Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2006-396 G/I
' CITY OF ENCINITAS PPLICANT SECURITY DEPOSIT RELEASE Depositor Name: Vendor No. Address: ���i✓ `/%� ?� �G���� /rG7 Phone No. r State Zip DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION: 1. MEMO PROJECT NUMBER 2. RELEASED AMOUNT: 3. DEPOSIT BALANCE: $ Notes• - ' i 2 AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE: Project Coordinator-/ Date — Supervisor Date DEPOSIT BALANCE CONFIRMED: Finance Dept Date GENERAL PROD.# BRIEF DESCRIPTION AMOUNT LEDGER# (25 Characters limit) 101-0000-218.00-00 - - - - -- Security Deposit....... TOTAL$ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS CLAIM REPRESENTS A APPROVED FOR PAYMENT JUST CHARGE AGAINST THE C OF ENnCINITAS PROCESSED BYL � _ DEPARTMENTAL APPR L FINANCE DATE OF REQUEST DATE CHECK REQUIRED Next Warrant DATE DEPRLSE.doc 8/19/98 v6-ogp o Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 February 2, 2009 .O. 4972-B 1-SC Mr. Jon Butler (� 2513 Montgomery Avenue / I Cardiff, California 92007 Subject: Summary Report of Offsite Grading at 1408 Summit Avenue (Minor Fill at Sarah Goncalves Residence [1396 Summit Avenue]), Cardiff, San Diego County, California Reference: "Revised Compaction Report of Retaining Wall Backfill,Rear Wall and Offsite East Wall Only, 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, California,"W.O. 4972-F-SC, dated November 20, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Mr. Butler: GSI performed geotechnical observations and testing during the most recent remedial offsite grading for the subject site, located at 1408 Summit Avenue, in Cardiff, San Diego County, California. This offsite grading was performed in the rear yard of the Goncalves residence at 1396 Summit Avenue in Cardiff. Based on our review,observations,laboratory and field testing,it is our opinion that the subject offsite grading was performed in general accordance with the grading plan(Sampo Engineering,2007), grading permit(City of Encinitas,2007),applicable Code,and our recommendations(see the appendix of the referenced report [GSI; 2007a, 2007b, and 2005]), from a geotechnical standpoint. All recommendations in our previous report (see the referenced document) remain pertinent and applicable, except as specifically superseded herein. Our findings were made and recommendations prepared in conformance with generally accepted professional engineering practices,and no further warranty is express or implied. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. GSI is not responsible nor liable for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sherry Eaton, or the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. Jo n P. Franklin David W. Skelly Engineering Geologist, CEG 1340 Civil Engineer, RCE 47857 SLE/DWS/JPF/jh Distribution: (4) Addressee Q�a .0 Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 (760)438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 March 24, 2008 W.O. 4972-F-SC Mr. Bill Butler 4751 Topeka Drive Tarzana Village, California 91356 Subject: Revised Substantial Completion of Retaining Wall Backfill, 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Butler: This revised letter is to confirm that geotechnical testing and observation services have been provided by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) during the backfill of the retaining walls at the subject site. Construction of the walls is in progress, and approximately 80 percent of the backfill/retaining walls have been completed and tested by GSI._This report shpuld rW be construed as a final report ' n wall backfill. ,Observation and testing bega.i . December , QQ�., nd.: dun e, �iis ng was performed on a part-lime �. basis, as solely determined lid a client/contractor. Field density tests were performed using nuclear(densometer)ASTM test methods D-2922 and D-3017, and sand-cone method ASTM D-1556. The test results taken to date during on-going backfill operations are presented in the attached Table 1. A final report of retaining wall backfill with test locations is recommended to be completed,once backfilling operations have been finished for the retaining walls. CLOSURE The retaining walls plans and details have not been reviewed by this office prior to construction, as recommended. Therefore, GSI cannot comment on the conformance of the design to our recommendations(GSI,2007a and 2005),and subsequent performance. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. g�OFEu/L_. n Respectfully submitte �5�\()NFL GFOI s;� �p O c �'b GeoSoils, Inc. o� 'a Fla. RCE 478q7 No. 1340 —� Certified Exp. / Engineering Geolog 191 Cl John P Franklin 9TFOF CA%-\F' David W. Skelly Engineering Geologist, C Civil Engineer, RCE 47857 SLE/JPF/DWS/jk Attachments: Table 1 - Field Density Test Results Appendix - References Distribution: (2) Addressee (2) Chuck Dyer Construction, Attention: Mr. Chuck Dyer Mr. Bill Butler W.O. 4972-F-SC 1408 Summit Ave., Cardiff March 24, 2008 Fi1e:eAwp9\49oo\4972f.rsc Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST UTILITY DATE TEST LOCATION TRACT ELEV MOISTURE DRY REL TEST SOIL NO. TYPE NO. OR CONTENT DENSITY COMP METHOD TYPE. DEPTH ft) % c % 1 RW 12/18/071 Rear Wall Sumitt Ave 131.0 10.1 119.6 91.2 ND B 2 RW 12/18/071 Rear Wall Sumitt Ave 132.0 8.2 121.0 92.3 ND B 3 RW 12/18/071 Rear Wall Sumitt Ave 133.0 8.2 122.4 93.4 ND B 4 RW 3/17/08 Rear (East) Wall Sumitt Ave -3.0 9.5 117.9 90.0 ND B 5 RW 3/17/08 Rear (East) Wall Sumitt Ave -2.0 1 10.6 118.4 90.3 SC B 6 RW 3/17/08 Rear (East) Wall Sumitt Ave -1.0 9.8 119.3 91.0 ND B LEGEND: ND = Nuclear Densometer RW = Retaining Wall SC = Sand Cone Mr. Bill Butler W.O. 4972-F-SC 1408 Summit Ave., Cardiff March 2008 File:CAexcel\tables\4900\4972f.rsco Page 1 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX REFERENCES California, State of, 2007, Civil Code, Title 7, Division 2, Section 895, et seq. ESI,FME Ins. , 2007, Foundation plan, Butler residence, 1408 Summit Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated September 1, 2006, revised April, 2007. GeoSoils, Inc, 2007a, Compaction report of grading, 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4972-B-SC, dated October 11. 2007b, Update of preliminary geotechnical investigation, 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4972-A2-SC, May 31. 2005, Preliminary geotechnical investigation, 1408 Summit Avenue and 1493-1405 San Elijo Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4972-A-SC, December 7. International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, California building code, California code of regulations title 24, part 2, volume 1 and 2. 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California, vol. 1, 2, and 3. Kanare, Howard, 2005, Concrete floors and moisture, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois. Sampo Engineering, Inc., 2007, Grading plan for Butler residence, 1408 Summit Avenue, dated February 23. GeoSoils, Inc. Geotechnical • Geologic• Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92010 (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 March 14, 2008 W.O. 4972-F-SC Mr. Bill Butler 4751 Topeka Drive Tarzana Village, California 91356 Subject: Substantial Completion of Retaining Wall Backfill, 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Butler: This letter is to confirm that geotechnical testing and observation services have been provided by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI)during the backfill of the retaining walls at the subject site. Construction of the walls is in progress, and approximately 80 percent of the backfill/retaining walls have been completed and tested by GSI. Observation and testing began in December 2007, and has continued to date; this testing was performed on a part-time basis, as solely determined by the client/contractor. CLOSURE The retaining walls plans and details have not been reviewed by this office prior to construction, as recommended. Therefore, GSI cannot comment on the conformance of the design to our recommendations (GSI, 2007a, 2005), and subsequent performance. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, NAL CFO QFESSIOty <c. W 3�A F GeoSoils, Inc. o� ��o. FR, � r!lA2�� ' No. 1340 2 —4 0 ®. RCE 4 857 Certified —� �t _ Engineering � EX� Geologist Q 4' John P Franklin �9TFOF `FO��\ David W. Skelly �qj CIO- Engineering Geologist, C Civil Engineer, RCE 4 fi CA�-�F SLE/JPF/DWS/jk Attachments: Appendix - References Distribution: (2) Addressee (2) Chuck Dyer Construction, Attention: Mr. Chuck Dyer Mr. Bill Butler W.O. 4972-F-SC 1405-1407 San Elijo Drive March 14, 2008 File:e:\wp9\4900\4972f.sco Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX REFERENCES California, State of, 2007, Civil Code, Title 7, Division 2, Section 895, et seq. ESI,FME Ins. , 2007, Foundation plan, Butler residence, 1408 Summit Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated September 1, 2006, revised April, 2007. GeoSoils, Inc, 2007a, Compaction report of grading, 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4972-B-SC, dated October 11. 2007b, Update of preliminary geotechnical investigation, 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4972-A2-SC, May 31. 2005, Preliminary geotechnical investigation, 1408 Summit Avenue and 1493-1405 San Elijo Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4972-A-SC, December 7. International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, California building code, California code of regulations title 24, part 2, volume 1 and 2. 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California, vol. 1, 2, and 3. Kanare, Howard, 2005, Concrete floors and moisture, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois. Sampo Engineering, Inc., 2007, Grading plan for Butler residence, 1408 Summit Avenue, dated February 23. GeoSoils, Inc. S9 • AUG 2 2 Zoos Geotectmical • Coastal •'t'eologic • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 August 20, 2007 W.O. 4972-B-SC Mr. Bill Butler 4751 Topeka Drive Tarzana Village, California 91356 Subject: Interim Report of Geotechnical Observation and Testing Services During Grading, Main Residence, 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Butler: As requested by the City, and in accordance with your authorization, this report presents an interim summary of the geotechnical testing and observation services provided by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) during the rough earthwork construction phase of development for pad area supporting the proposed main residence. Removals, processing of original ground, and cuts and fills have been observed, and compaction testing performed underthe purview of this report have been completed using the selective testing and observations services of GSI. Compaction testing indicates that fills placed under the purview of this interim report were compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, in accordance with ASTM D-2922, D-3017, D-1556, and D-1557. Testing was performed on an as-needed, part-time basis, as solely requested and coordinated by the client/contractor. Based on our observations and testing, where tested, earthwork was found to be in general compliance with the Grading Code of the County of San Diego, California, GSI's recommendations, and per plan. Test results, including those within the main residence pad and approximate limits of grading will be presented in our As-Graded Geotechnical Report of Grading, which will be prepared at the completion of grading, along with final foundation design recommendations for site soils. Our findings were made and recommendations prepared in conformance with generally accepted professional engineering practices,and no furtherwarranty is express or implied. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. GSI is not responsible nor liable for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others. All recommendations in our previous reports (GSI, 2007 and 2005) remain pertinent and applicable, except as superceded herein. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. �U o n �.Wranlin David W. Skelly Engineering Geologist, CEG 1340 Civil Engineer, RCE 47857 SLE/DWS/JPF/jk Attachment: Appendix - References Distribution: (1) Addressee (3) Chuck Dyer Construction Mr. Bill Butler W.O. 4972-B-SC 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff August 20, 2007 File:e:\wp9\4900\4972b.iro Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX REFERENCES ESI, FME Ins., 2007, Foundation plan, Butler residence, 1408 Summit Avenue, Encinitas, California, dated September 1, 2006, revised April. GeoSoils, Inc., 2007, Update of preliminary geotechnical investigation, 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4972-Al-SC, dated May 31. 2005, Preliminary geotechnical investigation, 1408 Summit Avenue and 1493-1405 San Elijo Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4972-Al-SC, dated December 7. Sampo Engineering, Inc., 2007, Grading plan for Butler residence, 1408 Summit Avenue, JN 05-115 Butler, dated February 23. GeoSoils, Inc. Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92010 (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 May 31, 2007 W.O. 4972-A1-SC Mr. Bill Butler 8100 E. Maplewod Drive, Suite 100 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 ' '' 6 2007 Subject: Update of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 140_ umrr it Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, Califorrlia- References: 1. "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 1408 Summit Avenue and 1493-1405 San Elijo Avenue,Cardiff,San Diego County,California,"W.O.4972-Al-SC,dated December 7,2005, by GeoSoils, Inc. 2. "Foundation Plan, Butler Residence, 1408 Summit Avenut, Encinitas, California," dated September 1, 2006, revised April, 2007, by ESI, FME Ins. 3. "Grading Plan for Butler Residence, 1408 Summit Avenue," JN 05-115 Butler, dated February 23, 2007, by Sampo Engineering, Inc. Dear Mr. Butler: In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed an update of our preliminary geotechnical investigation (GSI, 2005) of the subject site. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the onsite soils and geologic conditions as presented in our previous report (GSI, 2005) relative to the latest proposed grading plan (Sampo Engineering, Inc. 2007). It is our understanding that this has been requested as a response to a City of Encinitas review comment. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The latest grading plan (Sampo Engineering, Inc., 2007) indicates the proposed development consists of a two-story,single-family residence with associated improvements (i.e., driveway, utilities, retaining wall, landscape). Cut and fill grading will be used to bring the site to the design grades. Our review indicates that maximum cuts, about 4 feet, and minor fills up to about 2 to 3 feet,are proposed. Retaining walls up to about 5 feet high are proposed at perimeter of the lot. Access of the site is via a driveway off San Elijo Avenue. Building loads are to be supported by continuous footings with slab-on-grade and wood-frame and/or masonry block construction and are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light construction. Sewage disposal is to be tied into the municipal system. The need for import soils is unknown. GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE Based on our previous analyses, our recommendations in our previous report remain pertinent and applicable. We present the following comment for consideration: Our review indicates that retaining walls are proposed on some of the property boundaries. Inasmuch as limited access, existing walls or retaining walls, or property lines may prevent complete removal of unsuitable materials in some areas, further evaluation by this office may be necessary during construction. It should be noted, that the Uniform Building Code ([UBC/CBC] International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 1997 and 2001) indicates that removals of unsuitable soils be performed across all areas to be graded, not just within the influence of the residential structure. Relatively deep removals may also necessitate a special zone of consideration, on perimeter/confining areas. This zone would be approximately equal to the depth of removals, if removals cannot be performed offsite. Thus, any settlement-sensitive improvements (walls, curbs,flatwork, etc.), constructed within this zone may require deepened foundations, reinforcement,etc.,or will retain some potential for settlement and associated distress. This will require proper disclosure to all homeowners and any homeowners association, as well as all interested/affected parties, should this condition exist at the conclusion of grading. Shoring in these areas may be necessary during grading, and should be anticipated. PLAN REVIEW The reviewed plans (Sampo Engineering, Inc.,2007) appear to be in general conformance with the recommendations provided by this office and presented in previous report (GSI, 2005), from a geotechnical viewpoint. In addition, we have reviewed the foundation plans (ESI, FME Inc., 2006, revised 2007), and they appear to be in general conformance with the recommendations provided by this office and presented in our previous report (GSI, 2005). OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer,structural engineer, post-tension designer,architect, landscape architect,wall designer,etc.,should review the recommendations provided previously and herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit Mr. Bill Butler W.O. 4972-A1-SC 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff May 31, 2007 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a1.uop Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of slabs,foundations,and other elements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer/designer. Please note that the recommendations provided previously or contained herein are not intended to preclude the transmission of water or vapor through the slab or foundation. The structural engineer/foundation and/or slab designer should provide recommendations to not allow water or vapor to enter the structure so as to cause damage to another building component, or so as to limit the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application. This may include an increased slab thickness, altered water-cement ratio, increased slab underlayment thickness, increased water retarder thickness, slab sealant, etc. The structural engineer/designer should analyze actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein as minimums,the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer/designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and/or improvement's designer should conform to GSI and the governing agency, in writing,that the proposed foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and/or expansion characteristics and other design criteria specified herein. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an Mr. Bill Butler W.O. 4972-A1-SC 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff May 31, 2007 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a1.uop Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. All samples will be disposed of after 30 days, unless specifically requested by the Client, in writing. opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully su i L GF oQ�,o�ESSroy� 4�5�Q. Faay°�o �' W• Sk�r� �y�A GeoSoils, In � '� No. 1340 N-+ � O . ACE 4 857 Certified —� �r Engineering EXp A A Geologist ��Q \vr. ohn P. Franklin rFOF Gx cOP David W. Skelly �9T`�Or1C��-�F��e, ngineering Geologi G 1340 Civil Engineer, RCE 4 SLE/DWS/JPF/jk Distribution: (2) Addressee (2) Sampo Engineering, Inc., Mr. Damon Becker Mr. Bill Butler W.O. 4972-A1-SC 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff May 31, 2007 File:e:\wp9\4900\4972a1.uop Page 4 GeoSoils, I»e. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1408 SUMMIT AVENUE AND 1493-1405 SAN ELIJO AVENUE CARDIFF,SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR MR. STEVEN BUTLER 2518 MONTGOMERY AVENUE CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA 92007 W.O.4972-A-SC DECEMBER 7,2005 Geotechnical *.Geologic• Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 December 7, 2005 W.O. 4972-A-SC Mr. Steven Butler 2518 Montgomery Avenue Cardiff, California 92007 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 1408 Summit Avenue and 1493-1405 San Elijo Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Butler: In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the subject site. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the onsite soils and geologic conditions and their effects on the proposed site development from a geotechnical viewpoint. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our review of the available data (see Appendix A), field exploration, laboratory testing, and geologic and engineering analysis, the proposed additional development of the property appears to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the text of this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The most significant elements of this study are summarized below: • Based on our review of the plans (Sampo Engineering, Inc., 2005) and a conversation with you, it appears that the proposed development will consist of the remodel of the existing structure on Summit Avenue. Proposed development of the San Elijo Avenue site includes demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new structure in its place. An additional new residential structure is also planned for the rear of this property. A lot line adjustment has been made to create a new pad for this new structure. The new pad includes the rear portion of the San Elijo property and the rear portion of the Summit Avenue property. • In general, the site is mantled by a thin veneer of colluvium/topsoil and undocumented artificial fill, which is directly underlain by Quaternary-age terrace deposits. • All vegetation and/or deleterious materials should be removed from the site and properly disposed of where settlement-sensitive improvements are proposed within their influence. Removals of compressible colluvium/topsoil and undocumented artificial fill and the reprocessing of any weathered Quaternary-age terrace deposits will be necessary prior to fill placement in areas for settlement-sensitive improvements. Depths of removals are outlined in the "Earthwork Construction Recommendations" section of this report. In general, removals will be on the order of about 1 to over 5 feet across a majority of the site. However, localized deeper removals cannot be precluded. The footings of the remodel should be embedded into competent Quaternary-age terrace deposits. The depth of footing embedment is outlined in the "Foundation Recommendations" section of this report. • Based on site conditions and planned improvements, significant cut and/or fill slopes are not anticipated. Shoring of existing structures may be required during removals. • The expansion potential of tested onsite soils is generally very low(Expansion Index [E.I.] less than 20). However, soils with a low expansion potential may exist on the site. Conventional foundations may likely be utilized for these soil conditions; however, based on field mapping in the vicinity of the site, the presence of numerous paleoliquefaction features("sand blows," liquefaction craters,sand filled fissures and injection dikes,sand vents,etc.), may exist within the site. Post-tension foundations will be required for soils having an E.I. of 51 or higher; or a plasticity index of 15 or greater and an E.I. greater than 20; or relatively large differential fill thicknesses; or where there is the presence of paleoliquefaction features. • Soluble sulfate testing indicates a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete, per Table 19-A-4 of the Uniform Building Code ([UBC], International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 1997). Site soils were evaluated to be moderately corrosive to ferrous metals. Accordingly, consultation with a corrosion engineer is recommended regarding foundations, piping, or where metals may come into contact with site soils. • Regional groundwater was not observed during the field investigation and is not expected to be a major factor in development of the site. However, due to the nature of the site materials, seepage and/or perched groundwater conditions may develop throughout the site along boundaries of contrasting permeabilities (i.e., fill/terrace deposits contacts), and should be anticipated. This potential should be disclosed to all owners, and any homeowners association (as appropriate). Thus, more onerous slab design is warranted for mitigation of water and vapor transmission through the foundations and slabs. • An expansion/construction joint should be placed between any existing and proposed improvements to permit relative movement,and this condition should be considered during planning, design, and construction. Mr.Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page Two GeoSoils, Inc. • A cut-off wall, 12 inches deeper than any slab underlayment, should be placed between any existing and proposed improvements to mitigate the potential of subsurface water migration. • Based on the available data, our evaluation indicates that the site currently has a very low potential for liquefaction. Therefore, no recommendations for mitigation are deemed necessary. • The seismic acceleration values and seismic design parameters provided herein should be considered and utilized by the structural/design engineer during the design of the proposed additional development. Our evaluation indicates there are no known active faults crossing the site. • Adverse geologic features that would preclude project feasibility were not encountered. • The recommendations presented in this report should be incorporated into the design and construction considerations of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, �S�ONAt OFo <ct�, gyp. FR , GeoSoils, Inc. o�� ' moo. RGE 47557 Certified' M1 1340 Z —{ Certified Exp. 0 � Engineering *P, Geologist Q r CIVIL oa�� ohn P. Franklin qr OF CP'0- David W. Skelly FOF C JAN" U� ngineering Geologist, CE G Civil Engineer, RCE 4 57 SLE/DWS/JPF/jk Distribution: (4) Addressee Mr.Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC File:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page Three GeoSoiils, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE CONDITIONS/PROPOSED ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE EXPLORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Map Symbol - Afu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Colluvium/Topsoil (Not Mapped) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quaternary-age Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) . . . . . . . . . . • . • • . • . • . • . 4 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Regional Faults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • - . 5 Seismic Shaking Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Seismic Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 LABORATORY TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Moisture-Density Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laboratory Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Expansion Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . 10 Direct Shear Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Corrosion/Sulfate Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • • • . . . . 11 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Site Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Removals/Processing in Place (Unsuitable Surficial Materials) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Foundation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Foundation Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Footing Setbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . - • ' ' ' ' ' • 14 Expansion Classification - Very Low (E.I. 0 to 20) to Low (E.I. 21 to 50) . . . . . . 14 GeoSoils, Inc. POST-TENSION SLAB SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 CORROSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 UTILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Conventional Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Restrained Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Cantilevered Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Landscape Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Gutters and Downspouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Subsurface and Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Site Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Tile Flooring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Soil Moisture Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Additional Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Footing Trench Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Trenching/Temporary Construction Backcuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Utility Trench Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 PLANREVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Mr.Steven Butler Table of Contents File:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page ii GeoSoiis, Ine. FIGURES: 2 Figure 1 - Site Location Map 6 Figure 2 - California Fault Map 20 Detail 1 -Typical Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Detail Detail 2 - Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail Geotextile Drain . . . . . . . 21 Detail 3 - Retaining Wall and Subdrain Detail Clean Sand Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . 22 ATTACHMENTS: . . . . of Text Appendix A- References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • ' ' . . Rear of Text Appendix B - Boring Logs and Test Pit Log . • . . . . . . . ' ' ' ' . ' . . Rear of Text Appendix C - EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, and FRISKSP . • . . . . ' ' . . . . _ Rear of Text Appendix D - Laboratory Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix E - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines . . . . . . . . . Rear of Text Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Rear of Text in Folder Table of Contents Mr.Steven Butler Page iii Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi GeoSoils, Inc. DRAFT PRELIMINARY G p 1403--11405 INVESTIGATION AVENUE 1408 SUMMIT AVENUE AN CARDIFF, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: 1. Review of the available geologic literature for the site (see Appendix A). 2. Subsurface exploration consisting of the excavation of two hand-dug eS x B)d 11 hhand-auger borings for geotechnical logging and sampling ( A PP end 3. General areal seismicity evaluation (see Appendix C). 4. Appropriate laboratory testing of representative soil samples (see Appendix D). 5. Engineering and geologic analysis of data collected. 6. Preparation of this report. SITE CONDITIONS PROPOSED ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT The subject site consists of two parcels 1408 summit n the Cardiff aAea of San Diego County, 1403-1405 San Elijo Avenue (APN 260-620-19-00) g current) California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). The Summit Avenue property y occupied by an existing residential structure. Proposed development of this property includes a remodel of this structure. The San Elijo site is currently occupied by an existing residential structure. Proposed development of this site includes demolition of the structure and construction of a new structure in its place. An additional new residential structure is also planned for the rear of this property. A lot line adjustment has to create a new pad for Elijo property and this new on structure. The new pad includes the rear p ortion of of the rear lot of the Summit Avenue property. The Summit Avenue parcel slopes gently to moderately to the west, and the rear yard adjoins the rear yard of the San Elijo property. The San Elijo parcel also slopes moderately to the west. Site elevations range from about 99 to 145 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL). it is assumed that the proposed development will consist of preparing the sites for the construction of the new structures and remodel of the existing structure, as well as associated driveway, utility, and landscape improvements. Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light construction (wood-frames, slabs-on-grade). It is anticipated that sewage disposal will tie into the municipal system. The need for import is unknown. GeoSoiils, Inc. SITE t ay � 4 � A mA p 1000 FEEL a Base Map: TOPOW 02003 National Geographic, U.S.G.S.Encinitas Quadrangle, California-San Diego Co., 7.5-Minute, dated 1997, current 1999. 1 ft5 +y rj4?1 v� h- . SITEx v.,k,'� ' 1000 FEET Base Map: The Thomas Guide, San Diego Co. Street Guide and Directory, 2005 Edition, by Thomas Bros. Maps, page 1167. LOCATION AND SCALES APPROXIMATE W.O. 4972-A-SC Reproduced with permission g��by Thomas Bros.Maps. ^e o QOi1 S, Inc. This map is copyrighted by Thomas Bros.Maps. tt is uNmvtul to (�. i/� L copy or reproduce al or arty part thereof,whather for personal or resale,without permission. All righffi Reserved SITE LOCATION MAP NFigure 1 SITE EXPLORATION Surface observations and subsurface explorations were performed on October 31, 2005, by a representative of this office. A survey of line and grade for the subject lot was not conducted by this firm and should be provided by the project design engineer. Near-surface soil conditions were evaluated by two hand-dug test pits and 11 hand-auger borings within the site to evaluate soil and geologic conditions. The foundation for the existing Summit Avenue structure was observed in an exploratory test pit. The approximate location of each excavation is shown on the attached Geotechnical Map (see Plate 1). Boring and test pit logs are presented in Appendix B. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep, elongated mountain ranges and valleys that trend northwesterly. The mountain ranges are generally underlain by basement rocks consisting of pre-Cretaceous metasedimentary rocks, Jurassic metavolcanic rocks, and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the southern California batholith. In the San Diego County region, deposition occurred during the Cretaceous Period and Cenozoic Era in the continental margin of a forearc basin. Sediments, derived from Cretaceous-age plutonic rocks and Jurassic-age volcanic rocks, were deposited into the narrow, steep, coastal plain, and continental margin of the basin. These rocks have been uplifted, eroded, and deeply incised. During early Pleistocene time, a broad coastal plain was developed from the deposition of marine terrace deposits. During mid- to late-Pleistocene time, this plain was uplifted, eroded, and incised. Alluvial deposits have since filled the lower valleys, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited/eroded within coastal and beach areas. SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS The site geologic units encountered during our subsurface investigation and site reconnaissance included undocumented artificial fill,topsoil, and Quaternary-age terrace deposits. The earth materials are generally described below from the youngest to the oldest. Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Map Symbol - Afu) Undocumented artificial fill materials were encountered underlying portions of the site. The materials encountered consisted of brown to orangish brown, silty sands. The materials were dry to moist and loose to medium dense. These materials are considered potentially Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. compressible in their existing state, removal and recompaction of these materials is recommended if settlement sensitive structures are proposed within their influence. The undocumented fill materials were encountered on the Summit Avenue site underlying the rear portion of the existing structure to the limit of our boring excavation (5'/2 feet),while the footings of the front portion appeared to be founded in terrace deposits, creating a cut/fill contact in the building pad. Fill materials (about 4'/2 feet deep) were also encountered in the front yard of the residence. Our excavations of the San Elijo existing residence indicate that undocumented fill materials underlie the house pad as well as the front yard and back yard of this residence. The materials encountered were up to 4 feet thick. Construction of the adjacent residence to the north had created a vertical exposure at subject site's north property line along the front yard. Our observations of this cut coincided with our findings in our borings. Excavations performed in the new pad, located at the rear of and between the Summit Avenue and San Elijo existing residences indicate that undocumented artificial fill exists in thin patches in this area. These materials appear to be native materials that may have been disturbed for landscape purposes. The fills ranged from about 1/2 to 1 foot in thickness. Colluvium/Topsoil (Not Mapped) Colluvium/topsoil mantles portions of the site at the surface, ranging from 1 to 2 feet in thickness. These soils consist of brown, dry to damp, loose, silty sand, and contained roots and rootlets. These materials are considered potentially compressible in their existing state, removal and recompaction of these materials is recommended if settlement sensitive structures are proposed within their influence. Quaternary-age Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) Quaternary-age terrace deposits were encountered underlying the entire site. These materials underlie the artificial fill and coil uvial/topsoil materials, and the terrace deposits are exposed at the surface at portions of the site. These materials consist of orangish brown, slightly silty, very fine to fine-grained sands. The materials generally were moist and medium dense to dense. Bedding structure was not readily observed, but regionally is typically flat lying to sub-horizontal. These sediments are typically massive to weakly bedded. Where exposed at the surface, the upper few inches are highly weathered. Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY Regional Faults Our review indicates that there are no known active faults crossing this site within the area proposed for development, and the site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart and Bryant, 1997). However,the site is situated in an area of active as well as potentially active faulting. These include, but are not limited to,the San Andreas fault,the San Jacinto fault, the Elsinore fault, the Coronado Bank fault zone, and the Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon fault zone. The location of these, and other major faults relative to the site, are indicated on Figure 2 (California Fault Map). The possibility of ground acceleration, or shaking at the site, may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole. Major active fault zones that may have a significant affect on the site, should they experience activity, are listed in the following table (modified from Blake, 2000a): APPROXIMATE DISTANCE ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME MILES KM Rose Canyon 1-2 (2.0) Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) 11.9 (19.2) Coronado Bank 17.1 (27.6) Elsinore-Temecula 28.6 (46.1) Elsinore-Julian 28.6 (46.1) Palos Verdes 41.6 (66.9) Earthquake Valley 42.1 (67.8) Elsinore-Glen Ivy 42.4 68.3 Seismicity The acceleration-attenuation relations of Bozorgnia,Campbell,and Niazi(1999), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1997), and Sadigh et al. have been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 2000a). EQFAULT is a computer program developed by Thomas F. Blake (2000a), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using digitized California faults as earthquake sources. The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a given site. If a fault is found to be within a user-selected radius,the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site from an upper bound ("maximum credible") earthquake on that fault. Site acceleration (g) is computed by one or more user-selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT. Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 5 GeoSo>tis, Inc. CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP San Elijo Avenue/Summit Avenue 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 o b Sl 0 -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 W.O. 4972-A-SC Figure 2 GeoSoils, Inc. Based on the EQFAULT program, peak horizontal ground accelerations from an upper bound event at the site may be on the order of 0.68 g to 0.81 g. The computer printouts of portions of the EQFAULT program are included within Appendix C. Historical site seismicity was evaluated with the acceleration-attenuation relations of Bozorgnia, Campbell, and Niazi (1999) and the computer program EQSEARCH (Blake, 2000b). This program performs a search of the historical earthquake records for magnitude 5.0 to 9.0 seismic events within a 100-mile radius, between the years 1800 to June,2005. Based on the selected acceleration-attenuation relationship,a peak horizontal ground acceleration is estimated, which may have effected the site during the specific event listed. Based on the available data and the attenuation relationship used, the estimated maximum (peak) site acceleration during the period 1800 to June, 2005 was 0.72 g. Site specific probability of exceeding various peak horizontal ground accelerations and a seismic recurrence curve are also estimated/generated from the historical data. Computer printouts of the EQSEARCH program are presented in Appendix C. A probabilistic seismic hazards analyses was performed using FRISKSP (Blake, 2000c), which models earthquake sources as 3-D planes and evaluates the site specific probabilities of exceedance for given peak acceleration levels or pseudo-relative velocity levels. Based on a review of this data, and considering the relative seismic activity of the southern California region,a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.38 g was calculated. This value was chosen as it corresponds to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (or a 475-year return period). Computer printouts of the FRISKSP program are included in Appendix C. Seismic Shaking Parameters Based on the site conditions, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code/California Building Code (ICBO, 1997; 2001) seismic parameters are provided in the following table: 1997 UBC CHAPTER 16 TABLE NO. SEISMIC PARAMETERS Seismic Zone (per Figure 16-2*) 4 Seismic Zone Factor (per Table 16-1*) 0.40 Soil Profile Type (per Table 16-J*) Sp Seismic Coefficient Ca(per Table 16-Q*) 0.44Na Seismic Coefficient C„(per Table 16-R*) 0.64N„ Near Source Factor Na (per Table 16-S*) 1.0 Near Source Factor N„ (per Table 16-T*) 1.6 Distance to Seismic Source 1.2 mi (2.0 km) Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 7 GeoSo><is, Inc. 1997 UBC CHAPTER 16 TABLE NO. SEISMIC PARAMETERS Seismic Source Type (per Table 16-U*) B Upper Bound Earthquake (Rose Canyon fault) MM,6.9 FFigure and Table references from Chapter 16 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997) Seismic Hazards The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered during our evaluation of the site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, and typical site development procedures: • Dynamic Settlement • Surface Fault Rupture • Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture • Seiche It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of a maximum probable or credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass than from those induced by the hazards considered above. This potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures, and improvements in the immediate vicinity. GROUNDWATER Subsurface water was not encountered within the property during field work performed in preparation of this report. Regional groundwater is not anticipated to adversely affect site development,provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction. These observations reflect site conditions at the time of our investigation and do not preclude future changes in local groundwater conditions from excessive irrigation, precipitation, or that were not obvious at the time of our investigation. However,based on the permeability contrasts between any proposed fill and the terrace deposits, perched groundwater conditions may develop in the future due to excess irrigation, poor drainage or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should manifestations of this perched condition (i.e., seepage) develop in the future, this office could assess the conditions and provide mitigative recommendations, as necessary. The potential for perched water to occur after development should be disclosed to all interested parties. Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 8 GeoSolills, Inc. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Seismically-induced liquefaction is a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake-induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in soils. The soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, and lead to lateral movement, sliding, sand boils,consolidation and settlement of loose sediments,and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table; but after liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overlying,non-saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates. Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential at depths greater than 45 feet and is virtually unknown below a depth of 60 feet. Liquefaction susceptibility is related to numerous factors and the following conditions should be concurrently present for liquefaction to occur: 1) sediments must be relatively young in age and not have developed a large amount of cementation; 2) sediments generally consist of medium to fine grained relatively cohesionless sands;3)the sediments must have low relative density; 4) free groundwater must be present in the sediment; and 5) the site must experience a seismic event of a sufficient duration and magnitude, to induce straining of soil particles. The condition of liquefaction has two principal effects. One is the consolidation of loose sediments with resultant settlement of the ground surface. The other effect is lateral sliding. Significant permanent lateral movement generally occurs only when there is significant differential loading, such as fill or natural ground slopes within susceptible materials. No such loading conditions exist on the site. In the site area, we found there is a potential for seismic activity and a groundwater table deeper than 50 feet below the ground surface. However, the terrace deposits graded to dense with depth. Inasmuch as at least one or two of these five required concurrent conditions discussed above do not have the potential to affect the site, and evidence of paleoliquefaction features was not observed, and considering the recommended remedial removals, our evaluation indicates that the potential for liquefaction and associated adverse effects within the site is very low, even with a future rise in groundwater levels. The site conditions will also be improved by removal and recompaction of low density near-surface soils; and if evidence for paleoliquefaction is encountered during grading,the use of post-tension slabs would be recommended. Therefore, it is our opinion that the liquefaction potential does not constitute a significant risk to site development. LABORATORY TESTING General Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the onsite earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. The test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The soil classifications are shown on the Boring Logs and Test Pit Logs in Appendix B. Moisture-Density Relations The field moisture contents and dry unit weights were determined for selected undisturbed samples in the laboratory. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and the field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry weight. The results of these tests are shown on the Boring and Test Pit Logs in Appendix B. Laboratory Standard The maximum density and optimum moisture content was evaluated for the major soil type encountered in the excavations. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D-1557. The moisture-density relationships obtained for these soils are shown on the following table: MAXIMUM DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE" LOCATION SOIL TYPE PC CONTEN TP-1 @ 0-1' Slightly Silty Sand, Orangish Brown 130.5 9.5 Expansion Potential Expansion testing was performed on a representative sample of site soil in accordance with the 1997 UBC Standard 18-2. The results of expansion testing are presented in the following table. LOCATION AND DEPTH (FEET) EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL TP-1 @ 0-1' <10 Ver Low Direct Shear Test Shear testing was performed on a representative, remolded sample of site soil in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D-3080 in a Direct Shear Machine of the strain control type. The shear test results are presented as follows: Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 R1e:eAwp9\4900A972a.pgi Page 10 GeoSoils, Inc. LOCATION AND I PRIMARY RESIDUAL DEPTH (FEET) COHESION I FRICTION ANGLE COHESION FRICTION ANGLE (PS DEGREES PS DEGREES TP-1 @ 0-1 1 325 29 210 31 Corrosion/Sulfate Testing GSI conducted sampling of onsite materials for soil corrosivity on the subject project. Laboratory test results were completed by M.J. Schiff&Associates (consulting corrosion engineers). The testing included evaluation of pH, soluble sulfates, and saturated resistivity. Test results indicate that the soil presents a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete, in accordance with Table 19-A-4 of the CBC (ICBO, 2001), and is moderately corrosi8ve to ferrous metals based on saturated resistivity. Site soils are considered to be mildly alkaline with respect to acidity/alkalinity. A corrosion specialist should be consulted for the appropriate mitigation recommendations, as needed. Test results are presented in Appendix D. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon our site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, and laboratory test results, it is our opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed additional development, from a geotechnical viewpoint. An expansion/construction joint should be placed between any existing and proposed improvements, to permit relative movement. The following recommendations should be incorporated into the construction details. EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS General All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the UBC (ICBO,1997), the requirements of the City, and the General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines presented in Appendix E, except where specifically superceded in the text of this report. Prior to grading,a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule. During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representatives) of GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field,they should be reviewed by this office and, if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 11 GeoSoils, Inc. offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders,the Occupational Safety and Health Act(OSHA),and the Construction Safety Act should be met. Site Preparation Debris, vegetation, and all deleterious material should be removed from the building area prior to the start of construction. Removals(Processing in Place (Unsuitable Surficial Materials) Due to the relatively loose condition of the undocumented artificial fill, topsoil, and weathered terrace deposits, these materials should be removed and recompacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard in areas proposed for settlement-sensitive structures. In general, the removal of unsuitable bearing materials will range from about 1 to 6 feet. However, deeper removals cannot be precluded. Removals should be performed to at least 5 feet outside any proposed settlement-sensitive improvements. Alternatively,for the remodel, footings may extend into dense terrace deposits, and the slab be specially designed by a structural engineer. Shoring of existing improvements may be required during removal and recompaction. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS In the event that the information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct, or any changes in the design, location or loading conditions of the proposed structure are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by the project structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in structural design. Upon request,GSI could provide additional input/consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. Foundation Design 1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the latest adopted edition of the UBC. All new foundations should be embedded into competent terrace deposits. 2. An allowable bearing value of 1,500 psf may be used for design of footings that maintain a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of 12 inches, and founded into suitable bearing terrace deposits or properly compacted fill. This Mr.Steven Butler summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff w-O. 4972-A-SC Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi December 7, 2005 Page 12 GeoSoiis, Inc. value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum value of 2,500 psf. In addition, this value may be increased by one-third when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. Isolated pad footings should have a minimum dimension of at least 24 inches square and a minimum embedment of 24 inches into competent terrace deposits, or properly compacted fill. 3. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pcf, with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf. 4. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with the dead load forces. 5. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 6. Soil generated from footing excavations to be used onsite should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent minimum relative compaction, if it is to be placed in the yard/right-of-away areas. This material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural area and toward the street. 7. Expansion/construction joints for differential movement between proposed and existing improvements should be provided by the structural engineer/architect. 8. A cut-off wall, 12 inches or deeper than any slab underlayment, should be placed between any existing and proposed improvements to mitigate the potential of subsurface water migration. Foundation Settlement Based on the available data, foundation systems should be designed to accommodate a differential settlement of at least 3/4 inch in a 40-foot span. An expansion/construction joint should be placed between any existing and proposed improvements to permit relative movement between the two. If removal and recompaction are limited by perimeter confinement for the remodel, provided the footings are embedded into dense terrace deposits, the slab may be supported on compacted fill. Should this condition be present, the footings and slabs should also be minimally designed to accommodate a differential settlement of 3/4 inch between adjoining elements. Footing Setbacks Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be designed to Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 13 GeoSoils, Inc. accommodate structural loads from buildings or appurtenances as described in the Retaining Wall Section of this report. Construction The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum criteria from a soils engineering standpoint. The onsite soil expansion potential is generally very low (Expansion Index [E.I.] 0 to 20). Recommendations for very low expansive soil conditions are presented herein. Soil in the low (21 to 50) range may also be present onsite and,therefore,should be designed in accordance with the 1997 UBC (Section 1815 or 1816). Soils with an E.I. greater than 20 will be tested and evaluated upon completion of grading. Revised recommendations, in accordance with UBC/CBC(ICBO, 1997;2001), will be presented at that time. Recommendations by the project's design-structural engineer or architect, which may exceed the soils engineer's recommendations,should take precedence over the following minimum requirements. Final foundation design will be provided based on the expansion potential of the near surface soils encountered during grading. Expansion Classification - Very Low (E.I. 0 to 20) to Low (E.I. 21 to 50) 1. Exterior and interior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade for one-story floor loads, and 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade for two-story floor loads, entirely into formational (terrace deposits) material, or compacted fill. Column and panel pads should be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade, entirely into formational material. All footings should be reinforced with two No. 4 reinforcing bars, one placed near the top and one placed near the bottom of the footing. Footing widths should be as indicated in UBC (ICBO, 1997). Surcharge loads from adjacent footings should be avoided. This can be accomplished by configuring footings such that the bottom outside edge of a lower footing is below a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) from the bottom outside edge of an adjacent upper footing. Otherwise, foundations should be designed to accommodate surcharge loading by the structural engineer. 2. A grade beam, reinforced as above, and at least 12 inches square, should be provided across large (e.g., doorways) entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of adjoining footings. Isolated, exterior pad footings should be tied into the main foundation in at least one direction with a grade beam to prevent lateral drift. 3. Concrete slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick and should be minimally reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars at 18 inches on center in both directions. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure placement near the vertical Mr. Steven Butler Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff W-O. 4972-A-SC Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi December 7, 2005 Page 14 GeoSoiiis, Inc. midpoint of the concrete. "Hooking" of reinforcement is not considered an acceptable method of positioning the reinforcement. The design engineer should determine the actual thickness of the slab based on loadings and use. 4. Concrete utilized for slabs-on-grade, shall utilize a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.50 and a minimum strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi) to mitigate the effects from post-development perched water and to impede water vapor transmission. Slab underlayment for concrete slab on grade floors should consist of 2 inches of washed sand placed above a vapor barrier consisting of 15-mil polyvinyl chloride, or equivalent, will all laps sealed per the 1997 UBC. The vapor barrier shall be underlain by 4 inches of pea gravel placed directly on the slab subgrade, and should be sealed to provide a continuous water-proof barrier under the entire slab, as discussed above. All slabs shall be additionally sealed with a suitable slab sealant. 5. Presoaking is not required for these soil conditions. The moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to (or greater than), the soil's optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 18 inches in the slab areas, prior to concrete placement. 6. Soils generated from footing excavations to be used onsite should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction 90 percent of the laboratory standard, whether it is to be placed inside the foundation perimeter or in the yard/right-of-way areas. This material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural areas and toward the street. 7. Foundations near the top of slope should be deepened to conform to the latest edition of the UBC (ICBO, 1997) and provide a minimum 7-foot horizontal distance from the slope face. Rigid block wall designs located along the top of slope should be reviewed by a soils engineer. 8. An expansion/construction joint should be provided between the existing and proposed construction to permit relative movement. 9. A cut-off wall should be placed between any existing and proposed improvements to mitigate the potential of subsurface water migration under existing improvements. POST-TENSION SLAB SYSTEMS Recommendations for utilizing post-tensioned slabs on the site is based on our limited subsurface investigation on the site. This section of foundation design should be applied to soils having an E.I. of ±51, or a plasticity index of 15 or greater (and an E.I. greater than 20), or where paleoliquefaction features are present. The recommendations presented Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 15 GeoSoils, Inc. below should be followed in addition to those contained in the previous sections, as appropriate. The information and recommendations presented below in this section are not meant to supercede design by a registered structural engineer or civil engineer familiar with post-tensioned slab design. Post-tensioned slabs should be designed using sound engineering practice and be in accordance with local and/or national code requirements. Upon request, GSI can provide additional data/consultation regarding soil parameters as related to post-tensioned slab design. From a soil expansion/shrinkage standpoint, a common contributing factor to distress of structures using post-tensioned slabs is fluctuation of moisture in soils underlying the perimeter of the slab, compared to the center, causing a"dishing"or"arching"of the slabs. To mitigate this possibility, a combination of soil presaturation and construction of a perimeter "cut-off' wall should be employed. Perimeter cut-off walls should be a minimum of 12 inches deep for low or 18 inches deep for medium expansive soils. The cut-off walls may be integrated into the slab design or independent of the slab and should be a minimum of 6 inches thick. The 10-mil thick vapor barrier should be covered with a 2-inch layer of sand to aid in uniform curing of the concrete; and it should be adequately sealed to provide a continuous water-proof barrier under the entire slab. A minimum 2 inches of sand should be placed below the visqueen, for a total sand layer thickness of 4 inches. Specific soil presaturation is not required; however, the moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to, or greater than, the soils' optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches below grade, for very low to low expansive soils. Post-tensioned slabs should have sufficient stiffness to resist excessive bending due to non-uniform swell and shrinkage of subgrade soils. The differential movement can occur at the corner, edge, or center of slab. The potential for differential uplift can be evaluated using the 1997 UBC, Section 1816, based on design specifications of the Post-Tensioning Institute. The following table presents suggested minimum coefficients to be used in the Post-Tensioning Institute design method. Thornthwaite Moisture Index -20 inches/year Correction Factor for Irrigation 20 inches/year Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7 feet Constant soil Suction (pf) 3.6 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (pci) 125 Moisture Velocity 0.7 inches/month Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 16 GeoSoils, Inc. The coefficients are considered minimums and may not be adequate to represent worst case conditions such as adverse drainage and/or improper landscaping and maintenance. The above parameters are applicable provided structures have positive drainage that is maintained away from structures. Therefore, it is important that information regarding drainage, site maintenance, settlements, and effects of expansive soils be passed on to future owners. Based on the above parameters,the following values were obtained from figures or tables of the 1997 UBC, Section 1816. The values may not be appropriate to account for possible differential settlement of the slab due to other factors. If a stiffer slab is desired, higher values of ym may be recommended. EXPANSION INDEX (E.I.) OF SOIL SUBGRADE VERY LOW E.I. LOW E.I. MEDIUM E.I. em center lift 5.0 feet 5.0 feet 5.5 feet em edge lift 2.5 feet 3.5 feet 4.0 feet ym center lift 1.0 inch 1.7 inches 3.7 inches ym edge lift 0.3 inch 0.75 inch 0.75 inch Deepened footings/edges around the slab perimeter must be used to minimize non-uniform surface moisture migration (from an outside source) beneath the slab. An edge depth of 12 inches should be considered a minimum. The bottom of the deepened footing/edge should be designed to resist tension, using cable or reinforcement per the structural engineer. Other applicable recommendations presented under conventional foundation methods should be adhered to during the design and construction phase of the project. CORROSION Based on results of our corrosion testing, consultation with a corrosion engineer is recommended regarding foundations, piping,or where metals may come into contact with the site soils. Upon completion of grading, additional testing of soils (including import materials) for corrosion to concrete and metals should be performed prior to the construction of utilities and foundations. UTILITIES Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions. Due Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 File:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 17 GeoSo>tis, Inc. to the potential for differential settlement, air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for plumbing and electrical lines. A/C waste waterlines should be drained to a suitable outlet. WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Conventional Retaining Walls The design parameters provided below assume that either non expansive soils (typically Class 2 permeable filter material or Class 3 aggregate base) or native onsite materials (up to and including an E.I. of 65) are used to backfill any retaining walls,and that the walls are designed to accommodate differential settlement discussed previously, and are founded entirely into denser terrace deposits, or properly compacted fill. The type of backfill (i.e., select or native), should be specified by the wall designer,and clearly shown on the plans. Building walls, below grade, should be water-proofed or damp-proofed. The foundation system for the proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this and preceding sections of this report, as appropriate. Footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below adjacent grade (excluding landscape layer, 6 inches) and should be 24 inches in width. There should be no increase in bearing for footing width. Recommendations for specialty walls (i.e., crib, earthstone, geogrid, etc.) can be provided upon request, and would be based on site specific conditions. Restrained Walls Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) of 65 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or re-entrant corners,the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall (2H) laterally from the corner. Cantilevered Walls The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet high. Design parameters for walls less than 3 feet in height may be superceded by City and/or County standard design. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions due to traffic, structures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are finalized,the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon request. Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 File:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 18 GeoSoils, Inc. SURFACE SLOPE OF EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT RETAINED MATERIAL FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F. FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F. HORIZONTAL:VERTICAL SELECT BACKFILL NATIVE BACKFILL Level* 35 45_T 2 to 1 50 60 * Level backfill behind a retaining wall is defined as compacted earth materials, properly drained, without a slope for a distance of 2H behind the wall. Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of gravel wrapped in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls that are 2 feet or greater in height. Details 1, 2, and 3, present the back drainage options discussed below. Backdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or 3/4-inch to 1'h-inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). For low expansive backfill,the filter material should extend a minimum of 1 horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and upward at least 1 foot. For native backfill that has up to medium expansion potential, continuous Class 2 permeable drain materials should be used behind the wall. This material should be continuous (i.e., full height) behind the wall, and it should be constructed in accordance with the enclosed Detail 1 (Typical Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Detail). For limited access and confined areas, (panel) drainage behind the wall may be constructed in accordance with Detail 2 (Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail Geotextile Drain). Materials with an E.I. potential of greater than 65 should not be used as backfill for retaining walls. For more onerous expansive situations, backfill and drainage behind the retaining wall should conform with Detail 3 (Retaining Wall And Subdrain Detail Clean Sand Backfill). Outlets should consist of a 4-inch diameter solid PVC or ABS pipe spaced no greater than ±100 feet apart, with a minimum of two outlets, one on each end. The use of weep holes, only, in walls higher than 2 feet, is not recommended. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted with native soil (E.I. <90). Proper surface drainage should also be provided. For additional mitigation, consideration should be given to applying a water-proof membrane to the back of all retaining structures. The use of a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry joints. Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Should wall footings transition from cut to fill, the civil designer may specify either: a) A minimum of a 2-foot overexcavation and recompaction of cut materials for a distance of 2H, from the point of transition. Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:eAwp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 19 GeoSoils, I»e. DETAILS N T . S . 2 Native Backfill 1 Provide Surface Drainage Slope or Level 12" Native Backfill �— +12" 0 Rock Filter Fabric JWaterproofng 1 Membrane(optional) 1 or Flatter Weep Hole Native Backfill Finished Surface ® Pipe 1 WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. O ROCK: 3/4 to 1-1/2" (inches) rock. s3) FILTER FABRIC: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent; place fabric flap behind core. ® PIPE: 4" (inches) diameter perforated PVC. schedule 40 or approved alternative with minimum of 1% gradient to proper outlet point (Perforations down). D WEEP HOLE: Minimum 2" (inches) diameter placed at 20' (feet) on centers along the wall, and 3" (inches) above finished surface (No weep holes for basement walls.). TYPICAL RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND DRAINAGE DETAIL f DETAIL 1 Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic • Environmental DETAILS N T S 2 Native Backfill 1 Provide Surface Drainage Slope or Level 6" Native Backfill Waterproofing Membrane(optional) Drain 1 Weep Hole 1 or Flatter Filter Fabric Finished Surface ® Pipe WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. DRAIN: Miradrain 6000 or J-drain 200 or equivalent for non-waterproofed walls. Miradrain 6200 or]-drain 200 or equivalent for waterproofed walls (All Perforations down). O FILTER FABRIC: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent; place fabric flap behind core. ® PIPE: 4" (inches) diameter perforated PVC. schedule 40 or approved alternative with minimum of 1% gradient to proper outlet point. © WEEP HOLE: Minimum 2" (inches) diameter placed at 20' (feet) on centers along the wall, and 3" (inches) above finished surface. (No weep holes for basement walls.) J=AND NG WALL BACKFILL dp UBDRAIN DE TAIL TEXTILE DRAIN DETAIL 2 Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic • Environmental DETAILS N . T S . 2 Native Backfill 1 Provide Surface Drainage Slope or Level H/2 min. Waterproofing 1 Membrane(optional) 1 or Flatter H � . © Weep Hole Clean Filter Fabric Sand Backfll. . 1 Finished Surface ® Roc 0 Pipe i —� Heel Width �-- 1 0 WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. I CLEAN SAND BACKFILL: Must have sand equivalent value of 30 or greater; can be densified by water jetting. FILTER FABRIC: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent. ® ROCK: 1 cubic foot per linear feet of pipe or 3/4 to 1-112" (inches) rock. © PIPE: 4" (inches) diameter perforated PVC. schedule 40 or approved alternative with minimum of 1% gradient to proper outlet point (Perforations down). © WEEP HOLE: Minimum 2" (inches) diameter placed at 20' (feet) on centers along the wall, and 3" (inches) above finished surface. (No weep holes for basement walls.) RETAINING WALL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL dP CLEAN SAND BACKFILL a DETAIL 3 3 Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic s Environmental a b) Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that a angular distortion of 1/360 for a distance of 2H on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be placed no greater than 20 feet on-center, in accordance with the structural engineer's/wall designer's recommendations,regardless of whether or not transition conditions exist. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible,non-shrink grout. c) Embed the footings entirely into native formational material (i.e., deepened footings). If transitions from cut to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view),then the designer should follow recommendation "a" (above) and until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment. DRIVEWAY FLATWORK AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS The soil materials on site may be expansive. The effects of expansive soils are cumulative, and typically occur over the lifetime of any improvements. On relatively level areas, when the soils are allowed to dry, the dessication and swelling process tends to cause heaving and distress to flatwork and other improvements. The resulting potential for distress to improvements may be reduced, but not totally eliminated. To that end, it is recommended that the developer should notify any homeowners or homeowners association of this long-term potential for distress. To reduce the likelihood of distress, the following recommendations are presented for all exterior flatwork: 1. The subgrade area for concrete slabs should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and then be presoaked to 2 to 3 percentage points above (or 125 percent of) the soils' optimum moisture content, to a depth of 18 inches below subgrade elevation. If very low expansive soils are present, only optimum moisture content, or greater, is required and specific presoaking is not warranted. The moisture content of the subgrade should be proof tested within 72 hours prior to pouring concrete. 2. Concrete slabs should be cast over a non-yielding surface, consisting of a 4-inch layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand, that should be compacted and level prior to pouring concrete. If very low expansive soils are present,the rock or gravel or sand may be deleted. The layer or subgrade should be wet-down completely prior to pouring concrete,to minimize loss of concrete moisture to the surrounding earth materials. 