The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 2016-0005; KLOVANISH RESIDENCE; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION & FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS; 2016-03-25ci1)rioRp-000s ENGINEERING I M DESIGN GROUP 011 GOI€CUJCL. CIVIL. SIRUCIURAL 8 H!f8CUF COIWfl5 FOR PEOJOE880L 8 C0008000I000ERIJC008 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069• (760) 839-7302. Fax: (760) 480-7477 www.designgroupca.com I 2121 I I GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE TOBELOCATEDAT ADAMS AVENUE (APN 206-180-4100) I . CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 RECP/ED I OCT .1,8 2017 I . LAND DEVILOPMENT ENGNEENG I EDG Project No. 165564-1 I I March 25th, 2016 I COpfl U PREPARED FOR: . ERFCOR,;9) Initl te/ Crystal Hollins and Steve Klovanish I 2721 Carlsbad Blvd. Carlsbad, CA 92008 . 1 I U ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP Eti0001000FOCRI. 0OR. SIFUUOR. F. COFOCIURAt COSLFORfl5 FOR FfSORN1IAI & COMMERCIAL CORSTBUC1lLJ 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069• (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 • www.designgroupca.com Date: March 25, 2016 To: Crystal Hollins and Steve Kiovanish 2721 Carlsbad Blvd. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Proposed new residence to be located at Adams Avenue (APN 206-180-4100) Carlsbad, California. Subject: Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation Recommendations Report In accordance with your request and our signed proposal we have provided this geotechnical investigation and foundation recommendations report of the subject site for the proposed new residence. The findings of the investigation, earthwork recommendations and foundation design parameters are presented in this report. In general it is our opinion that the proposed construction, as described herein, is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report and generally accepted construction practices are followed. If you have any questions regarding the following report please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP E. 05 F'114~P' GE 2590 C 65122 4. Steven Norris Erin E. Rist California GE#2590 California RCE #65122 Table of Contents 1.0 SCOPE . 1 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................I 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION..................................................................................................1 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.........................................................................................1 5.0 GROUNDWATER ...........................................................................................................2 6.0 LIQUEFACTION..............................................................................................................3 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................4 7.1 GENERAL ...................................................................................................................4 7.2 EARTHWORK .............................................................................................................4 7.3 FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 6 7.4 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE ................................................................................7 7.5 RETAINING WALLS ...................................................................................................10 8.0 SURFACE DRAINAGE ..................................................... . .............................................. 12 9.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING .......................................................13 10.0 MISCELLANEOUS.........................................................................................................14 FIGURES Site Vicinity Map .........................................................................................................Figure No. I SiteLocation Map .....................................................................................................Figure No. 2 SitePlan ...................................................................................................................Figure No. 3 Test Pit Logs .................................................................................................... Test Pit Logs 1 - 3 APPENDICES References.................................................................................................................Appendix A General Earthwork and Grading Specifications ........................................................... Appendix B LaboratoryResults ..................................................................................................... Appendix C Retaining Wall Drainage Detail ..................................................................................Appendix D This report gives our recommendations for the proposed new residence to be constructed at Adams Avenue, (APN 206-180-4100) Carlsbad, California. (See Figure No. 1, "Site Vicinity Map", and Figure No. 2, "Site Location Map"). The scope of our work conducted onsite to date has included a visual reconnaissance of the property and surrounding areas, review of maps, a limited subsurface investigation of the subject property, laboratory tests and preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations. 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property is located at Adams Avenue, in City of Carlsbad, California. For the purposes of this report the lot is assumed to face west. The property is bordered to the east and south by single family custom homes, to the north by a vacant lot and to the west by Adams Avenue. The general topography of the site area consists of coastal foothill terrain. At the time of this report the lot is undeveloped. In general the lot descends from east to west. Based upon our discussion with project architect and with owners, and our review of the proposed preliminary site plan, we understand the proposed development will consist of the construction of a new multi-story residence with basement elements, detached garage with granny flat and typical landscape improvements. 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION Our field investigation of the property consisted of a site reconnaissance, site field measurements, observation of existing conditions on-site and on adjacent sites and a limited subsurface investigation of soil conditions. Our subsurface investigation consisted of visual observation of three exploratory test pits in the general areas of proposed construction, logging of soil types encountered, and sampling of soils for laboratory testing. The approximate locations of test pits are given in Figure No. 3, "Approximate Test Pit Locations". Fill soil and weathered profiles were encountered to an approximate depth between 3-4 feet below adjacent grade in our exploratory test pits. Soil types encountered within our test pits are described as follows: Kiovanish-Hollins Residence Page No. I Adams Street, Carlsbad, California ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP Job No. 165564-1 I GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS I I 4.1 Topsoil/ Fill Topsoil/fill, unsuitable materials were encountered to a depth of 3-4 feet below adjacent grade in I our test pits. Fill and weathered materials consist of light brown to brown, dry to slightly moist, loose to medium dense, silty sands and sandy silts with small roots in the upper up to 18-36 inches. In general these materials are not considered suitable for the support of structures and structural improvements in their present state, but may be utilized as re-compacted fill if necessary, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Unsuitable soil materials classify as SW-SM according to the Unified Soil Classification System, and based on I visual observation and laboratory results, are considered to possess low to medium potential for expansion. 4.2 Sandstone: Sandstone was found to underlie the fill/weathered profiles material within the test pit excavations. The encountered sandstone consists of reddish brown to light yellowish white, moist, dense to very dense, slightly silty sandstone. These materials are considered suitable for the support of structures and structural improvements, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Sandstone materials classify as SW-SM according to the Unified Soil Classification System, and based on visual observation and our experience, possess a low potential for expansion. I Detailed logs of our exploratory test pits, as well as a depiction of the test pit locations, please see Figure No. 3, "Site Plan/Location of Test Pits", and Test Pit Logs Nos. 1 - 3. 5.0 GROUND WATER I Groundwater was not encountered during our limited subsurface investigation. Groundwater is not anticipated to pose a significant 'constraint to construction, however based upon our I experience, perched groundwater conditions can develop where no such condition previously existed. Perched groundwater conditions can develop over time and can have a significant impact, especially at basements. In consideration of the habitable basement space we I recommend a waterproof membrane beneath the basement concrete slab on grade floors. Waterproofing membrane shall be specifically detailed by waterproofing consultant. If groundwater conditions are encountered during site excavations, a slab underdrain system may be required. Bioretention infiltration facilities shall maintain sufficient horizontal and vertical offset to the Klovanish-Hollins Residence Page No. 2 I ' Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Job No. 165564-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP - GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS I I I residence to not create a groundwater condition. Proper surface drainage and irrigation practices will play a significant role in the future performance of the project. Please note in the "Concrete Slab on Grade" section of this report for specific recommendations regarding water to cement ratio for moisture sensitive areas should be adhered. The project architect and/or waterproofing consultant shall specifically address waterproofing details. I 6.0 LIQUEFACTION 1 It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake along any of the faults in the Southern California region. However, the seismic risk at this site is not significantly greater than that of the surrounding developed area. Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose, granular soils underlain by a near-surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most silty sands and clays is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Because of the dense nature of the soil materials underlying the site and the lack of near surface water, the potential for liquefaction or seismically-induced dynamic settlement at the site is considered low. The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. I Kiovanish-Hollins Residence Page No. 3 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Job No. 165564-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNCAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 GENERAL In general it is our opinion that the proposed new residence, as discussed and described herein, is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report and all applicable codes are followed. At the time of this report only schematic designs were available for review. We understand the proposed new main residence will be constructed with full footprint below grade basements. We I anticipate in the area of new main residences basement foundation excavations will extend through fill and weathered profiles to competent sandstone. In the area of the new detached I garage we anticipate cut-fill transitions associated with the new garage building pad and we anticipated a removal and recompaction undercut in the area of the new garage pad. I 7.2 EARTHWORK Where grading is conducted it should be done in accordance with the recommendations below as well as Appendix B of this report and the standards of county and state agencies, as applicable. I 7.2.a. Site Preparation Prior to any grading, the areas of proposed improvements should be cleared of surface and I subsurface debris (including organic topsoil, vegetative and construction debris). Removed debris should be properly disposed of off-site prior to the commencement of any fill operations. Holes resulting from the removal of debris, existing structures, or other improvements which extend I below the undercut depths noted, should be filled and compacted. I 7.2.b. Removals Topsoil weathered and fill profiles found to mantle the site, approximately upper 3-4 feet in the area of the proposed new residence, are not suitable for the structural support of buildings or I structural improvements in their present state. We anticipate a removal and recompaction of exisiting fill, weathered and topsoil material in the area of the new detached garage. Grading I should consist of the removal of unsuitable soil and scarification of subgrade to a minimum depth of 8-12 inches and the recompaction of fill materials to 90 percent minimum relative compaction, in the area of the proposed slab-on-grade foundations. Excavated fill materials are suitable for reuse as fill material during grading provided they are I Kiovanish-Hollins Residence . Page No. 4 I Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Job No. 165564-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS 1 cleaned of debris and oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter (oversized material is not anticipated to be of significant concern) and free of contamination. 7.2.c. Transitions All settlement sensitive improvements should be constructed on a uniform building pad. I Removals and undercuts are anticipated at cut-fill transitions. Removals and undercuts should extend a minimum of 5 feet (or to a distance at least equal to depth of fill removals, whichever is greater) beyond the footprint of the proposed structures (including exterior columns) and settlement sensitive improvements. Where this condition cannot be met it should be reviewed by the Engineering Design Group on a case by case basis. Removal depths should be visually I verified by a representative of our firm prior to the placement of fill. 7.2.d. Fills All fill in the area of removal and recompaction should be brought to approximately +2% of optimum moisture content and re-compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557). Compacted fills should be cleaned of loose debris and oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter, brought to near optimum moisture content, and re-compacted as described above. Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding. 6-8 inches in thickness. Import of soil material is not anticipated, however if import material is required, soils should have a very low potential for expansion (Ek20), free of debris and organic matter. Prior to importing soils, they should be visually observed, sampled and tested at the borrow pit area to evaluate soil suitability as fill. 7.2.e. Slopes - Where new slopes are constructed permanent slopes may be cut to a face ratio of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Permanent fill slopes shall be placed at a maximum 2:1 slope face ratio. All temporary cut slopes shall be excavated in accordance with OSHA requirements and shall not undermine adjacent property or structures without proper shoring of excavation and/or structures. Subsequent to grading, planting or other acceptable cover should be provided to increase the stability of slopes, especially during the rainy season (October thru April). Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to protect improvements at the street during anticipated excavations. I I Kiovanish-Hollins Residence Page No. 5 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Job No. 165564-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS I T3 FOUNDATIONS The following design parameters may be utilized for new foundations founded on competent material. 7.3.a. Footings bearing uniformly in recompacted fill and/or sandstone material may be designed utilizing maximum allowable soils pressure of 2,000 psf. 7.3.b. Seismic Design Parameters Site Class D Spectral Response Coefficients SMS (g) p1.187 SM1 (g) 0.681 SIDS (g) 0.791 Sol (g).0,.454 7.3.c. Bearing values may be increased by 33% when considering wind, seismic, or other short duration loadings. 7.3.d. The parameters in the table below should be used as a minimum for designing new footing width and depth below lowest adjacent grade into sandstone or recompacted fill material. Footing depths are to be confirmed in the field by a representative of Engineering Design Group prior to the placement of form boards, steel and removal of excavation equipment. No. of Floors Supported Minimum Footing Width *Minimum Footing Depth Below Lowest Adjacent Grade 1 15ihes l8inches Klovanish-Hollins Residence Page No. 6 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Job No. 165564-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS No. of Floors Supported Minimum Footing Width *Minimum Footing Depth Below Lowest Adjacent Grade 2 15 inches 18 inches 3 18 inches 24 inches 7.3.e. All footings founded into competent material should be reinforced with a minimum of two #4 bars at the top and two #4 bars at the bottom (3 inches above the ground). For footings over 30 inches in depth, additional reinforcement, and possibly a stemwall system will be necessary, and should be reviewed by project structural engineer prior to construction. 7.3.1. All isolated spread footings should be designed utilizing the above given bearing values and footing depths, and be reinforced with a minimum of #4 bars at 12 inches o.c. in each direction (3 inches above the ground). Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width and depth of 24 inches. 7.3.g. For footings adjacent to slopes a minimum of 10 feet (competent, compacted material) and horizontal setback in competent material or properly compacted fill should be maintained. A setback measurement should be taken at the horizontal distance from the bottom of the footing to slope daylight. Where this condition cannot be met it should be brought to the attention of the Engineering Design Group for review. 7.3.h. All excavations should be performed in general accordance with the contents of this report, applicable codes, OSHA requirements and applicable city and/or county standards. 7.3.1. All foundation subgrade soils and footings shall be pre-moistened to 2% over optimum to a minimum of 18 inches in depth prior to the pouring of concrete. 7.4 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE All new concrete slabs-on-grade floors should be placed on competent sandstone or recompacted fill material. Where new slabs are proposed we recommend the following as the minimum design parameters. Kiovanish-Hollins Residence Page No. 7 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP Job No. 165564-1 I GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS 7.4.a. Concrete slab on grade of the proposed additions should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches and should be reinforced with #4 bars at 18 inches o.c. placed at the midpoint of the slab. 7.4.a.i Slump: Between 3 and 4 inches maximum 7.4.a.ii Aggregate Size: 3/4 - 1 inch 7.4.a.iii Moisture Sensitive Areas: (i.e. floors, below grade walls) Maximum Water to cement Ratio - 0.45 maximum Compressive Strength = 4,500 psi minimum (No special inspection required for water to cement ratio purposes, unless otherwise specified by the structural engineer) 7.4.a.iv Moisture retarding additive: in concrete at concrete slab on grade floors and moisture sensitive areas 7.4.a.v Corrosion Potential: Based upon laboratory testing conducted as part of the field investigation onsite soils meet ACI exposure categories SO, Cl. The project structural engineer to note increased concrete protection requirements for corrosive envwonments, as applicable. As EDG is not an expert in corrosion protection all corrosion recommendations shall be provided by the corrosion consultant. 7.4.a.vi Non-Moisture Sensitive Areas: Compressive Strength = 2,500 psi minimum. 7.4.b. In moisture sensitive areas, the slab concrete should have a minimum water to cement (wlc) ratio of 0.45, generally resulting in a compressive strength of approximately 4,500 psi (No special inspection required for water to cement ratio purposes, unless otherwise specified by the structural engineer) as determined by the w/c ratio. This recommendation is intended to achieve a low permeability concrete. 7.4.c. In areas of level slab on grade floors we recommend a one inch layer of coarse sand material, Sand Equivalent (S.E.) greater than 50 and washed clean of fine materials, should be placed beneath the slab in mosture sensitive areas, above the vapor barrier. There shall be not greater than an 1/2 inch difference across the sand layer. 