The URL can be used to link to this page

1994-4111 CN/EX/G/PE/TE Street Address - 3 3 7 Category Serial # i ) 41 H C r � Name Description Plan ck. # Year recdescv BARRY AND ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SFP 1 1 P.O. Box 348 Encinitas, CA 92023 -0348 (619) 753 -9940 September 18, 1995 Mr. Richard Cramer Star Milling Co. Perris, California 92370 Subject: ADDENDUM TO ROUGH GRADING REPORT Proposed Single Family Residence 1200 Neptune Ave. Encinitas, California 92024 Reference: ROUGH GRADING REPORT Proposed Single Family Residence 1200 Neptune Ave. Encinitas, California Reference: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND BLUFF RETREAT STUDY Prepared by: GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. Dated: January 10, 1992 Dear Mr. Cramer, This addendum to the" Rough Grading Report" includes the certification of the compacted fill placed behind the east retaining wall and driveway. We performed field density testing as the fill was being placed. The results of our density tests and laboratory testing are presented in this addendum report. Based on the results of our testing, it is our opinion that the fill was placed in an adequate manner and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. If you have any questions, please give us a call at 753 -9940. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Respectfully submitted, A.R. BARRY AND ASSOCIAT F R a F w GE 119 m A.R. Barry, Exp.3/31/98 Principal E gineer S �9T O TEcNN� GP �� P F OF CALYF�Q� Septenber 18, 1995 W.O. G -1381 Page 2 LABORATORY TEST DATA The laboratory standard for determining the maximum dry density was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557 -78. Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1556. The results of the laboratory maximum dry density, for the soil used as compacted fill on the site, is summarized below: Maximum Dry Density Optimum Description (p.c.f ) Moisture (o) Tan to brown fine and medium - grained sand 127.5 9 EXPANSIVE SOILS The soils on the site and the building pad area are predominantly granular deposits which exhibit a potential expansion in the low range. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS See reference #1 and 2. DISCUSSION The following is a discussion of the grading operations, as they were performed on the site: 1. All surface deleterious material was removed and disposed of off -site, prior to the placement of fill, *09 reference #2. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND BLUFF RETREAT STUDY 1200 NEPTUNE AVENUE ' ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Prepared for ' Mr. Richard Cramer STAR MILLING CO. Perris, California 92370 t ' Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 January 10, 1992 ' Revised: June 12, 1992 1 ROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. I Walter GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. Barry R. . Bevier 1 Crampton Engineers and Geologists 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100 Phillip C. Birkhahn San Diego, CA 92123 1 Graven R. Smillie Tel (619) 573 -1777 Fax (619) 573 -0069 Project No. 1 404 - GE01 /SI01 January 10, 1992 Revised: June 12, 1992 ' Mr. Richard Cramer STAR MILLING CO. 20767 Highway I -215 ' P.O. Box 728 Perris, California 92370 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND BLUFF RETREAT STUDY 1200 NEPTUNE AVENUE ' ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Cramer: In accordance with your verbal request of November 4, 1991, and our in- progress agreement dated November 5, 1991, we have performed a geotechnical investigation and bluff retreat study for construction of a proposed residential structure, to be located at 1200 Neptune Avenue in the City of Encinitas, California. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project, and trust this information meets your present needs. If you have any questions or require further information, please give us a call. for GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. Very truly yours, .�4 l�l•� Braven R. Smillie Walter Crampton C.E.G. 207, R.G. 402 R.C.E. 23792, R.G.E. 245 BRS /WFC /WEG /jc ' Attachments (4) Addressee (1) John S. Beery, Architect A.I.A. (1) D.L. Frischer Development Planning Consultants STAR MILLING CO. ' Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: June 12, 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION ' PAGE No- 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION . 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK . . . . ' ' . ' ' 1 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING . . . . . 1 4 GEOLOGY AND SITE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . ' ' 2 4.1 Geolo is Settin . . ' ' 3 4.2 Site Conditions . . ' . . . . . . . ' ' ' ' ' . ' 3 ' 4.3 Subsurface Conditions _ 4 5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 4 5.1 Faulting and Seismicity 6 ' 5.2 Landslides • • • • • . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 GROUNDWATER 6 7 GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • . . 6 8 BLUFF -TOP RETREAT 7 ' 8.1 Bluff -Top Retreat and Engineering D . . . . . 9 8.2 Coastal -Bluff Geometry 10 8.3 Classification of Bluff Geometry . . . . ' ' ' • 10 ' 8.4 Components of Bluff -Top Retreat . . . . . . . . . 11 8.4.1 Marine Erosion Processes 12 8.4.2 Water Depth, Wave Height, . and Platform 12 ' Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.4.3 Marine Erosion at the Cliff - Platform Junction 15 8.5 Cliff - Platform Junction Erosion Rate ' 8.6 Upper Bluff Slo a Decline and the 75 -Year Bluff- 15 Retreat . . . . . . . o ' ' ' ' ' . ' ' • 16 9 LIMITATIONS . . REFERENCES ' GLOSSARY FIGURE 1 - SITE PLAN AND GEOLOGIC MAP ' FIGURE 2 - GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A -A' FIGURE 3 - TYPICAL SEA BLUFF PROFILE FIGURE 4 - MATRIX OF ACTIVE SEA BLUFF PROFILES ' APPENDIX A - LOGS OF TEST BORINGS APPENDIX B - LABORATORY TEST RESULTS APPENDIX C - SPECIFICATIONS FOR ENGINEERED FILL G IOUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 STAR MILLING CO. ' Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: anuary 10, 1992 sed: June 12, 1992 Page 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ' AND BLUFF RETREAT STUDY 1200 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject residential lot is located on the west side of Neptune Avenue, southwesterly of the intersection of Neptune Avenue and Phoebe Street in the City of Encinitas, California. The site is located on the westerly- facing coastal bluffs, which descend approximately 65 feet from the lot surface, down to the shoreline. ' Figure i the Site Plan and Geologic Map, shows the general topography and existing site improvements. t It is our understanding that you plan to remove the improvements, to perform minimal grading work, and to construct ' new and larger single -story residential structure at the site. We further understand that it is your intention to generally maintain the current lot grades, that the proposed structure will likely be founded on continuous wall footings, and that no basement is planned. 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our study is to provide geotechnical information to assist you and your consultants in project design, and to address City of Encinitas and California Coastal Commission concerns regarding setback requirements and bluff - retreat rates. For input in performing our studies and preparing this report, we have discussed the project with you, with Ms. Debra L. Frischer of D.L. Frischer, Development Planning Consultants, and with Mr. John Beery, your project architect. We have reviewed geologic litera- ture, maps, historic aerial stereographic and oblique photographs, ' and have been provided a blueline copy of a topographic map of the site, scaled 1 inch equals 10 feet, contour interval 1 foot, dated ' July 29, 1991, prepared by Brian Smith Engineers, Inc. of Carlsbad, G IOUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. SI01 January 10, 1992 Project No. 1404 -GE01 / Revised: June 12, 1992 Page 2 California. References for our investigation are cited in the ' Reference section at the end of this report. In particular, our investigation is designed to address the ' following geotechnical issues: ° The geologic setting of the site, ' ° Potential geologic hazards, ' 0 The depth and areal extent of any existing fill soils on site, ° Evaluation of the potential for compressibility of the on -site soils, ' The depth to r p groundwater, ' 0 Foundation design, including allowable soil bearing and earth pressure values, and ° On -site and off -site surface water drainage. Additionally, this report provides the technical basis for selection of a design rate of bluff retreat and the 75 -year bluff - top retreat line as presented on Figure 1. 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING A geologic reconnaissance was performed on the subject site and ' immediately adjacent areas to identify lithologic units exposed in the coastal bluffs, to observe structural features such as bedding attitudes, faults, joint and fracture patterns, and to identify observable evidence of perched groundwater seepage. An inventory was made of the geometry of nearby bluffs as an aid in understand- ' ing the present -day stage of erosional development of the bluff at the subject site. Additionally, we performed a beach profile and geologic reconnaissance a distance of approximately 200 feet t GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. ' Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: anuary 10, 1992 sed: June 12, 1992 Page 3 ' seaward of the cliff - platform junction at the base of the bluff ' (see Figure 2). Test boring data from our concurrent geotechnical investigation, ' including the depth and lateral extent of fill soils on the lot surface and upper -bluff slope, were used in conjunction with historic aerial photographs to compare past and present -day upper- ' bluff erosion. In addition, available historical storm data and nearshore bathymetry were incorporated into our analysis of bluff retreat. Our field investigation included drilling seven exploratory test ' borings to depths ranging from 6.5 to 13 feet. The locations of the borings are shown the Site Plan and Geologic Map, Figure 1. A Key to Boring Logs is presented in Appendix A as Figure A -1. Final ' logs of the test borings are presented in Appendix A as Figures A -2 through A -8. The descriptions on the logs are based on field logs, sample inspection, and laboratory test results. ' Selected representative samples were tested in the laboratory to ' classify and evaluate the engineering properties of the on -site soils. Laboratory tests included moisture /density relationships, grain size analyses, and consolidation characteristics. The results of laboratory tests are presented in Appendix B. ' 4 GEOLOGY AND SITE CONDITIONS 4.1 Geologic Setting The present -day configuration of the southern California coastline ' can be said to have had its early beginnings during Cretaceous time (120 to 85 million years ago) when the southern California Batholiths intruded existing Triassic and Jurassic -age strata, ' causing uplift to the east, and subsidence to the west where the deposition of marine sediments has continued through the last 60 to ' 80 million years. ' ROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. ' Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: anuary 10, 1992 sed: June 12, 1992 Page 4 Topographically, the project site is situated at the westerly bluff - terminated edge of a 1 /2- mile -wide gently westerly - sloping coastal terrace, one of a sequence of well- defined wave -cut abrasion terraces created primarily by higher eustatic sea stands ' during Pleistocene -age interglacial episodes, and to a lesser degree by tectonic uplift. 