The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-7522 G/CN ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT - A City 0, f Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Encinitas Field Operations Sand Replenishment /Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering July 10, 2003 Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company 254 East Grand Avenue Suite 100A Escondido, California 92025 RE: Ernie Wakabayashi 544 & 546 4` Street CDP 01 -264 Grading Permit 7522 -G Final release of security Permit 7522 -G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the grading. Therefore, release of the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 138863, in the amount of $11,600.00, is hereby fully exonerated. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, .' Masih Maher y Lembach Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach, FinanceManager Ernie Wakabayashi Debra Geishart file enc. TEL 760 -633 -2600 / FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760- 633 -2700 recycled paper E NGINEERING SIRUCI IRAL SPLCIALIS CONSULTING m of [If GA ION `:5 ■ APPL IC _A tl()N CON$l)L:I ING GROUP Hydrology Calculations for Wakabayashi Residence 5444 th Avenue, Encinitas, CA Project No: 011001 D �CI0� lgw --- - -- - e RpF ESS /O ASy ql No 702 / 1/0 Sp CIVIC �Q qrF OF CA- Prepared By: ENGINEERING CONSULUNG GROUP PH: (858) 259-4711 FX:(858)259 -5732 June 16, 2002 ENGINEERING CONSULTING GROUP 437 S. Hwy 101, Suite 202 Solana Beath, C:ilifomia 92075 Pl1 858.259.4711 Fx 858.259.5732 www.ecgnetcom k PROJECT NAME fA ENGINEERING h � - - DES�C�� ED RY CONSULTING GROUP DATE CEiFCKED 13Y — SA, (...1 o(v ""v�) v v � r n ,I L_ r — j (r }J im , �» l� X 5 t . E r l _ - - - cr MANOW A W§WMTM At SWIRYMEM OF IN" W m fMffll Nllfl 7m polmw Pon mm MIf Mf P A If 10 MAW WON" N � 0 O�LfM MM V lor swomm 0ow"m 0ow c' J U V c , ; o X ; V V, - 4 ENGINEERING Wakabayashi Residence SHEET CONSULTING Hydrology Basins G ROUP 41] S. 1 1111, 1�i, 1111 1o1— A-,I, 11 544 4th Avenue 1 P: �, 19.2 11 F 619.259,5712 --p--. Encinitas, CA OF I SHEETS 8.5 x I I W U) N _0 m� mlc o m m m. m Ind ul n o m0 �� - � n.•am m . � d o nul � --.o 5 N C (n U UINO i" m .ID'I dP7(h N cq O C L O C N C �_! ._ .... (C-) C 7 = O_ T tO n ['N T m Or m N Ill t N O] m N , E 7y ` o O , �'1 d cD N 0� � N � c0 N In C N c6 'gym d - • - .m n vi vi v m N N �.o n .� O .c O I N _ _._..._ _ _ _ _.. _.. U m – N U O I O�0)h Inu - )comd Of� mC d- O (V / �� ' u- E rnm o n d c-� o m co N .0 Z6 .Q a) v i I C p C cDO O O O ...N 'v w _ ommv - m , (� rf1'Vl m'mN n m m mn @ N O rn a O O II d �,m n In o v r iv cv o oo M o (p L L - O I N E C 7 fD c N N C V1 - It U - = � m cD N d.c") t7N N N � � poO C E (0 O Orn2 O. N pl O c '� N Nod n n o rn m c-1 m �.� cDcom v u .� _ p I N �_ Nd'rn lnn Nrndowd �ornnul In L N T O> n In,d t")c7 "N N N 0 0 OO N O N N C cO C O w � I ' I c o-� ul m of o.m n m m co N mm m ID�o o O. 7P n C._ /' L n m Vl M N N 0 0 0 0 0 N O O. C m U C O O _T . ( II I m O d (7 t` N o N N Ln co tD 7 c O O C = I V. N N N- ul [7NN c->o n d Nomn cD ln� d E Q d O r O L C ), N U U cD lnd NN NNE . - ciO0000 U N N 0 O U a P I a C _ .. Q O QT1 � a o N _ .0 C -\ II C t O_ m N– N N < In � r1_ (0 f M O m c In to d m Q -0 o 9L O a) .� .– N d Cl N.N. �- O O O O`O O O � 0 -, Q .a O d p N L N O I B CD E I w 0 L O N n. c .N cv LL "_ , I 0_ 1 I m - - - - of c") N - -- 0 0 0 0_000 0 m C21n N C C I 'd 1 /�1 I Q7 �Nmomr- is -�mo� �tmcnN 'rte _ L ) O_ C cD L co c m O I In IO'�cD r>ornw�cnlnvc ->NNN C N m I I r j o EO C .0 O_ a N .0 tp O II O_ II I f- p -- c Inn o Ino In o o0 0 0 00 0.o Oo (� O Q. _O L Q1 V C[J 'p II p N N t'1 d'N l0 N N (O dO tD .O Q J _ N •- !-:N. c'>M ❑ N v v Q m o V Z a o ' 6 -Hour Precipitation (inches) o In o In o n o In o ul o L]. (D In Yl d d m m N N C R LO . V i _ O Z c n E - - _ - _ - - N 0 q u E __ ___ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ —___ 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . C � co d p O_ - LL C = O t0 N fQ O � - _ _ 7 d _ m - o S 2 N LL C t _- U p — C O N - - - - O - c m 0 -- - - m rn 0 n o _ _ _ C O U O O o 0 0 0 0 o O O m m n c0 1� d m N m (jnoq /saUoul) Apsuatul m x Area % Impervious Runoff Coefficient "C" Area I Q 1 95% 0.87 1 603 S F 0.037 AC 7.0 in /hr 0.22 cf _2 1 0.9 442 SF 0.010 AC 7.00 in /hr 0.06 cfs 3 100% 0. 9 W 684 SF 0.016 AC 7.00 in /hr 0.10 cfs 4 10 0 0 % 0.9 29 SF 0.068 AC 7.00 in /hr 0 .43 cf 5712 SF 0.131 AC Total 0.82 cfs tmp #l.txt Manning Pipe calculator Given Input Data: shape ........................... Circular solving for ..................... Depth of Flow Diameter ........................ 4.0000 in Flowrate ........................ 0.4000 cfs Slope ........................ 0.0017 ft /ft manning's n ..................... 0.0012 Computed Results: Depth ........................... 1.9303 in area .......................... 0.0873 ft2 wetted area ..................... 0.0417 ft2 wetted Perimeter ................ 6.1437 in Perimeter ....................... 12.5664 in velocity ........................ 9.5932 fps Hydraulic Radius ................ 0.9773 in Percent Full .................... 48.2564 Full flow Flowrate .............. 0.8501 cfs Full flow velocity .............. 9.7411 fps Page 1 ENGINEERING .G"W.STRUC„X+L .nmirdw somms GCONSULTING 0 ARLW7 M CCNSULVM GROUP 27 September. 2002 Mr. Emie Wakabayashl 7142 -B Calabria Ct San Diego, CA 92122 Subject Civil Engineer's Pad Certification for Line and C3rade We have completed our courtesy rough grade inspection of the line and grade for the building pads. One structure is to be constructed using slab on grade and strip footing foundations. Line and grade for the aforementioned stnrcture is in substantial conformance with the latest revision of the permitted grading plan (752213). The assumed elevation of the existing building pad (73.0 FF) has been confirmed. The following table lists plan finish grade elevations versus as -built pad elevations: 1 73.00 72.57 -0 73.00 72.40 -0.00 73 -00 72.81 -0.39 73.00 72.62 -0.38 73 -00 72-43 -0.57 73.00 72.39 - 0 .6 1 75.00 74.59 -0.41 75 -00 74.41 -0. 75.00 74.68 -0.32 75.00 74.56 -0.42 75.00 74.36 -0-62 75.00 74.57 -0.43 The finished surface elevations of both structures will be 0.67 feet above stated pad elevations due to the addition of 4" sand and 4' PCC. We would be pleased to discuss or answer any comments or questions you have about our firm. gHCWM= w cDmsSn mm CROM 437 S. Hwy 101. SU 202 Sd.m Bad+. "'Wwn'a 92075 PM 858259.4711 FX 858.259.5732 w.nw Wwr -cam iwn amdowd ZLYK r7- were eo►wrlr d qG X 73.1 1 i Ll E-G 72.57EC"' EG 72 Lo KN EG �R CL � 74.41 EG,/ < 74.591EG/ P�-72.5 Ela.. 72" 7 17239 . 74.41 EG Q RgFESS�p ZIMEG Ne NA 6- ;JIM CIV G ENGINEI•RING WAKARAYASHI R981DENC9 CONSULTING PAD GERIFICATION 4 31 GROUP 544 "4 r 4TH STREET E F chom c nchOm CA 92024 Subject Civic Engina W, ad Cerdfoation i'or Line and tirade Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Page 2 FSS� ff j RING CONSULTING UP r. David =r� � 7\ Ashcroft, P.E. C�:J�'C� President Encl. Plot Plan showing da bons. 9/27/2002 oue�: ure� .anru�a,mnoeaw.�crruaena.e E(VGI'd ''''.Fri (VICES PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND BLUFF STUDY, 544 4 STREET ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR MR. ERNIE WAKABAYASHI 7142 -C CALABRIA COURT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 W.O. 3167 -A -SC NOVEMBER 6, 2001 s, 0 Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438 -3155 • FAX (760) 931 -0915 _ November 6, 2001 W.O. 3167 -A -SC Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi 7142 -C Calabria Court San Diego, California 92122 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation and Bluff Study, 544 4th Street, Encinitas, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Wakabayashi: In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is pleased to present the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation on the subject site. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the geologic and geotechnical conditions of the upper bluff, including bluff stability, so that recommendations for foundation design and earthwork parameters could be provided for the proposed development. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our field exploration, geologic and geotechnical engineering analysis, the proposed development appears feasible from a soils engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in the text of this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The most significant elements of our study are summarized below: • Topsoil /colluvium, which is underlain by terrace deposits, which is in turn underlain by the Delmar Formation were encountered during our investigation. The topsoil /colluvium and near - surface terrace deposits are typically porous, loose, and subject to consolidation. In the near - surface, they are considered potentially _ compressible in their existing state, and have a moderate potential for hydrocompaction; thus, colluvium /topsoil and near- surface terrace deposits onsite may settle appreciably under additional fill, foundation, or improvement loadings. _ Recommendations for the treatment of the topsoil /colluvium and surFicial terrace deposits are presented in the earthwork section of this report. _ Based on published and accepted erosion rates by the City of Encinitas, the existing slope is surficially unstable. Gross stability analyses, however, indicate generally grossly stable conditions for this slope in its existing state, provided the bluff doesn't retreat (an unrealistic assumption). Per code (City of Encinitas), proposed structures should be located at least 40 feet from the edge of the existing bluff and - behind the daylight line. An effective setback of 51 feet is recommended (see below). • Future long -term established bluff retreat is up to 15.0 feet in 75 years. Per code (City of Encinitas), proposed structures should be located at least 40 feet from the edge of the existing bluff, and behind the daylight line (51 feet). The foundations for the proposed development are setback behind the daylight line and bluff retreat limit. Provided the bluff does not erode or retreat appreciably, conventional foundations can be used. Recommendations are provided herein for such foundations. • Based on our laboratory analysis and experience in the vicinity, soils with a very low expansion potential exist onsite. Conventional foundations may be utilized for these soil conditions. At the present time, soluble sulfate and corrosion testing results were not available. An addendum report presenting those results will be provided when lab testing is complete. • Subsurface and surface water, as discussed previously, are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction, and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along fill /bedrock contacts and along zones of contrasting permeabilities should not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. _ The groundwater conditions observed and opinions generated were those at the time of our investigation. Conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors that were not obvious at the time of our investigation. • It should be noted that any structures placed within the 51 -foot zone from the top of the bluff, may be subject to instability and distress. • The geotechnical design parameters provided herein should be considered during construction by the project structural engineer and /or architect. Mr. Ernie Wakabayash( W.O. 3167 -A -SC Fi1e:e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page Two GeoSoils, Inc. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions pertaining to this report, please contact us at (760) 438 -3155. Respectfully submi GeoSoils, Inc. F Reviewed by:�� No. ism No. RCE 47 57 � _ Cedftd d3 Er'Igkmeft ohn P. ranklin i� a*ot �e ` Davi e1 _ ngineering Geologi 0 Civil Engineer, R ' BV /JPF /DWS /jh Distribution: (4) Addressee Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi W.O. 3167 -A -SC Fi1e:e:\wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page Three GeoSoils, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES .................... ............................... 1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ......................... 1 FIELD STUDIES ........................... ..............................3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY .................... ............................... 3 COASTAL BLUFF GEOMORPHOLOGY ...................................... 3 SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS ................... ............................... 4 Topsoil /Colluvium (Not Mapped) ....... ............................... 4 Beach Deposits (Map Symbol - Qb) .... ............................... 5 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) .... ............................... 5 Delmar Formation (Map Symbol - Td) ... ............................... 5 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE .................. ............................... 5 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY ...... ............................... 5 Faulting............................ ..............................5 Seismicity.......................... ..............................6 Seismic Shaking Parameters .... ............................... 8 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS ........... ............................... 9 GROUNDWATER......................... ............................... 9 LONG TERM SEA -LEVEL CHANGE ......... ............................... 10 COASTAL -BLUFF RETREAT ............... ............................... 10 MarineErosion ...................... .............................10 Mechanical and Biological Processes ........................... 11 Water Depth, Wave Height, and Platform Slope ................... 11 Marine Erosion at the Cliff- Platform Junction ...................... 11 Subaeriel Erosion .................... .............................11 Groundwater .................. .............................11 Slope Decline ................. .............................12 LABORATORY TESTING .................. ............................... 12 Classification........................ .............................12 Laboratory Standard - Maximum Dry Density ............................ 12 Expansion Index Testing .............. :............................13 Direct Shear Tests ................... .............................13 Corrosivity.......................... .............................13 GeoSoils, Inc. SLOPE STABILITY ......................... .............................14 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES ............. ............................... 14 Gross Stability Analysis ............. ............................... 15 Surficial Slope Stability .............. ............................... 15 _ Slope Setbacks ...................... .............................15 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ......... ............................... 15 General.......................... ............................... 15 Slope Stability ....................... .............................16 Earth Materials ...................... .............................16 Topsoil /Colluvium and Terrace Deposits ......................... 16 Corrosivity..................... ............................... 16 Subsurface and Surface Water ......... .............................16 RECOMMENDATIONS - EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION ....................... 17 Grading............................ .............................17 General...................... .............................17 Site Preparation .............. ............................... 17 Removals (Unsuitable Materials) ............................... 18 Overexcavation ................ .............................18 Fill Placement ....... ............................... 18 Erosion Control ................ ............................... 18 Subdrain Systems ................... .............................19 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS . ............................... 19 Foundation Design ............... ............................... 19 Bearing Value ............. ............................... 19 Lateral Pressure ............................................. 20 Footings Setbacks ................... ........................20 _ Foundation Construction .......... ............................... 20 Top -of -Slope Walls ........... ............................... 22 CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALLS 23 G eneral............................ .......................... ... ...23 . ... Restrained Walls ......... ............................... 23 Cantilevered Walls ............ ............................ . • . 23 Wall Backfill Drainage ..... ............................... 24 Cor rosivity.......................... .............................24 UTILITIES... ............................. .............................24 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS /DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ................ 25 Landscape Maintenance and Planting . ............................... 25 Site Improvements ................. ............................... 25 Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Table of Contents — File: eAwp7\31 00\3167a.pge Page ii GeoSoils, Inc. Drainage........................ ............................... 26 Footing Excavations ............. ............................... 26 Trenching.......................... .............................26 Utility Trench Backfill ............... ............................... 26 Grading Guidelines ................ ............................... 27 PLANREVIEW ............................ .............................27 LIMI TATIONS............................. .............................27 FIGURES: Figure 1 - Site Location Map .......... ............................... 2 Figure 2 - California Fault Map ......... ............................... 