Loading...
2001-7223 CN/G/I ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering April 22, 2004 Traffic Engineering Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company 254 E. Grand Avenue Suite 100A Escondido, California 92025 RE: Aschbrenner, Gene V. 679 Camino El Dorado APN 258-140-12 Improvement Plan 7223-I Final release of security Permit 7223-1 authorized planting and irrigation improvements, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the improvements and the one-year warranty inspection. Therefore, a release in the remaining security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 174519, in the remaining amount of$2,835.75, is hereby released in entirety. The original amount was $11,343.00. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra A. Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Masih Maher Jay Lembach Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Field Operations Financial Services CC Jay Lanbach, Finance Manager Aschbrenner,Genc Debra Geishart File ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT cit of Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services ield Operations Sand Replenishment /Stormw ter Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering April 22, 2004 Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company 254 E. Grand Avenue Suite 100A Escondido, California 92025 RE: Aschbrenner, Gene V. 679 Camino El Dorado APN 258 - 140 -12 Improvement Plan 7223 -I Final release of security Permit 7223 -1 authorized planting and irrigation improvements, all neede I to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the improvements and the one -year warranty inspection. Therefore, a release in the remaining security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 174519, in the remaining amount of $2,835.75, is I lereby released in entirety. The original amount was $11,343.00. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra A. Geis art at (760) 633 -2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, 4 ,6,*A ) inan Masih Maher bach Senior Civil Engineer ce Manager Field Operations Financial Services CC Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Aschbrenner, Gene Debra Geishart File TEL 760 -633 -2600 / FAX 760 - 633 -2627 305 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760-633-1 � recycled paper `` Ci o NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Impr ement Projects District upport Services field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormw ter Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering April 2, 2003 Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company 254 E. Grand Avenue Suite 100A Escondido, California 92025 RE: Aschbrenner, Gene V. 679 Camino El Dorado APN 258- 140 -12 Improvement Plan 7223 -I Partial release of security Permit 7223 -I authorized planting and irrigation improvements, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the improvements. Therefore, a reduction in the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 174519, in the amount of $11,343.00, may be reduced by 75% to $2,835.75. The document original will be kept until such time it is fully xonerated. The retention and a separate assignment guarantee completion of improvements. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra A. Gei 3hart at (760) 633 -2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Masih Maher / Lembach Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Field Operations Financial Services CC Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Aschbrenner, Gene Debra Geishart File TEL 760 - 633 -2600 / FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 -633 2700 recycled paper ENGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering February 4, 2003 Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company 9841 Airport Blvd., 9th Floor Los Angeles, California 90045 RE: Aschbrenner, Gene and Angela 679 Camino El Dorado APN 265-025-27 Improvement Plan 7223-G Final release of security Pen-nit 7223-G authorized earthwork, stonn drainage, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the rough grading and finish grading. Therefore, a full release of the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 138300, in the amount of$32,240.00, is hereby fully exonerated. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Masih Maher Jay Lembach Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach,FinanceManager Gene and Angela Aschbrenner Debra Geishart file enc. ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Capital Impr vement Projects City Of District Support Services Encinitas F ield Operations Sand Replenishment/StonnwE ter Compliance Subdivision Engineering Tra Ffic Engineering February 4, 2003 Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company 9841 Airport Blvd., 9 Floor Los Angeles, California 90045 RE: Aschbrenner, Gene and Angela 679 Camino El Dorado APN 265- 025 -27 Improvement Plan 7223 -G Final release of security Permit 7223 -G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, and erosion control all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved he rough grading and finish grading. Therefore, a full release of the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 138300, in the amount of $32,240.00, is hereby fully exonerated. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geisha at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Masih Maher y mbach Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach, FinanceManager Gene and Angela Aschbrenner Debra Geishart file enc. TEL 760 -633 -2600 / FAX 760 - 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760-633-2700 � recycled paper COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSUIXING ENGINF,ERSAND GEOLOGISI;S _ January 22, 2002 Gene Aschbrenner 254 Via Tavira Encinitas, CA 92024 Subject: ROUGH GRADING REPORT Proposed Single Family Residence 679 Camino El Dorado Encinitas, California — Reference: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single Family Residence — 679 Camino El Dorado Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated May 10, 2001 Dear Mr. Aschbrenner: In response to your request, we have performed field observations and testing during the rough grading phase on the above referenced property. The results of our density tests and laboratory testing are presented in this 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. The control of surface and subsurface drainage is essential to the future performance of the structure and driveway areas. -- If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (858) 755-8622. This opportunity to be of service, s, �tly appreciated. Respectfully submits , ` COAST GEOTECH 2109 (D Fxp 5-:31-04 ---qi' ` t,ERI!RED l i — Mark Burwell, C.E. K - 11 Q T 4 Vith`aya Singhane Engineering Geologi '' - ' Geotechnical Enginf f' -- 779 ACADEMY DRIVE SOIANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 ROUGH GRADING REPORT Proposed Single-Family Residence 679 Camino El Dorado Encinitas, California Prepared for: Gene Aschbrenner 254 Via Tavira Encinitas, CA 92024 January 22, 2002 W.O. G-334041 Prepared by: COAST GEOTECHNICAL 779 Academy Drive Solana Beach, California 92075 Coast Geotechnical January 22, 2002 W.O. G-334041 Page 3 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our observations and field density testing on the subject property during rough grading. The project included the removal and recompaction of soil and weathered terrace deposits in the building envelope and limited removals in areas of exterior improvements. The approximate locations of these tests are shown on the enclosed Grading Plan, prepared by Engineering Consulting Group. LABORATORY TEST DATA The laboratory standard for determining the maximum dry density was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557-91. Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1556. The results of the laboratory maximum dry density, for the soil type used as compacted fill on the site, is summarized below: Maximum Dry Density Optimum Description (p.c.f.) Moisture (%) Mixture of on-site and minor 123.5 10.9 imported soils, tan to brown silty and fine-grained sand GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The property is underlain at shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The terrace deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rocks which have commonly been designated as the Torrey Sandstone/Santiago formation on published geologic maps. The terrace deposits are covered by residual soil deposits. Coast Geotechnical January 22, 2002 - W.O. G-334041 Page 4 DISCUSSION _ The grading contractor on this project was Mike Scott Grading. The following is a discussion of the general grading operations as they were performed on the project. 1) All surface deleterious material was removed in the building pads and proposed exterior improvement areas prior to removals. 2) The surficial deposits in the residential building pad including soil and weathered terrace deposits were removed to depths ranging from 3.0 to 4.0 feet below grade and stockpiled. 3) Two septic tanks, a vertical seepage pit and several leach lines were encountered in the building pad and driveway areas. The septic tanks were removed and replaced by compacted fill. The vertical seepage pit was backfilled with crushed rock. 4) Stockpiled materials and minor imported soils were generally mixed and placed in loose lifts of approximately 6.0 inches, moistened to 1.0 to 2.0 percent above Optimum moisture content and compacted. Compaction was accomplished by wheel rolling with a rubber-tire 950 Caterpillar tractor. Coast Geotechnical January 22, 2002 - W.O. G-334041 Page 5 5) The north-trending leach line encountered in the proposed driveway areas was removed and replaced with a non-perforated 4.0 inch diameter pvc pipe. Concrete bulkheads were poured along the transition between the old pipe and new pipe in the northern and southern extent of the driveways. Since the solid pipe was located only 6.0 inches below subgrade in the northern driveway, the pipe was enclosed in concrete. 6) The fill deposits in the northern driveway area have a higher clay content than the building pad. 7) Based on our experience and laboratory testing, the fill deposits in the building pad have a potential expansion in the low range. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Based on selective testing, the fill was placed to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as suggested by our test results. 2) The soil parameters recommended in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for foundations and slab design remain valid. -- 3) We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand to at least one foot above Coast Geotechnical January 22, 2002 - W.O. G-334041 Page 6 the top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids around the conduit. Imported or on-site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding. The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing, - raising the invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing away from one another. 4) Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond or migrate under concrete flatwork. 5) The upper 6.0 to 12 inches of the driveway subgrade deposits should be scarified and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at the time of driveway construction. The proposed concrete driveway should be underlain by a minimum of 4.0 inches of Class 2 base, compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. The pavement should be protected from water sources migrating into driveway subgrade deposits. The northern driveway is composed of slightly clayey subgrade deposits. Coast Geotechnical January 22, 2002 W.O. G-334041 Page 7 If the longevity of the driveways is of concern, a layer of woven geotextile (Mirafi HP 370 or equivalent) should be placed on the prepared subgrade deposits prior to placement of the base materials. The intent is to maintain the structural integrity of the pavement section by reducing the lose of base materials into subgrade soils. 6) Loose deposits are located around the existing swimming pool. Hand operated compaction equipment will be necessary to density these deposits, in order to support pool decking. 7) All the recommendations in the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation _ which are not superseded by this report remain valid and should be implemented during the construction phase. Additional fill deposits, including wall backfill, should be observed and tested during placement by a representative of this firm. LIMITATIONS This office assumes no responsibility for any alterations made without our knowledge and written approval, subsequent to the issuance of this report. All ramps made though slopes, and other areas of disturbance which require the placement of compacted fill to restore them to the original condition, will not be reviewed unless such backfilling ._ operations are performed under our observation and tested for required compaction. Coast Geotechnical January 22, 2002 W.O. G-334041 Page 8 It should be noted that density (compaction) testing is conducted on a very small volume of the fill. The intent is to provide an opinion, based on selective testing and observation during fill placement. Enclosures: Table I _ Grading Plan (Rear Pocket) FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE I Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Moisture Dry Relative Test Test Approx. Content Density % Soil Date No. Location Elev. o cf) Compaction Type 12/27/01 1 See Map 304 . 0 ' 12 . 1 115 . 5 94 A 12/27/01 2 See Map 304 . 8 ' 12 . 9 115 . 2 93 A ® 1/04/02 3 See Map 304 . 0 ' 11 . 1 117 . 7 95 A 1/04/02 4 See Map 304 . 5 ' 11 . 6 115 . 8 94 A 1/07/02 5 See Map 306 . 0 ' 11 . 9 119 . 8 97 A 1/07/02 6 See Map 306 . 0 ' 12 . 3 117 . 1 95 A 1/07/02 7 See Map 306 . 0 ' 10 . 5 115 . 2 93 A 1/07/02 8 See Map 306 . 0 ' 11 . 5 116 . 2 94 A 1/10/02 9 See Map 304 . 0 ' 12 . 3 116 . 0 94 A 1/10/02 10 See Map 305 . 0 ' 10 . 8 115 . 6 94 A 1/10/02 11 See Map 305 . 0 ' 11 . 6 116 . 6 94 A G-334041 Hydrology Calculations for W e Aschbrenner Residence b� 679 Camino El Dorado, Encinistas, CA Project No: 010726 Q RpFESS /O A No. 47024 m U.1 rn Exp:12/31/03 s c/vo- .� qTF OF CA��F Prepared By: ENGINEERING CONSULMG GROUP PH: (858) 259 -4711 FX: (858) 259 -5732 May, 2001 PROJECT NAME C,� 0 -1 ENGINEERING P. N. DESIGNED BY CONSULTING q I A,-(c GROUP DA TE CHECKED BY C ova�)i - 1 V, LL `5 CT T-: F 'S' L 7?-A\) L& -?0 A+ . 5 F - c). 0 33 9 A C c cf s S8 /T Pastna� Intensity 7ncm esi no ur r-J N W • A U A J m .t - N I I f I j l I I I I• I I I I I 1 1 � 1 1. I O I�'•, I 1 1 � �t' 1 ' 1 _ -_ I_ - I . 1 �� - •I. I I I I I I'll �_ - 1 -_' 1 •. 