4.2 Site Conditions The subject 100 - foot -wide lot is bounded on the east by Neptune Avenue, on the north and south by adjoining residential lots, and on the west by the 65 foot -high Encinitas coastal bluff. The lot surface slopes at an approximate gradient of 12 percent, dropping 13 feet in elevation over 105 feet from Neptune Avenue on the east to the bluff top on the west. Existing improvements on the site ' include minor surficial grading, a single - family residential structure, and associated landscaping. ' 4.3 Subsurface Conditions ' Two geologic units (the Ardath Formation and late Pleistocene -age terrace deposits) and two surficial deposits (natural slopewash soils and a minor area of man - placed fill soils) are present in the ' general site area. These soil units, described below from oldest to youngest, are shown on both Figures 1 and 2. Ardath Formation A well - consolidated, moderately indurated, gray siltstone -fine sandstone, characteristic of the Ardath Formation of ' middle Eocene age (45 to 49 million years) is exposed in the shore platform and lower cliffed section of the bluff (generally below elevation 20 feet). These deposits, which consist of fossilifer- ' ous, gray, well sorted, fine grained, biotite- bearing lithic arkose and siltstone, are characterized by biotite -rich laminations and calcium carbonate - cemented spheroidal concretions in the cliff, and ' by remnants of a fossiliferous bed exposed on portions of the shore platform. The fossils, which are abundant within the 6- to 18- inch -thick bed, consist primarily of thick - shelled bivalves and gastropods. ' GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 ' Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: June 12, 1992 Page 5 ' Terrace De Posits Moderately - P consolidated, poorly indurated, light ' reddish- brown, silty fine sands, characteristic of late Pleisto- cene -age coastal terrace deposits, are exposed in the bluff above approximate elevation 20 feet, and were encountered in our test borings on the sloping lot surface below 3 to 5 feet of geological- ly recent slopewash soils, also derived from the terrace deposits. Soils within this generally medium dense to dense, but friable, ' sandy geologic unit include nearshore marine and beach sands lithologically characteristic of the Bay Point Formation (approxi- mately 120,000 years) , as well as sand dune deposits of aeolian deposition, dated by some to be as young as 11,000 to 15,000 years. Slopewash Soils Loose, porous, reddish - brown, silty sands form a 3- to 5- foot -thick mantle of slopewash soils over the westerly - sloping coastal terrace surface. The sands, probably of Holocene age (8,000 to 9,000 years old), exhibit observable porosity and would likely consolidate under moderate loads, especially when saturated. Like the underlying terrace deposit soils from which they are derived, the slopewash soils are easily erodible and subject to rilling. ' Fill Soils Apparently moderately compacted, brown, clayey sand soils have been placed to fill a previously existing erosion gully in the top of the bluff. The approximate lateral extent of this fill is shown on Figure 1, the Site Plan and Geologic Map. Our study of historic aerial photographs and results from Test Boring ' No. B -6 indicate this erosion gully to have been approximately 5 to 6 feet in maximum depth (following the approximate boundary between the slopewash soil mantle and the underlying terrace deposits) , and likely the result of uncontrolled surface drainage from Neptune Avenue. The fill soils, which appear to have been imported to the 1 site (to fill in the gully], are slightly more cohesive, and consequently should be slightly less susceptible to subaerial erosion than the surrounding silty sand natural soils. GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. ' SI01 January 10, 1992 Project No. 1404 -GE01 / Revised: June 12, 1992 Page 6 ' 5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ' 5.1 Faulting and Seismicity ' The site is located in a moderately- active seismic region of Southern California that is subject to significant hazards from moderate to large earthquakes. Ground shaking from six major ' active fault zones could affect the site in the event of an earthquake. These are the Rose Canyon, Coronado Banks, San Diego ' Trough, San Clemente, Elsinore, and San Jacinto /Superstition Hills fault zones. The nearest of these, the northerly offshore extension of the Rose Canyon fault zone, trends north - northwest and has been mapped approximately 5 miles west of the site. No known active faults have been mapped, nor were any observed during our geologic reconnaissance at, or in the immediate vicinity of, the site. 5.2 Landslides our study did not reveal the presence of any landslides on the site. No landslides have been mapped as being present either on or immediately adjacent to the site. The unique susceptibility of upper bluff soils in the Encinitas - Leucadia area to landsliding is discussed in greater detail in this report in the section covering bluff retreat (Section 8, Bluff -Top Retreat). 6 GROUNDWATER ' Groundwater was not encountered in our relatively shallow test borings (less than 13 -feet deep) made to obtain geotechnical data; ' however, evidence of a few, very minor, perched seepages was observed in the lower- middle bluffs, and relatively abundant flows of groundwater were observed along the contact between the terrace ' deposits and the underlying Ardath Formation. These seepage flows, estimated to be approximately 60 feet below the planned building site, are discussed in greater detail under Section 8. G iOUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: June 12, 1992 Page 7 ' 7 GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' 1. Our investigation did not reveal the presence of any major adverse geologic conditions on the site, such as ' faults, adverse bedding, landslides, or a high ground- water table, which would preclude the proposed new construction. ' 2. We understand that site grading for the proposed new ' residential structure will be minimal. Any additional grading should be observed, and compacted fill be tested, by Group Delta Consultants, Inc. All fill should be ' placed and compacted in accordance with the specifica- tions outlined in Appendix C. t 3. Based on our understanding that the anticipated struc- tural foundation will be entirely founded through the 3- t to 5- foot -thick mantle of relatively loose, porous slopewash soils, into competent coastal terrace deposit soils, it is our opinion that the proposed structure may ' be supported on isolated spread or continuous footings. 4. We recommend that footings for light- to medium - weight ' structures, founded in formational soils, be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. Bearing pressures may be increased by one -third for loads that include wind or seismic forces. All footings should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches into dense formational ' soils, and should be at least 12- inches wide. 5. We estimate that settlements of structures, or portions ' of structures, founded in natural terrace deposit soils, and using the recommended bearing pressures, will experience settlements generally considered to be acceptable (on the order of 1/2 inch total, 1/4 inch differential) . 6. Prior to the placement of concrete or reinforcing steel, all footing excavations should be inspected by the ' ROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 January 10, 1992 Revised: June 12, 1992 Page 8 geotechnical engineer to confirm that the footings are ' founded in formational soils, and to observe that the footing excavations are free of loose and disturbed materials. If the soils exposed in the footing excava- tions are not judged suitable, footing excavations should be deepened to provide minimum embedment into the underlying competent formational soils. ' 7• We recommend that all general -use floor slabs be at least ' 4- inches thick and be reinforced with at least 6 X 6 - 6/6 welded -wire mesh at the slab midpoint. A minimum fl- inch underlayer of coarse sand and a vapor barrier should ' also be employed where moisture - sensitive floor coverings are anticipated. We recommend that floor slabs be properly designed in accordance with City residential ' structural requirements. 8. Any retaining walls shall, as a minimum, be designed in ' accordance with the provisions of the current edition of Regional Standard Drawings, prepared by the San Diego ' Regional Standards Committee. 