7.4.d. In moisture sensitive areas, a vapor barrier layer (15 mil) should be placed below the upper one inch of sand. The vapor barrier shall meet the following minimum requirements: 7.4.d.i Permeance of less than 0.01 perm [grains/(ft2 hr in/Hg)] as tested in accordance with ASTM E 1745 Section 7.1. Kiovanish-Hollins Residence Page No. 8 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Job No. 165564-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS 7.4.d.ii Strength per ASTM 1745 Class A. 7.4.d.iii The vapor barrier should extend down the interior edge of the footing excavation a minimum of 6 inches. The vapor barrier should lap a minimum of 8 inches, sealed along all laps with the manufacturer's recommended adhesive. Beneath the vapor barrier a uniform layer of 3 inches of pea gravel is recommended underthe slab in order to more uniformly support the slab, help distribute loads to the soils beneath the slab, and act as a capillary break. 7.4.e. The project waterproofing consultant should provide all slab underdrain, slab sealers and various other details, specifications and recommendations (i.e Moiststop and Linkseal) at areas of potential moisture intrusion (i.e. slab penetrations). Engineering Design Group accepts no responsibility for design or quality control of waterproofing elements of the building. 7.4.f. Adequate control joints should be installed to control the unavoidable cracking of concrete that takes place when undergoing its natural shrinkage during curing. The control joints should be well located to direct unavoidable slab cracking to areas that are desirable by the designer. 7.4.g. All required fills used to support slabs, should be placed in accordance with the grading section of this report and the attached Appendix B, and compacted to 90 percent Modified Proctor Density, ASTM 0-1557, and as described in the Earthwork section of this report. 7.4.h. All subgrade soils to receive concrete slabs and flatwork are to be pre-soaked to 2 percent over optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches. 7.4.1. Exterior concrete flatwork, due to the nature of concrete hydration and minor subgrade soil movement, are subject to normal minor concrete cracking. To minimize expected concrete cracking, the following may be implemented: - 7.4.1.1 New flatwork in areas of encountered expansive soil (anticipated) should be detailed with 6 inches of base material and import cap. 7.4.i.ii Concrete may be poured with a 10 inch deep thickened edge. Flatwork adjacent to top of a slope should be constructed with an outside footing to attain a minimum of 7 feet distance to daylight. 7.4.i.iii Concrete slump should not exceed 4 inches Kiovanish-Hollins Residence Page No. 9 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP Job No. 165564-1 i GEOTECHNCAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS I 7.4.Liv Concrete should be poured during "cool" (40 -65 degrees) weather if possible: If concrete is poured in hotter weather, a set retarding additive I should be included in the mix, and the slump kept to a minimum. 7.4.i.v Concrete subgrade should be pre-soaked prior to the pouring of concrete. I The level of pre-soaking should be a minimum of 2% over optimum moisture to a depth of 18 inches. 7.4.i.vi Concrete should be constructed with tooled joints creating concrete I sections no larger than 225 square feet. For sidewalks, the maximum run between joints should not exceed 5 feet. For rectangular shapes of I .concrete, the ratio of length to width should generally not exceed 0.6 (i.e., 5 ft. long by 3 ft. wide). Joints should be cut at expected points of concrete shrinkage (such as male corners), with diagonal reinforcement placed in I . accordance with industry standards. 7.4.i.vii Isolation joints should be installed at exterior concrete where exterior I concrete is poured adjacent to existing foundations. 7.4.i.viii Drainage adjacent to concrete flatwork should direct water away from the I improvement. Concrete subgrade should be sloped and directed to the collective drainage system, such that water is not trapped below the flatwork. I 7.4.i.ix The recommendations set forth herein are intended to reduce cosmetic nuisance cracking. The project concrete contractor is ultimately responsible for concrete quality and performance, and should pursue a cost-benefit analysis of these recommendations, and other options available in the — industry, prior to the pouring of concrete. 7.5 RETAINING WALLS New retaining walls up to 10 feet may be designed and constructed in accordance with the following recommendations and minimum design parameters. 7.5.a. Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the allowable bearing criteria given in the "Foundations" section of this report, and should maintain minimum footing depths outlined in "Foundations" section of this report. It is anticipated that all retaining wall footings will be placed on sandstone material. Where cut-fill transitions may occur footings may be deepened to competent material and alternative detailing may be provided by the Engineering Design Group on a case by case basis. Kiovanish-Hollins Residence Page No. 10 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Job No. 165564-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS 7.5.b. In moisture sensitive areas (i.e. interior living space where vapor emission is a concern), in our experience poured in place concrete provides a surface with higher performance-repairability of below grade waterproofing systems. The owner should consider the cost-benefit of utilizing cast in place building retaining walls in lieu of masonry as part of the overall construction of the residence. Waterproofing at any basement floors is recommended in areas of moisture sensitive floor finishes. 7.5.c. Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using an active equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pcf. This assumes that granular, free draining material with very low potential for expansion (E.l. <20) will be used for backfill, and that the backfill surface will be level. Where soil with potential for expansion is not low (E.l. >50) a new active fluid pressure will be provided by the project soils engineer. Backfill materials should be considered prior to the design of the retaining walls to ensure accurate detailing. We anticipate onsite material will be utilized as retaining wall backfill. For sloping backfill, the following parameters may be utilized: Backfill Sloping 2:1 Slope 1.5:1 Slope Condition Active Fluid Pressure 50 pcf 65 pcf *Any other surcharge loadings shall be analyzed in addition to the above values. 7.5.d. If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement, they should be designed for an uniform at-rest soil pressure of 65 psf. 7.5.e. Retaining walls shall be designed for additional lateral forces due to earthquake, where required by code, utilizing the following design parameters. 7.5.e.i Yielding Walls = PE= (3/8) kAE (y) H2 - applied at a distance of 0.6 times the height (H) of the wall above the base 7.5.e.ii Horizontal ground acceleration value kH = 0.25g. 7.5.e.iii Where non-yielding retaining walls are proposed, the specific conditions should be brought to the attention of Engineering Design Group for alternative design values. 7.5.e.iv The unit weight of 120 pcf for the onsite soils may be utilized. Kiovanish-Hollins Residence Page No. 11 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP Job No. 165564-1 1 GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS 7.5.e.v The above design parameters assume unsaturated conditions. Retaining wall designs for sites with a hydrostatic pressure influence (i.e groundwater within depth of retaining wall or waterfront conditions) will require special design considerations and should be brought to the attention of Engineering Design Group. 7.5.f. Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pcf. This value assumes that the soil being utilized to resist passive pressures extends horizontally 2.5 times the height of the passive pressure wedge of the soil. Where the horizontal distance of the available passive pressure wedge is less than 2.5 times the height of the soil, the passive pressure value must be reduced by the percent reduction in available horizontal length. 7.5.g. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 between the soil and concrete footings may be utilized to resist lateral loads in addition to the passive earth pressures above. 7.5.h. All walls shall be provided with adequate back drainage to relieve hydrostatic pressure, and be designed in accordance with the minimum standards contained in the "Retaining Wall Drainage Detail", Appendix D. The waterproofing elements shown on our details are minimums, and are intended to be supplemented by the waterproofing consultant and/or architect. The recommendations should be reviewed in consideration of proposed finishes and usage, especially at basement levels, performance expectations and budget. If deemed necessary by the project owner, based on the above analysis, and waterproofing systems can be upgraded to include slab under drains and enhanced waterproofing elements. 7.5.i. Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the I "Earthwork" section of this report. Backfill shall consist of soil with a very low expansion potential, granular, free draining material. I 7.5.j. Retaining walls should be braced and monitored during compaction. If this cannot be accomplished, the compactive effort should be included as a surcharge load when i designing the wall. I 8.0 SURFACE DRAINAGE Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and will play a critical role on the future I performance of the proposed improvements. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond against or adjacent to tops of slopes and/or foundation walls. I! Kiovanish-Hollins Residence Page No. 12 I Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Job No. 165564-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS I The ground surface surrounding proposed improvements should be relatively impervious in nature, and slope to drain away from the structure in all directions, with a minimum slope of 2% for a horizontal distance of 7 feet (where possible). Area drains or surface swales should then be provided in low spots to accommodate 'runoff and avoid any ponding of water. Any french drains, backdrains and/or slab underdrains shall not be tied to surface area drain systems. Roof gutters and downspous shall be installed on the new and existing structures and tightlined to the area drain system. All drains should be kept clean and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Area drains should be kept free of debris to allow for proper drainage. Over watering can adversely affect site improvements and cause perched groundwater conditions. Irrigation should be limited to only the amount necessary to sustain plant life. Low flow irrigation devices as well as automatic rain shut-off devices should be installed to reduce over watering. Irrigation practices and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems are an important component to the performance of onsite improvements. During periods of heavy rain, the performance of all drainage systems should be inspected. Problems such as gullying or ponding should be corrected as soon as possible. Any leakage from sources such as water lines should also be repaired as soon as possible. In addition, irrigation of planter areas, lawns, or other vegetation, located adjacent to the foundation or exterior flat work improvements should be strictly controlled or avoided. 