF10939-01 10.3.5. Cut/Fill Transitions Cut/fill transitions are not anticipated if the pad is overexcavated as recommended herein. However, if cut/fill transition recommendations are required, they can be _provided upon request. 10.3.6. Bulk/Shrink Characteristics The existing- soils may shrink on the order of 5 to 10 percent when overexcavated and recompacted. It should be noted, however, that bulking and shrinking can vary considerably with the variability of the type and in-place density of the soil being evaluated. 10.3.7. Temporary Excavations Temporary excavations, such as those for the utility trenches, are anticipated to be generally stable up to depths of four to five feet. Due to the loose nature of the near surface soils, excavations shallower than that may need to be laid back. The geotechnical consultant should evaluate temporary excavations that encounter seepage or other potentially adverse conditions during grading. Remedial measures may include shoring or reducing (laying back) slope inclinations. Excavations should conform with OSHA guidelines, and workmen should be protected from unstable_excavation walls in accordance with OSHA guidelines. _ 10.3.8. Slopes No significant new slope construction is anticipated for this project. Should new slopes be constructed, they should be inclined no steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical). The face of cut rock slopes should be observed by the geotechnical consultant to evaluate surficial and deep-seated stability. Providing good site drainage may enhance the surficial slope stability. The site should be graded so that water from the surrounding areas is not allowed to flow over the top of the slope. Diversion structures should be provided where necessary. Surface runoff should be confined to gunite-lined swales or other suitable outlets to reduce the potential for erosion. It is recommended that slopes be planted with vegetation that will increase their stability. Ice plant is generally not recommended. 10.3.9. Additional Earthwork Recommendations Additional earthwork recommendations can be found in Appendix C, Standard Specifications for Grading Projects. Site preparation recommendations contained in the main part of this report shall supersede those contained in Appendix C. The geotechnical consultant should be contacted for clarification of the project specifications. 10.4. Surface Drainage Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on how well the runoff waters drain from the site. This is true both during construction and over the entire life of the structure. The GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Repert 9 8788 Balboa Avenue # San Diego. CA 92123 ♦ 619-583-6633 • Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue. Suite 110 • Ontario, CA 91764 # 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481-4642 www.gjorceca.com January 16, 2004 Knafo Residence Project No. GF10939-01 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation ground surface around structures should be graded so that water flows rapidly away from the structures without ponding. The surface gradient needed to achieve this depends on the predominant landscape. In general, we recommend that pavement and lawn areas within ten feet of buildings slope away at gradients of not less than two percent. Densely vegetated areas should have minimum gradients of not less than five percent away from buildings in the first 5 feet spacing Densely that vegetated areas of water is mpededered those in which the planting type and p g are Planters should be built so that water from them will not seep into the foundation, slab, or pavement areas. Roof drainage should be channeled by pipe to storm drains, discharged to paved areas draining off-site, or discharged at least 10 feet from building lines in landscaped areas. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to sustain landscaping plants. Should excessive irrigation, surface water intrusion, water line breaks, or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones or "perched" groundwater might develop in the underlying soils. In addition to the recommendations presented herein, we recommend that the property owner or manager review the property maintenance guidelines presented in Appendix D. 10.5. Foundation Recommendations The following recommendations are generally consistent with methods typically used at similar residential facilities. We anticipate that footing dimensions presented herein may be increased to carry the anticipated-wall loads. Other alternatives may be available. 10.5.1. Bearing Capacity The bearing capacity values presented herein are based on the understanding that the _building foundations will be founded in competent compacted fill constructed with the near surface material on site. If granular material is imported, additional strength may be developed. Based on our evaluation and our understanding of the anticipated foundation loads, we recommend the following parameters. 10 GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Report 8788 Balboa Avenue 0 San Diego. CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 # Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue, Suite 110 • Ontario. CA 91764 • 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481-4642 www.gforceca.com Knafo Residence January 16, 2004 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Project No. GF10939-01 Summary of Foundation Parameters Allowable Bearing 2000 psf(144 kN/m2) Capacity Allow a 1/3 increase for short-term wind or seismic loads. Estimated Safety Factor greater than 3 Minimum Footing Width 12 inches (300 mm) single story; 15 inches (375 mm) two story Minimum Footing Depth 15 inches (380 mm) below lowest adjacent grade (single story) 18 inches (900 mm) below lowest adjacent grade (two stories) Reinforcement Two no. 4 bars top and bottom in continuous footings. The structural engineer should design reinforcing steel. Estimated Settlement Foundations should be designed for a total and differential settlement values of 1-inch and 3/4-inch over a distance of 40 feet (12.2 m) 10.5.2. Lateral Loads Lateral loads against structures may be resisted by friction between the bottom of footings and slabs and the supporting soil, as well as passive pressure from the portion of vertical foundation members embedded one foot or more into compacted fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 (estimated factor of safety greater than 1.5), and a passive pressure of 300 Ibs/ft3 (47.1 kN/m3) (estimated factor of safety greater than 1.5) are recommended. 10.5.3. Foundation Setback Foundations constructed near the tops of slopes should be deepened as necessary so that the minimum distance from the outside bottom edge of the footing and the slope face is not less than eight feet (2.4 meters). It should be recognized that the outer few feet of all slopes are susceptible to gradual down-slope movements due to slope creep. This will affect hardscape such as concrete slabs. We recommend that settlement sensitive hardscape not be constructed within 5 feet (1.5 meters) of the top of slopes. 10.6. UBC Seismic Parameters The following 1998 California Building Code seismic parameters may be used for design of the proposed residence. The horizontal distance to the nearest fault, the Rose Canyon Fault is within 2.5 miles (4 km) southwest of the site. GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Report 11 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego. CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 • Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue, Suite 110 • Ontario. CA 91764 • 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481-4642 www._qforceca.com Knafo Residence January 16, 2004 Project No. GF10939-01 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation UBC SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA Parameter Value 1997 UBC Reference Table 16-I Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.40 - Soil Profile Type Sp Table 16-3 Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.44 Na Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient, C„ 0.64 N„ Table 16-R Near Source Factor, Na 1.1 Table 16-S Near Source Factor, N„ 1.3 Table 16-T Seismic Source Type* B Table 16-U *Rose Canyon Fault 1.5 mm/year slip rate 6.9 MG Max 10.7. On-Grade Slabs Slab thickness and reinforcement should be designed by the project structural engineer and should conform to the requirements of the 1998 UBC. If an elastic slab design is used, we recommend a subgrade modulus of 200 pci. We recommend that building slabs be not less than 4 inches (100 mm) in thickness and be reinforced with at least No. 4 bars (13 M) spaced 18 inches (450 mm) on center, each way. Note that this level of reinforcement may reduce shrinkage cracking but will not eliminate all cracking. 10.7.1. Moisture Protection for Slabs Concrete slabs constructed on soil ultimately cause the moisture content to rise in the underlying soil. This results from continued capillary rise and normal evapotranspiration. Normal concrete is permeable. Accordingly, the moisture will eventually penetrate the slab. Excessive moisture may cause mildewed carpets, lifting or discoloration of floor tiles, or similar problems. To decrease the likelihood of problems related to damp slabs, suitable moisture protection measures should be used where moisture sensitive floor coverings, moisture sensitive equipment, or other factors warrant. A commonly used moisture protection consists of about 2 inches (51 mm) of clean sand or gravel, overlain by 10-mil polyethylene plastic sheeting, overlain by 2 inches (51 mm) of clean sand. Concrete laborers often puncture these systems with stakes during concrete placement. It has been our experience that such systems will transmit from approximately 6 to 12 pounds (2.7 to 5.4 kilograms) of moisture per 1000 square feet (93 square meters) per day. This may be excessive for some applications, particularly for sheet vinyl, wood flooring, vinyl tiles, or carpeting with impermeable backing that use water-soluble adhesives. Additional reduction in vapor transmission through concrete floor slabs may be achieved by the placement of a dense concrete section without joints. Achieving such a concrete section GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Report 12 8788 Balboa Avenue # San Diego. CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 • Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue, Suite 1 IO # Ontario. CA 91764 • 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481-4642 www.-qforceca.com Knafo Residence January 16, 2004 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Project No. GF10939-01 may be facilitated by the use of low water-cement ratios and a low slump concrete mix with thorough curing. For slab on grade floors, it is recommended that the water-cement ratio of the concrete as placed not exceed 0.45 by weight and the slump of the concrete generally not exceed 4 inches (102 mm). The concrete should have a strong history of good performance within the specification parameters that it is trying to achieve. The concrete slab should be thoroughly cured for at least seven days using an accepted curing compound or water. No surfacing should be placed on the slab until the excess water within the slab has been dissipated. The project architect should review the moisture requirements of the proposed flooring system and incorporate an appropriate level of moisture protection as part of the floor covering design. For example, moisture sensitive floor coverings such as vinyl may develop discoloration or adhesive degradation due to excessive moisture transmission. Wood flooring may swell and dome if exposed to excessive moisture transmission. In such cases, the architect should specify an appropriate moisture barrier based on the allowable moisture transmission rate for the flooring to be used. This may include waterproofing the slab. If additional moisture transmission information is desired, the moisture vapor emission being transmitted through the concrete can be monitored in general accordance with ASTM F 1869-98, Standard Test Method for Measuring Moisture Vapor Emission Rate of Concrete Subtloor Using Anhydrous Calcium Chloride. This simple, affordable three-day test provides additional information regarding the moisture vapor emission being transmitted by or through the slab. 10.8. Soil Corrosivity The corrosion potential of the