The URL can be used to link to this page

2009-10115 G/ILine: 73 pi-& December 3, 2009 (Revised) HKJS, LLC. Henry G. Kurtz and Suzanne E. Kurtz 463 Via Montalvo Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Permit issuance requirements for: Application 10115 -G /I 08 -057 MUP /DR 350 Cole Ranch Road 265 - 023 -02, 03, 39, 47 This letter summarizes the requirements for pulling your Engineering Permit for drawing 10115 -G /l. 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 plan checker 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 plan check do not reduce the necessary quantities listed below. (1) Provide 4 print sets of the approved drawing 10115 -G Provide 4 print sets of the approved drawing 10115 -I. Provide 2 copies of "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Olivenhain Guest Home Additions and Parking Lot, 350 Cole Ranch Road, Community of Olivenhain San Diego County, California 92024" prepared by Geosoils, Inc. and dated August 12, 2008. Submit 2 copies of the approved, signed (not draft) Resolution of Approval or Notice of Decision for Planning Case 08 -057 MUP /DR, to be routed by the City to inspector and file. Provide 2 copies of the approved SWPPP. (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 modified for Bonding Purposes Only dated December 3, 2009 per M. Maher 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 10115 -G: in the amount $93.684.00 to guarantee both performance and labor/ materials for earthwork, drainage, private improvements, and erosion control. (b) Security Deposit for Improvement Permit 10115 -I: in the amount $65.879.00 to guarantee both the performance and labor/ materials for the improvements shown on the approved improvement plan. (c) Security Deposit for Undergrounding of Overhead Utilities: N/A (d) Security Deposit for Deferred Monumentation: N/A A minimum of 20% and up to 100% of the amount listed in item(s) 2(a) must be in the form of cash, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or an assignment of account. Up to 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), 2(d) and /or 2(e) 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 $7.879.00 Improvement Inspection NPDES Inspection (Grading) _112L93.00 1 575.00 NPDES Inspection (improvement) 658.00 Flood Control 1 963.00 GIS Mapping Fee Na The grading and improvement inspection fees are calculated based on 5% of first $100,000.00 of the approved Engineer's cost estimate for fees in the amount of $195,992.50 for grading and $65,879.00 for improvements dated March 5, 2009 and January 14, 2009 respectively; 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 /curb/ utter /ram /sidewalk C -10 Electrical li htin isi nals C -12 Grading & Paving any surface, certain drain - basins /channels C -27 Landscaping planting /irrigation /fencing & other amenities C -29 Masonry I retaining walls C -32 Parking &Highway Improvement signage /striping /safety C -34 Pipeline I sanitary sewer /storm drain Permits are valid for no more than one year from the date of issuance and may expire earlier due to expirations of letter of credit and /or insurance policies. (5) This project proposes land disturbance in excess of one acre and requires from the State, a 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 Guames, Engineering Technician, at (760) 633 -2704. Release of Project Securities: 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 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, q°4--' Aoe Ruben Macabitas Assistant Civil Engineer cc PLSA Engineering, Inc. (Tyler Lawson) Debbie Geishart, Engineering Technician Masih Maher, Sr. Civil Engineer permit/file Enc Application Requirements for Proof of Insurance Security Obligation Agreements (various) .. Io116 -G, BONDING COST ESTIMATE FOR: 350 COLE RANCH ROAD 10015 -GP FOR BONDING PURPOSES ONLY 17 :191.1C1"l 110111 HANK KURTZ PLSA 1641F PREPARED BY: PASCO LARET SUTTER & ASSOCIATES 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (858) 259 -8212 DATE: 1 -14 -09 REVISED: 3 -05 -09 REVISED: 12 -03 -09 og _ os -� �OFCAU4� W. JOPTIN SUTTER, RCE 68964 ji GRADING BOND ESTIMATE CITY OF ENCINITAS PLSA 1641F ITEM QTY UNIT @ UNIT PRICE TOTAL GRADING: EXCAVATION AND EXPORT EXCAVATE AND FILL IMPROVEMENTS 6 "X16" ZERO HEIGHT PCC CURB 24 "X24" BROOKS BOX TYPE F CATCH BASIN GRAVEL 6" CLASS II BASE FRENCH DRAIN SYSTEM STORM DRAIN 4" PVC STORM DRAIN 12" PVC AREA DRAIN INFILTRATION BASIN HEADWALL, SDRSD EROSION CONTROL STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE GRAVEL BAGS SILT FENCE 225 CY @ $27.50 S 6,1 87.50 1000 CY @ $20.00 $ 20,000.00 400 LF 520.00 S 8,000.00 3 EA $1,000.00 $ 3,000.00 2 EA $3,550.00 $ 7,100.00 6800 SF $0.85 $ 5,780.00 9,350 SF @ $1.00 $ 9,350.00 110 LF @ $40.00 S 4,400.00 115 LF @ $20.00 $ 2,300.00 136 LF @ $30.00 $ 4,080.00 9 EA @ $200.00 $ 1,800.00 1 EA @ $1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 2 EA @ $3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 900 SF @ $5.25 $ 4,725.00 150 EA @ $1.10 $ 165.00 800 LF @ $1.60 $ 1,280.00 SUBTOTAL $ 85,167.50 10% CONTINGENCIES $ 8,516.75 GRAND TOTAL $ 93,684.25 Field Clearance to Allow Occupancy TO: Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter FROM: Field Operations Private Contract Inspection RE: Building Permit No. _Q� -- /// 9 Name of Project 0 L i N 60u _ -TAT f /Om Name of Developer ,�{/<J / /�� AIRN %Lraf_TG I have inspected the site at 30 CO(( c H P-10/+0 address... number street name suffix and have determined that finish (precise) grading (lot no.) .(bldg. no.) and any other related site improvements are substantially complete and that occupancy is merited. Signa ure of En iireer!!fg Inspector Date Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropriate Reference: Engineering Permit No. Ill Date Special Note: Please do not sign the "blue card" that is issued by Building Inspection Division and given to the developer. You are only being asked to verify field conditions. Office staff still has the responsibility to verify that compliance with administrative requirements is achieved, typically payment of impact fees or execution of documents. Return this form, if completed, to counter staff by dropping it in the slot labeled "Final Inspection" . Also, please remember to do final inspections on the related engineering permits and return that paperwork, if completed. Thank you. City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, Califomie 92024 -3633 Tel 760 - 633 -2600 • Fax 760- 943 -2226 TDD 760 -633 -2700 • xvinci.encmitas.ca.us ice FROM: RE: Fire Building Planning Engineering Field Clearance to Allow dccupancy Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter Q� Field Operations Private Contract Inspection Building Permit No. Q _/ -- o 6 Name of Project b�U c �ta,��, �� ST t-w+nntz, Name of Developer V C a I have inspected the site at 350 Co � (ZO -ir) -, _ address... number street name suffix , and have determined that finish (precise) grading (lot no.) (bldg. no.) and any other related site improvements are substantially complete and th t occupancy is merited. / SSig� tppureofEEn�gin�7eeri��ng�-Inspector �y Date Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropnale Date Reference: Engineering Permit No.� "Y— Special Note: Please do not sign the "blue card" that is issued by Building Inspection Division and given to the developer. You are only being asked to verify field conditions. office staff still has the responsibility to verify that compliance with administrative requirements is achieved, typically payment of impact fees or execution of documents. Return this form. if completed, to counter staff by dropping it in the slot labeled 'Final Inspection' . Also, please remember to do final inspections on the related engineering permits and return that paperwork, if completed. Thank you. PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES q D CIVIL ENGINEERING . LAND PLANNING . LAND SURVEYING ,- DEC 2 3 2010 It December 22, 2010 L- CITY City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION FOR GRADING PERMIT NO. 10115 -G. LOCATED ON COLE RANCH ROAD. The grading Plan permit number 10115 -G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached "As Graded" plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms to the approved grading plan and that swales drain a minimum of I% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control; and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part 11 were constructed and are operatiofuiAr I to -ether with the required maintenance covenla�n/t( s)).' Engineer of Record Date 11 W. JustiRCE 68 964 Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsib Engineering Inspector ,,�_ Date 17-129 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach. California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 (x 858.259.9612 1 plsaengine<ring.com 16"i PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING ♦ LAND PLANNING . LAND SURVEYING January 28, 2010 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 S. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 7�DD ill JAN 2 8 2M ENC!NEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS PLSA1641 Re: Engineer's Pad Certification for Project and Grading Permit No. 10115G To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for the above referenced project, as the Surveyor of Record for the subject property. I hereby state that the rough grading for this project has been completed in conformance with the approved plan and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. 23.24.310(B). The following list provides the pad elevation as field verified on January 28, 2010, and shown on the approved grading plan: Pad Elevation Pad Elevation Location Per Plan Per Field Measurement Pad 105.1' 105.1'avg. 23.24.310(B) I Engineered drainage devices and/or retaining walls have not been constructed at this time. 23.24.310(B)5. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes has been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. 23.24.310(B)6. The construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage has been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. If you should have any questions in reference to the information listed above, please do not hesitate to contact this office. ery truly yours, ,? QH C. LS 5211 Josep uhas, PLS 5211 * Exp.06/30/11 1t Principal Land Surveyor Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates, Inc. 9r _,�� 535 N Coast Highway 101 Ste A Solana Beach, California 92075 1 ph 858.259.8212 1 fx 858.259.4812 1 piseengineering.com s, 0 Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 (760) 438 -3155 • FAX (760) 931.0915 January 28, 2010 Mr. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road Olivenhain, California 92024 Subject: Interim Report of Rough (Mass) Grading, Phase 1, Proposed Addition /Remodel, Olivenhain Guest Home, 350 Cole Ranch Road, Community of Olivenhain, County San Diego, California References: `Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Olivenhain Guest Home Additions and Parking Lot, 350 Cole Ranch Road, Community of Olivenhain, San Diego County, California 92024," W.O. 5734 -A -SC, dated August 12, 2008, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Mr. Kurtz: In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is presenting this interim report of rough grading for Phase 1 of the subject site. Grading and processing of original ground within the Phase 1 was observed and selectively tested by a representative of GSI during the earthwork phase of development for the subject property. The scope of this summary report includes a review of site conditions, observations during grading, field density and laboratory testing, and preparation of this summary letter. The work performed to date is in general conformance with the recommendations contained in our above referenced report, 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 90 percent relative compaction. Laboratory testing performed to date indicates that the subject Phase 1 has a very low expansion potential (Expansion Index [E.1.1 less than 20). Laboratory test results for Phase lconcerning the saturated resistivity, pH, and soluble sulfates of the onsite soils indicate that the site soils are moderately alkaline with respect to soil acidity /alkalinity and are moderately corrosive to ferrous metals when saturated. Testing also indicates non - detectible soluble sulfate. Afinal compaction report of rough grading and foundation and improvements construction, including observations and testing results for rough grading, utilities, and 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. A Wa. 1340 �� ghte Englnaering Ana uecicgiat John P. Frankli9TF0 \F 44 Engineering Geologist, Bryan . Voss Project Geologist BEV /DWS /JPF /jh Attachment: Laboratory Test Results David W. Skelly Civil Engineer, RCE 4 Distribution: (2) Addressee (1) BYCORE Construction, Attn, Mr. Mark Grizmaker (e -mail) u w Ail F�F CA: \s4 Mr. Hank Kurtz W.O. 5734 -B -SC 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain January 28, 2010 File e \wp7WOM5734b.iro Page 2 GBOSOIIS, Inc. M Prime Testing, Inc. 41695 Elm Street Ste 201 Murrieta. CA 92562 ph (961) 894 -2682 • fx (951) 894 -2683 Work Order No.: 10A2200 Client: GeoSo"S. Inc. Project No.: 5734 -6 -SC Project Name: Kurtz Report Date: January 15, 2010 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 Detention We appreciate the opportunity to serve you. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or clarifications regarding these results or procedures. Ahmet K. Kaya. Laboratory Manager q�l St CFN <9 ( q Form No. CP-1R www. primetesting com Rev.05 /06 Minimum Sulfate Sulfate Chloride Sample Identification pH Resistivity Content Content Content (ohm-cm) I (mg/kg) (% by wgt) (ppm) Sample #1 @ FG 7.4 5,500 40 0.004 60 'ND =No Detention We appreciate the opportunity to serve you. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or clarifications regarding these results or procedures. Ahmet K. Kaya. Laboratory Manager q�l St CFN <9 ( q Form No. CP-1R www. primetesting com Rev.05 /06 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT city of Capital Improvement Projects '/ District Support Services E?Zcbzffas Field Operations Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL TO: Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter FROM: Field Operations Private Contract Inspection RE: Grading Permit No. /0 //S 6 ; Name of Project QLIVEMkili11N 6, UEST- 14oM E Name of Developer YEN,Qy guftTL q9J' S LL.G SiteLOcatlort,M COLE 9RrJGq 12o A-6 (address ...number ...street name ...suffix) Oat) ' (bldg) I have inspected the grating at the subject site and have verified certification of the pad by the Engineer of work, S(o (.RRETScJrdated / — 2 -�, and certification of soil compaction by the Soil Engineer, —r dated �— 2&- b . I am hereby satisfied that the rough grading has been cortfoleted in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, Chapter 23.24 of the Municipal Code, and any other applicable engineering standards and specific project requirements. Based on my observation and the certifications, I Pke no exception to the issuance of a building permit for the lot(s) as noted or Phase ' if any, but only in so far as grading is concerned. However, this release is not intended to certify the project with respect to other engineering concerns, Including public road, drainage, water, sewer, park, and trail Improvements, and their availability, any other public improvements, deferred monumentation, or final grading. Prior to final inspection of the Building Permit(s) and legal occupancy, I need to be further advised so that I can verify that final grading (i.e., finished precise grading, planting and Irrigation) has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Z _ (Date) (Signature of Senior Civil Engineer, only if appropiate) (Date) W Reference: Building Permit No. - -- Special Note: Submit this form, if completed, to counter staff merely by placing a copy of it in both engineering technicians' in- boxes. Please remember to do a final inspection of the grading permit and submit that paperwork, when completed. Office staff will handle the appropiate reductions in security, if any, and coordination with Building inspection. Thank you. 1SG /field3.doc 1 TEL 7601633 -2600 / FAX 760 - 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitu, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 -633 -2700 1� recycled paper CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PROTECT NAME: STREET LOCATION: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: /L - / -U� /-17n - ,..� Lt>i.% SrC N�tnla CtI% /Z,� /Tbf►S' A'- uc�SSE� AAJL2 ""f.) CvI'It-S i.J f"Zl -7Vd/W40- "Lw ac a �i7a^h o��P Lid Ar/ A2Gp� ,BoTtz+wn fiat 0��.su,vG C%gvS Gv,9-r.IT To ovC-7Z 7N)-s ~ u C , ,- �Z -/7 O) > / z1 �) //11� - A/HU C e - pc�n ] taa.x� C- Z/ Attu,/v6- rn 4)ni2, - lz -z-z, oq /Vaoudv c- e4 tjl+� Fw- L-wo ry �r 64s 7ae/J MrSj T. C'o,+ crp2 Abtw 2- lhw?- eov/sc,5 �Lhan rnS a( /�cus. i3 0. 12-2-9-6q 1�0 C eTWI, 171 iS L f7Z43,h -7AVE THE o. r.- -n C,¢oul . /Z -3o uY 2t- r• (c..4 c1 " C �/ � . %�n�c ,tr C0rr7l,v0e5 _ / -L/ -/u cwac-L LL,;„rr4.1+C,7k2 mrIe -k- ra Z> says E., a �[ tifC�S .4T s'ng „� wc�L • AA17)4hI6, �� .yrfY�"1 aN c�F9�S7Uyrr' 02rh of !�%uw -f7/rzT GG/4[L__ fFuvuC, �S'�!!. i5 8ujc -T , A,117zr2r�K- wAr�'r /► iZ1,ti v,�J . S . F. '5/ rouuaj_,2 wfts ?OWU W . r*e7l < xedt i✓es -r3- /bE tvni6 C -If- C -R nlec.r S'Ie , peig f iv, dA §7� o k 0'2 G2 TAct4s_ m /~ 13 -io 2=�toj& exr, 3p-,4,x; Li,-om o- ScoRL� 7-v9- /hAwtip� fv�rU. inoo�ri[�� /6'�42 Sv- i�wt�r C i29-jeE . m14429 CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PROJECT NAME: STREET LOCATION: CONTRACTOR: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: PERMIT NUMBER: TELEPHONE: i " /y- /o C7.4UE jT4 c D.e• &, &ULll A?, -ImP 'TD Lc;-t-- Sno 5 C_- Z C [ i -Z,5 /mss A u LOfgr kaZA9 L,Q tvott-. S C L •/�L' W ,t � nt= QG co,' t Ca q C,h &t-%W(l . /p _TrX.ivaHr2/,vC &7%Jb, �jELy3r f7/LC Li ,�,¢,y�� i 2Sh ,rDDtK4- Cf-4 /-'C, L C /JR:! r�/r So ,4 mC.�77`tL L„n-s ��zzp /fLot,C. /NcA L= ��Aic ,SGa Q7 , C2G Bu�,1�,NCPE F' ��lcj- JusTE o Tire A ye(i -j. ft- Linde, /CV/lmS BEaN` SE7` }=02 t7' Gu2B 1 - 1-10 o cu�P,S BKFi/��I7 coa�/+� // Age - S o G in orG CICi o4- e �7 2 � IJaK � /2iYib ft[� -IT a �� /le+�++uer -1 L/A " OVC p,akf 7b &4" OrlytE�,Z ,01'" K . Gt)U / V,-W4 acw Gc�c,l�yv5. 4-q-10 iS/t co "a P(-S)C(v G C6 cl4 goAVaS . kz!m&Ls -rL �Z) ` l-ox 14, FUkrruv -,t ee&&L PL-+9cgo --D 4-r,c � / — . c5o 12wtW up co. SJerdtfV 7 +m �uM+- T/� 14,g4O ) L A5SS 6ko bt7AJf- b CALLW. L-B -IQ 4o F l53" /Qcr � V AwNV u SiU� LoL iz,ww �A SFRRntJ L� IIU I A -,NL�Y} ��l wv(LICWL of�5W?41� 7OP5 -m P' 6 x &S, I m 60,,0 / c ai n,uu g -te 6E 1 bAik00 A'r SE m14429 C°R0L"C OF P "JE- CT ' CITY OF ENCINITAS — ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PROJECT NAME: STREET LOCATION: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: 2 -9 -ip 7G/J5 -/v 6&x4Fs or-i CocE(ztmcAj oll+,o �7ou/t�yo, }I�YFn fvdc_ Fy/Z'"6Z2 bur 1%i*t Arc C'0Ih/.k..'9,NQj it 1�1t5 O&zloev Td 5l upr- we-it- 3' C vro o 12 Z L /NF. 2-10-IL) '7bc) wC O wve-K- . �+•+U.� ITNU Z -JS 7 2- L3 Tm C I/" /n /'u s jfC3>za�7 II.I /7" y rt$ SoJeE. o rv6qv QAJ a~040 S W wIeGV. Q��/+ -iN La wow bc.lc7 -JusT Scwi7/ o< 'olt-ua H4�Jlti %1ZC flT t 0 oor- Ile'' lzctl cuee-o . / r -3-/J Su66MD MAVC 6AJI r*tk.N61 LUG /Ylltes,j cvNST• vc,W H woa.k. CL. a rgAs.-_ -)"b f6c T&:STLD (/J Akc4wdM -a- PRQW& —tt+uorlc" IS wC(l. -/o t Fr "co Ptzx /oc. s ) specs . .Srna(! /Cl45rWlt- cu.�lf bu.Jt- e?4- lotuhn .sh"„ o) /0 a An ,Just 'S6= of I0llYl ,(AJ6 -3-8-10 wog ON L- 7 7t,o4l ;- cis ITT (3Einly i /upo• tL� Fv- this A) 57bP- /VaT .mil 6c (.x,, e: BuT 5-7)"- NucI40 Hl-vr= aCBN Jam! SINCE �cLt.M C�B+af�IAlG ,C �l�1 S�%� S� G� 1, 3 11oleo gFm-t bE S DuE -t Am*tjuNG - (.40,00c Aoumaq T l m14429 FDCUS lS jiL4� Un+ i3t6 � U�I^l� rf5e -F• CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PROJECT NAME: STREET LOCATION: CONTRACTOR: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: PERMIT NUMBER: fELEPHONE: !o 21110 (Lujfifj D,2,VQ7 g Rt-u- bW2C. oN (5ulL�ii(l(� l�t�F• No> -ho �g yu suz/ +� nble BmA's S++lj �, P /ace % ZI JJ SAS `i Lew- et�hjj Ins a v Cs- o e C< (- ouV 4L o V- • 'T7fntr„s Q2fAfd u4 0,11v 4r fhls pant . �Jr.olro O cu/L8 I o2w10 6&J &� sol: Or (LL Z; t4-tq 0 CLt26 pbueecF o^ cr,15T 5 cuL£ (t d• �J I L ru C2�`k1S rCQMitINi� (N 7rTE12 LiNCS 6 L(�} S( IuJLOLn (�1 Ft7f� O _CX, V. 1 O wrF -s 0rz; �t 3 to r0iutrTIE� (%j Tmt LINE 6117 h o � D . Cu (LPG ye, r v�a,.v, � w W - sl a nF _ Ca.t W nrxr' 1 82 ro PEE 6^0�1 — srnt�r Wo4-C V-KrJT 5Tv447- Ulv"L- 1-7. 7112, 1010 tout IvL, 0U SITE rl IN Fy! -oN-F - o I USiN Sb1LS (s SEU�on�S d•U� coo,Nv 3 "i{ �n` CL S-rypoo Td.4o�NW � � Y� L�TR'R 5OiLS eW(—, 9 ru zo1°- sobs t�-7�bc" a,n NOT CI AjNllnE Sr.7TU S ,,-, TO !�Z, Ls fepca-T .. 9 m14429 Q0 . /qav 060. 15+- iD pleJl-A4- C'L. U7 61SQ VA410(i S("LULtZo / /4n 'tvAuuAVLJ. ,L • i 6.t,4:oc dz4e uL--zv . "vtru b �ucj:p TD -rant o"ow) l9t, Q � �snti, & P /►ultile, C,Rw n1 D bLX,, 4 111Z„ � � Ott i C. r--*JO 5o/L TQANS,T)ceJ CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PROTECT NAME: STREET LOCATION: CONTRACTOR: DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: PERMIT NUMBER: TELEPHONE: ////F,//O Vce, TF,0 st7E Lf 77mES ft- oVEX '-f Z 1 Iv RTUvW4, 6-i g,40 OL 24V&)ZN L) A N COLE C ,oaf, GCf(4Cehf Q " CugB e l t2(r?ED L -j N6 Cja" ) L-nu 2PT .L�A�L]'7o0.% OIL (0" CL � T & - f �L � ,a 41(E7 Q k c1fL� W'N iNc, . A-O-) Luz -IJDW A- Lt-wctt Pot S4 /Z /5 /U A� ,z Ln. yj ,Q+�rr -v croL(�rtrXy v'H1tE U S t.4s 7h„4.J uv. l / A2 20 /0 U�uv r/r��// rCfti.il - �Yu/St - 7R,?A�?7 Cc'n -I �n,A•rt?7�'r1t� -i OCC�Aa,4.�c e S <x� fd AVt� Acue { rn nr cr r>trd , , 404v f )'h( c . 12 Ll oo c t-)eT 2CZc -7j, . I'-7N/IL k4-cK ZUgV V 1ZCZW031 A -6t'i4(r4; Atl�� Qvuc -n1�, l+c. xcr+, (,f-r, Mo2t< e)t"oVPl /h qARK Pa. /c �Cp WQSL•ic/ Ovf- 7t'!J•ri SAM . <Fs- R iz �ze,1v m�T cL' �zo�9 2vg y2rA A-T- .5,77= e Z %A�pAk- •-vo(c over- p W A60. SSE i5 A,60o T- Gan.t9L4 ---W Ado 5ii-r wort.((- 5Trykj= .6A*400E'2J Oc-- 04.2 rbLilt-� Tot--y.:r-(• sM. 2Ei W At-L- nl o27N OF s u Law „vy . Tao �f i pr77 fi�y l u SoCZ -7237 p 6wtLE YJ- M f3Ac*- A7.0 Loo I✓ A-T- 7N4 Lon Nr2fk�,J -tv t N LET +tQF-- 5t-t o4r 156fr 6 L43. 5"L- -5 TF4dz W1L.( tdoEW Tv GE AkoQ4EV I -j Atao 7aL.o 0(M 65r.,9-1. / t#"L5 Z.,A'L5 JIi -tai ai or- l6:.i8UC (L_ O.w z AkLSd 7'�t D 44t^4 S vuuv- lwS mp. 5�1L+lVT in P/to l �rnt+GiS . 77 -ENLC 6{ CuT iL�li- L trtunt5 uSi / '/ /?- V1517W S tTE. 126&(169/ Co-tSj . d2i4L N7- 7a /lx�vi Z Sheds c� si'A� Cif Nw Co�+ve7L A�tLJ aVt r+�o �frs,4 � ��° sys>t►n m14429 BONDING COST ESTIMATE FOR: 350 COLE RANCH ROAD 10015 -GP PREPARED FOR: HANK KURTZ PLSA 1641F PREPARED BY: PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (858) 259 -8212 DATE: 1 -14 -09 REVISED: 3 -05 -09 i f� W. J STIN SUITER, RCE 68964 C 67AgfM ; EXp �LF �Fcsc.l )* r. GRADING: PLSA 1641F GRADING BOND ESTIMATE CITY OF ENCINITAS ITEM QTY UNIT @ UNIT PRICE TOTAL EXCAVATION AND EXPORT 450 CY @ $27.50 $ 12,375.00 EXCAVATE AND FILL 2000 CY @ $20.00 $ 40,000.00 IMPROVEMENTS 6 "X 16" ZERO HEIGHT PCC CURB 400 LF @ $20.00 $ 8,000.00 24 "X24" BROOKS BOX 3 EA @ $1,000.00 $ 3,000.00 TYPE F CATCH BASIN 2 EA @ $3,550.00 $ 7,100.00 5" PCC HARDSCAPE 6800 SF @ $5.00 $ 34,000.00 4" AC PAVING 9,350 SF @ $1.75 $ 16,362.50 6" CLASS II BASE 9,350 SF @ $1.00 $ 9,350.00 RETAINING WALL, SDRSD 750 SF @ $29.65 $ 22,237.50 FRENCH DRAIN SYSTEM 110 LF @ $40.00 $ 4,400.00 STORM DRAIN 4" PVC 115 LF @ $20.00 $ 2,300.00 STORM DRAIN 12" PVC 136 LF @ $30.00 $ 4,080.00 AREA DRAIN 9 EA @ $200.00 $ 1,800.00 INFILTRATION BASIN 1 EA @ $1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 HEADWALL, SDRSD 2 EA @ $3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 EROSION CONTROL STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 900 SF @ $5.25 $ 4,725.00 GRAVELBAGS 150 EA @ $1.10 $ 165.00 SILT FENCE 800 LF @ $1.60 $ 1,280.00 SUBTOTAL $ 178,175.00 10% CONTINGENCIES $ 17,817.50 GRAND TOTAL $ 195,992.50 C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 10115GI PARCEL NO. : 265- 023 -0200 JOB SITE ADDRESS: 350 COLE RANCH RD APPLICANT NAME HKJS LLC / HENRY KURTZ MAILING ADDRESS: 463 VIA MONTALVO CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP CONTRACTOR : BYCOR CONSTRUCTION INC LICENSE NO.: 444203 ENGINEER : PLS&A PERMIT ISSUE DA 12/04/09 PERMIT EXP. 01 /10 PERMIT ISSUED BY INSPECT / --------------- - - - -/� PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS PLAN NO.: CASE NO.: 08057 / MUP PHONE NO.: 760 - 717 -3117 92024- PHONE NO.: 858 -587 -1901 LICENSE TYPE: B PHONE NO.: 858- 259 -8212 1. PERMIT FEE .00 2. GIS MAP FEE .00 3. INSPECTION FEE 7,879.00 4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: .00 5. NPDES INSPT FEE 1,575.00 6. SECURITY DEPOSIT 93,684.00 7. FLOOD CONTROL FE 1,963.00 8. TRAFFIC FEE .00 9. IN -LIEU UNDERGRN .00 10.IN -LIEU IMPROVMT .00 ll.PLAN CHECK FEE .00 12.PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00 -- -------------- --- -- - - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK --- ------ ---------------- - -- - -- TO GUARANTEE BOTH PERFORMANCE AND LABOR /MATERIALS FOR EARTHWORK, DRAINAGE, PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS AND EROSION CONTROL. CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL AT ALL TIMES PER W.A.T.C.H. STANDARDS OR APPROVED PLAN. LETTER DATED DEC 3,2009 APPLIES. REVISIONS TO ISSUED PERMIT NEW INSPECTOR TODD BAUMBACH 12/8/2009. - - -- INSPECTION ----- ----- - - - - -- DATE -- - - - - -- INITIAL INSPECTION COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- L� i O I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION. SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHER C I T Y OF E N C 1 N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 IMPROVEMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 10115II ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ PARCEL NO. : 265- 023 -0200 JOB SITE ADDRESS: 350 COLE RANCH RD APPLICANT NAME HKJS LLC / HENRY KURTZ MAILING ADDRESS: 463 VIA MONTALVO CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA CONTRACTOR : MARSA CONSTRUCTION LICENSE NO.: 367158 INSURANCE COMPANY NAME: STATE POLICY NO. : 90 -N9- 3969 -1 ENGINEER : PLS&A PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 12/04/09 PERMIT EXP. 10 INSPECTO FARM INS CO PLAN NO.: CASE NO.: 08057 / MUP PHONE NO.: 760 - 717 -3117 PHONE NO.: 619 - 246 -5450 LICENSE TYPE: A POLICY EXP. DATE: 1/20/10 PHONE 0.: 858- 259 -8212 PERMIT ISSUED BY: 2,1� ------------------- - --- -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------------- PRINT 1. PERMIT FEE .00 2. GIS MAP FEE .00 3. INSPECTION FEE 3,293.00 4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: .00 5. NPDES INSPT FEE 658.00 6. SECURITY DEPOSIT 65,879.00 7. FLOOD CONTROL FE .00 8. TRAFFIC FEE .00 9. IN -LIEU UNDERGRN .00 10.IN -LIEU IMPROVMNT .00 ll.PLAN CHECK FEE .00 12.PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00 ------------------- -- - - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ---------------- --------- - - - - -- TO GURANTEE BOTH THE PERFORMANCE AND LABOR /MATERIALS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED IMPROVEMENT PLAN. CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL AT ALL TIMES PER W.A.T.C.H. STANDARDS OR APPROVED PLAN. LETTER DATED DEC 3,2009 APPLIES. - - -- INSPECTION ---------- - - - - -- DATE -- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- INITIAL INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION AS- BUILTS AND ONE YEAR WARRANTY RETENTION REQUIRED. I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COMPLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. 