7 ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - References .... ............................... Rear of Text _ Appendix B - Boring Logs ... ............................... Rear of Text Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results ......................... Rear of Text Appendix D - Slope Stability Analysis ......................... Rear of Text Appendix E - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines ......... Rear of Text Appendix F - Homeowner's Maintenance Guidelines ............. Rear of Text Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map ......................... Rear of Text in Folder Plate 2 - Geologic Cross Section A -A Rear of Text in Folder Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Table of Contents File:e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page iii GeoSoils, Inc. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHN/CAL EVALUATION AND BLUFF STUDY, 544 4 STREET ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: 1. Review of readily available published literature and maps of the vicinity, including available geologic reports within the vicinity of the site (Appendix A). 2. Geologic reconnaissance mapping of exposed conditions, including sea cliff bedding attitudes. 3. Subsurface exploration consisting of three hand auger borings to determine the soil /bedrock profiles, obtain bulk samples of representative materials, and delineate earth material parameters that may affect the stability of the existing bluff and the proposed development. 4. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface exploration program. 5. Evaluation of potential areal seismicity and secondary seismic hazards. 6. Slope stability analyses. 7. Appropriate engineering and geologic analyses of data collected, and preparation of this report and accompaniments SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT — The study area is a coastal bluff located above the beach in Encinitas, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). The site consists of one parcel with two existing residential structures on the lot. One single story residence, reportedly constructed in the 1950's, .� occupies the western -most portion, about 50 feet from the bluff; the eastern residence is two- stories, and includes an attached garage. Slope gradients of the approximately 75 -foot high bluff range up to 36 to 40 degrees in the upper portions of the bluff, and near vertical in the lower portion of the bluff (bedrock). Minor seepage was observed in the bluff along the contact between the overburden and bedrock. GeoSoils, Inc. 3 -D TopoQuads Copyright !h 1999 Def orme Yarmouth, ME 04096 Source Data: USGS _ s: �. r Water J\ Ekinita4 Beach' T *.• �: y C.ourity - Park '•` — ` w — —N33 ° -35' 1 \•, 'i - -1_ `, ' / : (J , �� ` • EK . � � ♦a" r I H U igoh Seaside Gardens County Park' f �'1� �Ps, S' i. r au ew " e" I ! MCA biP4 HT t I ;• J t I' w MATS !31 A['}I�`' y •� L r �� SITE �ta� �. J cam 91) — ' 4n S I 0 �� K i i•. I t • '� I --N33 °- 2:5' \.'a • �` 1 �• Encinitas` i San �1�• � Ho 4 � i � ' 1 �� • . ` ` r �1z I %. , •! Via• � g. �`�`' `I 1 1 1 `r_ _ i �• 1 t Sea Clii ' — N33:3' ',County Pprk '. o A� z ��v. 1 1�� r• y � � ir i' � • t Base Map: Encinitas Quadrangle, California - -San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), 1968 (photo revised 1975), by USGS, 1" =2000' 0 1/2 1 W.O. "is W•0.3167 -A -SC Scale Miles SITE LOCATION MAP Repproduced with permission granted by Thomas Bros. Maps. This map is copyrighted by Thomas Bros. Maps. It Is unlawful to copy or reproduce all of any part thereof, whether for Personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved. Figure 1 Based on conversations with the client, proposed development on the site will consist of demolition of the existing residence and construction of a two -story, single - family residence. It is anticipated that the development will use continuous footings and slab -on- grade floors, with wood -frame and /or masonry block construction. Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light construction. FIELD STUDIES Site specific field studies conducted by GSI consisted of geologic reconnaissance mapping of the existing geologic conditions in the bluff, and three hand auger borings for evaluation of near - surface soil and geologic conditions. The borings were logged by a geologist from our firm who collected representative bulk samples from the borings for _ appropriate laboratory testing. The logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B. The location of the borings are presented on Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep, _ elongated mountain ranges and valleys that trend northwesterly. The mountain ranges are underlain by basement rocks consisting of pre- Cretaceous metasedimentary rocks, Jurassic metavolcanic rocks, and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the southern California batholith. In the San Diego region, deposition occurred during the Cretaceous period and Cenozoic _ era in the continental margin of a forearc basin. Sediments, derived from Cretaceous -age plutonic rocks and Jurassic -age volcanic rocks, were deposited into the narrow, steep, coastal plain and continental margin of the basin. These rocks have been uplifted, eroded and deeply incised. During early Pleistocene time, a broad coastal plain was developed from the deposition of marine terrace deposits. During mid to late Pleistocene time, this plain was uplifted, eroded and incised. Alluvial deposits have since filled the lower valleys, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited /eroded within coastal and beach areas. COASTAL BLUFF GEOMORPHOLOGY The typical coastal -bluff profile may be divided into three zones; the shore platform, a lower near - vertical cliff surface termed the sea cliff, and an upper bluff slope generally ranging in inclination between about 30 and 45 degrees. The bluff top is the boundary between the upper bluff and coastal terrace. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi W.O. 3167 -A -SC 5444 1h Street, Encinitas November 6, 2001 Fi1e:e: \wp7\3 1 0013 1 67a.pge Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. Offshore from the sea cliff is an area of indefinite extent termed the near -shore zone. The bedrock surface in the near -shore zone, which extends out to sea from the base of the sea cliff, is the shore platform. As pointed out by Trenhaile (1987), worldwide, the shore platform may vary in inclination from near horizontal to as steep as 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). 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, or sometimes the shoreline angle. Within the near -shore zone is a subdivision called the inshore zone, beginning where the waves begin to break. This boundary varies 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 further away from shore. During high tides, waves may not break at all or they may break directly on the lower cliff. Closer to shore is the foreshore zone, that portion of the shore lying between the upper limit of wave wash at high tide and the ordinary low water mark. Both of these boundaries often lie on a sand or cobble beach. In this case of a shoreline with a bluff, the foreshore zone extends from low water to the lower face of the bluff. Emery and Kuhn (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. Emery and Kuhn (1982), designated this portion of the coast as "active" and "Type ,C (c)," as the surficial deposits are relatively thick with respect to the underlying bedrock: The letter "C" designates coastal bluffs having a resistant geologic formation at the bottom of the bluff and less resistant cap on the remaining height of the bluff. The relative effectiveness of marine erosion compared to subaerial erosion of the bluff produces a characteristic profile. Extremely rapid marine erosion produces a less gently- sloping and steeper upper bluff. The letter "(c)" indicates that the long -term rate of subaerial erosion is about equal to that of marine erosion. SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS Three earth materials units were observed and /or encountered in the vicinity of the subject site. Mappable units are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1 and Geologic Cross Section, Plate 2. A general description of each material type is presented as follows, from youngest to oldest. Topsoil /Colluvium (Not Mapped) Topsoil /colluvium was encountered to a depth on the order of 2'/2 to 4 feet below existing grade, at the top of the bluff. These soils consist of light brown, dry to moist, loose, silty sand. The topsoil /colluvium is typically porous and loose and is considered potentially compressible • and unsuitable for support .. pport of additional fill, settlement- sensitive improvements, or structures in its existing state. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi W.O. 3167 -A -SC 544 4" Street, Encinitas November 6, 2001 Fi1e:e:\wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. Beach Deposits (Map Symbol - Qb) A transient shingle beach composed of rounded sand and cobbles exists at the base of the bluff. The beach deposits will not be encountered in the vicinity of the proposed development. Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) Our field and hand auger observations and literature review indicate that the upper sloping portion of the sea bluff is composed primarily of Pleistocene -age terrace deposits, consisting of relatively sandy sediments, weakly cemented with iron oxide, that rest upon a yet older wave -cut terrace, also Pleistocene in age. The terrace deposits make up the sea bluff primarily between approximately 30 feet mean sea level (MSL) to near the top of _ the bluff. The upper near surface terrace deposits are generally loose and potentially compressible, and will require some removal and recompaction, if settlement sensitive improvements are proposed. Delmar Formation (Map Symbol - Td) - The Eocene -age Delmar Formation underlies the terrace deposits on the site. These materials were observed in the lower portions of the coastal bluff. Onsite, this formation consists of silty sand to sandy claystone, interbedded with coarse - grained sandstone. The materials appear moderately cemented. This formation is described (Kennedy and Peterson, 1975) as an sandy claystone interbedded with sandstone. The Delmar Formation is believed to have a lagoonal origin. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE The terrace deposits are generally massively to thickly- bedded, and are relatively flat lying to gently inclined to the southwest. The Delmar Formation is generally interbedded sandy claystones and sandstones and, as observed, is generally subhorizontal to gently inclined (dipping approximately 2 to 5 degrees to the north to northwest). FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY Faulting The site is situated in an area of active as well as potentially- active faults. Our review indicates that there are no known active faults crossing the site (Tan and Kennedy, 1996), and the site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart and Bryant, 1997). Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi 544 4 th Street, Encinitas W.O. 3167 -A -SC File: e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge November 6, 2001 GeoSoils, Inc. Page 5 There are a number of faults in the southern California area that are considered to be active and would have an earthquake effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they - be the source of an earthquake. These include - -but are not limited to the San Andreas fault, the San Jacinto fault, the Elsinore fault, the Coronado Bank fault zone, and the Newport- Inglewood -Rose Canyon fault zone. The location of these and other major faults relative to the site are indicated on the California Fault Map, Figure 2. The possibility of ground acceleration or shaking at the site may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole. The following table lists the major faults and fault zones in southern California that could have a significant effect on the site should they experience significant activity. - ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME APPROXIMATE DISTANCE MILES KM Catalina Escarpment 38 (62) — Coronado Bank -Agua Blanca 18 (29) Elsinore 28 (46) La Nacion 17 (27) Newport- Inglewood- Offshore 11 (17) Rose Canyon 3 (5) San Andreas 78(1 25) San Diego Trou h -Bahia Sol. 28 1A 5 Steeply inclined northeasterly trending faults have been mapped previously in the site vicinity. In addition, our review revealed the presence of other northeasterly to easterly trending faults within the Delmar Formation in the site vicinity. These faults belong to a group of relatively short northeasterly trending faults and would be characteristic of extensional faulting right stepping, right lateral faults. As pointed out by Treiman (1984), the northeast - trending faults appear to have died out around 120,000years ago as the dominant northwest - trending regional faulting became established. In addition, based on the available data, these faults apparently do not displace the Late Pleistocene terrace deposits, which have been dated as likely older than about 15,000 years. Seismicity The acceleration- attenuation relations of Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1989) have been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 1997). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were determined based on the random mean and mean plus 1 sigma attenuation curves Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi W.O. 3167 -A -SC 5444 1h Street, Encinitas November 6, 2001 F11e:e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 6 GeoSoiis, Inc. 0 50 100 SCALE (Miles) SAN FRANCISCO L G ES SITE LOCATION ------------ Latitude 33.0448 N Longitude 117.2967 w Wakaboyashil CAUFORNIA FAU p W.O. 3167-A-SC Figure 2 developed by Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh, and others (1989). These acceleration- attenuation relations have been incorporated in EQFAULT, a computer program by Thomas F. Blake (1989), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources. The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and user - specified file. If a fault is found to be within a user - selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site from the upper bound ( "maximum credible ") and "maximum probable" earthquakes on that fault. Site acceleration as a percentage of the acceleration of gravity (g) is computed by any of the 14 user - selected acceleration- attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT. Based on the above, peak horizontal ground accelerations from an upper bound _ (maximum credible) event may be on the order of 0.59 g to 0.89 g, and a maximum probable event may be on the order of 0.44 g to 0.55 g. Historical site seismicity was evaluated utilizing the computer program EQSEARCH (Blake, 1989). This program performs a search of historical earthquake records, for magnitude 4.0 to magnitude 9.0 within a specified radius (e.g., 100 miles), between the years 1800 to 2001. Based on the selected acceleration- attenuation relation, a peak horizontal ground acceleration is estimated, which may have affected the site during the specific seismic event listed. In addition, site specific probability of exceeding various peak horizontal ground accelerations and seismic recurrence curves are also estimated /generated from the historical data. The maximum horizontal peak ground acceleration experienced by the site during the period of 1800 to June, 2001 was found to be about 0.7 g corresponding to an earthquake of about M 6.5 approximately 3 miles away, that occurred on November 22, 1800. A probabilistic seismic hazards analysis was also performed using FRISKSP (Blake, 1997), which models earthquake sources as lines and evaluates the site specific probabilities. Based on a review of these data and considering the relative seismic activity of the southern California region, a horizontal peak ground acceleration in the range of 0.34 g to 0.42 g was obtained. These values were considered as they correspond to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (or a 475 year return period). Seismic Shaking Parameters Based on the site conditions, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials, 1997) and Peterson and others (1996), the following seismic parameters are provided. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi W.O. 3167 -A -SC 5444 1h Street, Encinitas November 6, 2001 File:e:\wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 8 GeoSoiis, Inc. Seismic zone (per Figure 16 -2 *) 4 Seismic Zone Factor (per Table 16 -1 *) 0.40 Soil Profile Type (per Table 16 -J *) SD Seismic Coefficient C (per Table 16 -Q *) 0.44 N, Seismic Coefficient C„ (per Table 16 -R *) 0.64 N v Near Source Factor N (per Table 16 -S *) 1.07 Near Source Factor N (per Table 16 -T *) 1.3 Seismic Source Type (per Table 16 -U *) g Distance to Seismic Source 3 mi. (4.4 km) Upper Bound Earthquake Mw 6.9 * Figure and table references from Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code 1997 . - SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS Potential secondary seismic related hazards such as ground rupture due to faulting, - liquefaction, dynamic settlement, seiche and tsunami, are often associated with a seismic event. Since no active faults are known to cross the site, the potential for ground rupture is considered low. Based on review of available data, the potential for liquefaction to affect the site appears to be low. The potential for dynamic settlement to affect the site appears to be low to moderate. Due to the elevation of the residential structural in regard to the ocean elevation, the potential for seiche or tsunami to directly affect that area is considered low. However, significant tidal waves generated from a seismic event could affect the lower portion of the site and affect overall bluff stability, possibly even affecting the proposed structure. GROUNDWATER Groundwater was observed seeping from the bluff slope along the contact of the Delmar _ Formation with the overlying terrace deposits. Groundwater seepage exiting on the bluff face on top of the bedrock tend to cause spring sapping and solution cavities along joints, and bedding planes, locally accelerating marine erosion where these conditions exist. In addition, groundwater may infiltrate bluff - parallel joints, which form naturally behind and parallel to the bluff face as a result of near - surface, stress - relief. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi W.O. 3167 -A -SC 544 4 Street, Encinitas November 6, 2001 Fi1e:e: \wp7 \3100 \3167a.pge Page 9 GeoSoiils, Inc. LONG TERM SEA -LEVEL CHANGE Long -term (geologic) sea -level change is likely the major factor determining coastal evolution. Three general sea -level conditions are recognized: rising, falling and stationary. The rising and falling stages result in massive sediment release and transport, while the stationary stage allows time for adjustment and reorganization towards equilibrium. Major changes in sea level for the Quaternary period were caused by worldwide climate fluctuation resulting in at least seventeen glacial and interglacial stages in the last 800,000 years and many before then. Worldwide sea -level rise associated with the melting of glaciers is commonly referred to as "glacio - eustatic" or "true" sea -level rise. During the _ past 200,000 years, eustatic sea level has ranged from more than 350± feet below the present to possibly as high as about 31 ± feet above. �. Sea -level changes during the last 18,000 years have resulted in an approximately 400 -foot rise in sea level when relatively cold global climates of the Wisconsin ice age started to become warmer, melting a substantial portion of the continental ice caps. Sea -level data show a relatively rapid rise of about 1 meter per century from about 18,000 years before present to about 8,000 years ago. About 8,000 years ago, the rate of sea -level rise slowed, ultimately to a relatively constant rate of about 10 centimeters per century since about 6,000 years ago (Inman, 1976). More importantly, the world coastline, including that of California and the subject site, has been shaped largely within this 6,000 -year period, with the sea at or within about 16 feet of its present level. COASTAL -BLUFF RETREAT Most of San Diego County's coastline has experienced a measurable amount of erosion in the last 20 to 30 years, with more rapid erosion occurring during periods of heavy storm surf (Kuhn and Shepard, 1984). The entire base of the sea cliff portion of the coastal bluff is exposed to direct wave attack along most of the coast. The waves erode the sea cliff by e _ impact on small joints /fractures and fissures in the otherwise essentially massive bedrock units, and by water - hammer effects. The upper bluffs, which often support little or no vegetation, are subject to wave spray and splash, sometimes causing saturation of the outer layer and subsequent sloughing of over - steepened slopes. Wind, rain, irrigation, and uncontrolled surface runoff contribute to the erosion of the upper coastal bluff, especially on the more exposed over - steepened portions of the friable sands. Where these processes are active, unraveling of cohesionless sands has resulted along portions of the upper bluffs. Marine Erosion The factors contributing to "Marine Erosion" processes are described below. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi W.O. 3167 -A -SC 544 4` Street, Encinitas November 6, 2001 Fi1e:e:\wp7 \3100 \3167a.pge Page 10 GeoSoiis, Inc. Mechanical and Biological Processes Mechanical erosion processes at the cliff - platform junction include water abrasion, rock abrasion, cavitation, water hammer, air compression in joints /fractures, breaking -wave shock, and 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 ( Trenhaile, 1987). Backwearing and downwearing by the mechanical processes described above are both augmented by bioerosion, the removal of rock by the direct action of organisms ( Trenhaile, 1987). Backwearing at the site is assisted by algae in the intertidal and splash zones 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. Chemical and salt weathering also contribute to the erosion process. Water Depth, Wave Height, and Platform Slope The key factors affecting the marine erosion component of bluff- retreat are water depth at the base of the cliff, breaking wave height, and the slope of the shore platform. Along the entire coastline, the sea -cliff is subject 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 sea cliff erosion. Erosion associated with breaking waves is most active when water depths at the cliff - platform junction coincide with the respective critical incoming wave height, such that the water depth is approximately equal to 1.3 times the wave - height. Marine Erosion at the Cliff - platform Junction The cliff - platform junction contribution to retreat of the overall sea cliff is from marine erosion, which includes mechanical, chemical, and biological erosion processes. Marine erosion, which operates horizontally (backwearing) on the cliff as far up as the top of the splash zone, and vertically (downwearing) on the shore platform (Emery and Kuhn, 1980; Trenhaile, 1987). Backwearing and downwearing typically progress at rates that will maintain the existing gradient of the shore platform. Subaeriel Erosion " Subaerial Erosion" processes are discussed as follows. Groundwater The primary erosive effect of groundwater seepage upon the formation at the site is spring sapping, or the mechanical erosion of sand grains by water exiting the bluff face. Chemical solution, however, is also a significant contributor (especially of carbonate matrix material). Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi W.O. 3167 -A -SC 544 4 « ' Street, Encinitas November 6, 2001 File: e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 11 GeoSoiils, Inc. As indicated previously, as groundwater approaches the bluff, it infiltrates near - surface, stress - relief, bluff - parallel joints /fractures, which form naturally behind and parallel to the - bluff face. Hydrostatic loading of bluff parallel (and sub - parallel) joints /fractures is an important cause of block - toppling on steep - cliffed lower bluffs (Kuhn and Shepard, 1980). Slope Decline The process of slope decline consists of a series of steps, which ultimately cause the bluff to retreat. The base of the bluff is first weakened by wave attack and the development of wave cut niches and /or sea caves, and bluff parallel tension joint /fractures. As the weakened sea cliff fails by blockfall or rockfall, an over - steepened bluff face is left, with the debris at the toe of the sea cliff. Ultimately, the rockfall /blockfall debris is removed by wave action, and the marginal support for the upper bluff is thereby removed. Progressive surficial slumping and failure of the bluff will occur until a condition approaching the angle of repose is established over time, and the process begins anew. Upper bluffs with slope angles in the 35 to 40 degrees range may indicate ages in the 75 to 100 year range. Steeper slopes indicate a younger age. Slopes at the site vicinity indicate a relatively young age, which are generally typical of active erosion. - The estimated rate of blufftop retreat is 0.2 feet per year (U.S. Army Corps. Engineers, 1996). Based on an average rate of 0.2 feet per year, the blufftop has the potential to retreat 15 feet in 75 years. Based on the designation of type C(C) for the coastal bluff profile, the erosion rate at the base of the bluff equals that at the top of the bluff (Emery and Kuhn, 1982) . LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of representative site earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. Test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The soil classification of onsite soils is provided in the exploration logs in Appendix B. Laboratory Standard - Maximum Dry Density To determine the compaction character of a representative sample of onsite soil, laboratory testing was performed in accordance with ASTM test method D -1557. Test results are presented in the following table: Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi 5444 1h Street, Encinitas C November 6, W.O. 3167 -A -S -S File:e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 12 GeoSoils, Inc. LOCATION MAXIMUM DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT -T- % B -3 @ 0 -4' 115.0 12.5 Expansion Index Testinq Expansion index testing was performed on a representative soil sample, according to UBC Standard 18 -2 of the Uniform Building Code (1997). The test result is presented below: LOCATION SOIL TYPE EXPANSION EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL B -3 @ 0 -4' Sand (terrace) =deposits) 3 V=1L -- Direct Shear Tests Shear testing was performed on three undisturbed samples in general accordance with ASTM test method D -3080. Test results are presented on the following table. LOCATION COHESION INTERNAL FRICTION S degrees) B -3 @ 01-4 Remolded 151.7 34 _ Corrosivity Typical samples of the site materials were analyzed for corrosion /soluble sulfate potential. The testing included determination of pH, soluble sulfates, and saturated resistivity. At the time of this report the results were not available. An addendum to this report will be issued when the testing is complete. Inasmuch as the site vicinity is generally more susceptible to corrosion than inland areas, consideration should be given to consultation with a qualified corrosion engineer. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi 5444 1h Street, Encinitas W.O. 3167 -A -SC Fi1e:eAwp7\3 1 0013 1 6 7a.pge November 6, 2001 Page 13 GeoSoils, Inc. SLOPE STABILITY �- The existing bluff slope, as are adjoining slopes to the north and south, although at first glance appears generally stable, is currently in the process of eroding and bluff failure. Due to the granular and lightly indurated nature of earth materials exposed at the slope face, they will continue to recede if left exposed to weathering and are in an unconfined condition (slope face). The angle of repose of the upper sediments appears to be up to approximately 1.2:1 (horizontal to vertical) and steeper, and is considered susceptible to surficial slumping, subaerial erosion and erosion due to urbanization. Portions of the upper slope appear to be as steep as 1:1 (h:v) and would likely be relatively more susceptible to these processes than similar materials at flatter gradients. The presence of groundwater seepage along the terrace deposit /Delmar Formation contact would also tend to decrease relative slope stability. Hydrostatic loading of bluff - parallel (and sub - parallel) joints within the bedrock may contribute to block - toppling failures. The Delmar Formation did not show considerable signs of wave /cobble induced undercutting at the bluff base at this location; however, localized minor block failures and "pocket" failures were observed within this unit in the vicinity. The site and immediate vicinity is generally characterized by surficial slumps, subaerial erosion and urbanization erosion. No geomorphic evidence for immediate gross slope instability was observed onsite, nor on the adjacent properties. However, this does not preclude the presence of conditions (structure, soil strength, etc.) contributing to a reduced gross stability. _ The bluff face, if left untreated, will likely continue to progressively erode and /or slump and may accelerate during strong seismic shaking, severe winter storms or other similar events. Accordingly, there is some potential that natural slopes may be subject to instability during _ seismic shaking, heavy precipitation or strong storms, as would other similar existing slopes in the coastal southern California area. Mitigation may be necessary for all improvements (based on a cost vs. benefit analysis by the client), including patios, spas, _ flatwork, etc., constructed within 51 of the bluff top. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Analyses were performed utilizing the two dimensional slope stability computer program "XSTABL." The program calculates the factor of safety for specified circles or searches for a circular, block, or irregular slip surface having the minimum factor of safety using the Janbu, or general limit equilibrium (Spencer). Additional information regarding the methodology utilized in these programs are included in Appendix D. Computer print -outs of calculations and shear strength parameters used are provided in Appendix D. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi W.O. 3167 -A -SC 544 4 Street, Encinitas November 6, 2001 Re:e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 14 GeoSoils, Inc. A representative cross section was prepared for analysis, utilizing data from our investigation and the map that depicts the existing slope. The location of the cross - section is shown on Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. This cross section is provided as Plate 2. Gross Stability Analysis Based on the available data, the constraints outlined above, and our stability calculations of the most critical slopes shown in Appendix D, calculated factors -of- safety greater than 1.5 and under 1.15 static and pseudo- static loading conditions have been obtained for the gross stability of the subject site, with respect to the location of the proposed structure. This assumes that the slope remains in its current condition as depicted on the cross section shown on Plate 2 (i.e., no erosion, undermining, etc.), which is an unrealistic assumption. Accordingly, although calculations show an acceptable factor of safety with respect to the proposed location of the structure, owing to the location of the site, bluff failure and associated distress may not be entirely precluded. Surficial Slope Stabiility Based on published and accepted erosion rates by the City of Encinitas, the existing slope is surficially unstable. Slope Setbacks The proposed residence should be a setback at least 40 feet away from the top of the bluff, per code. A minium effective setback of 51 feet away from the top of the bluff is recommended. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS General Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed residential " development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that they recommendations presented in the following sections are incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the proposed development are: - Slope instability and engineering properties of onsite sediments (consolidation, strength, etc.) • Depth to competent bearing material. • Potential for corrosion. • Potential for perched water. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi 5444 1h Street, Encinitas W.O. 3167 -A -SC File:eAwp7\3100\3167a.pge November 6, 2001 Page 15 GeoSoils, Inc. Slope Stability Based on published erosion rates accepted by the City of Encinitas, the existing slope is surficially unstable. Gross stability analyses, however, indicate generally stable conditions for this slope with respect to the proposed structure. Recommendations for mitigation of surficial instability are provided in the foundation design section; Per code (City of Encinitas), proposed structures should be located at least 40 feet from the edge of the existing bluff and be demonstrated to be behind the identified daylight line, which is at the 51 foot mark. _ Foundations with deepened footings may also be considered to mitigate the effects of future slope erosion. These recommendations can be provided upon request. Earth Materials Topsoil /Colluvium and Terrace Deposits These earth materials are typically porous, loose, and subject to consolidation, at least in the near - surface. In the near - surface, they are considered potentially compressible in their - existing state, and have a moderate potential for hydrocompaction; thus, the topsoil /colluvium soils and near - surface terrace deposits onsite may settle appreciably under additional fill, foundation, or improvement loadings. Recommendations for the treatment of the fill and surficial terrace deposits are presented in the earthwork section of this report. Corrosivity Typical samples of the site materials were analyzed for corrosion /soluble sulfate potential. The testing included determination of pH, soluble sulfates, and saturated resistivity. At the time of this report the results were not available. An addendum to this report will be issued when the testing is complete. Consultation with a corrosion engineer should be considered. Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water, as discussed previously, are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction, and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along fill /bedrock contacts and along zones of contrasting permeabilities should not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi 5444 1h Street, Encinitas W.O. 3167 -A -SC Fi1e:e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge November 6, 2001 Page 16 GeoSoils, Inc. The groundwater conditions observed and opinions generated were those at the time of our investigation. Conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or - other factors that were not obvious at the time of our investigation. RECOMMENDATIONS - EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION The recommendations presented herein consider these as well as other aspects of the site. In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report verified or modified in writing by this office. Foundation design parameters are considered preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this office for review. Grading General All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the Uniform Building Code, the requirements of the City of Encinitas, and the Grading Guidelines presented in this report as Appendix E, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule. During earthwork construction all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative (s) of GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and if warranted, modified and /or additional recommendations will be offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. — Site Preparation Debris, vegetation and other deleterious material should be removed from the improvement(s) area prior to the start of construction. Following removals, areas approved to receive additional fill should first be scarified and moisture conditioned (at or above the soils optimum moisture content) to a depth of 12 inches and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. This excludes v the pavement - areas, which should be compacted to 95 percent. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi 544 4 h Street, Encinitas W.O. 3167 -A -SC Fi \3100 \3167a.pge November 6, 2001 Page 17 GeoSoils, Inc. Removals (Unsuitable Materials) — The existing topsoil /colluvium and upper weathered zone of the terrace deposits should be removed and recompacted or reprocessed in areas proposed for settlement- sensitive improvements. Removal depths are estimated to range from , 2'/2 tg_4, fget below proposed -- grade. Materials generated during removal operations may be re -used as compacted fill provided the materials are suitably moisture conditioned prior to placement. When removals are completed, the exposed surface should be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted per the GSI grading guidelines (Appendix E) and recommendations herein. Overexcavation Proposed grading of the building site may create a cut/fill transition in the building pad area where terrace deposits (i.e., cut areas) is juxtaposed against proposed fill. Areas where the proposed cut is less than 3 feet should be overexcavated to the minimum depths as defined within the removals section presented above. Cut areas greater than 2 feet below existing grade should be cross-ripped to a minimum depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. Overexcavation should be completed for a minimum lateral distance of 5 feet outside the extreme foundation elements, or a 1:1 (h:v) - projection from the bottom of the footing, whichever is greater. Fill Placement Subsequent to ground preparation, onsite soils may be placed in thin (6± inch) lifts, _ cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to a least optimum moisture content, and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. If fill materials are imported to the site, the proposed import fill should be submitted to GSI, so laboratory testing can be performed to verify that the intended import material is compatible with onsite material. At least three business days of lead time should be allowed by builders or contractors for proposed import submittals. This lead time will allow for particle size analysis, specific gravity, relative compaction, expansion testing and blended import/native characteristics as deemed necessary. Erosion Control Onsite soils and /or bedrock materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Use of hay bales, silt fences, and /or sandbags should be considered, as appropriate. Temporary grades should be constructed to drain at 1 to 2 percent to a suitable temporary or permanent outlet. Evaluation of cuts during grading will be necessary in order to identify _ Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi 544 4 " Street, Encinitas W.O. 3167 -A -SC Fi1e:e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge November 6, 2001 Page 18 GeoSoils, Inc. any areas of loose or non - cohesive materials. Should any significant zones be encountered during earthwork construction remedial grading may be recommended; however no remedial measures are anticipated at this time. Subdrain Systems Based on the nature of the contacts between artificial fill and terrace deposits, in addition to the possible location(s) of proposed site improvements, there exists a potential for water to be transmitted through the subsurface in irregular quantities. Although not anticipated, subdrain systems may be recommended based on field conditions observed during the grading stage of the project. Typical recommendations for the design /construction of subdrain systems are presented in Appendix E (General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines). Subdrain systems should discharge into an existing drainage pattern or other _ appropriate outlet. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS In the event that the information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct or any changes in the design, location, or loading conditions of the proposed structures are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are for the subject site only and shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. Foundation Design Our review, field work, and laboratory testing indicates that onsite soils have a very low expansion potential. The information and recommendations presented in this section are considered minimums and are not meant to supersede design(s) by the project structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in structural design. Upon request, GSI could provide additional consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. Bearing Value 1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code. 2. An allowable bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot may be used for design of continuous footings 12 inches wide and 18 inches deep and for design of isolated pad footings 24 inches square and 24 inches deep founded entirely into compacted fill or competent formational material and connected by grade beam or tie beam in at least one direction. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum value of 2,000 pounds per square foot. The above Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi W.O. 3167 -A -SC 5444 1h Street, Encinitas November 6, 2001 Fi1e:eAwp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 01 GeoSoils, Inc. values may be increased by one -third when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. No increase in bearing for footing width is recommended. Lateral Pressure 1. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.35 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load. 2. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot with a maximum earth pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot. 3. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one - third. Footing Setbacks All footings should maintain a minimum 7 -foot horizontal setback from the base of the footing to any descending slope. This distance is measured from the footing face at the bearing elevation. Footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3 (H =slope height) from the base of the footing to the descending slope face and no less than 7 feet nor need to be greater than 40 feet. Footings adjacent to unlined drainage swales should be deepened to a minimum of 6 inches below the invert of the adjacent unlined swale. Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be designed to accommodate structural loads from buildings or appurtenances as described in the retaining wall section of this report. Foundation Construction The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as minimum criteria from a soils engineering viewpoint. Our recommendations are presented assuming that the upper 3 feet of finish grade materials have a very low to low expansion potential. Recommendations by the project structural engineer or architect, which may exceed the soils engineer's recommendations, should take precedence over the following minimum recommendations. 1. Exterior and interior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches for one -story floor loads, and 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface for two -story floor loads. All footings should be reinforced with four No. 4 reinforcing bars, two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom of the footing. Footing-widths should be as indicated in the Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials, 1997). Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi 544 4"' Street, Encinitas W.O. 3167 -A -SC File: eAwp7\310013167a.pge November 6, 2001 Page 20 GeoSoils, Inc. 2. A grade beam, reinforced as above, and at least 12 inches wide should be provided across large (e.g. doorways) entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at -- the same elevation as the bottom of adjoining footings. 3. Concrete slabs, where moisture condensation is undesirable, should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of 6 mil polyvinyl chloride or equivalent membrane with all laps sealed. This membrane should be sandwiched between two, 2 -inch layers of sand to aid in uniform curing of the concrete and to protect the membrane from puncture. 4. Concrete slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick, and should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bar at 18 inches on center. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the concrete. "Hooking" the wire mesh is not considered an acceptable method of positioning the reinforcement. 5. Garage slabs should be reinforced as above and poured separately from the structural footings and quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings should be maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement. 6. Presaturation is not required for these soil conditions. The moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to or greater than optimum moisture content in the slab areas. Prior to placing visqueen or reinforcement, soil moisture content should be verified by this office within 72 hours of pouring slabs. 7. All footings should maintain a minimum 7 -foot horizontal setback from the base of the footing to any descending slope. This distance is measured from the footing face at the bearing elevation. Footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3 (H = slope height) from the base of the footing to the descending _ slope face and no less than 7 feet nor need be greater than 40 feet. Footings adjacent to unlined drainage swales should be deepened to a minimum of 6 inches below the invert of the adjacent unlined swale. Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be designed to accommodate structural loads from buildings or appurtenances as described in the retaining wall section of this report. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi W.O. 3167 -A -SC 5444 th Street, Encinitas November 6, 2001 File:e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 21 GeoSoils, Inc. Top -of -Slope Walls -- The geotechnical parameters provided below may be utilized for the proposed top -of -slope walls which are founded in competent terrace deposits, or engineered /compacted fill materials. A pier- and - grade -beam foundation system for walls placed near or directly adjacent a top - of -slope is recommended from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations contained herein are applied in the design and construction of the foundations. The tip elevation of the piers should be such that the entire bearing surface should be bedded below a 1:1 projection from any adjacent structure or road area. The wall footings or grade beams spanning between the piers should not have any lateral loading present _ from wind or seismic sources. In areas where the deepened footings are founded in the proximity of retaining wall foundations or other footings, the combined effect of the footing surcharge and foundation loadings should not exceed the allowable bearing value (2,000 psf) . Provided the drilled foundations have a minimum depth of 6 feet below the lowest adjacent - grade (excluding the pier cap) for walls immediately adjacent to a slope face, and a minimum depth of 5 feet for walls with an offset of 2 feet or greater from the top -of- slope. This embedment assumes penetration into engineered fill or competent terrace deposits, or bedrock. The sound wall piers will gain most of their support from the friction of the sandy soils along the shaft. A value of 200 pounds per square foot (psf) skin friction along the pier shaft may be used. The allowable bearing denoted above is for the net bearing value (soil and footing weight may be neglected). An allowable lateral soil pressure of 250 psf, applied to embedded elements greater than three feet in depth (and one foot in depth for walls with an offset of two feet or more from the slope face), should be used for computing resistance to lateral loads for footings or piers adjacent a slope face. A spacing of 10 feet (maximum), center -to- center, should be used for the design of shallow piers. _ Friction along grade beam bottoms should not be considered for the lateral capacity of this type of foundation. Additionally, the soils in the upper 5 feet may apply a creep load to piers and pier caps. A value of 1,000 pounds (per foot) should be applied to piers in the upper 4 feet, as a uniform pressure to accommodate creep loads. The strength of the concrete and grout should be evaluated by the structural engineer of record. The proper ASTM tests for the concrete and mortar should be provided along with the slump quantities. The placing of joints (expansion and crack control) should be incorporated into the wall v layout. This expansion joints should be placed no greater than 20 feet on- center and should be reviewed by the civil engineer and structural engineer of record. GSI anticipates Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi 5444 1h Street, Encinitas W.O. 3167 -A -SC Fi1e:e: \wp7 \3100 \3167a.pge November 6, 2001 Page 22 GeoSoils, Inc. distortions on the order of 1.5± inches in 50 feet for these walls located at the tops of slopes. GSI should review the joint pattern and wall configuration with respect to the cut/fill depths and provide comment. Lateral keys or dowels should be provided within pier caps at expansion joints to resist lateral drift between wall sections. GSI will consider an alternative foundation system for the walls, if the alternative accommodates the distortions and expansive soil conditions for the site. CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALLS General _.. The design parameters provided below assume that very low to low expansive soils (Class 2 permeable filter material or Class 3 aggregate base site soils are considered low expansive and my be reused) are used to backfill any retaining walls. If highly expansive - soils are used to backfill the proposed walls, increased active and at -rest earth pressures will need to be utilized for retaining wall design, and may be provided upon request. Building walls, below grade, should be water - proofed or damp - proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. The foundation system for the proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the preceding sections of this report, as appropriate. Footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below adjacent grade (excluding landscape layer, 6 inches) and should be 24 inches in width. Thereshould be no increase in bearing for footing width. Restrained Walls Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re- entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at -rest equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) of 65 pounds per cubic foot (pco, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or re- entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner. Cantilevered Walls The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet high. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are finalized, the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon request. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi 5444 1h Street, Encinitas W.O. 3167 -A -SC Rle:e *p7\310013167a.pge November 6, 2001 Page 23 GeoSoiiis, Inc. SURFACE SLOPE OF RETAINED MATERIAL EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL P.C.F. Level* 40 2 to 1 55 * -Level backfitl behind a retaining wall is defined as compacted earth materials, properly drained, without a slope for a distance of 2H behind the wall, where H is the height of the wall. Wall Backfill and Drainage The above criteria assumes that very low expansive soils are used as backfill, and that hydrostatic pressure are not allowed to build up behind the wall. Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of gravel wrapped in geo fabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls that are two feet or greater in height. Backdrains should consist of a 4 -inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or' /2 -inch to 3 /4 -inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). the filter material should extend a minimum of one horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and upward at least one foot. Outlets should consist of a 4 -inch diameter solid PVC or ABS pipe spaced no greater than 100± feet apart. The use of weep holes in walls higher than 2 feet should not be considered. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by 18 inches compacted with native soil. Proper surface drainage should also be provided. Consideration should be given to applying a water -proof membrane to all retaining structures. The use of a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry joints. Corrosivity Typical samples of the site materials were analyzed for corrosion /soluble sulfate potential. The testing included determination of pH, soluble sulfates, and saturated resistivity. At the time of this report the results were not available. An addendum to this report will be issued when the testing is complete. Consultation with a corrosion engineer should be considered. UTILITIES Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate potential differential settlement. Due to the potential for differential settlement, air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for plumbing and electrical lines. A/C waste waterlines should be drained to a suitable outlet. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi 5444 1h Street, Encinitas W.O. 3167 -A -SC Filew \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge November 6, 2001 Page 24 GeoSoiis, Inc. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS /DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Landscape Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil materials and cause expansion. Slope stability is significantly reduce by overly wet conditions. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types which require little water and _ capable of surviving the prevailing climate. The soils materials should be maintained in a solid to semi -solid state as defined by the material's Atterberg Limits. _ Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over watering the landscape areas could aversely affect proposed site improvements. We would recommend that any proposed open bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior flatwork. From a geotechnical standpoint, leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments they should be recompacted to 90 percent compaction. For additional information refer to the Homeowner Maintenance Guidelines included in Appendix F. Top -of -bluff stability may be effected by the landscape configuration installed by the owner, architect, and /or landscape architect. Native plants should be selected with deeper _ taproots, which may improve the stability of the upper portion of coastal bluff and reduce the potential for subaerial erosion. If irrigation systems are utilized, the schedule should be reviewed by the landscape architect and should include moisture sensors (or other override devices) embedded into the soil. Landscape work should comply with AB325 and Ordinace 195. Within a period of seven years, existing landscape should be reviewed and renovated as deemed necessary by the landscape architect. Hand planting on the bluff face should be minimized or eliminated. Site Improvements If in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. This office should be notified in advance of any additional fill placement, regarding the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench, and retaining wall(s) backfills. Mr. Ernie wakabayashi 5444 1h Street, Encinitas W.O. 3167 -A -SC Fi \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge November 6, 2001 Page 25 GeoSoils, Inc. Drainage Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundation systems and not allowed to pond and /or steep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area. Roof gutters and down spouts are recommended to control roof runoff. Down spouts should outlet or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. For additional recommendations about maintenance of site drainage refer to Appendix F. Footing Excavations All footing trench excavations should be observed by a representative of this office prior to placing reinforcement. Footing trench or pier spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM test method D -1557) if not removed from the site. Trenching All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and minimally conform to CAL -OSHA and local safety codes. w_ Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards: 1. All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to near optimum content and compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM test method D- 1557). As an alternative for shallow (12± inches) under slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized. Jetted or flooded backfill as a method of placement is not recommended. Observation /probing /testing should be accomplished to verify the desired results. — 2. Exterior trenches in structural areas, beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used adjacent to perimeter _ footings or in trenches on slopes. Compaction testing and observation, along with probing should not be performed to verify the desired results. ~ Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi W.O. 3167 -A -SC 5444 1h Street, Encinitas November 6, 2001 File:e:\wp7 \3100 \3167a.pge Page 26 GeoSoits, Inc. Grading Guidelines Grading should be performed in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Grading Code of the City of Encinitas, and applicable and adopted chapters of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and the General Grading Guidelines presented in Appendix E of this report. PLAN REVIEW Final site development and foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review and comment, as the plans become available, for the purpose of minimizing any misunderstandings between the plans and recommendations presented herein. In addition, foundation excavations and any additional earthwork construction performed on the site should be observed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory study are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during site grading and construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing, and engineering analysis, the conclusion and recommendations are professional _ opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing, or _ recommendations performed or provided by others. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi 544 4"' Street, Encinitas W.O. 3167 -A -SC Fi1e:e:lwp7\310013167a.pge November 6, 2001 Page 27 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A REFERENCES Blake, T. F., 1997, FRISKSP Computer program. 1989, EQFAULT, and EQSEARCH, Computer programs. Bowles, J.E., 1988, Foundation analysis and design: McGraw -Hill Book Company, New York. Campbell, K.W., 1993, Empirical prediction of near - source ground motion from large earthquakes, in Johnson, J.A. Campbell, K.W.., and Blake, eds., T.F., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. 1985. Strong motion attenuation relations, a ten -year perspective, in, Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, T.F., eds., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. Clarke, S.H., Green, H.G., Kennedy, M.P., Vedder, J.G., and Legg, M.R., 1987, Geologic map of the inner - southern California continental margin in Green, H.G., and Kennedy, M.P., eds, California Continental Margin Geologic Map Series: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Cooper, W.S., 1959, Coastal sand dunes of California: Geological Society of America Memoir. Davis, J.F., 1997 Guidelines for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 117. Eisenberg, L.T., 1985, Pleistocene faults and marine terraces, northern San Diego County, in Abbott, P.L., ed., On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County: San Diego Association of Geologists. Emery, K.O., and Kuhn, G.G., 1980, Erosion of rock shores at La Jolla, California, in Marine Geology, v. 37. 1982, Sea cliffs: their processes, profiles, and classification: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 93, no 7. Fisher, P.J., and Mills, G.I., 1991, The offshore Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone, California: structure, segmentation, and tectonics, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Environmental Perils - San Diego Region: San Diego Association of Geologists. GeoSoils, Inc. Flick, R.E., 1994. Shoreline erosion assessment and atlas of the San Diego region, VI and II, December. Fulton, K., 1981, A manual for researching historical coastal erosion in Kuhn, G.G., ed., California Sea Grant Report No. T -CSGCP -003. Geocon, Incorporated, 1977, Soil and geologic investigation for Fourth Street apartment complex, Encinitas, California, file no. D- 0780 -S01, dated February 9. GeoSoils, Inc., Propriety in -house information Group Delta Consultants, Inc., 1993, Shoreline erosion evaluation, Encinitas coastline, San Diego county, California, project no. 1404 -EC01, November 3. Hausman, M.R., 1990, Engineering principles of ground modification: Mcgraw Hill, Inc., New York. Holtz, R.D. and Kovacs, W.D., Undated, An introduction to geotechnical engineering: Prentence -Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Housner, G. W., 1970, Strong ground motion in Earthquake Engineering, Robert Wiegel, ed., Prentice -Hall. Howell, D.G., Stuart, C.G., Platt, J.P. and Hills, D.J., 1974, Possible strike -slip faulting in the southern California Borderland: Geological Society of America Geology, v. 2, no. 2. Inman, D.L., 1976, Summary report of man's impact on the California coastal zone; prepared for the Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, State Of California. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California. Ishihara, K., 1985, Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering: A.A. Balkema Publishers Rotterdam, Netherlands. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No. 6, scale 1:750,000. Joyner, W.B. and Boore, D.M., 1982a, Estimation of response - spectral values as functions of magnitude, distance and site conditions, in Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, T.F., eds., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix A File:e:\wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. 1982b, Prediction of earthquake response spectra, in Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, T.F., eds., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. Kennedy, M.P., 1973, Sea -Cliff erosion at Sunset Cliffs, San Diego: California Geology, 26, February. Kern. J.P., 1977, Origin and history of upper Pleistocene marine terraces, San Diego California, Geological Society of American Bulletin 88. Kuhn, G.G., and Shepard, F.P., 1984, Sea Cliffs, beaches and coastal valleys of San Diego County: some amazing histories and some horrifying implications: University of California Press, Berkeley, California, and London, England. , 1983, Newly discovered Evidence from the San Diego County area of some principles of coastal retreat: Shore and Beach, January. 1981, Should Southern California build defenses against violent storms resulting in lowland flooding as in records of past century: Geological Society of America Bulletin 1980a, Greatly accelerated man - induced coastal erosion and new sources of beach sand, San Onofre State Park and Camp Pendleton, northen San Diego _ County, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Shore and Beach, October. , 1980b, Coastal erosion in San Diego County, California, in Edge, B.L., ed., Coastal Zone '80, Proceedings of second Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management held in Hollywood, Florida, on 17 -20 November, 1980: American Society of Civil Engineers, V. 111. - 1979a, Accelerated beach -cliff erosion related to unusual storms in southern California: California Geology, March. _ , 1979b, Coastal erosion in San Diego County, California, in Abbott, P.L. and Elliott, W.J., eds., Earthquakes and other perils San Diego region. _ Lambe, T.W., 1951, Soil testing for engineers: John Wiley & Sons, New York. Lambe, T.W., and Whitman., R.V., 1969, Soil Mechanics: John Wiley & Sons, New York. Lee, L.J., Schug, D.L. and Raines, G.L. 1990, Seacliff stabilization, Seacliff park (Swami's), beach access stairway, Encinitas, California, in Geotechnical Engineering Case Histories in San Diego County: San Diego Association of Geologists., October 20, Field Trip Guide Book. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix A File:eAwp7 \3100 \3167a.pge Page 3 _ GeoSoils, Inc. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1979, Geotechnical investigation, condominium bluff site, southwest corner 4"' and H Streets, Encinitas, California, project no. 479062 -01, dated March 27. 1983, City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study, June. 1991, Supplemental geotechnical evaluation of bluff stability, McWilliams residence, 838 Fourth Street, Encinitas, California, Project No. 4900598 -02, dated July 3. Legg, M.R., 1985, Geologic structure and tectonics of the inner continental borderland offshore northen Baja California, Mexico, unpublished doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of California, Santa Barbara. ,1989, Faulting and seismotectonics of the inner continental borderland west of San Diego, in Roquemore, G., ed., Proceedings, Workshop on the Seismic Risk in the San Diego Region: Special Focus on the Rose Canyon Fault System. Legg, M.R., and Kennedy, M.P., 1991, Oblique divergence and convergence in the California Continental Borderland, in Abbott, P.L., Elliott, W.J., eds., Environmental Perils - San Diego Region: San Diego Association of Geologist. Lindivall, S.C., Rockwell, T.K., and Lindivall, E.C., 1989, The seismic hazard of San Diego revised: new evidence for magnitude 6+ Holocene earthquakes on the Rose Canyon fault zone, in Roquemore, G., ed., Proceedings, Workshop on The Seismic — Risk in the San Diego Region: Special Focus on the Rose Canyon Fault System. Masters, P.M., 1996, Paleocoastlines, ancient harbors and marine archeology: Shore and Beach, July. Matti, J.C., and Morton, D.M., 1993, Paleogeographic evolution of the San Andreas fault in Southern California: A reconstruction based a new cross -fault correlation, in Powell, R.E., Weldon, R.J. ll, and Matti, J.C., eds., The San Andreas Fault System: Displacement, Palinspastic Reconstruction, and Geologic Evolution: Geological Society of America Memoir 178. Matti, J.C., Morton, D.M., and Cox, B.F., 1992, The San Andreas fault system in the vicinityof the central Transverse Ranges province, southern California, in Sieh, K.E., and Matti, J.C., eds., Earthquake Geology San Andreas Fault System, Palm Springs _ to Palmdale. Mitchell, J.K., 1976, Fundamentals of soil behavior: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. Munk, W.H., and Traylor, M.A., 1947, Refraction of ocean waves: a process linking underwater topography to beach erosion: Journal of Geology, v. LV, no. 1. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix A Fi1e:e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1986a, Soil Mechanics, design manual 7.01, Change 1 September: United States Navy. 1986b, Foundations and earth structures, DM 7.02, Change 1 September: United States Navy. 1983, Soil Dynamics, deep stabilization, and special geotechnical construction, design manual 7.3, April: United States Navy. Nordstom, C.E., and Inman, D.L., 1973, Beach and cliff erosion in San Diego County, California, in Ross A., and Dowden, R.J., eds., Studies on the Geology and Geologic Hazards of the Greater San Diego Area, California: the San Diego Association of Geologists, and Association of Engineering Geologists. ® Petersen, Mark D., Bryant, W.A., and Cramer, C.H., 1996, Interim table of fault parameters used by the California Division of Mines and Geology to compile the probabilistic seismic hazard maps of California. Sadigh, K., Egan, J., and Youngs, R., 1987, Predictive ground motion equations reported in Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1988, "Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground motion ", in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics Il, Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, Von Thun, J.L., ed.: American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43 -102. Schumm, S.A., and Mosley, P.M., 1973, Slope Morphology: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc. 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, v. 51. Shepard, F.P., and Grant, U.S. IV, 1947, Wave erosion along the southern California coast: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 58, Shore and Beach, October. Soil Engineering Construction, 1997, tieback test (field) results, Hallow residence, 492 Neptune Avenue, October 28. _ Streiff, D., Schmoll, M., and Artim, E.R., 1982, The Rose-Canyon fault at Spindrift Drive, La Jolla, California, in Abbott, P.L., ed., Geologic Studies in San Diego: San Diego Association of Geologists. Sowers and Sowers, 1970, Unified soil classification system (After U. S. Waterways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487 -667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New York. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix A Fi1e:e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. Sunamura, T., 1977, A relationship between wave- induced cliff erosion and erosive forces of waves: Journal of Geology, v. 85. Tan, S.S and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, Geologic maps of the Northwestern part of San Diego County, California, DMG Open -File Report 96 -02. Terzaghi, K., and Peck. Ralph B., 1967, Soil mechanics in engineering practice: John Wiley and Sons, New York, second edition. Teriman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon fault zone, a review and analysis: The California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Cooperative - Agreement EMF- 83-k0148. Trenhaile, A.S., 1987, The geomorphology of rock coasts: Clarendon Press, Oxford. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1996, Encinitas Shoreline, San Diego County, California 1991, State of the coast report San Diego region, CCSTWS 91. 1989, Historic wave and sea level data report San Diego region, CCSTWS 88 -6. 1988, Coastal cliff segments San Diego region (1887- 1947), CCSTWS 88 -6. 1984a, Shore protection manual. 1984b, Nearshore bathymetric survey report, no 1, CCSTWS 84 -2. Weber, F.H., 1982, Geologic Map of north - central coastal area of San Diego County, California, showing recent slope failures and pre - development landslides: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, OFR 82 -12 LA. Wilson, K.L., 1972, Eocene and related geology of a portion of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas quadrangles, San Diego County, California: unpublished masters thesis, university of California, Riverside. _ Zeevaert, L., 1972, Foundation engineering for difficult subsoil conditions: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Regional Offices, New York. Ziony, J.I., 1973, Recency of faulting in the greater San Diego area, California, in Ross, A., and Dowlen, R.J., eds., Studies on the Geology and Geologic Hazards of the Greater San Diego Area, California: San Diego Association of Geologists and _ Association of Engineering Geologists. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix A File:eAwp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 6 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX B BORING LOGS BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. VVO 3167 -A -SC PROJECT: BORING B-1 SHEET 1 OF _ ERNIE WAKABAYASHI, 544 4 STREET DATE EXCAVATED 10 -17 -01 rample SAMPLE METHOD: HAND AUGER Standard Penetration Test Water Seepage into hole Undisturbed, Ring Sample C1 o n Descrip of Material SM TOPSOIL 1 COLLUVIUM: - z i ty SAND, light brown, dry, loose; roots and rootlets WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: z - Silty SAND, light brown to brown, moist, loose to medium dense no recovery on sample 2Y2 5 1-4 Silty reddish brown moist medium dense No Groundwater Encountered --- r 10 15 20 25 ERNIE WAKABAYASHI, 544 4 STREET GeoSoils, Inc. PLAT B-1 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 3167 -A -SC PROJECT. BORING B SHEET � OF 1 ERNIE WAKABAYASHI, 544 4 STREET DATE EXCAVATED 10 - 17 - 01 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: HAND AUGER Standard Penetration Test IR Water Seepage into hole o ® Undisturbed, Ring Sample w v,o cn� j a w m a e 3 (n o Description of Material o m' m Z) Cn o cn TOPSOIL ! COLLIVIUM: i ty l ight brown, dry, loose WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: I ty l ight brown to brown, moist, loose to medium dense TERRACE DEPOSITS: 5 - 2 1 t reddish brown moist medium dense o a ep 2 No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10/17/01 10 15 20 25 ERNIE WAKABAYASHI, 544 4 STREET GeoSoils, Inc. PLAT B - BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 3167 -A -SC PROJECT: BORING B SHEET 1 OF 1 ERNIE WAKABAYASHI, 544 4 STREET DATE EXCAVATED 10 -17 -01 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: HAND AUGER Standard Penetration Test Water Seepage into hole Undisturbed, Ring Sample n Y �, 3 U o m �-e m ? o Description of Material TOPSOIL / COLLUVIUM: t brown, moist, loose; roots and rootlets WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: _ 2 - 4S SAND, b rown, moist, oose TERRACE DEPOSITS: 5 Faj e 3 pa 't 2 reddish brown moist medium dense o 2 No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 10/17/01 'r 10 15 20 25 - ERNIE WAK ABAYASHI, 54 4 4 STREET GeoSoils Inc. PLAT B-3 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 3,000 2,500 2,000 Q. 2 H Z 1,500 F- U) 1,000 500 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Y d MC% c • B -3 0.0 Primary Shear Remolded 103.5 19.0 152 34 0 ■ B -3 0.0 Residual Shear Remolded 103.5 19.0 195 33 m U) q Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST 5741 Palmer Way Project: WAKABAYASHI Gtw96nll Via. Carlsbad CA 92008 LU Telephone: (760) 438 -3155 Number: 3167 -A -SC Fax: Date: November 2001 Figure: C - 1 APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION OF XSTABL COMPUTER PROGRAM Introduction XSTABL is a fully integrated slope stability analysis program. It permits the engineer to develop the slope geometry interactively and perform slope analysis from within a single program. The slope analysis portion of XSTABL uses a modified version of the popular STABL program, originally developed at Purdue University. XSTABL performs a two dimensional limit equilibrium analysis to compute the factor of safety for a layered slope using the modified Bishop or Janbu methods. This program can be used to search for the most critical surface or the factor of safety may be determined for specific surfaces. XSTABL, Version 5.005, is programmed to handle: 1. Heterogenous soil systems 2. Anisotropic soil strength properties 3. Reinforced slopes 4. Nonlinear Mohr- Co4lomb strength envelope 5. Pore water pressures for effective stress analysis using: a. Phreatic and piezometric surfaces b. Pore pressure grid c. R factor d. Constant pore water pressure 6. Pseudo - static earthquake loading 7. Surcharge boundary loads 8. Automatic generation and analysis of an unlimited number of circular, noncircular and block- shaped failure surfaces 9. Analysis of right- facing slopes 10. Both SI and Imperial units General Information If the reviewer wishes to obtain more information concerning slope stability analysis, the following publications may be consulted initially: 1. The Stability of Slopes by E.N. Bromhead, Surrey University Press, Chapman and Hall, NY, 411 pages, ISBN 0 412 01061 5, 1992. - 2. Rock Slope Engineering by E. Hoek and J.W. Bray, Inst. of Mining and Metallurgy, London, England, Third Edition, 358 pages, ISNB 0 900488 573, 1981. GeoSoils, Inc. 3. Landslides: Analysis and Control by R.L. Schuster and R.J. Krizek (editors), Special Report 176, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, 234 pages, ISBN 0 309 02804 3, 1978. XSTABL Features The present version of XSTABL contains the following features: 3. Allows user to calculate factors of safety for static stability and dynamic stability situations. 2. Allows user to analyze stability situations with different failure modes. 3. Allows user to edit input for slope geometry and calculate corresponding factor of safety. 4. Allows user to readily review on- screen the input slope geometry. 5. Allows user to automatically generate and analyze unlimited number of circular, _ non- circular and block- shaped failure surfaces (i.e., bedding plane, slide plane, etc.). _ Input Data Input data includes the following items: 1. Unit weight, residual cohesion, residual friction angle, peak cohesion, and peak friction angle of fill material, bedding plane, and bedrock, respectively. Residual cohesion and friction angle is used for static stability analysis, whereas peak cohesion and friction angle is for dynamic stability analysis. 2. Slope geometry and surcharge boundary loads. 3. Apparent dip of bedding plane can be specified in angular range (i.e., from 0 to 90 degrees. 4. Pseudo - static earthquake loading (an earthquake loading of 0.12q was used in the analysis. Output Information Output information includes: 1. All input data. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix D F11e:e:\wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. 2. Factors of safety for the ten most critical surfaces for static and pseudo- static stability situation. 3. High quality plots can be generated. The plots include the slope geometry, the critical surfaces and the factor of safety. 4. Note, that in the analysis, 15,000 trial surfaces were analyzed for each section for either static or pseudo- static analysis. Results of Slope Stability Calculation Table D -1 shows parameters used in slope stability calculations. Detailed output information is presented in Plates D -1 and D -2. Summary of slope stability analysis is presented in Table D -2. TABLE D -1 Soil Parameters Used Soil Unit Weight Residual Strength Soil Materials Wet Saturated 40 r (Pcf) (Pcf) C (Psf) (Degrees) Terrace Deposits 115.0 125.0 150 34 Delmar Formation d 125.0 130.0 1750 30 TABLE D -2 Summary of Slope Analysis Factors of Safetv After the Setback Zone Location Static Seismic Bluff Section 1.583 1.286 Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix D Fi1e:e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. C) 00 N 3 00 N In r - O N Li n O m s � O Z (n _ X U Q +- U N v X Un O LO O W V) m •• U V • L O U O N o O M E 0) v O M i i 0 M O in O to O < O M slxv - 1. PLATE D -1 O 00 N Ln Qo N N I I o O N it n- O _ LO U _ m N O Z cn X .E Q N .Q U x (n p ►C) O _ (n m • U N D U } n O M � M 0 E LO 0 M I o I I O N LO O LO O O n (+aai) SIXd — J. PLATE D -2 APPENDIX E GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supersede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer - and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All clean -outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and /or soil engineer prior to placing and fill. It is the contractors's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests - Maximum dry -density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D- 1557 -78. Random field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test method ASTM designation D- 1556 -82, D -2937 or D -2922 and D -3017, at intervals of approximately 2 feet of fill height or every 100 cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria GeoSoils, Inc. would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Contractor's Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by geotechnical consultants and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non - earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock, or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other _ deleterious material should be removed and disposed of off -site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. Existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in -place should be removed prior to fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition should be over - excavated down to Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix E Fi1e:e: \wp7 \3100 \3167a.pge Page 2 GeoSoiis, Inc. firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture conditioned should be re- compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches or as directed by the soil engineer. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is grater that 6 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be over - excavated as required in the geotechnical report or by the on -site soils engineer and /or engineering geologist. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable form of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollow, hummocks, or other uneven features which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and /or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the Soil Engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be- approximately equal to 1 /2 the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre - stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. _ All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toe of fill benches should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and /or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained. COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that. each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix E Fi1e:e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other bedrock derived material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill /bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized material should be taken off -site or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces. To facilitate future trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and /or the developers representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine its physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as possible. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers that when compacted should not exceed 6 inches in thickness. The soil engineer may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be blended with drier material. Moisture condition, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation, D- 1557 -78, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed - for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix E Fi1e:e:\wp7 \3100 \3167a.pge Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re- worked until the required density and /or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over - building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and /or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, and special grading procedures, may be recommended. If an alternative to over - building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 1. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy short shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. 2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re- rolling. 2. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) 2 to 8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re- rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to verify compaction, the slopes should be grid - rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm compaction after grid rolling. 5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix and re- compact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to verify compaction. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix E F11e:eAwp7 \3100 \3167a.pge Page 5 GeoSoiils, Inc. 6. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and /or in accordance with the recommendation of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The soil engineer and /or engineering geologist may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains should be recorded by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation and re- filling of cut areas should be performed and /or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineering geologist prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes and should be notified by the contractor when cut slopes are started. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potential adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate and make recommendations to treat these problems. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in- grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not. Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should *be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractors responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental - agencies, and /or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix E Fi1e:e:\wp7 \3100 \3167a.pge Page 6 - GeoSoils, Inc. COMPLETION Observation, testing and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the soil engineer and /or engineering geologist. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and /or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and /or as recommended by a landscape - architect. Such protection and /or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. JOB SAFETY General At GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi - employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that site safety is the rp ime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor and GSI personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractors regularly . scheduled and documented safety meetings. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by GSI personnel at all times when they are working in the field. Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix E Page 7 File: e:\wp7\3100 \3167a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. _ Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacon, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location Orientation and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technicians's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized _ representative (dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be _ the soil technicians safety and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away form oncoming traffic, — whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test — holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non - encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration which typically decreased test results. When taking slope tests the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the _ slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. _ The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technicians safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the -- contractors failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his /her supervisor. The grading contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. However, in the Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix E Page 8 File: e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge - GeoSoils, Inc. interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill place can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor brings this to his /her attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors representative and the soils technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back, 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. - All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL -OSHA and /or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his /her supervisor. The contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and /or removal. If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner /developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify CAL -OSHA and /or the proper authorities. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix E F11e:e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. CANYON SU BD R AIN DETAIL TYPE A PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL NATURAL GROUND ' J COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) lop i BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHING SEE ALTERNATIVES TYPE B PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL ice' - ,,,,,,,NATURAL GROUNO � COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHING ��••, SEE ALTERNATIVES NOTE: ALTERNATIVES, LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SUBORAINS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND /OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST - DURING GRADING. PLATE EG -1 _ C ANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL 12' MINIMUM 6• MINIM FILTER MATERIAL' MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 FT.' /LINEAR FT. 6' j ASS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED ;•:. • "•• SUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM 8 (1 JA PERFS. MINIMUM LINEAR FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE. ASTM 02751. SOR 35 OR ASTM D1527. SCHD, 40 6' MINIMUM FOR CONTINUOUS 35 OR EXCESS OF 560 FT. 40 B -1 USES )(PIPE FILTER MATERIAL. _SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING- 1 INCH 1 100 •314 INCH • 90 -100 _ 318 INCH 40 -100 NO. 4 25 -40. NO. 8 18 -33 NO. 30 - NO. 50 .0 -7 NO. 200 0 -3 ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE GRAVEL AND. FILTER FABRIC 1G 6' MINIMUM OYERLAP 6' MINIMUM OVERLAP ~ w =t 6' MINIMUM COVER 4 MINIMUM BEDDING 4 MINIMUM BEDDING } \� A -2 GRAVEL MATERIAL 9 FT' /LINEAR FT. B.2 PERFORATED PIPE: SEE ALTERNATE 1 GRAVEL' CLEAN 3/4 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE FILTER FABRIC MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE PLATE EG -2 DETAIL F OR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT T ALLUVIATED ON FLAT CANYON TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN COMPACTED FILL ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL BACK CU` VARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS. �1J BACKCUT 4 �SHOULD BE MADE NO �� ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL STEEPER•THAN :1 OR AS NECESSARY FOR SAFETY ` t `CON SIDE RATIONS DEPTH PER SOIL ENGINEER. PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED REMOVAL DEPTH. SLOPE LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE ( TE FLATTER CONDI ROJECTIONS. REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL COMPACTED FILL LIMITS LINE\ .TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL %�FOR DRAINAGE ONLY — Oaf o Qaf pa (TO BE REMOVED) (EXISTING;COMPACTED FILL) F �� / \ /�� T %%� LEGEND Mqj p�f\ ��` TO BE REMOVED BEFORE Oaf ARTIFICIAL FILL PLACING ADDITIONAL Gal ALLUVIUM COMPACTED FILL PLATE EG - 3 a� ww aw z z w wa a w Z �' F U J J z w 0 I } F- � N LU J "w I Q Q �' ~ I W w I— F m I Q – Ln ? cr. Z _ O Z w o Z 0 Y I V LL. Q it 0 F- W Q Z W C X J J I\ w CL w a m r m I a J Q U Z m U N Z } I LU I .