Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 33.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 100 160 261 307 434 237
Future Vol, veh/h 100 160 261 307 434 237
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - Stop - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 114 182 297 349 493 269
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1571 628 762 0 - 0
Stage 1 628 -----
Stage 2 943 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 122 483 850 - - -
Stage 1 532 -----
Stage 2 379 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 69 483 850 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 69 -----
Stage 1 302 -----
Stage 2 379 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 182.5 5.3 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 850 - 69 483 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.349 - 1.647 0.376 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.5 0$ 447.4 16.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS B A F C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 - 9.9 1.7 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 1414
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2027 AM
2: S. Santa Fe Ave & Bosstick Blvd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 0 23 82 0 41 23 517 103 93 490 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 0 23 82 0 41 23 517 103 93 490 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 0 26 93 0 47 26 588 117 106 557 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 30 0 71 215 0 191 73 706 598 197 1602 23
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.04 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow, veh/h 487 0 1152 1781 0 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 3586 51 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 37 0 0 93 0 47 26 588 117 106 276 289 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1639 0 0 1781 0 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1861 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.6 0.9 17.1 3.0 3.4 6.1 6.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.6 0.9 17.1 3.0 3.4 6.1 6.1 Prop In Lane 0.30 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 101 0 0 215 0 191 73 706 598 197 794 832 V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.25 0.36 0.83 0.20 0.54 0.35 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 793 0 0 238 0 212 247 1089 923 247 1034 1084 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.0 0.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 23.9 28.0 17.0 12.6 25.2 10.9 10.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.7 2.9 3.4 0.2 2.3 0.3 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.6 0.4 6.5 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.2 0.0 0.0 25.8 0.0 24.6 30.9 20.4 12.7 27.5 11.1 11.1 LnGrp LOS C A A C A C C C B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 37 140 731 671
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.2 25.4 19.5 13.7
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.8 28.0 9.2 6.7 32.2 11.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 5.4 5.5 * 4.2 5.4 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 8.3 34.9 29.0 * 8.3 34.9 8.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 19.1 3.3 2.9 8.1 4.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.5 0.1 0.0 3.1 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1415
YEAR 2027 AMHCM 6th TWSC
3: Community Dr & S. Santa Fe Ave 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 681 7 10 619 9 8
Future Vol, veh/h 681 7 10 619 9 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 150 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 724 7 11 659 10 9
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 731 0 1080 366
Stage 1 - - - - 728 -
Stage 2 - - - - 352 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 869 - 213 631
Stage 1 - - - - 439 -
Stage 2 - - - - 683 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 869 - 210 631
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 210 -
Stage 1 - - - - 439 -
Stage 2 - - - - 674 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 17.5
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 306 - - 869 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.059 - - 0.012 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 17.5 - - 9.2 -
HCM Lane LOS C - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0 -
1416
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2027 AM
4: Las Flores Dr & S. Santa Fe Ave 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 36 530 28 47 513 35 42 3 31 131 13 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 36 530 28 47 513 35 42 3 31 131 13 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 40 589 31 52 570 39 47 3 34 146 14 44 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 106 857 45 110 901 402 137 16 178 278 73 230 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3434 181 1781 3554 1585 1781 130 1475 1781 397 1248 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 40 304 316 52 570 39 47 0 37 146 0 58 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1838 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1605 1781 0 1646 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 7.8 7.8 1.4 7.1 0.9 1.3 0.0 1.0 3.8 0.0 1.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 7.8 7.8 1.4 7.1 0.9 1.3 0.0 1.0 3.8 0.0 1.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.76
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 106 443 459 110 901 402 137 0 193 278 0 303 V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.69 0.69 0.47 0.63 0.10 0.34 0.00 0.19 0.52 0.00 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 253 782 809 217 1499 669 285 0 1123 403 0 1234 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.6 17.0 17.0 22.7 16.6 14.3 21.9 0.0 19.8 19.4 0.0 17.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 1.9 1.8 3.1 0.7 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.5 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 2.8 2.8 0.6 2.4 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.4 1.6 0.0 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.8 18.9 18.8 25.8 17.3 14.4 23.4 0.0 20.3 20.9 0.0 17.6 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B C A C C A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 660 661 84 204
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.2 17.8 22.0 20.0
Approach LOS B B C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 17.9 9.3 15.2 7.4 18.1 12.5 12.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.4 5.5 6.0 4.4 5.4 * 4.7 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.1 22.0 8.0 37.5 7.1 21.1 * 11 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 9.8 3.3 3.5 3.1 9.1 5.8 3.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.8 0.2 0.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1417
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2027 AM
5: Las Flores Dr & Hollencrest Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 26 54 5 13 66
Future Vol, veh/h 8 26 54 5 13 66
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 9 31 64 6 15 78
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 175 67 0 0 70 0
Stage 1 67 -----
Stage 2 108 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 815 997 - - 1531 -
Stage 1 956 -----
Stage 2 916 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 807 997 - - 1531 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 807 -----
Stage 1 956 -----
Stage 2 907 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9 0 1.2
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 945 1531 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.042 0.01 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
1418
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2027 AM
6: W. Mission Rd/S. Santa Fe Ave & N. Rancho Santa Fe Rd 10/21/2024 Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 249 94 126 358 0 427 289
Future Volume (veh/h) 249 94 126 358 0 427 289
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0000 00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 268 101 135 385 459 311
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2222 22
Cap, veh/h 598 882 255 1962 1066 475
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.55 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 2790 1781 3647 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 268 101 135 385 459 311
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1395 1781 1777 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 1.2 3.2 2.5 4.8 7.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 1.2 3.2 2.5 4.8 7.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 598 882 255 1962 1066 475
V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.11 0.53 0.20 0.43 0.65
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1357 1495 389 3055 2667 1190
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.0 11.1 18.2 5.2 12.9 14.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.1 1.7 0.0 0.3 1.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 1.2 0.5 1.4 2.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.5 11.2 19.9 5.2 13.2 15.5
LnGrp LOS BBBA BB
Approach Vol, veh/h 369 520 770
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.8 9.0 14.1
Approach LOS B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 31.4 14.4 11.6 19.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.1 6.5 5.0 * 6.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 39 18.0 10.0 * 34
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 5.2 5.2 9.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.5 1.1 0.1 3.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1419
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2027 AM
7: Capalina Rd & Hollencrest Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 189 68 48 105 6
Future Vol, veh/h 0 189 68 48 105 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 228 82 58 127 7
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 140 0 - 0 339 111
Stage 1 - - - - 111 -
Stage 2 - - - - 228 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1443 - - - 657 942
Stage 1 - - - - 914 -
Stage 2 - - - - 810 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1443 - - - 657 942
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 657 -
Stage 1 - - - - 914 -
Stage 2 - - - - 810 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 11.7
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1443 - - - 668
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ---- 0 . 2
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 11.7
HCM Lane LOS A - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.7
1420
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2027 AM
8: N. Rancho Santa Fe Rd & Capalina Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 17 234 86 13 19 157 349 118 13 386 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 6 17 234 86 13 19 157 349 118 13 386 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 19 260 96 14 21 174 388 131 14 429 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 49 372 316 327 665 564 208 709 236 21 592 11 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.36 0.36 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.01 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 2617 873 1781 3569 66 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 7 19 260 96 14 21 174 262 257 14 213 224 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1713 1781 1777 1858 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 0.6 10.8 3.2 0.3 0.6 6.5 8.6 8.8 0.5 7.8 7.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 0.6 10.8 3.2 0.3 0.6 6.5 8.6 8.8 0.5 7.8 7.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 49 372 316 327 665 564 208 481 464 21 295 308 V/C Ratio(X) 0.14 0.05 0.82 0.29 0.02 0.04 0.84 0.54 0.55 0.66 0.72 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 403 819 694 403 819 694 208 599 578 91 483 505 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.5 22.2 26.3 24.1 14.3 14.4 29.6 21.4 21.4 33.7 27.1 27.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.1 5.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 24.6 1.0 1.0 29.5 3.4 3.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.2 4.4 1.3 0.1 0.2 4.0 3.4 3.3 0.4 3.3 3.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.9 22.2 31.7 24.6 14.3 14.4 54.2 22.3 22.5 63.2 30.4 30.3 LnGrp LOS CCCCBBDCCECC
Approach Vol, veh/h 286 131 693 451
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.1 21.9 30.4 31.4
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 24.9 16.6 20.1 14.0 17.8 5.9 30.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.4 4.0 6.5 6.0 6.4 4.0 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 3.5 23.1 15.5 30.0 8.0 18.6 15.5 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 10.8 5.2 12.8 8.5 9.8 2.3 2.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.3 0.1 0.9 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.1
HCM 6th LOS C
1421
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2027 PM
1: S. Santa Fe Ave & Smilax Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 63
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 113 246 155 572 698 173
Future Vol, veh/h 113 246 155 572 698 173
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - Stop - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 128 280 176 650 793 197
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1894 892 990 0 - 0
Stage 1 892 -----
Stage 2 1002 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 77 341 698 - - -
Stage 1 400 -----
Stage 2 355 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 47 341 698 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 47 -----
Stage 1 242 -----
Stage 2 355 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 338.4 2.5 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 698 - 47 341 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.252 - 2.732 0.82 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.9 0$ 967.4 49.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS B A F E - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - 13.7 7.1 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 1422
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2027 PM
2: S. Santa Fe Ave & Bosstick Blvd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 0 13 110 0 98 41 654 46 17 922 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 0 13 110 0 98 41 654 46 17 922 13 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 0 15 125 0 111 47 743 52 19 1048 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 27 0 45 234 0 209 113 853 723 65 1537 22
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.06 0.46 0.46 0.04 0.43 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 620 0 1033 1781 0 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 3587 51 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 24 0 0 125 0 111 47 743 52 19 519 544 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1653 0 0 1781 0 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1861 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 3.9 1.5 21.4 1.1 0.6 14.1 14.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 3.9 1.5 21.4 1.1 0.6 14.1 14.1 Prop In Lane 0.37 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 73 0 0 234 0 209 113 853 723 65 761 798 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.53 0.42 0.87 0.07 0.29 0.68 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 805 0 0 239 0 213 248 1096 929 248 1041 1090 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.6 0.0 0.0 24.2 0.0 24.2 26.8 14.6 9.1 28.0 13.7 13.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.4 2.4 6.4 0.0 2.5 1.1 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.5 0.7 8.2 0.3 0.3 4.6 4.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.2 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 26.6 29.3 21.0 9.2 30.5 14.8 14.8 LnGrp LOS C A A C A C C C A C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 24 236 842 1082
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.2 26.5 20.7 15.1
Approach LOS C C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.4 32.6 8.1 8.0 30.9 12.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 5.4 5.5 * 4.2 5.4 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 8.3 34.9 29.0 * 8.3 34.9 8.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 23.4 2.8 3.5 16.1 5.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.8 0.1 0.0 6.2 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1423
YEAR 2027 PMHCM 6th TWSC
3: Community Dr & S. Santa Fe Ave 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1064 7 38 741 7 5
Future Vol, veh/h 1064 7 38 741 7 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 150 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1132 7 40 788 7 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1139 0 1610 570
Stage 1 - - - - 1136 -
Stage 2 - - - - 474 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 609 - 95 465
Stage 1 - - - - 268 -
Stage 2 - - - - 592 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 609 - 89 465
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 89 -
Stage 1 - - - - 268 -
Stage 2 - - - - 553 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 34.7
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 134 - - 609 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.095 - - 0.066 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 34.7 - - 11.3 -
HCM Lane LOS D - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0.2 -
1424
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2027 PM
4: Las Flores Dr & S. Santa Fe Ave 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 912 74 36 614 81 42 3 22 54 3 35 Future Volume (veh/h) 55 912 74 36 614 81 42 3 22 54 3 35 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 61 1013 82 40 682 90 47 3 24 60 3 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 137 1206 98 89 1197 534 133 21 166 175 14 186 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.36 0.36 0.05 0.34 0.34 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3329 269 1781 3554 1585 1781 179 1433 1781 114 1488 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 61 541 554 40 682 90 47 0 27 60 0 42 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1822 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1612 1781 0 1603 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 15.4 15.4 1.2 8.7 2.2 1.4 0.0 0.8 1.7 0.0 1.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 15.4 15.4 1.2 8.7 2.2 1.4 0.0 0.8 1.7 0.0 1.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.93
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 137 643 660 89 1197 534 133 0 187 175 0 200 V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.84 0.84 0.45 0.57 0.17 0.35 0.00 0.14 0.34 0.00 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 230 710 728 197 1361 607 259 0 1024 365 0 1091 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.3 16.1 16.1 25.4 15.0 12.8 24.2 0.0 21.9 23.2 0.0 21.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 8.3 8.1 3.5 0.4 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.4 1.2 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 6.3 6.4 0.5 2.9 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.5 24.4 24.2 29.0 15.4 13.0 25.8 0.0 22.2 24.3 0.0 22.2 LnGrp LOS CCCCBBCACCAC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1156 812 74 102
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.4 15.8 24.5 23.4
Approach LOS C B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.2 25.4 9.6 12.9 8.6 23.9 10.1 12.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.4 5.5 6.0 4.4 5.4 * 4.7 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.1 22.0 8.0 37.5 7.1 21.1 * 11 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 17.4 3.4 3.3 3.8 10.7 3.7 2.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.3 0.1 0.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1425
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2027 PM
5: Las Flores Dr & Hollencrest Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 13 59 6 33 83
Future Vol, veh/h 4 13 59 6 33 83
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 5 15 69 7 39 98
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 249 73 0 0 76 0
Stage 1 73 -----
Stage 2 176 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 739 989 - - 1523 -
Stage 1 950 -----
Stage 2 855 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 719 989 - - 1523 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 719 -----
Stage 1 950 -----
Stage 2 832 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9 0 2.1
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 909 1523 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.022 0.025 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.1 -
1426
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2027 PM
6: W. Mission Rd/S. Santa Fe Ave & N. Rancho Santa Fe Rd 10/21/2024 Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 365 361 168 402 0 766 217
Future Volume (veh/h) 365 361 168 402 0 766 217
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0000 00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 392 388 181 432 824 233
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2222 22
Cap, veh/h 650 910 246 2057 1238 552
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.58 0.35 0.35
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 2790 1781 3647 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 392 388 181 432 824 233
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1395 1781 1777 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 5.9 5.3 3.2 10.6 6.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 5.9 5.3 3.2 10.6 6.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 650 910 246 2057 1238 552
V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.43 0.74 0.21 0.67 0.42
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1150 1314 329 2589 2261 1008
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.1 14.3 22.4 5.5 14.9 13.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.3 5.7 0.1 0.6 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 4.9 2.3 0.7 3.4 1.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.0 14.6 28.0 5.5 15.6 14.0
LnGrp LOS C B C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 780 613 1057
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.8 12.2 15.2
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.4 16.7 12.5 24.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.1 6.5 5.0 * 6.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 39 18.0 10.0 * 34
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 7.9 7.3 12.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.9 2.3 0.1 6.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1427
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2027 PM
7: Capalina Rd & Hollencrest Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 102 156 82 34 4
Future Vol, veh/h 2 102 156 82 34 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 2 123 188 99 41 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 287 0 - 0 365 238
Stage 1 - - - - 238 -
Stage 2 - - - - 127 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1275 - - - 635 801
Stage 1 - - - - 802 -
Stage 2 - - - - 899 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1275 - - - 634 801
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 634 -
Stage 1 - - - - 800 -
Stage 2 - - - - 899 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 11
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1275 - - - 648
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - 0.071
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 - - 11
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2
1428
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2027 PM
8: N. Rancho Santa Fe Rd & Capalina Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 23 111 85 34 23 198 666 103 14 368 23 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 23 111 85 34 23 198 666 103 14 368 23 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 26 123 94 38 26 220 740 114 16 409 26 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 62 211 179 349 512 434 233 934 144 24 629 40 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.30 0.30 0.01 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 3086 475 1781 3393 215 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 9 26 123 94 38 26 220 426 428 16 214 221 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1785 1781 1777 1832 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 0.8 4.6 2.7 0.9 0.7 7.5 13.4 13.4 0.5 6.8 6.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 0.8 4.6 2.7 0.9 0.7 7.5 13.4 13.4 0.5 6.8 6.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.12
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 62 211 179 349 512 434 233 538 540 24 329 340 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.12 0.69 0.27 0.07 0.06 0.94 0.79 0.79 0.66 0.65 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 452 919 779 452 919 779 233 672 675 102 541 558 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.6 24.4 26.1 20.8 16.4 16.4 26.3 19.5 19.5 30.0 23.0 23.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.3 4.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 43.2 5.1 5.1 26.5 2.1 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.3 1.9 1.1 0.4 0.3 5.7 5.5 5.5 0.4 2.7 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.7 24.6 30.7 21.3 16.5 16.4 69.5 24.7 24.7 56.4 25.2 25.2 LnGrp LOS CCCCBBECCECC
Approach Vol, veh/h 158 158 1074 451
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.6 19.3 33.9 26.3
Approach LOS C B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 24.9 16.0 13.4 14.0 17.7 6.1 23.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.4 4.0 6.5 6.0 6.4 4.0 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 3.5 23.1 15.5 30.0 8.0 18.6 15.5 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 15.4 4.7 6.6 9.5 8.8 2.3 2.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.4
HCM 6th LOS C
1429
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-24-3940 Santa Fe Flores Project
N:\3940 - Santa Fe Flores\Report\Appendices\Appendix Cover Pages.docx
APPENDIX G
ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – NEAR-TERM + PROJECT
1430
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2027 + P AM
1: S. Santa Fe Ave & Smilax Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 35.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 100 160 263 312 435 237
Future Vol, veh/h 100 160 263 312 435 237
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - Stop - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 114 182 299 355 494 269
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1582 629 763 0 - 0
Stage 1 629 -----
Stage 2 953 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 120 482 850 - - -
Stage 1 531 -----
Stage 2 375 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 67 482 850 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 67 -----
Stage 1 298 -----
Stage 2 375 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 191.7 5.3 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 850 - 67 482 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.352 - 1.696 0.377 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.5 0$ 471.3 16.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS B A F C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 - 10.1 1.7 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 1431
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2027 + P AM 2: S. Santa Fe Ave & Bosstick Blvd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 0 23 82 0 41 23 524 103 93 492 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 0 23 82 0 41 23 524 103 93 492 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 0 26 93 0 47 26 595 117 106 559 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 30 0 71 214 0 190 73 712 603 196 1613 23
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.04 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow, veh/h 487 0 1152 1781 0 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 3587 51 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 37 0 0 93 0 47 26 595 117 106 277 290 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1639 0 0 1781 0 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1861 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.6 0.9 17.4 3.0 3.4 6.1 6.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.6 0.9 17.4 3.0 3.4 6.1 6.1 Prop In Lane 0.30 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 100 0 0 214 0 190 73 712 603 196 799 837 V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.25 0.36 0.84 0.19 0.54 0.35 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 788 0 0 236 0 210 245 1082 917 245 1028 1077 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.2 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 24.1 28.2 17.0 12.5 25.4 10.8 10.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.7 2.9 3.6 0.2 2.3 0.3 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.6 0.4 6.6 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.4 0.0 0.0 26.0 0.0 24.7 31.1 20.6 12.7 27.7 11.1 11.1 LnGrp LOS C A A C A C C C B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 37 140 738 673
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.4 25.6 19.7 13.7
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.8 28.4 9.2 6.7 32.5 11.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 5.4 5.5 * 4.2 5.4 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 8.3 34.9 29.0 * 8.3 34.9 8.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 19.4 3.3 2.9 8.1 4.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.5 0.1 0.0 3.1 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1432
YEAR 2027 + P AMHCM 6th TWSC
3: Community Dr & S. Santa Fe Ave 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 683 7 26 626 9 8
Future Vol, veh/h 683 7 26 626 9 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 150 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 727 7 28 666 10 9
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 734 0 1120 367
Stage 1 - - - - 731 -
Stage 2 - - - - 389 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 867 - 200 630
Stage 1 - - - - 437 -
Stage 2 - - - - 654 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 867 - 194 630
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 194 -
Stage 1 - - - - 437 -
Stage 2 - - - - 633 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 18.3
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 288 - - 867 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.063 - - 0.032 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 18.3 - - 9.3 -
HCM Lane LOS C - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0.1 -
1433
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2027 + P AM 4: Las Flores Dr & S. Santa Fe Ave 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 38 541 32 47 515 35 44 3 31 131 13 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 38 541 32 47 515 35 44 3 31 131 13 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 42 601 36 52 572 39 49 3 34 146 14 44 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 110 866 52 110 910 406 140 16 177 277 72 226 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3407 204 1781 3554 1585 1781 130 1475 1781 397 1248 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 42 313 324 52 572 39 49 0 37 146 0 58 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1834 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1605 1781 0 1646 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 8.0 8.1 1.4 7.2 0.9 1.3 0.0 1.0 3.8 0.0 1.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 8.0 8.1 1.4 7.2 0.9 1.3 0.0 1.0 3.8 0.0 1.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.76
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 110 452 466 110 910 406 140 0 193 277 0 298 V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.69 0.69 0.47 0.63 0.10 0.35 0.00 0.19 0.53 0.00 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 251 775 800 215 1487 663 283 0 1114 399 0 1224 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.7 17.0 17.0 22.9 16.6 14.3 22.0 0.0 20.0 19.6 0.0 17.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 1.9 1.9 3.2 0.7 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.6 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 2.9 3.0 0.6 2.4 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.4 1.6 0.0 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.9 18.9 18.9 26.0 17.4 14.4 23.5 0.0 20.4 21.2 0.0 17.8 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B C A C C A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 679 663 86 204
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.3 17.9 22.2 20.2
Approach LOS B B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 18.2 9.5 15.1 7.5 18.3 12.5 12.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.4 5.5 6.0 4.4 5.4 * 4.7 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.1 22.0 8.0 37.5 7.1 21.1 * 11 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 10.1 3.3 3.5 3.1 9.2 5.8 3.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.8 0.2 0.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1434
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2027 + P AM
5: Las Flores Dr & Hollencrest Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.4
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 27 55 5 15 68
Future Vol, veh/h 8 27 55 5 15 68
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 9 32 65 6 18 80
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 184 68 0 0 71 0
Stage 1 68 -----
Stage 2 116 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 805 995 - - 1529 -
Stage 1 955 -----
Stage 2 909 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 795 995 - - 1529 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 795 -----
Stage 1 955 -----
Stage 2 898 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9 0 1.3
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 941 1529 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.044 0.012 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -
1435
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2027 + P AM 6: W. Mission Rd/S. Santa Fe Ave & N. Rancho Santa Fe Rd 10/21/2024 Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 251 94 126 358 0 431 296
Future Volume (veh/h) 251 94 126 358 0 431 296
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0000 00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 270 101 135 385 463 318
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2222 22
Cap, veh/h 594 878 254 1972 1080 482
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.55 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 2790 1781 3647 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 270 101 135 385 463 318
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1395 1781 1777 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 1.2 3.2 2.5 4.8 8.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 1.2 3.2 2.5 4.8 8.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 594 878 254 1972 1080 482
V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.12 0.53 0.20 0.43 0.66
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1348 1486 386 3035 2650 1182
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.2 11.2 18.3 5.1 12.9 14.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.1 1.7 0.0 0.3 1.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 1.2 0.5 1.5 2.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.7 11.3 20.1 5.2 13.1 15.5
LnGrp LOS B B C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 371 520 781
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.0 9.0 14.1
Approach LOS B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 31.7 14.4 11.6 20.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.1 6.5 5.0 * 6.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 39 18.0 10.0 * 34
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 5.2 5.2 10.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.5 1.1 0.1 4.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1436
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2027 + P AM
7: Capalina Rd & Hollencrest Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 191 69 49 107 6
Future Vol, veh/h 0 191 69 49 107 6
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 230 83 59 129 7
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 142 0 - 0 343 113
Stage 1 - - - - 113 -
Stage 2 - - - - 230 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1441 - - - 653 940
Stage 1 - - - - 912 -
Stage 2 - - - - 808 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1441 - - - 653 940
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 653 -
Stage 1 - - - - 912 -
Stage 2 - - - - 808 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 11.8
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1441 - - - 664
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ---- 0.205
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 11.8
HCM Lane LOS A - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.8
1437
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2027 + P AM 8: N. Rancho Santa Fe Rd & Capalina Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 17 238 86 13 19 159 351 118 13 393 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 6 17 238 86 13 19 159 351 118 13 393 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 19 264 96 14 21 177 390 131 14 437 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 49 377 319 326 668 566 207 712 236 21 599 11 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.36 0.36 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.01 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 2621 870 1781 3570 65 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 7 19 264 96 14 21 177 263 258 14 217 228 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1714 1781 1777 1859 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 0.6 11.0 3.2 0.3 0.6 6.7 8.7 8.9 0.5 8.0 8.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 0.6 11.0 3.2 0.3 0.6 6.7 8.7 8.9 0.5 8.0 8.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 49 377 319 326 668 566 207 483 466 21 298 312 V/C Ratio(X) 0.14 0.05 0.83 0.29 0.02 0.04 0.86 0.54 0.55 0.66 0.73 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 400 813 689 400 813 689 207 595 574 90 479 501 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.8 22.2 26.4 24.3 14.4 14.5 29.9 21.5 21.5 33.9 27.2 27.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.1 5.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 28.2 1.0 1.0 29.6 3.4 3.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.2 4.5 1.4 0.1 0.2 4.3 3.4 3.4 0.4 3.4 3.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.1 22.3 31.8 24.8 14.4 14.5 58.1 22.4 22.6 63.5 30.6 30.5 LnGrp LOS CCCCBBECCECC
Approach Vol, veh/h 290 131 698 459
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.3 22.1 31.5 31.6
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 25.2 16.6 20.4 14.0 18.0 5.9 31.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.4 4.0 6.5 6.0 6.4 4.0 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 3.5 23.1 15.5 30.0 8.0 18.6 15.5 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 10.9 5.2 13.0 8.7 10.0 2.3 2.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.3 0.1 0.9 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.7
HCM 6th LOS C
1438
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2027 + P PM
1: S. Santa Fe Ave & Smilax Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 64.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 113 249 156 574 703 173
Future Vol, veh/h 113 249 156 574 703 173
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - Stop - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 128 283 177 652 799 197
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1904 898 996 0 - 0
Stage 1 898 -----
Stage 2 1006 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 76 338 695 - - -
Stage 1 398 -----
Stage 2 353 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 46 338 695 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 46 -----
Stage 1 239 -----
Stage 2 353 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 347.1 2.6 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 695 - 46 338 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.255 - 2.792 0.837 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.9 0 $ 997 52.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS B A F F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - 13.8 7.4 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 1439
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2027 + P PM 2: S. Santa Fe Ave & Bosstick Blvd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 0 13 110 0 98 41 657 46 17 930 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 0 13 110 0 98 41 657 46 17 930 13 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 0 15 125 0 111 47 747 52 19 1057 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 27 0 45 234 0 208 113 856 725 65 1543 22
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.06 0.46 0.46 0.04 0.43 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 620 0 1033 1781 0 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 3587 51 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 24 0 0 125 0 111 47 747 52 19 524 548 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1653 0 0 1781 0 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1861 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 3.9 1.5 21.6 1.1 0.6 14.2 14.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 3.9 1.5 21.6 1.1 0.6 14.2 14.2 Prop In Lane 0.37 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 73 0 0 234 0 208 113 856 725 65 764 801 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.53 0.42 0.87 0.07 0.29 0.68 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 802 0 0 238 0 212 247 1092 925 247 1037 1087 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.7 0.0 0.0 24.3 0.0 24.3 26.9 14.7 9.1 28.1 13.8 13.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.5 2.4 6.6 0.0 2.5 1.1 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.5 0.7 8.4 0.3 0.3 4.6 4.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.3 0.0 0.0 26.5 0.0 26.7 29.4 21.2 9.1 30.6 14.9 14.8 LnGrp LOS C A A C A C C C A C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 24 236 846 1091
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.3 26.6 20.9 15.1
Approach LOS C C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.4 32.7 8.1 8.0 31.1 12.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 5.4 5.5 * 4.2 5.4 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 8.3 34.9 29.0 * 8.3 34.9 8.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 23.6 2.8 3.5 16.2 5.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.8 0.1 0.0 6.2 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1440
YEAR 2027 + P PMHCM 6th TWSC
3: Community Dr & S. Santa Fe Ave 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1072 7 46 744 7 5
Future Vol, veh/h 1072 7 46 744 7 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 150 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1140 7 49 791 7 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1147 0 1638 574
Stage 1 - - - - 1144 -
Stage 2 - - - - 494 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 605 - 91 462
Stage 1 - - - - 266 -
Stage 2 - - - - 579 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 605 - 84 462
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 84 -
Stage 1 - - - - 266 -
Stage 2 - - - - 532 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 36.5
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 127 - - 605 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.101 - - 0.081 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 36.5 - - 11.5 -
HCM Lane LOS E - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0.3 -
1441
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2027 + P PM 4: Las Flores Dr & S. Santa Fe Ave 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 63 918 76 36 627 81 47 3 22 54 3 35 Future Volume (veh/h) 63 918 76 36 627 81 47 3 22 54 3 35 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 70 1020 84 40 697 90 52 3 24 60 3 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 148 1204 99 89 1175 524 141 22 172 174 14 185 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.36 0.36 0.05 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3324 274 1781 3554 1585 1781 179 1433 1781 114 1488 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 70 545 559 40 697 90 52 0 27 60 0 42 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1821 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1612 1781 0 1603 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 15.7 15.7 1.2 9.1 2.2 1.5 0.0 0.8 1.8 0.0 1.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 15.7 15.7 1.2 9.1 2.2 1.5 0.0 0.8 1.8 0.0 1.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.93
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 148 643 660 89 1175 524 141 0 194 174 0 199 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.85 0.85 0.45 0.59 0.17 0.37 0.00 0.14 0.34 0.00 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 227 702 720 195 1347 601 256 0 1014 362 0 1080 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.3 16.3 16.3 25.7 15.5 13.2 24.3 0.0 21.9 23.4 0.0 21.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 8.9 8.7 3.6 0.5 0.2 1.6 0.0 0.3 1.2 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 6.5 6.7 0.5 3.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.7 25.2 25.1 29.3 16.1 13.4 25.9 0.0 22.2 24.6 0.0 22.4 LnGrp LOS CCCCBBCACCAC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1174 827 79 102
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.2 16.4 24.6 23.7
Approach LOS C B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.3 25.6 9.9 12.9 9.0 23.8 10.1 12.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.4 5.5 6.0 4.4 5.4 * 4.7 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.1 22.0 8.0 37.5 7.1 21.1 * 11 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 17.7 3.5 3.3 4.1 11.1 3.8 2.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.3 0.1 0.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1442
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2027 + P PM
5: Las Flores Dr & Hollencrest Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 16 61 6 34 84
Future Vol, veh/h 4 16 61 6 34 84
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 5 19 72 7 40 99
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 255 76 0 0 79 0
Stage 1 76 -----
Stage 2 179 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 734 985 - - 1519 -
Stage 1 947 -----
Stage 2 852 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 713 985 - - 1519 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 713 -----
Stage 1 947 -----
Stage 2 828 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9 0 2.1
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 915 1519 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.026 0.026 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.1 -
1443
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2027 + P PM 6: W. Mission Rd/S. Santa Fe Ave & N. Rancho Santa Fe Rd 10/21/2024 Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 373 361 168 407 0 769 220
Future Volume (veh/h) 373 361 168 407 0 769 220
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0000 00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 401 388 181 438 827 237
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2222 22
Cap, veh/h 651 910 246 2059 1241 553
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.58 0.35 0.35
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 2790 1781 3647 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 401 388 181 438 827 237
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1395 1781 1777 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.8 5.9 5.3 3.2 10.7 6.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 5.9 5.3 3.2 10.7 6.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 651 910 246 2059 1241 553
V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.43 0.74 0.21 0.67 0.43
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1147 1311 329 2582 2255 1006
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.2 14.3 22.4 5.5 15.0 13.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.3 5.8 0.1 0.6 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 0.0 2.3 0.8 3.5 1.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.2 14.6 28.2 5.5 15.6 14.0
LnGrp LOS C B C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 789 619 1064
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.9 12.2 15.2
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.5 16.7 12.5 25.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.1 6.5 5.0 * 6.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 39 18.0 10.0 * 34
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 7.9 7.3 12.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.9 2.3 0.1 6.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1444
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2027 + P PM
7: Capalina Rd & Hollencrest Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 103 158 85 35 4
Future Vol, veh/h 2 103 158 85 35 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 2 124 190 102 42 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 292 0 - 0 369 241
Stage 1 - - - - 241 -
Stage 2 - - - - 128 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1270 - - - 631 798
Stage 1 - - - - 799 -
Stage 2 - - - - 898 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1270 - - - 630 798
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 630 -
Stage 1 - - - - 797 -
Stage 2 - - - - 898 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 11
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1270 - - - 644
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - 0.073
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 - - 11
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2
1445
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2027 + P PM 8: N. Rancho Santa Fe Rd & Capalina Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 23 113 85 34 23 203 674 103 14 371 23 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 23 113 85 34 23 203 674 103 14 371 23 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 26 126 94 38 26 226 749 114 16 412 26 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 62 215 182 347 514 436 232 940 143 24 637 40 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.30 0.30 0.01 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 3092 470 1781 3395 214 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 9 26 126 94 38 26 226 430 433 16 215 223 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1786 1781 1777 1832 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 0.8 4.7 2.8 0.9 0.7 7.8 13.7 13.7 0.5 6.9 6.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 0.8 4.7 2.8 0.9 0.7 7.8 13.7 13.7 0.5 6.9 6.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.12
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 62 215 182 347 514 436 232 540 543 24 333 344 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.12 0.69 0.27 0.07 0.06 0.97 0.80 0.80 0.66 0.64 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 449 913 773 449 913 773 232 668 671 101 538 554 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.8 24.4 26.2 21.0 16.5 16.4 26.6 19.6 19.6 30.2 23.1 23.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.2 4.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 51.9 5.4 5.4 26.5 2.1 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.3 1.9 1.1 0.4 0.3 6.3 5.7 5.7 0.4 2.8 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.8 24.7 30.8 21.4 16.6 16.5 78.5 25.1 25.1 56.7 25.2 25.2 LnGrp LOS CCCCBBECCECC
Approach Vol, veh/h 161 158 1089 454
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.8 19.5 36.2 26.3
Approach LOS C B D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 25.1 16.0 13.6 14.0 17.9 6.1 23.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.4 4.0 6.5 6.0 6.4 4.0 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 3.5 23.1 15.5 30.0 8.0 18.6 15.5 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 15.7 4.8 6.7 9.8 8.9 2.3 2.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.8
HCM 6th LOS C
1446
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-24-3940 Santa Fe Flores Project
N:\3940 - Santa Fe Flores\Report\Appendices\Appendix Cover Pages.docx
APPENDIX H
ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – LONG-TERM
1447
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2050 AM
1: S. Santa Fe Ave & Smilax Rd 03/30/2022
Santa Fe Las Flores 03/17/2022 YEAR 2050 AM Synchro 10 Report 3-22-3523 Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 640.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 140 220 360 420 600 340
Future Vol, veh/h 140 220 360 420 600 340
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - Stop - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 159 250 409 477 682 386
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2170 875 1068 0 - 0
Stage 1 875 -----
Stage 2 1295 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 51 349 653 - - -
Stage 1 408 -----
Stage 2 257 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 8 349 653 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 8 -----
Stage 1 ~ 60 -----
Stage 2 257 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s $ 3680 8.9 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 653 - 8 349 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.626 - 19.886 0.716 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 19.3 0 $ 9403.9 37.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS C A F E - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 4.4 - 21.6 5.3 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 1448
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2050 AM
2: S. Santa Fe Ave & Bosstick Blvd 03/30/2022
Santa Fe Las Flores 03/17/2022 YEAR 2050 AM Synchro 10 Report 3-22-3523 Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 0 30 140 0 70 30 630 180 160 600 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 0 30 140 0 70 30 630 180 160 600 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 0 34 159 0 80 34 716 205 182 682 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 26 0 81 200 0 178 86 799 677 208 1773 29
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.05 0.43 0.43 0.12 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 398 0 1231 1781 0 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 3579 58 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 45 0 0 159 0 80 34 716 205 182 339 354 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1629 0 0 1781 0 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1860 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 3.4 1.3 25.3 6.1 7.2 8.5 8.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 3.4 1.3 25.3 6.1 7.2 8.5 8.5 Prop In Lane 0.24 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 108 0 0 200 0 178 86 799 677 208 880 922 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.45 0.40 0.90 0.30 0.88 0.38 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 663 0 0 200 0 178 208 916 776 208 880 922 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.9 0.0 0.0 30.8 0.0 29.6 32.9 18.9 13.4 31.0 11.2 11.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 1.8 3.0 10.5 0.2 31.7 0.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 1.3 0.6 11.4 1.9 4.7 2.7 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.5 0.0 0.0 50.4 0.0 31.3 35.9 29.4 13.7 62.7 11.5 11.5 LnGrp LOS C A A D A C D C BEBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 45 239 955 875
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.5 44.0 26.3 22.1
Approach LOS CDCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.5 35.8 10.2 7.6 40.7 12.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 5.4 5.5 * 4.2 5.4 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 8.3 34.9 29.0 * 8.3 34.9 8.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.2 27.3 3.9 3.3 10.5 8.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 0.2 0.0 3.9 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1449
YEAR 2050 AMHCM 6th TWSC
3: Community Dr & S. Santa Fe Ave 03/30/2022
Santa Fe Las Flores 03/17/2022 YEAR 2050 AM Synchro 10 Report 3-22-3523 Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 770 10 10 700 10 10
Future Vol, veh/h 770 10 10 700 10 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 150 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 819 11 11 745 11 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 830 0 1220 415
Stage 1 - - - - 825 -
Stage 2 - - - - 395 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 798 - 172 586
Stage 1 - - - - 391 -
Stage 2 - - - - 650 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 798 - 170 586
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 170 -
Stage 1 - - - - 391 -
Stage 2 - - - - 641 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 19.8
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 264 - - 798 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.081 - - 0.013 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 19.8 - - 9.6 -
HCM Lane LOS C - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0 -
1450
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2050 AM
4: Las Flores Dr & S. Santa Fe Ave 03/30/2022
Santa Fe Las Flores 03/17/2022 YEAR 2050 AM Synchro 10 Report 3-22-3523 Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 620 30 60 600 40 50 10 40 150 20 50 Future Volume (veh/h) 40 620 30 60 600 40 50 10 40 150 20 50 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 44 689 33 67 667 44 56 11 44 167 22 56 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 112 941 45 126 1003 447 150 40 160 273 82 209 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3452 165 1781 3554 1585 1781 327 1308 1781 467 1189 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 44 354 368 67 667 44 56 0 55 167 0 78 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1841 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1635 1781 0 1656 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 9.8 9.8 2.0 8.9 1.1 1.6 0.0 1.6 4.7 0.0 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 9.8 9.8 2.0 8.9 1.1 1.6 0.0 1.6 4.7 0.0 2.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 0.72
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 112 484 502 126 1003 447 150 0 200 273 0 292 V/C Ratio(X) 0.39 0.73 0.73 0.53 0.66 0.10 0.37 0.00 0.28 0.61 0.00 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 234 724 750 201 1389 620 264 0 1060 373 0 1151 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.3 17.8 17.8 24.2 17.1 14.3 23.4 0.0 21.5 21.4 0.0 19.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 2.2 2.1 3.5 0.8 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.7 2.2 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 3.5 3.7 0.8 3.1 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.6 2.0 0.0 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.6 20.0 19.9 27.7 17.9 14.4 24.9 0.0 22.3 23.6 0.0 19.7 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B C A C C A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 766 778 111 245
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.3 18.5 23.6 22.3
Approach LOS C B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 20.1 10.0 15.5 7.8 20.6 13.0 12.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.4 5.5 6.0 4.4 5.4 * 4.7 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.1 22.0 8.0 37.5 7.1 21.1 * 11 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.0 11.8 3.6 4.2 3.3 10.9 6.7 3.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.1 0.2 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1451
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2050 AM
5: Las Flores Dr & Hollencrest Rd 03/30/2022
Santa Fe Las Flores 03/17/2022 YEAR 2050 AM Synchro 10 Report 3-22-3523 Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 30 70 10 20 90
Future Vol, veh/h 10 30 70 10 20 90
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 12 35 82 12 24 106
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 242 88 0 0 94 0
Stage 1 88 -----
Stage 2 154 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 746 970 - - 1500 -
Stage 1 935 -----
Stage 2 874 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 733 970 - - 1500 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 733 -----
Stage 1 935 -----
Stage 2 859 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.2 0 1.4
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 897 1500 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.052 0.016 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.2 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0 -
1452
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2050 AM
6: W. Mission Rd/S. Santa Fe Ave & N. Rancho Santa Fe Rd 03/30/2022 Santa Fe Las Flores 03/17/2022 YEAR 2050 AM Synchro 10 Report 3-22-3523 Page 6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 310 130 170 460 0 550 360
Future Volume (veh/h) 310 130 170 460 0 550 360
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0000 00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 333 140 183 495 591 387
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2222 22
Cap, veh/h 544 846 260 2111 1242 554
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.59 0.35 0.35
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 2790 1781 3647 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 333 140 183 495 591 387
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1395 1781 1777 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.6 1.9 5.0 3.3 6.6 10.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.6 1.9 5.0 3.3 6.6 10.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 544 846 260 2111 1242 554
V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.17 0.70 0.23 0.48 0.70
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1227 1397 351 2761 2411 1075
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.9 13.0 20.6 4.9 12.9 14.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.1 4.0 0.1 0.3 1.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 0.0 2.1 0.7 2.0 3.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.0 13.0 24.6 4.9 13.1 15.8
LnGrp LOS C B C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 473 678 978
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.7 10.2 14.2
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.2 14.5 12.4 23.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.1 6.5 5.0 * 6.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 39 18.0 10.0 * 34
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 6.6 7.0 12.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.3 1.3 0.1 5.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1453
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2050 AM
7: Capalina Rd & Hollencrest Rd 03/30/2022
Santa Fe Las Flores 03/17/2022 YEAR 2050 AM Synchro 10 Report 3-22-3523 Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 200 70 50 110 10
Future Vol, veh/h 0 200 70 50 110 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 241 84 60 133 12
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 144 0 - 0 355 114
Stage 1 - - - - 114 -
Stage 2 - - - - 241 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1438 - - - 643 939
