Loading...
2001-6984 G ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT i .� Capital Improvement Projects city Of District Support Services Encinitas Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering October 29, 2003 Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company 1081 Camino Del Rio South Suite 107 San Diego, California 92108 RE: Dittman Family Trust/Wiegand Neglia Corp Corte La Bella TM 01-001 APN 264-223-29 Grading Permit 6984-G Final release of security Permit 6984-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the grading. Therefore, release of the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 142666, in the amount of$34,562.71, is hereby fully exonerated. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. r f Sincerely, Masih Maher J Lembach Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach,FinanceManager Dittman Family Trust/Wiegand Neglia Corp Debra Geishart file enc. ALL TEL 760-633-2600 i FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper CITY OF ENCINITAS — ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: Z-- PROJECT NAMEZaAI� �� l� 1 PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: V �LV R.O.W. NUMBER: CONTRt.CTOR: `J! PHONE: -2 joAz . a C b 4A U t�I/I�I ESC or ,dv # t elt;)4 -e 7e ille u r� r f l C d2t IIW/04/MS1-381wp Geotechnics 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Incorporated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION DATE DAY PAGE OF PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY t:J SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS 11L -- r y n i �. .. __•. t Lam.'.. _.�- ,:.�" - a ..�_>_%✓'S.='�.- -=ice- '"' y_ _ '- __� _—._ _",^___ - _._.— ��- - _. _ • . . F i 1. x f ° r AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF - - -- GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy Ge o t e c h n i c S 9245 Activity Rd., Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Incorporated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION DATE DAY s.i 'k eb; PAGE ;/ OF PROJECT <t. � CLI.Nfi PROJECT NO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR r LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER < WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER - DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL ` EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING <:,;c '> BY 4 r. SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED -: "s•`.; i- __ - -ice -/ -- SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS �I �, f . t t _ "th!- ,d' ;«" 4. �. J • 3 i �-•' _, i"\� A '„� .��1 �?.i:� �� ..r'c..��-��'1�= � if M1 r�.1 1 f i t i + a r r ; _ i i - ; r Vic. au � ti '�•_ .�"`'. �`?,l v`. ,d t'd; S , '1_y--t. -_�_�-�zS._+_µ'±" ' '_'x-_ 5 1'"r'9't..r 7 .,.f..�:'1 ..... `�.;,_n._i:'. -.1 ,. � •.__�"`�` - - -._ `i..-_•�_ __ ___ ___ If AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy Ge o t e c h n i c s 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 In c o r p o r a t e d Phone(858)536 1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION DATE DAY PAGE OF PROJECT y 'CLIENT PROJECT NO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR v PROJECT MANAGER WEATHER vt PROJECT ENGINEER c, DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS a SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON I OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING �•, < BY , SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED " a SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS + _ - s 1 r n l .. , { r n ,r i ', _ ,. { ;. .,t. �^_ .._..--=-•`-"L--`'.fit`-''�"'"` k,- _ _ , `. _`✓ -a� - ,.4'�s.-_..4.__T!.___ _ a . 4. AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy r ,r _ G e to t e c h n i c S 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Incorporated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 FIELD MEMO DATE DAY ^"r PAGE %` OF PROJECT: CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: MEMO BY: SUBJECT: :i 0 a{s„`ry ;Af �,,.. Y;. L"d; ' r. ✓" sf .1 �.' .s:...yd"'ce r t^ 1n t l A f. rCr' ,7 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED, BY: z ' !- SI "ATURE - engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy '. Ge o t e C-h n l C 5 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 In C O r p O r a t e d Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION DATE DAY y PAGE OF PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER r 1,, DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION „"';{ i�{�,� /� r +^�..� ,� F TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED r _ SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS 4 m.t s s, S AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy Ge o t e c h n 1 c S 9245 Activity Rd., Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Incorporated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION IDATE DAY I PAGE OF PROJECT CLIENT ; PROJECT NO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy other:gold copy �► Geotechnics 9245 Activity Rd., Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Incorporated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION DATE DAY PAGE OF PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL r - EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION �>; "��> •:>'�� ,• ,��_ c.E •, TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED , • x SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS +' _ , f f I r 1 i AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy other:gold copy Geotec'hnics 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 In c o r p o r a t e d Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION DATE DAY tr, .S t `. : PAGE OF PROJECT r ,CLIENT PROJECT NO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER r _ WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy Ge O t e c h n i c s 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Inc o r p o rated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION IDATE �; DAY `K PAGE OF PROJECT A.PROJECT NO.NO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION . GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER ;::, DAY'S APPROX. YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL ' EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION l ` TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED -� SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS i -L� ` ' ),i r,+ ,• �L•'4.1d I: .K k.1 h -i 1 a * a;! — - -1 -- , 4 1 s e � r AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy Ge o t e c h n i c s 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Inc o r p o rat e d Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION IDATE DAY 1, PAGE OF PROJECT " CLIENT „ PROJECT NO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER - DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION P r, TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS A-- – —- , AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF – GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy _ G e o t e c h n i c S 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Incorporated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION DATE DAY PAGE OF PROJECT CLIENT ar PROJECT NO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS ,�'V- AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy Ge o t e c`h n i c s 9245 Activity Rd., Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 In c o r p o r a t e d Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION DATE DAY yt ,., ,ry;, PAGE OF PROJECT t ..c ^t :. `, CE4ENT PROJECT NO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER WEATHER t'. _' PROJECT ENGINEER ?_ u" <, DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS 4 SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION r d` TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY t SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED 4 SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS i AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF - GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy Geotechnics 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Incorporated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 FIELD MEMO DAY PAGE OF DATE < PROJECT:--- CLIENT: IPROJECT NO.: MEMO BY: SUBJECT: ✓ 77 ,7 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED, BY: z (SIGNATURE) engineering file: white copy job superintendent: yellow copy field file: pink copy Ge o t e C .h ri 1 C S 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 In C 0 r p O r a t e d Phone(8A)536-1000 Fax(85$)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION DATE 1 DAY ,i w_ PAGE OF PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS _o-';i SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL r EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION , TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS i a `. MAN f i L 1 t k.q•a.� .. � _ �+J _ __ -._ I AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy Ge o t e c h n 1 c S 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Inc o r p o rated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION DATE DAY -J PAGE OF PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER s DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS • Y. ; AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy Geotechnics 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 ff������ `Inco r p o rated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 FIELD MEMO DATE r' ;` DAY ".-, % .Q, PAGE OF PROJECT: CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: ',; r . -, ✓ MEMO BY: SUBJECT: ✓ y , { w f 1° n a.,' � !'.,:,.�•�r'. .N'"iP :"j7` _M"s !!fit. .. -:J •,P' , v a, r t � • /A.,/r`1',_�''s"� .k`..'�' ✓� 17 ��;f ra.,'aP .�.''�.f':'r^;?,.f �S .•°£.....E..'�.-#. GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED, BY: - - SIGNATURE engineering file: white copy job superintendent: yellow copy field file: pink copy Ge o t e c i n i c s 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Incorporated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION DATE DAY �'. .,�t x; PAGE OF PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER la DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL f EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS + r . ♦ ' - 4 . /? �� "M1 \ `ter.() J , AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy Adhh6- Geotechnics 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Incorporated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 FIELD MEMO IDATE FDAY F PAGE bF PROJECT: CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: MEMO BY: SUBJECT: r -yam 4?_1 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED, BY: (SIGNATURE) engineering file: white copy job superintendent: yellow copy field file: pink copy Ge o t e c h n i c s 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Incorporated Phone(858)536-1 000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION DATE .. DAY { `,.Tf,. ? PAGE OF PROJECT . . CLIENT ;`.. PROJECT NO. r; GENERAL CONTRACTOR " LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR A 1 A u' PROJECT MANAGER WEATHER ) PROJECT ENGINEER t' :, DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL v EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED �3 SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS i r. t r , j j 7 t J 'i r ft ) AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy Geotechnics 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Incorporated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 FIELD MEMO IDATE DAY PAGE OF IPROJECT: CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: IMEMO BY: SUBJECT: -7 od,-11" GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED, BY: SIGNATURE engineering file: white copy job superintendent: yellow copy field file: pink copy t Ge o t e c-h n i c s 9245 Activity Rd., Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 I n c o r p o r a t e d Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)636-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION DATE %i` DAY PAGE OF r PROJECT ULIENT PROJECT NO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER 4 y DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS —,._ _.ice- T:r•.4,-.-,. :.. . ..: • t : : f r , AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy A111116- Geotechni* c S 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 Ammmmmkk�_ San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Incorporated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 FIELD MEMO IDATE DAY PAGE OF PROJECT: ICLIENT: PROJECT NO.: MEMO BY: SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED, BY: (SIG NATUW' engineering file: white copy job superintendent: yellow copy field file: pink copy i Ir A G e o t e C h n 1 C S 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 I n c o r p o r a t e d Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION DATE `r r% DAY r, +d . +, —� PAGE OF PROJECT .