9. To provide resistance for design lateral loads, we ' recommend using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 or 450 pcf for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted granular fill soils or dense natural soils, respectively. This value assumes a horizontal surface for the soil mass extending at least 10 feet from the face of the footing or three times the height of the surface generating 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 to lateral loads. ' 10. Friction may also be used to resist lateral loads. We recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.45 between soil and concrete. If it is desired to combine friction and GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 ' Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: June 12, 1992 Page 9 ' passive resistance in design, we recommend reducing ing the ' friction coefficient by 25 percent. 11. Positive measures should be taken to properly finish ' grade the lot surface after the residential structure and other improvements are in place, so that drainage waters from the lot surface are directed away from the top of the slope. Gutters and downspouts should be used to carry water to pipes extending off site. No lot grade should be less than two percent (2 %), in accordance with the UBC standard. Ponding of water should not be permitted anywhere on the site. ' 12. Our reconnaissance of the site and surrounding areas, as well as review of historic aerial photographs, revealed that off -site drainage from Neptune Avenue has histori- cally drained across the property to the west and over the top of the slope, at one time creating a large ' erosion gully in the center top of the bluff. This condition has been mitigated by replacement of the eroded soils by compacted fill (see Figure 1) , and by construc- tion of a low wall along the easterly property line to divert off -site water away from the site. 8 BLUFF -TOP RETREAT ' This section documents the technical approach used for estimation of the 75 -year bluff retreat line shown on Figure 1, the Site Plan ' and Geologic Map. Our evaluation of bluff retreat is based on three analyses: ' 1. Estimation of the relative overall rates of marine and subaerial erosion; ' 2. Estimation of the amount of marine erosion that should be expected at the cliff - platform junction; and ROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: June 12, 1992 Page 10 3. Estimation of the amount of slope decline that may be ' expected for the bluff above the elevation of principal influence of marine erosion. 8.1 Bluff -Top Retreat and Engineering Design Placement of facilities on the coastal terrace above the bluff must ' account for changes in the bluff expected during the intended life of the structure. Historically, the typical approach has been to build as close to the bluff as desired, assuming that maintenance and repair would forestall loss of the structure. Another approach has been to estimate the amount of bluff -top retreat expected ' within the economic life of the structure, and to build behind the influence of retreat. In coastal engineering, the concept of intended lifetime of a structure has been replaced by required design periods set by regu- latory agencies. The California Coastal Commission requires a 75- year period to approximate the useful design life of most struc- tures. 8.2 Coastal -Bluff Geometry ' Figure 2 (Generalized Geologic Cross Section A -A') shows a generalized profile across the coastal terrace, bluff, and shore platform, and depicts near - surface geology. Figure 3 defines a few ' of the terms used in this report to describe coastal bluff geometry. A more complete explanation of terms generally used in coastal studies is provided in the glossary of terms at the end of this report. ' The typical coastal bluff profile in the Encinitas /Leucadia area includes a lower, near - vertical cliffed surface, rising directly from the sea, and an upper bluff slope, generally ranging in inclination between 35 and 65 degrees [measured from the hori- zontal], which extends up to the coastal terrace. The bluff top, or top -of- bluff, is defined as the boundary between the bluff and the coastal terrace. This boundary is designated as a line on Figure 1, and as a point on Figure 2. GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 r Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: June 12, 1992 I Page 11 I Offshore from the steep cliffed section of the lower bluff is an area of indefinite extent called the nearshore zone (see Figure 3). t The bedrock, or formational soil surface (not including sand cover) in the nearshore zone that extends out to sea from the base of the ' sea cliff, is called the shore platform. Worldwide, the shore platform may vary in inclination from horizontal to a gradient of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical, or 33 percent. At the site, however, the gradient of the shore platform is approximately 5 feet in 200 feet, or 22 percent. The boundary between the sea cliff (the lower, vertical and near - vertical section of the bluff) and the shore platform is called the cliff - platform junction. The breaking of waves defines the inshore and foreshore zones. The inshore zone starts offshore where the waves begin to break. This zone is highly variable with time because the point at which waves begin to break changes dramatically with changes in wave size and tidal level. During low tides, large waves will begin to break far out to sea. During high tide, waves may not break at all or they may break directly on the lower cliff. The foreshore represents that portion of the shore lying between the upper limit of wave wash at high tide and the ordinary low water mark. The foreshore t is not designated on Figure 3, as the transient shingle beach deposits are not shown. 8.3 Classification of Bluff Geometry Designation of the 75 -year line of upper bluff retreat (the desired end result of this study) requires an understanding of the dynamic relationship between the upper and lower bluff. Emery and Kuhn i (1982) developed a global system of classification of coastal bluff profiles, and applied that system to the San Diego County coastline from San Onofre State Park to the southerly tip of Point Loma. The Encinitas area was designated as Type C(c) (see Figure 4). The letter "C" designates coastal bluffs having a resistant geologic formation at the bottom, and less resistant materials in the upper parts of the bluff. The relative effectiveness of marine erosion of the lower resistant formation compared to subaerial erosion of the upper bluff produces a characteristic profile. GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 ' Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: June 12, 1992 Page 12 Rapid marine erosion compared to subaerial erosion produces a steep overall bluff, whereas slower marine erosion produces a more gently- sloping upper bluff. The letter "(c)" indicates that the long -term rate of subaerial erosion is approximately equal to that ' of marine erosion. 8.4 Components of Bluff -Top Retreat We have applied pp ied geomorphic techniques to estimate rates of bluff- ' top retreat. The method used requires breaking the problem down into upper and lower bluff component processes, and developing an understanding of the interaction between the two components. ' Although bluff retreat is episodic, characteristically coinciding g with major storm events, the rates of retreat of both upper and lower components of the bluffs at Encinitas are approximately equal over the longer term (defined here as several hundreds of years). Continuing long -term retreat of the lower bluff gradually creates ' an oversteepened condition in the upper bluff, causing it to decline (by erosion and /or shear failure) to a more sustainable 1 angle of repose, and the process continues. In the Encinitas area, upper bluff slope inclinations characteristically range between approximately 35 and 65 degrees. As the upper bluff slope ' approaches the high end of this range, episodes of massive landslide failure are typically caused by the combined effects of groundwater seepage and winter rain storms. Several examples of this type of rapid upper bluff decline have occurred recently in the general site area. ' 8.4.1 Marine Erosion Processes ' The types of erosion affecting the typical Encinitas profile will change with the tidal level. In addition, any local variation that changes the average water depth will signifi- cantly alter the local balance of erosive forces. Mechanical erosion processes at the cliff - platform junction include water abrasion, rock abrasion, cavitation, water hammer, air compression in joints, breaking -wave shock, and 1 flOUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: June 12, 1992 Page 13 alternation of hydrostatic pressure with the waves and tides. All of these processes are active in backwearing. Downwearing processes include all but breaking -wave shock. Backwearing and downwearing by the mechanical processes described above I are both augmented by bioerosion. Bioerosion is the removal of rock by the direct action of organisms. Backwearing at the site is assisted by algae in the intertidal and splash zones I and by rock - boring mollusks in the tidal range. Algae and associated small organisms bore into rock up to several millimeters. Mollusks may bore several centimeters into the rock. Both chemical and salt weathering also contribute to the erosion process. r Figures 1 and 2 indicate the presence of a transient shingle beach, composed primarily of rounded cobbles and gravel. ' These deposits, when present, tend to reduce the impact of wave energy at the cliff - platform junction and on the lower cliffed surface of the bluff during normal sea and moderate ' storm conditions; however, it has been shown that during times of extreme storms accompanied by high energy wave conditions, 1 both the shore platform and sea cliff erode very rapidly due to cobble abrasion and the impact of clasts acting as projec- tiles. 