Stage 1 - - - - 911 -
Stage 2 - - - - 799 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1438 - - - 643 939
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 643 -
Stage 1 - - - - 911 -
Stage 2 - - - - 799 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 12
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1438 - - - 660
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ---- 0.219
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 12
HCM Lane LOS A - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.8
1454
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2050 AM
8: N. Rancho Santa Fe Rd & Capalina Rd 03/30/2022
Santa Fe Las Flores 03/17/2022 YEAR 2050 AM Synchro 10 Report 3-22-3523 Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 20 250 90 20 30 170 450 130 20 500 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 20 250 90 20 30 170 450 130 20 500 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 22 278 100 22 33 189 500 144 22 556 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 73 390 330 315 644 546 193 784 225 31 701 14 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.02 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 2726 781 1781 3564 70 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 22 278 100 22 33 189 325 319 22 277 290 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1730 1781 1777 1858 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 0.7 12.4 3.6 0.6 1.0 7.8 11.8 11.9 0.9 11.0 11.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 0.7 12.4 3.6 0.6 1.0 7.8 11.8 11.9 0.9 11.0 11.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.45 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 73 390 330 315 644 546 193 511 498 31 349 365 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.06 0.84 0.32 0.03 0.06 0.98 0.64 0.64 0.72 0.79 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 374 759 644 374 759 644 193 555 541 84 447 468 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.2 23.4 28.1 26.5 16.1 16.2 32.9 22.9 23.0 36.1 28.3 28.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.1 5.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 58.8 2.1 2.3 26.6 7.4 7.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.3 5.1 1.6 0.2 0.4 6.3 4.8 4.7 0.6 5.0 5.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.1 23.5 33.9 27.1 16.1 16.3 91.7 25.1 25.3 62.8 35.6 35.4 LnGrp LOS DCCCBBFCCEDD
Approach Vol, veh/h 311 155 833 589
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.2 23.2 40.3 36.5
Approach LOS CCDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.3 27.7 17.1 21.9 14.0 20.9 7.0 31.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.4 4.0 6.5 6.0 6.4 4.0 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 3.5 23.1 15.5 30.0 8.0 18.6 15.5 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 13.9 5.6 14.4 9.8 13.0 2.4 3.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.5 0.1 1.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.5
HCM 6th LOS D
1455
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2050 PM
1: S. Santa Fe Ave & Smilax Rd 03/30/2022
Santa Fe Las Flores 03/17/2022 YEAR 2050 PM Synchro 10 Report 3-22-3523 Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5274.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 160 340 210 790 960 250
Future Vol, veh/h 160 340 210 790 960 250
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - Stop - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 182 386 239 898 1091 284
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2609 1233 1375 0 - 0
Stage 1 1233 -----
Stage 2 1376 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 27 ~ 216 499 - - -
Stage 1 275 -----
Stage 2 234 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 1 ~ 216 499 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 1 -----
Stage 1 ~ 12 -----
Stage 2 234 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 28581.9 3.9 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 499 - 1 216 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.478 - 181.818 1.789 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 18.6 0 $ 88445 $ 411 - -
HCM Lane LOS C A F F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.5 - 25.3 26.7 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 1456
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2050 PM
2: S. Santa Fe Ave & Bosstick Blvd 03/30/2022
Santa Fe Las Flores 03/17/2022 YEAR 2050 PM Synchro 10 Report 3-22-3523 Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 0 20 190 0 170 50 800 80 30 1130 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 0 20 190 0 170 50 800 80 30 1130 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 0 23 216 0 193 57 909 91 34 1284 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 29 0 61 202 0 180 119 926 785 98 1727 31
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.07 0.50 0.50 0.06 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 532 0 1112 1781 0 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 3572 64 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 34 0 0 216 0 193 57 909 91 34 639 668 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1644 0 0 1781 0 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1859 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 2.2 33.6 2.2 1.3 20.4 20.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 2.2 33.6 2.2 1.3 20.4 20.4 Prop In Lane 0.32 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 91 0 0 202 0 180 119 926 785 98 859 899 V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.00 0.00 1.07 0.00 1.07 0.48 0.98 0.12 0.35 0.74 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 676 0 0 202 0 180 210 926 785 210 880 921 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.1 0.0 0.0 31.2 0.0 31.2 31.7 17.5 9.5 32.1 14.7 14.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.0 0.0 82.6 0.0 87.7 3.0 25.0 0.1 2.1 3.4 3.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 7.3 1.0 17.6 0.6 0.6 7.3 7.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.7 0.0 0.0 113.8 0.0 119.0 34.7 42.5 9.6 34.1 18.0 17.9 LnGrp LOS C A A F A F C D A C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 34 409 1057 1341
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.7 116.2 39.2 18.4
Approach LOS C F D B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.1 40.3 9.4 8.9 39.5 12.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2
5.4 5.5 * 4.2 5.4 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 8.3 34.9 29.0 * 8.3 34.9 8.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 35.6 3.4 4.2 22.4 10.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 6.4 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.4
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1457
YEAR 2050 PMHCM 6th TWSC
3: Community Dr & S. Santa Fe Ave 03/30/2022
Santa Fe Las Flores 03/17/2022 YEAR 2050 PM Synchro 10 Report 3-22-3523 Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1200 10 40 840 10 10
Future Vol, veh/h 1200 10 40 840 10 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 150 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1277 11 43 894 11 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1288 0 1816 644
Stage 1 - - - - 1283 -
Stage 2 - - - - 533 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 534 - 69 416
Stage 1 - - - - 224 -
Stage 2 - - - - 553 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 534 - 63 416
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 63 -
Stage 1 - - - - 224 -
Stage 2 - - - - 508 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 45.9
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 109 - - 534 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.195 - - 0.08 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 45.9 - - 12.3 -
HCM Lane LOS E - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0.3 -
1458
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2050 PM
4: Las Flores Dr & S. Santa Fe Ave 03/30/2022
Santa Fe Las Flores 03/17/2022 YEAR 2050 PM Synchro 10 Report 3-22-3523 Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 1070 90 40 720 90 50 10 30 60 10 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 60 1070 90 40 720 90 50 10 30 60 10 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 67 1189 100 44 800 100 56 11 33 67 11 44 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 141 1243 104 93 1242 554 145 50 149 181 42 166 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.37 0.37 0.05 0.35 0.35 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3318 279 1781 3554 1585 1781 412 1236 1781 327 1308 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 67 636 653 44 800 100 56 0 44 67 0 55 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1820 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1648 1781 0 1635 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 20.5 20.6 1.4 11.1 2.6 1.8 0.0 1.4 2.1 0.0 1.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 20.5 20.6 1.4 11.1 2.6 1.8 0.0 1.4 2.1 0.0 1.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.80
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 141 666 682 93 1242 554 145 0 199 181 0 208 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.96 0.96 0.47 0.64 0.18 0.39 0.00 0.22 0.37 0.00 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 215 666 682 185 1277 569 243 0 982 343 0 1044 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.9 17.9 17.9 27.0 16.0 13.3 25.6 0.0 23.3 24.6 0.0 23.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 24.3 24.5 3.7 1.1 0.2 1.7 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 11.1 11.4 0.6 3.8 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.9 0.0 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.3 42.2 42.4 30.7 17.1 13.4 27.2 0.0 23.9 25.9 0.0 23.8 LnGrp LOS CDDCBBCACCAC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1356 944 100 122
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.6 17.4 25.8 24.9
Approach LOS D B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 27.4 10.3 13.5 9.1 25.9 10.7 13.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.4 5.5 6.0 4.4 5.4 * 4.7 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.1 22.0 8.0 37.5 7.1 21.1 * 11 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 22.6 3.8 3.8 4.1 13.1 4.1 3.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.3 0.1 0.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1459
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2050 PM
5: Las Flores Dr & Hollencrest Rd 03/30/2022
Santa Fe Las Flores 03/17/2022 YEAR 2050 PM Synchro 10 Report 3-22-3523 Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 20 80 10 40 110
Future Vol, veh/h 10 20 80 10 40 110
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 12 24 94 12 47 129
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 323 100 0 0 106 0
Stage 1 100 -----
Stage 2 223 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 671 956 - - 1485 -
Stage 1 924 -----
Stage 2 814 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 648 956 - - 1485 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 648 -----
Stage 1 924 -----
Stage 2 786 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.6 0 2
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 825 1485 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.043 0.032 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.6 7.5 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.1 -
1460
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2050 PM
6: W. Mission Rd/S. Santa Fe Ave & N. Rancho Santa Fe Rd 03/30/2022 Santa Fe Las Flores 03/17/2022 YEAR 2050 PM Synchro 10 Report 3-22-3523 Page 6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 460 490 230 520 0 990 270
Future Volume (veh/h) 460 490 230 520 0 990 270
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0000 00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 495 527 247 559 1065 290
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2222 22
Cap, veh/h 727 991 258 2157 1384 617
Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.61 0.39 0.39
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 2790 1781 3647 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 495 527 247 559 1065 290
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1395 1781 1777 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.1 10.4 9.5 5.1 18.0 9.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.1 10.4 9.5 5.1 18.0 9.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 727 991 258 2157 1384 617
V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.53 0.96 0.26 0.77 0.47
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 902 1132 258 2157 1772 790
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.1 17.7 29.3 6.3 18.4 15.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.4 44.0 0.1 1.6 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.6 8.4 6.9 1.4 6.5 3.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.6 18.1 73.3 6.4 20.0 16.3
LnGrp LOS C B E A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1022 806 1355
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.2 26.9 19.2
Approach LOS C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 48.0 21.0 15.0 33.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.1
6.5 5.0 * 6.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 39 18.0 10.0 * 34
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
7.1 12.4 11.5 20.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.8 2.2 0.0 6.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1461
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2050 PM
7: Capalina Rd & Hollencrest Rd 03/30/2022
Santa Fe Las Flores 03/17/2022 YEAR 2050 PM Synchro 10 Report 3-22-3523 Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 110 170 90 40 10
Future Vol, veh/h 0 110 170 90 40 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 133 205 108 48 12
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 313 0 - 0 392 259
Stage 1 - - - - 259 -
Stage 2 - - - - 133 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1247 - - - 612 780
Stage 1 - - - - 784 -
Stage 2 - - - - 893 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1247 - - - 612 780
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 612 -
Stage 1 - - - - 784 -
Stage 2 - - - - 893 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 11.2
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1247 - - - 640
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ---- 0.094
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 11.2
HCM Lane LOS A - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.3
1462
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2050 PM
8: N. Rancho Santa Fe Rd & Capalina Rd 03/30/2022
Santa Fe Las Flores 03/17/2022 YEAR 2050 PM Synchro 10 Report 3-22-3523 Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 30 120 90 40 30 210 860 110 20 480 30 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 30 120 90 40 30 210 860 110 20 480 30 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 33 133 100 44 33 233 956 122 22 533 33 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 74 221 187 336 497 421 212 1060 135 31 791 49 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.27 0.27 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.02 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 3170 404 1781 3399 210 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 33 133 100 44 33 233 536 542 22 278 288 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1798 1781 1777 1833 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 1.1 5.4 3.2 1.2 1.0 8.0 19.3 19.3 0.8 9.6 9.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 1.1 5.4 3.2 1.2 1.0 8.0 19.3 19.3 0.8 9.6 9.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 74 221 187 336 497 421 212 594 601 31 413 426 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.15 0.71 0.30 0.09 0.08 1.10 0.90 0.90 0.70 0.67 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 411 836 709 411 836 709 212 612 619 93 493 508 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.0 26.6 28.5 23.4 18.5 18.5 29.5 21.3 21.3 32.8 23.4 23.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.3 4.9 0.5 0.1 0.1 90.1 16.4 16.3 24.9 2.8 2.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.5 2.3 1.4 0.5 0.4 8.5 9.7 9.8 0.5 3.9 4.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.9 26.9 33.4 23.9 18.6 18.6 119.7 37.7 37.6 57.7 26.2 26.2 LnGrp LOS CCCCBBFDDECC
Approach Vol, veh/h 177 177 1311 588
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.1 21.6 52.2 27.4
Approach LOS CCDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.2 28.8 16.7 14.4 14.0 22.0 6.8 24.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.4 4.0 6.5 6.0 6.4 4.0 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 3.5 23.1 15.5 30.0 8.0 18.6 15.5 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.8 21.3 5.2 7.4 10.0 11.6 2.4 3.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.6 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.8
HCM 6th LOS D
1463
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-24-3940 Santa Fe Flores Project
N:\3940 - Santa Fe Flores\Report\Appendices\Appendix Cover Pages.docx
APPENDIX I
ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – LONG-TERM + PROJECT
1464
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2050 + P AM
1: S. Santa Fe Ave & Smilax Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 732
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 140 220 362 425 601 340
Future Vol, veh/h 140 220 362 425 601 340
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - Stop - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 159 250 411 483 683 386
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2181 876 1069 0 - 0
Stage 1 876 -----
Stage 2 1305 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 51 348 652 - - -
Stage 1 407 -----
Stage 2 254 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 7 348 652 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 7 -----
Stage 1 ~ 56 -----
Stage 2 254 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 4226.1 9 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 652 - 7 348 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.631 - 22.727 0.718 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 19.5 0 $ 10807.8 37.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS C A F E - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 4.5 - 21.8 5.3 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 1465
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2050 + P AM 2: S. Santa Fe Ave & Bosstick Blvd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 0 30 140 0 70 30 637 180 160 602 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 0 30 140 0 70 30 637 180 160 602 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 0 34 159 0 80 34 724 205 182 684 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 26 0 81 199 0 177 86 804 682 206 1782 29
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.05 0.43 0.43 0.12 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 398 0 1231 1781 0 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 3579 58 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 45 0 0 159 0 80 34 724 205 182 339 356 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1629 0 0 1781 0 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1860 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 3.4 1.3 25.8 6.1 7.2 8.5 8.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 3.4 1.3 25.8 6.1 7.2 8.5 8.5 Prop In Lane 0.24 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 108 0 0 199 0 177 86 804 682 206 885 926 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.45 0.40 0.90 0.30 0.88 0.38 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 659 0 0 199 0 177 206 911 772 206 885 926 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.1 0.0 0.0 31.0 0.0 29.8 33.1 19.0 13.4 31.2 11.2 11.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.0 0.0 20.2 0.0 1.8 3.0 11.0 0.2 32.8 0.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 1.3 0.6 11.6 1.9 4.7 2.8 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.7 0.0 0.0 51.2 0.0 31.6 36.1 30.0 13.6 64.0 11.4 11.4 LnGrp LOS C A A D A C D C BEBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 45 239 963 877
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.7 44.6 26.7 22.3
Approach LOS CDCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.5 36.2 10.2 7.6 41.1 12.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 5.4 5.5 * 4.2 5.4 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 8.3 34.9 29.0 * 8.3 34.9 8.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.2 27.8 3.9 3.3 10.5 8.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.0 0.2 0.0 3.9 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1466
YEAR 2050 + P AMHCM 6th TWSC
3: Community Dr & S. Santa Fe Ave 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 772 10 26 707 10 10
Future Vol, veh/h 772 10 26 707 10 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 150 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 821 11 28 752 11 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 832 0 1259 416
Stage 1 - - - - 827 -
Stage 2 - - - - 432 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 796 - 163 585
Stage 1 - - - - 390 -
Stage 2 - - - - 622 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 796 - 157 585
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 157 -
Stage 1 - - - - 390 -
Stage 2 - - - - 600 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 20.9
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 248 - - 796 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.086 - - 0.035 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 20.9 - - 9.7 -
HCM Lane LOS C - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0.1 -
1467
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2050 + P AM 4: Las Flores Dr & S. Santa Fe Ave 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 42 631 34 60 602 40 52 10 40 150 20 50 Future Volume (veh/h) 42 631 34 60 602 40 52 10 40 150 20 50 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 47 701 38 67 669 44 58 11 44 167 22 56 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 117 949 51 125 1008 449 153 40 159 271 81 206 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3428 186 1781 3554 1585 1781 327 1308 1781 467 1189 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 47 363 376 67 669 44 58 0 55 167 0 78 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1837 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1635 1781 0 1656 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 10.1 10.1 2.0 9.0 1.1 1.7 0.0 1.7 4.8 0.0 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 10.1 10.1 2.0 9.0 1.1 1.7 0.0 1.7 4.8 0.0 2.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 0.72
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 117 492 509 125 1008 449 153 0 199 271 0 287 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.74 0.74 0.54 0.66 0.10 0.38 0.00 0.28 0.62 0.00 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 233 719 743 200 1379 615 262 0 1053 370 0 1143 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.4 17.9 17.9 24.4 17.2 14.3 23.5 0.0 21.7 21.6 0.0 19.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 2.3 2.2 3.5 0.8 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.7 2.3 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 3.7 3.8 0.9 3.1 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.6 2.0 0.0 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.6 20.1 20.1 27.9 17.9 14.4 25.0 0.0 22.4 23.8 0.0 20.0 LnGrp LOS CCCCBBCACCAB
Approach Vol, veh/h 786 780 113 245
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.5 18.6 23.8 22.6
Approach LOS C B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 20.5 10.2 15.4 8.0 20.8 13.0 12.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.4 5.5 6.0 4.4 5.4 * 4.7 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.1 22.0 8.0 37.5 7.1 21.1 * 11 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.0 12.1 3.7 4.2 3.4 11.0 6.8 3.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.1 0.2 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1468
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2050 + P AM
5: Las Flores Dr & Hollencrest Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 31 71 10 22 92
Future Vol, veh/h 10 31 71 10 22 92
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 12 36 84 12 26 108
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 250 90 0 0 96 0
Stage 1 90 -----
Stage 2 160 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 739 968 - - 1498 -
Stage 1 934 -----
Stage 2 869 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 726 968 - - 1498 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 726 -----
Stage 1 934 -----
Stage 2 853 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.3 0 1.4
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 895 1498 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.054 0.017 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.3 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 0.1 -
1469
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2050 + P AM 6: W. Mission Rd/S. Santa Fe Ave & N. Rancho Santa Fe Rd 10/21/2024 Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 312 130 170 460 0 554 367
Future Volume (veh/h) 312 130 170 460 0 554 367
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0000 00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 335 140 183 495 596 395
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2222 22
Cap, veh/h 541 841 258 2121 1258 561
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.60 0.35 0.35
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 2790 1781 3647 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 335 140 183 495 596 395
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1395 1781 1777 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.6 1.9 5.0 3.3 6.6 11.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.6 1.9 5.0 3.3 6.6 11.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 541 841 258 2121 1258 561
V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.17 0.71 0.23 0.47 0.70
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1218 1387 349 2741 2393 1068
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.1 13.1 20.8 4.8 12.8 14.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 0.1 4.2 0.1 0.3 1.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 1.7 2.1 0.7 2.0 3.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.3 13.2 25.0 4.9 13.1 15.8
LnGrp LOS C B C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 475 678 991
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.9 10.3 14.2
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.6 14.5 12.4 24.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.1 6.5 5.0 * 6.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 39 18.0 10.0 * 34
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 6.6 7.0 13.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.3 1.4 0.1 5.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1470
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2050 + P AM
7: Capalina Rd & Hollencrest Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 202 71 51 112 10
Future Vol, veh/h 0 202 71 51 112 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 243 86 61 135 12
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 147 0 - 0 360 117
Stage 1 - - - - 117 -
Stage 2 - - - - 243 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1435 - - - 639 935
Stage 1 - - - - 908 -
Stage 2 - - - - 797 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1435 - - - 639 935
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 639 -
Stage 1 - - - - 908 -
Stage 2 - - - - 797 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 12.1
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1435 - - - 656
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ---- 0.224
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 12.1
HCM Lane LOS A - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.9
1471
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2050 + P AM 8: N. Rancho Santa Fe Rd & Capalina Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 20 254 90 20 30 172 452 130 20 507 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 20 254 90 20 30 172 452 130 20 507 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 22 282 100 22 33 191 502 144 22 563 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 73 394 334 314 647 548 192 787 224 31 706 14 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.35 0.35 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.02 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 2729 778 1781 3565 70 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 22 282 100 22 33 191 326 320 22 280 294 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1730 1781 1777 1858 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 0.7 12.7 3.6 0.6 1.0 8.0 11.9 12.0 0.9 11.2 11.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 0.7 12.7 3.6 0.6 1.0 8.0 11.9 12.0 0.9 11.2 11.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.45 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 73 394 334 314 647 548 192 512 499 31 352 368 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.06 0.84 0.32 0.03 0.06 1.00 0.64 0.64 0.72 0.80 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 371 754 639 371 754 639 192 552 537 84 444 465 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.4 23.5 28.2 26.7 16.1 16.3 33.2 23.1 23.1 36.4 28.4 28.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.1 5.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 64.1 2.2 2.3 26.8 7.8 7.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.3 5.2 1.6 0.2 0.4 6.6 4.9 4.8 0.6 5.2 5.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.4 23.5 34.0 27.3 16.1 16.3 97.3 25.2 25.5 63.2 36.2 36.0 LnGrp LOS DCCCBBFCCEDD
Approach Vol, veh/h 315 155 837 596
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.4 23.4 41.8 37.1
Approach LOS CCDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.3 27.8 17.1 22.2 14.0 21.1 7.0 32.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.4 4.0 6.5 6.0 6.4 4.0 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 3.5 23.1 15.5 30.0 8.0 18.6 15.5 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 14.0 5.6 14.7 10.0 13.2 2.4 3.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.5 0.1 1.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.4
HCM 6th LOS D
1472
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2050 + P PM
1: S. Santa Fe Ave & Smilax Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5255.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 160 343 211 792 965 250
Future Vol, veh/h 160 343 211 792 965 250
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - Stop - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 ----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 182 390 240 900 1097 284
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2619 1239 1381 0 - 0
Stage 1 1239 -----
Stage 2 1380 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 27 ~ 214 496 - - -
Stage 1 273 -----
Stage 2 233 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 1 ~ 214 496 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 1 -----
Stage 1 ~ 9 -----
Stage 2 233 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 28423.8 4 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 496 - 1 214 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.483 - 181.818 1.821 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 18.9 0 $ 88445$ 425.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS C A F F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.6 - 25.3 27.3 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon 1473
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2050 + P PM 2: S. Santa Fe Ave & Bosstick Blvd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 0 20 190 0 170 50 803 80 30 1138 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 0 20 190 0 170 50 803 80 30 1138 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 0 23 216 0 193 57 912 91 34 1293 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 29 0 61 202 0 180 119 926 785 98 1727 31
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.07 0.50 0.50 0.06 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 532 0 1112 1781 0 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 3572 64 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 34 0 0 216 0 193 57 912 91 34 643 673 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1644 0 0 1781 0 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1859 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 2.2 33.9 2.2 1.3 20.6 20.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 2.2 33.9 2.2 1.3 20.6 20.7 Prop In Lane 0.32 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 91 0 0 202 0 180 119 926 785 98 859 899 V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.00 0.00 1.07 0.00 1.07 0.48 0.98 0.12 0.35 0.75 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 676 0 0 202 0 180 210 926 785 210 880 921 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.1 0.0 0.0 31.2 0.0 31.2 31.7 17.5 9.5 32.1 14.7 14.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.0 0.0 82.6 0.0 87.7 3.0 25.7 0.1 2.1 3.5 3.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 7.3 1.0 17.9 0.6 0.6 7.4 7.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.7 0.0 0.0 113.8 0.0 119.0 34.7 43.3 9.6 34.1 18.2 18.1 LnGrp LOS C A A F A F C D A C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 34 409 1060 1350
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.7 116.2 39.9 18.6
Approach LOS C F D B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.1 40.3 9.4 8.9 39.5 12.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 5.4 5.5 * 4.2 5.4 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 8.3 34.9 29.0 * 8.3 34.9 8.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 35.9 3.4 4.2 22.7 10.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 6.3 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.7
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1474
YEAR 2050 + P PMHCM 6th TWSC
3: Community Dr & S. Santa Fe Ave 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1208 10 48 843 10 10
Future Vol, veh/h 1208 10 48 843 10 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 150 - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 1285 11 51 897 11 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 1296 0 1842 648
Stage 1 - - - - 1291 -
Stage 2 - - - - 551 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 531 - 67 413
Stage 1 - - - - 222 -
Stage 2 - - - - 541 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 531 - 61 413
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 61 -
Stage 1 - - - - 222 -
Stage 2 - - - - 489 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 47.3
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 106 - - 531 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.201 - - 0.096 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 47.3 - - 12.5 -
HCM Lane LOS E - - B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0.3 -
1475
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2050 + P PM 4: Las Flores Dr & S. Santa Fe Ave 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 68 1076 92 40 733 90 55 10 30 60 10 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 68 1076 92 40 733 90 55 10 30 60 10 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 76 1196 102 44 814 100 61 11 33 67 11 44 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 151 1236 105 93 1216 542 153 51 154 181 41 166 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.37 0.37 0.05 0.34 0.34 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3314 282 1781 3554 1585 1781 412 1236 1781 327 1308 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 76 640 658 44 814 100 61 0 44 67 0 55 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1820 1781 1777 1585 1781 0 1648 1781 0 1635 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 20.9 21.0 1.4 11.5 2.6 1.9 0.0 1.4 2.1 0.0 1.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 20.9 21.0 1.4 11.5 2.6 1.9 0.0 1.4 2.1 0.0 1.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.80
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 151 662 678 93 1216 542 153 0 205 181 0 207 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.97 0.97 0.47 0.67 0.18 0.40 0.00 0.21 0.37 0.00 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 214 662 678 184 1271 567 241 0 977 341 0 1039 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.8 18.1 18.2 27.2 16.6 13.6 25.5 0.0 23.3 24.7 0.0 23.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 26.8 27.1 3.7 1.3 0.2 1.7 0.0 0.5 1.3 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 11.7 12.0 0.6 4.0 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.9 0.0 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.4 44.9 45.2 30.9 17.9 13.8 27.2 0.0 23.8 26.0 0.0 24.0 LnGrp LOS CDDCBBCACCAC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1374 958 105 122
Approach Delay, s/veh 44.2 18.0 25.8 25.1
Approach LOS D B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 27.4 10.6 13.5 9.4 25.6 10.7 13.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 5.4 5.5 6.0 4.4 5.4 * 4.7 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.1 22.0 8.0 37.5 7.1 21.1 * 11 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 23.0 3.9 3.8 4.4 13.5 4.1 3.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.2 0.1 0.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1476
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2050 + P PM
5: Las Flores Dr & Hollencrest Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 23 82 10 41 111
Future Vol, veh/h 10 23 82 10 41 111
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -----
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 12 27 96 12 48 131
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 329 102 0 0 108 0
Stage 1 102 -----
Stage 2 227 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 665 953 - - 1483 -
Stage 1 922 -----
Stage 2 811 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 642 953 - - 1483 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 642 -----
Stage 1 922 -----
Stage 2 783 -----
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.5 0 2
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 831 1483 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.047 0.033 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.5 7.5 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0.1 -
1477
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2050 + P PM 6: W. Mission Rd/S. Santa Fe Ave & N. Rancho Santa Fe Rd 10/21/2024 Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 468 490 230 525 0 993 273
Future Volume (veh/h) 468 490 230 525 0 993 273
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0000 00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 503 527 247 565 1068 294
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2222 22
Cap, veh/h 727 991 258 2158 1387 618
Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.61 0.39 0.39
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 2790 1781 3647 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 503 527 247 565 1068 294
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1395 1781 1777 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.3 10.4 9.5 5.1 18.1 9.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 10.4 9.5 5.1 18.1 9.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 727 991 258 2158 1387 618
V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.53 0.96 0.26 0.77 0.48
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 900 1130 258 2158 1769 789
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.2 17.7 29.3 6.3 18.4 15.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.4 44.5 0.1 1.6 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.6 0.1 6.9 1.4 6.5 3.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.9 18.2 73.8 6.4 20.0 16.3
LnGrp LOS C B E A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1030 812 1362
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.4 26.9 19.2
Approach LOS C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 48.1 21.0 15.0 33.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.1 6.5 5.0 * 6.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 39 18.0 10.0 * 34
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.1 12.4 11.5 20.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.9 2.2 0.0 6.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 1478
HCM 6th TWSC YEAR 2050 + P PM
7: Capalina Rd & Hollencrest Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 111 172 93 41 10
Future Vol, veh/h 0 111 172 93 41 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 134 207 112 49 12
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 319 0 - 0 397 263
Stage 1 - - - - 263 -
Stage 2 - - - - 134 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1241 - - - 608 776
Stage 1 - - - - 781 -
Stage 2 - - - - 892 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1241 - - - 608 776
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 608 -
Stage 1 - - - - 781 -
Stage 2 - - - - 892 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 11.3
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1241 - - - 635
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ---- 0.097
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 11.3
HCM Lane LOS A - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.3
1479
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary YEAR 2050 + P PM 8: N. Rancho Santa Fe Rd & Capalina Rd 10/21/2024
Santa Fe Las Flores Synchro 11 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 30 122 90 40 30 215 868 110 20 483 30 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 30 122 90 40 30 215 868 110 20 483 30 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 33 136 100 44 33 239 964 122 22 537 33 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 74 224 190 335 499 423 211 1062 134 31 794 49 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.27 0.27 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.02 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 3173 402 1781 3401 209 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 33 136 100 44 33 239 540 546 22 280 290 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1798 1781 1777 1833 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 1.1 5.6 3.3 1.2 1.1 8.0 19.6 19.6 0.8 9.7 9.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 1.1 5.6 3.3 1.2 1.1 8.0 19.6 19.6 0.8 9.7 9.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 74 224 190 335 499 423 211 594 601 31 415 428 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.15 0.72 0.30 0.09 0.08 1.13 0.91 0.91 0.70 0.68 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 410 832 705 410 832 705 211 609 616 92 490 506 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.2 26.6 28.6 23.5 18.6 18.5 29.7 21.4 21.4 32.9 23.5 23.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.3 5.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 101.4 17.3 17.2 25.0 2.9 2.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.5 2.3 1.4 0.5 0.4 9.1 9.9 10.0 0.6 4.0 4.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.1 26.9 33.5 24.0 18.6 18.6 131.1 38.7 38.6 57.9 26.4 26.4 LnGrp LOS CCCCBBFDDECC
Approach Vol, veh/h 180 177 1325 592
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.2 21.7 55.4 27.6
Approach LOS C C E C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.2 28.9 16.7 14.6 14.0 22.1 6.8 24.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.4 4.0 6.5 6.0 6.4 4.0 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 3.5 23.1 15.5 30.0 8.0 18.6 15.5 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.8 21.6 5.3 7.6 10.0 11.7 2.4 3.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.7
HCM 6th LOS D
1480
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-24-3940 Santa Fe Flores Project
N:\3940 - Santa Fe Flores\Report\Appendices\Appendix Cover Pages.docx
APPENDIX J
SIGHT DISTANCE EXHIBIT
1481
1482
ATTACHMENT D.4
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES LETTER REPORT
1483
An Employee-Owned Company
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92108-5726 | 619.308.9333 | reconenvironmental.com SAN DIEGO | OAKLAND | TUCSON | SAN ANTONIO
Project Name and Number: Santa Fe Flores Townhomes (modified project; GPA25-0001; R25-0001; MFSDP25-0001; TSM25-0001)
Report: Biological Resources Letter Report
Date: March 24, 2026
Project Proponent: Santa Fe Flores LP
P.O. Box 903
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Prepared for: City of San Marcos
City-approved CEQA Consultant: Jade Woll
RECON Environmental, Inc.
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92108
Signature of City-approved CEQA Consultant:
1.0 INTRODUCTION, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION
On February 28, 2023, the City of San Marcos City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( MND; ND22- 008; SCH No. 2022090486), approved a General Plan Amendment (GPA) (GPA21-0008), and approved a Multi-Family Site Development Plan (MFSDP21-0002) for the Santa Fe Flores, LP Project (approved project). The requested Rezone (R21-0004) required a second reading prior to approval on March 14, 2023. A biological resources survey report was prepared in 2022 for the approved project which evaluated the impacts associated with a GPA to change the land use from Commercial (C) and Light Industrial (L-I) to Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) and a zone change from Commercial (C) and Light Industrial (L-I) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3-10) to allow for the construction of 50 dwelling units, in conjunction with a Density Bonus, on a 2.53-acre site (2.23 net acres) consisting of two parcels, assessor parcel numbers (APNs) 217-161-18 and 217-161-19.
Subsequent to MND approval, the applicant modified the site plan (modified project) and added 0.37 acres of APN 217-161-17. The modified project would develop 46 multi-family residential townhome units in seven buildings that would be three stories and 35 feet 4 inches in height. Vehicle parking would include 92 spaces within attached garages and 15 guest spaces.
The modified project site totals 2.6 net acres [2.23 acres plus 0.37 acres (added with modified project; see above)].
The modified project also proposes approximately 0.12 acres of off-site improvements, including the construction of a new shared driveway extending into the southern portion of APN 217-161-17, upgrades to the existing liquor store parking lot, and landscaping within the eight-foot-wide irrevocable offer of dedication area along the project frontage. The liquor store would not be part of the modified project and would remain. Project grading would include 23,300 cubic yards of cut and 3,200 cubic yards of fill, resulting in the export of 20,100 cubic yards of soil.
An addendum (Addendum No. 1) has been prepared to assess impacts associated with the modified project. This report describes the results of the biological resources survey conducted for the a pproved project in 2022, as well as the updated biological resources survey conducted for the modified project in 2024. 1484
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project Biological Resources Letter Report
The modified project is located in San Marcos, California (Figure 1), in the Los Vallecitos de San Marcos Land Grant, of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map, San Marcos (Figure 2; USGS 1996). It is located west of North Las Flores Drive, north of South Santa Fe Avenue and north of State Route 78. The project occurs within APNs 217-161-18, 217-161-19, and a portion of 217-161-17 (Figure 3). The modified project is located within a developed area and is bounded by an existing multi-family residential development located east of North Las Flores Drive, by South Santa Fe Avenue to the south, existing industrial to the north and west, and an existing liquor store and parking lot to the southwest. The Sprinter railroad tracks and single-family residential homes off North Las Flores Drive are north and northeast of the modified project, and the Vista Meadows mobile home community is south of South Santa Fe Avenue across from the modified project (Figure 3).
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The modified project is located within a developed area surrounded by light-industrial, residential, and commercial properties on all sides of the project. The City of San Marcos (City) adheres to the draft Subarea Plan under the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), though it has not been formally approved (City of San Marcos 2001).
The MHCP is a habitat conservation plan for the seven jurisdictional areas within the northern subregion of San Diego County, including San Marcos (San Diego Association of Governments [SANDAG] 2003). This draft City of San Marcos Subarea Plan identifies a series of focused planning areas (FPA) within which some lands will be dedicated for preservation of native habitats. These areas contain both “hardline” preserve areas, which will ultimately be preserved as open space, and “softline” planning areas, which will include some areas that ultimately will become preserves and other areas that will ultimately be developed, as determined through the planning process. The modified project is located outside of any hardline preserve areas or softline planning areas identified by the draft City of San Marcos Subarea Plan. The nearest hardline reserve is approximately 2,000 feet east and northeast of the modified project.
Areas just outside the City of San Marcos within unincorporated San Diego County are within the planning boundaries of the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program draft North County Plan. The modified project is outside of and situated approximately 1,500 feet south of these areas, which are identified in the draft North County Plan as “Outside Open Space Network” indicating they are not intended for conservation lands (Figure 4).
3.0 SURVEY METHODS
RECON Environmental, Inc. (RECON) biologist Jade Woll conducted an initial biological survey of the approved project on March 3, 2022 (Figure 5). The modified project was surveyed by RECON biologist Danelle Gadia on October 31, 2024 (Figure 5) within an approximately 2.7-acre survey area, including on-site and off-site areas to be potentially impacted. The 2024 survey determined the current condition of the biological resources present within the modified project. Prior to conducting field surveys in both 2022 and 2024, a review of publicly available data was conducted to determine the potential for special-status species to occur within the project site. The review included data provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (USFWS 2024), California Natural Diversity Data base (CNDDB; CDFW 2024a), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2024).
During the field survey, habitats were assessed for their potential to support special- status species, and all incidentally observed species were recorded. No focused special-status species surveys were conducted. All plant and wildlife species observed during the general survey are presented in Attachments 2 and 3, respectively. Plant or wildlife species are considered special status if they are: (1) covered or listed as a narrow endemic under the MHCP (SANDAG 2003); (2) listed by state or federal agencies as threatened or endangered or are proposed for listing; (3) included on CNPS California Rare Plant Ranks 1, 2, 3, or 4 (CNPS 2024); or (4) considered rare, endangered, or threatened by local conservation organizations or specialists (Reiser 2001). 1485
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project Biological Resources Letter Report
4.0 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/LAND COVER TYPES
Two vegetation communities/land cover types were identified within the survey area: disturbed land and urban/developed. The acreages of each vegetation community/land cover type within the survey area are presented in Table 1 and depicted in Figure 6. Under the MHCP, environmentally sensitive lands are categorized into different habitat groups of sensitivity. Group A consists of wetland/riparian habitats, which are considered the most sensitive of habitats. Upland vegetation communities that are classified as Group B (rare uplands), Group C (coastal sage scrub), Group D (chaparral), and Group E (annual [non-native] grasslands) are considered sensitive by the MHCP. Group F (other lands), which includes disturbed lands, is not considered sensitive (SANDAG 2003).
Table 1
Land Cover Types within the Modified Project Survey Area Land Cover Types
(Holland Code as modified by Oberbauer)
MHCP
Group Total (acres)1,3
Disturbed Land (11300) F 2.3
Urban/Developed (12000) --2 0.4
TOTAL1,3 2.7
MHCP = Multiple Habitat Conservation Program
1Includes off-site improvement area. Rounded to the nearest tenth of an acre. Any discrepancies in totals are due to rounding.
2No MHCP assigned group.
3Total acres includes approved project acreage (2.3 acres) plus modified project acreage (0.4 acres).
Disturbed Land. Disturbed land consists of areas that may have been disturbed by human activity and no longer function as a native vegetation community. Vegetation in such areas is typically dominated by opportunistic non - native species but may also contain a substantial portion of bare ground. Disturbed land can also include areas that have been previously graded, repeatedly cleared for fuel management, and/or experience repeated use (e.g. , off- road-vehicle trails and construction staging sites) (Oberbauer et al. 2008).
Disturbed land occurs within the majority of the survey area and includes areas that have been disturbed through frequent off-roading activity (Attachment 1, Photographs 1 and 2). This land cover type includes non-native forbs and ornamental species with dominant species including telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), vanilla-scented wattle (Acacia redolens), and Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle). Several scattered native shrubs were identified throughout the disturbed land but these individual species were too few to form a distinct native habitat (see Figure 6 ). Disturbed land is classified as Group F by the MHCP. Impacts to Group F habitat types would not be considered significant and would not require mitigation.
Urban/Developed Land. Urban/developed land consists of any land that has been constructed upon, containing permanent or semi-permanent structures, pavement or hardscape, or landscaped areas that are regularly maintained and/or irrigated (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Urban/developed land includes a paved parking lot in the southwestern corner of the survey area and ornamental landscaping along the eastern edge of the survey area (see Figure 6 and Photograph 1). As noted in Section 1.0 above, the existing liquor store would not be part of the modified project and would remain.
1486
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project Biological Resources Letter Report
5.0 WILDLIFE SPECIES
Wildlife species observed during the time of the survey include those typically found within disturbed and urban/developed land such as American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), California ground squirrel (Otopermophilus beecheyi), and black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans).
6.0 AQUATIC RESOURCES
A formal wetland delineation was not conducted; however, no potential jurisdictional wetlands or waters were observed within the modified project. Additionally, no vernal pools or depressions containing wetland or vernal pool plant species characteristic of vernal habitat were observed during the survey.
7.0 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
7.1 Special Status Plant Species
One special status plant species, decumbent goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens), was observed within the approved project during the 2022 biological survey (see Figure 6; RECON 2022). A total of 30 individuals were observed (Figure 6). No other sensitive plants were observed within the modified project area or are anticipated to occur due to high levels of disturbance within the BSA (e.g., off-roading activity, prevalence of nonnative species).
Additionally, thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) was not observed during the 2022 biological survey, which was conducted during the species blooming period (March–June) when vegetative stems/stalks or blooming individuals would have been visible. Furthermore, the modified project lacks suitable vernal pool and grassland habitat to support this species and consists of predominantly non-native species and heavily disturbed areas from frequent off-roading activity. A comprehensive list of sensitive plant species with a potential to occur within the BSA based on the records search is presented in Attachment 4 and includes species with potential to occur based on species range and habitat conditions (CDFW 2024b and 2024c).
7.2 Special Status Wildlife Species
No special status wildlife species were observed within the survey area; however, one special status wildlife species, Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), has a moderate potential to occur on-site. A comprehensive list of sensitive wildlife species with potential to occur in the survey area based on the record search is presented in Attachment 5 and includes species with potential to occur based on species range and habitat conditions (CDFW 2024a and 2024d; USFWS 2024).
Cooper’s Hawk (Nesting). The Cooper’s hawk is a CDFW watch list species (nesting) and a MHCP-covered species (CDFW 2024a; SANDAG 2003). This species has a moderate potential to occur due to the presence of suitable trees for nesting within the disturbed land and urban/developed within the survey area . No individuals or active nests were observed at the time of the survey.
Nesting/Migratory Birds. The survey area has the potential to support migratory and nesting birds. Under Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Section 3503.5 of the CFGC prohibits take, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes (raptors) or Strigiformes (owls), or of their nests and eggs.
1487
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project Biological Resources Letter Report
8.0 WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND LINKAGES
Though it is reasonable to assume that urban-adapted species may occur locally within the modified project, the project as a whole does not function as a wildlife movement corridor and there is no indication that it supports any wildlife nursery sites. The modified project is outside any City FPAs and biological core and linkage areas (BCLA).
9.0 SIGNIFICANCE OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION This section describes project impacts and recommended avoidance and mitigation measures based on the County’s MHCP (SANDAG 2003) and Report Format and Content Recommendations for biological resources reports (City of San Marcos 2022).
9.1 Vegetation Community Impacts and Proposed Mitigation The modified project would cause direct permanent impacts to 2.3 acres of disturbed land and 0.4 acres of urban/developed (Table 2; Figure 7). Impacts to disturbed land and urban/developed are not considered significant and, therefore, no mitigation would be required.
Table 2
Habitat/Vegetation Communities, Impacts, and Mitigation Habitat/
Vegetation Community
Total Impacts
(acres)3
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
Required
(acres)
Disturbed Land (Group F) 2.3 0:1 0.0
Urban/Developed (--1) 0.4 N/A N/A
TOTAL2 2.7 - 0.0
1No Multiple Habitat Conservation Program assigned group. 2Total acres include approved project acreage (2.3 acres) plus modified project acreage (0.4 acres).
3Rounded to nearest tenth of an acre. Any discrepancies in totals are due to rounding.
N/A = not applicable
9.2 Sensitive Plant Species
The modified project would result in direct permanent impacts to decumben t goldenbush, an impact that was disclosed in the MND for the approved project. No additional sensitive plant species were observed within the additional 0.4 acres of the modified project area in 2024. Project impacts to sensitive plant species would be limited to decumbent goldenbush within the previously approved project footprint. The 2023 MND concluded that these impacts are less than significant because the habitat for decumbent goldenbush is of marginal quality due to heavy disturbance and comprises a small fraction of the habitat available to this species both at a local level (within the City) and on a regional scale. Because the modified project does not result in any additional impacts to this species beyond that which was disclosed for the approved project, the impacts that would occur to sensitive plants would remain less than significant and no mitigation would be required.
9.3 Sensitive Wildlife Species
Migratory and Nesting Birds. Direct impacts to migratory and nesting birds, including Cooper’s hawk, could result from the accidental destruction of nests during project construction activities. These impacts could occur if removal of suitable habitat for these species, such as the ornamental trees that ring the survey area were to occur during the general bird breeding season (between February 1 and September 15). Therefore, mitigation measure BIO-1 from the 1488
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project Biological Resources Letter Report
MND will be implemented during construction to prevent direct impacts to migratory and nesting birds, including Cooper’s hawk. Mitigation measure BIO-1 language from the MND is provided below for reference. Please note that the measure BIO-1 from the approved project used “March” and “September” as the dates within which surveys would be required. To provide greater specificity and ensure all migratory birds, including early nesting passerines and raptors are protected, minor edits to BIO-1 are provided below. In addition, impacts to nesting birds may occur up to 300 feet from the modified project footprint and as such, BIO-1 has been modified to clarify that surveys should be conducted within that survey distance prior to construction. New language is included in underline; removed language is shown in strike-through font:
BIO-1: If construction initiation occurs between March February 1 and September 15, a pre-construction nesting bird and raptor survey within 300 feet of the project impact area shall be completed by a qualified biologist prior to vegetation removal. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction activities (including removal of vegetation). If any active nests are detected, the area will be flagged and mapped along with a buffer as recommended by the qualified biologist. The buffer area(s) established by the qualified biologist will be avoided until the nesting cycle is complete or it is determined that the nest is no longer active. The qualified biologist shall be a person familiar with bird breeding behavior and capable of identifying the bird species of San Diego County by sight and sound and determining alterations of behavior as a result of human interaction. Buffers will be based on species-appropriate buffers and/or local topography and line of sight, species behavior and tolerance to disturbance, and existing disturbance levels, as determined appropriate by the qualified biologist.