on-site material was evaluated for its effect on steel and concrete structural members. Caltrans defines a corrosive area as an area where the soil contains more than 500 ppm of chlorides, more than 2,000 ppm of sulfates, has a minimum resistivity of less than 1000 ohm-centimeters, or has a pH of 5.5 or less. Laboratory testing was performed on selected soil samples to evaluate pH, minimum resistivity, and chloride and soluble sulfate content. The soil samples tested may be considered to be negligibly corrosive by Caltrans definition, when evaluated in accordance with the indicated parameters. When evaluated in accordance with California Test 643, the ground conditions are such that metal culverts would not require special coatings or other protection and last approximately 40 years. The results of the sulfate content test indicate that the soil is negligibly reactive with concrete when evaluated in accordance with Table 19-A-4 of the 1998 Uniform Building Code. Accordingly, we recommend Type II/V cement and a water cement ratio of not more than 0.55 (lb./lb.). A corrosion engineer should be consulted if additional corrosion-related design information is desired. GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Report 13 8798 Balboa Avenue • San Diego, CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 # Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue. Suite 110 # Ontario. CA 91764 # 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481 4642 LvLow.gforceca-corn Knafo Residence January 16, 2004 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Project No. GF10939-01 10.9. Earth-Retaining Structures For cantilever retaining walls, where the backfill is level or nearly level, an active earth pressure approximated by an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be used. The active pressure should be used for walls free to yield at the top at least 0.2 percent of the wall height. Walls that are resisted from movement,should be designed with an earth pressure approximated as an equivalent fluid pressure of 65 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. In addition to the recommended earth pressures, walls adjacent to vehicular traffic should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot (4.8 kilopascals), acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot (14.4 kilopascals) surcharge behind the wall. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet (3 meters) from the walls, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. The above pressures assume no hydrostatic pressures, which would increase the lateral pressures on the wall. We should be contacted for additional recommendations if hydrostatic pressures are applicable. Walls should contain an adequate sub drain to reduce hydrostatic forces. Wall drain details are given in Wall Drain Details included in Appendix C. In addition, below grade building walls and roofs should be waterproofed to reduce moisture transmission. Backfilling retaining walls with expansive soils can increase lateral pressures well beyond the active or at-rest pressures indicated above. We recommend that retaining walls be backfilled with free draining, cohesionless soil having an Expansion Index of 20 or less. In general, the on-site soils are considered to be suitable wall backfill materials. The backfill area should include the zone defined by a 1:1 sloping plane, back from the base of the wall. Retaining wail backfill should be compacted to not less than 90 percent relative compaction, based on ASTM D 1557. Backfill should not be placed until walls have achieved adequate structural strength. Heavy compaction equipment, which could cause distress to walls, should not be used. 10.10. Pavements We do not anticipate pavement construction on this project. Pavement parameters can be provided upon request. 10.11. Concrete Due to the negligibly corrosive nature of the on site soils, we recommend that Type II or II/V cement be used in the construction of concrete structures placed at the site. The concrete should have a water-cementitious materials ratio not greater than 0.55 by weight and a minimum compressive strength of 3000 psi for normal weight concrete. GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Report 14 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego. CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 • Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue. Suite 110 • Ontario. CA 9I764 • 909-48I-6833 • Fax 909-481-4642 wtvtv.gforceca.com Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Project No. GF10939-01 11.LIMITATIONS The information presented in this report has been prepared for use in the design and construction of the proposed residence. The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the described project information our interpretation of the data collected during the subsurface exploration. The recommendations apply only to the specific project described in this report. If the project changes from the description contained in the Introduction section of this report, "G" FORCE should be contacted to review the conclusions and recommendations in relation to any new project requirements. In the event that changes in the design, or location of the facility are planned from those described herein, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report verified or modified in writing by "G" FORCE. G„ FORCE is not responsible for claims, damages, or liability associated with interpretation of subsurface data or reuse of the subsurface data or engineering analyses without the express written authorization of"G” FORCE. It is the responsibility of the client or the client's representative to insure that the information and recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The client or his/her representative must ensure that the contractor and/or subcontractor carry out the recommendations during construction. It is our understanding that "G" FORCE will provide Construction Quality Assurance Management services to assist the design team in seeing that these recommendations are incorporated into the project during construction. Our evaluation has been performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by geotechnical consultants with experience in the Southern California area in similar soil conditions. No other warranty either expressed or implied is made as to the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report. Changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards of practice may occur 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. During final design, "G" FORCE should review the final construction documents and specifications for the proposed project to assess their conformance with the intent of our recommendations. If changes are made in the project documents, the conclusions and represented in this report may not be applicable. Therefore, "G" FORCE should review any changes to assess whether the conclusions and recommendations are valid and modify them if necessary. During site preparation and foundation construction, a qualified geotechnical engineer should observe slab on-grade and pavement subgrade, and utility trench backfill to check compaction. The engineer should observe subgrade preparation beneath areas to receive fill and observe GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Report 15 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego, CA 92123 # 619-583-6633 # Fax 61.9-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Contours Avenue. Suite I10 • Ontario. CA 91764 • 909-481-6833 # Fax 909-481-4642 wtvw.gforceca.com Geo technical Engineering Evaluation Project No. GF10939-01 and test fill compaction. The engineer should also observe building foundation installation excavations to verify the presence of a firm bearing surface. G FORCE should be retained to observe earthwork construction to help confirm that our assumptions and recommendations are valid or to modify them accordingly. .._ G., FORCE cannot assume responsibility or liability fort the adequacy of recommendations if we do not observe construction. 16 GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Report y, 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego, CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 • Fax 619.583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue, Suite 110 • Ontario. CA 91764 909-481..6833 • Fax 909-481-4642 unvw.gforceca-com ...•� -�� -- Project No. GF10939-01 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation SELECTED REFERENCES California Department of Conservation: Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas With Locations of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, Scale 1:750:000 California Department of Conservation: Division ofMCalifornia and Adjacent Areas With Map to Accompany the Fault Activity p of Locations of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, Scale 1:750:000 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Special Publication 42, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, with Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999 California Department of Conservation: Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in California: Sacramento, CA, Special Publication 117 California Department of Transportation, 1990, Highway Design Manual, Fourth Edition, dated July 1 Coduto, Donald P., 1994, Foundation Design, Principles and Practice, Published by Prentice-Hall, Inc. Department of the Navy, 1979, Civil Engineering Pavements, Alexandria, VA, Design Manual 5.4 Department of the Navy, 1982, Soil Mechanics, Alexandria, VA, Design Manual 7.1 Department of the Navy, 1986, Foundations and Earth Structures, Alexandria, VA, Design Manual 7.02 Department of Defense, 1997, Soil Dynamics and Special Design Aspects: Norfolk, VA, United States Navy, MIL-HDBK-1007/3. Dibblee, T.W., 1954, Geology of Southern California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 170, Ch. 2, pp 21-28 Kramer, Steven L., 1996, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering: Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice-Hall "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, 1998, Prepared by California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, Published by International Conference of Building Officials, dated February Peterson and others, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, United States Geological Survey: Sacramento, CA, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, open-File Report 96-08 Transportation Research Board, 1996, Landslides Evaluation and Mitigation, Special Report 247, Prepared by National Research Council Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, 1997, Prepared by International Conference of Building Officials 17 GF10939-01 Knaro Residence Geotechnical Report 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego. CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 • Fax 6I9-583-6654 _ FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue, Suite I10 # Ontario. CA 91764 • 909-481-6833 # Fax 909-481-4642 uvunv._f'orceca.com Knafo Residence Project No. GF10939-01 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 9 United States Geologic Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project at http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/ Youd and others, 2001 Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summaryc loo Report from anceeof9Soils BEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on Evaluation of tique a Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvi ron mental Engineering 18 GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Geotechnical Report 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego. CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 • Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Contours Avenue. Suite 110 • Ontario. CA 91764 • 909-48I-6833 • Fax 909-481-4642 unvw.gforceca.corn ilk y 5 rn f':' v rp '� _— 1 lit �� 1 r�i,Vill q =szt ''� $ '° and Ave rittany Ave y cad � Dd�n o s`; ,� y1 �y II Ll ti 1a = 4 > v a o � 1rg1 i S �a �_-y y `` _ OC P eb!a 5 +i I�sJ I Sy y �jf1' ti ti t Gu ero "''e enik 1 A Unlo ` `ti s 1• AMsO b'sue L ©2+�D�Yahoo!flnc 'ti'y 1 S -~��, '1�, ''k,��;'. ©20Qa aawf�ntiar►T4ehi►olegiae R f r n www.yahoomaps.com Site Location Map ® 8788 Balboa Avenue Knafo Residence San Diego, California 92123 Basil street FORCE ph. (619) 583-6633 Leucadia, California fax (619) 583-6654 www.gforceca.conl Project No. Date Figure GF10939-01 j Dec 31, 2003 1 .