1 An important contributor to the erosion of coastal bluffs in the Encinitas area is the flow of groundwater along the contact between the pervious, moderately consolidated coastal terrace deposits, and the well consolidated, less pervious, I Tertiary -aged formations that underlie the terrace in the local coastal area. The likely sources of this groundwater are: 1) natural groundwater migration from highland areas to the east of the terrace, and 2) infiltration of the terrace surface by rainfall, and by agricultural and residential irrigation water. As might be expected, the volume of I groundwater exiting the bluff face in the site area varies from location to location, and between seasons. The primary erosive effect of groundwater seepage upon both formations at the site is spring sapping, or the mechanical erosion of sand grains by water exiting the bluff face. However, chemical GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 Project No. 1404- GE01 /SIOl Revised: June 12, 1992 Page 14 solution (especially of carbonate matrix material) is also a I significant contributor. Additionally, as groundwater approaches the bluff, it infiltrates near - surface stress - relief bluff - parallel joints, which form naturally behind and parallel to the bluff face. Hydrostatic loading of bluff parallel joints is an important cause of block- toppling on the steep - cliffed lower bluffs in the site area. 8.4.2 Water Depth, Wave Height, and Platform Slope The key factors affecting the marine erosion component of bluff -top retreat are water depth at the base of the cliff, breaking wave height, and the slope of the shore platform. At the site, the cliff - platform junction is at, and slightly above, mean sea level. This elevation subjects the cliffed lower bluff to periodic attack by breaking and broken waves, which create the dynamic effects of turbulent water and the compression of entrapped air pockets. When acting upon ' jointed and fractured rock, the "water- hammer" effect tends to cause hydraulic fracturing which exacerbates lower bluff ' erosion. Erosion associated with breaking waves is most active when water depths at the cliff - platform junction (d coincide with the respective critical incoming wave height (H) 1 such that d is approximately equal to 1.3H. Waves will break when their height reaches approximately 75 1 percent of the water depth; thus, in the absence of the presently existing shingle gravel beach, 3- foot -high waves 1 would break at the base of the sea cliff in the site vicinity when tides are approximately 4 feet above mean sea level. The slope, or gradient, of the shore platform in the site area is approximately 22 percent. Whenever wave height and water depth are sufficient to produce breakers some distance offshore from the cliff, the very gradual slope will influence the breaker to form broken waves with high turbulence. The broken waves may reform as smaller non - breaking waves. Moreover, the smaller non - breaking waves may, in turn, reform as even smaller breakers in a repetition of the process. When GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. r STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 r Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: June 12, 1992 Page 15 r waves break and reform, considerable wave energy is lost to drag on the shore platform; consequently, the shore platform is subject to greater downwearing erosion, and less erosive energy is delivered to the cliff - platform junction. r 8.4.3 Marine Erosion at the Cliff - Platform Junction ' The cliff - platform junction contribution to retreat of the overall sea bluff is from marine erosion, which includes mechanical, chemical, and biological erosion processes. Marine erosion operates horizontally (backwearing) on the cliff as far up as the top of the splash zone, and vertically ' downwearing) on the shoreline platform. Currently, back - wearing and downwearing appear to be progressing at rates that will maintain the existing gradient of the shoreline platform at approximately 22 percent. We estimate that, in the Encinitas area, the rate of downwearing is approximately 2 to ' 3 percent of the rate of backwearing. 8.5 Cliff- Platform Junction Erosion Rate r The general rate of marine erosion at the cliff - platform junction is the result of the combined effect of mechanical erosion and bioerosion. Reported total erosion rates for sedimentary rock coasts vary from less than 10 mm /yr for hard -rock coasts, to 2000 mm /yr for weak sedimentary rocks such as mudstones and siltstones. In San Diego County, rates of marine erosion of the Tertiary -aged r sea cliffs were measured, and estimated to average approximately 1/2 inch per year during the 5 -year period from 1970 to 1975 (Lee, Pinckney, and Bemis, 1976); however, this period was one of relatively mild winters with few major storms and only one episode of extreme wave activity. More typically, a five -year period would include three or four extreme -wave episodes, likely increasing the ' overall erosion rate proportionately to approximately 2 inches per year. Additionally, we estimate that the relatively large and historically increasing flows of groundwater, which contribute in large part to the accelerated growth of cave and cove development, GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 1 Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: June 12, 1992 Page 16 further increase lateral retreat of the cliffed lower bluff by 50 percent, to approximately 3 inches per year. We have chosen to use a preliminary estimated rate of 3 inches per year (76.2 millimeters per year) for marine erosion at the cliff - platform junction. This estimate is based on consideration of worldwide data, local measurements, variations in rock type, the 100 -year historic storm record, our detailed evaluation of vertical stereopair aerial photographs flown since 1928, as well as oblique ' aerial and land photographs of the site area. 8.6 Upper Bluff Slope Decline and the 75 -Year Bluff Retreat Line The overall inclination of the upper bluff at the subject site is presently at or slightly below 35 degrees, likely the extreme low of the typical 35 to 65 degree range exhibited along the Encinitas coastline. This most "mature" state of decline represents an extremely stable condition, subject to significant change only ' after the lower cliffed section of the bluff retreats sufficiently to steepen the upper section to the higher end of the range. Our estimate of an overall rate of retreat for the lower cliffed section of the bluff of 3 inches per year, resulting in a projected total lower bluff retreat of 18.75 feet (5.715 meters), provides us with a basis for comparison with bluff profiles throughout the Encinitas area in various stages of upper bluff development. Our ' evaluation of this comparison indicates that a 75 -year lower bluff retreat of 18.75 feet will result in a maximum retreat of the bluff -top line of less than 12 feet. Accordingly, we have presented an estimated line of bluff -top retreat, 12 feet east of the existing bluff -top line, for the 75 -year projected top-of- bluff, as shown on Figure 1. ' 9 LIMITATIONS ' Coastal engineering and the earth sciences are characterized by uncertainty. Professional judgements represented herein are based partly on our evaluation of the technical information gathered, ' GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: June 12, 1992 Page 17 partly on our understanding of the proposed construction, and partly on our general experience. Our engineering work and judgements rendered meet the current professional standards; we do not guarantee the performance of the project in any respect. This ' warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied. We have observed only a small portion of the pertinent soil and ' groundwater conditions at the proposed project site. The recommen- dations made herein are based on the assumption that soil con- ' ditions do not deviate appreciably from those found during our field investigation. If the plans for site development are changed, or if variations or undesirable geotechnical conditions ' are encountered during construction, Group Delta Consultants, Inc. should be consulted for further recommendations. L OUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: June 12, 1992 REFERENCES ' 1. Bird, Eric C.F., 1985, Coastline changes, a global review: John Wiley & Sons. 2. Bowden, K.F., Physical oceanography of coastal waters: Ellis Horwood Limited. ' 3. California Coastal Commission, 1984, California coastal act of 1976 as amended December 1984. 4. Carter, R.W.G., 1988, Coastal environments, an introduction to ' the physical, ecological and cultural systems of coast- lines: Academic Press. ' 5. Emery, K.O., and Kuhn, G.G., July 1982, Sea cliffs: their processes, profiles, and classification, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 93, pp. 644 -654, 8 figs. 1 6. Komar, Paul D.J. 1983, CRC Handbook of coastal processes and erosion: CRC Press, Inc. ' 7. Kuhn, G.G., and Shepard, F.P., 1980, Coastal erosion in San Diego County, California, Proceedings of the Conference Coastal Zone'80, American Society of Civil Engineers, I Hollywood, Florida. 8. Kuhn, G.G., and Shepard, F.P., March 1979, Accelerated beach - cliff erosion related to unusual storms in southern ' California, California Geology, pp. 58 -59. 9. Lee, Louis, Pinckney, C.J., and Bemis, C., 1976, Sea cliff base erosion, San Diego, California: American Society of Civil Engineers, National Water Resources and Ocean Engineering Conference, April 5 -8, 1976, preprint 2708, ' pp. 1 -13. 10. Norris, R.M., 1968, Sea cliff retreat near Santa Barbara, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Mineral Information Service, v. 21, No. 6, pp. 87 -91. 11. North, W.J., 1954, Size distribution, erosive activities, and ' gross metabolic efficiency of the marine intertidal snarls, Littorina planaxis and L. Scutulata: Biol. Bull. 106, pp. 185 -197. ' 12. Pease, R.C., 1979, Scarp degradation and fault history south of Carson City, Nevada: University of Nevada, Reno, Masters Thesis, 90 p. GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: June 12, 1992 ' REFERENCES - continued - ' 13. Sanders, N.K., 1968 The development p nt of the Tasmanian shore platforms, University of Tasmania, Ph.D. Thesis. 14. Schumm, Stanley A., and Mosley, Paul M., 1973, Slope morphol- ogy: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc. ' 15. Shepard, F.P., and Kuhn, G.G., 1983, History of sea arches and remnant stacks of La Jolla, California, and their bearing on similar features elsewhere, Marine Geology, 51, pp. ' 139 -161. 