9.4 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waterways
No potential jurisdictional wetlands or waters were observed on-site. Therefore, there are no anticipated impacts to any jurisdictional wetlands or waterways and no mitigation would be required.
9.5 Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites
Though it is reasonable to assume that urban-adapted species may occur locally within the impact footprint, the site as a whole does not function as a wildlife movement corridor and there is no indication that the site supports any wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, the project will not result in any impact to wildlife movement or nursery sites and no mitigation would be required.
The modified project also is outside any City FPAs and BCLA. Therefore, there are no impacts anticipated to wildlife movement corridors, wildlife nursery sites, FPAs, or a BCLA.
1489
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project Biological Resources Letter Report
10.0 REFERENCES CITED
American Society of Mammalogists
2020 Mammalian Species (online). http://www.mammalsociety.org/publications/mammalian-species. July.
Bradley, R. D., L.K. Ammerman, R. J. Baker, L. C. Bradley, J. A. Cook, R. C. Dowler, C. Jones, D. J. Schimdly, F. B. Stangl Jr., R. A. Van Den Bussche, and B. Wursig
2014 Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University No. 327. October.
Brenzel, K. N.
2001 Sunset Western Garden Book. Sunset Publishing. Menlo Park, California.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
2024a Special Animals. Natural Diversity Database. Department of Fish and Wildlife. October.
2024b Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Natural Diversity Database. Department of Fish and Wildlife. October.
2024c State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. October .
2024d State & Federally Listed Endangered & Threatened Animals of California. October .
California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
2024 Rare Plant Program. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8 -03).
Sacramento, CA. Accessed in July. Available at http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.
Chesser, R. T., S. M. Billerman, K. J. Burns, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, B. E. Hernández-Baños, A. W. Kratter, I. J. Lovette, N. A.
Mason, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., D. F. Stotz, and K. Winker 2021 Check-list of North American Birds (online). American Ornithological Society. http://checklist.aou.org/taxa.
Crother, B. I., Ronald M. Bonett, Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Kevin de Queiroz, Darrel R. Frost, Richard Highton, John B. Iverson, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, Fred Kraus, Kenneth L. Krysko, , Adam D. Leaché, Emilly Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, Joseph R. Mendelson III, Peter A. Meylan, Tod W. Reeder, Sara Ruane, and Michael E. Seidel 2017 Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding, Eighth Edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular No. 43.
Eriksen, Clyde, and Denton Belk
1999 Fairy Shrimp of California’s Puddles, Pools, and Playas. Mad River Press, Eureka.
Evans, Arthur V.
2008 Field Guide to Insects and Spiders of North America. Sterling Publishing Company, New York.
Harvey, M. J., J. S. Altenbach, and T. L. Best
2011 Bats of the United States and Canada. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
1490
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project Biological Resources Letter Report
Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes
1994 Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Final report submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA. Contract number 8023.
Jepson Flora Project (eds.)
2020 Jepson eFlora, http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html.
Nature Festivals of San Diego County
2002 Checklist of Butterflies of San Diego County. Professional review by David Faulkner of the San Diego Natural History Museum and Dr. John Brown of the Smithsonian Institute. Revised September. http://www.sdnhm.org/science/entomology/projects/checklist-of-butterflies-of-san-diego-county/.
NatureServe
2021 NatureServe Explorer. www.natureserve.org.
Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge
2008 Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California,” Robert F. Holland, Ph.D., October 1986. March.
Page, L. M., H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, N. E. Mandrak, R. L. Mayden, and J. S. Nelson 2013 Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico, 7 th edition. American
Fisheries Society, Special Publication 34, Bethesda, Maryland.
Rebman, J. P., and M. G. Simpson
2014 Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San Diego County, 5th edition. San Diego Natural History Museum.
RECON Environmental, Inc.
2022 Biological Resources Report for the Santa Fe Flores Project (RECON Number 9865). November 29.
Reiser, C. H.
2001 Rare Plants of San Diego County. Aquafir Press. July.
San Diego, County of
2010 Guidelines for Determining Significance. Biological Resources, Land Use and Environment Group.
Department of Planning and Land Use. Department of Public Works. Fourth Revision. September 15.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
2003 Final MHCP Plan. Prepared for the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program for the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista. Volumes I, II, and III. March.
San Marcos, City of
2001 Natural Community Conservation Plan for the City of San Marcos. Agency review draft, May.
2022 Report Format and Content Recommendations, Biological Resources Report. May. Available:
https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/26428/637883135667770000
Tremor, Scott, D. Stokes, W. Spencer, J. Diffendorfer, H. Thomas, S. Chivers, and P. Unitt, eds. 2017 San Diego County Mammal Atlas. San Diego Natural History Museum. 1491
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project Biological Resources Letter Report
Unitt, P. A.
2004 San Diego County Bird Atlas. San Diego Natural History Museum, Ibis, San Diego
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2024 The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA. Accessed from http://plants.usda.gov.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
2024 Species Observation Database.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
1996 7.5 minute topographic map series, San Marcos quadrangle, Los Vallecitos de San Marcos Land Grant.
Western Bat Working Group (WBWG)
2017 Western Bat Species (species accounts). http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/.
11.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
RECON Environmental, Inc.
Jade Woll, Biologist
Danelle Gadia, Biologist
Benjamin Arp, GIS Specialist
Stacey Higgins, Senior Production Specialist
Steven Gaughran, Production Specialist
1492
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Los
Penasquitos Canyon Presv
Daley Ranch
Lake Wohlford
Batiquitos Lagoon
Lake Hodges
San Vicente
Reservoir
Usmc Air
Station
Miramar
Camp Pendleton
Marine Co Base
Cleveland National
Forest
Temecula
San Diego
Encinitas
Oceanside
Poway
San Marcos
Vista
Carlsbad
Santee
Escondido
Solana
Beach
Del
Mar
Pauma and
Yuima
Reservation
Pala
Reservation
San
Pasqual
Reservation
Rincon
Reservation
Pechanga
Tribal Lands
Bonsall
Camp Pendleton
North
Camp Pendleton South
Eucalyptus
Hills
Fairbanks
Ranch
Fallbrook
Hidden
Meadows
Lake
San Marcos
Rainbow
Rancho
Santa Fe
Valley Center
R I V E R S I D E
C O U N T Y
S A N D I E G O
C O U N T Y
78 56
67 805
5 15
M:\JOBS6\10587\common_gis\PRO\standard_figures\standardfigures.aprx 10/29/2024 fmm Regional Location
FIGURE 1
0 5Miles [
Project Locationkj
kj
1493
FIGURE 2
Project Location on USGS Map
Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, San Marcos quadrangle, 1996, Los Vallecitos de San Marcos Land Grant 0 2,000Feet
M:\JOBS6\10587\common_gis\PRO\standard_figures\standardfigures.aprx 12/12/2025 bma [
Project Boundary
Off-site Improvements
1494
FIGURE 3
Project Location on Aerial Photograph
NLAS FL
ORES DR
NORMANSTRASSERD
VIA
LA V
ENTA
S SANTA FE AVE
21716117
21716119
21716118
21716117
0 150Feet
M:\JOBS6\10587\common_gis\PRO\standard_figures\standardfigures.aprx 12/12/2025 bma [
Project Boundary
Off-site Improvements
Approved Project
Modified Project
Parcels
Image Source: Nearmap (flown September 2025)
1495
FIGURE 4
Project in Relation to MSCP Preserve Area
RANCHO SA
NTAFE
MISSION
SOUTH SANTA FE
UV78
0 600Feet
M:\JOBS6\10587\common_gis\PRO\standard_figures\standardfigures.aprx 12/12/2025 bma [
Project Boundary
Off-site Improvements
North County Draft MSCP
Outside Open Space Network
Draft San Marcos MHCP Subarea Plan
Focused Planning Areas
Hardline Preserve Area
Softline Planning Area
Image Source: Nearmap (flown September 2025)
1496
FIGURE 5
Project Survey Areas
NLAS FLO
RES DR
S SANTA FE AVE
0 100Feet
M:\JOBS6\10587\common_gis\PRO\standard_figures\standardfigures.aprx 12/12/2025 bma [
Project Boundary
Off-site Improvements
Survey Area 2022 (Approved Project)
Survey Area 2024 (Modified Project)
Image Source: Nearmap (flown September 2025)
1497
FIGURE 6
Existing Biological Resources
LAS FLORES DR
N L
AS F
LORES DR
S SANTA FE AVE
0 100Feet
M:\JOBS6\10587\common_gis\PRO\standard_figures\standardfigures.aprx 12/12/2025 bma [
Project Boundary
Off-site Improvements
Modified Project
Decumbent Goldenbush
(Isocoma menziezii decumbens)
Vegetation Community
Disturbed Land
Urban/Developed
Image Source: Nearmap (flown September 2025)
30 individuals
1498
FIGURE 7
Impacts to Biological Resources
LAS FLORES DR
N L
AS FLO
RES
DR
S SANTA FE AVE
0 100Feet
M:\JOBS6\10587\common_gis\PRO\standard_figures\standardfigures.aprx 12/12/2025 bma [
Project Boundary
Off-site Improvements
Modified Project
Impact Areas
Decumbent Goldenbush
(Isocoma menziezii decumbens)
Vegetation Community
Disturbed Land
Urban/Developed
Image Source: Nearmap (flown September 2025)
30 individuals
1499
ATTACHMENTS
1500
ATTACHMENT 1
Site Photographs
1501
P:\10587\Bio\Photos\Photos1&2.docx 11/18/2024
PHOTOGRAPH 1
View of Disturbed Land in Project Site, Facing Southeast
PHOTOGRAPH 2
View of Disturbed Land and Urban/Developed in Project Site, Facing Northwest
1502
ATTACHMENT 2
Plant Species Observed
1503
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
Attachment 2
Plant Species Observed
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Origin
ANGIOSPERMS: MONOCOTS
ARECACEAE PALM FAMILY
Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm DL I
POACEAE (GRAMINEAE) GRASS FAMILY
Avena sp. oats DL I
Bromus diandrus ripgut grass DL I
Bromus rubens [=Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens] red brome DL I Festuca perennis [=Lolium multiflorum and Lolium perenne] rye grass DL I Hordeum murinum wall barley DL I
Pennisetum setaceum crimson fountain grass DL I
ANGIOSPERMS: EUDICOTS
AIZOACEAE FIG-MARIGOLD FAMILY
Carpobrotus edulis freeway iceplant DL I
ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC OR CASHEW FAMILY
Schinus molle L. Peruvian pepper tree DL I
Searsia [=Rhus] lancea African sumac UD I
APIACEAE (UMBELLIFERAE) CARROT FAMILY
Foeniculum vulgare fennel DL I
ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Baccharis pilularis chaparral broom, coyote brush DL N
Baccharis salicifolia ssp. salicifolia mule fat, seep-willow DL N Cynara cardunculus ssp. flavescens cardoon, artichoke thistle DL I Dittrichia graveolens stinkwort DL I
Hedypnois cretica Crete weed
DL I
1504
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
Attachment 2
Plant Species Observed
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Origin
Helminthotheca [=Picris] echioides bristly ox-tongue
DL I
Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed
DL N
Isocoma menziesii coastal goldenbush
DL N
Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens decumbent goldenbush
DL N
BRASSICACEAE (CRUCIFERAE) MUSTARD FAMILY
Brassica sp. mustard DL I
Brassica rapa turnip, field mustard DL I
CAPRIFOLIACEAE HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY
Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle UD I
CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
Salsola tragus Russian thistle, tumbleweed DL I
CONVOLVULACEAE MORNING-GLORY FAMILY
Calystegia macrostegia morning-glory DL N
EUPHORBIACEAE SPURGE FAMILY
Euphorbia peplus petty spurge DL I
1505
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
Attachment 2
Plant Species Observed
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Origin
FABACEAE (LEGUMINOSAE) LEGUME FAMILY
Acacia redolens Maslin desert carpet DL I
Acmispon glaber [=Lotus scoparius] deerweed, California broom DL N Astragalus trichopodus var. lonchus ocean locoweed DL N Medicago polymorpha California burclover DL I
Melilotus albus white sweetclover DL I
GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY
Erodium botrys long-beak filaree DL I
Erodium moschatum greenstem filaree DL I
MALVACEAE MALLOW FAMILY
Malva neglecta common mallow, cheeses DL I
OXALIDACEAE OXALIS FAMILY
Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda buttercup DL I
POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Polygonum aviculare Prostrate knotweed DL I
SCROPHULARIACEAE FIGWORT FAMILY
Myoporum parvifolium slender myoporum UD I
VERBENACEAE VERVAIN FAMILY
Lantana montevidensis trailing lantana UD I
NOTE: Scientific and common names were primarily derived from Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2020). In instances where common names were not provided in this resource, common names were obtained from Rebman and Simpson (2014). Additional common names were obtained from the USDA maintained database (USDA 2021) or the Sunset Western Garden Book (Brenzel 2001) for ornamental/horticultural plants. Common names denoted with * are from County of San Diego 2010.
HABITAT ORIGIN
DL = Disturbed Land N = Native to locality
UD = Urban/Developed I = Introduced species from outside locality
1506
ATTACHMENT 3
Wildlife Species Observed
1507
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
Attachment 3
Wildlife Species Observed
Scientific Name
Common Name
Occupied
Habitat
On-Site Abundance/
Seasonality (Birds Only) Evidence of Occurrence
INVERTEBRATES
PIERIDAE WHITES & SULPHURS
Pieris rapae cabbage white (I) DL O
BIRDS
ACCIPITRIDAE HAWKS, KITES, & EAGLES
Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk FO F/ Y O
COLUMBIDAE PIGEONS & DOVES
Zenaida macroura mourning dove FO C/ Y O
TROCHILIDAE HUMMINGBIRDS
Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird DL C/ Y O
CORVIDAE CROWS, JAYS, & MAGPIES
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow FO C/ Y O
AEGITHALIDAE BUSHTIT
Psaltriparus minimus bushtit UD C/ Y V
Melozone [=Pipilo] crissalis California towhee DL C/ Y O
MAMMALS
SCIURIDAE SQUIRRELS & CHIPMUNKS
Otopermophilus [=Spermophilus] beecheyi California ground squirrel DL B
CANIDAE CANIDS
Canis latrans coyote DL S
(I) = Introduced species
NOTE: Zoological nomenclature for invertebrates is in accordance with the NatureServe 2021 and Evans 2008; for fish with Natu reServe 2021; for reptiles and amphibians with Crother et. al (2017); for birds with Chesser et al. 2021; for mammals with Bradley et al. (2014), American Society of Mammalogists 2021.
1508
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
Attachment 3
Wildlife Species Observed
Scientific Name
Common Name
Occupied
Habitat
On-Site Abundance/
Seasonality (Birds Only) Evidence of Occurrence
HABITATS ABUNDANCE
DL = Disturbed land C = Common to abundant; almost always encountered in proper habitat, usually in FO = Flying overhead moderate to large numbers
UD = Urban/developed F = Fairly common; usually encountered in proper habitat, generally not in large numbers
EVIDENCE OF OCCURRENCE SEASONALITY (birds only)
B = Burrow Y = Year-round resident; probable breeder on-site or in vicinity O = Observed
S = Scat
V = Vocalization
1509
ATTACHMENT 4
Sensitive Plant Species with the Potential to Occur
1510
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
Attachment 4
Sensitive Plant Species Observed or with the Potential to Occur Scientific Name
Common Name
Sensitivity Code & Status
Habitat Preference/
Requirements
Detected On-Site
Yes/No
Potential to
Occur On-Site
(Observed or
L/M/H/U)
Basis for Determination of
Occurrence Potential
State/
Federal
Status
CNPS
Rank
County of
San Diego
ANGIOSPERMS: DICOTS
APIACEAE CARROT FAMILY
Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii
San Diego button-celery
SE/FE 1B.1 -- Biennial/perennial herb; vernal
pools, mesic areas of coastal sage
scrub and grasslands, blooms
April–June; elevation less than
2,000 feet. Known from San Diego
and Riverside counties. Additional
populations occur in Baja
California, Mexico.
No U Unlikely to occur due to lack
of vernal pools, mesic areas of
coastal sage scrub, and
grasslands. This species has
been documented within a
one-mile radius of the project
site (CDFW 2024b).
ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens
decumbent goldenbush
–/– 1B.2 -- Perennial shrub; chaparral, coastal
sage scrub; sandy soils, often in
disturbed areas; blooms April–
November; elevation less than 500
feet.
Yes H This species was observed
within the project site.
1511
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
Attachment 4
Sensitive Plant Species Observed or with the Potential to Occur Scientific Name
Common Name
Sensitivity Code & Status
Habitat Preference/
Requirements
Detected On-Site
Yes/No
Potential to
Occur On-Site
(Observed or
L/M/H/U)
Basis for Determination of
Occurrence Potential
State/
Federal
Status
CNPS
Rank
County of
San Diego
ANGIOSPERMS: MONOCOTS
THEMIDACEAE BRODIAEA FAMILY
Brodiaea filifolia
thread-leaved brodiaea
[=thread-leaf brodiaea]
SE/FT 1B.1 -- Perennial herb (bulbiferous);
cismontane woodland, coastal
sage scrub, playas, valley and
foothill grassland, vernal pools;
often clay soils; blooms March–
June; elevation 80-3,675 feet.
California endemic. Known from
San Diego, Riverside, Orange, Los
Angeles, and San Bernardino
counties.
No U Unlikely to occur due to lack
of cismontane woodland,
coastal sage scrub, playas,
valley and foothill grassland,
and vernal pools. This species
has been documented within
a one-mile radius of the
project site (CDFW 2024b).
Brodiaea orcuttii
Orcutt’s brodiaea
–/– 1B.1 -- Perennial herb (bulbiferous);
closed cone coniferous forest,
chaparral, meadows and seeps,
valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools; mesic, clay soil;
blooms May–July; elevation less
than 5,600 feet.
No U Unlikely to occur due to lack
of closed cone coniferous
forest, chaparral, meadows and
seeps, valley and foothill
grassland, and vernal pools
.
This species has been
documented within a one-
mile radius of the project site
(CDFW 2024b).
1512
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
Attachment 4
Sensitive Plant Species Observed or with the Potential to Occur Scientific Name
Common Name
Sensitivity Code & Status
Habitat Preference/
Requirements
Detected On-Site
Yes/No
Potential to
Occur On-Site
(Observed or
L/M/H/U)
Basis for Determination of
Occurrence Potential
State/
Federal
Status
CNPS
Rank
County of
San Diego
NOTE: Scientific and common names were primarily derived from Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2020). In instances where common names were not provided in this resource, common names were obtained from Rebman and Simpson (2014). Additional common names were obtained from the USDA maintained database (USDA 2021) or the Sunset Western Garden Book (Brenzel 2001) for ornamental/horticultural plants. Common names denoted with * are from County of San Diego 2010.
FEDERAL CANDIDATES AND LISTED PLANTS STATE LISTED PLANTS FE = Federally listed endangered SE = State listed endangered FT = Federally listed threatened
CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY (CNPS): CALIFORNIA RARE PLANT RANKS (CRPR) 1B = Species rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. These species are eligible for state listing. .1 = Species seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened; high degree and immediacy of threat). .2 = Species fairly threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened; moderate degree and immediacy of threat).
POTENTIAL TO OCCUR ON-SITE
U = Unexpected
1513
ATTACHMENT 5
Sensitive Wildlife Species with the Potential to Occur
1514
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
Attachment 5
Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurring or with the Potential to Occur Common Name/
Scientific Name
Sensitivity Code & Status
Habitat Preference/
Requirements
Detected
On-Site?
Yes/No
Potential to
Occur On-Site
(Observed or
L/M/H/U)
Basis for Determination of
Occurrence Potential
State/Federal
Status
County of
San Diego
INVERTEBRATES
BRANCHINECTIDAE FAIRY SHRIMP
San Diego fairy shrimp
Branchinecta sandiegonensis
FT MHCP Vernal pools. No U Not expected to occur. No
vernal pools or other
depressions containing
wetland or vernal pool plant
species characteristic of vernal
habitat were observed.
BIRDS
ACCIPITRIDAE HAWKS, KITES, & EAGLES
Cooper’s hawk (nesting)
Accipiter cooperii
WL/- MHCP Mature forest, open
woodlands, wood edges,
river groves. Parks and
residential areas.
No M Moderate potential to nest
within the project site due to
the presence of suitable trees
for nesting.
POLIOPTILIDAE GNATCATCHERS
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica californica
SSC/FT MHCP Coastal sage scrub, maritime
succulent scrub. Resident.
No U Not expected to occur due to
the lack of coastal sage scrub,
and maritime succulent scrub.
This species has been
documented within a one-mile
radius of the project site
(CDFW 2024b).
1515
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
Attachment 5
Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurring or with the Potential to Occur Common Name/
Scientific Name
Sensitivity Code & Status
Habitat Preference/
Requirements
Detected
On-Site?
Yes/No
Potential to
Occur On-Site
(Observed or
L/M/H/U)
Basis for Determination of
Occurrence Potential
State/Federal
Status
County of
San Diego
PASSERELLIDAE NEW WORLD PASSERINES
Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens
WL/- MHCP Coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, grassland.
Resident.
No U Not expected to occur due to
the lack of coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, and grassland. This
species has been documented
within a one -mile radius of
the project site (CDFW 2024b).
MAMMALS
MUSTELIDAE WEASELS, OTTERS, & BADGERS
American badger
Taxidea taxus
SSC/- -- Grasslands, Sonoran desert
scrub.
No U Not expected to occur in the
project site due to the high
level of disturbance and lack
of suitable habitat. This species
has been documented within a
one-mile radius of the project
site (CDFW 2024a).
(I) = Introduced species
NOTE: Zoological nomenclature for invertebrates is in accordance with the NatureServe 2021 and Evans 2008; for fish with NatureServe 2021; for reptiles and amphibians with Crother et. al (2017); for birds with Chesser et al. 2021; for mammals with Bradley et al. (2014), American Society of Mammalogists 2021. Determination of the potential occurrence for listed, sensitive, or not eworthy species is based upon known ranges and habitat preferences for species follows Eriksen and Belk 1999, Nature Festivals of San Diego County 2002, Evans 2008, Page et al. 2013, Jennings and Hayes 1994, Unitt 2004, Tremor et. al. 2017, Western Bat Working Group 2017, and Harvey et al. 2011. Listing status is based on California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database (CDFW) 2024d and the County of San Diego MHCP (SANDAG 2003).
1516
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
Attachment 5
Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurring or with the Potential to Occur
STATUS CODES
Listed/Proposed
FT = Listed as threatened by the federal government
Other
SSC = California Department of Fish and Wildlife species of special concern WL = California Department of Fish and Wildlife watch list species MHCP = Multiple Habitat Conservation Program covered species
Potential to Occur On-Site
M = Medium
U = Unexpected
1517
ATTACHMENT D.5
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY
1518
Cultural Resources Survey for the
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
San Marcos, California
Project Nos. GPA25-0001, R25-0001, MFSDP25-0001, and
TSM25-0001
Prepared for
Santa Fe Flores, LP
P.O. Box 903
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Contact: Paul Mayer
Prepared by
RECON Environmental, Inc.
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92108
P 619.308.9333
RECON Number 10587
January 29, 2026
Nathanial Yerka, Project Archaeologist/Author
Carmen Zepeda-Herman, M.A., RPA, Principal Investigator 1519
Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
i
NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA BASE INFORMATION
Author: Nathanial Yerka, Project Archaeologist
Carmen Zepeda-Herman, M.A., RPA, Principal Investigator Consulting Firm: RECON Environmental, Inc.
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92108
Report Date: January 29, 2026
Report Title: Cultural Resources Survey for the Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project, San Marcos, California (GPA25-0001, R25-0001, MFSDP25- 0001, and TSM25-0001)
Submitted to: Mr. Paul Mayer
Prepared for: Santa Fe Flores, LP
P.O. Box 903
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Project Number: RECON Number 10587
USGS Quadrangle Map: 7.5-minute, San Marcos
Acres: 2.72 (net)
Keywords: Negative archaeological survey; San Marcos quadrangle RECON Environmental, Inc. (RECON) conducted a cultural resources inventory for the proposed Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project. The survey covered 2.72 acres, which includes the 2.6-acre (net) project area located at 2966, 2972, and 2982 South Santa Fe Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 217-161-18, 217-161-19, and the northern portion of 217-161-17) and 0.12 acres of off -site improvements.
The cultural resources surveys took place on March 10, 2022, and November 12, 2024, using a survey interval of approximately seven meters across the property. The RECON archaeologist was accompanied by a Luiseño representative from Saving Sacred Sites during both surveys.
No significant prehistoric or historic cultural resources were observed during the survey of the project area. No prehistoric or historic cultural resources were mapped on or immediately adjacent to the property in the record search files. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on known prehistoric or historic cultural resources. However, the possibility exists for buried prehistoric archaeological deposits on -site. Because of this factor, RECON recommends that all ground-disturbing activities for the project be monitored by a qualified archaeological monitor and Native American monitors representing the Luiseño community.
1520
Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... iii Summary 1
1.0 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 2
2.0 Natural Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 2
3.0 Cultural Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 6
3.1 Paleoindian Period ............................................................................................................................. 6
3.2 Archaic Period ..................................................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Late Prehistoric Period ..................................................................................................................... 7
3.4 Ethnohistory ......................................................................................................................................... 8
3.5 Spanish Period .................................................................................................................................... 9
3.6 Mexican Period ................................................................................................................................. 10
3.7 American Period ............................................................................................................................... 10
3.8 City of San Marcos ............................................................................................................................ 11
4.0 Background Research ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 11
4.1 Records Search .................................................................................................................................. 11
4.2 Native American Heritage Commission and Tribal Response ........................................... 13
5.0 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 14
6.0 Report of Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 14
7.0 Management Considerations ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 17
8.0 Certification and Project Staff ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 21
9.0 References Cited ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 21
FIGURES
1: Regional Location ............................................................................................................................................. 3 2: Project Location on USGS Map .................................................................................................................... 4 3: Project Location on Aerial Photograph ..................................................................................................... 5 TABLES
1: Cultural Resources within One Mile of the Project .............................................................................. 12
1521
Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
PHOTOGRAPHS
1: Overview of Project Area from the Southeast Corner, Looking North ......................................... 15 2: Two Granite Boulders Checked for Cultural Manipulation, Looking North-Northeast ............ 15 3: Overview of Project Area from Northern Terrace on Eastern Boundary, Looking Southwest ..................................................................................................................................... 16 4: Overview of Manufactured Drainage Area on Northern Terrace, Looking South ..................... 16 5: Overview of Southern Terrace Showing a Portion of Off-Highway Vehicle Disturbance, Looking South .............................................................................................................................................. 18 6: Episodic Rubbish Dumping on Northern Terrace, Looking West-Northwest ............................. 18 7: Boulder Barrier East of Commercial Development, Looking North-Northeast .......................... 19 8: Overview of Recent Cut-Graded Road, Looking Northwest ............................................................. 19 9: Overview of Recent Geotechnical Testing Location ........................................................................... 20
ATTACHMENT
1: Native American Heritage Commission and Tribal Response CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT (Under Separate Cover)
1: Records Search : Historical Resources with Primary and Trinomial Designations ; Reports; Historic Addresses
1522
Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
C.E. Common Era
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
GPA General Plan Amendment
MFSDP Multi-Family Site Development Plan
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
project Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
RECON RECON Environmental, Inc.
1523
Cultural Resources Survey
South Santa Fe Townhomes Project
Summary
RECON Environmental conduct ed a cultural resources inventory, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Register of Historical Resources for the proposed Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project (project). The survey covered the 2.6-acre (net) project area and 0.12 acres of off-site improvements for a total of 2.7 2 acres surveyed. The project area occurs on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 217-161-18, 217-161-19 (2972 and 2982 South Santa Fe Avenue) and 0.37 acres of the northern portion of APN 217-161-17 (2966 South Santa Fe Avenue).
On February 28, 2023, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND; ND22-008; State Clearinghouse Number 2022090486), approved a General Plan Amendment (GPA; GPA21-0008), approved a Multi-Family Site Development Plan (MFSDP21-0002), and on March 14, 2023 approved a Rezone ( R21-0004) for the Santa Fe Flores, LP Project (approved project). The approved project evaluated the impacts associated with a GPA to change the land use from Commercial (C) and Light Industrial (L-I) to Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) and a zone change from Commercial (C) and Light Industrial (L-I) to Multi -Family Residential (R -3-10) to allow for the construction of 50 multi-family residential townhome units, in conjunction with a Density Bonus, on a 2.23-acre site consisting of two parcels: APNs 217-161-18 and 217-161-19.
Subsequent to MND approval, the applicant modified the site plan and added 0.37 acres of APN 217-161-17. The project would require a GPA from Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) for APNs 217-161-18 and 217 -161-19, and a GPA from Commercial (C) to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) for 0.37 acres of the northern portion of APN 217- 161-17. Additionally, the project would rezone APNs 217-161-18 and 217 -161-19 from Multi-Family Residential 3 (R-3-10) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3-6) and 0.37 acres of the northern portion of APN 217-161-17 from Commercial (C) to Multi-Family Residential (R -3-6). The project would develop 46 multi -family residential townhome units in seven buildings that would be three stories and 35 feet 4 inches in height. Vehicle parking would include 92 spaces within attached garages and 15 guest spaces. The liquor store would not be part of the project and would remain.
Project grading would include 23,300 cubic yards of cut and 3,200 cubic yards of fill , resulting in a net export of 20,100 cubic yards.
RECON requested a records search at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. The search radius was one mile. No prehistoric or historic cultural resources are recorded on or adjacent to the project area. A total of 31 cultural resources has been documented within one mile of the project bo undary, including 9 prehistoric period resources and 2 2 historic period resources. In addition, there are 19 historic addresses listed within the one-mile search radius.
The cultural resources surveys took place on March 10, 2022, and November 12, 2024, using a survey interval of approximately seven meters across the property. The RECON archaeologist was accompanied by a Luiseñ o representative from Saving Sacred Sites during both surveys . No significant prehistoric or historic archaeological resources were observed during the survey of the project area. The project will have no impact on known prehistoric or historic cultural resources.
However, the possibility exists for the buried prehistoric archaeological deposits to exist on -site.
Because of this factor, RECON recommends that all ground -disturbing activities for the project be monitored by a qualified archaeological monitor and Native American monitors representing the Luiseño community.
1524
Cultural Resources Survey
South Santa Fe Townhomes Project
1.0 Introduction
The Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project (project) is located in the city of San Marcos at 2966, 2972, and 2982 South Santa Fe Avenue adjacent to Las Flores Drive on Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 217-161-18, 217-161-19, and the northern portion (0.37 acres) of 217-161-17 (Figure 1). The 2.6-acre (net) project area would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA) from Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) for APNs 217-161-18 and 217 -161-19, and a GPA from Commercial (C) to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) for the northern portion of APN 217-161-17. Additionally, the project would rezone APNs 217-161 -18 and 217 -161-19 from Multi-Family Residential 3 (R -3-10) to Multi -Family Residential (R -3-6) and rezone the northern portion of APN 217-161-17 from Commercial (C) to Multi-Family Residential (R -3-6). The project would develop 46 multi- family residential townhome units in seven buildings that would be three stories in height. Vehicle parking would include 92 spaces within attached garages and 15 guest spaces. The liquor store, Gourmet Liquor, located on the southern portion of APN 217 -161-17 is not part of the project and would remain. Off-site improvements total 0.12 acres . The project would require 23,300 cubic yards of cut and 3,200 cubic yards of fill, for a net export of 20,100 cubic yards.
The project area is in an unsectioned portion of the Los Vallecitos de San Marcos land grant, of the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 -minute topographic map, San Marcos quadrangle (Figure 2; U.S. Geological Survey 1996). The project area is mostly vacant and undeveloped land with an adjacent liquor store and associated improved parking area to the southwest. It is surrounded on the west and north by industrial development, to the east by multi-family residential development, and to the south by single-family residential development (Figure 3). The area of potential effect includes the 2.6-acre (net) project area and the 0.12 acres of off -site improvements for a total of
2.72 acres.
2.0 Natural Setting
The project area dominated by disturbed habitat which includes areas that have been disturbed through frequent off-roading activity. The project area is comprised of non-native herbaceous cover mixed with non -native grasses. A smaller portion of the project area consists of urban /developed land which features landscaping that receives routine maintenance and irrigation; this area occurs along the eastern boundary of the project area and consists of ornamental vegetation. The elevation of the project area ranges between approximately 495 feet above mean sea level in the south and 550 above mean sea level to the north.
Soils within the project area consist of Diablo clay on the northern portion and Huerhuero loam on the southern portion (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973). The Diablo clay series with 9 to 15 percent slopes occurs on strong slopes and ranges from 26 to 37 inches in depth over rock. The Huerhuero loam soil series is loam soils developed in sandy marine sediments and have slopes ranging from 2 to 9 percent. In a representative profile the surface layer is brown and pale brown, strongly acid to medium acid loam. The upper subsoil is brown moderately alkaline clay. Below this is brown mildly alkaline clay loam and sandy loam (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973). 1525
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Los
Penasquitos Canyon Presv
Daley Ranch
Lake Wohlford
Batiquitos Lagoon
Lake Hodges
San Vicente
Reservoir
Usmc Air
Station
Miramar
Camp Pendleton
Marine Co Base
Cleveland National
Forest
Temecula
San Diego
Encinitas
Oceanside
Poway
San Marcos
Vista
Carlsbad
Santee
Escondido
Solana
Beach
Del
Mar
Pauma and
Yuima
Reservation
Pala
Reservation
San
Pasqual
Reservation
Rincon
Reservation
Pechanga
Tribal Lands
Bonsall
Camp Pendleton
North
Camp Pendleton South
Eucalyptus
Hills
Fairbanks
Ranch
Fallbrook
Hidden
Meadows
Lake
San Marcos
Rainbow
Rancho
Santa Fe
Valley Center
R I V E R S I D E
C O U N T Y
S A N D I E G O
C O U N T Y
78 56
67 805
5 15
M:\JOBS6\10587\common_gis\PRO\standard_figures\standardfigures.aprx 10/29/2024 fmm Regional Location
FIGURE 1
0 5Miles [
Project Locationkj
kj
1526
FIGURE 2
Project Location on USGS Map
Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, San Marcos quadrangle, 1996, Los Vallecitos de San Marcos Land Grant 0 2,000Feet
M:\JOBS6\10587\common_gis\PRO\standard_figures\standardfigures.aprx 07/21/2025 bma [
Project Boundary
Off-site Improvements
1527
FIGURE 3
Project Location on Aerial Photograph
LA
S
FLORES D
R
VIA
LAVENTA
NLAS FLORES DR
NORMANSTR
ASS
ERD
S SANTA FE AVE
DE LEONE RD
0 200Feet
M:\JOBS6\10587\common_gis\PRO\standard_figures\standardfigures.aprx 12/03/2025 bma [
Project Boundary
Off-site Improvements
2024 Survey Area
2022 Survey Area
Image Source: Nearmap (flown May 2025)
1528
Cultural Resources Survey
South Santa Fe Townhomes Project
3.0 Cultural Setting
3.1 Paleoindian Period
The Paleoindian Period in northern San Diego County is most closely associated with the San Dieguito Complex, as identified by Malcolm Rogers (1938, 1939, 1945) and Claude N. Warren (1961, 1964, 1966, 1967). The San Dieguito Complex includes the Lake Mohave sites, Death Valley I sites, and Playa I and II sites according to Warren (1967) and represents a generalized hunting tradition (Moratto 2004). The San Dieguito Complex can be found in all of San Diego County, parts of Riverside County, north through the Mohave Desert, east through western Arizona, and south into northern Baja California and northern Sonora (Rogers 1966). The San Dieguito Complex assemblage is dominated by finely made scraping and chopping tools, such as well-made scraper planes, choppers, scraping tools, crescentics, elongated bifacial knives, and leaf -shaped projectile points.
These tools were often made of fine-grained, slate-green felsite, or fine-grained basalt. Projectile points consist of Lake Mojave and Silver Lake types along with non-diagnostic leaf-shaped points.
Evidence of seed grinding technology (manos and metates) is scarce. San Dieguito sites in the desert are typically found around dry Pleistocene playas (Moratto 2004). Site locations and assemblages suggest a subsistence emphasis on lacustrine resources and big game hunting.
3.2 Archaic Period
The Archaic Period in northern San Diego County is represented by the Pauma Complex, a local manifestation of the widespread Millingstone Horizon (Wallace 1955). The Millingstone Horizon has been identified throughout coastal southern and central California and includes La Jolla Complex of the San Diego region and the Pauma Complex in the foothills of San Diego and Riverside counties.
These have very similar assemblages and are thought to be different environmental adaptations of the same culture (True 1958 ). A similar assemblage has been identified in the Cajon Pass area of Riverside County and is referred to as the Sayles Complex (Kowta 1969). This is thought to be transitional between the Pinto Complex of the Mojave Desert and the Millingstone Horizon of the coast (Kowta 1969:1).
The Pauma Complex assemblage suggests a generalized subsistence focus with an emphasis on hard seeds. This emphasis is indicated by the appearance of numerous slab and basin metates and the adoption of a mixed cobble/core-based tool assemblage composed primarily of crudely made choppers, scrapers, and cobble hammerstones.
Pauma Complex sites are typically found on terraces or ridges above a water source such as a stream.
They often do not have discernible midden development, but they may have subsurface deposits.
While they typically have numerous portable metates and manos , they lack bedrock milling, and mortars and pestles (True and Waugh 1981:101-102).
Major technological change within the Archaic Period in San Diego County appears to have been limited mainly to the introduction of large side-notched and Elko series projectile points. There seems to have been some reorientation in settlement from coastal to inland settings during the latter 1529
Cultural Resources Survey
South Santa Fe Townhomes Project
portion of this period in northern San Diego County. This settlement shift appears to have occurred around 4,000 years ago and is thought to relate to the final phases of Holocene sea level rise and the resulting siltation of coastal lagoons. Prior to this time, the lagoons had been highly productive sources of shellfish for La Jollan people (Gallegos 1987; Warren et al. 1993).
3.3 Late Prehistoric Period
Near the coast and in the Peninsular Mountains beginning approximately 1,500 years ago, patterns began to emerge that suggest the ethnohistoric Kumeyaay. The Late Prehistoric Period is characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, and technological systems. Economic systems diversif ied and intensif ied during this period, with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell -bead currency, and the appearance of more labor-intensive but effective technological innovations. The late prehistoric archaeology of the San Diego coast and foothills is characterized by the Cuyamaca Complex. The Cuyamaca Complex is described by the presence of steatite arrow shaft straighteners, stea tite pendants, steatite comales (heating stones), Tizon Brownware pottery, ceramic figurines reminiscent of Hohokam styles, ceramic “Yuman bow pipes,” ceramic rattles, miniature pottery , various cobble-based tools (e.g., scrapers, choppers, hammerstones), bone awls, manos and metates, mortars and pestles, and Desert Side-notched (more common) and Cottonwood Series projectile points (True 1970).
Other parts of northern San Diego County are also represented by the San Luis Rey Complex (Meighan 1954; True et al. 1974). First described by Meighan (1954) and based on excavations at Pala some 16 miles north-northeast of the study area, San Luis Rey I sites are associated with bedrock milling features and often have recognizable midden soils. The artifact assemblage includes manos and metates, Cottonwood Triangular, and less frequently Desert Side-notched type projectile points, drills, bifacially flaked knives, bone awls, occasional steatite arrow shaft straighteners, and bone and shell ornaments (True and Waugh 1981:87). The Cottonwood Triangular and Desert Side-notched points are both smaller than earlier types, suggesting the introduction of bow-and-arrow technology into the region.
San Luis Rey II consists of the same assemblage with the addition of Tizon Brownware ceramics, red and black pictographs, cremation remains in urns, and historic materials such as glass beads and metal objects. True (1966) demonstrated that the San Luis Rey Complex almost certainly represents the ancestors of the Luiseño.
Meighan argued that ceramics, probably introduced into north San Diego County from the south, appeared around 1750 Common Era (C.E.) and were a product of indigenous diffusion that appeared at about the same time or slightly earlier than the Spanish arrival. In contrast, True et al. (1974) suggested that pottery may have appeared as early as 1200 to 1600 C.E. Later, Griset (1996) obtained 22 accelerator mass spectrometry dates from residue on pottery sherds , and she reviewed and recalibrated a number of oth ers. Griset found four dates earlier than 800 C.E. T he earliest pottery date in San Diego County according to Griset’s study was from Ystagua at 549 C.E. (1996:251 -253).
However, Griset’s data suggest that pottery was not common in San Diego County until about 1400 C.E. (1996:262). The earliest date for Tizon Brown ware in the San Diego region is not long after the advent of Lower Colorado Buff Ware, which was dated as early as 430 C.E. in the vicinity of Blythe (Hildebrand 2003:258-259).
1530
Cultural Resources Survey
South Santa Fe Townhomes Project
3.4 Ethnohistory
The study area falls along the border of the Luiseño and Kumeyaay tribal territories (ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2014), which can be described as a line following Agua Hedionda Creek, extending northeasterly inland towards Lake Henshaw, north into Riverside County, and west through San Juan Capistrano to the coast (Bean and Shipek 1978). The Kumeyaay historically occupied the area south of Agua Hedionda into what is now Baja California , Mexico, and east into the Imperial Valley. Spanish explorers and missionaries noted that this geopolitical boundary was not static but rather fluid and dynamic (Luomala 1978:593). Because of this fluidity, the San Marcos area could have been inhabited by either the Luiseño or the Kumeyaay during the late Prehistoric and Ethnohistoric periods (ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2014). Work by Gallegos (Gallegos et al. 2002) and Comeau (Comeau et al. 2012) has attributed nearby archaeological resources to the Luiseño. This evidence supports Sparkman’s (1908) attribution of the area to the Luiseños.
The Luiseño are the most southwesterly of the Shoshonean or Uto -Aztecan speakers. Historically, the Luiseño social structure was the clan triblet. The triblet was composed of patrilineally related people who were politically and economically autonomous from neighboring triblets. Unlike other Takic-speaking tribes that surrounded them, the Luiseño do not appear to have been organized into exogamous moieties but may have been loosely divided into mountain -oriented groups and ocean-oriented groups (Bean and Shipek 1978). One or more clans would have resided together in a village (Oxendine 1980). A heredit ary village chief held a position that controlled economic, religious, and warfare powers (Bean and Shipek 1978). The chief had an assistant and an advisory council of shamans and ritual specialists. These positions were also hereditary, with successors being selected from the advisor’s lineage.
Luiseño settlement systems have been carefully reconstructed on the basis of extensive ethnographic and ethnohistoric research (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1925; Sparkman 1908; Strong 1929; White 1963). A Luiseño clan controlled one, or possibly more, specified territories, called rancherias.
White (1963) suggests that the average inland rancheria had a territory of approximately 30 square miles. He suggested that the Luiseño settlement system consisted of a series of villages or rancherias located on terraces above a valley bottom watercourse (e.g., the San Luis Rey River). Villages were usually located in defensible locations in sheltered canyons or coves, or on the sides of slopes in warm thermal zones, near reliable water sources. The rancheria owned territory in a contiguous strip leading from the valley bottom to upland areas. This vertical pattern of rancheria territory facilitated gathering plant foods throughout the year. In early spring, tubers and berries first ripened along the watercourse below the rancheria. As spring turned to summer, chaparral plants near the rancheria became ripe. Later, those at a higher elevation above the rancheria ripened. In fall, people moved temporarily to higher elevations (e.g., Palomar Mountain) for the acorn harvest (White 1963).