3. Exterior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. Driveway slabs and approaches should additionally have a thickened edge (12 inches) adjacent to all landscape areas, to help impede infiltration of landscape water under the slab. Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 23 GeoSoiils, Inc. 4. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints are recommended to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two ways to mitigate such cracking are: a) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, increasing tensile strength of the slab; and, b) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, slabs should be reinforced at mid-height with a minimum of No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center, in each direction. If subgrade soils within the top 7 feet from finish grade are very low expansive soils (i.e., E.I. <20), then 6x6-W1.4xW1.4 welded-wire mesh may be substituted for the rebar, provided the reinforcement is placed on chairs, at slab mid-height. The exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut, 1/2 to 3/8 inches deep, often enough so that no section is greater than 10 feet by 10 feet. For sidewalks or narrow slabs, control joints should be provided at intervals of every 6 feet. The slabs should be separated from the foundations and sidewalks with expansion joint filler material. 5. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. Concrete compression strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi. 6. Driveways, sidewalks, and patio slabs adjacent to the house should be separated from the house with thick expansion joint filler material. In areas directly adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (i.e., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints should be additionally sealed with flexible mastic. 7. Planters and walls should not be tied to the house. 8. Overhang structures should be supported on the slabs, or structurally designed with continuous footings tied in at least two directions. If very low expansion soils are present, footings need only be tied in one direction. 9. Any masonry landscape walls that are to be constructed throughout the property should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20 feet long. These segments should be keyed or doweled together. 10. Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions. 11. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Finish grade on the lots should provide a minimum of 1 to 2 percent fall to the street, as indicated herein. It should be kept in mind that drainage reversals could occur, including Mr. Steven Butler Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff W-0. 4972-A-SC Fi1e:eAwp9\4900\4972a.pgi December 7, 2005 Page 24 GeoSoils, Inc. post-construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not periodically maintained by the homeowner or homeowners association. 12. Air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for plumbing and electrical lines. A/C waste water lines should be drained to a suitable non-erosive outlet. 13. Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finishing and curing practices are not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the Portland Cement Association Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate rate of curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of soils, and fertilizers used on site. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Drainage Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance of foundations, hardscape,and slopes. Surface drainage should be sufficient to prevent ponding of water anywhere on a lot,and especially near structures and tops of slopes. Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during fine grading, landscaping,and building construction. Therefore,care should be taken that future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within lots and common areas should be provided and maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. In general, the area within 5 feet around a structure should slope away from the structure. We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum gradient of 1 percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized to control roof drainage. Down spouts,or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 25 GeoSoiis, Inc. Landscape Maintenance Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site improvements. We would recommend that any proposed open-bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter should be provided with a moisture barrier to prevent penetration of irrigation water into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (i.e., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Gutters and Downspouts As previously discussed in the drainage section,the installation of gutters and downspouts should be considered to collect roof water that may otherwise infiltrate the soils adjacent to the structures. If utilized, the downspouts should be drained into PVC collector pipes or other non-erosive devices (e.g., paved swales or ditches; below grade, solid tight-lined PVC pipes; etc.), that will carry the water away from the house, to an appropriate outlet, in accordance with the recommendations of the design civil engineer. Downspouts and gutters are not a requirement; however, from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided th Positive drainage is incorporated into project design (as discussed previ at ously). Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should perched groundwater conditions develop,this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors. Mr. Steven Butler Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff W-O. 4972-A-SC Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi December 7, 2005 GeoSoils, Inc. Page 26 are planned for the m rovements ools, spas, etc.) efts of design and Site 1 Improvements (e.g., P eotechnical aspects andlor spas additional imp the geological or g on request. the future, any cerning rovide6 up endationslrom If in mendations con eats could be P construction recom o eowners,any site, recom rovem ecific design and otified in construction of said imp n should be Provided to the ould be n out con mendatio arties. This office aft ,f rough grading ould n_ot be cOnstruc t'on r►ecoms to rested p act►11in9 backfills, sh this construe or trench b wall GSI, and andlor other onf the site, trench and retaining homeowners association,ent grading grading, utility any fill placement, advance of Dieted. This Includes any has been flatwOrk, etc. small the tile,although Tile Floorin concrete slab e, the designer should reflecting cracks in the sI nifica rade where the wdl be can crack, not be g possible Tile flooring ent for concrete slamothods that reduce cracks ►n a co nventi to ll slab er installation rack isolation membrane ded cr additional s cot Or a vinyl c consider should Sli sheets are recommended placed. The file Installer Ceramic Tile Institute) of the the such as slipsheets. P Council of America) cracking the T►le grade. (approved by concrete slabs on 9 between the and Soil Moisture Considerations water or water vap or to enter into the shah not allow omponent or to limit the n(Staate of and slabs Ilea systems a e to another t ,d► o c articular ad structural Foundation Y typically used for the p materials typ should be considered by the structure so as t oo ng damage slowing sion of water or water vapor of the type of fl the fo Therefore, the transm►s California, 200')-. designer to mitigate 10: engineerlfoundatonlslab I 's less than low expansive soil through the slab, on soils with E a minimum of 5 Inches thick for very Concrete slabs should be S E ?30), inches of sand conditions- with all laps sealed per consist of uivalent), underlayment should 4 inches of pea Concrete slab Or barrier (visgUeen or to underlain by a 15-mil vap 2001), which is, in turn, the LJ1 C by (ICBC 1997; subgrade. the el laced upon a suitable slab "Intended to haw gravel p concrete ( waterlCemer CBC (IC130, 1997;2001), aximum of the UBCI " should have a m Per Table 19-A-2 when exposed to water )000 psi. a low permeability strength 01 4,000 ratio of 0.50, and a min►mum all sealed with a suitable slab sealant. w_O. 4972-A- Slabs should be add►t►on December 7,2 Page Mr.Steven Butler ernes, Cardiff Summitlsan ENO Ave. Prop Inc. -P9� File-.e.\wP9\4900\4972a GeOSOils f _.. or transmission sh°uid be endatlons regarding water or vapor dditional recomm rural engineer/slab or foundation ent but should be A the strut requirement Provided by of a geotechnical regh the slab is undesirable e above are n or throu9 aware that the of water or water vapor full disclosure of tr potential please be •f the transmission t be implemented, sand resultant distress should implemented ► endations n° Should these recom►r s through the foundations and slabs S or to pas for water or vap In writing• be provided to each owner, lemental regrading of Additional Grading fill placement, suPP leted. This includes grading has been comp arking areas, and office should be notified m advance f ughf 9 n es driveways, P This offi approaches, the site, or trench bacnitlh9 street, driveway pP completion of grading trench and retairnn9`Nall backfills. utility subsequent to Footin Trench Excavation d b a rep purpose of the e resentative of this The P lacemen ended All footing ncrete form and reinforcement P construction. A excavations should be obse 'or to co ations have been made into ed foeCOmm trenching and rO recommend a deeper e minimum widths and excavation, ended observations is to evaluath that the exca within the footing ecomrn ` material and to exposed bearing rade materials would be r utility trench f loose or compressible comnacti n of he subg generated from I or removal and rec P excess soils 9 action of 90 percent, if not footing trench spoil and any at that time Footing acted to a minimum relative comp excavations s thed be comp removed fro Construction Backcuts Trenchin in ora ated that caving it should be anticipated Shoring or 25 to 45 degrees subsurface excavations and . ly 25 t the nature of the onsite earth materia s, 3 Considering le of repose (typical anticipated. or sloughing could be a factor ins should be anticip GSI, eating the trench wallslbackcuts at the angle or soil engineer from excavating erceded within the text of thi0�]) CAL-OSHA, 4 specifically suP an engineering geologist conform to CA [except as sp and minimally appropriate All excavations should be observed by conditions exist, orkers entering the excavation shouldn adverse prior to w codes. time. The above recommendations should state, and local safety etc.,that may perform commendations would rs offered ubcontractors,or homeowners, recommendations a provided to any such work. The arct, w.p_49724 incoi DecemberP refer( design Mr.Steven Butler properties, Cardiff to the c,,Mmit/san Elijo Ave. APPENDIX A REFERENCES F. 2000a, EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak Blake, Thomas , horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources; Windows 95198 version. 2000b, EQSEARCH, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from California historical earthquake catalogs; Updated to June,2003, Windows 95/98 version. c FRISKSP, A computer program for the Dfaults as earthquake ounces; 2000 , acceleration and uniform hazard spectra using 3-D faults Windows 95/98 version. Bozorgnia,Y.,Campbell K.W.,and Niazi, M. 1999 Vertical ground motion:Characteristics, relationship with horizontal component, and lding-code imtilic tions;of Proceedings of the SMIP929 seminar r on utilization September 15, Oakland, pp. 23-49. Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia,Y., 1997, Attenuation relations for ft rock additions; in EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation o peak from 3-D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version, Blake, 2000a. E.W. and Bryant,W.A., 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Ha act with index to earthquake fault zones maps; California earthquake fault zoning Special Publication 42, with Division of Mines and Geology S p Supplements 1 and 2, 1999. 2001, California building code, International Conference of Building officials rl 26vo )lume 1 and 2. California code of regulations title 24, p t 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California, vol. 1, 2, and 3. s, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Jennings, Ma Division of Mines and Geology, p sheet no. 6, Scale 1:750,000. Sadi h,K., Egan,J.,and Youngs,R., 1987, Predictive ground motion equations, Joyner, W.B. and Boone, D.M., of g 1988, Measurement, characterization, and prediction strong ground motion, in Von Thun, J.L., ed., Earthquake engineering and soil dynamics Il,recent advances in ground motion evaluation 4American 0 Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp Sampo Engineering, Inc., 2005, Topographic plat, JN 05-115/05-103, May 31. GeOSoils, Inc. Sowers and Sowers, 1970, Unified soil classification system (After U.S. Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory S Mechanics, New York. State Bill 800, Title 7 - Chapter 2: Actionable Defects, dated State of California, 2003, January. M.P.,2005, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30'x 60,qua2rangal ee Tan ,S.S., and Kennedy, California., State of California, Department of Conservation, Map 1:100,000. Appendix A Mr.Steven Butler Page 2 File:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi GeoSoiils, Inc. APPENDIX B BORING LOGS AND TEST PIT LOG UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY Group Typical Names CRITERIA Major Divisions Symbols Well-graded gravels and gravel- GW sand mixtures,little or no fines Standard Penetration Test > C T a�i a) Penetration o U Poorly graded gravels and Relative CD O � O Resistance N > — GP gravel-sand mixtures,little or no Density y > E 0 Z fines (blows/ft) ° ° C C%J CZ ° N ° Silty gravels gravel sand silt 0-4 Very loose m o 0 o d > L GM mixtures 0 Z � ° -S c� 4-10 Loose c a) GC Clayey gravels,gravel-sand-clay .0 mixtures 10-30 Medium d) CD Well-graded sands and gravelly 30-50 Dense 0 o N SW sands,little or no fines U ,°n o C > m o >50 Very dense r0 6 v CO Poorly graded sands and m c m o SP gravelly sands,little or no fines o ca X- z �, a X- U) SM Silty sands,sand-silt mixtures O y U) N E ° o 3 :LL SC Clayey sands,sand-clay mixtures Inorganic silts,very fine sands, Standard Penetration Test ML rock flour,silty or clayey fine sands �, Unconfined > ij .E m Inorganic clays of low to Penetration Compressive ° D o medium plasticity,gravelly clays, Resistance N Strength o m 6 o CL sandy clays,silty days,lean (blow t) Consistency (tons/ft) N Y � 'n clays o in <0.25 U) Z Organic silts and organic silty <2 Very Soft U) OL clays of low plasticity 2 4 Soft 0.25-050 c� in °- Inorganic silts,micaceous or c o MH diatomaceous fine sands or silts, E o elastic silts Stiff 1.00-2.00 'n 8 15 U E m a Inorganic clays of high plasticity, Very Stiff 2.00-4.00 � � FCH fa t clays 15-30 ry J J Organic clays of medium to high >30 Hard >4.00 plasticity Peat,mucic,and other highly Highly Organic Soils PT organic soils 3„ 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 U.S.Standard Sieve Gravel Sand Silt or Clay Unified Soil Cobbles Classification coarse fine coarse medium fine MOISTURE CONDITIONS MATERIAL QUANTITY OTHER SYMBOLS Dry Absence of moisture:dusty,dry to the touch trace 0-5% C Core Sample Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5-10% S SPT Sample Moist Near optimum moisture content little 10-25% B Bulk Sample Very Moist Above optimum moisture content some 25-45% V Groundwater Wet Visible free water;below water table op Pocket Penetrometer BASIC LOG FORMAT: Group name,Group symbol,(grain size),color,moisture,consistency or relative density. Additional comments:odor,presence of roots,mica,gypsum, coarse grained particles,etc. EXAMPLE: Sand(SP),fine to medium grained,brown,moist,loose,trace silt,little fine gravel,few cobbles up to 4"in size,some hair roots and rootlets. PLATE B-1 File:Mgr:c;\SoilClassif.wpd FGeoSoills, BORING LOG Inc. WO. 4972-A-sc PROJECT.-BUTLER BORING B-1 SHEET 1 OF Summit/San Elijo 10-31-05 DATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger-Elev. 127' Sample Standard Penetration Test 0 8 0 Groundwater a E = o ® undisturbed,Ring Sample U) - Y 3 o Description of Material U :3 o :12 U) snn COLLUVIUMITOPSOIL: s. @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose. s P-S TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 1% SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, damp, medium dense to dense. NR Total Depth =2% No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 5 GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-2 Summit/San Elijo __ FGeoSoills, BORING LOG Inc. w.D. 4972-A-sc PROJECT.BUTLER BORING B-2 SHEET 1 OF 1 Summit/San Elijo 10-31-05 DATE p(CAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger-Elev.127' Sample Standard Penetration Test c ° o Groundwater a T d o ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample L o N z o Description of Material sm 111.0 4.2 22.8 ARTIFICIAL FILL-UNDOCUMENTED: @ 0' SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, loose to medium dense; mottled. s p-s TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 1' SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, dense. NR Total Depth=2' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 5 GeoSoiis, Inc. PLATE B-3 summit/San Elijo — -- — BORING LOG FGeoSoills, Inc. w.a 4972-A-sc BORING B-3 SHEET 1 OF PROJECT:BUTLER Summit/San Elijo 10-31-05 DATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger-Elev.127' Sample Standard Penetration Test o fl o Groundwater E o ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample a _ cn m - L Description of Material N 7 C O Cn Q (n ° m 7 m ° P-S ARTIFICIAL FILL: @ 0' SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, mottled, moist, loose. P-S TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ /2' SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, dense. Total Depth = 2' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 5 GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B 4 summit/San Elijo __ 472-p_SC BORING j_OG W.O. 9 B-4 SHEET�— OF BORING' �— 10 31-05 Geosoils, Inc. DATE EXCAVATED gU-TV-ER er-Elev•107' PROJECT Summ�San Elijo SAMPLE METHOD: t{and pug el Test � Groundwater te Standard Pe Sample mPle � ® Undisturbed,Ring� Material Description of a � d E a N �' ICI AL brown,dry,loose. N J s � o SIL c � 7 ✓' o m SM f s s f f f f f f s g 1NEATHER loos' n Ish brown,moist, �RRpCE DE Y S1LN SAND,ora9 q' SLIGHTL P-S @edium dense- Total Depth to 7,F.Countered 5 No GOun Oa3A-2005 j3a&fjjjed GeOSoils, Inc. GeOSoils, Inc. BORING LOG PROJECT.•BUTLER SumrnidSan Elijo W.o. 4972_ BORING A-SC Sample -� SHEET 1 DgTEe(CAV OF 1 ATED -- SAMPL_E ME v o TROD: Hand Auger D E a ger-Elev. 116' Q = c 3 o Standard Penetration Test CMD m j o j ® inditued Ring Sam_D Sm 76 pte Groundwater Co ARTIF1C1AL Ft D�criptlon of Material @ 0'SILTY S FILL- y AND brown, dry,ry, loose. @ Rlsq IG DEPOSITS: de HTL nse Y S►L to dense. 7Y SANDorangish brow , moist, n medium No Total Depth = � 2 Back�ieddw0ater Encountered 31-2005 ��Soils n -- PLA TE 13-7 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 4972-A-SC PROJECT.-BUTLER BORING B-6 SHEET 1 OF 1 Summit/San Elijo DATE EXCAVATED 10-31-05 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger-Elev. 116' QStandard Penetration Test o Groundwater n E o ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample 3 (D _ m w o m' in � o , Description of Material SM ARTIFICIAL FILL: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose. SP-SIV TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 1' SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, medium dense to dense. Total Depth=2' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 5 Summit/San Elijo GeoSoils, Inc. pl_ATE 8-7 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 4972-A-Sc PROJECT.• BUTLER BORING B-4 SHEET 1 OF 1 Summit/San Elijo DATE EXCAVATED 10-31-05 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger-Elev. 107' Standard Penetration Test g — �Z Groundwater n E _ o ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample w U) 3 m Y o U) L, o Description of Material o m m D o rn SM ARTIFICIAL FILL: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose. P-S TERRACE DEPOSITS[WEATHERED): @ 4' SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, oranglsh brown, moist, loose to medium dense. 5 Total Depth = 5'/' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 Summit/San Elijo GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B_5 _ FGeoSoils, BORING LOG Inc. w.a 4972-A-sc PROJECT.BUTLER BORING B-5 SHEET 1 OF—1 Summit/San Elijo 10-31-05 DATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger-Elev.107' Sample Standard Penetration Test o ° o �Z Groundwater E o ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample U) Y m x o 0 L' o Description of Material :3 ° U) sm ARTIFICIAL FILL: . @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose. s s p-S TERRACE DEPOSITS(WEATHERED): @ T SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, loose to medium dense. 5 Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-s summit/San Elijo ___ BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 4972-A-SC PROJECT.BUTLER BORING 8-7 SHEET 1 OF 1 Summit/San Elijo DATE EXCAVATED 10-31-05 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger-Elev. 129' Standard Penetration Test o a° o Groundwater a E o ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample y fq Cl) N Cn m Description of Material o m' Z) m D o U) sm COLLUVIUMITOPSOIL: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose. SP-SIV TERRACE DEPOSITS(WEATHERED): @ 1XV, SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, medium dense. @ 2'As per 1W, dense. Total Depth = 2'/i No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 5 Summit/San Elijo GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-8 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO_ 4972-A-SC PROJECT.- BUTLER BORING B-8 SHEET 1 OF 1 Summit/San Elijo DATE EXCAVATED 10-31-05 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger-Elev. 131' aStandard Penetration Test -a a° v o a Groundwater CD a o ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample m n Y 3 U Z3 CD m m o v, Description of Material SM COLLUVIUM/TOPSOIL: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose. P-S TERRACE DEPOSITS(WEATHERED @ 2' SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, medium dense. @ 2'/'As per 2', dense. Total Depth = 3' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 5 Summit/San Elijo GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-9 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 4972-A-SC PROJECT.BUTLER BORING B-9 SHEET 1 OF 1 Summit/San Elijo DATE EXCAVATED 10-31-05 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger-Elev. 136' Standard Penetration Test n Groundwater a >. o ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample U) U j w N (n z 7� Description of Material o m m D o U) snn COLLUVIUMrrOPSOIL: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose. E;P-Slv TERRACE DEPOSITS(WEATHERED): @ 1' SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, loose @ 1 Y2 As per 1', dense. Total Depth =2' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 5 Summit/San Elijo GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-10 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 4972-A-SC PROJECT.-BUTLER BORING B-10 SHEET 1 OF 1 Summit/San Elijo DATE EXCAVATED 10-31-05 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger-Elev. 145' Standard Penetration Test n o Groundwater n % _ a) o ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample .�. cn E 3 N n x 3 U Z5 w o m' m o v, Description of Material SM ARTIFICIAL FILL(UNDOCUMENTED►: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose. s §-P--Slv TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 4'/' SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, medium 5 dense to dense. Total Depth = 5% No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 Summit/San Elijo GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 8-11 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 4972-A-SC PROJECT.BUTLER BORING B-11 SHEET 1 OF 1 Summit/San Elijo DATE EXCAVATED 10-31-05 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger-Elev.142' nStandard Penetration Test o o Groundwater Fcz� >. o ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample 3 � U) - n Y 3 U m o N o m m U o .5 76 Description of Material sm ARTIFICIAL FILL: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose. 5 Total Depth =6' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 Summit/San Elijo GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-12 r) - =q Cl) C\j CO c 0 3. 0 o / \ \ / U) Ek Mn E E k R / . 2 R \ 6 ƒ d 2 ca < . f n £ 0 q 0 P: m -0 g � /I U _ � .O (D m O E e . p 2 % 2 / m . m \ a_ o \ �S k LO C: 0 k O §/ a % § w / o / " k o _j 2 N / _ # � � � « « a a - r w � . a -0 0 w (D a = = « E / LL k < 3 § / / e o % § MM e- Cu % . ui _ �0 k3 S E 2m U) LU R cc O c � q . � � . a w L w o cr- q U) 0 � p. LU � a F— E .� � � �_ & % 9: © k . . o IL e o M. 7 $ % % \ \ U) dw? \ ® U CD \ \ CM c.z. > \ � F- 2 % % F- % d . m 2 APPENDIX C EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, AND FRISKSP MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKES San Elijo Avenue/Smiit Avenue 1 fill o . 1 c� a� a� U I 1111A U Q .01 .001 . 1 1 10 100 Distance (mi) W.O. 4972-A-SC Plate C-1 GeoSoils, Inc. PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE BOZ. ET AL.(1999)HOR SR UNC 1 0 0 25 yrs 50 yrs � 0 100 75 yrs 100 rs 90 80 01 0 70 Cu 60 L ° 50 CL °�' 40 c Cu 30 a) a) U 20 x w 10 0 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1 .00 1 .25 1 .50 Acceleration (q) W.O. 4972-A-SC Plate C-2 GeoSoiis, Inc. z ° Q Lo n/ N LJLJr � � U W z o O ^ o Q � o LO � I � L ■ O U O U Q V- O Q LO OJ ° _ Q r � W W n N Cpl O ° Z � o O O O o ° �- O O O W O O O T1- (Y Ir- (sJA) poiaad ua nja�tj W.O. 4972-A-SC Plate C-3 GeoSoils, Inc. EARTHQUAKE RECURRENCE CURVE San Elijo Avenue/Summit Avenue 100 10 L cc z 1 U) c a) > w ° 1 L (D E Z a) > .01 E E U .001 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 Magnitude (M) W.O. 4972-A-SC Plate C-4 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX D LABORATORY DATA M. J. Schiff& Associates, Inc. Consulting Corrosion Engineers-Since 1959 Phone: (909)626-0967 Fax:(909)626-3316 431 W. Baseline Road E-mail lab @mjschiff.com Claremont, CA 91711 website:mjschiffcom Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples GeoSoils, Carlsbad Butler MJS&A#05-1623LSD 9-Nov-05 Sample ID TP 1 @0-1 Resistivity Units as-received ohm-cm 150,000 saturated ohm-cm 3,900 PH 7.7 Electrical Conductivity ms/cm 0.06 Chemical Analyses Cations calcium Ca 2+ mg/kg 12 magnesium Mgt+ mg/kg 5 sodium Na" mg/kg 43 Anions carbonate C032- mg/kg ND bicarbonate HCOP mg/kg 92 chloride Cl I- mg/kg ND sulfate SO,2- mg/kg 65 Other Tests ammonium NH4 I+ mg/kg na nitrate NO3' mg/kg na sulfide SZ qual na Redox my na Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract. mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram(parts per million)of dry soil. Redox=oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts ND=not detected na=not analyzed W.O. 4927-A-SC Page 1 of 1 Plate D-1 APPENDIX E GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supercede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations which could supercede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant), or their representatives, should provide observation and testing services,and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for general conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All remedial removals, clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrain installation should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior to placing and fill. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D-1557. Random or representative field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test methods ASTM designation D-1556, D-2937 or D-2922, and D-3017, GeoSoils, Inc. at intervals of approximately ±2 feet of fill height or approximately every 1,000 cubic yards placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Contractor's Responsibility All clearing,site preparation,and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor,with observation by a geotechnical consultant, and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix, and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all non-earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material, should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. In-place existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials, determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable, should be removed prior to any fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions,these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading, are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly Mr. Steven Butler Appendix E File:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 2 GeoSoiils, Inc. fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils, which have been properly mixed and moisture conditioned, should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. Existing ground, which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, or as directed by the soil engineer. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content, or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is greater than 6 to 8 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 to 8 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report, or by the on-site soils engineer and/or engineering geologist. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable forms of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features, which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet, with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the geotechnical consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the soil engineer,the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to '/2 the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials,although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toes of fill benches, should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained. Mr. Steven Butler Appendix E File:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter, or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other approved material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock, or other irreducible materials, with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized material should betaken offsite,or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Per the UBC/CBC, oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces (any variation will require prior approval from the governing agency). To facilitate future trenching, rock (or oversized material) should not be placed within 10 feet from finish grade, the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the developer's representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine it's physical properties and suitability for use onsite. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as possible. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers,that when compacted,should not exceed about 6 to 8 inches in thickness. The soil engineer may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification, or should be blended with drier material. Moisture conditioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at, or above, optimum moisture. Mr.Steven Butler Appendix E File:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation D-1557, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer. In general, per the UBC/CBC,fill slopes should be designed and constructed at a gradient of 2:1 (h:v), or flatter. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (h:v), prior approval from the governing agency, specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, special reinforcement, and special grading procedures will be recommended. If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 1. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy, short-shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. 2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling. 3. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) ±2 to ±8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to evaluate compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to Mr.Steven Butler Appendix E File:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to evaluate compaction after grid rolling. 5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix, and recompact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to evaluate compaction. 6. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendation of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade, and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains, especially the outlets, should be recorded by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineering geologist prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes, and should be notified by the contractor when excavation of cut slopes commence. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate, and make appropriate recommendations for mitigation of these conditions. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not. Mr.Steven Butler Appendix E File:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 6 GeoSoils, Inc. Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractor's responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. COMPLETION Observation, testing, and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and fill areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading, and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. JOB SAFETY General At GSI, getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites. On-ground personnel are at highest risk of injury, and possible fatality, on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site,and that site safety is the rp ime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor, and GSI personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Mr. Steven Butler Appendix E File:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc. Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractor's regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for, and are to be worn by GSI personnel, at all times, when they are working in the field. Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site,the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacons,or strobe lights,on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location, Orientation, and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technician's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractor's authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractor's authorized representative (supervisor, grade checker, dump man, operator, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technician's safety, and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. When taking slope tests,the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operational distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. Mr. Steven Butler Appendix E File:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above,the technician is required,by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. However, in the interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction, or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines,we request that the contractor bring this to the technician's attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractor's representative and the soil technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which: 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back; 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench; or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL-OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or"riding down" on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and/or removal. If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify CAL-OSHA and/or the proper controlling authorities. Mr. Steven Butler Appendix E File:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL TYPE A PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL �' f -•-NATURAL GROUND �COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE)-I AI // BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHING �111 X111 SEE ALTERNATIVES TYPE B --------------------------------- PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL de NATURAL GROUND �� COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) / ode ' �— BEDROCK //iii � � •••. \\ �� �// TYPICAL BENCHING SEE ALTERNATIVES NOTE: ALTERNATIVES, LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SUBDRAiNS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. PLATE EG-1 CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL 12' MINIMUM 6- INIM Ao FILTER MATERIAL MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 FT.' .-t•;:: /LINEAR FT. 6' A ABS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED ••:. '•�:• SUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM 8 (1/4' 1 PERFS. ' MINIMUM LINEAR FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE. ASTM 02751. SDR 35 OR ASTM 01527. SCHD, 40 6' MINIMUM ASTM D3034- SDR 35 OR ASTM A-1 FOR CONTINUOUS RUN N EXCESS F 5b0 FTD .40 B-1 USE 8' j� PIPE FILTER MATERIAL. SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING - I INCH . 