�_..�- r`._. ,,...�us-.... � �y,,,�--- I'I•'—^"�'" k' to �, � � lax -Z; S � . 2 CD (0 n N N + J V O°c _ .� ,-- cT- 0. jwb f to c 1 '"� •` ;�i;. yr •4.�:,t:'•i; N a7 N M q' G K l ---•, I ed ai ° •L t M 0 00 00 cn 0 CL ON CD a...w r �� ` �. I•• •};�1,+ .,.'.�',.. j•,,' Yom.• L a' � /' r ,fir-=--';--�: �• :a ,..�,�::� ,`�,'� � .f-: J ,1O ,• w. ;f :. :. %r,l:,..`: ripp !.:' AL CN LLI �1 � � � �.' =rte. �'k: "�•:=4•r.s' • '•,_ �' ! _ � _ _.._.__ �._ t _►' �• �t .• •��t�,�.' ,�•�' r�t�-.• mac,, � tea -al ---- �— mss. �1�1• �\ � � I �I .I;# f• • tat ;I: :•J,�1' :7': !� •, �::'•..{, j^ I I ,i 'l ��, �` ' ��:tit-^;.•�'"'`•'L"t';',"".",•�7.�� • r'• ' .�� , II l_.._ Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Project No. GF10939-01 Appendix A Logs of Exploratory Test Pits - 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego, CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 • Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue, Suite 110 • Ontario, CA 91764 • 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481.4642 www.gforceca.com �- L- 8788 Balboa Avenue Knafo Residence San Diego,California Basil Street C 92123 Leucadia California Ph.619.583.6633 Fax 619.583.6654 Date: 12/19/03 Pro'ed No: GF10939-01 L, cn Date Drilled: December 19 2003 Sampled b : RDP IC u v Ground Elev. Lo ed b RDP 7C feet MSL : Reviewed E 2 by: RDP Method of Drillin Backhoe tc: `n CI Y I 2 o o o CO o m � � u Drive Wt. lbs. : Lab Tests Other Description / interpretation 0J0 I eu UVIUM: Dark reddish brown,damp to moist,loose,silty SAND. Scattered roots and rootlets. Moisture&Density * 4.2 105.3 1.5 BAY NT FORMATION: Mottled reddish brown and yellowish brown,damp to moist, weakly to moderately cemented,silty SANDSTONE. 10J 3.0 15J 4.6 20; 5.1 - Remarks: Total Depth = 10 feet Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. Backfilled with excavated soil on 12/19/2003. * California Modified Sampler with slide hammer used: Blows not monitored. G:\Projects\GF10900-GF10999\GF10939-01 Knafo Residence\GF10939-01 Knafo TP-l.doc 8788 Balboa Avenue # San Diego. CA 92123 # 6I9-583-6633 • Fax 619-583-6654 Q!r 3536 Concours Avenue, Suite 110 • Ontario, CA 91764 • 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481-4642 www.gforceca.com 6788 Balboa Avenue Knafo Residence San Diego,California Basil Street CE 92123 Leucadia California Ph.619.583.6633 Fax 619.583.6654 Date: 12/19/03 Pro-ect No: GF10939-01 -� December 19 2003 Sampled by: RDP JC U1 16 Date Drilled: v E v Ground Elev. Logged by: RDP/JC E 1n Y°o o c feet MSL : Reviewed o s a o w Method of Drilling: Backhoe b ; RDP Ln o " ? o o Z Drop in. : o m o m � � � Drive Wt. lbs. : - Lab Tests/Other Description / Interpretation 0/0 et i i�yIUM: Dark reddish brown,damp to moist,loose,silty SAND. Scattered roots and rootlets. Direct Shear-Remolded * Moisture&Density 2.8 98.0 Maximum Density 1.5 BAYPOINT FORMATION: Mottled reddish brown and yellowish brown,damp to moist, weakly to moderately cemented,silty SANDSTONE. 10/ 3.0 15/ 4.6 20/ 6.1 Remarks: Total Depth = 10 feet Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. Backfilled with excavated soil on 12/19/2003. * California Modified Sampler with slide hammer used: Blows not monitored. G:\Projects\GF10900-GF10999\GF10939-01 Knafo Residence\GF10939-01 Knafo TP-2.doc 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego. CA 92123 # 619-583-6633 • Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue. Suite 110 • Ontario. CA 91764 • 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481-4642 www.gforceca.com Knafo Residence 8788 Balboa Avenue San Diego,Califomia Basil Street 92123 Leucadia California Ph.619.583.6633 Fax 619.583.6654 Date: 12/19/03 Pro'ed No: GF10939-01 Ln in Date Drilled: December 19 2003 Sam led b RDP JC U E V Ground Elev. Lo ed b RDP/JC E cn L°o a o feet MSL : Reviewed b RDP a �' a Method of Drilling: Backhoe C to p in a Y > o o Z o * Drop in. : Drive Wt. lbs. : Description Inter retation Lab Tests/other 010 ALLUVIUM: Dark reddish brown,damp to moist,loose,silty SAND. scattered roots and rootlets. 155 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — BAYPOINT FORMATION: Mottled reddish brown and yellowish brown,damp to moist, weakly to moderately cemented,silty SANDSTONE. Trace of clay. 10! 3.0 16! 4.6 20! 6.1 I Remarks: Total Depth = 9.5 feet Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. Backfllled with excavated soil on 12/19/2003. * California Modified Sampler with slide hammer used: Blows not monitored. G:\Projects\GF10900-GF10999\GF10939-01 Knafo Residence\GF10939-01 Knafo TP-3.doc 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego, CA 92123 • 6I9-583-6633 • Fax 61 9-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue, Suite 110 • Ontario. CA 91764 • 909-481-6833 # Fax 909-481-4642 www.gforceca.com 87138 Balboa Avenue Knafo Residence San Diego,California Basil Street QR-C-9 92123 Leucadia California Ph.619.583.6633 Fax 619.583.6654 Date: 12/19/03 Pro'ed No: GF10939-01 V) Date Drilled: December 19 2003 Sampled k— RDP JC E � � Ground Elev. Logged b RDP/JC E v, 0 0 c feet MSL : Reviewed b : RDP a cu v Ln Method of Drilling: Backhoe C n O in C). Y > o o i' Dro in. : o m o m Drive Wt. lbs. Description Interpretation Lab Tests/Other 0/0 ALLUVIUM: Yellowish brown to reddish brown,damp to moist,loose, silty SAND. Expansion Index Scattered roots and rootlets. — — — — — — — — — sr i.s BAYPOINT FORMATION: Mottled reddis brown and yellowish brown,damp to moist, weakly to moderately cemented,silty,SANDSTONE. i0/ 3.0 is/ 4.6 Zor 6.: Remarks: Total Depth = 13 feet Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. Backfilled with excavated soil on 12/19/2003. * California Modified Sampler with slide hammer used: Blows not monitored. G:\Projects\GF10900-GF10999\GF10939-01 Knafo Residence\GF10939-01 Knafo TP-4.doc 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego, CA 92123 # 6I9-583-6633 Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue, Suite 110 # Ontario. CA 91764 # 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481.4642 www.gf orceca.com 8788 Balboa Avenue Knafo Residence San Diego,California Basil Street 92123 Leucadia California >; Ph.619.583.6633 Fax 619.583.6654 Date: 12/19/03 Pro�ect No: GF10939-01 in Date Drilled: December 19 2003 Sampled by: RDP JC v v E v Ground Elev. Logged b : RDP JC E V) $ -- c feet MSL : Reviewed o ° Method of DbIlin : Backhoe b : RDP _ a L o prnn fin.): Drive Wt tlhc. : Description Inte retation Lab Tests Other 0/0 ALLUVIUM: UVIUM: Reddish brown,damp to moist,loose,silty SAND. Scattered roots and rootlets. s/ — _ — — — — — — — _ — — _ — — — — — _ — — — _ — — — — _ — — 1.5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �evvAiNT FORMATION: Mottled reddish brown and yellowish brown,damp to moist, Moisture&Density weakly to moderately cemented,silty SANDSTONE. 10/ 3.0 15/ 4.6 20/ 6.1 Remarks: Total-Depth = 10 feet Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. Backfifled with excavated soil on 12/19/2003. * California Modified Sampler with slide hammer used: Blows not monitored. G:\Projects\GF10900-GF10999\GF10939-01 Knafo Residence\GF10939-01 Knafo TP-5.doc 8788 Balboa Avenue Knafo Residence San Diego,California Basil Street 92123 Leucadia California Ph.619.583.6633 Fax 619.583.6654 Date: 12/19/03 Pro'ect No: GF10939-01 Ln � Date Drilled: December 19 2003 Sampled by, RDP JC E v Ground Elev. Logged by: RDP JC Ln g �- c feet MSL Reviewed by: RDP n o Method of Drillin : Backhoe LA Q Y ? o R Dro in. : U De Wt. Description / Interpretation Lab Tests Other 0/0 ALLUVIUM UVIUM: Reddish brown,damp to moist,loose,silty SAND. scattered roots and rootlets. 1.5 8AYPOINT FORMATION: Mottled reddish brown and yellowish brown,damp to moist, weakly to moderately cemented,silty SANDSTONE. Moisture&Density * 6.2 108.0 lol 3.0 15! 4.6 20/ 6.1 _ Remarks: Total Depth = 9 feet Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. Backfilled with excavated soil on 12/19/2003. * California Modified ;ampler with slide hammer used: Blows not monitored. G:\Projects\GF10900-GF10999\GF10939-01 Knafo Residence\GF10939-01 Knafo TP-6.doc --V-. 8788 Balboa Avenue Knafo Residence San Diego,California Basil Street RC 92123 Leucadia California Ph.619.583.6633 Fax 619.583.6654 Date: 12/19/03 Pro'ed No: GF10939-01 Date Drilled: December 19 2003 Sampled by: RDP JC E v Ground Elev. Logged by: RDP JC E In o ° c feet MSL o o Reviewed v a Method of Drillin Backhoe b : RDP a o o il-7 * Dro in. : o m a m 2: ° U Drive Wt. lbs. Description Interpretation Lab Tests Other 0/0 ALLUVIUM: Reddish brown,damp to moist,loose,silty SAND. Scattered roots and rootlets. pH&Resistivity Chloride&Sulfate Content — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ si 1.s BAYPOINT FORMATION: Mottled reddish brown and yellowish brown,damp to moist, weakly to moderately cemented,silty SANDSTONE. Moisture&Density * 6.5 104.5 4.4 110.2 1a 3.0 15/ 4.6 20/ Remarks: Total Depth = 9 feet Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. Backfilled with excavated soil on 12/19/2003. * California Modified Sampler with slide hammer used: Blows not monitored. G:\Projects\GF10900-GF10999\GF10939-01 Knafo Residence\GF10939-01 Knafo TP-7.doc Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Project No. �rluy�7-u� Appendix B Laboratory Testing 8788 Balboa Avenue # San Diego. CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 # Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue, Suite 110 # Ontario. CA 91764 # 909-481-6833 # Fax 909-481-4642 www._qforceca-corn Laboratory Testing Index Project No. GF10939-01 Laboratory Testin4 Classification Soils were visually and texturalls and in indicated accordance the logs of the Uexplorat Soil ry Classification System. Soil classific ations are excavations. In Place Moisture and Density The moisture content and dry density evaluated relatively in samples obtained from 2937 the exploratory excavations were 83. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory excavations. Dire ct_Shear Direct shear tests were performed remolded samples in general accordance with ASTM D 3080-90 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of selected materials. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. Results are shown the attached figure. Summary of Direct Shear Test Results _ Sample Cohesion Phi Angle Sample Description Location (psf) (deg.) Silty SAND to sandy SILT TP-2 at 2-4.0' 80 28 EARM ion Index The expansion index of selected materials was evaluated in general accordance with U.B.C. Standard No. 18-2. Specimens were molded under specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation (plus of minus 1 percent). The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens were loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and were inundated with a summarized below.well were made for a period of 24 hours. The result of these tests ae s mmar Summary of Expansion Index Test Results Sample Expansion Expansion Sample Description Location Index j Potential Silty SAND TP-4 at 1-3.0' 0 j Very Low GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Laboratory Appendix 8798 Balboa Avenue • San Diego, CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 • Fax 6I9-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Contours Avenue. Suite 110 • Ontario. CA 91764 • 909.481-6833 • Fax 909 481 4642 www.gforceca-tom 9 Laboratory Testing Index Project No. GF10939-01 Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture_ ntent The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of selected representative soil samples were evaluated in general accordance ca attached gores D 1557-91. The results of these tests are summarized below or o Summary of Maximum Density Test Results Maximum Optimum Sample Density Moisture Sample Description Location (per (0/0) Medium brown silty SAND TP-2 @ 2-4.0' 123.0 10.5 (SM) Soil Corrosivity eral Soil pH and resistivity tests were performed on representative t soil ntsamples elected novas accordance with Caltrans Test Method 643. The evaluated in general accordance with Caltrans Test Method 417. The test results are presented below. _ Summary of Corrosivity Test Results Minimum Chloride Sample Sulfate Content p pH Resistivity Content(%) Location (ohm-cm) (ppm) TP-7 at 3-5.0' 8.06 3249 0.004 0.006 GF10939-01 Knafo Residence Laboratory Appendix 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego, CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 # Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Contours Avenue, Suite 110 • Ontario, CA 91764 • 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481-4642 tvww.gfbrceca.com ueotectinicai tngmeermg tvamation Nro)ect No. VI-lU9:39-U1 Appendix C Standard Specifications for Grading Projects 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego, CA 92123 # 619-583-6633 • Fax 619-583-6654 FORCE 3536 Concours Avenue. Suite 110 • Ontario. CA 91764 # 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481.4642 www..qforceca.com ar. I Section 1 — General ' F The guidelines contained herein and the standard details attached hereto represent "G" FORCE standard Lecommendations for grading and other associated operations on construction projects.These tamed in r considered a portion of the project specifications.Recommendations guidelines should be cons P P f the body of the previously presented soils report shall supers ede the recommendations and/or requirements as specified herein. Disputes arising out of interpretation of the recommendations contained in the soils report, or specifications contained herein, shall be interpreted by the project geotechnical consultant. Section 2 - Responsibilities of Project Personnel The geotechni.cal consultant should provide observation and testing services sufficient to assure that geotechnical construction is performed in general conformance with project specifications and standard grading practices.The geotechnical consultant should report any deviations to the client or is authorized representative. The client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his authorized representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations -of the geotechnical consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his authorized representative should remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. The contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading and other associated operations on construction projects, including, but not limited to, earthwork in accordance with the project plans, specifications and controlling agency requirements. Section 3 — Preconstruction Meeting A preconstruction site meeting shall be arranged by the owner and/or client and shall include the grading contractor, the design engineer, the geotechnical consultant, owner's representative_and representatives of the appropriate governing authorities. Section 4 — Site Preparation The client or contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, during and / or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The appropriate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with grading operations. Cim-ing and grubbing should consists 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 8788 Balboa Avenue ■ San Diego, CA 92123 a (619) ,583-6633 • FAX(6I9) 583-6 9540 Center Avenue #I00 • Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 • (909) 481-6833 ■ FAX(909)481-4643 guauty . Service • Performance recommendations of the geotechnical consultant at the time of demolition.Trees,plane n�an" � 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, careas form the of a portion of the project should not be considered u si time as the entire project prtion or adjacent as identified by the requirements for site protection until s 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,p onding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage.Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately should bekac d indgo way from and off the work site.Where low areas cannot be avoided,pump 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 ul bother c adverse s cun�table materials and should be subject o consultant.Soil adversely affected sho — dial grading as recommended by over excavation and replacement with compacted fill or other reme the geotechnical consultant. The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations.Recommendations excavations (e.g., back cuts) are made in to temporary by the geotechnical consultant pertaining consideration of stability of the completed project and therefore, should not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the contractor.Recommendations by the geoteclmical consultant should not be_ considered to preclude more restrictive requirements by the regulating agencies. When deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant or governing agencies the contractor shall install check dams,desilting basins, and bags or other drainage control measures. In relatively level areas and/or slope areas,where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depth of greaten than 1.0 foot, the soil should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with 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 1 recompaction in accordance with applicable grading guidelines herein maybe 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. As field conditions dictate, the 1 geotechnical consultant may recommend other slope repair procedures. f 1 8788 Balboa Avenue ■ San Diego, CA 92123 a f619) 583-6633 a FAX(619) 583-6654��Z 9540 Cenier Avenue 1100 a Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 ■ (909) 481-6833 a FAX (909) guaLity • Service + Performance = x Section 6 — Excavations - - 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 non- engineered 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, at or above optimum moisture condition prior to placement as compacted fill. -_ if during the course of grading, adverse geotechnical conditions are exposed which were not anticipated in the preliminary soils report as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant, additional exploration, analysis and treatment of these conditions may be recommended. Cut Slopes The geotechnical consultant should observe cut slope excavations. If these excavations expose loose cohesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, the material should be overexcavated and replaced with a compacted stabilization fill. 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. — Cut/Fill Transitions cut/fill transitions are defined as areas where the indicated structure is founded on or over the.. transition between cut or native soil and compacted fill. All pad areas, including side yard terrain, containing both cut and fill materials,transitions, should be over-excavated to a depth of H/3 feet and replaced with a uniform compacted fill blanket where H is measured as the deepest fill from the bottom of the foundation down to native material.The minimum h ept be over-excavation shall be three feet. Actual depth of over-excavation may vary delineated by the geotechnical consultant during grading. • For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope.This may be accomplished utilizing a berm image Swale and/or- in soil areas was from the top-of-slopes of 2 percent or an appropriate pad gradient.A gradient 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. Fill Material Quality Excavated on-site or import materials which are acceptable to the geotechnical consultant may be utilized as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are • 8788 Bad Avenue � San Diego, CA 92123 • 619) 583-6633 a FAX(619) 583-6634 1 ` 9540 Center Avenue #100 a Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 a (909) 481 6833 a FAX(909)_481-4642 9uality • Service + Performance 'I materials 'anticipated for use On-site should be ' removed prior to placement. All import ip sampled, tested and approved prior to placement in conformance with the req uircmcnts outlined below in Section 7.2. Rocks 8 inches in maxim um and smaller may be utilized within compacted fill provided sufficient fill material is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all roc to effectively fill rock voids. The amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry weight passing the'/, inch sieve. The geotechnical consultant may vary those requirements as field conditions dictate. Where rocks greater than 8 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill, they may require special handling in accordance with attached Plates and described below. Rocks greater than four feet should be broken down or disposed legally off-site. Placement of Fill Prior to placement of fill material, the geotechnical consultant should inspect the area to receive fill. After inspection and approval the exposed ground surface should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches. The scarified material should be conditioned (i.e. moisture added or air dried) 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 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 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 to vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope area.Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least 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 subsequent to keying and benching until the geotechnical consultant has reviewed the area. Material generated by the benching operation should be moved sufficiently away form the bench are to allow for the recommended review of the horizontal bench prior to placement of fill. Typical keying and benching details have been included within the accompanying Plates. ' With 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 three-foot vertical ' bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved compacted fill prior to 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego, CA 92123 • (619) 583-6633 • FAX(619) 583-6 9540 Censer Avenue #100 • Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 • (909) 481-6833 • FAX(90�)481- 2 guauty • Service • Performance F Lrr placement of additional fill.Benching should proceed in at least three-foot vertical increments Y 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 overexcavated. Following a period of flooding, rainfall or over-watering by other means, no additional fill - should be placed until damage assessments have been made and remedial grading performed as described herein. Rocks 8 inches in maximum. dimensions 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 5 feet of finished pad grade or within 2 feet of subsurface utilities.Rocks 8 inches up to four feet maximum dimension should be placed below the upper five feet of any fill and should not be closer than 10 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 ymposed. 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 that successive strati-of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane.It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rocks as field conditions dictate and as recommended by the geoteclinical consultant at the time of placement. The contractor should assist the geotechnical consultant and/or his representative by digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. The contractor should provide this work at no additional cost to the owner or contractor's client. Fill should be tested by the geotechnical consultant for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing should conform to ASTM Method of Test D1556-82, D2922-81. Tests should be conducted at a minimum of two vertical feet or 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Fill found not to be the minimum recommended degree of compaction should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Fill Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating i agencies, permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical).Except as specifically recommended in these grading guidelines compacted fill slopes should be overbuilt and cut back to grade, exposing the firm., compacted fill inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the desired results are not achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the guidelines • 8788 Balboa Avenue ■ San Diego, CA 92123 jr (619) 583-6633 • FAX(6I9) 583-6654 9540 Center Avenue #100 s Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 n (909) 481-6833 s FAX(909)4814642- Auauty • Service • Per of the geotechnical consultant--ne 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 baclaolling. The procedure must create a firmly compacted material throughout the entire depth of the slope face to the surface of the previously compacted 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 be trimmed to expose competent compacted fill.Fill slope faces should be thoroughly compacted at intervals not exceeding four feet in vertical slope height, or the capacity of available equipment, whichever is less. Where placement of fill above a natural slope or above a cut slope is proposed, the fill slope configuration should be adopted as presented in the accompanying Standard Details.For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and pad gradients of at least 2 percent. Section 8 -Trench Backfill _ Utility and/or other trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means 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 by the geotechnical consultant. 