A wide variety of plants growing in the various biotic communities between the coast and mountains were utilized by the Luiseño, including acorns, annual grasses , seeds, yucca, sage, chia, lemonade berry, manzanita, and other wild greens and fruits (Kroeber 1925) These resources become available at different times of the year, prompting moves to different campsites. In addition to plant-associated moves, trips to coastal camps to exploit marine resources such as shellfish, fish, and marine mammals would take place.
1531
Cultural Resources Survey
South Santa Fe Townhomes Project
According to most ethnographic accounts, acorns were considered the most important food source (Bean and Shipek 1978). Since acorns mature at differing rates between groves, and even within individual groves, movement from place to place would have been necessary to be able to effectively harvest the annual acorn crop. Acorns could be harvested in one of two ways, either gathered from the ground after they had fallen or knocked off the tree with long sticks. After harvesting, acorns could either be processed into meal or stored for winter. Acorns had to be dry to be stored to prevent spoilage. Acorns to be processed were first shelled, then worked lightly with a pestle, and winnowed to remove the thin seed covering. Next, acorns were pounded to a fine flower and leached to remove the tannins. After this, acorn flour was ready to be cooked.
Baskets, both coiled and twined, were used in gathering, preparation, and storage of food (Bean and Shipek 1978). Basket size and shape depended on its use. Pottery vessels were used for cooking and storage. Pottery was made using the paddle and anvil tech nique and was seldom decorated (Bean and Shipek 1978). Nets and pouches made of cordage and animal skins were used for carrying food and tools.
Animal resources used by the Luiseño included most of the mammals occurring in their territory, except for predator animals and tree squirrels (Bean and Shipek 1978). Reptiles were also avoided as a food source. Birds hunted included quail, ducks, and doves. Larger animals were hunted with bow and arrow, while smaller game was caught using nets, deadfalls, slings, and throwing sticks. Game drives were also used for hunting rabbits and deer. Coastal marine animals exploited included sea mammals, fish, crusta ceans, and mollusks (Bean and Shipek 1978). Basketry fish traps, seines, dip nets, bone, and shell hooks were used. Dugout and light balsa canoes were used for near-shore ocean fishing (Bean and Shipek 1978).
3.5 Spanish Period
The Spanish Period in Alta California (1769 –1821) represents a time of European exploration and settlement. Military and religious contingents established the San Diego Presidio and the San Diego Mission in 1769, San Carlos Borromeo (Carmel) in 1770, and San Gabriel Arcangel in 1771. The opening of the mission system created the need to link Alta California with Sonora, Mexico . Juan Bautista de Anza of Tubac was commissioned to open up a road across the Colorado Desert to San Gabriel and on to Monterey. Mission San Luis Rey de Francia, the closest mission to the project, was founded on June 13, 1798, by Padre Fermin Lasu én. Two sub-missions, San Antonio de Pala Asistencia and Las Flores Estancia, were established in the early 1800s to support Mission San Luis Rey. The project is on the western end of Los Vallecitos de San Marcos Rancho, which was run by Mission San Luis Rey for cattle grazing.
The Spanish mission system used forced Native American labor to produce goods and provide services needed for European settlement. The mission system also introduced horses, cattle, sheep, and agricultural goods and implements as well as new construction methods and architectural styles.
Also, with the arrival of the Spanish came devastating epidemics and very high death rates. According to available mission records, the worst year was 1806 when a measles epidemic spread through southern California. An estimated 33.5 percent of the Indian population along the coast died (Cook 1976:424).
1532
Cultural Resources Survey
South Santa Fe Townhomes Project
3.6 Mexican Period
The Mexican Period (1821 –1848) retained many of the Spanish institutions and laws. While Spanish and Mexican settlement was focused on coastal Alta California, exploration of inland areas continued, often during the course of pursuing neophytes that had ru n away from the missions . In 1824, Santiago Arguello, an officer of the San Diego Presidio “discovered” San Felipe Valley, which opened the route through present day Warner Springs and Riverside and on to the San Gabriel Mission. This route, which became known as the Sonora Road, soon became the official Mexican mail route (Gudde and Bright 2004; Lawton 1976:58).
The missions were secularized in 1834 , opening vast tracts of former mission lands for private use and settlement. Los Vallecitos de San Marcos Rancho was granted to Don José Maria Alvarado in 1834 (Pourade 1969). Cattle ranching dominated the southern California economy, and the hide and tallow trade with New England merchant ships increased during the early part of the Mexican Period.
Native American communities continued to decline, particularly those close to th e coast. However, some Native Americans found jobs as vaqueros , laborers, garden ers, and housekeepers (Rolle 1998:57).
3.7 American Period
The signing of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, which signaled the end of the Mexican–American War, gave Alta California, the northern three-quarters of Arizona, New Mexico, a greatly enlarged Texas, and southern parts of Colorado, Nevada, and Utah to the United States (Rolle 1998:91). The treaty guaranteed citizenship to former Mexican citizens if they chose to stay in the new lands of the United States and it promised to respect their property. Native Americans had been granted Mexican citizenship in 1821, but the Americans never recognized their legal claims to U.S. citizenship, to property rights, or to other civil rights. In 1850, California was admitted to the Union as a free state (Phillips 1996:60-61).
On January 24, 1848, gold was discovered by John W. Marshall at Sutter’s Fort in the central Sierra Nevada foothills. Sutter and Marshall did their best to keep it a secret, but the news of the discovery was published on March 15 in the San Francisco Californian newspaper. The subsequent Gold Rush launched an immigrant tide, which engulfed many of the Spanish and Mexican cultural traditions and eliminated many remaining vestiges of Native American culture. Many Mexican ranchos were overrun by forty-niners or dissolved in land claim disputes (Rolle 1998). Native American Rancherias were supposedly recognized by the American government in the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo but not in reality.
The homestead system and the railroad encouraged American settlement in California after the Civil War, but settlement was slow in southern California. Most communities and ranches in northern San Diego and southern Riverside counties were not established until the land booms of the 1880s following completion of the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific railroads linking San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino with the East.
1533
Cultural Resources Survey
South Santa Fe Townhomes Project
3.8 City of San Marcos
By the late 1850s, part of Los Vallecitos de San Marcos had been sold to Cave Couts , who primarily used the parcels to raise livestock. The remainder of the grant, sold to Lorenzo Soto by Jose Alvarado’s widow, Lugarda Osuna, was patented by the U.S. Land Commission in 1883 (Carrol 1975:40). Major Gustavus French Merriam soon after established the first permanent European settlement in the North Twin Oaks Valley. On the 160 -acre homestead, Merriam began wine and honey production (City of San Marcos 2010).
Not long after Major Merriam’s settlement, German and Dutch immigrants began moving into the area in the early 1880s. By 1883, John H. Barham founded the first town in the area, just a few miles south of the Merriam’s settlement. Named “Barham Township,” the new town site had a post office, a blacksmith, a feed store, and a weekly newspaper by 1884 . The San Marcos Land Company purchased nearly all the San Marcos land formerly owned by the Couts family in 1887, dividing the land into planned community tracts, establishing the town of San Marcos (City of San Marcos 2010).
The arrival of the Santa Fe Railroad brought more people to the San Marcos area, but its siting outside the town forced the community to move the town center to present -day Mission Road and Pico Avenue. By the mid-1900s, dairies and poultry production became critical to the area’s economic development (City of San Marcos 2010).
San Marcos saw another period of rapid growth after 1956 when it established a water connection with the Colorado River water supply . With more water came more opportunities for small businesses. Through the 1960s, the city slowly gained new residents but by the 1970s, San Marcos became the third fastest-growing city in the state with a population of 17,479. During the 1980s, San Marcos almost doubled its population to 33,800. Growth has continued to boom in San Marcos , bringing the city’s population to 9 6,620 based on a 2024 California demographics report (Cubit Planning 2024).
4.0 Background Research
4.1 Records Search
RECON requested a records search at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, which is a member of the California Historical Resources Information System. The search radius was one mile. No prehistoric or historic cultural resources are recorded on or adjacent to the project area. A total of 31 cultural resources has been documented within one mile of the project boundaries (Confidential Attachment 1; Table 1), including 9 prehistoric period resources and 22 historic period resources. In addition, there are 19 historic addresses listed within the one-mile search radius. A summary of the available site data appears in Table 1. 1534
Cultural Resources Survey
South Santa Fe Townhomes Project
Table 1
Cultural Resources within One Mile of the Project
Primary # Trinomial Age Site Type Recording Events
P-37-005584 CA-SDI-005584 Prehistoric Lithic scatter; Bedrock milling feature 1977 (Randy Franklin)
P-37-005633 CA-SDI-005633 Prehistoric
Lithic scatter; Ceramic
scatter; Bedrock milling
feature; Burials; Habitation
debris; Other-shell
1977 (Randy Franklin); 2002, 2007
(Delman James, Rich Bark, Brian Glenn,
Jerry Sabio, Ted Cooley, Ogden
Environmental Services, Inc.)
P-37-008813 CA-SDI-008813 Prehistoric Lithic scatter; Bedrock milling feature 1981 (Linda Roth)
P-37-008814 CA-SDI-008814 Historic Trash scatter; Other-burned residence 1981 (Linda Roth)
P-37-008815 CA-SDI-008815 Prehistoric Lithic scatter 1981 (Linda Roth) P-37-011663 CA-SDI-011663 Prehistoric Lithic scatter 1990 (Scott Crull, Ken Smith, Palomar College)
P-37-013009 CA-SDI-013009 Prehistoric Lithic scatter; Bedrock milling feature
1993 (B. Glenn, C. Schultze, K. Collins,
Ogden Environmental Services, Inc.)
P-37-018186 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-018187 Historic One-to-three-story
commercial building 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services)
P-37-018188 Historic One-to-three-story
commercial building 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services)
P-37-018189 Historic Industrial building 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-018190 Historic Industrial building 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-018191 Historic Industrial building 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-018192 Historic
One-to-three-story
commercial building;
Single-family property
1999 (P.S. Preservation Services)
P-37-018193 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-018194 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-018195 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-018196 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-018197 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-018198 Historic One-to-three-story
commercial building 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services)
P-37-018199 Historic Industrial building 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-018200 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-018201 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-018202 Historic Single-family property 1999 (P.S. Preservation Services) P-37-025309 CA-SDI-016787 Prehistoric Lithic scatter 2003 (Gallegos & Associates) P-37-030664 CA-SDI-019476 Prehistoric Lithic scatter
1994 (R. Carrico, D. James, and A.
Pigniolo, Ogden Environmental
Services, Inc.); 2009 (CalTrans District
11)
P-37-033557 Historic Roads; Highway
2013 (Larry Tift, ASM Affiliates, Inc.);
2015 (Kent Manchen, Matt DeCarlo,
ASM Affiliates, Inc.); 2017 (Haley
Chateene, PanGIS); 2017 (A. Foglia, K.
Keckeisen, PanGIS, Inc.); 2018 (Sarah
Stringer-Bowsher, ASM Affiliates, Inc.)
P-37-036868 Historic Dam 2016 (Lucas Piek, ASM Affiliates) P-37-036869 Historic Dam 2016 (Lucas Piek, ASM Affiliates) 1535
Cultural Resources Survey
South Santa Fe Townhomes Project
Table 1
Cultural Resources within One Mile of the Project
Primary # Trinomial Age Site Type Recording Events
P-37-036870 Prehistoric Isolate-flake 2016 (Lucas Piek, ASM Affiliates) P-37-038298 Historic Single-family property 2019 (Terri Jacquemain, CRM Tech)
Fifty-eight cultural resources studies have been conducted within one mile of the project. One cultural resource investigation appears to have included the project area: Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Widening of South Santa Fe Avenue, Vista, California, conducted in 1974.
4.2 Native American Heritage Commission and
Tribal Response
A letter was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento on February 11, 2022, requesting a search of their Sacred Lands File. A response letter from the NAHC was received on March 29, 2022, indicating that their Sacred Lands File search results were positive.
The NAHC also provided a list of Native American tribes who may have knowledge of cultural resources within the project APE and vicinity. During tribal consultation with the City, the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians responded on June 28, 2022, agreeing with RECON’s proposed measures found in Section 7.0. The NAHC correspondence and tribal response are in Attachment 1.
Tribal consultation was conducted again, s ubsequent to MND approval, for the modified project discussed herein. Because the project requires a GPA, the City conducted consultation in accordance with Senate Bill 18 (Government Code §65352.3), which mandates consultation with California Native American tribes for projects requiring a GPA. The City sent opportunity to consult letters on March 18, 2025. In response, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission I ndians requested consultation on April 15, 2025; the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians requested consultation on March 28, 2025; the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians requested consultation on April 23, 2025; and the Pala Band of Mission Indians requested consultation on March 24, 2025. The City sent this Cultural Resources Survey Report on November 14, 2025 to the tribes that requested consultation. As a result of consultation, the City has received a request to ensure that the City’s current mitigation measures are incorporated into the environmental document. Detailed mitigation measures can be found in Addendum No. 1 to the Final Initial Study/Environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Santa Fe Flores, LP Project, on file with the City. No additional consultation comments have been received.
Historic aerial photographs and topographic maps by Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC available online (at http://www.historicaerials.com) were inspected to identify any previous uses of the property. Aerial photographs from 1938, 1947, and 1953 show the project in agriculture. The 1938 and 1953 aerial photograph s exhibit the parcels in fallow agriculture where the 1947 aerial photograph shows the central portion planted possibly with trees . All three aerials support that the agriculture originates from the adjacent property to the west which is supported by the 1949 topographic map. A 1964 aerial photograph shows building development in both parcels with ancillary structures supporting the northern parcel. Both parcels now have independent entrances to their properties off of what would be present-day South Santa Fe Avenue in the south and North Las Flores Drive to the north. The buildings and supporting structures on the parcel to the north were removed between 1989 and 1990. The building on the southern parcel was removed between 2005 1536
Cultural Resources Survey
South Santa Fe Townhomes Project
and 2009. Also during this time, the present-day alignment for North Las Flores Drive was installed along with the generally west -facing bank of ornamental vegetation which dominates the eastern project boundary. A west-northwest by east -southeast alignment of K -Rails were added to the southern edge of the upper/ northern terrace of the northern parcel between 2016 and 2018. Also installed in the upper/ northern terrace during this time is an assumed drainage depression with stormwater manhole, culvert, and corrugated vertically placed metal pipe (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC 2024).
5.0 Methods
A total of 2.21 acres of t he project area was surveyed by RECON archaeologist Nathanial Yerka on March 10, 2022, accompanied by Native American monitor Vi’i Sialo’i of Saving Sacred Sites.
Mr. Yerka surveyed an additional 0.37 acres of the northern portion of APN 217-161 -17 in the southwest corner of the project area on November 12, 2024, accompanied by Native American monitor John Chavez of Saving Sacred Sites. Mr. Yerka served as project archaeologist and author and Carmen Zepeda-Herman served as principal investigator. Ms. Zepeda-Herman is a member of the Register of Professional Archaeologists and meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. The primary goal of this survey was to determine (1) if there are previously unrecorded cultural resources present, and if so, document the resources’ locations and what they consist of, and (2) to update conditions of previously recorded cultural resources. The project area was inspected for evidence of archaeological materials such as debris, flaked and ground stone tools, ceramics, milling features, and human remains. Photographs were taken to document the environmental setting and general conditions.
6.0 Report of Findings
The survey did not identify any prehistoric artifacts or features, or any potentially significant historic artifacts or features.
The 2022 field inspection was conducted on foot, in conditions of high clouds, strong daylight, and cool temperatures. Survey transect intervals were approximately seven meters, spaced across the property. The pro ject area is terraced into three generally flat steps with steep south-southwest-facing slopes. The entire surface of both parcels is disturbed. The southern parcel has a high amount of import gravel that links the area as a possible supporting parking area to the business adjacent to the west, with entry/exit to both the business improved parking area, as well as North Las Flores Drive (Photograph 1). Imported topping mulch is placed along a shallow berm that abuts the sidewalk of South Santa Fe Avenue and swings north east to a manufactured slope with irrigated ornamental vegetation that supports Las Flores Drive. Near the top of the first/lower terrace are two granite imported boulders (Photograph 2). Near the eastern manufactured bank is an installed concrete stormwater culvert. At the southern edge of the second/upper terrace is a west-northwest by east -southeast alignment of K -Rails (Photograph 3). Also on this terrace is a central manufactured depression that is assumed to aid for drainage with stormwater manhole, culvert, and corrugated vertically placed metal pipe (Photograph 4 ). A significant amount of rodent disturbance occurs along the western boundary; back dirt was checked for cultural material. There is current project area ground surface disturbance in the form of off-highway vehicle and bicycle
1537
P:\10587\Arc\Photos\photos1-9.docx 07/24/25
PHOTOGRAPH 1
Overview of Project Area from the Southeast Corner, Looking North
PHOTOGRAPH 2
Two Granite Boulders Checked for Cultural Manipulation, Looking North-Northeast
1538
P:\10587\Arc\Photos\photos1-9.docx 07/24/25
PHOTOGRAPH 3
Overview of Project Area from Northern Terrace on Eastern Boundary, Looking Southwest
PHOTOGRAPH 4
Overview of Manufactured Drainage Area on Northern Terrace, Looking South
1539
Cultural Resources Survey
South Santa Fe Townhomes Project
activity (Photograph 5; see also Photographs 1 and 3). The project area also exhibits a fair amount of modern rubbish, mostly in the form of broken consumer bottle glass, as well as episodic dumping of furniture (Photograph 6) and dimensional lumber.
The 2024 field inspection was conducted on foot, in conditions of partly cloudy skies, strong daylight, and cool temperatures. The survey focused on the southwestern parcel, which comprises a portion of the lower two of three fully disturbed terraces and exhibits a singular commercial development with associated improved parking area adjacent to the southern boundary. The area to the east surrounding the commercial development exhibits a barrier made up of numerous placed imported boulders (Photograph 7). Several boulders were moved along the alignment of a recent cut-graded road accessing a geotechnical testing location on the middle terrace (Photographs 8 and 9). Other surface disturbances include modern rubbish, rubber tires, a high -visibility traffic barrel, and a five-gallon bucket.
7.0 Management Considerations
The key consideration for the management of cultural resources within the CEQA framework is their eligibility for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). A resource must satisfy one or more of the qualifying criteria in order to be considered eligible for listing. In order to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, a resource must satisfy at least one of the following four criteria:
1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. 2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. 3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. 4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
Cultural and historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. For the purposes of eligibility for CRHR, integrity is defined as "the authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance" (California Office of Historic Preservation 2005:67).
No significant prehistoric or historic archaeological resources were observed during the survey of the project area. No prehistoric or historic cultural resources were mapped on or immediately adjacent to the property in the record search files. Therefore, the project will have no impact on known prehistoric or historic cultural resources. However, it appears probable that soil has been dumped on a significant portion of the parcel, obscuring the original ground. Also, the project is in an area of alluvial deposition adjacent to San Marcos Creek. Because of these factors, the possibility exists for buried prehistoric archaeological deposits on-site. RECON recommends that all 1540
P:\10587\Arc\Photos\photos1-9.docx 07/24/25
PHOTOGRAPH 5
Overview of Southern Terrace Showing a Portion of Off-Highway Vehicle Disturbance, Looking South
PHOTOGRAPH 6
Episodic Rubbish Dumping on Northern Terrace, Looking West-Northwest
1541
P:\10587\Arc\Photos\photos1-9.docx 07/24/25
PHOTOGRAPH 7
Boulder Barrier East of Commercial Development, Looking North-Northeast
PHOTOGRAPH 8
Overview of Recent Cut-Graded Road, Looking Northwest
1542
P:\10587\Arc\Photos\photos1-9.docx 07/24/25
PHOTOGRAPH 9
Overview of Recent Geotechnical Testing Location
1543
Cultural Resources Survey
South Santa Fe Townhomes Project
ground-disturbing activities for the project be monitored by a qualified archaeological monitor and a Native American monitor representing the Luiseño community. If archaeological materials are identified during construction activities, work in the immediate area shall cease and an archaeologist meeting the City’s Qualifications Standards for Archaeology must evaluate the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA, a data recovery program shall be implemented. If human remains are found, construction shall halt in the immediate area and procedures set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and State health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. After completion of monitoring, a final report with the monitoring methods and results shall be prepared and submitted to the City.
8.0 Certification and Project Staff
This report was prepared in compliance with the CEQA (Section 21083.2 of the Statutes and Appendix K of the Guidelines) and with policies and procedures of the City of San Marcos. To the best of my knowledge, the statements and information contained in this report are accurate.
_______________________________________ __________________________________________ Nathanial Yerka Carmen Zepeda-Herman, M.A., RPA
Project Archaeologist/Author Principal Investigator
The following individuals participated in the field tasks or preparation of this report.
Carmen Zepeda-Herman Principal Investigator
Nathanial Yerka Project Archaeologist/Author
Vi’i Sialo’i Luiseño Native American Monitor
John Chavez Luiseño Native American Monitor
Benjamin Arp GIS Specialist
Jennifer Gutierrez Production Specialist
Steven Gaughran Production Specialist
9.0 References Cited
ASM Affiliates, Inc.
2014 Cultural Resources Study for the Mulberry Drive Development Project, San Marcos.
Manuscript on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Bean, Lowell, and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
1544
Cultural Resources Survey
South Santa Fe Townhomes Project
California Office of Historic Preservation
2005 Technical Assistance Series #10: California State Law and Historic Preservation: Statues, Regulations and Administrative Policies Regarding Historic Preservation and Protection of Cultural and Historical Resources. Sacramento.
Carrol, William
1975 San Marcos: A Brief History. Coda Productions, San Marcos, California.
Comeau, Brad, Micah Hale, and Mark Becker
2012 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Palomar Station Project, San Marcos, San Diego County, California. ASM Affiliates, Inc. Manuscript on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Cook, Shelburne F.
1976 The Population of the California Indians, 1769-1970. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Cubit Planning
2024 San Marcos Demographic Statistics. Accessed December 3, 2025 . https://www.california- demographics.com/san-marcos-demographics.
Gallegos, D. R.
1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito–La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis R. Gallegos.
San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Papers 1:23-34.
Gallegos, D.R., M. Guerrero, J. Flenniken, and T. Stopes 2002 Data Recovery Program for Packbell Site CA -SDI-5633, San Marcos, California . Gallegos and Associates, Carlsbad, CA. Manuscript on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Griset, Suzanne
1996 Southern California Brown Ware. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
Gudde, Erwin G., and William Bright
2004 California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names .
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hildebrand, John
2003 Ceramics Excavated from the Lower Colorado River Region by the North Baja Pipeline Project. In A View Across the Cultural Landscape of the Lower Colorado Desert: Cultural Resource Investigations for the North Baja Pipeline Project edited by James H. Cleland and Rebecca McCorkle Apple, pp. 245 -260. Document on file with the Southeast Information Center, Imperial Valley College Desert Museum, Ocotillo, California.
1545
Cultural Resources Survey
South Santa Fe Townhomes Project
Kowta, Makoto
1969 The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of Its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in Anthropology 6.
Kroeber, A. L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Lawton, Harry W.
1976 History and Ethnohistory of the Yuha Desert (1769 -1865). In Background to Prehistory of the Yuha Desert Region, edited by Philip J. Wilke, pp. 43 -72. Ballena Press , Ramona, California.
Luomala, Katharine
1978 Tipai-Ipai. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Meighan, Clement W.
1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10:215-227.
Moratto, Michael
2004 California Archaeology. Reprint, Coyote Press, Salinas, California.
Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC
2024 Historic photographs of the survey area inspected at historicaerials.com. A ccessed on December 3, 2024.
Oxendine, Joan
1980 The Luiseno Girls Ceremony. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 2 (1) 37-50.
Phillips, George H.
1996 The Enduring Struggle: Indians in California History. MTL, Inc., Sparks, Nevada.
Pourade, Richard F.
1969 Historic Ranchos of San Diego. A Copley Book, Union-Tribune Publishing, San Diego.
Rogers, Malcolm J.
1938 Archaeological and Geological Investigations of the Culture Levels in an Old Channel of San Dieguito Valley. Carnegie Institution of Washington Yearbook 37:344-45. 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas.
San Diego Museum of Man Papers 3.
1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1(2):167-198.
Albuquerque.
1546
Cultural Resources Survey
South Santa Fe Townhomes Project
1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West, edited by Richard F. Pourade. Union-Tribune. San Diego, California.
Rolle, Andrew
1998 California: A History. Harlan Davidson, Wheeling, Illinois.
San Marcos, City of
2010 History. Available at http://www.ci.san-marcos.ca.us/index.aspx?page=139. Accessed on January 27, 2015.
Sparkman, Philip S.
1908 The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4):187-234.
Strong, William
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archeology and Ethnology 26:1-358.
True, D.L.
1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23(3):255-263. 1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
1970 Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California. Department of Anthropology Publications, University of California, Los Angeles.
True, D. L., and G. Waugh
1981 Archaeological Investigations in Northern San Diego County, California: Frey Creek. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1):84-115.
True, D. L., C. W. Meighan, and H. Crew
1974 Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California . University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1973 Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. Edited by Roy H. Bowman. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. December.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
1996 7.5-minute topographic map series, San Marcos Quadrangle, Los Vallecitos de San Marcos Land Grant.
1547
Cultural Resources Survey
South Santa Fe Townhomes Project
Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology , Vol. 11, No. 3 (Autumn, 1955), pp. 214 -230. University of New Mexico.
Warren, Claude N.
1961 The San Dieguito Complex and Its Place in California Prehistory . Archaeological Survey Annual Report (1960-1961). Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
1964 Cultural Change and Continuity on the San Diego Coast . Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1966 The San Dieguito Type Site: M. J. Rogers 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito River.
San Diego Museum of Man Papers 5.
1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis . American Antiquity 32(2):168-185.
Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City.
Warren, Claude N., Gretchen Siegler, and Frank Dittmer
1993 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Periods in Historic Properties Background Study by Brian F.
Mooney and Associates. Document on file with the City of San Diego Clean Water Program.
White, Raymond
1963 Luiseno Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2):91-194.
1548
Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project
ATTACHMENT 1
Native American Heritage Commission and Tribal Response
1549
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
March 29, 2022
Carmen Zepeda-Herman
RECON Environmental, Inc.
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Santa Fe Flores Project, San Diego County
Dear Ms. Zepeda-Herman:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information submitted for the above referenced project. The results were positive. Please contact the Pechanga Band of Indians on the attached list for information. Please note that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the SLF, nor are they required to do so. A SLF search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with a project’s geographic area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites, such as the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) archaeological Information Center for the presence of recorded archaeological sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. Please contact all of those listed; if they cannot supply information, they may recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
1550
Barona Group of the Capitan
Grande
Edwin Romero, Chairperson
1095
Barona Road
Lakeside, CA,
92040
Phone: (
619
)
443
-
6612
Fax: (
619
)
443-0681
[email protected]
Diegueno
Campo Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Ralph Goff, Chairperson
36190
Church Road, Suite
1 Campo, CA,
91906
Phone: (
619
)
478
-
9046
Fax: (
619
)
478-5818
[email protected]
Diegueno
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
Robert Pinto, Chairperson
4054
Willows Road
Alpine, CA,
91901
Phone: (
619
)
368
-
4382
Fax: (
619
)
445-9126
[email protected]
Diegueno
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson
4054
Willows Road
Alpine, CA,
91901
Phone: (
619
)
933
-
2200
Fax: (
619
)
445-9126
[email protected]
Diegueno
Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
Virgil Perez, Chairperson
P.O. Box
130
Santa Ysabel, CA,
92070
Phone: (
760
)
765
-
0845
Fax: (
760
)
765-0320
Diegueno
Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
Clint Linton, Director of Cultural
Resources
P.O. Box
507
Santa Ysabel, CA,
92070
Phone: (
760
)
803
-
5694
cjlinton
73 @aol.com
Diegueno
Inaja-Cosmit Band of Indians
Rebecca Osuna, Chairperson
2005
S. Escondido Blvd.
Escondido, CA,
92025
Phone: (
760
)
737
-
7628
Fax: (
760
)
747-8568
Diegueno
Jamul Indian Village
Lisa Cumper, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box
612
Jamul, CA,
91935
Phone: (
619
)
669
-
4855
[email protected]
Diegueno
Jamul Indian Village
Erica Pinto, Chairperson
P.O. Box
612
Jamul, CA,
91935
Phone: (
619
)
669
-
4785
Fax: (
619
)
669-4817
[email protected]
Diegueno
Kwaaymii Laguna Band of
Mission Indians
Carmen Lucas,
P.O. Box
775
Pine Valley, CA,
91962
Phone: (
619
)
709
-
4207
Kwaaymii
Diegueno
La Jolla Band of Luiseno
Indians
Norma Contreras, Chairperson
22000
Highway
76 Pauma Valley, CA,
92061
Phone: (
760
)
742
-
3771
Luiseno
La Posta Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Javaughn Miller, Tribal
Administrator
8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA,
91905
Phone: (
619
)
478
-
2113
Fax: (
619
)
478-2125
[email protected]
Diegueno
1 of 3
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5
of
the Health and Safety Code, Section
5097.94
of the Public Resource Section
5097.98
of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Santa Fe Flores Project, San Diego County.
PROJ-2022-
001597
03/29/2022 01:36 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Diego County
3/29/2022
1551
La Posta Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson
8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA,
91905
Phone: (
619
)
478
-
2113
Fax: (
619
)
478-2125
LP
13 [email protected]
Diegueno
Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay
Nation
Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson
P.O. Box
1302
Boulevard, CA,
91905
Phone: (
619
)
766
-
4930
Fax: (
619
)
766-4957
Diegueno
Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Michael Linton, Chairperson
P.O Box
270
Santa Ysabel, CA,
92070
Phone: (
760
)
782
-
3818
Fax: (
760
)
782-9092
[email protected]
Diegueno
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
PMB
50 ,
35008
Pala Temecula
Rd.
Pala, CA,
92059
Phone: (
760
)
891
-
3515
Fax: (
760
)
742-3189
[email protected]
Cupeno
Luiseno
Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians
Temet Aguilar, Chairperson
P.O. Box
369
Pauma Valley, CA,
92061
Phone: (
760
)
742
-
1289
Fax: (
760
)
742-3422
[email protected]
Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Indians
Mark Macarro, Chairperson
P.O. Box
1477
Temecula, CA,
92593
Phone: (
951
)
770
-
6000
Fax: (
951
)
695-1778
[email protected]
Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Indians
Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources
Coordinator
P.O. Box
1477
Temecula, CA,
92593
Phone: (
951
)
770
-
6306
Fax: (
951
)
506-9491
[email protected]
Luiseno
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA,
92082
Phone: (
760
)
297
-
2635
[email protected]
Luiseno
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA,
92082
Phone: (
760
)
749
-
1051
Fax: (
760
)
749-5144
[email protected]
Luiseno
San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians
San Luis Rey, Tribal Council
1889
Sunset Drive
Vista, CA,
92081
Phone: (
760
)
724
-
8505
Fax: (
760
)
724-2172
[email protected]
Luiseno
San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians
1889
Sunset Drive
Vista, CA,
92081
Phone: (
760
)
724
-
8505
Fax: (
760
)
724-2172
[email protected]
Luiseno
2 of 3
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5
of
the Health and Safety Code, Section
5097.94
of the Public Resource Section
5097.98
of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Santa Fe Flores Project, San Diego County.
PROJ-2022-
001597
03/29/2022 01:36 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Diego County
3/29/2022
1552
San Pasqual Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Allen Lawson, Chairperson
P.O. Box
365
Valley Center, CA,
92082
Phone: (
760
)
749
-
3200
Fax: (
760
)
749-3876
[email protected]
Diegueno
San Pasqual Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
John Flores, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box
365
Valley Center, CA,
92082
Phone: (
760
)
749
-
3200
Fax: (
760
)
749-3876
[email protected]
Diegueno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX
487
San Jacinto, CA,
92581
Phone: (
951
)
663
-
5279
Fax: (
951
)
654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box
487
San Jacinto, CA,
92581
Phone: (
951
)
654
-
5544
Fax: (
951
)
654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay
Nation
Cody Martinez, Chairperson
1 Kwaaypaay Court
El Cajon, CA,
92019
Phone: (
619
)
445
-
2613
Fax: (
619
)
445-1927
[email protected]
Kumeyaay
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay
Nation
Kristie Orosco, Kumeyaay
Resource Specialist
1 Kwaaypaay Court
El Cajon, CA,
92019
Phone: (
619
)
445
-
6917
Kumeyaay
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
John Christman, Chairperson
1 Viejas Grade Road
Alpine, CA,
91901
Phone: (
619
)
445
-
3810
Fax: (
619
)
445-5337
Diegueno
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
Ernest Pingleton, Tribal Historic
Officer, Resource Management
1 Viejas Grade Road
Alpine, CA,
91901
Phone: (
619
)
659
-
2314
[email protected]
Diegueno
3 of 3
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5
of
the Health and Safety Code, Section
5097.94
of the Public Resource Section
5097.98
of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Santa Fe Flores Project, San Diego County.
PROJ-2022-
001597
03/29/2022 01:36 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Diego County
3/29/2022
1553
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
One Government Center Lane | Valley Center | CA 92082 (760) 749-1092 | Fax: (760) 749-8901 | rincon-nsn.gov
Bo Mazzetti
Chairman
Tishmall Turner
Vice Chair
Laurie E. Gonzalez
Council Member
John Constantino
Council Member
Joseph Linton
Council Member
June 28, 2022
Sent via email: [email protected]
Mr. Joseph Farace
City of San Marcos
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
Re: GPA21-0008 Santa Fe/Los Flores
Dear Mr. Farace,
This letter is written on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luis eño Indians (“Rincon Band” or “Tribe ”), a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government. Thank you for consulting with the Tribe on the above-mentioned project and providing us with project-related documents.
The Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) has reviewed the provided documents and is in agreement with the proposed measures in the RECON Cultural Resources Assessment, which include archaeological and tribal monitoring, a monitoring report, and protocols for discovery of cultural material and human remains. We understand that other Tribes potentially have knowledge particular to this project site and may request additional measures. Please note that the Rincon Band supports all efforts to completely avoid cultural resources as preferred mitigation . We have no further comments regarding this project and can conclude consultation at this time.
We do request that the Rincon Band be notified of any changes in project plans. In addition, we request a copy of the final monitoring report, when available and ask that Rincon be afforded the opportunity to monitor the ground disturbances associated with this project.
The Rincon Band reserves its right to continue to fully participate in the environmental review process and to review and submit additional information during the public review process. If you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience at (760) 749 1092 ext. 323 or via electronic mail at [email protected]. Thank you for the opportunity to protect our cultural heritage.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Madrigal
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cultural Resources Manager
1554
Cultural Resources Survey
Santa Fe Flores Project
CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT
Not for Public Review
1555
ATTACHMENT D.6
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
1556
6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 92121-2974 ■ Telephone (858) 558-6900 ■ www.geoconinc.com Project No. G3355-42-01
November 25, 2025
Santa Fe Flores LP
P.O. Box 903
Ranch Santa Fe, California 92067
Attention: Mr. Paul Mayer
Subject: UPDATE TO GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
2972 SOUTH SANTA FE AVENUE
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
References: 1. (Appendix A) Geotechnical Investigation, San Marcos Residences, 2972 South Santa Fe Avenue, San Marcos, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated August 12, 2024 (Project No. G3355-42-01).
2. (Appendix B) Permanent Shoring, MSE, and Anchor Plex Wall Recommendations, San Marcos Residences, 2972 South Santa Fe Avenue, San Marcos, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated October 17, 2024 (Project No. G3355- 42-01).
3. Tentative Subdivision Map for Condominium Purposes for 2972 & 2982 S. Santa Fe Avenue, San Marcos, California], prepared by PLSA, undated.
Dear Mr. Mayer:
In accordance with your request, we have prepared this update to the geotechnical investigation for the subject project. Based on information provided and Reference 3, we understand the project consists of constructing 46 townhouse units within 6 buildings. We have updated the geologic map and cross sections in Reference 1 using a CAD file of Reference 1 to show the revised project limits and proposed development (see Figures 1 and 2).
Based on our review of Reference 3, the recommendations contained in References 1 and 2 remain applicable to the design and construction of the proposed project. 1557
San Marcos Residences
Update to Geotechnical Invesfigafion
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 2 - November 25, 2025
Should you have any questions regarding this update letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
Rodney C. Mikesell
GE 2533
RCM:arm
(e-mail) Addressee
1558
D
D
D
S
S
BM
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
575
570
570
565
565
560
560
560
555
555
555
555
550
550
550
550
545
545
545
545
545
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
535535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535 535
535
530
530
530
530
530
530530
530
530
530
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
515
515
515515
515
515
515
515
510
510
510
510
510
510
510 510
505
505
505
505
505
505
505
500
500
500 500
500
500
500
500
495
495
495
495
495
495
495
540
540
540
540
535
535
535
535
530
530
55 515
515
505
505
500
500
55 5
3 5
55 55
3 5
00000400
3 3
5 555
5 55
5 3535
5 535
545
545
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
535535
535
535
530530
525
525
525
525
520520
515
515
510
510
505
505
505
505
500
500
5454
00 53
53 530
530
530
530
525
525
525
525
520
520
520
520
515
515
515
515
510
510
510
510
505
505
505
505
055
500
500
500
500
500
500
55 5252
5303
5252
255
55 53
530
5 0
50 0
0 05
5 55
515515
500
0 55
05 5
15 101
51 540
540
535535
535
535
535
535
540
540
BMM
495
495
5 495
495
535
535
535535
535
535
535
535
530
530
525
525
520
520
520
520
520
520
515
515
510510
510
510
510
510
505
505
505505
500
500
500
500
50550
55 55
51010
5151
100
50 50
400
540
540
5454
35 35
353
D
D
40 40
5454
00 530
530
525
525
0 515
515
55 515515
55 5
5 44
40 5
40 5454
400
5355
535
00 535
355
0 540
S. SANTA FE AVENUE
LAS FLORES DRIVE
EX. 18" RCP SD PER COSM IP-4589
±(494.16) TC±(493.71) FL
PROP. SMH483.88 IE, 8" S±(483.68) IE
EX. ELEC. VAULTTO REMAIN
(51')
(51')
(102')
EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING
APN: 217-161-25
APN: 217-560-51
APN: 219-114-28
APN: 217-161-17
APN: 217-161-25
APN: 219-114-28
APN: 219-114-28
(515)
(510)
(505)
(520)
(525)
(530)
(500)
(515)
(510) (505)
(500)
(520)
(525)
(535)
(525)
(520)
(515)
(510)
(530)
VARIES
PER DOC 2005-0887132 &
2005-0887133
VARIESPER DOC2005-0887132 &
2005-0887133
EX. AC PARKING LOT
24.00'
BUILDING 1FF=499.00
BUILDING 2FF=499.00
BUILDING 6FF=526.00
BUILDING 5FF=531.00
BUILDING 7FF=502.50
BUILDING 4FF=536.00
533.08 TC532.58 FS 533.06 TC532.56 FS
530.81 TC530.31 TG528.31 IE
531.40 TC530.90 FSHP
530.25 FS
529.73 FS
525.00 FS
530.84 TC530.34 FL
529.86 TC529.36 FL
525.13 TC524.63 FL
539.23 TC
538.73 FS
534.37 TC533.87 FL
532.17 TC531.67 FL
538.92 TC538.42 FS
BUILDING 3FF=535.00
2.2%5.0%
1.0%4.0%
1.0%
530.52 FS
2.2%
5.0%
5.0%
4.8%
6.0%
1.0%
1.0%
5.0%
4.8% 1.0%
1.0%
537.80 TW533.00 BWHT=4.80'
486.49IE
530.53 IE526.60 IE
495.77 FL
1.8%
7.5%
4.0%
497.72 TC497.22 FS 498.32 TC497.82 FL 8.2%
GFF=499.00
GFF=499.00
GFF=499.00
GFF=499.00
GFF=502.50
GFF=502.50
0.6%
499.40 TC498.90 FL
18.6%
5.0%
6.2%
1.2%
498.50 TC498.00 FS
1.0%
4.1%
4.2%5.0% 5.0%533.80 TC533.30 FS
5.0%
AMENITY AREA
FG=499.00
PROP. SMH495.00 IE
6.5%
498.35 FL 498.77 FL
496.85 TC496.35 FL
1.0%
499.01 TC498.51 FL
500.31 TC499.81 FS
12.4%
5.0%
AMENITY AREA
FG=499.00
PROPRIETARYBIOFILTRATIONSYSTEM (BMP 4-A)499.50 IE-IN498.17 IE-OUT PROPRIETARYBIOFILTRATIONSYSTEM (BMP 3-A)527.44 IE-IN526.11 IE-OUT GFF=535.00 GFF=535.00
7.0%7.0%
PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM (BMP 1-A)532.20 IE-IN, 530.87 IE-OUT PROP. PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATIONSYSTEM (BMP 2-A), 493.10 IE-IN, 491.77 IE-OUT PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATIONSYSTEM (BMP 5-A)491.32 IE-OUT
UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM (BMP 1-B)TOP=531.77, BOT=526.60 PROP. WEIRBYPASSSTRUCTURE493.35 IE-IN,493.15 IE-OUT
PROP. WEIR BYPASS STRUCTURE526.53 IE-IN, ±(526.33) IE-OUT 491.16 IE491.16IE
530.42 IE
495.34 IE
490.67 IE
PROP.UNDERGROUNDDETENTIONSYSTEM (BMP 2-B)TOP=492.16BOT=486.49 UNDERGROUNDDETENTIONSYSTEM (BMP 4-B)TOP=496.34BOT=490.67 UNDERGROUNDDETENTIONSYSTEM (BMP 3-B)TOP=527.06BOT=520.06 520.06 IE
526.06 IE
PROP. WEIR BYPASSSTRUCTURE519.94 IE-IN519.74 IE-OUT
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX2:1 MAX
PROP. BROW DITCH (TYPE A)PER SDRSD D-75
PROP. BROWDITCH (TYPE A)PER SDRSD D-7
5 PROP. "GEOGRI
D
ANCHORPLEX"RETAINING WAL
PROP. PERMANENTSHORING WALL
PROP. RETAINING WALL
PROP. RETAINING WALL
PROP. MSE "GEOGRID"RETAINING WALL
GFF=536.00 GFF=536.00
GFF=526.00
GFF=526.00
GFF=531.00
GFF=531.00
526.30
514.60 TW499.00 BWHT=15.60'
PROP. "GEOGRIDANCHORPLEX"RETAINING WALLPROP. BROWDITCH (TYPE A)PER SDRSD D-75 A
A
B
B
CC
(530)
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
PROP. PERMANENTSHORING WALL
505.50 TW/502.50 BWHT=3.0'
3:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
PROP. MASONRYRETAINING WALL (5'MAX EXPOSED HT.)
PROP. MASONRY RETAINING WALL
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
514.50
519.80 TW517.80 BWHT=2.0'
516.00 TW502.50 BWHT=13.5'
508.50 TW502.50 BWHT=6.0'
539.10 TW533.10 BWHT=6.00' 540.10 TW534.40 BWHT=5.70' 541.70 TW538.10 BWHT=3.60' 537.80 TW536.00 BWHT=1.80'
537.00 TW535.00 BWHT=2.00'
513.50 TW499.00 BWHT=14.50'
501.50 TW499.00 BWHT=2.50'
506.00 TW499.00 BWHT=7.00'
499.00 TW496.50 BWHT=2.50'
497 499
504.20 TW, 499.00 BWHT=5.20'
535.00 TW, 517.20 BWHT=17.80'
535.00 TW, 526.75 BWHT=8.25'
PROP. SMH530.00 IE
PROP. SMH529.06 IE-IN528.86 IE -OUT
PROP. SMH524.98 IE-IN524.78 IE-OUT
PROP. SMH, 494.67 IE-OUT, 494.87 IE-OUT
1.0%
PROP. SMH521.00 IE
PROP. SMH526.00 IE
499.77 FL
PROP. SMH494.00 IE
PROP. SMH497.50 IE
485.32 IE, 18" SD±(485.02) IE, EX. 60" SD
535.76 FL
534.40 TG
25.00'
25.00'
24.00'
24.00'24.00'
18.00'
18.00'
10.00' PROP. ACCESS ESMT TO
AMEND/REPLACE EX. ACCESS ESMT
D D
APPROX. LIMITSOF GEOGRIDFABRIC (TYP.)
