Loading...
2002-7682 G CITY OF ENCINITAS APPLICANT SECURITY DEPOSIT RELEASE Vendor No. Depositor Name: j Phone No.,�� Address: Zip DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION: 1. MEMO PROJECT NUMBER -- 2. RELEASED AMOUNT: 3. POSIT BALANCE: $ Notes: � � =� /AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE: Project Coor Date Supervisor ' ( Date- �' S V � Department Head Date DEPOSIT BALANCE CONFIRMED: Finance Dept Date GENERAL 4PROJI1 BRIEF DESCRIPTION AMOUNT LEDGER # (25 Characters limit) 101-0000-215.00-00 urity Depo sit- TOTAL $ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS CLAIM REPRESENTS A APPROVED FOR PAYMENT JUST CHARGE AGAINST THE CITY OF ENCINITAS PROCESSED BY FINANCE DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL DATE OF REQUEST DATE DATE CHECK REQUIRED Next Warrant ncDRl CF A-- R/1Q/9R it I CITY OF ENCINITAS APPLICANT SECURITY DEPOSIT RELEASE Depositor Name: / �,/J/7 Vendor No. Address: �� � / Phone No_ State Zip DEPOSIT DESCRIPTION: 1. MEMO PROJECT NUMBER 2. RELEASED AMOUNT: 3. DEPOSIT BALANCE: $ Notes: AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE: Project Coordinato - _ ate Supervisor Date Department Head Date DEPOSIT BALANCE CONFIRMED: Finance Dept Date GENERAL PROJ. # BRIEF DESCRIPTION AMOUNT LEDGER# (25 Characters limit) 101-0000-218.00-00 -- - - - - Security Deposit- ______ TOTAL$ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS CLAIM REPRESENTS A APPROVED FOR PAYMENT JUST CHARGE AGAINST THE CITY OF ENCINITAS PROCESSED BY DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL FfNANCE DATE OF REQUEST DATE CHECK REQUIRED Next Warrant DATE HYDROLOGYSTUDY Griffith Residence 412 West "E" Street Encinitas, CA 92024 D ENGINEERING SkRViCES C1YY CF F,NCINhTAS Prepared By: Christensen Engineering & Surveying September 30, 2002 HYDROLOGY STUDY Griffith Residence The proposed Griffith project is a single-family residence to be constructed on Lot 9 in Block 41 of "Encinitas" according to Map No. 148. The improvements existing on the lot are to be demolished and the new residence constructed. The existing drainage pattern is to be altered, only to the extent that no runoff from the lot or the closed alley adjacent to the lot will be allowed to flow over the natural bluff located westerly of the site. The only runoff that contributes to drainage from the site is from that which originates on the lot. There is no tributary runoff to be considered. Therefore, rainfall landing within the boundaries of the lot and closed alley, 110' x 50', is what is addressed by this study. A. Time of concentration The elevation change and distances involved are small so a time of concentration of 10 minutes is assumed. B. Rainfall Intensity From the San Diego County Hydrology Manual Appendix H-A-7 for 100 year frequency P6 =2.5 Appendix II-A-13 for 100 year frequency P24 =4.0 Using Appendix XI-IV-A-14 P6=2.55 = 62.5% P24 4.0 So no adjustment to P6 is necessary. I = 7.44P6D -645 1= 7.44 (2.5) (10) -.645 1=4.21" C. Volume of flow calculations The area contributing to flow to each inlet is half the total lot area. A Total = 50' x 1 10' = 5,500 SF The runoff coefficients (C) is determined for each area using Appendix IX-IU-A- 9 For residencial C = 0.50 HYDROLOGYSTUDY Camino Village Plaza Page 2 D. Qt=CIA Qt= 0.50 (4.21) Sao 0.266 cfs So each inlet will intercept 0.133 cfs E. Test of pipe size adequacy The attached program was run to determine depth of flow and velocity in all drains contributing to this study. The program uses Manning's equation to calculate depth and velocity in an iterative method. For each inlet a 3" PVC pipe was tested at the most extreme condition and found to be adequate. Since the inlets collect water at an elevation below the street grade pumps in each inlet will be needed to allow the water to drain into the gutter in 4th Street and "E" Street. A Liberty Pump Model No. 287VMF was selected to convey the runoff to the street. Since 0.133 cfs equates to approximately 60 gpm these pumps are adequate to handle runoff from the hundred-year return frequency flood. Therefore, the proposed system should adequately convey the runoff to the existing drainage system. 09/30/02 Antony K. Christensen Date RCE 54021 Exp. 12-31-03 JN 2002-139 Q�pFESSf0y9 CHR/STt`y�z rn fr'�TE OF rvA` T L O C O ate+ w C O r U Q) U _0 _0 -0 r +> > C >1 (2) L L0 (10 t,) S- L Cu = Z7 A U C- L/) 4-J c: LO Q) 4-j U Q) L Cl C) 4- :3 •r (1) Ln r�; L S.- r d C C O C d A LD N •r > 0 (-) to a--) O 0- A 0- C- < •- Q) C- 4- 4- O C S- - Cu 1-) Q) A •r O i-� +� 7 Cu U -C ti 1 -" C) +-) r- `i (3)�J C r I Z7 C) C) r--- rC C C' O O C) O C) C L O O C d +J N n r >> C r A C C -r >1 O •• N A 1-� L O O C) N r •�-� C d (3)TJ C) i b •r •r .0 C A O A -C Q) O 4-J Cu +-) +-) +j Q) C a) Z Y +-) r- - - -C CO ra r0 I) L _ +) C L CL 4-j -4.j 4-•) C C d C t C U O O L C -IZ3 U = O. C 7 C U d E C U nZ r3 N C) C, O G 4-J (L) C) -C +-j 1] O d 0- 4--t J--) L L'7 L — L S- i••) to Cr ¢ r c (X3 C- :3: CL C.4--) a) V) C E v " ¢ [1 7 L L Q) C •r O L L 0- O to O •0 L N A C •r •r O LL. IC Y O U E M-- C -r- L S -C — O (4- (1) A A LD -C S.• -C U — C A 7 Z S- E 4-•) C) _0 •r U C C) (3) Ln a r- C •r d to l0 a) A Q) .- O O +-) +J C L Q) A CT to N Q) L 4j — U to O C) C Ln ',-1 A 0 n A O •r Q) ra r •1-) 11 +-� S- d -C A C) -,O -C -T" O — 4- Q1 LD -v U CO r S_ n. d O N Ch d lr) ¢ O r- N Cn �T C U z 6-Hour Precipitation (inches) C O Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln O CD z d a _ _ to 177. 0 Ln q 0 _--r---- __ o w - - -T- — -�_ --- --=i- T--i u �-_ 1 __ I•,II I I APPETDIX XI _'d-a.-la (anon /�ayoui) �'�isua�uj 1 _ • `'' / — Io O cm �o o CD cz a cl '1) - Uj co z _< � < U - J - � yaj C < Z o U x w O N a J N tf1 O U1 U1 :J O lL Z z M p O w O J M = < < Z < O M ZD C- C O O W -i u U lL < o S F- J v I - 13 i i Lt� CWTIF co CD /W.� O� �.� f cn Lrj Ln Lo cn N N NC D NN W o u H o - ff M a W p < p _W J z < W s < — y J W � < z 7 °- Lr < M <i < J l.. Lo - LLJ Z O W < - o � M •— N a o o O CL < 0 rD Z LL J O U ( Q O O M I a U v. N C M r_ W F- ~ <, o LL Z . U O LJ O vi p U U >. < � cr_ o < � � < °O oN O W J H W (� O LL. < _ _ i z � ti • � J u W CL er 00 PUMP. S #� 280=SERIES MID-RANGE SUBMERSIBLE SUMP/ EFFLUENT PUMPS y 314" Solids-Handling 1-1/2"Discharge 1/2 hp SpedficaW desig �� ned for effluent � E pumping or heavy-duty sump applications ,�z. u requiring higher heads or flow rates. ' VorticaI float- ` Model 287(VMn for heavy-duty, .g 112 hp sump pump application:! WSW �r = NTY MODEL 283 115 Y. MODELS; FEATURES: 280 Manual • Liberty's unique,one-piece"Uni-Body'casting 281 Wide-angle float with quick disconnect • Quick-disconnect power cord-available in 10', 283 Wide-angle float with series plug 20'and 30'lengths 287 VMF,vertical magnetic float(U.S.Patent • Permanently lubricated upper and #5324171)for heavy-duty sump pump lower bearings applications •Oil-filled,hermetically sealed motors with 2081230 Y. MODELS: thermal overload protection •Stainless steel,removable bottom screen 280HV Manual •Stainless steel rotor shaft 283HV Wide-angle float with series plug •Stainless steel fasteners (208/230 Volt available only on Model 280 and 283.) 280-SERIES 112 hp Submersible Sump/Effluent Pumps The Liberty 280 series provides a cost effective"mid- • All fasteners-corrosion-resistant stainless steel range" pump for on-site waste water systems, liquid • 1'/z" Discharge waste transfer and commercial heavy-duty sump •Stainless steel bottom screen-easily removable pump applications that require higher head or more • 10' quick-disconnect power cord standard flow. Designed around Liberty's unique"Uni-Body" (20' and 30' lengths optional) casting, the 280-Series will provide years of For20'and 30'cord options,add"-2"or"-3"suffix to model reliable performance. number.Example:283-2 for 283 with 20'cord All Models Feature: Motor Specifications • Vortex style impeller, permitting passage of solids /Z hp 60 Hz 3450 RPM up to '/" Oil filled,thermally protected • 416 stainless steel rotor shaft 115 V. Models 10 amps • Permanently lubricated upper sleeve 208/230 V. Models 5 amps(Available on 280 and 283 only.add bearing and lower ball bearing • Carbon and ceramic mechanical face seal "W to model.Example 283 i IVi • Epoxy powder coat finish Maximum fluid temperature: 140°F. Dimensional Data: Performance Curve:280-Series Weight:29 lbs. 40 12 Height:13" 35 11 Major Width:9.6" (model 280) 30 9 Minimum Sump Diameters: aa) 25 8 Model 281, 283...14" 20 6 Model 287 VMF...10" 15 5 Factory switch Model 281,283 Model 287 -- settings VMF = 10 3 Turn on level 12.5" g,5" 5 2 TUm off level 6" 4.0" 0 1 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 The Model 283 features a fully adjustable wide-angle float. U.S. Gallons Per Minute Differential adjustments can be made easily by tethering the float to the discharge pipe or other mounting point.Vertical float model 0 .64 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.2 3.8 4.5 287 is not adjustable. Liters Per Second Model 280 Model 281 Model 283 Model 287 Manual, Wide angle Wide angle VMF-Series no switch float switch float switch Vertical mag- with quick- with series netic float for disconnect (piggy-back) smaller pits- plug will operate in a 10" diameter sump rr 4 VV ••�... tiRTUC Certified specifications are subject to change without notice. - Liberty Pumps • 7000 Apple 7Yee Avenue •Bergen,New York 14416•Phone 800-543-2550 Fax(585)494-1839 www.libertypumps.com 7135-RS/02 � � U � � � :^� i{ fir.• �,: X:� f :�` Tr C �� - 1- �S Miry. 'd1 �i � U i.i' �- C1{ ❑ 2 Mp ob _ 47 CL Ft D n R , co x � �— x nn � x ° °l _._ Z co - aC op _ ' W co 41 N l r W Lam., �Y�1 ` �-:.... y r r,»..+. ; y ' �,�L.✓ w ,',` —` J � """.mow�.�.. ♦�i''�, "_ I .�".".."`� '.y ♦^ V, v, a;�^y � I O f, LLJ CD I w.r r i egll? is 1 ?00044 CTS 1 y . 381 0 i 5E-02 Scic;arr Frei � f' �)ClA'C A c111C('. C'Cfll;] �_ 2 � ! !_ quaff ti 1 �.' )02 P, GK'S r ! 1 �duLtls '-'(;70002 l:-,,;,i w CHRISTIAN WHEELER F N G I N E F R I N G -- REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 412 WEST"E" STREET ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED TO: MS. DAWN GRIFFITH 412 WEST "E" STREET ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA 92024 14E `, ° 1 1 2003 4 SUBMITTED BY: CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 4925 MERCURY STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858-496-9760 ♦ FAX 858-496-9758 W CHRISTIAN WHEELER E N C I N E E R I N C September 5,2002 Ms.Dawn Griffith CWE 202.447.2 412 West"E" Street Encinitas,California 92024 SUBJECT: REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 412 WEST "E" STREET, ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Dear Ms.Griffith: In accordance with your request and our proposal dated June 19,2002,we have curnpieted a preiiri,inar-y geotechnical investigation for the subject project. We are presenting herewith a report of our findings and recommendations. In general,our findings indicate that the subject property is suitable for the proposed single-family residence and associated improvements,provided the recommendations provided herein are followed. The results of _ our subsurface explorations indicate that the site is underlain by Tertiary-age and Quaternar),age formational deposits that are overlain by a thin and irregular veneer of weathered formational materials,native topsoils, and artificial fills. In our opinion,the existing veneer of weathered formational materials,native topsoils,and artificial fills is considered unsuitable in its present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements, and will need to be removed from such areas and replaced as properly compacted fill. Also,the results of our quantitative slope stability analysis indicate that the existing bluff has an adequate factor-of-safety against slope failure at and east of the mandated 40-foot blufftop setback. If you have any questions after reviewing this report,please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated... Respectfully submitted, 2215 w � ED CHRSTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING EJC-;NE ERiN a ` i j �&fESS/pN \ Exp.