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 geotechrnical consultant. Clean granular bacldill and/or bedding are not recommended in slope areas. Section 9'- Retaining Walls Retaining walls should be designed on a project-by-project basis when wall heights and soil parameters are determined.Retaining wall backfill should consist of well-drained,very low expansive 8788 Balboa Avenue a San Diego, CA 92123 ■ (619) 583-6633 ■ FAX(619) 583-8634 9540 Center Avenue #100 a Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 ■ (909) 481-6833 • FAX(909) 481-4642 �ua[iLy • Service Performance ti`i} xh- soil. Drains should be installed behind the walls to reduce the potential for build up of hydrostatic pressure.Retaining wall drain details ate provided in the attached Plates. t density as determined Retaining wall bacl�ill should be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry by the most recent version of ASTM D1557. Compaction should be accomplished by light hand- opemted or walk-behind equipment- Section 10 —Drainage Where deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant, canyon subdrain systems should be installed in accordance with the attached plates.Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses,slope stabilizations or sidehill masses, should be installed in accordance with the specifications of the accompanying attached plates. Roof,pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and structures to suitable areas via non-erodible devices(i.e., gutters, down spouts,concrete swales). For drainage in extensively landscaped areas near structures, (i.e., within six feet) a minimum of 5 percent gradient away from the structure should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 percent gradient should be maintained over the remainder of the site.Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the lift of the project Property owners should be made aware that altering drainage patterns could be detrimental to slope stability and foundation. performance. Section I I - Slope Maintenance Landscape Plants In order to enhance surficiarslope 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 area may also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect should be the best party to consult regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration. Irrigation Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces,not placed in trenches excavated into slope faces. Repair As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand,to protect all slope areas from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall.This measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period of time 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. 1 - 1 8788 Balboa Avenue ■ San Diego, CA 92123 ■ (619) 5836633 • FAX(619) 9540 Center Avenue #100 ■ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 • (909),481.6833 ■ FAX(909)481-4842 Duality Service • Pelorma.nce N. "=---"' FILL SLOPE i To 1 MAXI PFOU TOE — -- OF SLOPETO —:�-�-- Ul�sctlfTABIE NATUP" �=_= -- ` emu YATERML GRGLJKD – –= Qom}{ r Uw. ----1s ter+.--� KEY oFFtH LOWEST BENCH can FILL-OVER-CUT COYPACL�DT-�_—r' SLOPE NATIJRaIL — -- TrP1CAL GROUND —_ .- – BENCH HEIGHT FtEMCYE UN8NITA8LE tP MATERLAL LOWES r MCH i r gym+, KEY DEPTH CUT FACE SHALL BE PFSOH - TO F LPLACEMENTTO A.SSUPE WT FACE ADEQUATE GECL.O=CONDrnOM TO BE PF" / TO FiL PLACEMENT iT - HATURAL CUT-OVER-PILL. GROUND / SLOPE CVERBUrLT AND ==— Ttuu BACK _= — For Subdralns See �=— -- Standard Detail C DMGN SLOPE – _ ti�tOYE rrASLE PROJECTED PLANE F_� EFdAL i-To t MA7olatrtrt FR04A JA�ATEItiAr. TOE OF 8LOPETO --'�-- APPpc m appouND _– 4'TYPICAL HPAcTm BENCH BENCH HEIGHT BENCHM SHALL SE DoNE WHEN SLOPES ANUE ig 82UALTO OR QMTER THAN 5:1 memmu l BE NCH HEIGHT sKMI BE 4 FEET 7 MAIN. �" EE L—1 P —"{ ��ML W'DTH SHAH.BE 4 FEET KEY DEATH BENCH Keying and Benching General Earthwork and "G" FORCE - ENGINEERING DIVISION Grading Specifications Standard Details Fi uro A L ` � ' ' ^ ~ mATUPAL GROUND COMPACTED FILL REMOVE BENCHING UNSUITABLE 20 MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET CALTRANS CLASS 11 PERMEABLE OR #2 ROC FILTER FABRIC FILTPER FABRIC OR'NCOLLECTOR'PIPE,SHALL 'M= AP BE MINIMUM V DLMYETER CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET DETAIL PIPE SEE STANDARD DETAIL D PERFORATED PIPE FOR PIPE spECIFICATIOH DESIGN FINISHED 0' MK SACKFILL GRADE FILTER FABRIC -4 (MIRAFI 140 OR 2% APPROVED S. MIN. \\,,�#2 ROCK WRAPPED IN FILTER NON-PERFORATED FABRIC OR CALTRANS CLASS 11 684 MIN. PERMEABL-F_ Canyon Subdrains General Earthwork and "G" FORCE - ENGINEERING DIVISION Grading Specifications Standard Details 15' MIN. OUTLET PIPES --_— 4.4 NON-PERFORATED PIPE, ------ 100' MAX O.C. HORIZONTALLY, —_ = SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO go PERCENT,RELATIVE COMPACTION* RETAINING WALL o6 MIN. FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE WALL'WATERPROOFING -OVERLAP tm PER ARCHITECT'S --- (MrRAFI 140H OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT ** SPSPECIFICATIONS ): 11 MIN. = 314'-1-112' CLEAN GRAVEL** FINISH GRADE .4'.(MIN.1 DIAMETER FERFORATiD 'PVC PorEisdim-rimaZooR EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS qRIE!NTF_D:D!0WH AS oipwrw ]MINIMIJU f PERCENT GRA61ENT TO SUITABLE OUTLIETWALL FOOTING IL51 - =tl = << 81 MIN. kOT TO SCALE COMPEt ENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL A-S EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS SPECIFICATIONS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL iS;vSt U.S. Standard *BASED ON ASTM DIS67 Sieve Size % Passing 1" 100 *IF CA, TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL 100 (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/4* 90-100 3/4'=1-1/2' GRAVEL. FILTER FABRIC MAY BE 3/8" 40-100 DELETED. CALTRAN9 CLASS 2 PERMEABLE No. 4 25-40 MATERIAL_SHOULD BE COUPACTSO TO qq No. a 18-33 PERCEN11f,4RtLATIVEi COMPACTION* No. 30 5-15 NOTE:COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS NIRADIR-AIN 140. 50 0-7 OR J-DRA1t4 MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNA-nVF-To GRAVEL OR No. 200 0-3 CL kSS 2.p4STA1_LA_. ON %40kjW BE pS:Fo� tN ACCORDANCE Sand Equivalent>75 WMH MANUFACTURER'S SPEC3FICA110M Retaining Wall Drainage Detail General Earthwork and "G" FORCE - ENGINEERING DIVISION Grading Specifications Standard Details I _-Mum Geotechl-ical Engineering Evaluation Project No. GF10939-01 Appendix D owners General Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property m 8788 Balboa Avenue San Diego. CA 92123 # 619-583-6633 • Fax 6I9-583-6654 3536 Concours Avenue. Suite 110 # Ontario. CA 91764 • 909-481-6833 • Fax 909.481-4642 unumgforceca.com INTRODUCTION Building sites in general, and hillside lots in particular,require regular maintenance for proper up- keep and retention of value. Many property owners are unaware of this and inadvertently allow owners deterioration of their properties. In addition to damaging their own properties, p perk' may also be liable for damage caused to neighboring properties as a result of improper property maintenance. It is therefore damage, as well property forsthe maintenance of with properties.�on causes of property g , COMNIO`' CAUSES OF SOIL-RELATED PROPERTY DAMAGE Most soil-movement problems are associated with water. Some common causes of erosion, shallow slope failures, soil settlement and soil expansion are outlined below: • Sparse and/or improper planting_and maintenance of slopes and yards. • Improper maintenance of drainage devices. • Leaking of pressurized and non-pressurized water and sewer lines. • Over watering of slopes and yards, diversion of runoff over slopes, alteration of finish grade and removal of drainage slopes and swales. Foot traffic on slopes, which destroys vegetation and increases erosion potential. EROSION REDUCTION GUIDELLNES Erosion potential is increased when bare soil is left exposed to weather. Care should be taken to -provide ground cover at all times, but particularly during the winter months. Some suggestions for soil-stabilizing ground covers are provided below: • Grass or other fast growing, ground-covering plants may be an inexpensive and effective material for erosion control. The optimum goal of planting slopes is to achieve a dense growth of vegetation (which includes plants of varying root depths)requiring little irrigation. Plants having shallow root systems and/or requiring abundant water (many types of ice plant) are poor choices for slope-stabilizing ground covers. To find the best seed mixtures and plants for your area, check with a landscape architect, local nursery or the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. • Mulches help retain soil moisture and provide ground protection from rain damage.They also provide a favorable environment for starting and growing plants. Easily obtained mulches include grass clippings, leaves, sawdust, bark chips and straw. Commercial application so wood fibers combined with various types of seed and fertilizer(hydraulic mulching)may al be effective in stabilizing slopes. • Mats of excelsior, jute netting and plastic sheets can be effective temporary covers, but they should be in contact with soil and fastened securely to work effectively. -t - General Property Maintenance Guidelines • 8788 Balboa Avenue • sari Diego, CA 92123 # 619-583-6633 • Fax 619.583-6654 9540'Center Avenue #100 • Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 • 909-481-6833 • Fax 909-481.4642 i unvw,gforce-cgam.com MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES The following maintenance guidelines are provided for the protection of the property owner's investment, and should be observed throughout the year: • In general, roof and yard runoff-should be directed away from structures and conducted to either the-street of storm drain by appropriate erosion-control devices, such as graded swales, rain gutters and downspouts, sidewalks, drainage pipes or ground gutters. Discharge from gal; 4,6-614 nst 13e Aireeted into Existing sub=drgirt;, m. d1l; may Qverlead the drainag6 system. Care should be taiten that the slopes, terraces and beans (ridges at the crown of slopes) provided for proper lot drainage are not disturbed. Drainage behind retaining walls should also be maintained as well and designed. Drainage systems should not be altered without professional consultation. • Drains, including rain gutters and downspouts, should be kept clean and unclogged. Terrace drains and concrete-lined brow ditches should be kept free of debris to allow proper drainage. Drain outlets and weep holes in retaining walls should also be routinely checked and cleared of debri s.The performance of these drainage systems should be periodically tested.Problems, such as erosive gullying, loss of slope-stabilizing vegetation or ponding of water, should be corrected as soon as possible. • Check before and after major storms to see that drains, gutters, downspouts and ditches are clear and that vegetation is in place on slopes. Spot seed any bare areas. Check with a landscape architect or local nursery for advice. • Leakage from swimming or decorative pools, water lines, etc, should be repaired as soon as possible.Wet spots on the property may indicate a broken line. • Landscaping watering should be limited to the minimum necessary to maintain plant vigor. • Animal burrows should be filled with compacted soil or sand-cement slurry since they may cause diversion of surface runoff, promote accelerated erosion or cause shallow slope failures. • Whenever property owners plan significant topographic modifications of their lots or slopes, a geotechnical consultant should be contacted. Over-steepening of slopes may result in a need for expensive retaining devices, while undercutting of the base of slopes may lead to slope instability or failure. These modifications should not be undertaken without expert consultation. il failure occurs, the property owner should consult a • If unusual cracking, settling or so geotechnical consultant immediately. -z- General Properry Maintenance Guidelines . 