Loading...
2002-7347 G ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Capital Improvement Projects city y O f District Support Services Encinitas Field Operations Sand Rep lenishment /Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering April 6, 2004 Attn: Western Surety Company C/o USI San Diego 12348 High Bluff Drive Suite 110 San Diego, California 92130 RE: Warren and Cheryl Scott CDP 01 -271 APN 254- 392 -18 Grading Permit 7347 -G Final release of security Permit 7347 -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 58604952, in the amount of $12,160.00, 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, C" Masih Maher Ja Le ach - Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Scott, Warren and Cheryl Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760- 633 -2600 / FAX 760 -633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 7 DD 760- 633 -2700 � recycled paper 4 11 E Vince Sam P o PE PLS March 20, 2002 w f..d planning, Civil Engineering, Surveying, Mapping J.N. 02 -103 r S DRAINAGE STUDY FOR SCOTT RESIDENCE GRADING PLAN 1119 EOLUS AVENUE ENCINITAS, CA APN: 254- 392 -18 rO MAR 2 2 21 �- NGINEERING SERVICES PREPARED BY: VINCE SAMPO, PE, PLS 274 RODNEY AVENUE ENCINITAS, CA 92024 760 -525 -5841 QROFES F MARCH 20, 2002 o yy 02 -103 u No. 44173 m * Exp. 6-30-0 civ F OF C 274 Rodney Ave. ♦ Encinitas, CA 92024 ♦ vsampo@aol.com ♦ 760 -525 -5841 7 /6Z. ), 05� - 5At J ?oyt.1Tq Pr�A /,t;Au sic /rlAnlyA(� lil ,p'tlo��(. ►1`1oD q ror't 2 T IGc.I );: 1(1) Y� 3��:= uctir'�� craw '.i .���a ' �� t _�F �N 1 71c:) CD goon, A/Jn �a� taf4�iJ"rre 1 t --.,un-FAGe m G ° F�rz - AG Drr�� f`rl;t Forte l ��a� -c LoL,atTo,.r _ -- Acs D 'AEG -mss ��77ZoZ`yGTO/�! M J 771 ' t! �i�r�r�o� ((�tiy�y Lo ���. AND — -- lvt�l�,�L - �x= S /UN&D 50 - MA - r Kfo 1YidruC - - - P- VAJG 11UoULa lr'- ��OLE lit' - 7 - V �x��r�,2Ly _ �N E� � �� �.G7 l7� — 114WJ GUtz -P 8- /JC j TV-A1 This A j 0 -VTA �-, G0OK -tV rj-) ... -ro 2 /k ', , nfTlonl �r,j / A �s� r 1765' CAPA G17� Or- ' - 77 (6 .'.. �_� _ C rZa� S L v p ��s A n,►� S ��c�t - �.. q��s,� �r - t"�� �s OF- 114 a P& I VA7E Sro nv►.. C)u+ "L-sz5 GN W� j7S k-L.'J p/iE -14ALF (24 P4c S rra (5C-C- ` - 4 4�-, G1Z r) 0! Ajq U - gA 7 55 r PA Arl. jrwr ='3 s C---O Ar TEL C f 2� c>cl� Cry �rcm Rc�NO� -- *� �siu�sear pr Tit('" - T4A - rA M),gi u w� Rmc>u,tt- of FfAtLi>sc /ApC- GoTls 77ZU �C"� p ► O A�izEA S WI At\j -0`6K 11 mp CC) B A M Soo G = D,SU CvNr�EvECOp Sul' pr2�vraysc� ��poGU� 1 r) A a� ... C� �yosS 1�A►a) _ ... t�cfl '- 2 h ► n .. -• Sys 0,7 cFS 7/6 z vs -fl 0,24 AC Ar LA �JD � (-td (lj - - - -------------- - - ------------- OZ. - /o3 Vs ... 1 Ra �s � t� y (t.�y�� (JAJfZ y Poll - r/00 o)F- S17t W&144'� G F ACrar. � ( 2�805� x o,°t +( I� .... dWWc Nd Fi -a,tif 7 �i�� 1 S �laI —� .56) 3 ,!o r I"i �ACH055 4AWN VEt,6 'rg77d -J Off ruA.�•ry �riQ,.�J �, �riZ J 1 , $Cj ,�� O� Sb� 5'' s q' m r,j �,�ROSS tawN f vEwrxpca) T = 2� .o m Q �l by CIA J D.��J�. p ✓� /�h >C(3. Z(¢ RC) r 8 �li; C)z -to 3 vs r ERs /.,j Zr O jpr lo 200 > = 0 A C M. /0 Zoo S-� i t r--,, FLU G&J A kvt �j 0 r 7Q� 2,3A o. oZ- X03 v� 0.5-0 0Z . 21 ©. S i 0•7 OZ- (03 VS Anima tsvr'An y 73 MAIN `rVrVn PKArnJ = 3ZOO S� ��7 AC- (I t4(, Lv V65. MAIN RES I MAte ROQJC, GA"GIr rLoc:F; AneA �Zoo 137 f�v5fc"t 00 5M � . v s& - Srn rNVri Ce 95 Fv-r. Puy s -mrirn nn. ,4,N; . �'] - O•Jlf � S = I.0 `l� MIN r"— MAN"" EV � , 6,X98 Co,s'� 6.0( 0. 71 Crs 6,�Z b. df G(SZ% c� QUr �(/�'� sfiD✓try PAAi E m iN ACV A7�',4G�uD PYba -AUUC Umplf1 . Lxt Oz -/03 VS Manning Pipe Calculator Given Input Data: Shape........................... Circular Solving for ..................... Depth of Flow Diameter ........................ 6.0000 in Flowrate ........................ 0.4200 cfs Slope ........................... 0.0100 ft /ft Manning's n ..................... 0.0110 Computed Results: Depth ........................... 3.4657 in G /p Area ............................ 0.1963 ft2 Wetted Area ..................... 0.1175 ft2 Wetted Perimeter ................ 10.3600 in Perimeter ....................... 18.8496 in Velocity ........................ 3.5744 fps -40-- Hydraulic Radius ................ 1.6332 in ��ss�paton- Percent Full 57.7622 % Full flow Flowrate .............. 0.6631 cfs overc,l2 "A•�.�i� _ Full flow velocity .............. 3.3773 fps B4.AA1i6 Critical Information Critical depth .................. 4.0027 in Critical slope .................. 0.0064 ft /ft Critical velocity ............... 3.0010 fps Critical area ................... 0.1400 ft2 Critical perimeter .............. 11.4302 in Critical hydraulic radius ....... 1.7632 in Critical top width .............. 6.0000 in Specific energy ................. 0.4873 ft Minimum energy .................. 0.5003 ft Froude number ................... 1.3006 Flow condition .................. Supercritical Page 1 oz_- -lo!7 Wl Z`o2- VS ��f�J�o�.1 �✓ ASS N __ CArRGr� � gt� Srn) 7' �3Fr tx's lG�.1L� �i2 /OU �.R, , 2`� H �?iY� ✓�� It Q " CSC P�VIojS i PLG - fort $!asw Yzo Po s rJ i345 tiJ vo L orr awjo FF 2`I AtGt'UAC pe_rr_oro 1 5 ASl �1 VO�v7n� �3�'c O oo _ rY1£�'C��aTJ OF GAI.Gv I.�� cr•1S �'V� —A� ' 02 -103 • VS L gms de AMC save C30 Ilk cc CD CD � s j; . .: L� r �•� u1 J RR* , i.w i • f \ . '.. Qom t. an C M N C�.. ,L V o &� co V � z W O n = W i i W m �; cz w, J �• X s OA z � G 44 o Q }.. _ - -_ _...... - -- - - •- .. _.... .. a W o 0 0 ra CA 0 owe am a RX <� �czc x _ .__ 'I for. APPENDIX XI -E. OZ-l03 L1'7 ' C Ln cc I •�^ �r ' � 1. . N VA �+ •� 1 t e cm r prp .rr� OHO' ; ;� •� .�� t� o �. Ito' ca ^ A l OVO J* .. \� it cc edwo CD CN W U LAJ i © ca x O o< �w = W -�- x L1 •� � G u v H ' S o d ::t< W <rl u _ p H ' 4 uti 6 % �, c Q OO t% I At G u<. th 4.. 2 M V), ; °s. a-1� — p . Q x� u w a N d � 1 .0 �� p •.•. a y" N p1 V W /.1 S ? �r a r a• . �d • 0 to N •r '� �• �. wl �+ s» o Nom O •N ♦ • !+ r• u � CD��b u0Q , O• dY a • p, �A 1 • a d V i 1 V j C . +6.00 "0 4 CL tu 4 4A 140- V fs� p 40 t S. .G u r• p . U O +• u 4 • �.f d O N r O •F 'r' qr N 40 0 i r r0" •r• d N N N •�N• A M NO � t N 5 •� •.�"s rd G� 0 1 O ' . N G . u d ��' u ia• N 1- A 4R 0 Q ^ ^ �-• • .. M Ln Cz •� e-• N 6 -Hour Precipitation (inches) „ - • Cp v1 O of O M C M O tq O 1• e • • • • • N •' a LA •O et M M• N •-• in S . tl ' • • �_ • .�.. .... f .� • ..._�. '.i . o .r ...... ., , 3 ... • a ! po AIN Cz If ff - fir • «NF• w..•y :.. r • wr . ...• • •+.L «.�••..� +—••- .Mar•. ••M , r , 'r A .2 .a a .A d 04 « -4 O. t •s '1 ''f �• �'l •! ' � anoc tay *u0 Ajsus4ul SA V2/-zQ oz -W5 Vs URBAN AREAS OV ERLAND " TIM FL OW CU RVE S c) For 1 t � � i• «• 1 � t r " F * s • +. +,.. r � AIL � ��,;• r00, Vat formuto Oislonces in Excess . ; S' F •, i ! i ` :a • • • .' . Of 600 feet. - I . {• o i I 1 i . I f +� .,.� / r r . t : 1 N i I AS OI ��•�.*i:.i .� ± + � ♦ 1. , �/ .pit � • •y...' ti� . ..1 r •+ f � �� 400 ♦ + .r 60 ` rt 50 .. _ � t . f 7 1 1 '�• , I .. � 4_ ` � 1 �• • t i�» j r v i � �. ♦ � i � •' F Y 1• t I .� 1 N« Iry 4�i � i ;� .;. `. ... . *.I. f .w �. 4 p {,♦i -µl^. +. 1.I.wY - �F' 'tom '1' {ii �i # �.-+. Z 100 � � • : i i : i1: s.J r � 1--' •.. � ,bA .. . �.♦.i._:♦+ 30 7 t �.r . ♦'�. 