16. Shepard, F.P., and Grant, U.S. IV, October 1947, Wave erosion ' along the southern California coast, Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, v. 58, pp. 919 -926. ' 17. Swift, Donald J.P., 1978, Coastal sedimentation: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc. 18. Trenhaile, Alan S., 1987, The geomorphology of rock coasts, ' Clarendon Press, Oxford, 384 p. 19. Wallace, R.E., 1977, Profiles and ages of young fault scarps, north - central Nevada: Geological Society of America Bulletin, V. 88, pp. 1267 -1281. ' GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: June 12, 1992 GLOSSARY OF TERMS BLOCKFALL: Rapid decent of a large angular rock fragment gment derived from breaking of the parent rock mass, usually along joints. BLUFF (COASTAL BLUFF): The rising ground bordering the sea which may include a sea cliff, but is characterized by an upper, moderately - sloping, section ending at a coastal terrace. ' BLUFF TOP: The boundary between the bluff and the coastal terrace. BLUFF -TOP RETREAT: Landward migration over time of the bluff top caused by marine erosion on the sea cliff and subaerial erosion of the bluff. ' CAUSTIC: In refraction of waves, the name given to the curve to which adjacent wave rays refracted by a bottom whose contour lines are curved, are tangents. The occurrence of a caustic always marks a region of crossed wave rays and high wave convergence. CLAPOTIS: Nonbreaking waves. ' CLIFF - PLATFORM JUNCTION: The location at the base of the sea cliff where the near - horizontal shore platform meets the near- vertical sea cliff. ! COASTAL TERRACE: Any long, narrow, relatively level surface bounded along the shoreward edge by a sea cliff and along the landward edge by ascending slopes. ' DIURNAL: Having a period or cycle of approximately 1 ti pP y dal day. EROSION: The mechanical destruction of the land or sea floor and the removal of rock and soil by running water, waves and currents, moving ice, wind, and gravity. It includes the processes of weathering, solution, corrosion, and transportation. FETCH: The horizontal distance (in the direction of the wind) over which a wind generates seas. FORESHORE ZONE: A part of the shore lying between the upper limit mit of wave wash at high tide and the low water mark. The foreshore is ' usually traversed by the uprush and backrush of waves; however, the foreshore is typically absent at the site. ' GEOMORPHOLOGY: That branch of both h sio ra h and P Y g P Y geology which deals with the form of the earth, the general configuration of its surface, and the changes that take place in the evolution of landform. ' GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: June 12, 1992 ' GLOSSARY OF TERMS - continued - HEADLAND (HEAD): A high steep -faced promontory extending into the sea. INSHORE ZONE: A zone of variable width extending from the low water line at the shore to the seaward edge of the breaker zone. ' NEAP TIDE: A tide occurring near the time of quadrature of the moon with the sun. The neap tidal range is usually 10 to 30 percent less than the mean tidal range. NEARSHORE ZONE: An indefinite zone extending seaward from the shoreline well beyond the breaker zone. REFRACTION: The process by which the direction of a wave moving in shallow water at an angle to the contours is changed. The part of the wave advancing in shallower water moves more slowly than the ' part still advancing in deeper water, causing the wave crest to bend toward alignment with the underwater contours. ' SEA CLIFF: A more or less continuous line of seaward - facing high, steep rock faces or precipices that are caused by marine and subaerial erosion. SEMIDIURNAL TIDE: A tide with two high and low waters in a tidal day. SHORE: The narrow strip of land in immediate contact with the sea, including the zone between high and low water lines. A shore of unconsolidated material is usually called a beach. SHORE PLATFORM: The horizontal or gently seaward sloping surface produced along a shore by wave erosion and other subaqueous erosion processes. Synonym: wave -cut platform. STANDING WAVES: Nonbreaking waves. t SUBAERIAL EROSION: Erosion that occurs on the land surface due to removal of surface material by wind, water, and gravity in its broadest sense. This also includes the weathering process which t produces more erodible material. Contrasted with marine erosion. WASTING: The gradual destruction or wearing away of a landform surface by wind, gravity, and rill wash, but excluding subaqueous ' erosion. GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Revised: June 12, 1992 ' GLOSSARY OF TERMS - continued - 1 WAVE SPECTRUM: A graph showing the distribution of wave energy as a function of wave frequency. The spectrum may be based on obser- vations and /or theoretical considerations. Several forms of graphic display are widely used. See Appendix B. WAVE HEIGHT: The vertical distance between a crest and the pre- , ceding trough. WAVE LENGTH: The horizontal distance between similar points on two ' successive waves measured perpendicular to the crest. WAVE RAY (ORTHOGONAL): On a wave - refraction diagram, a line drawn perpendicularly to the wave crests. WAVE SETUP: Superelevation of the still water surface over normal surge elevation due to onshore mass transport of water by wave ' action alone. WEARING: The gradual destruction of a landform surface by movement ' of loose rock fragments or particles driven by wind, waves, running water or ice that causes rubbing, grinding, knocking, scraping, and bumping against the landform surface. ' WEATHERING: The physical disintegration and chemical decomposition of rock that produces an in -situ mantle of softer material that is more easily eroded. t t GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. N (aISW) 1333 NI NOI- LVA313 U CD N CC w � O O N C7 w w u O 00 O I- co !n ct Ch O N O LL (7 J r z o I I I I I I I I I I o c 2 ui > O Q w Z w as Q— Z t#— - I. o a cc ¢ CA X O tZ O [t I w (r w O m x F- I O w o w z z Cr LL W o z CL I � . , I . U a) 1 (OISW) 1333 NI NOLLVA313 p 1 �4 O O M N O i I I I I i .. FZ U- I 1331 3AOOV 33S I. O w f: I � 3NII HO1dW w °C a U) i . , .' CC U) CL x a O 00 : I:.: • .. w w I. J I co o 1: -- z 4 v z � CC w �m ° o m 1 I w �I J • � I r Z m I :I FT W O ;I I CL 1HJId MO138 33S 3NII HOidW i w w z LU J � Z W Z 1 �. � D Z _ � i �o F- I W Z U F - Q w I I' Q f z U I. U w cc w n :.I a a D cc M N O O d •n k. (aISW) 1333 NI NOIIVA313 1 0 1 Z w O Q = M Cc N cr W Z lu 1 Q Q d Q Zt m 0 o o Z � �" F- S W V) LL O O z Q J Z Z O 1 m Q J Z <�� C) a O CO N Q p LLJ w LL Z F- Z H F.. 0 n Z CL 1 ir U- o w v z W O zU wZ z ^ m � O Q> o(l) w �¢ Nw coz ZU -i �z w cr a = �� °ccr U mcr ¢ wJ w Wz co m Y cn z ° o z� J p0 UCC w LL. Q� m m¢ m� w j U O m � � J 1 Z oZ LL ir U) NO h m a a c Q ¢ Q w 3 y� �� a O cr s lb w m. ?� smog ¢ U J Z �� 't -M O ¢ U FF- w c� 3 r� �.�� ! w - Z z 151 % 4 .- .§ -t t, � : L H F �m oy 0 � c c� z -� ' m a$ cma 3co 14 E Q CO Z c U) a c m y Q m U `' s� ZO-°c ct Q Q � w 4i d � U � � U � QQ �` � • [� N Z o Q 3 m 4`i U 0 cz o m N m ys ti c Z O �� Js a� r a r 4J m 0. C5 ti ii ° �; ZvZ��nti�I'cU�hU3 0 a 1 (A) (B) (C) HOMOGENEOUS RESISTANT AT Top RESISTANT AT BOTTOM (a) M>>Sa (b) M>Sa (C) M=Sa (d) M<Sa CLIFF PROFILES ACCORDING TO VARIATIONS IN ROCK RESISTANCE AND IN THE RELATIVE EFFICACY OF MARINE (M) AND SUBAERIAL (Sa) PROCESSES. THE MORE RESISTANT ROCK OUTCROPS ARE SHADED (AFTER EMERY AND KUHN 1982). MATRIX OF ACTIVE COASTAL BLUFF PROFILES Project No. Fig ure CRAMER RESIDENCE ure 1404-S101 1200 NEPTUNE AVENUE 4 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 1 ' APPENDIX A LOGS OF TEST BORINGS 1 ' GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. K E Y T O B O R I N G L 0 G S ' LOGGED BY: DATE DRILLED: BORING ELEVATION: BORING NO.: DRILL RIG: BORING DIAMETER: HAMMER WT.: DROP: D E S C R I P T I O Ni. Lo � , H m P. W 3 W F W q Q En a m F a. O yy A U1 W ' U A O F 14 Medium dense, moist, brown SILTY FINE SAND (SM) Unified Soil Classification t 5 Water Table Measured On Date Indicated Number of Blows Required to Advance Sampler One Foot Sample Type: ' S Standard Penetration Drive C California Drive with Rings ' Sample Location Depth Below Surface Elevation ' Indicates Samples Tested for Other Properties: GS Grain Size Distribution CS Consolidation Test N O T E S O N F I E L D I N V E S T I G A T I O N ' 1. Borings were advanced using a Beaver Portable Hydraulic drill rig with a 4 -inch continuous - flight auger. 2. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and California Samplers were used to obtain soil samples. The samplers were driven into the soil at the bottom of the boring with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The sampler was withdrawn from the boring, and the samples removed, visually classified, sealed in plastic containers, and taken to the laboratory for testing. ' The SPT is an 18 inch -long, 2 -inch O.D., 1 /8-inch I.D. drive sampler The California Sampler is an 18 inch-long, 2 - 1/2 -inch inside diameter, 3 - inch outside diameter, thick- ' walled sampler. The sampler is lined with eighteen 2 - 3/8 - inch inside diameter brass rings. Relatively undisturbed, intact soil samples are retained in the brass rings. 