100 •3/4 INCH .90-100 318 INCH 40-100 NO. 4 25-40. NO. 8 18-33 .NO. 30 NO. 50 .0-7 NO. 200 0-3 ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL AND.FILTER FABRIC 6' MINIMUM OVERLAP 6' MINIMUM OVERLAP 6' MINIMUM COVER \ = -4' MINIMUM BEDDING 4' MINIMUM BEDDING= A-2 GRAVEL MATERIAL 9 FT'/LINEAR FT. B-2 PERFORATED PIPE: SEE ALTERNATE 1 GRAVEL: CLEAN 314 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE PLATE EG--2 DETAIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN COMPACTED FILL ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE �J BACKCU\ VARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS. BACKCUT 4t�,SHOULD BE MADE NO STEEPER TRAP 1:1 OR AS NECESSARY/-" ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL FOR SAFETY `f�CONSIDE RATIONS / DEPTH PER SOIL ENGWEER. Y//11 PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM TOE OF 171 SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED REMOVAL DEPTH. SLOPE HEIGHT. SITE CONDITIONS AND/OR LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE FLATTER PROJECTIONS. REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL COMPACTED FILL LIMITS LINE\ . TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL— �-- , FOR DRAINAGE ONLY Gaf Q (TO BE REMOVED) Shoo` Ga f �����"��\ (EXISTING,COMPACTED FILL) F` LEGEND - TO BE REMOVED BEFORE Oaf ARTIFICIAL FILL PLACING ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL Gat ALLUVIUM PLATE EG- 3 O W- W W O W ZZ w N w a (L W XZ d o W W Z W Ln p ' J cr W- F- W LL W ( O Q W w Q } W LL m C) < N W p Z w l Z w O Z I V U. < F-- w < Z w o X J J r� w a Yu -j m m Z m o pQ U Z Z N Z } m < C3 B W Z < w < � w W J 0 z O C7 > 11. m O to �-- Z X Y a- Z < U W 0 O O D O o N J W W U / m Y X J �. < J O W 0 2 CL w O ° Ln < LL cr- 0 O. O Q W W � J U W 4 Lu N LL- LL ��_ _ < N w w O/ _ M Q1 H to C� w m W O O t=/) < O t- z Z I F- O LL J m Z N Z_ � o w in o Q 3 w U_ - J Q < U W Q J r U N PLATE EG- 4 u, U- z C.D M z CD tl 0 0 Z z O N O w F- W N W Z F- to m J ° ° O t"! S p W •d O Q J to J Q LL >. CL O b .t cn n m F- Q Q OO O m v ° I I I I I I I u U > Z Ln z S W O Z O O to m to O O LO U W tT �! N .- J tn U m U O. H Q C7 W W J a W W Z L1J m Z a to ° a. W LtJ p Q W J F- = C7 > W = Q Q O m d W N Z O N U o ? S O J Ir N Z v O O Z � 0 Z w U Z Z v m O Q > N o N < W N O W Q F- W Q W Z v m Z Z O O O m 0 Z W Z Z O -� = fz -- Z Z Z LL Q N z LL F- O N ¢ P1/ N Q W O W m s Z LL p Z O m LL m } = O w O w co � CL Q Q U o Lrj IL N J W Q >- J U)n N J m m to m I m LL LL d Q O LL J S V) S O t/1 n p W Q Q F- ON 0 U Z O IZ w w Y -� U En N O . ^ — Z Q LL LL Z = ¢ S F- LL p U Q = W Z z = J V J W It W Jr O to N = Q p ° -j Z m to M O F W ^ W J t- Q �- LL � to Z w Ln }- p W CD- LJ J J E- J N p p m Z m LLJ U _ O ED Z J LL J ¢ I U Z Ir F• W U p ¢ W > Q Z Z IL LL Z O O ¢ a- p — W F' m W J ZO _° m r Z U O = m m N W I- W w Ir Z • W = Z LL 3 w -' 0 F- w w LL = m W NQ = S O O O O Om O 0 Ir z > LL Q LL I o 0 Z F- to 0 w J a- W O 0 a m Z LL W m > O N v W Z W d W w Q F- W O W 1..1.J O LL IL W F- O O Q J w O w ~ !- O !�- O J > ¢ W W m S LL W J W .. O Ln Z W w w O N Z J O Q I=- O LL Lr Z d 0 m O O J W O W W J m O O d !r F I. Q c7 F- Z S o Z z > ° ¢ ° I o W w ° � " LL t1 Z `L a o o 0 ¢ w 0 r- o to 0 o Q IL 0 S z < w o J W W W .1 !r w S O a•, S F Ltl 3 U ° 0 F- !Y OC W -j z LL Q a- S to F_- Q d W Z S Y Q ~ W O z _ ►� z < j a o >' 3 �. a s w F- U v m 3 w z Q W LL U > — ° Gc S X 0 U F- a Fm- m OJ LL OJ m W w z N Q er w H 0 m m ° d O -W' W �.... =O 1m- N' J J N � Z W JQ O m0 S LL. m Q J J Q W Z >O p m W w F- U a a M Lr cc ° to m ° -z m o o m r m n O U w to N O N N m ? a. F- Q LL I V) WnWINIW .Z = Q - Z Z . . . . a. LL z • • ? • . • . . Z a z a v PLATE EG-5 O W z_ i J cr. LL _ �_ = m I-- Z ❑ ❑ W C:) Z_ W N J ❑ F_- F- O O W O U s W O m z CL 0 3 0 N OJ U O W z O ❑ O o U o in F- 3 Z a o } N 0 N LL Z U i 1 > = W Q W Q cL >- U Q ❑ z Z = m U 0 a Q U = a W W ❑ Z a w w Z 0 J LLJ m m o Q z O W .c z a o %- 3 0- z tA 5 _ 0 W w o cn w Z N Z N U w W w p ❑ W w d m d Ir O N O Z C3 N l d W z Z .J a Q m Q w Ix C7 Q Z W } O 7 W m J W J o LL O N Q J \ f= tt n 0 W N O J W W W IL w z �? cr C) �� Uj > Z w v� o w = a z °, = w c _ >- Q Q F- Cn Z Ix C) z N ti r w W z o z > O D a Lij Ln 13 J Q I >- w 0 w } I W W- Y w tr N Z Y `\ I LL LL. "N' U I Z U J W w W O Q O 0 i� 0 a o ^ x m r- W J Z In 0 m O 2 t1J ❑ - Z .J F-- i_- O W N Q W J_ > O LL CL O J W ❑ a Q O z J p W Y / ry Q w Q N U Q co z O > N 0 = = W d O n- m F- _ _ = W Ln Q W O IL 0 Q Z m U PLATE EG-6 O Z Q O O Z W w Z J w O J Q Z !-- LL U C7 X Z O w W W F- W OC J U M O � a n 0 w LL Z = W O �/ O = Q F- O Q U _ c t7 Z N W Z N d a0 Z J J Z cc J Z > to W F- LL V" lit d d W J Z LL r O Q �� i F' N V = U O 7 O W Q � w S 3 0 U Q. W Z F- O Z c 7 w a- W N 0 z Y 0 IL 7, m =) Q c� Q Q i� / U J O m w d O Oi F- W � U O 0 z w o m = o Z Qm C4 {- Z _J N w �. Z 3 in Q O LL J J • CL F- t7 ,J J Z = Q O m Q = W coo Q CL F- 4 -' Q O Z Z O O C7 Z Z d W 3 3 O > O O F- O - = -r J = N Q CL = N N Z W Q CL Q Q O CL cr J O N O N F- Y = U O U = O W = m PLATE EG-7 W Y J Q O Q in p W Z w W Q Cf. _! O ,Q C7 W } J O W ? p w Q LL w cr CC W p z p t7 O W Cr W t7 W W O N -� W > z a f- z w z Q F=- w w -j U R O CL cm z Q a s � N a W —1 w w W Q O w W N CL` Z Cr Z U c7 O w O O J < LL 2 z LL O W J J z O z � E-- 11 ` z z -° t- o LL W < 0 N /, o 0 E- Z z w lz M: I / N W ti ui w Z Z W = I J N F- U W t co ul O O LLI Q f ? C< - Z y O L�/ p m Z4 -W Ln U~ '' x < U LSJ F- fa W -1 to = O 0 / o o � o m w a Z U Z H � n = W Z z x � c � (L 0 0 0 w w O } N - O W U O to 0 [L ` .r w J O CL p N O CC O t7 LA =O IlJ J N LL f' tlA LL Z 0 cn J J N m m CL 0: z a - W • = I _ = W o LL z Z I L'' W 3 Q w to = z 0 m I 3N a h- J < Z -� W 0 W H- = w a Z I F- CL vzi f- � J o O� 4 Z Q 0 3 z 0 UJ tz w w N O � a w W X X a 3 Co W W _ z LL J 1- W a (( -' C4 V) m p N Z Q O J ty ,1 m _ <_ = 0 3 W LD _ N \ W H O z PLATE EG—8 z O w w a o W J m Z ` Er- 0 Q w � w o Q N Cl) O Z Z Z Z w C7 c� li `��� p w E p `\ Z N w O W ♦ CL O % Q O w IL j a N u. O w in m m O O Z W W 0 � C7 m W cc O �ii.� 1 a W N W W W— Z m W (D oel (� C W p O W \� w m Z = Q O J O N O M Z u_ Q UA Q m O W Z' O O Z LL O () Z 0 cn Ln w UJ F— O m O to Z J oc c.) ,O / ~ H Q Q u- Y J I (n U O O Z _J Z m >�o� / _ t' ° O = Z w 3 z m X m Q � w Q Z w > z ww m W d ��b W w w v4i W cn Y a ° ° z Z O w r ^ f0- OJ N � w c� p U v / w = v=i Z w a z z z LL u o o w in w w (n a z O a z ° w N Y P LATE EG—9 i U m W d LL Q OC Q cr- 1-- N n\ O W Fw- m w N z FL. J �% o 0 C3 O \ > N w W O O z CL o !L d� Z 'Y per„ �j Lr Q p < W Y� CL cr. z0 w J j O Q O < �, Y W LL p IPA �/ U N ( O Q O W w Fr m " z U. Q o _ Fr I--� i W N z F- w CL W O m p m p O 7� -j w 0 w --� ��� m IL o '� ~ w N w w p Z w U w °o F- cr o z ,r Z o F- CD Q \ w m U z LL {� o w w J � L) z > 0 w w t-- 0 FY N O -- 4 z a z LU d � LL � N o Y z a o w 3 v O a (� o Q w a W N pQ F- 0 O W F-" Q Z J a- U Y Q 0 W Q � � ii m = o z U z p 4 M vii m g C ¢ N w N w o o W Z W I U a Z o Z O a -� F-- ;L) w � Q Q W O Q W Z Z ~ O to W 4 O o J Q W CV Y m Z o w Z w O m Q J J = p O O Q 2 U LL U F- Cn U a F- F- w LLI F- ~ CC Z U N Q Z O O N Q a w Q M: O J W F- L) U w Z Q ~ Ln U X U Q ��� Z ? O W J O W Z ° Q w a o Q w > W Q O PLATE EG-10 TRANSITION LOT DETAIL CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION) NATURAL GRAD 5' MIN ILAII m PAD GRADE J OVEREXCAVATE'AND RECOMPACT COMPACTED FILL 3' MINIMUM /�\\ /�\�\� * UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL l TYPICAL BENCHING CUT-FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION) NATURAL GRADE p����P\. 5'M1 MUM ............ PAD GRAD E AI \ vN5 OVEREX�CAVATE , 4 i \ 0L AND RECOMPACT COMPACTED FILL 3• MINIMUM* UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING NOTE: * DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEEP CUT-FILL TRANSITION AREAS. PLATE EG-11• SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL 2'X 2'X 114' STEEL PLATE STANDARD 3/4' PIPE NIPPLE WELDED TO TOP OF PLATE- 3/4' X 5' GALVANIZED PIPE. STANDARD PIPE THREADS TOP AND BOTTOM. EXTENSIONS THREADED ON BOTH ENDS AND ADDED IN 5' INCREMENTS- 3 INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE SLEEVE. ADD IN 5'INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS_ FINAL GRADE ( I MAINTAIN 5' CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT, I I MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2'VERTICAL LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. t 5' 5' I I I I MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIAL 5' 5' I y VERTICAL WITHIN A 5' RADIUS OF PLATE BASE- 2-0 • - BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT • • •PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1' BEDDING OF COMPACTED SAND NOTE: 1. LOCATIONS OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHOULD BE CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE OF A 5' RADIUS OF PLATE BASE AND WITHIN 5' (VERTICAL) FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. FILL WITHIN CLEARANCE AREA SHOULD BE HAND`COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 3. AFTER 5'(VERTICAL) OF FILL IS IN PLACE, CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN A 5'RADIUS EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE FROM RISER. 4. PLACE AND MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT INITIAL 2' OF FILL PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL READING. 5. IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO THE SETTLEMENT PLATE OR EXTENSION RESULTING FROM EQUIPMENT OPERATING WITHIN THE SPECIFIED CLEARANCE AREA, CONTRACTOR SHOULD IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORING THE SETTLEMENT PLATES TO WORKING ORDER. 6. AN ALTERNATE DESIGN AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. PLATE EG-14 TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT FINISH GRADE 3/8' DIAMETER X 6' LENGTH CARRIAGE BOLT OR EQUIVALENT DIAMETER X 3 112' LENGTH HOLE CONCRETE BACKFILL PLATE EG-15 TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM SIDE VIEW 0 v»cLE SPOIL PILE 0'TEST PIT ( NOT TO SCALD ) TOP VIEW Los 100 FEET LL 50 FEET Ln 50 FEET FLAG I SPOIL TEST PIT. V�i1Cl.E PILE t- FLAG APPROXIMATE TER LL OF TEST PIT l NOT TO SCALD ) P LATE EG-16 OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM (E) 07 00 co 15'MINIMUM (A) co o0 20'MINIMUM (B) (G) 00 ao c 0 00 CD ac ...,�5_MINIMUM lA o0 0o oa1F7 5' MINIMUM (C) BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM (E) 100' MAXIMUM (Bt, 15' MINIMUM 3' MINIMUM C� (a(G) 15' MINIMUM 5' MINIMUM (C) FROM CA WALL *MINIMUM '(C) BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL NOTE: (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET. (B) HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF EQUIPMENT. LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100' MAXIMUM. (C) IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. WINDROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIAL OR BEDROCK PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION. (D) ORIENTATION ENGINEER MAY VARY BUT SHOULD BE G GEOLOGIST.ASTAGGER STAGGERING RECOMMENDED BY THE OF WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED. (E) CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES. FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS. (F) ALL FILL OVER AND AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION OR AS RECOMMENDED. (G) FILL COVERING WINDROW. WINDROW SHOULD BE PROOF ROLLED WITH THE LIFT OF D-9 DOZER OR EQUIVALENT. VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH PLATE RD-1 AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. ROCK DISPOSAL PITS TOUR AND VOIDS VIEWS ARE SSHOULD BE COMPLETELY�FILLED NOT N• FILL LIFTS COMPACTED OVER ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT_ 1 GRANULAR MATERIAL __ s•—• LARGE ROCK — I 1 I COMPACTED FILL SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE I t COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE t I t t � 1 ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS FlLL GRANULAR SOIL TO FILL VOIDS. _ COMPACTED DENSIFIED BY FLOODING 1� ER ONE ROCK HIGH - LAY H •� PROPOSED FINISH GRADE PROFILE ALONG LAYER TO. MINIMUM OR BELOW LOWEST UTIUT : OC)CD� ----- - - -- - - - - -� 20' MUM OVERSIZE LAYER \ N FR LOPE FACE COMPACTED FILL \ 3'MINIMUM FILL SLOPE CLEAR ZONE 20' MINIMUM LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH TOP VIEW PLATE RD-2 COMPACTION REPORT OF GRADING 1408 SUMMIT AVENUE, SAN ELIJO DRIVE CARDIFF, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR MR. BILL BUTLER 4751 TOPEKA DRIVE TARZANA VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91356 W.O.4972-B-SC OCTOBER 11,2007 S9 . Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic • Environmental 26590 Madison Avenue • Murrieta, California 92562 • (951) 677-9651 • FAX(951) 677-9301 October 11, 2007 W.O. 4972-B-SC Mr. Bill Butler 4751 Topeka Drive Tarzana Village, California 91356 Subject: Compaction Report of Grading, 1408 Summit Avenue, San Elijo Drive, Cardiff, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Butler: This report presents a summary of the geotechnical testing and observation services provided by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) during the rough earthwork phase of development for the proposed learning academy. Earthwork commenced in July, 2007, and was generally completed for the subject site in September, 2007. Survey of line and grade was performed by others, and not performed by GSI. GSI was onsite part-time during rough grading operations, as solely determined by the client/contractor. Based on the observations and testing performed by GSI, it is our opinion that building pads and associated flatwork and landscape areas are generally suitable for their intended use, provided our recommendations are properly implemented. PURPOSE OF EARTHWORK The purpose of grading was to prepare a relatively level pad for the construction of a residence and associated flatworksidewalks, and d to achievedthe des gp pad grades Typical cut and fill grading operations were p erform ENGINEERING GEOLOGY The geologic conditions exposed during the process of grading were regularly observed ing by a representative from our firm. de geologic conditions nthe referencede reports during by dGSI generally were as anticipate presented (Appendix A). GROUNDWATER Regional groundwater was not encountered during remedial earthwork within the site and therefore, is not expected to significantly influence the performance of the development. However,based on the permeability contrasts between fill lifts,or between fill and bedrock, perched groundwater conditions may develop in the future due to excess irrigation, poor drainage, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should manifestations of this perched condition (i.e., seepage) develop in the future, this office could assess the conditions and provide mitigative recommendations, as necessary. This potential increases in shallow fill areas,and in fill-over-cut slopes. Any below-grade walls should be water-proofed and provided with subdrainage. This potential should be disclosed to all owners, and any interested/affected parties. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Preparation of Existing Ground 1. Prior to grading, the major surficial vegetation was stripped and hauled offsite. 2. Where exposed,existing unsuitable soils(i.e.,undocumented artificial fill,colluvium, and weathered bedrock)were removed to suitable bedrock. Removal depths were on the order of about 3 to about 10 feet below preconstruction grades. The resultant removal bottoms were then scarified to a depth of about 6 to 12 inches, broughtto at least optimum moisture content,and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. 3. Deleterious trash and other unsuitable debris encountered during grading were exported from the site. Fill Placement Fill, consisting of onsite soils, was placed in 6-to 8-inch lifts, moisture conditioned, mixed to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, and compacted using earth moving equipmentto a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (see Table 1). The approximate range in fill thickness ranged from 3 to 4 feet. Oversize material, greater than 12 inches long in dimension, was generally not encountered, nor placed onsite. FIELD TESTING 1. Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test methods D-2922 and D-3017, and sand-cone method ASTM D-1556. The test W.O. 4972-B-SC Mr. Bill Butler October 11, 2007 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff Page 2 File:eAwp9\4900\4972b.cro GeoSoils, Inc. results taken during grading operations are presented in the attached Table 1. The approximate locations of the tests taken during grading are presented on Plate 1. 2. Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and random locations to check the compactive effort provided by the contractor. Based upon the grading operations observed, the test results presented herein are considered representative of the compacted fill, where tested. 3. Visual classification of the soils in the field was the basis for determining which maximum density value to use for a given density test. 4. Testing was provided on a part-time basis during grading, as solely determined by the contractor/client. LABORATORY TESTING Maximum Density Testing The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were performed in general accordance with test method ASTM D-1557. The following table presents the results: M DENSITY MOISTURE CONTENT SOIL TYPE C (PERCENT) FB- ilty Sand, Brown 130.5 9 5 ilty Sand, Brown 131.0 8.0 Expansion Index (E.I.) Expansive soil conditions have been evaluated for the site. Expansion Index (E.I.) testing was performed in general accordance with Standard 18-2 of the Uniform Building Code/California Building Code ([UBC/CBC], International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 1997 and 2001), and ASTM D 4829. The test results are presented below: AREA EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL Pad <10 Very Low W.O. 4972-B-SC Mr. Bill Butler October 11, 2007 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff Page 3 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972b.cro GeoSoils, Inc. Corrosion/Sulfate Testing The results of the corrosion/sulfate testing were performed on samples of finish grade soils. material was obtained during grading for corrosion, acidity, and sulfate potential. The testing included evaluation of pH, soluble sulfates, and saturated resistivity. Test results indicate that the soil presents a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete,in accordance with Table 19-A-4 of the UBC (1997 edition),and are severely corrosive to ferrous metals based on saturated resistivity. Site soils are considered to be neutral respect to acidity/alkalinity. A corrosion specialist should be consulted for the appropriate mitigation recommendations, as warranted. Test results are attached as Figure 1. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Unless superceded by recommendations presented herein, the conclusions and recommendations contained in GSI (2007 and 2005) generally remain pertinent and applicable. Our review and recent laboratory testing indicates that onsite soils have a very low expansion potential (E.I. 0 to 20) and are consistent with the recommendations previously provided by GSI (2007 and 2005), except as superceded herein. The locations of the proposed retaining walls are underlain by both compacted fill and formational materials. To mitigate distress to the walls from this transition condition, the foundations of the retaining walls should be deepened into formational materials. All footing excavations, including retaining walls, should be observed by the GSI field technician prior to placement of rebar. It should be noted that the UBC/CBC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001) indicates that removals of unsuitable soils be performed across all areas to be graded, not just within the influence of the residential structure. This necessitates a special zone of consideration, on perimeter/confining areas, or in areas where removals were not performed. This zone would be approximately equal to the depth of removals, if removals are not completely performed, such as was done at the subject site, at the sole discretion of the contractor/client. Thus, any settlement-sensitive improvements (walls, curbs, flatwork, etc.),constructed within this zone may require deepened foundations, reinforcement,etc., or will retain some potential for settlement and associated distress. This would require proper disclosure to all owners, as well as any interested/affected parties. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS The foundation design and construction recommendations are based on laboratory testing and engineering analysis of onsite earth materials by GSI. The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum criteria from a geotechnical viewpoint. The onsite soils expansion potentials are generally in the very low (E.I. 0 to 20 range). W.O. 4972-B-SC Mr. Bill Butler October 11, 2007 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff Page 4 File:e:1wp9\4900\4972b.cro GeoSoils, Inc. Foundation Design 1. Conventional spread and continuous footings may be used to support the proposed residential structure, provided they are founded entirely in properly compacted fill or other competent bearing material. 2. An allowable bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of footings which maintain a minimum width of 12 inches (continuous) and 24 inches square (isolated), and a minimum depth of at least 12 inches into the properly compacted fill. The bearing value may be increased by one third for seismic or other temporary loads. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum of 2,500 psf. No increase in bearing value for increased footing width is recommended. 3. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.35 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load. 4. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf. 5. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 6. All footings should maintain a minimum 7-foot horizontal distance between the base of the footing and any adjacent descending slope, and minimally comply with the guidelines depicted on Figure No. 18-1-1 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997). Construction 1. Conventional continuous footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches and 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface for one- or two-story floor loads, respectively. Footings for one- and two-story floor loads should have a minimum width of 12 inches and 15 inches, respectively. All footings should minimally have one No. 4 reinforcing bar placed at the top and one No. 4 reinforcing bar placed at the bottom of the footing. Isolated interior or exterior piers and columns should be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface. Exterior piers should be tied to the main foundation in at least one direction with a grade beam. 2. A grade beam, reinforced as above and at least 12 inches square, should be provided across the garage entrances. The base of the reinforced grade beam should be at the same elevation as the adjoining footings. W.O. 4972-B-SC Mr. Bill Butler October 11, 2007 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff Page 5 File:e:\wp9\4900\4972b.cro GeoSoils, Inc. should be at the same elevation as the adjoining footings. 3. Concrete slabs, including garage slabs, should be minimally reinforced with No. 3 reinforcement bars placed on 18-inch centers, in two horizontally perpendicular directions(i.e.,long axis and short axis). All slab reinforcement should be supported to provide proper mid-slab height positioning during placement of the concrete. "Hooking" of reinforcement is not an acceptable method of positioning. 4. Garage slabs should be poured separately from the residence footings and be quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings should be maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement. 5. The residential and garage slabs should have an actual, minimum thickness of 5 inches, and the slab subgrade should be free of loose and uncompacted material prior to placing concrete. Vapor retarders and slab underlayment are discussed in a later section. 6. Presaturation is not necessary for these soil conditions. However, the moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to or greater than optimum moisture to a depth of 12 inches below the adjacent ground grade in the slab areas, and it should be evaluated by this office within 72 hours of the vapor retarder placement. 7. As an alternative, an engineered post-tension foundation system may be used. 8. Soils generated from footing excavations to be used onsite should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction 90 percent of the laboratory standard, whether it is to be placed inside the foundation perimeter or in the yard/right-of-way areas. This material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural areas and toward the street. 9. Foundations near the top of slope should be deepened to conform to the latest edition of the UBC (IC130, 1997) and provide a minimum of 7 feet horizontal distance from the slope face. Rigid block wall designs located along the top of slope should be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. SOIL MOISTURE CONSIDERATIONS GSI has evaluated the potential for vapor or water transmission through the slabs, in light of typical residential floor coverings and improvements. Please note that typical slab moisture emission rates, range from about 2 to 27 Ibs/24 hours/1,000 square feet from a 4-inch slab (Kanare, 2005), while typical floor covering manufacturers recommend about 3 Ibs/24 hours as an upper limit. Thus,the client will need to evaluate the following in light of a cost v. benefit analysis (owner complaints and repairs/replacement), along with disclosure to owners. Mr. Bill Butler W.O. 4972-B-SC 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff October 11, 2007 File:e:\wp9\4900\4972b.cro Page 6 GeoSoils, Inc. Considering the E.I.test results of very low to low expansion potential, anticipated typical water vapor transmission rates, floor coverings and improvements (to be chosen by the client)that can tolerate those rates without distress,the following alternatives are provided: • Concrete slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick. • Concrete slab underlayment should consist of a 10-mil to 15-mil vapor retarder, or equivalent, with all laps sealed per the UBC/CBC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001) and the manufacturer's recommendation. The vapor retarder should comply with the ASTM E-1745 - Class A or B criteria, and be installed in accordance with ACI 302.1 R-04. • The 10-to 15-mil vapor retarder (ASTM E-1745 - Class A or B) shall be installed per the recommendations of the manufacturer, including all penetrations, i.e., pipe, ducting, rebar, etc. • The vapor retarder may be placed directly on properly compacted subgrade soils with very low to low expansion potential, and should be overlain by a 2-inch thick layer of washed sand (SE>30). • Concrete should have a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.50. This does not supercede Table 19-A-4 of the UBC/CBC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001) for corrosion or other corrosive requirements. Additional concrete mix design recommendations should be provided by the structural consultant and/or waterproofing specialist. Concrete finishing and workability should be addressed by the structural consultant and a waterproofing specialist. Where slab water/cement ratios are as indicated above,and/or admixtures used,the structural consultant should also make changes to the concrete in the grade beams and footings in kind, so that the concrete used in the foundation and slabs are designed and/or treated for more uniform moisture protection. • Homeowner(s) should be specifically advised which areas are suitable for the flooring,wood flooring,or other types of water/vapor-sensitive flooring and which are not suitable. In all planned floor areas, flooring shall be installed per the manufactures recommendations. • Additional recommendations regarding water or vapor transmission should be provided by the architect/structural engineer/slab or foundation designerand should be consistent with the specified floor coverings indicated by the architect. Regardless of the mitigation, some limited moisture/moisture vapor transmission through the slab should be anticipated. Construction crews may require special training for installation of certain product(s), as well as concrete finishing techniques. The use of W.O. 4972-13-SC Mr. Bill Butler October 11, 2007 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff Page 7 File:e:\wp9\4900\4972b.cro GeoSoils, Inc. specialized product(s) should be approved by the slab designer and water-proofing consultant. Atechnical representative of the flooring contractor should review the slab and moisture retarder plans and provide comment prior to the construction of the residential foundations or improvements. The vapor retarder contractor should have representatives onsite during the initial installation. DRIVEWAY FLATWORK AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS Some of the soil materials on site may be expansive. The effects of expansion of soils are cumulative, and typically occur over the lifetime of any improvements. On relatively level areas, when the soils are allowed to dry, the dessication and swelling process tends to cause heaving and distress to flatwork and other improvements. The resulting potential for distress to improvements may be reduced, but not totally eliminated. To that end, it is recommended that the developer should notify any homeowners, homeowners association, or interested/affected parties, of this long-term potential for distress. To reduce the likelihood of distress, the following recommendations are presented for all exterior flatwork: 1. The subgrade area for concrete slabs should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and then be presoaked to 2 to 3 percentage points above (or 125 percent of) the soils' optimum moisture content, to a depth of 18 inches below subgrade elevation. If very low expansive soils are present, only optimum moisture content, or greater, is required and specific presoaking is not warranted. The moisture content of the subgrade should be proof tested within 72 hours prior to pouring concrete. 2. Concrete slabs should be cast over a non-yielding surface, consisting of a 4-inch layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand, that should be compacted and level prior to pouring concrete. If very low expansive soils are present,the rock or gravel or sand may be deleted. The layer or subgrade should be wet-down completely prior to pouring concrete, to minimize loss of concrete moisture to the surrounding earth materials. 3. Exterior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. Driveway slabs and approaches should additionally have a thickened edge (12 inches) adjacent to all landscape areas, to help impede infiltration of landscape water under the slab. 4. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints are recommended to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two ways to mitigate such cracking are: a) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, increasing tensile strength of the slab; and, b) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. W.O. 4972-B-SC Mr. Bill Butler October 11, 2007 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff Page 8 File:e:\wp9\4900\4972b.cro GeoSoils, Inc. In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, slabs should be reinforced at mid-height with a minimum of No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center, in each direction. If subgrade soils within the top 7 feet from finish grade are very low expansive soils (i.e., E.I. X20), then 6x6-W1.4xW1.4 welded-wire mesh may be substituted for the rebar, provided the reinforcement is placed on chairs, at slab mid-height. The exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut, 1/2 to 3/8 inches deep, often enough so that no section is greater than 10 feet by 10 feet. For sidewalks or narrow slabs,control joints should be provided at intervals of every 6 feet. The slabs should be separated from the foundations and sidewalks with expansion joint filler material. 5. Traffic should not be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. Concrete compression strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi. 6. Driveways, sidewalks, and patio slabs adjacent to the house should be separated from the house with thick expansion joint filler material. In areas directly adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (i.e., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints should be additionally sealed with flexible mastic. 7. Planters and walls should not be tied to the house. 8. Overhang structures should be supported on the slabs,or structurally designed with continuous footings tied in at least two directions. If very low expansion soils are present, footings need only be tied in one direction. 9. Any masonry landscape walls that are to be constructed throughout the property should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20 feet long. These segments should be keyed or doweled together. 10. Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions. Due to the potential for differential settlement, air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for plumbing and electrical lines. A/C waste waterlines should be drained to a suitable outlet.. 11. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Finish grade on the lots should provide a minimum of 1 to 2 percent fall to the street, as indicated herein. It should be kept in mind that drainage reversals could occur, including post-construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not periodically maintained by the homeowner, homeowners association, and/or any interested/affected parties. W.O. 4972-B-SC Mr. Bill Butler October 11, 2007 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff Page 9 File:eAwp9\4900\4972b.cro GeoSoih, Inc. 12. Air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for plumbing and electrical lines. A/C waste water lines should be drained to a suitable non-erosive outlet. 13. Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finishing and curing practices are not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the Portland Cement Association Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate rate of curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of soils, and fertilizers used on site. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Drainage Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance of foundations, hardscape,and slopes. Surface drainage should be sufficientto prevent ponding of water anywhere on a lot,and especially near structures and tops of slopes. Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during fine grading, landscaping,and building construction. Therefore,care should be taken that future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within lots and common areas should be provided and maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. In general, the area within 5 feet around a structure should slope away from the structure. We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum gradient of 1 percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized to control roof drainage. Down spouts,or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. Erosion Control Exposed graded surfaces will be subject to surficial erosion during and after grading. Onsite earth materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Consideration should be given to providing hay bales and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water, from a geotechnical viewpoint. Mr. Bill Butler W.O. 4972-B-SC 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff October 11, 2007 File:e:\wp9\4900\4972b.cro Page 10 GeoSoils, Inc. Landscape Maintenance Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site improvements. We would recommend that any proposed open-bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter,could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter should be provided with a moisture retarder to prevent penetration of irrigation water into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (i.e.,some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Gutters and Downspouts As previously discussed in the drainage section,the installation of gutters and downspouts should be considered to collect roof water that may otherwise infiltrate the soils adjacent to the structures. If utilized, the downspouts should be drained into PVC collector pipes or other non-erosive devices (e.g., paved swales or ditches; below grade, solid tight-lined PVC pipes; etc.),that will carry the water away from the structure,to an appropriate outlet, in accordance with the recommendations of the design civil engineer. Downspouts and gutters are not a requirement; however, from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided that positive drainage is incorporated into project design (as discussed previously). Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should perched groundwater conditions develop,this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors. Mr. Bill Butler W.O. 4972-13-SC 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff October 11, 2007 Fi1e:eAwp9\4900\4972b.cro Page 11 GeoSoils, Inc. Site Improvements If in the future, any additional improvements (e.g., pools, spas, etc.) are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. Pools and/or spas should not be constructed without specific design and construction recommendations from GSI. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench and retaining wall backfills, flatwork, etc. Tile Flooring Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile,although small cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. Therefore, the designer should consider additional steel reinforcement for concrete slabs-on-grade where tile will be placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane (approved by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute) are recommended between the and concrete slabs on grade. Additional Grading This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes completion of grading in the street, driveway approaches, driveways, parking areas, and utility trench and retaining wall backfills. Footing Trench Excavation All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the observations is to evaluate that the excavations have been made into the recommended bearing material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction. If loose or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper footing or removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended at that time. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, if not removed from the site. Trenching/Temporary Construction Backcuts Considering the nature of the onsite earth materials, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls/backcuts at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees Mr. Bill Butler W.O. 4972-B-SC 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff October 11, 2007 He:e:\wp9\4900\4972b.cro Page 12 GeoSoils, Inc. [except as specifically superceded within the text of this report]), should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer from GSI, prior to workers entering the excavation or trench, and minimally conform to CAL-OSHA, state, and local safety codes. Should adverse conditions exist, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. Utility Trench Backfill 1. All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. As an alternative for shallow (12-inch to 18-inch) under-slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing and testing should be provided to evaluate the desired results. 2. Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used in these backfill areas. Compaction testing and observations, along with probing, should be accomplished to evaluate the desired results. 3. All trench excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA,state,and local safety codes. 4. Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer,or pass through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the following construction stages: • During grading/recertification. • During excavation. • During placement of subdrains, toe drains, or other subdrainage devices, prior to placing fill and/or backfill. Mr. Bill Butler W.O. 4972-B-SC 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff October 11, 2007 File:e:\wp9\4900\4972b.cro Page 13 GeoSoiils, Inc. • After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. • Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaking/presaturation of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor retarders (i.e.,visqueen, etc.). • During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement. • During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, and retaining wall backfill. • During slope construction/repair. • When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report. • When any improvements,such as flatwork,spas,pools,walls,etc.,are constructed, prior to construction. GSI should review and approve the plans for the proposed improvements, prior to construction. • A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements. OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer,structural engineer, post-tension designer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of slabs,foundations and other elements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer/designer. Please note that the recommendations contained herein or presented previously are not intended to preclude the transmission of water or vapor through the slab or foundation. The structural engineer/foundation and/or slab designer should provide recommendations to not allow water or vapor to enter into the structure so as to cause damage to another building component, or so as to limit the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application. The structural engineer/designer should analyze actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and Mr. Bill Butler W.O. 4972-B-SC 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff October 11, 2007 File:eAwp9\4900\4972b.cro Page 14 GeoSoils, Inc. deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein as minimums,the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer/designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and/or improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing,that the proposed foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and/or expansion characteristics and other design criteria specified herein. PLAN REVIEW Any additional project plans (grading, precise grading, foundation, retaining wall, landscaping, etc.), should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Based on our review,supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical studies may be warranted. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. All samples will be disposed of after 30 days, unless specifically requested by the client, in writing. Mr. Bill Butler W.O. 4972-B-SC 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff October 11, 2007 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972b.cro Page 15 GeoSoils, Inc. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. QYOFESSIOV Respectfully submitted, o �S�CNAL CFO \o W. Sri Fk F A GeoSoils, Inc. Ok�'���p ,q,y l�� -00 a. No. 1340 a -� 'C No. RCE V857 7 Certified XP. Engineering �@ ' S Geologist Q •v CIV1\- John P F anklin �9TF0 �o�`'� David W. Skelly `'Fps Ct���FO Engineering Geologist, Civil Engineer, RCE 4785 SLE/JPF/DWS/jh/jk Attachments: Figure 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples Table 1 - Field Density Test Results Appendix - References Plate 1 - Field Density Location Map Distribution: (4) Addressee Mr. Bill Butler W.O. 4972-B-SC 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff October 11, 2007 File:e:\wp9\4900\4972b.cro Page 16 GeoSoiils, Inc. SCHIFF ASSOCIATES www.schiffassociates,com Consulting Corrosion Engineers Since 19W Table I -Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples GeoSoijs,Inc. Ruder Your#49 72-A-SC,SA#07-1166L.4B 24-Aug-07 sample ID Finish Grade Resistivity Units M-TOCCived ollrn-cm 4.400.000 saturated ohm-ern 960 PH TO Electrical Canductivitv all/cm 0.40 Chemical,knalyses Cations calcium Cat' mg kg 15-1 inag,nesium leg ing/kg 49 sodium 197 potassium K' tng/kg, 22 Anions carlyonate C0;" nigilcg ND bicarbonate HCO3 1-mg?kg 354 flouride t:l� nig/,Lg 1.1 chloride cl 220 sUlfqtc, so, ingtIg 154 phosphaw PO.1-A' niglk)! 1-,7 Other Tests atunlovirim Nk H', 12.2 nitrate NO3 mEVkg 4.0 sulfide S2, qual Ila Redox, 111V Ila Electrical conductivity in inillisicincrus!cm and chemical analysis were inade oil a 1.5 soil-to-water extract. nk,'kI-rniffigra ms per kilogram(parts per million)of dry-,soil, Rudox -oxidation-reduction potential in millivoits, NIA=not dcw4acd na-not anal}-/ed 431 West Baseline Rood•Claremont.CA 91711 Phone:909.626.0967- Fax:909.626.3316 Page 1 of I W.O. 4972—B—SC Figure 1 Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST DATE TEST LOCATION TRACT ELEV MUSTURE. DRY REL TEST SOIL. NO. NO. OR CONTENT DENSITY COMP METHOD TYPE-.: DEPTH (ft) 1 8/2/07 West Pad Area 1408 Summit Ave 120 9.1 119.6 91.2 SC B 2 8/3/07 SW Pad 1408 Summit Ave 120 8.9 122.4 93.4 ND B 3 8/6/07 West Pad Area 1408 Summit Ave 121 9.1 122.4 93.4 ND B 4 8/7/07 West Pad Area 1408 Summit Ave 122 10.0 121.7 92.9 SC B 5 8/7/07 NE Pad Area 1408 Summit Ave 121 8.8 123.0 93.8 ND B 6 8/9/07 SE Pad 1408 Summit Ave 122 10.8 119.6 91.2 ND B 7 8/9/07 NW Pad 1408 Summit Ave 122 9.0 123.4 94.1 ND B 8 8/10/07 Far South - Middle 1408 Summit Ave 123 10.1 121.9 93.0 SC B 9 8/10/07 Far East- Middle 1408 Summit Ave 124 10.8 120.6 92.0 ND B 10 8/13/07 NW Pad Area 1408 Summit Ave FG 9.6 119.8 91.4 ND B 11 8/13/07 SW Pad Area 1408 Summit Ave FG 8.8 121.2 92.5 ND B 12 8/15/07 NE Pad Area 1408 Summit Ave FG 9.3 122.1 93.2 ND B 13 8/15/07 SE Pad Area 1408 Summit Ave FG 1 10.2 1 119.8 91.4 ND B LEGEND: FG = Finish Grade ND = Nuclear Densometer SC = Sand Cone Mr. Bill Butler W.O. 4972-13-SC 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff October 2007 File:C:\excel\tables\4900\4972b.cro Page 1 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, 2004, Guide for concrete floor and slab construction: reported by ACI Committee 302; Designation ACI 302.1 R-04, dated March 23. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1998, Standard practice for installation of water vapor retarder used in contact with earth or granular fill under concrete slabs, Designation: E 1643-98 (Reapproved 2005). 1997, Standard specification for plastic water vapor retarders used in contact with soil or granular fill under concrete slabs, Designation: E 1745-97 (Reapproved 2004). California, State of, 2007, Civil Code, Title 7, Division 2, Section 895, et seq. ESI,FME Ins. , 2007, Foundation plan, Butler residence, 1408 Summit Avenut, Encinitas, California, dated September 1, 2006, revised April, 2007. GeoSoils, Inc, 2007,Update of preliminary geotechnical investigation, 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, California May 31, 2007 .0. 4972-Al-SC. 2005, Preliminary geotechnical investigation, 1408 Summit Avenue and 1493-1405 San Elijo Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4972-A-SC, dated December 7. International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, California building code, California code of regulations title 24, part 2, volume 1 and 2. 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California, vol. 1, 2, and 3. Kanare, Howard, 2005, Concrete floors and moisture, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois. Sampo Engineering, Inc., 2007, Grading plan for Butler residence, 1408 Summit Avenue, dated February 23. GeoSoils, Inc. Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92010 (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 February 2, 2009 .O. 4972-B1-SC Mr. Jon Butler 2513 Montgomery Avenue Cardiff, California 92007 V �_ Subject: Summary Report of Offsite Grading at 1408 Summit Avenue (Minor Fill at Sarah Goncalves Residence [1396 Summit Avenue]), Cardiff, San Diego County, California Reference: "Revised Compaction Report of Retaining Wall Backfill,Rear Wall and Offsite East Wall Only, 1408 Summit Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, California,"W.O. 4972-F-SC, dated November 20, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Mr. Butler: GSI performed geotechnical observations and testing during the most recent remedial offsite grading for the subject site, located at 1408 Summit Avenue, in Cardiff, San Diego County, California. This offsite grading was performed in the rear yard of the Goncalves residence at 1396 Summit Avenue in Cardiff. Based on our review,observations,laboratory and field testing,it is our opinion that the subject offsite grading was performed in general accordance with the grading plan(Sampo Engineering,2007), grading permit(City of Encinitas,2007),applicable Code,and our recommendations(see the appendix of the referenced report [GSI; 2007a, 2007b, and 2005]), from a geotechnical standpoint. All recommendations in our previous report (see the referenced document) remain pertinent and applicable, except as specifically superseded herein. Our findings were made and recommendations prepared in conformance with generally accepted professional engineering practices,and no further warranty is express or implied. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. GSI is not responsible nor liable for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sherry Eaton, or the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, Y oils, Inc. P 7 . Franklin David W. Skelly ering Geologist, CEG 1340 Civil Engineer, RCE 47857 SLE/DWS/JPF/jh Distribution: (4) Addressee N -W_ ®E Sampo Engineering, Inc. Land Planning,Civil Engineering,Surveying,Mapping 1 S March 12, 2009 Page 1 of 1 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Verification for Grading Permit Number 0396-G, Butler Residence, 1408 Summit Avenue The grading under permit no. 0396-G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. Final Grading Inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms to the approved grading plan and that swales, if any, drain at a minimum of I%to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. Construction of engineered retaining walls have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. The Low Impact Development, Source Control and/or Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the approved drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part II were constructed and are operational,together with the required maintenance covenant(s). Q � Engineer of Record: L � ,� Vincent L. Sampo, PE, PLS for Sampo Engineering, Inc. Dated: ���q No.48173 Enr 6404)9 � 0 Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Inspector: Dated: 1034 Second Street ♦ Encinitas,CA 92024 ♦ phone: 760436-0660 ♦ fax:760436-0659 info @sampoengineering.com CITY OF hNullvlltia 6 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ` ------ 0 505 S . VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO. : 396GI PARCEL NO. 260-62.0-8600 PLAN NO. : 396G JOB SITE ADDRESS : 1408 SUMMIT AVE CASE NO. : 06090 / CDP APPLICANT NAME WILLIAM BUTLER MAILING ADDRESS : 2518 MONTGOMERY PHONE NO. : 303-906-0347 CITY: CARDIFF STATE: CA ZIP: 92007- CONTRACTOR : CMC DIRTWORKS PHONE NO. : 619-654-3893 LICENSE NO. : 864366 LICEVqE TYPE: ENGINEER : SAMPO ENGINEERING 7 36-0660 PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 6/06/07 PERMIT EXP /08 PERMIT ISSUED BY: INSPECTO : BEN OLIVER PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------------- 1 . PERMIT FEE . 00 2 . GIS MAP FEE . 00 3 . INSPECTION FEE 5 , 319 . 00 4 . INSPECTION DEPOSIT: . 00 5 . NPDES INSPT FEE 1, 063 . 00 6 . SECURITY DEPOSIT 110, 664 . 00 7 . FLOOD CONTROL FEE 153 . 00 8 . TRAFFIC FEE . 00 9 . IN-LIEU UNDERGRND . 00 10 . IN-LIEU IMPROVMT . 00 DESCRIPTION OF WORK -------- - ------ ---------- -- - ----- ------ ----------------- GRADING PERMIT ISSUED TO VERIFY PERFORMANCE AND MATERIALS OF GRADING AND DRAINAGE ASSOCIATED WITH APPROVED DRAWING 396-G. WORK SHOWN ON PLAN IN R/W REQUIRES SEPERATE PERMIT. APPLICANT SHALL MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL PER WATCH STANDARD OR CITY APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. LETTER DATED JUNE 5 , 2007 APPLIES . INSPECTION DATE -------- INSPECTOR' S SIGNATURE ---- ---- -------------- -- INITIAL INSPECTION COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED _ '1- o <3 -�—� ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED ROUGH GRADING INCTION 8 a a"7 FINAL INSPECTION ^ ---------- I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE. THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT 'AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF ERMIT I UE ANT TO THIS APPLICATION. S ATURE DATE SIGNED (°krL LAS 3_ -�Y� rZ____ G(cl 8`� PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER CIRCLE ONE: 1 . OWNER CAGENT 3 . OTHER Recording Requested By: ) City of Encinitas ) THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS RECORDED ON JUL 15 2008 DOCUMENT NUMBER 2008-0379281 When Recorded Mail to: ) GREGORY J SMITH. COUNTY RECORDER City Clerk ) SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE TIME: 3:47 PM City of Encinitas ) 505 South Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas, CA 92024 ) FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY )Spt._ DRAINAGE EASEMENT Assessor's Parcel No. 260-620-30 Project No.: 06-090/CDP W.O. 396-I William Marshall Butler & Diane Helen Butler Trustees of The William Marshall Butler Trust, or their successors in trust under Agreement dated February 11 1985 and Diane Helen Butler & William Marshall Butler, trustees of The Diane Helen Butler, or their successors in trust, under Agreement dated February 11 1985, hereinafter designated Grantor, does hereby grant, bargain, convey and release unto the City of Encinitas, herein designated Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual easement and right-of-way upon, through, under, over and across the hereinafter described real property for the installation, construction, maintenance, repair, replacement, reconstruction and inspection of a public storm drain and all structures incidental thereto, and for the flowage of any waters in, over, upon or through said channel, together with the perpetual right to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth, and any other obstruction interfering with the use of said easement and right-of-way by the Grantee, its successors or assigns. To have and to hold said easement and right-of-way unto itself and unto its successors and assigns forever together with the right to convey said easement, or any portion of said easement, to other public agencies. Said easement is more fully described in Attachment `B'. The real property referred to herein above and made subject to said easement and right-of-way by this grant is situated in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, and is particularly described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF BY THIS REFERENCE, The Grantee, its successors and assigns, shall be responsible for operating, maintaining, and keeping in good repair the above described works of improvement. There is reserved to the Grantor, his successors and assigns, the right and privilege to use the above described land of the Grantor at any time, in any manner and for any purpose not inconsistent with the full use and enjoyment by the Grantee, its successors and assigns, of the rights and privileges herein granted. Dated this day of U lti Z , 2008. Grantor: 6—L�.1`it,�Jti Signature of Owners to be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgments. I certify on behalf of the City Council of the City of Encinitas, pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. 94-107 of said Council adopted on November 9, 1994 that the City of Encinitas accepts and consents to the making of the foregoing DRAINAGE EASEMENT Dedication and consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Date: - / S� O 8 By: a( )- PA,- Peter Cota-Robles Director of Engineering Services City of Encinitas EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION ALL THAT PORTION OF LOTS I AND 2 (WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER) OF SECTION 22,TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH,RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY APPROVED APRIL 19, 1881, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTH LINE OF CARDIFF VILLA TRACT, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1469, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 10, 1912, WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF COUNTY HIGHWAY COMMISSION, ROUTE 1, DIVISION 1;THENCE NORTH 31 DEGREES 28'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE OF ROUTE 1 A DISTANCE OF 213.03 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT IN SAID LINE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1275.82 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE AND SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08 DEGREES 01'00"A DISTANCE OF 178.49 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID ROUTE 1,NORTH 23 DEGREES 27'00" WEST, 812.75 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO EARL C.NICHOLS AND WIFE BY DEED DATED OCTOBER 3, 1944 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1761, PAGE 65 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 23 DEGREES 27'00" WEST ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE 120.05 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO ALEX D. RESECK AND WIFE BY DEED DATED JUNE 11, 1943 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1564,PAGE 407 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 66 DEGREES 48'00"EAST ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL CONVEYED TO RESECK,210.04 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT PROPERTY CONVEYED TO NICHOLS, SUCH POINT BEING 203.19 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AFORESAID PROPERTY CONVEYED TO NICHOLS; THENCE NORTH 66 DEGREES 48'00"EAST,203.19 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT PROPERTY CONVEYED TO NICHOLS, SAID CORNER BEING A POINT ON A CONCAVE CURVE THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 71 DEGREES 20'55"EAST,2035.00 FEET FROM SAID POINT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01 DEGREE 42'02"A DISTANCE OF 60.40 FEET TO A POINT 60.40 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY ON SAID CURVE FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT PROPERTY CONVEYED TO RESECK; THENCE SOUTH 66 DEGREES 48'00" WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THAT PROPERTY CONVEYED TO RESECK, 160.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF AFORESAID PROPERTY, 160.00 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PROPERTY; THENCE SOUTH 66 DEGREES 48'00"WEST ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF RESECK PROPERTY 50.04 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 (FRACTIONAL SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER) OF SECTION 22,TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH,RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY FILED APRIL 19, 188 1, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTH LINE OF CARDIFF VILLA TRACT, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1469,FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 10, 1912, WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF COUNTY HIGHWAY COMMISSION, ROUTE 1, DIVISION 1; THENCE NORTH 31 DEGREES 28' WEST ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE OF ROUTE I A DISTANCE OF 213.08 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT IN SAID LINE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1275.82 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE AND SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 8 DEGREES 1' A DISTANCE OF 178.59 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID ROUTE 1,NORTH 23 DEGREES 27' WEST, 932.80 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO ARMIN PETYAN,A SINGLE MAN,BY DEED DATED JUNE 6, 1945,AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1899,PAGE 238 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 66 DEGREES 48' EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO PETYAN, 210.04 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PETYAN'S LAND 70 FEET;THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO A POINT IN SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID ROUTE 1,DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 23 DEGREES 27' EAST 70 FEET FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 28 DEGREES 27' WEST ALONG SAID ROUTE 1, 70 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE WESTERLY 160.00 FEET THEREOF. SAID PROPERTY IS DESCRIBED AS PARCEL`B" IN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED DECEMBER 27, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2005-1105563, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. DS Na 76M E*1201M �CALd'C4 ATTACHMENT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION (PUBLIC STORM DRAIN EASEMENT) THE SOUTHERLY 10.00 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 203.19 FEET, EXCLUDING THEREFROM THE NORTHERLY 5.00 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 93.34 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY: ALL THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 (WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER) OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY APPROVED APRIL 19, 1881, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTH LINE OF CARDIFF VILLA TRACT, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1469, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 10, 1912,WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF COUNTY HIGHWAY COMMISSION,ROUTE 1, DIVISION 1; THENCE NORTH 31 DEGREES 28'00"WEST ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE OF ROUTE 1 A DISTANCE OF 213.03 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT IN SAID LINE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1275.82 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE AND SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08 DEGREES 01'00"A DISTANCE OF 178.49 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID ROUTE 1,NORTH 23 DEGREES 27'00"WEST, 812.75 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO EARL C.NICHOLS AND WIFE BY DEED DATED OCTOBER 3, 1944 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1761, PAGE 65 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 23 DEGREES 27'00"WEST ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE 120.05 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO ALEX D. RESECK AND WIFE BY DEED DATED JUNE 11, 1943 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1564, PAGE 407 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 66 DEGREES 48'00"EAST ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL CONVEYED TO RESECK, 210.04 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT PROPERTY CONVEYED TO NICHOLS, SUCH POINT BEING 203.19 FEET NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AFORESAID PROPERTY CONVEYED TO NICHOLS; THENCE NORTH 66 DEGREES 48'00"EAST, 203.19 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT PROPERTY CONVEYED TO NICHOLS, SAID CORNER BEING A POINT ON A CONCAVE CURVE THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 71 DEGREES 20'55"EAST, 2035.00 FEET FROM SAID POINT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01 DEGREE 42'02"A DISTANCE OF 60.40 FEET TO A POINT 60.40 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY ON SAID CURVE FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT PROPERTY CONVEYED TO RESECK; THENCE SOUTH 66 DEGREES 48'00"WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THAT PROPERTY CONVEYED TO RESECK, 160.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF AFORESAID PROPERTY, 160.00 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PROPERTY; THENCE SOUTH 66 DEGREES 48'00"WEST ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF RESECK PROPERTY 50.04 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 (FRACTIONAL SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER) OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY FILED APRIL 19, 1881, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTH LINE OF CARDIFF VILLA TRACT, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1469, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY,AUGUST 10, 1912,WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF COUNTY HIGHWAY COMMISSION,ROUTE 1, DIVISION 1; THENCE NORTH 31 DEGREES 28' WEST ALONG SAID NORTHEAST LINE OF ROUTE I A DISTANCE OF 213.08 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT IN SAID LINE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1275.82 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE AND SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 8 DEGREES I' A DISTANCE OF 178.59 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID ROUTE 1,NORTH 23 DEGREES 27' WEST, 932.80 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO ARMIN PETYAN, A SINGLE MAN, BY DEED DATED JUNE 6, 1945, AND RECORDED IN BOOK 1899, PAGE 238 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS;THENCE NORTH 66 DEGREES 48' EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO PETYAN,210.04 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PETYAN'S LAND 70 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO A POINT IN SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID ROUTE 1, DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 23 DEGREES 27' EAST 70 FEET FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 28 DEGREES 27' WEST ALONG SAID ROUTE 1, 70 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE WESTERLY 160.00 FEET THEREOF. SAID PROPERTY IS DESCRIBED AS PARCEL"B"IN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED DECEMBER 27, 2005 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2005-1105563, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. No.7M Bqx Imim J CALF" N2377'00_'W_69.93' z °'o z — v = N207101"W 50.22"% I v g rq 4021' - - - - - - , N2071'01"W 120.22' oo� ^ I° c� ITt QD a $ z r'' M I a z ~ � a M t �-��-- 176 _ i r4�j2 w \ I` ' N16 '0��jy 60..38' ti cl' St ° L� air g I$ �, $0 g n' Cl) Z8 rA I 3 m . �- L=55Z' �=01420Y - Z 80 44v, G)_ I I-- R Ap Q=014202' Z + SUMVIT I�Iw M I �I�o I^il�• � A VENUE z �— — C�,LIFORNIA ALL-PUxXOSE CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of i OG On ��u�� _70 fore me, JA i T- I-A&TZ f �oT.osFy (Here insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared I J i t-t_ '�J who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s)on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. +— JANET R.HALTER COII010M#F 16=45 9 WITNESS my hand and official seal. tptyArg"CCU* T IT 14MCWM DOW DW 6. (Notary Seal) Sim i a ofNotar•Public ADDITIONAL OPTIONAL INFORMATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS FORM .-Inv acknouledgnrellt cornpletecl nt Cah/ornra must contain verblage exvcrh v as DESCRIPTION OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT appears aboie rrr the rrotar"•section or•a separate acknowledgment tbl•m must be properly completed and attached to that dwrunent. The orrh• excephon is 11 it ✓� � ������ ciocnment is to be recorded ontstde oJ'Cahjorma.In such nrstarrces, env alMrnanve f� ackvolrktdgurcnt rrrbrage as Inav be printed oil such a dwument so long a.c Nre (Title or description of attached document) verbiage does not require the notarr to do sonlcdlllg that rs lllegal for o notan-rrr C'al(lontra (i.e. cerhtrnrg the arlthor•r_ed catvcrh•01 the signer). Please check the• dwurnent calelalh-for proper rrotanal n-or drrtg and attach this Jornr IJrequrr•ed. (Title or description of attached document continued) • State and County infiormation must be the State and Count-where the document Number of Pages Document Date.)30 signers)personally appeared befi-re the notary public for acknowledgment. • Date of notarization must be the date that the signer(s)personally appeared which must also be the same date the acknowledgment is completed. (Additional inf)rmation) • The notary public must print his or her name as it appears within his or her commission hollowed by a comma and then your title(notary-public). • Print the names) of document signer(s) who personally appear at the time of notarization. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY THE SIGNER • Indicate the correct singular or plural firms by crossing off incorrect forms(i.e. hr she iheti--is err)or circling the correct forms.Failure to correctly indicate this Indii-idual(s) information may lead to rejection of document recording. ❑ Corporate Officer • The notary seal impression must be clear and photographically reproducible. Impression must not cover test or lines.If seal impression smudges.re-seal if a (Title) sufficient area permits.otherwise complete a different acknowledgment form- 0 Signature of the notary public must match the signature on file with the orrice of the county clerl.. ❑ AttorneN--in Fact •• additional information nal in is not required but could help to ensure this E] Trustee(s) acknowledgment is not misused or attached to a different document. ❑ Other 4 Indicate title or type of attached document.number of pages and date. s Indicate the capacity claimed by the signer. If the claimed capacity-is a corporate officer.indicate the title(i.e.CEO.CFO.Secretary). • Securely attach this document to the signed document 2008 Version CAPA v12.10.07 800-873-9865 www.NotaryClasses.com it C,.,-iLIFORNIA ALL-PL.XOSE CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of e5 On -30-0 $� before me, L1� i 1W, LT€d (Here insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared J D� F-d who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. e JANET R.HALTER CQtnnNtabn#1620216 ro�-CANwnro WITNESS my hand and official seal. taMtpdNcotuMlr �AIr Cami7.PON 6, - (Notary Seal) Sigmtur of otary Public ADDITIONAL OPTIONAL INFORMATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS FORM Ann achnorledgnrent completed m C edifoiwi i iiiiist contain izrbiage esacrlr us DESCRIPTION OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT appears abore in the notar v section or a separate ackirorlec gment fbrnr amsr be properlr completed and attached to that documcnr The only exception is if a 5;"f7 e-y r- doeumrent is to be recorded outside oJCohibnncr.br such instances,an 1-ahennahre ac6-norledgnnent verbiage as nun• be printed of siich a daunrent so long as the (Title or description of attached document) rerbiage does not require the Rotarr to do soinctlimg tliat is illegal br a notan -in C'ah Via (i.e. certiliang the authorized cgtkicihr of the signer). Please check the (Title or description of attached document continued) document confillh•Jor•proper notarial irordmg crud arracli this Joan ifregiured. • State and Count-,-information must be the State and County'where the document Number of Pages Document Date 3U�� signers)personally appeared before the notary public for acknowledgment. • Date of notarization must be the date that the signers)personally appeared which must also be the same date the acknowledgment is completed. (Additional information) • The notary public must print his or her name as it appears within his or her commission followed by a comma and then your title(notary-public). • Print the name(s) of document signers) who personally appear at the tine of notarization. CAPACITY CLAIlvIED BY THE SIGNER • Indicate the correct singular ox plural forms by crossing oft incorrect forms(i.e. hr she th w is are)or circling the correct formic.Failure to correctly indicate this Individual(s) information may lead to rejection of document recording. ❑ Corporate Officer • The notary seal impression must be clear and photographically reproducible. Impression must not coyer text or lines. If seal impression smudge&re-seal if a (Title) sufficient area permits.otherwise complete a different acknowledgment form. El Partner(s) • Signature of the notary public must match the signature on file with the o8tee of the county clerk. ❑ Attomev-in-Fact - Additional information is not required but could help to ensure this ❑ Trustee(s) acimowtedgment is not misused or attached to a different document. ❑ Otller 0 Indicate title or type of attached document number of pages and date. * Indicate the capacity-claimed by the signer. If the claimed capacity-is a corporate officer.indicate the title(i.e.CEO.CFO.Secretary). • Securely'attach this document to the signed document 2008 Version CAPA vl2.10.07 800-873-9865 www.NotaryClasses.00m i 574-1 Palmer Way Carlsbad. California 92008 ;7'n0) =38 015 FAX (760) 93-1-0915 December 7, 2005 W.O. 4972-A-SC Mr. Steven Butler 2518 Montgomery Avenue Cardiff, California 92007 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 1408 Summit Avenue and 1493-1405 San Elijo Avenue, Cardiff, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Butler: In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the subject site. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the JL onsite soils and geologic conditions and their effects on the proposed site development from a geotechnical viewpoint. y EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our review of the available data (see Appendix A), field exploration, laboratory testing, and geologic and engineering analysis, the proposed additional development of the property appears to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the text of this report are properly incorporated into the jdesign and construction of the project. The most significant elements of this study are summarized below: 1 , i • Based on our review of the plans (Sampo Engineering, Inc., 2005) and a j conversation with you, it appears that the proposed development will consist of the remodel of the existing structure on Summit Avenue. Proposed development of the San Elijo Avenue site includes demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new structure in its place. An additional new residential structure is also I planned for the rear of this property. A lot line adjustment has been made to create a new pad for this new structure. The new pad includes the rear portion of the San l Elijo property and the rear portion of the Summit Avenue property. i • In general, the site is mantled by a thin veneer of colluvium/topsoil and undocumented artificial fill, which is directly underlain by Quaternary-age terrace deposits. J. A -&'EO-fiOUS Fnaterials shouid be removea, fmj i une zlte_ s,- c d;Posp ' tit rrlei ii,serisitive impr-wements are 1.-);-._-posed Withir enlov�-:,,is at colluviurn/ltopsoii arid ;,indocur1 emi-ed. arifficiai fifliano the repi,oc--sing of any weathered Quaternary-age terrace deposits ,wily ; ecessary prior to fill placement in areas for settlement-sensitive improvements. Depths of removals are outlined in the "Earthwork Construction Recommendations" section of this report. In general, removals will be on the order of about 1 to over 5 feet across a majority of the site. However, localized deeper removals cannot be precluded. The footings of the remodel should be embedded into competent Quaternary-age terrace deposits. The depth of footing embedment is outlined in the "Foundation Recommendations" section of this report. • Based on site conditions and planned improvements, significant cut and/or fill slopes are not anticipated. Shoring of existing structures may be required during removals. • The expansion potential of tested onsite soils is generally very low(Expansion Index [E.I.] less than 20). However, soils with a low expansion potential may exist on the site. Conventional foundations may likely be utilized for these soil conditions; however, based on field mapping in the vicinity of the site, the presence of numerous paleoliquefaction features ("sand blows," liquefaction craters,sand filled fissures and injection dikes,sand vents,etc.),may exist within the site. Post-tension foundations will be required for soils having an E.I. of 51 or higher; or a plasticity index of 15 or greater and an E.I. greater than 20; or relatively large differential fill thicknesses; or where there is the presence of paleoliquefaction features. • Soluble sulfate testing indicates a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete, per Table 19-A-4 of the Uniform Building Code ([UBC], International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 1997). Site soils were evaluated to be moderately corrosive to ferrous metals. Accordingly, consultation with a corrosion engineer is recommended regarding foundations, piping, or where metals may come into contact with site soils. Regional groundwater was not observed during the field investigation and is not expected to be a major factor in development of the site. However, due to the nature of the site materials, seepage and/or perched groundwater conditions may develop throughout the site along boundaries of contrasting permeabilities (i.e., fill/terrace deposits contacts), and should be anticipated. This potential should be disclosed to all owners, and any homeowners association (as appropriate). Thus, more onerous slab design is warranted for mitigation of water and vapor transmission through the foundations and slabs. • An expansion/construction joint should be placed between any existing and proposed improvements to permit relative movement,and this condition should be considered during planning, design, and construction. Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-Sc' Fi1e:eAwp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page Two GeoSoils, Inc. v,/all, 11-2 it cleepef than It-- fletwee',, any existing and oropospd j; 1 t I C i i!)311(i Water migration S tdicates thathat he site currentiv has aced nn the available data, our evaluatioi I ri very iow potential for liquefaction. Therefore, no recommendations for mitigation are deemed necessary. The seismic acceleration values and seismic design parameters provided herein should be considered and utilized by the structural/design engineer during the design of the proposed additional development. Our evaluation indicates there are no known active faults crossing the site. • Adverse geologic features that would preclude project feasibility were not encountered. The recommendations presented in this report should be incorporated into the design and construction considerations of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, ,0NAL G'6. 0 FR 0 % GeoSoils, Inc. No. 1340 Z co--1 o. RCE 47857 Certified Engineering 2, 10 S' Geologist ohn P. Franklin OP CA David W. Skelly JIngineerina Geologist, CEG Civil Engineer, R E 4 57 SLE/DWS/JPF/jk Distribution: (4) Addressee Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC File:e:\wp9\4900\4972a-pgi Page Three GeoSoils, Inc. Abt SITE SITE EXPLORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 3 SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Map Symbol -Afu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Colluvium/Topsoil (Not Mapped) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quaternary-age Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 RegionalFaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Seismic Shaking Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Seismic Hazards . . . . . . . 8 GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . 8 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 9 LABORATORY TESTING 9 _1 General 9 Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Moisture-Density Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Laboratory Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Expansion Potential Direct Shear Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Corrosion/Sulfate Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 11 I PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 11 General . . 11 Site Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Removals/Processing in Place (Unsuitable Surficial Materials) . . . 12 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Foundation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Foundation Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Footing Setbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Construction - - - - - • - - - • • - - • - - - • • - • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • - - • - - - - • - • - - - - • - 14 Expansion Classification - Very Low (E.I. 0 to 20) to Low (E.I. 21 to 50) . . . . . . 14 GeoSoils, Inc. x.11 lJl1 . a WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Conventional Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 RestrainedWalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Cantilevered Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 — Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Landscape Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —j Gutters and Downspouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Subsurface and Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Site Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —! Tile Flooring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . 27 Soil Moisture Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Additional Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 28 --� Footing Trench Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Trenching/Temporary Construction Backcuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Utility Trench Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 i OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 J I PLAN REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 ..l LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 i i i Mr. Steven Butler Table of Contents Fi1e:eAwp9\490014972a.pgi Page ii Ge®Soils, Inc. %n.Pa�' E<r.4+nslis SITE , s� S `v I \ Tom FEET Base Map: TOPOW 02003 National Geographic, U.S.G.S.Encinitas Quadrangle, California-San Diego Co., 7.5-Minute, dated 1997, current 1999. SITEy k � pt y - r 1494 FEET La Base Map: The Thomas Guide, San Diego Co. Street Guide and Directory, 2005 Edition, by Thomas Bros. Maps, page 1167. LOCATION AND SCALES APPROXIMATE Reproduced with permission granted by Thomas Bros_Maps. - W.O. 4972-A-SC This map is copyrighted by Thomas Bros.Maps. ft is unlawful to - • �y p any loo GeOSoils, Inc. or reproduce al or thereof,whether for personal or resale.without permission.All rights Reserved _ AA&i SITE LOCATION MAP NFigure 1 i -:'-'iTE EXPLQRAHf-'*1 aild GL!bSUFdace expioratioiis ,vaf- oy u i-epresentative of this office. A survey of line, -arid gfrada, lo M ' It!' I e, sur)lecll lut was not conducted by this firm and should be provided by the project design engineer-. Near-surface soil conditions were evaluated by two hand-dug test pits and -11 hand-auger borings within the site to evaluate soil and geologic conditions. The foundation for the existing Summit Avenue structure was observed in an exploratory test pit. The approximate location of each excavation is shown on the attached Geotechnical Map (see Plate 1). Boring and test pit logs are presented in Appendix B. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep, elongated mountain ranges and valleys that trend northwesterly. The mountain ranges are generally underlain by basement rocks consisting of pre-Cretaceous metasedimentary rocks, Jurassic metavolcanic rocks, and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the southern California batholith. In the San Diego County region, deposition occurred during the Cretaceous Period and Cenozoic Era in the continental margin of a forearc basin. Sediments, derived from Cretaceous-age plutonic rocks and Jurassic-age volcanic rocks, were deposited into the narrow, steep, coastal plain, and continental margin of the basin. These rocks have been uplifted, eroded, and deeply incised- During early Pleistocene time, a broad coastal plain was developed from the deposition of marine terrace deposits. During mid- to late-Pleistocene time, this plain was uplifted, eroded, and incised. Alluvial deposits have since filled the lower valleys, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited/eroded within coastal and beach areas. SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS The site geologic units encountered during our subsurface investigation and site reconnaissance included undocumented artificial fill,topsoil, and Quaternary-age terrace deposits. The earth materials are generally described below from the youngest to the oldest. Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Map Symbol - Afu) Undocumented artificial fill materials were encountered underlying portions of the site. The materials encountered consisted of brown to orangish brown, silty sands. The materials were dry to moist and loose to medium dense. These materials are considered potentially Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:eAwp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. -ompressiDle W ine!i, {T uil he UnCIOGUffief-Ited fifl inaierials lvvere ei I U ff1fY]11TV),1Gf1Ue S1[9 uli Iderivif"Icl the rear portion of the existing structure to the limit of our boring excavation meet),whilc-11 the footings of the front portion appeared to be founded in terrace deposits, creating a cut/fill contact in the building pad. Fill materials (about 41/2 feet deep) were also encountered in the front yard of the residence. Our excavations of the San Elijo existing residence indicate that undocumented fill materials underlie the house pad as well as the front yard and back yard of this residence. The materials encountered were up to 4 feet thick. Construction of the adjacent residence to the north had created a vertical exposure at subject site's north property line along the front yard. Our observations of this cut coincided with our findings in our borings. Excavations performed in the new pad, located at the rear of and between the Summit Avenue and San Elijo existing residences indicate that undocumented artificial fill exists in thin patches in this area. These materials appear to be native materials that may have been disturbed for landscape purposes. The fills ranged from about 1/2 to 1 foot in thickness. Coll uvi um/Topsoi I (Not Mapped Colluvium/topsoil mantles portions of the site at the surface, ranging from 1 to 2 feet in thickness. These soils consist of brown, dry to damp, loose, silty sand, and contained roots and rootlets. These materials are considered potentially compressible in their existing state, removal and recompaction of these materials is recommended if settlement sensitive structures are proposed within their influence. Quaternary-age Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) Quaternary-age terrace deposits were encountered underlying the entire site. These materials underlie the artificial fill and coil uVial/topsoi I materials, and the terrace deposits are exposed at the surface at portions of the site. These materials consist of orangish brown, slightly silty, very fine to fine-grained sands. The materials generally were moist and medium dense to dense. Bedding structure was not readily observed, but regionally is typically flat lying to sub-horizontal. These sediments are typically massive to weakly bedded. Where exposed at the surface, the upper few inches are highly weathered. Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 He:eAwp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. JOW .1is siie V�iithin tho areai Elf- I;-.1 -nu-�,ali J �LtLfl 1, -, 11, 1 ILS proposed for developmeni, and the site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone (Hari and Bryan[, *1997). However,the site is situated in an area of active as well as potentially active faulting. These include, but are not limited to,the San Andreas fault,the San Jacinto fault, the Elsinore fault, the Coronado Bank fault zone, and the Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon fault zone. The location of these, and other major faults relative to the site, are indicated on Figure 2 (California Fault Map). The possibility of ground acceleration, or shaking at the site, may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole. Major active fault zones that may have a significant affect on the site, should they experience activity, are listed in the following table (modified from Blake, 2000a): APPROXIMATE DISTANCE ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME MILES (KM) Rose Canyon 1.2 (2.0) Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) 11.9 (19.2) Coronado Bank 17.1 (27.6) Elsinore-Temecula 28.6 (46-1) Elsinore-Julian 28.6 (46.1) Palos Verdes 41.6 (66.9) Earthquake Valley 42.1 (67-8) Elsinore-Glen Ivy 42.4 (68-3) Seismicity The acceleration-attenuation relations of Bozorgnia,Campbell,and Niazi (1999), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1997), and Sadigh et al. have been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 2000a). EQFAULT is a computer program developed by Thomas F. Blake (2000a), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using digitized California faults as earthquake sources. The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a given site. If a fault is found to be within a user-selected radius,the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site from an upper bound ("maximum credible") earthquake on that fault. Site acceleration (g) is computed by one or more user-selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT. Mr.Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave- Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. San Elijo Ave,-Me/Summit l000 -- 900 -- 800 -- 700 -- 600 -- 500 -- 400 t 300 200 -- lQo -- Sl 0 -- -100 - -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 W.O. 4972-A-SC GeoSoils, Inc. Figure 2 e�:] A _j r miions' h'a ' 0- J V,0 7, ij ;;'fl i 1 tJ JJ I s i o 1j,C a i 31te s e i s m ic-i It N, aivate d cl f ,,m Lr? in' relations of f-3o zorgnia, Ganipbell, and Niazi ('1999) anol [he cGrnputer program EQSEARCH (Blake, 2000b). This program performs a search of the historical earthquake records for magnitude 5.0 to 9.0 seismic events within a 100-mile radius, between the years 1800 to June,2005. Based on the selected acceleration-attenuation relationship,a peak horizontal ground acceleration is estimated, which may have effected the site during the specific event listed. Based on the available data and the attenuation relationship used, the estimated maximum (peak) site acceleration during the period 1800 to June, 2005 was 0.72 g. Site specific probability of exceeding various peak horizontal ground accelerations and a seismic recurrence curve are also estimated/generated from the historical data. Computer printouts of the EQSEARCH program are presented in Appendix C. ry A probabilistic seismic hazards analyses was performed using FRISKSP (Blake, 2000c), which models earthquake sources as 3-D planes and evaluates the site specific probabilities of exceeclance for given peak acceleration levels or pseudo-relative velocity levels. Based on a review of this data, and considering the relative seismic activity of the southern California region,a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.38 g was calculated. This value was chosen as it corresponds to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (or a 475-year return period). Computer printouts of the FRISKSP program are included in Appendix C. Seismic Shaking Parameters Based on the site conditions, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code/California Building Code (ICBO, 1997; 2001) seismic parameters are provided in the following table- 1997,UBC CHAPTER 16 TABLE NO. SEISMIC PARAMETERS Seismic Zone (per Figure 16-2*) 4 Seismic Zone Factor (per Table 16-1*) 0.40 Soil Profile Type (per Table 16-J*) SD Seismic Coefficient C.(per Table 16-Q*) 0-44Na Seismic Coefficient C,(per Table 16-R*) 0.64N, Near Source Factor N. (per Table 16-S*) 1-0 Near Source Factor N, (per Table 16-T*) 1.6 Distance to Seismic Source 1.2 mi (2-0 km) Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fife:eAwp9\490014972a.pgi GeoSoils, Inc. Page 7 9911 UBC CHAPTER 16 TABLE CIO, q SEISMIC PARAMETERS e r c��.ii,z, aahquake (Hose i:"azoycn r,�UEt) J --------___—_'�li.-5-�� '! Figure and Fable references frorn Chapter 16 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997) Seismic Hazards The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered during our evaluation of the site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, and typical site development procedures- • Dynamic Settlement ® Surface Fault Rupture • Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture • Seiche It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of a maximum probable or credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass than from those induced by the hazards considered above. This potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures, and improvements in the immediate vicinity. GROUNDWATER Subsurface water was not encountered within the property during field work performed in preparation of this report. Regional groundwater is not anticipated to adversely affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction. These observations reflect site conditions at the time of our investigation and do not preclude future changes in local groundwater conditions from excessive irrigation, precipitation, or that were not obvious at the time of our J investigation. However, based on the permeability contrasts between any proposed fill and the terrace deposits, perched groundwater conditions may develop in the future due to excess irrigation, poor drainage or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should manifestations of this perched condition (i.e., seepage) develop in the future, this office could assess the conditions and provide mitigative recommendations, as necessary. The potential for perched water to occur after development should be disclosed to all interested parties. Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:eAwp9\49M4972a.pgi GeoaSoiils, Inc. Page 8 i I _3 i idlt,]Ged grOUIld H 10ik-)l Thereby acquire a high degree of Ca-iobility, ar-id lead m lateral rrioverneil(, Ading3 safli-I r)oils, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments,and other darnaging defornnations, This phenomenon occurs only below the water table; but after liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overlying,non-saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates. Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential at depths greater than 45 feet and is virtually unknown below a depth of 60 feet. Liquefaction susceptibility is related to numerous factors and the following conditions should be concurrently present for liquefaction to occur: 1) sediments must be relatively young in age and not have developed a large amount of cementation; 2) sediments generally consist of medium to fine grained relatively cohesionless sands,3)the sediments must have low relative density; 4) free groundwater must be present in the sediment,- and 5) the site must experience a seismic event of a sufficient duration and magnitude, to induce straining of soil particles. The condition of liquefaction has two principal effects. One is the consolidation of loose sediments with resultant settlement of the ground surface. The other effect is lateral sliding. Significant permanent lateral movement generally occurs only when there is significant differential loading, such as fill or natural ground slopes within susceptible materials. No such loading conditions exist on the site. In the site area, we found there is a potential for seismic activity and a groundwater table deeper than 50 feet below the ground surface. However, the terrace deposits graded to dense with depth. Inasmuch as at least one or two of these five required concurrent conditions discussed above do not have the potential to affect the site, and evidence of paleoliquefaction features was not observed, and considering the recommended remedial removals, our evaluation indicates that the potential for liquefaction and associated adverse effects within the site is very low, even with a future rise in groundwater levels. The site conditions will also be improved by removal and recompaction of low density near-surface soils; and if evidence for paleoliquefaction is encountered during grading,the use of post-tension slabs would be recommended. Therefore, it is our opinion that the liquefaction potential does not constitute a significant risk to site development. LABORATORY TESTING General Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the onsite earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. The test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\49G0\4972a.pgi GS Page 9 eooils, Inc. G-lassifleatioi Oils J cj f. t n ij� "_Dal::j :1r L,. classificaciot-is 6t-)ring Loris al e�3 I �J Moisture-De"sr The field moisture contents and dry unit weights were determined for selected undisturbed samples in the laboratory. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and the field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry weight. The results of these tests are shown on the Boring and Test Pit Logs in Appendix B. Laboratory Standard The maximum density and optimum moisture content was evaluated for the major soil type encountered in the excavations. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D-1557. The moisture-density relationships obtained for these soils are shown on the following table: MAXIMUM OPTIMUM MOISTURE LOCATION SOIL TYPE I (P CONTENT (%) TP-1 P 0-1' Slightly Silty Sand, Orangish Brown 130.5 9.:5==_ Expansion Potential Expansion testing was performed on a representative sample of site soil in accordance with the 1997 LIBC Standard 18-2. The results of expansion testing are presented in the following table. LOCATION AND DEPTH (FEET) EXPANSION I EXPANSION POTENTIAL TP-1 9 0-1 <10 Very Low Direct Shear Test Shear testing was performed on a representative, remolded sample of site soil in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D-3080 in a Direct Shear Machine of the strain control type. The shear test results are presented as follows: Mr. Steven Butler W-0. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 10 GeoSoils, Inc. PRIMARY RESIDUAL FEE Tt -*1ESKh 1 R it,I JON AN ,I r s :0HES10N FRIC TION ANU a i Si i _10E GHEE, ) (PSF) (DEGREES, ; i, ; � ; ? 7fU I E4-�--- L Corrosion/Sulfate Testing GSI conducted sampling of onsite materials for soil corrosivity on the subject project. Laboratory test results were completed by M.J. Schiff&Associates (consulting corrosion engineers). The testing included evaluation of pH, soluble sulfates, and saturated resistivity. Test results indicate that the soil presents a negligible sulfate exposure to - concrete, in accordance with Table 19-A-4 of the CBC (ICBO, 2001), and is moderately corrosi8ve to ferrous metals based on saturated resistivity. Site soils are considered to be mildly alkaline with respect to acidity/alkalinity. A corrosion specialist should be consulted for the appropriate mitigation recommendations, as needed. Test results are presented in Appendix D. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon our site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, and laboratory test results, it is our opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed additional -,_ development, from a geotechnical viewpoint. An expansion/construction joint should be placed between any existing and proposed improvements, to permit relative movement. The following recommendations should be incorporated into the construction details_ EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS General All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the UBC (ICBO,1997), the requirements of the City, and the General Earthwork and Grading _ Guidelines presented in Appendix E, except where specifically superceded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule. i During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of - the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field,they should be reviewed by this office and, if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be Mr. Steven Butler W-O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave_ Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 File:eAwp9\4900\4972a-pgi Page 11 Ge®SOiis, Inc. -IulrerY14�ffl ("�l Wrl_"�a! Ell J,3LT,i.I ii S Oreparation Debris, vegetation, and all deleterious material should be removed from the building area prior to the start of construction. Removals/Processing in Place (Unsuitable Surficial Materials Due to the relatively loose condition of the undocumented artificial fill, topsoil, and weathered terrace deposits, these materials should be removed and recompacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard in areas proposed for settlement-sensitive structures. In general, the removal of unsuitable bearing materials will range from about 1 to 6 feet. However, deeper removals cannot be precluded. Removals should be performed to at least 5 feet outside any proposed settlement-sensitive improvements. Alternatively,for the remodel, footings may extend into dense terrace deposits, and the slab be specially designed by a structural engineer. Shoring of existing improvements may be required during removal and recompaction. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS In the event that the information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct, or any changes in the design, location or loading conditions of the proposed structure are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by the project structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in structural design. Upon request,GSI could provide additional input/consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. Foundation Design 1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the latest adopted edition of the UBC. All new foundations should be embedded into competent terrace deposits. 2. An allowable bearing value of 1,500 psf may be used for design of footings that maintain a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of 12 inches, and founded into suitable bearing terrace deposits or properly compacted fill. This Mr. Steven Butler W-C. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:eAwp9\4900\4972a_pgi Page 12 GeoSoils, Inc. -i'_21 inchas !rl deplh '.flue f'.'�'�-Il lnC-Te, Sel-] ,_)I, ea.Ch va-WO rT1FV'/ r)e Floreased h_,v 1-J'r-je-till -kj c941 j l(, ad�L_" isoialed pan k-)otincis �)O(.AkI riav miniY-n U f" dime1161on 4 al leas inche sqUare and . rrilnimurn 311 "2_4 inches into oor-fipetwit Terrace deposits, Or properly conipacted fiiL 3. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pcf, with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf. 4. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with the dead load forces. 5. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 6. Soil generated from footing excavations to be used onsite should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent minimum relative compaction, if it is to be placed in the yard/right-of-away areas. This material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural area and toward the street. 7. Expansion/construction joints for differential movement between proposed and existing improvements should be provided by the structural engineer/architect. 8. A cut-off wall, 12 inches or deeper than any slab underlayment, should be placed between any existing and proposed improvements to mitigate the potential of subsurface water migration. Foundation Settlement Based on the available data, foundation systems should be designed to accommodate a differential settlement of at least 3/4inch in a 40-foot span. An expansion/construction joint should be placed between any existing and proposed improvements to permit relative movement between the two. If removal and recompaction are limited by perimeter confinement for the remodel, provided the footings are embedded into dense terrace deposits, the slab may be supported on compacted fill. Should this condition be present, the footings and slabs should also be minimally designed to accommodate a differential settlement of 3/4 inch between adjoining elements. Footing Setbacks Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be designed to Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 File:eAwp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 13 GeoSoils, Inc. _fhe following -foundation construction recommendations are presented as a rninirnum criteriafrom a soils engineering standpoint. The onsite soil expansion potential is generally very low (Expansion Index [E.I.] 0 to 20). Recommendations for very low expansive soil conditions are presented herein. Soil in the low (21 to 50) range may also be present onsite and,therefore,should be designed in accordance with the 1997 UBC (Section 1815 or 1816). Soils with an E.I. greater than 20 will be tested and evaluated upon completion of grading. Revised recommendations, in accordance with UBC/CBC (ICBO, 1997; 2001), will be presented at that time. Recommendations by the project's design-structural engineer or architect, which may exceed the soils engineer's recommendations,should take precedence over the following minimum requirements. Final foundation design will be provided based on the expansion potential of the near surface soils encountered during grading. Expansion Classification - Very Low (E.I. 0 to 20) to Low (E.I. 21 to 50) I Exterior and interior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade for one-story floor loads, and 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade for two-story floor loads, entirely into formational (terrace deposits) material, or compacted fill. Column and panel pads should be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade, entirely into formational material. All footings should be reinforced with two No. 4 reinforcing bars, one placed near the top and one placed near the bottom of the footing. Footing widths should be as indicated in UBC (ICBO, 1997). Surcharge loads from adjacent footings should be avoided. This can be accomplished by configuring footings such that the bottom outside edge of a lower footing is below a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) from the bottom outside edge of an adjacent upper footing. Otherwise, foundations should be designed to accommodate surcharge loading by the structural engineer. 2. A grade beam, reinforced as above, and at least 12 inches square, should be provided across large (e.g., doorways) entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of adjoining footings. Isolated, exterior pad footings should be tied into the main foundation in at least one direction with a grade beam to prevent lateral drift. 3. Concrete slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick and should be minimally reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars at 18 inches on center in both directions. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure placement near the vertical Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 He:eAwp9\4900\4972a_pgi Page 14 GeoSoils, Inc. of Jhe C)!)9JU -flefn " oncrete utilized for slabs-on-grade, shaH utilize �t rnaxirnurn wale r-ce rnent iatic) ;--)f 0.50 and a minimum strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi) to mitigate the effects from post-development perched water and to impede water vapor transmission. Slab underlayment for concrete slab on grade floors should consist of 2 inches of washed sand placed above a vapor barrier consisting of 15-mil polyvinyl chloride, or equivalent, will all laps sealed per the 1997 UBC. The vapor barrier shall be underlain by 4 inches of pea gravel placed directly on the slab subgrade, and should be sealed to provide a continuous water-proof barrier under the entire slab, as discussed above. All slabs shall be additionally sealed with a suitable slab sealant. 5. Presoaking is not required for these soil conditions. The moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to (or greater than), the soil's optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 18 inches in the slab areas, prior to concrete placement. 6. Soils generated from footing excavations to be used onsite should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction 90 percent of the laboratory standard, whether it is to be placed inside the foundation perimeter or in the yard/right-of-way areas. This material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural areas and toward the street. 7. Foundations near the top of slope should be deepened to conform to the latest edition of the UBC (IC130, 1997) and provide a minimum 7-foot horizontal distance from the slope face. Rigid block wall designs located along the top of slope should be reviewed by a soils engineer. 8. An expansion/construction joint should be provided between the existing and proposed construction to permit relative movement. 9. A cut-off wall should be placed between any existing and proposed improvements to mitigate the potential of subsurface water migration under existing improvements. POST-TENSION SLAB SYSTEMS Recommendations for utilizing post-tensioned slabs on the site is based on our limited subsurface investigation on the site. This section of foundation design should be applied to soils having an E.I. of±51, or a plasticity index of 15 or greater (and an E.I. greater than 20), or where paleoliquefaction features are present. The recommendations presented Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 H1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 15 GeoSoils, Inc. [a]I A 11 i-)eimi�., shoi-fld D.ell if H nwed P P r i a ue i nk:an ciesig r I oy a Is I arz"d of I ciii ieel ":o/11 en q i ee i Iar f i i J--c viitri postAensioned slab desigr,,. Post-len-sioned slabs should 'be rJesigneo using sounio engineering practice and be in accordance with local and/or national code requirements, Upon request, GSI can provide additional data/consultation regarding soil parameters as related to post-tensioned slab design. From a soil expansion/shrinkage standpoint, a common contributing factor to distress of structures using post-tensioned slabs is fluctuation of moisture in soils underlying the perimeter of the slab, compared to the center, causing a"dishing"or"arching"of the slabs. To mitigate this possibility, a combination of soil presaturation and construction of a perimeter "cut-off' wall should be employed. Perimeter cut-off walls should be a minimum of 12 inches deep for low or 18 inches deep for medium expansive soils. The cut-off walls may be integrated into the slab design or independent of the slab and should be a minimum of 6 inches thick. The 10-mil thick vapor barrier should be covered with a 2-inch layer of sand to aid in uniform curing of the concrete; and it should be adequately sealed to provide a continuous water-proof barrier under the entire slab. A minimum 2 inches of sand should be placed below the visqueen, for a total sand layer thickness of 4 inches. Specific soil presaturation is not required; however, the moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to, or greater than, the soils' optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches below grade, for very low to low expansive soils. Post-tensioned slabs should have sufficient stiffness to resist excessive bending due to non-uniform swell and shrinkage of subgrade soils. The differential movement can occur at the corner, edge, or center of slab. The potential for differential uplift can be evaluated using the 1997 UBC, Section 1816, based on design specifications of the Post-Tensioning Institute. The following table presents suggested minimum coefficients to be used in the Post-Tensioning Institute design method. Thornthwaite Moisture Index -20 inches/year Correction Factor.for Irrigation 20 inches/year Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7 feet Constant soil Suction (pl) 3.6 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (pci) 125 Moisture Velocity 0.7 inches/month Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900k4972a_pgi Page 16 GeoSoils, Inc. he, coefficient.z; G�ji'4S I e A'—', r'n In I",i It I a i_�Ll "-J, a rjot L"'F; "a C1 equaie [(.1 !',�Prersef;.I -Ivor-s!" )H U -I'- jE� th �_ ( � r4- -1(7� ab� V C*--i I'�Af I 't6 "11 I 01'fwkJ&"i_J i 10r0rf_WE� is I f iHii -j "D I f"A El f 10"i i FEICILICCMIICI ?i'3 1 rita & ii*II �)Ct d drainage, .�0(e �-.;aR!emenls, eff-ec-Li C)l ioiiz be �- --sse- or b-, fUtUrO Based on the above parameters,the following values were obtained from figures or tables of the 1997 UBC, Section 1816. The values may not be appropriate to account for possible differential settlement of the slab due to other factors. If a stiffer slab is desired, higher values of ym may be recommended. EXPANSION INDEX (E.I.) OF SOIL SUBGRADE VERY LOW E.I. LOW E.I. MEDIUM E.1. em center lift 5.0 feet 5-0 feet 5.5 feet em edge lift 2.5 feet 3.5 feet 4.0 feet y,n center lift 1-0 inch 1.7 inches 3.7 inches y, edge lift 0.3 inch 0.75 inch 0.75 inch Deepened footings/edges around the slab perimeter must be used to minimize non-uniform surface moisture migration (from an outside source) beneath the slab. An edge depth of 12 inches should be considered a minimum- The bottom of the deepened footing/edge should be designed to resist tension, using cable or reinforcement per the structural engineer. Other applicable recommendations presented under conventional foundation methods should be adhered to during the design and construction phase of the project. CORROSION Based on results of our corrosion testing, consultation with a corrosion engineer is recommended regarding foundations, piping,or where metals may come into contact with the site soils. Upon completion of grading, additional testing of soils (including import materials) for corrosion to concrete and metals should be performed prior to the construction of utilities and foundations. UTILITIES Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions. Due Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:eAwp9\4900\4972a.pgi GeoSoils, Inc. Page 17 L-)Ul P'o-tenitai for differe(iiaj sefflarn)n( aj� JAI-IilS �tIOLJICI LW. -,Uppof'tee ,' C, j, cc slaC. jre ii, _)rpC)i'ate'J if I 'gid ("I I L I"D D tor 0- J' k A WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Conventional Retaining Walls The design parameters provided below assume that either non expansive soils (typically Class 2 permeable filter material or Class 3 aggregate base) or native onsite materials (up to and including an E.I.of 65) are used to backfill any retaining walls, and that the walls are designed to accommodate differential settlement discussed previously, and are founded entirely into denser terrace deposits, or properly compacted fill. The type of backfill (i.e., select or native), should be specified by the wall designer,and clearly shown on the plans. Building walls, below grade, should be water-proofed or damp-proofed. The foundation system for the proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this and preceding sections of this report, as appropriate. Footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below adjacent grade (excluding landscape layer, 6 inches) and should be 24 inches in width. There should be no increase in bearing for footing width. Recommendations for specialty walls (i.e., crib, earthstone, geogrid, etc.) can be provided upon request, and would be based on site specific conditions. Restrained Walls Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) of 65 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall (2H) laterally from the corner. Cantilevered Walls The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet high. Design parameters for walls less than 3 feet in height may be superceded by City and/or County standard design. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions due to traffic, structures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are finalized,the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon request. Mr. Steven Butler W-0. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 FiIe:eAwp9\4900k4972a.pgi GeoSoils, Inc. Page 18 SURFACE SLOPE OF EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT RETAINED MATERIAL F=LUID WEIGHT P.C.F., FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F. (HORIZONTAL:VERTICAL) (SELECT BACKFILL) (NATIVE BACKFILL) evel* 35 45 21o_1 50 60 Level backfill behind a retaining wall is defined as compacted earth materials, properly drained, without a slope for a distance of 2H behind the wall. Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of gravel wrapped in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls that are 2 feet or greater in height. Details 1, 2, and 3, present the back drainage options discussed below. Backdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or 3/4-inch to 1'/2-inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). For low expansive backfill,the filter material should extend a minimum of 1 horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and upward at least 1 foot. For native backfill that has up to medium expansion potential, continuous Class 2 permeable drain materials should be used behind the wall. This material should be continuous (i.e., full height) behind the wall, and it should be constructed in accordance with the enclosed Detail 1 (Typical Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Detail). For limited access and confined areas, (panel) drainage behind the wall may be constructed in accordance with Detail 2 (Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail Geotextile Drain). Materials with an E.I. potential of greater than 65 should not be used as backfill for retaining walls. For more onerous expansive situations, backfill and drainage behind the retaining wall should conform with Detail 3 (Retaining Wall And Subdrain Detail Clean Sand Backfill). Outlets should consist of a4-inch diameter solid PVC or ABS pipe spaced no greater than ±100 feet apart, with a minimum of two outlets, one on each end. The use of weep holes, only, in walls higher than 2 feet, is not recommended. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted with native soil (E_I. <90). Proper surface drainage should also be provided. For additional mitigation, consideration should be given to applying a water-proof membrane to the back of all retaining structures. The use of a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry joints. Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Should wall footings transition from cut to fill, the civil designer may specify either: a) A minimum of a 2-foot overexcavation and recompaction of cut materials for a distance of 2H, from the point of transition. Mr. Steven Butler W_O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e_\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 19 Ge®Soils, Inc. _ _ - | - - _ _ ' _ ladve Provide Surface Drainage slope or Level Native Backfill +12" Rock Filter Fabric )Waterproofing 1 Membrane(optional) 1 or Flatter Weep Hole Native Backfill Finished Surface Pipe WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. FILTER FABRIC: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent; place fabric flap behind core. 4" (inches) diameter perforated PVC. schedule 40 or approved alLernative with minimum of 1% gradient to proper outlet poinL (Perforations down). WEEP HOLE- . nvmnum 2 ,nu/es/ diameter v."`=" "` 2" ,=e`/ °" "=^"''~ ~'~^y the wall,^ and ~ r'~'`~/ above finished surface (No weep holes for basement walls.). TYPICAL RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND DRAINAGE DETAIL DETAIL 1 _ / - - _ - / _ 6" Native Backfill Materproofing Membrane(optional) Drain Weep Hole 1 or Flatter Filter Fabric Finished Surface Pipe (1) WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. Miradrain 6000 or]-drain 200 or equivalent for no n-wa terp roofed walls. Miradrain 6200 or]-drain 200 or equivalent for waterproofed walls (All Perforations down). _ _ � — (3) FILTER FABRIC: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent; place fabric flap behind core. -- ) diameter perforated PVC. schedule 40 or approved alternative with minimum of 1% gradient to proper outlet point. WEEP HOLE: Minimum' ^ (inches) diameter | u at 20' (feet) on centers along the wall, and 3 ynu`ew above finished surface. (No weep holes for basement walls.) RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL GEOTEXTILE DRAIN - i Provide Surface DrainageLL� y Slope or Level H/2 min. +12" J) Waterproofing 1 Membrane(optional) 1 or Flatter H - © Weep Hole Clean Sand Backfill Filter Fabric _ Finished Surface ® Roc Pipe s i I -� Heel Width �-- (1) WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. (9) CLEAN SAND BACKFILL: Must have sand equivalent value of 30 or greater; can be densified by water jetting. (3) FILTER FABRIC: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent. ® ROCK: 1 1 cubic foot per linear feet of pipe or 3/4 to 1-1/2" (inches) rock. © PIPE: j4" (inches) diameter perforated PVC. schedule 40 or approved alternative with minimum of 1% gradient to proper outlet point(Perforations down). ri © WEEP HOLE: Minimum 2" (inches) diameter placed at 20' (feet) on centers along the wall, and 3" (inches) above finished surface. (No weep holes for basement walls.) RETAINING WALL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL CLEAN SAND BACKFILL ® DETAIL 3 Geotechnical e Coastal ® Geologic ® Environmental b) increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (Le., expansion joints of crack control joints) such that a angular distortion of 1/360fora distance of 21-1 on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be placed no greater than 20 feet on-center, in accordance with the structural engineer's/wall designer's recommendations,regardless of whether or not transition conditions exist. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible,non-shrink grout. C) Embed the footings entirely into native formational material (i.e., deepened footings). If transitions from cut to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view),then the designer should follow recommendation "a" (above) and until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment. DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS The soil materials on site may be expansive. The effects of expansive soils are cumulative, and typically occur over the lifetime of any improvements. On relatively level areas, when the soils are allowed to dry, the dessication and swelling process tends to cause heaving and distress to flatwork and other improvements. The resulting potential for distress to improvements may be reduced, but not totally eliminated. To that end, it is recommended that the developer should notify any homeowners or homeowners association of this long-term potential for distress. To reduce the likelihood of distress, the following recommendations are presented for all exterior flatwork: 1. The subgrade area for concrete slabs should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and then be presoaked to 2 to 3 percentage points above (or 125 percent of) the soils' optimum moisture content, to a depth of 18 inches below subgrade elevation. If very low expansive soils are present, only optimum moisture content, or greater, is required and specific presoaking is not warranted. The moisture content of the subgrade should be proof tested within 72 hours prior to pouring concrete. 2. Concrete slabs should be cast over a non-yielding surface, consisting of a 4-inch layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand, that should be compacted and level prior to pouring concrete. If very low expansive soils are present,the rock or gravel or sand may be deleted. The layer or subgrade should be wet-down completely prior to pouring concrete,to minimize loss of concrete moisture to the surrounding earth materials. 3. Exterior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. Driveway slabs and approaches should additionally have a thickened edge (12 inches) adjacent to all landscape areas, to help impede infiltration of landscape water under the slab. Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 23 GeoSoils, Inc. -h- use of transverse and longitudinal control join-is are recommended to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two ways to mitigate such cracking are: a) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, increasing tensile strength of the slab; and, b) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, slabs should be reinforced at mid-height with a minimum of No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center, in each direction. If subgrade soils within the top 7 feet from finish grade are very low expansive soils (i.e., E.I. <_20), then 6x6-W1.4xW1 .4 welded-wire mesh may be substituted for the rebar, provided the reinforcement is placed on chairs, at slab mid-height. The exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut, '/2 to 3/8 inches deep, often enough so that no section is greater than 10 feet by 10 feet. For sidewalks or narrow slabs, control joints should be provided at intervals of every 6 feet. The slabs should be separated from the foundations and sidewalks with expansion joint filler material. 5. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. Concrete compression strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi. 6. Driveways, sidewalks, and patio slabs adjacent to the house should be separated from the house with thick expansion joint filler material. In areas directly adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (i.e., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints should be additionally sealed with flexible mastic. 7. Planters and walls should not be tied to the house. 8. Overhang structures should be supported on the slabs, or structurally designed with continuous footings tied in at least two directions. If very low expansion soils are present, footings need only be tied in one direction. 9. Any masonry landscape walls that are to be constructed throughout the property should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20 feet long. These segments should be keyed or doweled together. 10. Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions. 11. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Finish grade on the lots should provide a minimum of 1 to 2 percent fall to the street, as indicated herein. It should be kept in mind that drainage reversals could occur, including Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 He:eAwp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 24 GeoSoils, Inc. post-construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not i)eriodically maintained by the homeowner or homeowners association, _12 Air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for plumbing and electrical lines. A/C waste water lines should be drained to a suitable non-erosive outlet. 13. Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finishing and curing practices are not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the Portland Cement Association Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate rate of curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of soils, and fertilizers used on site. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Drainage Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance of foundations, hardscape,and slopes. Surface drainage should be sufficient to prevent ponding of water anywhere on a lot,and especially near structures and tops of slopes. Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during fine grading, landscaping,and building construction. Therefore,care should be taken that future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within lots and common areas should be provided and maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. In general, the area within 5 feet around a structure should slope away from the structure. We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum gradient of 1 percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized to control roof drainage. Down spouts,or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be P rovided upon request. Mr. Steven Butler W-0. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 File:eAwp%4900\4972a.pgi Page 25 GeoSoils, Inc. Landscape Maintenance Only the amount of irrigation necessary to ;sustain plant life should be provided. Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site improvements. We would recommend that any proposed open-bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter should be provided with a moisture barrier to prevent penetration of irrigation water into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements(i.e., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Gutters and Downspouts As previously discussed in the drainage section,the installation of gutters and downspouts should be considered to collect roof water that may otherwise infiltrate the soils adjacent to the structures. If utilized, the downspouts should be drained into PVC collector pipes or other non-erosive devices (e.g., paved swales or ditches; below grade, solid tight-lined PVC pipes-, etc.), that will carry the water away from the house, to an appropriate outlet, in accordance with the recommendations of the design civil engineer. Downspouts and ! gutters are not a requirement; however, from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided that positive drainage is incorporated into project design (as discussed previously). Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated -- into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should perched groundwater conditions develop,this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors. Mr.Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e_eAwp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 26 GeoSoiils, Inc. Site Improvements if in the future, any additional jr-riprovernenis (e,cj., pools, spas, etc.) are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. Pools and/or spas should not be constructed without specific design and construction recommendations from GSI, and this construction recommendation should be provided to the homeowners, any homeowners association, and/or other interested parties. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench and retaining wall backfills, flatwork, etc. Tile Flooring Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. Therefore, the designer should consider additional steel reinforcement for concrete slabs-on-grade where tile will be placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane (approved by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute) are recommended between the and concrete slabs on grade. Soil Moisture Considerations Foundation systems and slabs shall not allow water or water vapor to enter into the structure so as to cause damage to another building component or to limit the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application (State of California, 2003). Therefore, the following should be considered by the structural engineer/foundation/slab designer to mitigate the transmission of water or water vapor through the slab, on soils with E.L's less than 10, • Concrete slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick for very low expansive soil conditions. Concrete slab underlayment should consist of 2 inches of sand (S.E. >30), underlain by a 15-mil vapor barrier(visqueen or equivalent),with all laps sealed per the UBC/CBC (IC130, 1997; 2001), which is, in turn, underlain by 4 inches of pea gravel placed upon a suitable slab subgrade. • Per Table 19-A-2 of the UBC/CBC (IC130, 1997; 2001), concrete ("intended to have a low permeability when exposed to water") should have a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.50, and a minimum strength of 4,000 psi. • Slabs should be additionally sealed with a suitable slab sealant. Mr. Steven Butler W-0. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 27 GeoSoils, Inc. Additional recommendations regarding water or vapor transmission should be provided by the structural engineer/slab or foundation designer. Please be aware that the above are not a geotechnical requirement but should be implemented if the transmission of water or water vapor through the slab is undesirable. Should these recommendations not be implemented, then full disclosure of the potential for water or vapor to pass through the foundations and slabs and resultant distress should be provided to each owner, in writing. Additional Grading This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of _ the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes completion of grading in the street, driveway approaches, driveways, parking areas, and utility trench and retaining wall backfills. Footing Trench Excavation i All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to trenching and rior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the j observations is to evaluate that the excavations have been made into the recommended - i bearing material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction. If loose or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper j footing or removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended at that time. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, if not removed from the site. 1 Trenching/Temporary Construction Backcuts Considering the nature of the onsite earth materials, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or - excavating the trench walls/backcuts at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees [except as specifically superceded within the text of this report]), should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by an engineering geologist or soil engineer from GSI, prior to workers entering the excavation or trench, and minimally conform to CAL-OSHA, state, and local safety codes. Should adverse conditions exist, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. The above recommendations should be provided to any contractors and/or subcontractors,or homeowners,etc.,that may perform such work. Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 28 GeoSoils, Inc. Utility Trench Backfill All interio, utility trench backfill shouid be broLighr -tire at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. As an alternative for shallow (12-inch to 18-inch) under-slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing and testing should be provided to evaluate the desired results. 2. Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1.1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used in these backfill areas. Compaction testing and observations, along with probing, should be accomplished to evaluate the desired results. 3. All trench excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA, state, and local safety codes. 4. Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the following construction stages- During grading/recertification. • During excavation. • During placement of subdrains, toe drains, or other subdrainage devices, prior to placing fill and/or backfill. After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings,and free standing walls footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. • Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaking/presaturation of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor barriers (i.e., visqueen, etc.). Mr. Steven Butler W-0. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave- Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fde:eAwp9\4900\4972a_pgi Page 29 GeoSoils, Inc. During retaining wali subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement. Ouring placement of backfill foi- c-trea drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, and retaining wall backfill. During slope construction/repair. • When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report. • When any developer or homeowner improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools, walls, etc., are constructed, prior to construction. GSI should review and approve such plans, prior to construction. • A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements. GSI should review project sales documents to homeowners/homeowners associations for geotechnical aspects, including irrigation practices,the conditions outlined above, etc., prior to any sales. At that stage, GSI will provide homeowners maintenance guidelines which should be incorporated into such documents. OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post-tension designer,architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of slabs,foundations and other elements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer/designer. Please note that the recommendations contained herein are not intended to preclude the transmission of water or vapor through the slab or foundation. The structural engineer/foundation and/or slab designer should provide recommendations to not allow water or vapor to enter into the structure so as to cause damage to another building component, or so as to limit the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application. The structural engineer/designer should analyze actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer should Mr.Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 FiIe:eAwp914900\4972a_pgi Page 30 GeoSoils, Inc. consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. if analyses by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein as rninimurns, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that some, rriore restrictive details will be required. if the structural engineer/designef has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and/or improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing,that the proposed foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and/or expansion characteristics and other design criteria specified herein. PLAN REVIEW Final project plans(grading,precise grading,foundation,retaining wall,landscaping,etc.), should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical studies may be warranted. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. All samples will be disposed of after 30 days, unless specifically requested by the client, in writing. Mr. Steven Butler W.O. 4972-A-SC Summit/San Elijo Ave. Properties, Cardiff December 7, 2005 Fi1e:eAwp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 31 GeoSoils, Inc. i APPENDIX A REFERENCES i APPENDIX A REFERENCES Blake, Thomas F., 2000a, EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from 3-1) fault sources; Windows 95/98 version. 2000b, EQSEARCH, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from California historical earthquake catalogs; Updated to June,2003, Windows 95/98 version. I 2000c, FRISKSP, A computer program for the probabilistic estimation of peak acceleration and uniform hazard spectra using 3-1) faults as earthquake sources; Windows 95/98 version. Bozorgnia,Y.,Campbell K.W.,and Niazi, M., 1999,Vertical ground motion: Characteristics, relationship with horizontal component, and building-code implications; - Proceedings of the SMIP99 seminar on utilization of strong-motion data, September 15, Oakland, pp. 23-49. -� Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 1997, Attenuation relations for soft rock conditions; in EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version, Blake, 2000a. Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zoning act with index to earthquake fault zones maps; California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, with Supplements 1 and 2, 1999. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 2001, California building code, California code of regulations title 24, part 2, volume 1 and 2. 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California, vol. 1, 2, and 3. a California I Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map o f and adjacent areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map sheet no. 6, Scale 1:750,000. Sadigh,K., Egan,J.,and Youngs, R., 1987, Predictive ground motion equations,in Joyner, W.B. and Boore, D.M., 1988, Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground motion, in Von Thun, J.L., ed., Earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II,recent advances in ground motion evaluation,American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43-102. Sampo Engineering, Inc., 2005, Topographic plat, JN 05-115/05-103, May 31. GeoSoils, Inc. Sowers and Sowers, -1970, Unified soil classification system (After U.S, Waterways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-6671 in introdUctory Soil Mechanics, New York- State of California, 2003, State Bill 800, Title 7 - Chapter 2: Actionable Defects, dated January. Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, M.P., 2005, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30'x 60'quadrangle, California., State of California, Department of Conservation, Map No. 2, scale 1:100,000. Mr. Steven Butler Appendix A Fi1e:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX B BORING LOGS AND TEST PIT LOG i i i i i UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMv� _CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY 4 Group CRITERI _ f lajor Divisions Symbols typical Names Well-graded gravels and gravel f'�Aj sand mixtures,lithe or no fines i �v Standard Penetration Test > i i ! - m ,r CJ i-v C r j Poorly graded gravels and Penetration c i o Gp ' gravel-sand mixtures,little or no Resistance IN Relative v E Z 1 fines (blows/ft) Density 0 0 °'1 O _ Silty gravels gravel-sand-silt 0-4 Very loose o Z 0 _ _ GM mixtures 0 00 > -a 0 -a o 4-10 Loose - �-� GC Clayey gravels,gravel-sand-clay mixtures 10-30 Medium Wa� Well-graded sands and gravelly 30-50 Dense 0 o° \o ° � N SW sands,little or no fines ai m >50 Very dense ca m o o v Y w 0 SP Poorly graded sands and T -0 m o gravelly sands,little or no fines 3 0` ° ° Z --� - o N 0 m SM Silty sands,sand-silt mixtures ° ° rn U L a, E 0 3 u SC Clayey sands,sand-clay mixtures i Inorganic silts,very fine sands, Standard Penetration Test ML rock flour,silty or clayey fine N sands N Unconfined > E d Inorganic clays of low to Penetration Compressive a o medium plasticity,gravelly clays, CL Resistance N Strength °o N a o sandy clays,silty clays,lean (blows/ft) Consistency (tons/ft) N 13 " clays o a U) Very Organic silts and organic silty <2 Soft <025 OL clays of low plasticity 2-4 Soft 0-25-050 I c� Q- �, T Inorganic silts,micaceous or c o 4-8 Medium 0.50-1,00 E N o MH diatomaceous fine sands or silts, > elastic silts o 0 `o E 8-15 Stiff 1.00-2"00 C) ° :E- Inorganic clays of high plasticity, - LO 'D CH fat clays 15-30 Very Stiff 200-4.00 J is ° Organic clays of medium to high >30 Hard >4-00 OH l I plasticity Highly Organic Soils PT Peat,mucic,and other highly organic soils I _I 3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 U.S.Standard Sieve Unified Soil Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay Classification coarse fine coarse medium fine MOISTURE CONDITIONS MATERIAL QUANTITY OTHER SYMBOLS Dry Absence of moisture:dusty,dry to the touch trace 0-5% C Core Sample Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5-10% S SPT Sample Moist Near optimum moisture content little 10-25% B Bulk Sample - Very Moist Above optimum moisture content some 25-45% Groundwater Wet Visible free water;below water table Op Pocket Penetrometer BASIC LOG FORMAT: Group name,Group symbol,(grain size),color,moisture,consistency or relative density. Additional comments:odor,presence of roots,mica,gypsum, coarse grained particles,etc" EXAMPLE: - Sand(SP),fine to medium grained,brown,moist,loose,trace silt,little fine gravel,few cobbles up to 4"in size,some hair roots and rootlets. File:Mgr:c;\SoilClassif"wpd PLATE B-1 BORING LOG CDeooil s, inc, �,V O. 1972-A-S C; PROJECT:BUTLER BORING 8-1 SHEET 1 OF I Summit/San Elijo D A TE EXCAVATED 10-31-05 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger-Elev. 127' v Standard Penetration Test E a Q Groundwater �n Y �, o ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample L N N U) w i o m in � o -n Description of Material SM COLLUVIUMfTOPSOIL: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose. sp-Sry TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 1% SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, damp, NR medium dense to dense. i Total Depth = 21/' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 i i 5 I I I GeoSoils, Inc. Summit/San Elijo PLATE B-2 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. v1i.0 PROjECT. BUTLER BORING B-2 SHEET- I OF Summit/San Efijo 9,qTEEYCAV,1TED 1 D-31-05 Sample SAMPLE METHOD- Hand Auger-Elev. 127' C-1 C) Standard Penetration Test P-, _0 a) E V Groundwater >1 Undisturbed,Ring Sample U) cz U) 3: 0 _C� Description of Material U) Sm 111-0 4.2 22-8 ARTIFICIAL FILL-UNDOCUMENTED: @ 0' SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, loose to medium dense-, mottled. SP-SIV TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 1' SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, dense. NR Total Depth= 2' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 5- Summit/San Elijo GeoSoils, Inc. pLATE B-3 j BORING i_0(-a DeOSOdIS, inc. 072-A-SC --- PROJECF'SUTLER BORING S-3 SHEET "1 Or 1 _ SummitlSan Elijo DATE EXCAVATED 10-31-05 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger-Elev_ 127' L Standard Penetration Test a o ® Z; N Undisturbed, Ring Sample Groundwater � -C - 7 � y r U) Description of Material sp-SIV ARTIFICIAL FILL: @ 0' SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, mottled, moist, P-S loose. TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ % SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, dense. Total Depth = 2' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 i 5 i SummiUSan Elijo GeOSOIlS, Inc_ PLATE B-4 BORING I_.GC PROJECT:BUTLER BORING B-4 SHEET 9 OF !__ Summit/San Eiijo - - - - — n TIE n i i T D Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger-Elev. 107' - - aStandard Penetration Test o o Groundwater E n v o ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample i a a 3 U N Y 0) m m � o Description of Material Sm ARTIFICIAL FILL: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose. i _ I f I I sp-sry TERRACE DEPOSITS(WEATHERED): @ 4'SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, loose to medium dense. 5 Total Depth= 5/i No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 j I GeoSoils Summit/San Elijo , Inc. PLATE B-5 BORING LOG 4972-A-SC PROJEC T-BUTLER BOPING SHEET ' OF I Summit/San Elijo DATED(CAVATED 10-31-05 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger-Elev. 107' Standard Penetration Test E V Groundwater 2 Undisturbed,Ring Sample 0 M in D U) i>0-� ca Description of Material D U) Sm ARTIFICIAL FILL: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose, SP-SKI TERRACE DEPOSITS[WEATHERED]: @ 3' SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, loose to medium dense. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 Summit/San Elijo GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-6 BORING LOG t,-:)eoSoIis, W O. '1972-A-SC; PROJECT.-BUTLER BORING B-6 SHEET 1 OF SummiUS2n Elp DATE EXCAVATED 10-31-015 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger-Elev. 116' Standard Penetration Test E V Groundwater >1 — a) Undisturbed,Ring Sample af U) E 3: 0 U) Description of Material D U) Sm ARTIFICIAL FILL: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose. SP-SIV TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 1' SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, medium dense to dense. Total Depth =2' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 5- GeoSoils, Inc. Summit/San Elijo PLATE B-7 -- - --- - SummWS-in ENO FE E)(CA ,-) � 1Jtt l L Lnl..i-1 VA f Lv Sample SAMPLE METHOD: - Hand Auger-Elev. 129' Standard Penetration Test 9 o Groundwater Undisturbed,Ring Sample s w m U) m 0 0 m o n Ca Description of Material SM COLLUVIUMrrOPSOIL: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose. SP-SIV TERRACE DEPOSITS(WEATHERED): - @ 1'/2 SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, medium dense. @ 2'As per 1'/', dense. Total Depth = 21/2' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 s GeoSoils Summit/San Elijo , Inc. PLATE B-8 PR()j- i BUTLER - -- -- - - _. surnmiusan Eli](- Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger Elevv-131' I Standard Penetration Test a o Groundwater >. o Undisturbed,Ring Sample w CO w a _ CO D C « N Q Y 3o C) o m m � o U) Description of Material snn COLLUVIUMITOPSOIL: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose. SP-SIV TERRACE DEPOSITS(WEATHERED): @ 2' SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, medium dense. @ 2'/2'As per 2', dense. Total Depth = 3' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 5 — i i 1 Summit/San Elijo GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-g i L)lylf 1.'J i, =ROJECT�SUTLER -'-- Surnmit/San Elijo ;ATE CA VA I ED i n i-n Sample SAMPLE METHOD- Hand Auger-Elev- 136' Standard Penetration Test 0 o Groundwater -0 a d o ® Undisturbed, Ring Sample o m in U) o �n Description of Material SM COLLUVIUMITOPSOIL: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose. SP-SIV TERRACE DEPOSITS(WEATHERED): @ 1' SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, loose @ 1'/z'As per 1', dense_ Total Depth = 2' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 _. 5 I Summit/San Elijo GeoSoils, Inc. pLATE B-10 Lr i viir,nlli/S�il-111•� Hand Auger-Elev. 145' Sample SAMPLE METHOD: _ 9, Standard Penetration Test a ° o Groundwater Undisturbed,Ring Sample L.. ; N U) C o m C m U o O Description of Material Sm ARTIFICIAL FILL(UNDOCUMENTED): @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose. SP-SIV TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 4'/'SLIGHTLY SILTY SAND, orangish brown, moist, medium 5 dense to dense. Total Depth = 5% No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 I GeoSolls, Inc. Summit/San Elijo pL4TE B-11 RING E3-1 1 SHEET + GF - I i GATE E✓:CA FATED 1 E1-31-;75 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger-Elev.142' Standard Penetration Test o V Groundwater 9 > o ® Undisturbed, Ring Sample N _ Y o m CO � o �, Description of Material Sm ARTIFICIAL FILL: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose. 5 Total Depth = 6' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10-31-2005 i i GeoSolls, Inc. Summit/San Elijo PLATE B-12 L 0 IDI I fIa r it i �W jj U) C ® a C/) or C ° E _ _0 < _ �' W C`3 a) C'3 m m 7 J O N LO CD U H a) ° to N V) c aj j O _j UI C W O O a) cn cv J Q a) w N a. a) C. N a) D a) tL tri W a. o J O 3 0 W ate) in r Q O UJ -0 - ___ U E o aa)) Z3 ate) U ° U E m o m aY E o ° = - m teaM+ E o_ ° - LL Q-N � LL F m E \ n F- a) jr •- C[S Fa- FW- � U t- Zm Q FW- E F-- Zm N W F- } 0= F- _ Q j Z a T cc � 0 O ti J a x w LL w Q oC _ 0 F- : co O O UJI Y_ J x 7 ar ^ 2m m M W m - N cn O O O • = m C7 cn CO (n �� T• CD CV CL Q `' O o Zo I Q N V c.Z. r CV r W I F- a F- a) F- w w APPENDIX C EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, AND FRISKSP AIMUM EARTHU (jAKES San Elijo Avenue/Smiit Avenue o 4-j 71 .01 I f .001 10 100 Distance (mi) W.O. 4972-A-SC Plate C-1 GeoSoils, Inc. 11 R U--- BAB 1 EF DAN CL-. BOZ. ETALL(-1999)HOR SR UNG 1 25 yrs 50 yrs 100 75 yrs 100 rs 90 80 0- 70 - ca 60 - 0 50 a' 40 70 30 a) 20 10 - 0 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1 .00 1 .25 1 .50 Acceleration (q) W.O. 4972-A-SC Plate C-2 GeoSoils, Inc. LO 0 o� LO -17 P.., 0 > C)) C) LO Ljj N C\1 0 0 7F Co (� 0 0 C) o 0 0 CD CD CD W 0 0 C) n� T - (SJA) POPed ujnje� W.O. 4972-A-SC Plate C-3 GeoSoils, Inc. Gan Eli;(- Aver-,ue/Sun"`lmit Averlue 100 10 _ > a s W 3 4-- 0 a) 1 y .Q 8 7 a) .01 E U .001 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 Magnitude (M) W.O. 4972-A-SC Plate C-4 GeoSOils, Inc. APPENDIX D I , LABORATORY DATA i i 1 i i I --il.".4si.lifing Eal-'rosion E IV et- ;ie "Sch I' f 0 ..iamn reo , 4_4 7- 911! b , _ , , ' n lF C)tfj - u oi W Butter AIJS&A#05-1623LSD 9-Nov-05 Sample ID TP I @0_1 Resistivity Units as-received ohm-cm 150,000 saturated ohm-cm 3,900 pH 7.7 Electrical Conductivity ms/cm 0.06 Chemical Analyses Cations calcium Ca 2+ mg/kg 12 magnesium Mgt, mg/kg 5 sodium Na'+ mg/kg 43 Anions carbonate C032- mg/kg ND bicarbonate HC031- mg/kg 92 chloride Cl mg/kg ND sulfate so42- mg/kg 65 Other Tests ammonium NH4 I+ mg/kg na nitrate NO3 mg/kg na sulfide S2- qual na Redox mV na Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract. mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram(parts per million)of dry soil. Redox=oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts ND=not detected na=not analyzed W.O. 4927-A-SC Page 1 of 1 Plate D-1 i i APPENDIX E GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES 1 i f I m j i hese guidelines present.general pi-oc acJLW 11s and requirements fol earthwork a in d grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supercede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations which could supercede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. 