�g /�/ Q 4� coTa\ j ��ey�S C, No.W do.GE21 5 Z W David R Russell,CEG#2215 Charles K Christian,RGE # 00215 Exi) q-;0-05 CHQDRRscc:tsw cc: (6)Submitted OF CAS 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 f 858-496-9760 ♦ FAX 858-496-9758 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introductionand Project Description...............................................................................................................................l ProjectScope........................................................................................................................................................................2 Findings................................................................................................................................................................................3 SiteDescription...............................................................................................................................................................3 General Geology and Subsurface Conditions.......................... .................................................................................. Geologic Setting and Soil Description.............................................. ........................................................................ ArtificialFill..............................................................................................................................................................4 Topsoil......................................................................................................................................................................4 TerraceDeposits......................................................................................................................................................4 TorreySandstone.....................................................................................................................................................4 DelMar Formation.................................................................................................................................................5 Groundwater...............................................................................................................................................................5 TectonicSetting..........................................................................................................................................................5 GeologicStructure......................................................................................................................................................6 BluffEdge....................................................................................................................................................................6 GeologicHazards...........................................................................................................................................................6 General.........................................................................................................................................................................6 BluffErosion...............................................................................................................................................................6 GroundShaking...........................................................................................................................................................7 SeismicDesign Parameters.........................................................................................................................................8 Liquefaction.................................................................................................................................................................9 Flooding.......................................................................................................................................................................9 Tsunamis......................................................................................................................................................................9 Seiches..........................................................................................................................................................................9 Landslide Potential and Slope Stability.......................................................................................................................9 General.........................................................................................................................................................................9 StabilityAnalysis.......................................................................................................................................................10 StrengthParameters.................................................................................................................................................10 Methodof Analysis..................................................................................................................................................10 Resultsof Stability Analysis....................................................................................................................................10 Conclusions........................................................................................................................................................................11 Recommendations............................................................................................................................................................12 Earthworkand Grading...............................................................................................................................................12 General.......................................................................................................................................................................12 Observationof Grading....................................................................................... Clearingand Grubbing............................................................................................................................................12 SitePreparation.........................................................................................................................................................12 Processingof Fill Areas...........................................................................................................................................12 Compaction and Method of Filling.......................................................................................................................13 SurfaceDrainage.......................................................................................................................................................13 Foundations...................................................................................................................................................................13 ConventionalFoundations.......................................................................................................................................13 BearingCapacity........................................................................................................................................................13 LateralLoad Resistance............................................................................................................................................14 SettlementCharacteristics.......................................................................................................................................14 ExpansiveCharacteristics........................................................................................................................................14 FoundationPlan Review.........................................................................................................................................14 CWE 202.447.2 Proposed Single-Family Residence 412 West"E" Street,Encinitas,California TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued) PAGE Foundation Excavation Observation.....................................................................................................................14 On-Grade Slabs.............................................................................................................................................................14 General.......................................................................................................................................................................14 InteriorFloor Slabs..................................................................................................................................................15 Moisture Protection for Interior Slabs........................... Exterior Concrete Flatwork....................................................................................................................................15 Limitations..........................................................................................................................................................................15 Review,Observation and Testing.................. Uniformityof Conditions.............................................................................................................................................16 Changein Scope............................................................................................................................................................16 TimeLimitations...........................................................................................................................................................16 