APPROX. LIMITSOF GEOGRIDFABRIC
5.0%
1.8%
497.34 TC
496.84 FS
1.2%
1.8%
1.2%
40.14'
19.93'
APPROX. LIMITS "ANCHORPLEX"CONCRETE BACAPPROX. LIMITS
O
"ANCHORPLEX"CONCRETE BAC
K
10.00'
BLDG STBK
10.00'
BLDG STBK
10.00'
BLDG STBK
10.00'
BLDG STBK
10.00'
BLDG STBK
PROP. MSE"GEOGRID"RET. WALL
24.51'
15.00'
BLDG STBK
1.0%
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
B-1
B-2
B-3 B-4
B-5
B-6
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
T-1
T-2
T-3
T-4
T-5
T-6 T-7
T-8
T-9
T-10
LB-1
LB-2
LB-3LB-4
T-1
T-3
T-4
T-5
T-6
T-7
T-8
T-9
T-2A T-2B
A
A'
C C'
B
B'
Qcol/
Qcol/
Qdaf/
Tsa Tsa
Qdaf/
Qdaf/
PROJECT
LIMITS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF PROJECT NO.
SCALE DATE
FIGURE
Plotted:11/25/2025 1:48PM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G3355-42-01 (San Marcos Residence)\SHEETS\G3355-42-01 Geo Map.20.dwg
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
1" =
GEOLOGIC MAP
SANTA FE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
20' 11 - 25 - 2025
G3355 - 42 - 01
11 1
........DOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL
........COLLUVIUM (Dotted Where Buried)
........SANTIAGO FORMATION (Dotted Where Buried)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
(Queried Where Uncertain)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF LARGE-DIAMETER BORING (Geocon, 2024) ........APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING (Christian Wheeler, 2024) ........APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING (Ghostrider, 2020)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF TRENCH (Geocon, 2024)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF TRENCH (Christian Wheeler, 2024) ........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
GEOCON LEGEND
Qdaf
LB-4
T-9
CC '
B-6
B-5
T-10
Qcol
Tsa
?
1559
460
480
500
520
540
A
560
A'
E L E V A T I O N (M S L)
E L E V A T I O N (M S L)
460
480
500
520
540
560
480
500
520
540
560
C
580 E L E V A T I O N (M S L)
480
500
520
540
560
B
580 E L E V A T I O N (M S L)
B'
E L E V A T I O N (M S L)
480
500
520
540
560
580
C'
E L E V A T I O N (M S L)
480
500
520
540
560
580
D I S T A N C E
SCALE: 1" = 20' (Vert. = Horiz.)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A'
D I S T A N C E
SCALE: 1" = 20' (Vert. = Horiz.)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION B-B'
D I S T A N C E
SCALE: 1" = 20' (Vert. = Horiz.)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION C-C'
LB-4
(Projected
8')
LB-3
(Projected
6')
LB-3
(Projected
13')
LB-1
(Projected
2')
B-6
(Projected
17')
B-1
(Projected
6')
B-2
(Projected
9')
B-3 B-4
B-3
(Projected
4')
B-4
(Projected
9')
B-1
T-8
(Projected
3')
T-2A
(Projected
21')
T-5
(Projected
50')
T-9
(Projected
52')
T-7
(Projected
56')
04 020 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 240200 220 260 280 300 320 340 360 04 020 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 240200 220 260 280 300 04 020 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 240200 220 260 280 300 320 380340 360 400 440420 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600
SECTION
C-C'
SECTION
B-B'
SECTION
A-A'
SECTION
A-A'
Qdaf
Tsa
Tsa Tsa
TsaTsa
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Qdaf
Qdaf
QdafQdaf
Qcol
Qcol
Qcol
EXISTING
GRADE
EXISTING
GRADE
EXISTING
GRADE
BUILDING 4BUILDING 3
BUILDING 2BUILDING 1
LP
LP
LP
LP
LP
LP
BUILDING 4BUILDING 5
BUILDING 3BUILDING 6
PROPOSED
RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED
RETAINING
WALL
PROPOSED
RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED
RETAINING
WALLS
PROPOSED
GRADE
PROPOSED
GRADE
PROPOSED
GRADE
Mzu
CL CL
CL
CL
PROPOSED
RETAINING
WALL
PROPOSED
RETAINING
WALL
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF PROJECT NO.
SCALE DATE
FIGURE
Plotted:11/25/2025 11:10AM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G3355-42-01 (San Marcos Residence)\SHEETS\G3355-42-01 XSections.20.dwg
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
1" =
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
SANTA FE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
20' 11 - 25 - 2025
G3355 - 42 - 01
11 2
........DOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL
........COLLUVIUM
........SANTIAGO FORMATION
........METAVOLCANIC AND METASEDIMENTARY ROCK
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
(Queried Where Uncertain)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF LARGE-DIAMETER BORING (Geocon, 2024) ........APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING (Christian Wheeler, 2024) ........APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING (Ghostrider, 2020)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF TRENCH (Geocon, 2024)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF TRENCH (Christian Wheeler, 2024) ........APPROX. LOCATION WHERE SEEPAGE ENCOUNTERED
........FRACTURED CLAYSTONE LAYER
(Queried Where Uncertain)
GEOCON LEGEND
Qdaf
Qcol
Tsa
?
LB-4
B-6
CL
T-8
T-9
Mzu
1560
APPENDIX A
1561
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PREPARED FOR:
I N C O R P O R A T E D
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
2972 SOUTH SANTA FE AVENUE
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
SANTA FE FLORES LP
RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 12, 2024
PROJECT NO. G3355-42-01
1562
GROCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALSO
6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone 858.558.6900 • Fax 858.558.6159 Project No. G3355-42-01
August 12, 2024
Santa Fe Flores LP
P.O. Box 903
Rancho Santa Fe, California 92067
Attention: Mr. Paul Mayer
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
2972 SOUTH SANTA FE AVENUE
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Mayer:
In accordance with your request, and in accordance with our proposal (No. SD-24-1066-P-GT, dated June 3, 2024), we herein submit the results of our geotechnical investigation for the subject site. We performed our investigation to evaluate soil and geologic conditions and potential geologic hazards at the site and to provide geotechnical design parameters for the proposed improvements. The accompanying report contains the results of our study with conclusions and recommendations pertinent to geotechnical aspects of the project. The site is suitable for the planned development provided the recommendations in this report are followed.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
Jake P. Shelton
PG 10302
Rupert S. Adams
CEG 2561
Rodney C. Mikesell
GE 2533
JPS:RSA:RCM:am
(e-mail) Addressee
1563
San Marcos Residence
Geotechnical Investigation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ..................................................................................................................... 5
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 6
3. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS ........................................................................................................... 7
4. GEOLOGIC SETTING ........................................................................................................................ 7
5. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS................................................................................................. 7
5.1. Documented Artificial Fill (Qdaf) ......................................................................................... 7
5.2. Colluvium (Qcol) .................................................................................................................. 8
5.3. Santiago Formation (Tsa) ..................................................................................................... 8
5.4. Metavolcanic Rock (Mzu) .................................................................................................... 8
6. GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................. 8
7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ...................................................................................................................... 9
7.1. Ground Rupture ................................................................................................................... 9
7.2. Seismicity ............................................................................................................................. 9
7.3. Liquefaction ......................................................................................................................... 9
7.4. Landslides ............................................................................................................................ 9
7.5. Tsunamis and Seiches .......................................................................................................... 9
7.6. Flooding ............................................................................................................................... 9
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 10
8.1. General .............................................................................................................................. 10
8.2. Excavation and Soil Characteristics ................................................................................... 11
8.3. Slope Stability .................................................................................................................... 12
8.4. Subdrains ........................................................................................................................... 13
8.5. Grading Recommendations ............................................................................................... 13
8.6. In-Situ Lime-Treated Highly Expansive Soils (Option 2 Grading) ....................................... 18
8.7. Temporary Excavation Slopes ............................................................................................ 19
8.8. Seismic Design Criteria – 2022 California Building Code ................................................... 19
8.9 Foundation and Concrete Slab Recommendations for Expansive Soils (Option 1 Grading) ...... 21
8.10 Foundation and Concrete Slab Recommendations (Options 2 and 3 Grading) ................ 24
8.11 Foundations Recommendations – General (Applicable to Grading Options 1 through 3) 27
8.12 Exterior Concrete Flatwork ................................................................................................ 29
8.13. Retaining Walls .................................................................................................................. 31
8.14. Lateral Loading .................................................................................................................. 34
8.15 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations ........................................................................ 35
8.16. Storm Water Management ................................................................................................ 39
8.17. Site Drainage and Moisture Protection ............................................................................. 39
8.18. Grading and Foundation Plan Review................................................................................ 40 1564
San Marcos Residence
Geotechnical Investigation
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1, Geologic Map
Figure 2, Geologic Cross-Sections
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
APPENDIX C
BORING LOGS AND LABORATORY TESTING BY OTHERS
APPENDIX D
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
APPENDIX E
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
LIST OF REFERENCES
1565
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 5 - August 12, 2024
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report contains the results of our geotechnical investigation performed for the 2.5-acre property located north of South Santa Fe Avenue and west of North Las Flores Drive in San Marcos, California (see Vicinity Map). The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate surface and subsurface soil conditions; general site geology; and to identify geotechnical constraints that may impact the proposed development.
Vicinity Map
The scope of this investigation included reviewing readily available published geologic literature; reviewing previous geotechnical investigation reports prepared for the site (see List of References); drilling four large diameter borings; down-hole logging the large diameter borings; excavating nine exploratory test pits; laboratory analysis of soil samples collected during our field investigation; engineering analysis; and preparing this report. The approximate locations of the current and previous exploratory borings and test pits are depicted on the Geologic Map, Figure 1. 1566
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 6 - August 12, 2024
Appendix A contains the exploratory borings and test pit logs and details of the field investigation.
Appendix B has the results of our laboratory testing. Appendix C contains boring logs and laboratory testing from previous geotechnical reports prepared for the property.
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The property is an approximately 2.5-acre undeveloped parcel, located north of South Santa Fe Avenue and West of North Las Flores Drive in San Marcos, California. It is bordered by commercial/industrial buildings on the north and west sides, and a convenience store at the southwest corner. The property is terraced into three relatively level pads with approximate elevations of 500 feet, 518 feet, and 535 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL).
Based on review of historical aerial photographs, farm and commercial buildings were present on the north and south sides of the property, respectively. The buildings were demolished circa 1990 and 2010. Historical aerial photographs also show several episodes of grading around 1964, 1990, 2005, and 2007. A report prepared by Christian Wheeler documents grading that took place in 2005 and 2007. The existing site conditions are shown in the figure below.
Existing Site Conditions
1567
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 7 - August 12, 2024
We understand preliminary plans are to construct six townhome buildings with paved roadways, parking areas, landscaping, hardscape, and utilities. Grading will consist of cuts and fills of approximately 16 feet. Grading will result in a fill over cut slope with a height up to approximately 36 feet. Retaining walls with heights up to approximately 10 feet are planned.
3. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
As part of this study, we reviewed geotechnical reports prepared by Ghostrider Incorporated (2020), Christian Wheeler Engineering (2022), and Nova Engineering (2016). We have included boring logs and laboratory data from these reports in Appendix C. The geologic interpretation of the site presented in this report may differ from previous reports and supersedes what is presented in the referenced geotechnical reports.
4. GEOLOGIC SETTING
The site is located in the coastal plain within the southern portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of southern California. The coastal plain of San Diego County is underlain by a thick sequence of sedimentary rocks that range in age from Upper Cretaceous through the Pleistocene.
The sedimentary units are deposited on Cretaceous and Jurassic age igneous and metamorphic rock.
The San Diego County coastal plain is dissected by the potentially active La Nacion Fault Zone and the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone.
5. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The site is underlain by documented artificial fill, Quaternary-age colluvium, Eocene-age Santiago Formation, and Jurassic-age rock mapped as Metasedimentary and Metavolcanic Rock (Kennedy & Tan, 2007). The soil and geologic units encountered during our investigation are described below, and on the boring logs in Appendix A. The approximate surface and subsurface distribution of soil and geologic units is shown on the Geologic Map (Figure 1) and Geologic Cross-Sections (Figure 2).
5.1. Documented Artificial Fill (Qdaf)
Documented artificial fill was encountered in borings LB-1 and LB-3, and in test pits TP-1, -5, and -6. The fill was placed during past site grading activities documented by Christian Wheeler in 2005 and 2007 (Christian Wheeler, 2022). The fill consisted of soft to stiff, damp to moist, sandy clay and medium dense, moist, clayey sand with varying amounts of gravel and possesses a “high” expansion potential (expansion index of greater than 90 and less than 130). Fill thicknesses ranged from about 1-foot to 1568
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 8 - August 12, 2024
13.5 feet. The upper 5 feet of fill is unsuitable in its current condition to support structural fill or settlement- sensitive improvements and will require remedial grading.
5.2. Colluvium (Qcol)
Colluvium was encountered in boring LB-4; and at test pits TP-2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9. The thickness of the colluvium ranged from about 4 to 14 feet. The colluvium consists of stiff to hard, damp to moist, sandy clay and possesses a “high” to “very high” expansion potential (expansion index of greater than 90).
The upper 5 feet of colluvium is unsuitable in its current condition to support structural fill or settlement- sensitive improvements and will require remedial grading.
5.3. Santiago Formation (Tsa)
Santiago Formation was encountered in test pits TP-1 through TP- 9 at depths between about 1 and 14 feet below surface elevations; and was encountered at the ground surface at boring LB-2. Santiago Formation consists of dense to very dense, weakly to moderately cemented, silty sandstone that excavates to a damp, fine to medium grained, silty sand; and stiff to firm, weakly to moderately indurated, sandy claystone that excavated to damp, sandy clay. Based on previous laboratory testing performed by others, the clayey portion of the Santiago Formation possesses a “very high” expansion potential (expansion index of greater than 130) and may need to be undercut in structural improvement areas depending on the grading option selected (see Section 8.5).
5.4. Metavolcanic Rock (Mzu)
Metavolcanic Rock was encountered in boring LB-1 at a depth of about 55 feet below surface elevation.
The rock consisted of highly weathered metavolcanic rock that excavated to a damp, fine to coarse grained silty sand. The rock is suitable to support settlement sensitive improvements.
6. GROUNDWATER
We encountered seepage in borings LB-1, -2, and -3 at depths of 35, 21, and 30 feet, respectively. It is not uncommon for groundwater or shallow seepage to develop where none previously existed.
Groundwater and seepage is dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, among other factors, and varies as a result. Proper surface drainage will be important to the performance of the project.
1569
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 9 - August 12, 2024
7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
7.1. Ground Rupture
The USGS (2016) and Kennedy & Tan (2007) show that there are no mapped Quaternary faults crossing or trending toward the site. The site is not located within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CEG, 2021a). The closest active fault is the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone located approximately 13 miles to the west. There are no active faults, potentially active faults, inactive faults, presumed inactive faults, or activity unknown faults at the site or trending toward the site. The risk associated with ground rupture hazard is low.
7.2. Seismicity
Considerations important in seismic design include frequency and duration of motion and soil conditions underlying the site. The seismic design of structures should be evaluated in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code currently adopted by the local agency. The risk associated with strong seismic ground motion hazard is high; however, the risk is no greater than that for the site vicinity.
7.3. Liquefaction
Considering the lack of shallow permanent groundwater and the density and age of the underlying geologic units, the risk associated with seismically induced soil liquefaction hazard is low.
7.4. Landslides
We did not observe any evidence of landsliding during our investigation. Kennedy & Tan (2007) show that there are no landslides mapped at the site or in an area that could impact the site. The risk associated with ground movement hazard due to landsliding is low.
7.5. Tsunamis and Seiches
The site is not located within a California Tsunami Hazard Area (CGS, 2021b). There are no lakes or reservoirs located near the site. The risk associated with inundation hazard due to tsunami or seiche is low.
7.6. Flooding
The site is not mapped in an area associated with flood risk (FEMA, 2012). The risk associated with flooding is low.
1570
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 10 - August 12, 2024
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1. General
8.1.1. It is our opinion that the site is suitable for the planned improvements, provided the recommendations presented herein are implemented during design and construction of the project.
8.1.2. The site is underlain by documented artificial fill, colluvium, Santiago Formation, and Metavolcanic Rock. The fill ranges from approximately 1 to 13.5 feet thick but may be deeper in unexplored areas of the site. Colluvium extends to depths between about 4 and 14 feet below existing grades but may be thicker in unexplored areas of the site.
8.1.3. The fill , colluvium, and clayey portions of the Santiago Formation exhibit a “high” to “very high” expansion potential. Portions of the fill and colluvium will require remedial grading and/or chemical stabilization, i.e., lime treatment.
8.1.4. No significant geologic hazards were observed or are known to exist on the site that would adversely affect site development.
8.1.5. It is our opinion that there are no active, potentially active, or inactive faults traversing the site, based on our review of Kennedy & Tan (2007), CGS (2001a), and USGS (2016).
8.1.6. We encountered seepage in borings LB-1, -2, and -3 at depths of 35, 21, and 30 feet, respectively; however, seepage could be encountered during grading operations in areas not explored, especially during the rainy season.
8.1.7 The existing highly expansive fill, colluvium and Santiago Formation can be reused as compacted fill, provided the appropriate foundation categories for shallow foundations provided herein are used in design. Alternative grading options are presented herein to mitigate the expansion potential of clayey soils, including lime stabilization and replacement of the highly expansive soils with low expansive material. Recommendations for each are presented in the grading section of this report.
8.1.8 If lime treatment is desired, a supplemental study should be performed to determine the actual amount (percentage) of lime to stabilize the near surface clayey materials. Typically, 1571
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 11 - August 12, 2024
5 to 6 percent of lime is needed to stabilize the soil.
8.1.9. Depending on the grading option chosen, the planned structures can be supported on a conventional shallow foundation system or post-tensioned system bearing on properly compacted fill soil or Santiago Formation.
8.1.10. Proper drainage should be maintained in order to preserve the engineering properties of the fill. Recommendations for site drainage are provided herein.
8.1.11. Subsurface conditions observed may be extrapolated to reflect general soil/geologic conditions; however, some variations in subsurface conditions between boring and trench locations should be anticipated.
8.2. Excavation and Soil Characteristics
8.2.1. Excavation of the in-situ soil should be possible with moderate to heavy effort using conventional heavy-duty equipment. Excavation of the formational materials will require very heavy effort and may generate oversized material (material greater than 12-inches in dimension) using conventional heavy-duty equipment during the grading operations.
Oversized material can be incorporated into landscape use or deep compacted fill areas, if available. The grading and improvement contractors should review this report and evaluate the proper equipment to use for the planned excavations.
8.2.2. The soil encountered in the field investigation is considered “expansive” (expansion index [EI] greater than 20) as defined by 2022 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3. The following table presents soil classifications based on the expansion index. Based on laboratory testing and our experience in the site vicinity, we expect the onsite soil possesses a “high” to “very high” expansion potential (EI greater than 90).
EXPANSION CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX
Expansion Index (EI) ASTM D 4829 Expansion
Classification
2022 CBC
Expansion Classification
0 – 20 Very Low Non-Expansive
21 – 50 Low
Expansive 51 – 90 Medium
91 – 130 High
Greater Than 130 Very High
1572
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 12 - August 12, 2024
8.2.3. We performed laboratory tests on samples of the site soils to evaluate the percentage of water-soluble sulfate content. Appendix B presents results of the laboratory water-soluble sulfate content tests. The test results indicate the on-site soils at the locations tested possess a “S0” sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2022 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318-19 Chapter 19. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration.
8.2.4. We tested a soil sample for pH and resistivity and chloride concentrations to aid in evaluating the corrosion potential. Appendix B presents the laboratory test results.
8.2.5. Geocon does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering; therefore, further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be needed if improvements susceptible to corrosion are planned.
8.3. Slope Stability
8.3.1 We performed slope stability analyses using the two-dimensional computer program GeoStudio created by Geo-Slope International Ltd. Output of the computer program including the calculated factor of safety and the failure surface is presented in Appendix D.
8.3.2 Our calculations indicate the proposed and existing slopes, constructed of on-site materials, should have calculated factors of safety (FOS) of at least 1.5 under static conditions, for both deep-seated failure and shallow sloughing conditions when the recommendations of this report are followed. The results of our slope stability analysis are presented in Appendix D.
8.3.3 We recommend the construction of a stability fill where Santiago Formation or highly expansive soils are exposed on proposed slope faces. The stability fill should have a minimum width of 15 feet measured from the slope face. A typical buttress/stability fill detail is presented in Section 8.5.
8.3.4 All cut slope excavations should be observed during grading by an engineering geologist to verify that soil and geologic conditions do not differ significantly from those anticipated. 1573
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 13 - August 12, 2024
8.3.5 Slopes should be landscaped with drought-tolerant vegetation having variable root depths and requiring minimal landscape irrigation. In addition, slopes should be drained and properly maintained to reduce erosion.
8.4. Subdrains
8.4.1. With the exception of subdrains for retaining walls and stability fills, no other subdrains will be required.
8.5. Grading Recommendations
8.5.1. Grading should be performed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report, the Recommended Grading Specifications contained in Appendix E, and the local Grading Ordinance. Geocon should observe grading operations on a full-time basis and provide compaction testing and observation during the fill placement.
8.5.2. A preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the city inspector, owner, grading and underground contractors, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time.
8.5.3. Site preparation should begin with the removal of deleterious material, construction debris, and vegetation. The depth of vegetation removal should be such that soil exposed in cut areas or soil to be used as fill is relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site demolition should be exported from the site. Concrete or asphalt should not be mixed with the fill soil unless approved by the geotechnical engineer.
8.5.4. Abandoned foundations and buried utilities should be removed, and the resultant excavations or trenches backfilled with properly compacted soil as part of the remedial grading.
8.5.5. Option 1 – Use of On-Site Soil and Foundations for Expansive Soils: Fill and colluvium should be removed to a depth of at least 5 feet below existing grade in fill areas and 5 feet below proposed grade in areas of cut. In building pad areas, removals must result in at least 2 feet of compacted fill below building foundations. The existing fill and colluvium can be used as compacted fill, provided the recommendations for “Foundations for Expansive Soils” are utilized in design and construction. Where the Santiago Formation is encountered in the excavation, the removal can be terminated (exception where undercutting for a cut to fill 1574
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 14 - August 12, 2024
transition is required). Actual removal depths should be determined during grading by a representative of Geocon Incorporated.
8.5.6. Option 2 – Lime Treatment of On-Site Expansive Soils: Existing soils (fill, colluvium and Santiago Formation) should be removed to a depth of at least 5 feet below existing or proposed grade, whichever is deeper and replaced with lime treated soil. In building pad areas, the removals and lime treatment must extend to a depth of at least 2 feet below building foundations. For surface improvements outside of building pads, lime treatment should extend to at least 3 feet below finish subgrade. Outside of building pads, the Santiago Formation below 3 feet from subgrade can be left in-place. Additional recommendations for lime treatment are provided in Section 8.6.
8.5.7. Option 3 – Removal and Replacement of Expansive Soils: Existing soils (fill, colluvium and Santiago Formation) should be removed to a depth of at least 5 feet below existing or proposed grade, whichever is deeper. In building pad areas, the removals must extend to a depth of at least 2 feet below building foundations. The removals should be replaced with imported soil possessing a “very low” to “medium” expansive potential (Expansion Index of 90 or less). For surface improvements outside of building pads, replacement of imported soil should extend to at least 3 feet below finish subgrade. Outside of building pads, the Santiago Formation below 3 feet from subgrade can be left in-place.
8.5.8. Prior to fill being placed, the existing ground surface should be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacted to a depth of at least 12 inches. The site should then be brought to final subgrade elevations with fill compacted in layers. Layers of fill should be about 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness and no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. Fill, including backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D 1557. Fill materials placed below optimum moisture content may require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing fill. Overly wet materials will require drying and/or mixing with drier soils to facilitate proper compaction.
8.5.9. Where not restricted by property lines, protected open space, or exiting improvements, removal of compressible surficial soils should extend beyond the toe of fill slopes a horizontal distance equal to the depth of the remedial removal, in accordance with the typical detail shown below.
1575
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 15 - August 12, 2024
8.5.10. Overly wet soils, if encountered, will require drying and/or mixing with drier soils to facilitate proper compaction.
8.5.11. All cleanouts performed during remedial grading should be observed by a representative of Geocon Incorporated prior to placement and compaction of fill. The limits and depth of remedial cleanouts should be surveyed by the Project Civil Engineer.
8.5.12. If Option 1 grading is selected, building pads with cut-fill transitions should be undercut at least 5 feet, sloped 1 percent to the adjacent street or deepest fill, and replaced with properly compacted fill to reduce the potential for differential settlement. The grading should be performed such that the proposed foundation for the structures will bear entirely on either properly compacted fill or on native formational soil. Footings for individual buildings should not be founded on both compacted fill and native formation.
8.5.13. The following table provides a summary of the grading recommendations. 1576
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 16 - August 12, 2024
SUMMARY OF GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
Area Grading Recommendations
All Improvement Areas
Option 1: Remove and recompact the upper 5 feet of fill and colluvium below existing grading in fill areas and 5 feet below proposed grade in cut areas. Foundations for e xpansive soils should be used in design and construction.
Option 2: Existing soils (fill, colluvium and Santiago Formation) should be removed to a depth of at least 5 feet below existing or proposed grade, whichever is deeper and replaced with lime treated soil. In surface improvement areas outside of the building pad, the treatment zone can be reduced to 3 feet, although the remedial removal of 5 feet still applies, but can be terminated where the Santiago Formation is encountered
below 3 feet.
Option 3: Replace the upper 5 feet of soils
below existing or
planned grades (whichever is deeper) with import select soil possessing “very low” to “medium” expansion potential. In surface improvement areas outside of the building pad, the import zone can be reduced to 3 feet, although the remedial removal of 5 feet still applies, but can be terminated where the Santiago Formation is encountered below 3 feet.
Slopes
Cut slopes should be observed during grading by an engineering geologist. Stability fills are required for cut slopes exposing the Santiago Formation. The need for slope stabilization measures should be evaluated during slope excavation.
Building Pads Footings founded on compacted fill. Undercutting required where cut to fill transition occurs.
Lateral Grading Limits 10 Feet Outside of Building Pads 5 Feet Outside of Surface Improvement Areas
Exposed Bottoms of Excavations Scarify Upper 12 Inches
8.5.14. Cut slope excavations including fill slope shear keys should be observed during grading operations to check that soil and geologic conditions do not differ significantly from those expected.
8.5.15. Cut slope excavations exposing the Santiago Formation or highly expansive soils should be constructed in accordance with the stability detail shown below. 1577
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 17 - August 12, 2024
8.5.16 Construction of fill slopes should begin with excavation of a fill slope keyway in accordance with the Fill Slope Keyway detail shown in the Recommended Grading Specifications in Appendix E.
8.5.17 The outer 15 feet (or a distance equal to the height of the slope, whichever is less) of fill slopes should be composed of properly compacted granular “soil” fill to reduce the potential for surficial sloughing. In general, soils with an Expansion Index of less than 90 or at least 35 percent sand size particles should be acceptable as “granular” fill. Soils of questionable strength to satisfy surficial stability should be tested in the laboratory for acceptable drained shear strength.
1578
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 18 - August 12, 2024
8.5.18. Fill slopes should be overbuilt at least 2 feet and cut back or be compacted by backrolling with a loaded sheepsfoot roller during grading at vertical intervals not to exceed 4 feet. The slopes should be track-walked at the completion of each slope with a D8 or larger bulldozer such that the fill is compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content to the face of the finished slope.
8.5.19. Imported fill should consist of the characteristics presented in the following table. Geocon Incorporated should be notified of the import soil source and should perform laboratory testing of import soil prior to its arrival at the site to determine its suitability as fill material.
SUMMARY OF IMPORT FILL RECOMMENDATIONS
Soil Characteristic Values
Expansion Potential “Very Low” to “Medium” (Expansion Index of 90 or less) Particle Size Maximum Dimension Less Than 3 Inches
Generally Free of Debris
8.6. In-Situ Lime-Treated Highly Expansive Soils (Option 2 Grading)
8.6.1. Existing highly to very highly expansive soils should be removed to the depths discussed in Section 8.5.
8.6.2. Geocon Incorporated should be retained during the overexcavation operations on a full-time basis to identify areas where loose, soft, or dry materials extend deeper than the recommended overexcavation and may require additional remedial grading. The actual depth of removal should be determined during grading operations.
8.6.3. The excavation bottom should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to approximately 3 to 6 percent above optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent in accordance with ASTM D 1557.
8.6.4. Soils replaced within the excavation should be treated with lime. A supplemental study will be needed to establish the optimal percentage of lime needed to effectively treat the soil.
For preliminary estimates, the soil should then be mixed with approximately 5 percent quick lime by dry weight, uniformly moisture conditioned to 1 to 3 percent above optimum 1579
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 19 - August 12, 2024
moisture content, placed in 6- to 8-inch-thick loose layers, and compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.
8.6.5. A supplemental study, including laboratory water-soluble sulfate content, R-value, and plasticity index testing, will be required to determine the actual percentage of quick lime required to stabilize the expansive soil.
8.6.6. The lime-treated soils should be compacted in accordance with the recommendations contained in Section 24-2 of the 2018 Caltrans Manual, Section 301-5 of the 2021 Standard Specifications for Public Works (Greenbook) , and the Section 301 of the 2021 City of San Diego Standard Specifications For Public Works Construction (The Whitebook).
8.6.7. Due to the recommended lime content and clayey nature of the soils, difficult compaction should be expected. The lime treatment option will substantially reduce the potential for expansion of the soil at the site. Minor expansion-related movement of the hardscape may still occur. Pavement section designs for driveway and parking areas using lime-treated subgrade soils have been included herein.
8.7. Temporary Excavation Slopes
8.7.1. The recommendations included herein are provided for stable excavations. It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure all excavations, temporary slopes, and trenches are properly constructed and maintained in accordance with applicable OSHA guidelines to maintain safety and the stability of the excavations and adjacent improvements. These excavations should not be allowed to become saturated or to dry out. Surcharge loads should not be permitted to a distance equal to the height of the excavation from the top of the excavation. The top of the excavation should be a minimum of 15 feet from the edge of existing improvements. Excavations steeper than those recommended or closer than 15 feet from an existing surface improvement should be shored in accordance with applicable OSHA codes and regulations. Geocon Incorporated should be contacted to provide vertical shoring recommendations, if needed.
8.8. Seismic Design Criteria – 2022 California Building Code
8.8.1. The following table summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2022 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2018 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-16), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. We used SEAOC (2020) 1580
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 20 - August 12, 2024
to calculate the seismic design parameters. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.2.2 of the 2022 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. The values presented herein are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCE R). Sites designated as Site Class D, E and F may require additional analyses if requested by the project structural engineer and client. 2022 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value 2022 CBC Reference
Site Class C Section 1613.2.2
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response
Acceleration – Class B (short), SS
0.901g Figure 1613.2.1(1)
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response
Acceleration – Class B (1 sec), S1
0.332g Figure 1613.2.1(2)
Site Coefficient, FA 1.2 Table 1613.2.3(1)
Site Coefficient, FV 1.5 Table 1613.2.3(2)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
Acceleration (short), SMS
1.081g Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-36)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
Acceleration – (1 sec), SM1
0.499g Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-37)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (short), S DS
0.721g Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-38)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1
0.332g Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-39)
8.8.2. The following table presents the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCE G) seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-16.
ASCE 7-16 PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION
Parameter Value ASCE 7-16 Reference
Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.389g Figure 22-7 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.2 Table 11.8-1
Site Class Modified MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.467g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1)
8.8.3. Conformance to the criteria in this section for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur in 1581
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 21 - August 12, 2024
the event of a large earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
8.8.4. The project structural engineer and architect should evaluate the appropriate Risk Category and Seismic Design Category for the planned structures. The values presented herein assume a Risk Category II and a Seismic Design Category D. The following table presents a summary of the risk categories in accordance with ASCE 7-16.
ASCE 7-16 RISK CATEGORIES
Risk Category Building Use Examples
I Low risk to Human Life at Failure Barn, Storage Shelter II Nominal Risk to Human Life at Failure
(Buildings Not Designated as I, III or IV)
Residential, Commercial and Industrial
Buildings
III Substantial Risk Human Life at Failure Theaters, Lecture Halls, Dining Halls, Schools, Prisons,
Small Healthcare Facilities,
Infrastructure Plants,
Storage for Explosives/Toxins
IV Essential Facilities Hazardous Material Facilities,
Hospitals, Fire and Rescue, Emergency
Shelters,
Police Stations, Power Stations,
Aviation Control Facilities, National
Defense, Water Storage
8.9 Foundation and Concrete Slab Recommendations for Expansive Soils (Option 1 Grading)
8.9.1 The foundation recommendations herein are for expansive soils (Option 1 Grading). The proposed structures should be supported on a post-tensioned foundation system.
8.9.2 The post-tensioned systems (foundation dimensions and embedment depths, slab thickness and steel placement) should be designed by a structural engineer experienced in post- tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) DC 10.5-12 Standard Requirements for Design and Analysis of Shallow Post-Tensioned Concrete Foundations on Expansive Soils or WRI/CRSI Design of Slab-on-Ground Foundations , as required by the 2022 California Building Code Section 1808.6.2. Although this procedure was developed for expansive soil conditions, it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to differential fill settlement. The post-tensioned design should 1582
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 22 - August 12, 2024
incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented in the following table based on the guidelines presented in the PTI DC 10.5 design manual.
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) DC10.5 Design
Parameters
Foundation Category
IV
Thornthwaite Index -20
Equilibrium Suction 3.9
Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (Feet) 3.8
Edge Lift, yM (Inches) 2.19
Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (Feet) 7.3
Center Lift, yM (Inches) 1.05
8.9.3 The foundations for the post-tensioned slabs should be embedded in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. If a post-tensioned mat foundation system is planned, the slab should possess a thickened edge with a minimum width of 12 inches and extend below the clean sand or crushed rock layer.
8.9.4 If the structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than PTI, DC 10.5:
The deflection criteria presented herein are still applicable. Interior stiffener beams should be used.
The width of the perimeter foundations should be at least 12 inches. The perimeter footing embedment depth should be at least 30-inches. The embedment depth should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade.
8.9.5 Our experience indicates post-tensioned slabs may be susceptible to excessive edge lift from tensioning, regardless of the underlying soil conditions. Placing reinforcing steel at the bottom of the perimeter footings and the interior stiffener beams may mitigate this potential. The structural engineer should design the foundation system to reduce the potential of edge lift occurring for the proposed structures.
8.9.6 During the construction of the post-tension foundation system, the concrete should be placed monolithically. Under no circumstances should cold joints form between the 1583
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 23 - August 12, 2024
footings/grade beams and the slab during the construction of the post-tension foundation system unless designed by the structural engineer.
8.9.7 Isolated footings outside of the slab area, if present, should have the minimum embedment depth of 30 inches. The use of isolated footings, which are located beyond the perimeter of the building and support structural elements connected to the building, are not recommended. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be connected to the building foundation system with grade beams in both directions. In addition, consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in width, to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur.
8.9.8 Interior stiffening beams should be incorporated into the design of the foundation system in accordance with the PTI design procedures.
8.9.9 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
8.9.10 The following table provides additional foundation design recommendations.
ADDITIONAL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Value
Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,000 psf
Bearing Capacity Increase 500 psf per Foot of Depth
300 psf per Foot of Width
Maximum Allowable Bearing Capacity 4,000 psf
Estimated Total Settlement 1 Inch
Estimated Differential Settlement 1 Inch in 40 Feet
8.9.11 The bearing capacity values presented herein are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.
8.9.12 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer.
1584
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 24 - August 12, 2024
8.10 Foundation and Concrete Slab Recommendations (Options 2 and 3 Grading)
8.10.1 The foundation recommendations herein assume grading under either Option 2 or 3 is performed and the buildings are underlain by “very low” to “medium” expansive soils (EI of 90 or less).
8.10.2 The proposed structure can be supported on a shallow foundation system founded entirely on properly compacted fill. Foundations for the structure should consist of continuous strip footings and isolated spread footings. The following table provides a summary of the foundation design recommendations.
SUMMARY OF FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Value
Minimum Continuous Foundation Width, W C 12 inches
Minimum Isolated Foundation Width, W I 24 inches
Minimum Foundation Depth, D 24 Inches Below Lowest Adjacent Grade Minimum Concrete Reinforcement 4 No. 5 Bars, 2 at the Top and 2 at the Bottom Allowable Bearing Capacity (Compacted Fill) 2,000 psf
Bearing Capacity Increase 500 psf per Foot of Depth
300 psf per Foot of Width
Maximum Allowable Bearing Capacity
(Compacted fill) 4,000 psf
Estimated Total Static Settlement 1-Inch
Estimated Differential Static Settlement ¾ Inch in 40 Feet Footing Size Used for Settlement 6-Foot Square
Design Expansion Index 90 or less
8.10.3 The bearing capacity values presented herein are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.
8.10.4 We should observe the foundation excavations prior to the placement of reinforcing steel to check that the exposed soil conditions are similar to those expected and that they have been extended to the appropriate bearing strata. Foundation modifications may be required if unexpected soil conditions are encountered.
8.10.5 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer.
1585
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 25 - August 12, 2024
8.10.6 Interior concrete slabs for the structures should be constructed in accordance with the table below.
MINIMUM INTERIOR CONCRETE-SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS Parameter Value
Minimum Concrete Slab Thickness 5 inches
Minimum Concrete Reinforcement No. 3 Bars 18 Inches on Center, Both Directions Typical Slab Underlayment 3 to 4 Inches of Sand/Gravel/Base Design Expansion Index 90 or less
8.10.7 The concrete-slab-on-grade recommendations are based on soil support characteristics only. The project structural engineer should evaluate the structural requirements of the concrete slabs for supporting expected loads.
8.10.8 As an alternative to the conventional foundation recommendations, consideration should be given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the support of the proposed structures. The post-tensioned systems should be designed by a structural engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post- Tensioning Institute (PTI) DC10.5 as required by the 2022 California Building Code Section 1808.6.2. Although this procedure was developed for expansive soil conditions, we understand it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to differential fill settlement. The post-tensioned design should incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented in the following table based on the guidelines presented in the PTI, DC10.5 design manual.
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI)
DC10.5 Design Parameters Value
Thornthwaite Index -20
Equilibrium Suction 3.9
Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (feet) 4.9
Edge Lift, yM (inches) 1.58
Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (feet) 9.0 Center Lift, yM (inches) 0.66
1586
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 26 - August 12, 2024
8.10.9 The foundations for the post-tensioned slabs should be embedded in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. If a post-tensioned mat foundation system is planned, the slab should possess a thickened edge with a minimum width of 12 inches and extend below the clean sand or crushed rock layer.
8.10.10 If the structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than the 2022 CBC (PTI DC10.5):
The criteria presented in the above Table are still applicable. Interior stiffener beams should be used.
The width of the perimeter foundations should be at least 12 inches. The perimeter footing embedment depths should be at least 24 inches. The embedment depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade.
8.10.11 Our experience indicates post-tensioned slabs are susceptible to excessive edge lift, regardless of the underlying soil conditions. Placing reinforcing steel at the bottom of the perimeter footings and the interior stiffener beams may mitigate this potential. Current PTI design procedures primarily address the potential center lift of slabs but, because of the placement of the reinforcing tendons in the top of the slab, the resulting eccentricity after tensioning reduces the ability of the system to mitigate edge lift. The structural engineer should design the foundation system to reduce the potential of edge lift occurring for the proposed structures.
8.10.12 During the construction of the post-tension foundation system, the concrete should be placed monolithically. Under no circumstances should cold joints form between the footings/grade beams and the slab during the construction of the post-tension foundation system unless designed by the project structural engineer.
8.10.13 Isolated footings, if present, should have the minimum embedment depth and width recommended for conventional foundations. The use of isolated footings, which are located beyond the perimeter of the building and support structural elements connected to the building, are not recommended. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be connected to the building foundation system with grade beams in both directions.
1587
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 27 - August 12, 2024
8.10.14 Consideration should be given to using interior stiffening beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness.
8.11 Foundations Recommendations – General (Applicable to Grading Options 1 through 3)
8.11.1. The foundations should be embedded in accordance with the recommendations herein and the Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail. The embedment depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade for both interior and exterior footings. Footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope (unless designed with a post-tensioned foundation system as discussed herein).
Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail
8.11.2 Slabs that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture- sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder. The vapor retarder design should be consistent with the guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06). The vapor retarder used should be specified by the project architect or developer based on the type of floor covering that will be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity controlled environment.
8.11.3 The project foundation engineer, architect, or developer should determine the thickness of the slab bedding. It is common to have 3 to 4 inches of sand in the southern California region.
We should be contacted to provide recommendations if the bedding sand is thicker than 6 inches.
1588
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 28 - August 12, 2024
8.11.4 The foundation design engineer should provide appropriate concrete mix design criteria and curing measures to assure proper curing of the slab. The foundation design engineer should present the concrete mix design and proper curing methods on the foundation plans. It is critical that the foundation contractor understands and follows the specifications presented on the foundation plans.
8.11.5 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
8.11.6 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) or steeper, special foundation and/or design considerations are recommended due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur. For fill slopes less than 20 feet high or cut slopes regardless of height, footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope.
When located next to a descending 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) fill slope or steeper, the foundations should be extended to a depth where the minimum horizontal distance is equal to H/3 (where H equals the vertical distance from the top of the fill slope to the base of the fill soil) with a minimum of 7 feet but need not exceed 40 feet. The horizontal distance is measured from the outer, deepest edge of the footing to the face of the slope. A post-tensioned slab and foundation system or mat foundation system can be used to reduce the potential for distress in the structures associated with strain softening and lateral fill extension. Specific design parameters or recommendations for either of these alternatives can be provided once the building location and fill slope geometry have been determined.
If swimming pools are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for a review of specific site conditions.
Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of cut or fill slopes are not recommended. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, the portion of the swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed assuming that the adjacent soil provides no lateral support. This recommendation applies to fill slopes up to 30 feet in height, and cut slopes regardless of height. For swimming pools located near the top of fill slopes greater than 30 feet in height, additional recommendations may be required and Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for a review of specific site conditions.
1589
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 29 - August 12, 2024
Although other improvements, which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete flatwork or masonry walls, may experience some distress if located near the top of a slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible, however, to incorporate design measures which would permit some lateral soil movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for specific recommendations.
8.11.7 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs and foundations due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of fill soil with varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.
8.11.8 Concrete slabs should be provided with adequate crack-control joints, construction joints and/or expansion joints to reduce unsightly shrinkage cracking. The design of joints should consider criteria of the American Concrete Institute when establishing crack-control spacing.
Additional steel reinforcing, concrete admixtures and/or closer crack control joint spacing should be considered where concrete-exposed finished floors are planned.
8.11.9 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer.
8.11.10 We should observe the foundation excavations prior to the placement of reinforcing steel to check that the exposed soil conditions are similar to those expected and that they have been extended to the appropriate bearing strata. If unexpected soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required.
