The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-9283 G/I/PM 1 HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS For 267 SANFORD STREET GP DRAWING. APN: 25.1-111-58 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA L �y cEs Prepared For NB LLC 17902 Pointe Reyes Fountain Valley, CA 92708 PE 1097 PREPARED BY: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. PROFFS 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A s/p SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 NE A• (858)259-8212 y No, 2967 p z DATE: 1/21/05 4.�131107 4L IWF- � a WAYNE ePASCO, RCE 29577 DATE 267 Sanford Street Hydrology Report PE#1097 11:48 AM 1/21/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 267 SANFORD STREET PE 1097 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION DISCUSSION...............................................................................A CONCLUSION.............................................................................B PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS ......................0 POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS.....................D HYDRAULIC AND SIZING CALCULATIONS...................................E APPENDIX................................................................................F Isopluvials Intensity Duration Curve Runoff Coefficients Hydrology Map 267 Sanford Street Hydrology Report PE# 1097 11:48 AM 1/21/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 267 SANFORD STREET PE 1097 A. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to analyze the storm water runoff produced from the 100 year storm event of the existing and post-developed condition for 267 Sanford Street. The subject property is physically located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Hygeia Avenue and Sanford Street, Encinitas California. The property is geographically located at N 33 004'25.5" E 117 018'03.3". Pre-Developed Conditions The existing condition of the project site consists of a single family residence on the site. The existing site slopes down from the intersection of the Sanford St. and Hygeia Ave. to the southwest property corner. Storm water on this site sheet flows east/northeast to west/southwest until it reaches the western property line/ southwest corner of the property. The existing 100 year runoff at the southwest corner of the site is 4.70 cfs and the runoff at the wester property line is 0.79 cfs.. -- Post- Development Conditions The proposed development consists of the removal of the existing single family house and the grading of three pads for the future construction of three single family houses, yard area and driveways. After completion of the project all proposed drainage will fundamentally maintain existing runoff conditions. Runoff from the main stream that reaches the southwest corner of the site will flow into an infiltration basin and then into a rip rap energy dissipater and continue existing flow conditions. Runoff from the minor stream that formerly reached the western property line, will flow into an infiltration basin and then onto Sanford Street. Proposed 100-year 24-hour storm runoff at the southwest corner of the site is 4.76 cfs. There are two swales that convey the on-site runoff to the infiltration basin (see plan, detail E) and a brow ditch to convey the rest of the runoff to the southwest corner. These swales have been sized to adequately convey this runoff and will not need any additional reinforcement due to the low velocity. The proposed runoff from the minor stream will be conveyed to two separate infiltration basins and the combined total of this runoff is 0.68 cfs. Some of the proposed runoff will be conveyed in a 46" drainpipe onto Sanford Street. The pipe and area drains collecting this drainage have been adequately sized. The infiltration basin has been sized adequately to handle OQioo. (See section D for sizing calculations) Methodology and Results The hydrologic soil group classification for the site is "D". The methodology used herein to determine Qioo is the modified rational method. The computer modeling program 267 Sanford Street Hydrology Report PE# 1097 11:48 AM 1/21/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 267 SANFORD STREET PE 1097 utilized to perform the hydrologic analysis of the proposed project site is produced by Advanced Engineering Software (AES2003). The pre and post-development runoff coefficients, used to analyze the both conditions, were obtained from Table 3-1 of the June 2003 revision of the San Diego County Hydrology Manual. B. CONCLUSION Based on the information and calculations contained in this report it is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering, Inc. that the storm drain system as proposed on the corresponding Grading Plan will function to adequately intercept, contain and convey Q100 to the appropriate points of discharge. 267 Sanford Street Hydrology Report PE# 1097 11:48 AM 1/21/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 267 SANFORD STREET PE 1097 C. PRE DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS 267 Sanford Street Hydrology Report PE#1097 11:48 AM 1/21/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 267 SANFORD STREET PE 1097 **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * PRE-DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS * 100 YEAR STORM * PE 1097 - NB LLC - 267 SANFORD STREET ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1097PRE.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 09:37 01/21/2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.610 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) ----- --------- 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)* (Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 128.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 117.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 11.40 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 4.639 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH 267 Sanford Street Hydrology Report PE#1097 11:48 AM 1/21/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 267 SANFORD STREET PE 1097 DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.114 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TR.APEZOIDA.L CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 117.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 92.90 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 230.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1048 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.487 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.50 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.50 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.04 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.10 Tc(MIN.) = 7.10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.16 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.50 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.04 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.50 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.10 = 330.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< - - ------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.487 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.32 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.75 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.47 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.26 TC(MIN) = 7.10 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 92.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 81.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 130.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0915 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.346 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4900 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.26 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.42 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.29 Tc(MIN.) = 7.39 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 267 Sanford Street Hydrology Report PE#1097 11:48 AM 1/21/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 267 SANFORD STREET PE 1097 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.47 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.26 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.13 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.42 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.00 = 460.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< --------------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.346 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4900 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.44 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.64 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.70 TC(MIN) = 7.39 -----------------+ I END OF MAIN STREAM I BEGINNING OF MINOR ON-SITE STREAM I I I +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4900 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 93.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 81.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 12.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 4.796 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.114 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.79 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 TC(MIN.) = 6.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.79 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS 267 Sanford Street Hydrology Report PE# 1097 11:48 AM 1/21/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 267 SANFORD STREET PE 1097 C. POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS 267 Sanford Street Hydrology Report PE#1097 11:48 AM 1/21/2005 . ........_ ............ . . . HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 267 SANFORD STREET PE 1097 **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * POST-DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS * 100 YEAR STORM * PE 1097 - NB LLC - 267 SANFORD STREET ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 1097POST.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:15 01/21/2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.610 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) ----- --------- -------- 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)* (Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY INFORMATION AT NODE««< USER-SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS: TC(MIN) = 7.10 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.48 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.47 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.26 **************************************************************************** - FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< 267 Sanford Street Hydrology Report PE# 1097 11:48 AM 1/21/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 267 SANFORD STREET PE 1097 ---------------------------- - ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) 92.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) _ 81.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 182.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0654 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.271 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5700 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4.26 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.71 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.15 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.45 Tc(MIN. ) = 7.55 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.47 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.26 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.15 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.71 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 1.00 = 182.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ----------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.271 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5700 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.64 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.76 TC(MIN) = 7.55 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I END OF MAIN STREAM I I BEGINNING OF MINOR ON-SITE STREAM I I I +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.10 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5700 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 87.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 86.40 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.10 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 9.242 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.627 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.35 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.35 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 86.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 81.00 267 Sanford Street Hydrology Report PE# 1097 11:48 AM 1/21/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 267 SANFORD STREET PE 1097 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 91.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0593 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.444 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5700 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.35 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.55 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.03 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.60 Tc(MIN. ) = 9.84 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.35 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.03 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.55 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 4.10 TO NODE 2.00 = 191.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< --------------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.444 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5700 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.33 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.68 TC(MIN) = 9.84 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.26 TC(MIN.) = 9.84 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.68 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS 267 Sanford Street Hydrology Report PE# 1097 11:48 AM 1/21/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 267 SANFORD STREET PE 1097 E. HYDRAULIC AND SIZING CALCULATIONS 267 Sanford Street Hydrology Report PE# 1097 11:48 AM 1/21/2005 DETENTION BASIN VOLUME CALCULATIONS REQUIRED DETENTION VOLUME FOR MAIN STREAM: Post Development Runoff—Pre Development Runoff=4.76 cfs—4.70 cfs = 0.06 cfs Detention Volume = (2.67)QQ).po (Tc �p 60 - 2.67 rz Tc � 60 = 2 2 2[(2.67)(4.76)(7.55) (60) - (2.67)(4.70)(7.39)(60)1 = 2 2 Required Volume = 2878.6 ft' - 2782.1 ft' = 96.5 ft' REQUIRED DETENTION VOLUME FOR MINOR STREAM: Post Development Runoff—Pre Development Runoff= 0.68 cfs— 0.79 cfs=- 0.1 lcfs Detention Volume= 2.67 Tc 60 - 2.67 Tc e 60 = 2 2 2((2.67)(0.68)(9.84)(60) - (2.67)(0.79)(6.00)(60)1 = 2 2 Required Volume = 536.0 ft' - 379.7 ft' = 156.3 ft3 CONCRETE BROW DITCH Cross Section for Parabolic Channel - 1 Project Description Flow Element: Parabolic Channel Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Section Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.013 Channel Slope: 0.01000 it/ft Constructed Depth: 1.00 ft Normal Depth: 0.69 ft Constructed Top Width: 2.00 ft Discharge: 4.26 ft'!S 1.00 ft 0.69 ft �-- 2.00 ft __ J V: 1 H:1 Worksheet for Parabolic Channel - 1 Project Description Flow Element: Parabolic Channel Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.013 Channel Slope: 0.01000 tuft Constructed Depth: 1.00 ft Discharge: 4.26 fr/s Results Normal Depth: 0.69 ft Flow Area: 0.77 ft Wetted Perimeter: 2.25 ft Top Width: 1.66 ft Critical Depth: 0.83 ft Critical Slope: 0.00478 ft/ft Velocity: 5.57 ft/s - Velocity Head: 0.48 ft Specific Energy: 1.17 ft Froude Number: 1.45 Flow Type: Supercritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth: 0.00 ft Length: 0.00 ft Number Of Steps: 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth: 0.00 ft Profile Description: Headloss: 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity: Infinity ft/s Upstream Velocity: Infinity ft/s Normal Depth: 0.69 ft Critical Depth: 0.83 ft Channel Slope: 0.01000 ft/ft Critical Slope: 0.00478 ft/ft DG SWALE Cross Section for Triangular Channel - 1 Project Description Flow Element: Triangular Channel Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Section Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.033 Channel Slope: 0.01000 ft/ft Normal Depth: 0.49 ft Left Side Slope: 10.00 ft/ft(H:V) Right Side Slope: 10.00 fttft(H:V) Discharge: 4.26 ft/s 0.49 ft V 1 H:1 Worksheet for Triangular Channel - 1 Project Description Flow Element: Triangular Channel Friction Method: Manning Formula Salve For: Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.033 Channel Slope: 0.01000 ft/ft Left Side Slope: 10.00 Rift(H:V) Right Side Slope: 10.00 ft/ft(H:V) Discharge: 4.26 ft/s Results Normal Depth: 0.49 ft Flow Area: 2.42 ft2 Wetted Perimeter: 9.88 ft Top Width: 9.84 ft Critical Depth: 0.41 ft Critical Slope: 0.02714 ft/ft - Velocity: 1.76 ft/s Velocity Head: 0.05 ft Specific Energy: 0.54 ft Froude Number: 0.63 Flow Type: Subcrltical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth: 0.00 ft Length: 0.00 ft Number Of Steps: 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth: 0.00 ft Profile Description: Profile Headloss: 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity: Infinity ft/s Upstream Velocity: Infinity ft/s Normal Depth: 0.49 ft Critical Depth: 0.41 ft Channel Slope: 0.01000 Rift Critical Slope: 0.02714 ft/ft GRASSY SWALE Cross Section for Triangular Channel -2 Project Description Flow Element: Triangular Channel Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Section Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.030 Channel Slope: 0.01000 ft/ft Normal Depth: 0.12 ft Left Side Slope: 25.00 ft/ft(H:V Right Side Slope: 25.00 ft/ft(H:V) Discharge: 0.25 ft/S 0.12 it Y 1 H: 1 Worksheet for Triangular Channel -2 Project Description Flow Element: Triangular Channel Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.030 Channel Slope: 0.01000 ft/ft Left Side Slope: 25.00 ft/ft(H:V) Right Side Slope: 25.00 ft/ft(H:V) Discharge: 0.25 ft/s Results Normal Depth: 0.12 ft Flow Area: 0.34 ft2 Wetted Perimeter: 5.82 ft Top Width: 5.81 ft Critical Depth: 0.09 ft Critical Slope: 0.03675 f ift Velocity: 0.74 ft/s Velocity Head: 0.01 ft Specific Energy: 0.12 ft Froude Number: 0.54 Flow Type: Subcritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth: 0.00 ft Length: 0.00 ft Number Of Steps: 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth: 0.00 ft Profile Description: Profile Headloss: 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity: Infinity ft/s Upstream Velocity: Infinity ft/s Normal Depth: 0.12 ft Critical Depth: 0.09 ft Channel Slope: 0.01000 ft/ft Critical Slope: 0.03675 ft/ft HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR 267 SANFORD STREET PE 1097 F. APPENDIX 267 Sanford Street Hydrology Report PE#1097 11:48 AM 1/21/2005 _ _ _ _ mill I ,Evil fix it 0 11 ISIR mix Q r5 + Imperial C�ountv o Ln if ' _ _ � Oil .......... CP Jt ' ME =='A.WW WWAR ,�W—Wmm�� MIKA= MAIr .,dr Ira INNOMME 0 ONES SEMEN! AlrAWAWARYAMM 9"Ammous IrArAWARANWASOVANIN =RFAINKIESSIM IND ArT INNFA 21 "BOB mm 11mm MARDWA I Eamon rAFAIFAM P ,dPMWAM I man JOIN mow, ffArAW I 21111FANIF Him MAIN UMBIN PENN mmirm"myng Hilligivolln NONE crAmw=A= NW� AWAW A r,=IWWA� lw� '� �=AZAWIAWJ PA A VA on:%A lassommum"as W nommuffas mm�mm= =Mw OF= 0 r-mwrK rmWAW a-m7d Zwr I �mff"ZZ SAW Sw Fis I'llummol MJW= W A=MWVA murw�Kwwm mmrAvierAmr MONWA r0u. Cu, mamma MMM*ArArArJ LA rucill., NNIVIENW,WMArA ME � an WNW olm Eman= Mrs ff" Sm IIIIIIHIR Will Ig long MWW.A IKIPMA Ruin IN llim ME NE MEMINE MIN No IN 0 I,rg I FA I FA IN mm WA ININ MIN .AFA, DA No limmm cwj! O u p-- A•- C 3 r O M .-. O\ O% N h v1 r- N n 00 00 Do 00 y� .•C M w O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O C O �p •� .Ui a u � Im w O 'O N N 00 q. t- O 01, 00 00 .-. t- G (� M M V -4: if W) Vl \q %O C1: t1 00 0C 00 0C ^ ice•. C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O v O - Cl. C E cc E ton 0. .p N tq ."