3. No free groundwater was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. ' 4. Classifications are based upon the Unified Soil Classification System and include color, moisture and consistency. Descriptions on this boring log apply only at the specific boring location and at the time the boring was made. The descriptions on this log are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. ' PROJECT NO.: 1404 CRAMER RES I DENCE - 120 0 NEPTUNE I FIGURE NO.: A- 1 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. Engineers and Geologists B O R I N G L O G LOGGED BY: GS DATE DRILLED: 11/7791 BORING ELEVATION: 85.5 feet (MSLD) BORING NO.: DRILL RIG: BEAVER RIG BORING DIAMETER: 6 inches HAMMER WT.: 140 lbs. DROP: 30 in. g - 1 ' � F z � w � ro w D E S C R I P T I 0 9 z H W W �'' E � F V F a u)) u F a— H w C� 3 Q U n. GL o ff ul 1 C 15 ' Loose to medium dense, dry, brown, SILTY FINE SAND (SM) (porous) 2 S 18 TOPSOIL /SLOPEWASH ' 5 3 C 41 6.8 105.7 CS ' Medium dense to dense, damp, mottled light reddish - brown, SILTY TO GS CLAYEY MEDIUM TO FINE SAND (SM to SM -SC) 4 S 24 ' BAY POINT FORMATION ' 10 5 S 29 Medium dense, damp, gray to tan, SILTY MEDIUM TO FINE SAND (SM) BOTTOM OF BORING at 11$ feet No free groundwater encountered at time of drilling ' 15 Descriptions on this boring log apply only at the specific boring location and at the time the boring was made. The descriptions on this log are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. ' PROJECT NO.: 1404 CRAMER RES I DENCE - 1200 NEPTUNE FIGURE NO.: A -2 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. ' Engineers and Geologists 1 B O R I N G L O G ' LOGGED BY: GS DATE DRILLED: 11171 91 BORING ELEVATION: 84.0 feet (MSLD) BORING NO.: DRILL RIG: BEAVER RIG BORING DIAMETER: 6 inches HAMMER WT.: 140 lbs. DROP: 30 in. B - 2 ' F z W w � a m a D E S C R I P T I 0 N H FW �+H W U) a m H ao 0 3 �z oz a U A OH Bricks on sand bedding 1 S 10 Loose, damp, brown, SILTY MEDIUM TO FINE SAND (SM) (porous) ' TOPSOIL /SLOPEWASH ' S Medium dense, damp, mottled tan and light reddish - brown, SILTY MEDIUM 2 S 17 TO FINE SAND (SM) 1 BAY POINT FORMATION BOTTOM OF BORING at 64 feet No free groundwater encountered at time of excavation ' 10 ' 15 Descriptions on this boring log apply only at the specific boring location and at the time the boring was made. The descriptions on this log are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. PROJECT NO.: 1404 CRAMER RES I DENCE - 12 0 0 NE PTUNE 7 FIGURE NO.: A- 3 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. Engineers and Geologists B O R I N G L O G LOGGED BY: GS DATE DRILLED: 11/7/91 BORING ELEVATION: 79.5 feet (MSLD) BORING NO.: DRILL RIG: BEAVER RIG BORING DIAMETER: 6 inches HAMMER WT.: 140 lbs. DROP: 30 in. B - 3 � H 2 K W i H m W D E S C R I P T I O N z H w w a ° x Hz n a xvi El PQ Loose, dry, brown, SILTY MEDIUM TO FINE SAND (SM) (porous) 1 S 7 TOPSOIL /SLOPEWASH 2 C 26 3.9 109.3 CS Medium dense, damp, light reddish - brown, SILTY MEDIUM TO GS ' FINE SAND (SM) (slightly porous) 5 3 S 15 ' Medium dense, damp, mottled tan and light reddish - brown, SILTY MEDIUM TO FINE SAND (SM) ' BAY POINT FORMATION 10 4 S 27 Medium dense to dense, damp, grayish -tan, SILTY SAND (SM) BOTTOM OF BORING at Ilk feet No free groundwater encountered at time of excavation 15 Descriptions on this boring log apply only at the specific boring location and at the time the boring was made. The descriptions on this log are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. PROJECT NO.: 1404 CRAMER RES I DENCE - 1200 NE PTUNE FIGURENO.: A -4 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. ' Engineers and Geologists 1 B O B I A G L O G LOGGED BY: GS DATE DRILLED: 11/7/91 BORING ELEVATION: 77.5 feet (MSLD) BORING NO.: DRILL RIG: BEAVER RIG BORING DIAMETER: 6 inches HAMMER WT.: 140 lbs. DROP: 30 in. B - 4 ' O H z � D E S C R I P T I O N H a H W N H W W F W W N p W F W' [ o £6 C7 3 - O Q W [ W ' [] +� v' F PO U G] O F ' Loose to medium dense, dry, brown, SILTY FINE SAND (SM) (porous) 1 S 10 _TOPSOIL /SLOPEWASH ' 5 2 S 20 ' Medium dense, damp, mottled light tan and reddish - brown, SILTY MEDIUM TO FINE SAND (SM) ' BAY POINT FORMATION ' 10 3 S 26 Medium dense to dense, damp, mottled light gray and light reddish - brown, SILTY MEDIUM TO FINE SAND (SM) BOTTOM OF BORING at 11$ feet No free groundwater encountered at time of excavation 15 Descriptions on this boring log apply only at the specific boring location and at the time the boring was made. The descriptions on this log are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. PROJECT NO.: 1404 CRAMER RES I DENCE 12 0 0 NEPTUNE FIGURENO.: A- 5 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. Engineers and Geologists B O R I N G L O G LOGGEMBG W DATE DRILLED: 11/7/91 BORING ELEVATION: 81.0 feet (MSLD) BORING NO.: DRILL BORING DIAMETER : 6 inches HAMMER WT 140 lbs. DROP: 30 in. g - 5 D E S C R I P T I O N 9 z c . HW W 4 A £ O U W A O F Medium dense, dry, brown, SILTY MEDIUM TO FINE SAND (SM) (porous) 1 C 20 TOPSOIL /SLOPEWASH ' 2 S 13 Medium dense to dense, damp, light reddish - brown, SILTY MEDIUM TO FINE SAND (SM) 5 3 C 25 BAY POINT FORMATION 4.8 109.2 CS GS 4 S 18 10 5 S 23 Dense to very dense, damp to moist, mottled light gray and light reddish - brown, SILTY MEDIUM TO FINE SAND (SM) 6 C 80 BOTTOM OF BORING at 13 feet No free groundwater encountered at time of excavation ' 15 Descriptions on this boring log apply only at the specific boring location and at the time the boring was made. The descriptions on this log are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. PROJECT NO.: 1404 CRAMER RES I DENCE 1200 NEPTUNE FIGURE NO.: A -6 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. ' Engineers and Geologists B O R I N G L O G LOGGED BY: GS DATE DRILLED: 11/7/91 BORING ELEVATION: 75.5 feet (MSLD) BORING NO.: DRILL RIG: BEAVER RIG BORING DIAMETER: 6 inches HAMMER WT.: 140 lbs. DROP: 30 in. B - 6 F ° z 8 D E S C R I P T I O N 'j m H E HW >+W N W w H w 3 �1-1 ox £ L A O F ' Damp to moist, dark brown, CLAYEY SAND (SC) 1 C 5 FILL ' 2 S 2 ' S 3 C 14 ' Medium dense to dense, moist, reddish - brown, SILTY MEDIUM TO 4 S 29 FINE SAND (SM) ' BAY POINT FORMATION ' 10 5 S 27 Dense, moist, mottled light gray and reddish -brown SILTY SAND (SM) BOTTOM OF BORING at 11$ feet No free groundwater encountered at time of excavation ' 15 Descriptions on this boring log apply only at the specific boring location and at the time the boring was made. The descriptions on this log are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. PROJECT NO.: 1404 CRAMER RES IDENCE 1200 NEPTUNE FIGURENO.. A- 7 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. Engineers and Geologists B 0 R I B G L O G LOGGED BY: GS DATE DRILLED: 11/7/91 BORING ELEVATION: 77.5 feet (MSLD DRILL RIG: BEAVER RIG ) BORING 7 BORING DIAMETER: 6 inches HAMMER WT.: 140 lbs. DROP: 30 in. g - 7 ' O F Z � w 1#4 w w 25 p H D E S C R I P T I O B E+w rHw rn a �- vi H 'm Hz oz w �vi A off Loose, dry, brown, SILTY FINE SAND (SM) (porous) _TOPSOIL /SLOPEWASH 5 Medium dense, damp, light reddish - brown, SILTY MEDIUM TO FINE SAND (SM) (slightly porous) Medium dense, damp, light reddish - brown, SILTY MEDIUM TO FINE SAND (SM) BAY POINT FORMATION ' 10 Dense, damp, tan, SILTY MEDIUM TO FINE SAND (SM) BOTTOM OF BORING at 12 feet ' No free groundwater encountered at time of excavation ' 15 Descriptions on this boring log apply only at the specific boring location and at the time the boring was made. The descriptions on this log are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. - PROJECT NO.: 1404 CRAMER RES I DENCE 12 0 0 NEPTUNE FIGURENO.: A- 8 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. ' Engineers and Geologists t APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. Mai 0 I -1:�� r ■ r 04Z nfl - 4 Ism Ism Ism 1111111111111101 mmm In ME massiolis am [no �ll SEEM ■ _ . I■ ■■ MM � ��1 ■ ■,1 ■ ■am INN ■■ 111110� In am= 11 1■■ ■ ■■■M =�1 ■ ■ ■■■��11 ■ ■■ ■11110 am ■ ��11 ■ ■ OEM= �1 ■ ■ ■,� ■��1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■��1 ■ ■ ■■ ■amp 1■■ 111■ll =�1 m�1 INN ■ ■amp _ . I■■ ■m= Nino am amp _ I■■ NINON INS 11■■■ ■■■mm loss ■■�� I■■ 111111111111101 OEM= MEN 1■■■■■mm ■m = is Sam lmommm 111111111111111111M INN Ism ■ m�� 11 ■ ■ ■1��11 Boom ��11 ■ ■ ■ ■�� 1■■ ■ SIER ■■■■ m�11■■■■mm� I■■ ■m��11 ■ ■ ■■ ■■■■■m ■m =� 1■■ ■ m= 11■■■■mm� ■■■ mm ■ m= ■1111100 ■m = 1■ ■ ■ am= � INN ■ ��11■■■■ ��I■■■■ ■■'m 1■■■■■mm� ion I■■■ ��11■■■ 1111111111111M am= Ion am= ■M = ■mm ■m = ■m =� 1■■■ �� ■ ■ ■ ■ �� 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■��11 ■ ■■ ■amp I■■ ■■NEM ■MIM1 11 ■■■ ■amp INS 11111111111011 am= 111111111111100 moomm am= mmm 11111111111111m 1sommm ��ommm1Emm omm� 1■ ■ SEEM �� ■ ■ ■■mom \� ■ ■ ■ ■� ■ ■ ■ ■� 1 INN omm Ion MONSOON ■ ■ ■��11 ■ ■ ■■m =�I ■ ■ ■■ ■amp,. am= am immmmm am= NINE mm 1■■■ mm ■■■■■ M = I■■■■■mm T M-nW1�11■■■■mm� ■■■ � am 1 ■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■��I ■ ■�� ■ININIQ� 71■ ■ ■■ ■p i ■■■ M�� ININON � INN ■ ■am= ��':�� ■ ■�� 1 ■■■ ��1■■■■■= ��1 Ion ■ ■ �� 11 ■ ■ ■ ■��1 ■_ ►7�!��■ loom 1 ■■■ ��11■■■■ = = 11■■ ■ 1■■■■■MM11 ■ ■ri:r�■ loom 11111OE loom loom SO �ll WINE loom mo�im m v [ ■ ■ ■ e ■ • :4 ■ - • - • I■■■ t■ t■■ t■ t■ tI/■ t■ gloom It■■ mm ■■■■■■■ 1■■\\■■■■■ t■■ t■■■1 ■ ■ ■ OEM= t■■■■1■■■■■■■�■t■� 1■■■ MI■ t■ ■ 1■■■■■■■m Ion IS ■t■� It■■ t.■ �t■■ t. 1■■.■■ t■■ �t■ tt■ 1/■■ li■■■m ■t■m t■t■■11 ■■■ ■ in= tt■� 1■■■.■ I■■■■■■ t■ t■■■■ 1■■■ a'■ m■ t■ ■ 1 /■■■■t■t�■t■■■ I on ■■■■■ t■ I■■.■■■■m ■■■■■ 1■■■■ u �1■ ■ OEM .■tt■ ■ ■ OEM t ■t�■■■� ■■ IN now ■■■ /■■■ l\■■ ■■t�1■ ■■■■EtM■■t�1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■��■■■� it■■=■ �� 1/■■■■■■■■ t ■ � l��tt■ ■t■ ■11 ■■■■M■�■■■�1■■ ■ ■ ■t■■�■■t■ _ . I ■■ ■■■■■■t■■�1■■■■■■■tt■t■ tai■■ t■■ 1■■t��1 /■■■■t■■■■ ■■■■■mmt _ 1■■■M= ■■ tai■■ t■■ mi ■ENEM ONE =■ 1■■■ M■ t■ m I/■■■ tl I /■■■■t■ 1■ ■■■■t■m� 1■■ t ill ■■■ t■ �■ t■ � 1 /■■■■ �t�t ■t�I1 ■t ■ ■t■ ■�■■■� I ■ ■ mom= t�■tt■■ onolum INN 1/■ t■■ lu = I■ ■ ■ ■ ■t■tmt■t■■1 ■ ■t ■ ■��ttt■ i■■ 1■ /t■■■■m I ■t■ ■I ■ t■ ■t■t■■Igloo ■t■■t■■t■�1 / ■ ■ ■ ■�.�� 1■■■ mm t■■■■II■■■■m■Ott■III■■■■■l ■■■■■t■■■■tt■II ■ ■ ■ ■�t�t■t� 1■■■ == tt■ III ■ ■■■NEMt■■ III■■■ ■■■mm l■■ ■ ■�t■■� I■■■t■tt■t■ till■ t■■ t■ l■■■■ I■■■■t■t■■■■tt■1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■t■�t■■� _ 1■■■■■■ ■■ ■■■■ ■ ■t■ ■■■I III ■■ ■�■�■t■■■III ■ ■ ■�■�■■t� 1 ■ ■ ■�■��i /Boom = II■■■■m ■■■■■ ■III ■ ■ ■ ■t■t■■■■■t■II ■ ■ ■ ■�■�t■t■ 1■■■■ ■■■■t ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ = =t ■■III ■ ■ ■ ■■■Mt■■�1 ■ ■t ■ ■�■t■■t■� It ■■ ■.■m t■tt■II ■ ■ OEM= t■■�II ■ ■ ■ ■�t�tt■�II ■ ■ ■ ■�■�■■■� Ism ■ ��■■tt■II ■ ■■ ■fit■■ III■ t■■ mImt■■�II ■t mom= t■t�i ■■t ■ ■��t■■� I ■ ■ ■ ■mm■■■III ■ ■ ■ ■�l� ■■■III ■ ■ ■ ■■■■�t■■�II ■ ■ ■ ■�■�■■t� Ism ■ ■ ■■■ ■tt■■1 / ■t ■■ ■■■■■■ �I/■ t■■ mI= EMISSION .■■■■II ■ ■ ■ ■in= ■t ■� Emam , i■ m■ t■■■ 1■■■ ■.■ L+,■ tt�Il ■ ■ ■ ■�t�■t■t■II ■t ■ ■t■■�■■■� I on ■■■■ III■ tOEM= ■■■■■ Ilion ■ �� ■t■t■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■�t.■tt■�II ■ ■ ■ ■�■�� ■■ II■ t■■■■■ 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■�■■■�II ■ ■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■� It ■ ■mm OEM= ■■■ III■■■■ t■ tt► 1 .tt�Illt ■ ■�t�■t■�1 / ■ ■ ■ ■�■■■■t■� 1 ■■ II ■t■ ■ ■NE■■ ►' II ■ ■ ■ ■■■■�■■■■ It ■ ■■■■ Ott■■■ 1■■■■■■■■ t■ I■■■■■ ■ ■ =■=t■■�II ■ ■ ■ ■�■�■■■� I on OEM= ■■■■= I ■ mom= .■■t■II ■ ■ ■ ■�■�tt■� ■■■■ �t■■ �1■■.■■■■ = II ■ ■ ■ ■■■M ■ ■ ■ ■ ■�■�■■t� Ism ■■■■■■�1■■■ EMISSION tt■ �I■■■■■ mm I■t ■ ■ =t=■■■�II ■ ■ ■ ■�t�■t■� Ism ■■ ��II■■■■■■ mt■■■■ II/■ ■ ■mm I■ ■ mom= t■t�II ■ ■ ■ ■�t�� 1■■■ mm■ t■■■ II■■■■ mm ■ mm ■ ■ mom t■■t■t■■II ■ ■ ■ ■�■�■■■� 1■■■ m■■■ ■ mLmL■ LL ■IIL�'�■■NEL■■L■■.