8788 Balboa Avenue • San Diego. CA 92123 • 619-583-6633 • Fax 619-583-6654 9540 Center Avenue #100 • Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 v 909-48I-6833 • Fax 909-481-4642 u vw.gforce-cgam.com 1 •crii�i , /iii: �(� '�� CIVIL,GEOTECHNICAL,&QUALITY ENGINEERING FOUNDATION DESIGN*LAND SURVEYING*SOIL TESTING CLIENT: GRAY PROJECT: GRA 806 DATE: 27 AUG. 2006 G & S BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. 315 South Coast Highway, #U-26 Encinitas, CA. 92024 Attention: Mr. Dave Gray Subject: Results of Compaction Testing and Inspections duri�t Rough Grading vitas, for the 2 lots located at 175 Florita Street and 169 - CA. (APNs: 256-391-13 & 14)(Grading Plan 0088-G) Gentlemen: Pursuant to your request, we have completed our inspection and compaction testing of the rough grading operations for the subject parcel. field density tests are shown on Enclosure (1), and the results of these tests are detailed on Enclosure (2). Site preparation, compaction, and testing were accomplished between 21 and 25 August 2006. Based on our observations and testing, it is r opinion that the work performed during that period was in general conformance Preliminary Soil Investigation dated 3 March 2006 and the City of Encinitas — Grading Ordinance. subject During the first part of August, clearing and grubbing began nth and the lot with the contractor removing the moved from the pad grading areas during the surface vegetation. All debris was re rough grading operation. On this date, the contractor began the over-excavation operation for the building pads by removing the surface silty sands in the upper 3 feet in t a de area of the proposed house pads. The bottom of the excavation was scarified P 12 inches, watered, and recompacted prior to replacing the stockpiled a soils. The limits of over-excavation extended a minimum of 5 feet outside of the proposed building foundations. On 23 August, import soils oThe contractor of silty sands were used to bring the house pads to the design gr placed and compacted the native and imported soils on the house pads until the 1 161 1-A SO.MELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)945-4221 ArArAr E1,14 11ec "11, file. Gra 806 _ desi ed ad grades were achieved. The contractor over-excavated and fill p upper 3 feet of the pad to achieve a uniform recompacted the soils in the blanket to help mitigate the effects of differential settlement. Density of all fill soils was achieved by the use of a 963 trackloader co p g m actin the soil as fill was placed in thin lifts. Since the existing and import in soils varied in moisture content, the contractor spent additional time and effort his mixing operation in order to ensure near-optimum moisture and proper compaction in the fill material. As indicated by our Compaction Test Results, Enclosure (2), density tests performed in the fill soils used for the construction of the house pads indicated p Density per over 90% relative compaction as compared to the Maximum Dry ty P ASTM Test Procedure D 1557-91. In general, the import materials exposed at finish grades house to Table are considered to have a low to very low expansion potential according 18AIB of the Uniform Building Code. _ Building Foundations shall be sized and constructed in accordance des t e recommendations found in the latter part of this Report. For foundation purposes, an allowable bearing strength of 2000 psf may be rt soils assumed a compacted to continuous or spread footings founded n dense native/imp 90% relative compaction per ASTM D It is recommended that the continuous perimeter foundations on the concrete slabs for a light weight, wood framed, stucco type structure founded native/import soils shall be constructed and reinforced in accordance with the following minimum design criteria: a. The continuous perimeter foundations shall extend a minimum d forha of two 18 inches and a minimum width of 15 inches into the compacted story structure and a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minim m width with at inches for a single story. The continuous foundations shall be least four No. 4 steel bars, two bars shall be placed 3 inches from e the top of an e foundation and the other bars shall be placed� inches alternative to the 4 steel bars, the contractor y substitute two No. 5 steel bars, one top and one bottom. 2 161 1-A SO.MELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)945-4221 /�. I Viii/ii��criiii/, Gra 806 b. Footings which span from native cut material to compacted fill soils, where applicable for a transition lot, shall be reinforced with differential of one additional No. 5 steel bar top and bottom to control potential movement extending 10 feet on either side of the daylight is e'ade beam to helpat 12 inches on center shall be used for the construction of th gr control potential differential movement. c. Footings placed on or adjacent to fill slopes shall have a minimum horizontal distance of 7 feet from the bottom edge of the footings to the face of the slope. - d. All concrete slabs shall be a minimum of full 4-inches n in thickness, and center both ways reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 steel bars shall beew�e tied to the __ and placed in the center of the slab. The steel perimeter foundation steel and bent downward into the foundations at 18-inches on center to a depth of 3-inches from the bottom. In order to minimize vapor transmission, an impermeable membrane (ie: 10 mil visqu b a I be place with ter 2-inches of sand, gravel or crushed rock. The membrane shall inches of sand to protect it during construction and the sand on d should project lightly moistened just prior to placing concrete. All concrete used have a minimum compressive strength of 2500 psi unless otherwise increased on the Building Plan. e. Interior concrete slabs shall be provided with saw-cut joints spaced et a maximum of 10 feet on center each way within 24 hours after th e p a saw-cuts shall be 1/4 of the slab thickness. It is imperative that the drainage system around the proposed structure shall be designed and implemented to provide positive drainage away from all buildings in order foundations preclude moisture - intrusion into the subgrade soils beneath the building f. Exterior slabs for hardscape, pool decks, walkways, patios, etc. shall be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness and reinforced with a minimum of 6"x 6" No. 10 welded wire mesh. The reinforcing steel shall be placed in the upper 1/3 of the - slab and held in place with concrete chairs. Findings of the Report are valid as of this datenhowh however, t eyges due to natural process or works of m conditions of a property can oan on this or adjacent properties. In addition, 3 1611-A SO.MELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)945-4221 NAME# Biii/i0 c riF'"I" 11 Gra 806 changes in applicable or appropriate standards occur whether they this esult ort may legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, findings ongtrol . Therefore, this be invalidated wholly or partially by chang es outside our Report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one year. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of buildings are P lanned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this of shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the this Report are modified or verified in writing. This Report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or of his representative to ensure that the Information and the recommendations contained herein are called to the attention o ftherproj necessary Architect and Engineer and are incorporated and plans. teps shall be taken to ensure that the contractor subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. _ The Engineer has prepared this Report for the exclusive use of the client and authorized agents. This Report has been prepared in accordance ot with es, generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices _- either expressed or implied, are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of this agreement, and included in the Report. B & B Engineering Inc. and Associates appreciate this opportunity not to be of service. Should you have any questions regarding this project, please hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Stephen B. Peter RCE 38623 Expires 3-31-07 4 1611-A SO.MELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)945-4221 /I,�U SCi91 F 0 1 i. Yr AD EL=66. ff=68.67 �.. QI ', S 56,38q1'1 0 6 22.GOP T'. PAD EL=66.0 t ... f ff=66.67 rr r r rrlla.wM.+i+� ;pp,,��,rrawt �l A"M M dOiWZ OW W. S rser rwr urn /3 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FIELD EXPLORATORY TEST PIT PLOT PLAN Owner: G&S BUILDING &DEV Address: 175 FLORITA STREET Ame ENCINITAS,CA A.P.N.: 256-391-13&14 Pro"ect: GRA 806 Enclosure ( 1 ) Date: August-06 p.,011F �i�i/iiiceriiii/, ff#C Pro'ect GRA 806 Date: Au -06 Client GRAY Dry Density pct Moisture,% Relative Retest , Test Soil Compaction No. Test E1/Depth Type Field Maximum Field Opt. No. Test Date Test Location 91 63 A 1 8122/06 HOUSE PAD 115.5 127.5 11.2 9.0 9 63 B 119.2 128.5 7.5 10.0 2 8/23/06 HOUSE PAD 64 B 119.0 128.5 11.0 10.0 93 3 8/23/06 HOUSE PAD 66 B 118.5 128.5 8.6 10.0 92 4 8/24/06 HOUSE PAD 65 B 125.1 128.5 7.3 10.0 97 5 8/24/06 HOUSE PAD -- 64 B 119.0 128.5 9.9 10.0 93 6 8/24/06 HOUSE PAD 7 8/25/06 HOUSE PAD 66 B 119.1 128.5 8.2 10.0 93 67 B 120.6 128.5 7.6 10.0 94 8 8/25/06 HOUSE PAD 67 B 118.7 128.5 9.2 10.0 92 9 8125/06 HOUSE PAD 91 10 8/25/06 HOUSE PAD 67 A 115.4 127.5 8.3 9.0 - 68 B 119.6 128.5 7.9 10.0 93 11 8125/06 HOUSE PAD 12 8/25/06 HOUSE PAD 68 B 118.4 128.5 8.0 10.0 92 OUSE PAD 68 B 123.1 128.5 9.3 10.0 96 13 8/25/06 H a COMPACTION CURVE DATA OPTIMUM MAXIMUM DRY SIT c SOIL TYPE AND DESCRIPTION MOISTURE DENSIT Y 5 9.0 A. DARK BROWN SILTY SAND 10.0 128.5 B. BROWN SILTY SAND COMPACTION TEST DATA Enclosure ( 2 ) W A11-041 CrA4 GEOTECHNICAI.,&QUALITY ENGINEERING FOUNDATION DESIGN•LAND SURVEYING•SOa.TESTING CLIENT: GRAY PROJECT: GRA 306-HYD DATE: 4 MARCH 2006 G & S BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. �- 315 South Coast Highway, #U-26 I ; atAA 7 Encinitas, CA. 92024 '—' Attention: Mr. Dave Gray L -7- — -- Att E I'J "J E I; F i Subject: Hydrology and Drainage Study for the Propose esi for the 2 Lots located at 175 Florita Street, Encinitas, CA. (APN: 256-391-13 & 14) Gentlemen: Pursuant to your request and the requirements of the City of Encinitas, we have completed our Drainage Study for the subject property. The proposed tur development consists of the construction of 2 single family lat ids ve t f thise graded house pads. The supporting maps, data and calculation report are outlined in Enclosures (1) through (8). Based on our calculations, the following conclusions were derived: The runoff conditions for the watershed areas for the existing calculated for aral site year and the developed conditions ofnal Method of the County of San Diego storm frequency using the Ratio Procedures for Hydrologic Computations. Based on the Grading e Plans the to 1 Parcel, Enclosure (1) and the ultimate construction of the subject parcel, Q (discharge) was calculated to be: LOT APN PRE-CONST. POST-CONST 0—10 NORTH 256-391-14 Q= 0.32 CFS Q= 0.38 CFS 0.06 CFS SOUTH 256-391-13 Q= 0.23 CFS Q= 0.27 CFS 0.04 CFS Based on our calculations, the additional runoff anticipated after construction (i.e.: North lot = 0.06 cfs & South lot= 0.04 cfs) is considered to be an insignificant amount and can be dispersed into through the grass lined swales and the retention basins as designed below and as shown on the grading plans. -1- 1611-A SO.N4ELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)945-4221 RETENTION BASIN DESIGN The majority of these sites (+/- 60%) will be covered with an impermeable be - surface (i.e. hardscapes, sidewalks, driveway, and roofs . However, some landscape areas suitable for grass lined biofiltrbe designed ed to help proposed detention basins. Volume based BMP s will �, gned ale storm mitigate the amount of runoff produced an Diego Isoulu8ial Map for the 85th event, as determined by the County of S g P percentile storm. V=AaCP V= Required storage volume of the Basin A= Area of proposed impermeable surface a= 1 (Coefficient for Specific County Areas) C= 1 (Coefficient of runoff for impermeable surface) P= 85th Percentile Precipitation = 0.65"= 0.054' V= 2500 SF x 1 x 1 x 