ProfessionalStandard....................................................................................................................................................16 Client's Responsibility...................................................................................................................................................17 FieldExplorations.............................................................................................................................................................17 LaboratoryTesting............................................................................................................................................................17 ATTACHMENTS TABLES Table I Maximum Bedrock Acceleration,Page 8 Table II Seismic Design Parameters,Page 8 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map,Follows Page 1 PLATES Plate 1 Site Plan Plate 2 Geologic Cross-Section A-A' Plate 3 Geologic Cross-Section B-B' Plate 4A-4B Results of Slope Stability Analysis (Cross-Section A A) Plate 5A-5B Results of Slope Stability Analysis (Cross-Section B-B) Plates 6-9 Trench Logs APPENDICES Appendix A References Appendix B Recommended Grading Specifications — General Provisions CWE 202.447.2 Proposed Single-Family Residence 412 West"E" Street,Encinitas,California CHRISTIAN WHEELER L N C IN IF R I N G PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 412 WEST"E" STREET ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation performed for a proposed single- family residence located at 412 West"E" Street,in the City of Encinitas,California.Figure Number 1 presented on the following page provides a vicinity map showing the location of the property. The subject site is a nearly rectangular-shaped,developed residential lot,identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 258-073-18,located adjacent to and northwest of the intersection of"E" Street and Fourth Street in the City of Encinitas. The site supports three small residential structures and other normally associated appurtenances. We understand that the existing residential structures will be razed and a new two-story, single-family residential structure will be constructed. The structure will be of wood-frame construction with an on-grade concrete slab and conventional continuous footings. Grading for the proposed project is expected to be minimal. To aid in the preparation of this report,we were provided with a site plan prepared by Southern California Survey. A copy of the site plan was used as the basis for our geologic mapping and is included herewith as Plate Number 1. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Dawn Griffith and her design consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be changed in anyway,the modified plans should be submitted to Christian Wheeler Engineering for review to determine their conformance with our recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface investigation,laboratory testing and/or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed,our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties,express or implied. 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 858-496-9760 + FAX 858-496-9758 SITE VICINITY" (Adapted from Thomas Brothers Maps) PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 412 WEST"E" STREET ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA Latitude:33.0445 degrees N. Longitude: 117.2958 degrees W. 1147 A I_-- v� CC }— I Xikd'L�Wr y RMLUX ti, tlj �"C.gj LAY'jjIAI .. MDONL I6HT �, ,, 5 ST FS S 1R TON CIR STATE C-)r G ST BEACH ti I,w p ST ■ cra M � c CH rrl a ST vy PACIFT C OCEAN �',� x E S E E _ W14EILL Av � No Scale SITE W F ST d 12 ,:,, RE UEZA ST-1 1 I�POINT � W � PAW W '{ o � H ST 1167 N SIRCC7 vXbror 'yti gRiG( 1 _ MEL A � x I ST u s� o ©2001 Thomas Bros.Maps CWE 202.447.2 September 2002 Figure 1 CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No.2 PROJECT SCOPE Our investigation consisted of: surface reconnaissance,subsurface explorations,obtaining representative disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples,laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory data, research of available geologic literature and geotechnical documents pertaining to the site,and preparation of this report.More specifically,the intent of this investigation was to: a) Explore the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the proposed and construction; b) Evaluate the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence the proposed development,including the allowable soil bearing pressures,expansive characteristics and settlement potential; c) Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards that could have an effect on the site development,and provide the seismic design parameters as required by the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code; d) Determmi e the"edge of bluff' in accordance with the City of Encinitas guidelines and recommend an appropriate setback from the edge of the bluff; e) Perform a computer-assisted,quantitative slope stability analysis to evaluate the stability of the existing bluff; f) Address potential construction difficulties that maybe encountered due to soil conditions, groundwater,or geologic hazards,and provide recommendations concerning these problems; g) Develop soil engineering criteria for site preparation and grading; h) Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the We of structure anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation designs;and, i) Present our opinions in this written report that includes in addition to our findings and recommendations,a site plan showing the location of our exploratory borings,geologic cross- sections through the bluff,logs of the borings,and a summary of the laboratory test results. CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No. 3 It is not within the scope of our services to perform laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical characteristics of the on-site soils in regard to their potentially corrosive impact to on-grade concrete and below grade improvements. If desired,we can submit representative soil samples to a chemical laboratory for analysis. We suggest that such samples be obtained after precise grading is complete and the soils that can affect concrete and other improvements are in place. Further,it should be understood Christian Wheeler Engineering does not practice corrosion engineering. If such an analysis is necessary,we recommend that the - owner retain an engineering firm that specializes in this field to consult with them on this matter. FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is a rectangular-shaped,developed residential lot,identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 258- 073-18,located adjacent to and northwest of the intersection of"E" Street and Fourth Street in the City of Encinitas. The site presently supports three small residential structures and other normally associated appurtenances. We understand that the existing residential structures will be razed and a new two-story, single-family residential structure will be constructed. The lot is approximately 50 feet wide and approximately 110 feet deep. The topography of the site is characterized by a relatively level building pad on which the existing improvements are located,with a relatively steep to near-vertical bluff face west of the property. The site is bounded on the north by developed residential property,on the west by the face of the natural bluff that descends to the ocean below, on the south by"E" Street,and on the east by Fourth Street. The elevation of the site ranges from approximately 78 feet (Mean Sea Level) along the western edge of the site to 82 feet (MSL)along the southeast corner of the site. From the western property line,a relatively level area extends out approximately 16 to 25 feet to the west to the top of the bluff. The bluff has an overall approximate height of 65 feet. Vegetation on the site is varied and consists of grasses,shrubs,succulents,and trees. GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION:The subject site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County. Based on our investigation,the site is underlain byTertiaryage deposits of the Del Mar Formation and the Torrey Sandstone,mantled by Quatemar-} age terrace deposits,with a relativelythin veneer of topsoil and artificial fill at the surface. The following provides a discussion of the soil and formational material types encountered beneath the project area. In addition,two Geologic Cross-Sections, labeled as A A'and B-B'on Plate No. 1,are included herein as Plate Nos.2 (A A) and 3 (B-B'). CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No.4 ARTIFICIAL FILL(Qaf):Man-placed fill materials were encountered in two of our three subsurface explorations,Borings B-1 and B-2,which were drilled near the existing residences on the eastern side of the lot. The fill layer was noted to generally range in thickness from 8 to 12 inches.The encountered fill materials typically consisted of medium brown,silty sand(SM) and sandy gravel(GP)that were generally damp to moist and were loose in consistency. The existing fill materials are considered unsuitable in their present condition to support fill and/or settlement-sensitive improvements. TOPSOIL:Native topsoils were encountered in one of our three subsurface explorations,Boring B-3, which was excavated near the top of the bluff at the western side of the lot. The topsoil layer was noted to be 12 inches thick The encountered topsoil materials typically consisted of medium brown,silty sands (SM)that were generally damp and were very loose in consistency. The existing topsoil is considered unsuitable in its present condition to support fill and/or settlement-sensitive improvements. TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt):Quaternary age terrace deposits were encountered below the topsoil or fill layer within each of our exploratory borings. Based on the observations made within our subsurface explorations and our observation of the materials exposed in the bluff face to the west of the property, the layer of terrace deposits is expected to have a thickness of approximately 20 to 25 feet. As observed in our exploratory Boring B-2,performed within the southern portion of the site,the uppermost approximately 3 feet of the terrace deposits was noted to be appreciably weathered. These weathered terrace deposits were observed to generally consist of medium brown poorly graded sands/silty sands (SP/SM)that were generallydamp and loose to medium dense in consistency. The weathered portions of the terrace deposits are considered unsuitable in their present condition to support fill and/or settlement-sensitive improvements. Competent,non-weathered materials of the Quatemary age terrace deposits were encountered at depths of approximately 1 foot below existing site grades