- zQ � w w a a � o in g uj ? YC V W ? w0 :D M W o , } M N LL � - W F- \ z Q J � 2 Z c � w Z OD O N i H O N It . Q LL O O O. N d LL w Z w < N N ._ m N m w _ m �■■ O N Q - ~ Z Z C O N O U- t7 w >- W W N /1 m O V J �' • i D N w In _ O O r 1 ?? w U W CL J H — N i n PLATE EG- 4 LL cr. z u. o p z Z O .. tA 0 W �-- w N w Z Z Q co Q J N 0 O M U Q Q ° 0 0 en in H H J -a o 7 d O d_ s en n W F- O Ln c, Z to I I t o c 0"? W Q to w w w o o m w LL U J O U tT .t N m w w W Z 0 W W J n- D d w N J W W? a O> W > Q W 3 W t ? O N U O a. a OJ O. N = = O J 3 d N Z s O O z 0 Q N U Z Z s co N > 0 IL W N p N W _ W LL Q> ? .a oo ° ° O O p W- 0 Z W Z Z Z Q ~ W W -- Z Z Z Z Z W Q N Q J = N •- rn t� to �� Li H O t..t.. w _ O ul C7 Z > W W m Z LL ° Q m m. tn CL _ V c`i N = Z a W F . - f J m O �-. X O Ln O = LL en J a en t/i CO H 0 0 U O a W F- Y Q z = i Z tn W ti ? < m U. O H Q O O O W m W m Z Q O Z J O w m w O t - W J Q ~. Q LL N Z w to >- O LL O. Ln m z= Q J O o z � LL �' a 1 3 Z W o W z z z LLJ J IL LL z ° O ° Q n' O d W ~ O W J O z cv t.: O �_ tn m a m 3 w LL W 2 W w Li W m z N t J Z LL O O O Q ° 0 Z in LL CL 2 m w .- Q O ° O ~ m Z a 0 U c7 > Lai. Q LL I t7 O Z Q N C) Wa W w O Q L Z ® u. w > O m s 2 m C W a w J J Q N O W m 0 a J w Z O a J N O w F- < H ° F - N 0 W U O =° O LL O t� W W W W O Z J O Q I-- 0 O LL m z a 0 m O a O .� � ° H a W J F- z ti 0° n- = V- m 0 m 0 O A N N F- Z� Q Q _. O Z Q Z z > W ° Q N l o v es =° L- Z Q o w w 0 . z a CL N LL r a. a s w U 0 3 w z IL Q W V W Z J _ D U W Z f- m Li OJ W — H LL Z W W ' O F- m J W m W 0 -J a F- m m d O J O CV �- .. N, J J F- ref M J O F a J J W Z ~ O LL �- U a a m ° m ui = O 2 S 0 0 C O O O U F-j W N N LL O N N m ? a F- m -� wnHINlw .Z w N � W za- ?°— _ Via. �a PLATE EG -5 w z J O w w w U1 LL _ = Z �. F. p W O ❑ ❑ ? v1 J ❑ H a in w 3 ❑ o d �' of J U w ❑ _ m 3 th 0 } v, v `n °a m ? _ z > m w O° CL a o CL w W w c a z o w m W d 0 1-- W _ 3 a z Ut d o O W W a Cr �!+ v N a J N W W W m �cy _ O U) O / = F- w Z Z .J d W Z W - O J Q J W ' ' W 0 m LL ❑ LL. a � $ w z W w W O a z J, = w Q W ° a o o n. F- m d z � z � N L ly- CD z ° _ W o a O H I W O _ 1 >- LU W 1 Y W Y J ° IL U- W L tn ° LL `� Y p V O 1 Z Z V J O --n Ui O �} 4 O ~ OC O ^ X m W CL N w n ? ° CL n in 0 o a a . > 0 o LL �- z d ° z o ° J w O o a. LLJ Q O Z LA p W Y w '" 3 F- 0 0 _ w d m - o vi to F- x w < d w 0 ¢ PLATE EG -6 a ❑ z m v Z O Z F- W ZO > Z H W 0 W CL p � w W = J J_ I— S U Ca LL < — Q O W It CL z LL �j = G < Z W U _ M t7 O 0 CL d � of W z U in } W Z t ~ tA N < J Z cr J Z } N W �- W N V1 lL LL W Y < _ _J Z jA LL O 3 / z ~ O V LL tA cr- O V C) ` O S tu ~ w F N O U m M M o w a W F- CL Q< S U O O i7 J J to 3 / F W 0 J� p 1 F z ._ W W O ° O m N H Z J w w __.!. LO z o L.J.. J J O J J Z < I N a _ 0 < < < O Z Z c f O O O p 2 Z d W O � _ O 3 0 ~ cr S �n = J a N < a S Ln N Z IL < < Q O O cr. N O tn F- Y U M O U cr- W S ca PLATE EG -7 LL1 Y Q Q � Z N W G W ? P C7 W Q Z >- -� W Z C] O W W W C W W p Z G O Z W t0 W W C7 N 2 J W p Z a 0 V Z C_ C9 Q Z W J Q Z O Z Q` Q CL Z N a. W w W < !— ° 3 Q ° = v o ° < CL �/ z Z 0 �-- O J < ti= W W O W J LLI G J Z ° 3 W< W m � LL W Z F `II ` Z Z O ~ O LL W Ix Q O w W Z W Z \ t Z O Z < Z O W C_ W Z Z Z n ' J m< W< W < O V Z~ J_ W N U W Z = Z y 0 �. Q W tA ca z � .. Q F- CO W J N M- W U- CL J D: = O o W O m W CL _ Z 0 U �_ Z H 7 O= W 2 W W W = < Z Z Z N W O} 1 O r Z O 0 w W y m N cr- a- ` W 0 0 tA US N ( fff O J O N V- CD Q: CNII li. W W J J ar m J c z � 3 ° _ uJ _...1 M I ° o ° J . Q W W < LL z W I E 3 m N . in Z Q O W ( A � Z Q p ta W�~ N Q- > a W w Q X. W M W W a: Z OJ �1 m o = to 3 0 H , O Z PLATE EG — 8 _ o w a O w z w w a o 0 ? a w ~ Ln . �l/ z w Q '^ � t z z z w z z 0 N O O W d J O G 0 W V~l• Y O c� W O 0: m C U Z �O C5, U- W w w . to m z W 2 j CL of O Z W O O I �Y IL w O O W w m z M O J O N U U } � Z �• (� LLI O Y to w UA _ 7 / cr. C W O W W • LL 2 O to w = Q O N O to / �- ~ a p O LL Y cS Ln z in U 0 Z m o l p F- O O _! ov O O V m � 1 Q V �� r W 4 Z LxLI }� L�ii...� LL Y w � W 'n z w w W W w> w _ [D a O O Z Z O W Ln i �_ W Z 4 w W a z z Z tn r LL a w o _ _ in w c z CL c O� CL � a IL °' o . z z �- w N Y PLATE EG -9 i W } J \\ Q m W \� LL cr. a tA C�9 V! N W uj m W t2 < �\ N Z Z a tl m W W O W ? O Z CL w o CL w a CL z_ :;op CL W r �• cc � O O W CL '� f•f i O p a � �� Y W LL 'P6 rJ Uo c a Q G W I Z Z �� W w z Ld Cc Z LL. LU LA U W O. a W W w O O J W O W K eel cm --' �j00 a Z w w W a� Ln a c w ::D LLI c ` � � i � W m UQ. w LL O�(J 'O �Y Z > n W d'y� a W O z M t•� Q IX Ln o ►- �7 � \ F- W.. Q z z Q W W LL. Z / X a. 0: o W w W a o w F' z J J.J a U Jtn // O z U W Q ' - i Z = Z Q X W D 4 w� •� Z_ Q Z W J w W U d Z p ? O W !- F_ > U ; V W = d Y' t/1 W 0 : Z Z O CL a O J Q w �" Y m z o _ Z z Z J W o = O O Q = Q d F- U U N Q Z O N W > z o n -- w tr � U W Z Q H Z Z Z W Q Q Z (I ` O } m J O_ W U Q W 0- O F- d � O Z Q PLATE EG-• 10 TRANSITION LOT DETAIL CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION) NATU RAL GRAD 5' MINIM M PAD GRAD E OVEREXCAVATE'AND RECOMPACT _ COMPACTED FILL �� ` \` / \� //� /\ / / \ \ \// 3' MINIMUM+ UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL l • TYPICAL BENCHING AAA CUT -FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION) _ NATURAL GRADE M�.��R \ 5 Al MUM PAD GRADE oNSV OVER EX•CAVATE '. OR AND RECOMPACT _ COMPACTED FILL ! �uv \u /\\ \ /�� /�� // 3' MINIMUM* UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING NOTE: * DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND /OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEEP CUT -FILL TRANSITION AREAS. PLATE EG -11 SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL 2'X 2'X 1 /L' STEEL PLATE STANDARD 314' PIPE NIPPLE WELDED TO TOP OF PLATE. 3/4' X 5' GALVANIZED PIPE. STANDARD PIPE THREADS TOP AND BOTTOM. EXTENSIONS -- THREADED ON BOTH ENDS AND ADDED IN 5' INCREMENTS- 3 INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE SLEEVE. ADD IN 5' INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS. FINAL GRADE I I MAINTAIN 5' CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT. MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2'VERTICAL 1 � -T�1r• LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND "T ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 1 5 • 5• I � I MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIAL 5' 5' I VERTICAL WITHIN A 5' RADIUS OF PLATE BASE_ lie i 2' . BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT • PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1' BEDDING OF COMPACTED SAND NOTE: 1. LOCATIONS OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHOULD BE CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY _ VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE OF A 5' RADIUS OF PLATE BASE AND WITHIN 5' (VERTICAL) FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. FILL WITHIN CLEARANCE AREA SHOULD CTED BY ALTERNATIVE BE HAND`COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPA APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 3. AFTER 5'(VERTICAL) OF FILL IS IN PLACE. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN A 5'RADIUS EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE FROM RISER. G. PLACE AND MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT INITIAL 2' OF FILL PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL READING. 5. IN THE`EVENT OF DAMAGE TO THE SETTLEMENT PLATE OR EXTENSION RESULTING FROM EQUIPMENT OPERATING WITHIN THE SPECIFIED CLEARANCE AREA. CONTRACTOR SHOULD IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORING THE SETTLEMENT PLATES TO WORKING ORDER. S. AN ALTERNATE DESIGN AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER PLATE EG -- 1 4 TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT FINISH GRADE - - -- 318' DIAMETER X 6' LENGTH _ CARRIAGE BOLT OR EQUIVALENT ` DIAMETER X 3 112' LENGTH HOLE _ . 3 ._ 6 ' CONCRETE BACKFILL PLATE EG -15 TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM SIDE VIEW SPOIL PIL E TEST IT NOT TO SCAM l TOP VIEW 100 FEET 5 50 FEET 0 FEET FLAG ;,;,.• ... .,� I SPOIL TEST PIT;:: YENiCLE PILE ' F- FUG APPROXIMATE Cf?(TER U. OF TEST PIT ( NOT TO SCALE 1 PLATE EG--16 OVE RSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL - VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM (E) cc co 0o 15' MINIMUM (A) a0 20' MINIMUM (BI °O (G) 00 a CD o0 o od o0 �5' MINIMUM (A� 5' MINIMUM (C) vo loo .4 1 14 1. 4, 4 BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL . VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM (E) 10_0' MAXIMUM IB 15' MINIMUM 3' MINIMUM C � (�G) 15' MINIMUM 5' MINIMUM (C FROM CA WALL •MINIMUM 'ICI BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL NOTE: (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET. (B) HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF EQUIPMENT. LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100' MAXIMUM. (C) IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND /OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. J' WINDROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIAL OR BEDROCK PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION. lDl ORIENTATION WINDROWS S HOULD BE GEOLOGIST. GGER NGNOF D BY _ THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED. (El CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES. FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS. (F) ALL FILL OVER AND AROU R AS RECOMMENDED SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION 0 lG1 AFTER VERING WINDROW. WINDROW SHOULD BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A LIFT OF FILL COVERING D -9 DOZER OR EQUIVALENT. AND VOIDS SHOULDMBE COMPLETELY FILLED IN NOT TOUCH PLATE RD ROCK DISPOSAL PITS �� AN VIEWS D SHOULD BE COMPLETELYHFILLED IN, TO , FILL LIFTS COMPACTED OVER ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT_ 1 GRANULAR MATERIAL I _ LARGE ROCK I 1 , I 1 - i COMPACTED FILL I SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE I 1 COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE I 1 1 I 1 1 t ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS GRANULAR SOIL TO FILL VOIDS. COMPACTED FILL DENSIFIED BY FLOODING , a+ ^ 4 ~ -, `LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH _- a `~ ter• � .�� . �� ...r �' �r .�. �� PROPOSED FINISH GRADE PROFILE ALONG LAYER MINIMUM OR BELOW LOWEST UTILIT - -- -- -� 20' MUM OVERSIZE LAYER F LOPE FACE COMPACTED FILL ][3 FILL SLOPE CLEAR ZONE 20' MINIMUM LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH STOP VIEW PLATE RD -2 APPENDIX F HOMEOWNER'S MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES GUIDELINES FOR THE HOMEOWNER Tips for the Homeowner Homesites, in general, and hillside lots, in particular, need maintenance to continue to function and retain their value. Many homeowners are unaware of this and allow deterioration of their property. In addition to one's own property, the homeowner may be subject to liability for damage occurring to neighboring properties as a result of his negligence. It is, therefore, important to familiarize homeowners with some guidelines for maintenance of their properties and make them aware of the importance of maintenance. Nature slowly wears away land, but human activities such as construction increase the rate of erosion 200, even 2,000 times that amount. When vegetation or other objects are removed that hold soil in place, the soil is exposed to the action of wind and water and increase its chances of eroding. The following maintenance guidelines are provided for the protection of the homeowner's investment, and should be employed throughout the year. 1. Care should be taken that slopes, terraces, berms (ridges at crown of slopes), and proper lot drainage are not disturbed. Surface drainage should be conducted from the rear yard to the street by a graded swale through the side yard, or alternative -- approved devices. 2. In general, roof and yard runoff should be conducted to either the street or storm drain by nonerosive devices such as sidewalks, drainage pipes, ground gutters, and driveways. Drainage systems should not be altered without expert consultation. 3. All drains should be kept cleaned and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Terrace drains or gunite ditches should be kept free of debris to allow proper drainage. During heavy rain periods, performance of the drainage system should be inspected. Problems, such as gullying and ponding, if observed, should be corrected as soon as possible. 4. Any leakage from pools, water lines, etc. or bypassing of drains should be repaired as soon as possible. 5. Animal burrows should be filled inasmuch as they may cause diversion of surface runoff, promote accelerated erosion, and even trigger shallow soil failures. 6. Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever a homeowner plans a significant topographic modification of the slope, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be contacted. 7. If plans for modification of cut, fill or natural slopes within a property are considered, an engineering geologist should be consulted. Any oversteepening may result in a need for expensive retaining devices. Undercutting of the bottom of a slope might GeoSoils, Inc. possibly lead to slope instability or failure and should not be undertaken without expert consultation. T S. If unusual cracking, settling, or earth slippage occurs on the property, the homeowner should consult a qualified soil engineer or an engineering geologist immediately. 9. The most common causes of slope erosion and shallow slope failures are as follows: • Gross neglect of the care and maintenance of the slopes and drainage devices. • Inadequate and /or improper planting. (Barren areas should be replanted as soon as possible). • Excessive or insufficient irrigation or diversion of runoff over the slope. • Foot traffic on slopes destroying vegetation and exposing soil to erosion - potential. 10. Homeowners should not let conditions on their property create a problem for their neighbors. Cooperation with neighbors could prevent problems, and also increase the aesthetic attractiveness of the properties. Winter Alert It is especially important to winterize your property by mid - September. Don't wait until spring to put in landscaping. You need winter protection. Final landscaping can be done later. Inexpensive measures installed by mid - September will give you protection quickly that will last all during the wet season. • Check before storms to see that drains, gutters, downspouts, and ditches are not clogged by leaves and rubble. • Check after major storms to be sure drains are clear and vegetation is holding on slopes. Repair as'necessary. • Spot seed any bare areas. Broadcast seeds or use a mechanical seeder. A typical slope or bare area can be done in less than an hour. • Give seeds a boost with fertilizer. • Mulch if you can, with grass clippings and leaves, bark chips or straw. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix F Re:eAwp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. • Use netting to hold soil and seeds on steep slopes. +- 0 Check with your landscape architect or local nursery for advice. • Prepare berms and ditched to drain surface runoff water away from problem areas such as steep, bare slopes. • Prepare bare areas on slopes for seeding by raking the surface to loosen and roughen soil so it will hold seeds. CONSTRUCTION 1. Plan construction activities during spring and summer, so that erosion control measures can be in place when rain comes. - 2. Examine your site carefully before building. Be aware of the slope, drainage patterns and soil types. Proper site design will help ypu avoid expensive stabilization work. 3. Preserve existing vegetation as much as possible. Vegetation will naturally curb erosion, improve the appearance value of your property, and reduce the cost of landscaping later. 4. Use fencing to protect plans from fill material and traffic. If you have to pave near trees, do so with permeable asphalt or porous paving blocks. 5. Minimize the length and steepness of slopes by benching, terracing, or constructing diversion structures. Landscape benched areas to stabilize the slope and improve its appearance. 6. As soon as possible after grading a site, plant vegetation on all areas that are not paved or otherwise covered. TEMPORARY MEASURES TO STABILIZE SOIL Grass provides the cheapest and most effective short-term erosion control. It grows quickly and covers the ground completely. To find the best seed mixtures and plants for your area, check with your local landscape architect, local nursery, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Mulches hold soil moisture and provide ground protection from rain damage. They also provide a favorable environment for starting and growing plants. Easy -to- obtain mulches are grass clippings, leaves, sawdust, bark chips, and straw. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix F Fi1e:e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. Straw Mulch is nearly 100 percent effective when held in place by spraying with an organic glue or wood fiber (tackifliers), by punching it into the soil with a shovel or roller, or by tacking a netting over it. Commercial applications of wood fibers combined with various seeds and fertilizers (hydraulic mulching) are effective in stabilizing sloped areas. Hydraulic mulching with a tackifier should be done in two separate applications: the first composed of seed fertilizer and half the mulch, the second composed of the remaining mulch and tackifier. Commercial hydraulic mulch applicators - -who also provide other erosion control services - -are listed under "landscaping" in the phone book. Mats of excelsior, jute netting, and plastic sheets can be effective temporary covers, but they must be in contact with the soil and fastened securely to work effectively. Roof drainage can be collected in barrels or storage containers or routed into lawns, planter boxes, and gardens. Be sure to cover stored water so you don't collect mosquitos. Excessive runoff should be directed away from your house. Too much water can damage trees and make foundations unstable. STRUCTURAL RUNOFF CONTROLS Even with proper timing and planting, you may need to protect disturbed areas from rainfall until the plants have time to establish themselves. Or you may need permanent ways to transport water across your property so that it doesn't cause erosion. To keep water from carrying soil from your site and dumping it to nearby lots, streets, streams and channels, you need ways to reduce its volume and speed. Some examples of what you might use are: 1. Rip -rap (rock lining) - to protect channel banks from erosive water flow. 2. Sediment trap - to stop runoff carrying sediment and trap the sediment. 