0.054 = 135 CF The volume necessary for the Storm Water Retention Basin is 135 CF = (7' wide x 10' long x 2' deep) which is an adequate space for this storage facility. The Engineer has prepared this Report for the exclusive use of the client and authorized agents. This Report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices. No other warranties,the terms of thid or implied, are made as to the professional advice provided under agreement, and included in the Report. B & B Engineering, Inc. appreciates this opportunity to be of service. Should you have any questions regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely,, Stephen B. Peter RCE 38623 Expires 3-31-07 -2- 161 1-A SO.MELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)945-4221 WST f WP'(E , [XIST CHAIN LRw FENCE PAD EL= 66.0 FF = 6.67 6 - Z l 5'SY50 20'arse � fF- •20•frse I �5'6M ° 5CA (,f J'a�Q' `' I 5 89'5750" W 11658' ht'X/5E I k GRADING PLAN v HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS (NORTH LOT - APN: 256-391-14) AREA 0.14 AC C 0.35 0 H 1 FT L 0.03 MILES Tc 5 MIN P (6) 2.5 I(loo) 6.60 Q (100) = CIA 0.3 DEVELOPED CONDITIONS AREA 0.14 AC - C 0.41 0 H 1 FT L 0.03 MILES Tc 5 MIN P (6) 2.5 I(loo) 6.60 Q (100) = CIA 0.38 CFS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STORM WATER ER RUNOFF FROM THE NATURAL SITE CONDITION TfIE CONDITIONS IS 0.06 CFS POST-CONSTRUCTION COND •••••••••••••••••"""""""' - ENCLOSURE (2) 1611-A SO.MELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)945-4221 HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS (SOUTH LOT - APN: 256-391-13) AREA 0.10 AC C 0.35 Q H 1 FT L 0.03 MILES Tc 5 MIN P (6) 2.5 I(loo) 6.60 Q (100) = CIA 01.23 DEVELOPED CONDITIONS AREA 0.10 AC C 0.41 A H 1 FT L 0.03 MILES Tc 5 MIN P (6) 2.5 I(loo) 6.60 _. Q (100) = CIA 0.27 CFS _ THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STORM WATT RUNOFF FROM THE NATURAL SITE CONDITIONS AND 0.0_ 4 CFS POST-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS IS ................................ - ENCLOSURE (3) 1611-A SO.MELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)9451221 Q ct ! o o O a a m v o 0 ell el M r g Imperial County e M Y SL>94 SLA9l J l M1 f .OE,9L l F a� ,S4o911 vi f� I y -.r----.-.--- -w- " .00.LLl v 0 3 A U � y o O AE�LLL - .06.L L I CU oL) 9 V s Fn Z p C3 C4--, C4 cq Imperial County ......... ................... .OE.9Lt 0 .4 ia) ........... .917.9LL . -• -. . C) _0 10lik 004�L OO.LLL CIA CG N .00.L L 'OC.L i L 0 C) 6 r, lu Ov 0 4v cz 40 bj) HIP 45 g Imperial County r4546" .S�ALL .9LALL f6 ............. . .......... ........ ... -At ww� ciz 13 6 0 DEd 80 LU MOM 0 YYH LC) HHH HIH� AAWAWAWArAWMrANWA I�RIVANNINSOMMOSEMEMMM HHH • - A ==,MIA@MlMlllllMMMMMMOMMMOM 9 IMA Aff.A wA Aw.AwA CL i 2 PwAswr,=,wA It I INIONNOMME NO NON 0 Nom mom Nmmmm wmw amimprAmmim w m rA immr AN I IIIII 10 10 111 NOME IIIIIIIII III moo! (D 0- ■■■ cy(L 0 uj 11 it till .......... ==WAWAWAIrAWW AW�WMEW A W A ------ I A =VA'I =2 ZWFAV Xa-M%A ===FWAW",WAW"CANWYWANOWAR NN:M mmm'ArAFAWAWA 11202. M.WA. W1 WA WAAFAFAMAWA�AMF��A�OOMMM��illillillimmonsommE AF`A&/ff Enovineerina, Ann. CIVIL,GEOTECHNICAL,&QUALITY ENGINEERING FOUNDATION DESIGN*LAND SURVEYING*SOII.TESTING CLIENT: GRAY PROJECT: GRA 106-INV DAT G & S BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. E 315 South Coast Highway, #U-26 Encinitas, CA. 92024 MAR 7 2006 Attention: Mr. Dave Gray EPvG N `_ "1G HR!11'_,ES Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Soil Investigation fo sI en IA Construction for the 2 Lots located at 175 Florita Street, Encinitas, CA. (APN: 256-391-13 & 14) Gentlemen: Pursuant to your request, we have completed our Preliminary Soils Investigation for the subject site. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the general engineering characteristics of the soils on and underlying the site and to provide specific recommendations for the design parameters for foundations and retaining structures, slab-on-grade floors and site earthwork. The proposed development consists of the construction of 2 level pads for the support of 2 single/two story, wood framed, residential structures. SITE CONDITIONS - The subject site is located approximately 0.5 mile west of the I-5 Freeway on the southeast corner of Florita Street and La Veta Ave. in Encinitas. The property is bounded on the south and east by existing single family residences, and on the west by La Veta Ave. and on the north by Florita Street. The site topography consists of a relatively flat lot falling to the west at approximately 1%. There is an existing driveway entrance located along the north side of the site. At the time of this investigation, the lot had a few trees with low lying grasses and native vegetation and an existing single story house that was subsequently removed. FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING On 12 February 2005, a field investigation was performed at the subject site. This investigation consisted of the excavation of 3 test pits dug with a backhoe. 1 161 l-A SO.MELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)945-4221 MEN - Locations of these test holes are shown on the Plot Plan, Enclosure (1) and the detailed Logs of the Test Pits are presented on Enclosures (2) & (3). As the test pis were advanced, the soils were visually classified by the field engineer. Undisturbed and bulk samples, as well as in-place density tests, were obtained at various depths representative of the different soils horizons. All samples were returned to our laboratory for detailed testing. Results of the in-place compaction tests, the maximum dry density test values for the various soils sampled, the soil expansion potential, and the soil sulfate content test are presented on Enclosure (3). These materials were also tested for shearing strength, Enclosure (4). Shear tests were made with a direct shear machine of the strain control type in which the rate of strain is 0.05 inches per minute. The machine is so designed that tests may be performed ensuring a minimum of disturbance from the field conditions. Saturated, remolded specimens were subjected to shear under various normal loads. Expansion tests were performed on typical specimens of natural soils. These tests were performed in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Book of ASTM Standards. SOIL CONDITIONS As indicated by our Test Pit Logs, Enclosures (2) & (3), the lot is underlain with approximately 1 to 3 feet of loose topsoil material consisting of dry to damp silty sands with some roots. Underlying the topsoil materials are the Terrace Deposit materials consisting of damp, dense to very dense silty sands. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS According to published information, there are no known active or potentially active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. Therefore, the potential for ground rupture at this site is considered low. There are, however, several faults located within a close proximity to this site that the movement associated with them could cause significant ground motion. The following table presents the distance of major faults from the site, the assumed maximum credible earthquake magnitudes and estimated peak accelerations anticipated at the site. The probability of such an earthquake occurring during the lifetime of this project is considered low. The severity of ground motion is not anticipated to be any greater at this site than in other areas of San Diego County. 2 1611-A SO.MELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)945-4221 flat-/o EAFRI Arse rhall, Xne. SEISMICITY OF MAJOR FAULTS MAXIMUM CREDIBLE ESTIMATED FAULT DISTANCE MAGNITUDE(RICHTER) ACCELERATION(g) Rose Canyon 5 mi. 6.0 0.25 Elsinore 28 mi. 7.5 0.35 San Jacinto 51 mi. 7.8 0.17 San Andreas 75 mi. 8.3 0.12 The following information is presented relative to the subject site and - Seismic Zone 4 per the U.B.C.: SEISMIC PROFILE UBC TABLE (z) Seismic zone factor = 0.4 16 A-I (Na) Near-source factor = 1.2 16 A-S (B) Seismic source type = B 16 A-U (Sd) Soil profile type = Sd 16 A-J (Ca) Seismic coefficient = 0.44 Na 16 A-Q (Cv) Seismic coefficient = 0.64 Nv 16 A-R (Nv) Near-source factor = 1.0 16 A-T LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Liquefaction analysis of the soils underlying the site was based on the consideration of various factors which include the water level, soil type gradation, relative density, intensity of ground shaking and duration of shaking. Liquefaction potential has been found to be the greatest where the ground water level is shallow and loose fine sands occur within a depth of 50 feet or less. These conditions are not present within the site area and, therefore, the potential for generalized liquefaction in the event of a strong to moderate earthquake on nearby faults is considered to be low. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on field data and our laboratory tests results, the following conclusions and recommendations are presented and are to be utilized in conjunction with the Grading and Building Plans. All grading shall be performed in accordance with the applicable recommended grading specifications contained in this report and the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance. 3 1611-A SO.MELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)945-4221 flat-/o Enflineseriiii/, An e. On the basis of our investigation, development of the site as proposed is considered feasible from a soils engineering standpoint provided that the recommendations stated herein are incorporated in the design of foundation systems and are implemented in the field. Site preparation should begin with the removal of any trash, debris, and other deleterious matter. These materials, as well as vegetative matter, are not suitable for use in structural fills and should be exported from the site. Also, any subsurface structures such as cesspools, wells, or abandoned pipelines, which are uncovered during the grading operation, shall be removed or backfilled in - accordance with the requirements of the City of Encinitas. All on-site earth materials are considered suitable for the support of the proposed structures. However, prior to placing fill, the loose topsoil materials occurring in the area of the proposed house pad shall be removed to a depth where firm, dense native soils are encountered. The depth of removal is anticipated to be approximately 3 to 5 feet below the existing surface. This can be accomplished during the rough grading operation by over-excavating the upper 3 to 5 feet of the surface soils, ripping the exposed bottom surface to a minimum depth of 12 inches, and recompacting the soil to the design grade. In the event that the finish grade soils expose a transition lot condition; i.e., a cut/fill daylight line through the proposed structure, the cut portion of the house pad shall be over-excavated and recompacted to a depth of 3 feet below the finished grade. The limits of over-excavation shall extend a minimum of 5 feet outside of the perimeter building foundations. This will provide a uniform fill blanket for an even support of the structure and will help mitigate the effects of _ differential settlement. It is anticipated that the building footings may experience less than 1 inch settlement with less than '/2 inch differential settlements between adjacent footings of similar sizes and loads. In general, the topsoil and terrace deposit materials were found to have a _ non expansion potential (i.e.: expansion index = 0) according to our Expansion Index Test results, Enclosure (3). Therefore, no additional foundation or slab requirements are considered necessary in regard to soil expansion. The surface soil was tested for sulfate content by Clarkson Laboratory and Supply, Inc., on February 8, 2006. The results of this test indicated that the water 4 1611-A SO.MELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)945-4221 1149-11 Ave. soluble sulfate content of the soil was found to contain 0.001% per California Test 417. Due to this test result, no additional recommendations are considered necessary for soil corrosion. Type II cement shall be utilized for all concrete placed at the site. Foundation designs shall be verified and/or evaluated for the finish grade soils exposed following rough grading. Foundations shall be sized and constructed in accordance with the Structural Engineer's design, based on the earth pressures and the allowable bearing values listed below, along with the expected live