1,2 1�116 SIGNATURE DATE/SIGNED NAME � � � - PRINT TELEPHONE NUMBER CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. OTHER HYDROLOGY STUDY 1111 I� For Olivenhain Guest Homes APN: 265- 023 -02, 03, 39, 47 CASE NO. 08-057 MUP/DR CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Prepared For Hank & Suzanne Kurtz 463 Via Montalvo Encinitas, CA 92024 PLSA 1641F 12 121"11003 -rd PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (858)259 -8212 DATE: 02 -06 -09 REVISED: 3 -10 -09 W. JUST SUITE. RCE 68964 DATE ITv PLSA # 1641 F 2 :42 PM 3/20/2009 Hydrology Study for Olivenhain Guest Home PLSA 1641F TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION DISCUSSION ............................................... ............................... A CONCLUSION............................................... ..............................B 100 YEAR PRE & POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS ................................... ..............................0 STORM DRAIN SYSTEM A & B HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS ...................D APPENDDC................................................. ............................... E Detention Calculations Grass Swale BMP 85`" Percentile Calculation 12" PVC Drainpipe Capacity Calculations 18" PVC Drainpipe Capacity Calculations Grass Swale Capacity Calculation 24 "x24" Brooks Bos Grated Inlet Capacity Type F Catch Basin Inlet Capacity Isopluvials Intensity Duration Curve SCS Soil Classification County of San Diego Runoff Coefficients Area and Runoff Coefficient Calculations Pre - Development Node Map Post - Development Node Map PLSA # 1641 F 2:55 PM 3/20/2009 Hydrology Study for Olivenhain Guest Home PLSA 1641F A. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to analyze the storm water runoff produced from the 100 year storm event of the existing and post - developed condition of the Cole Ranch Road proposed project site. The subject property is physically located at 350 Cole Ranch Road, Encinitas California. The property is geographically located at N 33 °02'33" W 117 014'05 ". Pre - Developed Conditions The existing condition of the project site consists of an existing facility at 350 Cole Ranch Road. The site is surrounded by a single family residence to the north, south, and across Cole Ranch Road to the east. The site primarily fronts on Cole Ranch Road however, a parking area for employees fronts on Rancho Santa Fe Road. In addition to the previously referenced facility, the site has sheds, a car port, gazebo, hardscape walkways, retaining walls and a gravel parking area. The main portion of the existing facility is to remain while the other structures are to be removed. Topography of the site generally slopes in a north to south and west to east direction. The slope various on average but generally described as gently sloping with slopes typically not exceeding 4:1. The highpoint of the property is 121.0 and occurs along the north -west portion of the property. From the highpoint, runoff flows east and south towards the low point of the property occurring midway along the southern property line at an elevation of 97.0. Runoff leaving the site flows to a low point on the adjacent property where an existing private storm drain inlet is located. Through observations and multiple conversations with local residence, it was evident that this existing private storm drain inlet was undersized and prone to flooding. Once captured in the inlet, the system then connects with an existing 12" PVC drainpipe running parallel with Cole Ranch Road. This 12" drainpipe discharges approximately 88' feet to the south. Existing drainage patterns can be seen in the attached pre - development node map (see appendix). A sub basin containing the entire site was delineated using the adjacent property's low point as the ultimate discharge point. Runoff from this sub basin was found to be 6.84 cfs. PLSA # 1641 F 2:42 PM 3/20/2009 Hydrology Study for Olivenhain Guest Home PLSA 1641F Post- Development Conditions The proposed development consists primarily of an addition to the existing facility. The development will also include the construction of new hardscape surfaces, retaining walls and pavement to the upper parking lot. In the future all proposed drainage from roofs, decks and hardscape areas will be directed to flow over BMP area before leaving the site. As in the pre - developed condition, the drainage basin was delineated to account for all runoff leaving the site. However, the post - development drainage basin first directs runoff through a detention structure and then to a reconstructed 18" PVC drainpipe which discharges to the same ultimate discharge point. The post development delineated drainage basins can be seen in the attached node map (see appendix). For the post - developed condition, weighted runoff coefficients were used. Weighted runoff coefficient calculations can be seen in the appendix of this report. To satisfy treatment requirements, runoff from the site will be directed to flow over a 3' wide grass treatment swale tracing the property line. The treatment swale is over 200 feet long and designed to adequately treat the 85th percentile storm. Calculations of the 85u' percentile storm can be seen in the appendix of this report. In addition to the primary treatment swale, smaller grass bioswales and a detention pond will be incorporated into the design. Calculated runoff from the post - development basin was found to be 8.25 cfs. Methodology and Results Introduction The hydrologic model used to perform the hydrologic analysis presented in this report utilizes the Ration Method (RM) equation, Q=CIA. The RM formula estimates the peak rate of runoff based on the variables of area, runoff coefficient, and rainfall intensity. The rainfall intensity (I) is equal to: I = 7.44 x P6 x D'a.64s Where: I = Intensity (in/hr) P6 = 6 -hour precipitation (inches) D = duration (minutes — use Tc) PLSA # 1641 F 2:42 PM 3/20/2009 Hydrology Study for Olivenhain Guest Home PLSA1641F Using the Time of Concentration (Tc), which is the time required for a given element of water that originates at the most remote point of the basin being analyzed to reach the point at which the runoff from the basin is being analyzed. The RM equation determines the storm water runoff rate (Q) for a given basin in terms of flow (typically in cubic feet per second (cfs) but sometimes as gallons per minute (gpm)). The RM equation is as follows: Where: Q =CIA Q= flow (in cfs) C = runoff coefficient, ratio of rainfall that produces storm water runoff (runoff vs. infiltration /evaporation/absorption/etc) I = average rainfall intensity for a duration equal to the Tc for the area, in inches per hour. A = drainage area contributing to the basin in acres. The RM equation assumes that the storm event being analyzed delivers precipitation to the entire basin uniformly, and therefore the peak discharge rate will occur when a raindrop that falls at the most remote portion of the basin arrives at the point of analysis. The RM also assumes that the fraction of rainfall that becomes runoff or the runoff coefficient C is not affected by the storm intensity, I, or the precipitation zone number. The hydrologic soil group classification for the site is "D ". The methodology used herein to determine Qty is the modified rational method. The pre - development runoff coefficient used is from County of San Diego accepted coefficients. The post - development runoff coefficient used was determined by using a weighted "C" average. C= 0.90 a (% impervious) + Cp x (1 %impervious) Where: Cp = pervious surface runoff coefficient For the proposed development the runoff coefficient utilized for the hydrologic analysis of the project site varied based on the area of impervious surfaces. Weighted runoff coefficient calculations can be seen in the appendix of this report. B. CONCLUSION Based on the information and calculations contained in this report it is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering, Inc. that the storm drain system as proposed on the corresponding Grading Plan will function to adequately intercept, contain and convey Q100 to the appropriate points of discharge. PLSA # 1641 F 2 :42 PM 3/20/2009 Hydrology Study for Olivenhain Guest Home PLSA 1641F C. 100 YEAR PRE & POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGY PLSA # 1641F 2:42 PM 3/2012009 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -2008 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 15.0 Release Date: 04/01/2008 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: + + + + ++ + + *f + * * + + + + * # * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY • Pre - Development 100 year 6 -hour • Olivenhain Guest Home - 350 Cole Ranch Road • PLSA 1641F 3 -19 -09 FILE NAME: 41FPRE.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 10:27 03/19/2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED'MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) - 12.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER- DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT - /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth) *(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .3500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 128.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 120.30 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 8.20 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 6.695 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.456 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.29 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.15 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.29 + wxr++++ xt+ x++r++ rrrxrxxxxwx+ xx+ rxxxxxrwrxwxr + ++ + + + + +rwr + +wrr + +rr + + +r +wwrrxx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW««< »» >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< - -------------------------------------------------------------- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 120.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 93.90 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 540.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0489 NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.29 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 3.32 (PER LACFCD /RCFC &WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.71 Tc(MIN.) = 9.41 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 3.00 = 640.00 FEET. x+t++ xt+ tt++t+ rrrr++ r++ xxxxr xrx+++++++++ r++++ + + + + + +rt +xwrr + +r + + + + + + + + + +xwwwx FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ----------------------------------------------------------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.381 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.99 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.55 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.1 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.84 TC(MIN.) = 9.41 ------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.1 TC(MIN.) = 9.41 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.84 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS ttt aat arww#+# w# a++# a#++t+t# a+# r+#+##+### a+ wtt + + +a # + +a# # #t +rt + + + +a + #raa +aa + +# RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -2008 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 15.0 Release Date: 04/01/2008 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: aaaa # #rataaaaaaa #t #ta +aa +r DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * + + +aar # #aaaa +rasa #taaaa • Post - Development 100 year 6 -hour storm event • Olivenhain Guest Home - 350 Cole Ranch Road Encinitas • PLSA 1641F raaaaaaa+ Tara+ a# ra+ ataaaat+t aat a+# aa#+ r## a# waraaraart +t +a + +r +t + + + + +a + + +a #+ FILE NAME: 41FPST.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 16:26 03/18/2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------- --- ------------- --- -------- --- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 12.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER- DEFINED STREET- SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT - /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) - -- - -- -- - - - -- -- ----------- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- --- - - - -- - - - - - -- ------ ----- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - --- - - - - -- -- --- - - - - - -- 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth - 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth) *(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT - .3500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 128.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 120.30 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 8.20 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 6.695 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.456 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.19 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 0.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.19 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 52 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >COMPUTE NATURAL VALLEY CHANNEL FLOW««< »» >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««< --- - ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 120.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 109.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 166.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0681 NOTE: CHANNEL FLOW OF 1. CFS WAS ASSUMED IN VELOCITY ESTIMATION CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.19 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 3.91 (PER LACFCD /RCFC &WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL) TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.71 Tc(MIN.) = 7.40 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 3.00 = 266.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW«<<< -------------------------------------------------------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.114 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER- SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4400 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC !I) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.68 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.4 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.87 TC(MIN.) = 7.40 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »» >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 109.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 103.90 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 30.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1700 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 1.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.87 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.75 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.14 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.11 Tc(MIN.) = 7.51 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 4.00 = 296.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE - 41 » » >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » »>USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< - -- ------------------------------------------------------ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 103.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 103.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 20.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.8 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 6.11 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 0.87 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.05 Tc(MIN.) = 7.56 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 5.00 = 316.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 81 » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW ««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.044 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.91 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.77 TC(MIN.) = 7.56 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »» >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««< » »>USING USER- SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 103.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 103.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 49.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.9 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) - 5.88 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) - 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 1.77 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.14 Tc(MIN.) = 7.70 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.00 = 365.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »» >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 103.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 102.90 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 10.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.9 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 5.84 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 1.77 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.03 Tc(MIN.) = 7.73 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 7.00 = 375.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE = 81 --------------------------------------------- -- --- --------- ----------- ---- -- » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW ««< --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.973 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.27 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.68 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.0 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.46 TC(MIN.) = 7.73 + ++ + + +r + + + + +raaaa +a +ra +a + + +aa +aaa +a + + +raaaar+ +aaa +a +aa + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + ++ + + +++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 7.10 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » » >USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< ------------------------------------------------------ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 102.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 102.40 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 55.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.1 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 6.13 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 2.46 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.15 Tc(MIN.) = 7.88 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 7.10 = 430.00 FEET. +++ +aa + + +r + +rt +a + +ara +raa +aa + + + +a+ aaa+ aaa+ aaaa +aaaa +aaa + + + + + + +raa + +rrrraar +r FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.10 TO NODE 7.10 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » »>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.912 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6200 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.08 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0.24 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.1 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.70 TC(MIN.) = 7.88 + +a +ra ++ aaa++++++ a+ aa+ aaaaaa +aaaaraa + +aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa +aaaa + +ara + +arr +aaa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.10 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »» >COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER- SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) - 102.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 102.30 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 4.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 4.8 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 9.14 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 2.70 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.01 Tc(MIN.) = 7.89 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 8.00 = 434.00 FEET. aarrrara+ aaaaaaraaraaaaaaaaaa+ aaaaa+ a+ +aa + +ar +aaaaaaaaa +++ +aaaaaraaa+ +aaa + +a FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE - 51 » » >COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< » »>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 102.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 100.30 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 179.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0112 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 3.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 2.70 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) - 2.22 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - 0.33 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.35 Tc(MIN.) = 9.23 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 9.00 = 613.00 FEET. a#### t# tt#+++++++++++ t# r# rr# rt## r## a### r#### r # # #r #ra #a #a + +a + +a #+ + + + + # + +rtr #r FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW ««< ---------------------------------------------------- --- --- --------- --------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.435 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6400 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.88 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.9 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.20 TC(MIN.) = 9.23 + rrr# a+#+++++++ r++++++++ r+ rtr# rr# r# r+# aa#+#+# r # #aa #a + # + +aa + +a + + + + + + + + + +r +r ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««< » » >USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 98.90 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 98.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 19.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.0 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 10.01 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 5.20 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.03 Tc(MIN.) = 9.26 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 10.00 = 632.00 FEET. ## rr# rrrttrrar# rrraa+ a++++ t+++ t+ rr+ tr# t# r## r# +rr #a # # + + + # + # + # #tr # # ++ ++ + + + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.425 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5300 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.36 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 0184 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.3 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 6.04 TC(MIN.) = 9.26 ### rtr## r#####+#++# r##### tr + + + + + # # #r # # # + #tt # + # # + + # + # +rt #rt +tax +tr #r #arr + + + ++ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » »>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««< »» >USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) 98.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 93.90 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 92.00 MANNING'S N = 0.009 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.2 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 19.25 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE- FLOW(CFS) = 6.09 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.11 Tc(MIN.) = 9.37 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 11.00 = 729.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »» >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« «< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 9.392 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5900 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.85 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.20 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.1 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.25 TC(MIN.) = 9.37 ---------------------------------------------=--------------------- END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.1 TC(MIN.) = 9.37 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.25 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Hydrology Study for Olivenhain Guest Home PLSA 1641F D. STORM DRAIN SYSTEM A & B HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS PLSA # 1641 F 2:42 PM 3120/2009 PRESSURE PIPE -FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: LACFD,LACRD,6 OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1982 -2008 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 15.0 Release Date: 04/01/2008 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: DESCRIPTION OF STUDY • Olivenhain guest Home 350 Cole Ranch Road • Pipe System A Analysis • PLSA 1641F FILE NAME: 1641PA.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 11:58 03/19/2009 NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA DESIGN MANUALS. DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 11.