� t~i 3 vl t- t- t O "It C r- N M c+1 'ct •ct Vl• h h \O t� t� DD DD 00 00 C O •U O O C C 6 C C 6 O O O O O . to to u O C C _ b a _ .a C O t- � 00 00 N h %0 %0 %O O M M t- •U u 4' N N M M '7 h h %G t" n 00 00 00 00 -Fa O C C C O C C C O O C C C O O •p u cc �Q u E U C W O is �+ O O to O O h O h O O to O O h U U Fy O --+ N N M V v to %O 00 00 00 ON U% O% . W o ri 0 e C ti M G� . emu.. � �O FV oQ c y N N y N h N L V U ++ N y tyq O 61 O O O O E O O O p p E v , a a a a a ¢ a a a N O y w w « „ " � aaaa E , u C� on ^w `o c 03 ul U3 E C4 N p H .y N O 7 Or u O O O 4: 'O -0 �y � aQ � � m � ^4 �! E� ice.. V � •C.. �-Ci _ _ c a c c o o a• o a 3 CO -OG v°' •uOr b b v o b ,-4'0_ O O s cn •o o o cz.a u 0 v w R R R P.V N O O e3 o u m w H h V y .O •O w W to tC cc H C M ai '�j a pL� :2 �, em�y F/ _ N A V N H V a �°, `" u C - O 040 N o Z% z' A A A o O u u u ai ca ca m w cc r e 3 is m C � G c C C C w •E '�'. 4 'E = e .d '�' Z ca A A A a a a A Q v u u u D o p A ° °b 3 3 3 u u u .rte coo 1 0 o ¢ V t f z ��i�'Y.:TL• y 'Jir � '!�}�'-, 7�' r Rte' '•S� erF;.•, a, � t ;� � p - !F w 64 11 arm F ',,.yye.�lr' at _.... `it W � k�Y'S r � "k•,W 1)�.. ,k �'4�� t� 'J� VI /I T/ V/�// V I I�/..r • i x x! 1 i Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92010 (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 March 8, 2007 (~ �( .0. 4581-D/E/F-SC �l 1 Newman Buch LLC 17902 Point Reyes Street IL LIAR 1 4 20 Fountain Valley, California 92708 I L,. ES Attention: Mr. Floyd Buch Subject: Soils Compaction Report, Sewer and Water Line Trench Backfill, Retaining Wall Backfill,and Aggregate Base Testing, Proposed Three-Lot Subdivision, 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Buch: At the request of the controlling authorities,and per your authorization,this report presents a summary of the soil engineering observation and testing services provided by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) during construction of selected improvements within the subject subdivision. As the result of the improvements completed before GSI was requested to perform observations and test services, the offsite sewer and water lateral trenches were re-excavated to approximate 1 to 2 feet above the existing underground utility service pipe. Once the offsite sewer and water lateral trenches were re-excavated, full-time observation and testing services were provided during the remaining trench backfill of offsite improvements (sewer and water). Observation and testing of street base grade for repair areas in the streets (from re-excavating trenches within the streets) was also performed. Onsite improvement compaction testing for the sewer, water, and retaining walls were performed by random test pits only, without observation of backfill placement. Unless specifically superceded by the recommendations presented herein, the conclusions and recommendations contained in previous reports (see the Appendix), which are not specifically superceded by this letter, should be properly incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. WATER AND SEWER LATERAL TRENCH BACKFILL (GSI PHASE D) Backfill operations were observed by GSI personnel on a full-time basis, based on call-in requests, as solely determined by representatives of Newman Bush, LLC, for the offsite sewer and water line laterals within Sanford Street and Hygeia Avenue. Backfill compaction testing was performed on the onsite laterals by random test pits only, without direct observation of backfill placement. Onsite soils were used as backfill for utility line trenches. Field density tests and/or probing were used to evaluate compaction. The standard was a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density, where tested. Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and selected locations to check the compactive effort provided by the contractor. Where test results indicated less than 90 percent relative compaction of the laboratory standard,the contractor was notified and the area was reworked until retesting indicated a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent in the tested area. Test results for the project are included in the enclosed Table 1. AGGREGATE BASE TESTING (GSI PHASE E� Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and selected locations within the repair area of the offsite sewer and water lateral trenches to check the compactive effort achieved by the contractor. Where test results indicated less than 95 percent relative compaction based on the laboratory standard, the contractor was notified and the area was reworked until retesting indicated a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent in the area tested. The test results for the aggregate base are included in the enclosed Table 1. RETAINING WALLS (GSI PHASE Fl Field density tests and/or probing were used to evaluate compaction. The standard was a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density,where tested. The tests were performed by random test pits behind the existing backfilled retaining walls. The test results and their approximate locations are included in Table 1. FIELD TESTING 1. Field density tests were performed using the nuclear (densometer) methods ASTM D-2922-90 and D-3017-81, and sand-cone method ASTM D-1556. Test results are presented in the enclosed Table 1, Field Density Test Results. 2. Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and random locations to check the compactive efforts (excluding the pipe zone) provided by the contractor. Where test results indicated less than the required minimum compaction and/or moisture content, the contractor was notified and the area was reworked until retesting indicated that the required minimum relative compaction and/or moisture content for each failing area had been achieved. 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. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-D/E/F-SC 267 Sanford St., Encinitas March 8, 2007 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581 def.scr Page 2 GeoSoiills, Inc. LABORATORY TESTING The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each major soil type were determined according to test method ASTM D-1557 and/or CalTrans Test Method Number California 216. The following table presents the results: SOIL DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE TYPE PC CONTENT % A SILTY SAND, Reddish Brown 129.5 9.5 B SILTY SAND, Reddish Brown 128.5 9.0 C Class II Base 139.0 7.0 CLOSING Geotechnical aspects of work under the purview of this report are generally considered suitable and adequate for their intended use. Appropriate drainage practices should be implemented as indicated in the referenced reports. Compaction testing was taken periodically and at random locations and elevations subsequent to the contractor's notification. GSI cannot comment on the suitability of areas where we were not requested to observe and/or test the backfill. Our opinions, based upon these testings, are professional opinions and are not meant to supercede the obligations of the contractor. No warranty is express or implied. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Placement and testing of compacted backfills under the purview of this report have been completed with selective testing provided by representatives of GSI, and are found to be in general compliance with the Grading Code of the City, County, and the controlling authorities for the project. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-D/E/F-SC 267 Sanford St., Encinitas March 8, 2007 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 def.scr Page 3 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. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. B an E. Voss �oFESSI Project Geologist S�aNAL �S�?. F.Rq��l0 o. Rv1=4 7 857 No. 1340 � `lf o n P. Frank) Csr:ifled David W. Skell P. ngineering G Ig E t9140 Civil Engineer, RC tvt� ©F C BEV/JPF/DWS/jk �"'°P CAO- - Enclosure: Table 1 - Field Density Test Results Appendix - References Distribution: (4) Addressee Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-D/E/F-SC 267 Sanford St., Encinitas March 8, 2007 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581def.scr Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST UTILL DATE TEST LOCATION ELEV MOISTURE DRY REL TEST ;SOIL! NO. TYPE OR CONTENT DENSITY COM METHQD TYPE DEPTH (ft), 1 SM 2/20/07 Hygeia Ave. -4.0 9.8 121.6 94.6 ND B 2 SM 2/20/07 Hygeia Ave. -2.0 10.0 118.5 92.2 ND B 3 SM 2/20/07 267 Sanford St. -4.0 9.6 118.1 91.9 ND B 4 SM 2/20/07 267 Sanford St. 72.0 9.8 117.5 91.4 ND B 5 SM 2/20/07 265 Sanford St. -5.0 9.5 117.3 91.3 SC B 6 SM 2/20/07 265 Sanford St. -3.0 10.6 120.4 93.7 ND B 7 SM 2/20/07 Hygeia Ave. SG 9.0 122.8 95.6 ND B 8 SM 2/20/07 267 Sanford St. SG 9.6 123.1 95.8 ND B 9 SM 2/20/07 265 Sanford St. SG 9.5 122.1 95.0 ND B 10 SL 2/20/07 Bldg. 2 -24.0 10.2 118.3 92.1 SC B 11 SL 2/20/07 Bldg 3 18 0 11.1 117.5 91.4 ND 1 W 2/20/07 Water Svc. 265 Sanford St. -12.0 9.1 122.4 95.3 ND B 2 W 2/20/07 Water Svc. 265 Sanford St. -12.0 9.6 121.7 94.7 ND B 3 W 2/20/07 Water Svc. 267 Sanford St. -12.0 9.2 121.6 94.6 ND B 4 W 2/20/07 Water Svc 267 Sanford St -12.0 9.8 124.2 96.7 SC B 1 B 2/21/07 265 Sanford St. BG 7.2 133.3 95.9 ND C 2 B 2/21/07 265 Sanford St. BG 7.1 134.4 96.7 ND C 3 B 2/21/07 267 Sanford St. BG 7.5 132.3 95.2 ND C 4 B 2/21/07 267 Sanford St. BG 7.2 133.0 --65- 57 ND C 5 B 12/21/071 Hygeia Ave-BG 7 0 133 2 95 8 ND C �c xA "- .:, aer<€ ,: ,. i�ET �.��'ll�l,�11.;1..�� 5...�.51°��"ia. ,� ,��.�,.�`„�'• �,i�aFi� �-F�.��-.. .. .s.�"� �,°+�:sS ��",��. ....h��a. 1 RW 2/19/07 Wall Split @ Bldg. 1 &2 -12.0 10.6 118.8 91.7 ND A 2 RW 2/19/07 Wall Split @ Bldg. 1 &2 -18.0 9.8 117.3 90.6 ND A 3 RW 2/19/07 Wall Split @Bldg. 1 &2 -24.0 10.1 117.0 91.1 ND B 4 RW 020/07 Wall @ Bldg. 2 -18.0 10.6 116.9 90.3 ND A 5 RW 2/20/07 Wall @ Bldg. 3 -18.0 10.0 118.4 91.4 SC A 6 RW 1 2/20/07 Wall @ Bldg. 3 1 -12.0 9.7 118.0 91.1 ND A LEGEND: B = Base BG = Base Grade ND = Nuclear Densometer RW = Retaining Wall SC = Sand Cone SG = Subgrade SL = Sewer Lateral SM = Sewer Main W = Water Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-D/E/F-SC 267 Sanford St., Encinitas March 2007 File:C:\excel\1ables\4500\4581 def.scr Page 1 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX REFERENCES GeoSoils, Inc., 2006a, Grading plan review, 267 Sanford Street, proposed three-lot subdivision, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4581-A2-SC, dated January 13. 2006b, Geotechnical update letter, proposed three-lot subdivision, 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4581-A3-SC, dated January 13. 2005a, Grading plan review, 267 Sanford Street, proposed three-lot subdivision, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4581-Al-SC, dated July 29. 2005b, Evaluation of existing pavement section, 267 Sanford Street (frontage of Sanford and Hygeia Street), Encinitas, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4581-E-SC, dated January 10. 2005c, Soil corrosivity test results, 267 Sanford Street, proposed three-lot subdivision, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4581-A-SC, dated January 3. 2004, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, 267 Sanford Street, Proposed three-lot subdivision, Encinitas, San Diego County, California , W.O. 4581-A-SC, dated November 30. International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, California building code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Vol. 1 and 2. 1997, Uniform building code, Whittier, California, vol. 1, 2, and 3. Pasco Engineering, 2006, Grading plan for: 267 Sanford Street, APN 254-111-58, dated January 3. GeoSoils, Inc. City O ENGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering March 19, 2008 Traffic Engineering Attn: Temecula Valley Bank 1830 Marron Road #124 Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: Newman-Buch, LLC 267 Sanford Street APN 254-111-58 TPM 03-128 Improvement Permit 9283-1 Final release of security Permit 9283-I authorized public road and drainage improvements, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the improvements and the one- year warranty inspection. Therefore, release of the remaining security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account# 0870000411 in the amount of$16,609.50. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Since ely, /7 Debra Geis. y Lembach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Newman-Buch, LLC Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 t-14 recycled paper - F City of ENGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering March 19, 2007 Traffic Engineering Attn: Temecula Valley Bank 1830 Marron Road#124 Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: Newman-Buch, LLC 267 Sanford Street APN 254-111-58 TPM 03-128 Improvement Permit 9283-I Partial release of security Permit 9283-I authorized public road and drainage improvements, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the improvements. Therefore, release of a portion of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account#0870000403 in the amount of$ 49,828.50. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns,please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sin ely, /� Debra Geishart ay L mbach Engineering Tec ician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Newman-Buch, LLC Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 14 recyc/ed caper + o� City NGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering May 8, 2006 Traffic Engineering Attn: Temecula Valley Bank 1830 Marron Road #124 Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: Newman-Buch, LLC 267 Sanford Street APN 254-111-58 TPM 03-128 Grading Permit 9283-GI Partial release of security Permit 9283-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved rough grade. Therefore, release of a portion of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account # 0870000772 in the amount of$ 43,007.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Since ly, Debra Geisha hymbach Engineering Technician finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Newman-Buch, LLC Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper City oJ ENGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering March 26, 2007 Traffic Engineering Attn: Temecula Valley Bank 1830 Marron Road#124 Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: Newman-Buch, LLC 267 Sanford Street APN 254-111-58 TPM 03-128 Grading Permit 9283-GI Final release of security Permit 9283-GI authorized earthwork,private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, release of the remaining security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Accounts have been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and are hereby released for payment to the depositor: Account#0870000438 in the amount of$ 27,854.25 and account# 0870000446 in the amount of$ 9,284.75. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sincerely, ' 454 ebra Geishart ch Engineering Te ician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Newman-Buch, LLC Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 �� recycled paper JAN 18 2006 t EVALUATION OF EXISTING PAVEMENT SECTION 267 SANFORD STREET (FRONTAGE OF SANFORD AND HYGEIA STREET) ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR NEWMAN BUCH, LLC 17902 POINT REYES STREET FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 W.O. 4581-E-SC JANUARY 10, 2005 S' • Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic • Environmental 26590 Madison Avenue • Murrieta, California 92562 • (909) 677-9651 • FAX (909) 677-9301 January 10, 2005 Newman Buch, LLC W.0. 4581-E-SC 17902 Point Reyes Street Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention: Mr. Floyd Buch Subject: Evaluation of Existing Pavement Section, 267 Sanford Street (Frontage of Sanford and Hygeia Street), Encinitas, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Buch: In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed an evaluation of the existing pavement section at the subject site, and has provided herein, conclusions regarding the suitability of the existing pavement section, based on Traffic Index values indicated by the City of Encinitas (see Appendix A), and recommendations for the design and construction for a new asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement section. The scope of services provided in preparation of this report include field observations and sampling, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis of pavement design. SITE CONDITIONS The study area consists of an approximately ±150-foot long section of Sanford Street (frontage) and ±163-foot long section of Hygeia Street (frontage), in Encinitas, San Diego County, California, directly adjacent to 267 Sanford Street. The street is composed of an asphaltic concrete cover, which did not exhibit distress within the area investigated. SITE EXPLORATION Site exploration was performed on January 6, 2005, by a representative of this office. In addition to visual observations of surface conditions,subsurface conditions were explored with two exploratory hand auger borings. The borings were logged and a representative sample of existing subgrade soil was collected for appropriate laboratory testing. Logs of the excavations are presented in Appendix B. A review of Appendix B indicates that the existing pavement section consists of approximately ±3'/2 to ±5 inches of asphaltic concrete on native, Quaternary-age terrace deposits. The subgrade soils, underlying the pavement section, consisted of orange brown silty sands. Where observed, these soils are typically damp to moist, and dense. LABORATORY TESTING General Laboratory tests were performed on a representative sample of the subgrade soils in order to evaluate their physical characteristics for this pavement application. The test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. Resistance Value (R-value R-value testing was performed in accordance with the latest revisions to the Department of Transportation, State of California, Material and Research Test Method No. 301. Subgrade soils, sampled from the exploratory boring, yielded an R-value of R = 72. R-value data is presented in Appendix C. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our observations and laboratory testing, it appears that the existing pavement section is not strictly designed in accordance with the standard specifications set forth in City of Encinitas Public Road Standards (1993), and may need to be modified to conform with the City's standards for a typical local/residential street, if required by the City. The minimum pavement section, as required by the City for a typical local road, is 4 inches of asphaltic concrete (AC) over 6 inches of aggregate base (AB). PAVEMENT DESIGN Pavement section design was performed in accordance with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual of Instructions (see Appendix A), and City of Encinitas Public Road Standards (1993). Pavement sections for AC pavement, presented below, are based on the aforementioned criteria and the resistance value (R-value) data (see Appendix C) determined from soils exposed at, or near, the existing subgrade elevation within the study area. R-value testing was performed in accordance with the latest revisions of the Department of Transportation, State of California, Material&Research Test Method No.301. Pavement design was aided with the computer software programs PAVE and NEWCON90. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-E-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas January 10, 2005 Fi1e:eAWp9\4500\4581 e.eoe Page 2 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT Structural Section The recommended pavement sections are presented in the following table: AGGREGATE BASE TRAFFIC SUBGRADE AC THICKNESS THICKNESS(2) TRAFFIC AREA INDEX R-VALUE (INCHES) (INCHES) Sanford and Hygeia 5.0 72 4.00) 6.00) Street(fronta e (1) City minimum thickness (2 Denotes Class 2 Aggregate Base 11>78, SE >22 All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, compaction of base material, and placement and rolling of asphaltic concrete, should be done in accordance with the City guidelines and under the observation and testing services provided by the project geotechnical engineer and/or the City. The recommended pavement sections are meant as minimums. If thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair may be needed. Positive site drainage shall be maintained at all times. Water should not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved areas, measures shall be taken to minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement section. If the ADT (average daily traffic) or ADTT (average daily truck traffic) increases beyond that intended, as reflected by the traffic index(s) used for design, increased maintenance and repair could be required for the pavement section. PAVEMENT GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS General All section changes shall be properly transitioned. If adverse conditions are encountered during the preparation of subgrade materials, special construction methods may need to be employed. A GSI representative shall be present for the preparation of subgrade, base rock, and asphalt concrete. Site Preparation The existing asphaltic concrete shall be removed and properly disposed. Newman Buch, LLC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas January 005 4581-2 Janu File:e:\wp9\4500\4581e.eoe ary 10, 2005 Page 3 Subgrade Within street and parking areas,all surficial deposits of loose soil material shall be removed and recompacted as recommended. After the loose soils are removed, the bottom is to be scarified to a depth of approximately 12 inches,moisture conditioned as necessary,and compacted to 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density,as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557. Deleterious material,excessively wet or dry pockets,concentrated zones of oversized rock fragments, and any other unsuitable materials encountered during grading shall be removed. The compacted fill material should then be brought to the elevation of the proposed subgrade for the pavement. The subgrade should be proof-rolled in order to ensure a uniform firm and unyielding surface. All grading and fill placement should be observed by the project soil engineer and/or his representative. Base Rock Compaction tests are required for the recommended base section. Minimum relative compaction required will be 95 percent of the laboratory maximum density as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557. Base aggregate shall be in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" (green book), 1997 edition, or standard Caltrans Class 2 base rock (minimum R-value=78). Pavinq A prime coat should be applied to any existing pavement, and curb/gutter prior to paving Prime coating the aggregate base may be omitted if all of the following conditions are met: 1. The asphalt pavement layer is placed within two weeks of completion of base and/or subbase course. 2. Traffic is not routed over completed base before paving. 3. Construction is completed during the dry season of May through October. 4. The base is kept free of debris prior to placement of asphaltic concrete. If construction is performed during the wet season of November through April, prime coat may be omitted if no rain occurs between completion of base course and paving and the time between completion of base and paving is reduced to three days, provided the base is free of loose soil or debris. Where prime coat has been omitted and rain occurs, traffic is routed over base course, or paving is delayed, measures should be taken to restore Newman Buch, LLC W.0. 4581-E-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas January 10, 2005 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581e.eoe Page 4 base course and subgrade to conditions that will meet specifications as directed by the soil engineer. Drams Positive drainage shall be provided for all surface water to drain towards the curb and gutter, or to an approved drainage channel. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved areas, measures should be taken to minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement section, such as thickened edges, cut-offs, etc. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory study are believed to be representative of the total area. However, variations from the anticipated conditions and actual field conditions should be expected. Test excavations are reflective of the soil and rock materials only at the specific location explored. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Since our study is based on the earth materials obtained in the field onsite, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions based upon those parameters. These opinions have been derived in accordance with the current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change in time. Overall,the enclosed results represent our professional opinions and evaluations which were performed within the constraints cf a budget. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-E-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas January 10, 2005 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 e.eoe Page 5 w 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, GeoSoils, Inc. ryan E. ss Project eologist _��p,ED OFO V FESSlpN9 y�OP'v' �Q� Q•�w T AW. NO. 1340 OR ohn P. Franklin ep cerEad _ No. GE2920 m ° s x� Andrew T. Guatelli # Exp. 12-3105 ZD ngineering Geolog 1 Geotechnical Enginee s O BEV/ATG/JPF/jk A4 FOF OALIFO�`� Attachments: Appendix A - References Appendix B - Boring Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Data Distribution: (1) Addressee (3) Pasco Engineering, Inc., Attention; Mr. Brian Ardolino Newman Buch, LLC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas W.0. 4581-E-SC Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581e.eoe January 10, 2005 Page 6 APPENDIX A REFERENCES I APPENDIX A REFERENCES California Department of Transportation, 1995, Caltrans, Standard Specifications, July printing. City of Encinitas, Engineering Service Department, 1993, Public Road Standards GeoSoils, Inc., 2004, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, 267 Sanford Street, Proposed three-lot subdivision, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4581-A-SC, dated November 30. NEWCON90, Computer program for the determination of asphalt pavement sections, version: April 30, 1991. PAVE, Computer program for the determination of asphalt concrete pavement sections. PCAPAV, Thickness design of highway and street pavements, Portland Cement Association, revised 1990. State of California, Department of Transportation, 1987, Highway design manual of instructions, fourth edition. GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX B BORING LOGS 7 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY Major Divisions Group T Symbols YPical Names CRITERIA Well-graded gravels and gravel- C y GW sand mixtures,little or no fines Standard Penetration Test N � O Poorly graded gravels and Penetration N o U o GP gravel-sand mixtures,little or no Resistance N Relative o m E � fines (blows/ft) Density N O y O y o o m y Silty gravels gravel-sand-silt 0-4 Very loose 0 Z °n > -C GM mixtures C m�° m (� 4-10 Loose = GC Clayey gravels,gravel-sand-clay 5 •5 mixtures 10-30 Medium Cb P N Well-graded sands and gravelly U0 o � m� SW sands,little or no fines 30 50 Dense L g ° v, E5 v> >50 Very dense o U' 'r' `i SP Poorly graded sands and m : c Z gravelly sands,little or no fines rn m N a) o y SM Silty sands,sand-silt mixtures EO 20 c m °- � 3 Clayey sands,sand-clay SC mixtures Inorganic silts,very fine sands, Standard Penetration Test ML rock flour,silty or clayey fine CA sands CD v m Inorganic clays of low to Unconfined Penetration Compressive in �v `o medium plasticity,gravelly clays, o m e CL Resistance N Strength o .g- sandy clays,silty clays,lean 9 oa J Ln clays (blows/ft) Consistency (tons/ft) 0 o Z m N Organic silts and organic silty <2 Very Soft <0.25 S] OL clays of low plasticity 0 a 2-4 Soft 0.25-050 c m Inorganic silts,micaceous or iL E y a MH diatomaceous fine sands or silts, 4-8 Medium 0.50-1.00 o R= tnn elastic silts U .E m 8-15 Stiff 1.00-2.00 10`� m `� CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, Y J fat clays 15-30 Very Stiff 2.00-4.00 in m °' OH Organic clays of medium to high >30 Hard >4.00 plasticity Highly Organic Soils PT Peat,mucic,and other highly organic soils 3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 U.S.Standard Sieve Unified Soil Cobbles Gravel Sand Sift 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% y p p 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 Vert'Moist Above optimum moisture content some 25-45% V Groundwater Wet Visible free water;below water table Op Pocket Penetrometer BASIC LOG FORMAT: Group ename,Group symbol,(grain size),color,moisture,consistency or relative density. Additional comments:odor,presence of roots,mica,gypsum, grained particles,etc. SAMPLE: 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,1SoilClassif.wpd PLATE B-1 GeoSoils, Inc. BORINGL 0 W.O. 4581-E-SC PROJECT.-NEWNIAN SUCH, LLC 267 Sanford Street BORIPJG S-1 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE EXCAVATED 1-5-05 Sample SAMPLE METHOD. HAND AUGER(HYGEIA STREET) c n Standard Penetration Test E o L y y rn m o ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample Groundwater Y U) l] m 0 U) N Fn ° ° U) Description of Material PAVEMENT: Sm 0-5"ASPHALTIC CONCRETE. TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 5"SILTY SAND, orange brown, damp to moist, dense. Total Depth=3' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1-5-2005 5 I !� I I �I 267 Sanford Street GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE S-2 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 4581-E-SC PROJECT.-NEWMAN BUCH, LLC 267 Sanford Street BORING B-2 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE EXCAVATED 1-5-05 � Sample SAMPLE METHOD: HAND AUGER(SANFORD STREET) 0 L) Standard Penetration Test m r co CD ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample Groundwater U Z) 3 d c o U) o (n Description of Material PAVEMENT: s 0-3%"ASPHALTIC CONCRETE. TERRACE DEPOSITS- @3Y2" SILTY SAND, orange brown, moist, dense. Total Depth =2' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1-5-2005 5 I II I i i i i 267 Sanford Street GeoSoils, Inc. PL ATE B-3 APPENDIX C LABORATORY DATA TEST SPECIMAN Compactor air pressure A B C D Water added PSI 350 350 350 Moisture at compaction -0.7 0.0 0.7 Height of sample % 9.4 10.2 11.0 Dry density IN 2.48 2.51 2.5 R-Value by exudation PCF 120.8 119.0 118.6 R-Value by exudation, corrected 77 70 64 Exudation pressure 77 70 64 Stability thickness PSI 453 257 150 Expansion pressure thickness FT 0.29 0.38 0.46 FT 0.30 0.13 0.00 DESIGN CALCULATION DATA Traffic index, assumed SAMPLE INFORMATION 5.0 Sample Location: Sanford and Hygeia Street Gravel equivalent factor, assumed 1.25 Sample Description: Dark Brown Silty Sand Expansion, stability equilibrium 0.28 R-Value by expansion Notes: RV-1 78 R-Value by exudation 0% Retained on 3/4 inch sieve R-Value at equilibrium 72 Test Method: Cal-Trans Test 301 72 R-Value By Exudation Expansion,Stability Equilibrium 80 2.00 70 H I 60 41.50 j c E 50 d � y 1.00 I I j 40 m i � CL` I 0 30 .y � I Q0.50 1 20 X w 10 0,00 I . 0.00 0.50 1.00 0 , 1.50 2.00 Stability Thickness(ft) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Exudation Pressure(psi) GeoSoils, Inc. R -VALUE TEST RESULTS 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Project: NEWMAN BUCH, LLC Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760) 931-0915 Number: 4581-E-SC Date: Jan-OS Plate: C - 1 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 267 SANFORD STREET, PROPOSED THREE-LOT SUBDIVISION ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR NEWMAN BUCH, LLC 17902 POINT REYES STREET FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 W.O. 4581-A-SC NOVEMBER 30, 2004 ti JAN 1 8 2006 1 0/ s s' • Geotechnical * Geologic -, Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 November 30, 2004 W.O. 4581-A-SC Newman Buch, LLC 17902 Point Reyes Street Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention: Mr. Floyd Buch Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 267 Sanford Street, Proposed Three-Lot Subdivision, Encinitas, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Buch: 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, residential 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 the tentative map provided by Cohn and Associates, Architecture Planning, it appears that the proposed development will consist of the preparation of three relatively level building pads for the construction of single-family residences, with associated infrastructure (i.e., underground utilities, streets, etc.). It is our understanding that a basement sub-floor is proposed for the new residences at a depth of ±10 feet below finish grade. It appears that sewage disposal will be tied into the municipal system. The need for import soils is unknown at this time. • Excavation into Quaternary-age terrace deposits will be necessary prior to foundation construction of the basement sub-floor areas. In general, unsuitable soils are on the order of ±3 to ±4 feet across a majority of the site. However, localized deeper removals cannot be precluded. It is anticipated that the removal of unsuitable bearing materials will be performed by default during excavation for the basement areas to design grades, and thus, should not adversely affect proposed improvements in those areas. • As a result of the relatively non-cohesive, sandy soils at depth on portions of the site, vertical excavations shall conform to CAL-OSHA and/or OSHA requirements for Type C soils. Temporary cut slopes up to a maximum height of ±20 feet may be excavated at a 1112:1 (horizontal to vertical f h:v]) gradient,or flatter, based on the available data. However, preliminary shoring recommendations are included herein, and may be incorporated into the foundation design by the structural engineer. Consultation with a qualified shoring engineer is recommended. • The expansion potential of tested onsite soils is generally very low. Conventional foundations may be utilized for these soil conditions. • Foundation systems should be designed to accommodate a worst-case differential settlement of at least 1 inch in a 40-foot span. • Typical samples of the site materials were analyzed for corrosion/soluble sulfate potential. The testing included determination of pH,soluble sulfates,and saturated resistivity. At the time of this report the results were not available. An addendum to this report will be issued when the testing is complete. • 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), and should be anticipated. Thus, more onerous slab design for mitigation is warranted. Regional groundwater is anticipated to exist at, or near, Mean Sea Level (MSL). • Exterior basement walls should be waterproofed. If gravel backdrains for the basement walls are proposed,the drains should outlet via a sump pump. In lieu of backdrains, the basement walls should be designed to withstand the increased hydrostatic pressure. • Our evaluation indicates that the site has a very low potential for liquefaction due to the dense nature of the Quaternary-age terrace deposits that underlies the site and the depth to the regional groundwater table. Therefore, no recommendations for mitigation are deemed necessary. • Field mapping in the site vicinity,noted the presence of numerous paleoliquefaction (ancient) features ("sand blows," liquefaction craters, sand filled fissures and injection dikes, sand vents, etc.), which may likely exist within the site. Potential Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC Fi1e:e:\wp914500\4581a.pge Page TWO liquefaction in such areas in the future, impacting surface improvements, is considered very low, provided that the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into design and construction of this project. Mitigation for structures may be provided by the use of post-tensioned and/or structural slabs, should such features be encountered during site grading/excavation. • Our evaluation indicates there are no known active faults crossing the site. • The seismic acceleration values and design parameters provided herein should be considered during the design of the proposed development. • Adverse geologic features that would preclude project feasibility were not encountered, based on the available data. • 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 greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. F. V OoFESS14 r rl ',n Bryan Voss .'C4%��c ��0� �1Zl SHANK '91F, Project Geologist 4�'�r'`'p' R' �% No. 2R96 m 1:0. 1340 ¢ Ex 1 9 — 7D n P. Franklin `s`T � y3g:at �c Ben Shahrvini �F F CAL�F�Q Engineering Geologi G. Geotechnical Engineer,GE BEV/JPF/BBS/jk Distribution: (4) Addressee Newman Buch, LLC W.O.4581-A-SC File:eAwp9\4500\4581a.pge Page Three TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE CONDITIONS/PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE EXPLORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Artifical Fill - Undocumented (Map Symbol - afu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Quaternary Colluvium/Topsoil (Not Mapped) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quaternary-age Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Regional Faults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 LocalFaulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Seismic Shaking Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Seismic Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 OTHER GEOLOGIC HAZARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 9 LABORATORY TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Moisture-Density Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Laboratory Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Expansion Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Direct Shear Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Corrosion/Sulfate Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 General Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Demolition/Grubbing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Treatment of Existing Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Fill Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Transition Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Shoring . . . . . . General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Lateral Pressures " " " " " " " ' 15 Design of Soldier Piles . " " " 15 Lagging . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Internal Bracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Deflection 16 Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 16 RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preliminary Foundation Design 16 Bearing Value 16 Lateral Pressure . " " " " " " 17 Foundation Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . " " " " " " ' 17 Footing Setbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Construction 18 Very Low Expansion Potential (E.I. 0 to 20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 18 UTILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Conventional Retaining Walls ' ' ' ' 20 Restrained Walls . . " ' " " " " " " " " ' 20 Cantilevered Walls • • ' " " " " " " " ' 20 Retaining Wall Backfll and Drainage . • . . " • • • • • • • • . 20 Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions • • • • • • • . - 21 TOP-OF-SLOPE WALLS/FENCES/IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slope Creep 25 Top of Slope Walls/Fences 25 . . . 26 DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 27 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slope Deformation . . . . . . . . . 29 Slope Maintenance and Planting . . . . . . . . ' ' ' ' . ' • • • • • . . . . 29 Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Toe of Slope Drains/Toe Drains " " " . . ' . ' . • • • • • • . . . 30 Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Landscape Maintenance ' ' • • • • • • • . . . 31 Gutters and Downspouts . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . ' • • • • • • • • • • • 31 Subsurface and Surface Water ' ' ' . ' ' ' ' ' • • • . • • • • • . . . 34 Site Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 . . . . . . . Tile Flooring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Additional Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Newman Buch, LLC Fi1e:eAwp9\4500\4581a.pge Table of Contents Page ii Footing Trench Excavation Trenching/Temporary Construction Backcuts 35 Utility Trench Backfill " " " " " " ' 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING . . . . . . . . . OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS . . . . . . . . . PLAN REVIEW . . . . . . . . . LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . FIGURES: Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - California Fault Map . . . , , , " " " " " " " 2 Detail 1 - Typical Retaining Wall backfll and Drainage . . • 5 Detail 2 - Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail Ge telxtile Drain . 22 Detail 3 - Retaining Wall and Subdrain Detail Clean Sand Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Detail 4 - Schematic Toe Drain Detail Detail 5 - Subdrain Along Retaining " " • • • • • • • . 32 g Wal! Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - References Appendix B - Boring Logs . . . . , , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • • • • - • • • Rear of Text Appendix C - EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, and FRISKSP . , . . _ . . . . ' ' • • Rear of Text Appendix D - Laboratory Data Rear of Text Appendix E-General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . Rear of Text Plate 1 - Boring Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .• • • • • • • • • • • . . . Rear of Text in Folder Newman Buch, LLC File:eAwp9\4500\4581a.pge Table of Contents Page iii PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 267 SANFORD STREET, PROPOSED THREE-LOT SUBDIVISION ENCINITAS, 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. Geologic site reconnaissance,subsurface exploration,sampling,and mapping(see Appendix B). 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 and accompaniments. SITE CONDITIONS/PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The site consists of a rectangular shaped property, located on south side of Sanford Street in the Encinitas, San Diego County, California (see Figure 1). Our site visit indicated that the property is occupied by one single-family residence. The property is relatively flat lying and appears to drain toward the northwest. According to a USGS 1968 (photo revised 1975) Encinitas Quadrangle map, the subject site is approximately ±81 to ±89 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Based on the plans provided, it is our understanding that proposed construction will consist of complete removal of the existing structure and constructing a three-lot subdivision/lot split with three new single-family residences with a basements extending approximately 10 feet below surface grades. Cut and fill grading techniques would be utilized to create design grades for the proposed three single-family residential structures. It is anticipated that the proposed structures will be one- or two-stories, and will use continuous footings and slab-on-grade floors, with wood-frame and/or masonry block construction. Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light construction. The need for import soils is unknown. SITE EXPLORATION Surface observations and subsurface exploration were performed on November 9, 2004, by a representative of this office. A survey of line and grade for the subject lot was not r 12 SITE N'. % Leu adia'.. I Im tA loco iUl -PO jff Base Map: TOPO!(52003 National Geographic, USGS Encinitas Quadran le, California-San Diego Co., 7.5-Minute. g 7 klw rr J� U1 1000 FEET ILI '41 F1 • Base Map:The Thomas Guide, San Diego Co. Street Guide and Directory,2005 Edition, by Thomas Bros. Maps, page 1147. - SCALE IS APPROXIMATE Reproduced with permission g,arzed by Thomas Bros.Maps. W.0. This maT s copy,,ghted by Thcmas Bros.Maps, It is unlawful to 4581-A-SC copy or recrcduce all or any par!thereof,whether for personal or GeoS®i Inc. resale.without Permiss;on. All rights Reserved r SITE LOCATION MAP Raure I conducted by this firm at the time of our site reconnaissance. Near surface soil conditions were explored with three hollow stem auger borings within the site to evaluate soil and geologic conditions. The approximate location of each boring is shown on the attached Boring Location Map (see Plate 1). Boring logs are presented in Appendix B. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The subject property is located within a prominent natural eomor hic province southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It ischaracterized by steep, elongated mountain ranges and valleys that trend northwesterly. The mountain ranges are 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. The site is situated in an area underlain by Pleistocene Terrace deposits. SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS The site geologic units encountered during our subsurface investigation and site reconnaissance included undocumented artificial fill, colluvium/topsoil, and terrace deposits. The earth materials are generally described below from the youngest to the oldest. The distribution of these materials is shown on Plate 1. Artifical Fill - Undocumented (Map Symbol afu) An area in the south eastern portion of the property appears to consist of relatively recently placed undocumented fill. Based on our exploration, thickness of this fill is estimated to be on the order of ±2 feet or so. Based on their appearance and classification, these fill soils appeared to have been locally derived and generally consist of dry to moist, loose, silty sand. As a result of the potentially compressible nature of these soils, they are considered unsuitable for support of structures and/or improvements in their existing state and will require removal during excavation within the site, if settlement sensitive structures are proposed within their influence. These soils were visually classified as having a very low to perhaps low expansion potential. Newman Buch, LLC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas W.0. 4581-A-SC Fi1e:e:Iwp914500\4581a.pge November 30, 2004 _._. .__..... .__ Page 3 Quaternary C011uyium/TOpSOil (Not Mapped) C011uvium/topsoil mantles the majority of the site at the surface. The thickness of the colluvium/topsoil is on the order of ±3 feet thick and is comprised of reddish brown silty sands that are dry and loose. These soils were observed to be porous in nature and therefore are potentially compressible in their existing state and will require removal during excavation within the site, if settlement-sensitive structures are proposed within their influence. Quaternary-age Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol I Qt) Terrace deposits were observed to underlie the site, and generally consist of medium dense to very dense silty sands. These deposits are generally reddish brown to orange brown and dry to wet. The upper±1 foot of these sediments are generally weathered and considered unsuitable for structural support in its present potentially compressible in their existing state and will require removal ldringeexcavat on within the site, if settlement sensitive structures are proposed within their influence. Bedding structure was not readily observed, but regionally is generally sub-horizontal to flat lying. These sediments are typically massive to weakly bedded. 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): ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME APPROXIMATE DISTANCE MILES (KM) Rose Canyon 3.9 (6.2) Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) 9.6 (15.4) Coronado Banks 18.8 (30.2) Newman Buch, LLC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas W.0. 4581-A-SC Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581a.pge November 30, 2004 _. Page 4 CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP 1100 267 Sanford Street 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 •qc�xy->D 0 0 b si -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 W.O. 4581-A-SC Figure 2 ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME APPROXIMATE DISTANCE MILES (KM) Elsinore-Temecula 26.7 (43.0) Elsinore-Julian 26.7 (43.0) Elsinore-Glen Ivy 39.4 (63.4) Palos Verdes 39.8 (64.0) Earthquake Valley 42.3 (68.0) San Jacinto-Anza 49.6 (79.8) San Jacinto-San Jacinto Valley 51.1 (82.2) Local Faulting No local faulting was observed to transect the site during the field investigation. Additionally, a review of regional geologic maps does not indicate the presence of local faults crossing the site. Seismicity The acceleration-attenuation relations of Sadigh et al. (1997) Horizontal-Rock/Stiff Soil, Bozorgnia, Campbell and Niazi(1999)Horizontal-Soft Rock-Correlation and Campbell and Bozorgnia (1997 Rev.) Soft Rock, Horizontal-Random have been incorporated into EQFAULT(Blake,2000a). For this study,peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were determined based on the random mean plus 1 - sigma attenuation curve and mean attenuation curve developed by Joyner and Boore (1981, 1982a, 1982b, 1988 and 1990), Bozorgnia, Cambell, and Niazi (1999), and Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994). EQFAULT is a computer program by Thomas F. Blake (2000a), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 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 any of at least 30 user-selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT. Based on the EQFAULT program, peak horizontal ground accelerations from an upper bound event at the site may be on the order of O.43g to 0.75g. 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 ldriss (1994) Horizontal-Rock/Stiff Soil and the computer program EQSEARCH (Blake, 2000b). Newman Buch, LLC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas W.O. 4581-A-SC Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581a.pge November 30, 2004 Page 6 This program was utilized to perform a search of historical earthquake records for magnitude 5.0 to 9.0 seismic events within a 100-mile radius, between the years 1800 through 2002. Based on the selected acceleration-attenuation relation, a peak horizontal ground acceleration has been estimated, which may have affected the site during the specific seismic events in the past. Based on the available data and attenuation relationship used, the estimated maximum (peak) site acceleration during the period 1800 through 2002 was 0.548. In addition, a seismic recurrence curve is also estimated/generated from the historical data (see 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 these data,and considering the relative seismic activity of the southern California region, a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.30g 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 ([UBC], International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 1997) 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*) So Seismic Coefficient C2(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*) 1.15 Distance to Seismic Source 3.9 mi (6.2 km) Seismic Source Type (per Table 16-U*) B Upper Bound Earthquake (Rose Canyon Fault) Mw 6.9 F_- Figure and Table references from Chapter 16 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997) Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 Page 7 Fi1e:eAwp9\4500\4581 a.pge 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: • Liquefaction • Dynamic Settlement • Surface Fault Rupture • Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture • Tsunami It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of a "maximum probable" or "maximum credible" [upper bound] 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. OTHER GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Mass wasting refers to the various processes by which earth materials are moved down slope in response to the force of gravity. Examples of these processes include slope creep, surficial failures, and deep-seated landslides. Creep is the slowest form of mass wasting and generally involves the outer 5 to 10 feet of a slope surface. During heavy rains, such as those in 1969, 1978, 1980, 1989, 1993, and 1998, creep-affected materials may become saturated, resulting in a more rapid form of downslope movement (i.e., landslides and/or surficial failures). The site topography is relatively flat-lying, no such slopes are proposed, and indications of deep-seated landsliding on the site were not observed during our site reconnaissance. Therefore,the potential for seismically induced landsliding is considered low to nil. GROUNDWATER Subsurface water (i.e., perched groundwater)was encountered at a depth on the order of ±17 feet below grade within the property during field work performed in preparation of this report. Subsurface water 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. W.O. 4581-A-SC Newman Buch, LLC November 30, 2004 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas Page 8 ra •�•�....o dSnn\d5R1 a_noe Seeps, springs, or other indications of a high groundwater level were not noted on the subject property during the time of our field investigation. However, seepage may occur locally (as the result of heavy precipitation or irrigation) in areas where any fill soils overlie terrace deposits. 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. However, the regional groundwater level is anticipated to be deeper than ±80 feet below the site and the site is underlain by dense Terrace deposits. Since at least three of these five required concurrent conditions discussed above do not have the potential to affect the site,and considering the recommended remedial removals of low density surficial soils, our evaluation indicates that the potential for liquefaction and associated adverse effects within the site is very low,even with afuture rise in groundwater levels. Therefore, it is our opinion that the liquefaction potential does not constitute a significant risk to site development. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 Page 9 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581 a.pge 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. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The soil classifications are shown on the Boring 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 Logs in Appendix B. Laboratory Standard The maximum density and optimum moisture content was determined for the major soil type encountered in the borings. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D-1557. The moisture-density relationship obtained for this soil is shown in the following table: MAXIMUM DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE LOCATION SOIL TYPE (PCF} CONTENT (%) B-1 @ 0-4' SILTY SAND, Orange Brown 129.5 9.5 Expansion Potential Expansion testing was performed on a representative sample of site soil in accordance with UBC Standard 18-2. The results of expansion testing are presented in the following table. LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL B-1 @ 0-5 <5 Very Low Newman Buch, LLC W.O.4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 Page 10 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581a.pge Direct Shear Test Sheartesting was performed on representative,undisturbed samples 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 result are presented as follows and in Appendix D: PRirAARY RESIDUAL SAMPLE LOCATION COHESION FRICTION ANGLE COHESION FRICTION ANGLE (PS (DEGREES) PS (DEGREES) B-1 9 10' 106 33 113 33 (undisturbed) B-1 @ 15' 116 34 162 31 (undisturbed) B-2 @ 7' 95 33 73 33 (undisturbed) B-3 9 15' 115 37 141 32 (undisturbed) Corrosion/Sulfate Testing Typical samples of the site materials were analyzed for corrosion/soluble sulfate potential. The testing included determination of pH,soluble sulfates,and saturated resistivity. Atthe time of this report the results were not available. An addendum to this report will be issued when the testing is complete. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS General Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the subject site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in the following sections are incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the proposed development and improvements are: • Earth materials characteristics and depth to competent bearing material. • On-going expansion and corrosion potential of site soils. • Subsurface water and potential for perched water. • Slope stability. • Regional seismic activity. Newman Buch, LLC W.0. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 Page 11 File:eAwp9\4500\4581 a.pge The recommendations presented herein consider these as well as other aspects of the site. The engineering analyses performed concerning site preparation and the recommendations presented herein have been completed using the information provided and obtained during our field work. In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report verified or modified in writing by this office. Foundation design parameters are considered preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this office for review. 1. Soil engineering, observation, and testing services should be provided during grading to aid the contractor in removing unsuitable soils and in his effort to compact the fill. 2. Geologic observations should be performed during grading to verify and/or further evaluate geologic conditions. Although unlikely, if adverse geologic structures are encountered, supplemental recommendations and earthwork may be warranted. 3. Existing undocumented artificial fill and colluvial soils to depths ranging from ±2 to +3 feet and the upper ±1 foot of weathered terrace deposits are considered unsuitable for the support of settlement-sensitive structures in their present condition, based on current industry standards. Based on our observations, the materials are not uniform, are potentially compressible in their present condition, and may be subject to differential settlement. 4. In general and based upon the available data to date, groundwater is not expected to be a major factor in development of the site. However, due to the nature of the site materials, seepage may be encountered throughout the site along with seasonal perched water within any drainage areas. 5. Exterior basement walls should be waterproofed. If gravel backdrains for the basement walls are proposed,the drains should outlet via a sump pump. In lieu of backdrains, the basement walls should be designed to withstand the increased hydrostatic pressure. 5. General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines are provided at the end of this report as Appendix E. Specific recommendations are provided below. 6. Our laboratory test results and experience on nearby sites related to expansion potential indicate that soils with a very low expansion index underlie the site. This should be considered during project design. Foundation design and construction recommendations are provided herein for very low expansion potential classifications. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 Page 12 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 a.pge 7. As a result of the relatively non-cohesive, sandy soils at depth on portions of the site, vertical excavations shall conform to CAL-OSHA and/or OSHA requirements for Type C soils. Temporary cut slopes up to a maximum height of ±20 feet may be excavated at a 1'/2:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) gradient, or flatter, based on the available data. However, preliminary shoring recommendations are included herein, and may be incorporated into the foundation design by the structural engineer. Consultation with a qualified shoring engineer is recommended. 8. The seismicity-acceleration values provided herein should be considered during the design of the proposed development. General Grading All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in the UBC (ICBO, 1997),the City, and Appendix E (this report),except where specifically superceded in the text of this report. When code references are not equivalent, the more stringent code should be followed. 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 offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. Demolition/Grubbing 1. Vegetation, and any miscellaneous debris should be removed from the areas of proposed grading. 2. Any existing subsurface structures uncovered during the recommended removal should be observed by GSI so that appropriate remedial recommendations can be provided. 3. Cavities or loose soils remaining after demolition and site clearance should be cleaned out and observed by the soil engineer. The cavities should be replaced with fill materials that have been moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Treatment of Existing Ground 1. All undocumented artificial fill, colluvium/topsoil, and the upper weathered terrace deposits should be removed to competent terrace deposits,cleaned of deleterious materials, moisture conditioned, and recompacted if not removed by proposed excavation within areas proposed for settlement-sensitive improvements. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 Page 13 File:eAwp9\4500\4581 a.pge Thicknesses of these materials are discussed in earlier sections of this report. Variations from these thicknesses should be anticipated. Actual depths of removals will be evaluated in the field during grading by the soil engineer. 2. Subsequent to the above removals, the upper 8 inches of the exposed subsoils/bedrock should be scarified, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard, prior to any fill placement. 3. Existing undocumented artificial fill, colluvium/topsoil,and removed natural ground materials may be reused as compacted fill provided that major concentrations of vegetation and miscellaneous debris are removed from the site, prior to or during fill placement. 4. Localized deeper removals may be necessary due to buried drainage channel meanders or dry porous materials. The project soils engineer/geologist should observe all removal areas during the grading. Fill Placement 1. Subsequent to ground preparation, fill materials should be brought to at least 3 to 5 percent above optimum moisture content, placed in thin 6- to 8-inch lifts and mechanically compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. 2. Fill materials should be cleansed of major vegetation and debris prior to placement. 3. Any oversized rock materials greater than 12 inches in diameter should be placed under the recommendations and supervision of the soils engineer and/or removed from the site. Per the UBC,such materials may not be placed within 10 feet of finish grade. General recommendations for placement of oversize materials is presented below and are contained in Appendix E (General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines). Should significant amounts of oversize rock be encountered, recommendations for rock fill placement should be adhered to. 4. Any import materials should be observed and determined suitable by the soils engineer rp for to placement on the site. Foundation designs may be altered if import materials have a greater expansion value than the onsite materials encountered in this investigation. Transition Areas In order to provide for the uniform support of the proposed settlement-sensitive improvements, a minimum 3-foot thick compacted fill blanket is recommended for lots containing earth material transitions (i.e., fill juxtaposed against terrace deposits), as Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 Page 14 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 a.pge discussed herein. Any cut portion of atransition lot or lots with planned fills less than 3 feet should be overexcavated a minimum 3 feet below finish pad grade in order to provide for a minimum 3-foot compacted fill blanket or 24 inches of compacted fill beneath the footings, whichever is greater. The maximum to minimum fill thickness, below settlement-sensitive improvements,should not exceed a ratio of 3:1 (maximum:minimum). The overexcavation should be completed per the UBC (ICBO, 1997), or to a minimum of 5 feet outside the building footprint, whichever is greater. Shoring General Should insufficient space for constructing portions of the proposed residence be encountered, shoring may be required. Shoring should consist of cantilever steel soldier beams placed at a maximum of 6-foot on centers, with a minimum embedment below the bottom of the cut, equivalent to the height of the cut. The ultimate embedment depth should be provided by the project structural engineer and/or shoring designer, based on the geotechnical parameters provided herein. Wood lagging should be installed as the cut progresses to its ultimate configuration. Lateral Pressures For design of cantilevered shoring, a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure may be used. It maybe assumed that the retained soils with a level surface behind the shoring will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 40 pcf. Retained soils with a 2:1 backslope ratio will exert a lateral pressure equal to a fluid with a density of 60 pcf. If street traffic is located within 10 feet of shorings, the upper 10 feet of shoring adjacent to the traffic should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot (psf), which is a result of an assumed 300 psf surcharge behind the shoring due to normal street traffic. Design of Soldier Piles For the design of soldier piles spaced at least two diameters on centers, the allowable lateral bearing value (passive value) of the soils below the level of excavation may be assumed to be 480 psf per depth, up to a maximum of 4,000 psf. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be taken to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed soils. The soldier piles below the excavated levels may be used to resist downward loads, if any. The downward frictional resistance between the soldier piles and the soils below the excavated level may be taken as equal to 300 psf. W.O. 4581-A-SC Newman Buch, LLC November 30, 2004 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas Page 15 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 a.pge Lagging Continuous wood lagging will be required between the soldier piles. The soldier piles should be designed for the full anticipated lateral pressure. However,the pressure on the lagging will be less due to arching in the soils. We recommend that the lagging be designed for the recommended earth pressure, but limited to a maximum value of 500 psf. Internal Bracing Rakers may be required to internally brace the soldier piles. The raker bracing could be supported laterally by temporary concrete footings(deadmen)or by the permanent interior footings. For design of temporary footings, or deadmen, poured with the bearing surface normal to rakers inclined at 45 degrees, a bearing value of 2,500 psf may be used, provided the shallowest point of the footing is at least 1 foot below the lowest adjacent grade. Deflection It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored profile. It should be realized, however,that some deflection will occur. We anticipate thatthis deflection would be on the order of 0.5 inches at the top of the planned 10-to 12-foot shoring. If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary to minimize deflection. If desired to reduce the deflection of the shoring, a greater active pressure leading to a more stiffer section could be used. Monitoring Some means of monitoring the performance of the shoring system is recommended. The monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of the lateral and vertical locations of the tops of all the soldier piles and the lateral movement along the entire lengths of selected soldier piles. We suggest that photographs of the adjacent improvements be made prior to excavation. RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS Preliminary Foundation Design In the eventthatthe information concerning the proposed development plans is not correct or any changes in the design, location, or loading conditions of the proposed structures are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are for the subject site only and shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 Page 16 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 a.pge The information and recommendations presented in this section are considered minimums and are not meant to supercede design(s) by the project structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in structural design. Upon request, GSI could provide additional consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. They are considered preliminary recommendations for proposed construction, in consideration of our field investigation, and laboratory testing and engineering analysis. Our review,fieldwork,and recent and previous laboratory testing indicates that onsite soils have a very low expansion potential range (Expansion Index [E.I.j. less than 20). The preliminary recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented below. Final foundation recommendations should be provided at the conclusion of grading based on laboratory testing of fill materials exposed at finish grade. Bearing Value 1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the latest edition of the UBC. 2. An allowable bearing value of 2,000 psf may be used for design of continuous footings 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep, or isolated pad footings 24 inches square, founded entirely into competent terrace deposits and/or artificial fill and connected by a grade beam or tie beam in at least one direction. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. The above values may be increased by one-third when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. No increase in bearing for footing width is recommended. Lateral Pressure 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. Foundation Settlement Foundations systems should be designed to accommodate a worst-case differential settlement of at least 1 inch in a 40-foot span. W.O. 4581-A-SC Newman Bich, LLC November 30, 2004 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas Page 17 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581a.pge Footing Setbacks While not applicable to the proposed development at the subject site, the following recommendations concerning footing setbacks should be considered if future foundation systems are planned: 1. All footings should maintain a minimum 7-foot horizontal setback from the base of the footing to any descending slope. This distance is measured from the footing face at the bearing elevation. 2. Footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3 (H=slope height) from the base of the footing to the descending slope face and no less than 7 feet nor need to be greater than 40 feet. 3. Footings adjacent to unlined drainage swales should be deepened to a minimum of 6 inches below the invert of the adjacent unlined swale. 4. 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 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 soils expansion potentials are generally in the very low(E.I.O to 20) range. Recommendations for very low expansive soil conditions are presented herein. 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. Very Low Expansion Potential (E.I. 0 to 20) 1. Exterior and interior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches for one-story floor loads, and 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface for two-story floor loads. Column and panel pads should be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches and should be 24 inches square. 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 the UBC (ICBO, 1997). Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30,2004 Page 18 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581a.pge 2. A grade beam,reinforced as above,and at least 12 inches wide 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 square footings should be tied within the main foundation in at least one direction with a grade beam. 3. Residential concrete slabs, including garages, shall be in accordance with Table 19-A-2 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997), for "concrete intended to have a low permeability when exposed to water," (i.e., a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.50 and a minimum strength of 4,000 psi), to mitigate the effects from post-development perched water and to impede water vapor transmission. Slab underlayment should consist of 2 inches of washed sand placed above a vapor barrier consisting of 15-mil polyvinal chloride, or equivalent,with all laps sealed per UBC (ICBO, 1997). 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 should be additionally sealed with suitable slab sealant. 4. Residential concrete slabs, including garage slabs, should be a minimum of 5 inches thick, and should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bar at 18 inches on center in both directions. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the concrete. "Hooking" of reinforcement is not considered an acceptable method of positioning the reinforcement. 5. If proposed, residential garage slabs should be reinforced as above and poured separately from the structural footings and quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings should be maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement. 6. Presaturation is not required for these soil conditions. The moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to or greater than optimum moisture content in the slab areas, prior to concrete placement. UTILITIES 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. Newman Buch, LLC W.O.4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 Page 19 Re:e:\wp9\4500\4581 a.pge 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. 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,depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. 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. Newman Buch, LLC W.O.4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581 a.pge Page 20 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 2 to 1 50 60 * Level backfill behind a retaining wall is defined as compacted earth materials, properly drained, with out 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 1/2-inch to 3/4-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: Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581a.pge Page 21 DETAILS N T . S . 2 Native Backfill 1 Provide Surface Drainage Slope or Level Native Backfill 12" �— Q Rock +12" Filter Fabric 1 (DWaterproofing Membrane(optional) 1 or Flatter 1) Weep Hole Native Backfill Finished Surface 'PIN ® Pipe WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. ® ROCK: 3/4 to 1-1/2" (inches) rock. 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.) TYPICAL RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND DRAINAGE DETAIL • DETAIL 1 Geotechnical o Geologic • Environmental DETAILS N T S . 2 Native Backfill 1 Provide Surface Drainage Slope or Level 6" Native Backfill 7- �i a Waterproofing Membrane(optional) Q Drain 1 1 or Flatter Weep Hole Q Filter Fabric Finished Surface ® Pipe v O Q WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. D DRAIN: Miradrain 6000 or J-drain 200 or equivalent for non-waterproofed walls. Miradrain 6200 or]-drain 200 or equivalent for waterproofed walls. (3) FILTER FABRIC: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent; place fabric flap behind care. ® 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.) RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL GEOTEXTILE DRAIN • DETAIL 2 Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental DETAILS N T S . 2 Native Backfill 1 Provide Surface Drainage Slope or Level . f H/2 — min. +12" Waterproofing 1 Membrane(optional) 1 or Flatter 2 H © Weep Hole Sand Clean Filter Fabric . ® Roc Finished Surface Y Q Pipe Heel Width -4 Q WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. ® 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 cubic foot per linear feet of pipe or 3/4 to 1-1/2" (inches) rock. © 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.) RETAINING WALL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL CLEAN SAND BACKFILL • DETAIL 3 Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental a) A minimum of a 2-foot overexcavation and recompaction of cut materials for a distance of 2H, from the point of transition. 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 nottransition conditions exist. Expansion joints should be sealed with aflexible,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. TOP-OF-SLOPE WALLS/FENCES/IMPROVEMENTS Slope Creep Soils at the site may be expansive and therefore, may become desiccated when allowed to dry. Such soils are susceptible to surficial slope creep, especially with seasonal changes in moisture content. Typically in southern California, during the hot and dry summer period, these soils become desiccated and shrink, thereby developing surface cracks. The extent and depth of these shrinkage cracks depend on many factors such as the nature and expansivity of the soils, temperature and humidity, and extraction of moisture from surface soils by plants and roots. When seasonal rains occur, water percolates into the cracks and fissures, causing slope surfaces to expand, with a corresponding loss in soil density and shear strength near the slope surface. With the passage of time and several moisture cycles, the outer 3 to 5 feet of slope materials experience a very slow, but progressive, outward and downward movement, known as slope creep. For slope heights greater than 10 feet, this creep related soil movement will typically impact all rear yard flatwork and other secondary improvements that are located within about 15 feet from the top of slopes, such as swimming pools, concrete flatwork, etc., and in particular top of slope fences/walls. This influence is normally in the form of detrimental settlement,and tilting of the proposed improvements. The dessication/swelling and creep discussed above continues over the life of the improvements, and generally becomes progressively worse. Accordingly,the developer should provide this information to any homeowners and homeowners association. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 Page 25 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 a.pge Top of Slope Walls;LE ces Due to the potential for slope creep for slopes higher than about 10 feet, some settlement and tilting of the walls/fence with the corresponding distresses, should be expected. To mitigate the tilting of top of slope walls/fences, we recommend that the walls/fences be constructed on deepened foundations without any consideration for creep forces, where the expansion index of the materials comprising the outer 15 feet of the slope is less than 50, or a combination of grade beam and caisson foundations, for expansion indices greater than 50 comprising the slope, with creep forces taken into account. The grade beam should be at a minimum of 12 inches by 12 inches in cross section, supported by drilled caissons, 12 inches minimum in diameter, placed at a maximum spacing of 6 feet on center, and with a minimum embedment length of 7 feet below the bottom of the grade beam. The strength of the concrete and grout should be evaluated by the structural engineer of record. The proper ASTM tests for the concrete and mortar should be provided along with the slump quantities. The concrete used should be appropriate to mitigate sulfate corrosion, as warranted. The design of the grade beam and caissons should be in accordance with the recommendations of the project structural engineer,and include the utilization of the following geotechnical parameters: Creep Zone: 5-foot vertical zone below the slope face and projected upward parallel to the slope face. Creep Load: The creep load projected on the area of the grade beam should be taken as an equivalent fluid approach, having a density of 60 pcf. For the caisson, it should be taken as a uniform 900 pounds per linear foot of caisson's depth, located above the creep zone. Point of Fixity: Located a distance of 1.5 times the caisson's diameter, below the creep zone. Passive Resistance: Passive earth pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth per foot of caisson diameter, to a maximum value of 4,500 psf may be used to determine caisson depth and spacing, provided that they meet or exceed the minimum requirements stated above. To determine the total lateral resistance,the contribution of the creep prone zone above the point of fixity, to passive resistance, should be disregarded. Allowable Axial Capacity: Shaft capacity : 350 psf applied below the point of fixity over the surface area of the shaft. Tip capacity: 4,500 psf- W.O. 4581-A-SC Newman Buch, LLC November 30, 2004 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas Page 26 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581 a.pge 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. 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, '/z to 3/8 inches deep, often enough so that no section is greater than 10 feet by 10 feet. For sidewalks or Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581a.pge Page 27 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 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. Newman Buch, LLC W.0. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 Page 28 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 a.pge DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Slope Deformation Compacted fill slopes designed using customary factors of safety for gross or surficial stability and constructed in general accordance with the design specifications should be expected to undergo some differential vertical heave or settlement in combination with differential lateral movement in the out-of-slope direction, after grading. This post-construction movement occurs in two forms: slope creep, and lateral fill extension (LFE). Slope creep is caused by alternate wetting and drying of the fill soils which results in slow downslope movement. This type of movement is expected to occur throughout the life of the slope, and is anticipated to potentially affect improvements or structures (e.g., separations and/or cracking), placed near the top-of-slope, up to a maximum distance of approximately 15 feet from the top-of-slope, depending on the slope height. This movement generally results in rotation and differential settlement of improvements located within the creep zone. LFE occurs due to deep wetting from irrigation and rainfall on slopes comprised of expansive materials. Although some movement should be expected, long-term movement from this source may be minimized, but not eliminated, by placing the fill throughout the slope region, wet of the fill's optimum moisture content. It is generally not practical to attempt to eliminate the effects of either slope creep or LFE. Suitable mitigative measuresto reduce the potential of lateral deformation typically include: setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the 1997 UBC and/or adopted California Building Code), positive structural separations (i.e., joints) between improvements, and stiffening and deepening of foundations. Expansion joints in walls should be placed no greater than 20 feet on-center, and in accordance with the structural engineer's recommendations. All of these measures are recommended for design of structures and improvements. The ramifications of the above conditions, and recommendations for mitigation, should be provided to each homeowner and/or any homeowners association. Slope Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should be avoided as it adversely affects site improvements,and causes perched groundwater conditions. Graded slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Jute-type matting or other fibrous covers may Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 Page 29 File:eAwp9\4500\4581 a.pge aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing plants other than those recommended above will increase the potential for perched water, staining, mold, etc., to develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented. Irrigation of natural (ungraded) slope areas is generally not recommended. These recommendations regarding plant type, irrigation practices, and rodent control should be provided to each homeowner. Over-steepening of slopes should be avoided during building construction activities and landscaping. 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. Toe of Slope Drains/Toe Drains Where significant slopes intersect pad areas, surface drainage down the slope allows for some seepage into the subsurface materials, sometimes creating conditions causing or contributing to perched and/or ponded water. Toe of slope/toe drains may be beneficial in the mitigation of this condition due to surface drainage. The general criteria to be utilized by the design engineer for evaluating the need for this type of drain is as follows: • Is there a source of irrigation above or on the slope that could contribute to saturation of soil at the base of the slope? Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581a.pge _ Page 30 • Are the slopes hard rock and;or impermeable, or relatively permeable, or; do the slopes already have or are they proposed to have subdrains (i.e., stabilization fills, etc.)? • Are there cut-fill transitions (i.e., fill over bedrock), within the slope? • Was the lot at the base of the slope overexcavated or is it proposed to be overexcavated? Overexcavated lots located at the base of a slope could accumulate subsurface water along the base of the fill cap. • Are the slopes north facing? North facing slopes tend to receive less sunlight (less evaporation) relative to south facing slopes and are more exposed to the currently prevailing seasonal storm tracks. • What is the slope height? It has been our experience that slopes with heights in excess of approximately 10 feet tend to have more problems due to storm runoff and irrigation than slopes of a lesser height. • Do the slopes "toe out" into a residential lot or a lot where perched or ponded water may adversely impact its proposed use? Based on these general criteria, the construction of toe drains may be considered by the design engineer along the toe of slopes, or at retaining walls in slopes, descending to the rear of such lots. Following are Detail 4 (Schematic Toe Drain Detail) and Detail 5 (Subdrain Along Retaining Wall Detail). Other drains may be warranted due to unforeseen conditions, homeowner irrigation, or other circumstances. Where drains are constructed during grading, including subdrains, the locations/elevations of such drains should be surveyed, and recorded on the final as-built grading plans by the design engineer. It is recommended that the above be disclosed to all interested parties,including homeowners and any homeowners association. Erosion Control Cut and fill slopes 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. 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 Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 Page 31 F1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 a.pge DETAILS N . T . S . SCHEMATIC TOE DRAIN DETAIL Drain May Be Constructed into, l�Jl or at,the Toe of Slope Pad Grad Native NOTES: 1.) Soil Cap Compacted to 90 Percent Relative ..,,..Capl Compaction. 12"Minimum 2.) Permeable Material May Be Gravel Wrapped in Filter Fabric(Mirafi 140N or Equivalent). 3.) 4-Inch Diameter Perforated Pipe(SDR 35 or Equivalent)with Perforations Down. 4.) Pipe to Maintain a Minimum 1 Percent Fall. 5.) Concrete Cutoff Wall to be Provided at Transition to Solid Outlet Pipe. Permeable Material 6.) Solid Outlet Pipe to Drain to Approved Area. 7.) Cleanouts are Recommended at Each Property 24" Line. Minimum Drain Pipe I�- 12" —� SCHEMATIC TOE DRAIN DETAIL • DETAIL 4 • Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic • Environmental DETAILS N . T . S . 2:1 SLOPE (TYPICAL) _II II TOP OF WALL - - I �- BACKFILL WITH COMPACTED NOTES: NATIVE SOILS - - - 1.) Soil Cap Compacted to 90 Percent - - - - - - Relative Compaction. RETAINING WALL —\ — _ — — MIN 2.) Permeable Material May Be Gravel \� _ Wrapped in Filter Fabric(Mirafi 140N - - - - - or Equivalent). 3.) 4-Inch Diameter Perforated Pipe r t rcx (SDR-35 of Equivalent)with Perforations Down. f=.r?'='�. •x?. MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR EQUAL FINISHED GRADE ; N 4.) Pipe to Maintain a Minimum 1 Percent Fall. 314"CRUSHED GRAVEL '_" k 5.) Concrete Cutoff Wall to be Provided WALL FOOTING at Transition to Solid Outlet Pipe. Solid Outlet Pipe to Drain to I;aw�C ' Approved Area. rw�^ 7. Cleanouts are Recommended at MI 4"DRAIN Each Property Line. F=z-, E,ri�� •�. g.) Compacted Effort Should Be E Applied to Drain Rock. 12 SUBDRAIN ALONG RETAINING WALL DETAIL NOT TO SCALE SUBDRAIN ALONG RETAINING WALL DETAIL • DETAIL 5 Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic • Environmental 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. 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, 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 Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 Page 34 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 a.pge 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 the will be placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the the 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 [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. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 Page 35 R1e:e_\wp9\4500\4581 a.pge 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. • 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.). Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 File-eAWD9\4500\4581a.pge Page 36 • 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 developer or homeowner improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools, walls, etc., are constructed, 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. 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 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 design criteria specified herein. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-A-SC 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas November 30, 2004 Page 37 Fi1P-P_Awr)9\4500\4581 a.P9e 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. W.O. 4581-A-SC Newman Buch, LLC November 30, 2004 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas Page 38 Fi1e:e:\wo9\4500\4581 a.pge _ APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A REFERENCES Blake, T.F., 2000a, EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version. 2000b, EQSEARCH, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from California historical earthquake catalogs;Windows 95198 version. 2000c, FRISKSP, A computer program for the probabilistic estimation of peak acceleration and uniform hazard spectra using 3-D 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. 1994, Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration from worldwide accelerograms recorded from 1957 to 1993; proceedings, Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. III, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp. 283-292. Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Department of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology,Special Publication 42. Idriss, I.M., 1994, Attenuation coefficients for deep and soft soil conditions; in EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version, Blake, 2000a. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No. 6, scale 1:750,000. Joyner, W.B, and Boore, D.M., 1990, Empirical methods of ground-motion estimation, in Proceedings of the Port of Los Angeles Seismic Workshop, San Pedro, California, March 20-23, in press. 1982a, Estimation of response-spectral values as functions of magnitude, distance and site conditions, in eds., Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, T.F.: AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. 1982b, Prediction of earthquake response spectra, U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 82-977, 16p. Kennedy, M.P. and Tan S.S., 1996, Geologic maps of the northwest part of San Diego County, California., Division of Mines and Geology, Plate 1, scale 1:24,000. Petersen, Mark D., Bryant,W.A., and Cramer, C.H., 1996, Interim table of fault parameters used by the California Division of Mines and Geology to compile the probabilistic seismic hazard maps of California. Sadigh, K., Chang, C.-Y., Egan, J.A., Makdisi, F., and Youngs, R.R., 1997, Attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California strong motion data, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 180-189. Sowers and Sowers, 1970, Unified soil classification system (After U. S. Waterways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New York. Newman Buch, LLC Appendix A R1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 a.pge Page 2 APPENDIX B BORING LOGS BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.0. 4581-A-SC PROJECT: NEWMAN BUCH,LLC BORING B-1 SHEET I OF 1 267 Sanford Street 11-9-04 DATE pCCAVATED Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 140 LB.HAMMER @ 30"DROP cu Standard Penetration Test o g o Groundwater d E m `o ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample Z Cn 0 _ = Description of Material a Y a � o R P 0 m m Z) u) SM UNDOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL: @ 0-2' SILTY SAND, light brown to orange brown, dry, loose; rootlets. --S—M TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 2 -5' SILTY SAND, orange brown, dry, very dense. s s s 5 79 108.7 4.4 22.4 : @ 5 - 10' SILTY SAND, orange brown, dry, dense. s s s s 10- 53 106.0 3.2 15.3 s . s s @ 13' SILTY SAND, light brown, dry, dense. I 15- 45 105.8 4.3 20.2 @ 15' SILTY SAND, light brown, dry, dense. s 75 @ 18' Perched groundwater encountered. 18' SILTY SAND light brown wet very dense. Total Depth = 19' 20 Perched Groundwater Encountered @ 18' Backfilled 11-9-2004 I GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 267 Sanford Street BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 4581-A-SC i PROJECT. NEWMAN BUCH,LLC BORING B-2 SHEET 1 OF 1 267 Sanford Street 9 - 11 -04 DATE EXCAVATED � SAMPLE METHOD: 140 LB.HAMMER @ 30"DROP Sample Standard Penetration Test 6 a o Groundwater c Undisturbed,Ring Sample U) c N (n Description of Material ani c o rUn z V) sM COLLUVI UMJTOPSOIL: @ 0-3' SILTY SAND, reddish brown, moist, loose. s s I s. 3o sM —F20—8 8.0 57.5 @ 3RS'°I`�TM SAND, reddish orange brown, moist, medium dense. s 5 s: s: s @ 6'SILTY SAND, orange brown, damp, medium dense to dense. 42 106.6 5.4 26.2 @ 7' SILTY SAND, reddish brown, damp, dense. s. 10 51 103.9 4.0 18.1 s . s @ 13'SILTY SAND, light brown, dry, dense. s i s: 15 s 75 104.2 8.0 24.2 s @ 17' Perched groundwater encountered. 17'SILTY SAND light brown damp to wet ve dense. Total Depth = 18' Perched Groundwater Encountered @ 17' Backfilled 11-9-2004 20 GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-z 267 Sanford Street BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. yVp, 4581-A-SC PROJECT.•NEWMAN SUCH, LLC BORING B-3 SHEET 1 OF 1 267 Sanford Street DATE EXCAVATED 11-9-04 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 140 LB.HAMMER @ 30"DROP c Standard Penetration Test 0 Groundwater a r c ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample .2 c 3 N a o Cn 2, o Description of Material o m D m :) 1 o 2 V) SM COLLUVIUM/TOPSOIL: s @ 0-2' SILTY SAND, reddish brown, dry, loose to medium s dense w/depth. SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: s @ 2-5' SILTY SAND, orange brown, damp, medium dense. 5- 20 f . s s 9 105.7 8.0 37.4 @ 7' SILTY SAND, light brown, damp, loose. s 10 22 106.8 7.3 35.3 @ 10' SILTY SAND, orange brown, damp, medium dense. s s . s: 15 61 102.1 18.9 80.8 @ 15' Perched groundwater encountered. 15' SILTY SAND light brown wet dense. Total Depth = 16' Perched Groundwater Encountered @ 15' Backfilled 11-9-2004 20 ___ GeoSoils, Inc. r„ ATr R_z APPENDIX C EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, AND FRISKSP MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKES 267 Sanford Street 1 x x x x x O Xx (� x��x i _N O U QX .01 .001 .1 1 10 100 Distance (mi) W.O. 4581-A-SC Plate C-1 EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP 267 Spa Sbxmt 1100 900 \ 800 700 eoo soo �t 400 ` 300 3 200 LEGEND M =4 100 *-a — 6 M =6 _� f Pf _ Za►:. —100 —400 200 200 —100 O 100 200 300 400 500 600 W.O. 4581-A-SC Plate C-2 PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE CAMP. & BOZ. (1997 Rev.) SR 1 0 C� 25 yrs 50 yrs 100 75 yrs 100 rs 90 80 01 0 >, 70 Ca 60 .o 0 50 EL 40 c c� -0 30 cu a� x 20 uJ 10 0 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1 .00 1 .25 1 .50 Acceleration (g) W.O. 4581-A-SC Plate C-3 Return Period (yrs) -1 0 00 -1 0 0 0 m 0 0. 0 0 .� 0 0 0 0 0 00 �7 n z o D °p C3i m 90 coo Do 00 0 � C o c� (n cfl o� C n n cn M � m III I HIM T Ln D 1 HIM IIIIIII N 0 �n 1111111, 1 11 Z 0 W.O. 4581-A-SC Plate C-4 APPENDIX D LABORATORY DATA 3,000 2,500 2,000 N CL Z LU 1,500 F 1,000 500 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 NORMAL PRESSURE,psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Yd Mc% C • B-1 10.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 106.8 3.2 106 33 ■ B-1 10.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 106.8 3.2 113 33 0 5 N Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing m GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST 5741 Palmer Way Project: Newman Buch, LLC GeoSoils, Inc. Carlsbad, CA 9200E LOU ' Telephone: (760)438-3155 Number: 4581-A-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: November 2004 Plate: D- 1 fn 3,000 2,500 O I 2,000 N CL Z UJ 1,500 H o! 1,000 500 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 NORMAL PRESSURE,psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Yd MC% C • B-1 15.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 106.8 4.3 116 34 0 ■ B-1 15.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 106.8 4.3 162 31 0 m Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing m GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST 5741 Palmer Way Project: Newman Buch, LLC Geo90;1 a;Inc. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Number. 4581-A-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: November 2004 Plate: D-2 Cn 3,000 2,500 2,000 N CL S C7 Z 1,500 CO co 1,000 500 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 NORMAL PRESSURE,psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type 7d MC% C • B-2 7.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 107.3 5.4 95 33 0 ■ B-2 7.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 107.3 5.4 73 33 CL 0 c� m 5 c� Note:Sample Innundated prior to testing m GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST 5741 Palmer Way Project: Newman Buck, LLC GeoSoils,Dir- Carlsbad, CA 92008 e: „1:r Telephone: (760)438-3155 Number: 4581-A-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: November2004 Plate: D -3 N 3,000 2,500 • 2,000 ■ N CL F- Z fit 1,500 AIN co 1,000 500 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 NORMAL PRESSURE,psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Yd MC% C $ • B-3 15.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 100.1 18.9 115 37 a ■ B-3 15.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 100.1 18.9 141 32 O f7 m 5 N c� Note:Sample Innundated prior to testing m GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST 5741 Palmer Way Project: Newman Buch, LLC GeoSoils;Inc. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 4581-A-SC o Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: November 2004 Plate: D-4 Cn 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 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 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 clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior to placing and fill. It is the contractors'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-1557-78. Random field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test method ASTM designation D-1556-82, D-2937 or D-2922 and D-3017, at intervals of approximately 2 feet of fill height or every 100 cubic yards of fill 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 geotechnical consultants 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 major 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. Existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in-place should be removed prior to 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 fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface Newman Buch, LLC Appendix E File:e:\wp9\4500\4581a.pge Page 2 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 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 grater that 6 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 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 form 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, hollow, 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), 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 toe 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. Newman Buch, LLC Appendix E Fi1e:eAwp914500\4581 a.pge Page 3 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 bedrock derived 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 be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces. To facilitate future trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the developers 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 its physical properties. 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 6 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 condition, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture. Newman Buch, LLC Appendix E Fi1e:e:1wp91450014581a.pge 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 maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation, D-1557-78, 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. 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. Afinal 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 (horizontal to vertical), specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, and special grading procedures, may 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 verify compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to Newman Buch, LLC Appendix E Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581a.pge Page 5 achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm compaction after grid rolling. 5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix and re-compact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to verify 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 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 re-filling 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 cut slopes are started. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potential adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate and make recommendations to treat these problems. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not. 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 contractors responsibility. Newman Buch, LLC Appendix E File:eAwp91450014581a.pge Page 6 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 filled 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 GeoSoils, Inc. (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 rime 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: Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractors 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. Newman Buch, LLC Appendix E File:e:lwp9\450014581a.pge Page 7 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 beacon, 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 technicians's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative (dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technicians safety and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away form 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 decreased 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 operation distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. 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. Newman Buch, LLC Appendix E Fi1e:e:1wp91450014581a.pge Page 8 In the event that the technicians safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractors 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 contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. However, in the interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill place 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 brings this to his/her attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors representative and the soils 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 contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect 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 authorities. Newman Such, LLC Appendix E File:eAwp9\4500\4581a.pge Page 9 CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL TYPE A PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL ��•/j ,,,—NATURAL GROUND 0-0� COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) .0. i� BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHING �� !\ �:0� �--Z'z SEE ALTERNATIVES TYPE B PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL NATURAL GROUND � /x,1�� oop ll �` COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) ol ice•/ BEDROCK _ �0. TYPICAL BENCHING SEE ALTERNATIVES NOTE: ALTERNATIVES, LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SUBORAINS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST-DURING GRADING. CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL 12' MINIMUM 6' 14IN Imu FILTER MATERIAL' MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 FT.' /LINEAR FT. 6. 0 ASS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED • ' - ' MINIMUM SUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM 8 (1/4' PERFS. LINEAR FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE. ASTM 02751. SOR 35 OR ASTM D1527. SCHO, 40 • •6' MINIMUM A-' FOR CONTINUOUS RUN N EXCESS OF 5b0CFT..' 40 B--1 USE 8 PIPE •FILTER MATERIAL. SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 INCH . 100 •314 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_ 13-,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 BACKCUT VARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS. ��`� BACKCUT SHOULD BE MADE NO STEEPER TRAP t:1 OR AS NECESSARY �;, ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL FOR SAFETY -., CONSIDERATIONS; � DEPTH PER SOIL ENGtItEER. - - - - - - - - - - - - t, Ins" PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM UM PROJECTION FROM TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED REMOVAL DEPTH. SLOPE HEIGHT. SITE CONDITIONS AMOJOR 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 ,f Oaf `r10� Oaf 001 (TO BE REMOVED) IEXISTING,COMPACTED FILL) Fes.`` LEGEND - TO BE REMOVED BEFORE Oaf ARTIFICIAL FILL PLACING ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL Gal ALLUVIUM PLATE EG-3 o = ww 0 Lu Z Z W Z5 w a. w �z > a U _J Q W O J cr cr--1 LL � I _ - I o Q } I Ww 1 C QN W C o W I z o = z Q w F z I U LL 4 1- w C x J - W w _] W a. m m tY3 J 0 ( Q J U { ZO Cn a d z Z d m z o w Q C x W J O ? 0: O in M v = Y J- Z W Z X d ? O Q U W W CD f O D MM O In W N J W W X m Y � Q Q J M � p o w 2 x z O a. w z O • F- Ln ` 4 LL m p O. O Q W w �' U U to J N -< Ln LL � W N p _ N w F- � fn _ m w - O N O O Q F- 0 Z LL C7 O �� J w M z N z O W O � Q n C ) 3 W J Q Q U w 4. :J r U N In PLATE EG-4 u z U) ° o z ? LL w w ° N cn o m J Q Q o o = 0 Lu <Ln M CL O m O f'7 �� F. F, w a O �? o Z ° I I I I 1 I I o 0 > z ° Lo O7 z Q J N LLI U O O rq O t1) O O LL. = w O'i �f N +- w m U O. Q O w W W -J� W w W z Z > a J a,., o a Z z w w Q a W = > W J -� a. _ = N Z O N U O > v CO O O O - a v1 Z v O O It Z W U Z Z M to �y w O a w N O ri W W < > ? v cc ° O < J Q > �_ Z O W QLL O to cry � Z Z Z Z Z C LLLL Q Ln Z z < N Q w w m c7 W M Z 1�, Z > LtJ m U. C } c-� 0 w O Q ° p CL- U U c N � n- N �° J W 0 Q �- _N.I Q_ p O a I- --� p Q I- LL N J p tr N I Lr W Q O LL J = ~ O to [n 0 U. C/1 O Z > LL Q Z Ln 0 U Z O a w w Y •--1 U O N � � Li Q w Q F- w a U �' Q Z "' z w 0 ° w Lr ° Ln N = O O ° w m N m Z a o LO _j w � �-. Q o z o Lr w w Z J LL J d-i C14 1 Q 3 z tr LL x° N O 0 a _ Q J O �y a. '� Z 0 > o Q W F- a U O m > W Q Z z .s LL z U O a v a. 0 a wm F- 0 W J ZO _O p ~ H w N m N LL W P: W LL = m Z N N J � ZO LL a0 O 00 w Q O ~ W W Q J Q O O I- m _ p Z Q O Z Z u. w m > O th s w Q Z Z d w F- I- ° O Q y Z tr H W m p a w F- O O Q „wj LA O W F- I . O FJ- 0 "� > Q w w a:jL;U- -1 w O Z = Q Q N O W U O O ° <L LL m Z m O m Ln O O "� w O W W O LL ~ 0 LL 0 O d. w O LL H H H O H z W C)lr > > v Q U I O w w a 0 Z Q ^ Q w O r- p N 0 o V a_ O F° a Z Q t3 LL Zj W W J Z ', CL u. w N a 2 F- w U ° O Imo- O Lz m W < _! Z CL Q d � " F- to H Q a. w Z = Y Q I- w Z u�1 w z j a LL o J 3 Q. a s f= d o o w z F- LL Z > . O Lr = 0 U Z F- lS] •J LL J M W Cr LLJ �•.. O Lr N' J J I-- lA .Z. LL J-j LLI 0 I ' LL '� N .J ° ~ Q J J N �• W Q > 0 0 W LL. F- U Q Q Q p m 0 N O O m F- tr O = pp O U W to N O w N m Z LL F- Ln Z L.L U M wnwlNlw.z V nHINlw . .. •,� _ `r- ry •• • IM' Z Z • PLATE EG-5 w z LL _ w W O Z F ❑ LJ O V v W O W C ❑ � 3 ❑cn o J U U W O O W Z F- 3 O Q O U N O N LL Y 6 Q W Z ? X Z Q > U M 1:7 F" Y Q a ❑ O O p Q U = d W W O O Z a = w z n `� a z o UJ o r 3 aW. z ~—,, }-- F- ' = O W D W tJ o N O m Ln L) y W w a w z to O ❑ W w W a t z C3 to m ❑ oc F- z C7 }' oc = d W Qm Z W ~ _ `n W z 7 / W O m LL J LL O Q , _ --i ❑ ❑ 0 .J o a W Z o w W CO Q W a a = w z = >- Z � m o � o a. t- N ❑ Z z m O � cyi lW- > O a w o w Q J w o I >- w O LL >- I Y Y LL N z Y U. LL I O p 0 c d p = CL o x w W ~ ~ tV CO Q O d ? to ? W Z JO F- F- w N ¢ W 3 n o LL -; o z o IM LL Z =a- O J W O Q O Z rO W Y / N Q W ~ F- U U O z O O N a 4 W d m O in to F- m m W 4 W O ❑ Q Z m N " PLATE EG-6 a z a tn ❑ Z LU W Z J < W O U. Q Z !- / U c7 m p X Z C, W w w O d .0op_ m O J LPL � LL LU ❑ p Z W O l > > Q = U Q F.. p d. � O O W C7 Li N Q � W 2 N = } W Z F- �t J Z > N W tr L F- in LL O Y \ { W _j z tA O Q �� i Z F=- O OU U t7 ` LL O N O W Q Z LL p W F- O N O d U ~ CO Lr z = O 7 z p p LL O U CL 7 W W F- Z Y 3. © F- F- to CD m / U O LtJ > o C-) � . � W � LU Z W o O z z L cV J m {— Z N w z � 3 in J o CL J Z -J 4 Q m >- z W C7 Q d Q O Z Z O O Z z O LL O 30 O >LU `n N < °- N a a Q a a O O N I-- Y � U U O _ � m PLATE EG-7 W Y J Q O Q �. ❑ w z � w f- m w -J' o1 W z 0 w ❑ z Q 0 C3 W C:: W C7 w w L7 N w J a w z w a:- Q nom. z ci Q CL tzu ° z ►- o w !t ° w 7 w t/) w . Q IL /� 3 ❑ = O z m O M: Z Z F- U C7 O - 1 -j = O 1-- LLI Z w m Li W Z 3 m F- < z ix Ln 13 LL ul z F_ cr w z w J O t Z o Z < H Z , ^ W 0- p V J to F- V w Z Z W m m 1 �' m -' ❑ t w = w LA z j5 tn a. z m m �' "' v w z w z to o w m � Z 0 W w N to J 1- � U` C-) w d LLI LL / J ❑ a N 2 O W W > m !i! a Z V = O = O = = W w ❑ W Z w w = L1J V O } H j w ` V 0 ll! L m N 0 r"_ o z o o can ac ° w jUj l!I LL w w LA LL. Z •"L t7 cr- N m W .� a -' C Z W = W 3 4 LL Z mo _ Z w I � � 3 m � Cam . W I w w a w U) z i F_ a v=i F- Q a Z d 3 z ^ w = Lt! Lsi N X w 4 3� N © w Q Lij _ : LL H M �� Z -� to of e = = N O cm 0 N Z J �� m -cc 0 cn E••- LU 0 z PLATE EG—S � o u d LLI CL g �� Z O L.] Q OJ Z \ F- O S N Lij Q cn p Z W Z z w O Z_ 0 Z S p W m d 7 LLI O / Q t.O Q a N w Ne U C3 O �\/ m m O Z w p � t' m Z w z CL R w en W N m w w O O O }' Z d W 6 C) LAI w m Z = Q p J O N U Z O ��+ g w v { Z if CL Q O �lj z• p o z Z z a � LU S �,` O m 0 to L.L o , Z LL Y o` i � N L Q o p U > o c� z to Q i a o w Z m to -J F- S O p. F- p O Q h- p 5 a m z w 3 Z ° U Q U Q Z W y. Z w W w 3d w w Y W Q m d O S Z Z Q N N O W OJ Ln < S W c7 p U = c=n Z w a z in Z in cv LL z • � p p w 0 w w ° N o z o a o F CL o a d w z ° w N Y PLATE EG-9 W �\ U t0 J O d LL Q LL Cr �\ N = Y (�\ H N N N Z Q m W O U to W IL © r O O Z p M: ^� � W II LLJ {�_\ U) W oW o hh�� a a z r o Z < cx w 0 6 w Z �' - J o ° W V N LL Z r7 \ p m W W O m W m C3 w Z Z ° 10- LL LLI z IL O O 7 / m W m o O O J >> W OJ /� d J = Z Z U L Z LLU a Z Z W m U Z LL y0 � J O-y w Q 0 4 ��\ .� Z � a > � w •- LL W O ma: W Q Q f,� \ Z O LL iy�� " v z 4 a (� ° 4 O W 3 U o LU CL ..a N ° O O W d F- Q J W U Y O Z LL N d =J -� �� 2 O Z U Z O M N p F- Z d X W Q W m OU d = ` W Q Z W Ln W F- Z _Z [r _J U :U Q p p W Q W Z Z }- Q 1-- > O CL O Z — N 0 Z Z -j W W N Y m Z O 112 U O W LL U ~ = OU a H UW F- Z C o N O LU > W O N cV Z Q M: O _! F- U W U Z Q z ? u a Q �I� O o } m J ❑ w z U Q w a. p F- W > W > Q PLATE EG--10 TRANSITION LOT DETAIL CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION) NATURAL GRAD 5' MINIM M J PAD GRADE COMPACTED FILL OVEREXCAVATE *AND RECOMPACT (I �\ ��\ %\t /�\ �/\ //\\ //`\\/ 3'MINIMUM* UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING CUT-FILL LOT (DAYUGHT TRANSITION) NATURAL GRADE P��R\P�^ 5'MI MUM PAD GRADE vNs� OVER EXCAVATE ' \� COMPACTED FILL vll+•OR 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• SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL 2'X 2'X 1/4' STEEL PLATE STANDARD 314' 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 1 _MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2'VERTICAL LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 5 S' 1 I MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIALS' 5• 1 i 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. P LATE EG-14 TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT FINISH GRADE - 3/8' DIAMETER X 6' LENGTH CARRIAGE BOLT OR EQUIVALENT ' DIAMETER X 3 1/2' LENGTH HOLE CONCRETE BACKFILL PLATE EG-15 TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM SIDE VIEW vgli= SOIL PILE TEST PIT NOT TO SCALE TOP VIEW IOfl FAT U- 50 FEET � 50 FEET FLAG SPOIL TEST PiT: y@�OLF -r PILE FLAG APPROXIMATE CENTER u- OF TEST PIT tn ( NOT TO SCALE l OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM (E) m o0 00 20'MINIMUM (BI (G) 00 00 oa °O c oO 5- MINIMUM lA 5' cc MINIMUM IC1 BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL . VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM (E) 00'MAX IMUM (BL, 15' MINIMUM 3' MINIMUM (c�G)).0 1 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) THE ORIENTAT SI ENGINEER AND/OR ENGIINEERI,GSGEOLOD IST .ASTAGGER NGN D BY 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 WIND OW, WINDROW PLACED AND COMPACTED WITH E 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 VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. FILL LIFTS COMPACTED OVER ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT I GRANULAR MATERIAL i LARGE ROCK --� I t 1 COMPACTED FILL t SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE I t COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE t i t t t ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS GRANULAR SOIL TO FILL VOIDS. COMPACTED FILL DENSIFIED BY FLOODING LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH _�- •. — �•Y�t ToPROPOSED FINISH GRADE PROFILE ALONG LAYER -MINIMUM OR BELOW LOWEST UTILIT — — —� 20' MUM OVERS�EL AYER F LOPE FACE COMPACTED FILL j *MINIMUM FILL SLOPE A L nn CLEAR ZONE 20'MINIMUM LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH TOP VIEW PLATE RD-2 COMPACTION REPORT OF GRADING PARCELS 1,2,AND 3, ON 267 SANFORD STREET SAN MARCOS,SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR NEWMAN BUCH, LLC 17902 POINT REYES STREET FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 W.O.4581-B-SC FEBRUARY 17,2006 S9 . Geotechnical • Coastal - Geologic * Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 February 17, 2006 W.O. 4581-B-SC Newman Buch, LLC 17902 Point Reyes Street Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention: Mr. Floyd Buch Subject: Compaction Report of Grading, Parcels 1, 2, and 3, on 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Bush: 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 residential development, Parcels 1, 2, and 3. Earthwork commenced on, or about, January 20, 2006, and was generally completed for the subject parcels in February 2, 2006. Survey of line and grade was performed by others, and not performed by GSI. GSI was onsite full-time during rough grading operations. Based on the observations and testing performed by GSI, it is our opinion that the improvements proposed in the building pads and adjoining areas within the limits of fill (see Plate 1) are generally suitable for their intended use, provided our recommendations are properly implemented. PURPOSE OF EARTHWORK The purpose of grading was to prepare relatively level pads for the construction of three, single-family residential structures (one-to two-story), which would utilize slabs-on-grade and associated infrastructure (i.e., underground utilities, etc.) within the limits of fill (see Plate 1). Typical cut and fill grading operations were performed to achieve the design pad grades. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY The geologic conditions exposed during the process of grading were regularly observed by a representative from our firm. The geologic conditions encountered during grading generally were as anticipated and presented in the referenced report by GSI (2004), indicated in the Appendix. 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 and terrace deposits, perched groundwater conditions may develop in the future due to excess irrigation, precipitation, 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. This potential should be disclosed to all homeowners, and any homeowners association. Thus, any below-grade walls should be water-proofed and provided with free-flowing subdrainage. 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., colluvium/topsoil and weathered terrace deposits)were removed to suitable terrace deposits within the property lines only (see Plate 1). Removal depths were on the order of about 3 to 4 feet below preconstruction grades. The resultant removal bottoms were then scarified to a depth of about 6 to 12 inches, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. 3. Fills placed on sloping surfaces steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]) as indicated by pre-existing topography,were keyed and benched into competent soil material or bedrock. 4. Deleterious trash and other unsuitable debris encountered during grading were exported from the site. Fill Placement Fill, consisting of import and onsite soils, were placed in 6- to 8-inch lifts, moisture conditioned, mixed to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, and compacted using earth moving equipment to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (see the attached Table 1). The approximate range in fill thickness ranged from 3 to 8 feet. The approximate depth of fill for each parcel is presented below. Oversize material, greater than 12 inches long in dimension, was generally not encountered, nor placed onsite. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-B-SC 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 b.cro Page 2 GeoSoiilts, Inc. PARCEL APPROXIMATE DEPTH OF FILL in feet 1 3-8 2 3-6 3 4-6 Overexcavation Portions of the building pads were overexcavated in order to generally maintain a minimum 3-foot thick fill blanket across the parcel, for uniform conditions. Overexcavation was completed to a minimum of at least ±5 feet outside the building footprints, as solely determined by the contractor. The actual location of the proposed footprints of the buildings was provided by others. Fill Slopes Compaction on the face of fill slopes was achieved by back-rolling and/or track walking. FIELD TESTING 1. Field density tests were performed using nuclear(densometer)ASTM test methods D-2922 and D-3017,and the sand-cone test method ASTM D-1556. The test 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, which uses the grading plan by Pasco Engineering (PE, 2006) as the base map. 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. 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 full-time basis during grading. Newman Buch, LLC W_O. 4581-B-SC 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 b.cro Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. LABORATORY TESTING Maximum Density Testing The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined according to test method ASTM D-1557. The following table presents the results: SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY MOISTURE CONTENT PC (PERCENT) A-Silty Sandy, Orange Brown 129.5 9.5 B-Siltv Sand, Orange Brown (import) 128.0 9.0 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). The test results are presented below: LOCATION I EXPANSION INDEX I EXPANSION POTENTIAL Parcel 1 <20 Very Low Parcel 2 <20 Very low Parcel <20 Very Low Corrosion/Sulfate Testing Typical samples of the site materials were analyzed for corrosion/soluble sulfate potential. The testing included determination of pH,soluble sulfates,and saturated resistivity. At the time of this report the results were not available. An addendum to this report will be issued when the testing is complete. Guidelines for corrosive/sulfate conditions are indicated in our previous reports (see the Appendix). Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-B-Sc 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581 b.cro Page 4 GeoSoiils, Inc. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Unless superceded by recommendations presented herein, the conclusions and recommendations contained in GSI's prior reports (see Appendix A) remain pertinent and applicable. Any improvements proposed outside of the limits of fill areas (see Plate 1), may be subject to settlement and/or distress, unless properly mitigated. This potential should be disclosed to all homeowners and any homeowners association. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS General The foundation design and construction recommendations are based on laboratory testing and engineering analysis of onsite earth materials exposed at current finish grades by GSI. Recommendations for conventional foundations are provided in the following sections. The foundation systems may be used to support the proposed structures, provided they are founded in competent bearing material. The proposed foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with the guidelines contained in the UBC (ICBO, 1997). Bearing Value 1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the latest edition of the UBC. 2. An allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of continuous footings 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep, or isolated pad footings 24 inches square,founded entirely into competent terrace deposits and/or artificial fill and connected by a grade beam or tie beam in at least one direction. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. The above values may be increased by one-third when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. No increase in bearing for footing width is recommended. Lateral Pressure 1. 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. 2. 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 3,000 psf. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-B-SC 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581b.cro Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. 3. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. Foundation Settlement Foundations systems should be designed to accommodate a differential settlement of at least 1 inch in a 40-foot span. Footing Setbacks While not applicable to the proposed development at the subject site, the following recommendations concerning footing setbacks should be considered if future foundation systems are planned: 1. All footings should maintain a minimum 7-foot horizontal setback from the base of the footing to any descending slope. This distance is measured from the footing face at the bearing elevation. 2. Footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3 (H=slope height) from the base of the footing to the descending slope face and no less than 7 feet nor need to be greater than 40 feet. 3. Footings adjacent to unlined drainage swales should be deepened to a minimum of 6 inches below the invert of the adjacent unlined swale. 4. 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 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 soils expansion potentials exposed at current finish grades are in the very low (E.I. 0 to 20) range. Recommendations for very low expansive soil conditions are presented herein. 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. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-B-SC 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 b.cro Page 6 GeoSoils, Inc. Very Low Expansion Potential (E.I. 0 to 20) 1. Exterior and interior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches for one-story floor loads, and 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface for two-story floor loads. Column and panel pads should be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches and should be 24 inches square. 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 the UBC (ICBO, 1997). 2. A grade beam, reinforced as above, and at least 12 inches wide 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 square footings should be tied within the main foundation in at least one direction with a grade beam. 3. Residential concrete slabs, including garages, shall be in accordance with Table 19-A-2 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997), for "concrete intended to have a low permeability when exposed to water," (i.e., a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.50 and a minimum strength of 4,000 psi), to mitigate the effects from post-development perched water and to impede water vapor transmission. Slab underlayment should consist of 2 inches of washed sand placed above a vapor barrier consisting of 15-mil polyvinyl chloride, or equivalent,with all laps sealed per UBC (ICBO, 1997). The vapor barrier shall be underlain by 2 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 slab design should be reviewed by a water-proofing/flooring specialist for additional recommendations regarding water-proofing and/or adhesives, etc., prior to construction of flooring. 4. Residential concrete slabs, including garage slabs, should be a minimum of 5 inches thick, and should minimally be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bar at 18 inches on center in both directions. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the concrete. "Hooking" of reinforcement is not considered an acceptable method of positioning the reinforcement. 5. If proposed, residential garage slabs should be reinforced as above and poured separately from the structural footings and quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings should be maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement. 6. Presaturation is not required for these soil conditions. The moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to or greater than optimum moisture content in the Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-B-Sc 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 b.cro Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc. slab areas, and evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to concrete or reinforcement placement. WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Conventional Retaining Walls The design parameters provided below assume that either very low expansive soils (Class 2 permeable filter material or Class 3 aggregate base) or native materials (with a very low to low expansion potential) are used to backfill any retaining walls. 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. 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 superseded 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. Walls greater than 6 feet (retained earth) should be designed for a seismic increment on this site due to the potential for sand fill to seismically density. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-B-SC 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581 b.cro Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. SURFACE SLOPE OF EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT, RETAINED MATERIAL FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F. FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F. h:v Select Backfill Native Backfill 45 Level* 35 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'h-inch to 3/4-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 90 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 in walls higher than 2 feet should not be considered. 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: Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-B-SC 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581 b.cro Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. DETAILS N T . S . 2 Native Backfill 1 Provide Surface Drainage Slope or Level Native Backfill 12" �— Rock +12" 0 Filter Fabric Waterproofing 1 Membrane(optional) 1 or Flatter 4) Weep Hole Native Backfill Finished Surface ® Pipe i i 0 WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. ROCK: 3/4 to 1-1/2" (inches) rock. (3) 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). © 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 dp s� • DETAIL 1 Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic • Environmental DETAILS N T S . 2 Native Backfill 1 Provide Surface Drainage Slope or Level 6" Native Backfill (i)Waterproofing Membrane(optional) Drain 1 1 or Flatter Weep Hole Filter Fabric Finished Surface ® Pipe (1) WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. © DRAIN: Miradrain 6000 or]-drain 200 or equivalent for non-waterproofed walls. Miradrain 6200 or]-drain 200 or equivalent for waterproofed walls (All Perforations down). OO 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. 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.) RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL GEOTEXTILE DRAIN • DETAIL 2 Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic • Environmental DETAILS N T S . 2 Native Backfill 1 Provide Surface Drainage Slope or Level ' H/2 min. �l +12" f Waterproofing 1 Membrane(optional) 1 or Flatter H © Weep Hole Clean Sand Backfill Filter Fabric . Finished Surface ® Roc Pipe i !a I --� Heel Width �— I d) WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. D 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 cubic foot per linear feet of pipe or 3/4 to 1-1/2" (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 ` CLEAN SAND BACKFILL f • DETAIL 3 Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic • Environmental a) A minimum of a 2-foot overexcavation and recompaction of cut materials for a distance of 2H, from the point of transition. 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 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. TOP-OF-SLOPE WALLS/FENCES/IMPROVEMENTS Slope Creep Soils at the site may contain some expansive materials and therefore, may become desiccated when allowed to dry. Such soils are susceptible to surficial slope creep, especially with seasonal changes in moisture content. Typically in southern California, during the hot and dry summer period,these soils become desiccated and shrink,thereby developing surface cracks. The extent and depth of these shrinkage cracks depend on many factors such as the nature and expansivity of the soils, temperature and humidity, and extraction of moisture from surface soils by plants and roots. When seasonal rains occur, water percolates into the cracks and fissures, causing slope surfaces to expand, with a corresponding loss in soil density and shear strength near the slope surface. With the passage of time and several moisture cycles, the outer 3 to 5 feet of slope materials experience a very slow, but progressive, outward and downward movement, known as slope creep. Top of Slope Walls/Fences Due to the potential for slope creep for slopes higher than about 10 feet, some settlement and tilting of the walls/fence with the corresponding distresses, should be expected. To mitigate the tilting of top of slope walls/fences, we recommend that the walls/fences be constructed on deepened foundations without any consideration for creep forces, where the expansion index of the materials comprising the outer 15 feet of the slope is less than 50. The strength of the concrete and grout should be evaluated by the structural engineer of record. The proper ASTM tests for the concrete and mortar should be provided along with the slump quantities. The concrete used should be appropriate to mitigate sulfate corrosion, as warranted. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-B-SC 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 Fi1e:eAwp9\4500\4581 b.cro Page 13 GeoSoils, Inc. DRIVEWAY FLATWORK AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS The following exterior driveways,flatwork, and other improvement using concrete slab on grade construction should be designed and constructed in accordance with the following criteria: 1. Exterior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. It has been our experience that some migratory distress could occur and originate along the margins of the driveway, as soils become saturated due to irrigation. In order to minimize the potential for this type of distress, driveway slabs and approaches may be constructed with a thickened edge (12 inches minimum) adjacent to all landscape areas,to help mitigate infiltration of landscape water under the slab,if the developer desires to reduce this potential. 2. Concrete slabs should be cast over a non-yielding surface, that should be compacted and level prior to pouring concrete. The layer should be moistened/wet-down completely prior to pouring concrete, to minimize loss of concrete moisture to the surrounding earth materials. 3. Slab subgrade (i.e., existing fill materials) should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction and moisture conditioned to at or above the soils optimum moisture content. This should be verified by this office at least 72 hours prior to pouring any concrete. 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 Exterior concrete slabs-on-grade (driveways, walkways, patios, etc.) should be constructed with reinforced welded mesh. The reinforcement should consist of 6x6-W1.4xW1.4 welded-wire mesh. It is important for the performance of the slab that the reinforcing be located near mid-slab thickness using chairs, supports, etc. Hooking is not an acceptable method of reinforcement placement, and is not recommended. 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 Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-B-SC 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581b.cro Page 14 GeoSoils, Inc. 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 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. 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 or homeowners association. 12. Air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported on rigid slabs with flexible couplings for plumbing and electrical lines or, alternatively, A/C units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation. A/C units with flexible couplings placed directly on grade, should be reviewed and approved by the corrosion engineer. 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 Slope Deformation Compacted fill slopes designed using customary factors of safety for gross or surficial stability and constructed in general accordance with the design specifications should be expected to undergo some differential vertical heave or settlement in combination with differential lateral movement in the out-of-slope direction, after grading. Although some Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-B-SC 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 b.cro Page 15 GeoSoils, Inc. movement should be expected, long-term movement from this source may be minimized, but not eliminated, by placing the fill throughout the slope region,wet of the fill's optimum moisture content, such as was done at the subject site. It is generally not practical to attempt to eliminate the effects of either slope creep. Suitable mitigative measures to reduce the potential of lateral deformation typically include:setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the 1997 UBC and/or adopted California Building Code), positive structural separations (i.e., joints) between improvements, and stiffening and deepening of foundations. Expansion joints in walls should be placed no greater than 20 feet on-center, and in accordance with the structural engineer's recommendations. All of these measures are recommended for design of structures and improvements. The ramifications of the above conditions, and recommendations for mitigation, should be provided to each homeowner and/or any homeowners association. Slope Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should be avoided as it adversely affects site improvements,and causes perched groundwater conditions. Graded slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining asuitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Jute-type matting or other fibrous covers may aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing plants other than those recommended above will increase the potential for perched water, staining, mold, etc.,to develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented. Irrigation of natural (ungraded) slope areas is generally not recommended. These recommendations regarding plant type, irrigation practices, and rodent control should be provided to each homeowner. Over-steepening of slopes should be avoided during building construction activities and landscaping. 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. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-B-SC 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 Fi1e:eAwp9\4500\4581 b.cro Page 16 GeoSoils, Inc. 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 Cut and fill slopes 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. 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. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-B-SC 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 b.cro Page 17 GeoSoils, Inc. 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. Site Improvements If in the future, any additional improvements (e.g.,walls, 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. Walls, pools and/or spas should not be constructed without specific design and construction recommendations from GSI (i.e., a site-specific soil report), 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 Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-B-SC 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 b.cro Page 18 GeoSoils, Inc. (approved by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute) are recommended between tile 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 rp for 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 [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. 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. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-B-SC 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 b.cro Page 19 GeoSoils, Inc. 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 presoaki n g/presatu ration 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.). • 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. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-B-SC 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581 b.cro Page 20 GeoSoils, Inc. • 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 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. Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-B-SC 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 Fi1e:e:\wp9\4500\4581 Lao Page 21 GeoSoils, Inc. PLAN REVIEW Final project plans (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. W.O. 4581-B-SC Newman Buch, LLC February 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos 17,Page e 22 Fi1e:eAwp9\4500\4581 b.cro 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. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. r� OSS 42 J 4 r° Pry' ct Geologist \oN At I Poo. 8CE 4_85' 55 � ?4,f/ FO( XP, 1,� o Cr 1► � ' No. 1340 `i TOE: John P. Franklin Certified David W. Skelly Engineering Geolo i le �Q Civil Engineer, RCE 478 gTFOF \F4�� BEV/DWS/JPF/jk 0R! Attachments: Table 1 - Field Density Test Results Appendix - References Plate 1 - Field Density Location Map Distribution: (4) Addressee Newman Buch, LLC W.O. 4581-B-SC 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos February 17, 2006 File:e:\wp9\4500\4581 b.cro Page 23 GeoSoils, Inc. GeoSoils, Inc. Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST DATE TEST LOCATION TRACT EtEV MOISTURE DRY REL TEST SOIL NQ. NO. OR CONTENT. DENSITY COMP METHOD TYPE DEPTH it j% 1 1/20/06 Parcel 3 267 Sanford 80.5 10.6 120.2 92.8 SC A 2 1/20/06 Parcel 3 267 Sanford 79.5 11.7 118.8 91.7 ND A 3 1/23/06 Parcel 3 267 Sanford 81.5 9.8 118.9 91.8 ND A 4 1/23/06 Parcel 3 267 Sanford 82.5 10.2 119.5 92.3 ND A 5* 1/23/06 Parcel 3 267 Sanford 83.5 9.3 109.8 84.8 ND A 5A 1/23/06 Parcel 3 267 Sanford 83.5 10.0 118.6 91.5 ND A 6* 1/23/06 Parcel 3 267 Sanford 84.0 9.7 111.5 86.1 ND A 6A 1/23/06 Parcel 3 267 Sanford 84.0 9.9 117.8 91.0 ND A 7* 1/24/06 Parcel 3 267 Sanford 85.0 12.7 112.0 86.5 ND A 7A 1/26/06 Parcel 3 267 Sanford 85.0 11.8 117.3 90.6 ND A 8 1/24/06 Parcel 3 267 Sanford 84.5 13.1 118.0 91.2 ND A 9 1/25/06 Parcel 1 267 Sanford 81.0 11.3 122.6 94.7 SC A 10 1/25/06 Parcel 1 267 Sanford 80.5 12.2 121.2 93.6 ND A 11 1/27/06 Parcel 3 267 Sanford 85.0 12.1 117.5 90.8 Sc A 12 1/27/06 Parcel 1 267 Sanford 85.0 11.2 118.2 91.3 ND A 13 1/27/06 Parcel 1 267 Sanford 83.0 13.0 119.7 92.4 ND A 14 1/27/06 Parcel 2 267 Sanford 82.0 12.1 117.5 90.7 ND A 15 1/31/06 Parcel 1 267 Sanford 84.5 11.7 118.0 91.1 ND A i16 1/31/06 Parcel 2 267 Sanford 84.0 12.1 118.6 91.6 ND A i7 ?/31/06 Parcel 2 267 Sanford 86.0 12.3 119.3 92.1 SC A 18 1/3;/06 Parcel 2 267 Sanford 85.5 11.4 117.1 91.5 ND B 19 2/2/00 Parcel 2 267 Sanford 87.5 11.1 117.0 91.4 ND B 20 2/2/06 Parcel 1 267 Sanford 83.5 12.6 119.7 93.5 SC B LEGEND: * = Failed Test A = R.atest ND = Nuclear Densometer SC = Sand Cone W.O. 4581-B-SC Newman Buch, LLC February 2006 267 Sanford Street, San Marcos Page 1 File:C:\excel\tables\4500\4581 b.cro GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX REFERENCES GeoSoils, Inc., 2006a, Grading plan review, 267 Sanford Street, Proposed three-lot subdivision, Encinitas, San Diego County, California , W.O. 4581-A2-SC, dated January 13. 2006b, Geotechnical update letter, Proposed three-lot subdivision, 267 Sanford Street, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4581-A3-SC, dated January 13. 2005a, Grading plan review, 267 Sanford Street, Proposed three-lot subdivision, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4581-Al-SC, dated July 29. 2005b, Evaluation of existing pavement section, 267 Sanford Street (Frontage of Sanford and Hygeia Street), Encinitas, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4581-E-SC, dated January 10. 2005c, Soil corrosivity test results, 267 Sanford Street, Proposed three-lot subdivision, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4581-A-SC, dated January 3. 20�4, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, 267 Sanford Street, Proposed three-lot subdivision, Encinitas, San Diego County, California , W.O. 4581-A-SC, dated Noven?ber 30. International t'.onference of Building Officials, 2001, California building code, California Code o f Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Vol. 1 and 2. 1997, Uniform building code, Whittier, California, vol. 1, 2, and 3. Pasco Engineering, 2006, Grading plan for: 267 Sanford Street, APN 254-111-58, dated January 3. GeoSoils, Inc.