3. Storm drain outlet protection - to reduce the speed of water flowing from a pipe onto open ground or into a natural channel. 4. Diversion dike or perimeter dike - to divert excess water to places where it can be -- disposed of properly. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix F F11e:eAwp7 \3100 \3167a.pge Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. 5. Straw bale dike - to stop and detain sediment from small unprotected areas (a short term measure). 6. Perimeter swale - to divert runoff from a disturbed area or contain runoff within a disturbed area. 7. Grade stabilization structure - to carry concentrated runoff down a slope. Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi Appendix F Fi1e:e: \wp7\3100 \3167a.pge Page 5 G¢oSoiils, Inc. FINAL COMPACTION REPORT OF GRADING 544 -546 4TH STREET ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR ERNIE WAKABAYASHI 7142 -C CALABRIA COURT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 W.O.3167 -B -SC OCTOBER 2, 2002 S 9 Geotechnical - Geologic - Environmental 5741 Palmer Way - Carlsbad, California 92008 - (760) 438 -3155 - FAX (760) 931 -0915 October 2, 2002 W.O.3167 -B -SC — Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi 7142 -B Calabria Court San Diego, California 92122 Subject: Final Compaction Report of Grading, 544 -546 4 Street, Encinitas, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Wakabayashi: This report presents a summary of the geotechnical testing and observation services provided by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) during the rough earthwork phase of development for the new construction at the subject site. Earthwork commenced September 11, 2002, and was completed on September 19, 2002. Survey of line and grade and locating of the building footprint was performed by others and not performed by GSI. The purpose of grading was to prepare a relatively level pad for the construction of a single family residence. Based on the observations and testing performed by GSI, it is our opinion that the building pad appears suitable for its intended use. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY The geologic conditions exposed during the process of grading were regularly observed by a representative from our firm. The geologic conditions encountered generally were as anticipated and presented in the preliminary geotechnical report (GSI, 2001). GEOTECHN ICAL ENGINEERING Preparation of Existing Ground 1. Prior to grading, the major surficial vegetation was stripped and hauled offsite. 2. Removals consisted of topsoil /colluvium and weathered terrace deposits within the building area. As a result of existing structures, removals of topsoil /colluvium and weathered terrace deposits within the north and south side were completed to 4 feet outside the building footprint. Removals on the western side were completed to at least 5 feet beyond the building footprint. The removal limits are presented on Plate 1. Removals depths within the building footprint were on the order of ±1 to ±3 feet below pre- construction grades. Once removals were completed, the -- exposed bottom was reprocessed prior to fill placement. The actual location of the proposed footprint of the building was provided by others. Overexcavation Where removals were less than a recommended fill blanket thickness of 3 feet, overexcavation to a depth of 3 feet below pad grade was performed within the building footprint. Overexcavation was completed to at least 4 feet beyond the building footprint on _ the north and south side and 5 feet for the western side of the building footprint. The actual location of the proposed footprint of the building was provided by others. Fill Placement Fill consisting of native soils were placed in 6 -to 8 -inch lifts, watered, and mixed to achieve at least optimum moisture conditions. The material was then compacted, using earth moving equipment to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. FIELD TESTING 1. Field density tests were performed using nuclear densometer ASTM test methods D -2922 and D -3017 and sand -cone ASTM test method ASTM D -1556. The test results taken during grading are presented in the attached Table 1, and the locations of the tests taken during grading are presented on Plate 1. 2. Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and random locations to check the compactive effort provided by the contractor. Based upon the grading operations observed, the test results presented herein are considered representative of the compacted fill. 3. Visual classification of the soils in the field was the basis for determining which maximum density value to use for a given density test. LABORATORY TESTING Maximum Density Testing The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined according to test method ASTM D -1557. The following table presents the results: Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi W.O.3167 -B -SC 544 -546 4"' Street October 2, 2002 File:eAwp7\3100 \3167b.fcr Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. MAXIMUM DENSITY MOISTURE CONTENT SOIL TYPE PC (PERCENT) A - Reddish Brown, Silty Sand 115.0 12.5 B - Dark Reddish Brown, Silty Sand ( import) 130.5 9 -` Expansion Index Expansive soil conditions have been evaluated for the site. A representative sample of the soils near pad grade was recovered for expansion index testing. Expansion index testing was performed in general accordance with Standard 18 -2 of the Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials, 1997). The test results indicate an expansion index of less than 5, and the corresponding expansion classification of very low. Corrosion /Sulfate Typical samples of the site materials were analyzed for corrosion /soluble sulfate potential. — The testing included determination of pH, soluble sulfates, and saturated resistivity. At the time of this report the results were not available. An addendum to this report will be issued when the testing is complete. — CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Unless superseded by recommendations presented herein, the conclusions and recommendations contained in References remain pertinent and applicable. As noted in our foundation plan review (GSI, 2002a), a construction joint is recommended to allow for differential movement between the existing and new structures. The project architect /structural engineer should provide mitigation for the relative movement between the new and old construction. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Processing of original /existing ground and placement of compacted fills under the purview of this report have been completed under the observation of and with selective testing provided by representatives of GSI and are found to be in general compliance with the requirements of the City of Encinitas, California. Ourfindings were made in conformance with generally accepted professional engineering practices, and no further warranty is implied or made. GSI assumes no responsibility or Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi W.O. 3167-13-SC 544 -546 4"' Street Fi1e:eAwp7\3100 \3167b.fcr October 2, 2002 Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. liability for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please call us at (760) 438 -3155. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. Bryan E. Voss Staff Geologist 1340 Reviewed by: �w�� — rtif ed r ,:n Gring ! I 4 7857 ?� ohn P. P. Franklin w avid W. Skelly -- Engineering Geologist, CEG 1340 Civil Engineer, RCE 47857 BV /JPF /DWS /jh /ki Attachments: Appendix - References Table 1 - Field Density Test Results Plate 1 - Field Density Test Location Map Distribution: (4) Addressee Mr. Ernie Wakabayashi 544 -546 a Street W.O. 3167 -B -SC Fi \3167b.fcr October 2, 2002 Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX REFERENCES -- GeoSoils, Inc., 2002a, Foundation plan review, 544 and 5464 th Street, Encinitas, California, W.O. 3167- A3 -SC, dated August 19. 2002b, Grading plan review, 544 and 546 4th Street, Encinitas, California, Case No. 01 -064 CDP, W.O. 3167-A4-SC, dated August 19. 2002c, Response to third party review, 544 and 546 4th Street, Encinitas, California, Case No. 01 -064 CDP, W.O. 3167-A2-SC, dated March 6. 9.2002d, Response to third party review, 544 and 546 4th Street, Encinitas, California, Case No. 01 -064 CDP, W.O. 3167-Al -SC, dated January 15. 2001 a, Addendum to "preliminary geotechnical evaluation and bluff study, 544 4th Street, Encinitas, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3167 -A -SC dated November 6, 2001," W.O.3167 -A -SC, dated November 7. 2001b, Preliminary geotechnical investigation and bluff study, 544 4th Street, Encinitas, California, W.O.3167 -A -SC, dated November 6. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, dated April. GeoSoils, Inc. Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS _ TEST DATE TEST LOCATION ELEV MOISTURE DRY REL TEST SOIL NO. OR CONTENT DENSITY COMP METHOD TYPE DEPTH (ft) ( %) (PCO ( %) 1 9/1212002 NE AREA 1 71.5 12.4 110.8 96.3 ND A 2 9/12/2002 NE AREA 1 72.1 11.8 110.2 95.8 SC A 3 9/13/2002 SE @ AREA 2 72.0 12.1 109.6 95.3 ND A 4 9/13/2002 NW @ AREA 2 73.0 12.2 110.2 95.8 SC A r 5 9/13/2002 NE @ AREA 3 71.0 11.6 110.8 96.3 ND A 6 9/16/2002 NW @ AREA 3 72.0 10.9 111.2 96.6 ND A 7 9/16/2002 SE @ AREA 3 73.0 11.6 109.3 95.0 1 ND A 8 9/16/2002 MIDDLE @ AREA 4 70.0 11.2 110.0 95.6 ND A 9 9/17/2002 FAR WEST @ AREA 1 FG 12.2 108.6 94.4 ND A 10 9/17/2002 NW @ AREA 4 71.0 11.8 109.1 94.8 ND A 11 9/17/2002 SW @ AREA 4 72.0 10.4 111.6 97.0 ND A 12 1 9/18/2002 SW @ AREA 2 74.0 9.8 118.8 91.0 SC B 13 9/1812002 SW @ AREA 3 74.0 10.4 117.6 90.1 ND B 14 9/19/2002 AREA 2 FG 10.0 119.1 91.2 ND B 15 9/19/20021 AREA 3 I FG 1 9.6 120.2 92.1 ND B 16 9/19/2002 AREA 4 FG 11.3 110.6 96.1 ND A LEGEND: -- FG = FINISH GRADE ND = NUCLEAR DENSOMETER SC = SAND CONE W.O. 3167 -B -SC Wakabayashi October 2002 File: C: \excel \tables \3100 \3167b Pagel GeoSoiis, Inc. OWNEROW OF DOCUMENTIB DRAW*M AND SPEOMATIONS A$ INSTFKAAMTS OF SERVICE ARE AND SHALL REMAIN TIf QTY OF Tip WWTW TMW BROACT FIV WNL TWV NI= aGEAAM 18 EXECUTED OR NOT. THEY ARE NOT TO BE US® ON OTHER PROJELTS OR EXTENSIONS TO THIS PROJECT EXCEPT BY A(9AEEME f IN WRITM WITH ENWMFMQ GONOLLTNO ©ROUp• COPYRIGHT W✓i7 UNGPda ABIA CONSULTM (IROVP — , 6 i n ' ` GJ i� m - __ . n r r n cn cn �, m O Q x m r= p ( > p< Z - _ � d� I T 0 0 h co Z Q a•, Z� cn � � _ D ♦ J Q n f�lT Z Ga r I > 0 C z -{ � N DpC7 _j __4 U? D ` co z m c Q O Z Q X 7 -! p C) O pcn N m _-0 z °zo rn C, u - N Z D Z AD c (� fi 11 -- ;z� � m _ _ � U) N i Z T,� r-. c J cn 1� O M D `v o0 � ' — � D D co) rn D m --A O � z m m rn z a D ° � cz M O B z N I .�.a n ,_., W �+ W (') L o m U' -=� m T ! I mZ� m I ;u D ° m D 0Z { o ,.j c/) - - _" O m rn � .2 w � Z m ; U? D C) I Q U7 D m i � o D f3 m r- r 01 O O rn CIO O rn *� I v+ Fr - S� .T� O - - _ _ 9 0-0 ---i , If � — I __ __ - I __ I � 1 0) - -r - - I _. - 1. - -, _ � __ - _ ��° I i - {l-5 ' D mO I r,� ! m S - - LJ, . ___ ___" _ -_ _ � m D Z m - n rn , = -. -_ _ _ -- m =-,> - - � _ _ _ rn O PRO PERTY LINE ._w „ _ -. .- I .- 5- — ; S06 35'3 E z — -- — — — -- — -+ O 7 U , ! 1 - Ti / 7 ^ j y ___ - �i../ o - I Z - c __ / m z �- t i ; i' - _ _ _ I - __ - _._ - _ � - M cn M. p m i -n __ I. i - CL V _ z _ z� _ �I I _ V8 L _ - �_� -_�� o o c-_ z ,-,-"- : __ �':_ _'_ .' � - - __ - I I , � - � �ZD > S - - I. " _ - -� _ - c > = Z 7DQ z R: j: Z •2 oDm x -- ( � �' -._ - . o p n - - j _ - _ -- I X� { jj r n D r- Z- M z r 4 I D m x __4 ;o ; I D D C) m, T C7 t^ - 1 - Zr�r{ � <0O p� X T1 ti V- l � T T � n ��nn� y 0p LL -; �V _ it -- i { z -y I i7 - _7- - - - I Q 0 co ti <-�� rn m'mc OG5 - __ - (D m _ _ T I %Z 1 r�Tl n f- � C ' � r � G7 D r- ll AZ < G) � = D --I 0 U) D ;t7 m D ,m f7 T, ' . •-a C) m D 0 �I C XL/) p D ._ - -0 ' - . m m ? n - � Z m __ .. -. O - � Z . �a U) DG) A OC C) ➢Q _ - < = z --I {n D m 7 t r *1 rn --A O z N m A fi ;L7 D O G)� O= zmDZ rnM t -, t -� ,z _ __. �./ D m z D z -{ - _- _._ r n x T _ _ z ._ ,. . N' _ ,. z , _ m •. - , F_ - r _ �, - _ _ _ __ z c , m _ I � ' D o C r _< _ , - -- iTl 1v -_ :s _- _ - - -EDGE OF BLUF> � n i -- -- --- - ±_ -- s - -_ __ - _ -__ -. - o m - = - __ --: ___ _ - - _ i �, , - �, Z = _ ._ . _. - Z _ - _ - _ -- - - - S 2 G� Z m - - a D to I rn V _ - - 2 1` Q7 U) - O i p _ . E� v p m * z m z � __4 I . _ c ` . \_ 1 .� � o .< x _�i C) () c , . . . . . . I � - -D _ 11-1 M a) G) D m C �_ - - i JL D a Z -�O _< � .» c -n -I nm i� 97 0 r� G) `n 0 A O Q o O x O.O. m Q x t" •( m " . �i. - .< r" z7 O -� O ,- - iz •-q C to to to C O n C r - (f) � -t, m D m z m z - r m z p-t z NO Z ::. --► � __ � Z m� z _< m --I U)1 i �Z °1V .: cn � . t ` /� ""� �_Z� v m p - �v�i OO O�Tn°�cnG7 ! -' o a�ca c�'n � -- -11 -I r• - ta5 C7 m - n Q m -n - 0 "P, G7 0b Tj Fn -.a O ' m m D -0 { . ° - m K to rn a D cn x �, G) G) - z m .. -- ---- .rte_ 3> v o m D G) - 0 D (n , o f \ f . --1 _ - -0 A � m ..� r- Q rnQ -i x , - x A r\ I D p : 7 ,: 4 f } Q m I Q D O Q O• O _m T - ►v '��) �" - o m _n O - O O �7 _' O O C, T - "' v � aQ -O?' XrsD =C z - 1 _ m J , _� h _. oo m _ .:D [� . �. J w 3 p 0 rn _ "� rn z o m I — -, -`_> .iii i . ° �_ _. 11 -0 a -11 � Z m r _n -._ I - 1. - - m P, ° Ul � � s � - - D e *-� 0m m � Q v," O Q -i CA * � ._ Z ' s. ,,� �` O w C -- Z ; 1 .� 5 ,_ , a' M L _ ,/ r '. _ - °-- - En O F-0. _� .._ . G i 0 � ' o Z i m n) 1 C ; _ � _- . _ -� _._ __ - . r*i ,, 1 -- -�— - - - - - -- - _, - - " - -- 1. W n ry ° =° x- x -< a to b �� Z f t_ _ x - t ----� -i ° ° , _� - - - _ f-- a l Z5 cn U� cn ' cn -n __.. ._ y< m � U m _n m _� _ _ -___ _ - _. ___._ J X Z _ __. Z ,` . i •, rn "O m C7 I _.. m - . '1•. - , ° `. ' 0 C7 �A �� 1 :. ' 177 m - � Q '� r - - .1% � G _ m -i� "iO� 4 I TAD Z / 1 1 ' -'` D 7 Go --A (� M _.j "I �! 0 z m �r�l i 4 D �� Dm s _ "m ! �� F G x o�p 7c mfg p i i. '� � I ° X im � O L� 1 -� I co � . � . � y , • Ir rn 1 z Q I f ;,, � _ m. .. ,� r; L 7 - - _' . _ - - ` �$ jC f I �' ° m .n o o m -� m rn r� W ,. o .' �. �1 -n C7 (TI (n x O -i z j iV G? ' cn I -V w I ;u -n D XJ) T_ Z f f ; : Its _k - I t I � C � O �, O O - c, O 0 D G7 (11) i ! r- G) > io r T m V D m RI O? O O D z p �,1 5' z� 7 c1) t� O �.? - n 0 G7 C} z ` C O , -7 -n x y � Z7 < m c i - , - - I . 11 _ 1 ,-- t Z7 '� r � �i �c - - - _ 1. M z � w �__ C 1 m v 11 I --. f ; -. ; X . ) � —f+ X ;, L" y 6- . ; .I U) , F T ,� — . -, _ __ . __ _ rn _ `/ m -r I\ . r O O , <-- � k f _ $ G) -_ � m c L . y �_ _ . �, )� .4 . -- . . -__ _. - - -- -- � _ . rn . � _ N - �. n D O �. -1 Xn m : �� T r - -- -- b l', �c - ___. _.; _ fi n - n () _ k c� {mj Z _< -4 ,z I _�� C1 <�� Ii �I_ ; -r 1 I -4 I ! z z m l _ N _ - D r a ! - �� ." -- -- -- _ . -- . _ -- - _ . -- -. - - - , . m - _ _ -- - Z REG /ST£ 15 FT SETBACK G) D __ n T ..� rn : ' a cn - j ..... _- y - _ __ _ __ __._ __ ___._ f M, ra r �! b ( a i• CD W �� 3 _ . '' l I - . F N '3637 'W - =- - -5-012 - TY LI - _Y. i ler _ x , R PROP(.ft NE... _ LL I - s- - - , 4 K - - -- - - -- _ - -- . _ __ - -" -- -_.__. __ _ _ I CD 3: T • -• , V _ , _ _ -- - -___ ___ .. . , , j - - 11 , ,. # Cl�► `, ` ,1 y p 0 m F: __ f __ : fl .' ti.f 1 vv 4 ,� -- ,ti I l- 11 m < - _ f _ m .,,,�.;: F ..,. mmm Z r _ ___ _ _ _._ _ �._... _.. __ - - -. _.......,,�_ _•.___ - ° - --. ._.._.._.-._' __'_"' ..._ _._.,.....__...__.'__..-....... ,.,.._.____..-... ___._..._._... _ . j ..._.--- - _ —'s`•: - _, T n. m #i x --1 �J ,-�, 11 i '- _ I N 0 -4 K M �� Z 0 ;o � T' Z \ _ VA I 0000M � ° H 4. amZ �D � G v O� - O O D i - �M cm7 m �� m "v ' �� ., c> cF .. - _ - H _ - ___N tn_m o o �, cD r r © - r, D _ J-- - - -_ ,. ,� ____ _ -..- -__> p ; o x 0 x - - - - I n z ' ° r _ O o f °� r i� IN" � �� _ _ I o o � ,-I- � rn � > �h. 0) n a) IJ 't n n w _ H TRH _ _ CL ..� __ ____� �__ _. _� _ _ ____ __ ___ __ .- _ .- ............_... .......___._,-.__ ._...._.,.__._.._...........�.. .. -.�.�. ......_ I �' Q _. > _. lv (D D 7 K i _ V, \ w !° (A � ; r , o - r. y = _ . - o (n �, t� � .._ r Gn cn o to ^ ✓ j i >` . rq :n m ; y �� (A < -1 I w ,�, i E .. _._._._. _ - _. - ..,. --. __•_` --•-- -�.... - -.— "-_•.__. -- _. _ - ...._.___.-__ • __...___.._...._._ _ _ _---- -._.._ ,�...._...__- "fi r ; ' -i ; `�' . , - fi . , �' # > ' _ - - - r I 1, z I � ' r� -,d-.. - - - >i - - - ..�...._ - ;�.._.._, _...... 9 e "' - :.' : -- .f : _ Y ,, : I : ,f __ - - .. C3i �r Z , 1 _ : , I 11 I , Z rr i { ,. 7 ` . r f _ _ - 4�.. _ I I . � I I i . c'� / 11 I i I - I -.__ y u. - r - - - ',....� . _ - - 1. / �� :r . - :� �....._,- �._...t,.: ._� ,.-." . I- � ---- - I - I I ... � I _ ,_ _�. -_ _� _ °_ - ._ _ _._- _ --- - - I., r __ - �, I SUBMI T ._" / �� I 1 1 01 -264 CDPIBRIMMER Phl, 01 100'1 l W" AKABA►YASHI -. N Z !Cf W N .. j w W O r N Q �NZw /♦ *- V C z pC Q p V Q w c O o¢ ° c Q O OC � U 2 a a cn O LV o c Q N Q N c 0) Q I p a w e 0 • V Z -a O O O . � ° m uwi W V m LL V 0 Q i Q O O m O -� -` C� ,. 4) m d 6 ; J o 2 a o Q ,� ^ ti co c� Q. d a V a'c n a � W CO) 0 ° 1 c�• o-,-, a 00 = 10e3 ui U014ene13 N Ln LO to ti LO M L c C3 m v i w ~ m N 3 N I � d \ d u G O F. 06 O a` N � \ C_ V y •p = ev0 d • N t! �� D p y x ` W O C d N et p L 1 4 00 Z 0— c�• 0 C%- C.. c�• M d � J LO to tm Ln in jeep ul UOI;ene 13 IGO r. S Z . Z IN. .A r / W w 0 m z Z m 11 / C o 0 o rn E 4600 - �✓' E 460E (D r M r r ' w w _ D r T r r x • r . 0 r CL Cr D . p x M o w � � ■ x i D i L1 r Q7 ■ QI s - r X ,a a c 0-0 c c NO ''0 M0 cD CD K 0- x• •�i x• `� z - N -M M3 03 3 co Gl x x` a -+ 0 1 1 ■ A .. w . .�i �► fD 3 O J x C tD (a tD tD 3 '« cr m co _ tD cX Z O O O G) U _ 0 0 n w n x a Q co G 7 7 3 a (D QJ 1.t D x Z Cts _ 0 cD a 0 0 0 •* a o -� o o 9) x x rn r0 �p 3 N z u, - cD cD N N o rn ° x C a C E 47 C 0 '1' cn _ -- - = E 4700 A n w - �- _ 100 - -- ` r i - - " �--~ --- -- - -moo ao� moo* - ■ • ✓•x"- - ,�; � -.ice ,.� - _ � _ ' �` _ _ _,,.,... . . ? ..- --' ,- _.•_.- '1•� - •• yy" .. .` --' -- .__. " "' 1 . • Lrk /' `l r FE 4800 �' x ❑ E `4800 VI : x 00 r . v G �• N in, co co CD co , ; r o r cm za _ to r D r 490 ¢g co co r r r r t r i 1 - }galls y }mod �."-` :;�. w -•_ _ X _; � :7� tom: 000 E 5000 CD fi L / L -F DE 0 -- ?: —r CD co c V o x G-1 V n - p ti ; D �-- r- , Ar p,. p a w fD rn - - • •. 1, r