� - � �` CLIENT PROJECT NO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION , GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER t_, r'. r' °. WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER °•t�rk+, „ DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS ,' SITE CONDITIONS j SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL i•t > ,_ EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION f � TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED s, r SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS i� '_� i � ^.t � • '., i x ,,Y } -6 �-�'y �'_- ---"-�^ Y �_., _: �'� :--•"z'L f _ -�� 1 Atli- _ i5 y ' r"{ .y 'r AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy Ge o t et: h n *1 c S 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Incorporated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 36-8311 FIELD MEMO DATE DAY PAGE OF PROJECT: CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: MEMO BY: SUBJECT: jr GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED, BY: (SIGNATURE) engineering file: white copy job superintendent: yellow copy field file: pink copy V e o t e c h n 1 c S 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Incorporated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION DATE DAY PAGE OF PROJECT A^i CLIENT PROJECT NO. _...t `% GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION t,t GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER ., d ..4 WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER f t .; . ; DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL 4`- EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION {,t f TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY a SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED y ` SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS t ` r + w ' AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy A4016- G e o t e c h n i c s 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 In c o r p o r a t e d Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION IDATE DAY i ,r F PAGE t OF PROJECT t ' ,k .n: .,. CLIENT PROJECT NO. ,f GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION i + GRADING CONTRACTOR f PROJECT MANAGER 1 ;•"., WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER ;y, DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATIONC' TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED 1 ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS puf ; '4 A :. �,.w %r"_ TT' : '' ;�• r i r s , r r 4 4 a i r ' t AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy _ G e o t e c h n i c s 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Incorporated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION IDATE DAY PAGE OF PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy Ge o t e c h n i c S 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 1 n c o r p o r a t e d Phone(858)536-1000 mmmmomb Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION DATE DAY PAGE OF PROJECT WENT PROJECT NO. r GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR -t PROJECT MANAGER WEATHER 4 t f PROJECT ENGINEER DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS f SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL EQUIPMENTU4D IN OPERATION ! i a TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED '. SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS 1 AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy Ad@16- Geote:chnics 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 Ammmmmkh�- San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Incorporated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 FIELD MEMO DATE DAY PAGE OF PROJECT: CLIENT: PROJECT NO.: MEMO BY: SUBJECT: e X —0, 1-�7 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED, BY: '(SIGWATUM' engineering file: white copy job superintendent: yellow copy field file: pink copy Ge o t e c h n i c s 9245 Activity Rd.,Suite 103 San Diego,CA 92126-4442 Incorporated Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 DAILY REPORT OF GRADING OBSERVATION DATE DAY PAGE OF PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOCATION GRADING CONTRACTOR PROJECT MANAGER x,f`j; WEATHER PROJECT ENGINEER DAY'S APPROX.YARDAGE VISITORS SITE CONDITIONS SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION OF FILL MATERIAL EQUIPMENT USED IN OPERATION TECHNICIAN TIME AT JOB HOURS NUMBER OF TEST APPROVED ON OFF CHARGED PASSING FAILING BY SPECIFIC LOCATION OF WORK PERFORMED "' - : SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS r ' • 0 l F. t I , AREAS NEEDING RETESTING/REWORKING DAY OF — - GRADING engineering file:white copy job superintendent yellow copy field file:pink copy TAS FO 1424 ENCINITAS BLVD., ENCINITAS, CA 92024• (760) 753-6286•FAx(760)944-5487 July 26, 2001 City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Encinitas, CA 92024 Attention: Tamara O'Neal RE: Letter of permission for off site grading ref. DWG N . 6984G Dear Ms. O'Neal, I am the owner of Parcel 3, PM 16199, which is adjacent to and east of the proposed project referenced above. I have reviewed the proposed grading plans. We hereby grant permission for the grading work to be done on our property as shown in the above referenced project. If you require removal of any citrus trees I will require staking and discussion for alternatives prior pulling out any trees. Sincerely, Mark S. Wheeler P.O. Box 230945, ENCINITAS, CA 92023-0945 z _ CITY OF ENCINITAS MEMORANDUM Date: May 29, 2001 TO: Tamara O'Neal, Assistant Engineer FROM: Scott Vurbeff, Environmental Coordinator SUBJECT: Certification of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 01-001: Corte La Bella Grading Plan The purpose of this memorandum is to certify that the information contained in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 01-001, on file with the City of Encinitas Community Development Department, has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State Guideline thereto; that the Mitigated Negative Declaration represents the independent judgement of the City of Encinitas as Lead Agency; and that the information contained in the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 00-001, together with any comments received during the public review process, has been reviewed and considered prior to issuance of the gradin permit for the Corte La Bella grading plan. Scott Vurbeff Environmental Coordinator SAV:sv cc: Project File Enclosure: Corte La Bella Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a Mitigated CITY OF ENCINITAS Negative Declaration Community Development Department 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas,CA 92024 760-633-2692 Fax: 760-633-2818 Case No. 01-001 EIA/4(d) Permit SUBJECT: Corte La Bella. Grading Plan and Interim Habitat Loss 4(d)Permit for three residential lots on 7.65 acres. The project site is located in the RR(Rural Residential) zone of the Olivenhain Community. Applicant: Bruce D. Wiegand I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial Study. II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: See attached Initial Study. III. DETERMINATION: The City of Encinitas conducted an Initial Study which determined that the proposed project could have a significant environmental effect in the following area(s): Biological Resources. Subsequent revisions in the project proposal create the specific mitigation identified in Section V of this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project as revised now avoids or mitigates the potentially significant environmental effects previously identified, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. IV. DOCUMENTATION: The attached Initial Study documents the reasons to support the above Determination. V. Biological Resources 1. Prior to grading permit issuance,the project applicant shall mitigate impacts to 1.82 acres of coastal sage scrub and 0.10 acre of native grassland at a 2:1 replacement ratio to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Mitigation for coastal sage scrub shall be achieved through off-site acquisition and conservation of 3.64 acres of in-kind habitat within the preserve boundaries of the draft Multiple Habitat Conservation Program Planning Area. Acquisition may be achieved by purchasing credits from a mitigation bank approved by the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mitigation of Native Grassland shall be achieved through in-kind purchase of 0.20 acre of credit from the San Vicente Conservation Bank. Page 1 of 2 2. Prior to grading permit issuance, impacts to sensitive habitat shall be minimized by the recordation of a 3.39-acre open space/habitat preservation easement dedicated to the City of Encinitas as shown on Drawing No. 6984-G to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Community Development Department shall ensure that grading plans incorporate native hydroseeding of proposed manufactured slopes within Parcel 2 that are contiguous with the proposed open space easement. The hydroseed mix in this area shall consist of non-invasive, native plant species. 4. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Community Development Department shall ensure that grading plans incorporate orange snow fencing along open space boundaries during construction activity. The grading plans shall indicate that construction boundaries are to be clearly staked and flagged to indicate limits of disturbance. In addition, the grading plans shall indicate that no construction activity, equipment maintenance, or storage of construction materials or equipment shall occur within or adjacent to the open space easement. VI. RESULTS OF PUBLIC REVIEW: (X) No comments were received during the public input period. ( ) Comments were received but did not address the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration finding or the accuracy/completeness of the Initial Study. No response is necessary. The letters are attached. () Comments addressing the findings of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and/or accuracy or completeness of the Initial Study were received during the public input period. The letters and responses follow. Copies of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and any Initial Study material are available in the office of the City of Encinitas Community Development Department for review, or for purchase at the cost of reproduction. eyAo V417 April 26, 2001 Scott Vurbeff, Enviro ntal Coordinator Date of Draft Report Community Development Department May 29, 2001 Date of Final Report Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT OPENSPACE EASEMENT AUG c "Uu AN EASEMENT FOR OPENSPACE PURPOSES OVER, UNDER ALONG AND ACROSS THOSE PORTIONS OF PARCELS 1, 2 AND 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO 16199 IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED AUGUST 29, 1990 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. EASEMENT WITHIN PARCEL I THAT PORTION OF SAID PARCEL 1 LYING NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE. BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 02 002'28"EAST 241.41 FEET FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE NORTH 40°27'39" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 31.91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 84°17'22" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 102.55 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47°21'54" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 56.03 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°47'23" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 90.38 FEET; THENCE SOUTH O1°49'21" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 132.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1. EASEMENT WITHIN PARCEL 2 THAT PORTION OF SAID PARCEL 2 LYING NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE. BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 DISTANT THEREON THENCE SOUTH 02 002'28" EAST 241.41 FEET FROM THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE NORTH 33°38'03" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 63.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68°22'46" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 71°40'05" EAST A DISTANCE OF 46.82 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 77°58'52" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 28.19 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 84 052'19" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 69.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78°02'06" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 61.00 FEET; TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT 40.00 FOOT PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP 16199; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE NORTH 01°35'10" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 228.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN WISHBONE WAY AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP 16199. EASEMENT WITHIN PARCEL 3 THAT PORTION SAID OF PARCEL 3 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3 DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 83 024'18" EAST 20.23 FEET FROM THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE CONTINUIND ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 83 024'18" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 84.