7 s.. . i..:: L i : +.� ice. '' .•♦ C .�.1 . smfece Flow ?law Cw%w EXAMPLE. r,? G I\/ Eta. �....L•EN.G.TH. , OF , FLow cm 400. FT. �^ Lop e.:.. I.0 cf COP F I'CI E RvNo�� C 670 �,EI�D ; ,OV E•ttlr.IQMD 'fit- oWTtcT1F, - MiNUi�S 86 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD) DEVELOPED AREAS (URBAN) Land Use Coef f Icient C Soil Type Residential:D Single Family .55 Multi -Units .70 4 Mobile Homes .65 - Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre) .45 r Commercial (2) 80% Impervious .85 Industrial (2) 90% Impervious .95 NOTES: ti (l) Type D soil to be used for all areas. (2) Where actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated Imperviousness values of 80% or 90%, the values given for coefficient Co may be revised by multiplying 80% or 90% by the ratio of actual , Imperviousness to the tabulated Imperviousness. However, In no case shall the final coefficient be less than 0.50. For example: Consider commercial property on D soil. Actual imperviousness = 50 % i Tabulated imperviousness = 80% x 0.85 = 0.53 Revised C = , _ 82 COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSUI FING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS December 6, 2001 � — Warren W. Scott JAN Warren W. Scott Architecture IGINEENNG 6Ehv10E 4405 Manchester Avenue, Suite 101. ^,1TYfJFENCENITAr — Encinitas, CA 92024 Subject: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single Family Residence — 1119 Eolus Avenue Leucadia, California Dear Mr. Scott: In response to your request and in accordance with our Proposal and Agreement dated August 24, 2001, we have performed a preliminary geologic and soils engineering — investigation on the subject site for the proposed single family residence. The findings of the investigation, laboratory test results and recommendations for site development and,foundation design are presented in this report. From a geologic and soils engineering point of view, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are implemented during the design and construction phases. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (858) 755 -8622. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Respectfully submitt — COAST GEOTECH % ENGINE ti. �" Vitha a ti M Burwell, C.E.G .�, � y Engineering Geologist Geotechnical Engineer 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755 -8622 • FAX (858) 755 -9126 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single Family Residence 1119 Eolus Avenue Leucadia, California _ Prepared For: Warren W. Scott Warren W. Scott Architecture 4405 Manchester Avenue, Suite 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 December 6, 2001 W.O. P- 345111 Prepared By: COAST GEOTECHNICAL 779 Academy Drive Solana Beach, California 92075 TABLE OF CONTENTS VICINITY MAP INTRODUCTION 5 SITE CONDITIONS 5 _ PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6 SITE INVESTIGATION 6 LABORATORY TESTING 7 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 8 CONCLUSIONS 11 RECOMMENDATIONS 12 A. GRADING 12 B. TEMPORARY SLOPES/EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS 13 C. FOUNDATIONS 1 3 D. SLABS ON GRADE (INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR) 14 E. RETAINING WALLS 15 F. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS 15 G. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 16 H. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 16 I. UTILITY TRENCH 16 J. DRAINAGE 17 K. GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS 18 L. PLAN REVIEW 18 LIMITATIONS 18 REFERENCES 20 APPENDICES APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TRENCH LOGS BORING LOGS CROSS SECTION A -A' -A" SITE PLAN (GEOLOGIC MAP) APPENDIX B REGIONAL FAULT MAP SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES t ld IJ T 61 TTY LN Ic ST E J N33--07083 f � , st i � t rr- � L�� � 't SUBJECT PROPERTY �~ Nt \,r — �,` i ; tom% „'•..... l : k7z w t 1i� ; t /PUEBL ST J Co6ntY` \ �� 4 ® 2000 DeLormc. TopoToola Advan \ c \ cd Print Kit TE. Scale: 1 : 8,000 Zoom L---1: 14 -6 Datum: WC- S84 600 ft Coast Geotechnical December 6, 2001 W.O. P- 345111 Page 5 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation on the subject property. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature and characteristics of the earth materials underlying the property, the engineering properties of the surficial deposits and their influence on the proposed residential development. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located north of Leucadia Boulevard, along the east side of Eolus Avenue, in the Leucadia district, city of Encinitas. The site includes 0.63 acres of vacant land situated on a narrow north - trending ridge. The western portion of the property slopes gently to the west, while the eastern portion of the site slopes to the east. Previous grading has generated a relatively level pad in the south - central portion of the L- shaped lot. The northern portion of the pad descends at a gradient of 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) for up to 6.0 vertical feet to a graded driveway. The eastern portion of the pad descends for approximately 6.0 vertical feet to a relatively level bench, then continues to descend at a gradient of 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) for an additional 5.0 vertical feet to gently sloping terrain. _ The graded pads and driveway are covered by a sparse growth of straw grass. Palm trees are located along the western extent of the lot and several trees are located along the rear of the site. Drainage is by sheet flow to the west, in the western portion of the site, and to the east in the eastern portion of the lot. Coast Geotechnical December 6, 2001 W.O. P- 345111 Page 6 PROPOSED DE Preliminary plans for the development of the site were prepared by Warren Scott, Architect. The project includes the construction of a single family residence in the western portion of the graded pad. The structure will be supported on conventional footings with slab on grade floors. It is anticipated that the residence will be constructed at or near the present grade. A subterranean garage and guest house will be located along the eastern extent of the graded pad. SITE INVESTIGATION Initial site exploration included three (3) exploratory borings drilled to a maximum depth of 6.0 feet. However, a tractor - mounted backhoe was subsequently utilized to visually access the subsurface deposits by excavating two (2) exploratory trenches to a maximum depth of 12 feet. Earth materials encountered were visually classified and logged by our field engineering geologist. Undisturbed, representative samples of earth materials were obtained at selected intervals. Samples were obtained by driving a thin walled steel sampler into the desired strata. The samples are retained in brass rings of 2.5 inches outside diameter and 1.0 inches in height. The central portion of the sample is retained in close fitting, waterproof containers and transported to our laboratory for testing and analysis. Coast Geotechnical December 6, 2001 W.O. P- 345111 - Page 7 LABORATORY TESTING Classification The field classification was verified through laboratory examination, in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The final classification is shown on the enclosed Exploratory Logs. Moisture/Density The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each of the undisturbed soil samples. This information is useful in providing a gross picture of the soil consistency or variation among exploratory excavations. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot. The field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Both are shown on the enclosed Laboratory Tests Results and Exploratory Logs. Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of earth materials taken from the site. The laboratory standard tests were in accordance with ASTM D- 1557 -91. The results of the tests are presented in the enclosed Laboratory Test Results. Shear Test Shear tests were performed in a strain- control type direct shear machine. The rate of Coast Geotechnical December 6, 2001 W.O. P- 345111 - Page 8 deformation was approximately 0.025 inches per minute. Each sample was sheared under varying confining loads in order to determine the Coulomb shear strength parameters, cohesion and angle of internal friction. Samples were tested in a saturated condition. The results are presented in the Laboratory Test Results. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The subject property is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego county and is underlain at depth by Pleistocene -age terrace deposits. The Pleistocene deposits are in turn, underlain at depth by Eocene -age sedimentary rocks of the Torrey Sandstone /Santiago Formation. The Pleistocene deposits are covered, in part, by residual soil and wedge- shaped fill deposits. A brief description of the earth materials observed on the site is discussed below. Artificial Fill The majority of the fill deposits are located along the eastern portion of the graded pad. The wedge- shaped fill mass thickens to the east to approximately 8.0 feet, as observed in Trench No. 2. Minor fill, up to 3.0 feet, is located along the western portion of the pad and along the outside edge of graded benches. The fill is composed of reddish brown fine and medium - grained sand. The fill is generally dry, blocky and contains varying amounts of vegetation and debris. Coast Geotechnical December 6, 2001 W.O. P- 345111 Page 9 _ Residual Soil Underlying the fill, up to 1.0 foot of dark brown silty sand was observed. The soil is generally dry, loose and contains decaying roots up to 4.0 inches in diameter. _ Terrace Deposits Underlying the surficial materials, Pleistocene terrace deposits are present. The sediments are composed of brown to reddish brown fine and medium - grained sand. The upper 0.5 to 1.0 foot of the sedimentary unit is generally clayey and weathered. Below the weathered zone, the sedimentary unit is dense and well cemented. Regionally, the Pleistocene sands are considered flat -lying and are underlain by Eocene -age sedimentary rock units commonly designated as the Torrey Sandstone /Santiago Formation on published geologic maps. Expansive Soil Based on our experience in the area and testing of selected samples, the fill deposits and Pleistocene sands reflect an expansion potential in the low range. Ground Water No evidence of perched or high ground water tables were noted during exploration. However, the Pleistocene terrace deposits contain varying amounts of clay which could result in perched seepage conditions. It is possible that seepage problems can develop Coast Geotechnical December 6, 2001 W.O. P- 345111 - Page 10 after completion of construction. These seepage problems most often result from drainage alterations, landscaping and over - irrigation. In the event that seepage or saturated ground does occur, it has been our experience that they are most effectively handled on an individual basis. Tectonic Setting The site is located within the seismically active southern California region which is generally characterized by northwest trending Quaternary-age fault zones. Several of these fault zones and fault segments are classified as active by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act). Based on a review of published geologic maps, no known faults transverse the site. The nearest active fault is the offshore Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 3.2 miles west of the site. It should be noted that the Rose Canyon Fault is not a continuous, well- defined feature but rather a zone of right stepping en echelon faults. The complex series of faults has been referred to as the Offshore Zone of Deformation (Woodward - Clyde, 1979) and is not fully understood. Several studies suggest that the Newport - Inglewood and the Rose Canyon faults are a continuous zone of en echelon faults (Treiman, 1984). Further studies along the complex offshore zone of faulting may indicate a potentially greater seismic risk than current data suggests. Other faults which could affect the site include the Coronado Bank, Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas Coast Geotechnical December 6, 2001 W.O. P- 345111 Page 11 Faults. The proximity of major faults to the site and site parameters are shown on the enclosed Earthquake Fault Analysis. Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a process by which a sand mass loses its shearing strength completely and flows. The temporary transformation of the material into a fluid mass is often associated with ground motion resulting from an earthquake. Owing to the moderately dense nature of the Pleistocene terrace deposits and the anticipated depth to ground water, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction and soil instability is considered low. CONCLUSIONS 1) The subject property is located in an area that is relatively free of potential geologic hazards such as landsliding, liquefaction, high ground water conditions and seismically induced subsidence. 2) The year and purpose of the grading observed on the site is unknown. However, the existing fill was not adequately mixed and was placed in a dry condition over natural soil. The non - documented fill is subject to consolidation where loads are imposed and to erosion or failure along slopes under saturated conditions. Coast Geotechnical December 6, 2001 W.O. P- 345111 Page 12 3) The existing fill should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill. The fill should be keyed and benched into the underlying Pleistocene terrace deposits. Cut /fill transitions should be undercut and replaced with compacted fill in building areas. 