■IL / ■ ■tlt■L�� 1■■■t■= ■■■ III■■■■■■■ Mt■ tt■ 1■■ t■■ mm�I /� ■94- RMM mom ■ ■mm■■■■■ 1■■■■■■■■ ■mt■■ ■■t■ ■,9! ■ t■II ■ ■ ■ ■■■■t■■■t� ■■ ■■ ■■M min ■■■■ \z III ■ ■ ■ ■mm� 1.■ II■■■■INEE III■■■■■ ■ t ■ ■m= ■mm■■■� 1■■■■■m 1■■■■■ t■ �1■■■■■■■ t ■ ■Mt=■tL`r= 7 ■A ■ ■■■■t■ttt■■ ■■■t■■■■■II MEMORIES ■t■�1I ■t■ ■■■■fit .■III ■ ■ ■ ■t■ =■.■t■ist�l7�■�■■t� I.■■= t■■■■■■■ 1 ■■■■■mm�1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■m innommmt l ■ ■ ■ ■�. =�r� ■ ■ ■■■= ■■■■■1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■m m� 1 ■ ■ ■■ ■mot■■ ■■III ■ ■ ■ ■■■m�II ■ ■ ■ ■�■�t■t■■ :1■■■■■m ■ ■ ■ ■ ■mm■t■ III■■■ ■■■��II ■t ■ ■�t�t■t�1 ■ ■t ■ ■�■�t■t� v r Y 54 • 1 • 4 F ■ ■ ■ [ ■ • - ■ :: 1■■■ 1■ I11■ EEEE1111■ I1■■■■ I■ EEE11C � E■ EEE■ IIIE1111■ 11■■■■ E111EII■ IIEIIEEE ■1 / ■ ■ ■ ■I ■EII ■IIIIIIEII■ 1 ■ ■ ■ E■ EEE■ EEEEEEEE■ 1 ■ ■ OEM== 11 ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ■111■ EIIIIEEEI■ gloom ■ an= EEEEEEE■ 1 Room= EIIIIIII ■IEI ■ ■ ■■E■111■ 111111111■ Iloilo ■ E■ EEI■ EIIIIIIII■ IEI /■■■1■■1■IIIIIIIE ■1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1 ■EII ■analog Isom I■ EEII■ EEIEEEII .1 ■ ■ ■ ■■1■11■ ■1■ 111■ 111111111 ■11■■■■I■111■Ellllllll•1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■E ■111 ■EEEEEEEE■ _ .1 ■ ■ ■1 ■EII ■EIIIIIII ■1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■I ■III■ 111111111 ■1 ■ ■ ■1� ■1■ 111■ EIIIIEIII■ 1/■■■■ E■/ E ■IIIIIIIEI ■1 ■ ■ ■ ■■1■■1■EEEEEEEE■ ISO ■E ■EII ■EIIIIIII ■ 111111111 ■1 ■ ■ ■t<I ■E■ 111■ 111111111 ■1 ONE ■ ■E■ 111■ IIIIEIIII ■1 ■ ■ ■ ■■E■■E■EIIIIIIII■ 1■■■I■11■ 11111111 ■1 /■■■ ■E■ 111■ 1■■■■■E■■1■ I■■ ■ 111111111 ■1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1 ■EIl ■ i■■ 111111111■ E■ 111■ 11111111 ■1■■■■ ■E■ 111 E 11111 E 11 ■ // ■ ■ ■1■■ ■ ■ ■1■ 111■ 11111111 ■1 / ■ ■ ■ ■E■■1■ 1 ■ ■ ■ Ellllllll■ ■1■III■11111111 ■1/■■■ ■1■ 111 111111111 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 111■ Ellllllll■ 1/■■■■ I■ EII■ Elllllll ■IEI/ ■ ■ ■1■■1■ I■■■ 111111111■ . ■Ell■ 11111111■ 1 / ■ ■ ■ ■E ■111■ 111111111 ■ ■ ■ ■ 111 11111 1111■ 1 / ■ ■ ■ ■E■ 111■ 11111111 ■1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1 ■EII ■111111111■ I■111■IIIIIIIE ■1 / / ■ ■ ■I■ 111■ 111111 . ■ ■ ■ ■P.! =Ill■E /■ ■ ■ ■I■ III ■Illllllll■1 /■ ■ ■ ■1■/1■11111111■ loom 1 ■Illl■ 11111111 ■ ■ 111 Elllllll •1 ■ / ■ ■C / ■ ■ ■ ■I■ 111 ■11E111111 ■ loans ■I ■111.11111• ■■■E■■E■ 11■■■■ 1■ EEE■ IEII. 1■■■■ n1• EEI■ EEEII• IEI■■■■ E■ m Imam== EEEEEII.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■E ■EEE ■EEEEEEEEE■ EEEEEIII■ loon ■ ■ E ■1111■ EEllllll■ 111 ■ ■ ■ >■ EEI■ EEEEEEEE■ 11 ■ ■ ■ ■ I■ 111• EEllllll■ 11 ■ ■ ■ ■ E■ 111■ IIIIIIII■ Ism ■ E■■ E■■ EEE11E■1 ■1 ■ ■■E■EEE ■EEEII.11 ■ ■ ■■ IEEE■ EEEEEEEE■ 11EI■■■ E ■EEE ■EEEEEEII. loon ■■E■111■EEII• INN ■ E■ IIl■ EEElllll■ 11■■■■ 1■■ 11• Elllllll■ I■■■■ MOM= EIIIII. 11■■now= Illllllll ■11 ■ ■ ■■E■■1.11♦ Ism ■ E■ EEE■ ■111111.11 ■ ONE E■ EEE■ EEEEEIII■ 1 ■ / ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ EEE■ EEEEEEEII■ 1 / ■ ■ ■ ■ E■ IIII■ EEEEEEEE■ 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ E■ EII■ Elllllll■ ■■■ mEEE ■EEEEEEEE ■11 ■ ■ ■ ■E ■EEE ■EEEEEEEE ■111 ■ ■ ■1 ■IEE■EEEII. 111■■■ an■E■EEEEEEII•IEI■■■■E■■E■EEEEII• 1 ■ ■ ■ E■ EEII• EEEEIIII.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1■ EEI■ EEEEEEEE■ 111 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ f 11■ EEElllll■ 11 ■ ■ ■ ■ 1■ m EEEEEEEE■ 11 ■ ■ ■ ■ E■ EEE ■Ell♦ I■■■EIIIEI•EEEEIII.11 ■ ■ ■ ■I■ 111■Illlllll ■11 ■ ■ ■■■IIIIN ♦11 ■ ■ ■ ■EI•�EI♦11 ■ ■ ■ ■1 ■AEI♦ I■■■ E■ =Elllllll ■It ■ ■■■I■/1■ ■M IEEE■ EIIIIII .11 ■ ■ ■ ■E ■II•El•11 ■ ONE= 11•EI♦ 1■■ ■E ■EEE ■1■11111■I■ ■ ■■ ■IEEE ■EEEEEI. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ 1 11• EIIIIIIII ■11■■■■1■11■EIIIIII.1 ■ ■ ■ ■■1■m Ism ■ E■ EEE■ Ellllllll ■1■■■■■E■IIl ■EEEEEEEE■ 111■■■ EIII' EI •EI♦11■■■■mEl•EI♦11 ■ ■ ■ ■EI•El•E� 1■■■ m11111 ■EEllllll ■1 ■ ■ ■ OEM= EEEEIIII■ 111■mom= ll ♦11 ■ ■■■E■EI•EI♦1 / ■ ■ ■■El•EI•El♦ I sm ■ E ■II•EI♦11■■■■EIIIEI•El♦11 ■ ■■ ■1■ mEI ♦1 ■1 ■■■E■EI•El♦11 ■ ■ ■ ■E ■El•EI♦ _ 1■■ ■mIEI■EEEEEEII ■ ■ ■■■E■11■ 11111111■ 1■ 1■■■ E■ imEl ♦11 ■ ■ ■ ■ an= EI♦1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■EI•EI•Il♦ i ■ ■■1■11 ■EEIEIIII ■ ■ ■■ ■ 111 EI♦ 11■■■■ E■ ImEI ♦11■■■ ■E■El• ■■■= EI♦1 ■1 ■ ■ ■EIIIEI•EI♦ 1Elul ■EEllllll ■11 ■ ■ ■ ■I ■ �Elllllll■ 111 ■■■ E■ I= EI♦11■■■■1 /EI•El♦111■ ■ ■E■EI•EI♦ I■■■E■EEI ■EEEllllll ■I■1 ■ ■ ■E■ Ell■ Elllllll■ 1 ■ 1 ■■■ E■ 1mE1111111■ 1■■■■■ m111 ■EEllllll ■1 ■ ■ ■ ■ man E�Elllllll■ Ism ■an= Elll♦ 111 ■ ■■mmEEllllll ■I■ ■■ ■ ■E ■l 711 ■ ■ ■ ■E ■EIl ■111 ■ ■ ■E ■EIII■EE� I NN ■ E■ El •El♦1■1■■■E■EI•El♦11 son ■E ■ELiEI ♦111■ ■■E /El•Il♦11■■■■E■El•Il♦ Ism ■1■■1■Elllllll■ lion ■■ 1 ■■ 1 ■ EEllllll■ 1■■■■■ E■■ sEI ♦11■■ ■ am= EI.111■■■E■EI•EEl♦ E ■ ■ ■I ■II•II♦11■■■■E/El•EI♦ 111■■■ E■EI.1 E■El•El♦ 1■■ ■ ■1 ■ 111 EEEIIIII■ 11 ■■■■ mmlEl ♦11 ■ ■ ■ ■E ■II•EII.1 ■1 ■ ■ ■ an= EI♦ loom E■ Ell ■EEEEEIII ■11■■■ ■E■ 111■ Elllllll■ I■■■■■ EI •El• ■1■■■m■1•El♦111 ■ ■ ■EI•�11♦ ■ ■ ■1 ■Il♦EI♦ 111■■ ■Il•EI. ■ ■ ■■E■El • ■ ■■I10E1•EI♦1 ■ ■ ■ ■ lam EI•Il♦ 1 ■■■ ��EEEIIIIII ■1■■■■■E■IEl■11111111■ 1 Ism ■ ■an= ■E■111■EEEEEEEE ■ loom ■ ■an= 1■■■ 11■■■ ■ 11 ■■■■IIIIEI•EI♦1 INN ■■EIIIII•II♦ loom E■ Ell• EEEEIIII ■loans ■1 ■Elll•EEEEIIII ■1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■I■ 111■ ■E■■1■EEEIIIII ■1 INN ■am= Illl♦ I■■■1■ 111■ X11■■■■■/■ 1. 11♦ 1/■■■■ 1■ El• ■11•III•Il♦1 INS ■ ■ I■■■ I■EII.111♦ 1 ■ ■ ■E ■11•EI. 111 ■ ■■mm� / ■ ■■f• =111 ■ ■■E■m�111 ■ ■ ■�� 1■■ ■ � Il•11•EI♦ 111■■■■ E■ EEE■ El♦ 11 ■■■■ E■ EEl■ EIII ♦1:'EI� ■1 ■EI•Il♦111 ■ ■■mEl•EI♦ E ■IIl ■EI111111E ■111■■■■1■ III■ EEEEIIIII■ 1■■■ ■ ■�El•Ell•11ii.,�!��II♦11■■■ ■an = ■■■ I■ EEI■ Illllllll■ It■■■■ E■ m� I■ E�EII ♦11 / ■ ■ ■Efrf ►_!�11 ■ ■ ■ ■II•mEI♦ 1 ■ ■ ■ ■El•1 ■ ■ ■ ■■EI•EI•El 111 ■■■ �El• EI♦ 11 ■ ■ ■ ■E ■EIl•Ela�1.1 ■1■■■II•■1•EI♦ IEEE I ■EEE ■ Elllllll ■ ■ ■■ ■E■ Ell■ 111♦ 1■■■■■ E■ EEE■ Elllllll■ 1■■ ■ OEM= EEEEE`= 7t ■ ■ ■E ■EII ■EEE� loom E ■ Ell• 11 ♦ 11 ■ ■ ■ ■E ■II. 111. 1■■■■■ mEI• EI♦ 11 ■ ■ OEM= EI•iit�'�!�E ■EEI•EI♦ Isom IEEE ■EEEEEEIIIIII■■■■ ■El•Il•Il♦ 111■■ man El•El♦III ■■■E■mIl•111f�1L�!� I EEE E ■EII■ X111■■■ E■ 11■ EIII♦ i■ 1■■man 11■■■■El•EI•EI.111. ■ ■EV11rIY I EEE E ■EII ■EIIIIIII ■111■■■E■11■ ■��11♦i1 ■ ■ ■ ■1 ■��111 ■ ■ ■E ■EI•EI♦ SAMPLE ®® v v ' CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS (ASTM D2435) ' PROJECT: CRAMER RESIDENCE SML / TETC NO. 92- 370 -01604 CLIENT PROJECT NO.: 1404 —SI01 CLIENT : GROUP DELTA REPORT DATE DEC. 3, 1991 SUMMARIZED BY Kean Tan SAMPLE NO.: B1 /3 DEPTH 5 -6.5 ft. ' INITIAL DRY DENSITY 103.47 pcf. INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT : 6.82 pct. INITIAL VOID RATIO : 0.629 INITIAL SATURATION 29.3 pct. SPECIFIC GRAVITY . 2.70 (assumed) —0.50 0.00 ' 0.50 z 1.00 0 1.50 A 2.00 z 0 U 2.50 z V 3.00 W 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 10 1 10 ' COMPRESSIVE STRESS (KSF) ' CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS (ASTM D2435) ' PROJECT: CRAMER RESIDENCE SML / TETC NO. 92 370 -01604 CLIENT PROJECT NO.: 1404 -SI01 CLIENT : GROUP DELTA 1 REPORT DATE : DEC. 3, 1991 SUMMARIZED BY : Kean Tan SAMPLE NO. B3/2 DEPTH 3 -4.5 ft. ' INITIAL DRY DENSITY : 107.75 pcf. INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT : 3.91 pct. INITIAL VOID RATIO : 0.564 INITIAL SATURATION 18.7 pct. SPECIFIC GRAVITY . 2.70 (assumed) —0.25 1 0.00 ' 0.25 ' z F 0.50 ' A p 0.75 t z 0 U 1.00 z 1 w a 1.25 w 1 a 1.50 1.75 ' 2.00 ' 2.25 10-11 1 10 ' COMPRESSIVE STRESS (KSF) CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS (ASTM D2435) ' PROJECT: CRAMER RESIDENCE SML / TETC NO. 92- 370 -01604 CLIENT PROJECT NO.: 1404 —SI01 CLIENT : GROUP DELTA ' REPORT DATE DEC. 3, 1991 SUMMARIZED BY Kean Tan SAMPLE NO. B5/3 DEPTH : 5 -6.5 ft. ' INITIAL DRY DENSITY 101.09 pcf. INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT : 4.79 pct. INITIAL VOID RATIO : 0.667 INITIAL SATURATION : 19.4 pct. SPECIFIC GRAVITY . 2.70 (assumed) 1 —0.25 0.00 0.25 z 0.50 O r-r 0.75 j cn 1.00 z 0 U 1.25 Ey ' z U 1.50 W 1.75 2.00 2.25 ' 2.50 ' RATE 2.75 TU ): lz 10 -1 1 10 ' COMPRESSIVE STRESS (KSF) r t 1 APPENDIX C SPECIFICATIONS FOR ENGINEERED FILL 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 t G 40UP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 r 1 APPENDIX C r SPECIFICATIONS FOR ENGINEERED FILL ' These specifications present the minimum requirements for grading operations performed under observation and testing of the Geotechnical Engineer, and are specific to the proposed project site. ' No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified ' in written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist. I. GENERAL A. The Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist are the Owner's representative on the project. For the purpose of these specifica- tions, observation and testing by the Geotechnical Engineer includes that observation and testing performed by any person or persons employed by, and responsible to, the licensed Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist signing the soil report. B. All earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted under the r continuous observation of the Geotechnical Engineer. C. It is the Contractor's responsibility to initially remove all unsuitable surficial materials and any other materials considered unsatisfactory by the Geotechnical Engineer. He shall then prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and to place, spread, mix, water, and compact the fill in accordance with the specifications. r D. It is the Contractor's responsibility o have suitable stable and suffi - cient compaction equipment on the job site to handle the amount of ' fill being placed. If necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction. Sufficient watering r apparatus will be provided by the Contractor, with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and time of year. r ' GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 ' Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Page C -2 E. A final report will be issued by the Geotechnical Engineer and ' Engineering Geologist attesting to the Contractor's conformance with these specifications. II. SITE PREPARATION A. All vegetation and deleterious material, such as rubbish, shall be removed from the areas to be graded and disposed of off site. This removal must be concluded prior to placing fill. B. Any materials determined by the Geotechnical Engineer as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed and disposed of away from the site. Any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill must be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. ' C. After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced, or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction. ' The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer, mixed as required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 12 inches. Prior to lacin fill, to p lacing 11, the ground surface to receive fill shall be ' inspected, tested as required, and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. COMPACTED FILLS ' A. Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any on -site or imported material that, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, ' is suitable for use in constructing fills. The material shall contain no rocks are hard lumps greater than 24 inches in size, and shall contain at least 40 percent of material smaller than 1/4 -inch ' GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Page C -3 in size. Any roots or other organic matter missed during the ' initial grading shall be removed from the fill as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. ' B. Rock fragments greater than 6 inches in size may be utilized in the fill provided: 1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets. ' 2. There is a sufficient percentage of fine - grained material to surround the rocks. 3. Sufficient compactive effort is to be applied to the fill material to achieve the minimum required degree of compaction specified. 1 4. The distribution of the rocks is observed by the Geotechnical Engineer. ' C. Rocks r g eater than 24 inches in diameter shall be taken off site. ' D. Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer shall not be used in the ' compacted fill. E. Material placed within 36 inches of rough grade shall be select ' material that contains no rocks or hard lumps greater than 6 inches in size, and has an expansion index (EI) of no more than 50, determined in accordance with UBC Standard No. 29 -2. Potentially expansive soils (soils with an EI greater than 50) may be used in fills below a depth of 36 inches and shall be compacted at a moisture content greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. F. Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed in the laboratory by the Geotechnical Engineer to ' determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading and, if the Geotechnical Engineer considers the quantity of this material to be ROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Page C -4 ' significant, the appropriate ppropriate analysis of this material shall be 1 conducted by the Geotechnical Engineer as soon as possible. G. Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered or dried, processed and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed twelve inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless ' otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. H. Before compacting, the soil shall be mixed to a minimum moisture equal to the optimum water content as determined by ASTM D- 1557 -78. The maximum allowable moisture shall not exceed 3 percent above the optimum moisture content of the soil. I. Each layer shall be compacted to at least 90 percent (90 %) of the ' laboratory maximum density as determined by ASTM D- 1557 -78. J. If the moisture content or relative compaction varies from that ' required by the contract documents, the Contractor shall rework the fill until it is approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. ' K. All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium, alluvium or creep material, into sound bedrock or firm material ' where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to one vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer. L. The Contractor will be required q to obtain a minimum relative ' compaction of 90 percent (90 %) out to the finish slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction. ' If a method other than overbuilding and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope tests will be made by the ' Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests ' GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Page C -5 occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified 1 by the Geotechnical Engineer. M. All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by ' methods specified in the soils report or by means approved by the governing authorities. N. Upon completion of grading and termination of observations by the Geotechnical Engineer, no further filling or excavating, including ' that necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval of the Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist. 0. Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of a permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. P. Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the ' Contractor during grading prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls. ' Q. All utility trench backfill shall consist of clean g ranular soil free of rock and other debris. Backfill shall be placed and ' compacted in accordance with the specifications outlined in Item VI, Utility Trench Backfill. ' IV. CUT SLOPES ' A. The Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect all cut slopes excavated in rock, lithified or formational material at vertical intervals not exceeding ten feet. B. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a poten- t tially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Geotechnical Engineer and recommendations shall be made to treat these problems. GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Page C -6 ' C. Cut slopes that p face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a nonerosive interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope. ' D. Unless otherwise specified in the soils and geological report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. E. Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer. ' V. GRADING CONTROL A. Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Geotech- nical Engineer during the progress of grading. ' B. In general, density tests should be made at intervals of approxi- mately two feet of fill height and for every 500 cubic yards of fill t placed. These general criteria will vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the job. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to indicate, in the judgement of the Geotechnical Engineer, that the required compaction is being achieved. ' C. All ground processed to receive fill and key excavations must be inspected and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placing ' any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Engineer when such areas are ready for inspection, and to provide reasonable time for the inspection. VI. UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL ' A. Trench backfill shall consist of clean ranula g r soils approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. The soils shall be nonexpansive and contain no rocks or chunks of hard soil larger than one inch in dimension. i ' GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. STAR MILLING CO. January 10, 1992 Project No. 1404- GE01 /SI01 Page C -7 B. All trench bac kfill shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of I the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D- 1557 -78. Backfill soils shall be placed in lifts no greater than six inches, wetted to achieve optimum moisture or within 3 percent (3%) above ' optimum and wheel - rolled or compacted with mechanical equipment. C. When compacting the soils in close proximity to utilities, care ' should be taken such that mechanical methods used in compacting the soils will not damage the utility. D. The backfill shall be tested by the Geotechnical Engineer at vertical intervals of no greater than two feet to ascertain ' conformance of the compaction specification. E. The Contractor should exercise the necessary and required safety ' precautions in all trenching operations. The Geotechnical Engineer shall not be responsible for the safety of trenching operations or stability of the trenches. ' C ROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. o M F; OR CUric ' C0rc - — N74°16'30E 11 � � H V -I 88.73 PHOE ST O b S' ' � `J J � 1 -� B -4 o _ Cc - - -� - _ 5 4.7 B -1 7 7.26 ( - - H H — Qsw O Deck o QSW o Ta Q c ' t 1 �r LO `t T c z Ld O !� O f f Building line A �7 t- ' Tre I mir - Y \t I B - r J P I r I -6 m I I , I - _ .... .. n. _.... ... -. -:.. : "... , : ;, a .... ,..'.: ._ _ _. F / ., " Al Oaf 4 - - - -' C4 I Qaf ` T z o I I f~ ( ! l I I ! 1 i Deck ,._ � B_2 �' ,� �� N i� - QbS �i �► ,30 ree l - t s o o X, t - - -- < u � IS T z 0 Uj Qsw I i I a QSW _ y G Y C TO be H V -2 N74° I3 E 120.5 8 8.9 2_ I � � I i C 6 r ` I )5 1 0. 950 E5,000 E 4, 800 E 5,050 90.6 � E 4, 850 E 4, 900 E 4 LEGEND Qaf ARTIFICIAL FILL GEOLOGIC CONTACT (DOTTED WHERE CONCEALED) GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS INC. FIGURE NUMBER QbC COBBLE BEACH DEPOSITS -- .. -- TOP OF BLUFF Engineers and Geologists 1 4455 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92123 QkfS SAND B PROJECTED 75 YEAR LINE OF BLUFF RETREAT EACH DEPOSITS .��.... ��.. �• APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SEA CAVE (NOT SURVEYED) SLOPE WASH DEPOSITS RAM QSW PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER $9w ADDED ONLY Qt COASTAL. TERRACE DEPOSITS 0 A Brlan GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. H c�M $2" KCm CRAMER RESIDENCE 1404 -S101 GEOTECHNICAL DATA TO THIS PLAN PREPARED BY OTHERS. Ta ARDATH FORMATION Engineers, Inc. 1200 NEPTUNE AVENUE WE HAVE NOT CHECKED ANY OTHER INFORMATION ON THIS D B-4 TEST BORING B RIAN , SMITH ENGINEERS, INC. PLAN, AND GIVE NO ASSURANCES TO ITS ACCURACY. � ian.�ns�.g • civU engtns ertn8 *surv 6 SITE PLAN NT REPORT 1404 (619) 729 --8981 FAX (619} 728 — THIS DRAWING IS PART OF CONSULTANT 2658 State Street, Carlsbod, Co. 9200 AND DATED JANUARY 10, 1992, AND SHOULD BE READ WITH THE GEOLOGIC MAP REPORT FOR COMPLETE EVALUATION. l //