9.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by the investigation and our general experience in the project area. Interpolated subsurface conditions should be verified in the field during construction. The following items shall be conducted prior/during construction by a representativeof Engineering Design Group in order to verify compliance with the geotechnical and civil engineering recommendations provided herein, as applicable. The project structural and geotechnical engineers may upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during the development of the proposed improvement(s). 9.1 Review of final approved grading and structural plans prior to the start of work for compliance with geotechnical recommendations. 9.2 Attendance of a pre-grade/construction meeting prior to the start of work. 9.3 Observation of subgrade and excavation bottoms. 9.4 Testing of any fill placed, including retaining wall backfill and utility trenches. Klovanish-Hollins Residence Page No. 13 Adams Street, Carlsbad,. California ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP Job No. 165564-1 i GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS 9.5 Observation of footing excavations prior to steel placement and removal of excavation equipment. 9.6 Field observation of any "field change" condition involving soils. 9.7 Walk through of final drainage detailing prior to final approval. The project soils engineer may at their discretion deepen footings or locally recommend additional steel reinforcement to upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during site observations. Engineering Design Group shall, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, issue in writing that the above inspections have been conducted by a representative of their firm, and the design considerations of the project soils report have been met. The field inspection protocol specified herein is considered the minimum necessary for Engineering Design Group to have exercised "due diligence" in the soils engineering design aspect of this building. Engineering Design Group assumes no liability for structures constructed utilizing this report not meeting this protocol. Before commencement of grading the Engineering Design Group will require a separate contract for quality control observation and testing. Engineering Design Group requires a minimum of 48 hours notice to mobilize onsite for field observation and testing. 10.0 MISCELLANEOUS It must be noted that no structure or slab should be expected to remain totally free of cracks and minor signs of cosmetic distress. The flexible nature of wood and steel structures allows them to respond to movements resulting from minor unavoidable settlement of fill or natural soils, the swelling of clay soils, or the motions induced from seismic activity. All of the above can induce movement that frequently results in cosmetic cracking of brittle wall surfaces, such as stucco or interior plaster or interior brittle slab finishes. Data for this report was derived from surface and subsurface observations at the site, knowledge of local conditions. The recommendations in this report are based on our experience in conjunction with the limited soils exposed at this site. We believe that this information gives an acceptable degree of reliability for anticipating the behavior of the proposed improvement; however, our recommendations are professional opinions and cannot control nature, nor can they assure the soils profiles beneath or adjacent to those observed. Therefore, no warranties of the I accuracy of these recommendations, beyond the limits of the obtained data, is herein expressed or implied. This report is based on the investigation at the described site and on the specific anticipated construction as stated herein. If either of these conditions is changed, the results Kiovanish-Hollins Residence Page No. 14 I Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Job No. 165564-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS I would also most likely change. Man-made or natural changes in the conditions of a property can occur over a period of time. In addition, changes in requirements due to state of the art knowledge and/or legislation are rapidly occurring. As a result, the findings of this report may become invalid due to these changes. Therefore, this report for the specific site, is subject to review and not considered valid after a period of one year, or if conditions as stated above are altered. It is the responsibility of the owner or his/her representative to ensure that the information in this report be incorporated into the plans and/or specifications and construction of the project. It is advisable that a contractor familiar with construction details typically used to deal with the local subsoil and seismic conditions be retained to build the structure. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. We hope the report provides you with necessary information to continue with the development of the project. Kiovanish-Hollins Residence Page No. 15 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP Job No. 165564-1 i GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS FIGURES ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GfOJtCIUt"tCAt, an. ' s.r.u:,ull\H. Ct:;H;tAIA.lff:;. fOll"l:Ut .. l.,_1 AC-llMtlt-r.-... COtGl•Utli:J.!11 " 2121 Montiel Road. San Marcos. California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 • www.desi9ngroupc~.com Project: Klovanish-Hollins Proposed Residence Address: Adams Street, (APN 206-180-4100), Carlsbad, California EDG Project No: 165564-1 FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP CiCOHCtt,tr.;rC'Al. CfR. I 511'.UtTU-""l CUt~IA..'ft~ '°" Mt~ou,••l A C.GMl't•t:rAl CUN:';ltwCIW't 2121 Montiel Road. San Marcos. California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 • www.designgroupca.com '- Project: Klovanish-Hollins Proposed Residence Address: Adams Street, (APN 206-180-4100), Carlsbad, California EOG Project No: 165564-1 FIGURE 2 Site Map ENGINEERING m?i !2~!q,~..,2~9UP -··~ I OllNl~IJl .. ll&l 4tnlWl•CIAl CDIGl•utll:>• 2121 Montiel Road. San Marcos. California 92069 • (760) 039-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 • www.designgroupc.:1.com Project: Klovanish-Hollins Proposed Residence Address: Adams Street, (APN 206-180-4100), Carlsbad, California EDG Project No: 165564-1 FIGURE 3 Site Plan and Approximate Location of Trenches - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project Name: Kiovanish-Hollins Residence TEST PT LOG NO I EDG Project Number: 1655641 Location: Northeast corner. (see location map) Sheet I of I Date(s) Excavated: March 2', 2016 Total Depth: 4' Groundwater Level: Not encountered Logged By: AB Approx. Suilace Elev. Existing grade. (Approx. 124 ft.) Backfilled (date) ' March 2, 2016 Excavation Method: Bobcat Mini-Excavator Soil Type Depth Material Description and Notes UCSC Sample TOPSOIL, FILL, WEATHERED A 0 - 3' Loose to medium dense, dry, light brown to brown, silty sands. Traces of roots SW-SM in upper 2 feet. SANDSTONE B 3'— 4' Dense to very dense, slightly moist to moist, light brown to brown to reddish SW-SM brown, slightly silty sandstone. GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION: Project Name: Kiovanish-Hollins Residence TEST PT LOG NO.. 2 EDG Project Number: 165564-1 Location: North corner. (see location map) Sheet I of I Date(s) Excavated: March 2, 2016 Total Depth: ' Groundwater Level: Not encountered Logged By: AB Approx. Surface Elev. Existing grade. (Approx. 120 ft.) Backfilied (date) March 2, 2016 Excavation Method: Bobcat Mini-Excavator Soil Type Depth Material Description and Notes UCSC Sample TOPSOIL, FILL, WEATHERED A 0-2' Loose to medium dense, moist, light brown to brown, silty sands. Traces of SW-SM roots in upper 1.5 feet. SANDSTONE D 2'- 3' Dense to very dense, brown to reddish brown, slightly silty sandstone. SW-SM GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION: FG -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project Name: Klovanish-Hollins Residence TEST PIT LOG NO. 3 EDG Project Number: 1665641 Location: Mid west center. (see location map) Sheet I of I Date(s) Excavated: nd March 2, 2016 Total Depth: 7' Groundwater Level: Not encountered Logged By: AB Approx. Surface Elev. Existing grade. (Approx. 110 ft) Backfilled (date) March 2"', 2016 Excavation Method: Bobcat Mini-Excavator Soil Type Depth Material Description and Notes UCSC Sample TOPSOIL, FILL, WEATHERED A 0 4' Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, silty sands. Roots in upper 3 feet. SW-SM SANDSTONE SW-SM B 4'7' Dense, moist, light brown to light yellowish white, silty sandstone. GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION: FG -2 -8 -9 APPENDIX A REFERENCES California Geological Survey, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Rupture Zones in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 1990. Day, Robert W. 1999. Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering Design and Construction. McGraw Hill. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974 Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. Kennedy, Michael P. and Tan Siang S., Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California. Plate 2, Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, San Diego County California. Dated 1996. Lee, L.J., 1977, Potential foundation problems associated with earthquakes in San Diego, in Abbott, P.L. and Victoria, J.K., eds. Geologic Hazards in San Diego, Earthquakes, Landslides, and Floods: San Diego Society of Natural History John Porter Dexter Memorial Publication. McKinney Architect, Mark, Klovanish Residence Plans, Dated March 4, 2016. Ploessel, M.R. and Slossan, i.E., 1974 Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes: California Geology, Vol. 27, No. 9, P. 195-199. State of California, Fault Map of California, Map No. 1, Dated 1975. State of California, Geologic Map of California, Map No, 1, Dated 1977. Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) Seismology Committee, Macroseminar Presentation on Seismically Induced Earth Pressure, June 8, 2006. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Shoreline Movement Data Report, Portuguese Point to Mexican Border, dated December U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Coastal Cliff Sediments, San Diego Region (CCSTWS 87-2), dated June. Van Dorn, W.G., 1979 Theoretical aspects of tsunamis along the San Diego coastline, in Abbott, P.L. and Elliott, W.J., Earthquakes and Other Perils: Geological Society of America field trip guidebook. Various Aerial Photographs. APPENDIX B General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 1.0 2.0 3.0 General Intent These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations for grading and earthwork to be utilized in conjunction with the approved grading plans. These general earthwork and grading specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and shall be superseded by the recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new' recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to read and understand these specifications, as well as the geotechnical report and approved grading plans. Earthwork Observation and Testing Prior to commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24 hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No grading operations should be performed without the knowledge of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical consultant is aware of all grading operations. It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, recommendations in the geotechnical report and the approved grading plans not withstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant If, in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical report and the specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction shouls be performed in general accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing and Materials test method ASTM D1557. Preparations of Areas to be Filled 3.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots and all other deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, design engineer, governing agencies and the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. In general, no more than 1 percent (by volume) of the fill material should consist of these materials and nesting of these materials should not be allowed. 3.2 Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. 3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic-rich, 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 competent ground, as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining quantities of materials overexcavated, a licensed land surveyor I civil engineer should be utilized. 3.4 Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried back, blended and / or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 3.5 Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed, screened of deleterious material and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 3.6 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet into competent material as evaluated by.the geotechnical consultant. Other benches should be excavated into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas and toe-of-fill benches, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement. 4.0 Fill Material 4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended by the geotechnical consultant or mixed, with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension of greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills, unless the location, materials and disposal methods are specifically recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade, within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction, or within 15 feet horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the attached detail. 4.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material should meet the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be given to allow the geotechnical consultant to observe (and test, if necessary) the proposed import materials. 5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas prepared and previously evaluated to receive fill, in near-horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of material and moisture throughout. I 5.2 Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried-back, blended and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 5.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture-conditioned and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to no less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (unless otherwise specified). Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree and uniformity of compaction. 5.4 Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of fill out to the slope face would be at least 90 percent. 5.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of compaction of the fill soils should be performed at the consultant's discretion based on file dconditions encountered. In general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils. In addition to, on slope faces, as a guideline approximately one test should be taken for every 5,000 square feet of slope face and /or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. 6.0 Subdrain Installation I . Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be installed in areas previously evaluated for suitability by the geotechnical consultant, to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or modified unless I recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant however, may recommend changes in subdrain line or grade depending on conditions encountered. All subdrains should be surveyed by a licensed land surveyor/ civil engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficient time shall be allowed for the survey, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains. 7.0 Excavation Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant (as necessary) during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation, overexcavation and refilling of cut areas and/or remedial grading of cut slopes (i.e. stability fills or slope buttresses) may be recommended. 8.0 Quantity Determination For purposes of determining quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or determining the limits of overexcavation, a licensed land surveyor / civil engineer should be utilized. I I SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL I . I I EXISTING GROUND SURFACE_ FINISHED SLOPE FACE PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE FINISHED CUT PADj FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF XEY ------------ P A CTE - - OVERBURDEN OR UNSUITABLE PAD OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH MATERIAL AND RECOMPACTION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE ---- GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT --:: BENCH BASED ON ACTUAL FIELD - - - CONDITIONS--ENCOUNTERED. -2% MIN.- S 2 I15 MIN. -COMPETENT BEDROCK OR LOWEST ,.- MATERIAL AS EVALUATED DEPTH ( KEY BENCH BY THE GEOTECHN / .1 CONSULTANT I NOTE: Subdrain details and key width recommendations to be provided based on exposed subsurface conditions I I I STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL OUTLET PIPES 4' 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE, 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY—. BACK CUT 1:1 OR FLATTER I- '-BENCH SEE SUODRAIN TRENCF DETAIL LOWEST SUBORAIN SHOULD BE SITUATED AS LOW AS POSSIBLE TO ALLOW SUITABLE OUTLET SEE T-CONNECTION DETAIL 16' MIN. COVER R FOR ATED PIPE KEY OEPTH I 41N. MIN. 5 ItIt' I V KEY WIDTH lAS NOTED ON GRADING PLANS 15' MIN. 61 MIN 7 3/4-1-112' OVERL / LI CLEAN GRAVEL ~~P~ERFOMRATED 10' MIN. EACH SIDE NON-PERFORA = OUTLET PIPE T-CO.NNECTION DETAIL * IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL U.S. Standard Sieve Size % Passing 1' 100 3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-100 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 Sand Equivalent >75 (3ft 3Ift. MIN.) 4a 0 NON-PERFORATED PIPE FILTER FABRIC 5% A41N ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT)* SUBORAIN TRENCH DETAU- PE 4' MIN. BEDDING NOTES: For buttress dimensions, see geotechnical report/plans. Actual dimensions of buttress and subdralfl may be changed by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions. SIJBDRAIN INSTALLATION_Subdraifl pipe should be installed with perforations down as depicted. At locations recommended by the geotechnical consultant, nonperforated pipe should be Installed SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdrain type should be AcrylOn true Butadiene Styrene (A.B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125,SOR 32.5 should be used for maximum fill depths of 35 feet. Class 200, SOR 21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 feet. KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS FILL SLOPE PROJECT I TO I LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO COMPETENT MATERIAL EXISTING GROUND SURFACE REMOVE UNSUITABLE % BENCH 2' MIN. is, MIN. KEY LOWEST DEPTH BENCH (KEY) _QPACTED- FILL—OVER—CUT SLOPE GROUND SURFACE ------ -- BENCH 1 N REMOVE UNSUITABLE 2* LOWE MIN BENCH MATERIAL KEY DEPTH (KEY) CUT SLOPE (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) - EXISTING /7 GROUND SURFACE-._ CUT SLOPE CUT—OVER—FILL SLOPE / / (TO BE EXCAVATED / PRIOR TO FILL - PLACEMENT) - I _--.--. - REMOVE UNSUITABLE PROJECT 1 TO 1 _-_ MATERIAL LINE FROM TOE - OF SLOPE TO COMPETENT -FI - MATERIAL BENCH MIN 2' MIN LOWEST KEY DEPTH BENCH NOTE: Back drain may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on I actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may also be altered based on field conditions encountered. ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL FINISH GRADE SLOPE FACE ;r r.. -------------- --------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - :r: ~:3:::: ~~ - VI;MP'45WINDROW GRANULAR SOIL (S.E.2: 30) 10 BE DENSIFJED IN PLACE BY FLOODING DETAIL ------ - TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW Rock with maximum dimensions greater than 6 inches should not be used within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility whichever is greater), and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces. Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet should not be utilized in fills. Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by thi geotechnical consultant. Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above detail Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered vertically (as depicted). Rock should be placed in excavated trenches. Granular soil (S.E. greater than or eqUa to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill voids around and beneath rocks. APPENDIX C IENGINEERING rDESIGN GROUP ooIEcIca.ciwLsIjtuciuIIa KCIIECIu&A CuuAr:I. FOI R(SIQlFIL & COWEIICIAL C616IRUCUON 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 (760) 839-7302 Fax: (760) 480-7477 'www.designgroupca.com I LABORATORY RESULTS Method Cal-Trans LI Analyte Result Reporting Limit Units Dilution Method SULFATE 31.9 n/a ppm 1 CT 417 CHLORIDE 23.7 n/a ppm 1 CT 422 p.H. 6.58 n/a pH units 1 CT 643 RESISTIVITY 16700 n/a ohms.com 1 CT 643 ND=None detected - us/cm = micro Siemens per centimeter - ppm-parts per million (10,000ppm=1% by weight) Klovanish-Hollins Residence Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Job No. 165564-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL, CIVIL, STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS APPENDIX D ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP 2121 MON11EL ROAD PHONE: (760) 839-7302 SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069 FAX: (760) 480-7477 MINIMUM RETAINING WALL WATERPROOFING & DRAINAGE DETAIL (NOT TO SQ4W NZ THIS DETAIL REPRESENTS THE MINIMUM WALL DRAINAGE AND WATERPROOFING APPLICATION TO SAIIY THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN INTENT OF THE RETAINING WALL. THE ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER OF RECORD FOR THE PROECT SHALL BE RESONBLE FOR THE DESIGN AND SPECIFICATION OF THE WATERPROOFING 3% MIN ASSEMBLY SEW CONC OR CMU RET WALL PER PLAN & DETAILS lbo FOAM UV PR01EC7ION BOARD PER to ~ CL '.—) MANUFACTURER'S SPEOIFICA lION WATERPROOFING INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S £°EOIFTCA liONS & EXTEND BEHIND BACKER BOARD. ç BACKDRAIN, INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S SPEOIFTCATIONS OWR WATERPROOFING. - i2 ANY PENETRATIONS OF WATERPROOFING SHALL BE BROUGHT 10 THE ATIEJtIIION OF THE WATERPROOFiNG cl CONSULTANT/MANUFACTURER IN HE ADVANCE AND SEALED PER MANUFACTURERS 9'EaRCA1IONS TERMINATION BAR PER MANUFACTURER'S S°EOIFICA11ONS FiLTER FABRIC WI 6" MIN LAP ® 3/4" ORAL (1 / Fl) () 4" DIA PERFORATED DRAIN LINE (SCH 40 OR EQUIV.) PERFORATTCWS ORIENTED DOW IX MINIMUM GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET — S k EXACT PIPE LOCATiON TO BE DETERMINED BY lE CONSTRAINTS 4" TALL CONCRETE CANT 0 FF1.1 / WALL '—' OIYJNECTION (UNDER WAIERPROGF1NG). SLOPE TO BACK EDGE OF FOOTING. 4\ COMPACTED BACXFTLL 90% MIN RELATIVE — ) COMPAC1ION IN ALL OTHER AREAS U.O.N. 6" MAX U ONLY UONThBGHT HAND—OPERATED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE USED VdTH!N3 FEET OF THE BACK FACE OFWAIL CSP ROUGHNESS OF WALL SHALL COMPLY 1H .J WATERPROOFING MANUFACTURER'S SERCA1lONS H1]R0117E WATER— STOPS AT COLD— JOINTS PER MFR INSTALLATiON INSTRUCTIONS .4B & VAPOR BARRIER PER PLAN & DETAILS ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEO1EC*ICAL CIVIL. SIP UCiURAL & URCifi jECTURAL CONSULTANTS FOR RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069' (760) 839-7302' Fax: (760) 480-7477 e www.designgroupca.com Date: February 9, 2017 To: Crystal Hollins and Steven Klovanish 2721 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Proposed new Kiovanish residence to be located at 4385 Adams Avenue, Carlsbad, California Subject: Addendum No. 1 Reference: "Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation Recommendations Proposed New Residence to be located at Adams Avenue (APN 206-180-4100), Carlsbad, California." Prepared by Engineering Design Group, dated March 25, 2016. "I't Review for CDP 2016-0005 - Klovariish Residence", prepared by Jason Goff, City of Carlsbad, dated January 11, 2017. Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, prepared by Siang S. Tan and Desmond G. Griffen, dated 1995. Kennedy, Michael P. and Tan Siang S., Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California. Plate 2, Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, San Diego County California. Dated 1996. (Reference No. 5 of original report) We have prepared the following Addendum to our original report (Reference No. 1), to address City comments as outlined in the City letter (Reference No. 2). COMMENT A: SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION At the time of this addendum the project scope has changed from our original report. We understand the project as currently proposed will consist of a single family residence with one and two story elements. Based upon our discussions with project designer and builder we further understand the design intent is to limit grading by extending building foundations through fill and weathered profiles, deepened to competent sandstone. We understand the new residence, with the exception of the garage, will be founded on a raised floor utilizing a caisson and grade beam type system. Where caisson and grade beam type foundations are not implemented (i.e. garage) grading as described in our original report, Ref. No. 1, shall be implemented. EDG Project No. 165564-1 FOUNDATIONS In consideration of the anticipated deepened foundation system we have provided the following foundation design parameters. Proposed new foundations are to be founded directly in competent sandstone material. Caissons should extend a minimum of 6 feet into competent formational materials beyond the point of fixity, (anticipated to be approximately 5 ft. below adjacent grade contact.). Skin friction values provided herein are to be used only for that portion of the caisson which lies below the point of fixity. Caisson embedment into sandstone should be verified by representative of this office prior to removal of excavation equipment placing reinforcement or concrete. Caissons should be designed based on an allowable skin friction value of 550 psf - adhesion (neglecting caisson weight) for that portion of caisson lying below the point of fixity, to a maximum bearing capacity of 65 kip per caisson (see note 1). Designs with proposed vertical bearing greater than 65 kip (omitting caisson wt.). With skin friction design (only), the bottom of caisson excavation shall be cleaned utilizing driller cleaning bucket. Hand cleaning of excavation is not required. Cleanliness of caisson excavations are to be inspected prior to placement of steel. Bearing values may be increased by 33% when considering wind, seismic, or other short duration loadings. Caissons shall maintain a minimum of 20 feet distance to daylight. Caissons shall not be out of plumb by more than 2% of their total length. Caissons excavations should be cleaned of all loose soil debris subsequent to excavation and prior to the placement of reinforcing steel. The contractor should utilize a clean out bucket to remove loose debris in the bottom of the excavations. Caissons excavations should then be visually observed by our representative in order to verify depth of embedment and cleanliness of the excavation bottom. Caissons should be designed with a minimum diameter of 24 inches and be reinforced in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. Piers may be designed with an arching effect of two (2) pier diameters total. Caissons may be designed using a passive earth pressure, of equivalent fluid weight, of 350 pounds per cubic foot for below point of fixity. EDG Project No. 165564-1 LMIUI'J 3UIVIIVIIAKY Ut.II'J VMLUL Minimum Diameter 24 inches Minimum Embedment 6 feet below point of fixity Lateral Load See Above Allowable Skin Friction - Adhesion 550 psf Allowable Passive Pressure 350 psf Maximum Caisson Spacing 10 feet Point of Fixity 5 feet below finished adjacent grade. The proper installation of caissons will be of great importance. Care in drilling, placement of steel, and the pouring of concrete will be essential to avoid excessive erosion of caissons boring walls within the I upper fills. Concrete placement by pumping or tremie tube may be considered. Both clean out and concrete placement should be addressed in the specifications. Caissons excavations should be observed by our office prior to the installation of reinforcement. Caissons excavations should be properly shored prior to allowing any personnel into the excavation. COMMENT B: GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Based upon our review of Reference No. 3 & 4 the site and adjacent site have no mapped landslides. In general, the site as well as nearby sites, are mapped as generally susceptible to landslide, as is much of the general area. Therefore,, if drainage is controlled and managed, the landslide risk to the site is not significantly greater than that of the surrounding developed area. Because of the dense nature of the soil materials underlying the site and the lack of near surface water, the potential for lateral spreading, liquefaction, subsidence or seismically-induced dynamic settlement at the site is considered low. The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. COMMENT C: I As identified in Section 4 of Reference No. 1, onsite soils are potentially having expansion potentials in the low to medium range, and thereby greater than El>20. Deepened foundation design, as discussed EDG Project No. 165564-1 I I I Sincerely, ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP LU GE 2590 Ct) E. C65122 above are proposed for this project. If the recommendations of this addendum, our original report and onsite quality control is implemented, it is our opinion there is not substantial risk to life or property due to expansive soils. If you have any questions regarding this addendum, please feel free to contact our office. Steven Norris Erin E. Rist California GE#2590 California RCE #65122 EDG Project No. 165564-1 I SPIDf, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING ® GROUNDWATER ® ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 14 August 2017 Crystal Hollins & Steve Kiovanish Job No. 17-11549 2721 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Reoort of Limited Geotechnical Investigation Pr000sed Storm Water Infiltration BMPs Proposed Hollins/Klovanish Residence 4422 Adams Street Carlsbad, California Dear Ms. Hollins & Mr. Klovanish: In accordance with your request, and our proposal dated June 26, 2017, we herein provide this limited geotechnical investigation to allow evaluation of the feasibility of utilizing a storm water infiltration BMP's at the location of the proposed residential project. On June 30, 2017, we placed two test pits within or adjacent to the proposed bio-filtration basin for evaluation of the storm water infiltration BMPs, per the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Storm Water Standards, BMP Design Manual in accordance with the Guidelines for Geotechnical Reports (Appendix C), and Approved Infiltration Rate Assessment Methods (Appendix D). I. PROJECT SUMMARY AND SCOPE OF SERVICES It is our understanding, based on communications with you, that the existing undeveloped residential lot will be developed to receive a new single family residential structure and associated improvements. 