within Borings B-1 and B-3 and at a depth of 4 feet within Boring B-2. The competent,non-weathered portions of the terrace deposits were noted to generally consist of reddish to yellowish brown,poorly graded sands (SP) and silty sands (SM)that were moist and was medium dense to very dense in consistency. TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt):Although not encountered with any of our borings,based on our observation of the materials exposed in the bluff face west of the site and our review of pertinent geologic literature,the ten-ace deposits are underlain by Tertiary-age deposits of the Torrey Sandstone. The elevation of the contact between the terrace deposits and the Torrey Sandstone is estimated at approximately 55 feet MSL. The materials of the Torrey Sandstone observed along the bluff face to CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No.5 the west of the site were noted to generally consist of light brown,silty sands (SM)that were moist and dense to very dense in consistency. DEL MAR FORMATION(Td):Although not encountered with any of our borings,based on our observation of the materials exposed in the bluff face west of the site and our review of pertinent geologic literature,the Torrey Sandstone is underlain at depth by inter-fingering Tertiaryage deposits of the Del Mar Formation. The elevation of the contact between the terrace deposits and the Torrey Sandstone is estimated at approximately20 feet MSL. The materials of the Del mar Formation observed along the base of the bluff face to the west of the site were noted to generallyconsist of olive gray,sandy siltstones (MI,)that were moist and hard in consistency. GROUNDWATER Some minor seepage was observed in the seacliff at the contact between the Eocene- age sediments of the Del Mar Formation and the Torrey Sandstone,but no major groundwater-related hazards are anticipated to affect the site.It should be noted,though,that seepage problems often develop at a site even where not previously present.The property owner should exercise due diligence and guard against over-irrigation or a change in drainage patterns that could potentially lead to seepage problems. TECTONIC SETTING:No faults are known to traverse the subject site.However,it should be noted that much of Southern California,including the San Diego County area,is characterized by series of Quaternary, age fault zones that consist of several individual,en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zone) are classified as "active" according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those that have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch(the most recent 11,000 years). The Division of Mines and Geology used the term"potentially active" on Earthquake Fault Zone maps until 1988 to refer to all Quaternary age(last 1.6 million years) faults for the purpose of evaluation for possible zonation in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and identified all Quatemaryage faults as "potentially active" except for certain faults that were presumed to be inactive based on direct geologic evidence of inactivity during all of Holocene time or longer. Some faults considered to be"potentially active" would be considered to be"active" but lack specific criteria used by the State Geologist,such as styftientlyaaize and well-64q? l Faults older than Quaternary-age are not specifically defined in Special Publication 42,Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California,published by the California Division of Mines and Geology. However,it is generally accepted that faults showing no movement during the Quaternary period may be considered to be "inactive". The active Rose Canyon Fault Zone is located approximately 2.4 miles to the west of the site and several small,northeast trending,apparently inactive faults are expressed along the bluff face within the vicinity of CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No.6 the site.These small faults do not require a structural setback and their effect on future redevelopment at the site is considered to be nominal.Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Newport-Inglewood and Palos Verdes Fault Zones to the northwest;the Coronado Bank,San Diego Trough,and San Clemente Fault Zones to the west;the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones to the northeast;the Earthquake Valley Fault Zone to the east;and the Agua Blanca and San Miguel Fault Zones to the south. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE: The available exposures of the formational materials in the vicinity of the site and available geologic information indicate that the terrace deposits and the underlying Tertiary-age sediments are relatively flat-lying in the vicinity of the project site.The bedding ranges from nearly horizontal in some areas to as much as ten degrees in random directions. Our site reconnaissance and available geologic literature suggest that the bedding is predominantly to the north and northeast(neutral with respect to the slope) at an inclination of approximately two to five degrees in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. In addition,it should be noted that several fractures that are probably related,at least in part,to the strong tectonic forces that characterize the Southern California region have been observed in the vicinity. These features are usually very steep (often near-vertical) and strike in both a general northeasterly and a general northwesterly direction. Blockfalls are common where the fractures and joints in the Eocene-age sediments intersect. BLUFF EDGE:Based on available information,it appears that the edge of the bluff is located along the top of the slope west of the residential structure. The edge of the bluff (for development purposes) is defined in the City of Encinitas Code as "tlae upper tenr¢nation cf a bluff When the top edge of the bt ff is rotodad azay from dx face of dx buff as a result of erosional proses related to the preserxe of d5e steep blt ff face, the edge sbaU be defies as dint point nearest the buff l eymd ze )the&unzaard gradient Gf dae lard surface irx7wes pure or less c=vrrously until it rrad"s dae ge7�al gradient of the b14" Our interpretation of the approximate "edge of the bluff", based on our on-site reconnaissance and a review of the aerial photographs, is shown on both the site plan presented as Plate No. 1 and on the cross-sections presented on Plate Nos. 2 and 3. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS GENERAL:No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude continued residential use and redevelopment of the site as we presently understand it are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge,the site is suitable for the existing and proposed improvements. BLUFF EROSION: Coastal bluff recession is a process which is presently occurring in much of coastal San Diego County. Typically,coastal recession occurs through three modes which include: 1) undercutting of the CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No.7 base of the cliff by wave action and subsequent block falls of the overlying materials;2) undercutting of the terrace deposits or other surficial material,initiated by water seepage conditions at the formational contact,and subsequent slumping of the overlying materials;and 3) deep-seated rotational-type failures. The mode of historical recession at the subject site proper and in the immediate vicinity appears to be manifested both as small block falls caused by erosion along the fractures and joints in the Delmar Formation and bysubaerial erosion of the Torrey Sandstone and overlying terrace deposits caused by severe storm conditions and/or drainage conditions. The rate of erosion is variable with periods of very little recession alternating with episodes in which a block of the Delmar Formation falls from the face of the seacliff or substantial surficial erosion occurs. Evidence of some relatively recent small blockfalls from the face of the cliff and small surficial failures in the Torrey Sandstone and overlying terrace deposits was observed during our site reconnaissance. It should be noted that increased evidence of both blockfalls and terrace deposit failures can be observed south of the subject site. Based on the available information,it appears that the overall recession rate of the Delmar Formation at the base of the bluff is approximately one-half inch to one inch per ynar and that the recession rate of the Torrey Sandstone,terrace deposits and other surficial materials ranges from less than an inch per year to several feet per year with an average rate of a few inches to several inches per year in unprotected areas. The Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas of the San Diego Region prepared bythe California Department of Boating and Waterways and San Diego Association of Governments in 1994 indicates that the shoreline risk at the site is high due to unfavorable geology,inadequate setback,and a narrow beach.The"unfavorable geology" condition is defined in the Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas of the San Diego Region by the presence of a relativelylow bedrock cliff(approximately25 feet) and a relativelythick section(approximately 75 feet) of unconsolidated terrace deposits. The Shoreline Atlas indicates that no man-made shoreline protection is evident along this section of the shoreline. GROUND SHAKING:A likely geologic hazard to affect the site is ground shaking as result of movement along one of the major active fault zones mentioned above. The maximum ground accelerations that would be attributed to a maximum probable earthquake occurring along the nearest fault segments of selected fault zones that could affect the site are summarized in the following Table I. CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No.8 TABLE I MAXIMUM GROUND ACCELERATIONS Fault Zone Distance Max.Magnitude Maximum Ground Earthquake Acceleration Rose Canyon 2.4 miles 6.9 Magnitude 0.38 g Newport-Inglewood 11 miles 6.9 Magnitude 0.18 g Coronado Bank 17 miles 7.4 Magnitude 0.16 g Elsinore 28 miles 7.1 Magnitude 0.10 g Palos Verdes 41 miles 7.1 Magnitude 0.07 g Earthquake Valley 42 miles 6.5 Magnitude 0.05 g Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to moderate,depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. it is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed structure. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS:In accordance with the evaluations provided above,the Maximum Ground Acceleration at the site is estimated to be 0.38 g(based upon a Maximum Magnitude Earthquake of 6.9 magnitude along the nearest portion of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone). For structural design purposes,a damping ratio not greater than 5 percent of critical dampening,and Soil Profile Type Sc are recommended(UBC Table 16- J). Based upon the site's location at approximately 3.9 kilometers from the Rose Canyon Fault Zone(Type B Fault),Near Source Factors Na equal to 1.11 and N,,equal to 1.35 are also applicable. These values,along with additional seismically related design parameters obtained from the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 edition, Volume II,Chapter 16,are presented below in Table II. TABLE II SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS UBC Chapter 16 Seismic Recommended Table No. Parameter Value 16-I Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40 16-J Soil Profile Type Sc 16-Q Seismic Coefficient Q 0.40 Na 16-R Seismic Coefficient C, 0.56 N„ 16-S Near Source Factor Na 1.11 16-T Near Source Factor Nv 1.35 16-U Seismic Source Type B CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No.9 LIQUEFACTION: The native materials at the site are not subject to liquefaction due to such factors as soil density,grain-size distribution,and the absence of shallow groundwater conditions. FLOODING: The site is located outside the boundaries of both the 100-ytar and the 500-year floodplains according to the maps prepared bythe Federal Emergency Management Agency. TSUNAMIS: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by a submarine earthquake or volcanic eruption. Historically,the San Diego area has been free of tsunami-related hazards and tsunamis reaching San Diego have generally been well within the normal tidal range. It is thought that the wide continental margin off the coast acts to diffuse and reflect the wave energy of remotely generated tsunamis. The largest historical tsunami to reach San Diego's coast was 4.6 feet high,generated by the 1960 earthquake in Chile. A lack of knowledge about the offshore fault systems makes it difficult to assess the risk due to locally generated tsunamis. Due to the site's elevation,the developed portion of the site is not subject to tsunamis. SEICHES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes,harbors,bays or reservoirs. Due to the site's location,it will not be affected by seiches. LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL AND SLOPE STABILITY GENERAL: The relatively level site is identified as being in an area which is considered marginally susceptible to slope stability hazards due to such factors as the character of the geologic units;the presence of fractures or other planes of weakness;and the presence of steep slopes. However,the bluff area adjacent to the western property line of the site is in an area that is considered most susceptible to slope stability hazards due to such factors as the character of the geologic units;the presence of fractures or other planes of weakness;and the presence of steep slopes. The Relative Landslide Susceptibility and Landslide Distribution Map of the Encinitas Quadrangle prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology indicates that the relatively level site is situated within Relative Landslide Susceptibility Area 2. Area 2 is considered to be "marginally susceptible" to slope failures. The bluff area located immediately to the west of the site,however,is situated within Relative Landslide - Susceptibility Area 4-2. Area 4 is considered to be a"most susceptible" to slope failures;Subarea 4-2 includes slopes considered to be within the limits of known landslides and nearby unstable areas. Based on our investigation,the site was found to be underlain at relatively shallow depths by moderately friable terrace deposits over dense,well-consolidated,sandstones of the Torrey Sandstone,and hard,siltstones of the Del Mar Formation. As part of our scope of services,we have prepared a quantitative slope stability analysis of the existing bluff. CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No. 10 STABILITY ANALYSIS: To analyze the stability of the existing bluff,two cross-sections were drawn perpendicular to the bluff. These cross-sections,labeled as A A'and B-B',are included herein with the results of the stabilityanalysis on Plate Nos.4 and 5 as well as the Geologic Cross-Sections presented on Plate Nos.2 and 3. Based on the results of our subsurface explorations,the existing bluff is comprised of Tertiary-age materials of the Del Mar Formation and the Torrey Sandstone overlain by a relatively thick layer of Quatemar), age terrace deposits. These materials are described above in the"Geologic Setting and Soil Description" section of this report. STRENGTH PARAMETERS:The strength parameters for the materials comprising the bluff were estimated based on the results of direct shear testing and our experience with similar soil types in the vicinity of the site. As considered prudent,the residual rather than the peak values were used to determine the results of our direct shear testing. Based on the results of the direct shear testing and our experience and judgment,the following strength parameters were determined or estimated. Soil Type Unit Weight,X Phi, Cohesion,c Terrace Deposits 120 pcf 330 250 psf Torrey Sandstone 120 pcf 35° 300 psf Del Mar Formation 120 pcf 31 ° 300 psf METHOD OF ANALYSIS:The analyses of the stability of the site were performed using the PCSTABL6 computer program developed at Purdue University. The program analyzes circular,block,and randomly shaped failure surfaces using the Simplified Bishop,Jambu,or Spencer's Methods. Sted 6.5 PCSTABL6 Editor, developed by Harald W.Van Aller,P.E.,was used in conjunction with this program for data entry and graphics display.The selected cross-section was analyzed for circular failures and each failure analysis was programmed to run 100 random failure surfaces. The most critical failure surfaces were then accumulated and sorted byvalue of the factor-of-safety. After the specified number of failure surfaces were successfully generated and analyzed, the ten most critical surfaces were plotted so that the pattern maybe studied. RESULTS OF STABILITY ANALYSIS:The results of our stability analyses indicate that the lowest factors- of-safety for the existing bluff along the west side of the subject site range from approximately 1.16 to 1.52 along geologic cross sections B-B'and A A',respectively(see Plate Nos.5A and 4A). Based on these results, portions of the existing bluff face are anticipated to possess minimum factors-of-safety of less than the factor- of-safety that is generally considered to be stable of 1.5. However,as part of our scope of services,we have prepared quantitative slope stability analyses along the geologic cross sections A N and B-B',incorporating failure surface termination locations to the east of the minimally required 40-foot setback from the edge of the bluff to proposed improvements. As presented on Plate Nos.4B and 5B,within the areas of the subject site to CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No. 11 the east of the minimally required 40-foot setback from the edge of the existing bluff top,geologic cross sections A A'and B-B'possess minimum factors-of-safety against slope failures of approximately 1.87 and 1.63, respectively. These values are in excess of the minimum factor-of-safety that is generally considered to be stable of 1.5. As such,based on the results of our quantitative slope stability analyses and our experience with similar projects in the vicinity of the subject site,it is our professional opinion that the proposed improvements will be constructed within areas of the site which are considered to be generally stable. Furthermore,the proposed improvements will not adversely affect the stability of the existing bluff located to the west of the site,provided care is taken to ensure proper drainage at the subject site,the recommendations contained herein are adhered to, and that prudent construction and maintenance procedures are followed. However,it should be recognized that no recommendations are being presented herein to increase the gross stability of the existing bluff adjacent to the western perimeter of the site and that we are not providing any sort of guarantee of the overall stability of the bluff face. CONCLUSIONS In general,our findings indicate that the subject property is suitable for the proposed single-family residence and associated improvements,provided the recommendations provided herein are followed.The results of our subsurface explorations indicate that the site is underlain by Tertiary-age and Quatemaryage formational deposits that are generally overlain by a thin and irregular veneer of weathered formational materials,natural topsoils,and artificial fills.In our opinion,the existing veneer of weathered formational materials,natural topsoils,and artificial fills is considered unsuitable in its present condition to support settlement-sensitive improvements. In addition,it is anticipated that there will be areas of disturbed soil resulting from the demolition and removal of the existing improvements. Based on these conditions,the existing veneer of unsuitable soils as well as any soil disturbed from the removal of the existing improvements should be removed from areas to support fill and/or settlement-sensitive improvements and be replaced as properly compacted fill. No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude continued residential use and redevelopment of the site as we presently understand it are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is suitable for the proposed improvements. The results of our quantitative slope stability analysis indicate that the existing bluff has factors-of-safety above the accepted minimum of 1.5 at and east of the 40- foot blufftop setback zone. Based on this condition,it is our opinion that the potential for a deep-seated slope failure that extends below the proposed residence is low. It should be noted,however,that this does preclude the possibility of erosion of the bluff face as discussed in the`Bluff Erosion" section of this report. CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No. 12 RECOMMENDATIONS EARTHWORK AND GRADING GENERAL:All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the Uniform Building Code,the minimum requirements of the City of Encinitas,and the recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto,except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading,a representative of Christian Wheeler Engineering should be present at the pre- construction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines,if necessary,and to review the earthwork schedule. OBSERVATION OF GRADING: Continuous observation bythe Geotechnical Consultant is essential during the grading operation to confirm conditions anticipated by our investigation,to allow adjustments in design criteria to reflect actual field conditions exposed,and to determine that the grading proceeds in general accordance with the recommendations contained herein. CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Site preparation should begin with the demolition and removal of the existing improvements at the site that are designated for removal. This removal should include all existing foundations,slabs,pavements,and