1 The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant), or their representatives, should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnicall Consultant a Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork j procedures and testing the fills for general conformance with the recommendations of the - geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All remedial removals, clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrain installation should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior to placing and fill. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D-1557. Random or representative field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test methods ASTM designation D-1556, D-2937 or D-2922, and D-3017, Ge®Soils, Inc. at intervals of approximately ±2 feet of fill height or approximately every 1,000 cubic yards placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project,. The location and frequency of -testing WOUld be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Contractor's Responsibility All clearing,site preparation,and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by a geotechnical consultant, and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix, and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all non-earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material, should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. In-place existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials, determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable, should be removed prior to any fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions,these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading, are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly Mr. Steven Butler Appendix E File:eAwp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface -- processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils, which have been properly mixed and moisture conditioned, should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. Existing ground, which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, or as directed by the soil engineer. After the jscarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content, or greater and mixed, the j materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is greater than 6 to 8 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 to 8 inches in compacted thickness. { Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be _ overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report, or by the on-site soils engineer and/or engineering geologist. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable forms of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features, which would inhibit compaction as described previously. -- Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5.1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet, with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the geotechnical consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the soil engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to '/2 the height of j the slope. i I Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable _ material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials,although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toes of fill benches, should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering -- geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained. Mr. Steven Butler Appendix E Fife:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. COMPACTED FILLS Any earth i naterials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized 1r. the fill provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter, or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other approved material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock, or other irreducible materials, with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized material should betaken offsite,or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Per the UBC/CBC, oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces (any variation will require prior approval from the governing agency). To facilitate future trenching, rock (or oversized material) should not be placed within 10 feet from finish grade, the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the _ developer's representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be - utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine it's physical properties and suitability for use onsite. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this -- material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as possible. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers,that when compacted,should not exceed about 6 to 8 inches in thickness. The soil engineer may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification, or should be blended with drier material. _. Moisture conditioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at, or above, optimum moisture. Mr. Steven Butler Appendix E File:eAwp9\4900\4972a.pgi GeoSoils, Inc. Page 4 After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation U-1557, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineei , Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer. In general, per the UBC/CBC,fill slopes should be designed and constructed at a gradient of 2:1 (h:v), or flatter. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (h:v), prior approval from the governing agency, specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, special reinforcement, and special grading procedures will be recommended. If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 1. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy, short-shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. 2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling. 3. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) -t2 to --t8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to evaluate compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to Mr. Steven Butler Appendix E File:eAwp9\4900\4972a.pgi GeoSoils, Inc. Page 5 achieve compaction to the slope face, Final testing should be Used to evaluate compaction after grin rolling S. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix, and recompact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to evaluate compaction. 6. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendation of the soil engineer or engineering 1 geologist. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or -..- materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade, and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains, especially the outlets, should be recorded by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS i Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering j geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineering geologist prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The j engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes, and should be notified by the contractor when excavation of cut slopes commence. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate, and make appropriate recommendations for mitigation of these conditions. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not. I Mr.Steven Butler Appendix E File:eAwp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 6 GeoSoiils, Inc. Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances oil controlling governmentai agencies. AdditionallV, short-terry; stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractor's responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. COMPLETION Observation, testing, and consultation by the geolechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and fill areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading, and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. JOB SAFETY General At GSI, getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites. On-ground personnel are at highest risk of injury, and possible fatality, on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site,and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor, and GSI personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Mr. Steven Butler Appendix E File:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 7 GeoSoils, Ine. Safety Meetings'. G Sl field personnel are directed to attend contractor's regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings, Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for, and are to be worn by GS1 personnel, at all times, when they are working in the field. Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacons,or strobe lights,on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location, Orientation, and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technician's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractor's authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractor's authorized representative (supervisor, grade checker, dump man, operator, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technician's safety, and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic, _j whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. When taking slope tests,the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operational distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. Mr.Steven Butler Appendix E File:eAwp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the - contractor's failure to complywith any ofthe above,the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. However, in the interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed can be I considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction, or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines,we request that the contractor bring this to the technician's attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractor's representative and the soil technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the i above safety plan. Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which: 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back; 2) displays any evidence of -= instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench; or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. i All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, jshould be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL-OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any j trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. i If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. - The contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and/or removal. If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or j vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer i on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify CAL-OSHA and/or the proper controlling authorities. Mr.Steven Butler Appendix E File:e:\wp9\4900\4972a.pgi Page 9 GeoSoiils, Inc. CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL TYPE A PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL e NATURAL GROUND s COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) s� Al � BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHING !Il_ SEE ALTERNATIVES i —I i TYPE B PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL ��� ♦` NATURAL GROUND 10, COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) BEDROCK i TYPICAL BEN CHING SEE ALTERNATIVES NOTE: ALTERNATIVES, LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SUBDRAINS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. PLATE EG-1 j 3 D ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL 12' MINIMUM- FILTER MATERIAL MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 FLI /LINEAR FT. 6' 1 ABS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM 8 (1/4- _g) PERFS. MINIMUM LINEAR FT. IN BOTTOM HALF Or PIPE. ASTM D2751• SDR 35 OR ASTM D1527• SCHD, 40 6" MINIMUM A-1 ASTM D3034- SDR 35 OR ASTM 01785 SCHD 40 B-1 FOR CONTINUOUS RUN IN EXCESS OF qbO FT.' USE 8- � PIPE -FILTER MATERIAL. SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING I INCH iob -3/4 INCH . 40-100 318 INCH 40-100 NO. 4 25-40. NO. 8 18-33 N0. 30 :b-15!� NO. 50 .0-7 NO. 200 0-3 ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL AND-FILTER FABRIC 6° MINIMUM OVERLAP 6' MINIMUM OVERLAP 6- MINIMUM-COVER 4" MINIMUM BEDDING 4' MINIMUM BEDDING A-2 GRAVEL MATERIAL 9 FP/LINEAR FT_ B-2 PERFORATED PIPE: SEE ALTERNATE 1 GRAVEL: CLEAN 3/4 INCH ROD( OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE PLATE EG®2 7 E I K L-7 -CP ON FLAT ALLUVIA CANYON TOE OF: SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN COMPACTED FILL ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE CKCUT VARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS. P B CKCUT 4 � SHOULD BE MADE NO KI STE E P E R TH Ai1:1 OR AS NECESSAR Z ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL FOR SAFETY , CO NSID E RATIONS. DEPTH PER SOIL ENGWER. PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED REMOVAL DEPTH, SLOPE HEIGHT, SITE CONDITIONS ANDIOR LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE FLATTER PROJECTIONS- REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL COMPACTED FILL LIMITS LINE%if. TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL % FOR DRAINAGE ONLY Oaf Qaf /Gal (TO BE REMOVED) (EXISTING..COMPACTED FILL) \\\Tri loll �xy LEGEND TO BE REMOVED BEFORE Oaf ARTIFICIAL FILL PLACING ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL Oat ALLUVIUM PLATE EG- 3 m � w Z Z j11 ua W C7 tl tii ul O [� LIJ Z LL LLj �1 O w ? LIJ I-„ 111 m O Q N W W Z o Z ® W LL d cc F. w [r X -� J w a O j w d m Ln jj � Q O -.1 Z m j Q U O LL 2 V C7 _ Z Z } m d d 0 w Z Q w V / Ln wJ C7 ? O j = w o * _ i w cc E Z X Y [L (— U O d W 1 0 0 :D 73 O Ln N w J O W f t ■ x m Y f \ Q J O I O w = o 0 l3J _ Z ® O Q LL I O O O .� w w cn U U cJ') J Q Q W w w `°" L o w J _ w F- . � _ m = U) o m ° ~ = m W F- Z a o N Q i.n o Z >- LL f �1 J [D � N Z �-/ F- , _ (14 t-r) Ln O W O n 1 W V_ O F- — J a a U W J > V N PLATE EG® 4 LL CD L'I Z Lt. Lr) jj V) tA 7A < Ld 'C,) CD CD C) :D LL C) in z LLJ :A 10 w C:D if, CD LL :D LIJ -j rn m u C5 L) I-d 113 Ili E� > Lu Ln w 0 cr w CD Ld < IL < Z 0 N m Ln 0 0 Cd M C-1 -j CL Ln z m :D 0 w 0 f14 0 Ld LL z w z z m to C14 -i LL Ld rq 0 . Lij < ::- — — 0 0 . . -i < > z 0 ui M o 0 C; < Ld z 0 z cc 0 z :� M Z Z CD , LL o Lni C) U- < U) < M af 0 0 tLJ m z U- Z > UJ m LL m m 1 0 ca m Ln 0 < D m cn a- Li 0 -j m I M: Q LL tn LL IL Ln tn 0 uj < 0 2: U3 W y U Z) Ln Z > LL U) :E 0 1-- C-) < Z --1 7: t1l 0 — LL — < I.- LL IL 0 W LL < 0 0 UJ z 0 w m 0 m M C:) jr Lij 0 W U) 1-- 0 -j z w <J J L) -i t- < LL z t1i C:j U- U. _j r4 0 0 w < I �;_- z cr 0 m C) z -j u I-- IIJ 0 > < IL LL C) < w t-- (L C) > LIJ z Z LL 0 W Z 0 CD W -j 0 0 m m m U) w I-- w Ld Ld F- w 3� __j LL tn -j = Z U- LL 0 0 w 0 w w < UJ o 0 0 F- < w -i m fr- z LL < LL Z F- 0 M W -J ul 0 u w > 0 U) w — < Z: a F- 0 < m C7 LL W -t m cr z - W F- Ld CL m :r C:) W — ul 0 w LL w w w u Ln 0 rL of -J F-, LLj w Ir 0 0 :3 tn 0 w 0 0 < LL -1 :2 W z w F- m m _W_t 0 0 M UJ IX tij Ili w :z -J 0 LL Cr EL r3 CC) :D CL 0 x w 0 W < W -j M 0 — U- 0 0 W t- 0 LL F- ED I-- = LL o w a a i LL 0 w -il-i z < < CD w o = _ LL o F- w w 0 w cr- 0 rl� ul M Ld iL- w C4 0 cl z n- w z n- < (L m w I-- — F- < IL w F- uj M LL (L m < C:) >- CL Ld I-- C-) 0 Ir w n- rt 0 — 0 Lj- > m -J LL -J M W = �: 0 W W o m w z Ir x a _j — Lij m m ED o w < m < LLI to Z LL M F- C:) I-- Z: fA, -1 -J to M. LL < -J -J < 0 w F- u < w 2 o Ir Ir En 0O co F- Ir n = M- t1 F- cr 0 =:) =! 0 C-) w U) tn 0 tn w a i- to::E < U) wnHINIH.Z nHINIH . CN *1 t D w � w z a- z PLATE EG-5 LL, Z M O _Z O w O Ly Lyr j S vt LL! e Ln - O LU Z °) O i ® O Lli Y , Q W z ? X V Z 1 y = tsJ Q W O G O CC U 0 LL[r d Q U = IL W W w p Q Z O W w Q � P in ° z Q 0 p m w ui Z v1 N to w ® J W ° o m � o �°,� Q Z a t„ _ w Z Q = Q z C Q w O 7 Z Lu } O cn W Z , / w O m LL J LL Ef) Q _ -J o p °J O n- / W Z —° z X LLI -J CC C) �` tr ED y ' in o w ~ W a Z N _ uu m _ U) �- c� r _ y z -# z (� O z 0 F = - = I- [L U) Cl w En I n w w w CL cc >- i �c L- ,Jn z Y \\ I _I w ° LL \ I D ° O U O Z Y w W W O -� O g CC Q p LL O '- X W W ~ N in Q D d Lu 7) In ? Z 0 m LL Q w J ? O O Z p 0 Li I- Z !r O J w O CL I Q O Z Ln trO w Y/ N Q W ~ Q H U U ° z O !Y Q I C7 = O W to cr O u'I F- Ir w to Q W 0 ° Q Z m " PLATE EG-G i i i O Z ct s < O Y Z LL U c� O x Z O w Lij Lij F- LLJ 0 ® U m p 0 LL M: j g ® Z LL1 Z W OU Q f� = Q FZ- O O Ix Lit Z W NQ l� Z Liz F- 99 N to O O O J Z J_ Z N L21 it LL LL UJ lil >" N N - r J z LL °Q �� _ o o 0 N LL I Z LL W 6 / ZO 1-- Cr 0 CL Z }-' O -� / Z O O a- Q O E 7 W a_ Lu I-- 0 CL Z Y v > o g m < J w d o s r w ED a = w ° o Ir O ® ::E / W O � � z U z - 3 LO �! Q o LL J J J Z 5 a O m Q > It m U = W 0 ¢ a- <Z a - a 0 0 0 � z z 0 0 o > 3:: 3: 0 0 r- 0 - z = cr 0 v, N Q a in N z W a a Q �, C a o a N m J O O Ln F- Y � U O m O W I PLATE EG—7 I - i \ r 9 LD g Cm L3 LU _ ia1 ° , j Lil O r) W O f° w dJ O IL ® Z CL = LA w -J Lt1 W LLl IL O Lt M a° O L11 Z Lr L1. a" Z O Z O 0 0 11! w J Q LL z Z �" O m r/ a W Z 3 at 1-: CL Fa- O O \l ` Z Z ` W Lx ® to �� O L- Z 0 LL W Z CD cr w Z in w N W a Q N O 0 w Z z ' < w tst / ° = W 0 m �_.. z Y v a z EA x i "' d w Z I i In o Q U // Lw-- ° ~ Q Z tn �tn v a w// U w CO w o' =CL ac o O a® ° _ ° m w v CN= Z 0 z LLI w w w w = m N l�ls Z N L `� 0 ® U O _h IL in w O W V CA ® O w J o of ac w C3 Lit r o a w w N UL Z J 0 ¢J w m Z ° z w ~ ° ° J LL Q / w ° w J Z M 3 to = L ® m i Q Z J N J ul O LIB M g r Z L-- CL to t a z d 3 z w Cr w w ~ N ' LLI 1= Q 3 m w J W LL N J LL }- M m O 2 O } p N Z J N ` tI] . d O W i O z i PLATE EG®8 i LLJ w � m _J m w 'T IA in \ C-2 z W z z w z LL � > z M w w W (L LLJ 0 0 /�% � 0 m O O LU W p � [m \ m Z W z _ ® n- OC W ul v d \ = Wp O p t7 IL p r O cn 0 C-) Z O E3 0 13 aJ� g W Z U V- c _ LU O O O Z C3 W 111 Z i� W- UJ O m p to _ LL O �J Z J 0 LL Y v , N Ln z tn U U J C) (D p a m o w Zm Oil / 2 U) J ►- Z Q O °o O M w > ~ z � ~ r 3 Z ; C-) m W W v> Y W w W m w CL d w W > En O Z Z W Q � �_ W U p U f-n_ �\ Z _- w a z U) Z _ LO �+ o o w 0 in w N O _ V) O \ z 0 d CL t=-- ca IL D a. CL w Z o } i � w N Y 'i PLATE EG- 9 a a LL ne 0 Ln W ® tt l tai U) z \' LA W Z \� w w > cn Ll LLJ w �� N > hh�i� o Z o d o ly a X a r o Z J w W c� x � w o w -� &1 i 0 O O �6 V � ® o d a c m w z �'!' w 0 m w o LLJ z ® p !C s w F= � w cn w w o W J / m 0 m ® 0 Q W O w m } CC W � z w z o F- Q W m U Z LL o o iii bo, 0 W O � w F=- z a z WW d f- W ~ Z a- tz o a o® f w " Cl t= ° Q w z a ac U cn 0 > Y d t7 LL � � Q �� T 2 0 Q U Z CL 0 d tn cc = 0.. Q to W w O Uj T X U d Z w0 Z ZO M �! U W ( — w Q W tY Z Z } F_- > u7 EL 0 0 J d N W Cl O O m Z J w W Y m z 0 Lit O O Q _1 = O d T U w LL U F- to U tL f-- F- Z U < Q Z O O N d W cr (3 U W O Q FW to Z X U Q ��� O z z w W o Q D z w o F U Q w -- W > W > d {r O rr Q PLATE EG--10 a , E:1 ,�. SCUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION) NATU RAL GRADE 5' MINIM M PAD GRADE OVE R EXCAVATE-AND RECOMPACT COMPACTED FILL \ 11\\ I�\7\/ 3' MINIMUM* J \ UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING CUT-FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION) NATURAL GRADE '(��`�� 5 MI MUM MP PAD GRADE vNS� OVEREXCAVATE \1 COMPACTED FILL NUM•pR AND RECOMPACT . 3' MINIMUM UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING _ NOTE: * DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEEP CUT-FILL TRANSITION AREAS. PLATE EG-11 TE STANDARD 314" PIPE NIPPLE WELDED TO TOP OF PLATE- 314" X 5' GALVANIZED PIPE, STANDARD PIPE THREADS TOP AND BOTTOM. EXTENSIONS THREADED ON BOTH ENDS AND ADDED IN 5' - INCREMENTS- 3 INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE SLEEVE, ADD IN 5'INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS_ FINAL GRADE I I MAINTAIN 5' CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT, I I MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2'VERTICAL .-rA- -T-,1r LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 5' 5• I I I t MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIAL 5' 5' 1 - 1 y VERTICAL WITHIN A 5' RADIUS OF PLATE BASE_ 2• - ' BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT • . •PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1' BEDDING OF COMPACTED SAND NOTE: 1. LOCATIONS OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHOULD BE CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE OF A 5-RADIUS OF PLATE BASE AND WITHIN 5'(VERTICAL) FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. FILL WITHIN CLEARANCE AREA SHOULD BE HAND"COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 3. AFTER 5'(VERTICAL) OF FILL IS IN PLACE, CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN A 5_-RADIUS EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE FROM RISER. 4. PLACE AND MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT INITIAL 2' OF FILL PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL READING. 5. IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO THE SETTLEMENT PLATE OR EXTENSION RESULTING FROM EQUIPMENT OPERATING WITHIN THE SPECIFIED CLEARANCE AREA, CONTRACTOR SHOULD IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORING THE SETTLEMENT PLATES TO WORKING ORDER. 6. AN ALTERNATE DESIGN AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. PLATE EG®1 4 EN- T FINISH GRADE 3/8' DIAMETER X 6" LENGTH CARRIAGE BOLT OR EQUIVALENT u *-6' DIAMETER X 3 1/2' LENGTH HOLE 6' CONCRETE BACKFILL PLATE EG-15 SID '11E-Y! vi�ctE - SPOIL PILE TEST PIT NOT TO SCALE l TOP VIEW 100 F 7 50 FEET � 50 FEET FLJ1G �-• �'-�' '` I SPOIL TEST PIT:;;:° 1Iffi1CLE PILE FLAG - APPROXIMATE CENTER OF TEST PIT tm ( NOT TO SCALE P LATE EG®16 ^ � �^ ^~�'~~ �� �� � �� /u�.�~ ����' ~�� �11EVV NORMAl TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED �:INISH GRADE "O' MINIMUM (E) Do cc co 15*MINIMUM (A) co MINIMUM (C) _ _ _ i 'BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL _ ��'�l� �o�R�� �� TO SklP�� FACE PROPOSED-- VIEW. , . . -- '_-__�-- FINISH GRADE 15* MINIMUM 3' MINIMUM 15' MINIMUM _ i / | ``^ - FROM CA BEDROCK DR APPROVED MATERkAk- | _ i NOTE' A4 UNEEOUIPNENTYYIOTHDRA �4INi�4UMDF15FEEl[ ' T AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF (B) HE|GH , - ' ~'`~ '' ^- ' '' � '� '' ' [N ' �OV SHALL L . 8ENOGREATERTH/\N1OO N��84UM / EQUIPMENT. LENGTH OF VY �UM vv o�� � _ | (C) IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOG|ST, WINDROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIAL OR BEDROCK PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION. _ - | (0) ORIENTATION OF vVINOROVV5 MAY VARY BUT SHOULD BE AS RECOMMENDED BY ! THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/DR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING OF WINDROWS iS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED. - (E> CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES, FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS. | (R ALL FILL OVER AND AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL BE COMPACTED TO8O% RELATIVE COMPACTION OR AS RECOMMENDED. (G) AFTER FILL BETWEEN WINDROWS IS PLACED AND COMPACTED THE LIFT OF - FILL COVERING VV\NOROVY^ YV(NOROYY SHOULD BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A ' O-Q DOZER OREQUIVALENT. VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY' ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH _ AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED |N' ATE RD_ 1 VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SI40ULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. PILL_ LWTS COMPACTED OVER ROCK, AFTER EMBEDMENT e _ GRANULAR MATERIAL LARGE ROCK I 1 COMPACTED FILL t SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE I i COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE t � t t — L ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS GRANULAR SOIL TO FILL VOIDS, COMPACTED FILL — DENSIFIED BY FLOODING / �- LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH PROPOSED FINISH GRADE PROFILE ALONG LAYER — 0*MINIMUM OR BELOW LOWEST UTIUT ------ - -- - - -- - -� 20' MUM OVERSIZE LAYER ��\ FR LOPE FACE COMPACTED FILL T3-MINIM UM FILL SLOPE CLEAR ZONE 20' MINIMUM LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH PTOPIEW PLATE RD®2 OBSCURED AT � 143,ta \ A G Cone { \ a M } ill ( X0 5 fi r x Ykx 9 SCALE.. 1 — 20 � t, _.�� ��, �� �� ..-1�� �� lc�r Deck a } -o P ,� OMB x - 2 \ ~� CUU E 'ems 17'p I ,> �-- AR MB Asa v x 151 "18 6 1 \ p.,, ti 4`' \\ Way �„ .•...� --° '�, �� ,� � CS ,� ' �, 's. ,- ..t` ", � <`' � 0 B S C l!R E , ._Y ''•� .v I _�c" � t �0 l � �•, .�, r . r�� . / - .�� C 4 k r OBSll E�; 110 � o X X 118 5 ���,�. • Z i7 r rs � rn R r � \ .__.� N�� -�-' 2 ,,,,,-- r- C.]I3 S C 11L2 x .r:S(!. APPRO IM E P . . S x �. �R1 1a LOCATION OFiO Existing B IQ z Deck -' ! AN 0 L�NADJUS� � \ � ` O rr a 1� / y x 198 l ✓ f''! .v - DI - .._._ X66 / � '? � 197� �, Cr,c �x 114 -,. - r �� r �. v _- C } �-` 18. } OWNERS MKUAM M BUTLER, DIANE H. 8U1LER d R/AHAJPD d S1POEDfR c o RICHARD 4 MOIEDER onc 14 9 540 FLEET STREET VIE 200 ? . 9 \ .;.. 4 ."e,1?., , ,�' F / ` E -i 92008 - - / ♦ Garage .,.w> 10. 3 `w .� - ,.- .�-- S>F AMEM r408 SUMMIT AYEIVUE 81405-1407.SAIV EM A OUE cARDIfF Br 1HE .TA, CA 82007 71 X 1t1 x 6 y '� '� o_� ;. x 14'7 r AS 'S PARI,�'L N0. 260-620-19 dr 261620-3D ltd ,- l ♦ ti 147 1 API 260 u -�. �r °�-- ♦ ,. ,_y x l r �x LEGAL DES( IPII(aW. PORRONS OF LOTS I AND 2 OF SE'CHON A TOMNST#'P 13 v 1 SOUTH RAND 4 NEST SAN LUNARDINO AN IV 111< h_ ., � it �-� ` / AAI�N�Y Ll�SNI!AE STALE h1�CAL/�A�hVi. AGA40►NVG t �� , L . , - s • , � � L -�-� � .�'" � "..,.� � � � �,� ,� � , `�-•-�_ 4 ( � �. 1O 11�E IN�NTED STA �fJ�MiOVT S7A?iEY f�FD AJ4Mr 19 �� - f ' i '`% /`-'`. . ` ♦ °``` �� x 1 :? 9 _ _ r (' i AS WY aNffl X 41 - l VERACAL �1N(,�/MARK MY OF ENGIT see PONT PO�vr Na \ � r'/ s ♦ . , ` , ,r \, STA PON.• ENC-4L 2 #XN PIPE W 25 CITY OF ,, .� �,.. � .: r � � z ,�, � � r t �...--•-•..�„ .,�' .. J x .198.Ca" t 00 ! X 0.,, A °. q 6� ► p �. IMNITAS BRASS 9SiC LOCATED XA IUIMVOUT 6N Chi> � 1' .-. o� d •A _ - �•,; � ti � .:� .� .r .' � �. . \ - 6� � 1HE EAST S1aE OFNAR1H801JIVD HMN 101, 0.5 MILES s -a° . ,._.� �°�. ._> � N. �r NARIH OF AHESTE�D DRIVE. r [ \ DRAIIGN►.• 71.463 DATUM.- NGM29 _ X 110.95, "l 4 rr0 `4 r� r'ty ua � f ( 4 `y I ��� , t j a � NOTES APN. 260-620—'9 .:: f ,- ' ;r'` ,€ ` r' h Y �,� t WOMM SMOMN HE1PEW 1S nW AN AERIAL Su�rEr BY SAN-LO AERIAL SURIM ? LI N F- AC�q.j U ST N ' ca '� 70 a FLOW AN MAY.� 20101 ,. ,�•' �-• _._ - � . 2 1M5�NOT A BOUNDARY SYIRVEY. BOL�IIDARYINFgRMAnpV CALp1LAlED PER REL'aR0 \\X� �..�� � �' ��' ,C OtIc ' ` f 1 OJ 1 f -�' P 1 :� DA TA 0 �' x \ Afu -•; - ZEE 0 4 �, q ° 6=4 - ' r t,;, •n r `� X 2 - �- AR T ARM BY ARSr AMERICAN VILE AS O1W Na 1901027 ... , , ..� x 1.: 11� x .1,�'r�?3 ,�, ,� A PIPfiI f111V Y nnE REPOR PREP 0 � 15 DAZED APRIL 2 2005 WAS FRONDED BY�OMNER AND REVIEMED FOR Ow 511E r0 �`�" .148 118: i R E T C 0 r�c. - E45�IEN1S OF RECORD. SAID EASD OTS HAIL'BEEN PLOTTED AND R£FERMED HMON � y,. � � � o �, '^ �- ��.-•- ., ;. - :,A � C.one • , Aga 0, LOL'A IIOV OF E7IOSANG EASMNT FOP POD WE AAi7 NVC197EiVTAL PLMPPOS A P 1 },c 1x5 ;� �s 1 -- IV FAVg4 OF SW RECORDED OCIfIP 26, 19481U BOOK 2996, PARE 1,11 j a -.� - 108. �- OF OIFFX�►'AL RfG10 s AL SO(,8E EAS�EUEIVT M1D1H!S 6.00 AN EACH SigE O S C U6�E D� � c G,'! � .: X 1,�11r•� � OF A LANE OF POLES AND MIRES r � ,,, ,, .- r / '_ lay. Al Jq FILL- wa FH �� x X9,9 . , - ��_. 130 � �.��� ,���.,. � �cr, � C _ � .a�. Y,-, --_ ,. �� -�.. � ��\,-,, •.fir, � � JJj 0��� � "� �"8� � {y�' � - ,-° ,,-, .,, , �-•fit, r _� � .- � 4r ,: _ - - LEGEND w Cnc° ( ' AN Artificial fill - undocumented IA Y'� 1 ��\,�;� �; � \ . t� �� �� � h �� . ��' � � � _ .� d ' �! Qt Quaternary terrace deposits Y 1 RIVERSIDE CO. r , °� � r n��f. �•? A roximate location of Qeolo rt ORANGE CO. _� SAN DIEG❑ CO. 7 contact, queried where uncertain \ r `, GEOTECHNICAL MAP B-1 1 Approximate location of exploratory boring Plate 1 W.O. 4972--A-SC DATE 12105 SCALE 1"=20' .- TP-2 Approximate location of TOPOGRA PHIC PL exploratory test pit •- SAMPO ENGINEERING, INC. MI.:(760)436-OW FAX (760)06-0859 JN, 05-115105-103 5131103 it 0 ra-so 0u-w #Nr. a-xt(W)-xri on-wt(oar) 'ONI `JNIa33NIJN3 OdWdS -a�-• r 31d3S 31VQ 'D'M 4 018td ddw IVOI N H 33103 J '03 003IQ NdS '' r' �r � ° A� , '03 30Nt1210Y'' '� + '03 3QIS83AI21 (53dili�0�send X M V X XlF AC>d3 AV AV S/MW lADCM 3W 7YJ�i SMW-W NEW JD If Md X9 W 1M N 8661 Wl,tf3 oo tDnlOt?3N -JQS jV aVi Nl =lOd8l9d XWW W ON WJBMW MW JV AWV007 (t� MMIAGAM M7-W&1 OW 0 BMMO SM%V% U 5t LZOMI VN MW SV Aft WJMW 1SW Ag iIYd7!ld 1WM 31t1t AtiYNl BW V r vivo wWE Ed 0 VFD7VJ NI09 MM ANVaV/1OO:13+lt1lls AblYtUlYlOO V JON 9 SM Z Wff T AM M7 MOIJ %tM 7W 07-M d8 dMN 7VAGV NV)W Sl AI2M AtNW MOO1dGt 7 RMON WOU Oil WHAM •'S3LON IM ORMEW JO HIMM S7yJ!'Nn '101 AM llVNWWN X 305M 3Nt 1601 VNlAW MW AMMS SYLNt? JD llb MMMAGO 7*80 $1 VdV=JAZW 09 3�ul N 7w�" a�a�ec�n Nvs Mm 30Nr�2r�r� V aMMOI ZZ AMEX X Z QW 1 5107 AD SMxIWd -WII 7*37 OF-019-09Z 6l-OZ9-09t "ON I d SWSM-V LOW YJ �X 3Ht-Aff mw 3M MV Mg W 1061- Oil T 310V 1MNX WN •UMM 3tIS 006 VJ 'OYO'S= ow xw 133M MU Ot. MOW r wrym 0 9 r mm 71.3m mm w/rYx • tD � I I � I . . I I I I . I I I � I - � I I I � I . I . I � I I I I I I I I I I � I I � . I � � � � I I I � � �.. ___ - ___ - � - - - I . . I I I I I I � i I I I � I I MM-00 � . I . I I .� . . " , " __ I I ��� , 11�1 I.", . ., .:: '... I I-, -. K--..: -� .. ,� �!i .1� I ; . , '. , 7 I . . �i, I I . ll� , 071- ) � � . . � . I . ,�;;e�� '. _,� ,i .-1- . ._, ;, 1� \. "'_,,"111 i�,�. , � . . 1 7 \ �. � 7 �: . . I so Ta. . . . .11 I 1 . I , - . ...I - 24*WN, UNO, — ON GRASS OR WRF UNED OPPOW OWR I ) .� �� � I ,,._f7). I s , �---�.I I �) i' . I I I 14_�,,, 1�;7. -, . . ,. � ) ��. I . /_ LANDW WiRaFAWBUT iql.: ,,,�-i',i�',--tl 11 I '. � ,�. �1; q...� � J .�, >- \11,� ,1� I I . I.-AALL WYA71ONS_WGW HMON MAY VARY aRNO C1264YUCIMN DIE 70 WING , . �. I J� , � G �,.,�- 11 ,),. ,�.e � _. . �� 11i, - . 4w A'ff ANOVORS f 7YP.) 1, , , 106 � . V A ..\ . . I .1 � G?AOB AND.S01 INGINEN RWW"A M _. . . � r,�.. �, . I . �. . , _ .1.0 . I" . . 1- . I I � I I I F, �� 1. . I I . I I ':, , .+,-e - � ." ,4 1. .,j I . I �* i`4;-- �1'i . . "-I.-I . I I � 11 I .1. 11 I r �FOR ANXV � ,, fX, i A� ::: ,�" . - . .. .. I � ." 1, a 134141 - :- .. .. ., . .. 01� I I 11 )/ I , I I I I \ I . . � .... . . I I aWQ?F*7r DMA r&PARWO SNALL.NOVIVE LW MAN 5"P.Ccl 00 6 aASS 2 1 1 1, . , :\: � : '� ,�E:v �4�� "�-- :� I 11 . ., . .., . . � " _N 11 I . � 1. � � I I ,,,,-- I , � \ 1 . . I . I ), , .:. i � . -1 - -___1 1 , 'i �\� I ) I .....11 I....'', I...., ..." . . 11 . I , . .\ 1i .. . . - : I=- 1,E')�L:l 11. . 1i;P1,, I I MOO I'll-1 I i,, ;,, , I I —1 I 1�_I ] 1-1 I I , �i,l ��,?-' r I-�_�. ,f� I .. W OU12"Or�CMAC70 SWAT Sols VMM WMAS OWN.E By TIC .11 , � � �' � ,;.� � �4,�_','� SOL EN6MED?P" TOWWROCRWPIN75,AND ROWO?C90T PD? S01 80AFER: I —1 *,%, �. I 1=1 11=1 \ �i [I B !SN, rl" p Is \1 34.4 � I I .1 : I I -- .. ..11 I . I .. I ,��,�.� - -, , , "" 11� ,�4��,,ii-1: I 0, I � ,'I 1� 1=1 �j — — :: I I fFk 11 . I— . -- I: \ ,� -, 11__!�\ . ,, , I I I I .. . I , I I I - - I � � I . I � - . . I . . . . - I � I � h `�_J 1. . .� � , 1. I `�: . .. 1�, � ..�N - � i� � � .1 =Rff Sh"ALKY& PA 905:SfAa NOT OF LEW WAN 4*.P CC OWR 4'�aM SW KEY NOES: - j= I=I 1 17771 1 1 � )". I . . ,k_�A ... ... 1: I � I. ��� .. , , . . __ ......... ,�., , 01 . . I I � = ..---I __ . , I . � ,. 11,— - � . :. .. .— , I . i � . ,*; I I . - I \ . 100? 12'.OF fflrU W,WBGNADE� 1: 1 J :z:J I lz�41 1=1 1 :1 .1 \,-,"11,,�! : �, i�� \ - - - - — . ", I �_e :: . SM 0VG1Nffl?.fiRf0R 70. COAISTRUCTM.JaN�AINiDtIRWBWWO?XMMO.hTVEPtVROSOWIL.�iN5E7i8y:pE I . . , . I - I . 11 . 11 - I il ". / i \:� 5p - � � . . . � � . - ViMfg. - - — - _� � I = _�:�'�. , . 11 �j N !, . ... \ \ \ . I � .I . 1. I . I Q)GRAZ ONE Of AREA PR MAIL 17" .- _... . — st 1. .— I I , � . . 1 .1 I �� _`�i I \ I" . .- A I . \ ", . N - I . I I �" � I . I I I ..... . 11.1. ... ,I.. �— — I— '. I . , . . — �� 1 . — j ; 1,; 0,1A - . \: I .. ,,�_ I . I . 4 .Mmirmw wiovw SWALL SESM N& PW QASSSVR-Z NOW SE I — - - - . I I - ..I � .... S. \ � . . I . . .1 . 1 777] 1 — — � I M I __ 1 . __. I .-i ��Z�l � - .. =:�-1�� . I .. 15, . Ili �,, I � . � . � _:,� i, -' , NOT k � illl� \ . iii, . FW WE WES 1 1(2)PWM CoNcffx:aw AV. NOT�To BE k09W -1 f � I ��,_ . I .1 :1 17-- =.I � ---..-. .7- ____ ... �:. I;_.. _I =1 . ___ . , . . . , � �'_� � I . , I .. . ,; . . � � I I I 11 I. � - — — "I I f. �� '7�") . I . I I I " -4 11 � I DRAWS WALL � - I — �i . I ,,� " , . � 'gi \ I ROV ROOF N7HWT01Y.PDWS9W. -:I I 1=1 I I I I \ ` I ,;;��:!�.io, . � . � ,,�.. 5 fOf?..STW WAAW PaLU)ION COV)Wa ARPOSES ALL RUNOFF1 . I i t � I 1�1 6. : I \. 4 1 1 .1. -, I $ 1 =1 -] I 1;:�� ..� I .�" . f �', . . DMANZE ONT04RASS ANO LANDSCAPE AREAS PRIOR TO CU 1EC77ON AAV DMARGE ONTO "-I .1 1 77771 1 1= ( ,>-, p " , , V :'N�A,�� . � � -1- .IN � .. . I I ji I - — I I , 1."�, �, �� i,I � I I \;, % .�� I __ _1 ,e �_- . �. -, . I . . ,� 14 '.1 �� . , � 11 I 7W SMET AND @ewAit,c an �1 I I I 1 1'� I 1=1 �1 .1 I I k, L -I� . � I I I: [ I I , I I I '.� � i .,Ofai ,L�_ -;_,1� . I -..:_I . . I � L �.� - 11 [I-, � - I .V NrO THE PUBLIC STORM DRAOV SYSU 6RASS AD LAWSCAPE AWS , .I. I . I Sn . � I I 1 ""`ii,�, ,;i,i,. X ) " A _�_;w_ i',� .� L'. [a N. " . . ...] B 111',',", ':'�" ,IJ i 7"� L. I DESIGNA 10 SIDRY MA IER Mu 1KN Cm TROL SMU NO T BE:MMW N MT A I I I I I .. �' .. . . - - .. 17i� �� I . .. N07ES .I V, 1,� 1111. . " . . � ", "., 11 � 1 I � , I I A . - l/ *t.; \XL.N ,, %� - I � .V I %, I I . ... I . � - 0=10'_ - -------- I - I � I L , " 0 I I I , �� % A I I - Nu. IV, I . \ :( . PEWT fROV:ff.aff. I MASMY RLTAINK0 WALL PER SURSO C L SE N07E 14. ll,.e - - I b :p � I . 0 I I �PLAX 3 ANCHORS',PEff SOUAWMARb OFMA MWAL , .-� � , ,,. � ;, \, __ ", . , � I I , I � ] ._ .. .. .... .!� I ,---.,. I � , I . I I... I . I .11 '00'�Z 11.LAW OK W 45,0 . 11 ___I. p � . %JA 11: \ � � , & STOW 00 SUALL FLOW AWAYMN MUCWS AND WiLr ALL010 6AND .. . . . - �. , OPPM I.-, )�111,A �, � . , � 11 ... .... . �..I I 1 . ZMR G?ASS.,OR 70F. , A I� I '� � '� "�1� \:"., "Ne I � �;;-!i , 11 . \ - A-le- , �_.� � F. MMM91 I .I ' - - - . � . I . .� .1 I I, . .. . 11: . � I 1 7 1 'A' .\ . 1 I I . - . SMY ETMhVG WALL PEI?SORS9 C-5. Sff NOTE 14, .. 1. , I . 111�, .1� .� � � � - i� `� I ,, lk .. . %1 -, 0 5 10 In � ,. , .� . I .�, . N; T I I . � -,A . \�\, � , .� IL ...I �:\ .V :1')�e cl� N�Ic_/, � : io kA - : I . I I . : \ I ADJACOVT TO STRUCIM . . .. .. .1 TYPICAL DRA INA GE SWALE Uff fi9WWaMbVT MA E �' lik.!,'. � Lao ,� \ I ..I .. .. . . . .. .. . .. : ._.. .. ..I� . .. I . .I.. � � . .. . � - . . I _____ : I � �, \ I '. \ . V> - 1� .\ 1 7. ALL ON-91E 57ON OWN, OUNAGE SWALEr 1. , I I I... .I 1 . � : , I r. ", , �: � I . I I 1\' , -1 I., :11-1 � , 4,AND W AREAS Alfffl YA If AND:.�WAIL 9",X 9'10/f V 0i MS4N MU Q?A ff BY WDS' X-�,\ 11- NOT A PARTi--,_.—. . I 1. .11 .. . I I @ * I , I 1. 0 No sult � I I � �� � l, N �� , % : OR APW0_fQUX I I T \', . \ A .. . :� ... 129'' -7 , t,;, 1" . ) '' _`:_.1 �,` Vp OFMAWMAW Br.71E PROPWY 0110t I 4,i . \ � I ��� X 7 �, I I I 1. 1,\ .: ", N .1 ' ,1�1 e - ��- .. , � \. . I/ ��'-'� . ��) :k��,� I . � '.� 1v . . .I . ... 1.1. 1 .. � . . . ........ . . I Ini 4. 1. :: i \ , ... . . . . . � rli���, `�i`ii `i� N I , 1.1. \ . WNG 101WAPHY VOW HEREON IS FRCY AN ARAL SURWY Pff MkW BY so 11 ) I I (2) . f. i: 1I 01q t�, , �3 ig 7HE f ( il - ,1) . - - . � I SO40 AfRiAL9 I.., . o "%,�1��." ,.,;, � '. I . I . ; .. ,�, I I \, , 1�� N,,,v_-_, 11 I i, I 11 11 -_,�._ JffiM W HA Y4 2045 (2)12 X 12*WE CA FM WN AAV G?A 7T BY IWOw S' e'A' " .. � \ \ v � . 119 "', \ . \ __ - I . � � I . 11 I I . � N . � � f. � _ I t I � X;� : . _,\ :�� , �IQV �. . . I - � I .. . 1 I 1. OR APPROV EQUAL ) % I ,. I lii� A - ` I �-, "O.-j �� /, " - ,, .. .:,, \1 \ I . �� �I .1 , - , . ., .� , I , . .� I . , �� . I � � � "I . . \1 .�_/ , ,1 4. I AD: 122J �, . "i ,,,,\_�-� I � 7 , . . :r .. to, �� . . . �I , Dt�P A 1E A CCFS�`�� ... 1. . _� , . N '�-�' ,\ �12O ' ' � ! \ I 'S AND CONSNt �:. . (GARA6E ,� 9. SE 9Ya7 3 OF.J FOR MION CON7ROL. UFAY)PT IC17ON RE9, X\1 I - . , 101, : * ' I f-�'. , ,,W* 17" Iff WIV , � .. kMAtafNFPR4CnXS I . Al ,� 1,�,,�,APRIVA7EUPLITY,FASOVEiVTTO \ r t .. .:i ,�J,- '5%i . I (". ".. I I 11p, �. It 2 1 . wnF tum)_ — "4.___�.'11__ � .. . I - - - , . 'i I ., 1. �Q)�0'#W REXA PONAL wx sroar p 60 4 IF �,,_,%� :,�`� � " HIg, U91W -44Z�" � ' 11 -7 , . 1. 1 .11. � 1, )�','\ � 1: -SERVE1 . ,PROPERTY --I L' .�\. ,�f , . 2, , /A I Q 1= . - 4 )VIV PMENCt J '. � . RASS-LINEVSWAT. ST -', I I - �� I. . - - �� . - . I � . ... ,7_"11:1-` I � I �..�.. .. .11 , t:1� OCIA1, �, . � I I . , !�__, I 7,v-, - � ... . i�z�__ I " Wr .. Zma ,JAY-A I K. . . "� ,� ( �L, i" _ . , , I.-- IMMUK I..... 'I-, . I , _-.1 .�- ,4 Y_ �.. I 1 . . .I - � ,:.; 1-1 . , , ..- . ... I ... � I ,.. ) I I ,FALI . I � . .. � l, I 1-1 I �� . 1 -4,; 1 � .� %-F.)� 1258 , . 11 �.SUBDRAW,. "),1 I -10 11., I ", C-3 4 \__ \ � . 1, . .. .. -rin 9,�_-"" 0 " I .. I i��, 1,1�1.�4r a � ,� ,� ii�� - , I _0 ,� I il��, `11:i� I i� : P . . 19001027 15), OATEVAPRE A 2005 WS PROM BY PE OWER AND RENEW Fw \ '151"Boa -__ILI * 11 , -,,i;�� IA A PREMARY HILE19WT BYFMT AkERICAN WILE WVAJVY AS QW,ko. MWACIED.DECOWPOSED OWL , " \ . I , 'Vw f ,'T"Ll .� � �- I �,� I 11 I .. 5 \ , _. `�;isl � � � �� ,', .. t. , , ; � . r p., ,. �. : 1 -4,; , -4,! . '' � a 11�1 , ,,,_ , . � &gk ,�) I V Z07S SAID&4SW80 HAIC866V K071M.-AA10 ROMCM Wav, I IMV . .. _i_ I I �t,: 1�-f \- �� I �1��. �, OV-51E A, (D 12 VDE A 7E WENCH DRNN N 111 1RAMC.RA IM - " , X"", . . . \1 , � .. I . � . . �, - \ - __ _,\�_ .1 . � (X'l 11 5, �-__. . I .111111"," , ; , I . ,