1 . i 7 � 7 I I I I 11 I h_ —___. ___- _ 1 • �� I . r A r I II' !l.l iliil .I ii I -1- — - - { !1!; - P� ►i A 7 N I I I i I I 1 I t l l I' Fes• N "O H. I 11 1 ct _.. N O O Cn O Ln O to O v1 c-) (sayOUL) uOLjej�dLoaad .AnOH -g _ T W N -' O A v -Al. W N -' O • .. J r+ y v cn o o -0 C+ C-+ 0 3 ---I N _1711 r*j n L1. al (D n O' ? -+ - •S -h - O O• 0. (D 00 i�* - S r+ 11 L - + (L m SL V O 30 C N = (D O - �• II C 11 (D c+ N r+ :E C+ c+ p C - C N =r O N n _• — C+ 0• (D N IA to W rD - T 0 C+ C+ O O (D Cu (D Q1 In .A • fi :3 __j N (D N (D O 0. rD a -s z l CL a a� --� 0 =- -s o• rn a� a a (D O rt (D J -4. ? � t+ _% = -� a 0 O r+ - n o :3 a • �- M ° v+ O -s 0 =3 (D (D -s v+ (D C+ -0 '0 a n o • • to C+ -s - S • - 1 c,� - T c-+ c -o n v c r+ . :3 rD (D � o :o (D v+ a -o (D m s - S n n _S 0 (} c -0 -o n o. =3 o o n a N cn C OL -.• -s n, p S r+ c-+ O O c+ (D O -- :3 (D C+ c+ C+ c+ O (D - o) O ,.j Cl) _ O ? �. •P. (sr = p Q. (D •0 0 / N e+ - 0 0 O C - S ( rD a- Ci G' (D < O O O G+ --+ (D RS (D C1 1 �• 7 D C+ (D 1'•+ (D C l + C+ (D C $ I 7( - 1 S O -h "0 (D r+ v - 0 w - v (D C+ in C•) 0. -+• .�• N 01 C+ fy O O O Zo rD A II O d -.3 (Tt n O O "h( lD t7 - 7 (D f7 fi (D m �• -� T —ii .+ to - r t� .0 O n (D rF ". O N C C? CL Ol •'S rD �G 0 ' S < r+ v , �C a. [L n ae (D O a J ae .� -s a In O -+ la. O S --ho O • N 9 M n i r N c -n an °> rma a o -o c N' o D~ v i n � n a � z n 0 7 W O O _ n > o w n z w > r+ o v ro in vi O vi z m _ � . rJ •e I � N ��< O Vl t7 .. r A Z r i az / o_ ICD 1" tog Cn E4, z Cn VI Cn al CD tj a ON D z "7 O n D _, r m0 w z> o G > - 2 i C n O rte, 0 r Z tiv c c T D ►-� cz,� ° rri 1 3 - _-�- o I °� � �, it i � � � �.� w� f�1�,� � � II i.,� �►.� . I � — w ` o •v � I i Q� T � fly -' 1\ i l i I. -..V' I f� I J / I l �` n 1 •. i I { i I i I i i i i i I NI) 5,21, v lS O3)IJ3HJ 31VO &10 O I+ i lo NLL'MSNOD I a3NJIS3O 1�L 3VNVN 1731oad i • I I F P R OP E RTY UNE' _ N 01' 338" °° 01 I I CD rri Iw j I IN I I I — I ao6 o I I o I w 16' I 34' I 16' ., I I I � I � � 3p� I s• 1 304 / 1 r � 906 Qic� �zl I 1 II I I 1 2- i o r J I CD ti � I I \ 1 30 3 5 304 �1 f S , - IS O OD �I I I� \ J T abed LeDL1. LJDJadns ............... . UoLILpuoD mO Ld 6 H 9'Z ............... .. Jagwnu apnoJd 1-4 ZSU'0 A6Jaua wnwLULW 14 SZ9T . T AbJaua a L4 Laads UL VE E p LM dol Lea LI LJD u L ZZ96 0 ....... sn LpeJ o LneupAy LPD it LJD uL 6ES0'9 .............. J I awL J ad Lea LILJ 7 Zlj SObO'0 ............... .. eaJe Lea LlLJD sd4 9ZZ6.T ............... ILDOLan Lea LlLJD 1 /IJ T000'0 ...... . adoLs Le7L:ILJD U VS88'T .................. gldap Lin LlLJD UOLIewJOLUI Leo LlL ID sd4 80Zb' ST ...... ' ' ' ' ... ' AtLDOLaA mO L4 L Lnd SP ZSVE *T ........ a eJMOLJ mO L4 LLnd % 9017S'9T ' " " '....... ... Lind lUaaJad UL b90t,'0 ............. sn aLLneiPAH sd-4 b09b ' 8 .... ....... � :L Lao Lan UL b99S'ZT ... JajawLJad UL ZOSE'� .......... JaIawLJad pa��aM ZI-4 S600'0 eaiv pa1D,aM ZI-4 EZ80'0 ........ eaJV UL 9T99'0 y3,daa :slLnsad paindwOD E100'0 " " ............ " .. U s,6ULUUew 14/14 0500.0 ............... .......... adOLS sJa 0080.0 ............... ..... aIeJMOLd UL 0000'b .... ....... JalaweLO Mold 4o yidaa .............. .... Jo4 6uLALOS JeLnDJLD ............... .......... ad2Lls :e:iea �-ndUI UanLD Joie LnD Lei ad Ld 6U Lu ew lX1' #dwa COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSUI;TING ENGINEEKSAND GEOLOGIST'S ' May 10, 2001 Gene Aschbrenner 254 Via Tavira Encinitas, CA 92024 ' Subject: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single Family Residence 679 Camino El Dorado ' Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Aschbrenner: t In response to your request and in accordance with our Proposal and Agreement dated March 29, 2001, we have performed a preliminary geologic and soils engineering investigation on the subject site for the proposed single family resid nce. ' The findings of the investigation, laboratory test results and recommendations for site development and foundation design are presented in this report. ' From a geologic and soils engineering point of view, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are ' implemented during the design and construction phases. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (8 8) 755 -8622. This ' opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Respectfully submitte p Y COAST GEOTECHN t x 5! - 1 E« 1 1 LL Ex 12 -31 -0 Mark Burwell, C.E.G. ; �� � ` � � �� ", �? '� Vithaya Singhanet, P. � �� AEcVi"kA �,- y� Engineering Geologist .�� �,� Geotechnical Engine r �Q� ,. 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755 -8622 • FAX (858) 755 -9126 ' PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIO ' Proposed Single Family Residence P g Y 679 Camino El Dorado ' Encinitas, California t Prepared For: Gene Aschbrenner ' 254 Via Tavira Encinitas, CA 92024 ' May 10, 2001 W.O. P- 334041 ' Prepared By: COAST GEOTECHNICAL 779 Academy Drive ' Solana Beach, California 92075 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS VICINITY MAP ' INTRODUCTION 5 SITE CONDITIONS 5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 5 ' SITE INVESTIGATION 6 LABORATORY TESTING 6 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 7 CONCLUSIONS 10 RECOMMENDATIONS 10 A. BUILDING PADS- REMOVALS/RECOMPACTION 10 B. FOUNDATIONS 11 ' C. SLABS ON GRADE (INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR) 12 D. RETAINING WALLS 13 E. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS 13 ' F. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 13 G. UTILITY TRENCH 14 H. SEISMIC PARAMETERS 15 ' I. DRAINAGE 15 J. GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS 16 K. PLAN REVIEW 16 ' LIMITATIONS 16 REFERENCES 18 t APPENDICES ' APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST XESULTS EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS SITE PLAN ' APPENDIX B EARTHQUAKE FAUL ANALYSIS REGIONAL FAULT MAP ' SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM ' APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES t sum wER sr �I J J V V j po"', ST N33:05 y m w N w � O S W ° Z g_ m N � n 3 3 D N33`04722 m z o A m 0 0 g m 1 ° �tyGIMtAS �Vt) p A n � x � 700 D _ m o m N33:04444 SUBJECT PROPERT REOUEZA 5 b A p A m O ➢ ID � o m y D SAN ANDRAI E DR c, o O m o \ °n 0 m U , n 0 3 � 4 N33:04167" m SAN ABELLA R 1 HERDER.LN OR GARD CT MELBA RD \ MELB RD � Q z \ o o g c \ o S 0 0 0 N33:03889 ' Copyright m 2000 DeLorme. TopoTools Advanced Print Kit TE. Scale: 1 : 6,400 Zoom Level: 15-0 Datum: WGS84 500 ft ' Coast Geotechnical May 10, 2001 W.O. P- 334041 ' Page 5 ' INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation on the subject property. ' The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature and characteristics of the earth ' materials underlying the property, the engineering properties of the sl irficial deposits and their influence on the proposed residential development. ' SITE CONDITIONS ' The subject property is located north of Requeza Street, along the east side of Camino El Dorado, in the city of Encinitas. The site includes a relatively level rectangular lot ' situated on a northwesterly trending terrace surface. An existing rcsidence, accessory ' structure and swimming pool are located along the eastern portion of the property. The site is bounded along the north and south by nurseries. 