4) The other alternative, if the existing fill is left in place, would require supporting fill slopes with retaining walls and extending proposed footings into the underlying terrace deposits. However, interior and exterior slabs would still be subject to differential settlement. Additional recommendations will be necessary, if this alternative is chosen. RECOMMENDATIONS Grading A 12 foot wide key excavated a minimum of 2.0 feet (along the outside edge) into competent terrace deposits should be constructed along the base of the proposed fill slopes. A subdrain should be constructed along the back of the key for the fill slopes, except in the location of the proposed subterranean garage (See attached Key, Benching and Subdrain Detail, Plate A). All fill should be benched into the underlying competent terrace deposits. The cut /fill transitional building pad should be undercut a minimum of 3.0 feet and replaced as properly compacted fill. Removals should include the entire building pad extending a minimum of 10.0 feet beyond the building footprint. The Coast Geotechnical December 6, 2001 W.O. P- 345111 Page 13 existing earth deposits are generally suitable for reuse, provided they are cleaned of all roots, vegetation, debris and rocks larger than 6.0 inches, and thoroughly mixed. Fill should be placed in 6.0 to 8.0 inch loose lifts, moistened as required to 1.0 -2.0 percent above optimum moisture, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory _ maximum dry density. Cut and fill slopes should be constructed at a maximum gradient of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Additional recommendations will be presented should any unforeseen conditions be encountered during grading. Imported fill, if necessary, should be approved by this firm. The proposed driveway should be scarified a minimum of 12 inches and compacted in the manner indicated above. Additional recommendations for driveway subgrade preparation and pavement section design will be necessary during the grading phase. Temporary Slopes/Excavation Characteristics Temporary excavations which exceed a vertical height of 3.5 feet should be trimmed to a gradient of 3[4;1 (horizontal to vertical) or less. Based on our experience, the terrace deposits are rippable with conventional heavy grading equipment in good working order. Foundations The following design parameters are based on an anticipated expansion potential in the low range. Footings for the proposed residence and garage should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and founded a minimum of 12 and 18 inches below the lower most adjacent Coast Geotechnical December 6, 2001 W.O. P- 345111 - Page 14 subgrade at the time of foundation construction for single -story and two -story structures, respectively. A 12 inch by 12 inch grade beam should be placed across the garage opening. Footings should be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 bars, two along the top of the footing and two along the base. Footing recommendations provided herein are based upon underlying soil conditions and are not intended to be in lieu of the project structural engineer's design. For design purposes, an allowable bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used for foundations at the recommended footing depths. The bearing value indicated above is for the total dead and frequently applied live loads. This value may be increased by 33 percent for short durations of loading, including the effects of wind and seismic forces. Resistance to lateral load may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead- load forces. A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth of approved fill penetrated to a maximum of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used. Slabs on Grade (Interior and Exterior) Slabs on grade should be a minimum of 4.0 inches thick and reinforced in both directions with No. 3 bars placed 18 inches on center in both directions. The slab should Coast Geotechnical December 6, 2001 W.O. P- 345111 °- Page 15 be underlain by a minimum 4.0 -inch clean sand blanket. Where moisture sensitive floors are used, a minimum 6.0 -mil Visqueen or equivalent moisture barrier should be located in the center of the sand blanket. Utility trenches underlying the slab may be backfilled with on -site materials, compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Slabs including exterior concrete flatwork should be reinforced as indicated above and provided with saw cuts /expansion joints, as recommended by the project structural engineer. All slabs should be cast over dense compacted subgrades. Retaining Walls The following soil parameters may be used in the design of new walls. Cantilever walls (yielding) retaining nonexpansive granular soils may be designed for an active - equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained walls (nonyielding) should be designed for an "at- rest" equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations. All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate backdrainage system (Miradrain 6000 or equivalent is suggested). The soil parameters assume a level granular backfill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Settlement Characteristics Estimated total and differential settlement is expected to be on the order of 3/4 inch and 1/2 inch, respectively. It should also be noted that long term secondary settlement due to irrigation and loads imposed by structures is anticipated to be 1/4 inch. Coast Geotechnical December 6, 2001 W.O. P- 345111 Page 16 Seismic Considerations Although the likelihood of ground rupture on the site is remote, the property will be exposed to moderate to high levels of ground motion resulting from the release of energy should an earthquake occur along the numerous known and unknown faults in the region. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is the nearest known active fault and is considered the design earthquake for the site. A maximum probable event along the offshore segment of the Rose Canyon Fault is expected to produce a peak bedrock horizontal acceleration of 0.44g and a repeatable ground acceleration of 0.298. Seismic Design Parameters (1997 Uniform Building Code) Soil Profile Type - S, Seismic Zone - 4 Seismic Source - Type B Near Source Factor (NJ - 1.2 Near source Acceleration Factor (Na) - 1.0 Seismic Coefficients C =0.40 C, = 0.67 Design Response Spectrum T = 0.670 T = 0.134 Utility Trench We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand to at least one foot above the Coast Geotechnical December 6, 2001 W.O. P- 345111 Page 17 top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids around the conduit. Imported or on -site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding. The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the _ invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing away from one another. Drainage Specific drainage patterns should be designed by the project architect or engineer. However, in general, pad water should be directed away from foundations and around the structure to the street. Roof water should be collected and conducted to hardscape or the street, via non - erodible devices. Pad water should not be allowed to pond or flow onto slopes. Vegetation adjacent to foundations should be avoided. If vegetation in these areas is desired, sealed planter boxes or drought resistant plants should be considered. Other alternatives may be available, however, the intent is to reduce moisture from migrating into foundation subsoils. Irrigation should be limited to that amount necessary to sustain plant life. All drainage systems should be inspected and cleaned annually, prior to winter rains. Coast Geotechnical December 6, 2001 W.O. P- 345111 Page 18 Geotechnical Observations Structural footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm, prior to the placement of steel and forms. All fill should be placed while a representative of the geotechnical engineer is present to observe and test. Plan Review A copy of the final plans should be submitted to this office for review prior to the initiation of construction. Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time. LIMITATIONS This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the owner's representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to the attention of the project's architects and /or engineers so that they may be incorporated into plans. If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those described in this report, our office should be notified so that we may consider whether modifications are needed. No responsibility for construction compliance with design concepts, specifications or recommendations given in this report is assumed unless on -site review is performed during the course of construction. The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure described Coast Geotechnical December 6, 2001 W.O. P- 345111 Page 19 herein are based on individual exploratory excavations made on the subject property. The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure discussed should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur among the exploratory excavations. Please note that fluctuations in the level of ground water may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported herein. Coast Geotechnical assumes no responsibility for variations which may occur across the site. The conclusions and recommendations of this report apply as of the current date. In time, however, changes can occur on a property whether caused by acts of man or nature on this or adjoining properties. Additionally, changes in professional standards may be brought about by legislation or the expansion of knowledge. Consequently, the conclusions and recommendations of this report may be rendered wholly or partially invalid by events beyond our control. This report is therefore subject to review and should not be relied upon after the passage of two years. The professional judgments presented herein are founded partly on our assessment of the technical data gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. However, in no respect do we guarantee the outcome of the project. Coast Geotechnical December 6, 2001 W.O. P- 345111 Page 20 REFERENCES 1. Hays, Walter W., 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1114, 77 pages. 2. Petersen, Mark D. and others (DMG), Frankel, Arthur D. and others (USGS), 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, _ California Division of Mines and Geology OFR 96 -08, United States Geological Survey OFR 96 -706. _ 3. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1970, A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential: Earthquake Engineering Research Center. _ 4. Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Plate 35D, Open -File Report 95 -04, Map Scale 1:24,000. 5. Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, A Review and Analysis, California Division of Mines and Geology. MAPS /AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 1. Aerial Photograph, 1982, Foto -Map D -9, Scale 1 "= 2000'. 2. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California, Scale 1 "= 750,000'. 3. County of San Diego, 1960 and 1975, Topographic /Orthophoto Survey Map, Sheet No. 330 -1677, Scale 1" =200'. 4. Scott, Warren, 2001, Site Plan, 1119 Eolus Avenue, Encinitas, California, Scale 1" =10'. 5. U.S.G.S., 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Topographic Map, Encinitas, Digitized, Variable Scale. 6. Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, 1996, DMG Open File Report 96 -02. - APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE I Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (Laboratory Standard ASTM D- 1557 -91) - Sample Max. Dry Optimum Location Density (pcf) Moisture Content T -1 @ 1' -4' 129.0 11.0 TABLE II Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Sample Field Dry Field Moisture Relative Location Density (pcf) Content (%) Compaction (o) - T -1 @ 1.5' 105.5 3.0 82 T -1 @ 3.0' 104.1 3.1 81 T -1 @ 5.0' 104.8 3.6 81 T -1 @ 7.0' Sample Disturbed 3.3 -- T-1 @ 9.0' 112.9 6.2 Terrace Deposits T -2 @ 1.5' 104.2 3.2 81 T -2 @ 3.5' 115.1 5.9 Terrace Deposits B -1 @ 2.0' 101.2 3.0 78 B -1 @ 3.5' Lost Sample B -1 @ 5.0' Lost Sample B -2 @ 1.0' 98.1 2.8 76 B -2 @ 3.0' Lost Sample TABLE III Direct Shear Test Results Soil Type Angle of Apparent Cohesion Internal Friction 0 sf T -1 @ 1' -4' 31 Degrees 55 Remolded P- 345111 _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH NO. 1 PROJECT NO. P-3451 11 DATE EXCAVATED: 11- 13-01 SURFACE ELEV.: 499' U LOGGED BY: MB DESCRIPTION 0 .00 -grained sand, dry, blocky, roots, SM FILL (af): Reddish bm. fine and med. 498.00 plastic debris 105.5 3.0 497.00 104.8 3.6 0 6.00 (U 492.00 SM SOIL (Qs): Bm.silty and fine-grained sand, organic, dry, loose, roots to Ulf 0 490.00 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Reddish brn., fine and med.-grained sand, 0 489.00 z 10.00 slightly clayey in upper 1.0' 488.00 From 10', very dense TOTAL DEPTH 12' 487.00 m TRENCH SKETCH �0 � af ' - ` � 5 ° - PiPe ~_ Qt � _ | px//E | OF / COAST GEOTECHN|CAL ( LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH NO.2 PROJECT NO. P- 345111 a DATE EXCAVATED: 11 -13 -01 0 x z SURFACE ELEV.: 499' LOGGED BY: MB A 499.00 DESCRIPTION 0 !7 SM FILL (af): Reddish bm. fine and med.- grained sand, dry, blocky, plastic t 7 - j� debris 498.00 : 1.00 104.2 3.2 O : 497.00 _ _ 3 2.00 : SM SOIL (Qs): Brn.silty and fine - grained sand, organic, dry, loose r SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Reddish bm., fine and med.- grained sand, C7 496.00 ;j- :•;Y slightly clayey in upper 1.0' 0 3.00 :g 115.1 5.9 495.00 4.00 MA Mii TOTAL DEPTH 4.5' ...- TRENCH SKETCH 15' - -- - ; I of PAOF 1 01: 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 1 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P- 345111 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 11 -06 -01 SURFACE ELEV.: 486' LOGGED BY: MB Z .. U v� U ¢ W U A U DESCRIPTION 486.00 o.00 �.0. SM FILL (af): Reddish brn. fine and in sand, dry, blocky t. .H.N. .H.N. :q:q: _ 485.00 1.00 94 at Note: Sampling very difficult due to dry, hard condition of fill 484.00 e 101.2 3.0 'b 2.00 a� .7: O H From 2.5', Brown silty and fine - grained sand probable soil zone XI I d 483.00 3.00 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan to Reddish brn., fine and med.