Loading...
2005-9341 G/I CZ p NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ty .� Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep lenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering December 19, 2006 Attn: Wells Fargo Bank 262 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Nicole Gasperoni 454 Bristol Road APN 260-282-15 Grading Permit 9341-I (CS-508) Final release of security Permit 9341-1 authorized improvements for sewer main extension, public road, and drainage improvements, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has finaled this project. Therefore, release of the remaining security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account# 3000548598 in the amount of$16,980.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns,please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sin c ly, Debra Geisha / y L bach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Nicole Gasperoni 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 CZ of 1VGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering December 19, 2006 Attn: Wells Fargo Bank 262 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Nicole Gasperoni 454 Bristol Road APN 260-282-15 Grading Permit 9341-I(CS-508) Final release of security Permit 9341-I authorized improvements for sewer main extension,public road, and drainage improvements, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has finaled this project. Therefore, release of the remaining security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account#3000548606 in the amount of$5,660.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns,please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sincerely, � 4ayembach ha Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Nicole Gasperoni 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 NGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT City O� Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering December 19, 2006 Attn: Wells Fargo Bank 262 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Nicole Gasperoni 454 Bristol Road APN 260-282-15 Grading Permit 9341-GI Final release of security Permit 9341-GI authorized earthwork,private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has finaled this project. Therefore, release of the remaining security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account#3000548622 in the amount of$10,409.98. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sin rely, Debra Geish y Le Bach Engineering echnician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Nicole Gasperoni Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 q0 recycled paper a CZty O ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering March 13, 2006 Attn: Wells Fargo Bank 262 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Nicole Gasperoni 454 Bristol Road APN 260-282-15 Grading Permit 9341-GI Partial release of security Permit 9341-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved rough grade. Therefore, release of a portion of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account#3000548614 in the amount of$31,229.95. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Since ely, Z Q )inance Debra Geis bach Engineerin Technician Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Nicole Gasperoni Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Fncinicas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper a COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS April 1, 2005 Nicole Gasperoni S c/o Warren Scott Warren Scott Architecture ----� 4405 Manchester Avenue, Suite 101 `:CES Encinitas , CA 92024 RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Residential Addition Parcel 2, Parcel Map No. 10766 454 Bristol Avenue Cardiff, California Dear Ms. Gasperoni: In response to your request and in accordance with our Proposal and Agreement dated January 31, 2005, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation on the subject site for the proposed residential addition. The findings of the investigation, laboratory test results and recommendations for 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 submitte COAST GEOTECEy � � •� � Exh. _ <a �'° ti's o ` r 4,'r 1 (r 1 4 Mark Burwell, C.E.G- 4aytaSinghanet,P. Engineering Geologist Geotechnical Engine i 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION • Proposed Residential Addition Parcel 2,Parcel Map No. 10766 454 Bristol Avenue Cardiff, California Prepared For: Nicole Gasperoni c/o Warren Scott Warren Scott Architecture 4405 Manchester Avenue,Suite 101 Encinitas , CA 92024 April 1, 2005 W.O. P-410034 Prepared By: COAST GEOTECHNICAL 779 Academy Drive Solana Beach, California 92075 TABLE OF CONTENTS VICINITY MAP 4 INTRODUCTION 5 SITE CONDITIONS 5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6 SITE INVESTIGATION 6 LABORATORY TESTING 6 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 8 CONCLUSIONS 1 I RECOMMENDATIONS 12 A. GENERAL 12 B. TEMPORARY SLOPES/SHORING/EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS 12 C. EARTHWORK SHRINKAGE/BULKING 13 D. FOUNDATIONS 13 E. SLABS ON GRADE (INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR) 14 F. RETAINING WALLS 15 G. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS 15 H. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 16 I. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 16 J. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN 17 K. UTILITY TRENCH 17 L. DRAINAGE 18 M. GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS 18 N. PLAN REVIEW 19 LIMITATIONS 19 REFERENCES 21 APPENDICES APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS GRADING PLAN APPENDIX B REGIONAL FAULT MAP SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES p " Topo USAO 5.0 VICINITY MAP w w CO W Z ; 1 MA .C.T i.' .__CARE179YVAL—_ J I 1 I ARV+. E..—. .—}.`. LJ SUBJECT PROPERTY'I a F1 S yF I C�7 Q � KSJivo—P'VE V j `} iso U In MOdJLG.OMEBX i (/iA M 1X VIP 0, EQE3C11 v \% 0 \, n e 1 : Data use subject to license ]�I Ir�o Scal 4,400 ©2004 DeLorme Topo USA(R)5.0. MN(O-E) o p p 3 www delorme corn 1"=366.7 ft Data Zoom 15-5 J Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2005 W.O. P-448025 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 addition. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located west of Oxford Avenue, along the north side of Bristol Road, in the Cardiff district, city of Encinitas. The property includes a single family residence situated near the central portion of a rectangular lot. From the street, the property ascends at a gradient of about 3 '/z:1 (horizontal to vertical) for approximately 5.0 vertical feet. From the top of the slope, the property continues to ascend to the northeast at a gentle grade of about 8.0 percent for an additional 5.0 vertical feet. Relief on the site is approximately 11 vertical feet. A graded driveway is located along the western portion of the site. The site is bounded on the east and west by developed lots. Wood planter boards are present along the front slope and driveway side slope. Vegetation in the front yard area includes a sparse to heavy growth of ice plant and grasses. Drainage is generally by sheet flow to the south. Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2005 W.O. P-448025 Page 6 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Preliminary grading and architectural plans for site development were prepared by Hamada Engineering and Warren W. Scott, Architecture, respectively. The project includes demolition of a portion of the existing residence. A two story addition over a subterranean garage is planned along the south side of the residence. Excavations ranging from 2.3 feet to 8.15 feet are anticipated for garage construction. A segmented (Keystone) wall is planned along the front slope and a new driveway is proposed along the western portion of the lot. SITE INVESTIGATION Site exploration included two (2)exploratory borings drilled to a maximum depth of 15 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. 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. Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2005 W.O. P-448025 Page 7 MoistureQensity 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 and 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 Laboratory Test Results. Shear Test Shear tests were performed in a strain-control type direct shear machine. The rate of 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 enclosed Laboratory Test Results. Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2005 W.O. P-448025 Page 8 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The subject property is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego. The property is underlain at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The terrace deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rocks which have commonly been designated as the Torrey Sandstone on published geologic maps. The terrace deposits are covered, in part, by fill deposits. A brief description of the earth materials encountered on the site follows. Artificial Fill Approximately 2.0 feet ofbrown silty,fine and medium-grained sand was encountered in Boring No. 1. The fill is moist and loose. In Boring No. 2, approximately 6.0 feet of tan to brown sand was encountered. However,below this fill, grey organic fine and medium grained sand is present to the depth explored (14 feet). This material probably represents a backfilled vertical seepage pit for a former private sewage disposal system. Residual Soil Minor residual soil probably overlies the terrace deposits in undisturbed areas of the site. Soil generally consists of brown slightly silty fine and medium-grained sand and is typically moist and loose. Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2005 W.O. P-448025 Page 9 Terrace Deposits Underlying the surficial materials,poorly consolidated Pleistocene terrace deposits are present. The sediments are composed of tan to reddish brown slightly clayey,fine and medium-grained sand. The upper 1.0 to 2.5 feet of the terrace deposits are typically weathered. Below the weathered zone,the terrace deposits are moderately dense but weakly cemented. Regionally, the Pleistocene sands are considered flat-lying and are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rock units. Expansive Soil Based on our experience in the area and previous laboratory testing of selected samples,the residual soil and Pleistocene sands reflect an expansion potential in the low range. Groundwater No evidence of perched or high groundwater tables were encountered to the depth explored. However, it should be noted that seepage problems can develop 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 Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2005 W.O. P-448025 Page 10 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 2.5 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 ofDeformation(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 Faults. The proximity of major faults to the site and site parameters are shown on the enclosed Seismic Design Parameters. 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 Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2005 W.O. P-448025 Page 11 to groundwater,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 groundwater conditions and seismically induced subsidence. 2) The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits are not suitable for the support of structural footings or concrete flatwork. 3) All footings should penetrate surficial deposits and founded the designed depth into competent terrace deposits. Surficial deposits should be removed and replaced as compacted fill, if encountered, in areas of exterior concrete or pavement. 4) In areas where the garage excavation cannot be trimmed back to a safe temporary gradient due to the proximity of existing residential footings,shoring will be required. As an option, alternate slot cuts may be used for construction of the northern garage wall. 5) It is anticipated that the basement excavation will extend through the surficial deposits encountered on the site. However, if loose materials are encountered in the area of the proposed basement slab, they should be compacted. Should the seepage pit, septic tank or Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2005 W.O. P-448025 Page 12 other unforeseen conditions be encountered in the garage excavation, additional recommendations will be necessary. All retainingwall footings should penetrate weathered materials and founded the design depth into competent terrace deposits. RECOMMENDATIONS General It is assumed that the northern garage excavation will be in close proximity to the existing residence and footings. Excavations ranging from 6.3 feet to 8.15 feet are anticipated. Depending upon conditions revealed during grading,shoring should be anticipated. As an option,it may be possible to construct the northern garage wall in alternate 6.0 foot maximum slot cuts. Additional recommendations will be necessary during the grading phase. Temporary Slopes/Shoring/Excavation Characteristics Temporary slopes greater than 3.5 feet should be excavated at a gradient of 3/4:1 (horizontal to vertical), or less, depending upon conditions encountered during grading . If existing footings, structures or other constraints prevent a temporary slope,shoring of the excavation/structure will be required. Temporary shoring should be designed to withstand an equivalent fluid pressure of 22 pounds per cubic foot. As an option,the northern garage excavation may be excavated at a gradient of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical). Alternate slot cuts (not to exceed 6.0 feet) may be employed for retaining wall construction. It should be noted that the upper 3.0 to 4.0 feet of fill and Pleistocene Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2005 W.O. P-448025 Page 13 sands are generally in a loose condition. All excavations should be constructed in accordance with Cal-OSHA requirements. Based on our experience in the area, the Pleistocene sands are rippable with conventional earth moving equipment in good working order. All excavations should be observed by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer. Earthwork Shrinkage/Bulking The loss or gain of