7420 TRADE STREETS SAN DIEGO, CA. 92121 (858) 549-7222 0 FAX: (858) 549-1604 @ EMAIL: geotech@gei-sd.com Proposed Hollins/Kiovanish Residence Job No. 17-11549 Carlsbad, California Page I We have reviewed the Grading Plan of the property, prepared by Coffey Engineering, Inc., with the location of the proposed blo-filtration basin. Final construction plans have not been provided to us during the preparation of this report, however, when completed they should be made available for our review. Additional or modified recommendations may be provided as warranted. The scope of work performed for this investigation included a site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration program, laboratory testing, simple open pit falling head testing within the location of the proposed blo-filtration basin, and the preparation of this report. The data obtained and the analyses were performed to allow evaluation of the feasibility of the proposed storm water infiltration BMP. H. SITE DESCRIPTION I The subject site is known as Assessor's Parcel No. 206-180-41-00, in the City of I Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. For the location of the site, refer to the Vicinity Map, Figure No. I. The approximately 0.40 acre property is bordered on the north by an undeveloped I residential property; on the east and south by existing residential properties; and on the west by Adams Street. Refer to the Plot Plan, Figure No. II. I Vegetation at the site consists primarily of weeds and shrubbery. The lot is currently I undeveloped and consists of a moderately sloping hillside. In general, the grades descend moderately to the west and southwest. Elevations across the property range from approximately 124 feet above Mean Sea I Level (MSL) along the east property line, to 91 feet above (MSL) along the west I _ I I I Proposed Hollins/Kiovanish Residence I Carlsbad, California Job No. 17-11549 Page 3 property line adjacent to Adams Street. Information concerning approximate I elevations across the site was obtained from a Grading Plan prepared by Coffey Engineering, Inc. Drainage on the site is predominately towards the west and i southwest. III. FIELD INVESTIGATION I The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program using hand tools to investigate, sample and perform infiltration I testing of the subsurface soils. Two exploratory handpits were excavated along the middle portion of the west property line. Both exploratory handpits were excavated I within or adjacent to the proposed bio-retention basin on June 30, 2017. the bio- filtration basin has been proposed along the middle portion of the western property I line. The soils encountered in the exploratory excavations were continuously logged in the field by our field geologist and described in accordance with the Unified Soil I Classification System. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations and simple open pit testing are shown on the Plot Plan, Figure No. II. I Representative samples were obtained from the exploratory excavations at selected depths appropriate to the investigation. ,All samples were returned to our laboratory for evaluation and testing. IV. SOIL DESCRIPTION I Our subsurface exploration program revealed that the proposed storm water blo- filtration basin, is underlain by approximately 1.5 feet of silty sand and sandy clay I topsoil/slopewash materials over clayey sand formational soils. Our review of the geologic map by Kennedy and Tan, 2007, "Geologic Map of Oceanside, 30'x60' I Quadrangle, CA," indicate that the site is underlain by formational soils of the Proposed Hollins/Kiovanish Residence Job No. 17-11549 Carlsbad, California Page 4 Quaternary-Age Old Paralic Deposits (Qop2-4), as mapped on the upper portion of the site, and the Tertiary-Age Santiago formation as mapped on the lower portion of the site. The mapped formational soils of the Santiago Formation were encountered beneath the topsoil/slopewash soils in both of the exploratory excavations on the site to a depth of approximately 36 and 40 inches. The exploratory handpits and related. information depict subsurface conditions only at the specific locations shown on the site plan and on the particular date designated on the logs. Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these handpit locations. Also, the passage of time may result in changes in the subsurface conditions due to environmental changes. V LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION The following test was conducted on the sampled soils: 1. Determination of Percentage of Particles Passing #200 Sieve (ASTM D1140-06) The particle size smaller than a No. 200 sieve analysis aids in classifying the tested soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and provides qualitative information related to engineering characteristics such as expansion potential, permeability, and shear strength. Based on our laboratory test results at infiltration test location INF-1 and INF-2, 21% and 48% of the soils passed the #200 sieve, respectively. Proposed Hollins/Kiovanish Residence Job No. 17-11549 Carlsbad, California Page 5 VI. GROUNDWATER Free groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory excavations at the time of excavation. It must be noted, however, that fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, rainfall, and other possible factors that may not have been evident at the time of our field investigation. VII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are based on the field investigation conducted by our firm, our laboratory test results, infiltration test results, and our experience with similar soils and formational materials. We performed simple open pit falling head testing at two locations within or adjacent to the bottom of the proposed bio-filtration basin at a depth of 40 inches at INF-1, and 36 inches at INF-2 per the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Storm Water Standards, BMP Design Manual, in accordance with Appendix D. The bio-filtration basin has been proposed along the middle portion of the west property line. This is the most feasible locations on the property (i.e., relatively gentle gradient, away from structures, and away from utilities and retaining walls). Testing at the two locations (INF-1 and INF-2), revealed identical falling head rates of 960 minutes/inch, respectively. The simple open pit falling head test rate results for INF-1 and INF-2 have been converted to infiltration rates, using the Porchet Method and indicate infiltration rates of 0.032 and 0.031-inch/hour, respectively. Refer to Appendix A for simple open pit test rate results and simple open pit to infiltration rate calculations. Based on our review of USDA soil map sheet 22, the site has been assigned to hydrologic soil group (HSG) A. However, based the results of our simple open pit Proposed Hollins/Kiovanish Residence Job No. 17-11549 Carlsbad, California Page 6 testing and our laboratory test results, the site should be considered as (HSG) D. As part of our .geologic/geotechnical site evaluation, we considered the following issues: The site is not subject to high groundwater conditions (within 10 feet of the base of the infiltration facility. The site is not in relatively close proximity to a known contaminated soil site. The site may be underlain by artificial fill soils over dense clayey sand formational soils, but not subject to hydroconsolidation. The site has infiltration rates between of 0.032 and 0.031-inch/hour without an applied factor of safety. Portions of the site may have a silt plus clay percentage of greater than 50. The site is not underlain at relatively shallow depths by practically impermeable formational soils. The site is not located within 100 feet from a drinking water well. The site is not located within 100 feet from an on-site septic system or designated expansion area. The site is located adjacent to a slope steeper than 25 percent. Based on the results of our simple open pit falling head testing and evaluation of the infiltration rates, it is our professional opinion that the proposed bio-infiltration basin Proposed Hollins/Kiovanish Residence Job No. 17-11549 Carlsbad, California Page 7 I has somewhat favorable soil conditions and very minimal appreciable infiltration rates for the design of partial infiltration BMPs. However, we recommend the sidewalls of the proposed basin be lined and the basin be located away from any proposed structures, retaining walls and utility trenches. I VLTL LIMITATIONS I The findings, opinions, and conclusions presented herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practice in the field of geotechnical engineering within the City of Carlsbad. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is I made. I Our findings, opinions and conclusions are specifically limited to the scope of services described herein, for the evaluation and feasibility of storm water infiltration, within I and immediately adjacent to, the proposed blo-filtration basin. I If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 17-11549 will help expedite a response to your inquiry. I Respectfully submitted, GEO TECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. I Jrff ning Jaime A. Cerros, P.E. P2615 R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 Sologist Senior Geotechnical Engineer ENGINEERING k AOLMST Is OPCAL%f 454 a. rrI I VICINITY MAP I I'.JIIII I IlJVL4l III I I\ILlI IL 4422 Adams Avenue Carlsbad, CA. I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I Figure No.! I Job No. 17-11549 4r pi I I I I I -------------- £X. FENCE------.... ro MW,JN l PORl'ION OF BL OCK MAP No. LOT C 2162 11 CERl'IFJCATE OF COMPLJANCE PER DOC. 2016~476202 RE C. 9/12/iB 17-11/S4$-p.ai :~ r .. :;: :z: I ,.,,. -,. ~ --,, ....__..._ __ _............. ,,.,/ '"-.._ ,,,,.~ r-------,, ,,--: ',, // ................ ___ _... , I ~111. SPJCC SGl'I. PAD-IIB.5 l.w< .t.:) l ',, ___ / !PARCEL 3 ! PM 792 I ~----------, DI. POOL ---EX. POOL O£CI( \ I \ I --\ , ... __ .., r-- \ (p) C8 I RIii:: IM O _.,./ ..... ____ .. -... ---------- Bl'W.SS S'1lJRtl DIWN PIP£ FDR (2) UPSTRENI PROf'E1(TY ~ NaT CfJNIEr:rt1J ro ON-sm: DRAINAG£ smal --··--· --. ··------------.Q,,,,... ··vi,·--PROl'OS£D L.OC. -r:;,--,..._'71. --,·~!ER ~ --_a:_-_ . .,,_ ,o'---~ -S.: -~-(P)~~---- :.:;.:=;,,-1 9 > > ; 1 > 1 ' ' i , ;f--~ Q n, ---; ; e:F-= -Plttr. -- SDRSD D-2!J _;:_....=_ ____ ,_TI~~~=~~ t ..:~J--f--~ -7 - A 10 NOTE: This Plot Plan is not to be used for legal purposes. Locationss and dimensions are approximate. Actual property dimensions and locations of utilities may be obtained from the Approved Building Plans or the "As-Built" Grading Plans. '" 11' CITY 01" C,\·H·l~U,\iJ 1,s rc-;I 2 ; :..""1.,i~E.L"".'!!_.t.lLL".'.:l..l-,'..~1-j -1 C.RADIHC PL\h:I t"'OK.