- grained 0 5 sand O tfNt M Lost Sample -j f tL 482.00 4.00 �t n; uaw! a1 r }r {5x1:1 :•: 481.00 �hM`rib Lost Sample 5.00 End of Boring @ 5.5' Page 1 of 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NOS. 2 & 3 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P- 345111 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 11 -06 -01 SURFACE ELEV.: 499' LOGGED BY: MB F z � z U CIO z ¢ w Cn � O pCnpqq Cn Ln Q P A O 499.00 DESCRIPTION 0.00 SM FILL (af): Reddish brn. fine and med.- grained sand, dry, blocky L. [. .8 J: 1. :q :q 498.00 ?; 98.1 3.0 1.00 A: 497.00 2.00 :.H b :ti7:t7: 1:: 496.00 : = Note: Sampling very difficult due to 3 3.00 p g �' l d dry, hard condition of fill : L.L. Lost Sample - M- cjUX 0 �.�. : q : q . _ z : -3:3: .1 .1 . 495.00 : = 4.00 = Unable to penetrate fill with sampler :� 1: Aq_ Note: Boring moved 12' to the south B -3 :b :3: • . Unable to penetrate fill deposits with sampler 494.00 5.00 3. Ad: :}J:U: : H : H. �• End of Boring @ 6.0' 493.00 1 6.00 Page IofI COAST GEOTECHNICAL A A - 505' PROPpSED WALL I -� �-495� 11 485' COAST GEOTECHNICAL, P- 345111 APPENDIX B CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP SCOTT 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 i 100 ♦�� o SI 0 -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 * * * U B C S E I S * * - * Version 1.03 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: P- 345111 DATE: 11 -19 -2001 JOB NAME: SCOTT FAULT - DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0645 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2954 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SC NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE- JULIAN DISTANCE: 43.6 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ROSE CANYON DISTANCE: 5.1 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: DISTANCE: 99999.0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: _ Na: 1.0 Nv: 1.2 Ca: 0.40 Cv: 0.67 _ Ts: 0.670 To: 0.134 --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------- - - - - -- Page I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I(A,B,C)I (Mw) I (mm /yr) I (SS,DS,BT) ROSE CANYON I 5.1 I B I 6.9 I 1.50 I SS NEWPORT - INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I 16.1 I B I 6.9 I 1.50 I SS CORONADO BANK I 29.5 I B I 7.4 I 3.00 I SS ELSINORE- JULIAN I 43.6 I A I 7.1 I 5.00 I SS ELSINORE- TEMECULA I 43.6 I B I 6.8 I 5.00 I SS ELSINORE -GLEN IVY I 64.5 I B I 6.8 I 5.00 I SS PALOS VERDES I 64.6 I B I 7.1 I 3.00 I SS EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 67.8 I B I 6.5 I 2.00 I SS SAN JACINTO -ANZA I 80.4 I A I 7.2 ( 12.00 I SS SAN JACINTO -SAN JACINTO VALLEY I 83.0 I B I 6.9 I 12.00 I SS NEWPORT - INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I 83.9 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I SS - SAN JACINTO- COYOTE CREEK I 85.4 I B I 6.8 I 4.00 I SS CHINO - CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I 87.1 I B I 6.7 I 1.00 I DS ELSINORE- COYOTE MOUNTAIN I 87.7 I B I 6.8 I 4.00 I SS ELSINORE - WHITTIER I 93.4 I B I 6.8 I 2.50 I SS SAN JACINTO - BORREGO I 103.7 I B I 6.6 I 4.00 I SS SAN JACINTO -SAN BERNARDINO I 106.0 I B I 6.7 I 12.00 I SS SAN ANDREAS - Southern I 111.9 I A I 7.4 I 24.00 I SS SAN JOSE I 120.5 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS PINTO MOUNTAIN I 122.7 I B I 7.0 I 2.50 I SS CUCAMONGA I 124.7 I A I 7.0 i 5.00 I DS SIERRA MADRE (Central) I 124.8 I B I 7.0 I 3.00 I DS SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) I 128.2 I B I 6.6 I 5.00 I SS BURNT MTN. I 130.1 I B I 6.5 I 0.60 I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I 132.3 I B I 7.0 I 1.00 I DS ELMORE RANCH I 134.3 I B I 6.6 I 1.00 I SS EUREKA PEAK I 134.5 I B I 6.5 I 0.60 I SS CLEGHORN I 134.6 I B I 6.5 I 3.00 I SS SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) I 135.9 I B I 6.6 I 4.00 I SS ELSINORE - LAGUNA SALADA I 137.0 I B I 7.0 I 3.50 I SS - NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I 139.1 I B I 6.7 I 0.50 I DS RAYMOND I 139.3 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS CLAMSHELL - SAWPIT I 139.9 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture I 140.3 I A I 7.8 I 34.00 I SS VERDUGO I 143.1 I B I 6.7 I 0.50 I DS HOLLYWOOD I 146.1 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I DS LANDERS I 147.1 I B I 7.3 I 0.60 I SS HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT I 150.6 I B I 7.1 I 0.60 I SS BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 151.3 I B I 6.5 I 25.00 I SS SANTA MONICA I 153.4 I B I 6.6 I 1.00 I DS LENWOOD - LOCKHART -OLD WOMAN SPRGS I 156.0 I B I 7.3 I 0.60 I SS MALIBU COAST I 157.6 I B I 6.7 I 0.30 I DS EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. I 159.5 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 I SS JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I 160.2 I B I 6.7 I 0.60 I SS IMPERIAL I 161.8 I A I 7.0 I 20.00 I SS SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) I 163.9 I B I 6.7 I 2.00 I DS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------- - - - - -- Page 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE w - FAULT NAME I ( km) I (A, B, C) I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) ANACAPA -DUME I 165.8 I B I 7.3 I 3.00 I DS SAN GABRIEL I 166.9 I B I 7.0 I 1.00 I SS PISGAH- BULLION MTN.- MESQUITE LK I 169.1 I B I 7.1 I 0.60 i SS _ CALICO - HIDALGO I 173.1 I B I 7.1 I 0.60 I SS SANTA SUSANA I 1 I B I 6.6 I 5.00 I DS HOLSER I 188.1 I B I 6.5 I 0.40 I DS SIMI -SANTA ROSA I 195.4 I B I 6.7 I 1.00 I DS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) I 196.3 I B I 6.9 I 4.00 I DS GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE I 204.1 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 I SS SAN CAYETANO I 204.8 I B I 6.8 I 6.00 I DS BLACKWATER I 219.4 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 I SS - VENTURA - PITAS POINT I 223.3 I B I 6.8 I 1.00 I DS SANTA YNEZ (East) I 224.6 I B I 7.0 I 2.00 I SS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND I 231.0 I B I 6.8 I 1.00 I DS M.RIDGE- ARROYO PARIDA -SANTA ANA I 234.1 I B I 6.7 I 0.40 I DS RED MOUNTAIN ( 237.2 I B I 6.8 I 2.00 I DS GARLOCK (West) I 241.3 I A I 7.1 I 6.00 I SS PLEITO THRUST I 246.4 I B I 6.8 I 2.00 I DS _ BIG PINE I 252.1 I B I 6.7 I 0.80 I SS GARLOCK (East) I 256.0 I A I 7.3 I 7.00 I SS SANTA ROSA ISLAND I 265.7 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I DS WHITE WOLF ( 267.2 I B I 7.2 I 2.00 I DS - SANTA YNEZ (West) I 269.0 I B I 6.9 I 2.00 I SS So. SIERRA NEVADA I 280.4 I B I 7.1 I 0.10 I DS LITTLE LAKE I 285.0 I B I 6.7 I 0.70 I SS OWL LAKE I 285.3 I B I 6.5 I 2.00 I SS PANAMINT VALLEY I 285.6 I B I 7.2 I 2.50 I SS TANK CANYON I 286.6 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 i DS DEATH VALLEY (South) I 2 I B I 6.9 I 4.00 I SS LOS ALAMOS -W. BASELINE I 311.0 I B I 6.8 I 0.70 I DS - LIONS HEAD ( 328.7 I B I 6.6 I 0.02 I DS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) I 335.6 I B I 6.9 I 4.00 I DS SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) I 338.5 I B I 7.0 I 0.20 I DS SAN JUAN I 339.6 I B ( 7.0 I 1.00 I SS CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) I 346.8 