8.12 Exterior Concrete Flatwork
8.12.1 Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the following table. The recommended steel reinforcement would help reduce the potential for cracking. Even if these recommendations are followed, concrete flatwork placed on expansive soils could potential heave resulting in panel uplift and cracking.
1590
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 30 - August 12, 2024
MINIMUM CONCRETE FLATWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
Expansion
Index, EI Minimum Steel Reinforcement* Options Minimum
Thickness
EI < 90 6x6-W2.9/W2.9 (6x6-6/6) welded wire mesh 4 inches No. 3 Bars 18 inches on center, Both Directions EI> 90
No. 4 Bars 18 inches on center, Both Directions
5 Inches 8 inch Thickened Edge that tapers back to 5 inches at a horizontal distance of 2 feet
*In excess of 8 feet square.
8.12.2 The subgrade soil should be properly moisturized and compacted prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The subgrade soil should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM D 1557.
8.12.3 Where concrete is placed on expansive soils, the subgrade should be moisture conditioned to 5 to 8 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 88 percent relative compaction. The subgrade moisture content should be maintained until concrete is placed. The concrete should not be allowed to dry prior to placing concrete.
8.12.4 Concrete flatwork adjacent to landscape areas is not recommended for Option 1 grading.
Where this cannot be avoided, the sidewalk should have a turn down edge that extends at least 12 inches into the subgrade.
8.12.5 Even with the incorporation of the recommendations of this report, the exterior concrete flatwork has a potential to experience some uplift due to expansive soil beneath grade. The steel reinforcement should overlap continuously in flatwork to reduce the potential for vertical offsets within flatwork. Additionally, flatwork should be structurally connected to the curbs, where possible, to reduce the potential for offsets between the curbs and the flatwork. Periodic maintenance should be expected due to the presence of expansive soils.
8.12.6 Concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the project structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) should be taken into consideration when establishing crack control spacing. Subgrade soil for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be compacted 1591
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 31 - August 12, 2024
in accordance with criteria presented in the grading section prior to concrete placement.
Subgrade soil should be properly compacted and the moisture content of subgrade soil should be verified prior to placing concrete. Base materials will not be required below concrete improvements.
8.12.7 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit points, the exterior slab should be dowelled into the structure’s foundation stemwall. This recommendation is intended to reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from differential settlement or minor heave of the flatwork. Dowelling details should be designed by the project structural engineer.
8.12.8 The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of exterior slabs as a result of differential movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, slabs-on-grade will still crack. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the soil supporting characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use of crack control joints and proper concrete placement and curing. Crack control joints should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet. Literature provided by the Portland Concrete Association (PCA) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) present recommendations for proper concrete mix, construction, and curing practices, and should be incorporated into project construction.
8.13. Retaining Walls
8.13.1. Walls that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall) at the top of the wall should be designed using the values presented on the following table. Soil with an expansion index (EI) greater than 50 should not be used as backfill soil behind retaining walls. Soil with an expansion index of 50 or less will need to be imported. 1592
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 32 - August 12, 2024
RETAINING WALL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Value
Active Soil Pressure, A (Level Backfill) 35 pcf EFD* H ft Active Soil Pressure, A (2:1 max Sloping Backfill) 50 pcf EFD* H ft Seismic Pressure, S 15H psf
At-Rest/Restrained Walls Additional Uniform Pressure (0 to 8 Feet High) 7H psf At-Rest/Restrained Walls Additional Uniform Pressure (8+ Feet High) 13H psf Expansion Index for Imported Soil EI < 50
*H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall in feet.
EFD = equivalent fluid density
8.13.2. The project retaining walls should be designed as shown in the Retaining Wall Loading Diagram.
Retaining Wall Loading Diagram
8.13.3. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top (at-rest condition), an additional uniform pressure should be applied to the wall.
8.13.4. The structural engineer should determine the Seismic Design Category for the project in accordance with Section 1613 of the 2022 CBC or Section 11.6 of ASCE 7-16. For structures assigned to Seismic Design Category of D, E, or F, retaining walls that support more than 6 feet of backfill should be designed with seismic lateral pressure in accordance with Section 1593
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 33 - August 12, 2024
1803.5.12 of the 2022 CBC. The seismic load is dependent on the retained height where H is the height of the wall, in feet, and the calculated loads result in pounds per square foot (psf) exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall.
8.13.5. Retaining walls should be designed to ensure stability against overturning sliding, and excessive foundation pressure. Where a keyway is extended below the wall base with the intent to engage passive pressure and enhance sliding stability, it is not necessary to consider active pressure on the keyway.
8.13.6. Drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) should not be used where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of the wall.
8.13.7. The recommendations herein assume a properly compacted, granular (EI of 50 or less), free- draining backfill soil and that no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. The retaining wall should be properly drained as shown in the Typical Retaining Wall Drainage Detail. If conditions different than those described are expected, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon should be contacted for additional recommendations.
Typical Retaining Wall Drainage Detail
8.13.8. In general, wall foundations should be designed in accordance with the following table. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, retaining wall foundations should be deepened such that 1594
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 34 - August 12, 2024
the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope.
SUMMARY OF RETAINING WALL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Value
Minimum Retaining Wall Foundation Width 12 inches
Minimum Retaining Wall Foundation Depth
24 Inches (Option 1 Grading)
12 inches (Option 2 and 3 Grading)
Minimum Concrete Reinforcement Per Structural Engineer
Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,000 psf
Bearing Capacity Increase
500 psf per Foot of Depth
300 psf per Foot of Width
Maximum Allowable Bearing Capacity 4,000 psf
Estimated Total Settlement 1 Inch
Estimated Differential Settlement 1 Inch in 40 Feet
8.13.9. The recommendations presented herein are applicable for the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls. Should other types of walls (such as mechanically stabilized earth [MSE] walls) be planned, Geocon should be consulted for additional recommendations.
8.13.10. Soil contemplated for use as retaining wall backfill, including imported soils, should be identified in the field prior to backfill. At that time, Geocon should be provided samples for laboratory testing to evaluate its suitability. Modified lateral earth pressures may be necessary if the backfill soil does not meet the required expansion index or shear strength.
8.13.11. City or regional standard wall designs, if used, are based on a specific active lateral earth pressure and/or soil friction angle. In this regard, on-site soil to be used as backfill may or may not meet the values for standard wall designs. Geocon should be consulted to assess the suitability of the on-site soil for use as wall backfill if standard wall designs are used
8.14. Lateral Loading
8.14.1. The following table should be used to help design the proposed structures and improvements to resist lateral loads for the design of footings or shear keys. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet, or three times the 1595
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 35 - August 12, 2024
surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance.
SUMMARY OF LATERAL LOAD DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Value
Passive Pressure Fluid Density 300 pcf
Passive Pressure Fluid Density Adjacent to and/or
on Descending Slopes 150 pcf
Coefficient of Friction (Concrete and Soil) 0.35
Coefficient of Friction (Along Vapor Barrier) 0.2 to 0.25* *Per manufacturer’s recommendations.
8.14.2. The passive and frictional resistant loads can be combined for design purposes. The lateral passive pressures may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.
8.15 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations
8.15.1 We calculated the flexible pavement sections in general conformance with the Caltrans Method of Flexible Pavement Design (Highway Design Manual, Section 608.4) using an estimated Traffic Index (TI) of 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, and 7.0 for parking stalls, driveways, medium truck traffic areas, and heavy truck traffic areas, respectively. The project civil engineer should review the pavement designations to determine appropriate locations for pavement thickness. The final pavement sections should be based on the R-Value of the subgrade soil encountered at final subgrade elevation. We have assumed an R-Value of 5 for untreated, subgrade soils, 15 for imported subgrade soils with an expansion index less than 90, 50 for lime-treated subgrade soils, and 78 for base materials, for the purposes of this preliminary analysis. The table below presents the preliminary flexible pavement sections. 1596 San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 36 - August 12, 2024
PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTION
Location Assumed
Traffic Index
Assumed
Subgrade R-
Value
Asphalt
Concrete
(inches)
Class 2
Aggregate Base
(inches)
Parking Stalls for
Automobiles
and Light-Duty
Vehicles
5.0 5 3 10
15 3 8
50 3 4
Driveways for
Automobiles
and Light-Duty
Vehicles
5.5 5 3 12
15 3 10
50 3 4
Medium Truck
Traffic Areas 6.0
5 3.5 13
15 3.5 11
50 3.5 4
Driveways for
Heavy Truck
Traffic
7.0 5 4 16
15 4 13
50 4 5
8.15.2 Prior to placing base materials, the upper 12 inches of the subgrade soil should be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557. Similarly, the base material should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory Hveem density in accordance with ASTM D 2726.
8.15.3 Aggregate base should conform to Section 26-1.02B of the Standard Specifications for The State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) with a ¾-inch maximum size aggregate. Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook).
8.15.4 We calculated the rigid pavement section in general conformance with the procedure recommended by the American Concrete Institute report ACI 330-21 Commercial Concrete Parking Lots and Site Paving Design and Construction – Guide. The table below provides the traffic categories and design parameters used for the calculations for 20-year design life. 1597
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 37 - August 12, 2024
TRAFFIC CATEGORIES
Traffic
Category Description Reliability
(%)
Slabs Cracked at
End of Design
Life (%)
A Car Parking Areas and Access Lanes 60 15
B Entrance and Truck Service Lanes 60 15
E Heavy Truck Traffic 75 15
8.15.5 We used the parameters presented in the table below to calculate the pavement design sections. We should be contacted to provide updated design sections, if necessary.
RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameter Design Value
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k 50 pci
Modulus of Rupture for Concrete, MR 500 psi
Concrete Compressive Strength 3,000 psi
Concrete Modulus of Elasticity, E 3,150,000 psi
8.15.6 Based on the criteria presented herein, the PCC pavement sections should have a minimum thickness as presented in the table below.
RIGID PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Traffic Category Trucks Per Day Portland Cement
Concrete, T (Inches)
A = Car Parking Areas and Access Lanes < 10 5.5
B = Entrance and Truck Service Lanes < 10 6
E = Heavy Truck Traffic < 10 7
8.15.7 For Option 2 and 3 Grading, the PCC vehicular pavement should be placed over subgrade soil that is compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. Under Option 1 Grading, the subgrade should be moisture conditioned to a minimum of 5 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. 1598
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 38 - August 12, 2024
8.15.8 The trash-truck pad should be large enough such that all wheels are on the concrete pad during the loading operations.
8.15.9 Adequate joint spacing based on ACI guidelines should be incorporated into the design and construction of the rigid pavement.
8.15.10 Under Grading Option 1, the slabs should be reinforced with No. 4 steel bars spaced 18 inches on center and positioned near the slab midpoint. Reinforcing steel will not be necessary within the concrete pavement for Grading Options 2 and 3. .
8.15.11 Perimeter curbs adjacent to landscape areas should extend at least 6 inches below the bottom of the pavement aggregate base. In lieu of extending the perimeter curb, an impermeable liner should be installed.
8.15.12 Concrete flatwork should be structurally connected to the curbs to help reduce potential offsets between the curbs and the flatwork.
8.15.13 To control the location and spread of concrete shrinkage cracks, crack-control joints should be included in the design of the concrete-pavement slab. Crack-control joints should be sealed with an appropriate sealant to prevent the migration of water through the control joint to the subgrade materials. The depth of the crack-control joints should be in accordance with ACI guidelines.
8.15.14 Construction joints should be provided at the interface between areas of concrete placed at different times during construction. The project structural engineer should provide details for load transfer.
8.15.15 Concrete curb/gutter should be placed on soil subgrade compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. Cross-gutters should be placed on subgrade soil compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content(Option 2 and 3 Grading). Under Option 1 Grading, the subgrade should be moisture conditioned to a minimum of 5 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Base materials should not be placed below the curb/gutter, or cross-gutters so water is not able to migrate from the adjacent parkways to the pavement sections. Where flatwork is located directly adjacent 1599
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 39 - August 12, 2024
to the curb/gutter, the concrete flatwork should be structurally connected to the curbs to help reduce the potential for offsets between the curbs and the flatwork.
8.16. Storm Water Management
8.16.1. If storm water management devices are not properly designed and constructed, there is a risk for distress to improvements and property located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to these devices. Factors such as the amount of water being detained, its residence time, and soil permeability have an important effect on seepage transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the storm water management features are not properly designed and constructed.
8.17. Site Drainage and Moisture Protection
8.17.1. Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2022 CBC 1804.4 or other applicable standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure.
8.17.2. In the case of basement walls or building walls retaining landscaping areas, a water-proofing system should be used on the wall and joints, and a Miradrain drainage panel (or similar) should be placed over the waterproofing. The project architect or civil engineer should provide detailed specifications on the plans for all waterproofing and drainage.
8.17.3. Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked periodically for leaks and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time.
8.17.4. Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. Area drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures or impervious above-grade planter boxes can be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, construction of a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends 1600
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 40 - August 12, 2024
at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base material should be considered.
8.18. Grading and Foundation Plan Review
8.18.1. Geocon Incorporated should review the grading and building foundation plans for the project prior to final design submittal to evaluate if additional analyses and/or recommendations are required.
1601
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 August 12, 2024
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1. The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record.
2. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon.
3. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
4. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
1602
D
D
D
S
S
BM
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
575
570
570
565
565
560
560
560
555
555
555
555
550
550
550
550
545
545
545
545
545
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
535535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535 535
535
530
530
530
530
530
530530
530
530
530
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
515
515
515515
515
515
515
515
510
510
510
510
510
510
510 510
505
505
505
505
505
505
505
500
500
500 500
500
500
500
500
495
495
495
495
495
495
495
ϳ
B-1
B-2
B-3 B-4
B-5
B-6
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
T-1
T-2
T-3
T-4
T-5
T-6 T-7
T-8
T-9
T-10
LB-1
LB-2
LB-3LB-4
T-1
T-3
T-4
T-5
T-6
T-7
T-8
T-9
T-2A T-2B
A
A'
C C'
B
B'
Qcol/
Qcol/
Qdaf/
Tsa Tsa
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Qdaf/
Qdaf/
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF PROJECT NO.
SCALE DATE
FIGURE
Plotted:08/12/2024 6:24AM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G3355-42-01 (San Marcos Residence)\SHEETS\G3355-42-01 Geo Map.dwg
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
1" =
GEOLOGIC MAP
SANTA FE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
20' 08 - 12 - 2024
G3355 - 42 - 01
11 1
........DOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL
........COLLUVIUM (Dotted Where Buried)
........SANTIAGO FORMATION (Dotted Where Buried)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
(Queried Where Uncertain)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF LARGE-DIAMETER BORING (Geocon, 2024) ........APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING (Christian Wheeler, 2024) ........APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING (Ghostrider, 2020)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF TRENCH (Geocon, 2024)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF TRENCH (Christian Wheeler, 2024) ........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
GEOCON LEGEND
Qdaf
LB-4
T-9
CC '
B-6
B-5
T-10
Qcol
Tsa
?
1603
460
480
500
520
540
A
560
A'
E L E V A T I O N (M S L)
E L E V A T I O N (M S L)
460
480
500
520
540
560
480
500
520
540
560
C
580 E L E V A T I O N (M S L)
480
500
520
540
560
B
580 E L E V A T I O N (M S L)
B'
E L E V A T I O N (M S L)
480
500
520
540
560
580
C'
E L E V A T I O N (M S L)
480
500
520
540
560
580
D I S T A N C E
SCALE: 1" = 20' (Vert. = Horiz.)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A'
D I S T A N C E
SCALE: 1" = 20' (Vert. = Horiz.)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION B-B'
D I S T A N C E
SCALE: 1" = 20' (Vert. = Horiz.)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION C-C'
LB-4
(Projected
8')
LB-3
(Projected
6')
LB-3
(Projected
13')
LB-1
(Projected
2')
B-6
(Projected
17')
B-1
(Projected
6')
B-2
(Projected
9')
B-3 B-4
B-3
(Projected
4')
B-4
(Projected
9')
B-1
T-8
(Projected
3')
T-2A
(Projected
21')
T-5
(Projected
50')
T-9
(Projected
52')
T-7
(Projected
56')
04 020 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 240200 220 260 280 300 320 340 360 04 020 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 240200 220 260 280 300 04 020 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 240200 220 260 280 300 320 380340 360 400 440420 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600
SECTION
C-C'
SECTION
B-B'
SECTION
A-A'
SECTION
A-A'
Qdaf
Tsa
Tsa Tsa
TsaTsa
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Qdaf
Qdaf
QdafQdaf
Qcol
Qcol
Qcol
EXISTING
GRADE
EXISTING
GRADE
EXISTING
GRADE
TOWN HOME 4TOWN HOME 3
TOWN HOME 2TOWN HOME 1
LP
LP
LP
LP
LP
LP
TOWN HOME 4TOWN HOME 6
TOWN HOME 3TOWN HOME 5
PROPOSED
RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED
RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED
RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED
RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED
GRADE
PROPOSED
GRADE
PROPOSED
GRADE
Mzu
CL CL
CL
CL
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF PROJECT NO.
SCALE DATE
FIGURE
Plotted:08/12/2024 6:22AM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G3355-42-01 (San Marcos Residence)\SHEETS\G3355-42-01 XSections.dwg
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
1" =
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
SANTA FE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
20' 08 - 12 - 2024
G3355 - 42 - 01
11 2
........DOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL
........COLLUVIUM
........SANTIAGO FORMATION
........METAVOLCANIC AND METASEDIMENTARY ROCK
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
(Queried Where Uncertain)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF LARGE-DIAMETER BORING (Geocon, 2024) ........APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING (Christian Wheeler, 2024) ........APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING (Ghostrider, 2020)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF TRENCH (Geocon, 2024)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF TRENCH (Christian Wheeler, 2024) ........APPROX. LOCATION WHERE SEEPAGE ENCOUNTERED
........FRACTURED CLAYSTONE LAYER
(Queried Where Uncertain)
GEOCON LEGEND
Qdaf
Qcol
Tsa
?
LB-4
B-6
CL
T-8
T-9
Mzu
1604
APPENDIX A
1605
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 August 12, 2024
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
We performed our field investigation on July 1 st and 2 nd, 2024. Our investigation consisted of drilling four large diameter borings using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with a bucket auger, down-hole logging of the large diameter borings, and excavating nine exploratory test pits using a backhoe excavator equipped with 36-inch bucket. The large diameter borings were excavated to depths between about 20 and 55 feet, and the test pits were excavated to depths between about 4 to 16 feet.
A geologist logged the subsurface conditions of the site and collected samples for testing. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings and test pits are shown in Figure 1.
The soil conditions encountered in the borings were visually examined, classified, and logged in general conformance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D 2488). Exploratory boring and test pit logs are presented herein. The logs depict the various soil types encountered and indicate the depths at which samples were obtained.
1606
DOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qdaf)
Stiff, damp to moist, dark grayish brown to dark brown, Sandy CLAY; trace roots
Very stiff, moist, dark brown, Fat CLAY
-Gravel and cobble up to 6-inches in diameter; subangular to subrounded SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
Very stiff to hard, moist, olive gray, fine-grained Sandy CLAYSTONE; moderately indurated, mottled orange
Medium dense, moist, yellowish brown, Clayey SANDSTONE; moderately weathered, abundant shells and calcium carbonate, oxidized contact with above unit
Hard, moist, olive to olive gray, SILTSTONE; abundant fractures with sand and gypsum infill
Hard, moist, light reddish gray, CLAYSTONE; abundant fractures with gypsum infill
Hard, moist, olive, fine-grained Sandy SILTSTONE; abundant fractures with oxidized sand infill and gypsum
-Becomes gray
Very dense, moist, yellowish brown, Clayey, fine-grained SANDSTONE; moderately cemented, calcium carbonate staining
Very stiff, moist, brown to dark brown, CLAYSTONE; abundant fractures with yellow sand infill and gypsum, oxidized sand fractures 108.4
111.7
104.8
22.5 19.8
20.6 LB1-1
LB1-2
LB1-3
LB1-4
LB1-5
PUSH
1 3
3 2
CL
CH
CL
SC
ML
CL
ML
SC
CL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 Figure A-1,
Log of Boring LB 1, Page 1 of 2
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE 140
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
BORING LB 1
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GROUNDWATER K. HAASE
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 07/01/2024
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MOISTURE
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.) 539'
G3355-42-01 BORING.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G3355-42-01
1607
Very dense, moist, light grayish brown, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; yellow mottling, some gypsum filled fractures
Very stiff to hard, moist to wet, brown, CLAYSTONE; abundant fractures with yellow oxidation and gypsum, seepage along fractures, fissured with waxy parting surfaces
Hard, moist to wet, olive, SILTSTONE; well cemented, abundant fracturing -Abundant yellow oxidation and gypsum filled fractures
-Becomes gray
-Becomes light olive
Igneous Rock (Metavolcanic and Metasedimentary Rock; Mzu):
Weak, highly weathered, brown, METAVOLCANIC ROCK
BORING TERMINATED AT 56 FEET
Seepage encountered below 35 feet
Caving not encountered
105.6 20.0LB1-6
LB1-7
LB1-8
LB1-9
LB1-10
LB1-11
6 5
5 8
8 8
SM
CL
ML
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
30 32
34 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 52
54 56
Figure A-1,
Log of Boring LB 1, Page 2 of 2
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE 140
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
BORING LB 1
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GROUNDWATER K. HAASE
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 07/01/2024
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MOISTURE
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.) 539'
G3355-42-01 BORING.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G3355-42-01
1608
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
Dense to very dense, moist, light grayish brown, Silty, fine-grained
SANDSTONE
Very dense, moist, brown to olive brown, Clayey, fine-grained SANDSTONE Very stiff to hard, moist, olive, CLAYSTONE; abundant high angle fractures with yellow oxidized infill and gypsum infill
-Abrupt contact
Stiff, moist, yellowish brown, Sandy CLAYSTONE; abundant calcium and shells; moderately indurated
Firm to stiff, moist. olive, Sandy SILTSTONE; with reddish brown mottling -Becomes grayish brown; abundant fractures; laminated
Firm, moist to wet, yellowish brown, CLAYSTONE; seepage Hard, moist to wet, grayish brown, SILTSTONE; abundant oxidized fractures At 23.75 feet: 1/2" to 1" thick olive, CLAYSTONE; fissured, no apparent remolding, continuous around hole (Bearing 325º,<50º DDD) Hard, moist to wet, brown, CLAYSTONE; abundant fractures with oxidized infill and gypsum infill; seepage intensifies below
LB2-1
LB2-2
LB2-3
LB2-4
LB2-5
4 3
1 2
3 SM
SC
CL
CL
ML
CL
ML
CL
CL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 Figure A-2,
Log of Boring LB 2, Page 1 of 2
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE 140
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
BORING LB 2
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GROUNDWATER K. HAASE
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 07/01/2024
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MOISTURE
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.) 539'
G3355-42-01 BORING.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G3355-42-01
1609
Hard, moist to wet, brown, CLAYSTONE; abundant fractures with yellow oxidized and gypsum infill
Hard, moist to wet, bluish gray, SILTSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 41 FEET
Seepage encountered below 21 feet
Caving not encountered
LB2-6
LB2-7
LB2-8
8 8
10 CL
CL
ML
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
30 32
34 36
38 40
Figure A-2,
Log of Boring LB 2, Page 2 of 2
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE 140
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
BORING LB 2
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GROUNDWATER K. HAASE
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 07/01/2024
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MOISTURE
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.) 539'
G3355-42-01 BORING.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G3355-42-01
1610
DOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qdaf)
Medium dense, moist, brown to dark brown, Clayey SAND; gravel and cobble up to 8-inches in diameter
Stiff, moist, brown, Sandy CLAY; some gravel
Very stiff, moist, dark brown, CLAY
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
Very stiff, moist, light olive, fine-grained Sandy CLAYSTONE; with silt; orange and yellow mottling; disturbed during grading
Hard, moist, olive brown, SILTSTONE
Abrupt contact
Stiff, moist, yellowish brown, Sandy CLAYSTONE; abundant calcium and shells
-Concretion
Hard, moist, olive to yellowish brown, fine-grained, Sandy CLAYSTONE; orange mottling; massive
Soft, damp, gray, CLAYSTONE; few parting surfaces with gypsum; no apparent remolding
Hard, moist, gray, SILTSTONE; abundant fractures with oxidized infill and gypsum
At 21.7 feet: 6-inch thick concretion
Very dense, moist, gray, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; orange mottling Stiff, moist, brown, SILTSTONE; abundant fractures with oxidized infill and gypsum
110.9
107.7
101.4
94.6 16.4
20.4 22.4
27.6 LB3-1
LB3-2
LB3-3
LB3-4
LB3-5
2 1
4 3
5 SC
CL
CH
CL
ML
CL
CL
CL
ML
SM
ML
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
28 Figure A-3,
Log of Boring LB 3, Page 1 of 2
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE 140
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
BORING LB 3
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GROUNDWATER K. HAASE
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 07/02/2024
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MOISTURE
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.) 538'
G3355-42-01 BORING.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G3355-42-01
1611
-Seepage below 30 feet
-Large fracture with gypsum; increase in seepage
-Becomes light gray; weathered
Medium dense, moist, light olive, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE; yellow mottling
Hard, moist to wet, brown to olive, SILTSTONE
Hard, moist to wet, olive, CLAYSTONE; abundant fractures with orange mottling and gypsum; low and high angle fractures, weakly fissured; few pockets of soft clay
Hard, wet (heavy seepage), gray to yellowish brown mottled, CLAYSTONE; moderately to highly fissured with numerous polished and striated parting surfaces; some soft clay
Hard, moist to wet, gray, SILTSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 51 FEET
Seepage encountered below 30 feet
Caving not encountered
LB3-6
LB3-7
LB3-8
LB3-11
LB3-9
LB3-10
5 6
6 6
5 ML
SM
ML
CL
ML
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
30 32
34 36
38 40
42 44
46 48
50 Figure A-3,
Log of Boring LB 3, Page 2 of 2
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE 140
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
BORING LB 3
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GROUNDWATER K. HAASE
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 07/02/2024
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MOISTURE
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.) 538'
G3355-42-01 BORING.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G3355-42-01
1612
DOCUMENTED ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qdaf)
Stiff, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
Very stiff, moist, grayish olive, Sandy CLAYSTONE
Very dense, moist, olive, Silty, fine-grained SANDSTONE Hard, moist, brown, CLAYSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 21 FEET
Seepage not encountered
Caving not encountered
LB4-1
LB4-2
LB4-3
LB4-4
LB4-5
LB4-6
LB4-7
1 3
2 1
2 3
CL
CL
SM
CL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 Figure A-4,
Log of Boring LB 4, Page 1 of 1
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
EZ BORE 140
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
BORING LB 4
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GROUNDWATER K. HAASE
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 07/02/2024
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MOISTURE
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.) 517'
G3355-42-01 BORING.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G3355-42-01
1613
UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf)
Firm to stiff, damp to moist, brown to olive brown, Sandy CLAY; blocky -Becomes less weathered, moist, lithic fragments of Santiago Formation -Gravel and cobble up to 5" in diameter (metavolcanic clasts) -Becomes very stiff, moist to wet, trace orange mottling, silty clay; trace cobble
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
Stiff to hard, moist, olive brown, Sandy CLAYSTONE; weakly to moderately indurated
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 10 FEET
Groundwater or seepage not encountered
Backfilled on 07/01/2024
T1-1
CL
CL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 10
Figure A-1,
Log of Trench T 1, Page 1 of 1
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
Backhoe Excavator
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
TRENCH T 1
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GROUNDWATER J. SHELTON
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 07/01/2024
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MOISTURE
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.) 540'
G3355-42-01 TRENCH.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G3355-42-01
1614
COLLUVIUM (Qcol)
Soft to stiff, damp, brown, Sandy, lean CLAY; some calcium carbonate, trace plant roots
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
Stiff to hard, damp to moist, light brown to orangish brown, Sandy CLAYSTONE; weakly to moderately indurated, some calcium carbonate, fissile, waxy in texture
-Becomes olive green, some gypsum infilled fractures, slightly polished TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
Groundwater or seepage not encountered
Backfilled on 07/01/2024
CL
CL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
Figure A-2,
Log of Trench T 2A, Page 1 of 1
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
Backhoe Excavator
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
TRENCH T 2A
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GROUNDWATER J. SHELTON
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 07/01/2024
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MOISTURE
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.) 503'
G3355-42-01 TRENCH.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G3355-42-01
1615
COLLUVIUM (Qcol)
Soft, damp, brown, Sandy, lean CLAY; some calcium carbonate; trace plant roots
-Becomes stiff
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 12 FEET
Groundwater or seepage not encountered
Backfilled on 07/01/2024
T2B-1
CL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 Figure A-3,
Log of Trench T 2B, Page 1 of 1
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
Backhoe Excavator
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
TRENCH T 2B
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GROUNDWATER J. SHELTON
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 07/01/2024
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MOISTURE
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.) 515'
G3355-42-01 TRENCH.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G3355-42-01
1616
COLLUVIUM (Qcol)
Soft, dry to damp, brown, Sandy, lean CLAY
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
Stiff to hard, damp, light olive brown, Sandy CLAYSTONE; weakly to moderately indurated, abundant calcium carbonate, fissile TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7.5 FEET
Groundwater or seepage not encountered
Backfilled on 07/01/2024
T3-1
CL
CL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
Figure A-4,
Log of Trench T 3, Page 1 of 1
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
Backhoe Excavator
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
TRENCH T 3
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GROUNDWATER J. SHELTON
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 07/01/2024
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MOISTURE
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.) 520'
G3355-42-01 TRENCH.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G3355-42-01
1617
COLLUVIUM (Qcol)
Soft, damp, brown, Sandy, lean CLAY; some calcium carbonate; some plant debris
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
Stiff to hard, damp, light brown to orangish brown, Sandy CLAYSTONE; weakly to moderately indurated; 4"-5" thick sea shell bed, abundant calcium carbonate
-Abundant gypsum infilled fractures
-Becomes olive green
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 10 FEET
Groundwater or seepage not encountered
Backfilled on 07/01/2024
CL
CL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 10
Figure A-5,
Log of Trench T 4, Page 1 of 1
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
Backhoe Excavator
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
TRENCH T 4
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GROUNDWATER J. SHELTON
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 07/01/2024
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MOISTURE
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.) 520
G3355-42-01 TRENCH.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G3355-42-01
1618
UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf)
Soft, dry to damp, brown, Sandy, lean CLAY
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
Stiff to hard, damp, brown to olive green, Sandy CLAYSTONE; weakly to moderately indurated, fissile, waxy
-Abundant sea shells
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9 FEET
Groundwater or seepage not encountered
Backfilled on 07/01/2024
T5-1
CL
CL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 Figure A-6,
Log of Trench T 5, Page 1 of 1
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
Backhoe Excavator
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
TRENCH T 5
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GROUNDWATER J. SHELTON
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 07/01/2024
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MOISTURE
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.) 541'
G3355-42-01 TRENCH.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G3355-42-01
1619
UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf)
Stiff, damp, brown, Sandy, lean CLAY
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
Stiff to hard, damp, olive green, Sandy CLAYSTONE; weakly to moderately indurated, fissile, waxy
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET
Groundwater or seepage not encountered
Backfilled on 07/01/2024
CL
CL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 Figure A-7,
Log of Trench T 6, Page 1 of 1
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
Backhoe Excavator
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
TRENCH T 6
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GROUNDWATER J. SHELTON
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 07/01/2024
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MOISTURE
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.) 539
G3355-42-01 TRENCH.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G3355-42-01
1620
COLLUVIUM (Qcol)
Soft, dry to damp, brown, Sandy, lean CLAY
-Some calcium carbonate
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
Stiff, damp, orange brown to olive green, Sandy CLAYSTONE; weakly indurated, abundant gypsum
-Waxy in appearance
-Becomes olive green
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 12 FEET
Groundwater or seepage not encountered
Backfilled on 07/01/2024
T7-1
T7-2
CL
CL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 Figure A-8,
Log of Trench T 7, Page 1 of 1
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
Backhoe Excavator
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
TRENCH T 7
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GROUNDWATER J. SHELTON
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 07/01/2024
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MOISTURE
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.) 498'
G3355-42-01 TRENCH.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G3355-42-01
1621
COLLUVIUM (Qcol)
Soft, dry to damp, brown, Sandy, lean CLAY; some calcium carbonate -Becomes dark brown
-Becomes mottled olive green and orange brown; some gravel (resembles crushed aggregate)
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
Stiff, damp, olive green to orange brown, Sandy CLAYSTONE; weakly indurated, some gypsum
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 16 FEET
Groundwater or seepage not encountered
Backfilled on 07/01/2024
CL
CL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 Figure A-9,
Log of Trench T 8, Page 1 of 1
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
Backhoe Excavator
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
TRENCH T 8
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GROUNDWATER J. SHELTON
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 07/01/2024
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MOISTURE
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.) 497'
G3355-42-01 TRENCH.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G3355-42-01
1622
COLLUVIUM (Qcol)
Soft, damp, brown to grayish brown, Sandy CLAY; porous with abundant caliche throughout
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa)
Stiff to hard, damp, gray to yellowish gray, interbedded CLAYSTONE and Silty CLAYSTONE; fissile with gypsum veins, along parting surfaces, some infilled fractures. few pockets of soft clay. no notable well developed remolded zone or parting surfaces but occasional weakly striated surfaces observed, highly weathered
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET
Groundwater or seepage not encountered
Backfilled on 07/01/2024
CL
CL
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 Figure A-10,
Log of Trench T 9, Page 1 of 1
DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
Backhoe Excavator
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
TRENCH T 9
... CHUNK SAMPLE
DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GROUNDWATER R. ADAMS
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 07/01/2024
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
MOISTURE
BY:EQUIPMENT
ELEV. (MSL.) 503'
G3355-42-01 TRENCH.GPJ
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:
PROJECT NO.
THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.
IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
G3355-42-01
1623
APPENDIX B
1624
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Geocon Project No. G3355-42-01 B- 1 - August 12, 2024
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected samples were tested for in-situ dry density and moisture content, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, direct shear, consolidation, expansion potential, grain size distribution, plasticity index, soluble sulfate content, chloride content, and pH resistivity. The results of our laboratory tests are presented in the following tables and graphs.
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND
OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-02
Sample No. Description Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
Optimum
Moisture
Content (% dry
wt.)
T1-1 Brown to olive brown, Sandy CLAY 113.6 17.0
T2B-1 Brown, Sandy, lean CLAY 109.2 16.4
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829-03
Sample No. Geologic Unit
Moisture Content
Dry Density
(pcf)
Expansion
Index
Expansion
ClassificationBefore Test
(%)
After Test
(%)
T1-1 Qdaf 13.6 31.4 97.5 121 High
T2B-1 Qcol 15.1 37.3 91.4 147 Very High
T5-1 Qcol 15.5 42.8 90.8 224 Very High
T7-1 Qcol 14.5 35.1 94.7 138 Very High
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No. Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) Sulfate Exposure
T1-1 0.053 S0
T2-1 0.070 S0
T5-1 0.057 S0
1625
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Geocon Project No. G3355-42-01 B- 2 - August 12, 2024
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE CHLORIDE ION CONTENT TEST RESULTS AASHTO TEST NO. T 291
Sample No. Chloride Ion Content ppm (%)
T1-1 0.026
T2-1 0.040
T5-1 0.071
1626
SAMPLE NO.: Qdaf
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):
PROJECT NO.: G3355-42-01
19.8%
INITIAL DRY DENSITY (PCF):
INITIAL WATER CONTENT (%):
SAMPLE SATURATED AT (KSF):
INITIAL SATURATION (%):
1.0 100+
CONSOLIDATION CURVE - ASTM D 2435
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
LB1-2
10 GEOLOGIC UNIT:
TEST INFORMATION
111.7
-2.0
0.0 2.0
4.0 6.0
8.0 10.0
0.10 1.00 10.00
VERTICAL STRAIN (%)
APPLIED PRESSURE (KSF)
1627
SAMPLE NO.: Qdaf
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):
LB3-1
5 GEOLOGIC UNIT:
TEST INFORMATION
110.9
PROJECT NO.: G3355-42-01
16.4%
INITIAL DRY DENSITY (PCF):
INITIAL WATER CONTENT (%):
SAMPLE SATURATED AT (KSF):
INITIAL SATURATION (%):
0.5 87.9%
CONSOLIDATION CURVE - ASTM D 2435
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
-2.0
0.0 2.0
4.0 6.0
8.0 10.0
0.10 1.00 10.00
VERTICAL STRAIN (%)
APPLIED PRESSURE (KSF)
1628
SAMPLE NO.: Qdaf
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):
LB4-2
5.5 GEOLOGIC UNIT:
TEST INFORMATION
102.7
PROJECT NO.: G3355-42-01
21.5%
INITIAL DRY DENSITY (PCF):
INITIAL WATER CONTENT (%):
SAMPLE SATURATED AT (KSF):
INITIAL SATURATION (%):
.5
92.7%
CONSOLIDATION CURVE - ASTM D 2435
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0.0 2.0
4.0 6.0
8.0 10.0
0.10 1.00 10.00
VERTICAL STRAIN (%)
APPLIED PRESSURE (KSF)
1629
SAMPLE NO.: Qdaf
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):
LB4-4
7.5 GEOLOGIC UNIT:
TEST INFORMATION
101.4
PROJECT NO.: G3355-42-01
22.8%
INITIAL DRY DENSITY (PCF):
INITIAL WATER CONTENT (%):
SAMPLE SATURATED AT (KSF):
INITIAL SATURATION (%):
1.0 95.1%
CONSOLIDATION CURVE - ASTM D 2435
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
-4.0
-2.0
0.0 2.0
4.0 6.0
8.0 10.0
0.10 1.00 10.00
VERTICAL STRAIN (%)
APPLIED PRESSURE (KSF)
1630
SAMPLE NO.: GEOLOGIC UNIT:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT): NATURAL/REMOLDED:
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE
1053.8 2261.4 4657.4 --
21.0 20.9 19.9 20.6
103.0 104.7 106.5 104.8
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE
23.6 23.5 22.6 23.2
1527 2077 3778 --
1014 1807 3430 --
770
33 400
33 FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)
NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
ACTUAL NORMAL STRESS (PSF):
WATER CONTENT (%):
ULTIMATE
RESULTS
PEAK
NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
WATER CONTENT (%):
PEAK SHEAR STRESS (PSF):
G3355-42-01
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
COHESION, C (PSF)
FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)
DIRECT SHEAR - AASHTO T-236
PROJECT NO.:
COHESION, C (PSF)
DRY DENSITY (PCF):
AFTER TEST CONDITIONS
LB1-5
ULT.-E.O.T. SHEAR STRESS (PSF):
INITIAL CONDITIONS
N
Tsa
25 0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (IN)
1 K 2 K 4 K
1 K PEAK 2 K PEAK 4 K PEAK
1 K ULTIMATE 2 K ULTIMATE 4 K ULTIMATE
4 K
2 K
1K
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
1631
SAMPLE NO.: GEOLOGIC UNIT:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT): NATURAL/REMOLDED:
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE
1053.8 2261.4 4657.4 --
20.9 20.4 18.8 20.0
105.1 104.9 106.7 105.6
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE
21.9 23.0 22.2 22.4
1720 2010 3121 --
1111 1874 3121 --
800
28 650
28 FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)
NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
ACTUAL NORMAL STRESS (PSF):
WATER CONTENT (%):
ULTIMATE
RESULTS
PEAK
NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
WATER CONTENT (%):
PEAK SHEAR STRESS (PSF):
G3355-42-01
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
COHESION, C (PSF)
FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)
DIRECT SHEAR - AASHTO T-236
PROJECT NO.:
COHESION, C (PSF)
DRY DENSITY (PCF):
AFTER TEST CONDITIONS
LB1-6
ULT.-E.O.T. SHEAR STRESS (PSF):
INITIAL CONDITIONS
N
Tsa
30 0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (IN)
1 K 2 K 4 K
1 K PEAK 2 K PEAK 4 K PEAK
1 K ULTIMATE 2 K ULTIMATE 4 K ULTIMATE
4 K
2 K
1K
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
1632
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE
1000 2000 4000 --
27.0 24.5 29.0 26.8
94.8 98.0 93.0 95.3
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE
28.8 27.1 30.6 28.8
1063 1794 3085 --
904 1589 1749 --
420
34 300
32 INITIAL CONDITIONS
FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)
ULTIMATE COHESION, C (PSF)
FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)
NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
ACTUAL NORMAL STRESS (PSF):
WATER CONTENT (%):
AFTER TEST CONDITIONS
Tsa
N
SAMPLE NO.:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):
LB1-7
35 GEOLOGIC UNIT:
NATURAL/REMOLDED:
DRY DENSITY (PCF):
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
G3355-42-01
AASHTO T-236
NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
WATER CONTENT (%):
PEAK SHEAR STRESS (PSF):
ULT.-E.O.T. SHEAR STRESS (PSF):
RESULTS
PEAK COHESION, C (PSF)
PROJECT NO.:
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (IN)
1 K 2 K 4 K
1 K PEAK 2 K PEAK 4 K PEAK
1 K ULTIMATE 2 K ULTIMATE 4 K ULTIMATE
4 K
2 K
1 K
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
1633
SAMPLE NO.: GEOLOGIC UNIT:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT): NATURAL/REMOLDED:
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE
1053.8 2261.4 4657.4 --
21.9 22.8 22.5 22.4
103.2 101.0 100.2 101.4
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE
24.3 25.4 25.5 25.0
1285 2174 3720 --
1024 2174 3614 --
600
34 450
34 COHESION, C (PSF)
DRY DENSITY (PCF):
AFTER TEST CONDITIONS
LB3-3
ULT.-E.O.T. SHEAR STRESS (PSF):
INITIAL CONDITIONS
N
Tsa
15 G3355-42-01
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
COHESION, C (PSF)
FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)
DIRECT SHEAR - AASHTO T-236
PROJECT NO.:
FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)
NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
ACTUAL NORMAL STRESS (PSF):
WATER CONTENT (%):
ULTIMATE
RESULTS
PEAK
NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
WATER CONTENT (%):
PEAK SHEAR STRESS (PSF):
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (IN)
1 K 2 K 4 K
1 K PEAK 2 K PEAK 4 K PEAK
1 K ULTIMATE 2 K ULTIMATE 4 K ULTIMATE
4 K
2 K
1K
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
1634
SAMPLE NO.: GEOLOGIC UNIT:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT): NATURAL/REMOLDED:
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE
1053.8 2261.4 4657.4 --
27.9 26.4 28.4 27.6
93.6 96.8 93.4 94.6
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE
29.6 28.2 31.1 29.7
1111 1923 2213 --
696 1913 2164 --
700
18 550
18 FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)
NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
ACTUAL NORMAL STRESS (PSF):
WATER CONTENT (%):
ULTIMATE
RESULTS
PEAK
NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
WATER CONTENT (%):
PEAK SHEAR STRESS (PSF):
G3355-42-01
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
COHESION, C (PSF)
FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)
DIRECT SHEAR - AASHTO T-236
PROJECT NO.:
COHESION, C (PSF)
DRY DENSITY (PCF):
AFTER TEST CONDITIONS
LB3-4
ULT.-E.O.T. SHEAR STRESS (PSF):
INITIAL CONDITIONS
N
Tsa
20 0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (IN)
1 K 2 K 4 K
1 K PEAK 2 K PEAK 4 K PEAK
1 K ULTIMATE 2 K ULTIMATE 4 K ULTIMATE
4 K
2 K
1K
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
1635
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE
1000 2000 4000 --
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE
712 1323 2129 --
712 1326 2110 --
300
25 300
25 INITIAL CONDITIONS
FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)
ULTIMATE COHESION, C (PSF)
FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)
NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
ACTUAL NORMAL STRESS (PSF):
WATER CONTENT (%):
AFTER TEST CONDITIONS
Tsa
R
SAMPLE NO.:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):
LB3-11
42.5-43.5
GEOLOGIC UNIT:
NATURAL/REMOLDED:
DRY DENSITY (PCF):
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
G3355-42-01
DIRECT SHEAR - AASHTO T-236 (FULLY SOFTENED)
NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
WATER CONTENT (%):
PEAK SHEAR STRESS (PSF):
ULT.-E.O.T. SHEAR STRESS (PSF):
RESULTS
PEAK COHESION, C (PSF)
PROJECT NO.:
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (IN)
1 K 2 K 4 K
1 K PEAK 2 K PEAK 4 K PEAK
1 K ULTIMATE 2 K ULTIMATE 4 K ULTIMATE
4 K
2 K
1 K
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
1636
Tsa
D10 (mm) D 30 (mm) D 60 (mm)
-- 0.00126 0.00529
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sandy, lean CLAY
TEST DATA
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
SIEVE ANALYSES - ASTM D 135 & D 422
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
PROJECT NO.:
Cc
--
Cu
--
G3355-42-01
GEOLOGIC UNIT:
42.5-43.5
LB3-11SAMPLE NO.:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT.):
3"
2"
1½"
1 ¾"
½"
⅜"
#4
#8
#10
#16
#20
#30
#40
#50
#60
#80
#100
#200
0.0 10.0
20.0 30.0
40.0 50.0
60.0 70.0
80.0 90.0
100.0
0.0010.010.1110100
PERCENT PASSING
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
SILT OR CLAYGRAVEL SAND
COARSEFINECOARSE MEDIUM FINE
1637
SAMPLE NO. GEOLOGIC UNIT LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC
LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SOIL TYPE
LB3-11 Tsa 57 29 28 CH
#NUM! #DIV/0! #NUM! #NUM!