1 Vegetation includes residential landscaping consisting of plants, shnibs, palm trees and ' a pine tree. Drainage appears to be generally by sheet flow to the west, although ' localized ponding probably occurs. ' PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ' Plans for the proposed development of the site were not available at the time of this study. However, as per our discussion with Kyron Brimmer, Architecture Illustrated, the project will include the demolition of the existing structures and the construction of a t ' Coast Geotechnical May 10, 2001 W.O. P- 334041 ' Page 6 ' new single family residence. Conventional footings with a slab on grade floor are anticipated in the design. The existing swimming pool will remain and no significant ' grading is proposed. SITE INVESTIGATION ' Site exploration included three (3) exploratory borings drilled to a maximum depth of P rY g P ' 8 feet with a portable auger drill rig. Earth materials encountered wc re visually classified ' and logged by our field engineering geologist. Undisturbed, representative samples of earth materials were obtained at selected intervals. Samples were obtained by driving a ' thin walled steel sampler into the desired strata. The samples are re ained in brass rings ' of 2.5 inches outside diameter and 1.0 inches in height. The central portion of the sample is retained in close fitting, waterproof containers and iransported to ou1� ' laboratory for testing and analysis. 1� LABORATORY TESTING ' Classification ' The field classification was verified through laboratory examination, in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The final classification is shown on the enclosed ' Exploratory Logs. 1 ' Coast Geotechnical May 10, 2001 W.O. P- 334041 Page 7 ' Moisture/Density The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each of the ' undisturbed soil samples. This information is useful in providing a gross picture of the ' soil consistency or variation among exploratory excavations. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot. The field moisture content was determined as a percentage e of the d unit weight. Both are shown on the enclosed Laboratory P g D' g Tests ' Results and Exploratory Logs. ' Maximum D D nsi u Dry e ty /Optimum Moisture Content ' The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected ' samples of earth materials taken from the site. The laboratory standard tests were in accordance with ASTM D- 1557 -91. The results of the tests are presented in the enclosed ' Laboratory Test Results. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The subject property is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Prc vince of San Diego. ' The property is underlain by near surface Pleistocene terrace derlosits. The terrace deposits are underlain in turn by Eocene -age sedimentary rocks which have commonly ' been designated as Torrey Sandstone on published geologic maps. The terrace deposits ' are covered by a thin veneer of soil. A brief description of the earth materials ' encountered on the site follows. t Coast Geotechnical May 10, 2001 W.O. P- 334041 Page 8 ' Residual Soil Subsurface exploration suggests that a thin veneer of soil, 4.0 to 6.0 nches, blankets the ' site. The soil is composed of brown silty sand. Terrace Deposits ' The site is underlain at shallow depths b poorly consolidated Pleistocene terrace P Y P Y ' deposits. The sediments are composed of reddish brown sligh y clayey, fine and ' medium - grained sand and are generally dense where explored. Regionally, the Pleistocene sands are considered flat -lying and are underlain at depth by Eocene -age ' sedimentary rock units. Expansive Soil ' Based on our experience in the area and previous laboratory testing f selected samples, ' the soil deposits and Pleistocene sands reflect an expansion potenti 11 in the low range. ' Ground Water ' No evidence of ground water was observed in the exploratory bc rings to the depth explored. It should be noted that seepage problems can develop ifter completion of ' construction. These seepage problems most often result from d ainage alterations, ' landscaping and over - irrigation. In the event that seepage or saturated ground does occur, it has been our experience that they are most effectively handl d on an individual basis. ' Coast Geotechnical May 10, 2001 W -O. P- 334041 ' Page 9 ' Tectonic Setting The site is located within the seismically active southern California region which is ' generally characterized by northwest trending Quaternary-age fauli zones. Several of ' these fault zones and fault segments are classified as active by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act). Based on a review of published geologic maps, no known faults transverse the site. ' Several steeply dipping short fault segment have been mapped in the regional area of the P Y PP g g PP g ' site. These northeast trending faults are exposed in the Eocene -age rocks of the Torrey ' Sandstone but not in the overlying Pleistocene terrace deposits and are presumably inactive. The nearest active fault is the offshore Rose Canyon Fault Zone locate i approximately 3.5 ' miles west of the site. It should be noted that the Rose Canyon Fault s not a continuous, ' well- defined feature but rather a zone of right stepping en echelon ults. The complex series of faults has been referred to as the Offshore Zone of Deforr iation (Woodward- ' Clyde, 1979) and is not fully understood. Several studies suggest that the Newport- , Inglewood and the Rose Canyon faults are a continuous zone oJ en echelon faults (Treiman, 1984). Further studies along the complex offshore zo rie of faulting may ' indicate a potentially greater seismic risk than current data suggests. Other faults which ' could affect the site include the Coronado Bank, Elsinore, San Jacin o and San Andreas ' Faults. The proximity of major faults to the site and site parameter are shown on the enclosed Earthquake Fault Analysis (Appendix B). ' Coast Geotechnical May 10, 2001 W.O. P- 334041 ' Page 10 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a process by which a sand mass loses its shearing strength completely and ' flows. The temporary transformation of the material into a fluid mas i is often associated t with ground motion resulting from an earthquake. ' Owing to the moderately dense nature of the Pleistocene terrace deposits and the anticipated depth to ground water, the potential for seismically indu (ed liquefaction and ' soil instability is considered low. ' CONCLUSIONS 1) The subject property is located in an area that is relatively free of potential geologic hazards such as landsliding, liquefaction, high grour d water conditions ' and seismically induced subsidence. ' 2) Only minor remedial grading is anticipated in the building pad including ' soil/vegetation removal and recompaction of slab subgrade deposits. 3) All footings should be founded into underlying competent to ace deposits. RECOMMENDATIONS ' Building Pads- Removals/Recom action ' The existing soil, vegetation and unsuitable material in the building pad should be 1 ' Coast Geotechnical May 10, 2001 W.O. P- 334041 ' Page 11 ' removed. The exposed slab subgrade should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6.0 inches, moistened as required and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the ' laboratory maximum dry density. Additional depth of removal maybe required in areas ' of old footing excavations and utility lines. Soil and loose deposits n areas of concrete flatwork and driveways should be removed and replaced as prop rly compacted fill. ' Imported fill, if necessary, should consist of nonex ansive granular d --posits approved b P g P PP Y ' the geotechnical engineer. 