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 23°04'37" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 104.82 FEET; THENCE NORTH 86°22'12" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 32.64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 54°51'23" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 106.17 FEET; THENCE NORTH 02°02'28" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 165.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. N� S C. _U L, O ft 5211 &YP'G-30-03 c'QZIPOR1`11A EXHIBIT "B" OPENSPACE EASEMENT PLAT F WISHBONE 1 9 WAY ,1 I PARCEL i PARCEL 2 J cu J .I 5 L10 X1 if v`L Lib L17 L8 I rt 1 J � � 1 Ls CORTE LA BELLA cn LU N ` Q I (V L2 PARCEL 4 UU] 1 ' LDEI BEARING DISTANCE L 1 N54'5123"E 106.17' 1 PARCEL 3 L21 S86 22'12'E 32.64' L31 N23'04 37' 104-a2' L41 NO2'02'28 V 165.31 ' L51 S93'24'18"E 84.76' L61 N83 24'18"W 65.87' L71 N01 49 21"W 132.47' 1 LB N88.47 23' 90.38' L9 N47 21'54'E 56.03' 1 L10 S84'17 22'E 102.55' L11 S40 2739'E 31.91' �,.W —• L121 N33 38'03"E 63.67' L131 N68*2246'F 30.32 INDICATES OPENSPACE L141 S71 *40'05"E 46.82' EASEMENT AREA L151 S775852E 28.19' LAND SG9` L16 S84 52'19 69.65' C. y F L171 S78'02'06'E 61.00' L181 S01'35'10"E 228.00 v L19 N873333E 267.05' LS 5211 L20 NO2'02 28 241.41' Exp. 06/30/03 L21 N873333 320.00' { �;} L22 NO2'02 28" 358.07' PASCO ENGINEERING q� p � ) 0t STE. A A� CALIF SOL" BEACK CA 92075 PE 938 THE ueIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS RECORDED ON OCT 17, 2001 DOCUMENT NUMBER 2001-075,0400 GREGORY J. SMITH, COUNTY RECORDER SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE Recording Requested By: ) TIME: 4:« PM City of Encinitas ) When recorded mail to: ) City Clerk ) City of Encinitas ) 505 S. Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas, CA 92024 ) FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY) SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY GRANT OF OPEN SPACE/HABITAT PRESERVATION EASEMENT -- Assessor's Parcel Project No. : 16 V No. Z G V-ZL3-Z-9 W.O. No. : Z. Gy --ZZ3--3v Z 4q Leah A-e e/ T��d,�� -W a4z F/,ra Z-gAX :� Aj& aoe J G o Taus fe Ps e lJ.1� Ahr� & z/x /tau s .� �`�, ����f. /9y>_ hereinafter called GRANTOR(S) do(es) hereby grant, convey and dedicate to the CITY OF ENCINITAS, State of California, hereinafter called GRANTEE, (A) A perpetual easement for OPEN SPACE purposes over, upon, across and under the Subject Land, as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and no building, structure or other thing whatsoever shall be constructed, erected, placed or maintained on the Subject Land except as exists. (B) The perpetual right, but not the obligation to enter upon the Subject Land and remove any buildings, structures or other things whatsoever constructed, erected, placed or maintained on the Subject Land contrary to any term, covenant or condition of this easement and to do any work necessary to eliminate the effects of any excavation or placement of sand, soil, rock or gravel or any other material done or placed on the Subject Land contrary to any term, covenant or conditions of this easement. GRANTOR covenants and agrees for himself and his successors and assigns as follows: (A) That he shall not erect, construct, place or maintain, or permit the erection, construction, placement or maintenance of any building or structure or other thing whatsoever on the cov3908 Subject Land other than such buildings, structures and other things as may be permitted pursuant to the zoning ordinance of the City of Encinitas. (B) That he shall not use the Subject Land for any purpose except as OPEN SPACE purposes. (C) That he shall not excavate or grade or permit any excavating or grading to be done, or place or allow to be placed any sand, soil, rock, gravel or other material whatsoever on the Subject Land without the written permission of the City or its successors or assigns: provided, however, that Grantor may excavate, grade or place sand, soil, rock gravel or other material on the Subject Land as may be permitted by special use permit issued pursuant to the zoning ordinance of the City of Encinitas. (D) That this Open Space Easement shall preclude vegetation removal or additions with the following exceptions: brush clearing for fire protection purposes shall be permitted upon written order by the appropriate fire fighting or fire protection agencies, and the removal of hazardous substances or conditions or diseased plants or trees. (E) That the terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein may be specifically enforced or enjoined by proceedings in the Superior Court of the State of California. The grant of this easement and its acceptance by the City of Encinitas shall not authorize the public or any members thereof to use or enter upon all or any portion of the Subject Land, it being understood that the purpose of this easement is solely to restrict the uses to which the Subject Land may be put. This easement shall bind the Grantor and his successors and assigns. Dated this day of & Date Grantor 4-#54,6 Date Grant Date Grantor Signature of Grantor's to be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgements. cov3908 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT 1I 11 State of California 2 �� o ss. {' County of On �� 1 before me, O� ItJ n a 1 V`' �1`t�l� 1Vl•)J(�,!y �. Date �'' Name and Title of Officer(e.g.,"Jane Doe,Notary Public") personally appeared lsd Name(s)of Signer(s) o V{n ❑personally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence S M. A".11 to be the person(s) whose name(s)--rZ& CAmrri ^x �t i.:'A'r subscribed to the within inst ent and ) NotmV Pty__ +rcn'a•: acknowledged to me that h he executed Son the same in hi heir authorf l; MyCflttxn•Firpirt5�rp:C2DCYt capacity(ies), and that y it signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. ;( WITNESS my hand and official seal. � Y • 1 Signature of Notary Public it OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law,it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document � Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s)Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ,I ❑ Individual Top of thumb here ❑ Corporate Officer—Title(s): ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑General ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Trustee i ❑ Guardian or Conservator ( ❑ Other: i Signer Is Representing: ©1999 National Notary Association•9350 De Soto Ave.,P.O.Box 2402•Chatsworth,CA 913132402•www.nationalnotary.org Prod.No.5907 Reorder.Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by deed or grant to the City of Encinitas, a Municipal Corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned agent on behalf of the City Council of the City of Encinitas pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution of the City Council of the City of Encinitas adopted on November 9, 1994 and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. DATE: G� BY: Leroy C. Bodas Director of Engineering Services EXHIBIT "A" OPENSPACE EASEMENT AN EASEMENT FOR OPENSPACE PURPOSES OVER, UNDER ALONG AND ACROSS THOSE PORTIONS OF PARCELS 1, 2 AND 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO 16199 IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED AUGUST 29, 1990 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. EASEMENT WITHIN PARCEL 1 THAT PORTION OF SAID PARCEL 1 LYING NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE. BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 02 002'28" EAST 241.41 FEET FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE NORTH 40°27'39" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 31.91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 84°17'22" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 102.55 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47°21'54" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 56.03 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°47'23" WEST,A DISTANCE OF 90.38 FEET; THENCE SOUTH O1°49'21" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 132.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1. EASEMENT WITHIN PARCEL 2 THAT PORTION OF SAID PARCEL 2 LYING NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE. BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 DISTANT THEREON THENCE SOUTH 02 002'28" EAST 241.41 FEET FROM THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE NORTH 33°38'03" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 63.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68°22'46" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 71'40'05" EAST A DISTANCE OF 46.82 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 77°58'52" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 28.19 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 84 052'19" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 69.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78 002'06" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 61.00 FEET; TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT 40.00 FOOT PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP 16199; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE NORTH O1°35'10" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 228.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN WISHBONE WAY AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP 16199. EASEMENT WITHIN PARCEL 4 THAT PORTION SAID OF PARCEL 4 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 4 DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 83 024'18" EAST 20.23 FEET FROM THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER THEREOF; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID LINE SOUTH 83 024'18" EAST, A DISTANCE.OF 84.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 23 004'37" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 104.82 FEET; THENCE NORTH 86 022'12" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 32.64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 54°51'23" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 106.17 FEET; THENCE NORTH 02°02'28" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 165.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. S c• rG�� u ° �' u o No. 11 P 6-30-03 C',941 po,R �4. EXHIBIT "B" OPENSPACE EASEMENT PLAT N2.26'26'w 30.00' �7 WISHBONE 1 9 WAY N87'33'34'E 62.61' PARCEL i J PARCEL 2 J I N cu J ��3 �1q L15 L10 vZ' L16 Cif LB J Ls I o loft am N C.�RTE LA 5ELLA dow cu �� , / J N I C" L2 PARCEL 3 LDEI eMIM DISTANCE 15123 ' Lll N54 PARCEL 4 L21 S86*22'12'E 132.64' L31 N23'0437V 104.82' L41 NO2'02'28•'W 165.31' 20.00' EASEMENT FOR L51 S83 24'18'E 84.76' PEDESTRIAN AND I L61 N83.24'18" 65.87' EQUESTRIAN L7 N01'49 21V 132.47' L81 N88-4723-E 90.38' L9 N47 21'54'E 56.03' L1 S84'17'22"E Lil S40'2739"E 131.91' L12 N33'38'03'E 63.67' L13 N68*2246E 30.32-1 INDICATES OPENSPACE L14 S71 '40.05'E 46.82 EASEMENT AREA L151 S775852'E 28.19' y�0 LAND 3U9` L16 S84'52'19'E 69.65' C. yG��09 E LlBj S01'35 0' 228.00' L19 N87*3333'E 267.05' LS 5211 L20 S02'02'28"E 241.41' E . 06/30103 L21 N873333•E 320.00' L22 S02*0228"E 358.07' PASCO ENGINEERING P (8 )N259- 110E STE. A OF CALIF SaANA BEACK CA 92075 PE 938 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT �)FESS/�N 1985, 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL Q A P (c) Copyright 1982-92 Advanced Engineering Software Ver. 1.3A Release Date: 3/06/92 License ID 138 �N1_ Z Analysis prepared by: 5 N(5. 29577 m °C Exp. 3/31/03 Pasco Engineering, Inc. # 535 N. Hwy. 101 Suite A CIVIL Solana Beach, CA 92075 (858) 259-8212 9r�OFCA�-��o ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * Hydrology Calculations for Area Drains * Corte La Bella Parcels 1,2, & 4 * 100 Year Storm 3/22/2GQ,1_IS 4 kAR FILE NAME: 938HYD.DAT �°'i ! TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:19 3/22/2001 -------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 3.000 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = .95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 21 --------------------------------------------------------- - »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 320.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 335.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 332.20 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 3.20 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 20.930 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.139 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.41 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.00 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.41 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 2.10 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 160.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 343.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 342.60 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.20 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 16.289 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.690 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .30 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .50 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ .50 Tc(MIN. ) = 16.29 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .30 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS epared by Pasco Engineering 03/22/200-1 PE 839G Corte La Bella Hydraulic Calculations Storm Drain Inlet @ Node 1.1 &2.1 CALCULATE CAPACITY OF AREA DRAINS. FORMULA: Qcap= 3.0(P)(D^1.5)/3. DIVISION BY 3 ACCOUNTS FOR GRATE& REASONABLE BLOCKAGE. PERIMETER AVAIL HW GRATE FACTOR Q100(CFS) P(FT) D(FT) 3" CAPACITY(CFS) INLET TYPE 1.41 4.00 0.50 3.00 1.41 12"X12"AREA DRAIN 0.50 2.68 0.50 3.00 0.95 8"X 8"AREA DRAIN CALCULATE DISCHARGE OF 8" PVC OUTLET PIPE. CONSIDERED AS ORIFICE FORMULA: Q = (C)(A)((2)(32)(3))"0.5. 