above grade and underground utilities,as well as anyvegetation,trees,and other deleterious materials,including all root balls from trees and all significant root material. The resulting organic materials and construction debris should be disposed of in an appropriate off-site facility. SITE PREPARATION:After clearing and grubbing,site preparation should consist of the removal of all weathered formational materials,natural topsoils,existing fill materials and soil disturbed during the removal of the existing improvements from areas to support fill and/or settlement-sensitive improvements. These materials should be removed to the contact with competent terrace deposits. The depth of the unsuitable and disturbed materials i expected to range from about one foot to four feet below the existing grades. In addition, we anticipate that the proposed residence will have a setback of approximate 8 feet from the northern property line and at least 10 feet from the southern property line. As such,the removals should extend at least five feet outside the perimeter of the residence and two feet outside areas to support light exterior improvements such as the driveway. Where necessary to achieve planned site grades,the excavated materials should mixed and moisture conditioned and replaced as compacted structural fill.The bottom of the excavations should be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing fills or constructing improvements. PROCESSING OF FILL AREAS:Prior to placing any new fill soils or constructing anynew improvements in areas that have been cleaned out to receive fill and approved by the geotechnical consultant or his CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No. 13 representative,the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches,moisture conditioned,and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. COMPACTION AND METHOD OF FILLING:All structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory Test D 1557. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content,in lifts six to eight inches thick, with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material,free of trash or debris,roots,vegetation,or other materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil technicians or project geologist. Fill material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of six inches in maximum dimension. Based on our subsurface observations and laboratory testing,we anticipate the on-site soils will be suitable for use as structural fill. All utility trenches should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. SURFACE DRAINAGE:Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from the proposed structure and the bluff top and toward approved drainage areas. For earth areas,a minimum gradient of one percent should be maintained. The ground around the proposed building and near the edge of the bluff should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the building and bluff top without ponding. In general,we recommend that the ground adjacent to buildings slope away at a gradient of at least two percent. Densely vegetated areas where runoff can be impaired should have a minimum gradient of five percent within the first five feet from the structure. Where possible,drainage should be directed to suitable disposal areas via non-erodible devices such as paved swales,gunited brow ditches,and storm drains. Eave gutters and downspouts should discharge into controlled drainage devices. FOUNDATIONS CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS:New continuous and spread footings supporting the proposed one- and two-story residence and garages should be embedded at least 12 and 18 inches below finish pad grade for one- and two-story structures,respectively. Continuous and isolated footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches and 24 inches,respectively. BEARING CAPACITY:New continuous and spread footings with the above minimum dimensions maybe designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. This value maybe increased by one-third for combinations of temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads. FOOTING REINFORCEMENT:A structural engineer should provide reinforcement requirements for foundations. However,based on the existing soil conditions,we recommend that the minimum reinforcing for CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No. 14 continuous footings supporting any lateral additions consist of at least one No. 5 bar positioned three inches above the bottom of the footing and one No.5 bar positioned approximately two inches below the top of the footing. LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE:Lateral loads against foundations maybe resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil,and bythe passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil maybe considered to be 0.35. The passive resistance maybe considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot. This assumes the footings are poured tight against undisturbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used,the friction value should be reduced by one-third. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS:The anticipated total and/or differential settlement is expected to be less than about one-half inch for new foundations,provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to concrete shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses,therefore some cracks should be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated foundation soils are expected to have a low expansion potential.The recommendations presented in this report reflect this condition. FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW: The foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review in order to ascertain that the recommendations of this report have been implemented,and that no additional recommendations are needed due to changes in the anticipated construction. FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION:All foundation excavations should be observed bythe Geotechnical Consultant prior to constructing fom-is or placing reinforcing steel to determine if the foundation recommendations presented herein are complied with. All footing excavations should be excavated neat,level and square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. ON-GRADE SLABS GENERAL:It is our understanding that the floor system of the proposed residence will consist of a concrete slab-on-grade.The following recommendations assume that the subgrade soils have been prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the"Grading and Earthwork" section of this report. In addition,the following recommendations are considered the minimum slab requirements based on the soil CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No. 15 conditions and are not intended in lieu of structural considerations. All slabs should be designed by qualified structural engineer. INTERIOR FLOOR SLABS: The minimum floor slab thickness should be four inches (actual) and all floor slabs should be reinforced with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on center each way. Slab reinforcement should be supported on chaos such that the reinforcing bars are positioned at mid-height in the floor slab. The slab reinforcement should extend into the perimeter foundations at least six inches. MOISTURE PROTECTION FOR INTERIOR SLABS:Where the concrete on-grade floor slabs will support moisture-sensitive floor covering,it is the industry standard that it be underlain by a moisture barrier. The industry standard for the subslab moisture barrier is a four-inch-thick blanket of coarse,clean sand that has less than ten percent and five percent passing the No. 100 and No.200 sieves,respectively,with a visqueen vapor barrier placed in the center of the sand blanket. Our experience indicates that this moisture barrier should allow the transmission of from about six to twelve pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day through the on-grade slab. This maybe an excess amount of moisture for some types of floor covering. If additional protection is considered necessary,recommendations can be provided to reduce the permeability of the concrete. EXTERIOR CONCRETE FLATWORK: Exterior slabs should have a minimum thickness of four inches. Reinforcement should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to reduce the potential for cracking and movement. Control joints should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to help control the location of shrinkage cracks. Spacing of control joints should be in accordance with the American Concrete Institute specifications. LIMITATIONS REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that Christian Wheeler Engineering be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts,specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No. 16 UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. CHANGE IN SCOPE This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. It should be verified in writing if the recommendations are found to be appropriate for the proposed changes or our recommendations should be modified by a written addendum TIME LIMITATIONS The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can,however,occur with the passage of time,whether they are due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition,changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes,the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore,this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD In the perforinance of our professional services,we complywith that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys,and explorations are made,and that our data,interpretations,and recommendations are based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data,interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only,and no warranty of any kind whatsoever,express or implied, CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No. 17 is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us,or by our proposal for consulting or other services,or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY It is the responsibility of Dawn Griffith or her representatives to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibilityto take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. FIELD EXPLORATIONS Three subsurface explorations were made at the locations indicated on the attached Plate Number ion June 25,2002. These explorations consisted of borings excavated with a`Beaver" limited access rig using solid flight augers. The fieldwork was conducted under the observation of our engineering geology personnel. - The explorations were carefully logged when made. The borings are presented on the following Plate Numbers 6 through 8. The soils are described in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System.In addition, a verbal textural description,the wet color,the apparent moisture and the density or consistency are provided.The density of granular soils is given as very loose,loose,medium dense,dense or very dense.The consistency of silts or clays is given as either very soft,soft,medium stiff,stiff,very stiff,or hard. Relatively undisturbed samples of typical and representative soils were obtained and returned to the laboratory for testing. The undisturbed samples were obtained bydriving a 2 and 3/8-inch inside diameter split-tube sampler ahead of the auger using a 140-pound weight free-falling a distance of 30 inches.The number of blows required to drive the sampler each foot was recorded and this value is presented on the attached boring logs as "Penetration Resistance." Bulk samples of disturbed soil were also collected in bags from the auger cuttings during the advancement of the borings and transported to the laboratory for testing. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures.A brief description of the tests performed is presented below. C'WE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No. 18 a) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. b) MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot,and the in-place moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dryweight. The results are summarized in the boring logs. c) COMPACTION TE ST:The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a typical soil were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D-1557,Method A- The results of this test are presented below. Sample Location Boring B-1 Q 1-5' Sample Description Reddish-brown,silty sand/poorly graded sand(SWSP) Maximum Dry Density 124.9 pcf Optimum Moisture 8.9% d) DIRECT SHEAR TEST:A direct shear test was performed to determine the failure envelope of the terrace deposits based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accommodate a sample having a diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. Each sample was saturated and tested separately at different vertical loads. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inch per minute. The results of this test are presented below and on Plate No. 9. Sample Location Boring B-I a 1'-5' Description Remolded to 90%RC Angle of Friction 330 Apparent Cohesion 125 psf e) EXPANSION INDEX TEST:An Expansion Index test on a remolded sample was performed on a representative sample of the soil present at finish grade. The test was performed on the portion of the sample passing the#4 standard sieve. The sample was brought to optimum moisture content and then dried back to a constant moisture content for 12 hours at 230±9 degrees Fahrenheit. The specimen was then compacted in a 4-inch-diameter mold in two equal layers by means of a tamper, then trimmed to a final height of 1 inch,and brought to a saturation of approximately 50 percent. The specimen was placed in a consolidometer with porous stones at the top and bottom,a total normal load of 12.63 pounds was placed(144.7 psf),and the sample was allowed to consolidate for a period of 10 minutes. The sample was saturated,and the change in vertical movement was recorded OWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Page No. 19 until the rate of expansion became nominal. The expansion index is reported below as the total vertical displacement times 1000. Sample Number B1(& 1-5 feet Initial Moisture 8.0% Initial Density 119.8 pcf Final Moisture 14.1 % Expansion Index 4 (very low) C r Ql 1] W Q Ca 0 cq o v I V v N IZI in ?• 00 oa I. u o o u 7 o/ p .o i . . •' oo K s ' N O W O O O C� 00 Or O O N O O 0 0 u I I N Z o o w 0.1 I �,. ,.I p.:"• 00 f, o v LLJ o -- -------- �I CD " AI OO ? N ' N W 0 °O or ° ° ° � o 0 N p i i u 1 � CD U i Q O a day N C m W u £ ° u N L Cy7 O dw2 In N Cu Q W ar iL u O N N N� B r Vi V b y d Uv C I j3 _ o (j •O C S07 L o 04 a 3 r- 0 Q mno V a Oil o00 V (V 6 R ada cn D �" nn E" N d z v F ca < o O m z W OE�m LLJT W LU II w e \., i 4 L V Z � \ a A J O k ,�\ 0 2 SyN In a N N f7 f9 a W co I W d �y J U L3 .}s ° n° r Z -i 3 e 0 0 0 V) U y Oj o z u!l! d . ....-. LL W in cn o O � N o m. J o m yre-a I W Q' a I— 101,a.-.N M , W N ti to o H— I N I] v x a z > =W S o u m w w .. s a h m 0 A E � C7 v, zm w •� CA In 2 o a N C dv u d aNZm N N ii C 6 apppp Q cn L c W pY V V p NY^ 0 C%j Ad cye. N �� W1U rpo 0 0 !T Ln 1 d m " 0 0 r W aao U U Ci O' Q a0 L.0 v� o d d V ° ° U J ° a CU d b ` O ca z � z N a O 7 " r'bo W ti L �r) LAI � �`�,. n L ca Cl 17 3 � m tea.. W � U >+ \ c U 03 C I i` cn O` � N U G Z O VdP°00 V n LLJ A a % ,,,• O V O c p N C,m a c 6-. W c,...... e N ° V o W 0 m a a o d4. yjUMmn L� 1 - W G is I J U J; " ' °n r l7 :p 3 t-1 1•.. t Y U S- (01 U " o-E u.._._. L.1 V A -P w z w IA " u , cn o CL ° C CL. Z a- F- a O y,-Z..N l7 J Z 0 F - N � � n 0 I• V a X Y T Z v .1 y {j _tZ W a' m U O U m w .t � CI S f� v v � W u V v. ze � z w a 0 N w W u Y rid t � W W ti Yv (A m U 70 Y m oo - a M o,N m O °°000 ranc Ry i th N Y3 a i p � to w A a a ONO d Y >. oi0000 K >1 GQ '9 m C 4- ago ca dam- U z b n _ N Q 0 3 tN tit O 3 S rn W t'n _ c a pu� Li A J U W e� O w cs EM Nadi l°'l v°Oi m "J� U.�iv a w ig C4 J ��•+ � - i3 -I !t l7 _( I W d J U N °m r L3 :p -�^ ...._ (n U ocaNNN Q 41 \ Lc to O O f H N y 0- i. .. o r r-a x ul '- p C r�orr O! a m Co Tad..ari IL N ° in o W t � •11 U > =Z ;-1 W t w dz n V p O aVt 0 U3 s O -s m N 0 0 N Y V tm W a U cr' zts W '2 A M .• aG U O ru C A C "u _ a lu u w W a o s H w u ON 9 ° a ac'ni Z c v cu a i c W N O V A In O },' O V N dC M P. B �� u _ F� A aU a000 O .N. �' a `� o ao o C) W m i vii c r 4N0 a°a a°e e° Q) o v U W O 4 N (U O W Ummen y� z i c co t7 cv W o 1. C- y c W m \ za U o-u z O W J dpi;eoo 0 A d V O �.o oa U ...ca.. a a W 0 J N c pa CI d ono m �3 a < U 1 av W O J U r e Z :p r 3 - 0 S. V u u NNN r7 Q...+.. _, La it V W 0 W to w -3 W E w�_ n m., •� L V LLJ Z �.:. S 0 S` ,_d O Fes-0 No CL Ol a v O'. n 0n W F- N N Z.w N('1 1 U 0 0 cu ° tn o Z x y ! U L W 1� d 1- z w z o n C z v 9 z w � n LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-1 Date Excavated: 6/25/2002 Logged by: J\XB Equipment: Beaver%g Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: 77.0 feet Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: 77.0 feet Drive Weight: 140 lbs. SA\MPLFS C7 0 O SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS W 3 a g W Artificial Fill(Qao: \Medium brown,damp,loose,SANDY i FT GR1�EL(GP). NID, 2 DS Terrace Deposits (Qt): Reddish-brown,damp to moist,medium 4 dense,SILTY SAND/POORLY GRADED SAND (S-.%M/SP). Expansion Index of 4(very low). us 29 1.6 113.9 6 At 6 feet becomes dense. 8 10 Reddish-brown,damp to moist,very dense,SILTY SAND (S_�\I),with us 50/6" 5.8 122.6 clay. 12 Yellowish-brown,damp to moist,very dense,POORLY GRADED SAND(SP), fine to medium-grained. 14 US 50/4" 16 18 At 17 feet becomes medium to coarse-grained. US 50/4" 20 Boring terminated at 20 feet. PROPOSED GRIFFITH/MORGAN RESIDENCE 412 West "E" Street,Encinitas, California CHRISTIAN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: September 2002 E N c i N F E K I n c JOB NO. : 202.447 PLATE NO.: 6 LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-2 Date Excavated: 6/25/2002 Logged by: JWB Equipment: Beaver Rig Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: 791/2 feet Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: 79/2 feet Drive Weight: 140 lbs. S;A1%fPL1?S O a O $ H OH cn x SUNML-kRY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a � a N Z S c Artificial Fill (Qaf): Medium brown,damp to moist,loose,SILTY m-grained. 2 �S 1ND(S\t) fine to mediu Weathered Terrace Deposits (Qt): \tedium brown,damp,loose to US 11 2.9 103.3 medium dense,POORLY GRADED S-AND/SILTY SAND(SP/S'-\I), 4 fine to medium-grained. US 11 4.4 104.7 Terrace Deposits (Qt): Reddish-brown,damp to moist,medium 6 dense,POORLY GRADED SAND/SILTY SAND (SP/S\I), fine to 8 medium-grained. 10 _ Reddish-brown,moist,medium dense,SILTY SAND(S\I),,.,ith clay. US 28 7.0 123.3 12 Yellowish-brown,moist,dense,POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to medium-grained. 14 US 50 5.5 110.6 16 18 At 17 feet becomes medium to coarse-grained. US 61 4.7 104.6 20 Boring terminated at 20 feet. PROPOSED GRIFFITH/MORGAN RESIDENCE !� 412 West "E" Street, Encinitas,California CHRISTIAN WHEELER BY: HF DATE: September 2002 E N G I N F E R I N G JOB NO. : 202.447 PLATE NO.: 7 LOG OF TEST BORING NUMBER B-3 Date Excavated: 6/25/2002 Logged by: J \XB Equipment: Beaver Rig Project Manager: CHC Existing Elevation: 771/2 feet Depth to Water: N/A Finish Elevation: 771/2 feet Drive Weight: 140 lbs. SAN1Y1,ES (=i (U c W 'o a � U SUNU�IARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS � z � W W W c } Oa r+ V Topsoil: Medium brown,damp,very loose,SILTY SAND (S.%I),fine 2 \to medium-grained. US 6 7.1 101.1 Terrace Deposits (Qt): 'Medium brown,moist,loose,SILTY SAND/ POORLY GRADED SAND(SAI/SP),fine to coarse-grained. II 4 At 4 feet becomes reddish-brown. US 10 7.5 102.1 6 At 6 feet becomes medium dense. � 8 Reddish-brown,moist to wet,medium dense,SILTY SAND (S:1l), US 24 10.0 124.3 10 fine to coarse-grained. . . .... .... __..._._...._..._._..___.....__..__..._....._..__...... Yellocish-brown,moist,medium dense to dense,POORLY GRADED 12 SAND(SP),fine to medium-grained. 14 US 42 6.8 113.3 16 it 18 At 17 feet becomes medium to coarse-grained. US I 84 1 8.5 1 112.5 20 Boring terminated at 20 feet. PROPOSED GRIFFITH/MORGAN RESIDENCE 412 West "E" Street, Encinitas,California CHRISl11N WHEELER BY: HF DATE: September 2002 F N C. I N E F K I N C 70B 1�0• : 202.447 PIy1TE I�O•: 8 CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Appendix A,Page A 1 REFERENCES Anderson,J.G.;Rockwell,R.K.and Agnew,D.C., 1989,Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego Region,Earthquake Spectra,Volume 5,No.2, 1989. Boore,David M.,Joyner,William B.,and Fumal,Thomas E., 1997,"Empirical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration,Peak Ground Velocity, and Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra",in Seismological Research Letters,Volume 68,Number 1,January/February 1997. California Division of Mmes and Geology, 1998,Maps of Known Active Fault Near Source-Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. - California Division of Mmes and Geology, 1996,Geologic Maps of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe,7.5' Quadrangles,;DMG Open-File Report 96-02. Department of the Navy, 1986,Foundations and Earth Structures,Design Manual 7.2,dated September. Jennings,GW., 1975,Fault Map of California,California Division of Mines and Geology,Map No. 1,Scale 1:750,000. Kennedy, Michael P., Tan, Sean Siang, Chapman, Rodger H., and Chase, Gordon W., 1975, Character And Recency of Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 123. Kern,P., 1989,Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego County,Pickle Press,73 pp. Tan,S.S., 1995,Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area,San Diego County,California,California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 95-04. Treiman,J.A., 