I B I 6.5 I 0.25 I DS OWENS VALLEY I 353.5 I B I 7.6 I 1.50 I SS LOS OSOS I 368.6 I B I 6.8 I 0.50 I DS HOSGRI I 374.3 i B I 7.3 I 2.50 I SS HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY I 379.7 I B I 7.0 ( 2.50 I SS DEATH VALLEY (Northern) I 389.2 I A I 7.2 I 5.00 I SS INDEPENDENCE I 389.3 I B I 6.9 I 0.20 I DS RINCONADA I 389.7 I B I 7.3 I 1.00 I SS BIRCH CREEK I 445.7 I B I 6.5 I 0.70 I DS SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) I 446.4 I B I 5.0 I 34.00 I SS WHITE MOUNTAINS I 450.2 I B I 7.1 I 1.00 I SS DEEP SPRINGS I 468.7 ( B I 6.6 I 0.80 I DS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------- - - - - -- Page 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I(A,B,C)I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) I 473.7 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 I SS ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.) I 480.7 I B I 6.8 I 1.00 I DS FISH SLOUGH I 488.6 I B I 6.6 I 0.20 I DS HILTON CREEK I 506.9 I B I 6.7 I 2.50 I DS ORTIGALITA I 530.9 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I SS HARTLEY SPRINGS I 531.2 I B I 6.6 I 0.50 I DS CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) I 536.4 I B I 6.2 I 15.00 I SS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS I 538.8 I B I 7.1 I 0.50 I DS PALO COLORADO - SUR I 539.6 I B I 7.0 I 3.00 I SS QUIEN SABE I 549.6 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I SS MONO LAKE I 567.1 I B I 6.6 I 2.50 I DS ZAYANTE- VERGELES I 568.1 I B I 6.8 I 0.10 I SS SAN ANDREAS (1906) I 573.3 I A I 7.9 I 24.00 I SS SARGENT I 573.5 I B I 6.8 I 3.00 I SS ROBINSON CREEK I 598.4 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS SAN GREGORIO I 614.2 I A I 7.3 I 5.00 I SS GREENVILLE I 623.3 I B I 6.9 I 2.00 I SS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON I 623.6 I B I 6.5 I 0.40 I DS HAYWARD (SE Extension) I 623.7 I B I 6.5 I 3.00 I SS ANTELOPE VALLEY I 638.8 I B I 6.7 I 0.80 I DS HAYWARD (Total Length) I 643.5 I A I 7.1 I 9.00 I SS CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) I 643.5 I B I 6.8 I 6.00 I SS GENOA I 664.1 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I DS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY I 691.3 I B I 6.9 I 6.00 I SS RODGERS CREEK I 730.0 I A I 7.0 I 9.00 I SS WEST NAPA I 730.9 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I SS POINT REYES I 748.8 I B I 6.8 I 0.30 I DS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA I 753.5 I B I 6.9 I 6.00 I SS MAACAMA (South) I 792.8 I B I 6.9 I 9.00 I SS COLLAYOMI I 809.7 I B I 6.5 I 0.60 ( SS BARTLETT SPRINGS I 813.3 I A I 7.1 I 6.00 I SS MAACAMA (Central) I 834.4 I A I 7.1 I 9.00 I SS MAACAMA (North) I 894.0 I A I 7.1 I 9.00 I SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) I 900.2 I B I 6.8 I 6.00 I SS BATTLE CREEK I 923.9 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS LAKE MOUNTAIN I 958.7 I B I 6.7 I 6.00 I SS GARBERVILLE - BRICELAND I 975.8 I B I 6.9 I 9.00 I SS _ MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1 1032.0 I A I 7.4 I 35.00 I DS LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1 1038.8 I A I 7.0 i 5.00 I DS MAD RIVER 1 1041.6 I B I 7.1 I 0.70 I DS CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1 1045.7 I A I 8.3 I 35.00 I DS McKINLEYVILLE 1 1052.0 I B I 7.0 I 0.60 I DS TRINIDAD 1 1053.6 I B I 7.3 I 2.50 I DS FICKLE HILL 1 1054.0 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 I DS TABLE BLUFF 1 1059.4 I B I 7.0 I 0.60 I DS LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) 1 1072.7 I B I 7.1 I 1.00 I DS O d' U � LO M � a ` o LO N O O O O � LZ � N `n LO w ' � o � o w o Q o LO o LO o LO o N N (6) uoijeaapooy lealoads APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES _ Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of the governing agencies, Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, the geotechnical report and the guidelines presented below. All of the guidelines may not apply to a specific site and - additional recommendations may be necessary during the grading phase. - Site Clearing _ Trees, dense vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the site. Non - organic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas under direction of the Soils engineer. Subdrainage 1. During grading, the Geologist and Soils Engineer should evaluate the necessity of placing additional drains (see Plate A). 2. All subdrainage systems should be observed by the Geologist and Soils Engineer during construction and prior to covering with compacted fill. 3. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project surveyors. Outlets should be located and protected. Treatment of Existing Ground 1. All heavy vegetation, rubbish and other deleterious materials should be disposed of off site. 2. All surficial deposits including alluvium and colluvium should be removed unless otherwise indicated in the text of this report. Groundwater existing in the alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months. 3. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards. Fill Placement 1. Most site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see report). Highly organic or contaminated soil should not be used for compacted fill. - (1) 2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by the Soils Engineer. 3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that acceptable to the Soils engineer, the Contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the _ following: _ a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre - watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. b) Each six inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In this case, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D- 1557 -91. 4. Side -hill fills should have a minimum equipment -width key at their toe excavated through all surficial soil and into competent material (see report) and tilted back into the hill (Plate A). As the fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial deposits and into competent bedrock or other material deemed suitable by the Soils Engineer. 5. Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets; — b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine - grained material to surround the rocks; c) The distribution of the rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer. _ 6. Rocks greater than six inches in diameter should be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. 