1 Foundations ' The following design parameters are based on footings founded into nonexpansive ' Pleistocene terrace deposits. Footings for the proposed residence ar d garage should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and founded a minimum of 12 inches and 18 inches into ' competent terrace deposits at the time of foundation construction for single -story and ' two -story structures, respectively. Additional depth may be requi ed in areas of old footings and utility lines. A 12 inch by 12 inch grade beam should he placed across the ' garage opening. Footings should be reinforced with a minimum of I our No. 4 bars, two along the top of the footing and two along the base. The base of footings should be founded the design depth below a 45 degree plane projected up f om the base of the ' swimming pool, where applicable. Footing recommendations provided herein are based ' upon underlying soil conditions and are not intended to be in lieu of the project ' structural engineer's design. 1 ' Coast Geotechnical May 10, 2001 W.O. P- 334041 ' Page 12 ' For design purposes, an allowable bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used for foundations at the recommended footing depths. The bearing value indicated above is for the total dead and frequentIl 7applied live loads. ' This value maybe increased by 33 percent for short durations of loading, including the ' effects of wind and seismic forces. ' Resistance to lateral load may be provided by friction acting at the ase of foundations ' and by passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead - load forces. A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foo , per foot of depth ' of terrace deposits penetrated to a maximum of 1500 pounds per square foot may be ' used. ' Slabs on Grade (Interior and Exterior ' Slabs on grade should be a minimum of 4.0 inches thick and einforced in both directions with No. 3 bars placed 18 inches on center in both directio is. The slab should ' be underlain by a minimum 2.0 -inch sand blanket. Where moisture sensitive floors are ' used, a minimum 6.0 -mil Visqueen or equivalent moisture barrier should be placed over the sand blanket and covered by an additional two inches of san 1. Utility trenches ' underlying the slab may be backfilled with on -site materials, compa ted to a minimum ' of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Slabs including exterior concrete ' flatwork should be reinforced as indicated above and provided with saw cuts /expansion Coast Geotechnical May 10, 2001 W.O. P- 334041 ' Page 13 ' joints, as recommended by the project structural engineer. All slabs should be cast over dense compacted subgrades. ' Retaining Walls Cantilever walls (yielding) retaining nonexpansive granular soils ma3 be designed for an active - equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained walls ' (nonyielding) should be designed for an "at- rest" equivalent fluid prc ssure of 60 pounds ' per cubic foot. Wall footings should be designed in accordance vrith the foundation design recommendations. All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate ' backdrainage system (Miradrain 6000 or equivalent is suggested). The soil parameters ' assume a level granular backfill compacted to a minimum of 90 percc nt of the laboratory maximum dry density. ' Settlement Characteristics Estimated total and differential settlement is expected to be on the order of 3/4 inch and f 1/2 in ch, respectively. It should also be noted that long term secondary settlement due ' to irrigation and loads imposed by structures is anticipated to be 1/4 inch. ' Seismic Considerations Although the likelihood of ground rupture on the site is remote, the property will be exposed to moderate to high levels of ground motion resulting from trie release of energy 1 t ' Coast Geotechnical May 10, 2001 W.O. P- 334041 ' Page 14 ' should an earthquake occur along the numerous known and unInown faults in the region. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is the nearest known active fault ani is considered the ' design earthquake for the site. A maximum probable event along tf e offshore segment ' of the Rose Canyon Fault is expected to produce a peak bedrock hot 'zontal acceleration of 0.428 and a repeatable ground acceleration of 0.27g. ' Utility Trench We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand to at least one foot above the ' top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill 11 the voids around ' the conduit. Imported or on -site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding. The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings shou d be located above ' the zone of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the ' area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest ottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the ' invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing awa from one another. t ' Coast Geotechnical May 10, 2001 W.O. P- 334041 ' Page 15 ' Seismic Parameters Soil Profile Type - S, ' Seismic Zone - 4 Seismic Source - Type B Near Source Factor (N.) - 1.2 ' Near source Acceleration Factor (N - 1.0 Seismic Coefficients ' C = 0.40 C, = 0.66 ' Design Response Spectrum T = 0.659 ' T = 0.132 ' Drainage ' Specific drainage patterns should be designed by the project engineer or architect. However, in general, pad water should be directed away from foundations and around ' the structure to the street. Roof water should be collected and conducted to hardscape ' or the street, via non - erodible devices. Pad water should not be allowed to pond. Vegetation adjacent to foundations should be avoided. If vegetati n in these areas is ' desired, sealed planter boxes or drought resistant plants should be considered. Other ' alternatives may be available, however, the intent is to reduce moist ire from migrating into foundation subsoils. Irrigation should be limited to that amount i iecessary to sustain ' plant life. All drainage systems should be inspected and cleaned annu illy, prior to winter ' rains. 1 Coast Geotechnical May 10, 2001 W.O. P- 334041 ' Page 16 ' Geotechnical Observations Structural footing excavations should be observed by a representati e of this firm, prior ' to the placement of steel and forms. All fill should be placed while a representative of ' the geotechnical engineer is present to observe and test. ' Plan Review ' A copy of the final plans should be submitted to this office for review prior to the ' initiation of construction. Additional recommendations may be ne essary at that time. ' LIMITATIONS ' This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the owner's representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to ' the attention of the project's architects and /or engineers so that they ay be incorporated ' into plans. ' If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ fron those described in this report, our office should be notified so that we may consider whether modifications are needed. No responsibility for construction compliance with design concepts, ' specifications or recommendations given in this report is assumed u iless on -site review is performed during the course of construction. ' The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure described ' Coast Geotechnical May 10, 2001 W.O. P- 334041 ' Page 17 ' herein are based on individual exploratory excavations made on t e subject property. The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure discussed ' should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which maF occur among the ' exploratory excavations. Please note that fluctuations in the level of ground water may occur lue to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors not evident at the time measu ements were made ' and reported herein. Coast Geotechnical assumes no responsibility or variations which P P tY may occur across the site. ' The conclusions and recommendations of this report apply as of tile current date. In t time, however, changes can occur on a property whether caused by acts of man or nature on this or adjoining properties. Additionally, changes in profession 1 standards may be ' brought about by legislation or the expansion of knowledge. Consequently, the ' conclusions and recommendations of this report may be rendered wholly or partially invalid by events beyond our control. This report is therefore subject to review and ' should not be relied upon after the passage of two years. The professional judgments presented herein are founded partly or. our assessment of ' the technical data gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. Ho ever, in no respect ' do we guarantee the outcome of the roject. P l 1 ' Coast Geotechnical May 10, 2001 W.O. P- 334041 ' Page 18 ' REFERENCES ' 1. Hays, Walter W., 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquak Ground Motions, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1114, 77 pages. ' 2. Petersen, Mark D. and others (DMG), Frankel, Arthur D. and o hers (USGS), 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology OFR 96-08, United States ' Geological Survey OFR 96 -706. ' 3. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1970, A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential: Earthquake Engineering Research Center. ' 4. Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the N rthern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Pl to 35D, Open -File Report 95 -04, Map Scale 1:24,000. ' S. Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, A Review, nd Analysis, California Division of Mines and Geology. ' MAPS /AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ' 1. Aerial Photograph, 1982, Foto -Map E -9, Scale 1 "= 2000'. 2. Architecture Illustrated, 2001, Site Plan, 679 Camino El Dorado, Encinitas, ' California, Scale 1 " =60'. 3. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activi Map of California, ' Scale 1 "= 750,000'. 4. Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quad angles, 1996, DMG ' Open File Report 96 -02. 5. U.S.G.S., 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Topographic Map, Digitized Scale Variable. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � APPENDIX A, i i i ' LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 1 ' TABLE I ' Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture C ntent (Laboratory Standard ASTM D- 1557 -91) ' Sample Max. Dry Optimum Location Density Moisture Content cf B -1 @ 0.5' -3.0' 128.5 10.2 TABLE II ' Field Dry Density and Moisture ContelLt ' Sample Field Dry Field Moisture Location Density Content cf 0 ' B -1 @ 0.5' 90.2 13.3 B -1 @ 2.0' 115.1 13.1 ' B -1 @ 5.0' 118.2 12.1 B -1 @ 7.0' Lost Sample B -2 @ 1.0' 105.9 15.3 ' B -2 @ 2.0' 114.4 15.0 B -2 @ 3.0' 116.0 13.3 ' B -3 @ 0.5' 96.2 6.8 B -3 @ 2.0' 112.0 8.2 B -3 @ 3.0' Lost Sample P- 334041 1 LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORIN NO. 1 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJEC NO. P- 334041 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATED LLED: 04 -26 -01 SURFACE ELEV.: 312' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB F 0 z � w w o H U O v� z w w u w H u VC GEOLOGIC D SCRIPTION 312.00 0.00 ti.:; < SM SOIL s rn.silty an d fine - grained san , slightly oganic, dry, loose, roots .L ..L. x SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan to Redd sh bm., fine and med.- grained 90.2 13.3 sand, moist, dense gxpgx. 311.00 1.00 :'e fVeefT: 310.00 v xy x= 115.1 13.1 2.00 e�ee'aYe N 309.00 :qx qx 3.00 cn qx::x -0 :i •x cd 308.00 4.00 'C 'ioYe'ieYe 5x fix, 0 Ii:Yee:Y: 0 307.00 x x 118.2 12.1 5.00 ';r::•�; From 5', very dense 306.00 6.00 xi { x : iTd'i7 305.00 Lost Sample 7.00 :xe:x End of Boni g @ 8' 304.00 . W 8.00 sxEET t of t COAST G OTECHNICAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO.2 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJEC NO. P- 334041 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATEDRILLED: 04 -26 -01 SURFACE ELEV.: 312' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB CIO H x z z H ° u CIO z W W u u GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 312.00 0.00 SM SOIL (Qs): Brn.silty and fine- grained san I, slightly clayey, dry, loose, roots l ..L .. SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan to Re& ish brn., fine and med.- grained " sand, clayey, dense i'el!SiY: e:x•:x 311.00 =; 105.9 15.3 1.00 x x° e iT 'eY: � :qx::x 7 • e f:7:�3Y: * 310.00 114.4 15.0 2.00 � • i e:Y: iY: O :x::x• � H ee:L!': 309.00 e ?;T: 116.0 13.3 z 3.00 i Fete' ?el! F>l�cieT: e:Fc:bT: 308.00 4.00 '•.iY eiY: • :iY:iiY: ..... End of Bori g @ 5' 307.00 _ 5.00 . • . SHEET t OF 1 COAST G OTECHNICAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORIN NO. 3 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJEC" NO. P-334041 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATED LLED: 04-26-01 SURFACE ELEV. 312' (Approximate) LOGGED BY. MB F z z u u u DO z u u GEOLOGIC DEMMPTION 312.00 0.00 Z.... SM SOIL (Qs): Brn. silty and fine-grained san, 1, slightly clayey, dry, loose, roots 96.2 6.8 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan to Reddish bm., fine and med.- grained sand, clayey, dense 311.00 1.00 0 a) 310.00 112.0 8.2 2.00 z 309.00 Lost Sample 3.00 @4' Very Dense End of Boring @ 4' 308.00 4.00 SHEET I OF I COAST GE:OTECHNICAL U 0£ =« :'Ivas z MO COO U � o ' I o I w I U W i I A i I a I I W I H c a a I zoQ�� I A wawa° -1 u 0 u � 126.625' — — ' Camino El Dorado 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � APPENDIX i i DATE: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 * * * E Q F A U L T * * * Ver. 2.20 * * ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** (Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Digitized California Faults) ' SEARCH PERFORMED FOR: ASCHBREMMER ' JOB NUMBER: P- 224041 JOB NAME: P- 334041 ' SITE COORDINATES: LATITUDE: 33.0441 N ' LONGITUDE:. 117.2739 W SEARCH RADIUS: 60 mi ' ATTENUATION RELATION: 2) Campbell & Bozorgnia (1994) H riz. - Soft Rock UNCERTAINTY (M =Mean, S= Mean +l - Sigma): S ' SCOND: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION ' FAULT -DATA FILE USED: CDMGSCE.DAT ' SOURCE OF DEPTH VALUES (A= Attenuation File, F =Fault Data File): A ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- ' Page 1 ------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- --------------- - - - - -- MAX. CREDIBLE EVENT MAX. PROBABLE EVENT ' APPROX. ------------ - - - - -- --------------- - - -- ABBREVIATED DISTANCE MAX. PEAK SITE MAX. PEAK SITE FAULT NAME mi (km) CRED. SITE INTEN PROB. SITE INTENS ' MAG. ACC. g MM MAG. ACC. g MM SAN JACINTO- COYOTE CREEK 53 ( 85) 6.80 0.048 VI 6.20 0.028 V -------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ' SAN JACINTO- ANZA - - - - -- 50 ( 81) - 7_20 0.073 - - VII 6.90 0.056 - - VI -- ------ - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- SAN JACINTO -SAN JACINTO VA 52 ( 84) 6.90 0.053 VI 6.80 0.048 VI -------------------- - - - - -- -53-(-86) -- - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ELSINORE- COYOTE MOUNTAIN 6.80 0.047 VI 6.20 0.027 V -------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ' ELSINORE- JULIAN ---- - - - - -- - 27 - ( - 44) 7.10 - 0_150 - VIII 6.40 0.087 VII ---------- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ELSINORE- TEMECULA 27 ( 44) 6.80 0.121 VII 6.30 0.079 VII -------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ' ELSINORE- GLEN - IVY - - - - -- 41 ( 67) 6.80 0.068 - - VI - 6.30 0.043 VI ------ - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- WHITTIER 60 ( 96) 6.80 0.040 V 5.90 0.018 IV -------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- CHINO- CENTRAL AVE. (Elsino 57 ( 91) 6.70 0.038 V 5.50 0.015 IV -------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ' EARTHQUAKE - VALLEY - - - - -- - 41 - ( - 66) - 6_50 - 0 052 - - VI - 5.70 0.026 V -------- --- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- CORONADO BANK 18 ( 29) 7.40 0.283 IX 6.30 0.137 VIII -------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ' NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD (Offshor 12 ( 19) 6.90 0.324 - IX 5.80 0.157 VIII -------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ROSE CANYON 3 ( 6) 6.90 0.737 XI 5.70 0.417 X -------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- ------ - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ' NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD (L_A�Bas 54 ( 87) 6.90 0.050 VI 5.60 0.016 IV - -- PALOS VERDES-------- - - - - -- - -- - - - --- 42 ( V 67) 7.10 0.086 VII 6.20 0_039 - - --- ' -END OF SEARCH- 15 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 3.5 MILES AWAY. ' LARGEST MAXIMUM- CREDIBLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.737 g ' LARGEST MAXIMUM- PROBABLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.417 g 1 ' CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP P- 334041 ' 1100 ' 1000 ' 900 ' 800 ' 700 ' 600 ' 500 ' 400 ' 300 ' 200 ' 100ti t • SI 0 ' -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 00 500 600 ' COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ' JOB NUMBER: P- 334041 DATE: 05-15 -2001 ' JOB NAME: ASCHBREMMER FAULT - DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT ' SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0441 ' SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2739 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 ' UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SC NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: ' NAME: ELSINORE- JULIAN DISTANCE: 44.2 km ' NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ROSE CANYON DISTANCE: 5.6 km ' NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: DISTANCE: 99999.0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1.0 Nv: 1.2 ' Ca: 0.40 Cv: 0.66 Ts: 0.659 ' To: 0.132 1 ° LO o Un co CD ' w *Poo U N O LO N P-r d N a IWN � o cn H Lr? � o � w Q o o LO o LO o �n o O O ' (6) uoileaalaooy lealoadg 1 � APPENDIX Co. � I i I i i ' GRADING GUIDELINES ' Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of the governing agencies, Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, the geotechnical report and the guidelines presented below. All of the guidelines may not apply to a specific site and t additional recommendations may be necessary during the grading phase. 1 Site Clearing Trees, dense vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the ' site. Non - organic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas under direction of the Soils engineer. ' Subdrainage ' 1. During grading, the Geologist and Soils Engineer should evaluate the necessity of placing additional drains (see Plate A). ' 2. All subdrainage systems should be observed by the Geologist and Soils Engineer during construction and prior to covering with compacted fill. ' 3. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project surveyors. Outlets should be located and protected. ' Treatment of Existing Ground 1. All heavy vegetation, rubbish and other deleterious materials should be disposed ' of off site. 2. All surficial deposits including alluvium and colluvium should be removed unless ' otherwise indicated in the text of this report. Groundwater existing in the alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months. ' 3. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill ' standards. Fill Placement ' 1. Most site soil and bedrock may compacted be reused for acted fill; however, some p special processing or handling may be required (see report). Highly organic or ' contaminated soil should not be used for compacted fill. ' (1) ' 2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in ' thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by the Soils Engineer. ' 3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that acceptable to the Soils engineer, the Contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the ' following: a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. ' Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre - watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. ' b Each six inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the Y P p ' maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In this case, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D- 1557 -91. 4. Side -hill fills should have a minimum equipment -width key at their toe excavated through all surficial soil and into competent material (see report) and tilted back ' into the hill (Plate A). As the fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial deposits and into competent bedrock or other material deemed suitable by the Soils Engineer. ' 5. Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets; ' b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine - grained material to surround the rocks; ' c) The distribution of the rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer. 6. Rocks greater than six inches in diameter should be taken off site, or placed in ' accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. ' 7. In clay soil large chunks or blocks are common; if in excess of six (6) inches minimum dimension then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot t compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break the up blocks. ' (2) ' 8. The Contractor should be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished 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. ' If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor t should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. Density tests ' should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. ' In addition, if a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction ' should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Finish grade testing of the slope should be performed after construction is complete. Each day the ' Contractor should receive a copy of the Soils Engineer's "Daily Field Engineering Report" which would indicate the results of field density tests that day. ' 9. Fill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner: a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the ' cut -fill interface. b) A key at least 1 equipment width wide (see report) and tipped at least 1 ' foot into slope should be excavated into competent materials and observed by the Soils Engineer or his representative. ' c) The cut portion of the slope should be constructed prior to fill placement to evaluate if stabilization is necessary, the contractor should be responsible for any additional earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut ' excavation. 10. Transition lots (cut and fill) and lots above stabilization fills should be capped with ' a four foot thick compacted fill blanket (or as indicated in the report). 