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 93.91 PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) = 6.04 ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 95.410 L.A. THOMPSON'S EQUATION IS USED FOR JUNCTION ANALYSIS NODE 11.00 : HGL= < 95.410> ;EGL= < - 95.591 >; FLOWLINE = < 93.910> ----------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 10.00 ELEVATION = 98.50 CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 6.04 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 92.00 FEET MANNINGS N = 0.00900 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 6.04)/( 151.729)) * *2 = 0.0015847 HF =L *SF = ( 92.00) *( 0.0015847) = 0.146 NODE 10.00 HGL= < 95.556 >;EGL = < 95.737>;FLOWLINE= < --------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 4.44 NODE 10.00 : HGL= < 100.000 >;EGL = < 100.181 >; FLOWLINE = < 98.500> 98.500> ---------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 10.00 ELEVATION = 98.50 ---------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 5.2 18.00 1.767 2.943 0.000 0.134 2 6.0 18.00 1.767 3.418 -- 0.181 3 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 4 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 5 0.8 = = =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = == LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.00900 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.00900 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00117 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00158 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.00138 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 5.00 FRICTION LOSS = 0.007 ENTRANCE LOSSES = 0.036 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY +HV1 -HV2 +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = 0.094+ 0.134- 0.181 +( 0.007) +( 0.036) = 0.090 NODE 10.00 : HGL= < 100.137>;EGL= < 100.272 >;FLOWLINE = < 98.500> - -- - -- -- -- ------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 9.00 ELEVATION = 98.90 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 5.20 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 19.00 FEET MANNINGS N - 0.00900 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 5.20)/( 151.729)) * *2 = 0.0011745 HF =L *SF = ( 19.00) *( 0.0011745) = 0.022 NODE 9.00 HGL= < 100.159 >;EGL = < 100.294>;FLOWLINE= < 98.900> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 0.24 NODE 9.00 : HGL= < 100.400 >;EGL = < 100.534>;FLOWLINE= < 98.900> END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM ttt +trrt+ rat+ ax++ rx++ xxxa+ axatwttwwwxtwrtttxwwwtttwwarwtwwwx + +trr + + +a +a +aa PRESSURE PIPE -FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: LACFD,LACRD,6 OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1982 -2008 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 15.0 Release Date: 04/01/2008 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: rtt +t + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +a+ DESCRIPTION OF STUDY + + + +a + +tr +aa +r + + +wtww +ww ++ • Olivehain Guest Home - 350 Cole Ranch Road • Pipe System B + • PLSA 1641F + ++++++++++++++++++++++++ ttwr+ ttaatrr++ r+ rrrrr +ra +rtaraaa ++ + + + + +wxwxw +wwww+ FILE NAME: 1641PB.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 13:48 03/19/2009 NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD -LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA DESIGN MANUALS. DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER = 8.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION = 102.30 PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) = 2.70 ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 103.300 L.A. THOMPSON'S EQUATION IS USED FOR JUNCTION ANALYSIS ----------------------------=-------------------------------------------- NODE 8.00 : HGL= < 103.300 >;EGL = < 103.484>;FLOWLINE= < 102.300> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 7.10 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 7.10 ELEVATION = 102.40 CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 2.70 CFS PIPE DIAMETER - 12.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 4.00 FEET MANNINGS N = 0.00900 SF= (Q /K) + +2 = (( 2.70)/( 51.463))• +2 = 0.0027526 HF -L +SF = ( 4.00) +( 0.0027526) = 0.011 NODE 7.10 HGL= < 103.311 >;EGL = < 103.495>;FLOWLINE= < 102.400> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 0.09 NODE 7.10 : HGL= < 103.400>;EGL= < 103.584 >; FLOWLINE = < 102.400> ------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.10 TO NODE 7.10 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 7.10 ELEVATION = 102.40 CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 2.5 12.00 0.785 3.132 0.000 0.152 2 2.7 12.00 0.785 3.438 -- 0.184 3 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 4 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 5 0.2 = = =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = == LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.00900 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.00900 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00228 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00275 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.00252 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 5.00 FRICTION LOSS = 0.013 ENTRANCE LOSSES = 0.037 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY +HV1 -HV2 +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = 0.062+ 0.152- 0.184 +( 0.013) +( 0.037) = 0.080 NODE 7.10 : HGL= < 103.512>;EGL= < 103.664 >;FLOWLINE = < 102.400> -- - - - - - --- -----------------------------------------------------°----- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.10 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 7.00 ELEVATION = 102.90 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 2.46 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 12.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 55.00 FEET MANNINGS N - 0.00900 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 2.46)/( 51.463)) * *2 = 0.0022850 HF =L *SF = ( 55.00) *( 0.0022850) = 0.126 NODE 7.00 HGL= < 103.637>;EGL= < 103.790 >;FLOWLINE = < 102.900> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 0.26 NODE 7.00 : HGL= < 103.900>;EGL= < 104.052 >;FLOWLINE = < 102.900> ------------°__--==sm-7==----=a-====_-___-- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM - NODE - ---- 7--.00 --- TO --- NODE ---- 7007S--- 00 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 7.00 ELEVATION = 102.90 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 1.8 12.00 0.785 2.254 90.000 0.079 2 2.5 12.00 0.785 3.132 -- 0.152 3 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 4 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 5 0.7 = = =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = == LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.00900 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.00900 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00118 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00228 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.00173 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 5.00 FRICTION LOSS = 0.009 ENTRANCE LOSSES = 0.030 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY +HV1 -HV2 +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = 0.305+ 0.079- 0.152 +( 0.009) +( 0.030) = 0.270 NODE 7.00 : HGL= < 104.244>;EGL= < 104.323>;FLOWLINE= < 102.900> -------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 6.00 ELEVATION = 103.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW - 1.77 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 12.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 10.00 FEET MANNINGS N = 0.00900 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 1.77)/( 51.463)) * *2 = 0.0011829 HF =L *SF = ( 10.00) *( 0.0011829) = 0.012 NODE 6.00 HGL= < 104.256 >;EGL = < 104.335>;FLOWLINE= < 103.000> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 2 UPSTREAM NODE 6.00 ELEVATION = 103.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW MANHOLE LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW - 1.77 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 12.00 INCHES PRESSURE FLOW AREA = 0.785 SQUARE FEET FLOW VELOCITY - 2.25 FEET PER SECOND VELOCITY HEAD = 0.079 HMN = .05 *(VELOCITY HEAD) = .05 *( 0.079) = 0.004 NODE 6.00 : HGL= < 104.260>;EGL= < 104.338>;FLOWLINE= < 103.000> -- - - - - -- ---------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 5.00 ELEVATION = 103.50 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 1.77 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 12.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH = 49.00 FEET MANNINGS N = 0.00900 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 1.77)/( 51.463)) * *2 = 0.0011829 HF =L *SF - ( 49.00) *( 0.0011829) = 0.058 NODE 5.00 HGL= < 104.318>;EGL= < 104.396 >;FLOWLINE = < 103.500> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 0.18 NODE 5.00 : HGL= < 104.500>;EGL= < 104.579 >;FLOWLINE = < 103.500> ----------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 5 UPSTREAM NODE 5.00 ELEVATION = 103.50 ----------------------------------------------- -------------------- --- - - -- -- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 0.9 12.00 0.785 1.108 0.000 0.019 2 1.8 12.00 0.785 2.254 -- 0.079 3 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 4 0.0 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 5 0.9 = = =Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT = == LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTAI)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4 *V4 *COS(DELTA4)) /((A1 +A2) *16.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.00900 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = 0.00900 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00029 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = 0.00118 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS 0.00073 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 5.00 FRICTION LOSS = 0.004 ENTRANCE LOSSES = 0.016 JUNCTION LOSSES = DY +HV1 -HV2 +(FRICTION LOSS) +(ENTRANCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES = 0.120+ 0.019- 0.079 +( 0.004) +( 0.016) = 0.079 NODE 5.00 : HGL= < 104.639>;EGL= < 104.658>;FLOWLINE= < 103.500> - - -- -------------------------------------------------- PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 1 UPSTREAM NODE 4.00 ELEVATION = 103.90 ----------- CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW = 0.87 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 12.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH - 20.00 FEET MANNINGS N = 0.00900 SF= (Q /K) * *2 = (( 0.87)/( 51.463)) * *2 = 0.0002858 HF =L *SF = ( 20.00) *( 0.0002858) = 0.006 NODE 4.00 HGL= < 104.645>;EGL= < 104.664>;FLOWLINE= < 103.900> PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 0.26 NODE 4.00 : HGL= < 104.900>;EGL- < 104.919 >;FLOWLINE = < 103.900> END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM Hydrology Study for Olivenhain Guest Home PLSA 1641F E. APPENDIX PLSA # 1641F 2:42 PM 3/20/2009 Detention Volume Olivenhain Guest Homes Pre - development Q = 6.84 efs Post - development Q= 8.25 cfs -AV= 4,638 — 3,845 = 792 cf 792 cf required; 800+ cf provided PLSA 1641F Olivenhain Guest Home 350 Cole Ranch Road 85th Percentile Storm Calculations A, Area or entire site: 2.81 C, Runoff Coefficient 0.46 I, Intensity 0.2 In /hr Q85 = CIA Q85 =0.26 cfs Acres Per county Hydrology Manual Per county Hydrology Manual Grassy Swale Design Length Given: Design flow 0.26 cfs Residence time (req) 9 minutes Trapezoid Channel Design Parameters: Depth 0.32 feet 2 "-4" Per Washington State University Study Total Width 3.64 feet base width 3 feet Side slope 1 (left) 1 ft /ft Side slope 2 (right) 1 ft/ft Area 1.06 sq ft Find Velcoity in channel V =Q /A Therefore: V = 0.245283 fps Required Length of Channel: L =vt Therefore: L= 132.4528 Min. L =100 ft Actual Length =160' + 160'+ > 132' OK 12" PVC Drainpipe @ 1.0% Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File n: \haested \academic \fmw \1641f.fm2 Worksheet 12" PVC Drainpipe Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Siope 0.010000 ft/ft Depth 1.00 ft Diameter 12.00 in Results Discharge 5.15 cfs Flow Area 0.79 ft' Wetted Perimeter 3.14 ft Top Width 0.3e -7 ft Critical Depth 0.92 ft Percent Full 100.00 Critical Slope 0.008666 ft/ft Velocity 6.55 fus Velocity Head 0.67 ft Specific Energy 1.67 ft Froude Number 0.23e -3 Maximum Discharge 5.54 cfs Full Flow Capacity 5.15 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Flow is subcritical. 03/20/09 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 02 -. .47.30 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 7551666 Page 1 of 1 18" PVC Drainpipe @ 2.0% Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description 21.46 Project File n: \haested \academic \fmw \1641f.fm2 Worksheet 18" PVC Drainpipe Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data 21.46 Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.020000ft/ft Depth 1.50 ft Diameter 18.00 in Results Discharge 21.46 cfs Flow Area 1.77 ft' Wetted Perimeter 4.71 ft Top Width 0.00 ft Critical Depth 1.48 ft Percent Full 100.00 Critical Slope 0.018061 ft/ft Velocity 12.14 ft/s Velocity Head 2.29 ft Specific Energy FULL ft Froude Number FULL Maximum Discharge 23.08 cfs Full Flow Capacity 21.46 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.020000 ft/ft 03/20/09 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 02:47:53 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 7551666 Page i of 1 Upper Parking Lot BMP Swale @ 5.3% Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description 2.53 Project File n: %haested \academic\fmw11641f.fm2 Worksheet Upper Parking Lot BMP Swale @ 5.3% • Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data 2.53 cfs Mannings Coefficient 0.030 ftZ Channel Slope 0.054000 ft/ft Depth 0.24 ft Left Side Slope 10.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 10.000000 H : V Bottom Width 1.00 ft Discharge 2.53 cfs Flow Area 0.82 ftZ Wetted Perimeter 5.82 ft Top Width 5.80 ft Critical Depth 0.29 ft Critical Slope 0.024085 ft/ft Velocity 3.10 fUs Velocity Head 0.15 ft Specific Energy 0.39 ft Froude Number 1.46 Flow is supercritical 03/20/09 Academic Edition FlowMaster v5.17 02:48:16 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Southern Grassy Swale BMP @ 1.0% Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description 18.95 Project File n: \haested \academic \fmw \1641f.fm2 Worksheet Priority Treatment Grassy Swale Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data 18.95 cfs Mannings Coefficient 0.030 ft= Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Depth 1.00 ft Left Side Slope 2.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 2.000000 H : V Bottom Width 3.00 ft Results Discharge 18.95 cfs Flow Area 5.00 ft= Wetted Perimeter 7.47 ft Top Width 7.00 ft Critical Depth 0.88 ft Critical Slope 0.016515 ft/ft Velocity 3.79 ft/s Velocity Head 0.22 ft Specific Energy 1.22 ft Froude Number 0.79 Flow is subcritical. 03120/09 Academic Edition FlowMasler v5.17 02:48:36 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT D6708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 PLSA 1641F 350 Cole Ranch Road — Hydraulic Calculations 24 "X24" Brooks Box Use equation 2 -18 per San Diego County Drainage Design Manual (2 -18) Q= CoAe(2gd) ^1/2 Co= Orifice coefficient (Co =0.67) Ae= Effective (clogged) grate area Ca--Area clogging factor (Ca =0.50) A= Actual opening area of the grate g= Gravitational acceleration (ft/s ^2) d= Flow depth above inlet (ft) (assume 0.5' of head above inlet) Ae= (1 -Ca) A Ae =(1 -0.50) 2.5 = 1.25 Q =0.67* 1.25(2 *32.2 *0.5) ^1 /2 = 4.75 cfs 350 Cole Ranch Road — Hydraulic Calculations Type F Catch Basin — Inlet Capacity If acting as Weir: Use equation 6 -10 per San Diego County Drainage Design Manual (6 -10) Q= CbcwLH ^3/2 Cbcw= Broad- Crested Weir discharge coefficient (3.0 typical) L= Length of weir crest (ft) H= Head above of weir crest (ft) Q =3 *2.5 *0.75 ^3 /2= 4.87 cfs If acting as Orifice: Use equation 6 -12 per San Diego County Drainage Design Manual (6 -12) Q= CoAo(2g(Ho)) 11/2 Ao =Cross sectional area of flow through the orifice (sf) Co= Orifice discharge coefficient, use 0.80 for squared edge g= Gravitational acceleration (ft/s ^2) d= Effective head above orifice (use 0.5' of head above inlet) Q =0.80 *1.875 *(2 *32.2 *0.5) ^1 /2 = 8.51 cfs 3 I 32 R County of San Diego 3 Hydrology Manual Rainfall Isopluvials 100 Year Rainfall Event - 6 Hours ••...... isogwla (Irrliav) DPW S S nGIS 30 ' $S$$ 3 0 3 Miles 2� a: I i — eraa' County of San Diego Hydrology Manual Rainfall Isopluvials I 100 Year Rainfall Event - 24 Hours Isapuvia� (irviies) -�GIS S nGIS 3 0 3 Miles 14� 1 , . • • X01111121 ■■ 1111111111111111111111A11111111 till 11111111111111111 ■ ■■ ■11111111111111111111111 Y •.• ■: • . , • :• _ • � _� � � � • � ' • • - � - _• •- _ • • , •• "' . • •. _ • .: _ . :.. • . . •' .. - . .. . • : , , - 11111121111110 2111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111■ ■ ■ ■11111111111111111111111 ago Z! 1. 6. 41NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ■ ■ ■ ■Illllllllllllllllllllll ��1�\ �C�v4.. Vlllllllllllllllllll1111111111111 EQUATION •' � • • . • .• ...- :. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII flllllll IIIIIIII 111111 0'11 l,111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11�. 111�11i�1�1! ii ;lll;lu;llC;;!h!Illllllllllllll 1�� . ��`, �1\ �1 �,,,, IIIII..IIII!Ilhll! ��I ,;I�,,III,,;;,,;,I;;;,,IIIII� 1111111!!; illy.. 1l�I�l�Illiallii! 1111 iN. IIII ii !! ul 'i:!i 1 !'i!�i! I I Iii,.. alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll '11111i1� III�III '11111 IIII '111111 Illh,. nlgl 1•IIIIIil,l till I 11111,•111e 1► i I IIII, Ih,�l►. X1111111111111111111111111 111�� \. IIIIIIIIII,1 ,. ,. I � ' � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 8111111111iii�l�lllllliiilll�� , !!!��liii��!�iiii� ,, , • �III��IC.Iihl� Hlllllllii !!III ■�� ■�:IIIC�Ii:9iaUi:hi�ll ■Ii!1111!Ili:!Ili:!Uill Ilnl!IIIIIIIIII N n■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ 1111111111.! 1111111111I1 1111111111111111.! lit! ! IIIIIIIIIIIIIIli111111111111hM Illpllllli�! ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■/ /■ /1111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIii :!!Illl1 llllllllil!! III[ Illllllli ►�■IIIl111i:!Illi;llli�!!Uii WIN I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIii :!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'11111111�. �•. X111 is .!Ilull.11llll,!�! 111' 1i;1111ii1!Ini IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIinI! Illllllllllllllliil�Illli Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllliiillll !Illlll�lllllllllul!!I(Ili;��!I 811111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111�11111111111 !lIIIiIIIII�° • . • :. , . : " : •, .• . • : ., „ : ,• , . ,, 1 •, , 1 . • ,' MW : VIII:::: C::::: �lliil7lit�i7i1111==== '.'.::::'.:::::lili:�!'111 rrrrrrr-r--■.nuuaunm r— r--- r--- r— r.. u nuuuMI: ■■■■. uunmuw umuur-r-.uo.. nunm nm rr-- --r—rr— rrr r— r— l.-rr..vu r.. o.....Y..,.Y ov— --414141 uummnwwuunumuuuuuunlu--- U, uuunu...., un. a .......Y000IU..nuuuu--- unuauvnunnn,-- uaulnmuu11,1-,rrrunuunn.•ununl r......: r...00.vuuu nuns r- ....ruY •rnu nuul r— rrr— —rrr rrirr- --- ,...uuuuuuuunmy nnoonuuunnounu■■ a ■.nnumuunwunn- u- ---uso.uY.•.uuuml ��o•.. �rrrnuaunrnuunuuml■ ■ ■nnn.unwmulnwrrrauun■unnm:annl r��raf■ o�rrr�rrrouauunnnunuunu t�.■ r�uuununwuumoamnnuumuuuuwmrrr� .uonunnuu:1411 of ■.■.■i ■■aumuunuuunlunlrr rr■■un■nuuunul.^ ■ ■ ■ afaf r ■ ■ 1t If111111 .■ ■Il.nt 1111111111111111rr .I::.■■■ rain■ ■.■ai11111i1i1111�,,:11 ■ 1 ...11111 unm ■CCIi■171■iiillullummf lli...... li :............ ••••...■ ■. ■■ ■■■■■■■.ununuuunuou nnl nun:u:u:nin ■. ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■onunn .......■o■■■■m oullil mmulluurunnuulmimnooun■ nuunanull ■■■■■■■■■■■■ ��111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ■ ■ ■ ■��11111111111111111111 ■■■■■■■■■■ mnllmmmiinmwwnmlummuwuuuun ■■■nmmnuumum ■■■■■■■■■■■ 111111111111111111111111Illlllllil11111111111111111111 ■ ■ ■ ■��111111111111111111111 F I G Intensity- Duration Design Chart - Template 3-1 San Diego County Hydrology Manual Date: June 2003 Section: 3 Page: 6 of 26 Land Table 3 -1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR URBAN AREAS Runoff NRCS Elements County Elements % IMPER. A amt twe Undisturbed Natural Terrain (Natural) Permanent Open Space B C D Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, 1.0 DU /A or less 0* 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, 2.0 DU /A or less Ip 0.27 0.32 0.36 0.41 Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, 2.9 DU /A or less 20 0.34 0.38 0.42 0.46 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 4.3 Dll /A or less 25 0.38 0.41 0.45 0.49 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 7.3 DU /A or less 30 0.41 0.45 0.48 0.52 Medium Density Residential (MDR) � Residential, 10.9 Dll /A or less 40 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.57 Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, 14.5 DU /A or less 45 0.52 0-.54 0.57 0.60 High Density Residential (HDR) Residential, 24.0 DU /A or less 50 0.55 0.58 0.60 0.63 High Density Residential (HDR) Residential, 43.0 DU /A or less 65 0.66 0.67 0.69 0.71 Commercial/Industrial (N. Com) Neighborhood Commercial 80 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 CommerciaUlndustrial (G. Com) General Commercial 80 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 Commercial/Industrial (O.P. Com) Office Professional /Commercial RS 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.82 Commercial /Industrial (Limited I.) Limited Industrial 90 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.85 Commercial/Industrial GeneralI. General Industrial 90 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.85 `The values associated with 0% impervious may be used for direct 95 0.87 0.87 O.R7 0.87 coefficient, Cp, for the soil type), or for areas calculation of the that will remain undisturbed in runoff coefficient as described in Section 3.1.2 (representing the pervious runoff is located in Cleveland National Forest). perpetuity. Justification must be given that the area will remain natural forever DU /A = dwelling units per acre (e.g., the area NRCS - National Resources Conservation Service 3 -6 Olivenhain Guest Home 350 Cole Ranch Road Encinitas, CA 92024 Pre - Development P LSA 1641F AREA NAME AREA (SF /AC) IMPERVIOUS AREA PERVIOUS AREA WEIGHTED Cn A -1 6,377 0.15 0 6,377 0.35 A -2 130,244 2.99 35,860 94,384 0.50 3.14 Post - Development AREA NAME AREA (SF /AC) IMPERVIOUS AREA PERVIOUS AREA WEIGHTED Cn A -1 4,130 0.09 0 4,130 0.35 A -2 13,142 0.30 2,210 10,932 0.44 A -3 11,660 0.27 3,470 8,190 0.51 A-4 13,000 0.30 5,990 7,010 0.60 A -5 38,500 0.88 20,200 18,300 0.64 A -6 3,650 0.08 1,780 1,870 0.62 A -7 15,600 0.36 5,080 10,520 0.53 A -8 37,200 0.85 16,100 21,100 0.59 3.14 OLIVENHAIN GUEST HOME I, 9 OLIVENHAIN GUEST HOME PREDEVELOPM -JNT NODE MAP Rxsnaeo ' r+ s � Y' n f �% �'.t sb �` /' w, ^w >r: a'4 ..,,, x�"c��,�`�" '�",. � a�`"'•"�¢ .. r.,na,.,�„� r x �3� fit. ,T ^,/ .'. /' �.,r Ia � � a �r rk, �, `a,4'", �i 3 -»^ .c' F �'� ra,�•, p s„ra c � � � X '°ayG �\ � '� x fie:? ��( d�� b"f a y s �°tJti �k m ��'^ v'' rn'•, "� �S+ Y �4" rI,' d G j \ `sa?;�+ =. 7�r �!"' e "' fD t "+� r w rai �. ,�s i� - y Fri? `�^��,, . +�,� r x ;�-c: >•Kr^ t " . ^w x /vNO -;N.. %"' .v:.„.: \I "r� \•�" x"��. � S`*✓,�,�, �e<�.:; .; `;,os. • ., xt � T`"� «,r ,fs �i�� ,r �; tr=- - -Y'�� w,� , rs w.�r?R � �.; .&:� ,. "E, � p . fi.� ✓os es ""? o, �a �'>ti rr ",.` r i " �` : y.'..s ,v"' «' ^-'° r .rR � ..� iP �' ""'�'Fk � ". s- ro�.`� s" ^ti &< � i '��,.5 � � �??�. -� r�'� a\ �,. � �` `„� a ` � '�mrj, � ' \^�••'f"'�n.�e� � �h u5 � 5 �;�z� -.i r € � t �' �.� ,aa, . IRI ' r /rstrooarr A P N ,E =AL DESCRIPTION^. ZONE LDl SIZL`. ssi sd. il. A R. LDT CDVFP6G[ PARK Nei f ZIV] TDi a , J T I) A T A NO- I-- FDITIFE 17 A C A L; A C L l A I I I< D . , a Is IT ,iv rid YeN m x .# A b w w+ iijA .+ E j T � 04' A r a�bD �l f; III-lIT D � y, ,dt e 'rN F rn i -'. A Al a �A A G Fm s0A N r I A � W /# .� A r p { O 0. FFA, 4 A Iif 14 SAT 'q £ C F # F :M;7 4K k N V- C I N I T" M A P LEGEND Afu Td i A,p— pp �. g.�gk pNp B -4 SApproumele rocWpn —f �pM M erpb ,y bong TDT r -- — ,' _ , �, a,n \ y �iD '�► Al T z I i sl ! APART IF I s� -TDtl' G \ Ii pu i - ITsE I - e — NW4PART N F a a N 5 — /I' Ir- I I \ � .- 1�� I �B 3 T•oir � 4 , I !III TIE �,. \ Is 77 1 1 B -Z \r \ AP T l I g' 016.� Tcl w ,E / L gjL D. I EE / I Cl JITIll �oN DFI7ENFL 11 Tcl-. / j / NOT - ar�T L ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE gem �^� fl�dEtlfBRSIDE CO ' 9' �M- F � os SAN DSW N BORING LOCATION MAP SITE FLAN o -E �a,e,f, Al W.O. 5734 -A -SC DATE 08/08 SCALE 1' -EO' f EB - 9 2009 u L ON =6.- Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental EVALUATION OF EXISTING PAVEMENT SECTION FRONTAGE OF COLE RANCH ROAD, 350 COLE RANCH ROAD COMMUNITY OF OLIVENHAIN. SAN DIEGO COUNTY. CALIFORNIA m MR. HANK KURTZ 350 COLE RANCH ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 W.O. 5734 -E -SC FEBRUARY 2, 2009 0 s, Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 (760) 438 -3155 • FAX (760) 931 -0915 February 2, 2009 W.O. 5734 -E -SC Mr. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road Olivenhain, California 92024 Subject: Evaluation of Existing Pavement Section, Frontage Along 350 Cole Ranch Road, Community of Olivenhain, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Kurtz: In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed an evaluation of the existing pavement section at the subject site, and has provided herein conclusions regarding the suitability of the existing pavement section, based on assumed Traffic Index (T.I.) values (that will need to be verified by the project design civil engineer or traffic engineer), and recommendations for the design and construction for a new asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement section indicated on the City of Encinitas Public Road Standards, dated April 1991 (see Appendix A). The scope of services provided in preparation of this report include field observations and sampling, laboratory testing, engineering analysis of pavement design, and preparation of this summary report. SITE CONDITIONS The study area consists of an approximate ±220 -foot long frontage section of Cole Ranch Road in community of Olivenhain, San Diego County, California. The existing frontage pavement section is composed of AC over native earth materials. The existing section exhibits minor distress within the southern sections of the area investigated. It appears the pattern and level of observed minor distress in the frontage is likely due to under - designed pavement sections, resulting in reflective cracking (i.e., alligator cracking). It is GSI's understanding that a representative from the City will review this report, and provide additional recommendations and /or consideration of no further action, as warranted. SITE EXPLORATION Site exploration was performed in January 2009 by a representative of this office. In addition to visual observations of surface conditions, relatively shallow subsurface conditions were evaluated with three exploratory hand auger borings. The borings were logged and representative samples of existing subgrade soils were collected for appropriate laboratory testing. Logs of the excavations are presented in Appendix B. The approximate locations are indicated on Figure 1, Boring Location Map. A review of Appendix B indicates that the existing pavement section in the frontage of Cole Ranch Road varies from 3 to 41/2 inches of AC on terrace deposits (no base). The following table presents the sections observed in our evaluation: TABLE 1 - EXISTING AC AND BASE OBSERVATIONS APPROXIMATE STREET LOCATION* EXISTING AC THICKNESS INCHES EXISTING AGGREGATE BASE THICKNESS INCHES Cole Ranch Road 0 "0 (frontage) 41/2 0 Cole Ranch Road 1 +0-0 (frontage) 41/2 0 Cole Ranch Road 1 "-0 fronta e 3 0 *Approximate Station No- ±0'O starts at the north end of Cole Ranch Road frontage. LABORATORY TESTING General Laboratory tests were performed on a representative sample of the subgrade soils in order to evaluate their physical characteristics for this pavement application. The test procedures used and results obtained are presented below- Resistance Value (R- value) An R -value was performed on a bulk sample taken from the Cole Ranch Road frontage (see Boring Log B -1 in Appendix B), in general accordance with the latest revisions to the Department of Transportation, State of California, Material and Research Test Method No. 301. Subgrade soils, sampled from the exploratory borings in the in Cole Ranch Road, yielded an R -value of R = 82. R -value test results are presented in Appendix C. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Pavement section design by GSI was performed in general accordance with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual of Instructions, and City of Encinitas Public Road Standards, dated April 1991. Pavement sections for AC pavement presented are based on the aforementioned criteria and R -value data determined from soils exposed at, or near, final subgrade elevations within the subject areas. R -value testing was performed in general accordance with the latest revisions to the Department of Transportation, State of California, Material & Research Test Method No. 301. Mr. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain File:e:\wp9 \5700\5734e.eoe GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -E -SC February 2, 2009 Page 2 HA TC`ED AREA /REPRESENTS BW AREA: NOT TO BE MODIFIED ( � Real B391 rWITHar PERMISSION FRAM THE CITY OF ETINITAS f P?a105 50 v 7 EXISTING WALL — _— TQ.8E..REMOVE0_ ! FS 105. F5= 105.68 ,l W 3<r PROPOSED SCREENED d FL�105 40 ° w TRASH ENCLOSURE i�l � I FL 105.40 FL =105.31 r FS- 105.91 ) IL x FL 104.95 FS- 106.56 o r (FS =106 71) - f FL =105.00 FL 104.85 (BELOW DRIVE) 5.2 FS= 105:80 FS= 105.00 y FS= 105,83 y.` " Y r A °•} FL= 104.70 t y + 4` (BELOW DRIVE) s �• 7n FS =105.63 ._• ; -: , Ili' r [ �,. ^ Ir 11105.18 F5° 105M ' } B-2 + _ FL- 104-45 \. �. I (FS- 105,28) (FS =106,13) F � "r -i - - EXISTING 8' PVC SE11EA MAIN f FS 104.65 3.3% '• — FL =}03 85 x r I FS-104M f r FS= 104.43 p r FS 104 94 f 21% Y FL =103,65 FS- f0423 15= 105.10,., I .. AFL= 10320 =103.53) FL 103.90 (FS= 104.61) (FS= 105.30) 5�J FS= 105.68 FG 105 00 FL .65 r I B -3 I — PROPOSED OVERFLOW NE. .72 -T _ r t ORIFICE FL= 100.00 TOP 1, +- WEIR ELEVATION 101.50 1� ' EXISTING 1 • PVC g'. DRAINPIPE TO BE !05.22 FS-10522 REMOVED AND REPLACED PROPOSED TYPE _ _ I v, = F CATCH BASIN ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE LEGEND This document or etib w not a pert of the Conatruction Documents and should not be relied upon as being an accurate depiction of dear. n Approximate location of exploratory RIVERSIDE CO. hand -auger boring I� r'a N� csAco o. 20 0 20 BORING LOCA_nON MAP Base Map from Paseo Laret Suiter 8 Associates Engineering, Inc., 2008 Scale Feet Fk3ure t WO 5734 -E -SC DATE 02/09 1 SCALE T -20' Existing Cole Ranch Road Frontage Based on our limited surface and subsurface observations and laboratory testing, it appears that the existing Cole Ranch Road pavement sections may not be strictly in accordance with the current standard specifications set forth in City of Encinitas Public Road Standards, dated April 1991. The minimum pavement design guidelines, as indicated by the City for a typically local street (Traffic Index [T.I.] = 5); is 4 inches of AC over 6 inches of aggregate base (AB). As an alternative to removing and replacing the asphalt pavement sections in Cole Ranch Road frontage, the addition of an asphalt overlay may suffice, and is presented in the table below. In order to evaluate the suggested overlay thickness, GSI used Caltrans design methodology, and assumed that a 1 -inch- thick layer of asphalt is approximately equivalent to a 2- inch -thick layer of aggregate base. No deflection testing was performed and the overlay was evaluated solely on the basis of structural section thickness. The actual mitigation should be approved by the City. ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT Structural Section The calculated pavement sections are presented in the following table: All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, compaction of base material, and placement and rolling of asphaltic concrete, should be done in accordance with the City guidelines and under the observation and testing services provided by the project geotechnical engineer and /or the City. The recommended pavement sections provided above are intended as a minimum guideline. If thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair could be expected. If the ADT (average daily traffic) or ADTT Mr. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain File: e:Vwp945700G573".eoe GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -E -SC February 2, 2009 Page 4 ALTERNATIVE ASPHALT TRAFFIC AREA TRAFFIC( SUBGRADE AC AB OVERLAY") THICKNESS THICKNESS THICKNESSW (Inches) OVER EXISTING (Cole Ranch Road) INDEX R -VALUE (Inches) (Inches) ASPHALT IN LIEU OF ADDITIONAL BASE 0 "22 (frontage) 5.0 5 4.Om 6.O4 3.0 1i0-2 (frontage) 5.0 5 4.014 6.O4 3.0 1 "—° fronta a 5.0 5 4.0m 6.Om 4.0 (1) To be verified by the Design Civil Engineer. (2) City minimum thickness - lessor thicknesses will require City approval. (3) Denotes Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base (R >78, SE >22) (4) Overlay the existing asphalt section with additional asphalt, based on Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Topic 633, July 2008. All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, compaction of base material, and placement and rolling of asphaltic concrete, should be done in accordance with the City guidelines and under the observation and testing services provided by the project geotechnical engineer and /or the City. The recommended pavement sections provided above are intended as a minimum guideline. If thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair could be expected. If the ADT (average daily traffic) or ADTT Mr. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain File: e:Vwp945700G573".eoe GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -E -SC February 2, 2009 Page 4 (average daily truck traffic) increases beyond that intended, as reflected by the T.I. used for design, increased maintenance and repair could be required for the pavement section. Consideration should be given to the increased potential for distress from overuse of paved street areas by heavy equipment and /or construction related heavy traffic (e.g., concrete trucks, loaded supply trucks, etc.), particularly when the final section is not in place (i.e., topcoat). Best management practices should be followed at all times, especially during construction during inclement weather. PAVEMENT GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS General All section changes should be properly transitioned. If adverse conditions are encountered during the preparation of subgrade materials, special construction methods may need to be employed. A GSI representative should be present for the preparation of subgrade, base rock, and asphalt concrete. Subwade Within street and parking areas, all surficial deposits of loose soil material should be removed and recompacted as recommended. After the loose soils are removed, the bottom is to be scarified to a depth of approximately 12 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density or City minimum, as determined by ASTM test designation D 1557, and approved by the City. Deleterious material, excessively wet or dry pockets, concentrated zones of oversized rock fragments, and any other unsuitable materials encountered during grading should be removed. The compacted fill material should then be brought to the elevation of the proposed subgrade for the pavement. The subgrade should be proof - rolled in order to ensure a uniform firm and unyielding surface. All grading and fill placement should be observed by the project soil engineer and /or his representative. Base Rock Compaction tests are required for the recommended base section. Minimum relative compaction required will be 95 percent of the laboratory maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation D 1557. Base aggregate should be in accordance to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" (green book) 2006 edition or standard Caltrans Class 2 base rock (minimum R- value =78). Mr. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain File: e:\wp9 \5700\5734e.eoe GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -E -SC February 2, 2009 Page 5 Paving Prime coat may be omitted if all of the following conditions are met: The asphalt pavement layer is placed within two weeks of completion of base and /or subbase course. 2. Traffic is not routed over completed base before paving 3. Construction is completed during the dry season of May through October. 4. The base is kept free of debris prior to placement of asphaltic concrete. If construction is performed during the wet season of November through April, prime coat may be omitted if no rain occurs between completion of base course and paving and the time between completion of base and paving is reduced to three days, provided the base is free of loose soil or debris. Where prime coat has been omitted and rain occurs, traffic is routed over base course, or paving is delayed, measures shall be taken to restore base course, and subgrade to conditions that will meet specifications as directed by the soil engineer. Positive Drainage Positive drainage should be provided for all surface water to drain towards the area swale, curb and gutter, or to an approved drainage channel. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground, such as from behind unprotected curbs, open utility trenches, or other sources, during and after grading and pavement construction. Water infiltration into the base and /or subgrade section can, and often does, result in pavement distress and /or failure. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved areas, measures should be taken to minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement section, such as thickened edges, enclosed planters, etc., otherwise pavement distress will likely result. Also, best management construction practices should be strictly adhered to at all times to minimize the potential for distress during construction and roadway improvements. 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. Mr. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain He: e:\wp9 \5700 \5734e.eoe GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -E -SC February 2, 2009 Page 6 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 current or 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. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. ry oss Pr ct Geologist 47857 ' N o. 940 1d ai o P a`ohn PFranklin E gin" I Sk W11- giP ring P Goo �L°8M Civil Engineer, RC T�.OP CA LO BEV /DWS /JPF /jh Attachments: Appendix A - References Appendix B - Boring Logs Appendix C - R -value Test Results Distribution: (1) Addressee (3) Pasco Laret Suitor & Associates, Attn: Mr. Tyler Lawson Mr. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Rle:eAwp9G5700\5734e.eoe GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -E -SC February 2, 2009 Page 7 APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A REFERENCES California Department of Transportation, 2008, Caltrans, Standard Specifications, July printing. City of Encinitas Public Road Standards, dated April, 1991. Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates Engineering Inc., 2008, Preliminary Grading Plan for - Major Use Permit, Olivenhain Guest Home, 350 Cole Ranch Road, dated July 16 PAVE, Computer program for the determination of asphalt concrete pavement sections. State of California, Department of Transportation, 1987, Highway design manual of instructions, fourth edition. GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX B BORING LOGS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY Major Divisions Group Typical Names CRITERIA Cobbles Symbols coarse fine coarse medium fine Classification Well- graded gravels and graval- BASIC LOG FORMAT: Group name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. GW sand mixtures, little or no fines Standard Penetration Test m m m > Poorly graded gravels and m o o a U Penetration >m m m`o t d t7 GP gravel -sand mixtures, little w no Resistance N Relative �" E 40 z fines ( blows/ft) Density g g o 0 0 - 4 Very loose m 0 a P m v m Silty gravels gravel- sand -sift o z oom m o c >t.. GM mixtures -NO o m 4-10 Loose m m GC Clayeravels, gravel -sand -Gay y g mixtures 10-30 Medium O m Well- graded sands and gravelly m A 30-50 Dense m o m m a SW sands, little or no fines o m > 50 Very dense 15 < O rn Poorly graded sands and m v t d SP gravelly sands, llftle or no fines o m t m z SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures m D o m v s m Clayey sands, sand -clay E SC mixtures Inorganic sifts, very fine sands, Standard Penetration Test ML rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands m m = n Unconfined > L) .E m Inorganic clays of low to Penetration Compressive m ° C — o CL medium plasticity. grave days. Resistance N Strength c sandy clays, silty days, lean (blows/ft) Consistency (tons/ft') clays O O N Organic sifts and organic silty f° v m <2 Very Soft <0.25 rY c ami OL clays of low plasticity m m OR 2 - 4 Soft 0.25 - .050 m m Inorganic sifts, micaceous or LL o # MH diatomaceous fine sands or sifts, 4-8 Medium 0.50 - 1.00 E m elastic silts g U E c 8-15 SVfI 1.00-2.00 o v F. Inorganic days of high plasticity. N 'a o c CH fat clays 15-30 Very Stiff 2.00-4.00 9 m Organic clays of medium to high rn m °1 >30 Hard >4.D0 OR plasticity Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, music, and other highly organic soils 3' 3/4' #4 #10 #40 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve Unified Soil 0_5% Gravel Sand Silt or Clay I S SPT Sample Cobbles 10-25% coarse fine coarse medium fine Classification Op Pocket Penetrometer BASIC LOG FORMAT: MOISTURE CONDITIONS MATERIAL QUANTITY OTHER SYMBOLS Dry Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch trace 0_5% C Core Sample Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5-10% S SPT Sample Moist Near optimum moisture content little 10-25% B Bulk Sample Very Moist Above optimum moisture content some 25-45% V Groundwater Wet Visible free water: below water table Op Pocket Penetrometer BASIC LOG FORMAT: Group name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, coarse grained particles, etc. IlSand (SP), fine to medium grained, brown, moist, loose, trace sift, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4" in size, some hair roots and rootlets. II File:Mgr: c,\SoilClassif.wpd PLATE B -1 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Ina W.O. 5734 -ESC pROUECT.. KURTZ BORING B-1 SHEET 1 OF 1 350 Cole Ranch Road 0+30 Cob Ranh Road DATE EXCAVATED 1-21.09 LOGGED BY.: BEV Sample SAAPLEMETHOD: Had Augereaip Approx. Elevation: 105' MSL Standard penetration Test XQ Groundwater Urxistrebed, Ring Sample $ w N j 8 m g in w Description of Material @ 0411' ASPHALTIC CONCRETE: SM TERRACE DEPOSfTS: @ 4'1h -W SILTY SAND, orange brown, moist, medium dense. L1SC @ 2636 SANDY CLAY to CLAYEY SAND, olive gray, moist, stiff to dense. Total Depth = W No Groundwater /Caving Encountered Badcfilled 1 -21 -2009 5 GeOSOUS, Me. 350 Cole Ranch Road Plate B -2 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5731 -Esc PROJECT KURTZ BORING B-2 SHEET 1 OF 1 350 Cole Ranch Road 1 +00 Cole Ranch Road DATE EXCAVATED 1 -21-09 LOGGED BY BEV Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Mane AuW BmW Approx. l- kvalion: 104' MBL [^ai Standard PenetraWn Test 0 X K Q Groundwater s y Y ? c ® Undisturbed, Ring Sample � N c U m Z ' $ m m o n Description of Material @ 041W ASPHALTIC CONCRETE: SM TERRACE DEPOSITS• @ 411x26' SILTY SAND, orange brown, moist, medium dense. L/SC @ 2636' SANDY CLAY to CLAYEY SAND, olive gray, moist, stiff to dense. Total Depth = 36' No Groundwater /Caving Encountered Backfilled 1 -21 -2009 5 Ge"oUs4 Inc. 350 Cole Ranch Road Plate B-3 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -ESC PROJECT. KURTZ BORING B-3 SHEET 1 OF 1 350 Cole Ranch Road 1 +70 Cole Ranch Road DATE EXCAVATED 1-21-08 LOGGED BY BEV Sample SAWLE METHOD: Mara Auk Boring Appron. Elevation: 104' MSL nStandard Penehafion Test r Q GrourMveter d & _ e $ Undisturbed, Ring Sample ® ig c e a Y a L) m o n Description of Material � @ 0-3' ASPHALTIC CONCRETE: SM s TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 33G' SILTY SAND, orange brown, moist, medium dense to dense with depth. Total Depth = 36- No Groundwater /Caving Encountered Backfilled 1 -21 -2009 5 Geoosh. Inc. 350 Cole Ranch Road plate B-4 APPENDIX C R -VALUE TEST RESULTS A B C D Compactor air pressure PSI 350 350 350 0.23 Water added % 0.9 1.3 1.8 82 Moisture at compaction % 8.5 9.0 9.4 Height of sample IN 2.56 2.58 2.6 Dry density PCF 121.1 1200 . 119.1 R -Value by exudation 83 82 77 R -Value by exudation, corrected 84 83 78 Exudation pressure PSI 691 299 182 Stability thickness FT 0.22 0.23 0.29 Expansion pressure thickness FT 0.67 0.201 0.00 DESIGN CALCULATION DATA Traffic index, assumed 5.0 Gravel equivalent factor, assumed 1.25 Expansion, stability equilibrium 0.23 R -Value by expansion 82 R -Value by exudation 83 R -Value at equilibrium 82 Expansion, Stability Equilibrium m F Zt50 a m N a m 1.00 m c Y L f d o 050 U 0.00 ," 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 Cover Thickness by Expansion Pressure (ft) GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438 -3155 Fax: (760) 931-0915 SAMPLE INFORMATION CCU CSC R - VALUE TEST RESULTS Project: KURTZ Number: 5734 -E -SC Date: Jan -09 Figure: C -1 FEB - 9 V9 Sp. Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION PROPOSED OLIVENHAIN GUEST HOME ADDITIONS AND PARKING LOT, 350 COLE RANCH ROAD COMMUNITY OF OLIVENHAIN SAN DIEGO COUNTY. CALIFORNIA 92024 FOR HANK KURTZ 350 COLE RANCH ROAD OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA 92024 W.O. 5734 -A -SC AUGUST 12, 2008 5741 Palmer Way Hank Kurtz 350 Coal Ranch Road Olivenhain, California 92024 Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438 -3155 • FAX (760) 931 -0915 August 12, 2008 W.O. 5734 -A -SC Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Olivenhain Guest Home Additions and Parking Lot, 350 Cole Ranch Road, Community of Olivenhain, San Diego County, California 92024 Dear Mr. Kurtz: In accordance with your request and authorization, this report presents the results of GeoSoils, Inc.'s (GSI) preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the subject site. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the onsite soils and geologic conditions and their effects on the proposed development from a geotechnical point of view. In particular, the primary purpose of our study was to evaluate potential remedial removal depths, evaluate the seismic setting and potential for seismic hazards, etc. A secondary purpose of this study was to provide preliminary geotechnical foundation design parameters, and general earthwork and grading guidelines. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our review of the available data (see Appendix A), field exploration, laboratory testing, and geologic and engineering analysis, additional development of the property for health care appears to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the text of this report are properly implemented during planning, design, and construction of the project. The primary developmental considerations are summarized below: • Undocumented artificial fill, topsoil /colluvium underlain by Tertiary-age Delmar Formation (considered bedrock) were the earth materials encountered /observed at the site. In areas proposed for settlement- sensitive improvements, all undocumented artificial fill, topsoil /colluvium, and weathered Delmar Formation should be removed and recompacted. Depths of removals for these materials range from about 3 to 4 feet. Actual depths of removals should be evaluated during grading. Deeper removals may not be precluded, and should be anticipated. Recommended removals could potentially undermine the existing foundation. Therefore, shoring or underpinning, or perhaps alternating slot excavations appear necessary where removals are performed adjacent to the existing residence. The alternating slot excavations are inherently more risky. Should the Client choose this latter method, the exposure to liability for any distress caused by the Client's decision, should be evaluated, based on a cost v. benefiVrisk analysis. • Site drainage should be designed by the project civil engineer. Positive drainage away from the structures and settlement- sensitive improvements should be provided. Site drainage should be designed to mitigate down - gradient erosion or scour. • The expansion potential of tested onsite soils was very low (Expansion Index [E.I.j 0 to 20), with a plasticity index (P.I.) less than 15; however, based on visual classification and our experience in the vicinity, site soils may range from very low to high in expansive potential. Subsequent to any necessary grading, soils will likely predominate in the very low to medium classifications. Conventional foundations and post- tension foundations may likely be used for these soil conditions. We have provided earthwork and foundation design criteria that pertain to these types of soil conditions in this report. • GSI conducted sampling of onsite materials for soil corrosivity on the subject project. The testing included evaluation of pH, soluble sulfates, and saturated resistivity. Test results indicate that the soil presents a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete; the soils are corrosive to ferrous metals, etc., based on saturated resistivity; and site soils are considered to be essentially neutral with regard to acidity/alkalinity. A corrosion specialist should be consulted for the appropriate mitigation recommendations, as needed. Additional testing of site materials is recommended when proposed grading is complete to verify findings. • On a preliminary basis, foundation systems should be designed to accommodate a worst -case differential settlement of up to 1 inch in a 40 -foot span. • A construction /expansion joint should be provided between any new and existing structures to permit relative movement. This will also affect any superstructures, which will need to be considered by the project architect and /or structural engineer. Differential settlement between these two elements may be minimally assumed as Y2 inch. In addition, a cut -off wall should also be considered by the project architect and /or structural engineer to mitigate the potential of subsurface moisture /water vapor transmission from migrating below the existing slab to the proposed new slab. This cut -off wall should maintain a minimum width of 6 inches and a minimum depth of 12 inches, and placed at the connection for the existing foundation and the proposed new foundation, in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer /architect and /or foundation designer. Hank Kurtz W.O. 5734 -A -SC F1e:e: \wp56700\5734a.pge Page Two GeoSoils, Inc. • In general, and based upon the available data to date, regional groundwater is not expected to be a factor in development of the site. However, due to the nature of the site materials, seepage may be encountered throughout the site, along with seasonal perched water. Seepage may also be encountered in "daylighted" bedding or joint systems within the bedrock, or between proposed fill lifts. Should such conditions develop, this office should be contacted for mitigative recommendations. • During the rainy season, water flows by sheet flow to the southeast, toward the new proposed structure on the south side of the existing facility. Based upon our review of the grading plan by Pasco Engineering (2008), drainage swales and 18 -inch PCV pipes and catch basins are proposed in this area; however to mitigate water migration into the slab, the perimeter cut -off walls may be deepened to 24 inches in this area. • The potential for, or hazard from, liquefaction or hydroconsolidation within the site is considered very low, provided the recommendations provided herein are implemented during site design and construction. • Our evaluation indicates there are no known active faults crossing the site. • The seismic acceleration values and design parameters provided herein should be considered during the design of the proposed development. • Adverse geologic features that would preclude project feasibility were not encountered. • The recommendations presented in this report should be incorporated into the design and construction considerations of the project. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. o00FESS1 No. 1340 z Gt/ RCE 47857 Yngineering ranklin COriflod David W. Skell k Exp, 2 81 Geo gi E ° ,�ip Civil Engineer, 78857 9 IVIL DG /JPF /DWS /jk �rF0 CALIEOQ� rear CAUFOQ� Distribution: (4) Addressee Hank Kurtz W.O. 5734 -A -SC File:e:1wp915700\5734a.pge Page Three GeoSoils, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES ..................... ..............................1 SITE CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ......................... 1 SITE EXPLORATION ...................... ............................... 3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ..................... ..............................3 SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS .................... ..............................3 Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Map Symbol - Afu) ........................ 3 Topsoil /Colluvium (Not Mapped) ....... ............................... 4 Tertiary-age Delmar Formation (Not Mapped) ........................... 4 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY ...... ............................... 4 Local Faulting ....................... ..............................4 Seismicity..... .................... ..............................6 Seismic Shaking Parameters .......... ............................... 6 Seismic Hazards ..................... ..............................8 GROUNDWATER .......................... ..............................8 LABORATORY TESTING .................... ..............................9 General............................ ..............................9 Classification ........... . .......... ..............................9 Expansion Potential ................. ............................... 9 Direct Shear Test ........ ............................... ..........9 Corrosion /Sulfate Testing ............ ............................... 10 R -value ..... .................... .............................10 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 10 General....... ................. ............................... 11 Demolition /Grubbing ................. .............................13 Treatment of Existing Ground ........ ............................... 13 Fill Placement .................................................... 14 Transition Areas /Overexcavation ...... ............................... 14 Subdrains.......................... .............................15 Erosion Control ...................... .............................15 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS ........... . ........... 15 General............................ .............................15 Conventional Foundation Design ..... ............................... 16 FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION ........... ............................... 17 Expansion Classification - Very Low to Low (E.I. 0 to 50) and P.I. s15 ....... 17 GeoSoils, Inc. POST - TENSIONED SLAB SYSTEMS ........ ............................... 18 Post - Tensioning Institute Method ..... ............................... 19 CUT -OFF . ........................ .............................20 SOIL MOISTURE CONSIDERATIONS ....... ............................... 20 FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT .............. ............................... 22 PRELIMINARY WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS . ............................... 22 Conventional Retaining Walls ........ ............................... 22 Restrained Walls ............... .............................22 Cantilevered Walls .............. .............................23 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage ... ............................... 23 Wall /Retaining Wall Footing Transitions ............................... 27 GUIDELINES FOR SEGMENTED WALL CONSTRUCTION ...................... 27 Foundation ...................................................... 28 Backfill ...................... ...........................29 Drainage......................... ............................... 30 Materials and Wall Construction ...... ............................... 30 Footing Setbacks for Segmented Walls ............................... 30 Review of Gridwalls ................ ............................... 31 DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ....................... 31 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN ........ ............................... 33 PAVEMENT GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 34 General............................ .............................34 Subgrade........ ............. .............................34 Base.............. ............ .............................34 Paving........................... .............................35 Drainage........................... .............................35 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ................ ............................... 35 Slope Deformation ................... .............................35 Slope Maintenance and Planting ...... ............................... 36 Drainage........................... .............................36 Erosion Control .................... ............................... 37 Landscape Maintenance .............. .............................37 Gutters and Downspouts .............. .............................38 Subsurface and Surface Water ......... .............................38 Site Improvements ................... .............................38 Tile Flooring ........................ .............................38 Hank Kurtz File: e: \wp9 \5700 \5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Table of Contents Page ii Additional Grading ................... .............................39 Footing Trench Excavation ............ .............................39 Trenching........ ............................... ...............39 Utility Trench Backfill ................. .............................39 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING ........................... .............................40 OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS /CONSULTANTS .......................... 41 PLAN REVIEW ............................ .............................41 LIMITATIONS ............................. .............................42 FIGURES: Figure 1 - Site Location Map .......... ............................... 2 Figure 2 - California Fault Map ......... ............................... 5 Detail 1 - Typical Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Detail .............. 24 Detail 2 - Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail Geotextile Drain ....... 25 Detail 3 - Retaining Wall and Subdrain Detail Clean Sand Backfill ........... 26 ATTACHMENTS Appendix A - References .... ............................... Rear of Text Appendix B - Boring Logs ... ............................... Rear of Text Appendix C - Seismic Refraction Line Results .................. Rear of Text Appendix D - EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, and FRISKSP ............. Rear of Text Appendix E - General Earthwork, Grading Guidelines, and Preliminary Criteria ................... ............................... Rear of Text Plate 1 - Boring Location Map ....................... Rear of Text in Folder Fle:e:\wp9 \5700 \5734a.pge G¢oSoils, Inc. Table of Contents Page iii PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION PROPOSED OLIVENHAIN GUEST HOME ADDITIONS AND PARKING LOT, 350 COLE RANCH ROAD COMMUNITY OF OLIVENHAIN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 92024 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 (Appendix B). 3. General areal seismicity evaluation (Appendix C). 4. Appropriate laboratory testing of representative soil samples (Appendix D). 5. Engineering and geologic analysis of data collected. 6. Preparation of this report. SITE CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The subject property is located on the northwest side of Cole Ranch Road, south of 7'" Street in the Community of Olivenhain, San Diego County, California (see Figure 1). A residential care facility building occupies the site. The site is bounded by existing residential property. Topographically, the site slopes gently southeastward. Elevations within the proposed development area ranges from 115 to 105 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL). Based upon our review of the grading plans for the site prepared by Pasco Engineering, dated July 9, 2008, proposed site development is to consist of the preparation of relatively level pads for the construction of two, one- or two -story additions, one on the south side and one on the north side of the existing facility, utilizing continuous footings and slabs -on- grade, and /or post- tension foundation systems, with wood -frame and /or masonry block construction. A parking lot and utility improvements are also proposed. Typical cut and fill grading techniques are anticipated in order to create building pads. The tentative map indicates that cut and fills on the order of 2 feet in thickness /depth may be constructed. Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light construction. The need for import soils is unknown. Sewage disposal is to tie into the municipal system. GeoSoils, Inc. SITE " JURvin O "( Base Map TOPOI® ©2003 National Geographic. U.S.G.S. Rancho Santa Fe Ouadrangle (dated 1996. current 1999) and Encinitas Ouadrangle (dated 1997, current 1999). California -- San Diego Co.. 7.5 Minute. SITE . � •� �� .:a sr . 4 9K/ ' .j 'Ib J •• P f • y 1 � e . • tx W.. aax L � q,� g e Ij .. ��.�,:. ,t •' yam, /b Y r1 1 41ry005 r ;. Ii w� .sn • • ,� auto "E'o ryMU1K a �rJ 1'ai NS �- �I� ,"iw' iMfaWnN •. YI M w; L r yqt, :� n Snr 9 E W i :n zloa ..os Ant Base Map The Thomas Guide, San Diego County, Street Guide and Directory, 2008 Edition, by Thomas Bros. Maps, pages 1147. 1148, 1167, and 1168. gspraaucaa with paronieslan grant" by Thomas Bros. Yaps This map Is copyright" by Thomas Bros. Yaps. It Y unlawful le cap. A. nproGUe• all ar any part thvaaf, whathor lar pananol A" r rbola, wlthoul parmlWan, all rlght. nlwrv".a 16 N W.O. GeoSeW jlnC. 5734 -A -SC SITE LOCATION MAP Figure 1 SITE EXPLORATION Surface observations and subsurface exploration were performed on July 17, 2008 by a representative of this office. A survey of line and grade for the subject property was not conducted by this firm at the time of our site reconnaissance. Near - surface soil conditions were explored with a hollow stem drill rig, with the excavation of four borings within the proposed development areas onsite to evaluate soil and geologic conditions. The approximate location of each test pit is shown on the Geotechnical Map (see Plate 1). 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 basement rocks consisting of pre- Cretaceous metasedimentary rocks, Jurassic metavolcanic rocks, and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the southern California batholith. In the San Diego County region, deposition occurred during the Cretaceous Period and Cenozoic Era in the continental margin of a forearc basin. Sediments, derived from Cretaceous -age plutonic rocks and Jurassic -age volcanic rocks, were deposited into the narrow, steep, coastal plain and continental margin of the basin. These rocks have been uplifted, eroded, and deeply incised. During early Pleistocene time, a broad coastal plain was developed from the deposition of marine terrace deposits. During mid to late Pleistocene time, this plain was uplifted, eroded, and incised. Alluvial deposits have since filled the lowervalleys, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited /eroded within coastal and beach areas. The site is situated in an area underlain by Eocene sedimentary rocks (commonly called "bedrock "). SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS The site geologic units encountered or observed during our subsurface investigation and site reconnaissance included topsoil /colluvium and the Tertiary-age Delmar Formation. The earth materials are generally described below, from the youngest to the oldest. The distribution of these materials is shown on Plate 1. Artificial Fill - Undocumented (Map Symbol - Afu) As observed in all our subsurface explorations, approximately 11/2 to 2 feet of undocumented artificial fill mantles the entire site. The fill generally consists of dark brown silty sand. The fill was observed to be damp to moist and medium dense. Documentation regarding its suitability for support of settlement- sensitive improvements and /or additional Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Fi1e:e: \wp9 \5700 \5734a.p9e GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 3 engineered fill was not readily available nor has it been provided for our review. Owing to the above, and non - uniform nature, the existing fill is considered unsuitable for the support of proposed improvements and /or additional engineered fill. Topsoil /Colluvium (Not Mapped) Topsoil /colluvium mantles the majority of the site at the surface. The topsoil /colluvium materials encountered onsite consisted of red brown silty to clayey sand. The soils generally were damp to moist, and loose to medium dense. The thickness of these soils generally ranges from 1 1/2 to 4 feet. The topsoil /colluvium is considered potentially compressible and unsuitable for support of settlement- sensitive improvements in its existing state. These soils typically have a very low to low expansion potential; although sometimes medium expansive soils occur within the topsoil /colluvium. Tertiary -age Delmar Formation (Not Mapped) Sedimentary bedrock, belonging to the Tertiary-age Delmar Formation (bedrock), was observed to underlie the undocumented artificial fill and topsoil /colluvium. As observed in our borings, these sediments generally consisted of a light yellow gray to brown gray, moist, medium dense to very dense, silty to clayey sandstone, with localized hard, wet, sandy claystone. The upper 1 foot was weathered and will require removal and recompaction, should settlement- sensitive improvements be proposed within its influence. These materials typically have a very low to medium expansion potential, with localized areas of high expansion potential. FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY 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 a region of active faulting. These faults include, but are not limited to: the San Andreas fault; the San Jacinto fault; the Elsinore fault; the Coronado Bank fault zone; and the Newport- Inglewood /Rose Canyon fault zone. The location of these, and other major faults relative to the site, are indicated on Figure 2 (California Fault Map). The possibility of ground acceleration, or shaking at the site, may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole. Major active fault zones that may have a significant affect on the site, should they experience activity, are listed in Appendix C (modified from Blake, 2000a). Local Faulting No local faulting was observed to transect the site during the field investigation. Additionally, a review of regional geologic maps does not indicate the presence of local faults crossing the site. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Rle: e:\wp9\5700 \5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 4 1100 CALIFORNIA FAULT Olivenhain Guest Home MAP 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 CO. G�� ORANGE CO. SAN DIEGO CO. CALFOFM FAULT MAP Flqu 2 W.O. 5734 -ASC DATE HIM I SCALE NTS Seismic!ty The acceleration- attenuation relation of Bozorgnia, Campbell, and Niazi (1999) and Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994 andl997) have been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 2000a). EQFAULT is a computer program developed by Thomas F. Blake (2000a), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using digitized California faults as earthquake sources. The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a given site. If a fault is found to be within a user - selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site from an upper bound ( "maximum credible ") earthquake on that fault. Site acceleration (g) 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 at the site may be on the order of 0.58 g to 0.66 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, 2000b). 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 December 2007. 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 December 2007 was about 0.57 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 analyses was performed using FRISKSP (Blake, 2000c), which models earthquake sources as 3- dimensional planes and evaluates the site specific probabilities of exceedance for given peak acceleration levels or pseudo - relative velocity levels. Based on a review of this data, and considering the relative seismic activity of the southern California region, a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.17g was calculated. This value was chosen as it corresponds to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (or a 475 -year return period). Computer printouts of the FRISKSP program are included in Appendix C. Seismic Shaking Parameters Based on the site conditions, and Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code /California Building Code ([UBC /CBC], International Conferenceof Building Officials [ICBO],1997 and 2001; California Building Standards Commission [CBSC], 2007), minimal seismic parameters are provided in the following tables: Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Fi1e:e:\wp9 \5700\5734a. pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 6 1997 /2001 UBC /CBC CHAPTER 16 SEISMIC PARAMETERS Seismic Zone (per Figure 16-2 *) 4 Seismic Zone Factor (per Table 16 -1 *) 0.40 Soil Profile Type (per Table 16 -J *) So Seismic Coefficient C. (per Table 16-0 *) 0.44N, Seismic Coefficient C, (per Table 16-R *) 0.64N, Near Source Factor N. (per Table 16-S *) 1.0 Near Source Factor N, (per Table 16 -T *) 1.0 Distance to Seismic Source (Rose Canyon) 5.8 mi (9.3 km) Seismic Source Type (per Table 16-U *) B Upper Bound Earthquake (Rose Canyon fault) M„ 6.9 PHSA 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 ears 0.17 * Fi ure and Table references from Chapter 16 of the UBC /CBC QCBO, 1997/2001 . The table below summarizes the site - specific design criteria obtained from the 2007 CBC (based on the International Building Code [IBC], International Code Council, Inc. [ICCI], 2006), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613, Earthquake Loads, and may supercede the information presented previously. We used the computer program Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response Spectra, provided by the U.S.G.S. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 seconds. IBC DESIGN PARAMETERS PARAMETER VALUE IBC -06 REFERENCE Site Class D Table 1613.5.2 Spectral Response - (0.2 sec), Ss 1.18g Figure 1613.5(3) Spectral Response - (1 sec), S, 0.44g Figure 1613.5(4) Site Coefficient, F. 1.0 Table 1613.5.3(1) Site Coefficient, F, 1.6 Table 1613.5.3(2) Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration (0.2 sec), S., 1.2g Section 1613.5.3 (Eqn 16 -37) Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SM, 0.69g Section 1613.5.3 (Eqn 16 -38) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (0.2 sec), S,,, 0.81g Section 1613.5.4 (Eqn 16 -39) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration 1 sec), S 0.46g Section 1613.5.4 E n 16-40 Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain File: e:1wp9G570M5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 7 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 included in the code and regular maintenance and repair following significant seismic events (i.e., ±M,•4.5) will 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 completely mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, and typical site development procedures: • Liquefaction • Tsunami • Dynamic Settlement • Surface Fault Rupture • Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture • Seiche It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of a maximum probable or upper bound earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass than from those induced by the hazards considered above. This potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity. GROUNDWATER In general, and based upon the available data to date, regional groundwater is not expected to be a factor in development of the site. However, due to the nature of the site materials, seepage may be encountered throughout the site, along with seasonal perched water within any drainage areas. Seepage may also be encountered in "daylighted" bedding or joint systems within the bedrock, or within fill lifts. Thus, subdrain systems are recommended within shallow groundwater areas. In addition, subdrainage systems for the control of localized groundwater seepage should be anticipated, should such conditions develop, during or after grading. Should such conditions develop, this office should be contacted for mitigative recommendations. Regional groundwater is estimated to be about 100 feet deep. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Fi1e:eAwp91570015734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 8 LABORATORY TESTING General Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the onsite earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. The test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The soil classifications are shown on the Boring Logs in Appendix B. Expansion Potential Expansion Index (E.I.) testing was performed on a representative soil sample, in general accordance with ASTM D 4829. The test results are presented below. LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL B -1 @ 0 -5' 18 Very Low It should be noted that the onsite soils expansion potential will likely range from very low to high, with most soils near finish grade in the very low to medium range, subsequent to grading. Direct Shear Test Shear testing was performed on a relatively 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 results of shear testing are presented in the following table and Appendix D. LOCATION AND DEPTH (FEET) PRIMARY RESIDUAL COHESION FRICTION ANGLE COHESION FRICTION ANGLE PS DEGREES PS DEGREES B -1 @ 10 1 261 34 236 33 Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain A1e:e:1wp915 70 015 7 3 4a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 9 Corrosion /Sulfate Testing GSI conducted sampling of onsite materials for soil corrosivity on the subject project. Laboratory test results were completed by M.J. Schiff & Associates (consulting corrosion engineers). The testing included evaluation of pH, soluble sulfates, and saturated resistivity. Test results indicate that the soil presents a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete, in accordance with Section 1904.3 of the CBC (CBSC, 2007); and further results indicate the soils are corrosive to ferrous metals, etc., based on saturated resistivity. Based on our review of Section 1904.3 (CBC [CBSC, 2007)), and ACI 318 Sections 4.3 and 4.4, site soils are considered to be essentially neutral with regard to acidity/alkalinity. A corrosion specialist should be consulted for the appropriate mitigation recommendations, as needed. Test results are presented in Appendix D. Additional testing of site materials is recommended when proposed grading is complete to verify the findings. R -value A representative sample was collected for R -value testing. The R -value was tested and evaluated in general accordance with California Materials Method No. 301. The test result is presented in Appendix D. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, and our engineering and geologic analyses, it is our opinion that the project site appears suited for the proposed residential development from a soils engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the proposed development are: • Depth to competent bearing material • Potential for perched groundwater prior and during excavation /grading, and after development. • Expansion and corrosion potential of site soils over the life of the project. • Regional seismic activity. All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in the UBC /CBC (ICBO, 1997; CBSC, 2007), the City or County, and Appendix E (this report), except where specifically superceded in the text of this report. When code references are not equivalent, the more stringent code should be followed. During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representatives) of GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and if warranted, modified and /or additional recommendations will be offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Re:e: \wp9 \5700 \5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 10 Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. GSI does not consult in the area of safety engineering. The contractor is responsible for the safety of construction workers onsite. The recommendations presented below should be incorporated in the planning, budgetary, design, grading, and construction considerations. General 1. Soils engineering and compaction testing services should be provided during grading operations to assist the contractor in removing unsuitable soils and in his effort to compact the fill. 2. Geologic observations should be performed during grading to observe and /or further evaluate geologic conditions. Although unlikely, if adverse geologic structures are encountered during grading operations, supplemental recommendations and earthwork may be warranted. 3. On a preliminary basis, the existing fill and all topsoil, and weathered bedrock (where encountered) should be removed, moisture - conditioned or dried back to the soil's optimum moisture content, and be recompacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). At this time we anticipate excavations for remedial earthwork to be on the order of 3 to 4 feet below the existing grade. Localized deeper removals cannot be precluded, and should be anticipated. 4. An expansion /construction joint should be placed between any existing and proposed improvements, to permit relative movement (including superstructure). In addition, a cut -off wall should also be considered by the project architect and /or structural engineer to mitigate the potential of subsurface moister /water vapor transmission from migrating below existing slabs to proposed new slabs. This cut -off wall should maintain a minimum width of 6 inches and a minimum depth of 12 inches, and placed at the connection for the existing foundation and the proposed new foundation. It may be constructed as part of the slab or footing, in accordance with the structural engineer /architect and /or foundation designer. 5. In general, and based upon the available data to date, regional groundwater is not expected to be a major factor in the development of the site. However, due to the nature of the site materials, seepage may be encountered throughout the site along with seasonal perched water within existing drainage areas, and also may be encountered in "daylighted" bedding, joints, and /or fractures or discontinuities within the bedrock, or between fill lifts. Subdrainage systems for the control of localized perched groundwater seepage should be anticipated, both during and after grading. The potential for perched water and /or seepage to occur after development should be disclosed to all interested and /or affected parties. Hank Kurtz W.O. 5734 -A -SC 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain August 12, 2008 M1e:e: \wp9\5700 \5734a.pge Page 11 GeoSoils, Inc. 6. Preliminary laboratory testing of some site soils indicate an E.I. of 18. This corresponds to a very low expansion potential; however, soils with a very low to high expansion potential likely exist onsite. Conventional foundations (E.I. <20) or post- tension foundations may be used. Final foundation design would be further evaluated at the completion of grading. Should finish grade soils exhibit an E.I. greater that 20 or a plasticity index (P.I.) of 15, or greater, foundations will require construction in accordance with the 2007 CBC, and as indicated herein. This is considered likely, subsequent to grading. 7. A construction /expansion joint should be provided between any new and existing structure to permit relative movement up to about 1/z inch between similar elements, in accordance with the recommendations of the project architect and /or structural engineer. a. GSI conducted sampling of onsite materials for soil corrosivity on the subject project. The testing included evaluation of pH, soluble sulfates, and saturated resistivity. Test results indicate that the soil presents a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete; the soils are corrosive to ferrous metals, etc., based on saturated resistivity; and, site soils are considered to be neutral with regards to acidity/alkalinity. A corrosion specialist should be consulted for the appropriate mitigation recommendations, as needed. Additional testing of site materials is recommended when proposed grading is complete to verify findings. 