2 FEET OF AVAIL. HEADWATER DEPTH PIPE DIA.FT. HW DEPTH .OSS COEF AREA DISCHARGE 0.67 1.00 0.60 0.35 1.69 PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101,SUITE A SOLANA BEACH,CA 92075 (858)259-8212 WAYNE A.PASCO FAX(858)259-4812 R.C.E.29577 February 8, 2002 PE 938 City of Encinitas Engineering Services Permits 505 So. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: ENGINEER'S PAD CERTIFICATION FOR GRADING PERMIT NO 6984-G PARCEL MAP 16199 To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for parcels 1,2 and 4 of said map As the Engineer of Record for the subject project, I hereby state the rough grading for this lot has been completed in conformance with the approved plan and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. 23.24.310(B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown on the approved grading plan: Pad Elevation Pad Elevation Lot No. ep r plan per field measurement 1 342.5 342.5 2 336.0 336.0 4 Upper 348.0 348.0 4 Middle 336.6 336.6 4 Lower 321.0 321.0 23.24.310(B) 5. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes has been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject-grading plan. City of Enc/PE 938 February 8, 2002 Page 2 23.24.310(B) 6. The construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage has been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject-grading plan. If you have any questions in regards to the above, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. Joe Yuhas, L.S. 5211 Director of Land Surveying JY/j s V Ln No. 5211 PG 30-03 �. G e o t e c h n i c s Incorporated " Principals: Anthony F.Belfast Michael P.Imbriglio W.Lee Vanderhurst July 4, 2002 Bruce D. Wiegand, Inc. Project No. 0007-009-01 -� 1060 Wiegand Street Document No. 02-0696 Olivenhain, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Bruce Wiegand SUBJECT: REPORT OF COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Olivenhain Ridge, Corte La Bella, Lots 1, 2 and 4 Olivenhain, California Gentlemen: This report summarizes the results of the testing and observation services performed by Geotechnics Incorporated during grading operations for Lots 1, 2 and 4 of the Olivenhain Ridge residential development in Olivenhain, California. The general contractor for this project was Bruce D. Wiegand, Incorporated. The site was graded by Bert Sims Grading. Our geotechnical services for this phase of the project were performed between January 8 and May 15, 2002. 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES Our field personnel were provided for this project in order to test and observe site grading and remedial earthwork operations and foundation excavations. These observations and tests assisted us in developing professional opinions regarding whether or not earthwork and foundation excavations were conducted in general accordance with our geotechnical recommendations. Our services did not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor,his employees, or agents. Our services did include the following. 9245 Activity Rd.,Ste. 103 • San Diego,California 92126 Phone(858)536-1000 • Fax(858)536-8311 Bruce D. Wiegand, Inc. Project No.0007-009-01 July 4,2002 Document No.02-0696 Page 2 • Observation of grading and foundation excavations in order to determine whether earthwork and foundations were constructed in general accordance with our recommendations. • Performing field and laboratory tests on fill materials to support our geotechnical recommendations and conclusions. • Preparation of daily field reports summarizing the day's activity with regard to earthwork, and documenting the hours spent in the field by our technicians. • Preparation of this report which summarizes site preparation,remedial earthwork, field and laboratory test results, fill placement, and the compaction operations. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located southwest of the intersection of Corte La Bella and Wishbone Way in the City of Encinitas,California. The Corte La Bella subdivision consists of 4 parcels(referred to herein as Lots 1 through 4). The subject site consists of Lots 1, 2 and 4 only. Grading for Lot 3 was conducted previously (Geotechnics, 1997b). The approximate layout of the site is shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. The site is located within the coastal plain of the Peninsular Range geomorphic province of California. As described in the referenced investigation, the site is underlain at depth by metavolcanic rock of the Jurassic-age Santiago Peak Volcanics, and sedimentary materials of the Eocene-age Delmar Formation (Geotechnics, 2001). Terrace deposits and compacted fill placed during Lot 3 grading exist in the northeastern portion of Lot 4 (Geotechnics, 1997b). Colluvium originally mantled the undeveloped portions of the site, but these soils were excavated and compacted during this recent phase of site development. 3.0 GRADING OPERATIONS Grading operations at the site began with the removal of deleterious vegetation and debris from the areas to receive fill. Remedial grading was then conducted in order to reduce the potential for adverse differential settlement. Remedial grading included the excavation and compaction of the existing compressible colluvium in the fill areas,and the over-excavation of the formational portions of the pads. After remedial grading was completed, cut and fill grading was used to attain design grades throughout the site. Additional details regarding these activities are presented below. Geotechnics Incorporated Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. Project No.0007-009-01 July 4,2002 Document No.02-0696 Page 3 3.1 Fill Soils The various fill materials are described in Figure B-1 of the appendix. The maximum densities and optimum moisture contents of the soils were determined in the laboratory using ASTM method D1557-91 as a guideline (Modified Proctor). The fill soils typically ranged from a fine to medium grained silty or clayey sand to a sandy clay (SM or SC to CL). 3.2 Remedial Earthwork Remedial earthwork began with the excavation and compaction of the existing colluvium throughout the building pad areas, as recommended in Section 7.3.2 of the referenced geotechnical investigation (Geotechnics, 2001). Remedial excavations were then made to mitigate the presence of cut/fill transitions in the pad areas, in general accordance with Section 7.3.4 of the geotechnical report. The cut portions of the building pad areas were over-excavated to depths of approximately 3``/z,3 and 5 feet below finish grade elevations on Lots 1, 2 and 4, respectively. The over-excavated areas were then filled to grade with a uniformly compacted fill. Relatively sandy soils with a low expansion potential were generally used for the surficial fills in the pad and slope areas, as recommended in Section 7.3.3 of the referenced report. Expansion index test results are presented in Figure B-2. Based on our observations, the building pad area for Lot 1 is now underlain by a minimum of approximately 3'/2 feet of compacted fill,which generally overlies Santiago Peak volcanic rock. The building pad area for Lot 2 is underlain by a minimum of approximately 3 feet of compacted fill overlying siltstone and claystone the Delmar Formation. The building pad area for Lot 4 is now underlain by a minimum of approximately 5 feet of compacted fill _ overlying the Delmar Formation. 3.3 Fill Placement Grading of the site was performed by Bert Sims using typical mass grading techniques with heavy earth-moving equipment. The equipment used for the grading operations included various scrapers, dozers, loaders, blades, compactors, and water trucks. In-place moisture and density tests were made in general accordance with ASTM D 2922-91 and D 3017-88 (nuclear gauge methods). The results of these tests are presented in the - figures of Appendix C. The approximate test locations are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Geotechnics Incorporated Bruce D. Wiegand, Inc. Project No.0007-009-01 July 4,2002 Document No.02-0696 Page 4 Plate 1. The locations and elevations indicated for the tests are based on field survey stakes and estimates from the grading plan topography, and should only be considered rough estimates. The estimated locations and elevations should not be utilized for the purpose of preparing cross sections showing test locations, or in any case, for the purpose of after-the- fact evaluating of the sequence of fill placement. 4.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS It is our professional opinion that remedial grading and fill compaction at the site was conducted in general accordance with the intent of our geotechnical recommendations,and with the geotechnical requirements of the City of Encinitas. Based on our testing and observations, it is our opinion that structural fill was placed in substantial accordance with the minimum compaction criteria of 90 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557 guidelines. The conclusions contained herein are based on observations and tests performed between January 8 and May 15, 2002. No representations are made as to the quality and extent of materials not observed. 4.1 Slope Stability Due to the presence of some relatively weak clayey soils at the site, we previously recommended that highly expansive fat clays not be placed within 10 feet of the fill slope faces throughout the site. The geologic conditions of the slopes were observed by our project geologist during grading. Most of the site slopes were constructed using relatively granular soils. A selected sample of relatively clayey soil which was placed in the fill slopes was remolded to approximately 90 percent relative compaction and tested for shear strength using _. ASTM test method D3080,as recommended in Section 7.3.3 of the referenced geotechnical report (Geotechnics, 2001). The shear test results are presented in Figure B-3, and indicate that the clayey soils which were placed in the fill slopes at the site generally exceeded the minimum shear strength requirements specified in Section 7.3.3 and 7.3.8 of the geotechnical investigation. It is our opinion that the cut and fill slopes constructed at the site have a safety factor greater than 1.5 with respect to deep seated static slope failure,which is the commonly accepted safety factor. Geotechnics Incorporated Bruce D. Wiegand, Inc. Project No.0007-009-01 July 4,2002 Document No. 02-0696 Page 5 4.2 Foundations Foundation excavations were observed for the three lots between March 18 and May 31, 2002. The excavations generally exposed granular compacted fill soils which appeared to be less expansive that the conditions anticipated in the referenced report(Geotechnics,2001). Expansion index test results from the foundation area materials are presented in Figure B-2. For design purposes, the soils in the foundation influence zone of Lots 1 and 4 were considered to have a medium expansion potential. The foundation soils for Lot 2 were considered to have a high expansion potential. Foundation design parameters were presented in the referenced report(Geotechnics,2002d). In general,the foundation bearing soils were considered suitable for support of the proposed structures using the recommended geotechnical foundation design parameters. 5.0 LIMITATIONS Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No warranty,express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and used for testing, the observations made, and the in-place field testing performed are believed representative of the project. However,soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between tested or observed locations. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time,whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur,whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated by changes outside our control. This report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED 0FEssi�,� F. '� G ' `+ 'f�►Z� C040333 Cr 3 3 Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333 Exp.. Principal Engineer `t q . C I V I V �F OF CAI-X'v�� Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX A REFERENCES American Society for Testing and Materials (2000). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4, Construction, Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (1); Volume 04.09 Soil and Rock (11); Geosynthetics, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 1624 p., 1228 p. Geotechnics Incorporated(I 997a). Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence, Wishbone Way, 2.35 Acres, Encinitas, CA, Document 7-0278, August 15. Geotechnics Incorporated (1997b). Report of Geotechnical Observation and Testing, Wheeler Residence, Wishbone Way, Olivenhain, CA, Document 7-0605, October 14. Geotechnics Incorporated (2001). Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Corte La Bella, Lots 1, 2 and 4, Encinitas, CA, Project No. 0007-009-00, Document No. 1-0302R, May 7. Geotechnics Incorporated (2002a). Interim Compaction Report, Olivenhain Ridge, Lots 1, 2, and 4, Corte La Bella, Olivenhain, CA, Project 0007-009-01, Document 02-0158, February 15. Geotechnics Incorporated (2002b). Foundation Plan Review, Olivenhain Ridge, 2955 Corte La Bella, Olivenhain, CA, Project No. 0007-009-01, Document No. 02-0159, February 15. Geotechnics Incorporated (2002c). Foundation Plan Review, Olivenhain Ridge, 2953 Corte La Bella, Olivenhain, CA, Project No. 0007-009-01, Document No. 02-0160, February 15. Geotechnics Incorporated (2002d). Updated Foundation Recommendations, Olivenhain Ridge, Corte La Bella, Lots 1, 2 and 4, Olivenhain, CA, Project No. 0007-009-01, Document No. "Y 02-0174, dated February 22. Geotechnics Incorporated(2002e). Response to Plan Check Comments,Plan Check No. 01-1993194, Proposed Single Family Residences, 2955 and 2953 Corte La Bella, Olivenhain, CA,Project No. 0007-009-01, Document No. 02-0217, March 4. Geotechnics Incorporated (2002f). Foundation Plan Review, Olivenhain Ridge, 2957 Corte La Bella, Olivenhain, CA, Project No. 0007-009-01, Document No. 02-0247, March 12. Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Selected samples were tested using generally accepted standards. Laboratory testing was conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the correctness or serviceability of the test results or the conclusions derived from these tests. Where a specific laboratory test method has been referenced, such as ASTM, Caltrans, or AASHTO, the reference applies only to the specified laboratory test method and not to associated referenced test methods or practices, and the test method referenced has been used only as a guidance document for the general performance of the test and not as a"Test Standard." A brief description of the tests performed follows: Classification: Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System as established by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Visual classification was supplemented by laboratory testing of selected soil samples and classification in general accordance with the -- laboratory soil classification tests outlined in ASTM test method D 2487. Maximum DensityOptimum Moisture: The maximum density and optimum moisture for selected soil and aggregate base samples were determined by using test method ASTM D1557 (modified Proctor). The test results are summarized in Figure B-1. Sulfate Content: To assess the potential for reactivity with below grade concrete, selected soil samples were tested for water soluble sulfate. The water soluble sulfate was typically extracted from the soil under vacuum using a 20:1 (water to dry soil)dilution ratio. The extracted solution was then tested for water soluble sulfate in general accordance with ASTM D516. The test results are presented in terms of percentage by weight in Figure B-2. Figure B-2 also presents the UBC criteria for evaluating soluble sulfate content. Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected soils was estimated in general accordance with the laboratory procedures outlined in ASTM test method D4829. Figures B-2 provides the results of these tests. Figure B-2 also presents the UBC criteria for evaluating expansion index. Direct Shear: The shear strength of a remolded sample of clayey fill soil was assessed using direct shear tests performed in general accordance with ASTM D3080. The results of these laboratory tests - are summarized in Figure B-3. Geotechnics Incorporated MAXIMUM DENSITY/ OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D1557) Sample Description Maximum Optimum Density Moisture PCF 1% 1 Light brown fine to medium grained clayey sand (SC). 119 12%2 2 Medium brown fine to medium grained silty sand (SM). 123 9 3 Light yellow brown sandy lean clay (CL). 116 13 4 Olive brown sandy lean clay CL). 116 13 5 Red brown silty sand (SM) with 20% gravel. 134 9 6 Light yellow brown fine to medium grained silty sand (SM). 114'/2 13'/2 7 Dark red brown sandy lean clay (CL). 118 12`/2 8 Dark yellow brown sandy lean clay (CL). 116 13'/2 9 Mottled light olive to red brown sandy lean clay (CL). 118 14 -- 10 Brown fine to medium grained silty sand (SM). 125'/2 10'/2 11 Imported dark red brown fine to coarse silty sand SM). 127'/2 10 12 Imported light yellow brown fine to medium silty sand (SM). 122'/2 11 Project No. 0007-009-01 �G e o t e c h n i c s Laboratory Test Results Document No. 02-0696 MNNNNgft,Incorporated Figure B-1 EXPANSION AND SULFATE TEST RESULTS (ASTM D4829 and D516) SAMPLE SAMPLE EXPANSION SULFATE NUMBER LOCATION INDEX CONTENT El-1 Lot 2 (Finish Grade) 23 0.06 EI-2 Lot 2 (2 Feet Below Finish Grade) 102 0.11 EI-3 Lot 1 (Finish Grade) 28 0.04 EI4 Lot 1 (2 Feet Below Finish Grade) 51 0.03 EI-5 Lot 4 (Upper Section, Finish Grade) 0 0.02 EI-6 Lot 4 (Upper Section, 2 Feet Below F.G.) 0 0.02 EI-7 Lot 4 (Lower Section, Finish Grade) 0 <0.01 EI-8 Lot 4 (Lower Section, 2 Feet Below F.G.) 28 1 <0.01 SOLUBLE SULFATE CRITERIA (UBC Table 19-A-4) WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE SO % SULFATE EXPOSURE 0.00 to 0.10 Negligible 0.10 to 0.20 Moderate 0.20 to 2.00 Severe Over 2.00 Very Severe EXPANSION INDEX CRITERIA (UBC Table 18-1-B) EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION 0 to 20 Very low 21 to 50 Low 51 to 90 Medium 91 to 130 High Above 130 Very High =G e o t e c h n i c s Project No. 0007-009-01 Incorporated Laboratory Test Results Document No. 02-0696 „ Figure B-2 U- 2500 --- -- --- - -- - -_ - - 2000 - - w 1500 _ _-■ ■ _t - - -- 1000 `=- ® -® - -- —� ® = ■ - ■-- ■ Q 500 -- ® ■ ■ - ■ _ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■---- - ■ r t - o- -■ w ■ ■ ' ■ = 0 ■ ■ - -- - -- - ---- - ---- - ----- - --- --- - co 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 STRAIN [%] 4000 - ♦ ULTIMATE SHEAR: 3500 ■ PEAK SHEAR: '�- - -- - _ - ULTIMATE SHEAR - - PEAK SHEAR - 3000 _ vwi 2500 ------- -- - - --- -- - -- ------------------ a w IX 2000 _- -- -- --- — - oc a U' 1500 cn 1000 500 -- -- - 0 -- . ---- - - ----- --- —--- ----- - 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: As-Graded Slopes PEAK DESIGN - COMPACTED FILL: Remolded brow 270 150 lean clay (CL) -Scalped over No. 4 sieve C. 0 PSF 150 PSF IN-SITU AS-TESTED STRAIN RATE: 1 0.0002 IN/MIN yd 102.4 PCF 102.4 PCF (Sample was consolidated and drained) 14.2 % 27.5 % G e o t e c h n i c s Project No. 0007-009-01 Incorporated DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Document No. 02-0696 FIGURE B-3 APPENDIX C FIELD TEST RESULTS The results of the field density tests taken during grading of the site are presented in the following Figures C-1 through C-4. The approximate test locations are plotted on the Geotechnical Maps. Note that the elevations and locations of the field tests were determined by hand level and pacing relative to field staking done by others. The precision of the field density test and the maximum dry density test is not exact and variations should be expected. For example, the American Society for Testing and Materials has recently researched the precision of ASTM Method No. DI 557 and found the accuracy of the maximum dry density to be plus or minus 4 percent of the mean value and the optimum moisture content to be accurate to plus or minus 15 percent of the mean value;the Society specifically states the"acceptable range of test results expressed as a percent of mean value" is the range stated above. In effect, an indicated relative compaction of 90 percent has an acceptable range of 86.6 to 92.8 percent based on the maximum dry density determination. The precision of the field density test ASTM D1556 has not yet been determined by the American Society for Testing and Materials. However, it must be recognized that it also is subject to variations in accuracy. The following abbreviations were used to describe the tests reported in this appendix. NU = Nuclear Density Test -- Geotechnics Incorporated Project No. 0007-009-01 =G e o t e c h n i c s DENSITY TEST RESULTS Document No. 02-0696 Incorporated FIGURE C-1 Test Test Elevation/ Soil Max. Dry Moisture Field Relative Required Retest Test No. Date Station Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number Method IN [Pctl 1%] 1Pctl 1%] [%] 1 1/9/02 325 1 119.0 12.0 109.9 92 90 NU 2 1/9/02 327 1 119.0 16.3 108.3 91 90 NU 3 1/9/02 326 1 119.0 15.0 109.9 92 90 NU 4 1/9/02 327 1 119.0 16.5 106.4 89 90 5 NU 5 1/9/02 237 1 119.0 18.0 111.4 94 90 NU 6 1/9/02 328 1 119.0 17.7 109.3 92 90 NU 7 1/9/02 329 1 119.0 16.0 108.2 91 90 NU 8 1/9/02 329 1 119.0 16.8 109.6 92 90 NU 9 1/9/02 328 1 119.0 15.0 111.8 94 90 NU 10 1/9/02 329 1 119.0 16.4 110.0 92 90 NU 11 1/9/02 330 4 116.0 17.4 105.8 91 90 NU 12 1/9/02 330 3 116.0 20.6 105.5 91 90 NU 13 1/9/02 330 4 116.0 19.5 106.8 92 90 NU 14 1/9/02 330 4 116.0 20.3 104.1 90 90 NU 15 1/9/02 330 4 116.0 16.6 106.5 92 90 NU .v 16 1/9/02 331 4 116.0 20.8 104.4 90 90 NU 17 1/9/02 330 3 116.0 17.0 106.4 92 90 NU 18 1/10/02 333 1 119.0 16.6 110.8 93 90 NU 19 1/10/02 333 1 119.0 14.0 111.1 93 90 NU 20 1/10/02 334 1 119.0 11.4 110.1 93 90 NU 21 1/10/02 334 1 119.0 13.8 109.4 92 90 NU 22 1/10/02 331 1 119.0 16.8 108.1 91 90 NU 23 1/10/02 332 1 119.0 17.3 111.1 93 90 NU 24 1/10/02 332 1 119.0 20.4 107.7 91 90 NU 25 1/10/02 332 1 119.0 18.4 107.9 91 90 NU - 26 1/10/02 333 1 119.0 18.0 111.6 94 90 NU 27 1/10/02 333 1 119.0 16.8 109.7 92 90 NU 28 1/10/02 334 1 119.0 15.9 110.1 93 90 NU 29 1/10/02 334 1 119.0 17.4 110.9 93 90 NU 30 1/10/02 335 1 119.0 15.7 111.1 93 90 NU 31 1/10/02 334 1 119.0 16.3 106.9 90 90 NU 32 1/14/02 333 1 119.0 14.1 106.7 90 90 NU 33 1/14/02 334 5 134.0 12.4 123.1 92 90 NU 34 1/14/02 335 5 134.0 13.1 121.3 91 90 NU 35 1/14/02 336 5 134.0 7.9 126.4 94 90 NU 36 1/14/02 337 2 123.0 14.8 112.1 91 90 NU 37 1/14/02 338 2 123.0 14.3 116.1 94 90 NU 38 1/15/02 340 2 123.0 14.7 112.4 91 90 NU 39 1/15/02 336 7 118.0 15.1 106.6 90 90 NU 40 1/15/02 341 2 123.0 10.7 118.1 96 90 NU 41 1/15/02 341 7 118.0 15.1 110.9 94 90 NU 42 1/15/02 341 7 118.0 18.1 107.6 91 90 NU 43 1/15/02 341 2 123.0 12.5 112.7 92 90 NU 44 1/16/02 333 7 118.0 15.7 109.7 93 90 NU 45 1/16/02 334 7 118.0 10.6 112.8 96 90 NU 46 1/16/02 334 7 118.0 15.9 112.1 95 90 NU 47 1/16/02 334 7 118.0 13.0 112.0 95 90 NU 48 1/16/02 335 7 118.0 16.9 106.9 91 90 NU 49 1/16/02 335 1 119.0 11.5 113.0 95 90 NU G e o t e c h n i c s Project No. 0007-009-01 � Incorporated DENSITY TEST RESULTS Document No. 02-0696 FIGURE C-2 Test Test Elevation/ Soil Max. Dry Moisture Field Relative Required Retest Test No. Date Station Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number Method .. Ift] IPct] 1%] fpcf] 1%] [%] 50 1/16/02 336 1 119.0 14.9 113.9 96 90 NU 51 1/16/02 333 6 114.5 12.0 104.6 91 90 NU 52 1/16/02 335 6 114.5 12.7 104.7 91 90 NU 53 1/16/02 338 7 118.0 13.8 110.6 94 90 NU 54 1/16/02 307 7 118.0 12.9 112.1 95 90 NU 55 1/17/02 336 6 114.5 9.2 106.4 93 90 NU 56 1/17/02 336 6 114.5 11.2 105.5 92 90 NU 57 1/17/02 336 6 114.5 11.0 103.3 90 90 NU -- 58 1/17/02 307 2 123.0 11.4 112.4 91 90 NU 59 1/17/02 309 2 123.0 10.1 117.3 95 90 NU 60 1/17/02 310 2 123.0 12.7 114.0 93 90 NU 61 1/17/02 311 2 123.0 11.6 114.7 93 90 NU 62 1/18/02 313 2 123.0 13.8 119.4 97 90 NU 63 1/18/02 312 2 123.0 14.2 114.9 93 90 NU 64 1/18/02 313 8 116.0 12.8 107.8 93 90 NU 65 1/18/02 314 8 116.0 14.1 105.6 91 90 NU 66 1/18/02 315 8 116.0 15.3 110.9 96 90 NU 67 1/18/02 316 8 116.0 17.2 110.4 95 90 NU 68 1/18/02 317 9 118.0 16.1 112.3 95 90 NU 69 1/18/02 319 8 116.0 10.9 106.0 91 90 NU 70 1/18/02 320 8 116.0 17.9 105.4 91 90 NU 71 1/18/02 320 6 114.5 15.0 103.8 91 90 NU 72 1/18/02 321 6 114.5 17.1 104.8 92 90 NU 73 1/18/02 321 8 116.0 10.5 108.4 93 90 NU 74 1/21/02 343 6 114.5 11.9 106.5 93 90 NU 75 1/21/02 345 6 114.5 12.1 109.7 96 90 NU 76 1/22/02 317 3 116.0 15.4 106.5 92 90 NU 77 1/22/02 318 3 116.0 10.8 110.8 96 90 NU 78 1/22/02 319 3 116.0 15.5 107.7 93 90 NU 79 1/22/02 320 6 114.5 10.7 104.1 91 90 NU 80 1/22/02 321 6 114.5 13.4 103.9 91 90 NU 81 1/22/02 321 6 114.5 14.5 103.5 90 90 NU 82 1/22/02 321 6 114.5 11.7 105.7 92 90 NU 83 1/22/02 321 6 114.5 12.0 108.0 94 90 NU 84 1/23/02 336 7 118.0 12.2 109.2 93 90 NU 85 1/23/02 337 7 118.0 10.7 109.8 93 90 NU 86 1/23/02 338 7 118.0 12.9 111.7 95 90 NU 87 1/23/02 339 7 118.0 13.4 109.2 93 90 NU 88 1/23/02 341 7 118.0 15.7 111.8 95 90 NU 89 1/23/02 343 7 118.0 16.8 109.1 92 90 NU 90 1/24/02 340 10 125.5 10.6 119.2 95 90 NU 91 1/24/02 341 10 125.5 10.4 120.7 96 90 NU 92 1/24/02 343 10 125.5 9.3 118.1 94 90 NU 93 1/24/02 343 10 125.5 11.5 114.8 91 90 NU 94 1/24/02 344 10 125.5 11.5 115.9 92 90 NU 95 1/24/02 344 10 125.5 11.2 115.4 92 90 NU 96 1/24/02 344 10 125.5 12.5 116.7 93 90 NU 97 1/25/02 322 9 118.0 15.0 112.6 95 90 NU 98 1/25/02 323 9 118.0 13.7 112.1 95 90 NU Project No. 0007-009-01 =G e o t e c h n i c s DENSITY TEST RESULTS Document No. 02-0696 Incorporated FIGURE C-3 Test Test Elevation/ Soil Max. Dry Moisture Field Relative Required Retest Test No. Date Station Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number Method ».. Ift] [Pctl 1%] [Pct] 1%] N 99 1/25/02 324 9 118.0 13.4 109.3 93 90 NU 100 1/25/02 325 9 118.0 15.3 106.3 90 90 NU 101 1/25/02 326 9 118.0 13.4 106.3 90 90 NU 102 1/25/02 326 9 118.0 12.7 110.9 94 90 NU 103 1/25/02 326 