11. Cut pads should be observed by the Geologist to evaluate the need for ' overexcavation and replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water infiltration into highly fractured bedrock or other permeable zones,and /or due to ' differing expansive potential of materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation may be recommended in some cases. ' (3) 1 ' 12. Exploratory backhoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. Grading Observation and Testing ' 1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. ' 2. In general, density tests would be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the fill. In any event, an adequate number of ' field density tests should be made to evaluate if the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained. ' 3. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as required by the Soils Engineer. ' 4. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations,subdrains and rock disposal should be observed by the Soils Engineer prior to placing any fill. It will ' be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for observation. ' 5. A Geologist should observe subdrain construction. 6. A Geologist should observe benching prior to and during placement of fill. ' Utility Trench Backfill ' Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards: 1. Ninety percent of the laboratory standard if native material is used as backfill. ' 2. As an alternative, clean sand may be utilized and flooded into place. No specific relative compaction would be required; however, observation, probing, and if ' deemed necessary, testing may be required. 3. Exterior trenches, paralleling a footing and extending below a 1:1 plane projected ' from the outside bottom edge of the footing, should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless it is similar to the inplace fill, should not be allowed in these trench backfill areas. ' Density testing along with probing should be accomplished to verify the desired results. ' (4) 1 i A J\J J5! - -140 - -lo JJ 1 ` 430,W PROPER"TYLINE S88'56'21"E ZZFF 403,00 WOOD FENCE 10 PT EFBACK LINE��z.T= 1 �s a r . .3u,so ti Y 13.98' 12.02' --'-- 2e95 4�� 17.96 32.50 ,.72 .�u,.�t1 - ,303, 302 70 -- 30130 I O O + o o ci E 16.50' ( i �7 f ap CO N -4- _'_- .00, CDT 2q� 7 FL 1 . I ,�'S .82 I • � 11.96' ,- 23.00' r 309 19 oo 7.08' o ��' " .�; !96 SG I G' EX `CURS - 3C x r7 `_ . �98 29?.29 � I, tN1,ET:S'Vf - 3Q?.2`� `t� , � . , r , (.- " 29P C � 23.42' N -- 13:40 F r, ? L . ?9s T E'G E ;3W,3t3 ,.. _.__. _ �ssp. 31.50. t 299.01 FL B. I P I cn . F? 71 y #MPFCOVEMENT PLAN Ir1FRAVWiN(� f i f^ 8 - -1 /1 " I I 30 NO,r43-1 FOR^aTRE7✓T ' ` J" � � / t 2?0. #� F�. ( � IMPROV'MENT B�TAI S • I t 1 Q G �BYIa�1Alµ 1 � I I ` BUILDING FOOT PRINT I ," !t 4" R.F. SLAE Oj4 ? - ;301.23 I SANp BASE Oj 7,96' I ILL, C-2 AD ELEV. - 1 -� T `�s z WORK TO BE DONE t if / IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING WORK TO BE DONE ACCORDING TO THE PLANS. THE �6 � � -� 4 7 „ •'���' — CURRENT CITY OF SAN DIEGO STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT . I 0 g a! _ �C tU L I - • OF PUBLIC STREETS AND STANDARD REFERENCE DRAWINGS. 303.0 I 11 I e� � •f � "'� '�' \ t to NQ. ' ITEM DESCRIPTION STD. DWG. SYMBOL QUANTITY 5 ih 06.0 i�5 W {{ I 1. 4 PCC PAVEMENT 7476 SF N 11 t( O� t l "N" °99t)f I 2. REMOVE EXISTING 1887 SF I <n W S � r� r r`�`�d`� � � b --T ... .._.:,, '�, af1�+ t� .. I 2 � ' �" ��-�.� t � �t � � ( AC PAVING �' 2 B2 ° +S' fi+ •-,^ •`,' -12 COVERED BY (IRVICIALD>r�'I'R) �= 1✓f i, f f f ,3j, 9f7ftt' TG3 �tlN$� si3 `� } I 3. 6" PI CURB G-1 � �.p�� c(',� � (�/ r �/;�'ry�`,, F;r 4 '*7 `�`S ,�Cs�' ,��` (' , 0 ,251E '�S �• ��'��-" � - ; � '' I j , I I -W !✓' �y 3 4 . t 4. #3 BACKING RIP-RAP D-40 1 CY O XISTI r o - - 7 �g ! �•i t w 7_ ,-: 2 3 \ �`TRl; VAL 5. SAND/GRAVEL BAGS C 7C7C�7C�J 20 LF �( �i :3f1U.14. . --^ -�. . . FF .�i`.. Y ,... - 6. LOPE 9996 SF k -' w „ HYDROSEED S U �.� ,. �♦11 PROTECTION ( >1 , t1'' § 'r' F' _ .1. . „ :X 8l( I LEGEND EN a A�' / _ i ITEM DESCRIPTION SYMBOL f; PROPERTY BOUNDARY — — r w O X x'` � 1,rr , '..s, ',i rr/. � I '� _ EXISTING CONTOURS 160 � .. s ..-.-°_.. - I 1ST i, rr / / N ; 1 f j r IA FrSETB�ALIi"i�INE # d 5 WOOD FENCE PROPOSED CONTOURS 60' 21 I 1 ^ F t -Mr/-4.n:+!11n"yy "�w"r !!V+ry4.r.r;L——!.nR. % N68"556'21 YM 'r�n 9s' y�.T4*+...r. ..w+—► ..r'.r ' l. .. Pf20Pl?RTY LINE — PROPOSED 2:1 FILL SLOPE (MAX) ' ?t7�.40 3C?S 39 ' �` `; 4S0:gQ - 30�.�7 r 2.63 �' ;i</a U ; : <ik , c.__. 30 `5 `*....... -- EARTHWORK QUANTTIES x \ EX. P.P. aYGX � r E \�_ ;3032FL k A OWALL SEE LETTER QF PERMISSION TO C�ACE GRAPHIC SCALE 170 CY i 21.22' r� 'CURD BY` . ,- CUT = 11.96 DATED: N 1 o to zo +o eo FILL =414 CY i i 180.68' IMPORT=244 CY k I f^ rmo jl - - ( IN FEET ) "EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE ESTIMATED FOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLY. ti i � 4t f� EJ (CALCULATED ON A THEORETICAL, BASIS. ACTUAL QUANTITIES MAY VARY L inch = 20 1f. DUE TO SHRINKAGE OR SWELL FACTORS). SITE PLAN C-2 CONSTRUCTION NOTES STREET IMPROVEMENT NOTE 7) 24 FT DIAMETER TURN CIRCLE AT HEAD OF DRIVEWAY SHALL BE FINISHED IN "v ' STA�D;CONCRETE PER PROJECT ARCHITECTS SPECCFICATICN(INSTALL AFTER 1 STUCCO WALL INSTALL AFTER BUN DING QQA�ITRUI TIf)Nj. BUthD11+ NST RUIION). B' h a20 DRIVEWAYS APPROACHES HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO ACCOMODATE PROPOSED Q CONSTRUCT 6 FT HIGHS C ( END STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN CAMINO EL DORADO. REFERENCE CITY OF CO TR INSTM�L EI4ERGY DiSSIPATOR MR SMSO Q44Qr+TYPE 1, REPLAOE 10FT MIN W! a TEST(approx.), ENCINITAS STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Q CONSTRUCT WROUGHT IRON STYLE GATES(INSTALL AFTER BUILDING NS UCfIt 6I T MIN. (ROCK CLASS= NO 3 BACkINa,THICKNIY66'�08 FT)FILTER MATERIAL SHALL,BE ENKADRAIN 9010 DRAJf 011E(WATT. FILL CONSTRUCT 16 FOOT WIDE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY(INSTALL AFTER BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION). USE 6"THICK CONCRETE SECTION. COf+ITI fU I CF3AIGRT 'CII fIVEWAY-III1 WI 22 FT S>PEPIINC5=ACCOFtDiNCa TO SAN SEPTIC TANK(approx.). DIIzGO REGIONAL ST AEIC►QF A (RSD C 14(COPISTF CT AFTER BUILDING , Y SEEPAGE PIT (app o :) ® All GRADED SLOPES DAYLIGHT AT 4:1 (H:V). C( NSIfi1IJCTIt?N IS'CLETIvD), COOFZDINAE CGtNSTRUCTiON OF DRIVEWAYS ���-= -� I3 LI~AI LINE(appr ' WISHr I► PRrCNT DNJ3L eiAcs 0 LANDSCAPE AREA IN DRIVE TO BE PLANTED WITH TURF(WIDTH=3 FT): - { MITTEIa�- � � ! eROFESS/ 1 O 6" RVG DRAT L � EXISTING 1'- 11.2- WATER WTER. (TO BE RELOCATED OUTSIDE,DRIVEWAY) hwQ ��o Cpp� © INSTALL 6 INCH SQUARE BRASS DRAIN INLET CONNECTED N 1RI _ ENGINEERING DRAIN INLET INSTALLED AFTER BUU DING CONS'T'RUCTION )(SAND AROUNF� � P � ( O COURTYARD HARDSCAPE (FINISH GRADE)SHALL BE INSTALLED AFTEWOUILDINC3 C ; . ITN, No. 47024 DRAIN INLET DURING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION). C.#.NSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED COURTYARD ROUGH GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED . A CONSULTING PRIOR TO EIUILD04 PERMIT ISSUANCE. ;; ,u,,os » INSTALL S`AND:BAG.PROTECTION AROUNEt EXISTING CURB INLET. 2 BAGS-HIGH g + � CIVIC GROUP n < _ ' • '" 437 S. Hi.hway 101,Suite 202 Solana Beach,California 92075 _ P:612259.4711 F:619.259.5732 w .ecgnct.com . : , " DESIGN BY DRAWN BY CH%iCK DEPARTMENT, A TY �EVLNT APPR4VAL5. CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING DRAWING NO. REVISIONS APPROVED DATE. REFEREI'��S DATE' I�I� �M I� �K � � I� D.,Asncrofl ALBERT pt7AN 13. Icty�It I is T, PLANS PftEPARE(J UNDER SUPERVISION {)F RECOMMENDED APPROVED GRADING AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN A�3IFMEI� DATt1M; ELEW Q MANHOLE A. INTERSECTICTN OF CAMINO EL , ' DO & HC 120NTAL: -' 20 DATE: R&2 ,,ESA, wVi3 11.,95 (PT, 30) ICY: BY: 678 CAMINO EL DORADO - X 01, "1 VERTICAL: A RICE NO. 72.23 G X cE(�' LIVE IF .cAMINC) 1 L oQRAOQ PER ENCINITAS, GA N REXS •15 3 'A. ASH EXP. --�—= DATE: DATE: SHEET 2 OF 2