~ ------· -I KLO\Ati!SH Hl:~llJl::NCJ:: 4;~0:i ADAM;:; f,TRF.r.T 1 ,n.c: sia -~ _ _I 4<11::R:,to/lL': ..... ')1",. S. \iiL!KP' j 'J_?'t_f"lri:.lflt, >~..li.ill "lOA"S_?..,_~1_e~j .. ti. J .: --. -JI . .:-I)!'~·' t,•1. .·1>"1.t.'NN:.i ·,tr., -:-!8. L.=-t<;.P~ 20_16 OQQ;,L __ J Scale: l " = 20' (approxima te) ~ a ,o'-20 JO - LEGEND @ INF-1 Approximate Location of Infiltration Test PLOT PLAN Hollins/K/ovanish Residence 4422 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA. Figure No. II Job No. 17-11549 REFERENCE: This Plot Plan was prepared from an existing GRADING PLAN dated 02/15/17 and from on-site field reconnaissance performed by GEi. :II Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. ( August 2017) APPENDIX A SIMPLE OPEN PIT TEST RESULTS AND INFILTRATION RATE CONVERSIONS Is Project Name: Kiovanish Project No. 17-11549 Date Excavated: 6/30/17 Test Hole No: INF-1 Simple Open Pit Test Sheet Calculated By: SO Date: 7/3/17 Soil Classification: (SC) Checked By: Date: Test Hole Dia: 24" Depth of Test Hole: 40" Time (minutes) Time interval Initial water level Final water level (inches) Change in water (inches) Percolation rate (mm/inches) 1115 60 34.000 34.188 0.188 320.000 1215 1215 60 34.188 34.250 0.062 967.742 115 115 60 34.250 34.313 0.063 960.000 215 e: 7/3/17 Soil Classification: (SC) e: th of Test Hole: 36" rcolation rate (mm/inches) 480.000 480.000 960.000 - - - - 101111111111 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Simple Open Pit Rate to Infiltration Rate Conversion (Porchet Method) Project Name: Klovanish Project No. 17-11549 Test Hole No: INF-1 Test EB Depth Delta T No. (inches) (min) 1 40 60 2 40 60 3 40 60 4 5 6 7 8 9 Water Depth 1 (inches) 34.000 34.188 34.250 Calculated By: SO Checked By: Test Hole Dia: 24" Date: 7/3/17 Date: Depth of Test Hole: 40" Porchet Corrections Infilt ration rate=((delta h*60r)/(delta t*(r+2 h avg)) Water Depth hl h2 delta h h avg 2 (inches) (inches) (inches} (inches) (inches) 34.188 6.000 5.812 0.188 5.906 34.250 5.812 5.750 0.062 5.781 34.313 5.750 5.687 0.063 5.719 r (radius) delta delta t*(r+2 h (inches) h*60r fil!g} 12 135.36 1428.72 12 44.64 1413.72 12 45.36 1406.22 Infiltration rate (in/hr) 0.095 0.032 0.032 Simple Open Pit Rate to Infiltration Rate Conversion (Porchet Method) Project Name: Klovanish Project No. 17-11549 Test Hole No: IN F-2 Test EB Depth Delta T No. (inches) (min) 1 36 60 2 36 60 3 36 60 4 5 6 7 8 9 Water Depth 1 (inches) 29.500 29.625 29.750 Calculated By: SO Checked By: Date: 7/3/17 Date: Test Hole Dia: 24" Depth of Test Hole: 36" Porchet Corrections Infiltration rate=((delta h*60r)/(delta t*(r+2 h avg)) Water Depth hl h2 delta h havg r (radius) 2 (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) (inches) 29.625 6.500 6.375 0.125 6.438 12 29.750 6.375 6.250 0.125 6.313 12 29.813 6.250 6.187 0.063 6.219 12 delta h*60r 90 90 45.036 delta t*{r+2 Infiltration rate h avg) (in/hr) 1492.5 0.060 1477.5 0.061 1466.247 0.031 I-lôlllnsltc.Iovanlsn i i-i i Appendix I: Forms and Checklists 11 Part 1-Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the (till design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable COflBUCflCC8 that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response X I to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensivc evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: The infiltration test results below the proposed facility location were 0.032 and 0.031 inches per hour without a minimum factor of safety of 2 applied. Simple open pit testing was performed at 2 locations on the site within or adjacent to the proposed infiltration basin in accordance with Appendix 0 of the City of Carlsbad BMP design manual. In addition, a comprehensive evaluation of the site was conducted in accordance with Appendix C.2. Please refer to our "Report of Limited Geotechnicat Investigation Proposed Storm Water Infiltration BMPs" for details of the comprehensive evaluation and investigation conducted, simple open pit test rates and simple open pit rate to infiltration rate calculations and maps representative of the study. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, 2 groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot x be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: The Infiltration test results below the proposed facility locations ranged from 0.032 to 0.031 inches per hour without a minimum factor of safety of 2 applied. Based on the infiltration test rate findings on the site, infiltration rates greater than 0.5 Inches per hour were not encountered. Theretore, a narrative discussion of the associated geotechnical hazards that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level is not applicable. Summarivc findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. 1-3 February 2016 Hollins/Kbvanish AppendixI: Forms and Checklists Critcn Screening Question Yes No a Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot x be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: The infiltration lest results below the proposed Facility locations ranged from 0.032 to 0.031 inches per hour without a minimum factor of safety of 2 applied. Based on the Infiltration test rate findings on the site, infiltration rates greater than 0.5 inches per hour were not encountered. Therefore, a narrative discussion of the associated risk of groundwater contamination that Cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level is not applicable, Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing potential water balance issues such as change of seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a coxnptehcnsive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basin Question to be answered by the design engineer. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. If all answers to rows I - 4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. Part I The feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration Result * ,, If any answer from row 1-4 is 'No , infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design. • Proceed to Part 2 *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit, Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. 14 February 2016 Hoflins/Klovanish 1 7-1 1549 I Appendix I: Forms and Checklists Part 2— Partial Infiltration vsNoJnfiltrtmon FeasibiIityScccnig Cr*teria Would Infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any 5 appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening X Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: The City of Carlsbad AMP Design Manual, Appendix C and Appendix D. do not provide values considered for appreciable rates. Although we do not consider the measured infiltration rates as appreciable from a practical standpoint, we answered yes to this screening question. Based on our infiltration test rates and limited geotechnical investigation of the site, it is our opinion that the soil and geologic conditions allow for very little appreciable infiltration rates. Please refer to our 'Report of Limited Geotcthnical Investigation Proposed Storm Water Infiltration BMPs for details of the comprehensive evaluation and investigation conducted, simple open pit test rates and simple open pit rate to Infiltration rate calculations and maps representative of the study. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not fcasiblc to mitigate low infiltration rates. Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope 6 stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) x that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: In our opinion, any tong term very partial infiltration at the site will not result in geotechnical hazards which cannot be reasonable mitigated to an acceptable level. Please refer to our Report 01 Limited Geotechnicat Investigation Proposed Storm Water Infiltration AMPs" for details of the comprehensive evaluation and investigation conducted, simple open pit test rates and simple open pit rate to infiltration rate calculations and maps representative of the study. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, ctc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. I I 1-5 February 2016 HoIIins/KIovansh 17-11549 Appendix I: Forms and Checklists jrj i:'. TiT Criteria Screening Question Yes No Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other X factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: In our opinion, any long term very partial infiltration at the site will not result in a significant risk for groundwater related concerns. Please refer to our Teport of Limited Geolechnical Investigation Proposed Storm Water Infiltration BMPs for details of the comprehensive evaluation and investigation conducted, simple open pit test rates and simple open pit rate to infiltration rate calculations and maps representative of the study. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream 8 water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Providc basis: Question to be answered by the design engineer. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. J art 2 The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. Result* i If any answer from row 5-8 s no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. 'To be completed using gathered site information and best professional iudgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. 1-6 February 2016 Worksheet D.5-1: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Rate Worksheet r IcT liWksheet T D.5-1 Factor Category Factor Description 'Assigned Weight (w) Product (p) Factor Value (v) p = w x v Soil assessment methods 0.25 2 0.5 Predominant soil texture 0.25 2 0.5 A Suitability Assessment Site soil variability 0.25 2 0.5 Depth to groundwater / impervious layer 0.25 2 0.5 (Descriptions) Suitability Assessment Assessment Safety Factor, SA - EP 2 Level of pretreatment/ expected sediment loads 0.'5 1 0.5 B Design Redundancy/resiliency 0.25 2 0.5 Compaction during construction 0.25 2 0.5 (Descriptions) Design Safety Factor, SB = :p 1.5 Combined Safety Factor, S,j= SAX SB 3 Observed Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, Kobseed (corrected for test-specific bias) 0.03 Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, KJesj = Kobserved / Stotai 0.01 Supporting Data Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms: Simple open pit testing was performed at 2 locations within in or adjacent to the proposed facility per the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Storm Water Standards BMP Design Manual, In accordance with Appendix D. Please refer to our -Report of Limited Geotechnical Invesligation Proposed Storm Water Infiltration BMPs" for details of the comprehensive evaluation and investigation conducted, simple open pit test rates and simple open pit rate to Infiltration rate calculations and maps representative of the study. I