9. 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. However, due to the nature of the site materials, seepage and /or perched groundwater conditions may develop throughout the site along boundaries of contrasting permeabilities (i.e., fill /formation contacts) or due to excess irrigation, poor surface drainage, and /or damaged utilities. Perched water will likely occur after development, which warrants more onerous concrete slab design and construction. 10. Due to the non - cohesive nature of some of the onsite materials, some caving and sloughing may be anticipated to be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Therefore, current local and state/federal safety ordinances for subsurface trenching should be enforced. 11. The seismicity- acceleration values provided herein should be considered during the design of the proposed development. 12. General Earthwork, Grading Guidelines, and Preliminary Criteria are provided atthe end of this report as Appendix E. Specific recommendations are provided below. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain File: eAwp9\5 7 0 015 73 4a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 12 Demolition /Grubbing 1. Any existing surficial /subsurface structures, trash, broken concrete, roots, major vegetation, etc., and any miscellaneous debris should be removed from the areas of proposed grading. 2. The project geotechnical consultant should be notified of any previous foundation, irrigation lines, cesspools, septic tanks, leach fields, or other subsurface structures that are uncovered during the recommended removals, so that appropriate remedial recommendations can be provided. 3. If not removed by planned excavation, cavities or loose soils (including all previous exploratory borings) remaining after demolition and site clearance should be cleaned out, observed by the geotechnical consultant, processed, and replaced with fill that has been moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). Treatment of Existing Ground 1. Topsoil /colluvium, undocumented artificial fill, and any near - surface weathered bedrock (Delmar Formation) should be removed to competent dense bedrock, as defined herein (i.e., removal bottoms should be greater than, or equal to, 85 percent saturation, and /or greater than, or equal to, 105 pcf dry density for in -place native materials), which has been demonstrated as acceptable mitigation in the past for fills over native bedrock deposits. For preliminary planning purposes, remedial removal depths are estimated to be approximately 3 to 4 feet across a majority of the site, with the possibility of localized deeper removals due to near - surface weathered bedrock, buried swales, etc. Variations from these thicknesses should be anticipated. Actual depths of removals will be evaluated in the field during grading by the geotechnical consultant. Removals should be completed below a 1:1 projection from the bottom outside edge of any proposed settlement- sensitive improvement and/or limits of fill. Recommended removals could potentially undermine the existing foundation. Therefore, shoring or underpinning, or perhaps alternating slot excavations appear necessary where removals are performed adjacent to the existing residence. The alternating slot excavations are inherently more risky. Should the Client choose this latter method, the potential liability for any distress caused by the Client's decision, should be evaluated, based on a cost v. benefit/risk analysis. 2. Subsequent to the above removals, the upper ±6 inches of the exposed bedrock should be scarified, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain File: a Awp9157W5734a. pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 13 3. The near - surface topsoil /colluvium, undocumented artificial fill, and weathered bedrock (Delmar Formation) may be reused as compacted fill provided that major concentrations of vegetation, roots, and miscellaneous debris are removed priorto, or during fill placement. 4. Localized deeper removals may be necessary due to buried drainage channel meanders, near - surface weathered bedrock, and /or dry porous materials. The project geotechnical consultant/geologist should observe and test all removal areas during the grading. 5. If encountered, medium or highly expansive soils of a limited volume or extent, should be separated from the building area of the site and either be blended and reused, or completely removed from the site. Placement of soils with an E.I. >20 and a P.I. >15 within the fill will likely result in more onerous foundation design and/or post- tension slabs. Fill Placement 1. Fill materials should be cleaned of major vegetation and debris prior to placement. 2. Fill materials should be brought to at least optimum moisture, placed in thin 6- to 8 -inch lifts and mechanically compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). 3. As per the UBC /CBC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001; CBSC, 2007), materials greater than 12 inches in diameter, should not be placed within 10 feet of finish grade. 4. Select grading may be utilized to reduce the effects of expansive soils, if encountered. Any proposed import materials should be observed and evaluated for compatibility with onsite soils by the geotechnical consultant priorto importation and placement on the site. Foundation designs may need to be revised if import materials have a greater expansion /sulfate (corrosion) values than the onsite materials. Transition Areas /Overexcavation Proposed grading of the building pads may create a cut /fill transition in the building pad area where bedrock is juxtaposed against proposed fill. In such areas, the bedrock should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet, or at least to'A the depth of the maximum fill depth on the pad, whichever is greater. Overexcavation should be completed for a minimum lateral distance of 5 feet outside the extreme foundation elements, or a 1:1 projection from the bottom of the footing, whichever is greater, and sloped to drain. Should overexcavation in street areas be performed, such overexcavation should proceed until a depth of at least 1 foot below the lowest utility invert is achieved. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain File: e:1wp9G570045734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 14 Subdrains In general, and based upon the available data to date, regional groundwater is not anticipated to be a factor in development of the site. However, due to the nature of the site materials, seepage may be encountered throughout the site, along with seasonal perched water within any drainage areas. Seepage may also be encountered in "daylighted" bedding or joint systems within the bedrock, or between fill lifts. Thus, subdrain systems are recommended within shallow groundwater areas. In addition, subdrainage systems for the control of localized groundwater seepage should be anticipated, should such conditions develop during or after grading. Should such conditions develop, this office should be contacted for mitigative recommendations. Local seepage along the contact between the bedrock and overburden materials, or along bedding or jointing patterns of the bedrock, will likely require a subdrain system. Where removals are below the subdrain flowline, the removal materials may be reused as compacted fill provided they are granular, and at a moisture content of at least 2 percent over optimum moisture content (or 1.2 times optimum moisture content, whichever is greater). Erosion Control Onsite earth materials, including natural ground, have a moderate to severe erosion potential. Use of hay bales, silt fences, and /or sandbags should be considered, as appropriate. Temporary grades should be constructed to drain at 1 to 2 percent to a suitable temporary or permanent outlet. Evaluation of cuts during grading will be necessary in order to identify any areas of loose or non - cohesive materials. Should any significant zones be encountered during earthwork construction, remedial grading may be recommended; however, no remedial measures are anticipated at this time. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS General The foundation design and construction recommendations are based on laboratory testing and engineering analysis of onsite earth materials. Recommendations for conventional and post- tension foundation systems are provided in the following sections, followed by post- tension criteria. Conventional foundations may be utilized for soils with an E.I. of less than 50 (i.e., very low to low classification) and a P.I. <15, or less. The foundation systems may be used to support the proposed structures, provided they are founded entirely in competent bearing materials. The proposed foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with the guidelines contained in the CBC and herein. Subsequent to any necessary grading, site soils are anticipated to generally range from very low to medium in expansion potential, although local areas of highly expansive soils Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Fle: e: \wp9 \5700\5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 15 may be present. Medium to highly expansive soils will require the use of post- tension foundations, as discussed further, herein. For preliminary design purposes, a P.I. of 28 may be assumed for medium expansive soils, and a P.I. of 44 may be assumed for highly expansive soils. Conventional Foundation Design 1. Conventional spread and continuous footings may be used to supportthe proposed residential structures provided they are founded entirely in properly compacted fill. 2. Analyses indicate that an allowable bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of footings which maintain a minimum width of 12 inches (continuous) and 24 inches square (isolated), and a minimum depth of at least 12 inches into the compacted fill. Isolated, square footings should extend a minimum of 24 inches into the compacted fill (excluding the top 6 -inch landscape zone). The bearing value may be increased by one -third for seismic or other temporary loads. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum of 2,500 psf. No increase in bearing value for increased footing width is recommended. Foundations for soils with an E.I. greater than 20 should be designed in accordance with the 2007 CBC. 3. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.35 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load. 4. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pcf, with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf. 5. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one - third. 6. The above criteria assumes that hydrostatic pressure is not allowed to build up behind retaining walls. Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of pipe and gravel wrapped in filter fabric with adequate exit pipes, weep holes, or omission of mortar from the lower course head joints. 7. All footings, including rigid block walls, should maintain a minimum 10 -foot horizontal distance between the base of the footing and any adjacent descending slope, and minimally comply with the guidelines depicted on Figure No. 18 -1 -1 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997), and /or code. 8. 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. Hank Kurd W.O. 5734 -A -SC 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain August 12, 2008 F1e:eAwp9G570015734a.pge Page 16 GeoSoils, Inc. 9. Expansion /construction joints for differential movement between proposed and existing improvements should be provided by the structural engineer /architect. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum criteria from a soils engineering standpoint. Onsite soils will likely vary from very low to high (E.I. 0 to 130). Final foundation design will be based upon which earth material is exposed at finished grades during or shortly after site grading. Thus, E.I. and corrosion testing should be performed at the conclusion of grading. Accordingly, the following foundation construction recommendations are for soils in the top 3 feet of finish grade which will have a very low to high expansion potential, for planning and design considerations. Recommendations by the project's design - structural engineer or architect, which may exceed the soils engineer's recommendations, should take precedence over the following minimum requirements. Final foundation design will be provided based on the expansion potential of the near - surface soils encountered during grading. Expansion Classification - Very Low to Low (E.I. 0 to 50) and P.I. s15 1. Conventional continuous footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches and 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface for one- and two -story floor loads, respectively. Interior footings may be founded at a depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface. Footings for one- and two -story floor loads should have a minimum width of 12 inches and 15 inches, respectively. All footings should have at minimum one No. 4 reinforcing bar placed at the top and one No. 4 reinforcing bar placed at the bottom of the footing. Isolated interior or exterior column footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface, and should be minimally connected in one direction (two directions if the E.I. is >20). 2. A grade beam, reinforced as above, and at least 12 inches square, should be provided across any garage entrances. The base of the reinforced grade beam should be at the same elevation as the adjoining footings. 3. Concrete slabs in residential should be a minimum of 4 inches thick, and underlain with a 10 -mil vapor retarder with all laps sealed, per code. This membrane should be placed near the midpoint of a minimum 4 -inch layer of sand. Please refer to the section on "Soil Moisture Considerations" regarding upgrades to slab thicknesses and slab underlayment. Hank Kurtz W.O. 5734 -A -SC 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain August 12, 2008 Re:e:lwp9\5700\5734a.pge Page 17 GeoSoils, Inc. 4. Concrete slabs should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcement bars placed on 18 -inch centers, in two horizontally perpendicular directions (i.e., long axis and short axis). All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper mid -slab height positioning during placement of the concrete. "Hooking" of reinforcement is not an acceptable method of positioning. 5. Presaturation is not necessary for these soil conditions; however, the moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to or greater than optimum moisture to a depth of 12 inches below the adjacent ground grade in the slab areas, and evaluated by this office within 72 hours of the vapor retarder placement. 6. Soils generated from footing excavations to be used onsite should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction 90 percent of the laboratory standard, whether it is to be placed inside the foundation perimeter or in the yard /right -of -way areas. This material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural areas and toward the street. POST - TENSIONED SLAB SYSTEMS Post - tension foundations are specifically recommended for areas where medium expansive soils, or higher, are exposed near finish grade, and may be necessary should the P.I. be more than 15. The recommendations presented below should be followed in addition to those contained in the previous sections, as appropriate. The information and recommendations presented below in this section are not meant to supercede design by a registered structural engineer or civil engineer familiar with post- tensioned slab design. Post - tensioned slabs should be designed using sound engineering practice and be in accordance with local and /or national code requirements. Upon request, GSI can provide additional data/consultation regarding soil parameters as related to post- tensioned slab design. From a soil expansion /shrinkage standpoint, a common contributing factor to distress of structures using post- tensioned slabs is fluctuation of moisture in soils underlying the perimeter of the slab, compared to the center, causing a "dishing" or "arching" of the slabs. To mitigate this possibility, a combination of soil presaturation and construction of a perimeter cut off wall should be employed. Perimeter cut -off walls should be a minimum of 18 inches deep for medium expansive soils, and 24 inches deep for highly expansive soils. The cut -off walls may be integrated into the slab design or independent of the slab. The cutoff walls should be a minimum of 6 inches thick. Slab underlayment for medium expansive soils should consist of 4 inches of washed sand with a 10 -mil vapor retarder placed mid -depth within the sand. For highly expansive soils, slab underlayment should consist of 2 inches of clean washed sand, underlain by the 10 -mil vapor retarder, which should be in -turn underlain by 4 inches of clean, crushed maximum diameter 3/4 -inch rock (<5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve), 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Fi1e:e: \wp9 \5700 \5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 18 placed on properly compacted subgrade soils. Please refer to the section on "Soil Moisture Considerations," regarding upgrades to the slab thickness and underlayment. Specific soil presaturation is required if medium to highly expansive soils are exposed at finish grade. The moisture content of the slab subgrade soils should be equal to, or greater than, 120 percent of the soil's optimum moisture content to a depth of 24 inches for medium expansive soils, and 130 percent for highly expansive soils. For very low to low expansive soils, the moisture content of the subgrade soils should be at optimum moisture content, or greater. Post - Tensioning Institute Method Post - tensioned slabs should have sufficient stiffness to resist excessive bending due to non - uniform swell and shrinkage of subgrade soils. The differential movement can occur at the corner, edge, or center of slab. The potential for differential uplift can be evaluated using the CBC's referenced documents, and also based on design specifications of the PTI. The following table presents suggested minimum coefficients to be used in the PTI design method. Thornthwaite Moisture Index -20 inches /year Correction Factor for Irrigation 20 inches /year Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7 feet Constant Soil Suction 3.6 The coefficients are considered minimums and may not be adequate to represent worst case conditions such as over - irrigation, adverse drainage, and /or improper landscaping and maintenance. The above parameters are applicable provided positive drainage is maintained away from structures, for a distance of at least 3 feet. Therefore, it is important that information regarding drainage, site maintenance, settlements, and effects of expansive soils be passed on to future owners and interested /affected parties. Based on the above parameters, design values were obtained from the CBC's referenced documents and are presented in the table below. These values may not be appropriate to account for possible differential settlement of the slab due to other factors (i.e., fill settlement). If a stiffer slab is desired, higher values of ym may be warranted. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain File:e:\wp9 \5700 \5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 19 POST - TENSION FOUNDATIONS EXPANSION VERY LOWp� TO MEDIUM HIGHLY POTENTIAL LOW EXPANSIVE EXPANSIVE EXPANSIVE (E-1. = 0-50 E I. = 51 -90 E.I. =91 -130 em center lift* 9.0 feet 8.7 feet 8.5 feet em edge lift* 5.2 feet 4.5 feet 4.0 feet Ym center lift* 0.28 inches 0.49 inches 0.66 inches Ym edge lift* 0.70 inch 1.27 inch 1.70 inches Bearing Value 1'1 1000 psf 1000 psf 1000 psf Lateral Pressure 250 psf 250 psf 250 psf Subgrade Modulus (k) 100 pci /inch 85 pciCnch 70 pci /inch Perimeter Footing Embedment al 12 inches 18 inches 24 inches Internal bearing values within the perimeter of the post- tension slab may be increased to 1,500 psf for a minimum embedment of 12 inches, then by 20 percent for each additional foot of embedment to a maximum of 2,500 psf. 0 As measured below the lowest adjacent compacted subgrade surface- (3) Foundations for very low expansive soil conditions may use the California Method (spanability method). Note: The use of open bottomed raised planters adjacent to foundations will require more onerous design parameters- * All parameters provided are based on the 2007 edition of the California Building Code. CUT -OFF WALL A cut -off wall should also be considered by the project architect and /or structural engineer to mitigate the potential of subsurface moister /water vapor transmission from migrating below existing slabs to proposed new slabs. This cut -off wall should maintain a minimum width of 6 inches and a minimum depth of 12 inches, and placed at the connection for the existing foundation and the proposed new foundation. It may be incorporated into foundation design and /or the proposed footings or slab, in accordance with the structural engineer /slab designers recommendations. SOIL MOISTURE CONSIDERATIONS GSI has evaluated the potential for vapor or water transmission through the proposed slabs, in light of typical floor coverings and improvements. Please note that generally 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 (owner complaints and repairs /replacement), along with disclosure to interested /affected parties. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain File: e:1wp91570055734a. pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 20 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: • Concrete slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick. • Concrete slab underlayment should consist of a 10 -mil to 15 -mil vapor retarder, or equivalent, with all laps sealed per the UBC /CBC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001; CBSC, 2007) and the manufacturer's recommendation. The vapor retarder should comply with the ASTM E 1745 - Class A or B criteria, and be installed in accordance with ACI 302.1 R -04. • The 10- to 15 -mil vapor retarder (ASTM E 1745 - Class A or B) shall be installed per the recommendations of the manufacturer, including all penetrations (i.e., pipe, ducting, rebar, etc.). • The vapor retarder may be placed on 4 inches of clean, crushed maximum diameter 3/4 -inch rock (5 percent, or less, passing the 200 - sieve), which is placed directly on properly compacted subgrade soils with a very low to low expansion potential (i.e., E.I. <50). The vapor retarder should be overlain by a 2 -inch thick layer of washed sand (S.E. >30). • Concrete should have a maximum water /cement ratio of 0.50. This does not supercede Table 19 -A-4 of the UBC /CBC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001; CBSC, 2007) 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. • 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. • The owner(s) 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. • 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. 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain File: e:1wp9\5700\5734a. pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 21 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. A technical representative of the flooring contractor should review the slab and moisture retarder plans and provide comment prior to the construction of the foundations or improvements. The vapor retarder contractor should have representatives onsite during the initial installation. FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT On a preliminary basis, foundation systems should be designed to minimally accommodate a worst -case differential settlement of up to 1 inch in a 40 -foot span. PRELIMINARY 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 back ill any retaining walls. The type of backfill (i.e., select or native), should be specified by the wall designer, and clearly shown on the plans. Building walls, below grade, should be water - proofed. The foundation system for the proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this and preceding sections of this report, as appropriate. Footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below adjacent grade (excluding landscape layer, 6 inches) and should be 24 inches in width. If retaining walls are proposed in planted areas, they should be deepened to 24 inches (excluding the top 6 inches). There should be no increase in bearing for footing width. Section 2 and Section 5 presented on the preliminary grading plan for the site by Pasco Engineering (2008,) indicates a drain on the upper portions of the retaining walls. An additional 62.4 pcf should be added to the equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) provided herein for any undrained portions of these retaining walls. 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 (21-1) laterally from the corner. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain File: e:\wp9\5700`5734a. pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 22 Cantilevered Walls The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet high. Design parameters for walls less than 3 feet in height may be superceded by City and /or County standard design. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions due to traffic, structures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are finalized, the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon request. Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of gravel wrapped in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls that are 2 feet or greater in height. Details 1, 2, and 3, present the back drainage options discussed below. Backdrains should consist of a 4 -inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or % -inch to 11/2-inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). For low expansive backfll, the filter material should extend a minimum of 1 horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and upward at least 1 foot. For native backfill that has up to an E.I. of 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 backfill for retaining walls. For more onerous expansive situations, backfill and drainage behind the Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Fde:e:\wp945700\5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 23 ` EQUIVALENT SURFACE SLOPE OF EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F. RETAINED MATERIAL FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F. (NATIVE PRE - APPROVED HORIZONTALMERTICAL SELECT BACKFILL ** BACKFILL * ** Level* 38 1 45 1 3 to 1 55 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. ** E.I. <20, P.I. <15, SE >30, <10% passing No. 200 Sieve. * * *E.I. <50, P.I. <15, SE>25, <15% passing No. 200 Sieve. Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of gravel wrapped in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls that are 2 feet or greater in height. Details 1, 2, and 3, present the back drainage options discussed below. Backdrains should consist of a 4 -inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or % -inch to 11/2-inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). For low expansive backfll, the filter material should extend a minimum of 1 horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and upward at least 1 foot. For native backfill that has up to an E.I. of 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 backfill for retaining walls. For more onerous expansive situations, backfill and drainage behind the Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Fde:e:\wp945700\5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 23 Structural footing or settlement- sensitive improvement Provide surface drainage via an (1) Waterproofing engineered V -ditch (see civil plans membrane for details) CMU or reinforced - concrete wall 212 hches Proposed grade sloped to drain per precise civil drawings (5) Weep hole Footing and wall design by others (1) Waterproofing membrane. 21 (h v) slope (2) Gravel Clean, crushed, 3/4 to 1%2 inch. (3) Filter fabric Mirafi 14ON or approved equivalent. 11 WO or flatter backcut to be properly benched (6) Footing (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. I RETAINING WALL DETAIL — ALTERNATIVE A Detail 1 .a Footing and wall p P y 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 14ON 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. J.i I10nc.l RETAINING WALL DETAIL — ALTERNATIVE B I Detail 2 I Structural footing or (1) Waterproofing settlement- sensitive improvement membrane (optional) — - Provide surface drainage via engineered V -ditch (see civil plan details) CMU or 21 NO slope reinforced - concrete wall = 64e:_61 fei4 (5) Weep hole Pro Proposed grade P 9 , (aY -Flft� 'fa i / Native backfill sloped to drain per precise civil drawings 11 (h v) or flatter /\ ` .. backcut to be '- �� ro erl benched Footing and wall p P y 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 14ON 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. J.i I10nc.l RETAINING WALL DETAIL — ALTERNATIVE B I Detail 2 I (1) Waterproofing Structural footing or membrane settlement- sensitive improvement Provide surface drainage CMU or 2.1 (hv) slope reinforced - concrete wall :..51ope.or level 1, ... "n z12 riches \� (5) Weep hole :: H Proposed grade / (8) Native backfill sloped to drain /\ (6) Clean per precise civil sand backfill drawings 11 (h v) or flatter � backcut to be (3) Filter fabric properly benched Footing and wall (2) Gravel design by others - - � (4) Pipe (7) Footing (1) Waterproofing membrane Liquid boot or approved masticequivalent. (2) Gravel Clean, crushed, 3/4 to b2 inch. (3) Filter fabric Mirafi 14ON or approved equivalent. (4) Pipe= 4- inch - diameter perforated PVC, Schedule 40, or approved alternative with minimum of i 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 densdied 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. (S) 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. Bnc. RETAINING WALL DETAIL — ALTERNATIVE C Detail 3 retaining wall should conform with Detail (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). 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. GUIDELINES FOR SEGMENTED WALL CONSTRUCTION It is our understanding that segmented walls will be utilized on the project. 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. Slope and structural setbacks from the heel of walls will likely 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, the building setback should be up at a 1:1 (h:v) projection from the heel of the segmented wall foundation, and should be shown on the precise grading plans by the Hank Kurtz W.O. 5734 -A -SC 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain August 12, 2008 Fi1e:e: \wp9 \5700\5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Page 27 design civil engineer. Building setback mitigation may be accomplished by deepening any adjoining foundations through this zone of projection, provided this does not disturb any geofabric. In addition to the previous 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 bythe manufacturer or governing agency, 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. Foundation 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 bythe governing agency, and /or geotechnical engineer should be followed. 5. Walls should be founded on compacted fill, bedrock, or other suitable materials, as described in our referenced reports. 6. The recommended equivalent fluid pressure for design of the segmented walls should be 42 pcf for level backfill and 60 pcf for 2:1 backfill, assuming a very low expansive granular backfill material. These equivalent fluid pressures are based solely on static soil conditions and do not include seismic, footing surcharge, or traffic loading which will need to be included, as necessary. 7. A bearing value of 1,500 psf may be utilized for a 1 foot deep footing. A friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used for a concrete to soil contact. A friction angle of 30 degrees and a soil unit weight of 120 to 128 pcf may be utilized for the Hank Kurtz W.O. 5734 -A -SC 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain August 12, 2008 Fi1e:e:\wp9 \5700 \5734a.pge Page 28 GeoSoils, Inc. compacted fill, dense competent bedrock, as verified by observation and /or testing. In addition, a cohesion value of 0 psf, for reinforced fill, 100 psf for retained fill, and 100 psf for foundation fill may be utilized. Soils with a P.I. of 10 or less should be used as backfill, or wall design will become onerous. 8. Prior to placement of the segmented members, the base excavation should be observed by representatives of this firm. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. Backfill within and immediately behind the walls should also be as indicated on the precise grading plans (see Appendix A)_ 2. Backfill materials should be free draining, and free from organic materials, with a maximum of 10 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve, and a P.I. <10. 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. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Fi1e:e: \wp9 \5700 \5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 29 5. Adequate space should be provided both behind and in front of the wall so that sufficient compaction can be obtained for all backfill. 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 wall with a full height gravel drain, separated from the native backfill materials by Mirafi 140 or equivalent. In areas where native bedrock are retained, a secondary backdrain system, as indicated previously, should also be placed at the rear of the backcut. 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. The trenches for the outlets may be filled with either compacted material or gravel. If gravel is used, a concrete cut -off wall should be provided at the soil /gravel interface. Seepage should be anticipated below all segmented walls, and this should be disclosed to the owner and any interested /affected parties. 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 be built behind a 1:1 (h:v) projection above the heel of the foundation for the segmented wall. In addition, all 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 wall. 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. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain A1e:e:\wp9G57DD\5734a. pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 30 Review of Gridwalls A qualified geotechnical consultant should review all proposed gridwalls for global stability. Gridwalls must meet slope stability factors -of -safety of 1.5 and 1.1 for static and seismic, respectively. Criteria for use (limitations of land use) within graded areas should be provided by the wall designer and reviewed by both the builder and the geotechnical consultant. These limitations should be disclosed to all owners, and any interested /affected parties. DRIVEWAY FLATWORK. AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS Some of the soil materials on site may be expansive. The effects of expansive soils are cumulative, and typically occur over the lifetime of any improvements. On relatively level areas, when the soils are allowed to dry, the dessication and swelling process tends to cause heaving and distress to flatwork and other improvements. The resulting potential for distress to improvements may be reduced, but not totally eliminated. To that end, it is recommended that the developer should notify any homeowners or homeowners association of this long -term potential for distress. To reduce the likelihood of distress, the following recommendations are presented for all exterior flatwork: 1. The subgrade area for concrete slabs should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and then be presoaked to 2 to 3 percentage points above (or 125 percent of) the soils' optimum moisture content, to a depth of 18 inches below subgrade elevation. If very low expansive soils are present in the top 7 feet, 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 Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Fle: e: \wp9 \5700 \5734a. pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SG August 12, 2008 Page 31 control and /or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, slabs should be reinforced at mid - height with a minimum of No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center, in each direction. If subgrade soils within the top 7 feet from finish grade are very low expansive soils (i.e., E.I. <20), then 6x6- W1AxW1.4 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/e 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. to- Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions. 11. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Finish grade on the lots should provide a minimum of 1 to 2 percent fall to the street, as indicated herein. It should be kept in mind that drainage reversals could occur, including post- construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not periodically maintained by the property owner. 12. Air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for Hank Kurtz W.O. 5734 -A -SC 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain August 12, 2008 Fi1e:e: \wp9 \5700 \5734a.pge Page 32 GeoSoils, Inc. plumbing and electrical lines. A/C waste water lines should be drained to a suitable non - erosive outlet. 13. Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finishing and curing practices are not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the Portland Cement Association Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate rate of curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of soils, and fertilizers used on site. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN Pavement sections presented are based on the R -value data (to be verified by specific R -value testing at completion of grading) from a representative sample taken from the project area, the anticipated design classification, and the minimum requirements of the City. For planning purposes, pavement sections consisting of asphaltic concrete over base are provided. Anticipated asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement sections are presented on the following table. The recommended pavement sections provided above are meant as minimums. If thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair could be expected. If the ADT (average daily traffic) beyond that intended, as reflected by the traffic index used for design, increased maintenance and repair could be required for the pavement section. Subgrade preparation and aggregate base preparation should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented below, and the minimum subgrade compaction (upper 12 inches) should be 90 percent, and Class 2 aggregate base compaction should be 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). If adverse conditions (i.e., saturated ground, etc.) are encountered during preparation of subgrade, special construction methods may need to be employed. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Rle: eAwp9G5700N5734a. pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 33 AGGREGATE TRAFFIC TRAFFIC SUBGRADE A.C. BASE AREA INDEX(') R -VALUE THICKNESS THICKNESS(2) Inches inches Parking Stalls 5.0 11 3.0 8.5 Private Entrances and Travel Lanes 5.5 11 4.0 8.5 Loading Area and Travel Lanes 6.0 11 4.0 10.0 (1) Traffic Index to be determined by project design civil engineer /traffic engineer. 2 Denotes Class 2 Aggregate Base R >78 SE >25). The recommended pavement sections provided above are meant as minimums. If thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair could be expected. If the ADT (average daily traffic) beyond that intended, as reflected by the traffic index used for design, increased maintenance and repair could be required for the pavement section. Subgrade preparation and aggregate base preparation should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented below, and the minimum subgrade compaction (upper 12 inches) should be 90 percent, and Class 2 aggregate base compaction should be 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). If adverse conditions (i.e., saturated ground, etc.) are encountered during preparation of subgrade, special construction methods may need to be employed. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Rle: eAwp9G5700N5734a. pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 33 In order to improve performance and to mitigate saturated subgrade near any planter areas and lawns, Mirafi HP 570 (or approved equivalent), should be considered by the project civil engineer, contractor, and owner, between the base and the subgrade adjoining such areas. Thickened edges (18 inches) are recommended for flatwork adjoining such areas. For refuse bins, trash, and loading areas, concrete with a minimum thickness of 7' /z inches, reinforced with No. 3 rebar, placed at 12- inches on- center, each way, at slab mid - height, and in accordance with the minimum widths indicated in City guidelines, may be utilized. These recommendations should be considered preliminary. Further R -value testing and pavement design analysis should be performed upon completion of grading for the site. PAVEMENT GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS General All section changes should be properly transitioned. If adverse conditions are encountered during the preparation of subgrade materials, special construction methods may need to be employed. Subgrade Within street areas, all surficial deposits of loose soil material should be removed and recompacted as recommended. After the loose soils are removed, the bottom is to be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to 95 percent of maximum laboratory density, as determined by ASTM test method D 1557. Deleterious material, excessively wet or dry pockets, concentrated zones of oversized rock fragments, and any other unsuitable materials encountered during grading should be removed. The compacted fill material should then be brought to the elevation of the proposed subgrade for the pavement. The subgrade should be proof - rolled in order to ensure a uniformly firm and unyielding surface. All grading and fill placement should be observed by the project soil engineer and /or his representative. Base Compaction tests are required for the recommended base section. Minimum relative compaction required will be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM test method D 1557. Base aggregate should be in accordance to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" (green book) current edition. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Fle: eAwp9G570015734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 34 Paving Prime coat may be omitted if all of the following conditions are met: The asphalt pavement layer is placed within two weeks of completion of base and /or subbase course. 2. Traffic is not routed over completed base before paving. 3. Construction is completed during the dry season of May through October. 4. The base is free of dirt and debris. If construction is performed during the wet season of November through April, prime coat may be omitted if no rain occurs between completion of base course and paving and the time between completion of base and paving is reduced to three days, provided the base is free of dirt and debris. Where prime coat has been omitted and rain occurs, traffic is routed over base course, or paving is delayed, measures shall be taken to restore base course, subbase course, and subgrade to conditions that will meet specifications as directed bythe soil engineer. Best management construction practices should be followed at all times, especially during inclement weather. Drainage Positive drainage should be provided for all surface water to drain towards the area swale, curb and gutter, or to an approved drainage channel. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved areas, measures should be taken to minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement section. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Slope Deformation Compacted fill slopes designed using customary factors of safety for gross or surficial stability and constructed in general accordance with the design specifications should be expected to undergo some differential vertical heave or settlement in combination with differential lateral movement in the out -of -slope direction, after grading. This post- construction movement occurs in two forms: slope creep, and lateral fill extension (LFE). Slope creep is caused by alternate wetting and drying of the fill soils which results in slow downslope movement. This type of movement is expected to occur throughoutthe life of the slope, and is anticipated to potentially affect improvements or structures (i.e., Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain File: e:\wp9 \5700\5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August-12,2008 Page 35 separations and /or cracking), placed near the top -of- slope, up to a maximum distance of approximately 15 feet from the top -of- slope, depending on the slope height. This movement generally results in rotation and differential settlement of improvements located within the creep zone. LIFE occurs due to deep wetting from irrigation and rainfall on slopes comprised of expansive materials. Although some movement should be expected, long -term movement from this source may be minimized, but not eliminated, by placing the fill throughout the slope region, wet of the fill's optimum moisture content. It is generally not practical to attempt to eliminate the effects of either slope creep or LIFE. Suitable mitigative measuresto reduce the potential of lateral deformation typically include: setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the 1997 UBC and /or California Building Code), positive structural separations (i.e., joints) between improvements, and stiffening and deepening of foundations. All of these measures are recommended for design of structures and improvements. The ramifications of the above conditions, and recommendations for mitigation, should be provided to each homeowner and /or any homeowners association, should slopes higher than about 10 feet exist onsite. Slope Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over - watering should be avoided as it can adversely affect site improvements, and cause perched groundwater conditions. Graded slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Jute -type matting or other fibrous covers may aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing plants other than those recommended above will increase the potential for perched water, staining, mold, etc., to develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented. Irrigation of natural (ungraded) slope areas is generally not recommended. These recommendations regarding plant type, irrigation practices, and rodent control should be provided to each homeowner. Over - steepening of slopes should be avoided during building construction activities and landscaping. Drainage Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance of foundations, hardscape, and slopes. Surface drainage should be sufficient to prevent ponding of water anywhere on a lot, and especially near structures and tops of slopes. Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain File: e: \wp9\5700 \5734a.pge G¢oSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 36 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 one percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized to control roof drainage. Down spouts, or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. Erosion Control Cut and fill slopes will be subject to surficial erosion during and after grading. Onsite earth materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Consideration should be given to providing hay bales and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water, from a geotechnical viewpoint. Landscape Maintenance Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over - watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site improvements. We would recommend that any proposed open -bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed -bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter should be provided with a moisture barrier to prevent penetration of irrigation water into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (i.e., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain File: e: \wp9 \5700\5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 37 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 non - erosive devices that will carry the water away from the house. 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 Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork design and construction can be provided upon request. 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. 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. 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. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Rle: e: \wp9\5700 \5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 38 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 and parking areas and utility trench and retaining wall backfills. Footing Trench Excavation All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the observations is to verity that the excavations are 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 Considering the nature of the onsite soils, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and minimally conform to Cal -OSHA and local safety codes. 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 verify 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 verify the desired results. 3. All trench excavations should conform to Cal -OSHA and local safety codes. Hank Kurtz W.O. 5734 -A -SC 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain August 12, 2008 Fi1e:e: \wp%5700\5734a.pge Page 39 GeoSoils, Inc. 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. • After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. • Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaki ng/presatu ration of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea - gravel, etc.), or vapor 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 property owner improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools, walls, etc., are constructed. • 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. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain F le: e: \wp9 \5700\5734a.pge GeoSolils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 40 OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS /CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post- tension designer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of slabs, foundations and other elements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer /designer. Please note that the recommendations contained herein are not intended to preclude the transmission of water or vapor through the slab or foundation. The structural engineer /foundation and /or slab designer should provide recommendations to not allow water or vapor to enter into the structure so as to cause damage to another building component, or so as to limit the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application. The structural engineer /designer should analyze actual soil- structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design- specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer /designer should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the structural engineer /designer result in less critical details than are provided herein as minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer /designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and /or improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing, that the proposed foundations and /or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and /or expansion characteristics and other design criteria specified herein. PLAN REVIEW Final project plans 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 maybe warranted. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Fi1e:e:\wp9\5700 \5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 12, 2008 Page 41 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 is express or implied. 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. Hank Kurtz 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain File: e:\wp9 \5700 \5734a. pg e GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5734 -A -SC August 72, 2008 Page 42 APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A :f:1y:1:f:I' lei *9 ACI Committee 302, 2004, Guide for concrete floor and slab construction, ACI 302.1 R -04, dated June. ASTM E 1745 -97, 2004, Standard specification for water vapor retarders used in contact with soil or granular fill under concrete slabs. 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 June, 2003, Windows 95/98 version. 2000c, FRISKSP, A computer program for the probabilistic estimation of peak acceleration and uniform hazard spectra using 3 -D faults as earthquake sources; Windows 95/98 version. Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell K.W., and Niazi, M., 1999, Vertical ground motion: Characteristics, relationship with horizontal component, and building -code implications; Proceedings of the SMIP99 seminar on utilization of strong- motion data, September 15, Oakland, pp. 23 -49. 