volume(shrinkage or bulking,respectively)of excavated natural materials,upon recompaction as fill, varies according to earth material type and location. This volume change is represented as a percentage shrinkage (for volume loss) and as a percentage bulking (for volume gain) after recompaction of a unit volume of cut in this same material in its natural state. For example, a shrinkage value of 10 percent indicates that one cubic yard of cut will produce 0.9 cubic yard of compacted fill at 90 percent relative compaction. The on-site materials will have varying shrinkage or bulking characteristics. The following table presents the estimated range of values for each type of material. Earth Unit Bulking/Shrinkag_e Fill, Weathered Terrace Deposits 15 to 20% Shrinkage Terrace Deposits 0 to 5%Bulking Foundations The following design parameters are based on footings founded into competent terrace deposits. Footings for the proposed addition should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and founded a minimum Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2005 W.O. P-448025 Page 14 of 12 inches and 18 inches below the lower most adjacent subgrade and into competent terrace deposits 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 as per the project structural engineer's design. For design purposes, an allowable bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot may be used for foundations at the recommended footing depths. The bearing value may be increased to 2500 pounds per square foot for subterranean retaining wall footings. 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 300 pounds per square foot,per foot of depth of terrace deposits penetrated to a maximum of 2500 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 be underlain by a minimum 2.0-inch sand blanket(S.E. greater than 30). Where moisture sensitive floors are used, a minimum Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2005 W.O. P-448025 Page 15 6.0-mil Visqueen or equivalent moisture barrier should be placed over the sand blanket and covered by an additional two inches of sand. 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 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 58 pounds per cubic foot. These values do not consider surcharge loads from adjacent structures. 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 over a horizontal distance of 30 feet is expected to be on the order of 1.0 inch and 3/4 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 April 1, 2005 W.O. P-448025 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 located approximately 2.5 miles west of the property 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 0.48g and a repeatable ground acceleration of 0.31g. Seismic Design Parameters (1997 Uniform Building Code) Soil Profile Type - SD Seismic Zone -4 Seismic Source- Type B Near Source Factor(N j - 1.3 Near source Acceleration Factor ( `a) - 1.1 Seismic Coefficients Ca=0.48 C,=0.85 Design Response Spectrum T,=0.703 To= 0.141 Nearest Type B Fault - 2.5 miles Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2005 W.O. P-448025 Page 17 Preliminary Pavement Design Previous testing by this firm suggests an R-value of 43 for Pleistocene sands. The following pavement design is recommended for the driveway. 4.0 inches of asphaltic paving or concrete on 6.0 inches of select base (Class 2) on 12 inches of compacted subgrade soils Subgrade soils should be compacted to the thickness indicated in the structural section and left in a condition to receive base materials. Class 2 base materials should have a minimum R-value of 78 and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Subgrade soils and base materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their laboratory maximum dry density. The pavement section should be protected from water sources. Migration of water into subgrade deposits and base materials could result in pavement failure. Utility Trench We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand to at least one foot above the top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill 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. Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2005 W.O. P-448025 Page 18 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 the street, via non-erodible devices. Pad water should not be allowed to pond. 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. Geotechni c al 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. Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2005 W.O. P-448025 Page 19 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 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 groundwater 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. Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2005 W.O. P-448025 Page 20 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 proj ect. This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical. Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2005 W.O. P-448025 Page 21 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. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California, Scale 1"=750,000'. 2. Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, 1996, DMG Open File Report 96-02. 3. Hamada Engineering, 2005, Grading Plan, 454 Bristol Road, Cardiff, California, Scale 111=101. 4. Scott, Warren, 2005, Site Plan and Sections, 454 Bristol Road, Cardiff, California, Scale 3/16 "=1' and 1"=4', respectively. 5. U.S.G.S., 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Topographic Map, Digitized, Variable Scale. NoText 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 Moisture Content (Ipcf) B-1 @ 1 . 0 ' -4 . 0 ' 126 . 4 10 . 1 TABLE II Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Sample Field Dry Field Moisture Location Density Content 00cf) % 0 B-1 @ 2 . 0 ' 110 .4 12 . 0 B-1 @ 4 . 0 ' 109 . 7 11 . 3 B-1 @ 6 . 0 ' 100 . 6 14 . 0 B-1 @ 7 . 5 ' 111 . 1 13 . 3 B-1 @ 9 . 5 ' 103 .4 11 . 0 B-1 @ 12 . 5 ' 108 . 3 11 . 2 B-2 @ 3 . 0 ' 108 . 3 14 . 0 B-2 @ 5 . 0 ' 105 . 6 15 . 4 TABLE III Direct Shear Test Results (Residual) Sample Location Angle of Apparent Cohesion Internal Friction 0 sf B-1 @ 7 . 5 ' 30 Degrees 246 P-448025 L Lo OG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. I DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P-448025 BORING DIAMETER-. 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 03-03-05 FA 1 11 SURFACEELEV.: 105.5' (Approximate) OGGED BY: MB GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION SP FILL Of):Tan to brn.fine and medium-grained sand,v.moist,loose Silty 110.4 12.0 2.00 SP TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt):Tan to Reddish brn.,fine and med.-grained sand 102. Slightly Clayey 109.7 11.3 4.00 cu 5.00 100.6 14.0 6.00 111.1 13.3 0 97.50 z 96.50 9'00 From 9.5',Dense 103.4 11.0 108.3 1 11.2 92.50 End Of Boring @ 15' ' F I LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 2 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P-448025 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 03-03-05 SUR SURFACE ELEV 105.5' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB 105.50 1 GEOLOGIC DESCFJPTION SP FILL(a�:Tan to bm.fine and medium-grained sand,v.moist 108.3 14.0 105.6 15.4 5.00 Crushed rock fragments 6.00 SP FILL(af): Grey to bm.fine and medium-grained sand,v.moist Slight Organic Ordor 9 50 10.00 SP FILL(af):Dk. Grey, fule and medium-grained sand,v.moist Strong Organic Ordor 12.00 Probable V. Seepage Pit Backfill End Of Boring Ca), 14' ' i _1O1Sl�8 adp� `z a 190 N Lu lb C ts 7 x d3 19b l � O \ (J Y y � it sro, o'jv, s no HI gt � i �9-5 abA � Q . � co � oL-0 I x9 o I #g U owl h+y z 0C � W 101 � _ �1 I � N -- - ._ F � � QH I O w ,96'69 3Nn Ai6d08d APPENDIX B y e � G y 7gy g p � 7i r Will N U Ali/ .• €33Y�� �� �3�Y€� _ M � I• Y 5 fi }I} f i�3 � '0.' Yom. \ o L;r!/, _,�� � -, d/r' �a''r � -J�^ � •• Imo/y `�-- �\ �.�. �r�i �,r�a' �. \iii• �� / -r` 'y .;i: Y 11'• ,� �` � _ i. l �• .��` H - # °f� '• �C� � it ';jL �-��;._ � ' I � �' + /;.fie q -�'�-'• -�•� J" , }, � \ _... 1�. � .�. ��'F I� '�/ / �\_ "� fir✓',.�lY � � L ' t 1 \` � + '� '� � •6o i, of/yt �_�--�1 .f t '�4r+i J /x'� Z-"ter'3 ce i/iihl �j �' +`'���.*/•• it�� ��/ �� 1��c� 1�` :•a <- It ,� � +l �� �//�—!/i��// � ,.1 ,y,.��. ..�� �rye%'� i• €^s .�, �, ,� �� /'- i -�-�� �r'�'� � dj i 'F * * U B C S E I S * * Version 1 .03 COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: P-448025 DATE: 03-31-2005 JOB NAME: GASPERONI FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0276 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2813 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN DISTANCE: 46.1 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ROSE CANYON DISTANCE: 4 .0 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: DISTANCE: 99999. 0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1. 1 Nv: 1. 3 Ca: 0. 48 Cv: 0. 85 Ts: 0. 703 To: 0. 141 --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 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 1 4.0 1 B 1 6. 