9 118.0 14.4 110.0 93 90 NU 104 1/25/02 346 6 114.5 14.1 103.9 91 90 NU 105 1/25/02 346 6 114.5 15.3 105.3 92 90 NU 106 1/25/02 347 6 114.5 12.2 110.9 97 90 NU 107 1/30/02 325 2 123.0 11.7 113.8 93 90 NU 108 1/30/02 325 7 118.0 14.8 116.1 98 90 NU 109 1/31/02 327 1 119.0 12.0 108.2 91 90 NU 110 1/31/02 329 7 118.0 15.1 110.7 94 90 NU 111 1/31/02 331 9 118.0 14.2 109.1 92 90 NU 112 1/31/02 333 10 125.5 11.9 115.0 92 90 NU 113 2/1/02 336 3 116.0 10.1 110.1 95 90 NU 114 2/1/02 336 3 116.0 12.5 106.4 92 90 NU 115 2/1/02 336 3 116.0 9.8 104.9 90 90 NU 116 2/1/02 335 3 116.0 11.9 105.5 91 90 NU 117 2/1/02 336 3 116.0 12.4 111.4 96 90 NU 118 2/1/02 336 3 116.0 14.9 107.9 93 90 NU 119 2/1/02 336 3 116.0 11.6 108.3 93 90 NU 120 2/1/02 336 3 116.0 10.2 109.5 94 90 NU 121 2/1/02 335 3 116.0 9.9 105.7 91 90 NU 122 2/1/02 336 3 116.0 11.5 107.9 93 90 NU 123 2/1/02 336 3 116.0 11.6 110.1 95 90 NU 124 2/5/02 345 11 127.5 9.9 122.0 96 90 NU 125 2/5/02 346 11 127.5 10.9 120.0 94 90 NU 126 2/5/02 333 6 114.5 15.5 107.1 94 90 NU _ 127 2/5/02 335 12 122.5 12.9 118.8 97 90 NU 128 2/5/02 336 12 122.5 11.8 115.7 94 90 NU 129 2/6/02 343 3 116.0 12.6 114.3 99 90 NU 130 2/6/02 343 3 116.0 9.6 108.3 93 90 NU 131 2/6/02 343 3 116.0 14.6 110.4 95 90 NU 132 2/6/02 343 3 116.0 12.5 110.8 96 90 NU 133 2/6/02 343 3 116.0 13.4 107.5 93 90 NU -- 134 2/6/02 343 3 116.0 9.9 104.4 90 90 NU 135 2/6/02 343 3 116.0 12.5 111.9 96 90 NU 136 2/6/02 343 3 116.0 12.8 107.1 92 90 NU 137 2/6/02 343 12 122.5 13.4 117.9 96 90 NU 138 2/6/02 346 12 122.5 12.2 119.9 98 90 NU 139 2/6/02 347 12 122.5 12.8 118.0 96 90 NU 140 2/6/02 347 12 122.5 9.6 117.1 96 90 NU 141 2/6/02 347 12 122.5 10.8 117.4 96 90 NU 142 2/6/02 347 12 122.5 7.8 115.9 95 90 NU 143 2/7/02 337 12 122.5 12.1 115.7 94 90 NU 144 2/7/02 337 12 122.5 13.0 114.9 94 90 NU 145 2/7/02 337 12 122.5 13.0 119.2 97 90 NU 146 2/7/02 337 6 114.5 12.0 111.8 98 90 NU µ_ 147 2/7/02 337 12 122.5 10.8 116.4 95 90 NU Project No. 0007-009-01 =G e o t e c h n i c s DENSITY TEST RESULTS Document No. 02-0696 Incorporated FIGURE C-4 Test Test Elevation/ Soil Max. Dry Moisture Field Relative Required Retest Test No. Date Station Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number Method IN 1pcq 1%] 1pcfl 1%] N 148 2/7/02 326 12 122.5 9.3 119.3 97 90 NU 149 2/7/02 329 7 118.0 11.9 112.8 96 90 NU 150 2/7/02 334 7 118.0 10.3 112.8 96 90 NU 151 2/7/02 335 12 122.5 9.4 120.6 98 90 NU Geotechnics Incorporated Principals: Anthony F.Belfast Michael P.Imbriglio W.Lee Vanderhurst j MAR 2 ? 2001 March 23, 2001 Bruce D. Wiegand, Inc. Project No. 0007-009-00 1060 Wiegand Street Document No. 1-0302 Olivenhain, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Bruce D. Wiegand SUBJECT: REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Corte La Bella, Lots 1, 2, and 4 Olivenhain, California - Gentlemen: The following report presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of our geotechnical investigation of the subject site. In general, our findings indicate that the site is underlain by the Delmar Formation, Santiago Peak Volcanics, and compacted fill materials that are considered suitable to support the proposed structures, providing that the recommended site preparation is performed. There were no unusual or special conditions apparent in our investigation which would preclude development as planned. 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK This investigation was conducted in accordance with the provisions of our Proposal 0-270, dated December 19, 2000. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions at the site as they relate to the proposed development, and to make recommendations regarding site preparation and grading, design of the proposed foundations, retaining walls, and slabs, and the construction of pavements. The recommendations contained herein are based on a 9245 Activity Rd.,Ste. 103 • San Diego,California 92126 ` Phone(858)536-1000 • Fax(858)536-8311 BRUCE D.WIEGAND.INC. PROJECT NO. 0007-009-00 MARCH 23.2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 2 - surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and professional experience in the general site area. Design values may include presumptive parameters based on professional judgement. Our scope of work was limited to: 1.1 Review of available literature related to general geologic conditions. 1.2 A visual reconnaissance and subsurface exploration of the site consisting of the excavation of 7 test pits with a rubber tired backhoe and tracked excavator. Bulk samples were collected. 1.3 Laboratory testing of selected samples collected during the subsurface exploration. Testing assisted us in characterizing soil behavior, and assessing pertinent soil properties. 1.4 Assessment of general seismic conditions and geologic hazards affecting the area,and their likely impact on the project. 1.5 Engineering analysis for the development of recommendations for site preparation, earthwork construction, foundation design, on-grade slabs, site drainage, earth retaining structures, slope stability, and pavement design. 1.6 Preparation of this report summarizing our findings,conclusions and recommendations. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located southwest of the intersection of Corte La Bella and Wishbone Way in the City of Olivenhain, California, as shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. The Corte La Bella subdivision consists of 4 parcels (referred to herein as Lots 1 through 4). The subject site consists of Lots 1,2 and 4 only. Grading for Lot 3 was conducted previously(Geotechnics, 1997b). Off-site grading for Lot 3 included fill placement in the northeastern portion of Lot 4. The site has an area of approximately 7.8 acres, and consists of a gently undulating knoll,with natural drainages to the north, west, and south. Vegetation on site includes chaparral, sagebrush, and grasses, with a few willows and oaks. The approximate layout of the site is shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Geotechnics Incorporated _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L co Cos 's CL 13 DL SUR SfAWCOWN RAW HS otl 'g LAI V- SAN cm cm CN CIR p AL N HO PAW SOW Lr 'A \1LQNqSA CT AN RD LI t4 T77E J" 00YOCA RAW ry CRUZ of G4 U PAN LH 4N 0.5 Miles Reference: Thomas Brothers Guide 2000. ncorporated SITE LOCATION MAP Document No. 1-0302 FIGURE 1 Rev.6/99 _ AM- Geotechnics Project No. 0007-009-00 BRUCE D.WIEGAND. INC. PROJECT NO.0007-009-00 MARCH 23.2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 3 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT It is our understanding that development of the site will consist of the construction of a single family residence on each of the lots,with a variety of driveways,parking areas,sidewalks,landscaping,and associated utilities. We anticipate that wood framing with either conventional slab-on-gradeor post- tensioned slabs foundations will be used. The approximate layout of the proposed improvements is shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. 4.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is located within the coastal plain of the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province. The coastal plain is characterized by subdued landforms underlain by sedimentary formations. As observed during this investigation, the site is underlain by metavolcanic rock of the Jurassic-age Santiago Peak Volcanics, and sedimentary materials of the Eocene-age Delmar Formation. Compacted fill and Terrace deposits observed during development of Lot 3 are exposed in the northeastern portion of Lot 4 (Geotechnics, 1997b). Colluvium mantles the undeveloped portions of the site. The approximate locations of the exploratory test pits conducted for our investigation are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Logs of the explorations are given in the figures of Appendix B. The specific units encountered in our investigation are discussed below. 4.1 Santiago Peak Volcanics (Jsp) Our subsurface investigation and literature review indicates that metavolcanic rock of the Santiago Peak Volcanics (Jsp) underlies the south central portion of Lot 1. This unit was observed in Test Pits 3 and 4. As observed at the site,the Santiago Peak Volcanics generally consist of moderately fractured and weathered metavolcanic rock. The rock is typically gray on fresh surfaces and orange to dark orange on weathered surfaces. Fracturing in the rock appeared to be related to the degree of weathering,with less fracturing and jointing observed in the deeper test pit excavations. The Komatsu PC 100 excavator encountered difficult excavation conditions or refusal at depths ranging from 1 to 3 feet in Test Pits 3 and 4. Geotechnics Incorporated BRUCE D. WIEGAND.INC. PROJECT NO.0007-009-00 MARCH 23.2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 4 4.2 Delmar Formation (Td) Marine sediments of the Delmar Formation (Td) were observed underlying the remaining portions of the site. This unit was encountered in all Test Pits except 3 and 4. As observed on site, the Delmar Formation consists of a light gray to light yellow gray silty sandstone (Unified Soil Classification SM),interbedded with an orangish to olive gray sandy claystone (CH). The sandstone was typically fine grained,dense,and weakly cemented. The claystone was generally hard. Laboratory testing indicates the claystone has a very high expansion potential, and poor strength characteristics when remolded. 4.3 Terrace Deposits (Qt) As discussed in the referenced reports,Quaternary-age Terrace deposits were observed in the northeastern portion of Lot 4(Geotechnics, 1997). This unit was exposed during grading of Lot 3, with the contact between the Terrace deposits and Delmar Formation at an elevation of approximately 346 feet. The Terrace deposits were described as an orangish brown sand with silt(SP-SM). Gravels and boulders up to 12 inches in size were encountered. Materials of this unit were found to have a low expansion potential. 4.4 Colluvium (Qcol) Colluvium is an accumulation of topsoil and weathered formational materials formed on slopes as a result of slow downhill creep due to gravity. Colluvium was encountered in all of the test pits, and varied in composition based on the source material. Colluvium varied from a dark gray, dark brown, or orange brown fat clay (CH)to a silty or clayey sand (SM or SC). The colluvium was typically moist, and medium dense or firm. Laboratory testing indicates the clay portion of the colluvium has a high to very high expansion potential. 4.5 Fill Compacted fill was placed in the northeastern portion of Lot 4 during grading of the adjacent Wheeler residence in Lot 3,as discussed in the referenced report(Geotechnics, 1997b). The fill soils typically consisted of silty sand (SM), clayey sand (SC), and clay (CL). Geotechnics Incorporated BRUCE D. WIEGAND.INC. PROJECT NO.0007-009-00 MARCH 23.2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 5 - 4.5 Groundwater No seepage or groundwater was observed in our investigation. However, it should be recognized that excessive irrigation, or changes in rainfall or site drainage could produce seepage or locally perched groundwater conditions within the soil underlying the site. This typically occurs at underlying contacts with less permeable materials, such as the interface between the sandstone and fat claystone beds within the Delmar Formation. The prediction of the location of perched groundwater is highly uncertain. Consequently, perched groundwater conditions are typically mitigated if and when they occur. 5.