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, 2007, California building code. Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 1997, Attenuation relations for soft rock conditions; in EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from 3 -D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version, Blake, 2000a. 1994, Near - source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration from worldwide accelerograms recorded from 1957 to 1993; proceedings, Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. III, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp. 283 -292. International Code Council, Inc., 2006, International building code and international residential code for one- and two- family dwellings. International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, California building code, California code of regulations title 24, part 2, volume 1 and 2. GeoSoils, Inc. 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California, International conference of building officials, Volumes 1, 2, and 3: especially Chapter 16, Structural forces (earthquake provisions); Chapter 18, Foundations and retaining walls; and Chapter A -33, Excavation and grading. 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, M., 2005, Concrete floors and moisture, Engineering Bulletin 119, Portland Cement Association. 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. NEWCON90, Computer program for the determination of asphalt pavement sections, version: April 30, 1991. Pasco Engineering, 2008, Preliminary grading plan for - coastal development permit, Olivenhain Guest Home, 350 Cole Ranch Road, dated July 9. Romanoff, M., 1989, Underground corrosion, National Bureau of Standards Circular 579, Published by National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Houston, Texas, originally issued April 1, 1957. Sowers and Sowers, 1979, 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. State of California, Department of Transportation, 1987, Highway design manual of instructions, fourth edition. Hank Kurtz File: e:\wp9 \5700 \5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix A Page 2 APPENDIX B BORING LOGS 3' 3/4' #4 #10 #40 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve I Unified Soil UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY Sand Major Divisions trace Group Typical Names fly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction CRITERIA 5-10% S SPT Sample t Near optimum moisture content Classification Symbols coarse I (me I coarse medium fine Visible free water; below water table Op Pocket Penetrometer Well- graded gravels and gravel- p name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, :e grained particles, etc. sand mixtures, little or no fines Standard Penetration Test > m C 2 m 0 Poorly graded gravels and m o c W U Penetration m m m 15 o c7 GP gravel -sand mixtures, liffle or no Resistance N Relative m 0 E t z fines (blows/ft) Density @ m co Silty gravels gravel- sand -sift 0-4 Very loose m 0 X a 0 c m GM mixtures o m; 4-10 Loose a -m GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay I mixtures 10 -30 Medium 0 m Well-graded sands and gravelly of m 30-50 Dense 0 0 _ m c m SW sands, little or no fines O � ° o 'm m m > 50 Very dense Poorly graded sands and Lm- 1 1 ° O N m m a c .mt o SP gravelly sands, little or no fines m$ m^Z m p °at SM Silty sands, sand -sift mixtures m V m a L m Clayey sands, sand -clay E o. ut " it SC mixtures Inorganic silts, very fine sands, Standard Penetration Test ML rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands Q = m Unconfined E m Inorganic clays of low to Penetration Compressive 53 CL medium plasticity, gravelly clays, Resistance N Strength g sandy Gays, silty days, lean (blows/ft) Consistency (tons/fl) ° ubi clays o d y Organic silts and organic silty N z <2 Very Soft <0.25 m OL Gays of low plasticity, 2 -4 Soft 0.25 -.050 7 n m m Inorganic silts, micaceous or 4 - 8 Medium 0.50 - 1.00 ii E # MH diatomaceous fine sands or silts, m >. o elastic silts o U "E B -15 Stiff 1.00 -2.00 o v p G Inorganic clays of high plasticity, CH fat days 15-30 Very Stiff 2.00-4.00 9) m organic days of medium to high y m 0 >30 Hard >4.00 OH plasticity Peat, mucic, and other highly Highly Organic Sals PT organic soils 3' 3/4' #4 #10 #40 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve I Unified Soil MATERIAL QUANTITY Gravel Sand Silt or Clay trace Cobbles C Core Sample fly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5-10% S SPT Sample t Near optimum moisture content Classification 10-25% coarse I (me I coarse medium fine Visible free water; below water table MOISTURE CONDITIONS MATERIAL QUANTITY OTHER SYMBOLS Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch trace 0-5% C Core Sample fly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5-10% S SPT Sample t Near optimum moisture content little 10-25% B Bulk Sample Mast Above optimum moisture content some 25-45% V Groundwater Visible free water; below water table Op Pocket Penetrometer IC LOG FORMAT: p name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, :e grained particles, etc. IlSand (SP), fine to medium grained, brown, moist, loose, trace sift, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4' in size, some hair roots and rootlets. II File:Mgr: c; \SoilClassif.wpd PLA 1 t ti -1 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT KURTZ BORING B-1 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain DATEEXCAMED 7 -17-W SAMPLE METHOD: V Hollow Stem Auger, 140 D e 30' W.O. 573444SC SHEET 1 OF 1 LOGGED BY.' RBB Approz Ehwabm: 706' NISL Standard Penetration Test Groundwater X c E a UrNisfur6ed, Ring Sample 2 @ y I Descripfion of Material 5"" 115.4 I 6.8 1 41.3 57 1 1 112.2 1 9.0 1 50.2 22/ 5". AC PAVEMENT: Co't 0' Asphaltic concrete. TOPSOIL/ COLLUVIUM: @ 4" SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose. HIGHLY WEATHERED DELMAR FORMATION: @ 21/: SANDY CLAY /CLAYEY SAND, brown to gray, moist, stiff /medium dense. DELMAR FORMATION: @ 3'h' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light brown to gray to yellowish brown, moist, dense. @ 9 CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light brown to yellowish brown to gray, moist, very dense. @ 10' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light brown to yellowish brown to gray to reddish yellow, wet, dense. @ 15' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, gray to reddish yellow, moist, dense. sa SAA s @ 18' SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown to reddish yellow, moist, dense. Total Depth = 19' No Groundwater /Caving Encountered Backfilled 7 -17 -2008 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain GeOSOilst Inc. Plate S 0 8 M. W.O. 573444SC SHEET 1 OF 1 LOGGED BY.' RBB Approz Ehwabm: 706' NISL Standard Penetration Test Groundwater X c E a UrNisfur6ed, Ring Sample 2 @ y I Descripfion of Material 5"" 115.4 I 6.8 1 41.3 57 1 1 112.2 1 9.0 1 50.2 22/ 5". AC PAVEMENT: Co't 0' Asphaltic concrete. TOPSOIL/ COLLUVIUM: @ 4" SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose. HIGHLY WEATHERED DELMAR FORMATION: @ 21/: SANDY CLAY /CLAYEY SAND, brown to gray, moist, stiff /medium dense. DELMAR FORMATION: @ 3'h' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light brown to gray to yellowish brown, moist, dense. @ 9 CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light brown to yellowish brown to gray, moist, very dense. @ 10' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light brown to yellowish brown to gray to reddish yellow, wet, dense. @ 15' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, gray to reddish yellow, moist, dense. sa SAA s @ 18' SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown to reddish yellow, moist, dense. Total Depth = 19' No Groundwater /Caving Encountered Backfilled 7 -17 -2008 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain GeOSOilst Inc. Plate BORING LOG GeoSoHs, Inc. WO. 5734 -ASC PROJECT KURTZ BORING B-2 SHEET 1 OF 1 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain DATE EXCAVATED 7 -17-08 LOGGED BY.- RBB SAMPLE METHOD: 8' Follow Stem Auger, 140 b C 30' Drop, Modified Cal Sampler Appno Elevation: 101' MSL $ Standard Penebabon Test o F GIDIXIfMa/eI S, o ® Undisturbed. Ping Sample c y c a S m 7 m O H DescrlpUon of MaWrlal TOPSOIL: @ 0' SANDY SILT, dark grayish brown, dry, soft, abundant organics, TOPSOIU COLLUVILIM: sc @ W SILTY SAND, brown, dry becoming damp with depth, loose becoming medium dense with depth. DELMAR FORMATION: @2' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light brownish gray, moist, medium dense. 5 37 116.6 9.6 6o -a @ 5' As per 2', brownish gray, wet, dense. 10 T2 104.6 7.8 35.7 @ 10' As per 5', light brown to gray. 15 49 i @ 15' As per 10', brownish gray, damp. Total Depth = 16' No Groundwater /Caving Encountered Backfilled 7 -17 -2008 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain GeoSoihq Inc' Plate B-s BORING LOG Ge"oils, Inc. w.o. 5734-Asc PROJECT KURTZ BORING B-3 SHEET 1 of 1 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain DATE EXCAVATED 7-17-08 LOGGED BY., RBB Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger, 140 W @ 30" Drop, Modified Cal Sampler Approx. Elevation: 104' MSL i Standard Penetration Test a SZ G roundweler Undisturbed, Ring Sample q Y Lo o � Description of Material r°q f TOPSOIL: sM 0' SANDY SILT dark grayish brown dry, soft rous. ARTIFICIAL FILL - UNDOCUMENTED: 4'" SILTY SAND brown dry, loose trace concrete. SIu1 TOPSOILICOLLUVIUM: m@ 3' SANDY CLAYSTONE, gray, wet, hard. SANDY CLAYSTONE, gray, wet, hard. 14.8 Tgs . - @ 5' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, gray, wet, mel 64 @ 10' As per 5', dense. Total depth = 11' No Groundwater /Caving Encountered Backfilled 7 -17 -2008 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain Geosoils, Inc' Plate B-4 BORING LOG GeoSoM, Inc. W.O. 5734A-SC PROJECT: KURTZ BORING 54 SHEET 1 OF 1 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain DATE EXCAVATED 7 -17-08 LOGGED BY., RBB Sample SAMPLE METHOD.: 8" Hollow Stem Auger, 140 6 Q 30' Drop, Modified Cal Sampler Approx. Elevation: 119 MSL Standard Penetration Test a K Q t y L A ® Undisturbed, P nIJ Sarnpre 8 m F o 2 y Description of Material a SM ARTIFICIAL FILL - UNDOCUMENTED: @ 0' SILTY SAND w /GRAVEL, gray, dry, loose, abundant construction debris. TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM: sM @ 2' /r SILTY SAND, brown, dry to damp, loose, porous. SM r DELMAR FORMATION: @ 4' SILTY SANDSTONE, yellowish brown, dry, very dense. 5 81 113.0 5.0 28.6 s @ 5' As per 4'. la 49 us @ 10' SANDY CLAYSTONE/CIAYEY SANDSTONE, yellowish gray, damp, hard/dense. Total Depth = 11' No Groundwater /Caving Encountered Backfilled 7 -17 -2008 15 20 GeoSods, Inc. 350 Cole Ranch Road, Olivenhain plate 13-5 APPENDIX C EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, AND FRISKSP 306 NUMBER: 5734 -A -SC #ldf dffld #ddibOddd4hb18 M1 # n E Q F A U L T f version 3.00 « d fed dAriM1drvdnnriM1M1RddRM1ddttd DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS DATE: 07 -29 -2008 JOB NAME: Olivenhain Guest Home CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis FAULT- DATA -FILE NAME: C: \Program Files \EQFAULTI \CGSFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0427 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2350 SEARCH RADIUS: 62.14 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 18) Campbell & BoZorgnia (1994/1997) - Soft ROCk UNCERTAINTY (m--median, S= Sigma): S Number of Sigmas: 1.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: Cdist SCOND: 1 Basement Depth: 1.00 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. 5743 -A -SC Page 1 GeoSoils, Inc. Plate C -1 --------- - - - - -- EQFAULT SUMMARY ---- ---- - - -- --- ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Page 1 I (ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT APPROXIMATE 1------------------------------- ABBREVIATED DISTANCE 1 MAXIMUM I PEAK JEST. SITE FAULT NAME 1 mi (km) JEARTHQUAKEI SITE JINTENSITY I I MAG.(MW) I ACCEL. 9 JMOD.MERC. ROSE CANYON 1 S.8( 9.3)1 7.2 1 0.662 J XI NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD (offshore) 1 13.8( 22.2)1 7.1 1 0.316 1 IX CORONADO BANK 1 20.1( 32.4)1 7.6 0.291 IX ELSINORE (JULIAN) 1 26.2( 42.2)1 7.1 I 0.159 I VIII ELSINORE (TEMECULA) 26.5( 42.6)1 6.8 1 0.127 VIII EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 39.1( 62.9)1 6.5 1 0.057 I VI ELSINORE (GLEN IVY) 1 42.0( 67.6)1 6.8 0.066 VI PALOS VERDES 1 44.1( 71.0)1 7.3 0.096 VII SAN JOAQUIN HILLS 1 45.2( 72.7)1 6.6 1 0.051 1 VI SAN JACINTO -ANZA 1 48.9( 78.7)1 7.2 1 0.076 1 VIZ ELSINORE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN) 1 50.9( 81.9)1 6.8 1 0.050 1 VI SAN JACINTO- COYOTE CREEK 1 51.0( 82.0)( 6.6 1 0.042 1 VI SAN JACINTO -SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 51.6( 83.1)1 6.9 1 0.054 1 VI NEWPORT- INGLEWDOD (L.A.BaSin) 1 55.8( 89.8)1 7.1 1 0.057 1 VI CHINO - CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 1 57.2( 92.0)( 6.7 J 0.036 1 V WHITfIER 1 61.1( 98.3)1 6.8 1 0.038 1 V SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 1 61.3( 98.6)1 6.6 1 0.032 1 V d ddddgbdggRqqAqdd} t4ddddgdddM1dRdgdgqqqqbbbdbbddqqdM1ddddbdddfi ddgggqqdMfibRdddqqbqq -END OF SEARCH- 17 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCI4 RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE IT IS ABOUT S.8 MILES (9.3 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM- EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.6623 g Page 2 W.O. 5743 -A -SC Plate C -2 GeoSoils, Inc. C O Z, Cu N N U U .01 .001 W.O. 5743 -A -SC MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKES Olivenhain Guest Home Distance (mi) GeoSoils, Inc. T Plate C -3 tYYtRnYRAYAYRYCYAYYYYYYYY A a ° E Q S E A R C H q t q t version 3.00 ttgtRantntnatRttntngatnaa ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS JOB NUMBER: 5734 -A -SC DATE: 07 -29 -2008 JOB NAME: Olivenhain Guest Home EARTHQUAKE- CATALOG -FILE NAME: ALLQUAKE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0427 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2350 SEARCH DATES: START DATE: 1800 END DATE: 2007 SEARCH RADIUS: 62.1 mi 100.0 km ATTENUATION RELATION: 18) Campbell & sozorgnia (1994/1997) - Soft Rock 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: 0 Depth Source: A Basement Depth: 1.00 km Campbell SSR: 1 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0 W.O. 5743 -A -SC Page 1 GeoSoils, Inc. IQ MrTIM11 EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS ------- ------------------ Page 1 FILEI LAT. I LONG. I DATE CODEI NORTH I WEST I ----+-------+--------+--------- DMG 133.0000 117.3000111/22/1800 MGI 133.00001117.0000109/21/1856 MGT 132.80001117.1000 05/25/1803 DMG 132.70001117.2000105 /27/1862 T -A 32.6700 117.1700112/00/1856 T -A 132.67001117.1700110 /21/1862 T -A 132.67001117.1700105 /24/1865 DMG 132.80001116.8000110 /23/1894 DMG 33.2000 116.7000101/01/1920 PAS 32.9710 117.8700107/13/1986 MGT 33.20001116.6000110 /12/1920 DMG 33.70001117.4000105/15/1910 DMG 133.70001117.4000104/11/1910 DMG 133.70001117.4000105 /13/1910 DMG 133.0000[116.4330106 /04/1940 DMG 33.6990 117.S110105/31/1938 DMG 133.71001116.9250109 /23/1963 DMG 133.75001117.0000106 /06/1918 DMG 133.75001117.0000104 /21/1918 GSP 133.5290 116.5720106/12/2005 PAS 133.50101116.5130102/2S/1980 GSP 133.50801116.5140110 /31/2001 DMG 33.50001116.5000109 /30/1916 DMG 133.80001117.0000112 /25/1899 DMG 133.34301116.3460104 /28/1969 MGT 133.80001117.6000104 /22/1918 DMG 133.57501117.9830103 /11/1933 T -A 132.25001117.5000101 /13/1877 DMG 133.61701117.9670103 /11/1933 DMG 132.70001116.3000102 /24/1892 DMG 133.90001117.2000112 /19/1880 DMG 133.40001116.3000102 /09/1890 DMG 133.61701118.0170103 /14/1933 DMG 33.20001116.2000105 /28/1892 DMG 133.40801116.2610103/2S/1937 ----------------------------------------------- TIME I I I SITE ISITEI APPROX. (UTC) IDEPTHIQUAKEI ACC. I MM I DISTANCE H M Secl (km)] MAG.1 9 11NT.1 m7 [km) ----------------------------------------------- 2130 0.0 0.01 6.501 0.566 1 X 1 4.8( 7.7) 730 0.0 0.01 5.001 0.064 1 vi 1 13.9( 22.4) 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.043 1 vi 1 18.5( 29.8) 20 0 0.01 0.01 5.901 0.069 1 vi 1 23.7( 38.2) 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.027 1 v 1 26.0( 41.8) 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.027 1 v 1 26.0( 41.8) 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.027 1 V 1 26.0( 41.8) 23 3 0.01 0.01 5.70 0.040 1 v 1 30.3( 48.7) 235 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.019 1 Iv 1 32.8( 52.8) 1347 8.21 6.0 5.301 0.021 1 Iv 1 37.1( 59.7) 1748 0.01 0.01 5.301 0.020 1 IV 1 38.3( 61,6) 1547 0.0 0.0 6.00 0.028 1 v 1 46.4( 74.6) 757 0.0 0.01 5.001 0.011 1 IIiI 46.4( 74.6) 620 0.0 0.01 5.001 0.011 1 II11 46.4( 74.6) 1035 8.31 0.01 5.101 0.012 1 1111 46.5( 74.9) 83455.4 10.0 S.S0 0.017 1 Iv 1 48.0( 77.3) 144152.6 16.51 5.001 0.010 1 IIII 49.4( 79.5) 2232 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.010 1 IIII 50.7( 81.6) 223225.01 0.01 6.801 0.050 1 VI 1 50.7( 81.6) 154146.51 14.01 5.201 0.012 1 IIII 50.90 81.9) 104738.51 13.61 5.501 0.015 I Iv 1 52.3( 84.2) 075616.61 15.01 5.101 0.010 1 1111 52.6( 84.6) 211 0.0 0.0 5.001 0.009 II11 52.9( 85.1) 1225 0.01 0.01 6.401 0.032 1 v 1 54.0( 86.9) 232042.91 20.01 5.801 0.018 I Iv 1 55.4( 89.1j 2115 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.009 1 IIII 56.4( 90.7) 518 4.01 0.01 5.201 0.010 1 i111 56.7( 91.2) 20 0 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.008 1 IIiI 56.9( 91.5) 154 7.81 0.01 6.30 0.026 1 v 1 57.9( 93.2) 720 0.01 0.01 6.701 0.037 1 v 1 59.2( 95.2) 0 0 0.01 0.01 6.001 0.020 1 Iv 1 59.2( 95.3) 12 6 0.01 0.01 6.301 0.026 v 1 59.4( 95.5) 19 150.01 0.01 S.101 0.008 1 IIII 60.1( 96.6) 1115 0.01 0.01 6.301 0.025 1 v 1 60.8( 97.9) 1649 1.81 10.01 6.001 0.018 1 Iv 1 61.6( 99.2) * RRR' MRRRRrtRrtRMrtdrtRrt* RRMRRR** R* yWWRp* RRp*** p** dR* *p** * *dpdRpR * *RfiR * * *IIR *RRddRRhR -ENO OF SEARCH- 35 EARTHQUAKES FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH AREA. TIME PERIOD OF SEARCH: 1800 TO 2007 LENGTH OF SEARCH TIME: 208 years THE EARTHQUAKE CLOSEST TO THE SITE IS ABOUT 4.8 MILES (7.7 km) AWAY. LARGEST EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE FOUND IN THE SEARCH RADIUS: 6.8 LARGEST EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION FROM THIS SEARCH: 0.566 g Page 2 W.O. 5743 -A -SC Plate C -5 GeoSoils, Inc. COEFFICIENTS FOR GUTENBERG & RICHTER RECURRENCE RELATION: a- value= 0.500 b- value= 0.291 beta - value= 0.671 ------------------------------------ TABLE OF MAGNITUDES AND EXCEEDANCES: --- -------------------- ------- -- -- Earthquake I Number of rimes I Cumulative Magnitude I Exceeded I No. / Year -----------+-----------------+------------ 4.0 35 1 0.16908 4.5 35 1 0.16908 5.0 1 35 1 0.16908 5.5 I 15 1 0.07246 6.0 I 10 1 0.04831 6.5 I 3 1 0.01449 W.O. 5743 -A -SC Page 3 G¢oSoils, Inc. Plate C -6 1100 1000 M M 700 .@I 500 e f` ire 200 100 J -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP Olivenhain Guest Home W.O. 5743 -A -SC 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 GeoSoils, Inc. Plate C -7 EARTHQUAKE RECURRENCE CURVE Olivenhain Guest Home Me] 10 m m Z 1 N C C N W w ° .1 m a E Z N M .01 E E U .001 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 Magnitude (M) W.O. 5743 -A -SC GeoSoils, Inc. Plate C -8 n O O h ar 0 V i D i n w m n 10000000000 1111IZ1111 100000000 10000000 T 1000000 .` Q) n 100000 m ry 10000 1000 100 RETURN PERIOD vs. ACCELERATION CAMP. & BOZ. (1994/1997) SR 2 (W.O. 5734 -A -SC) C.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 Acceleration (g) 100 all Me 70 0 y 60 ia cu 2 50 u U C D 40 m m U w 30 ad 10 n PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE CAMP. & BOZ. (1994/1997) SR 2 (W.O. 5734 -A -SC) 0 F-A--] F-m--1 25 y rs 50 Vrs 75 rs 100 yrs ILJ 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Acceleration (g) W.O. 5743 -A -SC G¢oSoils, Inc. 1.25 1.50 Plate C -10 APPENDIX D LABORATORY DATA 3, 000 2, 500 Shear Undisturbed 111.4 9.0 261 34 ❑ 6-1 10.0 2.000 Residual Shear Undisturbed 111.4 9.0 236 33 N 2 f z z w 1, 500 soo 0 M x 1, 000 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample DepthfEl. Range Classification Primary/Residual Sample Type Yd MC% C • 8-primary 10.0 Clayey Sand a Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing DIRECT SHEAR TEST Geosoils, Inc. Project: KURTZ 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 p �L Telephone: (760) 438 -3155 Number. 5734 -A -SC Fax: (760) 931 -0915 Date: August 2008 Plate: D - 1 Shear Undisturbed 111.4 9.0 261 34 ❑ 6-1 10.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 111.4 9.0 236 33 soo 0 Shear Undisturbed 111.4 9.0 261 34 ❑ 6-1 10.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 111.4 9.0 236 33 TEST SPECIMEN A B C D Compactor air pressure PSI 350 200 180 0 Water added % 1.7 2.6 16 11 Moisture at compaction % 11.2 12.2 13.3 Height of sample IN 2.48 2.52 2.51 Dry density PCF 123.5 121.8 118.0 R -Value by exudation 25 15 8 R -Value by exudation, corrected 25 15 8 Exudation pressure PSI 512 365 267 Stability thickness FT 0.96 1.09 1.18 Expansion pressure thickness FT 0.40 0.201 0.00 DESIGN CALCULATION DATA Traffic index, assumed 5.0 Gravel equivalent factor, assumed 125 Expansion, stability equilibrium 0 R -Value by expansion NA R -Value by exudation 11 R -Value at equilibrium 11 Expansion, Stability Equilibrium W1.r x'1.50 m rn M 65 m c v L r 00 50 U 0.00 , K I i I I f t i I I I I I 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 Cover Thickness by Expansion Pressure (ft) GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way J LJ Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438 -3155 Fax: (760) 931-0915 SAMPLE INFORMATION Sample Location: B -1 @.5-5 Sample Description: Dark Brown Clayey Sand Notes: 80 70 60 Ire, j 40 Ir SA 0% Retained on 3/4 inch sieve Test Method: Cal -Trans Test 301 R -Value By Exudation :rr 700 600 500 4 300 200 100 r Exudation . R - VALUE TEST RESULTS Project: KURTZ Number: 5734 -A -SC Date: Jul -08 Plate: D-2 SCHIFF ASSOCIATES www.SChiffassociates.com Consulting Corrosion Engineers -Since 1959 Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples GeoSods,Ina Krutz Your 45734 A-SC, S.4 #08- 0901LAR 31- Jul-08 Sample rD B -1 Resistivity Units as- rcccived ohm -cnt 40,000 saturated ohm-em 1,800 pf7 7.3 Electrical Conductivity ms/cm 0.25 Chemical Analyses Cations calcium Ca' mg/kg 50 magnesium Mgt" mg/kg 15 sodium Na" mg/kg 234 potassium K" mg/kg 15 Anions carbonate CO3� mg kg ND bicarbonate HCO3'- mg/kg 308 flmvide F1. mg/kg 0.5 chloride Ch- mg/kg 30 sulfate so, E mg/kg 141 phosphate P043_ mg/kg 1.6 Other Tests ammonium NH. 1, mg/kg ND nitrate NO3' mg/kg ND sulfide S2. qual na Redox my na Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil -to -water extract. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil. Redox = oxidation - reduction potential in millivolts ND = not detected na =not analyzed 431 West Baseline Road Claremont, CA 91711 Phone: 909.626.0967 • Fax: 909.626.3316 Page 1 of 1 W.O. 5734 -A -SC Plate D -3 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 by the 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 contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in strict accordance with applicable grading guidelines, latest adopted 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. Hank Kurtz File: a :%wp91570045734a.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 1/2 the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre - stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toes of fill benches, should be observed and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained. Hank Kurtz File: e:\wp9 \5700\5734a.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 (Le., 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 feet from 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 Hank Kurtz Appendix E File: e: \wp9 \5700\5734a.pge Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. 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, per the 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. Hank Kurtz File: e: \wp9%5700 \5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. 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 Hank Kurtz File: eAwp9 \5700 \5734a.pge 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 project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and /or in accordance with the recommendations of the 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. After completion 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 POOL/SPA 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 /spa to any slopes with regard to slope creep and lateral fill extension, as well as slope setbacks per code, and geometry of the proposed Hank Kurtz File: eAwp9\5700\5734a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. andix 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 or vertically) 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. Hank Kurtz File: e: \WP9 \5700 \5734a.p9e 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. Ifthe 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 installed to 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, Hank Kurtz Appendix E File: e: \wp9 \5700 \5734a.pge Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. improvements, deck slabs or flatwork 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 6 feet 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. Hank Kurtz Appendix E File: e: \wp9\5700\5734a.pge Page 10 GeoSoils, Inc. 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 longterm 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 "shell," 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 under this 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." Hank Kurtz File: e: \wp9 \5700 \5734a.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 review and 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 field 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. Hank Kurtz File: e:1wp9W00\5734a.pge GeoSoiils, 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. Hank Kurtz File: eAWPM5700 \5734a.p9e 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 failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his /her supervisor. The grading contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. However, in the interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction, or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to the technician's attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractor's representative and the soil technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Hank Kurtz File: eAwp9\5700X5734a.pge GeoSoils, 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. Hank Kurtz File: e:1wp915 70 015 7 3 4a.pge GeoSolils, Inc. Page 15 SIDE VIEW Spoil pile GSI Test pit TOP VIEW Flag Flag Spoil pile Teat pit Light Vehicle -so ted eo feet Go� ' c. TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM Plate E -20