and dead loads, and the projected wind and seismic loads. All structural fill shall be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density at near optimum moisture content as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D 1557-91 or equivalent. Site drainage should be dispersed by non-erodible devices in a manner to preclude concentrated runoff over graded and natural areas in accordance with the City of Encinitas requirements. All grading and/or foundation plans shall be reviewed by the Soil Engineer. FOUNDATION DESIGN For foundation design purposes, the following earth pressures were calculated based on our Shear Test results Enclosure (5) for the native soils and based on a foundation depth and width of 12 inches: - TEST PIT NO. 1 AT 1 TO 4 FEET DEEP: (Orange-Brown silty SAND) Allowable Bearing Value = 1950 psf (Maximum = 2500 psf) Equivalent Fluid Pressure = 35 pcf Passive Lateral Resistance = 360 pcf At-rest Earth Pressure = 55 pcf __. Coefficient of Friction = 0.35 These values are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third (1/3) for seismic and wind loads where allowed by code. These design bearing values are in accordance with the California Building Code. 5 1611-A SO.MELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)945-4221 /ff c-/ff Ar10 neebrini/, A&C. The surface soil was tested for sulfate content by Clarkson Laboratory and Supply, Inc., on February 7, 2006. The results of this test indicated that the water soluble sulfate content of the soil was found to contain 0.003% per California Test 417. Due to this test result, no additional recommendations are considered necessary for soil corrosion. RETAINING WALLS An equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf may be used for design of retaining walls with level backfill and 55 pcf for 2H:1 V sloping backfill. These figures are based on a drained condition and use of granular backfill having a sand equivalent of 30 or less. If the native soils are used as backfill, the equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf(level) and 55 pcf(2H:1 V slope) for active conditions and 60 pcf(level) and 70 pcf(2H:1 V sloping) for at-rest conditions can be used. BUILDING FOUNDATIONS Building Foundations shall be sized and constructed in accordance with the recommendations found in the latter part of this Report. For foundation design purposes, an allowable bearing strength of 1950 psf may be assumed for all continuous or spread footings founded in dense native soils compacted to 90% relative compaction per ASTM D 1557-91 It is recommended that the continuous perimeter foundations and concrete slabs for a light weight, wood framed, stucco type structure founded on the native soils shall be constructed and reinforced in accordance with the following minimum design criteria: a. The continuous perimeter foundations shall extend a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of 15 inches into the compacted fill soils for a two story structure and a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of 15 inches for a single story. The continuous foundations shall be reinforced with at _ least four No. 4 steel bars, two bars shall be placed 3 inches from the top of the foundation and the other bars shall be placed 3 inches from the bottom. As an alternative to the 4 steel bars, the contractor may substitute two No. 5 steel bars, one top and one bottom. b. Footings which span from native cut material to compacted fill soils, where applicable for a transition lot, shall be reinforced with a minimum of one - additional No. 5 steel bar top and bottom to control potential differential 6 1611-A SO.MELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)945-4221 Slat-/N Biii/ineearkrow, Ave, movement extending 10 feet on either side of the daylight line. No. 3 rebar ties at 12 inches on center shall be used for the construction of this grade beam to help control potential differential movement. c. Footings placed on or adjacent to fill slopes shall have a minimum horizontal distance of 10 feet from the bottom edge of the footings to the face of the slope. d. All concrete slabs shall be a minimum of full 4-inches in thickness, and reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 steel rebars at 18-inches on center both ways and placed in the center of the slab. The steel bars shall be wire tied to the perimeter foundation steel and bent downward into the foundations at 18-inches on center to a depth of 3-inches from the bottom. In order to minimize vapor transmission, an impermeable membrane (ie: 10 mil visqueen) shall be placed over 2-inches of sand, gravel or crushed rock. The membrane shall be covered with 2 inches of sand to protect it during construction and the sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing concrete. All concrete used on this project shall have a minimum compressive strength of 2500 psi unless otherwise increased on the Building Plan. e. Interior concrete slabs shall be provided with saw-cut joints spaced at a maximum of 10 feet on center each way within 24 hours after the pour and the - saw-cuts shall be 1/4 of the slab thickness. It is imperative that the drainage system around the proposed structure shall be designed and implemented to provide positive drainage away from all buildings in order to preclude moisture intrusion into the subgrade soils beneath the building foundations and slabs. f. Exterior slabs for hardscape, pool decks, walkways, patios, etc. shall be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness and reinforced with a minimum of 6"x 6" No. 10 welded wire mesh. The reinforcing steel shall be placed in the upper 1/3 of the slab and held in place with concrete chairs. If imported soil materials are used during grading to bring the building pad to the design elevations, or if variations of soils or building locations are encountered, foundation and slab designs shall be reevaluated by our firm upon the completion of the rough grading operation. 7 1611-A SO.MELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)945-4221 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The analysis and recommendations submitted in this Report are based in part upon the data obtained from the test pit excavations performed on the site and our experience and judgement. The nature and extent of variations between the test pits may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this Report. Findings of the Report are valid as of this date; however, changes in conditions of a property can occur with passage of time whether they be due to natural process or works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards occur whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, 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 one year. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of buildings are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this Report are modified or verified in writing. This Report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of - the owner or of his representative to ensure that the information and the recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the project Architect and Engineer and are incorporated into the plans. Further, the necessary steps shall be taken to ensure that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. It is recommended that the Soil Engineer be provided the opportunity for a general review of the final design plans and specifications for this project in order that the recommendations of this report may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design. It is also recommended that the Soil Engineer be provided the opportunity to verify the foundation and slab construction in the field prior to placing concrete. (If the Soil Engineer is not accorded the privilege of _ making these reviews, he can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of his recommendations). 8 161 I-A SO.IVIELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)945-4221 flat-IN The Engineer has prepared this Report for the exclusive use of the client and authorized agents. This Report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranties, either expressed or implied, are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of this agreement, and included in the Report. B & B Engineering Inc. and Associates appreciate this opportunity to be of - service. Should you have any questions regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Z Stephen B. Peter RCE 38623 Expires 3-31-07 9 161 1-A SO.MELROSE DRIVE#285,VISTA,CA 92081-5471 Ph:(760)945-3150 Fax:(760)945-4221 CX157 1 htJUSP OMANT/MENl 10 {� I LX15T CH 41H L/NK fEAlCE PAD EL= I Q. FF=66.67 1 09'57W' W 2 �IIL • p I 6a "1n- I PAD EL= TP,2 66.0 k zo'fY5e FF=66.67 zo• erse J I �-5'SYSB e 5 B9'ST50'W 116.56, EX/5 T IH,eY/5[ T GRADING PLAN it/O _5C,,4 Z.6— � TP3 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FIELD EXPLORATORY TEST PIT PLOT PLAN OWNER:- 65 S DEI/, GU LOCATION: /�$ FLOlZ/T,4 /a vC I�� i//�J///C(•/'///�J�///C, CIVIL,GEOTECHNICAL,6 OUAUTY ENGINEERS _ rll •STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING•LAND SURVEYING A.P.N. • ZS 6 — 3/l 13 J I/L r•• ', •PERCOLATION 6 SOIL TESTING 7 •CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT A INSPECTION PROJECT:.40 106"/N✓DATE: 3 Z0 ENCLOSURE ( 1 ) MASAI Biigliiccrliiq, ANC. _-C V� A-Y- -- -- -- LOG OF TEST PITS EXCAVATED L2-- I -Dk ___ BACKHOE ' C4T 4Zo U PIT DIMENSIONS IN FEET W 0 L -Z-, ' D W.S ' SURFACE ELEVATION IN FEET ",c) T- + DATUM MEAN SEA LEVEL I P-1 GEOLOGICAL 2 � 3 CLASSIFICATION Z ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATION AND TEST DATA: DESCRIPTION w z co DESCRIPTION M-D-0 RC TOP tL, ' f3WWA) 511.-8 5AN0 W 2oo7S TE2-i-� e PoQpu5l 029 f Vie.---------- -- DEVOSITS °,-SCI✓,-E5¢aA)AJ SIL7i4 :ADD 5 10 1o.S r�TTOM OF TF-ST PIT (e �G-S ' No WA ll:.L/ No C4V1oe) 15 PIT DIMENSION IN FEET W 2 L IOC D S SURFACE ELEVATION IN FEET •o± T P- Z TOP 50lL � -3aOVJQ 54L7)y SPfNo W)TIC A CIPrt, (Pr�E, cv�vc, wojo) I"�L L 3 Q LOOSE 11 T E 1212AC-e- _0 9AN4 E- F320bUiV 5I0'4 SANG (.)E POSITS 5 D2� LOO SE- pENSE 10 0T.TOM OF TEST PIT-Cam? 5 ' -alt) WATE2) AJO CAVIAA, 15 Enclosure (2) /PiSH LOG OF TEST PITS �'�--�� V N _ EXCAVATED -Z 2- I -0(. BACKHOE : CAT 420-o PIT DIMENSIONS IN FEET W Z L 15' D 7/ p SURFACE ELEVATION IN FEET Coe-' .0 t DATUM MEAN SEA LEVEL T I-- 3 GEOLOGICAL _ CLASSIFICATION _ ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATION AND TEST DATA: DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION M-D-O RC TbPSOILI _rI2ovjo 51L.-4 SANO UJAZOOFS Z' Po Roust Q2H�_ C,00SC.--- ---- 1'FI 151ZOk1 J 51CIN SA00 OF-POsITS nIZLj i L005E - I)EjG6- 5 �r 10 13Ci ior-1 OF TEST PIT @ 7 No_ WA rEa- No G4v1X)� 15 PIT DIMENSION IN FEET W L D SURFACE ELEVATION IN FEET 5 10 15 Enclosure (3) A,#AfAr 8im4plisccrlim, lime. Client: ra S 01f ✓ Project: C-ioeA 106-1,vy Date: ,1490 &06 Test Test Test Dry Dens' ,pcf Moisture,% Relative Retest No. Date Test Location E1/Depth Soil Type Field Maximum Filed Opt. Compaction No. / Z / TP-/ Z ' A /OG, 7 /2.3.5 4.o go 2 Tp_/ 3' 4 J01,3 3,7, o z 84 ¢ z/ TP- 3 / A 99,0 6 So log,7 3z COMPACTION CURVE DATA OPTIMUM MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY SOIL TYPE AND DESCRIPTION MOISTURE% c 4. - F, eo S11-Ty J,4Ajp O EXPANSION POTENTIAL t t� _ /,, ?? 1 to 20=Very Low e' -VW 311 14)oc_7°' hgj zoo) /"V-1 e 2 -9 21-50=Low W A T E a- 10WOa U LC � = D,00/ eo C �/ 51-90= Moderate 91-130= High 131+= Critical EXPANSION AND COMPACTION TEST DATA ENCLOSURE 2000 LL a 1600 v Z LLJ 1200 (n Z cr Q 800 LLJ 400 0 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 NORMAL LOAD (PSF) SOIL TYPE o BORING N0. DEPTH MOISTURE COHESION ANGLE OF c o (B N) (ft) (%) (PSF) FRICTION ( o ) o e -T F -1 g'-3 '- 30 i!iiiiccrilly,hic. CIVIL,GEOTECHNICAL,6 DUALITY ENGINEERS •STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING•LAND SURVEYING •PERCOLATION d SOIL TESTING •CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 6 INSPECTION SHEARING STRENGTH TEST _____ EiUCWSOZC 5 2000 a 1600 c� Z W C= 1200 F- Q _Z tr Q 800 w 400 0 0 400 800 1200. 1600 2000 NORMAL LOAD (PSF) SOIL TYPE E BORING NO. DEPTH MOISTURE COHESION ANGLE OF m (BN) (ft) (%) (PSF) FRICTION ( � ) �7 ANO ---- -- X _TP file. CIVIL,GEOTECNNICAL,6 OUALITYENGINEERSi •STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING•LAND SURVEYING •PERCOLATION d SOIL TESTING •CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 6 INSPECTION SHEAR'iNG STRENGTH TEST r EivCGos �'