9 1 1.50 1 SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1 19.8 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.50 I SS CORONADO BANK 1 27.8 1 B 1 7.4 3.00 1 SS ELSINORE-JULIAN 46.1 A 1 7.1 1 5.00 1 SS ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1 46.2 B 1 6.8 1 5.00 I SS PALOS VERDES 1 67.4 B 1 7.1 1 3.00 SS EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 67.5 1 B I 6.5 1 2.00 SS ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 1 68.7 1 B 1 6.8 1 5.00 I SS SAN JACINTO-ANZA I 82.7 1 A 1 7.2 1 12.00 SS ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 86.0 1 B 1 6.8 1 4.00 1 SS SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 86.2 1 B 1 6.9 1 12.00 1 SS SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 86.5 1 B 1 6.8 1 4.00 I SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 87.8 B 1 6.9 1 1.00 I SS CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 1 91.4 B 1 6.7 1 1.00 I DS ELSINORE-WHITTIER 1 97.7 I B 1 6.8 I 2.50 I SS SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 1 103.2 I B 6.6 1 4.00 1 SS SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 1 110.0 1 B 6.7 1 12.00 I SS SAN ANDREAS - Southern 1 115.3 1 A 1 7.4 1 24.00 I SS SAN JOSE I 124.8 1 B 6.5 1 0.50 I DS PINTO MOUNTAIN 125.9 1 B 1 7.0 1 2.50 I SS SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 1 126.8 1 B 6.6 1 5.00 I SS CUCAMONGA 1 129.0 1 A 7.0 1 5.00 I DS SIERRA MADRE (Central) 1 129.1 1 B 1 7.0 1 3.00 I DS BURNT MTN. 1 132.4 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.60 I SS ELMORE RANCH 1 133.0 1 B 1 6.6 1 1.00 I SS SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 1 134.6 1 B 1 6. 6 1 4.00 I SS ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA 1 134.7 1 B 1 7.0 1 3.50 I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 1 136.3 1 B 1 7.0 1 1.00 1 DS EUREKA PEAK 1 136.8 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.60 I SS CLEGHORN 1 138.7 1 B 1 6.5 1 3.00 I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 1 142.6 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.50 I DS RAYMOND 1 143.5 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 DS CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 1 144.2 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 DS SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 1 144.5 1 A 1 7.8 1 34.00 SS VERDUGO 147.2 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.50 DS LANDERS 1 149.8 1 B 1 7.3 1 0.60 SS HOLLYWOOD 1 150.2 1 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 DS BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 151.0 1 B 1 6.5 I 25.00 SS HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 1 154.2 1 B 1 7.1 0. 60 SS SANTA MONICA 1 157.4 1 B 1 6. 6 1 1.00 1 DS LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 1 159.3 1 B 1 7.3 1 0.60 SS IMPERIAL 160.2 1 A 1 7.0 1 20.00 SS MALIBU COAST 1 161.4 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.30 DS EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 1 161.9 B 1 6.9 1 0.60 SS JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 1 163.2 1 B ( 6.7 1 0.60 SS SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) 168.1 1 B 1 6.7 1 2.00 DS SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED DISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME (tan) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) ANACAPA-DUME 1 169.4 1 B 1 7.3 1 3.00 1 DS SAN GABRIEL 1 171.0 1 B 1 7.0 1 1.00 1 SS PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK 1 171.2 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.60 1 SS CALICO - HIDALGO 1 175.8 1 B 1 7.1 1 0. 60 1 SS SANTA SUSANA 1 183.3 1 B 1 6.6 1 5.00 1 DS HOLSER 1 192.1 1 B 1 6.5 I 0.40 1 DS SIMI-SANTA ROSA 1 199.3 I B 1 6.7 1 1.00 1 DS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) 1 200.3 1 B 1 6.9 1 4.00 j DS GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE 1 207.9 1 B 1 6.9 1 0. 60 1 SS SAN CAYETANO 208.8 1 B 1 6.8 1 6.00 1 DS BLACKWATER 223.4 1 B 1 6.9 1 0. 60 1 SS VENTURA - PITAS POINT 1 227.0 I B 1 6.8 1 1.00 1 DS SANTA YNEZ (East) 1 228.6 1 B I 7.0 1 2.00 1 SS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 1 234.1 1 B 1 6.8 1 1.00 1 DS M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA 1 237.9 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.40 1 DS RED MOUNTAIN 1 240.7 1 B 1 6.8 1 2.00 1 DS GARLOCK (West) 1 245.6 1 A 1 7.1 1 6.00 1 SS PLEITO THRUST 1 250.6 1 B 1 6.8 1 2.00 1 DS BIG PINE 1 256.1 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.80 SS GARLOCK (East) 1 260.3 1 A 1 7.3 1 7.00 I SS SANTA ROSA ISLAND 1 268. 6 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.00 1 DS WHITE WOLF 1 271.4 1 B 1 7.2 1 2.00 1 DS SANTA YNEZ (West) 1 272.5 1 B 6.9 1 2.00 1 SS So. SIERRA NEVADA 1 284.7 I B 7.1 1 0.10 1 DS LITTLE LAKE 1 289.2 B 1 6.7 1 0.70 1 SS OWL LAKE 289.2 1 B 1 6.5 1 2.00 1 SS PANAMINT VALLEY 289.5 I B 1 7.2 1 2.50 1 SS TANK CANYON 1 290.7 1 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 1 DS DEATH VALLEY (South) 1 297.5 1 B 1 6.9 1 4.00 1 SS LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE 1 314.3 1 B 1 6.8 1 0.70 DS LIONS HEAD 1 332.1 1 B 1 6. 