7. In clay soil large chunks or blocks are common; if in excess of six (6) inches minimum dimension then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot _ compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break the up blocks. (2) 8. The Contractor should be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. In addition, if a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Finish grade testing of the slope should be performed after construction is complete. Each day the Contractor should receive a copy of the Soils Engineer's "Daily Field Engineering Report" which would indicate the results of field density tests that day. - 9. Fill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner: a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the cut -fill interface. b) A key at least 1 equipment width wide (see report) and tipped at least 1 foot into slope should be excavated into competent materials and observed by the Soils Engineer or his representative. c) The cut portion of the slope should be constructed prior to fill placement to evaluate if stabilization is necessary, the contractor should be responsible for any additional earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut excavation. 10. Transition lots (cut and fill) and lots above stabilization fills should be capped with a four foot thick compacted fill blanket (or as indicated in the report). 11. Cut pads should be observed by the Geologist to evaluate the need for overexcavation and replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water infiltration into highly fractured bedrock or other permeable zones,and /or due to _ differing expansive potential of materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation may be recommended in some cases. (3) 12. Exploratory backhoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. Grading Observation and Testing 1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. 2. In general, density tests would be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the fill. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate if the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained. 3. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as required by the Soils Engineer. — 4. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations,subdrains and rock disposal should be observed by the Soils Engineer prior to placing any fill. It will be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for observation. 5. A Geologist should observe subdrain construction. 6. A Geologist should observe benching prior to and during placement of fill. Utility Trench Backfill — Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards: 1. Ninety percent of the laboratory standard if native material is used as backfill. 2. As an alternative, clean sand may be utilized and flooded into place. No specific relative compaction would be required; however, observation, probing, and if deemed necessary, testing may be required. 3. Exterior trenches, paralleling a footing and extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless it is similar to the inplace fill, should not be allowed in these trench backfill areas. Density testing along with probing should be accomplished to verify the desired results. (4) COMPACTED PILL TOPSOIL- SLOPEWASN _ PRE-EXISTING GRADE 1:1 PROJECTION S' MINIMUM j \ \/1 ���\ j�� ; ! . /./ 1. ♦i .�i '�\ \ice \/ � �`� I \ � i 1 ♦ / � �h 1 / i l � li\ j / \ �i \ � \� • ��\ 1� j Rte\ �/� � /\ tom• 45' M INIMUM \ 1 `I /\ `'` \ /�/ /'` /il / \ 1 ` ` /` /\ I \'1 / ♦� i\ \ ♦i \ / °-- , � %�i�;�` �j /����\��\ Dili \1� \� /���.� /� j \ �� \!��i�! \ 1�� � � /•' 00 MIN. OVERLA CLEAN GRAVEL 1 d• MIN. atuAt. MIN.) ��, �\ COVER 4* 0 ( 4* 0 4' NONPERFORATEO NON - PERFORATED .� �� PERFORATED PpE LATERAL TO PIP PIPE SLOPE FACE AT 100• - IS x � T INTERVALS FILTER FABRIC MIN. MIN. : _ ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 4 40 IN 140N OR APPROVED EOUIVALENT)* _ SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL _ KEY, BENCHING AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL PLATE A LO U) C M °D LO a ix r r r U z a ( � a I � o I � I � I 1 ^ y a ^ H i 0 1, U LQ � cn Fs ¢ m i O I� h . .............. �Te� CD Z C6 2k q I C1 I T ���151OI� 7F.r�� 1 1�� ♦R4 /_ ..._.�� ��� � _ ' i 0 o V� �• 'I r� c� e� ICI o—. .. O cd Z E c, . rn I zz w a a ul wv G„7 y I 1 ' ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Capital Improvement Projects Ciq of District Support Services Encinitas Field Operations Sand Replenishment /Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering April 6, 2004 Attn: Western Surety Company ({ C/o USI San Diego 12348 High Bluff Drive L C Suite 110 San Diego, California 92130 + / RE: Warren and Cheryl Scott CDP 01 -271 APN 254- 392 -18 Grading Permit 7347 -G Final release of security Permit 7347 -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 58604952, in the amount of $12,160.00, 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 Ja Le ach Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Scott, Warren and Cheryl 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 `adanov� Ot 074W 1. dwg - m m 0 z . A m A VENUE z 15 °4330 "W D ql ' CII z # � 9( tx r i N \ SQ \ All QA N CY) r o - I rTl PO _ cp 0 r n � G rrl + 1 zt � 1 D• p, t Z �,° ao - � Ln ° I ! I ` t tn a � Cb IV 0 2J'30 "W 1 08 82' rm O \ Q r _ oo r 38 --- (Z:) 4 �S J \\ CC► "WI0 �7 \.` ~ �` .. .. .. .. . . . . o � ' m Now —i `r' r• — m D Z N G7 O ( Oz N � N O O O N _Z w < _ 0 �iy D (n N20-18'16"W +/- 184.73' 2 f, �Q z ice. C W Lij Z n Lli w O _ LLJ ct V. 0 0 .1 W c , co -- W N _ - - o t� M« 0 f , 60N 0 0 _ �1t z bo Q � Q Q y 0 v o a. J Ct)�+ Z � a p aoW Q (CZ � � �9h' - o a • CL ('� _ - Q LIR t— v 3 + r wm g'o �d8 nn d 2 I t U J Q 7 O. d �C- Li CD w � � o � 0 L-L, W C�� X s a , rn U-1 = C � o h L CL o z CL Ln 0 Q Q Wz N 4iZm a �W B � Lo o C� r � Z �v Q0 LLJ O ^�3 a O a� k W W r� Z \ 0 Ca ".. cr_u Z Q N w W w I T - -J Q 2 O C , O� c s .Q _ - - c O f Q C1 p - _- QQ G � z W m 0 . 9 I Apt -- —_ -- I - - - - — I -- w U Z W W 3n N3A V 0 w O cn Z O Fn W mp zojo\uowapv,:d Ln O m o Ln t t z 3 OM a � 1 � � 1 I II � I ; A li a I un i y l a � o r 1■�I En CZ [•-� � ce as w � es I� ` 3 _ Q r ♦ J- - 1 - (YJ . r` IN M 1 40 - =� • j '� ,,,rte N ;. f 0 o V� �� . — ''• cc -+0 A z z o w � au�� K , M.y v z E'' zw �aa ° r- L7 M1 1 `` )r L\ W as _ N LL- Z O 1 0 C� N z S W b„ Q W > "Moo for c;i r v► „� N20 0 18'16 "W + 184.73 = u C2, j 7:Z W CL Li LJ ` a w Q C _`''` - -_ �` 1 a z J W C� S7 W 01) t �� � _ �•�� -- _ - __ . __ ---- �_--- ._�._�� r n e r g - - . Q �- 3 �' --- — -- -- -- -- - - - - -- -- _ L.t.J o0 t2i 121 L z .... = �� • � -� �- -�-- -- ------- _._ -- - - -- V � ~--- __- ._,�,�` �-.._ O W Ol 41 0j , Cl- 1 • 9 . - -- - -_ _ Q L-A� -- - > q, ci o a 0 0 Q 4. W ' � p � Z ib r � � V D— v Z5 �, (h (Y_ CL' m 2 U� v a - LIS Qt:: �- _. C) M� 1 C '� - - -- v lo a LLJ - ao 1 / i / w Lc) LJ W 6 .c u 1 � �- Z 0 � • �. � � \ _ _ � _ fi �► W -_ > cn W N e -- _ --- _- a ers 6t/ z w LAJ 0 w z / w w 3nN3A 0 W 0 C LL Q U? z O ` w 't Lpjo � N O O V z +� Z w Q W cr- TL W 184.73 a o O N20 18 „ 16 cry z Z W ;V W h Z D � p , z W x Li -- - -- z J LLJ Q) Lij _ Q I -- N _ o Z8 80t _ _ N / of, .60N a[ Q z o a �-j a Q 3� o Q o 4 U-S a Q� V � z O rn �. gd - • O$ NQ � CL- ( J) LL- Q�- C� d _ m LLJ v _ a N z _ � W � U o S ao o - iLo Lai va' a o Q�� Cl- 0 Z v C o a ° W _ Q a SD W q - -, Ln a g - o W Q 03 r) o U 3 Z a O Ld a w U _ � r� z CS T U o ...a......, m v z �W QN�� o- W - z z z to U Z Q 2 K c� o �xm U � 22 _ cr-- c N V Q O _ Ct V L - -- ry 2 U W d zz J o 91N - lky w V) w • U z W 3nN3 snio3 W Li _ _ o 0 w O Q 0 04 1 Of I I I I I . W mp'l d i►ZOIO\ UOwnpo� :d