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The subject site is not located within an area previously known for significant geologic hazards. Potential seismic hazards at the site are anticipated to be the result of ground shaking from distant active faults. The nearest known active fault is within the Rose Canyon fault zone,which is located approximately 7'/z miles (12 km) west of the site. 5.1 Seismicity According to the program TOPO!,the subject site is located at a latitude of 33.0719°north, and a longitude of 117.2233°west. The Fault Location Map,Figure 2, shows the locations of known active faults within a 100 km radius of the site. Table 1 summarizes the properties of these faults. The values presented in Table 1 were developed using the program EQFAULT and supporting documentation (Blake, 1998). In order to provide an estimate of the potential peak ground acceleration that structures founded at the site may experience in time, the program FRISKSP was used perform a probabilistic analysis of seismicity. The analysis was conducted using the characteristic earthquake distribution of Youngs and Coopersmith (1985). Based on the results of the probabilistic analysis,the Upper Bound Earthquake for the site,defined as the motion having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 100 year period, is 0.36g. The Maximum Probable Earthquake is 0.28g (10 percent probability in 50 years). Geotechnics Incorporated 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 SCALE - FgRq MAORF_pUCAMONGA FAULT LOS Af�CES 34• f7 ti `♦ t �Yyi ♦ O DIO� r F iy ldil, �r0' C SAN JUAN pR r •CAPISTRANO FOP 000 l7CG / tiF o�mo ti `� p co fir' OCEANSI R� `%� �`•��, ,`�� t 4ap py •E NDI DO rrp ep 100 • yt" SAN �� EL CENTRO' yy DIEG • i R' Cl#+ sr4, �c USA _ MEXICALI �G Fy 4 !, MEXIC l cFR +' o ' TIJUANA \� Rpp y 00 ` r` R,Rr 4p �O 110 \ \\ pP\ +.. p'• P 1 •ENSENADA A N 1 ,CUB BLANOA FAUL 2ppE ep A ip Modified from Anderson, Rockwell,Agnew, 1989 G e o t e c h n i c s Project No. 0007-009-00 _ I n c o r p o r a t e d FAULT LOCATION MAP Document No. 1-0302 FIGURE 2 "" \Drafting\Core1Draw\Fau1t Rev. 10/00 O O LU w LU Q W 0 0 U') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p0 O m a LO N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Q O �O M v CY)a O Z U) W U) O C a) �C Z E a ca W O r r r r r r r r r r r r O Q U U O + + + + + + + + + + + + Q o a W w w w w w w w w w w w w ca 7 a g z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w e N W 5„ c'M M CM M CM CO CO M M CM CO M N ca rn LV 2 Q CM M M M Cl) M cM M ('M M M M 00 C Cfl O L rn O � U L U O W W M M N M M M M M M N M M Y O N w w w w w w w w w w w w '- E p cn m M O CO 0o O O LO O O LO 0 X c a ca -� v O r- r 0 0 LO c0 M O o `. ca v) U o- 0) a v Lci ri ri c�i ui co m 2 Y M cn U. `n C Z U N U , C L O LL a) :_ 0 W � O O .L (n WZ � -0 cCUCcv w W H O LO LO M LO O O N O N O c 2) N O V) cu U z ti ti (6 ti ti r� ti Do fn c J c X 0 C7 m — O Z) o -� J < � 00 U) LL Y Z vo0a � O � �W ca � C L — L U - 1E o o -E w cn,u H c ° U ca c aoi w -n tn o° -� o f Z,a 0 m m LO N co LO co m LO 0 w a M O O O V p c O •E - I= 4, O O O O O O O O O O O O _ U c X w 00) 0 m cu _ N .. Q" w U a � = fa Q ca cn Z H �--� U 0 .N (a a) < Fn �2 N M CO CO O M w ti 0 0 0 ;_. v: Y r- N N M M LO 0 rl- M W M M E p -p c O 0 70 u 00 O M a) H rn rn ca C) O cn •� •O Y 3 0) O O (a O a) cu a) ca o O �, N O m v 0 m V V O cu c c O � r E _ c c c a_°i o O O rn ca Q J Q U U F— c 0 0 ¢ w m m ca (1) p cn E o a�oi v a) y J ca o '0 o s v, c w a) a) 0) u, U 3 ca Y .c m w a) s i c a) ca «-+ a m Z o `� o ca �? > U a) -a = o E o LL O p m-1 0 J m w ~ O 0O O a) �, N tn w N Y N-F CL�- � a) r►� p CA fa U a U U p w Z X V Q c a) U U ca c ca ca L 3 D ,� c E a) a) p` c U ca v) w a) a) -0 z U U) ti a W FL-- !�— c BRUCE D. WIEGAND.INC. PROJECT NO.0007-009-00 MARCH 23,2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 6 - 5.2 Ground Rupture Surface rupture is the result of movement on an active fault reaching the surface. The subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, and no evidence of active faulting was found during this investigation. Consequently,ground rupture is not considered to be a significant geologic hazard at the site. 5.3 Liquefaction Liquefiable soil typically consists of cohesionless sands and silts that are loose to medium dense, and saturated. To liquefy, these soils must be subjected to strong ground shaking. Although potentially liquefiable soils may exist within the colluvium,we have recommended that these materials be removed and replaced with compacted fill. Accordingly,the potential for liquefaction to adversely impact the site after development is considered to be low. 5.4 Landslides and Lateral Spreads Evidence of ancient landslides at the site was not found. Recommendations are provided in the following sections of the report which will help to reduce the potential for future slope instabilities. These recommendations focus on irrigation control, and landscape planting. 5.5 Tsunamis, Seiches, Earthquake Induced Flooding The distance between the subject site and the coast, and the elevation of the site above sea level (300 to 350 feet), preclude damage due to seismically induced waves (tsunamis). Nearby bodies of water of significant size were not noted during this investigation, and accordingly, earthquake induced flooding is not anticipated to be a potential hazard. Geotechnics Incorporated BRUCE D. WIEGAND.INC. PROJECT NO.0007-009-00 MARCH 23.2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 7 6.0 CONCLUSIONS No geotechnical conditions were apparent during the investigation which would preclude the proposed residential development. However, some factors exist which require consideration. • There are no known active faults underlying the site. Seismic hazards are likely to be associated with ground shaking from an event centered within the Rose Canyon fault zone. • Evidence of existing slope instabilities, or landslides, was not encountered during this investigation. Our analysis indicates that the site slopes are stable with regard to deep seated failure. However, the potential for surficial failures will increase if fat clays are used to construct the proposed slopes. Surface water flow and/or seepage will also increase the potential for surficial slope failures. Fat clays should not be placed in the outer portions of the fill slopes. In addition, irrigation and landscaping measures should be implemented in order to improve and maintain the surficial stability of the site slopes. • Loose, compressible colluvial soil mantles the site. The colluvium should be removed and replaced as compacted fill in areas which will be subjected to new fill or structural loads. Remedial grading recommendations are contained the in following sections of this report. • The proposed grading will result in cut/fill transitions within the building areas. To reduce the potential for distress associated with differential settlement, the pads should be graded so that structures do not straddle cut/fill transitions. This may be accomplished by over- excavating the cut portions of building pads so that foundations bear entirely on fill. • Excavations are expected to generate some very highly expansive soils. Heave may occur if highly expansive soils are placed or left within foundation or slab subgrade. Remedial grading may be conducted so that highly expansive materials are not left near finish grade. As an alternative,post-tension slab foundations may be designed for the structures to reduce the effects of the anticipated differential heave. • Most of the earth material at the site is suitable for re-use in compacted fills. However, vegetation and trash is considered deleterious and unsuitable for re-use in compacted fills. Geotechnics Incorporated BRUCE D.WIEGAND. INC. PROJECT NO.0007-009-00 MARCH 23.2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 8 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The remainder of this report presents recommendations regarding earthwork construction and foundation design. These recommendations are based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standard of practice in southern California. If these recommendations appear not to cover any specific feature of the project, please contact our office for additions or revisions. 7.1 Plan Review We recommend that foundation and grading plans be reviewed by Geotechnics Incorporated prior to plan finalization in order to evaluate conformance with the intent of the recommendations contained within this report. 7.2 Excavation and Grading Observation Foundation excavations and site grading excavations should be observed by Geotechnics Incorporated. Geotechnics Incorporated should provide observation and testing services continuously during grading. Such observations are considered essential to identify field conditions that differ from those anticipated by the preliminary investigation, to adjust designs to actual field conditions, and to determine that the grading is accomplished in general accordance with the recommendations of this report. Recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon Geotechnics Incorporated performing such services. Our personnel should perform sufficient testing of fill during grading to support our professional opinion as to compliance with compaction recommendations. 7.3 Earthwork Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the Grading Ordinance of the City of Olivenhain and Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. The following recommendations are provided regarding specific aspects of the proposed earthwork construction. These recommendations should be considered subject to revision based on field conditions observed by the geotechnical consultant. Geotechnics Incorporated BRUCE D.WIEGAND,INC. PROJECT NO.0007-009-00 MARCH 23.2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 9 7.3.1 Site Preparation: Site preparation includes removal of deleterious materials, existing structures, or other improvements from areas to be subjected to structural - loads. Deleterious materials, including vegetation, trash, and debris, should be removed from the site. Existing subsurface utilities that are to be abandoned should be removed,and the trenches backfilled and compacted as described in Section 7.3.6. 7.3.2 Removal of Compressible Soils: The colluvium that mantles the site is considered compressible, and should be removed from all areas that will be subject to development. Removals should expose competent formational material as determined by our personnel during grading. Based on the test pits, removal depths are anticipated to be on the order of 1 to 4 feet. The removed soil that is free of deleterious material should be replaced in accordance with Section 7.3.6 as a uniformly compacted fill to the proposed plan elevations. It should be noted that - some of the colluvium may have high moisture contents, and may need to be dried back prior to incorporation in compacted fill. In addition, some of the colluvium may be very highly expansive as discussed in Section 7.3.3. 7.3.3 Expansive Soils: Soil heave may result in detrimental differential movement of foundations,slabs,flatwork,and other improvements. Figure C-4 summarizes the expansion index testing conducted at the site. In general, the terrace deposits and sandstone of the Delmar Formation have a low to medium expansion potential, whereas the colluvium and formational claystone are very highly expansive. To reduce the potential for differential movement, the highly expansive colluvium and claystone should be excavated to a minimum of five feet below finish grade in building areas, and two feet below flatwork. The expansive material may be disposed of in deeper fills, and replaced with a compacted fill soil which has a low to medium expansion potential. Samples of the soils used for each lot should be tested during grading in order to confirm the expansion potential. In order to reduce the potential for surficial slope failures, we recommend that the very highly expansive soils not be placed within 10 feet of the proposed fill slope face. Shear testing should be conducted during grading on samples of the fill slope materials to confirm that the friction angle exceeds 15 degrees with 150 lb/ft-apparent cohesion. Geotechnics Incorporated BRUCE D. WIEGAND.INC. PROJECT NO. 0007-009-00 MARCH 23.2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 10 The findings of this investigation suggest that excavations may not generate sufficient quantities of soil with a low to medium expansion potential to construct the nonexpansive cap for both the building pad areas and fill slope faces. Laboratory testing suggests that the claystone of the Delmar Formation (and possibly the colluvium) may not possess sufficient shear strength for use in the fill slopes. As a minimum,we recommend that soil with the minimum shear strength noted above be placed in the outer 10 feet of the fill slopes to enhance stability. If insufficient nonexpansive on site material exists to construct the five foot cap in the building area, then in all areas of planned structures, including at least five feet outside of the building perimeters, the surficial soil within five feet of finish grade should be removed and replaced in accordance with one of the recommendations discussed below. Note that these recommendations are given in order of increasing risk of cracking to foundations and slabs. a. Replace the soil within five feet of the building pad subgrade elevations with material with a low potential for expansion. This may consist of imported soil, or lime-treated, on-site soils. Our experience indicates that lime treatment of the site soils will require roughly 5 to 7 percent hydrated lime slurry uniformly mixed in the soil. The actual percentage required should be based on laboratory testing of the on-site soils. If lime treatment is to be used on site,the geotechnical consultant should be given a minimum 30 day notice in order to sample and conduct the mix design. b. Thoroughly mix the excavated soil to provide uniform expansion potential. Place the soil within the upper five feet of building pad subgrade at a moisture content that is at least five percentage points above optimum moisture based on ASTM D1557. Because of the benefits related to a decreased expansion potential, the minimum required compaction is 87 percent of the maximum density within the moisture treated zone. Post- tension slabs should be used with this alternative to help reduce the potential for distress due to the anticipated differential heave. Geotechnics Incorporated BRUCE D. WIEGAND.INC. PROJECT NO.0007-009-00 MARCH 23.2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 11 7.3.4 Transition Lots: Structures should not straddle transitions between fill and formational materials due to the potential for adverse differential settlement. Typical transition conditions are shown in Figure 3. The preliminary grading plans indicate that the proposed grading will create cut/fill transitions in all three lots at the site. Our recommended site remediation for transitions is summarized in Figure 3. Note that for cut/fill transition lots which will be underlain by less than 3 feet of fill (Case 1),we recommendthat remedial work consist of scarifying and compacting the surficial 12 inches of material. For cut/fill transition lots and lots with a deep fill transition (Cases 2 and 3), we recommend that the cut or shallow fill portion of the building pad be overexcavated to a depth of H/2, where "H" is equal to the greatest depth of fill underlying the proposed structure. Note that the overexcavation should be at least 3 feet deep in these cases, and should extend at least 5 feet horizontally beyond the proposed building envelope. The over-excavated portion of the pad should be brought back to grade with compacted fill as discussed in Section 7.3.6. 