#NUM! #DIV/0! #NUM! #NUM!
#NUM! #DIV/0! #NUM! #NUM!
#NUM! #DIV/0! #NUM! #NUM!
PLASTICITY INDEX - ASTM D 4318
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
PROJECT NO.: G3355-42-01
TEST RESULTS
SOIL TYPE DESCRIPTION
CH
CL
ML
ML-OL
MH-OH High-Plasticity Silt to High-Plasticity, Organic Silt CL-ML
High-Plasticity Clay
Low-Plasticity Clay
Low-Plasticity Silt
Low-Plasticity Clay to Low-Plasticity Silt
Low-Plasticity Silt to Low-Plasticity, Organic Silt
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0
PLASTICITY INDEX
LIQUID LIMIT
LB3-11
CH
MH-OH
ML-OL
CL
ML
CL-ML
HIGH PLASTICITY
LOW PLASTICITY
1638
APPENDIX C
1639
APPENDIX C
BORING LOGS AND LABORATORY TESTING
NOVA ENGINEERING (2016),
GHOSTRIDER INCORPORATED (2020),
AND CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING (2022)
FOR
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
2972 SOUTH SANTA FE AVENUE
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. G3355-42-01
1640
Appendix A
Subsurface Explorations
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
Appendix B
Laboratory Test Results
1659
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
29 72-2982 S. SANTA FE AVENUE
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA LAB SUMMARY
BY: DBA DATE: DEC 2022 REPORT NO.:2220399.01 FIGURE NO.: B-1 E n g i n e e r i n g
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with th e generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. Brief descriptions of the tests performed are presented below:
a) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A.
b) MOISTURE-DENSITY: MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for a selected soil sample in accordance with ATM D 1188 and D 2937. The results are summarized in the subsurface exploration logs presented in Appendix A.
c) DIRECT SHEAR: a direct shear test was performed on selected samples of the on-site soils in accordance with ASTM D3080.
d) EXPANSION INDEX TEST: Expansion index tests were performed on selected remolded soil samples in accordance with ASTM D 4829.
e) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION: The grain size distribution of selected samples was determined in accordance with ASTM C136 and/or ASTM D422.
f) ATTERBERG LIMITS: The Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plastic Index of selected soil samples were determined in accordance with ASTM D424.
g) SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT: The soluble sulfate content of selected soil samples was determined in accordance with California Test Methods 417.
h) CONSOLIDATION TEST: Consolidation tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples in accordance with ASTM D 2435.
1660
CWE 2220399.01 December 2, 2022 Appendix B-2
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
2972-2982 SOUTH SANTA FE AVENUE
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D1557) S
ample Location Boring B-2 @ 0-5’ Trench T-4@ 0-3½’ Trench T-4 @ 3½’-6’ Sample Description Brown Silty Clay (CH) Grayish-Brown Silty Clay (CL) Light Brown Silty Clay (CH) Maximum Density 108.5 pcf 116.8 pcf 108.6 pcf
Optimum Moisture 15.2 %
13.5 %
15.6 %
DIRECT SHEAR (ASTM D3080)
S
ample Location Boring B-2 @ 0’-5’ Boring B-4 @ 5½’ Trench T-4@ 0-3½’ Sa
mple Type Remolded to 90% Undisturbed Remolded to 90%
Friction Angle
Cohesion
14°
400 psf
20°
800 psf
18°
400 psf
EXPANSION INDEX TESTS (ASTM D4829)
Sample Location Boring B-2 @ 0’-5’ Trench T-4@ 0-3½’ Trench T-4 @ 3½’-6’ Initial Moisture 15.8 % 13.0 % 15.2 % Initial Dry Density 91.4 pcf 100.5 pcf 94.5 pcf Final Moisture 38.7 % 29.9 % 35.4 % Expansion Index 158 (Very High) 116 (High) 139 (Very High)
G
RAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (ASTM D422)
S
ample Location Boring B-2 @ 0-5’ Trench T-4@ 0-3½’ Trench T-4@ 3½’-6’ Sieve Size Percent Passing Percentage Passing Percentage Passing 1½” 100
1” 100 96
¾”
99 95
½” 99 94
⅜” 98 93
#4 96 89
#8
100 86 100
#16 99 83 99
#30 99 79 99
#50 97 75 98
#1
00 94 69 97
#200 86 61 93
0.05 mm 82 60
0.005 mm 63 38
0.001 mm 55 28
1661
CWE 2220399.01 December 2, 2022 Plate No. B-3
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS (CONT.)
A
TTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D424)
Sample Location Boring B-2 @ 0-5’ Trench T-4@ 3½’ -6’ Liq
uid Limit 66 59
Plastic Limit 25 24
Plasticity Index 41 (CH) 35 (CH)
S
OLUBLE SULFATES (CALIFORNIA TEST 417)
Sample Location Boring B-2 @ 0-5’ Trench T-4@ 0-3½’ Trench T-4@ 3½’ -6’ Soluble Sulfate 0.022 % (SO 4) 0 .045 % (SO4) 0 .048 % (SO4)
1662
CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D2435
Inundated
0 2
4 6
8 10
1 2
14 16
18 20
0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation (%)
Normal Stress (ksf)
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
29 72-2982 SOUTH SANTA FE AVENUE B-5 @ 5½'
BY: DBA DATE: DEC 2022 REPORT NO.:2220399.01 PLATE NO.: B-3 E n g i n e e r i n g
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
1663
CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D2435
Inundated
0 2
4 6
8 10
1 2
14 16
18 20
0.1 1 10 100
Consolidation (%)
Normal Stress (ksf)
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
29 72-2982 SOUTH SANTA FE AVENUE B-5 @ 9½'
BY: DBA DATE: DEC 2022 REPORT NO.:2220399.01 PLATE NO.: B-4 E n g i n e e r i n g
CHRISTIAN WHEELER
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation June 8, 2016
San Marcos Bosstick Development NOVA Project 2016428
34 APPENDIX B
LOGS OF BORINGS BY NOVA
1688
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
CL
13 12
24 14
22 FILL: LIGHT BROWN; FIRM; MOIST; SILTY CLAY WITH SOME
SAND (CL)
BROWN/GRAY WITH ORANGE/TAN MIX; NO SAND
AT 6.0 FT BECOMES BROWN
BECOMES OLIVE-GRAY, RED-BROWN AND BROWN
BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER
ENCOUNTERED, NO CAVING.
Nova Services
BORING LOG
BORING NO.: B-1
PROJECT: BOSSTICK SAN MARCOS PROJECT NO.: 2016428
BORING LOCATION: ELEVATION AND DATUM: feet ± (MSL)
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CAL PAC DRILLING DATE STARTED: 5/2/2016 DATE FINISHED: 5/2/2016 DRILLING METHOD: 8" DIAMETER HOLLOW STEM AUGER TOTAL BORING DEPTH: 21.5 feet DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-61 DEPTH TO WATER START: NA FINISH: NA SAMPLING METHOD: MOD CAL, SPT LOGGED BY: HE
HAMMER WT.: 140 LBS DROP: 30 INCH REVIEWED BY: WM
SAMPLER KEY: BULK SPT MOD. CAL. NO RECOVERY
ELEVATION (MSL)
DEPTH (FT.)
SOIL
STRATIGRAPHY
USCS
CLASSIFICATION
SAMPLER TYPE
BLOWS/FT.
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
WATER
CONTENT (%)
LAB TESTS
PAGE 1 OF 1
1689
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
CL
49 18
38 39
23 FILL: LIGHT BROWN-BROWN AND GRAY MIX; FIRM TO STIFF; VERY MOIST; SILTY CLAY (CL)
ROCK DISTURBED BLOWCOUNTS
BECOMES VERY MOIST
SOME GRAVEL SIZE ROCK
OCCASIONAL GRAVEL SIZE ROCK
BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER
ENCOUNTERED, NO CAVING.
Nova Services
BORING LOG
BORING NO.: B-2
PROJECT: BOSSTICK SAN MARCOS PROJECT NO.: 2016428
BORING LOCATION: ELEVATION AND DATUM: feet ± (MSL)
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CAL PAC DRILLING DATE STARTED: 5/2/2016 DATE FINISHED: 5/2/2016 DRILLING METHOD: 8" DIAMETER HOLLOW STEM AUGER TOTAL BORING DEPTH: 21.5 feet DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-61 DEPTH TO WATER START: NA FINISH: NA SAMPLING METHOD: MOD CAL, SPT LOGGED BY: HE
HAMMER WT.: 140 LBS DROP: 30 INCH REVIEWED BY: WM
SAMPLER KEY: BULK SPT MOD. CAL. NO RECOVERY
ELEVATION (MSL)
DEPTH (FT.)
SOIL
STRATIGRAPHY
USCS
CLASSIFICATION
SAMPLER TYPE
BLOWS/FT.
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
WATER
CONTENT (%)
LAB TESTS
PAGE 1 OF 1
1690
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
500
490
480
CL
20 19
11 11
14 FILL: LIGHT BROWN/GRAY/REDDISH BROWN; STIFF; VERY
MOIST; SILTY CLAY (CL)
BECOMES WET
BECOMES OLIVE GRAY
BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER
ENCOUNTERED, NO CAVING.
Nova Services
BORING LOG
BORING NO.: B-3
PROJECT: BOSSTICK SAN MARCOS PROJECT NO.: 2016428
BORING LOCATION: ELEVATION AND DATUM: 503 feet ± (MSL)
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CAL PAC DRILLING DATE STARTED: 5/2/2016 DATE FINISHED: 5/2/2016 DRILLING METHOD: 8" DIAMETER HOLLOW STEM AUGER TOTAL BORING DEPTH: 21.5 feet DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-61 DEPTH TO WATER START: NA FINISH: NA SAMPLING METHOD: MOD CAL, SPT LOGGED BY: HE
HAMMER WT.: 140 LBS DROP: 30 INCH REVIEWED BY: WM
SAMPLER KEY: BULK SPT MOD. CAL. NO RECOVERY
ELEVATION (MSL)
DEPTH (FT.)
SOIL
STRATIGRAPHY
USCS
CLASSIFICATION
SAMPLER TYPE
BLOWS/FT.
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
WATER
CONTENT (%)
LAB TESTS
PAGE 1 OF 1
1691
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
CL
ML
CL
ML
20 9
20 14
35 FILL: LIGHT BROWN/GRAY/BROWN/OLIVE GRAY; STIFF; VERY MOIST; SILTY CLAY (CL)
LIGHT TAN; FIRM; MOIST; CLAYEY SILT (ML)
LIGHT BROWN/OLIVE GRAY/BROWN; STIFF; MOIST; SILTY
CLAY (CL)
LIGHT GRAY; VERY STIFF; MOIST; CLAYEY SILT (ML)
BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER
ENCOUNTERED, NO CAVING.
Nova Services
BORING LOG
BORING NO.: B-4
PROJECT: BOSSTICK SAN MARCOS PROJECT NO.: 2016428
BORING LOCATION: ELEVATION AND DATUM: feet ± (MSL)
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CAL PAC DRILLING DATE STARTED: 5/2/2016 DATE FINISHED: 5/2/2016 DRILLING METHOD: 8" DIAMETER HOLLOW STEM AUGER TOTAL BORING DEPTH: 21.5 feet DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-61 DEPTH TO WATER START: NA FINISH: NA SAMPLING METHOD: MOD CAL, SPT LOGGED BY: HE
HAMMER WT.: 140 LBS DROP: 30 INCH REVIEWED BY: WM
SAMPLER KEY: BULK SPT MOD. CAL. NO RECOVERY
ELEVATION (MSL)
DEPTH (FT.)
SOIL
STRATIGRAPHY
USCS
CLASSIFICATION
SAMPLER TYPE
BLOWS/FT.
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
WATER
CONTENT (%)
LAB TESTS
PAGE 1 OF 1
1692
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
CL
12 FILL: LIGHT BROWN-BROWN AND GRAY AND ORANGE MIX;
FIRM; MOIST; SILTY CLAY (CL)
BORING TERMINATED AT 5.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER
ENCOUNTERED, NO CAVING.
Nova Services
BORING LOG
BORING NO.: P-1
PROJECT: BOSSTICK SAN MARCOS PROJECT NO.: 2016428
BORING LOCATION: ELEVATION AND DATUM: feet ± (MSL)
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CAL PAC DRILLING DATE STARTED: 5/2/2016 DATE FINISHED: 5/2/2016 DRILLING METHOD: 8" DIAMETER HOLLOW STEM AUGER TOTAL BORING DEPTH: 5.5 feet DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-61 DEPTH TO WATER START: NA FINISH: NA SAMPLING METHOD: MOD CAL, SPT LOGGED BY: HE
HAMMER WT.: 140 LBS DROP: 30 INCH REVIEWED BY: WM
SAMPLER KEY: BULK SPT MOD. CAL. NO RECOVERY
ELEVATION (MSL)
DEPTH (FT.)
SOIL
STRATIGRAPHY
USCS
CLASSIFICATION
SAMPLER TYPE
BLOWS/FT.
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
WATER
CONTENT (%)
LAB TESTS
PAGE 1 OF 1
1693
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
CL
31 FILL: LIGHT BROWN-BROWN, GRAY-REDDISH BROWN MIX;
STIFF TO VERY STIFF; VERY MOIST; SILTY CLAY (CL)
BORING TERMINATED AT 5.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER
ENCOUNTERED, NO CAVING.
Nova Services
BORING LOG
BORING NO.: P-2
PROJECT: BOSSTICK SAN MARCOS PROJECT NO.: 2016428
BORING LOCATION: ELEVATION AND DATUM: feet (MSL)
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CAL PAC DRILLING DATE STARTED: 5/2/2016 DATE FINISHED: 5/2/2016 DRILLING METHOD: 8" DIAMETER HOLLOW STEM AUGER TOTAL BORING DEPTH: 5.5 feet DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-61 DEPTH TO WATER START: NA FINISH: NA SAMPLING METHOD: MOD CAL, SPT LOGGED BY: HE
HAMMER WT.: 140 LBS DROP: 30 INCH REVIEWED BY: WM
SAMPLER KEY: BULK SPT MOD. CAL. NO RECOVERY
ELEVATION (MSL)
DEPTH (FT.)
SOIL
STRATIGRAPHY
USCS
CLASSIFICATION
SAMPLER TYPE
BLOWS/FT.
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
WATER
CONTENT (%)
LAB TESTS
PAGE 1 OF 1
1694
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
CL
21 FILL: LIGHT BROWN-BROWN AND GRAY TO OLIVE GRAY;
STIFF; VERY MOIST; SILTY CLAY (CL)
BORING TERMINATED AT 5.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER
ENCOUNTERED, NO CAVING.
Nova Services
BORING LOG
BORING NO.: P-3
PROJECT: BOSSTICK SAN MARCOS PROJECT NO.: 2016428
BORING LOCATION: ELEVATION AND DATUM: feet ± (MSL)
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CAL PAC DRILLING DATE STARTED: 5/2/2016 DATE FINISHED: 5/2/2016 DRILLING METHOD: 8" DIAMETER HOLLOW STEM AUGER TOTAL BORING DEPTH: 5.5 feet DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-61 DEPTH TO WATER START: NA FINISH: NA SAMPLING METHOD: MOD CAL, SPT LOGGED BY: HE
HAMMER WT.: 140 LBS DROP: 30 INCH REVIEWED BY: WM
SAMPLER KEY: BULK SPT MOD. CAL. NO RECOVERY
ELEVATION (MSL)
DEPTH (FT.)
SOIL
STRATIGRAPHY
USCS
CLASSIFICATION
SAMPLER TYPE
BLOWS/FT.
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
WATER
CONTENT (%)
LAB TESTS
PAGE 1 OF 1
1695
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 26
CL
SC/CL
50/5"
15 FILL: LIGHT BROWN-BROWN AND OLIVE GRAY-GRAY MIX;
STIFF; MOIST; SILTY CLAY (CL)
BECOMES LIGHT BROWN; MOIST; SILTY TO CLAYEY SAND (SL)
BORING TERMINATED AT 7.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER
ENCOUNTERED, NO CAVING.
Nova Services
BORING LOG
BORING NO.: P-4
PROJECT: BOSSTICK SAN MARCOS PROJECT NO.: 2016428
BORING LOCATION: ELEVATION AND DATUM: feet ± (MSL)
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CAL PAC DRILLING DATE STARTED: 5/2/2016 DATE FINISHED: 5/2/2016 DRILLING METHOD: 8" DIAMETER HOLLOW STEM AUGER TOTAL BORING DEPTH: 7.5 feet DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-61 DEPTH TO WATER START: NA FINISH: NA SAMPLING METHOD: MOD CAL, SPT LOGGED BY: HE
HAMMER WT.: 140 LBS DROP: 30 INCH REVIEWED BY: WM
SAMPLER KEY: BULK SPT MOD. CAL. NO RECOVERY
ELEVATION (MSL)
DEPTH (FT.)
SOIL
STRATIGRAPHY
USCS
CLASSIFICATION
SAMPLER TYPE
BLOWS/FT.
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
WATER
CONTENT (%)
LAB TESTS
PAGE 1 OF 1
1696
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation June 8, 2016
San Marcos Bosstick Development NOVA Project 2016428
36 APPENDIX D
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL TESTING BY NOVA
1697
Expansion Index Expansion Potential
0 - 20 Very Low
21 - 50 Low
51 - 90 Medium
91 - 130 High
131 and above Very High
BOSSTICK GEO
BOSSTICK AVE
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE PROJECT NO.
EXPANSION INDEX
FIGURE
B-109/14 2016428
B 2-B3 1' - 5' 11.5 105.0 21.5 0.075 66 Medium
SAMPLE
LOCATION
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft)
INITIAL
MOISTURE
(%)
COMPACTED DRY
DENSITY (pcf)
FINAL
MOISTURE
(%)
VOLUMETRIC
SWELL
(inch)
EXPANSION
INDEX
EXPANSION
POTENTIAL
1698
Sulfate Content Chloride Content
(ppm) (%) (ppm) (%)
BOSSTICK AVENUE
BOSSTICK AVENUE
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE PROJECT NO.
2016428
FIGURE
B-205/16
CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS
64 0.006420 0.1591590
Resistivity
(Ohm-cm)
Sample
Location
Sample
Depth (ft) pH
B-2&B-3 1.0'-5.0' 7.1
1699
NP - INDICATES NON-PLASTIC
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4318
Bosstick Geo.
Bosstick Ave.
San Marcos, CA
DATE PROJECT NO.
2016428
SYMBOL
4/11/2016
ATTERBERG LIMIT TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE
DEPTH (FT)
1-5'
PLASTIC
LIMIT, PL
FIGURE
B-3
USCS
(Entire Sample)
CL23
USCS
(% Finer than No. 40)
CL20
SAMPLE
LOCATION
B2 & B3
LIQUID
LIMIT, LL
43 PLASTICITY
INDEX, PI
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LIQUID LIMIT, LL
PLASTICITY INDEX, PI
LIQUID LIMIT, LL
PLASTICITY INDEX, PI
ML or OL
MH or OH
CH or OH
CL or OL
CL-ML
1700
Moisture-Density RINGS 6181,6182,6183,6184,6186,6188
1 Project No.: Technician: JA Date: 05/16
Lab No. 6181 6182 6183 6184 6186 6188
B-1 B-1 B-2 B-2 B-3 B-4
2.5' 6.0' 2.5' 6.0' 2.5' 2.5'
Top
Bottom
943 748.3 815.3 975.1 939.4 962.6
5 4 4 5 5 5
820.4 638.1 754.0 890.5 826.2 833.3
214.1 169.6 168.8 210.6 218.7 213.8
728.9 578.7 646.5 764.5 720.7 748.8
606.3 468.5 585.2 679.9 607.5 619.5
122.8 121.8 136.1 128.8 121.4 126.1
20.2 23.5 10.5 12.4 18.6 20.9
102.1 98.6 123.2 114.5 102.3 104.3
86.5 92.1 81.2 74.2 80.1 94.5
RESULTS
Wet Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Degree of Saturation (%)
Remarks
Wt. of Dry Soil (No Rings)
Notes:
GRAYISH/
OLIVE SILTY
CLAY
OLIVE
CLAYEY SILT
OLIVE SILTY
CLAY
W/GRAVEL
DARK GRAY
OLIVE CLAYEY
SILT
W/GRAVEL
OLIVE CLAYEY
SILT
OLIVE
CLAYEY SILT
Sample Depth (ft)
Visual Soil
Classification
Torvane Shear (tsf)
Pocket Penetrometer (tsf)
WEIGHTS
Weight of Moist Soil + Rings (g)
Number of Rings
Weight of Dry Soil + Rings (g)
Weight of All Rings (g)
Wt. of Moist Soil (No Rings)
Sample Location
MOISTURE - DENSITY TEST DATA
(ASTM D 2937)
Page No.
Project Name: BOSSTICK 2016428
1701
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
BOSSTICK
BOSSTICK BLVD
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE PROJECT NO.
2016428
FIGURE
B-45/9/2016
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
B-2 & B-3
1.0' - 5.0'
CL
43 GRAVEL SAND
SILT OR CLAY
Fine Coarse MediumFineCoarse
0.0 10.0
20.0 30.0
40.0 50.0
60.0 70.0
80.0 90.0
100.0
0.0010.010.1110100
Percent Passing
Grain Size (mm)
1.5 1
3/4
1/2
3/8
Size (Inches) U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis No. 8
No. 16
No. 30
No. 100
No. 200
No. 4
No. 50
1702
APPENDIX D
1703
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Geocon Project No. G3355-42-01 D- 1 - August 12, 2024
APPENDIX D
SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION
General
Slope stability analyses were performed on Cross-Sections A-A' and B-B' shown on Figures 1 and 2. The slope stability analyzes utilized the information on the preliminary grading study plans provided by PLSA with respect to proposed site conditions. Slope stability was evaluated for the proposed fill/cut slopes located in the south-central portion of the site and existing slopes and retaining wall located along the northeast and northwest perimeters of the site. Slope geometry, geologic structure, and calculated factors of safety for each cross section analyzed are presented on the figures in this Appendix.
The computer program, Slope/W from GeoSlope 2018, distributed by Geo-Slope International, was utilized to perform slope stability analyses. This program uses conventional slope stability equations and a two-dimensional limit-equilibrium method to calculate the factor of safety against deep-seated failure. For our analyses, the Morgenstern-Price method with circular failure mode was utilized.
The computer program searches for the most critical failure surface based on geometry and soil strength parameters. The computer program searches for the critical failure surface based on input parameters. The critical failure surface for each analysis is shown on computer generated output directly above the failure surface (which is shown as the hatched area on the figure).
Shear Strength Parameters
Shear strength parameters used in the analyses are based on laboratory direct shear testing performed for our investigation, and our experience with similar soil conditions. The results of the laboratory direct shear testing are presented in Appendix B.
Shear strength values used in our analyses are shown in the table below. The shear strength values are also shown in stability output figures.
1704
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Geocon Project No. G3355-42-01 D- 2 - August 12, 2024
SHEAR STRENGTH USED IN SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
Soil Type Angle of Internal
Friction (degrees) Cohesion (psf)
Qcf (Compacted Fill) 25 250
Tsa (Santiago Formation) 25 320
Summary of Stability Analyses
The table below summarizes the stability analyses performed for this study. The calculated factor-of- safety for proposed and existing slopes is included on the table.
SUMMARY OF STABILITY ANALYSES
Cross
Section Location Condition of Slope Stability Analysis Calculated Factor of Safety
A-A' South-Central Proposed slope, 2:1 cut/fill slope, circular- mode analysis, static condition 1.94
B-B' Northeast Perimeter Existing slope, 2:1 fill slope, circular-mode analysis, static condition 1.83
B-B' Northwest Perimeter
Existing slope and approximately 10-foot
retaining wall (point load corresponding to
an equivalent fluid pressure of 35H psf
applied), 2:1 cut slope, circular-mode
analysis, static conditions
1.57 Surficial Slope Stability Analysis
We evaluated surficial slope stability of proposed and existing slopes with inclinations as steep as 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and the results indicate a calculated factor of safety of at least 1.5 under static conditions. The surficial slope stability analysis for the existing and proposed sloping conditions is summarized in the following table.
1705
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Geocon Project No. G3355-42-01 D- 3 - August 12, 2024
SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION
Parameter Value
Slope Height, H ∞
Vertical Depth of Saturation, Z (feet) 3
Slope Inclination, I (Horizontal to Vertical) 2:1
Total Soil Unit Weight, γ (pcf) 130
Water Unit Weight, γW (pcf) 62.4
Friction Angle,Degrees) 25
Cohesion, C (psf) 250
Factor of Safety = (C+(γ+γW )Zcos2I tan)/(γZsinI cosI) 2.1 1706
1.94 Distance (ft)
140 180 220 260 300 340 380 420 460 500
Elevation (ft, MSL)
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
Elevation (ft, MSL)
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi' (°)
Qcf 125 250 25
Tsa 130 320 25
San Marcos Residences
Project No. G3355-42-01
Cross Section: A-A'
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Qcf
Qcf
Qcf
A A'
Proposed Grade
Existing Grade
1707
1.83 Distance (ft)
260 280 300 320 340 360 380
Elevation (ft, MSL)
520
540
560
580
Elevation (ft, MSL)
520
540
560
580
Color Name Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi'
(°)
Qcf 125 250 25
Tsa 130 320 25
San Marcos Residences
Project No. G3355-42-01
Cross Section: B-B' (Northeast Slope)
Tsa Tsa
BB '
Existing Grade
Proposed Grade
PL Qcf
1708
1.57 Distance (ft)
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Elevation (ft, MSL)
480
500
520
540
560
580
Elevation (ft, MSL)
480
500
520
540
560
580
Color Name Unit Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi' (°)
Tsa 130 320 25
San Marcos Residences
Project No. G3355-42-01
Cross Section: B-B' (Northwest Slope)
Tsa
Tsa
B B'
Existing Grade
Proposed Grade
PL
Existing Retaining Wall
Assumed Equiv. Fluid Pressure = 35H psf
1709
APPENDIX E
1710
APPENDIX E
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
2972 SOUTH SANTA FE AVENUE
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. G3355-42-01
1711
GI rev. 07/2015
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. GENERAL
1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon. The recommendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict.
1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, and/or adverse weather result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed.
2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topography.
1712
GI rev. 07/2015
2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications.
2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading.
2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply.
3. MATERIALS
3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as defined below.
3.1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than ¾ inch in size.
3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches.
3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than ¾ inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity. 1713
GI rev. 07/2015
3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills.
3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes.
This procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant.
3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.
3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition.
4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1½ inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials.
1714
GI rev. 07/2015
4.2 Asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility or in an acceptable area of the project evaluated by Geocon and the property owner. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document.
4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration.
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
Remove All
Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By
Consultant
Finish Grade Original Ground
Finish Slope Surface
Slope To Be Such That
Sloughing Or Sliding
Does Not Occur Varies
“B”
See Note 1
No Scale
See Note 2
1 2
DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant.
1715
GI rev. 07/2015
4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6 of these specifications.
5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content.
5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.
6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:
6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.
6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557.
6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified.
6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified.
1716
GI rev. 07/2015
6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.
Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill.
6.1.6 Where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material.
6.1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice.
6.2 Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:
6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.
6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in 1717
GI rev. 07/2015
maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment.
6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant.
6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow.
6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant.
6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:
6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water.
6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the 1718
GI rev. 07/2015
rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.
6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required minimum number of passes of the compaction equipment. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two.
6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to observe that the minimum number of “passes” have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading.
6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills.
6.3.6 To reduce the potential for “piping” of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock 1719
GI rev. 07/2015
should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement.
6.3.7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the Consultant.
7. SUBDRAINS
7.1 The geologic units on the site may have permeability characteristics and/or fracture systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to seepage. The use of canyon subdrains may be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts associated with seepage conditions. Canyon subdrains with lengths in excess of 500 feet or extensions of existing offsite subdrains should use 8-inch-diameter pipes. Canyon subdrains less than 500 feet in length should use 6-inch-diameter pipes.
1720
GI rev. 07/2015
TYPICAL CANYON DRAIN DETAIL
7.2 Slope drains within stability fill keyways should use 4-inch-diameter (or lager) pipes. 1721
GI rev. 07/2015
TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL
7.3 The actual subdrain locations will be evaluated in the field during the remedial grading operations. Additional drains may be necessary depending on the conditions observed and the requirements of the local regulatory agencies. Appropriate subdrain outlets should be evaluated prior to finalizing 40-scale grading plans.
7.4 Rock fill or soil-rock fill areas may require subdrains along their down-slope perimeters to mitigate the potential for buildup of water from construction or landscape irrigation. The subdrains should be at least 6-inch-diameter pipes encapsulated in gravel and filter fabric.
Rock fill drains should be constructed using the same requirements as canyon subdrains. 1722
GI rev. 07/2015
7.5 Prior to outletting, the final 20-foot segment of a subdrain that will not be extended during future development should consist of non-perforated drainpipe. At the non- perforated/ perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the downslope side of the pipe.
TYPICAL CUT OFF WALL DETAIL
7.6 Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be provided with a permanent headwall structure.
1723
GI rev. 07/2015
TYPICAL HEADWALL DETAIL
7.7 The final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. After completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer should survey the drain locations and prepare an “as-built” map showing the drain locations. The final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading operations. Subdrains that will be extended on adjacent projects after grading can be placed on formational material and a vertical riser should be placed at the end of the subdrain. The grading contractor should consider videoing the subdrains shortly after 1724
GI rev. 07/2015
burial to check proper installation and functionality. The contractor is responsible for the performance of the drains.
8. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
8.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner’s representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted.
8.2 The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved.
8.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied.
8.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading.
8.5 We should observe the placement of subdrains, to check that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.
8.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:
1725
GI rev. 07/2015
8.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:
8.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556, Density of Soil In-Place By the Sand-Cone Method.
8.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938, Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
8.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop.
8.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829, Expansion Index Test.
9. PROTECTION OF WORK
9.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
9.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant.
10. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
10.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
10.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in 1726
GI rev. 07/2015
geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications. 1727
San Marcos Residences
Geotechnical Investigation
Project No. G3355-42-01 August 12, 2024
LIST OF REFERENCES
CGS (2021a), EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application , online map that queries California Geological Survey mapped earthquake hazard zones, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp, accessed July 26, 2024; CGS (2021b), Tsunami Inundation Maps and Data, web application for accessing tsunami inundation hazard, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps, accessed July 26, 2024; Christian Wheeler Engineering (2022), Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, San Marcos Residences, 2972-2982 South Santa Fe Avenue, San Marcos, California, dated December 2,2022 (Project No. CWE 2220399.01);
FEMA (2019), Flood Map Service Center, FEMA website, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home, flood map number 06073C0787H, effective May 16, 2012, accessed August 9, 2024; Ghostrider Incorporated (2020), Limited Geotechnical Investigation, San Marcos Residences Project, 2972 South Santa Fe Avenue, San Marcos, California, dated July 1, 2020 (Project No. 19- 2118C);
Kennedy, M. P., and Tan, S. S., (2007), Geologic map of the Oceanside 30’ x 60’ quadrangle and adjacent areas, California Geological Survey, Map Scale: 1:100,000; Nova Engineering (2016), Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Bosstick San Marcos Development, San Marcos, San Diego County, California, revised date June 8, 2016 (Project No. 2016428); PLSA (2024), Pre-Application Exhibit, San Marco Residences, San Marcos, California, dated March 28, 2024 (PLSA Job No. 3527);
SEAOCC (2020), Seismic Design Maps, website interface that queries the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) web servers and retrieves the seismic design variables using ASCE 7-16, ASCE 7-10, ASCE 41- 13, ASCE 41-17, IBC 2015, IBC 2012, NEHRP-2015, and NEHRP 2009 seismic design map data, http://seismicmaps.org, accessed January 12, 2024;
USGS (2019), Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/faults, accessed July 26, 2024; 1728
APPENDIX B
1729
GROCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALSO
6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone 858.558.6900 • Fax 858.558.6159
Project No. G3355-42-01
October 17, 2024
Santa Fe Flores LP
P.O. Box 903
Ranch Santa Fe, California 92067
Attention: Mr. Paul Mayer
Subject: PERMANENT SHORING, MSE, AN D ANCHOR PLEX WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
SAN MARCOS RESIDENCES
2972 SOUTH SANTA FE AVENUE
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
References: 1. Geotechnical Investigation, San Marcos Residences, 2972 South Santa Fe Avenue, San Marcos, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated August 12, 2024 (Project No. G3355-42-01).
2. Retaining Wall Quantities Study [for San Marcos Residences, San Marcos, California], prepared by PLSA, dated October 3, 2024.
3. Retaining Wall Backfill Remedial Earthwork Study [for San Marcos Residences, San Marcos, California], prepared by PLSA, dated October 3, 2024.
Dear Mr. Mayer:
In accordance with your request, we have prepared this report to provide recommendations for permanent shoring walls, Mechanically Stabilized Ea rth (MSE) retaining walls, and Anchor Plex walls for the proposed project.
We understand the project will consist of the cons truction of seven townhome complexes and will include the construction of numerous retaining walls . Based on the referenced retaining wall studies, MSE wall heights will vary from approximately 3 feet to 18 feet, Anchor Plex Wall heights will be 3 feet to 6 feet, and the shoring wall heights will be 5 f eet to 16 feet. Recommendations for the walls are provided hereafter.
1730
San Marcos Residences
Shoring, MSE and Anchorplex Wall RecommendaƟons
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 2 - October 17, 2024
EXCAVATION SLOPES, PERMANENT SHORING AND TIEBACKS
Geocon Incorporated is not responsible for site safety and the stability of the proposed excavations. It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure all excavations, temporary slopes, and trenches are properly constructed and maintained in accordance with applicable OSHA guidelines in order to maintain safety and the stability of the excavations and adjacent improvements. These excavation sidewalls should not be allowed to become saturated or to dry out. Surc harge loads should not be permitted to a distance equal to the height of the excavation from the top of the excavation. The top of the excavation should be a minimum of 15 feet from the edge of existing improvements. Excavation walls steeper than those recommended or closer than 15 feet from an exis ting surface improvement should be shored in accordance with applicable OSHA codes and regulations.
The design of shoring is governed by soil and gr oundwater conditions, and by the depth and width of the excavated area. Continuous support of the excavation face can be provided by a system of soldier piles and facing consisting of wood lagging, shotcr ete, or other applicable techniques. Excavations exceeding 15 feet could require tieback anchors to provide additional wall support.
The condition of existing buildings, streets, sidewalks, and other structures and improvements around the perimeter of the planned excavation should be documented prior to the start of shoring and excavation work. Special attention should be given to documenting existing cracks or other indications of differential settlement within these adjacent areas. Settlement-sensitive underground utilities should be inspected and videotaped prior to construction to check the integrity of pipes. In addition, monitoring points should be esta blished indicating location and elevation around the excavation and on existing buildings. These points should be monitored on a weekly basis during excavation work and monthly thereafter. Inclinometers should be installed and monitored behind any shoring sections that will be advanced deeper than 30 feet below the existing ground surface.
In general, ground conditions are suited for so ldier pile and tieback anchor wall construction techniques; however, gravel, cobble, and cemented layers could be encountered that could be difficult to drill. Raveling could result along the unsupported portions of excavations if cohesionless sands are encountered.
Permanent shoring walls should be designed using the values presented in the following table.
Additional lateral earth pressure due to the surcharging effects from construction equipment, stockpiles, adjacent structures, and traffic should be considered, where appropriate, during design of the shoring system.
1731
San Marcos Residences
Shoring, MSE and Anchorplex Wall RecommendaƟons
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 3 - October 17, 2024
SUMMARY OF PERMANEMT SHORING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Value
Active Soil Pressure, A (Fluid Density, Level Ground) 45 pcf Active Soil Pressure, A (Fluid Density, 2:1 Sloping Backfill) 65 pcf Seismic Pressure, S 15H psf
At-Rest/Restrained Walls Additional Uniform Pressure (0 to 8 Feet High) 7H psf At-Rest/Restrained Walls Additional Uniform Pressure (8+ Feet High) 13H psf Passive Pressure, P 350D + 500 psf
Effective Zone Angle, E 32 degrees
Maximum Design Lateral Movement 1 Inch
Maximum Design Vertical Movement ½ Inch
Expected Expansion Index for the Subject Property EI> 90 H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall in feet D equals the embedment depth of the retaining wall in feet
Retaining Wall Loading Diagram
The passive resistance can be assumed to act over a width of three pile diameters. Typically, soldier piles are embedded a minimum of 0.5 times the maximum height of the excavation (this depth is to include footing excavations) if ti eback anchors are not employed. Th e project structural engineer should determine the actual embedment depth.
1732
San Marcos Residences
Shoring, MSE and Anchorplex Wall RecommendaƟons
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 4 - October 17, 2024
Passive Pressures on Shoring
Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall) at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top (at-rest condition), an additional uniform pressure should be applied to the wall. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads within a horizontal distance equal to two-thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of fill soil should be added to the upper 10 feet of the retaining wall.
The structural engineer should determine the Seis mic Design Category for th e project in accordance with Section 1613 of the 2022 CBC or Section 11.6 of ASCE 7-16. For structures assigned to Seismic Design Category of D, E, or F, retaining walls that support more than 6 feet of backfill should be designed with seismic lateral pressure in acco rdance with Section 1803.5. 12 of the 2022 CBC. The seismic load is dependent on the retained height where H is the height of the wall, in feet, and the calculated loads result in pounds per square foot (psf) exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall.
We should observe the drilled shafts for the soldier piles prior to the placement of concrete reinforcement to check that the exposed soil conditi ons are similar to those expected and that pile excavations have been extended to the appropriate design depths. If unexpected soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications could be required. 1733
San Marcos Residences
Shoring, MSE and Anchorplex Wall RecommendaƟons
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 5 - October 17, 2024
Earth pressures acting on a shoring wall could ca use movement of the shoring toward the excavation and result in ground subsidence outside of the excavation. It is e ssential that the soldier pile and tieback system allow very limited amounts of lateral displacement. Horizontal movement of the shoring wall should be accurately monitored and recorded during excavation and anchor construction.
Survey points should be established at the top of the pile on at least 20 percent of the soldier piles. An additional point located at an intermediate point between the top of the pile and the base of the excavation should be monitored on at least 20 percent of the piles if tieback anchors will be used.
These points should be monitored on a weekly ba sis during excavation work and monthly thereafter until the permanent support system is constructed.
The project civil engineer should provide the location, depth, and pipe type of the underground utilities to the shoring engineer to help select the shoring type and shoring design. The shoring system should be designed to limit horizontal soldier pile mo vement to a maximum of 1 inch. The amount of horizontal deflection can be assumed to be essentia lly zero along the Active Zone and Effective Zone boundary. The magnitude of movement for intermediate depths and distances from the shoring wall can be linearly interpolated.
Shoring walls greater than 15-feet high may need tieback anchors to mitigated excessive movement of the top of the exaction.
Tieback anchors should be designed, constructed, and tested in conformance with FHWA (1999) or PTI (2014). The testing method should be stated on the shoring plan.
Tieback anchors employed in shoring should be designed such that anchors fully penetrate the Active Zone behind the shoring. The Active Zone can be considered the wedge of soil from the face of the shoring to a plane extending upward from the base of the excavation as shown on the Active Zone Detail. Normally, tieback anchors are contractor -designed and installed, and there are numerous anchor construction methods available. Non-shrinkag e grout should be used for the construction of the tieback anchors.
1734
San Marcos Residences
Shoring, MSE and Anchorplex Wall RecommendaƟons
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 6 - October 17, 2024
Active Zone Detail
Post grouting of the bonded portion of the anchor will increase the soil-grout bond strength. A pressure grouting tube should be installed during the construction of the tieback.
Anchor capacity should be evaluated using the strength parameters shown in the following table.
SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR PERMANENT SHORING
Description Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle (Degrees)
Properly Compacted Fill (Qcf) 250 25
Documented Artificial Fill (Qdaf) 250 25
Colluvium (Qcol) 200 20
Santiago Formation (Tsa) 500 30
Lagging should keep pace with ex cavation. The excavation should no t be advanced deeper than five feet below the bottom of lagging at any time. These unlagged gaps should only be allowed to stand for short periods of time to decrease the probability of soil instability and should never be unsupported overnight. Proper backfilling between the back of lagging and excavation walls should be done to reduce lateral movement behind the supported excavation. The excavation should not have advanced further than four feet below a row of tiebacks prior to those tiebacks being tested and locked off. 1735
San Marcos Residences
Shoring, MSE and Anchorplex Wall RecommendaƟons
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 7 - October 17, 2024
The shoring system should incorpor ate a drainage system for the proposed retaining wall as shown herein.
Shoring Retaining Wall Drainage Detail
The project civil engineer should provide an accurate survey of existing utilities and other underground structures adjacent to the shoring wall should be conducted. The survey should include both locations and depths of existing utilities. Locations of anchors should be adjusted as necessary during the design and construction process to accommodate the existing and proposed utilities.
MSE AND ANCHOR PLEX WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
MSE retaining walls consist of modular block facing units with geogrid reinforced earth behind the block. The reinforcing grid attaches to the block units and is typically placed at specified vertical intervals and embedment lengths. The grid length and spacing will be determined by the wall design engineer.
Anchor Plex walls consist of reinforced modular bloc k facing units and a structural no-fines concrete backfill that attaches itself to the wall facing. The system eliminates the need for the construction of an MSE reinforced zone. The planned Anchor Plex wall is planned along the north perimeter of the site and will likely expose native Santiago Formation in the foundation and retained zones of the wall. 1736
San Marcos Residences
Shoring, MSE and Anchorplex Wall RecommendaƟons
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 8 - October 17, 2024
The geotechnical parameters listed in the table be low can be used for preliminary design of the MSE walls. These values assume soil utilized within the reinforced zones of the wall will be from import soils with an EI of less than 50. The foundation zone is the area where the footing is embedded, the reinforced zone is the area of wall reinforcing grid s and backfill, and the retained zone is the area behind the reinforced zone.
GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS FOR MSE WALLS
Parameter Reinforced Zone Retained Zone Foundation Zone Angle of Internal Friction 28 degrees* 25 degrees 25 degrees Cohesion 100 psf 100 psf 100 psf
Wet Unit Density 125 pcf 125 pcf 125 pcf
*Assumes Import Soil will be used for the reinforced zone.
The geotechnical parameters listed in the table below can be used for preliminary design of the Anchor Plex wall along the northern property line. These values assume soil utilized within the foundation and retained zones of the wall will be native Santiago Formation. The foundation zone is the area where the footing is embedded, and the retained zone is the area behind the wall.
GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS FOR ANCHOR PLEX WALL
Parameter Retained Zone Foundation Zone
Angle of Internal Friction 30 degrees 30 degrees
Cohesion 100 psf 100 psf
Wet Unit Density 130 pcf 130 pcf
Once the import source of the backfill for the MSE walls have been selected, laboratory tests should be performed on samples prior to importing to evaluate if the proposed import soil conforms to design values. Results of the laboratory tests should be provided to the wall designer to re-evaluate stability of the walls. Depending on the test results, the designer may require modifications to the original wall design (e.g., modified reinforcing grid types or lengths).
The soil parameters presented in the tables abov e are based on our experience and direct shear- strength tests performed during the geotechnical investigation and represent some of the on-site soils.
Clayey soils on the property should not be utilized within the reinforced zones of the MSE walls. 1737
San Marcos Residences
Shoring, MSE and Anchorplex Wall RecommendaƟons
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 9 - October 17, 2024
An allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) can be used for foundation design and calculations for wall bearing. This value is for a wall footing measuring 1-foot wide and 2 feet deep. The allowable soil bearing pressure can be increased 300 psf for every foot of additional foundation width greater than 1-foot and 500 psf for every foot of depth greater than 2 feet, up to a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. Th e entire length of the re inforced zone can be considered as the bearing zone of the MSE wall. If the wall is constructed on a sloping ground surface, the bottom of the wall should be at least 7 feet horizontally from the slope face to the wall.
Backfill materials within the reinforced zone shou ld be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to or slightly above optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM D 1557. This is applicable to the entire embedmen t length of the geogrid reinforcement. Typically, wall designers specify that heavy compaction equipment be excluded from within 3 feet of the face of the wall; however, smaller equipment (e.g., walk-behind, self-driven compactors or hand whackers) should be used to compact the materials without causing deformation of the wall. If the designer specif ies no compactive effort for this zone, the materials are essentially not properly compacted and the geogrid within the uncompacted zone should not be relied upon for reinforcement and overall embedment lengths should be increased to account for the difference.
The wall should be provided with drainage system to prevent excessive seepage through the wall and to prevent hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The perforated drainpipe behind the block facing should be set at an elevation a pproximately 2-inches above the base of the gravel-levelling course to minimize the potential for water to seep under the wa ll to the lot in front. The gravel-levelling course should not extend more than six inches in front of the lowest block course.
Geosynthetic reinforcement must elongate to develop full tensile resistance. This elongation generally results in movement at the top of the wall. The amount of movement is dependent on the height of the wall (e.g., higher walls rotate more) and the type of reinforcing grid used. In addition, over time the reinforcement grid has been known to exhibit creep (sometimes as much as 5 percent) and can undergo additional movement. Given this condition, the owner should be aware that structures and pavement placed within the reinforced and retained zones of the wall may undergo movement.
The MSE wall contractor should provide the estimated deformation of wall and adjacent ground in associated with wall construction. The calculated horizontal and vertical deformations should be determined by the wall designer. The estimated movements should be provided to the project structural engineer to determine if the planned improvements can tolerate the expected movements. 1738
San Marcos Residences
Shoring, MSE and Anchorplex Wall RecommendaƟons
Project No. G3355-42-01 - 10 - October 17, 2024
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
Lilian Rodriguez
RCE 83227
Rodney C. Mikesell
GE 2533
LR:RCM:kv
(e-mail) Addressee
1739
ATTACHMENT D.7
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
1740
Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net
Climate Action Plan Consistency Review Checklist
Project # GPA25-0001, R25-0001, MFSDP25-0001, and TSM25-0001
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY REVIEW CHECKLIST
INTRODUCTION
The City of San Marcos (City) adopted an updated Climate Action Plan (CAP) in December, 2020. The CAP outlines strategies and measures that the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of State greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets. The purpose of the CAP Consistency Checklist (Checklist), in conjunction with the CAP, is to provide a streamlined review process for all proposed development projects that are subject to discretionary review and/or trigger environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Analysis of GHG emissions and potential climate change impacts from new development is required under CEQA. The City’s CAP is a qualified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction plan in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative GHG emissions effect may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable if it complies with the requirements of a CAP.
The purpose of this Checklist is to implement GHG reduction measures from the CAP that apply to new discretionary development projects. New development would demonstrate consistency with relevant CAP strategies and would not conflict with the City’s ability to achieve the identified GHG reduction targets through implementation of applicable measures. Projects that are consistent with the CAP, as determined through the use of this Checklist, may rely on the CAP for the cumulative impact analysis of GHG emissions.
Projects that are not consistent with the CAP must prepare a comprehensive project-specific analysis of GHG emissions, including quantification of existing and projected GHG emissions and incorporation of the measures in this Checklist to the extent feasible. Cumulative GHG impacts would be significant for any project that is not consistent with the CAP.
This Checklist may be updated periodically to incorporate new GHG reduction techniques or to comply with later amendments to the CAP or local, State, or federal law. Comprehensive updates to this Checklist will be coordinated with each CAP update. Administrative updates to the Checklist may occur regularly, as necessary for the purpose of keeping the Checklist up-to-date and implementable. Updates to the CAP Checklist associated with an update to the City’s CAP would also require City Council approval and shall comply with CEQA.
1741
Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net
APPLICABILITY AND PROCEDURES
This Checklist is required only for discretionary projects1 that are subject to and not exempt from CEQA.
Projects that are exempt from CEQA are deemed to be consistent with the City’s CAP, and no further review is necessary, with the exception of a Class 32 “In-Fill Development Projects” categorical exemption (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332), for which projects are required to demonstrate consistency with the CAP through this Checklist.
General procedures for Checklist compliance and review are described below. Specific guidance is also provided under each of the questions under Steps 1 and 2 of the Checklist. The City’s Development Services - Planning Division reviews development applications and makes determinations regarding environmental review requirements under CEQA. The specific applicable requirements outlined in the Checklist shall be required as conditions of project approval.
The project must provide written documentation and supporting evidence that demonstrate how the proposed project would implement each applicable Checklist requirement described herein to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. If a question in the Checklist is deemed not applicable (N/A) to a project, written documentation and evidence supporting that conclusion shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Each Checklist question provides the scenario(s) where checking N/A may be acceptable. If a measure is deemed not applicable for reasons other than those outlined in each question, supporting evidence will need to be provided and would be subject to Planning Division approval. A project may be determined to be inconsistent with the CAP if the N/A response is deemed to be not supported by credible evidence. Development projects requiring discretionary review that cannot demonstrate consistency with the CAP using this Checklist shall prepare a separate, project-level GHG analysis as part of the CEQA document prepared for the project.
1 In this context, a project is any action that meets the definition of a “Project” in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1742
Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net
Application Information
Contact Information
Project No. and Name:
GPA25-0001, R25-0001, MFSDP25-0001, and TSM25-0001, Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
Property Address and APN:
2966, 2972, and 2982 South Santa Fe Avenue
APN 217-161-17, 217-161-18, and 217-161-19
Applicant Name and Co.: Paul Mayer, Santa Fe Flores, LP Contact Phone: 858-888-2488 Contact Email: [email protected] Was a consultant retained to complete this checklist?
If Yes, complete the following:
Yes ☐ No
Consultant Name: Jessica Fleming Contact Phone: 619-308-9333 x177 Company Name: RECON Environmental Contact Email:
jfleming@reconenvironmental.
com
Project Information
1. What is the size of the project site (acres)? 2.6 acres (net)
2. Identify all applicable proposed land uses:
☐ Residential (indicate # of single-family dwelling units):
Residential (indicate # of multi-family dwelling units): 46 units ☐ Commercial (indicate total square footage):
☐ Industrial (indicate total square footage):
☐ Other (describe):
3. Provide a description of the project proposed. This description should match the basic project description used for the CEQA document. The description may be attached to the Checklist if there are space constraints.
The project would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Rezone to Multi-family Residential to allow the development of 46 multi-family residential townhome units in seven buildings. Vehicle parking would include 92 spaces within attached garages and 15 guest spaces. The project would include 0.37 acres of the northern portion of assessor’s parcel number (APN) 217-161-17 through a lot line adjustment to be processed. The southern portion of APN 217-161-17 is currently developed with a convenience store which is not part of the project and would remain. The project also proposes approximately 0.12 acres of off- site improvements, including the construction of a new shared driveway extending into the southern portion of APN 217-161-17, upgrades to the existing liquor store parking lot, and landscaping within the 8-foot-wide irrevocable offer of dedication area along the project frontage.
The project would require a GPA from Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) for APNs 217-161-18 and 217-161-19, and a GPA from Commercial (C) to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) for the northern portion (0.37 acres) of APN 217-161-17. Additionally, the project would rezone APNs 217-161-18 and 217-161-19 from Multi-family Residential 3 (R-3-10) to Multi-family Residential (R-3-6) and rezone the northern portion (0.37 acres) of APN 217-161-17 from Commercial (C) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3-6).
1743
Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net
STEP 1: LAND USE CONSISTENCY
The first step in this section evaluates a project’s GHG emissions consistent with the City’s Guidance to Demonstrating Consistency with the City of San Marcos Climate Action Plan: For Discretionary Projects Subject to CEQA (Guidance Document). New discretionary development projects subject to CEQA review that emit fewer than 500 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) annually would not contribute considerably to cumulative climate change impacts as stated in the City’s Guidance Document, and therefore, would be considered consistent with the CAP and associated emissions projections.
For projects that are subject to CAP consistency review, the next step in determining consistency is to assess the project’s consistency with the growth projections used in the development of the CAP. This section allows the city to determine a project’s consistency with the land use assumptions used in the CAP.
1744
Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net
Step 1: Land Use Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation and supporting documentation for your answer) Yes No
1. The size and type of projects listed below would emit fewer than 500 MTCO2e per year.
Based on this threshold, does the proposed project exceed these characteristics? Single Family Housing: 36 dwelling units
Multi-Family Housing: 55 dwelling units
Office: 43,000 square feet
Commercial Space: 20,000 square feet
Regional Shopping Center: 18,000 square feet
Hotel: 37 rooms
Restaurant (Sit-Down): 6,500 square feet
Restaurant (Drive-Thru, High Turnover): 2,400 square feet General Light Industrial: 58,000 square feet
University: 263 students
Mixed-Use: See Guidance to Demonstrating Consistency memorandum for methods to estimate mixed-use development thresholds
Other: For project types not listed in this section the need for GHG analysis and mitigation will be made on a project-specific basis, considering the 500 MTCO2e per year screening threshold.
If “Yes”, proceed to Question 2 of Step 1.
If “No”, in accordance with the City’s CAP screening criteria, the project’s GHG impact is less than significant and is not subject to the measures of the CAP. ☐
2. Is the proposed project consistent with the City’s existing General Plan land use designation?
If “Yes”, proceed to Step 2.
If “No”, proceed to Question 3 of Step 1
☐ ☐
3. For projects not consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation, does the project include a General Plan Amendment that would generate GHG emissions equal to or less than estimated emissions generated under the existing designation?
If “Yes”, proceed to Step 2 and provide estimated project emissions under both existing and proposed designation(s) for comparison.
If “No”, the project’s GHG impact is potentially significant, and a GHG analysis must be prepared in accordance with the City’s Guidance Document and applicable CEQA guidelines. The project must incorporate each of the measures identified in Step 2 to mitigate cumulative GHG emissions impacts, along with other mitigation measures as necessary based on a project specific GHG analysis. Proceed and complete a project specific GHG analysis, and Step 2 of the Checklist.
☐ ☐
1745
Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net
STEP 2: CAP MEASURES CONSISTENCY
The second step of CAP consistency review is to evaluate a project’s consistency with the applicable strategies and measures of the CAP. Each Checklist item is associated with a specific GHG reduction measure in the City’s CAP. “N/A” should only be checked based on the direction provided in each Checklist Item question. All projects for which the measure is applicable must demonstrate that they would implement measures consistent with the Checklist Item, or fully substantiate how the item would be infeasible for project implementation. “N/A” responses are subject to Planning Division review and approval. If “No” is provided as a response to a question, the project would be determined to be inconsistent with the CAP and result in a significant GHG impact.
1746
Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net
Step 2: CAP Measures Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer. Please use additional sheets if necessary)
Yes No N/A
Project Design
1. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (Measure T-2)
Multi-Family Residential and Non-Residential: Will the project install electric vehicle charging stations (Level 2 or better) in at least five percent of the total parking spaces provided on-site?
Check “N/A” if the project is a single-family residential project or would not provide any parking.
☐ ☐ ☐
Please substantiate how the project satisfies question 1:
2. Bicycle Infrastructure (Measure T-8)
Residential and Non-Residential Projects: If the following conditions are met, would the project pay its fair-share contribution to bicycle infrastructure improvements?
☐ Intersection or roadway segment improvements are
proposed as part of the project and,
☐ The City’s General Plan Mobility Element identifies
bicycle infrastructure improvements at any
intersection(s) or roadway segment(s) that would be
improved as part of the project.
Check “N/A” if the conditions above would not be met.
☐ ☐ ☐
Please substantiate how the project satisfies question 2:
1747
Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net
Step 2: CAP Measures Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer. Please use additional sheets if necessary)
Yes No N/A
3. Transportation Demand Management (Measure T-9)
Multi-Family Residential and Non-Residential: Will the project develop and implement a TDM plan that includes, at a minimum, all of the TDM strategies listed below?
☐ Provide discounted monthly transit pass or provide at least 25 percent transit fare subsidy to
residents/employees.
☐ Provide designated car-share, carpool, vanpool, and/or park-and-ride parking spaces.2
☐ Provide pedestrian connections between all internal
uses and to all existing or planned external streets
around the project site(s).
☐ Provide secure bicycle parking spaces or bicycle racks, showers, and clothes lockers.
☐ Encourage telecommuting for employees (allow one
telecommute day per week or compressed work weeks)
or provide a telecommute work center with common
office space and equipment available to residents.
-or-
Would the project implement and monitor for four (4) years a TDM program that demonstrates an alternative transportation (i.e. carpool, public transit, bicycle, walk, telecommute) mode share of at least 29 percent
3 for all residents?
Check “N/A” if the project is a single-family residential project or is not subject to the City’s TDM Ordinance.
☐ ☐ ☐
Please state which measure option the project for which the project would comply and substantiate how the project satisfies question 3:
2 The designated number of car-share, carpool, vanpool, and/or park-and-ride parking spaces provided at a rate equal to or greater than CALGreen minimum requirements.
3 Measure T- 10 requires projects to increase alternative mode share by seven percent. The baseline mode share for alternative transportation (i.e. carpool, public transit, bicycle, walk, and telecommute) is 22 percent based on 2010 Census Data. 1748
Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net
Step 2: CAP Measures Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer. Please use additional sheets if necessary)
Yes No N/A
4. Reduce Parking Near Transit (Measure T-12)
Multi-Family Residential: If located within a half-mile of a major transit stop4, would the project provide at least 27 percent fewer parking spaces than required for the same use based on the City’s municipal code parking requirements?
Check “N/A” if the project is a single-family residential or non-residential project.
☐ ☐ ☐
Please substantiate how the project satisfies question 4:
5. Water Heaters (Measure E-1)
Residential: Will the project install one of, or a combination of, the following water heater types in place of natural gas water heaters?
☐ Electric heat pump water heater
☐ Instantaneous electric water heater
☐ Electric tank
☐ Solar water heater with heat pump water heater backup ☐ Solar water heater with electric tank backup
Check “N/A” if the project is a non-residential project. ☐ ☐ ☐
Please substantiate how the project satisfies question 5:
4 Major transit stop is defined as a bus or light-rail station with fixed service and 10-minute minimum headways during peak hours.
Project applicants should confirm with City staff if the project site would fall within this proximity to a major transit stop. 1749
Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net
Step 2: CAP Measures Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer. Please use additional sheets if necessary)
Yes No N/A
6. Photovoltaic Installation (Measure E-2)
Non-Residential: Will the project install photovoltaic systems with a minimum capacity of two watts per square foot of gross floor area?
Check “N/A” if the project is a residential project or if installation of on- site photovoltaic would be infeasible.
☐ ☐ ☐
Please substantiate how the project satisfies question 6:
7. Landscaping Water Use (Measure W-1)
Residential and Non-Residential: Will the project comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance?5
Check “N/A” if the project is not proposing any landscaping or is not subject to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. ☐ ☐ ☐
Please substantiate how the project satisfies question 7:
5 City of San Marcos Landscape Manual: https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showdocument?id=13984 1750
Development Services | 1 Civic Center Drive | San Marcos, CA 92069 | (760) 744-1050 | www.san-marcos.net
Step 2: CAP Measures Consistency
Checklist Item
(Check the appropriate box and provide an explanation for your answer. Please use additional sheets if necessary)
Yes No N/A
8. Urban Tree Canopy (Measure C-2)
Single-Family Residential: Will the project plant a minimum of one tree per single-family residential unit?
-or-
Multi-Family Residential and Non-Residential: If the project is providing more than 10 parking spaces, will the project plant at least one tree per five parking spaces provided?
Check “N/A” if planting the required number of trees on-site would be infeasible.
☐ ☐ ☐
Please substantiate how the project satisfies question 8:
1751
ATTACHMENT D.8
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY STUDY
1752
PRELIMINARY
HYDROLOGY STUDY
FOR
S
OUTH SANTA FE TOWNHOMES
2972 &2982 S SANTA FE AVENUE
APN:
217
-
161
-
17,
217
-
161
-
18 , 217
-
161
-
19 CITY OF
SAN MARCOS
, CA
PREPARED FOR:
SANTA FE FLORES LP
P.O. BOX 903
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067
PREPARED BY:
PLSA
34270 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE B
DANA POINT
, CA 926
29 949
-
661
-
6695
Prepared
:
June
202
5 __________________________________________________
William J. Suiter, RCE 68964
DATE
1753
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Existing Conditions
1.2 Proposed Project
1.3 Conclusions
1. 4
References
1.5 Methodology
2.0 Rational Method
2.1 County of San Diego Criteria
2.2 AES Rational Method Computer Model
2.3 Hydrologic Analysis
3.0 Existing Condition
Hydrologic Model Output
(
100
-
Year Event)
3.1 Proposed Condition
Hydrologic Model Output
3.2 (100
-
Year Event Undetained)
Detention
Analysis
3.3 Proposed Condition Hydrologic Model Output
3.4 (100
-
Year Event De
tained)
Hydromodification
Management
3.5 Storm Water Pollutant Contr
ol
3.6 Appendices
Appendix A: Hydrology Support Material
Appendix B:
Detention Support Material
Appendix C:
Existing and Proposed
Condition
Hydrology
Exhibits
1754
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
This Hydrology Study for
the proposed
development
has been prepared to analyze the
hydrologic characteristics of the existing and proposed project site. This report present s
both
the methodology and the calculations used for determining the storm
water
runoff from the
project site in the pre
-
developed (existing) conditions and the post
-
developed (proposed)
conditions produced by the 100
-
year
, 6
-
hour storm
event
.
1.2 Existing Conditions
The subject pro
perty is locate
d
at
2972 & 2982 S. Santa Fe Avenue
in the City of
San Marcos
.
The site is
west of Las Flores Drive
,
north of South Santa Fe Avenue, and
approximately
1/4
mile
north
of the 78 freeway.
Vicinity Map
1755
The site is surrounded by residential homes to the
north
,
east
and
south
, and
industrial offices
to the
west
.
The site
is primarily undeveloped with a shared access driveway at the property’s southerly boundary
.
The driveway also provides access to the adjacent commercial property’s parking lot and
commercial building
.
The southern portion of the site is relatively flat while the central portion slopes up to an elevated pad at the north end of the site. Las Flores Drive along the property’s eastern boundary has approximately a 15
-
20% grade upward to the north to
allow vehicle access over the railroad tracks north of the property.
Elevations across the site
range from a high of approximately
546
feet
in the north
east
corner
of the property to a low of
approximately
494.50
feet a
t
the
southwest
corner
of the property.
The
project site
is approximately
2. 60
acre
s.
In the existing condition
,
the project site is divided
into
four
drainage basins
(see
Existing Condition
Hydrology
Exhibit
in Appendix C)
.
Drainage basin E1 consists of t
he north
erly half graded
pad
where
runoff
flows overland and
into an existing storm drain inlet structure in the center of the pad. Captured runoff exits the site through an existing 18” RCP at the easterly boundary and into the public storm drain system within Las Flores Drive.
Drainage Basin E2 is a
similar, but much smaller, sump
condition into
an existing
storm drain inlet structure just southerly of the north half sump condition mentioned above. Capture
d
runoff also exits the site through a separate 18” RCP at the easterly boundary and into the public storm drain system within Las Flores Drive where it confluences with the north half
pad
runoff.
Pipe flows continue to travel southerly down Las
Flores Drive before
combining with flows from a 54” RCP and 24” RCP. Combined pipe flows are then diverted
westerly
along South Santa Fe Avenue through a 60” RCP.
Drainage Basin E3 consists of t
he southern half of the site
where
runoff generate
d
from the
adjacent liquor store property and the project site
combines
to surface flow southerly. Surface
runoff exits the drainage basin through the existing shared access driveway on South Santa Fe Avenue then into the public street’s curb and gutter and flows northerly approximately 100’ before being captured by an existing curb inlet structure. Captured runoff is diverted across South Santa Fe Avenue through an 18” RCP storm drain pipe and
confluences with basins E1
and E2 into the
60” RCP
mentioned above. Captured runoff then continues flowing westerly down South Santa Fe Avenue.
Drainage Basin E4 is located along the west edge of Drainage Basin E1 north half pad, a small area of existing graded slopes that surface flows to the west and onto the adjacent property.
Per the United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey, the project site is underlain
with Hydrologic Soil Group
C
and D
.
Refer to
Appendix A for soil information.
Area weighted runoff coefficients were calculated using the methodology
(see Appendix A)
described in section 3.2.1 of the San Diego County Hydrology Manual and Table 3 -
1 Runoff
Coefficients for Urban Areas
.
Using the Rational Method Procedure outlined in the San Diego County Hydrology Manual, a peak flow rate was calculated for the existing condition
100
-
year,
6 -
hour storm event.
The
following
table summarizes the existing condition hydrologic data.
1756
Summary of
Existing Condition
100
-
yr Peak Discharge Rates
Drainage Basin
ID
Area (ac)
Q100 (cfs)
E1
1.24 2.35
E2
0.04 0.10
E3
1. 65
5.16 E4
0 .1
4 0.3
7 Refer to the existing condition hydrologic calculations included in S
ection 3.1 for detailed
analysis.
1.3 Proposed Project
The project proposes to develop the existing site into a
46 -
unit
multifamily
residential
development consisting of
multifamily
townhome
buildings
, access drive,
parking stalls,
landscape, associated utilities and improvements,
proprietary biofiltration systems
to meet the
requirements for pollutant control and underground storm water storage facilities to meet the requirements for hydromodification management flow control and to mitigate for the 100 -
year
6 -
hour storm event.
In the proposed condition, onsite storm water runoff will be collected in
a
proposed storm
drain
system
and conveyed to proposed
proprietary biofiltration system
s
(BMPs)
and
subsequently the proposed underground storage facilities (BMPs).
Two storm drain systems,
each with their own BMPs, are proposed to maintain the site’s historical points of discharge.
In the proposed condition, the
project
site consists of
six
drainage basins
(see
Proposed
Condition
Hydrology
Exhibit
in Appendix C).
Drainage Basin P1 consists of the proposed site’s upper level building s, buildings 3 and 4,
and a
portion of
existing
hillside area
from an adjacent lot
that drains into the project site at the
northeast corner of the property.
Runoff from areas P1.0 and P1.1 will be captured by a series of area drains around the buildings and a ribbon gutter within the building drive aisles then
drain to a
proprietary biofiltration system. Treated flows and peak flows then
enter the private
storm drain pipe system
again
and flow
to a
n
underground storm water storage facility
for
detention.
Area P1.2 is a self
-
mitigating area along the north property line of the project where a ditch captures perimeter surface runoff then pipe flows to the underground detention facility to confluence with P1.0 and P1.1.
A weir bypass structure
downstream of the detention system
will control flow rates to meet hydromodification and peak 100 -
year storm
flow rates before
confluencing with
Area
P1.3
. Area P1.3 generates surface runoff that drains into the project site from the adjacent hillside lot at the north east corner of the site . A new concrete ditch is
proposed along the project’s
north
easterly boundary to capture off
-
site run
-
on
from the hillside
that will bypass treatment and detention.
Detained
and bypass flows will then confluence
before exiting the project site through an existing 18” RCP storm drain pipe that flows out into the public storm drain system in Las Flores Drive.
1757
Drainage Basin P2 consists of the proposed site
’s
2 lower level
building
s (building 1 and 2)
,
south
amenity
area
s
, and
portion of
the on
-
site access road
.
Areas P2.0 and P2.1 generate
s
urface runoff
that
sheet flow
s
southerly down the access road
via curb and gutter into
a curb
inlet
then flows via underground pipe to a
proprietary biofiltration system
within the southeast
amenity area for the project
. Treated flows and peak flows
from the biofiltration system will
then exit and pipe
flow to an underground storm water storage facility
for detention
.
A
rea
P2.3
is a self
-
mitigating area that
bypasses treatment but pipe flows to the detention system to confluence with areas P2.0 and P2.1
.
Subareas P2.4 and P2.5
generate runoff from a portion of
the lower access road that sheet flows southerly via curb and gutter into a biofiltration system with a curb inlet, but will bypass detention
.
Treated and peak flows from the biofiltration
system will then exit and pipe flow
to
confluence with the
detention tank’s outlet pipe flows.
All
flow from P2
will confluence with detained flows from P3 and P4
before exiting the project site
through a new
18”
RCP storm drain pip
e and connect to the existing 60” RCP storm drain pipe
in South Santa Fe Avenue.
Drainage Basin P3 consists of the
proposed site’s upper parking areas and building 5
.
Surface
runoff will be captured in a ribbon gutter and routed to a curb inlet which leads to a proprietary biofiltration system. Treated flows and peak flows will enter the private storm drain pipe system then divert pipe flows to an underground storm water storage facility . Flows exiting the
detention system will pipe flow down the access road to confluence with detained flows from P4 and P2
before exiting the project site through a new 18” RCP storm drain pipe and connect to the existing 60” RCP storm drain pipe in South Santa Fe Avenue.
Drainage Basin P4 consists of
proposed buildings 6 and 7, and the 2:1 slopes
between the two
buildings
.
Runoff will be captured in
area drains around both buildings
that
will then pipe flow
a
proprietary biofiltration system. Treated flows and peak flows will enter the private storm drain pipe system then divert pipe flows to an underground storm water storage facility
within the
amenity area north of Building 2. Flows exiting the detention system will pipe flow into the access road to confluence with P3 then pipe flow down the access road to confluence with P2
before exiting the project site through a new 18” RCP storm drain pipe
and
connect to the
existing 60” RCP storm drain pipe in South Santa Fe Avenue.
Drainage Basin P5
consists of the adjacent property’s existing commercial building, existing parking area and existing undeveloped hillside to the west of the project site. A new concrete ditch is proposed along the project site’s westerly boundary along the new access road and a new ribbon gutter along the existing parking area to capture the P5 runoff
without comingling
with on
-
site
project
runoff
. Surface flows from P5 then flow southerly via ribbon gutter and onto South Santa Fe Avenue
curb and gutter via new curb outlet.
Drainage Basin P6 consists of downslopes on the
north
western side of the project site.
Storm
water runoff will surface flow onto the adjacent property.
This area is infeasible to capture
and
is
considered self
-
mitigating
.
1758
The BMPs will provide hydromodification management flow control and storm water pollutant control to meet the requirements the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region municipal storm water permit (Order No. R9 -
2013
-
0001, referred to as MS4
Permit).
For detailed pollutant control and HMP calculations refer to the report titled “Priority
Development Project
(PDP)
Storm Water Quality Management Plan
(SWQMP)
for
S
outh
Santa
Fe Townhomes
” dated
December 2024
,
prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates.
Area weighted
runoff coefficient
s were
calculated
(see Appendix A)
using the methodology
described in section 3.2.1 of the San Diego County Hydrology Manual and Table 3 -
1 Runoff
Coefficients for Urban Areas.
Using the Rational Method Procedure outlined in the San Diego County Hydrology Manual, a peak flow rate was calculat
ed for the
proposed condition
100
-
year, 6
-
hour storm event.
The
underground storm water storage facilities provide mitigation for the 100
-
year 6
-
hour storm event. A detention analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of the storage facilities on the 100
-
year, 6
-
hour storm event peak discharge rates.
The
following
table summarizes the proposed condition hydrologic data.
Summary of
Proposed
Condition 100
-
yr Peak Discharge Rates
Drainage Basin ID
Area (ac)
Q100 (cfs)
Undetained
Q100 (cfs)
Detained
P1
0.74 3.82
0.44 P2
1.12 10.77
2.74 P3
0.4 0
P4
0. 50
P5
0.29 2.04
N/A
P6
0.01 0.03
N/A
Refer to the proposed undetained and detained hydrologic calculations and detention analysis
included in Section
s
3.2 ,
3.3,
3.4 and Appendix B
for detailed analysis.
1.4 Conclusions
Based upon the analyses included in this report, the proposed proprietary biofiltration devices
and underground storage
facilities
are
sized to accommodate the increase in peak runoff in the proposed
condition and
are
designed to meet the requirements of the MS4 Permit for pollutant control
and
hydromodification
management.
1. 5
References
“San Diego County Hydrology Manual”,
revised June 2003, County of San Diego, Department of
Public Works, Flood Control Section.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at
03 .
1759
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Pursuant to the San Diego County Hydrology Manual
(SDCHM)
dated June 2003, the Rational
Method is recommended for analyzing the runoff response from drainage areas up to approximately 1 square mile in size. The
proposed
project and associated watershed basins are
less than 1 square mile, therefore the Rational Method was used to analyze the project’s hydrologic characteristics in the existing and proposed conditions.
2.1 Rational Method
The Rational Method (RM) formula estimates the peak rate of runoff based on the variables of area, runoff coefficient, and rainfall intensity. The rainfall intensity (I) is equal to:
I = 7.44 x P
6 x D
-
0.645
Where:
I = Intensity (in/hr)
P
6 = 6
-
hour precipitation (in)
D = duration (min
–
use Tc)
Using the Time of Concentration (Tc)
which
is the time required for a given element of water
that originates at the most remote point of the basin being analyzed to reach the point at which the runoff from the basin is being analyzed, the RM equation determines the storm water runoff rate (Q) for a given basin in terms of flow
,
typically in cubic feet per second (cfs). The RM
equation is as follows:
Q = CIA
Where:
Q= flow (cfs)
C = runoff coefficient, ratio of rainfall that produces storm water
runoff (runoff vs. infiltration/evaporation/absorption/etc)
I = average rainfall intensity for a duration equal to the Tc for the
a
rea (in/hr)
A = drainage area contributing to the basin (ac)
The RM equation assumes that the storm event being analyzed delivers precipitation to the entire basin uniformly, and therefore the peak discharge rate will occur when a raindrop that falls at the most remote portion of the basin arrives at the point of analysis. The RM also assumes that the fraction of rainfall that becomes runoff or the runoff coefficient ,
C
,
is not
affected by the storm intensity, I, or the precipitation zone number.
1760
2.2 County of San Diego Criteria
The County of San Diego has developed its own tables, nomographs, and methodologies for analyzing storm water runoff for areas within the County. The County has also developed precipitation isopluvial contour maps that show even lines of rainfall anticipated from a given storm event (i.e. 100
-
year, 6
-
hour storm). The 100
-
year 6
-
hour storm event rainfall isopluvi
al
map is included in Appendix A
.
One of the variables of the RM equation is the runoff coefficient ,
C
,
which is dependent upon
land use and soil type. Table 3
-
1 Runoff Coefficients for Urban Areas in the SDCHM categorizes the land use, the associated development density (dwelling units per acre) and the percentage of impervious area. Each of the categories listed has an associated runoff coefficient for each soil type class. A composite runoff coefficient can also be calculated for an area based on soil type and impervious percentage using the following equation from Section 3.1.2 of the SDCHM:
C = 0.90 × (% Impervious) + Cp × (1
-
% Impervious)
Where: Cp = Pervious Coefficient Runoff Value for the soil type
(shown in Table 3
-
1 as Undisturbed Natural Terrain/Permanent Open
Space, 0% Impervious)
The onsite hydrologic calculations contained herein figure a composite runoff coefficient for the onsite project areas based on the percentage of impervious area and the percentage of pervious or landscape area.
Refer to Appendix A for runoff coefficient calculations.
The County has also illustrated in detail the methodology for determining the time of concentration, in particular the initial time of concentration. The County has adopted the Federal Aviation Agency’s (FAA) overland time of flow equation. This equation essentially limits the flow path length for the initial time of concentration to lengths of 100 feet or less, and is dependent on land use and slope.
2.3 AES Rational Method Computer Model
The Rational Method computer program developed by Advanced Engineering Software (AES) satisfies the County of San Diego design criteria, therefore it is the computer model used for this study. The AES hydrologic model is capable of creating independent node -
link models of
each interior drainage basin and linking these sub
-
models together at confluence points to
determine peak flow rates. The program utilizes base information input by the user to perform calculations for up to 15 hydrologic processes. The required base information includes drainage basin area, storm water facility locations and sizes, land uses, flow patterns, and topographic elevations. The hydrologic conditions were analyzed in accordance with the 2003 County of San Diego Hydrology Manual criteria as follows:
Design Storm
100
-
year, 6
-
hour
1 00
-
year, 6
-
hour Precipitation
3. 3
inches
1761
Rainfall Intensity
Based on the 2003 County of San Diego Hydrology
Manual criteria
Runoff Coeffi
cient*
Pervious
C
soil
C
= 0.3
0 Pervious D soil
C =0.
35 Impervious
C
soil
C = 0.90
Impervious
D soil
C = 0.90
Soil Type
C & D
*Weighted runoff coefficients were calculated where appropriate . Refer to Appendix A.
1762
3.0 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
Table 1 below
compares and
summarizes the hydrologic
calculations
provided in Sections 3.1,
3.2 and 3.4.
Table 1: Summary of 100
-
yr Peak Discharge Rates
Existing
Proposed
(Undetained)
Proposed
(
Detained
)
Drainage
Basin ID
Area
(ac)
Q100
(cfs)
Drainage
Basin ID
Area
(ac)
Q100
(cfs)
Drainage
Basin ID
Area
(ac)
Q100
(cfs)
E1
1.24 2.35
P1
0.74 3.82
P1
0.74 0.44
E2
0.04 0.10
P2
1.12 10.77
P2
1.12 2.74
E3
1. 65
5.16 P3
0.4 0
P3
0.4 0
E4
0.14 0.37
P4
0. 50
P4
0. 50
P5
0.29 2.04
P6
0.01 0.03
Existing
(Cumulative)
Proposed (Detained, Cumulative)
Drainage
Basin ID
Area
(ac)
Q100
(cfs)
Drainage Basin ID
Area (ac)
Q100 (cfs)
E1, E2 & E3
2.93 7.61
P1, P2, P3
, P4
& P
5 3.0
5 5.
7 2
E4
0.12 0.31
P
6 0.0
1 0.
03 1763
3.1 Existing Condition
Hydrologic Model Output (
100
-
Year Event)
1764
3.2 Proposed
Undetained
Condition
Hydrologic Model Output
(
100
-
Year Event)
1765
3.3 Detention
Analysis
(100
-
Year Event)
The
underground storm water storage facilities (BMPs) provide
hydromodification
management
flow control
and mitigation of the 100
-
year storm event peak flow rate. The
100
-
year storm event detention analysis was performed using HydroCAD Stormwater Modeling
software
.
The inflow runoff hydrographs to the BMPs were modeled using RatHydro which is a Rational Method Design Storm Hydrograph software that creates a hydrograph using the results of the Rational Method calculations.
HydroCAD
has the ability to
route the 100
-
year 6
-
hour storm event inflow hydrograph through the
BMPs
.
B
ased on the
BMP
cross sectional
geometry
,
stage storage and outlet structure data
, HydroCAD
calculate
s
the detained peak flow
rate and detained time to peak.
Each
underground storm water storage
facility has a low
-
flow orifice to comply with HMP
requirements and an overflow weir for larger storm events .
Refer to
the plans
for
facility
details
.
The proposed BMP at the
high
side
of the project site
in Drainage Basin 1
will discharge via
proposed storm drain
to
the
east and into the existing public storm drain system within Las Flores Drive
.
The proposed BMP
s throughout the rest
of the project site
will discharge
via
proposed storm drain pipe to the south and into the existing public storm drain system within South Santa Fe Drive.
For the proposed detained
hydrologic analysis
, the effects of the detention provided by the
four
(
4 )
underground storage facilities
were incorporated into the AES analysis. This
was done
by inserting
the results from
the
HydroCAD
analysis, detained peak flow rate and detained time
to peak, into the proposed undetained condition AES model to create the proposed detained condition model.
Refer
to Section 3.4 for the
detained AES output.
B
ased on the results of the
HydroCAD
analysis
,
mitigation for the
100
-
year storm event peak
flow rate
is
provided
.
Refer to Appendix
B
for the
HydroCAD
detention detailed output
.
1766
3.4 Propos
ed Detained
Condition Hydrologic Model Output (100
-
Year Event)
1767
3.5 Hydromodification
Management
To satisfy the requirements of the MS4 Permit, a hydromodification management strategy has been developed for the project based on the Final Hydromodification Management Plan dated March 2011, (Final HMP).
A continuous simulation model,
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) version 5.1, was selected to size mitigation measures. The SWMM model is capable of modeling hydromodification management facilities to mitigate the effects of increased runoff from the post -
development conditions
and use
changes that may cause negative impacts (i.e. erosion) to downstream channels.
For
HMP
calculations refer to the report titled
“Priority Development Project (PDP) Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for S
outh Santa Fe Townhomes
” dated
December 2024
, prepared
by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates.
3.6 Storm Water
Pollutant Control
To meet the requirements of the
MS4
Permit
, the
Modular Wetland
s
Systems are
designed to
treat onsite
storm water
pollutants f
or the
24 -
hour, 85
th
percentile storm event.
For
detailed
pollutant control calculations refer to the report titled “Priority Development Project (PDP)
Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for S
outh Santa Fe Townhomes
” dated
December 2024
,
prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates.
1768
APPENDIX
A
Hydrology Support Material
1769
1770
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
San Diego County
Area, California
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
July 27, 20211771
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 1772
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 1773
Contents
Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Information for All Uses.................................................................................8 Soil Properties and Qualities................................................................................ 8 Soil Qualities and Features...............................................................................8 Hydrologic Soil Group (2972/2982 South Santa Fe Avenue)........................8 References............................................................................................................13 4 1774
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 1775
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 1776
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
Custom Soil Resource Report
7 1777
Soil Information for All Uses
Soil Properties and Qualities
The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each property or quality.
Soil Qualities and Features
Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil.
Hydrologic Soil Group (2972/2982 South Santa Fe
Avenue)
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.
8 1778
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.
These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
Custom Soil Resource Report
9 1779
10 Custom Soil Resource Report
Map—Hydrologic Soil Group (2972/2982 South Santa Fe Avenue) 3668700 3668720 3668740 3668760 3668780 3668800 3668820 3668840 3668860 3668880 3668900 3668700 3668720 3668740 3668760 3668780 3668800 3668820 3668840 3668860 3668880 3668900 481290 481310 481330 481350 481370 481390 481410 481430 481290 481310 481330 481350 481370 481390 481410 481430 33° 9' 31'' N
117° 12' 2'' W
33° 9' 31'' N
117° 11' 56'' W
33° 9' 24'' N
117° 12' 2'' W
33° 9' 24'' N
117° 11' 56'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300
Feet
0 15 30 60 90
Meters
Map Scale: 1:1,060 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
1780
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 15, May 27, 2020
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 24, 2020—Feb 12, 2020
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
11 1781
Table—Hydrologic Soil Group (2972/2982 South Santa Fe
Avenue)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI DaD Diablo clay, 9 to 15
percent slopes, warm
MAAT
C 1.7 72.6%
HrC Huerhuero loam, 2 to 9
percent slopes
D 0.6 27.4%
Totals for Area of Interest 2.3 100.0%
Rating Options—Hydrologic Soil Group (2972/2982 South Santa Fe Avenue)
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Custom Soil Resource Report
12 1782
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 13 1783
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
14 1784
South Santa Fe Townhomes
PLSA Project No. 3527
12/6/2024
C = 0.9(%Impervious)+Cp(1 - %Impervious)
Soil Type C D
Impervious 0.9 0.9
Pervious, Cp 0.3 0.35
E1 53762 C 0 53762 0 0.30
E2 1834 C 0 1834 0 0.30
E3 71987 D 12919 59068 17.9% 0.45
E4 5960 C 0 5960 0 0.30
P1.0 1783 C 1199 584 67.2% 0.70
P1.1 20578 C 14667 5911 71.3% 0.73
P1.2 2103 C 703 1400 33.4% 0.50
P1.3 7799 C 396 7403 5.1% 0.33
P2.0 3477 C 3195 282 91.9% 0.85
P2.1 15761 C 13663 2098 86.7% 0.82
P2.2 19061 D 10476 8585 55.0% 0.65
P2.3 3163 D 0 3163 0.0% 0.35
P2.4 3221 D 3086 135 95.8% 0.88
P2.5 4215 D 2857 1358 67.8% 0.72
P3.0 4239 C 3477 762 82.0% 0.79
P3.1 2184 C 1577 607 72.2% 0.73
P3.2 11168 C 7807 3361 69.9% 0.72
P4.0 1524 C 1364 160 89.5% 0.84
P4.1 6639 C 4489 2150 67.6% 0.71
P4.2 13806 D 5971 7835 43.2% 0.59
P5.0 5461 D 4391 1070 80.4% 0.79
P5.1 7098 D 7098 0 100.0% 0.90
P6.0 204 C 0 204 0.0% 0.30
Runoff Coefficient Table
Weighted Runoff
Coefficient, C
EXISTING CONDITION
PROPOSED CONDITION
% Impervious Weighted Runoff
Coefficient, C
Impervious
Area (sf)
Drainage Basin
ID
Total Area
(sf)
Pervious
Area (sf)
Soil
Type
Drainage Basin
ID
Total Area
(sf)
Soil
Type
Impervious
Area (sf)
Pervious
Area (sf)
% Impervious
1785
APPENDIX B
Detention Support Material
1786
1L
Inflow to Rtank 1-B
2L
Inflow to StormTrap 2-B
2P
Rtank 1-B Alt1
3L
Inflow to Rtank 3-B
3P
Stormgate 1
4L
Inflow to StormTrap 4-B
4P
StormTrap 2-B Alt 1
5P
Rtank 3-B Alt1
6P
Stormgate 2
7P
StormTrap 4-B Alt1
Routing Diagram for 3527
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc, Printed 12/4/2024 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 10097 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat
Reach
Pond
Link
1787
San_Diego 6-hr Rainfall=3.30"
3527
Printed 12/4/2024
Prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Assoc