6 1 0.02 DS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) 1 339.5 1 B 1 6.9 1 4.00 1 DS SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) 1 342.1 1 B 1 7.0 1 0.20 1 DS SAN JUAN 1 343.5 1 B 1 7.0 1 1.00 1 SS CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) 1 350.3 1 B I 6.5 1 0.25 1 DS OWENS VALLEY 1 357.8 1 B 1 7. 6 1 1.50 1 SS LOS OSOS 1 372.2 1 B 1 6.8 1 0.50 1 DS HOSGRI 1 377.7 1 B 1 7.3 1 2.50 1 SS HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY 1 383.8 1 B 1 7.0 1 2.50 1 SS DEATH VALLEY (Northern) 1 393.1 1 A 1 7.2 1 5.00 1 SS RINCONADA 1 393.5 1 B 1 7.3 I 1.00 1 SS INDEPENDENCE 1 393.6 1 B 1 6.9 1 0.20 DS BIRCH CREEK 1 450.0 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.70 DS SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) 1 450.4 1 B 1 5.0 34.00 SS WHITE MOUNTAINS 1 454.5 1 B 1 7.1 1.00 SS DEEP SPRINGS I 472. 9 1 B 1 6.6 1 0.80 1 DS SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED DISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME (km) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) 1 477. 9 1 A 1 7.0 1 5.00 1 SS ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.) 1 485.1 1 B 1 6.8 1 1.00 1 DS FISH SLOUGH 1 492.9 I B 1 6. 6 1 0.20 1 DS HILTON CREEK 1 511.2 1 B 1 6.7 1 2.50 I DS ORTIGALITA 1 535.0 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.00 SS HARTLEY SPRINGS 1 535.5 1 B 1 6.6 1 0.50 1 DS CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) 1 540.4 1 B I 6.2 1 15.00 1 SS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS 1 542.7 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.50 1 DS PALO COLORADO - SUR 1 543.4 1 B 1 7.0 1 3.00 I SS QUIEN SABE 1 553.7 I B 1 6.5 1 1.00 1 SS MONO LAKE 571.5 1 B 1 6.6 1 2.50 1 DS ZAYANTE-VERGELES 572.1 1 B 1 6.8 1 0.10 1 SS SAN ANDREAS (1906) 577.3 1 A 1 7. 9 1 24.00 1 SS SARGENT 1 577.5 1 B 1 6.8 1 3.00 1 SS ROBINSON CREEK 1 602.8 1 B I 6.5 1 0.50 DS SAN GREGORIO 1 618.1 1 A 1 7.3 1 5.00 1 SS GREENVILLE 1 627.5 1 B 1 6.9 1 2.00 1 SS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON 1 627.6 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.40 1 DS HAYWARD (SE Extension) 627.8 1 B 1 6.5 1 3.00 1 SS ANTELOPE VALLEY 643.1 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.80 1 DS HAYWARD (Total Length) 1 647.5 1 A 1 7.1 1 9.00 1 SS CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) 1 647.5 1 B 1 6.8 1 6.00 1 SS GENOA 1 668.5 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.00 1 DS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY 1 695.4 1 B 1 6.9 6.00 1 SS RODGERS CREEK 1 734.1 1 A 1 7.0 9.00 SS WEST NAPA I 735.1 1 B 1 6.5 1.00 SS POINT REYES 1 752.8 1 B 1 6.6 1 0.30 I DS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA I 757.7 1 B 1 6.9 1 6.00 I SS MAACAMA (South) 797.0 1 B 1 6.9 1 9.00 SS COLLAYOMI 813.9 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.60 1 SS BARTLETT SPRINGS 817.5 1 A 1 7.1 1 6.00 1 SS MAACAMA (Central) 838.6 1 A 1 7.1 1 9.00 1 SS MAACAMA (North) 1 898.2 1 A 1 7.1 1 9.00 1 SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) 1 904.5 I B 1 6.8 1 6.00 1 SS BATTLE CREEK 1 928.3 1 B 1 6.5 I 0.50 1 DS LAKE MOUNTAIN 1 962.9 1 B 1 6.7 1 6.00 1 SS GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND 1 980.0 1 B 1 6.9 1 9.00 SS MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1 1036.2 1 A 1 7.4 1 35.00 DS LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1 1043.0 1 A 1 7.0 1 5.00 1 DS MAD RIVER 1 1045.9 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.70 I DS CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1 1049.9 1 A 1 8.3 1 35.00 DS McKINLEYVILLE 1056.3 1 B 1 7.0 1 0.60 DS TRINIDAD 1 1057.8 1 B 1 7.3 1 2.50 DS FICKLE HILL 1 1058.2 1 B 1 6.9 1 0. 60 DS TABLE BLUFF 1 1063.6 1 B 1 7.0 1 0.60 1 DS LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) 1 1076. 9 1 B 1 7.1 1 1.00 I DS 0 LO U Q LO w u ri P, `Y' o U O Lq a) O � O � O 'L V1 O LO r00000 LO W U � Z o con W Q o � o � o � o � o � o ° � N O U) N O r.., LO N O N N N O O O ( 6) uoijeaalaooy lealoadg APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES Gradingshould be performed to at leastthe 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. Duringgrading,the Geologistand Soils Engineershould evaluate the necessity of placing additional drains. 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 gill. 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. 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 overbuildingthe slope and cutting backto the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. (2) 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 replacementwith fill. This may be necessaryto 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. 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. (3) 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 maybe 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 maybe 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)