7.3.5 Excavation Characteristics: In general, site excavations should be achievable using heavy earthmoving equipment with experienced operators. However, metavolcanic rock was encountered in Test Pits 3 and 4 in Lot 1. Due to the cut/fill transition, remedial earthwork for this lot will likely result in at least a 4 to 5 foot deep over-excavation of the rock as discussed in Section 7.3.4. Extra ripping effort, rock breaking, and/or blasting may be required where fresh metavolcanic rock is encountered. In order to expedite future improvements, consideration should be given to over-excavating rock during mass grading within the area of proposed subsurface utilities, swimming pools, or other subsurface structures on Lot 1. 7.3.6 Fill Compaction: All fill and backfill to be placed in association with site development should be accomplished at slightly over optimum moisture conditions and using equipment that is capable of producing a uniformly compacted product. The minimum relative compaction recommended for fill is 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM D1557-91, except as modified in subsequent paragraphs. Sufficient observation and testing should be performed by Geotechnics Incorporated so that an opinion can be rendered as to the compaction achieved. Geotechnics Incorporated CASE 1.0 --__-FEET- WATER, _ FILL RIP 12 INCHES, 3 COMPACT —J (MAXIMUM) FORMATION CASE 2.0 2%SLOPE FILL OVER-EXCAVATE TRANSITION TO A DEPTH OF H/2(3 FEET MINIMUM) H >3 FEET --- -- FORMATION CASE 3.0 H >3 FEET 2% SLOPE —►'_- _ FILL OVER-EXCAVATE TRANSITION -'-- __ TO A DEPTH OF H/2 (3 FEET MINIMUM) FORMATION G e o t e c h n i c s Project No. 0007-009-00 Incorporated TRANSITION DETAILS Document No. 1-0302 FIGURE 3 \Drafting\CorelDraw\Overex Rev. 1/00 BRUCE D. WIEGAND.INC. PROJECT NO.0007-009-00 MARCH 23.2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 12 Fill should be free of material in excess of 6 inches in maximum dimension. Materials generated from excavations within the metavolcanic rock may require screening or crushing prior to placement. Fill should contain at least 60 percent by weight soil material passing a 3/4-inch standard sieve. Site soils may be mixed to attain the required gradation. Imported fill sources should be observed prior to hauling onto the site. Representative samples of imported materials and on site soils should be tested by Geotechnics in order to evaluate their appropriate engineering properties for the planned use. Imported fill soils should have an expansion index of no more than 50 based on UBC Test Method 18-2 or ASTM D4829. During grading operations,soil types other than those analyzed in the geotechnical reports may be encountered by the contractor. Geotechnics should be notified to evaluate the suitability of these soils for use as fill and as finish grade soils. 7.3.7 Temporary Excavations: Temporary excavations should conform with Cal- OSHA guidelines. Temporary excavations should be inclined no steeper than 1:1 for Y heights up to 10 feet. Temporary excavations that encounter seepage or other potentially adverse conditions should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant on a case-by-case basis during grading. Remedial measures may include shoring, or reducing slope inclinations. 7.3.8 Slopes: We recommend that slopes at the site be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Our analysis indicates that the 2:1 slopes proposed at the site should be stable with regard to deep seated failure with a factor of safety greater than 1.5 (which is the generally accepted safety factor),provided that materials placed in the outer 10 feet of the fill slope faces meet the strength criteria presented previously. As stated in Section 7.3.3, direct shear testing should be conducted during grading w.- on samples of the fill slope materials to confirm that the shear strength exceeds a friction angle of 15 degrees with 150 lb/ft'-apparent cohesion. Granular soil from the sandstone of the Delmar Formation and terrace deposits may be used as select fill within the fill slopes without additional laboratory testing. Geotechnics Incorporated BRUCE D. WIEGAND. INC. PROJECT NO.0007-009-00 MARCH 23,2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 13 Although the proposed slopes are considered stable with regard to deep seated failure, the slopes may be susceptible to surficial slope failure and erosion, given substantial wetting of the slope face. Surficial slope stability may be enhanced by providing proper site drainage. The site should be graded so that water from the s_ surrounding areas is not able to flow over the top of slopes. Diversion structures should be provided where necessary. Surface runoff should be confined to gunite- lined swales or other appropriate devices to reduce the potential for erosion. It is recommended that slopes be planted with vegetation that will increase their stability. Ice plant is generally not recommended. We recommend that vegetation include woody plants, along with ground cover. All plants should be adapted for growth in semi-arid climates with little or no irrigation. A landscape architect should be consulted in order to develop a planting palate suitable for slope stabilization. 7.4 Surface Drainasze Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on how well the runoff waters drain from the site. This is true both during construction and over the entire life of the structures. The w ground surface around structures should be graded so that water flows rapidly away from the structures without ponding. The surface gradient needed to achieve this depends on the prevailing landscape. In general, we recommend that pavement and lawn areas within five feet of buildings slope away at gradients of at least two percent. Densely vegetated areas should have minimum gradients of at least five percent away from buildings in the first five w feet. Densely vegetated areas are considered those in which the planting type and spacing is such that the flow of water is impeded. Planters should be built so that water from them will not seep into the foundation, slab, or - pavement areas. Roof drainage should be channeled by pipe to storm drains, or discharge at curbs and gutters. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to sustain landscaping plants. Should excessive irrigation, surface water intrusion, water line breaks, or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones or"perched"groundwater may develop in the underlying soils, and the potential for soil heave may increase. Geotechnics Incorporated BRUCE D. WIEGAND.INC. PROJECT NO.0007-009-00 MARCH 23,2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 14 7.5 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations The following recommendations should be considered preliminary and subject to revision based on the conditions described in the as-graded geotechnical report. These preliminary recommendations are generally consistent with methods used in southern California. Other alternatives may be available. The foundation recommendations herein should not be considered to preclude more restrictive criteria of governing agencies or the structural engineer. The design of the foundation system should be performed by the project structural engineer, incorporating the geotechnical parameters presented below. 7.5.1 Post-Tension Slab Foundations (Medium Expansion): The following recommendations are appropriate for buildings underlain entirely by a relatively uniform depth of compacted fill. The upper five feet of soil is assumed to either have a low to medium potential for expansion, or to have been lime stabilized as recommended in Section 7.3.3a. These recommendations assume building pads are _. prepared in general accordance with the recommendations provided in Section 7.3. Edge Moisture Variation, em: Center Lift: 5.3 feet Edge Lift: 2.6 feet Differential Swell, ym: Center Lift: 1.5 inches Edge Lift: 0.5 inches Differential Settlement: 3/4 inch Allowable Bearing: 2,000 psf at slab subgrade 7.5.2 Post-Tension Slab Foundations (Highly Expansive): The following recommendations are appropriate for buildings underlain directly by moisture treated on site soils, as discussed in Section 7.3.3b. Actual design parameters should be provided in the as-graded report,based on laboratory testing conducted on the finish grade materials. The following preliminary design parameters would be appropriate for fills primarily composed of the on site colluvium and claystone. Geotechnics Incorporated BRUCE D. WIEGAND.INC. PR0JECT NO.0007-009-00 MARCH 23,2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 1 Edge Moisture Variation, e,,,: Center Lift: 5.8 feet Edge Lift: 2.8 feet Differential Swell, ym: Center Lift: 5 inches Edge Lift: 1 inches Differential Settlement: 3/4 inch Allowable Bearing: 1,500 psf at slab subgrade 7.5.3 Lateral Loads: Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the bottoms of footings and slabs and the supporting soil, as well as passive pressure from the portion of vertical foundation members embedded into compacted fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.25, and a passive pressure of 250 lb/ft3 is recommended. 7.5.4 Foundation Setbacks: As a minimum,structural foundations should be setback from any descending slope at least 8 feet, except for screen-wall foundations which should have a minimum setback of 5 feet. The setback should be measured horizontally from the outside bottom edge of the footing to the slope face. The horizontal setback can be reduced by deepening the foundation to achieve the recommended setback distance projected from the footing bottom to the face of the slope. It should be recognized that the outer few feet of all slopes are susceptible to gradual down-slope movements due to slope creep. This will affect hardscape such as concrete slabs. We recommend that settlement sensitive structures including concrete slabs not be constructed within 5 feet of the slope top without a specific review by the geotechnical consultant. 7.5.5 Settlement: We anticipate that the total settlement for any structure built on site will be less than 1 inch, and that differential settlement will be less than 3/4 inch. Geotechnics Incorporated BRUCE D. WIEGAND. INC. PROJECT NO.0007-009-00 MARCH 23.2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 16 7.5.6 Seismic Design: The nearest known active fault is within the Rose Canyon Fault zone. The Rose Canyon Fault zone is a Type B Seismic Source, based on the 1997 UBC criteria. The subject site is situated in 1997 UBC Seismic Zone 4 (Z = 0.40). Since the distance between the site and the nearest active fault is greater than 10 km,the 1997 UBC near source acceleration and velocity factors (Na and NJ are both equal to 1.0, and the seismic coefficients Ca and C,, equal 0.40 and 0.56, respectively. The site will be underlain by relatively dense compacted fill soils, which in turn overlie formational materials which extend to depths greater than 100 feet. In our opinion,a seismic Soil Profile Sc would apply at the site(very dense soil and soft rock). Design of structures should comply with the requirements of the governing jurisdictions, building codes and standard practices of the Association of Structural Engineers of California. 7.6 On-Grade Slabs Building slabs should be supported by compacted fill prepared as recommended under Section 7.3.4. Slabs should be designed for the anticipated loading, using soil parameters which reflect the actual subgrade conditions. For slabs constructed on a non-expansive cap as recommended in Section 7.3.3a, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 250 kips/ft'may be used. Such slabs should be at least 5 inches in thickness,and be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars on 18-inch centers,each way. For structures founded on moisture treated on-site clays as recommended in Section 7.3.3b,post-tension slab foundations should be designed by the project structural engineer using the parameters provided in Section 7.5.2. 7.6.1 Moisture Protection for Slabs: Concrete slabs constructed on soil ultimately cause the moisture content to rise in the underlying soil. This results from continued capillary rise and the termination of normal evapotranspiration. Because normal concrete is permeable, the moisture will eventually penetrate the slab. