The URL can be used to link to this page

2011-10931 G• Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438 -3155 • FAX (760) 931 -0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com October 27, 2011 W.O. 6201 -A2 -SC Ed and Cori Durfey DEC 15 1011 3511 Corte Esperanza Carlsbad, California 92009 Subject: Segmental (MSE) Retaining Walls,1034 Cornish Avenue, Proposed Two -Story Residence with Basement, Encinitas, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. and Mrs. Durfey: In accordance with Sowards & Brown Engineering request and your authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI), has prepared this supplement to the referenced geotechnical reports (see the Appendix) with respect to a planned segmental (MSE) retaining walls onsite. Recommendations contained in the previous GSI reports, which are not specifically superceded by this review, should be properly incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS General The following recommendations are for segmental, or flexible, retaining wall systems. These walls are, by nature, a flexible system and, as such, not suited for every slope support condition, as determined by the project design civil engineer /wall designer. Slope and structural setbacks (including water and sewer lines) from the heel of grid reinforced zone of the wall, may be necessary. The necessary setbacks should be defined by the various project consultants and approved by the governing agencies prior to final design. At a minimum, and if applicable, the building setback should be up at a 1:1 (h:v) projection from the heel of the segmented wall grid zone, and should be shown on the precise grading plans by the design civil engineer. Building setback mitigation may be accomplished by deepening any new adjoining foundations through this zone of projection, provided this does not disturb any geogrid. Grid reinforcement shall not be extended beneath settlement- sensitive improvements nor residential buildings or utilities. It is recommended that the wall face units meet current NCMA (National Concrete Masonry Association) guidelines and be battered back from vertical. In addition to the previous wall recommendations, the following are specific recommendations for segmented wall design and construction. These recommendations have been provided in an effort to achieve the most desirable and efficient means of construction. Some of these do not deal specifically with geotechnical aspects, but do have significant effects on the quality of the end product. As project geotechnical consultants, we feel that strong consideration should be given to these recommendations. If more onerous project specifications are required by the manufacturer orgoverning entity, then those guidelines should be followed. Compared to conventional retaining walls, segmented walls require significantly more geotechnical observation and testing. The costs for these services depend on wall size, conscientiousness of the contractor, and other factors. It should be noted that not all soils onsite are suitable for use in segmental wall construction. As such, select grading, stockpiling suitable soils, and /or importing selected soils may be necessary. Design The design of this type of retaining wall is typically divided into three distinct areas consisting of: 1) the reinforced zone, containing the soil reinforcement geogrid which is tied into the wall facing; 2) the retained zone, located behind, and retained by the reinforced zone; and 3) the foundation zone, underlying, and supporting the reinforced zone. Based on our review and analyses of the referenced reports and data, minimum design parameters for each of these zone are provided in the following discussions, as well as additional criteria to be considered in wall design and construction. It should be noted that the values utilized by some designers in their design calculations, may be more conservative than those minimums provided herein. Reinforced Zone: Based on our laboratory testing, and for the purposes of wall design, an internal friction angle of 30 degrees, a cohesion of 0 pounds per square foot (psf), and a soil moist unit weight of 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), may be assumed for the reinforced zone, when using select import, meeting this design criteria (i.e., proven by laboratory testing prior to import to the site, and also during construction). The use of onsite soils is not recommended within the reinforced zone. The reinforced zone must be well drained at boundaries of contrasting permeabilities. Retained Zone: Native soils within the retained zone will likely consist of granular sands, or silty sands. Based on our laboratory testing, and for the purposes of wall design, an internal friction angle of 28 degrees, a cohesion of 50 psf, and a moist unit weight of 120 pcf may be used for design of a retained zone consisting of granular sand. Clays should not be used in the retained zone. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File: e:\wp9\62DD\6201a2.sr GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A2 -SC October 27, 2011 Page 2 Foundation Zone: Native soils within the foundation zone will likely consist of granular sands, or silty sands. Based on our laboratory testing, and for the purposes of wall design, an internal friction angle of 28 degrees, a cohesion of 50 psf, and a moist unit weight of 120 pcf may be used for design where the foundation zone consists of granular sand. Seismic Parameters: Based on a review of site specific data, and considering the relative seismic activity of the southern California region, a design peak ground acceleration of 0.37g has been calculated. This value was chosen as it corresponds to ASCE /SEI Standard 7 -05, Section 11.8.3. Although these walls are generally not prone to seismic distress, the designershould consider adding a seismic surcharge of 13H (10X height of the exposed wall face) in pounds per square foot (psf) uniform lateral pressure to the wall, with a resisting FOS of 1.1 to 1.3, depending on the improvements within 2H of the top /toe of the wall and the consequences of deformation /failure and ingress /egress from the residential structure. Surcharge Load A minimum of 150 pounds per square foot should be added as a surcharge load, and as determined by the structural engineer /wall designer, for offsite walls /improvements. Foundation Construction 1. Prior to excavation for the wall base, the alignment and grade for the wall should be established in the field by the project civil engineer or project surveyor. 2. The contractor should have a qualified grade checker onsite to continually verify the gradient (or batter) and alignment of the base excavation and wall during construction. 3. The project surveyor should spot -check wall gradient and alignment at least every 10 feet vertically and 50 feet horizontally. 4. When locating the base of the wall, structural setbacks established by the governing agency, and /or geotechnical engineer should be followed. 5. Walls should be founded on compacted sand fill cap, or other suitable, native materials. 6. Prior to placement of the segmented members, the base excavation should be observed by representatives of this firm. 7. A concrete /crushed stone leveling pad may be used to provide a uniform surface for the wall base. It is recommended that a concrete slab base be provided. Ed and Cori Durfey W.O. 6201 -A2 -SC 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas October 27, 2011 File: e:lwp9 \6200 \6201 a2.srw Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. 8. If it is necessary to locally deepen the wall base to obtain suitable bearing materials, the contractor should consult the project design engineer to determine if the wall location or design of the wall is affected. 9. Segmented wall height at the terminal ends of the wall should not exceed 4 feet unless lateral support is provided. Backfill 1. Backfill within, behind, and in front of the segmented walls, which do not utilize geogrid fabric, should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction unless otherwise specified by the manufacturer. Backfill behind segmented walls, which utilize geogrid fabric, should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. Any backfill other than the "unit core fill (3/4 -inch crushed rock or stone)" should be placed in controlled lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness, and moisture - conditioned as necessary to achieve at least optimum moisture content. 2. Backfill materials should be free draining, and free from organic materials, with a maximum of 10 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. Lifts should be placed horizontally and compaction equipment should not be allowed to damage the geogrid fabric, if utilized. 3. If gravel or other select granular material is used as backfill within or behind the segmented wall, it should be capped with a minimum 18 inches compacted fill composed of relatively impervious material. 4. During construction, the unfilled section of wall should not be stacked more than 2 feet above the fill behind the wall. If gravel is used to fill the wall, the wall may be stacked 3 feet above adjacent grades. The maximum gravel size should be less than 3/4 inches. 5. Adequate space should be provided both behind and in front of the wall so that sufficient compaction can be obtained for all backfill. Segmental Wall Drainage A drainage system should be installed behind segmented walls in excess of 3 feet. The design of the system will depend on specific conditions. For most cases, a schedule 40 perforated collector pipe, wrapped in Mirafi 140 or equivalent, may be placed at the heel of the walls reinforced zone with a full height gravel drain, separated from the backfill materials by Mirafi 140 or equivalent. If necessary, outlets may pass below the base of the wall at a minimum 2 percent gradient. Outlets should be tight -lined to an approved outlet area. Seepage should be anticipated below all segmented walls, and this should be disclosed to all interested /affected parties. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File :e:%wp9 \6200 \6201 a2.sr GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A2 -3C October 27, 2011 Page 4 Materials and Wall Construction Only sound segmented wall members that meet all required specifications should be used for construction of walls. Members should be free of honeycombing, cracks, broken lugs, or slumped bearing surfaces. All geogrid fabric utilized should comply with the required technical specifications. Geogrid fabric should be placed horizontally to the required length /width behind the wall. Footing Setbacks for Segmented Walls It is recommended that settlement- sensitive structures, if any, be built behind a 1:1 (h:v) projection above the heel of the reinforced zone for the segmented wall. In addition, all new footings should be setback behind a 1:1 projection from the heel of the geogrid reinforced excavation. If structures are located between the two 1:1 projections, the segmented wall should be designed to accommodate the additional surcharge loading from the structure, and deepened building footings may be required depending on the height of the segmented wall. All appurtenant structures (i.e., A/C pads, screen walls, light standards, pools, spas, etc.) should be placed outside a 1:1 (h:v) projection upward from the heel of the reinforced zone. Alternately, footings may be constructed such that bearing surfaces are below the 1:1 projection. Appurtenant structures should not disrupt the geogrid behind the walls. All structures proposed within the setback zone will be subject to both horizontal and vertical deflections. All construction proposed within the setback area should be reviewed by the design civil engineer and GSI. Constructability A review of the latest plans prepared by Sowards & Brown Engineering (dated October 27, 2011), indicates several areas that have potential constructability conditions; that is, these areas will require detailing /additional analysis so that they are constructed and function as intended. The foundation dimensions and exact location for the existing wall along the northern property line are unknown; therefore, any geogrid reinforcement for the onsite keystone walls should not affect its foundations system. If the walls are battered, this condition would become more onerous. Slot cuts along the property margin have been previously discussed in GSI (2011a [see the Appendix]), and will need to be performed in this area, and along the southerly margin also. Additionally, on both the northern and southern property margin, the planned drainage systems inlet areas and piping have the potential to impact the reinforced zone of the keystone wall. Details in these areas (both north -south and east -west) would help to assure proper function of both the drain systems and walls. Similarly, details of the keystone walls abutment at the junction of the basement/residence /garage walls would also aid in function and performance. Provisions for seepage in this area should be provided. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File :e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a2.sr GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A2 -SC October 27, 2011 Page 5 PLAN REVIEW Final project plans (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. 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 (Le., sand, pea - gravel, etc.), or vapor retarders (i.e., visqueen, etc.). • During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement. • During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, and retaining wall backfill. • During slope construction /repair. • When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report. • When any developer or homeowner improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools, walls, etc., are constructed, prior to construction. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas h1e:e:%wp91620016201 a2.sm GeoSoils, Inc. W. 0. 6201 -A2 -SG October 27, 2011 Page 6 • 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 homeowner 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 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 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 and previously. 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 characteristics between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File e: \wp9 \6200\6201a2.srw GeoSoiils, Inc. W.O. 620 1 -A2 -SC October 27, 2011 Page 7 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. The conclusions and recommendations presented herein should be provided to all interested /affected parties. 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. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Respectfully subm , ssr�,s.v tt t .t .. GeoSoils, Incf / E. o -• r, 1 / / /� /� I y♦♦♦! !c. 13709 /j n s �'l� 2� David W. Skelly Project Geologists ' „Ll Civil Engineer, RCE 4 Pio. 1243 ohn P. ankli Derciflcd 91 cc ^9 Engineering Geolog t, Wo �T BEV /DWS /JPF /jh OF CA\YF�Q� Attachment: Appendix - References Distribution: (1) Addressee (2) Sowards & Brown Engineering; Attention Mr. Randy Brown Ed and Cori Durtey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File: e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a2.srw GeoSoils, Inc. W.0.6201 -A2 -SC October 27. 2011 Page B APPENDIX REFERENCES ACI Committee 318, 2008, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318 -08) and commentary, dated January. ACI Committee 360, 2006, Design of slabs -on- ground (ACI 360R -06). ACI Committee 302, 2004, Guide for concrete floor and slab construction, ACI 302.1 R -04, dated June. ACI Committee on Responsibility in Concrete Construction, 1995, Guidelines for authorities and responsibilities in concrete design and construction in Concrete International, vol 17, No. 9, dated September. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006, Minimum design loads for building and other structures. ASCE Standard ASCE /SEI 7 -05. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1998, Standard practice for installation of water vapor retarder used in contact with earth or granular fill under concrete slabs, Designation: E 1643 -98 (Reapproved 2005). 1997, Standard specification for plastic water vapor retarders used in contact with soil or granular fill under concrete slabs, Designation: E 1745 -97 (Reapproved 2004) . CTL Thompson, 2005, Controlling moisture - related problems associated with basement slabs -on -grade in new residential construction. California Building Standards Commission, 2007, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on the 2006 International Building Code, 2007 California Historical Building Code, Title 24, Part 8; 2007 California Existing Building Code, Title 24, Part 10. GeoSoils, Inc., 2011 a, Revised geotechnical plan review and shoring clarification, 1034 Cornish Avenue, proposed two -story residence with basement, Encinitas, San Diego County, California., W.O. 6087- Ai -SC, dated September 21. 2011b, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, 1034 Cornish Avenue, proposed two -story residence with basement, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, W.O. 6201 -A -SC, dated April 19. International Code Council, Inc., 2006, International building code and international residential code for one- and two- family dwellings. GeoSoils, Inc. International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, California building code, California code of regulations title 24, part 2, volume 1 and 2. , 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California, vol. 1, 2, and 3. Kanare, Howard, 2005, Concrete floors and moisture, Portland Cement Association, Skokie. Illinois. State of California, 2010, Civil Code, Sections 895 et seq. Ed and Cori Durfey File: e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a2.sm GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix Page 2 • Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, Califomia 92010 • (760) 438 -3155 • FAX (760) 931 -0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com 16, I September 21, 2011 DEC 1 5 'LOP' 6201 -A1 -SC Ed and Cori Durfey 3511 Corte Esperanza Carlsbad, California 92009 Subject: Revised Geotechnical Plan Review and Shoring Clarification, 1034 Cornish Avenue, Proposed Two -Story Residence with Basement, Encinitas, San Diego County, California. References: 1. "Grading and Erosion Plan For: Durfey Residence, 1034 Cornish Drive, Lot 13, Block B, Map 33 A.P.N. 258- 322 -03," Sheets 1 through 3, job No. 10 -032, dated July 1, 2011, by Sowards and Brown. 2. "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 1034 Cornish Avenue, Proposed Two -Story Residence with Basement, Encinitas, San Diego County, California," W.O.6201 -A -SC, dated April 19, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. 3. "Foundation Plans for Durfey Residence," Sheets S -1 through S -5, and SD -1 through SD- 5, not dated, by Schmit Engineering. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Durfey: In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a review of the project plans (see References No. 1 and No. 3) with respect to our geotechnical report (see Reference No. 2), for the purpose of evaluating if the plans are in general conformance with the intent of the GSI geotechnical report. GSI's scope of services included a review of the referenced report and plans, analysis of data, and preparation of this summary review. Recommendations contained in Reference No. 2, which are not specifically superseded by this review, should be properly incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. FOUNDATION AND GRADING PLANS GSI has reviewed the above referenced plans and details (see above) for typical conformance with our geotechnical recommendations presented in our report prepared to date (see above Reference No. 2). It is our opinion, that the above reviewed plans and details are in general conformance with our recommendations presented to date. GSI would like to point out, that based on our review of the above references, the slab and underlayment will minimally be 9 inches. This means that the garage Finish Grade (FG) will be 135.95, basement FG will be 136.25, and the proposed residence FG will be 145.25. SLOT -CUT CLARIFICATION Based on GSI's understanding, and conversation with the general contractor, the proposed overexcavation for the basement portion of the project shall be constructed in alternating slots, 71/2 feet in horizontal width. This is demonstrated in the attached Slot Cut Detail and Cross Sections C -C', D -D' (Figures 1 and 2). Based on our analysis, it is GSI's opinion that a slot cut approach may be considered as an alternative to shoring of the excavation; however, although low, there is still some element of risk for damaging existing improvements (such as walls, flatwork, etc.) constructed on or near the property line. The geotechnical consultant shall be onsite during all basement excavations to continuously evaluate the temporary cuts. If adverse geologic conditions are observed, the backcut shall be backfilled immediately, until additional recommendations are provided. If the contractor does not want to assume the risk of damaging the existing improvements on or near the property line, shoring is recommenced. LIMITATIONS 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. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Ave., Encinitas File: e:\wp12 \6200 \6201a1 _rgpr GeoSoils, Inc. W .O. 6201 -A -SC September 21, 2011 Page 2 •_ aeaw ga n ngigvr W dRi' 1 1 1 �1 OF MITT AWWAF This document or ofile Is not a part of 1he Construction Documents and should not be VH d upon as being an accwate depiction of design. GSI LEGEND x — AREA TO BE UVW- EXCAVATW 0— AWA THAT M!L STAY N PLACE DEN" 04EI1- fJfCAVMM FOR 1r DIM 016t-0ICAVAMN c>PflPAll a 70 BE lJ etsm u !Me OL^3 W Raw Y`1>t C C' 150 - -WALL 150 EXISTING PROPOSED TEMPORARY BACKCUT -� RESIDENCE (MAXIMUM EXPOSED AT ANY TIME 7 Y2' DURING SLOT CUT �\ 145- 145 \ - PROPOSED BASEMENT WALL PROPOSED BASEMENT WALL 150 135 ❑c EXISTING GARAGE MAXIMUM TEMPORARY VERTICAL CUT OF 1:1 (H. V) `' _ 1' VERTICAL 5' DURING a� \ OW REXCAVA77ON GRADING 3 Y2' (MA+)(MAX) 9 FOOTING AFTER OVEREXCAVATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED, MAXIMUM TEMPORARY VERTICAL CUT 3 Y2' 1' VERTICAL BASEMENT 137.00 ire APPROXIMATE OVER EXCAVATION DEPTH -11 (3' BELOW FINISH GRADE ±134.00) PROPOSED BASEMENT WALL ' MAXIMUM TEMPORARY VERTICAL CUT OF 4' TO 4 Y2' DURING �y OVEREXCAVATION GRADING 2 PROPOSED BASEMENT 137.00 4' (MAX),' ILIA V1 FOOTING W, APPROXIMATE OVER EXCAVATION DEPTH- - (3' BELOW FINISH GRADE ±134.00) F007ING .�1:1 (H.• 1) 3 Y2 AX) (MAX) =.0 - - -t-- PROPOSED TEMPORARY BACKCUT -� R (MAXIMUM EXPOSED AT ANY TIME \\ 7 YZ DURING SLOT CUT PROPOSED BASEMENT WALL -� �\ AFTER OVEREXCAVA77ON HAS BEEN `\ COMPLETED, MAXIMUM TEMPORARY VERTICAL CUT 3' r5m APPROXIMATE OVER EXCAVATION DEPTH -J'' (3' BELOW FINISH GRADE ±133.60) FOOTING 4 Y2 (MAX) MAX I EXISTING RESIDENCE 135 ®ir 150 450 �I G 40 ( ) - -/ RIVERarOECO. 1 G ORANGE CO. SANDiECO CO. CROSS SECTIONS C_C j ® -u, Figure 2 wo. 6201 -A1-SC I DATE: 9111 SCALE: 1 " =5' This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate tit the undersigned. Respectfully GeoSoils, Inc. rry7A an E. Voss �roject Geologist, ohn P. Franklin Engineering Geoll BEV /JPF /DWS /jh S�p11AL Gc� O Pr1 E. HOC N,. 8709 OF CAL Na. 1340 camnod BPOFES91pa,� a ft. ACE 47657 � / x*f. I C1d16 David W. Skelly OF CA��O Civil Engineer, RCE 47857 Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email) (4) DZN Architecture, Attention, Mr. Bruce Smith Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Ave., Encinitas File :e:%wp1216200 \6201 a 1.rgpr w GeoSoilNInc. �o W. 0. 6201 -A-SC September 21, 2011 Page 5 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 1034 CORNISH AVENUE, PROPOSED TWO -STORY RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 701:1 ED AND CORI DURFEY 3511 CORTE ESPERRANZA CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009 W.O. 6201 -A -SC APRIL 19, 2011 JUL ) P011 , D 1 . J • Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438 -3155 • FAX (760) 931 -0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com April 19, 2011 Ed and Cori Durfey 3511 Corte Esperanza Carlsbad. California 92009 W. 0. 6201 -A-SC Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 1034 Cornish Avenue, Proposed Two -Story Residence with Basement, Encinitas, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. and Mrs. Durfey: 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, 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 plans by Sowards & Brown Engineering (SB &E, 2011), it is our understanding that the proposed development will consist of the preparation of a relatively level building pad for the construction of single - family residence, with associated infrastructure (i.e., underground utilities, etc.). It is also our understanding that an underground parking sub -floor is proposed for the new residence. • It is anticipated that the underground parking level of the proposed structure may have a planned floor elevation of about ±9 feet below existing grade, and is anticipated to be underlain by old paralic deposits. The bottom of the excavation will have an elevation of approximately ±136 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL). • Excavation into Quaternary-age old paralic deposits (i.e., terrace deposits) will be necessary prior to foundation construction of the subterranean parking floor. In general, unsuitable soils are on the order of _t3Y2 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 planned excavation for the subterranean parking at design grades. However, in order to provided a uniform foundation support, the subterranean parking area/basement should be overexcavated a minimum of 3 feet below planned finish grade or one foot below lowest foundation element, which ever is greater. In addition, areas outside the planned subterranean parking (i.e. upper level) are recommended to be overexcavated ±4 feet were settlement sensitive improvements are planned. Overexcavation should be laterally completed to at least 3 feet outside the outboard edge of the perimeter foundation. The bottom of the overexcavation should be sloped to gravity drain to Dewitt Avenue. If there isn't sufficient fall, a moisture - activated sump pump may be necessary. • It should be noted that the 2010 California Building Code Q201 CBC], California Building Standards Commission [CBSC], 2010) indicates that removals of unsuitable soils be performed across all areas under the purview of the grading permit, not just within the influence of the residential structure. Relatively deep removals may also necessitate a special zone of consideration on perimeter /confining areas. This zone would be approximately equal to the depth of removals, if removals cannot be performed offsite. Thus, any settlement- sensitive improvements (walls, flatwork, etc.), constructed within this zone may require deepened foundations, reinforcement, etc., or will retain some potential for settlement and associated distress. The presence of existing, offsite improvements may limit remedial earthwork along property boundaries. It is likely that these conditions will occur. Should unmitigated soils remain within the property boundaries at the conclusion of grading, the potential for settlement- sensitive improvements, constructed within the influence of these soils, to experience settlement- associated distress should be anticipated and be properly disclosed to all interested /affected parties. • Temporary excavations greater than 4 feet but less than 20 feet in overall height should conform to CAL -OSHA and /or OSHA requirements for Type "C" soils. Temporary construction slopes, up to a maximum height of ±20 feet, may be excavated at a 1.5.1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]) gradient, or flatter, provided groundwater is not present. All temporary excavations should be observed by a licensed engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer prior to worker entry. • Foundation systems should be minimally designed to accommodate a design differential settlement of at least 1 inch in a 40 -foot span. • The expansion potential of tested onsite soils is generally very low (Expansion Index [E.I.] 0 to 20) with a plasticity index less than 15. On a preliminary basis, Ed and Cori Durfey W.O. 6201 -A -SC Fle:e:\wpe \6200 \6201a. pge Page Two GcoSofls, Inc. conventional -type foundations may be used for the onsite soil conditions. Final recommendations for foundation design and construction will be provided at the conclusion of site earthwork. • Soil pH, saturated resistivity, and soluble sulfate, and chloride testing, performed by Prime Testing, Inc., indicates that the site soils are strongly alkaline with respect to soil acidity/alkalinity, are moderately corrosive to ferrous metals when saturated, possess negligible ( "not applicable ") sulfate exposure to concrete (per Table 4.2.1 of ACI 318 -08), and are not considered an external source of chlorides. Reinforced concrete mix design should conform to "Exposure Class CO" in Table 4.3.1 of ACI 318 -08. These findings indicate that corrosive effects of on -site soils on concrete are expected to be low, and low corrosion potential on buried metal; however, GSI does not consult in corrosion engineering. Additional comments and recommendations may be obtained from a corrosion engineer, as determined by the structural engineer and /or architect for the project. Test results are presented in Appendix D. • Due to offsite improvements (i.e., existing foundation, flatwork, etc.) in close proximity to the proposed subterranean parking, near vertical excavations are anticipated. The cohesionless nature of some of the onsite earth materials will most likely result in caving. Therefore, a shoring system, designed by a licensed shoring contractor, may be necessary for the planned excavations. Soil parameters, to be used in preliminary shoring design, are provided herein. • In general, and based upon the available data to date, regional groundwater is not expected to be a major factor in development of the site. Regional groundwater is anticipated to generally be coincident with Mean Sea Level (MSL), and deeper than 100 feet. However, due to the nature of the site materials, seepage and /or perched groundwater conditions may develop throughout the site in the future, both during and subsequent to development, especially along boundaries of contrasting permeabilities (i.e., clayey and sandy fill lifts, fill /old paralic deposit contacts, joints /fractures, discontinuities, etc.), and should be anticipated. This potential should be disclosed to all interested /affected parties. Thus, more onerous slab design is necessary for any new slab -on -grade floor (State of California, 2011). Recommendations for reducing the amount of water and /or water vapor through slab -on -grade floors are provided in the "Soil Moisture Considerations" sections of this report. • Exterior underground parking walls should be waterproofed. If gravel backdrains forthe underground parking walls are proposed, the drains should outletvia gravity or a moisture - activated sump pump. In lieu of backdrains, the underground parking walls should be designed to additionally withstand the increased hydrostatic pressure (62.4 Ibs /ft'), and not leak or become discolored. The hydrostatic pressure would need to be added to the equivalent fluid pressures provided herein. Ed and Cori Durfey File :e:\wp9 \6200 \6201 a. pge GeoSoiils, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A-SC Page Three • Our evaluation indicates that the site currently has a low potential for liquefaction, due to the relatively dense nature of the Quaternary-age old paralic deposits that underlie the site at a shallow depth and the depth to the regional water table below existing grade. Our liquefaction evaluation considers that low- density surficial soils will be removed and re- compacted and /or new foundations will bear on unweathered old paralic deposits. • The seismic acceleration values and design parameters provided herein should be considered during the design of the proposed development. The adverse effects of seismic shaking on the structure(s) will likely be wall cracks, some foundation /slab distress, and some seismic settlement. However, it is anticipated that the structure will be repairable in the event of the design seismic event. This potential should be disclosed to all interested /affected parties. • Our evaluation indicates there are no known active faults crossing the site. In addition, other than strong seismic shaking produced from an earthquake on a nearby active fault, other geologic hazards have a low potential to affect the proposed site development. • Adverse geologic features that would preclude project feasibility were not encountered. • The recommendations presented in this report should be incorporated into the design and construction considerations of the project. The opportunity to be of service is 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 GeoSoils, Inc. �5 \ONAL 0F e(_ E.IOol G �. 4 f 09 ' F Bry . Voss �° OF Fo \ Protect Geologist, PG n YaMnkltn Engineering Geo BEV /JPF /DWS /jh 1343 —1-a o�' cln0lei ,.J Distribution: (4) Addressee Ed and Cori Durfey nl e: e: \wp9 \62001620 t a.pge Gee.Seils, Enc. w. S David W. Skelly r Civil Engineer, RCE 4 W.O. 6201 -A-SC Page Four TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES .................... ............................... 1 SITE CONDITIONS /PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................. 1 SITE EXPLORATION ....................... ..............................3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY .................... ............................... 3 SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS .................... ..............................3 Quaternary-age Colluvium/Topsoil (Not Mapped) ........................ 3 Quaternary-age Old Paralic Deposits (Map Symbol - Qop) ................. 6 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE ................... ..............................6 LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY .............. ............................... 6 GROUNDWATER ......................... ............................... 7 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY ...... ............................... 7 Regional Faults ..................... ............................... 7 Local Faulting ...................... ............................... 7 Seismicity... . ............. ............................... 7 Seismic Shaking Parameters .......... ............................... 8 Seismic Hazards .................... ............................... 9 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL .............. ............................... 10 PERMANENT SLOPE STABILITY ........... ............................... 11 LABORATORY TESTING .................. ............................... 11 General............................ .............................11 Classification.......... ........... .............................11 Moisture - Density Relations .......... ............................... 11 Laboratory Standard .................. .............................11 Expansion Potential .................. .............................12 Direct Shear Test .................. ............................... 12 Particle - Size Analysis .............. ............................... 12 Saturated Resistivity, pH, and Soluble Sulfates ......................... 12 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 13 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 15 General............................ .............................15 Demolition /Grubbing ................. .............................15 Remedial Removals (Removal of Potentially Compressible Surficial Materials) 16 Ge®Soffs, Inc. Overexcavation ...................... .............................16 Temporary Slopes ................... .............................16 Shoring of Excavations ................ .............................17 Open Excavations ................... .............................17 Lateral Pressure ..................... .............................17 Excavation Observation (All Excavations) .............................. 19 Observation ........................ .............................20 Monitoring Existing, Offsite Improvements ............................. 20 Engineered Fill Placement ........... ............................... 20 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .................. 21 General............................ .............................21 New Foundation Design ............... .............................21 Foundation Settlement ................ .............................22 Footing Setbacks .................... .............................22 Construction........................ .............................22 Expansion Classification - Very Low (E.I. 0 to 20 and P.I. Less than 15) ...... 22 CORROSION. ........................ . ..........................23 SOIL MOISTURE CONSIDERATIONS ....... ............................... 24 WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS ............... .............................25 Conventional Retaining Walls ........ ............................... 25 Restrained Walls ............... .............................25 Cantilevered Walls ............ ............................... 26 Earthquake Loads (Seismic Surcharge) ............................... 26 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage ... ............................... 26 Wall /Retaining Wall Footing Transitions ............................... 30 DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ....................... 31 UTILITIES................................ .............................32 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ................ ............................... 33 Drainage........................... .............................33 Erosion Control ...................... .............................33 Landscape Maintenance .............. .............................33 Gutters and Downspouts .............. .............................34 Subsurface and Surface Water ......... .............................34 Site Improvements ................... .............................34 Tile Flooring ........................ .............................35 Additional Grading ................... .............................35 Footing Trench Excavation ............ .............................35 Trenching/Temporary Construction Backcuts .......................... 35 Utility Trench Backfill ............... ............................... 36 Ed and Cori Durfey Table of Contents File e: \wp9 \6200 \6201a.pge Page ii G e®soadss HS0o SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING ...................... .............................36 OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS /CONSULTANTS .......................... 37 PLANREVIEW ...... .................... .............................38 LIMITATIONS ............................. .............................38 FIGURES: Figure 1 - Site Location Map .......... ............................... 2 Figure 2 - Boring Location Map ........ ............................... 4 Figure 3 - Geologic Cross Section X- X .... ............................... 5 Figure 4 - Lateral Earth Pressures for Shoring Systems ................... 18 Detail 1 - Typical Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Detail .............. 27 Detail 2 - Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail Geotextile Drain ....... 28 Detail 3 - Retaining Wall and Subdrain Detail Clean Sand Backfill ........... 29 ATTACHMENTS Appendix A - References .... ............................... Rear of Text Appendix B - Boring Logs ... ............................... Rear of Text Appendix C - EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, and PHGA ............... Rear of Text Appendix D - Laboratory Data ............................... Rear of Text Appendix E - General Earthwork, Grading Guidelines, and Preliminary Criteria . . . ............................... ............... Rear of Text Ed and Cori Durfey File :e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge Gc ®Soffs, Inc. Table of Contents Page iii PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 1034 CORNISH AVENUE, PROPOSED TWO -STORY RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: 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 the west side of Cornish Avenue in Encinitas, San Diego County, California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). The site is bounded by existing residential development to the north and south, to the east by Cornish Avenue, and to the west by Dewitt Avenue. Free - standing walls exist near (offsite ?) or on the northern and eastern property line. Based on the plans by Sowards & Brown Engineering (S &BE, 2011), finish grade elevations on the property range from ±138 to ±150 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Overall relief across the property is on the order of ±12 feet. Site drainage appears to be accommodated by sheet flow and directed to the west. Currently the site is occupied by a single - family residence and a detached one bedroom apartment. Based on the preliminary plans provided, it is our understanding that proposed construction will consist of a new two -story single family residence with a proposed basement extending approximately ±9 feet below surface grades. Cut and fill grading techniques would be utilized to create design grades for the proposed structure. It is anticipated that the proposed structure will be three - stories (including the below grade basement), and will use shallow 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 structure, and the need for import soils is not anticipated. GeeSoffs, 1"e. Base Map: TOPO!® 02003 National Geographic, U.S.G.S Encinitas Quadrangle, California — San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute, dated 1997, current, 1999. fH c frt. aRi' � n ' E0141s P � ,.e p i EtRM 0 � �� • .r u S Base Map: The Thomas Guide, San Diego Co., Street Guide and Directory, 2005 Edition, by Thomas Bros. Maps, page 1167. FepmM,m,1 x Oamuc 9 nW by Tl 8rt M" The map m a ynghfW by ilenws Bins Ue 4 is uNnNU� ro upy a rgwoaure eY a any G� mersu /, xlnvrer b' pnnW m a muk. rwVUN P�^�ssb^ M ngMS msernd 16 N G�� W.O. 6201 -A -SC SITE LOCATION MAP Figure 1 N All ►.. Ab� Aw j{■■j1 � �r �� r 11 \\� r zz Base Map: TOPO!® 02003 National Geographic, U.S.G.S Encinitas Quadrangle, California — San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute, dated 1997, current, 1999. fH c frt. aRi' � n ' E0141s P � ,.e p i EtRM 0 � �� • .r u S Base Map: The Thomas Guide, San Diego Co., Street Guide and Directory, 2005 Edition, by Thomas Bros. Maps, page 1167. FepmM,m,1 x Oamuc 9 nW by Tl 8rt M" The map m a ynghfW by ilenws Bins Ue 4 is uNnNU� ro upy a rgwoaure eY a any G� mersu /, xlnvrer b' pnnW m a muk. rwVUN P�^�ssb^ M ngMS msernd 16 N G�� W.O. 6201 -A -SC SITE LOCATION MAP Figure 1 SITE EXPLORATION Surface observations and subsurface exploration were performed in March 2011 by a geologist from this office. A survey of line and grade for the subject lot was not conducted by this firm at the time of our field exploration. Near - surface soil conditions were explored with two hollow stem auger borings and one hand auger boring within the site to evaluate soil and geologic conditions. The approximate location of each boring is shown on the Boring Location Map (see Figure 2). A geologic Cross Section X-X' has been prepared to illustrate proposed residence /topography and near - surface conditions (see Figure 3). Boring Logs are presented in Appendix B. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep, elongated mountain ranges and valleys that trend northwesterly. The mountain ranges are underlain by underground parking 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 (including at this site, old paralic 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 -age old paralic deposits. SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS The site geologic units encountered during our subsurface investigation and site reconnaissance included colluvium /topsoil and old paralic deposits. The earth materials are generally described below from the youngest to the oldest. The distribution of the mappable units are shown on Figure 2. Quaternary -age Colluvium/Topsoil (Not Mapped) Quaternary-age colluvium /topsoil was encountered at the surface in all Borings. The colluvium /topsoil generally consisted of a dark brown silty sand. The colluvium /topsoil was moist to saturated, loose, and non - uniform. In general, the thickness of the colluvium was Ed and Cori Dur(ey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File: e:\wp9\6200\6201a.pge Ge ®Soils, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A -SC April 19, 2011 Page 3 ADJACENT APN- 258-322-02 GARAGE h STEPPING STONES � ;_�. �0 I REUSE EXISTNG x 1 3' VEGETATED SWALE 1 �'" 4 -Dh '� f FG �� WATER METER WITH UNDERDRAIN N y ' 1 144 145.42 LIp 1.1.5 1 i�' ° ❑ 0 1 ,�, ►_- - , -1 �- { 6' AC BERM FLUSH CuR" SS -9 - - .. - �3R TIC JD - _ 53-4 g X 1Q \ • FG 12' TR ,4� 8.3 �{ �sy PROPOSED B.7 SS-6 —'1 ± SS -4 / OSED I. RESIDENCE ❑ 1 —.{ SS -6 • 1 BASEMENT TD =i9' l '6 2.0% FF 137.00 ^O \ �� 10' - �+i VIA TD +B' 2 I 5 L` X �� a NN F /� t __ ~ uVIT$ ,ST FL - 1' a 1 I-" • j C Fc i WAI -6 d } 4,. ° , � � , [#ij C� R /�i �6 �A e s o J c I EXISTING �►t'A0�5T �, _ -� MANHOLE ❑ • • PROPOSED _ GRADE P .ter 2.Oz g.:: I d� 'GARAGE . e9 4,, - -20' q REMOVE EXISTING i- • EG • 1 . 1 1.7% :' d . __,..,,e �� Rg. hp �c v!g F.Y.SB ; -1 0'36 ITC-1 •TD =15 — =2.7 r i l � 4;11"1 I �\ ❑ n B•1X e � �1r+ `P- ., • `'��.�� Ef(ISTING :�. ��' ..^ fC -10 �- 1� F6 .4-2--2-31 y [SC7 �s Y ° • - 1 N� i0 REMAIN `e°�' PALM TREES U, 7 SC -6 1 _ 9R CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN 7.50 E �G, 1 ''k i� ✓1 N830 35E 94.81' - ° t3 5 VGETATED SWALE 13J.48 WITH UNOERORAIN 41) ,�h — 3` 1MOE �y�11AY ADJACENT g. 3• CU CORE ,gyp \�s GRAVEL STRIP LIMITS 1ST �._ EEOoR DECK RESIDENCE C• GSI LEGEND �,(R;yENAY i�i1A � � J �° �H a�� QOp - Quaternary older porolic deposits ANN; 263-3 Sowards Base map provided by. RIVERSIDE CO B -3 Sowards & Brown Engineering (2011) G ORCYGE CO. SAN DIEGO CO. - Approximate location and total depth GRAPH IC SCALE ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE To=,s' of exploratory boring N BORING LOCATION MAP 10 0 S 10 20 This document or efile is not a part of the Construction X ' - Geologic Cross Section I Documents and should not be relied upon as being an rr/ VVV accurate depiction of design. I FI ure 1 1 ° = 10' 1 w.o. 6201.1 1 DATE: 4111 SCALE: i•= 10' FA Proposed I Proposed Basement I Proposed Residence Patio 150 Proposed �T R Grade QCOI Proposed Residence Existing QOP 146.00 (MSL)I,,,— — 140 Grade J_ p osed Basement — — 137.00 (MSL)� — � J QOn 1 112:1 (Backcut) 730 A n pproximate Overexcavation , ca OP Depth (3" below finish grade t 133.00 (MSL)) GRAPHIC SCALE B -1 TD =19' ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE This document or efile is not a part of the Construction Documents and should not be relied upon as being an accurate depiction of design. i 1 112:1 (Backcut) Approximate Overexcavation Depth (3' below finish grade t 142.00 (MSL)) X' WN 140 130 on the order of 31/2 to 4 feet. These colluvium soils are considered potentially compressible in their existing state and therefore should be removed and recompacted, if settlement- sensitive improvements and /or planned fills are proposed within their influence. According to a custom soil resource report for the site area obtained from the USDA on the internet ( http:// websoilsurvey .nres.usda.ciov /app/1, the site is underlain by a soil mixture call "marina loamy coarse sand," with the marina loamy coarse sand unit occurring on ridges. This soil is considered to be somewhat excessively drained with the "Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat) moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98) in /hr)," and "Available water capacity: moderate (about 8.7 inches)." Quaternary -age Old Paralic Deposits (Map Symbol - Qop) Quaternary-age old paralic deposits (formerly termed terrace deposits) were encountered underlying the colluvium /topsoil in all of the borings. Where weathered, the old paralic deposits typically consisted of an orangish brown and dark brownish gray silty sand. The weathered old paralic deposits were generally saturated and loose to medium dense; generally consisted of a reddish brown silty sand; and were wet and dense to very dense. Locally, the unweathered old paralic deposits exhibited moderate cementation. Weathered old paralic deposits are considered potentially compressible in their existing state and therefore should be removed and recompacted if settlement- sensitive improvements and /or planned fills are proposed within their influence. The thickness of the weathered old paralic deposits was on the order of 112 foot. Unweathered old paralic deposits are considered suitable for the support of settlement- sensitive improvements and /or planned fill in their existing state. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE Regionally, the old paralic deposits are thickly bedded to massive. Bedding is typically weakly developed and horizontal to sub - horizontal. LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY According to regional landslide susceptibility mapping by Tan and Giffen (1995), the site is located within landslide susceptibility Area 3 -1, which is characterized as being "generally susceptible" to landsliding. However, given the site's relative location to ascending or descending slopes, its gentle relief, the absence of adverse geologic structure, and dense nature of the underlying old paralic deposits, the potential for landslides to affect the proposed site development is considered low. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File: e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a.p9e Gc ®Soils, Inc. O. 6201 -A -SC April 19, 2011 Page 6 GROUNDWATER Our review indicates that regional groundwater should generally not significantly affect site development, and is anticipated to generally be coincident with MSL, and deeper than 100 feet. Due to the nature of the site materials, seepage and /or perched groundwater conditions may develop throughout the site in the future, both during and subsequent to development, especiallyalong boundaries of contrasting permeabilities (i.e., sandy /clayey fill lifts, fill /old paralic deposits contacts, bedding, joints /fractures, discontinuities, etc.), and should be anticipated. This potential should be disclosed to all interested /affected parties. Thus, more onerous slab design is necessary for any new slab -on -grade floor (State of California, 2011). Recommendations for reducing the amount of water and /or water vapor through slab -on -grade floors are provided in the "Soil Moisture Considerations" sections of this report. FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY Regional Faults Our review indicates that there are no known active faults crossing this site, and the site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). However, the site is situated in an area of 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 (NIRCFZ). Portions of the nearby NIRCFZ are located in an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). The location of these, and other major faults relative to the site, are indicated in Appendix C (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 awhole. Major active fault zones that may have a significant affect on the site, should they experience activity, are listed in Appendix C (modified from Blake, 2000a). Local Faultinn No local faulting was observed to transect the site during the field investigation. Additionally, a review of available regional geologic maps does not indicate the presence of local faults crossing the site. Seismicity The acceleration- attenuation relation of Bozorgnia, Campbell, and Niazi (1999)has been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 2000a). EQFAULT is a computer program developed by Thomas F. Blake (2000a), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using digitized California faults as earthquake sources. Ed and Cori Durfey W. 0. 6201 -A-SC 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas He:e *p9 \6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSoiils, Inc. April 19, 2011 Page 7 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) was computed by one user - selected acceleration- attenuation relation that is contained in EQFAULT. Based on the EQFAULT program, a peak horizontal ground acceleration from an upper bound event near the site may be on the order of 0.76 g. The computer printouts of pertinent portions of the EQFAULT program are included within Appendix C. Historical site seismicity was evaluated with the acceleration- attenuation relation of Bozorgnia, Campbell, and Niazi (1999), and the computer program EQSEARCH (Blake, 20O0b, updated to June 2010). This program performs a search of the historical earthquake records for magnitude 5.0 to 9.0 seismic events within a 100 - kilometer radius, between the years 1800 through June 2010. Based on the selected acceleration- attenuation relationship, a peak horizontal ground acceleration is estimated, which may have effected the site during the specific event listed. Based on the available data and the attenuation relationship used, the estimated maximum (peak) site acceleration during the period 1800 through June 2010 was 0.64 g. A historic earthquake epicenter map and a seismic recurrence curve are also estimated /generated from the historical data. Computer printouts of the EQSEARCH program are presented in Appendix C. A probabilistic seismic hazards analysis was performed using the 2008 Interactive Deaggregations (Beta) Seismic Hazard Analysis tool available at the USGS website (https: / /geohazards .usgs.gov /deaggnit /2008n which evaluates the site specific probabilities of exceedance for selected spectral periods. Based on a review of these data, and considering the relative seismic activity of the southern California region, a probabilistic horizontal ground acceleration (PHGA) of 0.29g and 0.49g were calculated. These values were chosen as they correspond to a 10 percent and 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, respectively. Printouts from this analysis are also included in Appendix C. Seismic Shaking Parameters Based on the site conditions, the following table summarizes the site - specific design criteria obtained from the 2010 CBC (CBSC, 2010), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613, Earthquake Loads. The computer program Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response Spectra, provided by the United States Geologic Survey (U.S-G.S.) was utilized for design. The short spectral response utilizes a period of 0.2 seconds. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File: e: \wp9 \620016201 a.pge Ge®Soiils, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A -SC April 19, 2011 Page 8 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS' PARAMETER VALUE 2010 CBC REFERENCE Site Class D Table 1613.5.2 Spectral Response - (0.2 sec), S. 1.41 g Figure 1613.5(1) Spectral Response - (1 sec), S, 0.53g Figure 1613.5(2) Site Coefficient, F. 1.0 Table 1613.5.3(1) Site Coefficient, F, 1.3 Table 1613.5.3(2) Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral 141g Section 1613.5.3 Response Acceleration (0.2 sec), S. (Eqn 16 -36) Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral 069g Section 1613.5.3 Response Acceleration (1 sec), S., (Eqn 16-37) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response 0.94g Section 1613.5.4 Acceleration (0.2 sec), Sos (Eqn 16-38) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response 0 46g Section 1613.5.4 Acceleration (1 sec), Sp, (Eqn 16-39) GENERAL SEISMidbtSIGN''PARAMETERS' : - Distance to Seismic Source 3.1 mi. (Rose Canyon fault zone) (5.0 km) Upper Bound Earthquake (Rose Canyon fault zone) Mw 6.9 ** Probabilistic Horizontal Ground Acceleration ([PHGA] 0.29g/0.49g 10% and 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) ** International Conference of Building Officials ICBO 1998 Conformance to the criteria above for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur in the event of a large earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to eliminate all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Cumulative effects of seismic events are not addressed in the 2010 CBC (CBSC, 2010) and regular maintenance and repair following locally significant seismic events (i.e., Mw5.0) will likely be necessary. 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 mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, and typical site development procedures: • Dynamic Settlement • Surface Fault Rupture Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas Flle:e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge GeeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A -SC April 19, 2011 Page 9 • Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture • Tsunami • Seiche It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of an upper bound or maximum credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass than from those induced by the hazards considered above. Following implementation of remedial earthwork and design of foundations described herein, this potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity that comply with current and adopted building standards. 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 50 feet and is unlikely and /or will produce vertical strains well below 1 percent for depths below 60 feet when relative densities are 40 to 60 percent and effective overburden pressures are two or more atmospheres (i.e., 4,000 pounds per square foot [Seed, 2005]). 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. As such, the potential for lateral spreading to manifest is considered low. 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 site is susceptible to regional seismic shaking. However, the old paralic deposits are Pleistocene in age and generally have high relative density. Furthermore, the depth to the regional water table is anticipated to be greater than 60 feet. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas Re: e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a. pge G¢oSoi6a, Inc. O. 6201 -A-SC April 19, 2011 Page 10 Our evaluation indicates that at least two or three of the five required concurrent conditions, discussed above, do not have the potential to affect the site simultaneously. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction and its associated adverse effects to affect the proposed improvements is low, even with a future rise in groundwater levels. Additionally, the recommended remedial removal and recompaction of low density surficial soils and /or foundation embedment into unweathered old paralic deposits will further reduce liquefaction susceptibility. PERMANENT SLOPE STABILITY Based on site conditions and planned improvements, significant graded cut and /or fill slopes are not anticipated. Thus, our evaluation did not include the stability of proposed graded slopes. 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 (Sowers and Sowers, 1979). The soil classifications are shown on the Borings Logs in Appendix B. Moisture - Density Relations The field moisture contents and dry unit weights were evaluated 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 dry density and optimum moisture content was determined for a representative, composite soil sample. The laboratory standard utilized was ASTM D 1557. The moisture - density relationship obtained for this soil is shown below: Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas Re:e: \wp9 \6200 \6201a pge GeOS®iis, Inc. W. 0. 6201 -A-SC April 19, 2011 Page 11 SAMPLE LOCATION SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DRY OPTIMUM MOISTURE AND DEPTH (FT) COHESION DENSITY'(PCF) CONTENT (PSF) (DEGREES PSF (DEGREES B1 , 0-3' Reddish Brown, Silty Sand 129.5 9.5 Expansion Potential Expansion testing was performed on a representative sample of site soil in general accordance with ASTM D 4829. The results of expansion index testing are presented in the following table. LOCATION AND DEPTH -EXPANSION INDDCC I EXPANSION POTENTIAL* B -1 @0-5 <20 1 Very Low * - per Table 1 8-1 -B of the 2001 California Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials, 2001) Direct Shear. Test Shear testing was performed on a representative, "undisturbed" sample of site soil in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3080 in a Direct Shear Machine of the strain control type. The shear test results are presented in the following table: SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH (FT) PRIMARY RESIDUAL COHESION _ FRICTION ANGLE COHESION FRICTION ANGLE (PSF) (DEGREES PSF (DEGREES B -1 @ 15' 260 40 so 36 Particle - Size Analysis An evaluation was performed on a representative, soil sample in general accordance with ASTM D 422 -63. The grain -size distribution curve is presented in Appendix D. The testing was utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The results of the particle size analysis indicate that the tested soil is a silty sand (SM). Saturated Resistivity, pH, and Soluble Sulfates GSI conducted sampling of onsite earth materials for general soil corrosivity and soluble sulfates, and chlorides testing. Laboratory testing was completed by Prime Testing, Inc. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas R1e:e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSoif$/ Inc. W.0- 6201 -A -SC April 19, 2011 Page 12 The testing included evaluation of soil pH, soluble sulfates, chlorides, and saturated resistivity. Test results indicate that site soils are strongly alkaline (pH = 8.9) with respect to soil acidity /alkalinity, are moderately corrosive to ferrous metals when saturated (saturated resistivity = 5,600 ohm -cm), present a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete (760 mg /kg), and are not considered an external source of chlorides (chloride content = 50 ppm). Reinforced concrete mix design should conform to "Exposure Class CO" in Table 4.3.1 of ACI 318 -08. These findings indicate that corrosive effects of on -site soils on concrete are expected to be low, and low corrosion potential on buried metal; however, GSI does not consult in corrosion engineering. Additional comments and recommendations may be obtained from a corrosion engineer, as determined by the structural engineer and /or architect for the project. Test results are presented in Appendix D. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the site appears suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in the following sections are properly incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the currently proposed development are: • Earth materials characteristics and depth to competent bearing material. • On -going corrosion potential of site soils. • Potential for perched groundwater to occur during and after development. • Non - structural zone on un- mitigated perimeter conditions (improvements subject to distress). • Temporary slope stability. • Regional seismic activity. 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 are evaluated 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 earthwork to aid the contractor in removing unsuitable soils and in his effort to compact the fill, should grading be necessary. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas R1e:e:\wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSoals, Hine. .O. 6201 -A-SC April 19, 2011 Page 13 2. Geologic observations should be performed during any 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. In general, remedial grading excavations are anticipated to be on the order of 31/2 to 4 feet across a majority of the site. However, local deeper remedial grading excavations cannot be precluded and should be anticipated. Remedial grading excavations should be completed below a 1:1 (h:v) projection down from the bottom, outermost edge of proposed settlement- sensitive improvements. 4. It should be noted that the 2010 California Building Code ([2010 CBCJ, California Building Standards Commission [CBSCJ, 2010) indicates that removals of unsuitable soils be performed across all areas under the purview of the grading permit, not just within the influence of the residential structure. Relatively deep removals may also necessitate a special zone of consideration on perimeter /confining areas. This zone would be approximately equal to the depth of removals, if removals cannot be performed offsite. Thus, any settlement- sensitive improvements (walls, flatwork, etc.), constructed within this zone may require deepened foundations, reinforcement, etc., or will retain some potential for settlement and associated distress. The presence of existing, offsite improvements may limit remedial earthwork along property boundaries. It is likely that these conditions will occur. Should unmitigated soils remain within the property boundaries at the conclusion of grading, the potential for settlement- sensitive improvements, constructed within the influence of these soils, to experience settlement- associated distress should be anticipated and be properly disclosed to all interested /affected parties. 5. In general and based upon the available data to date, regional groundwater should generally not significantly affect site development, based on the available data. However, there is also a potential for perched water conditions to manifest along zones of contrasting permeabilities (i.e., sandy /clayey fill lifts, fill /old paralic deposit contacts, discontinuities, etc.) during and after construction. The potential for perched water to occur should be disclosed to all interested /affected parties. 6. Our laboratory test results and experience on nearby sites generally indicate that soils with a very low expansion potential (Expansion Index [E.I.J < 20) underlie the site. This should be considered during project design and construction. Preliminary foundation design and construction recommendations are provided herein for the a very low expansion potential classification. This potential should be re- evaluated prior to actual foundation construction /excavation, and /or at the conclusion of earthwork. Soil corrosion and soluble sulfate, and chloride testing indicate that the site soils are strongly alkaline with respect to soil acidity /alkalinity, are moderately corrosive to ferrous metals when saturated, possess negligible ( "not Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File: eAwp91620016201 a.pge GeoS®1l5, bile. W.O. 6201 -A -SC April 19, 2011 Page 14 applicable ") sulfate exposure to concrete (per Table 4.2.1 of ACI 318 -08), and are not considered an external source of chlorides. Reinforced concrete mix design should conform to "Exposure Class CO" in Table 4.3.1 of ACI 318 -08. These findings indicate that corrosive effects of on -site soils on concrete are expected to be low, and low corrosion potential on buried metal. Additional comments and recommendations may be obtained from a corrosion engineer, as determined by the structural engineer and /or architect for the project. 7. The seismicity- acceleration values provided herein should be considered during the design and construction of the proposed development. 8. General Earthwork, Grading Guidelines, and Preliminary Criteria are provided at the end of this report as Appendix E. Specific recommendations are provided below. EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS General Minor remedial earthwork will likely be necessary for the support of the proposed settlement- sensitive improvements. Remedial grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix J of the 2010 CBC (CBSC, 2010), the requirements of the City of Encinitas, and the Grading Guidelines presented in Appendix E, except where specifically superceded in the text of this report. In case of conflict, the more onerous code or recommendations should govern. Prior to grading, a GSI representative should be present at the pre- construction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule. During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative (s) of GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and, if warranted, modified and /or additional recommendations will be offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), and the Construction Safety Act should be met. It is the onsite general contractor and individual subcontractors responsibility to provide a safe working environment for our field staff who are onsite. GSI does not consult in the area of safety engineering. Demolition /Grubbing Vegetation, and any miscellaneous deleterious debris generated from the demolition of existing site improvements should be removed from the areas of proposed grading /earthwork. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File: e:1wp91620016201 a,pge Ge®S®ils9 Inc. W.O. 6201 -A -SC April 19, 2011 Page 15 2. Cavities or loose soils remaining after demolition and site clearance should be cleaned out and observed by the geotechnical consultant. 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. Remedial Removals (Removal of Potentially Compressible Surficial Materials) Where planned fills or settlement- sensitive improvements are proposed, potentially compressible Quaternary colluvium /topsoil and weathered old paralic deposits should be removed to expose unweathered old paralic deposits. Removed soils may be reused as properly engineered fill provided that major concentrations of organic material have been removed prior to placement. In general, the remedial removal excavations are anticipated to be on the order of 4 to 4'/2 feet across a majority of the site. However, local deeper removal excavations cannot be precluded and should be anticipated. The removal of potentially compressible soils should minimally be performed below a 1:1 (h:v) projection down from the bottom, outermost edge of proposed settlement sensitive improvements. Once the unsuitable soils have been removed, the exposed old paralic deposits should be scarified approximately 6 to 8 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary to achieve the soil's optimum moisture content and then be re- compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard prior to fill placement. Remedial removal excavations should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to scarification. Overexcavation In order to provide uniform foundation support, the subterranean parking area/basement should be overexcavated a minimum of 3 feet below planned finish grade or one foot below lowest foundation element, which ever is greater. In addition, areas outside the planned subterranean parking (i.e. upper level) are recommended to be overexcavated ±4 feet were settlement sensitive improvements are planned. Overexcavation should be laterally completed to at least 3 feet outside the outboard edge of the perimeter foundation. The bottom of the overexcavation should be sloped to gravity drain to Dewitt Avenue. If there isn't sufficient fall, a moisture - activated sump pump may be necessary. See Figure 3 for a general overexcavation schematic. Temporary Slopes Temporary slopes for excavations greater than 4 feet, but less than 20 feet in overall height should conform to CAL -OSHA and /or OSHA requirements for Type "C" soils. Temporary slopes, up to a maximum height of ±20 feet, may be excavated at a 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v)) gradient, or flatter, provided groundwater is not exposed. Construction materials or soil stockpiles should not be placed within 'H' of any temporary slope where 'H' equals the height of the temporary slope. All temporary slopes should be observed by a licensed engineering geologist and /or geotechnical engineer prior to worker entry into the excavation. Based on the exposed field conditions, inclining temporary slopes to flatter gradients or the use of shoring may be necessary if adverse conditions are observed. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File: e: \wp9 \6200\6201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A -SC April 19, 2011 Page 16 Shoring of Excavations Should insufficient space for constructing portions of the proposed development be encountered, shoring may be required. We recommended that temporary slopes be retained either by a cantilever shoring system deriving passive support from cast -in -place soldier piles (lagging- shoring system) or a restrained tie -back and pile system. Based on our experience with similar projects in the Encinitas area, if lateral movement of the shoring system on the order of 1 to 2 inches cannot be designed for or tolerated, we recommend the utilization of an internal bracing /raked shoring system. Shoring of excavations of this size is typically performed by specialty contractors with knowledge of the Encinitas area soil conditions. We recommend that shoring contractors provide the excavation shoring design. However, for the shoring design parameters, we provide the lateral earth pressures in Figure 4. The use of anchors may not be feasible on this site due to the location of adjacent existing roadways and utilities in close proximity to the site. If desired, additional anchor recommendations will be provided. Since design of retaining systems is sensitive to surcharge pressures behind the excavation, we recommend that this office be consulted if unusual load conditions are anticipated. Care should be exercised when excavating into the on -site soils since caving or sloughing of these materials is possible. Field testing of tie -backs (if used) and observation of soldier pile excavations should be performed during construction. Shoring of the excavation is the responsibility of the contractor. Extreme caution should be used to minimize damage to existing pavement and utilities caused by settlement or reduction of lateral support. Accordingly, we recommend that the foundations of adjacent structures be surveyed prior to and during construction to evaluate the effects of shoring on these structures. Photodocumentation of pre- construction conditions is also advised. Open Excavations Construction materials and /or stockpiled soil should not be stored within 5 feet of the top of any temporary slope or trench wall. Temporary/permanent provisions should be made to direct any potential runoff away from the top of temporary excavations. It is the responsibility of the general contractor and his subcontractor to provide a safe working environment and to protect site improvements as well as adjacent existing improvements during construction. Lateral Pressure The active pressure to be utilized for trench wall shoring design may be computed by the rectangular active pressure (psf) as shown in the following table. Passive pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a given density shown in the following table (pcf per depth). Ed and Cori Durfey W.O. 6201 -A -SC 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas April 19, 2011 File: e:\wp9 \6200\6201 a.pge GeoSoils, No. Page 17 Cantilever Shoring S stem — Surcharge Pressure P (psf) -- -- -- - 1 � 1 -- — Line Load QL(pounde) 1D (feet) X R 45 H (pat) � <0.4 0.55 OL I95 H (paf) for 0.35 P (psf) )0.4 0.64 OL 14 backfillj 400 D (psf) ) — Surcharge Pressure P (psf) Tie -Back Shoring stem 9 Y �1 — — Line Load QL(pounds) P (pat) + 0.2 H (ft.) H (feet) 49 0.2 H (ft.) IBTI�tFHI CI I I� I D (feet) 400 D (pat) ® 1 30 H Resistance behind this lit O Tie Back = 1200 psf 0 Bond Stress Minimum 7' depth for supporting piers 0.35 P (psf) 1 NOTES OInclude groundwater effects below groundwater level 2O Include water effects below groundwater level. O3 Grouted length greater than 7 feet; field test anchor strength. ® Neglect passive pressure below base of excavation to a depth of one pier diameter. Y RIVERSIDE CO. C. ORANGE CO. - - SAN DIEGO CO. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR SHORING SYSTEMS FIGURE 4 W.O. 6201 -A -SC I DATE 04/11 1 SCALE Nona WffiwFT rti X Y H (feet) — — 0.1 0.6H Y (feet) 0.3 0.6H 0.5 0.56H 0.7 0.48H 1D (feet) X R 45 H (pat) � <0.4 0.55 OL I95 H (paf) for 0.35 P (psf) )0.4 0.64 OL 14 backfillj 400 D (psf) ) — Surcharge Pressure P (psf) Tie -Back Shoring stem 9 Y �1 — — Line Load QL(pounds) P (pat) + 0.2 H (ft.) H (feet) 49 0.2 H (ft.) IBTI�tFHI CI I I� I D (feet) 400 D (pat) ® 1 30 H Resistance behind this lit O Tie Back = 1200 psf 0 Bond Stress Minimum 7' depth for supporting piers 0.35 P (psf) 1 NOTES OInclude groundwater effects below groundwater level 2O Include water effects below groundwater level. O3 Grouted length greater than 7 feet; field test anchor strength. ® Neglect passive pressure below base of excavation to a depth of one pier diameter. Y RIVERSIDE CO. C. ORANGE CO. - - SAN DIEGO CO. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR SHORING SYSTEMS FIGURE 4 W.O. 6201 -A -SC I DATE 04/11 1 SCALE Nona EARTH PRESSURE FOR SHORING LEVEL GROUND SURFACE SOIL TYPE RECTANGULAR ACTIVE PRESSURE (PSF) EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT FOR ' PASSIVE PRESSURE (PCF) Old Paralic Deposits 35 400 The above criteria assumes that hydrostatic pressure is not allowed to build up behind excavation walls. If water is allowed to accumulate behind walls, an additional hydrostatic pressure surcharge should be added. These recommendations are for excavation walls up to 10 feet high. Active earth pressure may be used for trench wall design, provided the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An empirical equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are provided for specific slope gradients of the retained material: these do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, seismic events, expansive soils or adverse geologic conditions. For excavation walls greater than 6 feet in height, a seismic increment of 1011 (uniform pressure) may be considered for level excavation. For walls, these seismic loads should be applied at 0.611 up from the bottom of the wall to the height of retained earth materials. Excavation Observation (All Excavations) When excavations are made adjacent to an existing structure (i.e., utility, road or building) there is a risk of some damage to that structure even if a well designed system of excavation and /or shoring, is planned and installed. We recommend, therefore, that a systematic program of observations be made before, during, and after construction to determine the effects (if any) of construction on the existing structures. We believe that this is necessary for two reasons: First, if excessive movements (i.e., more than 112 inch) are detected early enough, remedial measures can be taken which could possibly prevent serious damage to the existing structure. Second, the responsibility for damage to the existing structure can be determined more equitably if the cause and extent of the damage can be determined more precisely. Monitoring should include the measurement of any horizontal and vertical movements of both the existing structures and the shoring and /or bracing. Locations and type of the monitoring devices should be selected as soon as the total shoring system is designed and approved. The program of monitoring should be agreed upon between the project team, the site surveyor and the Geotechnical Engineer of Record, prior to excavation. Reference points on the existing structures should be placed as low as possible on the exterior walls of buildings adjacent to the excavation. Exact locations may be dictated by Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas Flee: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W. 0. 6201 -A-SC April 19, 2011 Page 19 critical points within the structure, such as bearing walls or columns for buildings; and surface points on roadways and sidewalks near the top of the excavation. The points on the shoring should be placed under or very near the points on the structures. For a survey monitoring system, an accuracy of a least 0.01 foot should be required. Reference points should be installed and read initially prior to excavation. The readings should continue until all construction below ground has been completed and the backfill has been brought up to final grade. The frequency of readings will depend upon the results of previous readings and the rate of construction. Weekly readings could be assumed throughout the duration of construction with daily readings during rapid excavation near the bottom and at critical times during the installation of shoring or support. The reading should be plotted by the Surveyor and then reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer. In addition to the monitoring system, it would be prudent for the Geotechnical Engineer and the Contractor to make a complete inspection of the existing structures both before and after construction. The inspection should be directed toward detecting any signs of damage, particularly those caused by settlement. Notes should be made and pictures should be taken where necessary. Observation It is recommended that all excavations be observed by the Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. Any fill which is placed should be approved, tested, and verified if used for engineered purposes. Temporary trench excavations should be observed by the Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. Should the observation reveal any unforseen hazard, the Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer will recommend treatment. Please inform us at least 24 hours prior to any required site observation. Monitoring Existing, Offsite Improvements It is recommended that existing, offsite improvement be inspected prior to the start of earthwork and be monitored during and at the conclusion of grading to determine if earthwork at the site has influenced the stability of said improvements. Engineered Fill Placement Engineered fill should be placed in thin lifts, moisture conditioned, and mixed to achieve the soil's optimum moisture content, and then be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). Engineered fill placement should be observed and selectively tested for moisture content and compaction by the geotechnical consultant. Ed and Cori Durtey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas Rle:e:lwp9\6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A -SC April 19, 2011 Page 20 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS General 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. The proposed foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with the guidelines contained in the 2010 CBC (CBSC, 2010). In the event that the information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct, or any changes in the design, location or loading conditions of the proposed structure are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by the project structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in structural design. Upon request, GSI could provide additional input /consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. New Foundation Design 1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the latest adopted edition of the 2010 CBC (CBSC, 2010). All new foundations should be embedded into competent old paralic deposits or engineered fill. 2. An allowable bearing value of 2,000 psf may be used for design of footings that maintain a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of 12 inches, and founded into suitable engineered fill. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum value of 2,500 psf. In addition, this value may be increased by one -third when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. Isolated pad footings should have a minimum dimension of at least 24 inches square and a minimum depth of 24 inches into dense unweathered old paralic deposits or engineered fill. The footing depth excludes any landscaped zone or topsoil /colluvium, as well as slab and slab underlayment thickness. 3. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pcf, with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf. 4. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with the dead load forces. Ed and Cori Durfey W.O. 6201 -A -SC 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas April 19, 2011 n1e:e:lwp9\6200 \6201a.pge Page 21 GeoSoils, Inc. 5. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third- 6. Soil generated from footing excavations to be used onsite should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent minimum relative compaction, if it is to be placed in the yard /right -of -away areas. This material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural area and toward the street. Foundation Settlement Foundation systems should be designed to accommodate a differential settlement of at least 1 inch in a 40 -foot span. Footing Setbacks Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be designed to 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 viewpoint. The site soils generally possess a very low expansion potential. Accordingly, the following foundation construction recommendations are for this type of soil condition. 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: Expansion Classification - Very Low (E .I. 0 to 20 and P I Less than 15) 1. Exterior and interior garage footings should be founded into engineered fill at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade for a two -story floor load and 24 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface for three -story floor loads. Interior footings may be founded at a depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface. Footings for two -story loads should have a minimum width of 15 inches, and three -story floor loads should have a minimum width of 18 inches. Isolated column and panel pads, or wall footings, should be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches into properly compacted fill. All footings should be minimally reinforced with two No. 4 reinforcing bars, one placed near the top and one placed near the bottom of the footing. Ld and Cori Durtey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File: e: 1wp916 2 0 016 2 0 1 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A -SC April 19, 2011 Page 22 2. All interior and exterior column footings, and perimeter wall footings, should be tied together via grade beams in at least one direction. The grade beam should be at least 12 inches square in cross section, and should be provided with a minimum of one No.4 reinforcing bar at the top, and one No.4 reinforcing bar at the bottom of the grade beam. The base of the reinforced grade beam should be at the same elevation as the adjoining footings. 3. A grade beam, reinforced as previously recommended and at least 12 inches square, should be provided across the garage entrance. The base of the reinforced grade beam should be at the same elevation as the adjoining footings. 4. Concrete slabs should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 reinforcement bars placed at 18 -inch on centers, in two horizontally perpendicular directions (i.e., long axis and short axis). All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper mid -slab height positioning during placement of the concrete. "Hooking" of reinforcement is not an acceptable method of positioning. 6. Slab subgrade pre- soaking is not necessary for these soil conditions. However, the client should consider moisture conditioning the slab subgrade to at least the soil's optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches prior to slab underlayment construction. 7. Soils generated from footing excavations to be used onsite should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557), whether the soils are to be placed inside the foundation perimeter or in the yard /right -of -way areas. This material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural areas and toward the street. 8. Reinforced concrete mix design should conform to "Exposure Class CO" in Table 4.3.1 of ACI- 318 -08. CORROSION Upon completion of any grading, additional testing of soils (including import materials) for corrosion to concrete and metals should be performed prior to the construction of utilities and foundations to confirm or modify the preliminary results contained herein. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas F1ee: \wp9 \6200 \6201 apge GeoSoils, Inc. .O. 6201 -A -SC April 19, 2011 Page 23 SOIL MOISTURE CONSIDERATIONS GSI has evaluated the potential for vapor or water transmission through the slabs, in light of typical residential floor coverings and improvements. Please note that slab moisture emission rates, range from about 2 to 27 Ibs /24 hours /1,000 square feet from a typical slab (Kanare, 2005), while floor covering manufacturers generally recommend about 3 Ibs /24 hours as an upper limit. Thus, the client will need to evaluate the following in light of a cost v. benefit analysis, along with disclosure to all interested /affected parties. Considering the anticipated typical water vapor transmission rates, floor coverings and improvements (to be chosen by the client) that can tolerate those rates without distress, the following alternatives are provided: 1. Concrete slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick. 2. Concrete slab underlayment should consist of a 10 -mil to 15 -mil vapor retarder, or equivalent, with all laps sealed per the 2010 CBC (CBSC, 2010) and the manufacturer's recommendation. The vapor retarder should comply with the ASTM E 1745 - Class A or B criteria, and be installed in accordance with ACI 302.1 R -04 and ASTM E 1643. The 10- to 15 -mil vapor retarder (ASTM E -1745 - Class A) shall be installed per the recommendations of the manufacturer, including all penetrations (i.e., pipe, ducting, rebar, etc.). 3. Slab underlayment should consist of 2 inches of washed sand (SE >30) placed above a vapor retarder consisting of 10- to 15- mil polyvinyl chloride, or equivalent, with all laps sealed per the 2010 CBC (CBSC, 2010). The vapor retarder shall be underlain by 2 inches of washed sand (SE >30) placed directly on properly compacted subgrade soils, and should be sealed to provide a continuous water - resistant barrier under the entire slab, as discussed above. All slabs should be additionally sealed with suitable slab sealant. 4. Concrete should have a maximum water /cement ratio of 0.50. This does not supercede the 2010 CBC (CBSC, 2010) for corrosion or other corrosive requirements. Additional concrete mix design recommendations should be provided by the structural consultant and /or waterproofing specialist. Concrete finishing and workablity should be addressed by the structural consultant and a waterproofing specialist. 5. Where slab water /cement ratios are as indicated above, and /or admixtures used, the structural consultant should also make changes to the concrete in the grade beams and footings in kind, so that the concrete used in the foundation and slabs are designed and /or treated for more uniform moisture protection. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. O. 6201 -A-SC April 19, 2011 Page 24 6. Owners(s) and all interested /affected parties should be specifically advised which areas are suitable for tile flooring, wood flooring, or other types of water /vapor- sensitive flooring and which are not suitable. In all planned floor areas, flooring shall be installed per the manufactures recommendations. 7. Additional recommendations regarding water or vapor transmission should be provided by the architect/structural engineer /slab or foundation designer and should be consistent with the specified floor coverings indicated by the architect. Regardless of the mitigation, some limited moisture /moisture vapor transmission through the slab should be anticipated. Construction crews may require special training for installation of certain product(s), as well as concrete finishing techniques. The use of specialized product(s) should be approved by the slab designer and water - proofing consultant. Atechnical representative of the flooring contractor should review the slab and moisture retarder plans and provide comment prior to the construction of the residential foundations or improvements. The vapor retarder contractor should have representatives onsite during the initial installation. 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 50) 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. Below grade walls should be waterproofed. 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 into engineered fill or unweathered old paralic deposits (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 (Le., 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. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File: e:1wp91620016201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A-SC April 19, 2011 Page 25 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. SURFACE SLOPE OF EQUIVALENT RETAINED MATERIAL FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F. HORIZONTAL:VERTICAL) (SELECT BACKFILL * *) EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F. (NATIVE BACKFILL * * *) Level* 35 45 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. ** As evaluated by testing, P.I. <15, E.I. <21, S.E. >30, and <10% passing No. 200 sieve. * ** As evaluated by testing, E.I. <50, S.E. >25 and <15% passing No. 200 sieve. Earthquake Loads (Seismic Surcharge) Given the granular nature of the site soils and the anticipated level of potential earthquake shaking given herein, GSI recommends that for walls retaining more than, or equal to, 6 feet of soil and that are 6 feet or less from structures, or may inhibit ingress /egress for the site roads or lots, are incorporated into the building (stepped foundations), or critical access pathways (i.e., collector streets, fire access roads, etc.), a seismic surcharge (increment) of 1 OH should be used where H is the height of the wall and the surcharge is applied as a uniform pressure for restrained walls. For cantilever walls, this distribution may be taken as an inverted triangular distribution. This complies with a 0.30g Probabilistic Horizontal Ground Acceleration (PHGA) 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The resulting wall design should be safe from seismic induced overturning with a minimum factor -of -safety (F.O.S.) of 1.3. Basement walls, or utility or wine cellar vaults, if proposed, will need to be evaluated as retaining walls, as well as part of the wall design from a seismic standpoint per the 2010 CBC (CBSC; 2010) and Section 15.6.1 of ASCE (2006). 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 Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File e:\wp9i620016201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A -SC April 19, 2011 Page 26 Structural footing or settlement- sensitive improvement design by others (6) Footing (1) Waterproofing membrane. (2) Gravel: Clean, crushed, 3/4 to 1%2 inch. (3) Filter fabric Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent. (4) Pipe 4- inch - diameter perforated PVC, Schedule 40, or approved alternative with minimum of 1 percent gradient sloped to suitable, approved outlet point (perforations down). (5) Weep hole Minimum 2 -inch diameter placed at 20 -foot centers along the wall and placed 3 inches above finished surface. Design civil engineer to provide drainage at toe of wall. No weep holes for below -grade walls. (6) Footing: If bench is created behind the footing greater than the footing width, use level fill or cut natural earth materials. An additional "heel" drain will likely be required by geotechnical consultant. 'C 1 (Gae. RETAINING WALL DETAIL — ALTERNATIVE A I Detail 1 I Provide surface drainage via an (1) Waterproofing engineered V -ditch (see civil plans membrane for details) CMU or 2.1 NO slope reinforced - concrete wall l :. slope, or fevef- 1— :02 inches Proposed grade i sloped to drain -' - (3).Filter•4abiri !• precise civil p er P / Native backfill drawings \ \� (5) Weep hole -- " i \�� \ \�i 14 NO or flatter backcut to be Footing and wall properly benched design by others (6) Footing (1) Waterproofing membrane. (2) Gravel: Clean, crushed, 3/4 to 1%2 inch. (3) Filter fabric Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent. (4) Pipe 4- inch - diameter perforated PVC, Schedule 40, or approved alternative with minimum of 1 percent gradient sloped to suitable, approved outlet point (perforations down). (5) Weep hole Minimum 2 -inch diameter placed at 20 -foot centers along the wall and placed 3 inches above finished surface. Design civil engineer to provide drainage at toe of wall. No weep holes for below -grade walls. (6) Footing: If bench is created behind the footing greater than the footing width, use level fill or cut natural earth materials. An additional "heel" drain will likely be required by geotechnical consultant. 'C 1 (Gae. RETAINING WALL DETAIL — ALTERNATIVE A I Detail 1 I (2) Drain: Miradrain 6000 or J -drain 200 or equivalent for non - waterproofed walls; Miradrain 6200 or J -drain 200 or equivalent for waterproofed walls (all perforations down). (3) Filter fabric Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent; place fabric flap behind core. (4) Pipe 4- inch - diameter perforated PVC, Schedule 40, or approved alternative with minimum of 1 percent gradient to proper outlet point (perforations down). (5) Weep hole Minimum 2 -inch diameter placed at 20 -foot centers along the wall and placed 3 inches above finished surface. Design civil engineer to provide drainage at toe of wall. No weep holes for below -grade walls. (6) Gravel Clean, crushed, 3/4 to 1%2 inch. (7) Footing If bench is created behind the footing greater than the footing width, use level fill or cut natural earth materials. An additional "heel" drain will likely be required by geotechnical consultant. C, 40 lt➢e. RETAINING WALL DETAIL — ALTERNATIVE B Detail 2 Structural footing or (1) Waterproofing settlement- sensitive improvement membrane (optional) Provide surface drainage via engineered V -ditch (see civil plan details) CMU or 2:1 WO slope reinforced - concrete wall igbpe 6r [evel, 6 inches -- /\\\ .E2)'Composlt6-. drain... (5) Weep hole :. \ Proposed tads ` E3) 9Jtei fabi i / ' Native backfill sloped to drain \ \ \� per precise civil drawings J4 P� 11 (hv) or flatter backcut to be Footing and wall properly benched design by others (6) 1 cubic foot of 3/4 -inch crushed rock (7) Footing (1) Waterproofing membrane (optional) Liquid boot or approved mastic equivalent. (2) Drain: Miradrain 6000 or J -drain 200 or equivalent for non - waterproofed walls; Miradrain 6200 or J -drain 200 or equivalent for waterproofed walls (all perforations down). (3) Filter fabric Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent; place fabric flap behind core. (4) Pipe 4- inch - diameter perforated PVC, Schedule 40, or approved alternative with minimum of 1 percent gradient to proper outlet point (perforations down). (5) Weep hole Minimum 2 -inch diameter placed at 20 -foot centers along the wall and placed 3 inches above finished surface. Design civil engineer to provide drainage at toe of wall. No weep holes for below -grade walls. (6) Gravel Clean, crushed, 3/4 to 1%2 inch. (7) Footing If bench is created behind the footing greater than the footing width, use level fill or cut natural earth materials. An additional "heel" drain will likely be required by geotechnical consultant. C, 40 lt➢e. RETAINING WALL DETAIL — ALTERNATIVE B Detail 2 (1) Waterproofing membrane CMU or reinforced- concrete wall A2 Inches (5) Weep hole -- " Proposed grade sloped to drain per precise civil drawings Footing and wall design by others Structural footing or settlement- sensitive improvement Provide surface drainage 2 :1 WO slope ..•.Sfope:.or fevel`- .e ~ H /2..Ti v W "eel wid1�� (3) Filter fabric - (2) Gravel (4) Pipe (7) Footing (1) Waterproofing membrane Liquid boot or approved masticequivalent. (2) Gravel Clean, crushed, 314 to 1%2 inch. (3) Filter fabric Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent. i - (8) Native backfill (6) Clean sand backfill -1:1 NO or flatter backcut to be properly benched (4) Pipe 4- inch - diameter perforated PVC, Schedule 40, or approved alternative with minimum of 1 percent gradient to proper outlet point (perforations down). (5) Weep hole Minimum 2 -inch diameter placed at 20 -foot centers along the wall and placed 3 inches above finished surface. Design civil engineer to provide drainage at toe of wall. No weep holes for below -grade walls. (6) Clean sand backfill Must have sand equivalent value (S.E.) of 35 or greater can be densified by water jetting upon approval by geotechnical engineer. (7) Footing: If bench is created behind the footing greater than the footing width, use level fill or cut natural earth materials. An additional "heel" drain will likely be required by geotechnical consultant. (8) Native backfill: If E.I. (21 and S.E. )35 then all sand requirements also may not be required and will be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant. Gel' �. RETAINING WALL DETAIL - ALTERNATIVE C Detail 3 4, discussed below. Backdrains should consist of a 4 -inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or 3/4 -inch to 11/2 -inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). For low expansive backfill, the filter material should extend a minimum of 1 horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and upward at least 1 foot. For native backfill that has an E.I. up to 50, 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 50 should not be used as backfilI 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. <50). Proper surface drainage should also be provided. For additional mitigation, consideration should be given to applying a water -proof membrane to the back of all retaining structures. The use of a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry joints. Wall /Retaining Wall Footing Transitions Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Should wall footings transition from cut to fill, the civil designer may specify either: a) A minimum of a 2 -foot overexcavation and recompaction of cut materials for a distance of 2H, from the point of transition. b) Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that a angular distortion of 1/360 for a distance of 2H on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be placed no greater than 20 feet on- center, in accordance with the structural engineer's /wall designer's recommendations, regardless of whether or not transition conditions exist. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible, non - shrink grout. C) Embed the footings entirely into native formational material (i.e., deepened footings). Ed and Cori Durfey W.O. 6201 -A -SC 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas April 19, 2011 File: e: \wp9 \6200 \6201a.pge Page 30 GeoSoils, Inc. If transitions from cut to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should follow recommendation "a" (above) and until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment. DRIVEWAY. FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS Some of the soil materials on site may be expansive. The effects of expansive soils are cumulative, like corrosion, 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 disclosure be provided to all interested /affected parties of this long -term potential for distress. To reduce the likelihood of distress, the following recommendations are presented for all exterior flatwork: 1. The subgrade area for concrete slabs should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and then be presoaked to 2 to 3 percentage points above (or 125 percent of) the soils' optimum moisture content, to a depth of 18 inches below subgrade elevation. If very low expansive soils are present, only optimum moisture content, or greater, is required and specific presoaking is not warranted. The moisture content of the subgrade should be proof tested within 72 hours prior to pouring concrete. 2. Concrete slabs should be cast over a non - yielding surface, consisting of a 4 -inch layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand, that should be compacted and level prior to pouring concrete. If very low expansive soils are present, the rock or gravel or sand may be deleted. The layer or subgrade should be wet -down completely prior to pouring concrete, to minimize loss of concrete moisture to the surrounding earth materials. 3. Exterior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. Driveway slabs and approaches should additionally have a thickened edge (12 inches) adjacent to all landscape areas, to help impede infiltration of landscape water under the slab. 4. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints are recommended to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two ways to mitigate such cracking are: a) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, increasing tensile strength of the slab; and, b) provide an adequate amount of control and /or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. 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 Ed and Cori Durfey W.O. 6201 -A -SC 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas April 19, 2011 Flle:e: \wp9\620o \6201a.pge Page 31 G¢oSoils, Inc. direction. If subgrade soils within the top 7 feet from finish grade are very low expansive soils (i.e., E.I. s20), then 6x6- W1.4xW1.4 welded -wire mesh may be substituted for the rebar, provided the reinforcement is placed on chairs, at slab mid - height. The exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut, 1/2 to 3/6 inches deep, often enough so that no section is greater than 10 feet by 10 feet. For sidewalks or narrow slabs, control joints should be provided at intervals of every 6 feet. The slabs should be separated from the foundations and sidewalks with expansion joint filler material. 5. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. Concrete compression strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi. 6. Driveways, sidewalks, and patio slabs adjacent to the house should be separated from the house with thick expansion joint filler material. In areas directly adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (i.e., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints should be additionally sealed with flexible mastic. 7. Planters and walls should not be tied to the house. 8. Overhang structures should be supported on the slabs, or structurally designed with continuous footings tied in at least two directions. If very low expansion soils are present, footings need only be tied in one direction. 9. Any masonry landscape walls that are to be constructed throughout the property should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20 feet long. These segments should be keyed or doweled together. 10. 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. 11. 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. UTILITIES Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions. Due Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas Re: e: \wp9\6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A -SC April 19, 2011 Page 32 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. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Drainage Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance of foundations, hardscape, and slopes. Surface drainage should be sufficient to mitigate ponding of water anywhere on a lot, and especially near structures and tops of slopes. Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during fine grading, landscaping, and building construction. Therefore, care should be taken that future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within lots and common areas should be provided and maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and /or seep into the ground. In general, the area within 5 feet around a structure should slope away from the structure. We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum gradient of 1 percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.) - Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized to control roof drainage- Down spouts, or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. Erosion Control 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 Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O- 6201 -A-SC April 19, 2011 Page 33 structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed -bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter should be provided with a moisture retarder to mitigate penetration of irrigation water into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (i.e., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Gutters and Downspouts As previously discussed in the drainage section, the installation of gutters and downspouts should be considered to collect roof water that may otherwise infiltrate the soils adjacent to the structures. If utilized, the downspouts should be drained into PVC collector pipes or other non - erosive devices (e.g., paved swales or ditches; below grade, solid tight -lined PVC pipes; etc.), that will carry the water away from the structure, to an appropriate outlet, in accordance with the recommendations of the design civil engineer. Downspouts and gutters are not a requirement; however, from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided that positive drainage is incorporated into project design (as discussed previously). Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors- 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 Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a. pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A -SC April 19, 2011 Page 34 from GSI, and this construction recommendation should be provided to all interested parties. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench and retaining wall backfills, flatwork, etc. Tile Flooring Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. Therefore, the designer should consider additional steel reinforcement for concrete slabs -on -grade where tile will be placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane (approved by the Tile Council of America /Ceramic Tile Institute) are recommended between 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 Ed and Cori Duriey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File: e:1wp9 \6200 \6201 a, pge GeOS011S, Inc. W. 0. 6201 -A-SC April 19, 2011 Page 35 provided to any contractors and /or subcontractors, or property owners, 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. 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. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas Re :e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A -SC April 19, 2011 Page 36 • Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaking /presaturation of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea - gravel, etc.), or vapor retarders (i.e., visqueen, etc.). • During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement. • During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, and retaining wall backfill. • When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report. When any owner 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. 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 entirely 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. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas Fi1e:e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A -SC April 19, 2011 Page 37 If the structural engineer /designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and /or improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing, that the proposed foundations and /or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and /or expansion characteristics and other design criteria specified herein- PLAN REVIEW Final project plans (grading, precise grading, foundation, retaining wall, landscaping, etc.), should be reviewed by this office prior to bidding and 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. Ed and Cori Ourfey 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas File e:\wp9\620D\6201a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W. 0. 6201 -A-SC April 19, 2011 Page 38 APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A ACI Committee 302, 2004, Guide for concrete floor and slab construction, ACI 302.1 R -04, dated June. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1998, Standard practice for installation of water vapor retarder used in contact with earth or granular fill under concrete slabs, Designation: E 1643 -98 (Reapproved 2005). 1997, Standard specification for plastic water vapor retarders used in contact with soil or granular fill under concrete slabs, Designation: E 1745 -97 (Reapproved 2004). Blake, Thomas 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; Updated to December 2009, 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. Brooks Design, Inc., 2010, Site plan for: Danna residence, Sheet 1, 20- scale, dated April 19. Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault- rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist - Priolo earthquake fault zoning act with index to earthquake fault zones maps; California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, interim revision. California Building Standards Commission, 2010, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on the 2009 International Building Code, 2010 California Historical Building Code, Title 24, Part 8; 2010 California Existing Building Code, Title 24, Part 10. California Department of Transportation, Division of Engineering Services, Materials Engineering, and Testing Services, Corrosion Technology Branch, 2003, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 1.0, dated September. California, State of, 2011, Civil Code, Sections 895 et seq. GeoSO1ilS, Inc. , 2001, Senate Bill 800, Burton. Liability: construction defects, February 23; approved by Governor September 20,2002; filed with Secretary September 20,2002; effective January 1, 2003. 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. Kanare, Howard, 2005, Concrete floors and moisture, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois. 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. Romanoff, M., 1957, Underground corrosion, originally issued April 1. 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. Seed, 2005, Evaluation and mitigation of soil liquefaction hazard "evaluation of field data and procedures for evaluating the risk of triggering (or inception) of liquefaction ", in Geotechnical earthquake engineering; short course, San Diego, California, April 8 -9. Sowards & Brown Engineering, 2011, Preliminary grading plan, 1034 Cornish Avenue, 10- 075 CDP, Encinitas, Ca., dated January 1. Sowers and Sowers, 1970, Unified soil classification system (After U. S. Waterways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487 -667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New York. State of California, 2006, Civil Code, Sections 895 et seq. Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide hazards in the northern part of the San Diego Metropolitan area, San Diego County, California, Landslide hazard identification map no. 35, plate 35A, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open File Report 95 -04. Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, Geologic maps of the northwestern part of San Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96 -02. Ed and Cori Durfey Appendix A Flee: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. United States Geological Survey, 2009, Seismic hazard curves and uniform hazard response spectra - v5.0.9, dated October 21. 1997, Encinitas quadrangle, San Diego County, California, 7.5 minute series, 1:24,000 scale. Ed and Cori Durfey File: e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix A Page 3 APPENDIX B BORING LOGS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY Major Divisions Group Typical Names CRITERIA trace Symbols C Core Sample Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5-10% S SPT Sample Well- graded gravels and gravel - Classification little coarse fine GIN sand mixtures, little or no fines Standard Penetration Test 25-45% m m , b m j Visible free water; below water table Op Pocket Penetrometer Poorly graded gravels and m `o o v U Penetration m' n m r; GP gravel -sand mixtures, little or no Resistance N Relative m E Zw z fines (blows/ff) Density m m c v 0 - 4 Very loose GM Silty gravels gravel -sand -silt o Z ,U v > t mixtures a o m 4-10 Loose Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay v 0 'm c GC mixtures 10 -30 Medium as Well- graded sands and gravelly m m 30-50 Dense 0 o m c N SW sands, little or no fines O m x °p o N > 50 Very dense 15 N Poorly graded sands and m v SP gravelly sands, little or no fines `o m S H SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures m vs m m E n .3 LL Clayey sands, sand -clay rn SC mixtures Inorganic silts, very fine sands, Standard Penetration Test ML rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands N Unconfined mE m Inorganic clays of low to Penetration Compressive „ a a `o CL medium plasticity, gravelly clays, lean Resistance N Strength sandy clays, silty clays, (blows /ft) Consistency (tons/fe) clays o d m Organic silts and organic silty m z v <2 Very Soft <025 w OL clays of low plasticity q ; 2 - 4 Son 0.25-.050 C7 n y m LL MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts, 4 - 8 Medium 0.50-1.00 E `o m c N elastic silts OEcro 8-15 Stiff 1.00 -2.00 o v Inorganic clays of high plasticity, m� m CH fat clays 15-30 Very Stiff 2.00-400 J m Organic clays of medium to high N m °1 >30 Hard >4.00 OH plasticity Peat, mucic, and other highly Highly Organic Soils PT organic soils 3' 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve Unified Soil MATERIAL QUANTITY Gravel Sand Silt or Clay Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch trace Cobbles C Core Sample Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5-10% S SPT Sample Moist Classification little coarse fine coarse medium fine 25-45% !� MOISTURE CONDITIONS MATERIAL QUANTITY OTHER SYMBOLS Dry Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch trace 0-5% C Core Sample Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5-10% S SPT Sample Moist Near optimum moisture content little 10-25% B Bulk Sample Very Moist Above optimum moisture content some 25-45% 7 Groundwater Wet Visible free water; below water table Op Pocket Penetrometer BASIC LOG FORMAT: Group name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, gypsum coarse grained particles, etc. (SP), fine to medium grained, brown, molst, loose, trace sill, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4" in size, some hair roots and rootlets. File:Mgr. c;1SoilC1assff.wpd NLA I t U -1 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO, 6201 -A -SC PROJECT. DURFEY BORING B-1 SHEET I OF 1 1034 Cornish Drive, Encinitas DATE EXCAVATED 3-16-11 LOGGED BY.' RBB Sample SAMPLE METHOD' Modified Cal Sampler, 140 lbs Q 30" Drop Approx. Elevation: 149' MSL i Standard Penetration Test o n o Q Gmundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample _.. n y 9 O rn O Description of Material o � y SM TOPSOIL: @ 0' SILTY SAND, dark gray, damp, loose. 1 SP WEATHERED QUATERNARY PARALIC DEPOSITS: @ V SAND, reddish yellow, moist, medium dense; fine grained. 2 @ 2'/:' Manganese oxide staining. 3 SC QUATERNARY PARALIC DEPOSITS: 4 @ 3 %z' CLAYEY SAND, yellowish red, wet, medium dense. 5 21 SM 123.3 10.2 78.8" @ 5' SILTY SAND w /minor CLAY, yellowish red, wet, medium dense- 6- 7 r: 8 �.. 9 J' 10 64 116.5 9.3 58.5 @ 10' SILTY SAND w /minor CLAY, yellowish red, moist, dense" 11 @ 103 SAND w /minor SILT, reddish yellow, moist, dense. 12 13 14 15- 42 100.6 3.7 15.4 @ 15' SAND, gray to light brown, dry, dense; fine to medium grained. 16 17 18 19 47 117.8 6.7 43.8 @ 19' SAND w /minor SILT, brown, damp, dense: fine grained. 20 21 Total Depth = 21' No Groundwater /Caving Encountered 22 Backfilled 3 -16 -2011 GeoSoils, Inc. 1034 Cornish Drive, Encinitas Plate B -2 BORING LOG Geo3oils, Inc. WO. 6201 -ASC PROJECT DURFEY BORING B -2 SHEET 1 OF 1 1034 Cornish Drive, Encinitas DATE EXCAVATED 3-16-11 LOGGED BY.. RBB Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Modified Cal Sampler, 140 Ibs Q 30' Drop Approx. Elevation: 149' 1ABL r0 Standard Penetration Test n n° Q Groundwater v o m E, o ® Undisturbed, Ring Sample N z Description of Material o m' 0 m D o rn SM TOPSOIL: @ 0' SILTY SAND, dark gray, damp, loose. 1 SP WEATHERED QUATERNARY PARALIC DEPOSITS: @ 1' SAND, reddish yellow, moist, medium dense; fine grained. 2 @ 21/ Manganese oxide staining. 3 24 SC 126.4 10.6 90.9 QUATERNARY PARALIC DEPOSITS: 4 @ 3Y:' CLAYEY SAND, yellowish red, wet, medium dense. @ 4' As per 3'/'. 5 6 7 30 SM 721.6 9.2 67.6;: @ 7' SILTY SAND, yellowish red, moist, medium dense. Total Depth = 8' No Groundwater /Caving Encountered 9 Backfilled 3 -16 -2011 to- It- 12- 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 GeoSoUs, time. 1034 Cornish Drive, Encinitas Plate B-3 BORING LOG dye ®Soils, Inc. WO. 6201 -A -SC PROJECT: DURFEY BORING B-3 SHEET I OF 1 1034 Cornish Drive, Encinitas DATE I)CCAVATED 318-11 LOGGED BY: RBB Sample SAMPLE METHOD' Modified Cal Sampler, 140lbs @ 30" Drop Approx. Elevation: 140' MSL n Standard Penetration Test a° Q Groundwater v V j ® Undisturbed, Ring Sample rn m Y : W L, 3 ° Description of Material SM TOPSOIL: 0' SILTY SAND dark gray, damp, loose. SP 1 WEATHERED QUATERNARY PARALIC DEPOSITS: @ 1/2' SAND, reddish brown, moise, loose becoming medium dense 2 with depth. 3 4 SP QUATERNARY PARALIC DEPOSITS: @ 4 SAND, brown, moist, medium dense. 5 6 SC @ 6' /V CLAYEY SAND, brown, moist, medium dense. 7 6 @ 8' As per 6' /:', yellowish red, moist, dense. 9 10 11 12 13 Total Depth = 13' No Groundwater /Caving Encountered 14 Backfilled 3 -16 -2011 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Ge"oM, T99C. 1034 Cornish Drive, Encinitas Plate B-0 APPENDIX C EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, AND PHGA 70B NUMBER: 6201 -A -SC Crth:tA*kAdtrtr:**h*A*ir8*:•* 3 ° E Q F A U L T :r rt * version 3.00 DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS DATE: 03 -11 -2011 30B NAME: 1034 Cornish Drive CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis FAULT - DATA -FILE NAME: C: \Program Files \EQFAULTI \CGSFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0401 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2905 SEARCH RADIUS: 62.14 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 15) Campbell & Bozorgnia (1997 Rev.) - Soft Rock UNCERTAINTY (M= Median, S= Sigma): S Number of Sigmas: 1.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist SCOND: 1 Basement Depth: .07 km Campbell SSR: 1 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT -DATA FILE USED: C: \Program Files \EQFAULTI \CGSFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0 W.O. 6201 -A -SC Page 1 GeoSoils, Inc. Plate C -1 --------- - - - - -- EQFAULT SUMMARY ------- -- - - -- -- ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ---------- ------ -- ---- - - - -- -- Page 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ ------ - - - - -- JESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT APPROXIMATE ------------------------------- ABBREVIATED DISTANCE MAXIMUM I PEAK JEST. SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) JEARTHQUAKE1 SITE JINTENSITY MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. g JMOD.MERC. ROSE CANYON 1 3.1( 5.0)1 7.2 J 0.756 1 XI NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1 11.5( 18.5) 1 7.1 1 0.322 IX CORONADO BANK 17.5( 28.1)] 7.6 1 0.282 I IX ELSINORE (JULIAN) 28.3( 45.6) 1 7.1 1 0.121 I VII ELSINORE (TEMECULA) 1 28.3( 45.6)1 6.8 1 0.094 VII PALOS VERDES 1 41.2( 66.3)1 7.3 1 0.084 VII ELSINORE (GLEN IVY) 1 41.8( 67.3)I 6.8 0.053 VI EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 42.3( 68.0)II 6.5 0.040 V SAN JOAQUIN HILLS 1 43.1( 69.4) 6.6 0.043 VI SAN JACINTO -ANZA 1 51.1( 82.3) 7.2 0.056 VI SAN JACINTO -SAN JACINTO VALLEY 53.0( 85.3)I 6.9 0.040 V NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 53.7( 86.4) 7.1 1 0.047 VI SAN JACINTO- COYOTE CREEK 1 53.7( 86.5)1 6.6 1 0.030 1 V ELSINORE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN) 1 54.1( 87.0)1 6.8 1 0.036 1 V CHINO - CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 56.2( 90.4)1 6.7 1 0.030 1 V WHITTIER 60.1( 96.7)1 6.8 1 0.031 1 V '.: it itrtrtrt ^'.r i:irti:O R:trt Ti:'.rd 3drtir ir.ir +A rtrtSrtrtrtAArtir:4'.r in ai::`3'.r >irrt irhrti:tdiie 4!r n it :td A:t':rt:i: at'.td is :t ir'rRi -END OF SEARCH- 16 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 3.1 MILES (5.0 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM - EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.7562 g W.O. 6201 -A-SC Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. Plate C -2 1100 1000 E@ Me 700 WE :cs m 300 200 100 0 -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP 1034 Cornish Drive W.O. 6201 -A -SC 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 GeoSoils, Inc. Plate C -3 V c 0 Y L L) U U LO 01 001 W.O. 6201 -A -SC MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKES 1034 Cornish Drive 10 100 Distance (mi) GeoSoiils, Inc. Plate C -4 ., t:4trAldird'w ;; rtrts}8ae'sSL:rA A *:4 - tr E Q S E A R C H s :} " Version 3.00 ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS JOB NUMBER: 6201 -A -SC DATE: 03 -11 -2011 JOB NAME: 1034 Cornish Drive EARTHQUAKE - CATALOG -FILE NAME: ALLQUAKE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0401 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2905 SEARCH DATES: START DATE: 1800 END DATE: 2010 SEARCH RADIUS: 62.1 mi 100.0 km ATTENUATION RELATION: 10) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.- Holocene Soil -Cor. UNCERTAINTY (M= Median, S= Sigma): S Number of Sigmas: 1.0 ASSUMED SOURCE TYPE: SS [SS= Strike -slip, DS= Reverse -slip, BT= Blind- thrust] SCOND: 1 Depth Source: A Basement Depth: .07 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0 W.O. 6201 -A -SC Page 1 GeoS01iS, Inc. Plate C -5 ------------------------- EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS ---- -------- ----- -- ------ Page 1 I I I I TIME I I SITE SITEI APPROX. FILE LAT. I LONG. 1 DATE I (UTC) DEPTHIQUAKEI ACC. I MM I DISTANCE CODE NORTH I WEST I I H M Secl (km)I MAG I 9 IINT.1 mi [km] ----+-------+--------+----------+--------+-----+-----+-------+----+------------ DMG 33.00001117.3000111/22/180012130 0.0 0.01 6.501 0.641 x 1 2.8( 4.5) MGI 33.00001117.0000109 /21/18561 730 0.0 0.01 5.001 0.073 I VIII 17.0( 27.4) MGI 32.8000 117.1000105/25/18031 0 0 0.0 0.01 5.001 0.062 I vi 1 19.9( 32.0) DMG 32.7000 117.2000105/27/1862120 0 0.0 0.0 5.901 0.088 viii 24.1( 38.7) T -A 32.6700 117.1700112/00/18561 0 0 0.0 0.0 5.001 0.047 VI 1 26.5( 42.6) T -A 32.6700 117.1700110/21/18621 0 0 0.01 0.0 5.00 0.047 vi 1 26.5( 42.6) T -A 32.6700 117.1700105/24/18651 0 0 0.0 I 0.0 5.00 0.047 VI 26.5( 42.6) DMG 32.8000 116.8000110/23/1894123 3 0.01 0.0 5.70 0.056 VI 32.9( 53.0) PAS 32.9710 117.8700107/13/198611347 8.21 6.0 5.30 0.043 1 vi 1 33.9( 54.5) DMG 33.20001116.7000101/01/19201 235 0.01 0.01 5.00 0.034 1 v 1 35.9( 57.7) MGI 133.20001116.6000110/12/192011748 0.01 0.01 5.30 0.035 I v 1 41.4( 66.7) DMG 133.70001117.4000105/13/19101 620 0.01 0.0 5.00 0.026 1 v 46.0( 74.Q) DMG 33.70001117.4000104 /11/19101 757 0.01 0.0 5.001 0.026 1 V 46.0( 74.0) DMG 133 .70001117.4000105 /15/191011547 0.01 0.0 6.00 0.048 v2 46.0( 74.0) DMG 133.69901117.5110105 /31/19381 83455.41 10.01 5.50 0.034 1 V 47.2( 76.0) DMG 33 .00001116.4330106 /04/194011035 8.31 0.01 5.10 0.026 1 V 1 49.7( 80.0) DMG 133.71001116 .9250109/23/19631144152.6 16.51 5.00 0.024 1 IV 1 50.8( 81.8) DMG 1337500 117.0000 04/21/19181223225.0 0.0 6.80 0.071 vi 51.8( 83.3) DMG 33..7500 117.0000 06/06/191812232 0.01 0.0 5.00 0.023 IV 1 51.8( 83.3) GSP 133.5290 116.5720 06/12/20051154146.51 14.01 5.20 0.025 ( V 1 53.5( 86.0) DMG 133.5750 117.9830 03/11/19331 518 4.01 0.01 5.20 0.025 V 1 54.4( 87.6) PAS 133.5010 116.5130102/25/19801104738.51 13.61 5.50 0.029 I V 1 55.0( 88.5) DMG 133.8000 117.0000112/25/189911225 0.01 0.01 6.40 0.051 VI 1 55.1( 88.6) GSP 133.5080116 .5140110/31/20011075616.61 15.0 5.101 0.023 IV 1 55.2( 88.9) MGI 33 117.6000104/22/191812115 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.022 IV 55.4( 89.2) DMG 33:50001116.5000 109/30/19161 211 0.01 0.0 5.001 0.022 IV 55.6( 89.5) DMG 33.61701117.9670103/11/19331 154 7.81 0.0 6.30 0.047 VI 55.8( 89.7) T -A 32.25001117.5000101 /13/1877120 0 0.0 0.01 5.00 0.021 IV 1 55.9( 89.9) DMG 33.61701118.0170103/14/1933119 150.0 0.01 5.10 0.022 1 IV 1 57.8( 93.0) DMG 33.3430 116.3460104/28/19691232042.9 20.01 5.80 0.033 v 58.4( 94.0) DMG 133.90001117.2000112 /19/18801 0 0 0.01 0.01 6.001 0.036 1 V 59.6( 95.93 GSP 32.3290 117.9170 06/15/20041222848.21 10.0 5.30 0.023 Iv 61.1( 98.4) DMG 32.70001116.3000102 /24/18921 720 0.0 0.01 6.701 0.055 I VI 62.1( 99.9) rthhirrtrtrtrthhkhrtrthrthfi rtfi rtrtirrt rtrtrthrtrtrtrtrtrthrthrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrthrthhrthhhrthAhhrth ♦4 hfifi hfifirtfififihhhrtrthhh -END OF SEARCH- 33 EARTHQUAKES FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH AREA. TIME PERIOD OF SEARCH: 1800 TO 2010 LENGYH OF SEARCH TIME: 211 years THE EARTHQUAKE CLOSEST TO THE SITE IS ABOUT 2.8 MILES (4.5 km) AWAY. LARGEST EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE FOUND IN THE SEARCH RADIUS: 6.8 LARGEST EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION FROM THIS SEARCH: 0.641 g COEFFICIENTS FOR GUTENBERG & RICHTER RECURRENCE RELATION: a- value= 0.758 Page 2 W.O.6201 -A -SC GeoSoils, Inc. Plate C-6 b- value= 0.357 beta - value= 0.823 ------------------------------------ TABLE OF MAGNITUDES AND EXCEEDANCES: ------- ------ ----------------- - - ---- Earthquake Number of Times I Cumulative Magnitude Exceeded I No. / Year -----------+-----------------+----------- 4.0 33 0.15714 4.5 ( 33 I 0.15714 5.0 33 0.15714 5.5 12 0.05714 6.0 I 7 I 0.03333 I 6.5 3 0.01429 W.O. 6201 -A -SC Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. Plate C -7 1100 III, NO m 700 :fl •11 V91 300 200 100 rl -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP 1034 Cornish Drive W.O. 6201 -A -SC 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 G¢ ®S®als, Inc. f]F mw- ,. 111111 G , IF malffimmmmmm MW W.O. 6201 -A -SC GeoSoifs, Inc. Plate C -9 Q� e h N 0 v cn Y I. m 0 n 1 P 0 0 a 00 0 U 0 �t Prob. SA, PGA 200910 UPDATE PSH Deaggregation on NEHRP D soil 1034 Cornish Dr 117.2901 W, 33.040 N. Peak Horiz. Ground Accel. >= 0.4947 g Ann. Exceedance Rate .409E -03. Mean Return Time 2475 years Mean (R,M,F-0) 17.1 km, 6.75, 1.08 Modal (R,M,eo) = 4.6 km, 6.62, 0.60 (from peak PM bin) Modal (R M,s *) = 4.7 km, 6.62, 1 to 2 sigma (from peak R M,c bin) Binning: DeltaR 10. km, deltaM =0.2, Deltae =1.0 Ft Mki 2011 Mar 11 23:46:42 Distance (R), magnitude (M), epsilon (EO,E) deaggregatlen for a site on soil with average vs= 200. nds lop 30 m. USGS CGHT PSHA2000 UPDATE Stns with It 0.05% oxntrt6. omitted �1�, j 6 pr O NIF W--j �N CO O Prob. SA, PGA <median(R,M) F,<-2 -1 < 4 <-0.5 -0.5 < F, < 0 ry o� PSH Deaggregation on NEBRP D soil 1034 Cornish Dr 117.2901 W, 33.040 N. Peak froriz. Ground- Accel.>=0.2898 g Ann. Exceedance Rate .211E -02. Mean Return Time 475 years Mean(R,M,EO) 31.5 km, 6.71, 0.70 Modal (R,M,eo) = 4.6 km, 6.64,-0.45 (from peak RM bin) Modal (R,M,e*) = 4.6 km, 6.64, 0 to I sigma (from peak R,M,F- bin) Binning: DeltaR 10. km, deltaM=0.2, Deltae=1.0 Oa 599M >nnedian, 0 < EO N 0.5 < E, < I Far I < Ea < 2 ■ 2<F-0<3 200910 UPDATE QM O 4000 �sl [W M 2011 Mar 11 23;47:411 Distance (R), magnitude (M), epsilon (ED,E) deaggragailm for a alto on soil with SIPSAIgo vas 200. We top 30 m. USGS CGHT PSHA200B UPDATE Ohm with It OAS% contrill. emitted APPENDIX D LABORATORY DATA Prime Testing, Inc. 41658 Ivy Street Ste 114 Murrieta, CA 92562 ph (951) 894 -2682 • fx (951) 894 -2683 Work Order No.: 11C4200 Client: GeoSoils, Inc. Project No.: 6201 -A-SC Project Name: Durfey Report Date: March 30, 2011 Laboratory Test(s) Results Summary The subject soil sample was processed in accordance with California Test Method CTM 643 and tested for pH / Minimum Resistivity (CTM 643), Sulfate Content (CTM 417) and Chloride Content (CTM 422). The test results follow: `ND =No Detection We appreciate the opportunity to serve you. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or clarifications regarding these results or procedures. M E M B E R R www.pfimetesting.com " /L ,1k- -- Ahmet K. Kaya, Laboratory Manager PLATE D -2 Form No. CP -1R Rev. 05/10 Minimum Sulfate Sulfate Chloride Sample Identification pH Resistivity Content Content Content (ohm -cm) (mg /kg) (% by wgt) (ppm) B -1 @ 0 -3' 8.9 5,600 790 0.079 50 `ND =No Detection We appreciate the opportunity to serve you. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or clarifications regarding these results or procedures. M E M B E R R www.pfimetesting.com " /L ,1k- -- Ahmet K. Kaya, Laboratory Manager PLATE D -2 Form No. CP -1R Rev. 05/10 APPENDIX E GENERAL EARTHWORK, GRADING GUIDELINES AND PRELIMINARY CRITERIA GENERAL EARTHWORK, GRADING GUIDELINES, AND PRELIMINARY CRITERIA General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, excavations, and appurtenant structures or flatwork. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of these earthwork and grading guidelines and would supercedethe provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations which could supercede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. Generalized details follow this text. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications and latest adopted code. In the case of conflict, the most onerous provisions shall prevail. The project geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant), and /or their representatives, should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for general conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report(s), the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that an evaluation may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All remedial removals, clean -outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrain installation should be observed and documented bythe geotechnical consultant prior to placing any fill. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify the geotechnical consultant when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D -1557. Random or representative field compaction tests should be performed in GeoSoils, Inc. accordance with test methods ASTM designation D -1556, D -2937 or D -2922, and D -3017, at intervals of approximately ±2 feet of fill height or approximately every 1,000 cubic yards placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Contractor's Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by a geotechnical consultant, and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix, and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor should also remove all non -earth material considered unsatisfactory by the geotechnical consultant. Notwithstanding the services provided by the geotechnical consultant, it is the sole responsibility of the contractorto provide adequate equipmentand methodsto accomplish the earthwork in strict accordance with applicable grading guidelines, latestadopted codes or agency ordinances, geotechnical report(s), and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material, should be removed and disposed of off -site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. In -place existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials, as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant as being unsuitable, should be removed prior to any fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the geotechnical consultant. Ed and Cori Durtey File: e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E Page 2 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 geotechnical consultant. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to firm ground and approved by the geotechnical consultant 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 (ripped) to a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, or as directed by the geotechnical consultant. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content, or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is greater than 6 to 8 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 to 8 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report, or by the on -site geotechnical consultant. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable forms of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, mounds, or other uneven features, which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the geotechnical consultant. 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 geotechnical consultant, the minimum width of fill keys should be equal to Y2 the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre - stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toes of fill benches, should be observed and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained. Ed and Cori Durfey Fi1e:e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E 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 evaluated to be suitable by the geotechnical consultant. 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 geotechnical consultant. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other approved material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill /bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock, or other irreducible materials, with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the geotechnical consultant. Oversized material should be taken offsite, or placed in accordance with recommendations of the geotechnical consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. GSI anticipates that soils to be utilized as fill material for the subject project may contain some rock. Appropriately, the need for rock disposal may be necessary during grading operations on the site. From a geotechnical standpoint, the depth of any rocks, rock fills, or rock blankets, should be a sufficient distance from finish grade. This depth is generally the same as any overexcavation due to cut -fill transitions in hard rock areas, and generally facilitates the excavation of structural footings and substructures. Should deeper excavations be proposed (i.e., deepened footings, utility trenching, swimming pools, spas, etc.), the developer may consider increasing the hold -down depth of any rocky fills to be placed, as appropriate. In addition, some agencies /jurisdictions mandate a specific hold -down depth for oversize materials placed in fills. The hold -down depth, and potential to encounter oversize rock, both within fills, and occurring in cut or natural areas, would need to be disclosed to all interested /affected parties. Once approved by the governing agency, the hold -down depth for oversized rock (i.e., greater than 12 inches) in fills on this project is provided as 10 feet, unless specified differently in the text of this report. The governing agency may require that these materials need to be deeper, crushed, or reduced to less than 12 inches in maximum dimension, at their discretion. To facilitate future trenching, rock (or oversized material), should not be placed within the hold -down depth feetfrom finish grade, the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the governing agency, the geotechnical consultant, and /or the developer's representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the geotechnical consultant to evaluate it's physical properties and suitability for use onsite. Such testing Ed and Cori Durfey File: e: %wp9 \6200\6201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E Page 4 should be performed three (3) days prior to importation. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the geotechnical consultant as soon as possible. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers, that when compacted, should not exceed about 6 to 8 inches in thickness. The geotechnical consultant may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification, or should be blended with drier material. Moisture conditioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at, or above, optimum moisture. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density as evaluated by ASTM test designation D -1557, or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 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 geotechnical consultant. In general, perthe 1997 UBC and /or latest adopted version of the California Building Code (CBC), fill slopes should be designed and constructed at a gradient of 2:1 (h:v), or flatter. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over - building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final evaluation of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and /or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (h:v), prior approval from the governing agency, specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, special reinforcement, and special grading procedures will be recommended. Ed and Cori Durfey Re:e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge G¢oSoils, Inc. Appendix E Page 5 If an alternative to over - building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 1. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy, short- shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. 2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re- rolling. 3. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) ±2 to ±8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re- rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to evaluate compaction, the slopes should be grid - rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to evaluate compaction after grid rolling. 5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix, and recompact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to evaluate compaction. 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 geotechnical consultant may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade, and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains, especially the outlets, should be recorded /surveyed by the project civil engineer. Drainage at the subdrain outlets should be provided by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the geotechnical consultant. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavations or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and /or remedial grading of Ed and Cori Durfey File e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a. p9 e GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E Page 6 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 geotechnical consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The geotechnical consultant should observe all cut slopes, and should be notified by the contractor when excavation of cut slopes commence. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the geotechnical consultant should investigate, evaluate, and make appropriate recommendations for mitigation of these conditions. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in- grading evaluation by the geotechnical consultant, whether anticipated or not. Unless otherwise specified in geotechnical and geological report(s), no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractor's responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the projectcivil engineerand should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and /or in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. COMPLETION Observation, testing, and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and fill areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. Aftercompletion of grading, and after the geotechnical consultant has finished observations of the work, final reports should be submitted, and may be subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the geotechnical consultant or approved plans. 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. PRELIMINARY OUTDOOR POOUSPA DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The following preliminary recommendations are provided for consideration in pool /spa design and planning. Actual recommendations should be provided by a qualified geotechnical consultant, based on site specific geotechnical conditions, including a subsurface investigation, differential settlement potential, expansive and corrosive soil potential, proximity of the proposed pool /spato any slopes with regard to slope creep and lateral fill extension, as well as slope setbacks per code, and geometry of the proposed Ed and Cori Durfey Re:e:Xwp9\6 2 0 016 2 01 a. pge GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E Page 7 improvements. Recommendations for pools /spas and /or deck flatwork underlain by expansive soils, or for areas with differential settlement greater than '/4 -inch over 40 feet horizontally, will be more onerous than the preliminary recommendations presented below. The 1:1 (h:v) influence zone of any nearby retaining wall site structures should be delineated on the project civil drawings with the pool /spa. This 1:1 (h:v) zone is defined as a plane up from the lower -most heel of the retaining structure, to the daylight grade of the nearby building pad or slope. If pools /spas or associated pool /spa improvements are constructed within this zone, they should be re- positioned (horizontally orvertically) so that they are supported by earth materials that are outside or below this 1:1 plane. If this is not possible given the area of the building pad, the owner should consider eliminating these improvements or allow for increased potential for lateral /vertical deformations and associated distress that may render these improvements unusable in the future, unless they are periodically repaired and maintained. The conditions and recommendations presented herein should be disclosed to all homeowners and any interested /affected parties. General 1. The equivalent fluid pressure to be used for the pool /spa design should be 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for pool /spa walls with level backfill, and 75 pcf for a 2:1 sloped backfill condition. In addition, backdrains should be provided behind pool /spa walls subjacent to slopes. 2. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 150 pcf, to a maximum lateral earth pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf). 3. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.30 may be used with the dead load forces. 4. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third- 5. Where pools /spas are planned near structures, appropriate surcharge loads need to be incorporated into design and construction by the pool /spa designer. This includes, but is not limited to landscape berms, decorative walls, footings, built -in barbeques, utility poles, etc. 6. All pool /spa walls should be designed as "free standing" and be capable of supporting the water in the pool /spa without soil support. The shape of pool /spa in cross section and plan view may affect the performance of the pool, from a geotechnical standpoint. Pools and spas should also be designed in accordance with Section 1806.5 of the 1997 UBC. Minimally, the bottoms of the pools /spas, should maintain a distance H /3, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), from the slope face. This distance should not be less than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet. Ed and Cori Durtey F1e:e:\wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E Page 8 7. The soil beneath the pool /spa bottom should be uniformly moist with the same stiffness throughout. If a fill /cut transition occurs beneath the pool /spa bottom, the cut portion should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 48 inches, and replaced with compacted fill, such that there is a uniform blanket that is a minimum of 48 inches below the pool /spa shell. If very low expansive soil is used for fill, the fill should be placed at a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction, at optimum moisture conditions. This requirement should be 90 percent relative compaction at over optimum moisture if the pool /spa is constructed within or near expansive soils. The potential for grading and /or re- grading of the pool /spa bottom, and attendant potential for shoring and /or slot excavation, needs to be considered during all aspects of pool /spa planning, design, and construction. 8. If the pool /spa is founded entirely in compacted fill placed during rough grading, the deepest portion of the pool /spa should correspond with the thickest fill on the lot. 9. Hydrostatic pressure relief valves should be incorporated into the pool and spa designs. A pool /spa under -drain system is also recommended, with an appropriate outlet for discharge. 10. All fittings and pipe joints, particularly fittings in the side of the pool or spa, should be properly sealed to prevent water from leaking into the adjacent soils materials, and be fitted with slip or expandible joints between connections transecting varying soil conditions. 11. An elastic expansion joint (flexible waterproof sealant) should be installedto prevent water from seeping into the soil at all deck joints. 12. A reinforced grade beam should be placed around skimmer inlets to provide support and mitigate cracking around the skimmer face. 13. In order to reduce unsightly cracking, deck slabs should minimally be 4 inches thick, and reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars at 18 inches on- center. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper mid -slab positioning during the placement of concrete. Wire mesh reinforcing is specifically not recommended. Deck slabs should not be tied to the pool /spa structure. Pre - moistening and /or pre- soaking of the slab subgrade is recommended, to a depth of 12 inches (optimum moisture content), or 18 inches (120 percent of the soil's optimum moisture content, or 3 percent over optimum moisture content, whichever is greater), for very low to low, and medium expansive soils, respectively. This moisture content should be maintained in the subgrade soils during concrete placement to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of unsightly shrinkage cracks. Slab underlayment should consist of a 1- to 2 -inch leveling course of sand (S.E. >30) and a minimum of 4 to 6 inches of Class 2 base compacted to 90 percent. Deck slabs within the H/3 zone, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), will have an increased potential for distress relative to other areas outside of the H/3 zone. If distress is undesirable, Ed and Cori Durfey File: e:\wp916200 \6201 a.pge GeoSosis, Inc. Appendix E Page 9 improvements, deck slabs orflatwork should not be constructed closer than H/3 or 7 feet (whichever is greater) from the slope face, in order to reduce, but not eliminate, this potential. 14. Pool /spa bottom or deck slabs should be founded entirely on competent bedrock, or properly compacted fill. Fill should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, as discussed above. Prior to pouring concrete, subgrade soils below the pool /spa decking should be throughly watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content, to a depth of at least 18 inches below the bottom of slabs. This moisture content should be maintained in the subgrade soils during concrete placement to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of unsightly shrinkage cracks. 15. In order to reduce unsightly cracking, the outer edges of pool /spa decking to be bordered by landscaping, and the edges immediately adjacent to the pool /spa, should be underlain by an 8 -inch wide concrete cutoff shoulder (thickened edge) extending to a depth of at least 12 inches below the bottoms of the slabs to mitigate excessive infiltration of water under the pool /spa deck. These thickened edges should be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one at the top and one at the bottom. Deck slabs may be minimally reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on- center, in both directions. All slab reinforcement should be supported on chairs to ensure proper mid -slab positioning during the placement of concrete. 16. Surface and shrinkage cracking of the finish slab may be reduced if a low slump and water - cement ratio are maintained during concrete placement. Concrete utilized should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi. Excessive water added to concrete prior to placement is likely to cause shrinkage cracking, and should be avoided. Some concrete shrinkage cracking, however, is unavoidable. 17. Joint and sawcut locations for the pool /spa deck should be determined by the design engineer and /or contractor. However, spacings should not exceed 6feet on center. 18. 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), should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical consultant, including the project geologist and /or geotechnical engineer, prior to workers entering the excavation or trench, and minimally conform to Cal /OSHA ( "Type C" soils may be assumed), state, and local safety codes. Should adverse conditions exist, appropriate recommendations should be offered at that time by the geotechnical consultant. GSI does not consult in the area of safety engineering and the safety of the construction crew is the responsibility of the pool /spa builder. Ed and Cori Durfey File e:\wp9\6200\6201a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E Page 10 19. It is imperative that adequate provisions for surface drainage are incorporated by the homeowners into their overall improvement scheme. Ponding water, ground saturation and flow over slope faces, are all situations which must be avoided to enhance long term performance of the pool /spa and associated improvements, and reduce the likelihood of distress. 20. Regardless of the methods employed, once the pool /spa is filled with water, should it be emptied, there exists some potential that if emptied, significant distress may occur. Accordingly, once filled, the pool /spa should not be emptied unless evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and the pool /spa builder. 21. For pools /spas built within (all or part) of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) setback and /or geotechnical setback, as indicated in the site geotechnical documents, special foundations are recommended to mitigate the affects of creep, lateral fill extension, expansive soils and settlement on the proposed pool/spa- Most municipalities or County reviewers do not consider these effects in pool /spa plan approvals. As such, where pools /spas are proposed on 20 feet or more of fill, medium or highly expansive soils, or rock fill with limited "cap soils" and built within 1997 UBC setbacks, or within the influence of the creep zone, or lateral fill extension, the following should be considered during design and construction: OPTION A: Shallow foundations with or without overexcavation of the pool /spa "shelf," such that the pool /spa is surrounded by 5 feet of very low to low expansive soils (without irreducible particles greater that 6 inches), and the pool /spa walls closer to the slope(s) are designed to be free standing. GSI recommends a pool /spa under -drain or blanket system (see attached Typical Pool /Spa Detail). The pool /spa builders and owner in this optional construction technique should be generally satisfied with pool /spa performance underthis scenario; however, some settlement, tilting, cracking, and leakage of the pool /spa is likely over the life of the project. OPTION B: Pier supported pool /spa foundations with or without overexcavation of the pool /spa shell such that the pool /spa is surrounded by 5 feet of very low to low expansive soils (without irreducible particles greater than 6 inches), and the pool /spa walls closer to the slope(s) are designed to be free standing. The need for a pool /spa under -drain system may be installed for leak detection purposes. Piers that support the pool /spa should be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter and at a spacing to provide vertical and lateral support of the pool /spa, in accordance with the pool /spa designers recommendations, local code, and the 1997 UBC. The pool /spa builder and owner in this second scenario construction technique should be more satisfied with pool /spa performance. This construction will reduce settlement and creep effects on the pool /spa; however, it will not eliminate these potentials, nor make the pool /spa "leak- free." Ed and Cori Durfey Fi1e:e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E Page 11 22. The temperature of the water lines for spas and pools may affect the corrosion properties of site soils, thus, a corrosion specialist should be retained to review all spa and pool plans, and provide mitigative recommendations, as warranted. Concrete mix design should be reviewed by a qualified corrosion consultant and materials engineer. 23. All pool /spa utility trenches should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard, under the full -time observation and testing of a qualified geotechnical consultant. Utility trench bottoms should be sloped away from the primary structure on the property (typically the residence). 24. Pool and spa utility lines should not cross the primary structure's utility lines (i.e., not stacked, or sharing of trenches, etc.). 25. The pool /spa or associated utilities should not intercept, interrupt, or otherwise adversely impact any area drain, roof drain, or other drainage conveyances. If it is necessary to modify, move, or disrupt existing area drains, subdrains, or tightlines, then the design civil engineer should be consulted, and mitigative measures provided. Such measures should be further reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant, prior to proceeding with any further construction. 26. The geotechnical consultant should reviewand approve all aspects of pool /spa and flatwork design prior to construction. A design civil engineer should review all aspects of such design, including drainage and setback conditions. Prior to acceptance of the pool /spa construction, the project builder, geotechnical consultant and civil designer should evaluate the performance of the area drains and other site drainage pipes, following pool /spa construction. 27. All aspects of construction should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant, including during excavation, prior to the placement of any additional fill, prior to the placement of any reinforcement or pouring of any concrete. 28. Any changes in design or location of the pool /spa should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical and design civil engineer prior to construction. Field adjustments should not be allowed until written approval of the proposed Feld changes are obtained from the geotechnical and design civil engineer. 29. Disclosure should be made to homeowners and builders, contractors, and any interested /affected parties, that pools /spas built within about 15 feet of the top of a slope, and /or H /3, where H is the height of the slope (in feet), will experience some movement or tilting. While the pool /spa shell or coping may not necessarily crack, the levelness of the pool /spa will likely tilt toward the slope, and may not be esthetically pleasing. The same is true with decking, flatwork and other improvements in this zone. Ed and Cori Durfey File: e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E Page 12 30. Failure to adhere to the above recommendations will significantly increase the potential for distress to the pool /spa, flatwork, etc. 31. Local seismicity and /or the design earthquake will cause some distress to the pool /spa and decking or flatwork, possibly including total functional and economic loss. 32. The information and recommendations discussed above should be provided to any contractors and /or subcontractors, or homeowners, interested /affected parties, etc., that may perform or may be affected by such work. JOB SAFETY General At GSI, getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi - employer construction sites. On- ground personnel are at highest risk of injury, and possible fatality, on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site, and that site safety is the rp ime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor, and GSI personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractor's regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for, and are to be worn by GSI personnel, at all times, when they are working in the field. Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacons, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Ed and Cori Durfey Fi1e:e: \wp9\6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E Page 13 Test Pits Location. Orientation, and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technician's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractor's authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractor's authorized representative (supervisor, grade checker, dump man, operator, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technician's safety, and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non - encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. When taking slope tests, the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operational distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failureto comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his /her supervisor. The grading contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. However, in the interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction, or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we requestthat the contractor bring this to the technician's attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractor's representative and the soil technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Ed and Cori Durfey File: e: \wp9 \6200 \6201 a.pge GeoSofils, Inc. Appendix E Page 14 Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which: 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back; 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench; or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with Cal /OSHA and /or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his /her supervisor. The contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and /or removal. If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner /developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify Cal /OSHA and /or the proper controlling authorities. Ed and Cori Durfey File: e:\wp91620016201 a. pge GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix E Page 15 Bedrock or approved native material TYPE A Natural grade �_— Proposed grade Colluvium and alluvium (remove) Typical benching See Alternate Details TYPE B -- - - -- Natural grade Proposed grade \ Colluvium and alluvium (r �� ✓� ..� : Bedrock or approved native material 2� we tip\ Typical benching See Alternate Details Selection of alternate subdrain details, location, and extent of subdrains should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading. CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL PIcte E -1 6 -inch minimum % 6 -inch minimum \\ /• /\ 6 -inch minimum Al Filter material Minimum volume of 9 cubic feet per lineal foot of pipe. minimum I I 6 -inch minimum mlydlnun B-1 FILTER MATERIAL Sieve Size Percent Passin Perforated pipe 6- inch - diameter ABS or PVC pipe or 1 inch 100 approved substitute with minimum 8 perforations 3/4 inch 90 -100 (Y4-inch diameter) per lineal foot in % inch 40 -100 bottom half of pipe (ASTM D -2751, SDR -35, or No. 4 25 -40 ASTM D -1527, Schd. 40). No. 8 18 -33 No. 30 5 -15 For continuous run in excess of 500 feet, use No. 50 0 -7 6- inch - diameter pipe (ASTM D -3034, SDR -35, or No. 200 0 -3 ASTM D -1785, Schd. 40). ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL 6 inch minimum Filter fabric \�— finch mYimrtn / /"*,_ ininch j� minimum %1 `N !\ 6 -inch minknu n A -2 I' �I I-4-6 -inch minimum _ I 6-hch minkntanJ �� /-k \ 6 -inch minimum B -2 j Gravel Material 9 cubic feet per lineal foot. Perforated Pipe See Alternate 1 Gravel; Clean % -inch rock or approved substitute. Filter Fabric Mirafi 140 or approved substitute. ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL, AND FILTER FABRIC G 4 AVC. CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS Plate E -2 Original ground surface to be restored with compacted fill zD Toe of slope as shown Original ground surface / D - Anticipated removal of unsuitable material / (depth per geotechnica) engineer) Provide a 1 :1 (H V) minimum projection from toe of Back -cut varies. For deep removals, slope as shown on grading plan to the recommended backcut should be made no steeper removal depth. Slope height, site conditions, and /or than 11 (H V), or flatter as necessary local conditions could dictate flatter projections. for safety considerations. IGC.I FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON DETAIL I Plate E -3 Proposed grade Previously placed, temporary compacted fill for drainage only Proposed additional compacted fill Bedrock or approved native material To be removed before placing additional compacted fill REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL DETAIL I Plate E -4 Drainage per design civil engineer 15 -foot typical 1 to 2 drain spacing Blanket fill (if recommended by the geotechnical consultant) Design finish slope 15 foot minimum 7 1 Ic -loot minimum / \\ j j �25 -foot maximum / /, \\ / i Typical benching Buttress or stabilization fill — 4- inch - diameter non - perforated outlet pipe and backdrain (see detail Plate E -6). Outlets to be spaced at 100 -foot maximum intervals and shall extend 2 feet beyond the face of slope at time of rough grading completion. At the completion of rough grading. the design civil engineer should provide recommendations to convey any outlet's discharge to a suitable conveyance, utilizing a non - erosive device. fool / 2- Percenl Gradient 2 -foot minimum T key depth 2- Percent Gradient - -� Heel oe 15 -foot minimum or H/2 where H is the elope height Typical benching (4 -foot minimum) Bedrock or approved native material Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant ne.l TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL Plate E -5 I 2 -toot I 2 -loot I �minimum I minimum 2 -foot minimum 4 -inch r" .' .... .. -: — — — — — 3 foot pipe - 2 -inch minimum minimum " — — — 4 nch - -- _ —�— 2 -inch pipe minimum Filter Material: Minimum of 5 cubic feet per lineal foot of pipe or 4 cubic feet per lineal feet of pipe when placed in square cut trench. Alternative in Lieu of Filter Material: Gravel may be encased in approved filter fabric. Filter fabric shall be Mirafi 140 or equivalent. Filter fabric shall be lapped a minimum of 12 inches in all joints. Minimum 4- Inch - Diameter Pipe ABS -ASTM D -2751, SDR 35; or ASTM D -1527 Schedule 40, PVC -ASTM D -3034, SDR 35; or ASTM D -1785 Schedule 40 with a crushing strength of 1,000 pounds minimum, and a minimum of 8 uniformly- spaced perforations per foot of pipe. Must be installed with perforations down at bottom of pipe. Provide cap at upstream end of pipe. Slope at 2 percent to outlet pipe. Outlet pipe to be connected to subdrain pipe with tee or elbow. Notes 1. Trench for outlet pipes to be backfilled and compacted with onsite soil. 2. Backdrains and lateral drains shall be located at elevation of every bench drain. First drain located at elevation just above lower lot grade. Additional drains may be required at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Filter Material shall be of the following Gravel shall be of the following specification or an approved equivalent. specification or an approved equivalent. Sieve Size Percent Passing Sieve Size Percent Passing 1 inch 100 1%2 inch 100 3/4 inch 90 -100 No. 4 50 % inch 40 -100 No. 200 8 No. 4 25 -40 No. 8 18 -33 No. 30 5 -15 No. 50 0 -7 No. 200 0 -3 �L C. TYPICAL BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL I Plata E -6 I Toe of slope as shown on grading plan Natural slope to be restored with compacted fill Backcut varies Proposed grade / / / Compacted fill no 4 -foot mk*num IOU - - - -r \ I 2 -foot minimum - '•''j` •,. • •. Bench width n bedrock or �� \ / / / /C 8 tt�t � may vary yl Bedrock or approved i \ \ \ / \ /\� \\ I (4 -toot minimum) i approved earth material ..: • •:.. \ native material — f— — — — T ..— •.-`\• —2- Percent Gradient- — — — — — 15 -toot minimum or 12 where H is�I Subdrain as recommended by the elope height geotechnical consultant NOTES: 1. Where the natural slope approaches or exceeds the design slope ratio, special recommendations would be provided by the geotechnical consultant. 2. The need for and disposition of drains should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant, based upon exposed conditions. FILL OVER NATURAL (SIDEHILL FILL) DETAIL Plate E -7 Cut /fill contact as shown on grading plan Cut /fill contact as shown on as -built plan H - height of elope Original (existing) grade Cut slope Proposed grade Maintain / Compacted fill minimum 15 -foot t I section from backcut to face / \\ of finish elope I/ r ate - - -�— M t �rs�dsble'', 4 -loot mctMan Bench width percent gra 'ent may vary, \ (4 -foot minimum) >t mktlmum I I key depth I 15 -foot minimum or I Bedrock or approved native material pe neig Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTE The cut portion of the slope should be excavated and evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to construction of the fill portion. Plate E -8 Natural slope Proposed finish grade ,'iR"ve Unsuteble ' Material �\ Typical benching • .: (4 -foot minimum) Compacted stablization fill H. . •.. ' � _ . ,•• / 1-foot minimum 1111 bads Bedrock or other approved native material / I If recommended by the geotechnical 2 \ consultant, the remaining cut portion of 2 Percent C3raclent �0 �� the slope may require removal and fc -___ \ \. replacement with compacted fill. - — Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTES: 1. Subdrains may be required as specified by the geotechnical consultant. 2 W shall be equipment width (15 feet) for slope heights less than 25 feet. For slopes greater than 25 feet, W shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. At no time, shall W be less than H /2, where H is the height of the slope. �Gur c. STABLIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL EXPOSED IN CUT SLOPE DETAIL Plate E -9 2 -fool minimum key depth I NOTES: 1. Proposed finish grade - -- Natural grade / / H - height of elope eel r' 15 -foot minimum k r or H/29 H)30 / Note Typical benching (4 -foot minimum) Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant 15 -foot minimum to be maintained from proposed finish slope face to backcut. 7 �—: 3 �_ t � -foo min mum i Bedrock or approved native material 2. The need and disposition of drains will be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions. 3. Pad overexcavation and recompaction should be performed if evaluated to be necessary by the geotechnical consultant. I nc• SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND DETAIL I Plate E -10 I Reconstruct compacted fill slope at 2:1 or flatter Natural grade (may increase or decrease pad area) Overexcavate and recompact replacement fill . Back -cut varies Avoid and /or clean up spillage of materials on the natural slope 2 -foot minimum Remove Proposed •.' L1ouitable flterlal :.:'• .. ;:.: �— finish grade •: ' 3 -foot minimum ill blanket \ ::;..:.•, /.: ' :.' Bedrock or approved \ \�\ native material key width Typical benching (4 -foot minimum) er \ \ \. Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTES: 1./ Subdrain and key width requirements will be evaluated based on exposed subsurface conditions and thickness of overburden. 2 Pad overexcavation and recompaction should be performed if evaluated necessary by the geotechnical consultant. G" C. DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL I Plate E -11 I Proposed pad grade Natural grade at 2 7777 jBedrock or approved native Typical benching materi al 3- to 7 -foot minimum overexcavate and recompact per text of report CUT LOT OR MATERIAL -TYPE TRANSITION Natural grade Proposed pad grade i . 7•, • • Y 7. ads at 2 axlen dr toward attest 3- to 7-foot rrk*n rro �'� __,,,�,�ee \� overexcavate and reeompad Yt?sflet \ \,• per text of reporl / *Deeper overexcavation may be recommended by the geotechnical Bedrock or consultant in steep cut -fill transition approved native areas, such that the underlying Typical benching material topography Is no steeper than M (HIV) (4 -foot minimum) CUT -FILL LOT (DAYLIGI -9 TRANSITION) ate. TRANSITION LOT DETAILS Plate E -12 VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE Proposed finish grade � (E) — Hold -down depth �(E) rr�cn .ccu co dJ 6 m / (B) 0 �1 ()° / GQ 15- foot—® 1_ (F) m1n[ mm s foot Bedrock or approved mnimum native material VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE � Proposed finish grade — I c6) I (E) Hold -down depth 700 -loot maximum I (D) —�— 15 -foot minimum yl 3 -foot minimum 25 -foot minimum from \% Yon well J/ A\ 5 -foot) Bedrock or approved minimum native material NOTES A. One equipment width or a minimum of 15 feet between rows (or windrows). B. Height and width may vary depending on rock size and type of equipment. Length of windrow shall be no greater than 100 feet. C. If approved by the geotechnical consultant, windrows may be placed direclty on competent material or bedrock, provided adequate space is available for compaction. D. Orientation of windrows may vary but should be as recommended by the geotechnical engineer and /or engineering geologist. Staggering of windrows is not necessary unless recommended. E. Clear area for utility trenches, foundations, and swimming pools; Hold -down depth as specified in text of report, subject to governing agency approval. F. All fill over and around rock windrow shall be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction or as recommended. G. After fill between windrows is placed and compacted, with the lift of fill covering windrow, windrow should be proof rolled with a D -9 dozer or equivalent. VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS OR CODE ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED 5') ...;-` ._. 'as, OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL Plate E -13 ROCK DISPOSAL PITS Fill lifts compacted over rock after embedment — — — — — — — Granular material I L — — ...: Large Rods .:...: .. — I � Size of excavation to Compacted Fill be commensurate with rock size ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS Granular soil to fill voids, densified by flooding Compacted fill Layer one rock high �— Proposed finish grade — — — o Hold -down depth PROFILE ALONG LAYER \ O \ • Hold -down depth 1 Compacted tgi 3 -foot \ minimum I Fill Slope j /I\ /\ •• Clear G�AI TOP VIEW IE rzone —I Layer one rock high a Hold -down depth or below lowest utility as specified in text of report, subject to governing agency approval. a• Clear zone for utility trenches, foundations, and swimming pools, as specified in text of report. VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS OR CODE ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN _T_ �4 C. ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL Plate E —f 4 Existing grade Existing grade Existing grade 21 (hv) slope 5- foot -high impact /debris wall Pad grade — __z-- — 5- foot -high impact /debris wall Pad grade al.. *1D1 METHOD 2 5- foot -wide catchment area 5- foot -high METHOD 3 impact /debris wall Pad grade Fence 2 :1 (h:v) slope 4 Pad grade NOT TO SCALE I" *c.I DEBRIS DEVICE CONTROL METHODS DETAIL I Plate E -15 Rock - filled gabion basket Existing grade Filter fabric Drain rock 5 -foot minimum or as recommended by geotechnical consultant Compacted fill Proposed grade Gabion impact or diversion wall should be constructed at the base of the ascending slope subject to rock fall. Walls need to be constructed with high segments that sustain impact and mitigate potential for overtopping, and low segment that provides channelization of sediments and debris to desired depositional area for subsequent clean -out. Additional subdrain may be recommended by geotechnical consultant. From GSA, 1987 G4�933�Iac. I ROCK FALL MITIGATION DETAIL I Plate E -16 I MAP VIEW NOT TO SCALE Concrete cut -off wall __ D 4 -inch perforated SEE NOTES I subdrain pipe Nuranav erse) Pool Top of elope r Gra vity -flow, \ 1—nonperforated subdrain \ pipe (transverse) —� Toe of slope Direction of drainage 4 -inch perforated _D subdrain pipe (longitudinal) A + — Copl A' CROSS SE-anON VIEW Sleet NOT TO SCALE SEE NOTES Pool Coping 2- inch -thick Pool encapsulated in 5 -foot thickness of sand — -- sand layer Vapor retarder 6 -inch -thick gravel layer 4 -inch perforated subdrain pipe B Coping ®+ I YI I� 5 feet Outlet per design I H/3 1 civil engineer l Zoned • Pool Dlso-e.. :.•: H 6- inch -thick gravel layer Gravity -flow subdrain pipe cut -off wall 2 -inch -thick sandl layer — Vapor retarder Perforated subdrain pipe NOTES 1. 6- inch - thick, clean gravel (% to *2 inch) sub -base encapsulated in Mirafi 140N or equivalent, underlain by a 15 -mil vapor retarder, with 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe longitudinal connected to 4- inch - diameter perforated pipe transverse. Connect transverse pipe to 4- inch - diameter nonperforated pipe at low point and outlet or to sump pump area. 2. Pools on fills thicker than 20 feet should be constructed on deep foundations; otherwise, distress (tilting, cracking, etc.) should be expected. 3. Design does not apply to infinity -edge pools /spas. I(.::° Ty ��• I TYPICAL POOL/SPA DETAIL I Plate E -17 40 i x 2 -foot x %4 -inch steel plate d 3/4-inch pipe nipple to top of plate 5 -foot galvanized pipe, pipe threads top and bottom; is threaded on both ends and 5 -foot increments schedule 40 PVC pipe sleeve, add ,t increments with glue joints -oposed finish grade I I 5 feet 5 feet I I I I I I 5 feel �J l\ F- z feet �. `. Bottom of cleanout i foot Provide a minimum 1 -foot _ .................... tbedding of compacted sand NOTES 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 -foot radius of plate base and within 5 feet (vertical) for heavy equipment. Fill within clearance area should be hand compacted to project specifications or compacted by alternative approved method by the geotechnical consultant (in writing, prior to construction). 3. After 5 feet (vertical) of fill is in place, contractor should maintain a 5 -foot radius equipment clearance from riser. 4. Place and mechanically hand compact initial 2 feet of till 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 geotechnical consultant 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 geotechnical consultant. s. l SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL Plate E -18 Finish grade 3 to 6 feet 0 a a ° o a d d a d 0 a 4 i a 0 3/8- inch - diameter X 6- inch -long carriage bolt or equivalent 6 -inch diameter X 3%2- inch -long hole Concrete backfill TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT Plate E -19 SIDE VIEW Spoil pile +• Teat pit TOP VIEW Flag Flag Spoil pile Teat pit Light Vehicle 50 feet 50 feel 100 tee G��. TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM Plate E -20 SOWAROS AND BROWN ENGINEERING January 17, 2012 JAN 1 0 1012 JAN 1 0 1011 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas CA 92024 Re: Engineer's "Limited" Pad Certification for Grading Permit Number 10931 -G (APN: 258 - 322 -03) Pursuant to Section 23.24.310 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for Lot 13, Blk B, Map 33 of Grading Plan 10931 -G. As the Engineer of Record for the subject project, I hereby state rough grading for the proposed basement and garage of this project has been completed in conformance with the approved plans and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. 23.24.310 (B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown on the approved Grading Plan: Basement Pad Garage Pad Pad Elevation Per Plan 136.3 135.8 Pad Elevation per field measurement 136.3 135.8 Upon completion of the remaining site work, our office will provide a subsequent pad certification letter as required by the City of Encinitas. Feel free to call if you have any questions after receiving this letter. r Randy R. Brown RCE 36190 %pFESSld7\ 2` Z G No. 36190 m W Cr Exp.6 /30/12 10032.Itr OF CALF fie@ 2187 NEWCASTLE AVENUE • SUITE 103 • CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CA 92007 (760) 436 -8500 • FAX (760) 436 -8603 D q- Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • i nvironmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438 -3155 January 16, 2012 Mr. Ed Durfey 1034 Cornish Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 JAN 1 0 1011 _ FAX (760) 931 -0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com W.0.6201 -B -SC Subject: Interim Report of Rough (Mass) Grading, 1034 Cornish Avenue, Proposed Two -Story Residence with Basement, Encinitas, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Segmental (MSE) Retaining Walls,1034 Cornish Avenue, Proposed Two -Story Residence with Basement, Encinitas, San Diego County, California," W.O.6201- A2 -SC, dated October 27, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. 2. "Revised Geotechnical Plan Review and Shoring Clarifeation, 1034 Cornish Avenue, Proposed Two -Story Residence with Basement, Encinitas, San Diego County, California," W.O.6201 -At -SC, dated September 21, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. 3. "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 1034 Cornish Avenue, Proposed Two -Story Residence with Basement, Encinitas, San Diego County, California," W.O.6201 -A -SC, dated April 19, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Mr. Durfey: In accordance with the request of Mike Gebel, of Gebco Construction, and your authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is presenting this interim report of rough grading forthe subject site. Grading and processing of original ground within the subject site was observed and selectively tested by a representative of GSI during the earthwork phase of development for the subject property. GSI's scope of work included a review of site conditions, periodic observations during grading, field density and laboratory testing, analysis of data, and preparation of this summary letter. The work performed to date is in general conformance with the recommendations contained in our above referenced reports, and with the grading ordinance of the City of Encinitas, California. Field testing indicates that fills placed under the purview of this report have been compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction. Laboratory testing performed to date indicates that the subject site has a very low expansion potential (Expansion Index [E.I.] less than 20). Laboratory test results concerning the saturated resistivity, pH, and soluble sulfates of the onsite soils indicate that the site soils are strongly alkaline with respect to soil acidity /alkalinity and are moderately corrosive to ferrous metals when saturated. Testing also indicates non - detectible soluble sulfate. A final compaction report of rough grading and foundation and improvements construction, including observations and testing results for rough grading, utilities, foundations and retaining walls, driveway /parking areas and associated recommendations, is forthcoming. The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others, or work performed without our knowledge. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. ohn ran P. klin i ngineering Geologist, No. 13e.o corrigea Englrv��ring oeologi_x \q OF ChL1F0 j CEG 1340 F1EYD. `�ielii c David W. Skell' Civil Engineer, RCE 47857 Robert Crisman I C N0.1934 :A TN Engineering Geologist, CEG 1934 �rinoerl0g NT Gao!o9'st �P RGC /BEV /DWS /JPF /jh �TFCF CAUF °�� Distribution: (1) Addressee (1) Gebco Construction, Attn, Mr. Mike Gebel (e -mail) Mr. Ed Durfey W.O. 6201 -B -SC 1034 Cornish Avenue, Encinitas January 16, 2012 File:elwp7T620016201 biro Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. F /1, �; December 13, 2011 Edward Durfey and Coreen Friend 3511 Corte Esperanza Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: Permit issuance requirements for: Application 10931 -G Case No. 10 -175 CDP Site Address: 1034 Cornish Drive APN: 258- 322 -03 This letter summarizes the requirements for pulling your Engineering Permit for drawing 10931 -G. Your approved plan will remain valid for one year. If the permit is not issued within six months from the date of approval of the drawings, the plans will be subject to review by City staff for compliance with current codes and regulations before a permit can be issued, and changes to the approved plans as well as additional fees may be required. Please read through this letter carefully and contact the City with any questions you may have. It contains information about many requirements that may apply to your project and can make the process clearer and easier for you. In order to obtain the permits to construct the work shown on your approved plans, you will need to satisfy the requirements below. All of the items listed below must be submitted to the Engineering front counter in one complete package at the time the applicant comes in to pull the permit. Partial submittals of any kind will not be accepted. Your project planchecker will not accept any of the documents listed on behalf of the Engineering front counter staff; all items must be submitted to the front counter directly together and at one time. The correct number of each of the requested documents must be provided; copies of documents submitted to the City during plancheck do not reduce the necessary quantities listed below. (1) Provide 4 print sets of the approved drawing 10931 -G Provide 2 copies of soils reports /addendum letters titled "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 1034 Cornish Avenue, Proposed Two -Story Residence with Basement, San Diego County, California" prepared by Geosoils, Inc., dated April 19, 2011; Addendum letter titled "Revised Geotechnical Plan Review and Shoring Clarification, 1034 Cornish Avenue, Proposed Two -Story Residence with Basement, Encinitas, San Diego County, California" prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., September 21, 2011; Letter titled "Segmental IMSE) Retailing Wall" dated by October 27, 2011; Letter titled "Response to Esgil Corporation Comments, No. 11- 1397" by GeoSoils, Inc., dated November 18, 2011. Submit 2 copies of the approved, signed (not draft) Resolution of Approval or Notice of Decision for Planning Case # 10 -175 CDP, to be routed by the City to inspector and file. (2) Post Security Deposits to guarantee all of the work shown on your approved drawings. The amounts of security deposits are determined directly from the Approved Engineer's Cost Estimate generated by your engineer according to a set of predetermined unit prices for each kind of work shown on your plans. You will be required to post security deposit(s) as follows: (a) Security Deposit for Grading Permit 10931 -G: in the amount $66,161.00 to guarantee both performance and labor/ materials for earthwork; drainage, private improvements, and erosion control. (b) N/A (c) N/A (d) N/A A minimum of 20% and up to 100% of the construction bond estimate dated September 27, 2011 amount listed in item(s) 2(a) must be in the form of cash, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or an assignment of account. Up to 80% of the amount listed in item 2(a) may be in the form of auto - renewing Performance and Labor and Materials Bonds issued by a State of California licensed surety company. Up to 100% of the amount(s) listed in item(s) 2(b), 2(c), and/or 2(d) may be in the form of auto - renewing Labor and Materials bonds issued by a State of California licensed surety company. Cash, certificates of deposit, letters of credit, and assignments of account are also acceptable financial instruments. If a certificate of deposit (CD) will be obtained to secure the entire amount(s) listed in item(s) 2(a) and /or 2(b), two separate CD's for 25% and 75% of the amount(s) listed in item(s) 2(a) and /or 2(b) should be obtained in order to facilitate any future partial release of those securities. CD's posted may be of any term but must be auto - renewing and must specify the City of Encinitas as a certificate holder and include a clause that until the City of Encinitas provides a written request for release of the CD, the balance shall be available to the City upon its sole request. The format of any financial instrument is subject to City approval, may be in the owner's name only, and must list the City of Encinitas as a Certificate Holder. For any questions regarding how to post securities, bonding, or the required format of securities, please contact Debra Geishart at 760 - 633 -2779. (3) Pay non - refundable fees as listed below: Fee Type Amount Grading Inspection ' '$3,308.0 NPDES Inspection (Grading ) $661.00 Flood Control Fee $273.00 Encroachment Permit Fee (10931 -PE) $290.00 The grading and improvement inspection fees are calculated based on 5% of first $100,000.00 of the approved Engineer's cost estimate of $66,161.00 dated September 27, 2011 and 3% of the cost estimate over $100,000.00. The NPDES inspection fee is assessed as 1% of the first $100,000.00 of the approved Engineer's cost estimate and 0.6% of the cost estimate over $100,000.00. The flood control fee is assessed at a rate of $0.21 per square foot of net new impervious surface area for driveway and parking areas as created per the approved plan. (4) Provide the name, address, telephone number, state license number, and license type of the construction contractor. The construction of any improvements within the public right -of -way or public easements is restricted to qualified contractors possessing the required state license as listed in the table below. The contractor must also have on file with the City current evidence of one million dollar liability insurance listing the City of Encinitas as co- insured. Additional requirements are described in the handout "Requirements for Proof of Insurance" available at the Engineering front counter. Type Description Work to be Done A General Engineering any & all C -8 Concrete a ron /curbl utter /ram isidewalk C -10 Electrical fighting/signals C -12 Grading & Paving any surface, certain drain - basins /channels C -27 Landscaping plantinglirrigationifencing & other amenities C -29 I Masonry retaining walls C -32 Parking &Highway Improvement signagelstripingisafety C -34 Pipeline sanitary sewer /storm drain (5) Permits are valid for no more than one year from the date of issuance and may expire earlier due to expirations of letter of credit and /or insurance policies. (6) This project does not propose land disturbance in excess of one acre and is exempt from the State Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirement. An erosion control plan shall be implemented per the approved grading plan. Preconstruction Meeting: A preconstruction meeting at the project site is mandatory for all projects. The preconstruction meeting may not be scheduled until the Engineering permit(s) have been issued, and the applicant/contractor must give the assigned Engineering inspector a minimum of 48 hours advance notice prior to the scheduled meeting time. Right-of-Way Construction Permit: A separate right -of -way construction permit will be required for any work in the public right -of -way or public easements. Typically, this work may include construction or reconstruction of a portion of the driveway within the public right -of -way, excavation, backfill, and resurfacing to install electric, gas, telephone, and cable television lines, or water and sewer connections. A permit fee of $300.00 per application and a site plan, preferably the work order issued by the public utility, will be required. Contractor license and insurance requirements apply. Permits must be issued at least 48 hours in advance of the start of work. Haul Routes, Traffic Control Plans, and Transportation Permits: These separate permits may be required for your project and are handled by the Traffic Engineering Division. A fee of $250.00 is required for traffic control plans. For more details, contact Raymond Guarnes, Engineering Technician, at (760) 633 -2704. Release of Project Securities: The partial or complete release of project securities is initiated automatically by the City after submission of satisfactory as -built drawings to the City and approval by the project Engineering inspector. Applicant requests cannot be addressed without release approval from the project inspector. The processing and release of securities may take up to 4 weeks after the release process is initiated by the project Engineering inspector. Any cash releases will be mailed to the address on this letter unless the City is otherwise notified, and all letters mailed to a financial institution will be copied to the owner listed hereon. Satisfactory completion of Final Inspection certified by the project Engineering inspector is a prerequisite to full release of the Security Deposit assigned to any Grading Permit. A sum in the amount of 25% of the securities posted for improvement permits will be held for a one -year warranty period, and a release is automatically initiated at the end of that warranty period. Construction Changes: Construction changes prepared by the Engineer of Work will be required for all changes to the approved plans. Requests for construction change approval should be submitted to the Engineering Services Department front counter as redlined mark -ups on 2 blueline prints of the approved Drawing. Changes are subject to approval prior to field implementation. Substantial increases in valuation due to the proposed changes may be cause for assessment and collection of additional inspection fees and security deposits. Construction change fees of $200.00 and $350.00 will be assessed for minor and major construction changes, respectively. Construction changes necessitating a new plan sheet will be assessed the per -sheet plancheck and NPDES plancheck fees in lieu of the construction change fee. Construction changes not previously approved and submitted as as -built drawings at the end of the construction process will be rejected and the securities release will be delayed. Change of Ownership: If a change of ownership occurs following approval of the drawing(s), the new owner will be required to submit to the City a construction change revising the title sheet of the plan to reflect the new ownership. The construction change shall be submitted to the Engineering front counter as redline mark -ups on two blueline prints of the approved drawing together with two copies of the grant deed or title report reflecting the new ownership. Construction change fees apply. The current owner will be required to post new securities to replace those held by the City under the name of the former owner, and the securities posted by the former owner will be released when the replacement securities have been received and approved by the City. Change of Engineer of Work: If a change in engineer of work occurs following the approval of the drawing(s), a construction change shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. Two copies of the forms for the assumption of responsibility by the new engineer and the release of responsibility by the former engineer shall be completed and submitted to the City. Construction change fees apply. As- builts: Project as -built drawings prepared by the Engineer of Work will be required prior to Final Grading acceptance by Engineering Services. Changes to the approved plans require a construction change to be submitted to the City prior to field implementation. Construction changes may not be submitted as as- builts at the end of the construction process. This letter does not change owner or successor -in- interest obligations. If there should be a substantial delay in the start of your project or a change of ownership, please contact the City to request an update. Should you have questions regarding the posting of securities, please contact Debra Geishart, who processes all Engineering securities, at (760) 633 -2779. Should you have any other questions, please contact me at (760) 633 -2780 or visit the Engineering Counter at the Civic Center to speak with an Engineering Technician. Sincerely, ;0e� Ruben Macabitas Assistant Civil Engineer cc Sowards and Brown Engineering, Romy Pelagio Debbie Geishart, Engineering Technician Greg Shields, Senior Civil Engineer Masih Maher, Senior Civil Engineer permit/file Eric Application Requirements for Proof of Insurance Security Obligation Information S9 Ce Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438 -3155 • FAX (760) 931 -0915 • www.geosailsinc.com September 21, 2011 W.O. 6201 -A1 -SC Ed and Cori Durfey 3511 Corte Esperanza Carlsbad, California 92009 Subject: Revised Geotechnical Plan Review and Shoring Clarification, 1034 Cornish Avenue, Proposed Two -Story Residence with Basement, Encinitas, San Diego County, California. References: 1. "Grading and Erosion Plan For: Durfey Residence, 1034 Cornish Drive, Lot 13, Block B, Map 33 A.P.N. 258 - 322 -03," Sheets 1 through 3, job No. 10 -032, dated July 1, 2011, by Sowards and Brown. 2. 'Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 1034 Cornish Avenue, Proposed Two -Story Residence with Basement, Encinitas, San Diego County, California," W.0.6201 -A -SC, dated April 19, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. 3. "Foundation Plans for: Durfey Residence," Sheets S-1 through S-5, and SD -1 through SD- 5, not dated, by Schmit Engineering. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Durfey_ In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a review of the project plans (see References No. 1 and No. 3) with respect to our geotechnical report (see Reference No. 2), for the purpose of evaluating if the plans are in general conformance with the intent of the GSI geotechnical report. GSI's scope of services included a review of the referenced report and plans, analysis of data, and preparation of this summary review. Recommendations contained in Reference No. 2, which are not specifically superceded bythis review, should be properly incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. FOUNDATION AND GRADING PLANS GSI has reviewed the above referenced plans and details (see above) for typical conformance with our geotechnical recommendations presented in our report prepared to date (see above Reference No. 2). It is our opinion, that the above reviewed plans and details are in general conformance with our recommendations presented to date. GSI would like to point out, that based on our review of the above references, the slab and underlayment will minimally be 9 inches. This means that the garage Finish Grade (FG) will be 135.95, basement FG will be 136.25, and the proposed residence FG will be 145.25. SLOT -CUT CLARIFICATION Based on GSI's understanding, and conversation with the general contractor, the proposed overexcavation for the basement portion of the project shall be constructed in alternating slots, 71/2 feet in horizontal width. This is demonstrated in the attached Slot Cut Detail and Cross Sections C -C', D -D' (Figures 1 and 2). Based on our analysis, it is GSI's opinion that a slot cut approach may be considered as an alternative to shoring of the excavation; however, although low, there is still some element of risk for damaging existing improvements (such as walls, flatwork, etc.) constructed on or near the property line. The geotechnical consultant shall be onsite during all basement excavations to continuously evaluate the temporary cuts. If adverse geologic conditions are observed, the backcut shall be backfilled immediately, until additional recommendations are provided. If the contractor does not want to assume the risk of damaging the existing improvements on or near the property line, shoring is recommenced. LIMITATIONS 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. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Ave., Encinitas File:e:1wp12\6200\6201at rgpr GeoSoils, Inc. W. 0. 6201 -A-3C September 21, 2011 Page 2 a 135 145 �J -WAC1 ,� EXISTING -150 RESIDENCE PROPOSED TEMPORARY BACKCUT -� (MAXIMUM EXPOSED AT ANY TIME \` 7 Yi DURING SLOT CUT `145 PROPOSED BASEMENT WALL \AA PROPOSED BASEMENT WALL —,` / W 1:1 (H.. V) MAXIMUM TEMPORARY CUT OF CD PLE7ED� MAXIMUM TEMPORARY �I:I (H.•V) 1" VERTICAL s1 �\ OVEREXCAVA77ON GRADING VERTICAL CUT 3 Y2' 1" VERTICAL- ' �/ N/ 140 3 Y2 (MAX) )(MAX) rm APPROXIMATE OVER EXCAVA77ON DEPTH' (3' BELOW FINISH GRADE ±134.00) ,-- PROPOSED BASEMENT WALL MAXIMUM TEMPORARY VERTICAL CUT OF �a \ 4" TO 4 Yz DURING 140 OVEREXCAVATION GRADING 2 Yz' APPROXIMATE OVER EXCAVATION DEPTH--' / (3' BELOW FINISH GRADE ±134.00) 1 137.00 3 YZ� 5" ,,, v1 (MAX) PROPOSED TEMPORARY BACKCUT -, (MAXIMUM EXPOSED AT ANY TIME 7 Y2. DURING SLOT CUT PROPOSED BASEMENT WALL -� AFTER OVEREXCAVATTON HAS BEEN COMPLETED, MAXIMUM TEMPORARY VERTICAL CUT 3" ,� y 1 4 Y2' (MAX) (MI 0 Z— APPROXIMATE OVER EXCAVATION DEPTH -- ' (3' BELOW FINISH GRADE ±133.60) EXISTING RESIDENCE ®° m Ei w 1 I v I i k- y I I I:mo f I Z 2 I I — el°rt I, 1 I iC �... Aar Mg I I I s plBLM 11j � I CaL'iCA711 1111 � .: �� r +a: arw.Wr{ �� ra�rla ewrdr van acv .. nluau ay I .. ` M, .rasrc WFdJgW uAAO teR a SWl - s, ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE [ CE PITT A►f W ( TNb document or wile t not, part of tie Corsstructan D. ~N and shoWd not be mfimf upon ns bein an I M aavrah depiction of design RTYLpsWZ CO. i1Yi� ��\ WddPOf q&dNINn N1W -, ��✓:'..... —!i tyxtrle lmID GSI LEGEND G ORANGE CO. ..r -V - -- L-'-u%• =f SAM DIEGO CO. LrmM.r /Keq�', A?W7AWK - MNrr 1 +a , -- AREA TO BE OYIIi- OLGYA7ED SLOT CUT DETAIL dn�MZSAAmr -reM terw •AlIM ry oosm ea -� I 3 � w.>,+ro � 0— AREA THAT R6.L STAY N RACE ee..=ov • DLNM OVER- FXCAVA" FUR X Figure I SEC 76Y A-A 71&N. OVER -E tCAVAMN r -r aO'V OPERAWNS TO BE REVERSED W.O. 6201-Al-SC LATE: 9V11 SCALE. ALTS Sam Kw SCNf fIBC APPROVALS CITY OF ENCINITAS OA7EDN/C SERIKES LEPAR40 Q7AMiC A4 .._ — .* _ laadk as'eerp WFet9EamrM AAH5 PWANED LA9fR SIPfRN9L4 IF RECYLIUIOFD APPROVED LRAMR: PLAN FM ar n DURFEY RESIDENCE w3A cmAm 02V£ —G LOT 13 &OCK S', MAP M NW: ..... APAM 256- J22-03 rtnws rAd M gI " I This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate t gaatact the undersigned. Respectfully GeoSoils, Inc. rOZ14 ryan E. Voss �'roject Geologist, ohn P. Franklin Engineering Geol BEV /JPF /DWS /jh E N �Q Or CALIF No. 1340 -1-1 ePOFessroy� 0 O ®� < <L r N No. RCt E 47857 � �CCIVavid W. elly F CAIkF� Civil Engineer, RCE 47857 Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email) (4) DZN Architecture, Attention, Mr. Bruce Smith Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Ave., Encinitas We.e kwp121B20016201a1 rgpr GeoSoils, Ine. W.O. 6201 -A -SC September 21, 2011 Page 5 - SOWARDS ANC BROWN ENGINEERING 9/27/2011 2187 NEWCASTLE AVENUE • SUITE 103 • CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CA 92007 (760) 436 -8500 • FAX (760) 436 -8603 CITY OF ENCINITAS I W LS ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE FOR DURFEY RESIDENCE i �. SE° 2 7 2011 �. APN: 258- 322 -03 �S DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL GRADING EXCAVATE AND FILL 10 CY 20.00 200 EXCAVATE AND EXPORT 590 CY 27.50 16,225 GRADING SUBTOTAL $ 16,425 BMP'S GRAVEL BAG 120 EA 1.10 132 SILT FENCE 366 LF 1.60 586 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 360 SF 5.25 1,890 BIO -SWALE 140 LF 5.50 770 BMP'S SUBTOTAL $ 3,378 PRIVATE DRAINAGE 4 "-6" PVC STORM DRAIN PER D -60 57 LF 20.00 1,140 6" ROUND GRATE & BASIN (BY NDS) 2 EA 150.00 300 9" SQUARE GRATE & BASIN (BY NDS) 3 EA 250.00 750 PRIVATE DRAINAGE SUBTOTAL $ 2,190 SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS PCC DRIVEWAY PER G -14 175 SF 7.00 1,225 MASONRY RETAINING WALL 530 SF 29.65 15,715 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL 290 SF 25.00 7,250 ECO -STONE PAVERS 725 SF 10.00 7,250 DG PATH 126 SF 1.25 158 AC PAVING 1300 SF 2.15 2,795 6" G -1 CURB 50 LF 20.00 1,000 6" MOE CURB 100 LF 20.00 2,000 6" AC BERM 80 LF 9.50 760 SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS SUBTOTAL $ 38,153 / 0 SUBTOTAL $ 60,146 'i 10% CONTINGENCY $ 6,015 ti m TOTAL $ 66,161 6190 W m .6/30!12 >k CML !, 10032.EST OF CAUF�P� 2187 NEWCASTLE AVENUE • SUITE 103 • CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CA 92007 (760) 436 -8500 • FAX (760) 436 -8603 RESPONSE TO ESGIL CORPORATION COMMENTS NO. 11-1397,1034 CORNISH DRIVE ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA lie].] ED AND CORI DURFEY 1034 CORNISH DRIVE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 W.O. 6201 -A3 -SC NOVEMBER 18, 2011 S' Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California NOW • (760) 438 -3155 • FAX (760) 931 -0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com November 18, 2011 W.O. 6201 -A3-SC Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Drive Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Response to EsGil Corporation Comments No. 11 -1397,1034 Cornish Drive, Encinitas, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. and Mrs. Durfey: GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has prepared this response to the EsGil Corporation Plan Review Comments, Plan Check No. 11 -1397, for 1034 Cornish Drive in Encinitas, San Diego County, California For ease of review, the reviewers comments are repeated below, followed by GSI's response to the comments. The recommendations contained in the referenced reports (see Appendix A) should be properly incorporated into design and construction documents for the subject site, except as specifically superceded by the site and construction specific recommendations presented in the following paragraphs. The recommendations provided herein should not be considered complete unless the referenced reports (see Appendix A) are reviewed in conjunction with this response report. REVIEW RESPONSE For convenience, each geotechnical review comment is presented in bold type and our response follows each comment. Comment Number 3: Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction documents. Response to Comment Number 3: This office has already performed afoundation and grading plan review (GSI, 2011 a) report (see Appendix A) for the subject site, and is attached to this letter. The revised grading plan review is provided below. Revised Grading Plans The revised grading plans by Sowards &b Brown Engineering (S &B, 2011), notes, and details have been reviewed by this office and appear to be in general conformance with the recommendations provided by this office and presented in the referenced reports by GSI (see Appendix B), from a geotechnical point of view, CLOSURE 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 onsile, 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. Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Ave., Encinitas Fi1e:e:1wp916 2 0 016 2 01 a3.rte GeoSoHls, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A3 -SC November 18, 2011 Page 2 The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Respectfully sub rr�iit V\i �, /ASS moo, N E. V•\'O GeoSolls, Inc o �P os 0 tio. 8709 E. Voss P ject Geologist, G ci' t r; .,p. 12 3&LL/ 1c � `'. ohn P. �* Frankli �Englnee ing David W. Skell ��0 ngineering Ge d t 0.6LD Civil Engineer, RC' TFOF CFL�F� BEV /JPF /DWSrjh Attachments: Appendix A - References Appendix B - GSI Plan Review Letter W.O. 6201- A2 -SC, dated September 21, 2011. Distribution: (1) Addressee (1) Sowards & Brown Engineering, Attention: Mr. Randy Brown Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Ave., Encinitas F1e:e:\wp9%6200\6201a3.rte GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6201-A3-SC November 18, 2011 Page 3 APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A REFERENCES EsGil Corporation, 2011, Plan check comments, 1034 Cornish Drive, Encinitas, California, Plan Check No. 11 -1397, dated November 10. GeoSoils, Inc., 2011a, Revised geotechnical plan review and shoring clarification,1034 Cornish Avenue, proposed two -story residence with basement, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, W.O. 6201-A2-SC, dated September 21. 2011 b, Geotechnical plan review and shoring clarification, 1034 Cornish Avenue, proposed two -story residence with basement, Encinitas, San Diego County, California., W.O. 6201 - Al -SC, dated September 12. 2011c, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, 1034 Cornish Avenue, proposed two -story residence with basement, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, W.O. 6201 -A-SC, dated April 19. Sowards & Brown Engineering, 2011, Grading and erosion plan for: Durfey residence, 1034 Cornish Drive, Lot 13, Block B, Map 33 A.P.N. 258 - 322 -03, sheets 1 through 3, job No. 10 -032, Revision dated November 18. GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX B GSI'PLAN REVIEW LETTER W.O. 6201-A2-SC. DATED SEPTEMBER-21, 2011 0 Geotechnical " Geologic • Coastal " Environmental 5741 Palmer Way " Carlsbad, Cal'rfomia 92010 " (760) 438 -3155 " FAX (760)!331-0915 " www.geosollsinc.com September 21, 2011 Ed and Cori Durfey 3511 Corte Esperanza Carlsbad, California 92009 W. 0. 6201 -A1 -SC Subject Revised Geotechnical Plan Review and Shoring Clarification,1034 Cornish Avenue, Proposed Two-story Residence with Basement, Encinitas, San Diego County, California. References: 1. "Grading and Erosion Plan For. Durfey Resldence, 1034 Comish Drive, Lot 13, Block B, Map 33 A.P.N. 258- 322 -03," Sheets 1 through 3, job No. 10-032, dated July 1, 2011, by Sowards and Brown. 2. "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 1034 Comish Avenue, Proposed Two -Story Residencewith Basement; Encinitas, San Diego County, California,' W.0.6201 -A -SC, dated April 19, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. 3_ 'Foundation Plans for: Durfey Residence," Sheets S-1 through S-5, and SD -1 through SD- 5, not dated, by Schmit Engineering. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Durfey: In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a review of the project plans (see References No. 1 and No. 3) with respect to our geotechnical report (see Reference No. 2), for the purpose of evaluating if the plans are in general conformance with the intent of the GSI geotechnical report. GSI's scope of services included a review of the referenced report and plans, analysis of data, and preparation of this summary review_ Recommendations contained in Reference No. 2, which are not specifically superceded bythis review, should be properly incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. FOUNDATION AND GRADING PLANS GSI has reviewed the above referenced plans and details (see above) for typical conformance with our geotechnical recommendations presented in our report prepared to date (see above Reference No. 2). It is our opinion, that the above reviewed plans and details are in general conformance with our recommendations presented to date. GSI would like to point out, that based on our review of the above references, the slab and underlayment will minimally be 9 inches. This means that the garage Finish Grade (FG) will be 135.95, basement FG will be 136.25, and the proposed residence FG will be 145.25. SLOT -CUT CLARIFICATION Based on GSI's understanding, and conversation with the general contractor, the proposed overexcavation for the basement portion of the project shall be constructed in alternating slots, 7'/2 feet in horizontal width. This is demonstrated in the attached Slot Cut Detail and Cross Sections C -C', D -D' (Figures 1 and 2). Based on our analysis, it is GSI's opinion that a slot cut approach may be considered as an alternative to shoring of the excavation; however, although low, there Is still some element of riskfor damaging existing improvements (such as walls, flatwork, etc.) constructed on or near the property line. The geotechnical consultant shall be onsite during all basement excavations to continuously evaluate the temporary cuts. If adverse geologic conditions are observed, the backcut shall be backfilled immediately, until additional recommendations are provided. If the contractor does not want to assume the risk of damaging the existing improvements on or near the property line, shoring is recommenced. LIMITATIOMS 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. Ed and Cori Durtey 1034 Comish Ave., Encinitas File- eAwp12N6MC)WO1 a 1. rgpr GeoSoils, Inc. w.0. 6201 -A-SC September 21, 2011 Page 2 t ' 1 ,cyr.n.r,. rp,.wr; i -or.` trill! ♦/ i ll �° �,:. _•_ Iti 'Xs," lJ �'l i www 1 CT _r„ °� •.� bi1 I � 1 ❑ I'::� ( vrG ' ' C I�d I :l I A O 11 I . -S.ra. 7,L -' _ 1 • i J ^('on- , 1 _ i 4. - I i � I •'I t � I �1 .�j i ...rte � Ley 1 C-i L VX Q ,�._...1 •.� rrr ..m.slrs EA BLOCK 1PB ¢ w NAP 38 •' _N _wsw ALLLOC#T10NSAREAPPROX/M4TE 1 M W" AWIE 1 rr �r.r,.r.rarranw.r. 1 —I � or.rflGS.M6.M iV.dT lli., fwa Wl.lL9' r R GSf LEGEND auremwm X GM GMT EL TRIIAG: SLOT CUT DETAIL FVM s r e Q— NG M G6L AIDE. AM1W Y A / -e R9Mpld to EE16® rII rwl.Afac 1 MIG WI RM(G drd. .w� !e Y BARIR ML A'1g11S INITAS •�•• ••• r..�� Krwli�� ff RMR 1959 r-771 rMlTrr N_ L Fff CE GU NGO r1 C 1JIIIirwGE _ _. ,. C C, WALL I X50 EXISTING PRq°OSm TEMPORARY BACKCUT --. RESIDENCE (MA)IMUM DEPOSED AT ANY TIME 7 Y=' DURING SLOT CUT �—PROPOSED BASEMENT WALL \ WA PROPOSED BAS WALL—,, . / 1'1 ` MAXIMUM TEMPORARY VERRCAL CUT OF AFTER OVEREXCAVATION HAS BEEN / f:1 (k V) � fw 1' VFRIICAL 5' DURING COMPLETED, MAXIMUM TEMPORARY OVEPEXCAVA77ON GRADING - VERTICAL CUT 3 Ys' 1' VERTICAL- PROPOSED BASEMENT ?3700 J 1¢/ FOOTING FOOTING (MAX (M X) APPROXIMATE OVER D(CAVAT?ON DEPTH --' (3' BELOW RNISH GRADE iIJ4.00) D D, EXIST?NG EJ7STING IL' PROPOSED TEMPORARY BACKCUT -_ RESIDENCE afu GARAGE (MAXIMUM EXPOSED AT ANY TIME 7I4' DURING SLOT CUT I PROPOSED BASEMEN? WALL PROPOSED BASEMENT WALL --. /l- MAXIMUM TEMPORARY Vf]RRCAL CUT Or AFTER OVEREa'CAYARON HAS BEEN �fw \ \> \,�.T.` 4' TO 4 Y:' DURING OVEREXCAVATION GRADING COMPLETED, MAXIMUM TEMPORARY VERTICAL CUT 3' Z Jj,TPROPOSED 4 PROPOSED GARA 736.6 :Yz'(kFAX F0071NC )I FOOTING ( APPROXIMATE OVER EXCAVATTON DEPTH--' CROSS SECTIONS J (3' BELOW FINISH GRADE ;134.00) gppROXIMATE OVER IXCAVATION DEPTH (3' BELOW FINISH GRADE 313560) C-C D-D' , F1 ure2 wo fiM ..SG nay 4Hf ;,7 f'=S This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to act the undersigned. Respectfully su GeoSoils, Inc. panE-oss �inject Geologist, ohn P. Franklin Engineering Geolc BEV /JPF /DWS /jh S�pNA1 CFO O yP1J LP a mQ JN No. £3709 _TA \\ / e OF ' Mo. 1340 Cart?"od Distribution: (1) Addressee (via email) (4) DZN Architecture, Attention, Mr. Bruce Smith Ed and Cori Durfey 1034 Cornish Ave., Encinitas Re:e: \wp 12 \6200162[11 at .rgpr GeeSeils, Inc. W.O. 6201 -A -SC September 21, 2011 Page 5 Permit No.: rl inkV �� ClTrYF :ENCINITAS-- STORMWATER QUALITY HECKE—IST AND CERTIFICATION All development projects proposed within the City of Encinitas are required to implement stormwater quality measures in accordance with the Encinitas Stormwater Manual. The intent of these requirements is to promote practices and project designs that improve the quality of runoff and protect our local ocean, creeks, and lagoons from the harmful effects of polluted runoff. The Encinitas Stormwater Manual meets State - mandated requirements established by Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R9- 2007 -0001 (San Diego Region Municipal Stormwater Permit). For a more detailed description of the City's stormwater requirements, refer to the Encinitas Stormwater Manual on the City website (www.CityofEncinitas.org). The manual provides detailed, step -by -step guidelines on how to plan for, design, construct, and maintain stormwater treatment features. Other City stormwater - related resources available on the City's website include: 1. Municipal Code Chapter 20.08: Stormwater Management 2. Municipal Code Chapter 23.24: Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control This checklist is designed to guide applicants in the determination of the stormwater quality designation of the project and the design of appropriate stormwater quality features. Projects may be designated as 1) Priority, 2) Standard, or 3) Exempt projects. At a minimum, all projects are required to provide designs and employ practices that minimize the potential for discharge of pollutants into the City's storm drainage system or local receiving waters, as outlined in the Requirements for All Development Projects below. Requirements for ALL Development Projects All development projects (including Exempt Projects) must include a minimum set of control measures to reduce the discharge of stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. All projects must include: Z Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control potential pollutant sources. 171 Inclusion of Low Impact Development (LID) features that minimize the water quality impacts of the project. Z Compliance with requirements for construction -phase controls on sediment and other pollutants. In addition, all projects must design and install drainage features so that runoff from impervious areas (such as rooftops, parking lots, and driveways) drains through pervious or vegetated areas for treatment before draining to public or private streets or storm drainage systems. No Directly Connected Impervious Area (DCIA) will be allowed on any development project (Encinitas Municipal Code Section 23.24.120). For more information about prohibited DCIA practices and the stormwater runoff requirements for all projects, refer to the Encinitas Stormwater Manual. Beyond the minimum Requirements for All Development Projects listed above, the stormwater quality measures required for a particular project differ based upon the nature of the proposed development. Step 1 (Tables I and II below) is designed to assist you in determining the appropriate stormwater quality designation for your project. An overview of the method for determining the designation is included in the flowchart on the next page. SW Checklist Page 1 of 8 last modified.: 1/14111 Appendix B Case / Permit No.: FLOWCHART: DETERMINATION OF THE APPROPRIATE STORMWATER QUALITY DESIGNATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Does the proposed project occur on previously developed land? The proposed project is a Redevelopment Project. Please follow dashed arrows in flowchart below. NO The proposed project is a New Development Project. Please follow Does the proposed project create, solid arrows in flowchart below. < NO - add, and /or replace 5,000 sf or more of impervious surface? YES v <- Does the proposed project meet any of the definitions listed in Table I? YES I Does the proposed project generate pollutants above background levels and disturb one acre or more of land or does the project otherwise have the potential threat to pollute water quality? YES Does proposed project result in an increase < No or replacement of 50% or more of the existing NO impervious surfaces within the development? YES The project is a Priority Project and the 50% rule applies. Complete the SW - HM Supplemental Checklist. The project is a Priority Project and the 50% rule does not apply. Complete the SW - HMP Supplemental Checklist. SW Checklist last modified- 1/14/11 The proposed project is a Priority Project. Complete the SW - HMP Supplemental Checklist. Does the project include any features listed in Table II? YES YES No The project is a Standard Project. See No the Encinitas Stormwater Manual for able: This somw snow be useo as a gude to aid in the completion d project Requirements. McCifyofEMinna,sa,rmwataf Chectdlsfend Certakaflnn. For l wmpble details regerdag sto,M,ater aealmenl requirtmenb The project is an Exempt Project. See P 1 p 1 for OeVeOp en1p0ed3 R1l w' °' EMavlaS S10/maafer Menual .� "Requirements for All Projects' in the Encinitas Stormwater Manual. Page 2 of 8 Appendix B Case / Permit No.: STEP 1: DETERMINE STORMWATER QUALITY DESIGNATION Step 1 is designed to assist you in determining the appropriate stormwater quality designation for your project. Step 1A: Determine Development Tyne and Priority Proiect Category Applicability The first step in assessing the appropriate stormwater designation for your project is to determine whether it is a New Development Project or a Significant Redevelopment Project according to the definitions below. New Development Projects are defined as projects proposing new impervious area on a previously undeveloped parcel. Significant Redevelopment Projects are projects on previously developed land that create, add, and /or replace 5,000 square feet (s.f.) or more of impervious surface. Replacement of impervious surfaces includes any activity that is not part of a routine maintenance activity where impervious material(s) are removed, exposing underlying soil during construction. Redevelopment does not include interior remodels, roof or exterior surface replacement; trenching and resurfacing associated with utility work; resurfacing and reconfiguring surface parking lots and existing roadways; new sidewalk construction, pedestrian ramps, or bike lane on existing roads; or routine replacement of damaged pavement, such as pothole repair. However, other requirements, including incorporation of appropriate source controls, still apply. If your redevelopment project is exempt, the project is still obligated to meet the Requirements for All Development Projects, to the extent practicable. The City of Encinitas will make the final determination as to whether a proposed project is exempt from the requirements detailed in the Encinitas Stormwater Manual. If your project meets one of the two definitions of development listed above, use Table I to determine if your project is a Priority Development Project. Table I: Determine if Project is a Priority Development Project Review each category A through J to determine whether the project meets the definition of one or more of the Priority Project categories. If any response in Table I is "Yes ", the project is a Priority Development Project; please continue to Step 3. If all responses are "No ", please continue to Step 28. Does the project meet the definition of one or more of the following categories? A Housing subdivisions of 10 or more dwelling units. Examples: single - family homes, Yes No multi-family homes, condominiums, and apartments. O D Commercial— greater than one acre of development. Any development other than heavy industry or residential. Examples: hospitals; laboratories and other medical B facilities; educational institutions; recreational facilities; municipal facilities; commercial Yes No nurseries; multi- apartment buildings; car wash facilities: mini -malls and other business KI complexes; shopping malls; hotels; office buildings; public warehouses; automotive dealerships: airfields; and other light industrial facilities. Heavy industry— greater than one acre of development. Examples: manufacturing Yes No C plants, food processing plants, metal working facilities, printing plants, and fleet storage E areas bus, truck, etc.). Restaurants. Any facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for D immediate consumption (SIC code 5812), where the land area for development is greater Yes No than 5,000 square feet. Restaurants where land development is less than 5,000 square D Kl feet shall meet all SUSMP requirements except for structural treatment BMP and numeric sizing criteria requirements and h dromodification requirements. SW Checklist Page 3 of 8 last modified: 1/14111 Appendix 8 Case / Permit No.: Table I (cont.): Does the project meet the definition of one or more of the following categories? Hillside development greater than 5,000 square feet. Any development that creates E 5,000 square feet of impervious surface and is located in an area with known erosive soil Yes No conditions, where the development will grade on any natural slope that is twenty-five LI N percent or greater- Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). All development located within or directly adjacent to or discharging directly to an ESA (where discharges from the development or redevelopment will enter receiving waters within the ESA), which either creates 2,500 square feet of impervious surface on a proposed project site or increases the area of Yes No F imperviousness of a proposed project site to 10% or more of its naturally occurring U Q condition. "Directly adjacent" means situated within 200 feet of the ESA. "Discharging directly to" means outflow from a drainage conveyance system that is composed entirely of flows from the subject development or redevelopment site, and not commingled with flows from adjacent lands. G Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more or with 15 or more parking spaces and potentially Yes No exposed to urban runoff. Q cill Streets, roads, driveways, highways, and freeways. Any paved surface that is 5,000 Yes No H square feet or greater used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and El IA other vehicles. Retail Gasoline Outlets (RGOs) that are: (a) 5,000 square feet or more of development Yes No or b a projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles per day. L3 Gl Automotive repair shops. A facility categorized in any one of Standard Industrial Yes No Classification SIC codes 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532 -7534, or 7536 -7539. O Q If the answer to one or more of the categories in Table I is "Yes ", the project is a considered Priority Development Project for stormwater quality. The project will be required to install Source Control measures, Low - Impact Design (LID) features, and Stormwater Treatment Facilities that meet specific criteria. Proceed to Step 2 and refer to the SW —HMP Supplemental Checklist to determine whether your project is required to meet HMP regulations. If all answers in Table I are "No ", proceed to Step 1 B. Step 1 B: Determine Project's Water Quality Sensitivity Development projects have the potential to contribute pollutants that could threaten local and downstream water quality. Review the following project categories and determine whether your project meets either one of these definitions. Pollutant Generating Project Which Disturbs One Acre or More of Land. Projects that generate pollutants at levels greater than background levels and disturb one acre or more of land are considered Priority Development Projects. In most cases linear pathway projects that are for infrequent vehicle use (such as emergency or maintenance access) or for pedestrian or bicycle use are not considered pollutant generating above background levels if they are built with pervious surfaces or if they allow runoff to sheet flow to surrounding pervious surfaces. All Development Projects with Potential Threat to Pollute. Some projects not meeting the definitions listed in Table I may still be designated as Priority Projects if they are found to cause a threat to water quality through excess pollution potential. The City of Encinitas has the discretion to designate a project not listed within Table I as being a Priority Project based on the project's potential impacts to stormwater quality. If your project meets either of the categories described above, the project is a Priority Development Project for stormwater quality and the project will be required to install Source Control measures, LID features, and Stormwater Treatment Facilities. The City Engineer will make the final determination as to whether your project meets one of the definitions. Proceed to Step 2 and refer to the SW —HMP Supplemental Checklist to determine whether your project is required to meet HMP regulations. If your project does not meet one of the two categories listed above, proceed to Step 1C to determine whether your project includes any features that are consistent with the Standard Project S W Checklist Page 4 of 8 fast modified' 1/14/11 Appendix B Case / Permit No.: classification. Step 1C: Determine Standard Project Feature Applicability Table II: Determine if Project is a Standard Project To use Table II, review A through J to determine whether the proposed project includes any feature that would qualify the project as a Standard Project. If the response to any feature in A through J below is "Yes ", the project is designated as a Standard Project. If all responses are "No ", the project is an Exempt Project. After completion of Table II, please proceed to Step 2. Does the project include any features qualifying it as a Standard Project? New Impervious Surface Areas totaling 500 square feet or more combined, and A including any cumulative development over the five -year period preceding the time of Yes No application. Impervious areas include improvements such as rooftops, roads, ❑ Q11 parking lots, driveways, patios, pool decks, paths, etc. Reconstruction of any Existing Impervious Surface Areas such as rooftops, B roads, parking lots, driveways, paths, and sidewalks in excess of 500 square feet, Yes No including any cumulative development over the five -year period preceding the time of Kt ❑ application. C Permanent Structures within 100 feet of any natural water body. Yes 13 No 12 D Trash Storage Areas. Yes 1:3 No of E Loading and/ or Unloading Areas for liquids and /or solid materials. Yes Ll No LA F Vehicle or Equipment Fueling, Washing, and /or Maintenance Areas. Yes Q No G General NPDES Permit Required for storm water discharges associated with Yes No industrial activities (except for construction permits) 13 Q H Commercial and/ or Industrial Waste handling or storage, excluding typical office Yes No or household waste. Ll G) I Grading or ground disturbance proposed during construction. Yes 10 No 13 J IStorm Drains including new storm drains as well as alteration to existing storm I Yes No drains that reduce natural storm water treatment. ® L3 If the answer to one or more of the features in Table II is "Yes ", the project is a Standard Project for stormwater quality. The project will be required to install Source Control measures, Low- Impact Design Features, and some Stormwater Treatment Facilities. Proceed to Step 2 and use Chapter 4 of the Encinitas Stormwater Manual as a general guide when designing stormwater treatment facilities that will meet Standard Development Project requirements. The City of Encinitas will make the final determination as to whether a proposed project is exempt from the requirements detailed in the Encinitas Stormwater Manual. If the answers to all categories in Tables I and II are "No ", and the project has been determined by the City of Encinitas not to be a pollutant generating project or have the potential to pollute, the project is an Exempt Project for stormwater quality but is still required to meet the Requirements for All Development Projects. Please proceed to Step 2. SW Checklist Page 5 of 8 last modified 1/14/11 Appendix B Case / Permit STEP 2: DETERMINE PROJECT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Requirements for Exempt, Standard, and Priority Projects are discussed in turn below. Engineering Services Department staff are available to answer any specific questions regarding the stormwater quality requirements. Please check the box adjacent to the project type determined in Step 1. O Exempt Project: See Step 2A below. 0 Standard Project: See Step 2B below. U Priority Project: See Step 2C below. Step 2A: Determining Stormwater Quality Measures for an Exempt Project. Exempt projects are not required to install new Stormwater Treatment Facilities but shall utilize existing on -site landscape and pervious areas to avoid Directly Connected Impervious Areas (DCIA) as outlined in the Requirements for All Development Projects section above and in the Encinitas Stormwater Manual. In addition, Exempt Projects, like all other projects, are required to comply with requirements for construction -phase controls on sediment and other pollutants. Please proceed to Step 3. Step 26: Determining Stormwater Quality Measures for a Standard Project. Standard Projects are obligated to conform to the Requirements for All Development Projects outlined in the previous section as well to as integrate some BMP or LID features into the project proposal. BMP and LID features should be designed using Chapter 4 of the Encinitas Stormwater Manual as a general guide and then depicted on the plans for the permit. In addition, based on the types of BMPs or LIDs proposed, the City may require that a maintenance agreement be developed. Please proceed to Step 3. Step 2C: Determine Stormwater Quality Measures for a Priority Project. Priority Projects will be required to install Source Control measures, Low - Impact Design (LID) features, and Stormwater Treatment Facilities that meet specific criteria and may be required to meet HMP regulations. To determine whether your project needs to meet HMP regulations please complete the SW —HMP Supplemental Checklist. The Encinitas Stormwater Manual includes detailed guidance for the planning and design of acceptable storm water quality features and for developing Your project submittal package. The 50% Rule for Significant Redevelopment Projects Only: The requirements for Priority Redevelopment Projects differ depending upon the amount of redevelopment proposed. If the proposed project results in an increase and/or replacement of 50% or more of the previously existing impervious surfaces onsite, then the entire development must be included in the stormwater treatment design. If less than 50% of the previously existing impervious surfaces will be affected by the proposed project, then only the affected previously existing areas and the newly proposed project must be included in the stormwater treatment design. After completing the steps outlined in the Encinitas Stormwater Manual, Priority Projects shall provide required documentation to the City detailing the project's compliance with Priority Project standards. All documentation shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Encinitas prior to issuance of a grading or improvement permit or prior to the issuance of any discretionary permit, at the direction of the City Engineer. At a minimum, the items below are required for stormwater facility documentation of Priority Projects. The City Engineer may pose additional requirements for certain projects. Upon review of the submittal requirements in Step 2C, please proceed to Step 3. S W Checklist Page 6 of 8 last modified: 1/14111 Appendix B Case / Permit No.: PRIORITY PROJECT SUBMITTAL MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Priority Projects shall provide to the City all of the following documentation detailing the project's compliance. 1) STORMWATER QUALITY SECTION OF DRAINAGE STUDY: A Stormwater Quality discussion shall be included as a separate section within the project drainage study and shall include a narrative as well as an exhibit. Minimum requirements for the narrative and exhibit are discussed in items (a) and (b) below. a) STORMWATER QUALITY NARRATIVE: The stormwater quality narrative in the drainage study shall discuss, at a minimum, the items listed below. 1) Tabulation of the square footage of proposed pervious areas, impervious areas, and areas draining to an IMP. Also, a tabulation of the square footage of self- treating areas, self retaining areas, and areas draining to self- retaining areas, as applicable. (Step 3) 2) Calculations of the required sizing for self- retaining and Integrated Management Practice (IMP) areas and calculations documenting the sufficiency of the facilities provided. (Step 3) 3) A table of pollutant sources identified and the source control measure(s) used to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. See worksheet in Appendix A of the Encinitas Stormwater Manual. (Step 4) b) STORMWATER QUALITY EXHIBIT: The Stormwater Quality Section of the drainage study shall contain one exhibit including all of the items listed below. The Stormwater Quality Exhibit must be in conformance with the Site Plan. The Stormwater Quality Exhibit shall include the Site Plan features screened into the background for ease of confirming agreement between the Exhibit and the Site Plan. 1) Division of entire site into distinct drainage management areas (DMAs), with each drainage management area assigned a unique identifier (e.g., 1, 2, 3 or A, B. C). (Step 1) 2) Square footage and types of surfacing (e.g., roof, landscape, pavement) included in each DMA and the total DMA square footage. (Step 1) 3) Hydrologic soil group and depth to groundwater (as applicable) for each DMA. (Step 1) 4) Each DMA labeled as self - treating, self- retaining, draining to a self- retaining area, or draining to an IMP. (Step 2) 5) Potential pollutant source areas, including refuse areas, outdoor work and storage areas, etc. listed in Appendix A and corresponding required source controls. (Step 4) II) SITE PLAN: At a minimum, the Site Plan shall include the items listed below. A copy of the Site Plan shall be included in the Stormwater Quality Section of the drainage study. 1) Existing and proposed drainage network and connections to drainage off -site. (Step 3) 2) Depiction of site design characteristics that minimize disturbance as well as building features and pavement selections that minimize the proposed imperviousness of the site. (Step 3) 3) Proposed design of each IMP feature and any Permanent Source Control features. (Step 3) 4) Title sheet standard notes for each of pollutant sources identified specifying the source control measure(s) to be used to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. See worksheet in Appendix. (Step 4) 5) Existing natural hydrologic features such as depressions, watercourses, floodplains, and relatively undisturbed areas, as well as significant natural resources. (Step 1) 6) The City of Encinitas Standard Storm Water Quality Notes shall be added to the site plan. 7) Certification by a civil engineer, architect, or landscape architect on the title sheet. (Step 6) III) MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: In order to provide for the perpetual maintenance of the stormwater treatment facilities, the City will prepare for the property owner a Maintenance Agreement that shall record against the property. The items listed below shall be provided to the City for inclusion in the Maintenance Agreement. 1) Discussion of general maintenance needs for infiltration, treatment, and flow - control facilities. (Step 5) 2) The means by which facility maintenance will be financed and maintained into perpetuity. (Step 5) 3) Statement accepting responsibility for interim operation and maintenance of facilities. (Step 5) 4) Plat and legal description of the property. S W Checklist Page 7 of 8 last modified: 1114/11 Appendix B Case I Permit STEP 3: STORMWATER PROJECT CERTIFICATION The property owner of any project (Priority, Standard, or Exempt) shall complete the following Owner's Certification. In addition, any agent completing this form on behalf of a client shall complete the Agent's Certification below. Owner's Certification: I hereby acknowledge that my project is subject to the stormwater quality regulations of the City of Encinitas and certify that my project will provide satisfactory stormwater quality measures both during the construction process and afterwards. If my project is designated as a Priority or a Standard Project, I further acknowledge my understanding that the permanent stormwater treatment features must remain in place, be inspected at least once annually, and be maintained in good working order. Removal or modification of these features without prior City authorization is prohibited. I certify that I have reviewed the information contained in this form and verified that it is both complete and correct. -7/ /1 7 - /?'/ Owner 1 Signature Date Owner 2 Signature Date EDWARD DURFEY COREEN FRIEND Printed Name of Owner 1 Printed Name of Owner 2 Agent's Certification: I hereby certify that this project will be designed in conformance with the stormwater quality regulations of the City of Encinitas. I certify that I have reviewed the information contained in this form and verified that it is Agent Date IL RANDY R. DROWN SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING Printed Name of Agent ENGINEER Working Capacity of Agent (architect, engineer) SOWARDS AND DROWN ENGINEERING INC. Company Name Sw Checklist last modified: 1/14111 Place Professional Seal Above Page 8 of 8 Appendix B EQUITY TITLE COMPANY 1660 HOTEL CIRCLE NORTH SUITE 105 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 PHONE: (819) 574 -5985 FAX (619) 294.3298 DATED AS OF JUNE 27, 2007 AT 7:30 A.M. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1034 CORNISH DR COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY 5120 AVENIDA ENCINAS #110 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ATTENTION: SUZETTE LAU > U 'u IL, JUL 1 2011 YOUR NO.: 03008673 ORDER NO.: SD0751045 "PRELIMINARY REPORT" IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED APPLICATION FOR A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE, EQUITY TITLE COMPANY HEREBY REPORTS THAT IT IS PREPARED TO ISSUE, OR CAUSE TO BE ISSUED, AS OF THE DATE HEREOF, A POLICY OR POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE DESCRIBING THE LAND AND THE ESTATE OR INTEREST THEREIN HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, INSURING AGAINST LOSS WHICH MAY BE SUSTAINED BY REASON OF ANY DEFECT, LIEN OR ENCUMBRANCE NOT SHOWN OR REFERRED TO AS AN EXCEPTION BELOW OR NOT EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE PURSUANT TO THE PRINTED SCHEDULES, CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS OF SAID POLICY FORMS. THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS FROM THE COVERAGE OF SAID POLICY OR POLICIES ARE SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A ATTACHED. COPIES OF THE POLICY FORMS SHOULD BE READ. THEY ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE OFFICE WHICH ISSUED THIS REPORT. PLEASE READ THE EXCEPTIONS SHOWN OR REFERRED TO BELOW AND THE EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS REPORT CAREFULLY. THE EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS ARE MEANT TO PROVIDE YOU WITH NOTICE OF MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY AND SHOULD BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS PRELIMINARY REPORT IS NOT A WRITTEN REPRESENTATION AS TO THE CONDITION OF TITLE AND MAY NOT LIST ALL LIENS, DEFECTS AND ENCUMBRANCES AFFECTING TITLE TO THE LAND. THIS REPORT (AND ANY SUPPLEMENTS OR AMENDMENTS HERETO) IS ISSUED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING THE ISSUANCE OF A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE AND NO LIABILITY IS ASSUMED HEREBY. IF IT IS DESIRED THAT LIABILITY BE ASSUMED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE, A BINDER OR COMMITMENT SHOULD BE REQUESTED. THE FORM OF POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE CONTEMPLATED BY THIS REPORT IS: [X] CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION /AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION �� HOMEOWNERS POLICY 0 CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARD POLICY co?"*4 � AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION RESIDENTIAL POLICY l.l [X] AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY MIKE VALERI, TITLE OFFICER (619) 574 -5985 SCHEDULE A THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS: ►_lY4:4 TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN: LEO J. DEZZUTTO AND HARRIET F. DEZZUTTO, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO EXHIBIT "A" LOT 13 IN BLOCK "B" OF SUBDIVISION OF EAST BLOCK 10 OF STURGES AND RATION SUBDIVISION OF EAST BLOCK 7, 8, 10, 11 AND 12 OF ENCINITAS, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 33, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 19,1887; ALSO THAT PORTION OF THE EASTERLY 10 FEET OF DEWITf AVENUE ADJOINING SAID LOT 13 ON THE WEST AS VACATED AND CLOSED TO PUBLIC USE BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1949. SCHEDULE B AT THE DATE HEREOF EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS IN SAID POLICY FORM DESIGNATED ON THE FACE PAGE OF THIS REPORT WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: A. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 -2008, ALIEN NOT YET DUE OR PAYABLE. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006 -2007 TOTAL: $1,161.04 FIRST INSTALLMENT: $580.52 PAID SECOND INSTALLMENT: $580.52 PAID ASSESSED VALUATION: LAND VALUE: IMPROVEMENTS: EXEMPTION: CODE AREA. A. P. NO.: $21,622.00 $23,314.00 50.00 19079 258 - 322 -03 -00 C. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES ASSESSED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3.5 COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75 OF THE CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE. D. ASSESSMENTS, IF ANY, FOR COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICTS AFFECTING SAID LAND WHICH MAY EXIST BY VIRTUE OF ASSESSMENT MAPS OR NOTICES FILED BY SAID DISTRICTS, 1. THE FAILURE OF THE MAP ATTACHED TO THIS POLICY TO SHOW THE SAME LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF YOUR LAND AS THOSE SHOWN IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS. 2. THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY: AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNIT POLICY" RECORDED DECEMBER 24, 1997 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1997 - 0656481, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 3. ANY FACTS ABOUT THE LAND THAT AN INSPECTION OR INQUIRY OF PARTIES IN POSSESSION SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY WOULD DISCLOSE AND THAT ARE NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. 4. STATEMENT OF INFORMATION FROM LEO DUZZUTTO AND HARRIET DEZZUTTO. 5. STATEMENT OF INFORMATION FROM ED DURFEY AND COREEN FRIEND. NOTE NO. 1: NO POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. THE BASIC RATE WILL APPLY WHEN A POLICY IS ISSUED UNDER THE ABOVE ORDER NUMBER. NOTE NO. 2: THIS REPORT IS PREPARATORY TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN ALTA LOAN POLICY. WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY FACT WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICY WITH CLTA ENDORSEMENT FORMS 100 AND 116 ATTACHED. WHEN ISSUED, THE CLTA ENDORSEMENT FORM 116 WILL REFERENCE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE KNOWN AS: 1034 CORNISH DRIVE, CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOTE NO. 3: ACCORDING TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS, THERE HAVE BEEN NO DEEDS CONVEYING THE LAND DESCRIBED HEREIN WITHIN A PERIOD OF THIRTY -SIX (36) MONTHS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THIS REPORT.. EXCEPT AS FOLLOWS: NONE NOTE NO. 4: IF THIS COMPANY IS REQUESTED TO DISBURSE FUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS TRANSACTION, ASSEMBLY BILL 512 (CHAPTER 598, STATUTES OF 1989) MANDATES HOLD PERIODS FOR CHECKS DEPOSITED TO ESCROW OR SUB - ESCROW ACCOUNTS. THE MANDATORY HOLD PERIOD FOR CASHIER'S CHECKS, CERTIFIED CHECKS AND TELLER'S CHECKS IS ONE BUSINESS DAY. OTHER CHECKS REQUIRE A HOLD PERIOD FROM THREE TO SEVEN BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE DAY DEPOSITED. THE PERSONS WHO ARE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION TO WHICH THIS TITLE INSURANCE POLICY RELATES (THE "PRINCIPALS -) EACH AGREE, UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EQUITY TITLE COMPANY (- EQUITY') IS ALSO ACTING AS AN ESCROW HOLDER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS TRANSACTION AND IS NOT ACTING AS A TRUSTEE OR IN ANY OTHER FIDUCIARY CAPACITY. EQUITY'S DUTIES SHALL BE LIMITED TO SAFEKEEPING OF SUCH MONEY AND DOCUMENTS RECEIVED BY IT AS ESCROW HOLDER, AND FOR THE DISPOSITION OF SUCH MONEY AND DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS ACCEPTED BY IT AS AN ESCROW HOLDER. ALL FUNDS RECEIVED BY EQUITY AS ESCROW HOLDER SHALL BE DEPOSITED TO AN ACCOUNT (THE - ESCROW ACCOUNT -) WITH A STATE OR FEDERAL BANK (THE "DEPOSITORY'). EQUITY MAY ALSO DEPOSIT ESCROW FUNDS FOR OTHER CUSTOMERS FOR UNRELATED TRANSACTIONS TO THE ESCROW ACCOUNT. UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED IN WRITING, EACH OF THE PRINCIPALS AGREES, UNDERSTANDS AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT: THE ESCROW ACCOUNT IS NON- INTEREST- BEARING; NO FINANCIAL OR OTHER BENEFITS WILL BE EARNED BY OR PROVIDED TO ANY OF THE PRINCIPALS WITH RESPECT TO SUCH FUNDS; AND EQUITY AND ITS AFFILIATES MAY INSTEAD RECEIVE DIRECT AND INDIRECT FINANCIAL AND OTHER BENEFITS FROM THE DEPOSITORY WITH RESPECT TO SUCH FUNDS. THESE BENEFITS SHALL BE TREATED AS ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION TO EQUITY FOR ITS SERVICES AS AN ESCROW HOLDER IN THIS TRANSACTION. ONLY CASH OR WIRED FUNDS CAN BE GIVEN IMMEDIATE AVAILABILITY UPON DEPOSIT. ALL OTHER FUNDS SUCH AS PERSONAL, CORPORATE OR PARTNERSHIP CHECKS AND DRAFTS MAY CAUSE MATERIAL DELAYS IN DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS ON THIS ORDER. IN ORDER TO AVOID DELAYS, ALL FUNDS SHOULD BE WIRE TRANSFERRED. OUTGOING WIRE TRANSFERS WILL NOT BE AUTHORIZED UNTIL CONFIRMATION OF THE RESPECTIVE INCOMING WIRE TRANSFER OR AVAILABILITY OF DEPOSITED CHECKS. ORDER NO.: SD0751045 NOTE NO. 5: THIS COMPANY REQUIRES CURRENT BENEFICIARY DEMAND PRIOR TO CLOSING. IF THE DEMAND IS EXPIRED AND A CURRENT DEMAND CANNOT BE OBTAINED, OUR REQUIREMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: A. IF THIS COMPANY ACCEPTS A VERBAL UPDATE ON THE DEMAND, WE WILL HOLD AN AMOUNT NOT LESS THAN ONE MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENT PLUS APPLICABLE LATE CHARGES. THIS HOLD WILL BE IN ADDITION TO ANY HOLD THE LENDER MAY HAVE STIPULATED. B. IF THIS COMPANY CANNOT OBTAIN A VERBAL UPDATE ON THE DEMAND, WE WILL HOLD TOTAL PROCEEDS UNTIL A CURRENT DEMAND IS RECEIVED, ESCROW HOLDER SHALL REMAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING AND SUBMITTING A CURRENT STATEMENT. NOTE: IF YOU INTEND TO WIRE FUNDS TO EQUITY TITLE COMPANY, PLEASE CALL OUR OFFICE AND SEND THE FUNDS TO' COMERICA BANK 2015 MANHATTAN BEACH REDONDO BEACH, CA 90278 EQUITY TITLE COMPANY SAN DIEGO TRUST ACCOUNT #1891614867 ABA ROUTING 0121137522 PLEASE REFERENCE OUR ORDER NUMBER AND THE TITLE OFFICER'S NAME. MV /KT 19 tiFJI -WINO ♦ OOCY 13463 " / _ <, J•CONOn LOr MIVE I C? ; l O C C \\ rn :J Ii P. k CORN YI aIM IT IXIC8F19'16N 32 �'�"Cy (SEE SHY 2) YO D U / 4 COMO 14 HL IOB "ti 53-16 I STgCF.T DOC 693aWZ! 12 11 314 (w a snL 11 T J 34 s. CONIwIO lIIt rI / JvI 7 ICVY�; coNnowullNS (5EE an. 2) .4 IT 1 a Calrm A / 323 IWa rw s.Imr AW 16• r O 6 ..` l'� �r' r WX i0.W IFIIn eK. 1fi 4 Mi 15 it 7 C :` 1� /T6 .' BILK 1I8 �'-0sllxi a If M(-. '.t A 12 h 110 J3 9 a �C M ,q �K to ,c 6 / / �• 9 j C •� 7.5 1 Y i vx rcw cctYrlr MAP 33 - SIUR� & RA7? fy SUB t �s',rAknlX WIM .'T I/ C xnx 2]11 reu n sIl I u s RUS. 495.41 10618, T112a,12SIA,1H489 258 -32 SHT I OF 2 /�� "-v cm m s Kv INKS %SO 4pw rd SEC is Rn W. 1.9 R 1'>•1W' 11 1 CHANGES fUX Srr Trf TSA � !Ti al OLD s�G O i /e NEW O iw r Cllr r!0 XT 4 7 in -T T O 1 !SF' ysT .0 .. nn o u YI 1 24 w1 m a '!6U , DC z i,eCORDING REQUESTED BY Equ'ty Tide Company AND WHEN __RE""C //ORDED MAIL TO: Ed Durfe;'1RZ {Q(r''VJ M -,'rl�- Tlxq. APN: 256- 322 -03 -00 Escrow Nn: Q300867; Title No: St it '� I h GRANT DEED DOC # 2007- 0553734 :111111$1111111'11111i1 IIP 1111111111111111111i11111111li1 1'11;11' AUG 20, 2007 3:13 PM OF FlOAL RECORDS SAA<UIEGO couf: -f*. RECORDER" u, FI,-E , GONT'I r .000NTYRECORD'R FEES 119250 Or_: 0 ;USES - i 2007 - 0553734 THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARES) DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS 41.182,50 ® computed on full value of property conveyed, OR ❑ computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale unincorporated area H City of Encinitas, AND FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Leo 3. Dezzutto and Harriet F- Dezzutto, husband and wife as joint tenants hereby GRANT(S)to EDWARD DURFEY AND COREEN FRIEND, ffusband and Wife as Community Property ��9>�f9�P��Fr°r�s�frfr with right of survivorship the following described real property in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California: See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Commonly known as: 1034 Cornish Drive, Encinitas, CA 92024 Dated: My a 2nQ7 Leo ). DezzutO v Harriet F. Dezzutto STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF r On Ul, personally appeared subscribed to the within capacity(ies), andAllat I person(s) actW,execute WITNESS my han nd i Signature ) SS: Public, (or proved to me on the basis er sans actory evidence] be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are Instrument and acknowledged to me that helshe/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized V his/hedtneir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the i the Instrument. 5'J�� LAO FOR NOTARY SEAL OR STAMP AU .- SUhtZ & 6553R9 CA11f Q T �rn ' Lli �0n 8887 ORDER NO.: SD0751045 EXHIBIT "A" LOT 13 IN BLOCK "B° OF SUBDIVISION OF EAST BLOCK 10 OF STURGES AND RATTON SUBDIVISION OF EAST BLOCK 7, 8, 10, 11 AND 12 OF ENCINITAS, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 33, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 19, 1887; ALSO THAT PORTION OF THE EASTERLY 10 FEET OF DEWITT AVENUE ADJOINING SAID LOT 13 ON THE WEST AS VACATED AND CLOSED TO PUBLIC USE BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1949. DRAINAGE STUDY FOR DURFEY RESIDENCE 1034 CORNISH DRIVE APN: 258 - 322 -03 /Ppf ES -310 � 9 _ s 0 90 m JIJL 1 2011 .6130/12 OF CA11� PREPARED BY: SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2187 NEWCASTLE AVENUE, STE 103, CARDIFF, CA 92007 (760) 436 -8500 10 -032 7/1/11 SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 202 CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 Josue y r fe I X Z 0 -0i_2 SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY — DATE .... . .... . . .. L 0 1) ..... . .. ...... ..... - ------ a. U5f �Al Fbif j _Yhitt _ Lie e 0 0 T j�� Tj \A /R'_ Tro4c 2 4 EA nje� r.'a IMM . .. .......... ... .. _XS 0J."t . .... . EF-.1-C.-L uw-. r > fL. ....... ..... T A64.1 LAjq E_j 15. E jhM AlAt i A MD rrityl p I J,? S c h ------ - ---- F6AA a Af fff 16- ------ __T Lj ------ kJ3 . . ........ Fog N A I I If.A. ALktft._b1 J4-E. �7 A.. CH E E �u . ...... L F-P -k ..... . . (MA . . . . I P.6 to I 0A .. . .... ... 4— - - 4 0 V tz!. Cr I 71 OW. ON-- . .. ... . .... V I V I -Tr —0f.- . . . . . /V .. . ....... ... 1.1 L._((7: AJC_(� r ... . .... ....... . ... . jqx 0 __4 --t; L4jD r 4— SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING SHEET NO. OF- 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 202 CALCULATED BY DATE CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE CAA _I�> o�° F .._� Ito.. m w .z �� -0rr.... .F1.0.! _ I - S�A�Zi�sj I i — { - �� I I I I I� I� -- 1 y� —77 *A/-� K.� c rI .Q J, ....tt N I -� - -. d .r de- �Q ° ?t� I {�} i ! Cb D �I T, 10.��jj �Iv..I L - m. t. 14L..i{ N SF- r - 1. It 2 . _ _ I .. ' —L �- RI o R S AU : } . t i i j I i -4-- -t ...._; i— }— a— } t +- t t ..-� -- - i li : I -I �.. _ I- T - ' - - ..... a ......... . ... .. .. — .N ®w-oft .� SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING SHEET NO, OF- 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 202 CALCULATED BY DATE CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 CHECKED BY DATE ...... . . . . . t.LIAAL -4 4- . ........ . t �1 .. ... .... . ... .. M F'- J-7 .... .... .. 4 ..... . .... A fhu� Z .. .. ....... -Z-!� 00 -9� . . . . . . . . — ------ ...... —rgiou ... ;TA7 . ...... . ... ........... �gx .... �Vl .. .. . . .... ... ox., ... pV.5 ..... re ;z ... )/Vl . . je'e ....... . 1.0 -Ji a ... .. A ........... .. . ...... ....... . ..... -L/ ..... - - ----- -- ---- - ------ ---- 717 CIA j+ 7 T-- -1 . ..... Zi .. .... . .. .011L . . .. ...... ...... ... ...... . . ...... ... 03 1 C f-, ... ... . . . . . . . . ......... ........ . .......... ........ . ...... .... ------ --------- r ... ... SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING 2187 Newcastle Ave,, Suite 202 CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 SHEET NO, CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE OF DATE , V .... . . .... . . ...... .... ....... . .... d., ...... . ..... . - . ... t ........... - ----- u S + . . .. .. ......... . ..... .. ......... . . . . ....... . . . ......... - ---------- �iF 51 Tf_ p4 E R COk Tf' f I ..r _R F,8F _ r auto 1� Id I;rq �e jv 4 61 is I-rktg _Aerly Pt_. LV/ _All !i�r 04� _T1 ....... ....... F- -L; q ' .... . ... . ........ . t.. .. . . . ............ ..... . .. . .. ..... . . ...... 1 .... . ...... + . . .... 4 4 14 SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 202 CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 JOB SHEET NO OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE 14Uf1 ml ®'i w K 01471, .... .... .. 14-9 -71 -S t Ac .. s -k- ..... . ... 4.-j M—.j V 00 ffyaq ks- Jfa-! ta 4 4 . . . ...... IF -7 .. .......... ..... ... ... 4- - - - - IC .. .... ....... . ....... ........ ... ... .. ......... -4 . ..... . ....... --7 -4 . .... ...... ----- . .. . . ........ ...... .. ... ...... ......... .. ----- - -- -- m4 C.11A.1 •9 �7 1 . .......... + elm Aal A - .1111-7 + 4 4 ..... .. ... . . . . .... . .. . ... . .. -_3 . .... .... (A, -7� �7 �.4 s;� '0 =T . . ... ........ .. t. -9 1j"114k --j— — --- . . ... . . . . ..... . ..... I CF 14Uf1 ml ®'i w K 01471, SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 202 CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 8HEET NO OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED By DATE 4 mi -1 ........ .. .. . . . .... ..... . . . ..... • S I H AL A! Lj -T .1. ... ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . ..... _.__�_ _ . . k ... . .. ...... . . ...... 5-F- - 0 ----- -- --------- ... . .... ...... . ... -A amf My _71 ........ ... .... 3 2np ..... . .... _V_oc!('-ffyV ......... . ....... El .... .. 41- . . ........ . . ....... i . ...... 7— . .... ... . .. . II IS4 11 —4-4 ...... . .. 11- ........ . . ....... .. ----- - ...... . ..... --------- --- —Dy.i -7 . .... ...... . .. ............ .. .. .. .4 .... ... . ...... 4 ..... . .. --- ---- f 4-- + .. ..... ...... ....... L .... .. .. . ....... --- --- .i. . ..... -4 --- 4+ . .. .......... . ..... . - ........... t . . ...... ...... —4 ........ ... f I b) ®W. a K 01471 SOWARDS AND BROWN ENGINEERING 2187 Newcastle Ave., Suite 202 CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 SHEET NO OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE mmmIx.1 ®N.- w Y 11471, ... .. .. ..... . ----- ----- ....... .. ...... �jc om 1� L: -j X,! r) -Lo. l - �-ws sz..Qj �1 D—f....... L . . ..... C P5 Di I . ...... . . . .. . . .... .. 7' Lj 34 06 10A .. 3 4-- 01 OK -Z4 I F ON T ---- ------- T- -- 0,011 .01 ... ... 1 10 r- y RD J L L oi (19 �cj E 5') 1- —7 — ...... E mmmIx.1 ®N.- w Y 11471, IRIS .\1 /. San Diego County Hydrology Manual Date: June 2003 Table 3 -1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR URBAN AREAS Section: 3 Page: 6 of 26 Soil - --- "C" 3 -6 wumy ntements %RIPER. A B C D UndisltuhadNaturalTe (N♦) Permanent Open Space 0! Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, 1.0 DU /A or less 10 020 027 015 0.30 1135 Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, 2.0 DU /A or less 20 0j2 0.36 0.41 Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, 2.9 DU /A or less 25 0.34 038 038 0.41 0.42 0.45 046 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 4.3 DU /A or less 30 0.49 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 7.3 DU /A or less 40 0.41 0.45 0.48 0.52 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 10.9 DU /A or less 45 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.57 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 14.5 DU /A or less 50 D.52 0.54 0.57 0.60 High Density Residential (HDR) Residential, 24.0 DU /A or less 65 0.55 0.58 0.60 0.63 High Density Residential (HDR) Residential, 43.0 DU /A or less 80 D.66 0.67 0.69 0.71 Commercial/ladustrial (N. Com) Neighborhood Commercial 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 Commercia bdustrial (G. Com) General Commercial 80 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 Commercial/Industrial (O.P. Com) Office Professional/Commercial 85 90 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.82 Commercial/Industrial (Limited I.) Limited Industrial 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.85 Commercial/Industrial General 1. General Industrial 90 95 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.85 *The values associated with 0 °% impervious may be used for direct calculation of the nmoff coefficient 0.87 0.87 0-87 0.97 as described in Section 3.1.2 (representing coefficient, Cp, for the soil type), or for areas that will remain undisturbed in perpetuity. is located in Cleveland National Forest). Justification the pervious runoff must be given that the area will remain natural forever (e.g., the area DU /A = dwelling units per acre NRCS = National Resources Conservation Service 3 -6 San Diego County Hydrology Manual Date: June 2003 Section: 3 Page: 12 of 26 Note that the Initial Time of Concentration should be reflective of the general land -use at the upstream end of a drainage basin. A single lot with an area of two or less acres does not have a significant effect where the ',drainage basin area is 20 to 600 acres. Table 3 -2 provides limits of the length (Maximum Length (Lm)) of sheet flow to be used in hydrology studies. Initial T; values based on average C values for the Land Use Element are also included. These values can be used in planning and design applications as described below. Exceptions may be approved by the "Regulating Agency" when submitted with a detailed study. Table 3 -2 MAXB" OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH (LrO & WMAL TIME OF CONCENTRATION (T.) Element' DU/ Acre .5% 1% 2% 3% 5% 10% LM Ti LM Ti LM Ti LM I T; Lt t Ti LM T; Natural 50 13.21 70 12.5 85 10.9 100 10.3 100 8.7 100 6.9 LDR 1 50 12.21 70 11.5 85 10.0 100 9.5 100 8.0 100 6.4 LDR 2 50 11.3 70 10.5 85 9.2 100 8.8 100 7.4 100 5.8 LDR 2.9 50 10.7' 70 10.0 85 8.8 95 8.1 100 7.0 100 5.6 NOR 4.3 50 10.21 70 9.6 80 8.1 95 7.8 100 6.7 100 5.3 MDR 7.3 50 9.2' 65 8.4 80 7.4 1 95 7.0 100 J 6.0 100 4.8 MDR 10.9 50 8.7 65 7.9 80 6.9 90 6.4 100 5.7 100 4.5 MDR 14.5 50 8.2 65 7.4 80 6.5 90 6.0 100 5.4 100 43 HDR 24 50 6.7 65 6.1 75 5.1 90 4.9 95 4.3 1 100 3.5 HDR 1 43 1 50 5.3; 65 4.7 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 1 3.41 100 1 2.7 N. Com 50 5.3 60 4.5 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 1 3.4 1 1001 2.7 G. Com 50 4.7 60 4.1 75 3.6 1 85 3.4 90 2.9 100 2.4 O.P./ 50 4.2' 60 3.7 70 3.1 80 2.9 90 2.6 100 2.2 Limited I. 50 4.2 60 3.7 70 3.1 80 2.9 90 2.6 100 2.2 General I. 50 3.7 60 3.2 70 2.7 80 2.6 90 2.3 100 19 'See Table 3 -1 for more detailed description 3.12 EXAMPLE: Glmn; Watemouto Slope (3) Runoff do�.nj: jd:*j. Ta Ovedand Plow 11ma.M it ,S: 5 Minutp4 mation AdrnjnWmvon; Ige5 �P t G IYA It Rational Formt!4.. Ovqo"d 1111111164f F11Y.W. tomog.raph 31111113 EQUATION AE /11.90 0.395 Feet Te ' woo Tc - Tuna of concentration (hours) L - Watercourse DIstance (miles) 4000 AE a Change In elevatlon along effective elope tine (See Figure 35)(fsst) x000 Tc Hours Mlnutos 2000 4 240 3 ISO —1000 900 800 2 120 TDO 100 Go-a \ 00 — soo \ \ e0 —400 \ 70 1 Fi0 —30D \ \Oo \ 5D —200 \ \ 40 \ L \ \ Miles Feet \ 30 —100 1-1 61 e$1 AE l Tc California Division of Highways (1941) and Kirplch (1940) F I G U R E Nomograph for Determination of Time of Concentration (Tc) or Travel Time (Tt) for Natural Watersheds 3 -4e 4000 20 \ iB Joao IS $0 0.5-- \ \ 14 \ 40 2000 \ 12 IBM \ 1600 \ 10 30 1400 \ 9 120 g 20 1000 7 9M BM 6 700 6D0 5 10 500 4 61 e$1 AE l Tc California Division of Highways (1941) and Kirplch (1940) F I G U R E Nomograph for Determination of Time of Concentration (Tc) or Travel Time (Tt) for Natural Watersheds 3 -4e F I G U R E Manning's Equation Nomograph 3_7 EQUATION: V =1n 1.49 R%9% a 0.z s0 .z 40 .ts 100.00 0.3 30 0.4 0.01 .10 0.06 0.07 0.6 .. 0.06 0.06 `0.6 N\ 0.04 a . 0.03 o.s t.0 \ ,p °p ooti a t� 0.02 C _ \ g 6 0.07 7 c c n EO _2 g ° g 0.04 0.008 W 0.006 0.307 .2 U / C `E 4 Z x 0.06 0 0.006 7/ ` j o.oe 0.006 3 0 � 9 Q IX a.'so40 0.06 0.06 .007 a 0.09 0.002 6 z .10 e 7 ° 1,10 0.001 0.0009 0.0008 1.0 0.2 0.0°07 0.9 0.0006 0.8 0.aoos 0.7 10.6 0.0004 0.6 .3 0.0003 20 0.4 GENERAL SOLUTION SOURCE USDOT, FHWA, HDS3 (1961) F I G U R E Manning's Equation Nomograph 3_7 7-64 HANDBOOK OF HYDRAULICS Table 7 -13. Values of K for Circular Channels in the Formula IQ- KD6431L n D - depth of water d - dumeter pl oh+anel .00 I .01 I .02 I .03 .04 .OS I .06 I .07 I 0g I .n. .0 .00 L6.02 L0.56 8.67 7.36 646 5.95 6.47 608 4.76 .1 4.49 425 4.04 3.86 3.69 334 3.41 3.28 3.17 a.06 2 296 287 2.79 2.71 263 236 2.49 2.42 236 2.30 3 2.26 220 2.14 209 2.4 2.00 1.96 1.92 1.87 1.84 A 48D L76 1.72 L69 1.66 1.d2 139 1.56 133 1.50 3 1.47 1.442 1-415 1.383 1.362 1336 1311 1286 1.262 1.23 .8 1.215 L192 1.170 IAA 1.126 1.105 1.0& 1.064 1.04 L02 .7 1.004 984 .965 .947 .928 .910 .891 .874 .659 83 8 .921 8 04 .787 .770 .753 .736 .720 530 .g5a .657 9 .864 337 62f eti roe �.. ... .703 .887 .67 Table 7 -14. VLtlum of X, for Circular Channels in the Formula Q . of d66aH D � depth of cuter d - dfemew of .h ---- I f�1 STEADY UNIFORM FLOW IN OPEN CHANNELS 7 -35 Table 7-4- For Determining the Area a of the Cross Section of a Circular Conduit Flowing Part Full TAt depth of water _ D �d G. - tastabuLted sloe. Thus a C.d�. dumaler of eha..a d D a .00 .01 .02 .03 .04 .06 .06 .07 .08 .09 .0 .Dols .0037 -0060 .010 .0147 ,0192 .0242 .0294 .0350 .1 .0409 .0470 .0534 .0600 087 .0739 .0811 .0885 .0951 .1039 .2 .1118 1199 .1281 .1365 .1449 IP5 AM .1711 .180 .1890 3 .1982 2074 .2167 2660 =65 24 2546 2642 2739 2836 .4 2934 303 3130 3229 33 .233 3827 3847 3727 3927 L.007 .5 393 .403 .413 .423 -433 -443 .453 .462 .472 .482 .6 -492 .502 .512. .521 .53k .640 .660 .659 569 .578 .7 .687 .596 .606 .614 .623 .632 530 .049 .657 .656. .8 .614 Ask .689 .6% .706 .712 .719 .725 .782 .738 .9 .745 .750 .756 .761 .766 .771 .775 779 .782 .764 Table 7S- For Determining the Hydraulic Radius r of the Cross Section of s. Circular Conduit Flooring Part Full Let depth of wabr d C, the tabuLted slue. Theo r - Cd. mewl -D. � D a .00 -01 .02 .03 .04 .05 06 .07 .08 .09 .013 .020 .026 .073 -029 .045 .051 -057 .070 .076 .081 087 .093 099 .104 .110 .115 .126 .131 .136 .142 AV 152 .157 .161 .166 .176 .180 185 .189 .193 198 202 .206 .210 218 222 226 229 .233 736 240 243 .247 L.007 0 .253 256 .269 262 265 368 .270 273 .276 8 280 282 264 286 . 288 290 292 293 295 4 304 204 304 304 .303 2003 .302 301 ,299 8 296 201 292 289 .286 283 279 274 287 1� 1 STEADY UNIFORM FLOW IN OPEN CHANNELS 7--43 Table 741. Values of K' in Formula Q - n VW4 for Trapezoidal Channels D - depth of water b - bottom Mdth of h.. -I Bide slop. of ahLnael, ratio of horieoolal to .dcd _D b Ver- 3, -1 34 -1 M -1 1 -1 IN -1 2-1 2A -1 3-1 4-1 t19d _ .01 .00068 .00008 .00069 .00009 .00069 .00000 .00009 .00060 .00070 .00070 .02 .00213 .00216 .00246.0021 00218.00220.00221 .00222.00228.0022 .03 .00414 .00419 .00423 .00428 .00428 .00438 .00430 .00439 .00443 .00449 .00500 .00670 .00679 .0081 .00091 .00700 .00708 .00716 .00723 .0078 .04 .05 .00940 .09964 .00079 .00991 .01002 .01019 .01033 .01047 ,01060 .0108 .08 .0127 .0180 .0132 .0184 i.0180 .0138 .0141 .0143 .0145 .0150 .07 .0152 .0160 .0170 .0178 0176 .0180 .0183'..0187 .0190 .0I97 .08 .0200 .0706 .0211..0216 I .0219 .0226 .0231" .0286 .0249 .0260 .09 .0241 .0240 .0266 .0262..0267 .0276 .0282 .0289 .0290 .0310 .10 .9284 .0294 .0304 .0811 ! .0818 .0329 .0330 .0348 .0358 .0370 .11 .0329 .0348 .0864 .08041 .0373 .0387 .0400 .0413 .0424 .0448 .12 .0370 .0398 .0406 .04201 .0431 .0450 .0466 .0482 .0497 .0627 .13 .0426 .0446 .0464 .04801 .0493 .0616 .0637 .0666 .0576 .0618 .14 .0470 .0502 .0524 .0542; .0669 .0687 .0012 .0086 .0650 .0706 .16 .0528 .0669 .0586 .0008 .0677 .0062 .0692 .0721 .0749 .0806 .16 .0682 .0819 .0650 .0676 0700 .0740 .0777 .0811 .0345 .0912 .17 .0638 .0680 .0716 .07491 .0775 .0823 .0866 .0907 .0947 .1026 .0786 .0822- .0854 .0910 .0960 .1008 .1066 .114E .18 .19 .0696 .0763 .0744 .0809 .0857 .08991 .0936 .1001 .1069 .1116 .1169 .1277 .20 .0812 .0876 .0931 .09791 .1021 .1096 .1103 .1227 .1290 .1414 .21 .0878 .0946..101 .106 !.111 .120 .127 .135 .142 .150 .22 .0984 .1016 .109 .Ilb 120 .130. .189 .147 .165 .171 .23 .0997 .1087 .117 .124 1.180 .141 .150 .160 .169 187 .26 .24 .1081 .1161 .125 .18E 140 .152 .163 .173 .184 .204 .1125 .1235 .183 .142 1.160 .103 .170 .188 .199 .222 .26 .119 .131 .142 .152 1 .160 .175 .189 .202 .215 .241 .27 .126 .139 .151 .162 ;.171 .188 .203 .218 .282 260 .28 .132 .147 .160 .172 !.182 .201 .217 .234 .249 .281 .29 .139 .165 .170 .382 { 194 .214 .232 .250 .268 .802 .30 .146 .103 .179 .193 i .206 .228 .24E 367 .287 .824 .31 .163 .172 .189 .204 1.218 .242 384 .285 .800 947 .32 .160 .180 .190 .215 '.280 .256 .281 .304 .827 .871 .33 .167 .189 .209 .227 .24E .271 298 .323 .848 996 .84 .174 .198 .210 .288 ..256 .287 316 .343 .870 .423 .35 .181 .207 .230 .251 '.289 .803 .834 .863 .892 .450 .88 .189. .218 .241 283 .293 .819 .363 .385 .415 .478 .87 .196 .225 .262 .276 297 .336 .872 .406 .440 .507 .38 .203 .234 .263 .288 212 .353 .392 429 .465 .537 .39 .211 .244 .274 .801 826 371 .413 .452 .491 .668 .40 218 .263 .286 .816::341 .389 484 .476 .618 .600 .41 .226 .203 .297 .928. .357 A08 .436 .501 .646 .633 .42 .233 .278 .809 942 978 .427 .478 .626 .574 .688 .43 .857 4 .248 .288 .834 71 .405 .467 .626 980 .633 .740 .45 .250 .308 .848 986 .427 .438 .640 .607 .064 .777 N83'2O "18 E, ---i `, f � BASIN A AA= 1,087 -v — 0.02 AC I CA— 0. 72 C— hoo = 6.59 INAR BASIN C ' I l Q DD = o.os cFs Ac = 2,959 SF = a07 AC I Cc= a67 - 6.59 -I N fFl R hoo- i L Quo 1 Us = 0.3 � o i o � u o 0 BASIN D � Ac =' 2,242 SF 0.05 Ae I I} Co 67 f BASIN B _ haD - 6.59 IN S - Ae = 1,99J SF _ 0.05 AC 059 C Qma Ce = 0.75 1 � c Q— 'O31Of5 _. — hoe = 6.59 1NAR NA I i aaarc�EarExrrmcE I _ — MYEN Q+oo- 0.25 CFS uaxcOwtE�rEx>D,wcE � � ' I i I y MODE D 0. ®O31 OFS ADJAGEN7 RESIDENCE � (J' ✓t1 -- n? -' -- - --- __ 1�/IA� �'� NOOED _ •��Q.- a ors - - - - -- _ - APM 2b8,322 Od x I '� � �QpgFEBSIryb, y