1984, Fault Map Rose Canyon Fault Zone, California Division of Mines and Geology, scale 1:100,000 Treirian,Jerome A., 1993, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Southern California, California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 93-02. CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Appendix A,Page A-2 Wesnousky,S.G., 1986, "Earthquakes,Quaternary Faults,and Seismic Hazards in California",in Journal of Geophysical Research,Volume 91,No.B12,pp 12,587 to 12,631,November 1986. TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS Cityof San Diego, 1975,Ortho-Topographic Map,Sheet:370-1665,Scale: 1 inch =200 feet. PHOTOGRAPHS Aerial Fotobank Inc., 1995-96,San Diego County,Page 1247. Lenka's Aerial Atlas,1995,San Diego County,Page 1247. San Diego County, 1953,Flights 14K Photographs 21 &23,Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1970,Flight 2,Photographs 4 and 5;Scale: 1 inch=2000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1973,Flight 36,Photographs 5,6 and 7;Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1978,Flight 13B,Photographs 16 and 17;Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet (approximate). CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Appendix B,B-1 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS- GENERAL PROVISIONS PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 412 "E" STREET ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA GENERAL INTENT The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing,compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled,and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and/or the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed,except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer. OBSERVATION AND TESTING _ Christian Wheeler Engineering shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide his opinion as to whether or not the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules,changes and new information and data so that he may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations,the Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations. If,in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer,substandard conditions are encountered,such as questionable or unsuitable soil,unacceptable moisture content,inadequate compaction, adverse weather,etc., construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommend rejection of this work Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials test methods: C'WE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Appendix B,B-2 Maximum Density&Optimum Moisture Content- ASTM D-1557-91 Density of Soil In-Place- ASTM D-1556-90 or ASTM D-2922 All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing ASIM testing procedures. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL All vegetation,brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed,and legally disposed of. All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance,free from unsightly debris. After clearing or benching the natural ground,the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content,compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is defined as natural soil which possesses an in-situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density. When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent(5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soil. The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1-1/2 times the equipment width,whichever is greater,and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches should be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedure should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer. This includes,but is not limited to,septic tanks,fuel tanks,sewer lines or leach lines,storm drains and water lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary. All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3 CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Appendix B,B-3 feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or a qualified Structural Engineer. FILL MATERIAL Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils,soils of poor gradation,or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material,but only with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site. PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report. When the structural fill material includes rocks,no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non- structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report,when applicable. Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken bythe Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than the required degree of compaction,the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained. CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Appendix B,B-4 Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition,fill slopes at a ratio of two horizontal to one vertical or flatter,should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut- back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable. Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise,the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report. If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results,the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained,at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer. C'UT SLOPES The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the W preliminary report such as perched water,seepage,lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature,unfavorably inclined bedding,joints or fault planes are encountered during grading,these conditions shall be analyzed bythe Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are necessary. Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report,no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency. ENGINEERING OBSERVATION Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or CWE 202.447.2 September 5,2002 Appendix B,B-5 ti the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. SEASON LIMITS Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of work RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS- SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground,compacted fill,and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot subgrade,the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of 50 or greater when tested in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2. OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over 6 inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of placement of such material is provided bythe Geotechnical Engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No.4 U.S. Standard Sieve. TRANSITION LOTS:Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad,the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and _w recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report, special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting maybe required. I o t 0 Cm N ^ o5 �= cod a=1 � °° � o N m m 0 dl >' ®; 001 C O illl Z►:e• N pQOr , l -1 -:� � rt - - • =P + M C ~ O ® � mQ 7 y qN ,'Sc z C L m mQ ° N b V ° LIM OpOW v C,4 0 s , 1;� ■� WIMP 1110111101 o a C C y C O c 0 U) 7 C O « Y/O m O Cm 00 Ol t Q.'� t 'a p r = v C t7 m 7 fl .0 pp N L 3�- �■MOM (� ►• Cc O O to «. p 00 +. m O GO C eO C 2 CL 0 p O .. O Q ® n p � �m O O . OW 7 0 � r I I ! -E 0 00 v ° eie+ o « ,,r Z ao b o e$ U ® o 'o a t P !' L .� v m y :. o , y o rd Q Q. c m r o > ° ^ z 4 t- rn CO c �o a — �0 c=i i. u 3 a c fn °� W 3 o is d m c c >• $ �• y _ �/ m �V!ww w e a`► H `0S c ui� N W o �CO o ;pp: � Z c7 a c '• o m °e Z m ��1I \ _ t r •� N -co c YI p m O ._. m ao II m p m a`Q O C O c C e to y O m ; o O Gx 1 I 11 ° „ � m � c ` ^ to .� z cc LL ° y � � — ; °e ° o `rd 'm' t >* a \ NfAIL - • e m N m t0 CC - O t0 t0 « • Z _. 8f > O O O • 'O mrNrs m y mo � U y € per o pZ « -j c � � 1;� 1 ' t. . 1 Nam Y L y Ol �, cs l> O €? mom v O O « ao �. to m m w` cq m` 0 0 ` o y _CL ol, ..� � = oa°DO >.OD « a ° a � - 01 sWi v � � >. � ° 9 4 `' to ° t \\ c m % = mvm •° mo `o $; ®� U) (,� °ou o v 'om an m " -� uja: a � t � � 0Z � 1 e t O V " — J 0 Or O ^ N C C C C E V C .;� 0 n _ ® ' - e C r Q a N ^ a°° y i�� 1Z « �,� n cc g m is a p` o 2 e \ IL q p 1 ' Oce°^ LR W m t .-tp r Y +'- V /1\ �. O t0 90. ter, O QQf m m Q N.r Z n C \G \Y r C •" tl1 8 .�— y V/ CO CL > s! °A 1 0 0 y 0 a E C {p 1 Q N p 0 0GS ° .6 O V O � y e O � x % �, O r t � tp o 0 0 � 0 H O C � Q J U) .. -3 O O 2 m H Q N m W `' Z F- O H O W 2 (� .. fn — t0 -> r r' r Q I O z LL ' rB 1 U V •/ OP O O P S P O P I ? N z' wn a E R CL 9r9 1 W CO W y x z o I� o33 0 (n A. 0 Cr cc w w R J +� g 6 �t Ct 09 aete curb; Ae C13 I j and 9 r n S ! r ' I � a a - I m 10 IA U!9r z sr street iB I 619 laephalt Pav°ment �x % -- t •RIB a - !°. —c SO !� _ s_ _ Ira►. . h- I I t4 W ..BO G` �MM 1 rg W z W i W w.r a H ~ I µl W � o a to coo«. curb 1 z w =' . .� and gutter F- ! r a mss ` Cc ! Q rats E rw rot s�. U N E . x 9 = can Asa &s! °m (� b r E 1 l t*a wil:n,.,•,.. - _ _� 6,!O o s 9° I ar. e 'A 11-0 eb 2 0 m 'S !rg! a ! eta' 0 s ss. fen s et !s a 4• hIT' !B 9. 6'35'37" W 49.83')tis siB r°% !p dlding gate is 1 once t, _ r hry ae • b� sreO o'( 90 �� �. . � • � ' SAS ! O ! , V ! ^ B ' V oa �rbl wall r ! 4 ! , "M � O �! �RR b• o - ! ra I /�� •��r T` M11 �'F rt , i. !! 6g. \l O � A r 0. grall- f�6! y�r 5t'1, 4 r `r'> <i tr". t > }rr�. n� y Sr4 yh`S'f'S C S .,•i n, "�.: f��U,f+�� •m a r f i Z r lvri F ia; 1 Ih�r' r� 4°+'�:4' K 1 aST i t '�'1 Q !6' a i � � xf y-r r 2 4 "brta _ tL} rt �ryta r'J<�"r r } '4L� 1 tFf � t •vy N W ° fr�r,. ``" t �y .ri ? Z l' iTS+ : i3•.'Y°' `1 4 , r tr� lY It I r9i 8 le we 47•`r ' Y f<`:7r 'fr'ts�i`r ts<' `t:•y °ti "?rv..C< � B " !i9 9! �� 1 r:��!I Y i J% vi s w �' �' ,. ! 0 Ste! ! �/ !! §i c ~LfY ')rrlrh`� a`r -`,i t-• `d� ,. . ..: ... __ . `eta �,,.. = S. � ` v. H , , • -' i y ' f .. Ke r ..5:_; .s: 1R'" < t S 'r'i. <;S "'t •:,ft. § Y Y K I E 3 IO 61.' 1 r g% �iR' �yiii ft 4�7it r ,` r L' • !B f! •o•� r vM' W '�[ r <4b aJ Y. •� I 1 ^0 v/��� �. 2♦ r Y��'tv*i: Y! s _-erg Od.O d:) o -Q9 e t4',1�1fi. t0 I { r-n,:�.i. ' K=�-< ' �Ei+:�^''<y k.✓�.' S! / It 9b ardra, N +� t r 1' �'C tbv ^N� ' ,> s, f• bB ��{y •- 9g ! e e r B !S Sv . ( J � A O Or�B q �+ a !A \ <-(& 5 high ch°k'INk fence « DG& 18 e 959 in—S '� l ytr. Cm Cm ebkury50a Pq 233 ;Oa sf i - C � �9, !6 tog c gate 1 L I � • N 0 CO All sJd1 s! ❑(M 6°3537. W 89.94') .. PWI1 Utility (vac _ ! ' I \ nt for °"y Recorded &� �� 8 e cs pistr c; by DocURtentPa e'278 a g e8 s N \ Y C a.r or Pubi a.,o4 7599, 9 3 once = ! r o ' •i O T All APrit t �.. c g!— 3• high y !�� 5• high chalnllnk fence i� w, cc LP U Olp t CF) s!<s! °� s r N o - M l(►'pj �� o g .0 1elr! rir In 40' approximate �, s. I QI top Of dope +. ! _ • f;L1 �a�.r'�14 a o � o � n ��®•D/J .. p mm Wr I 'ya z mm rt V• 'Y` {' t � t r � f Wm W ' o f Ica coo as M NJ CO ,anjn5 o!wo1UOD wa4lnoS ZooZO wo Zt:ll aDOZ '8Z RoW 6MP'f41U1!�6 r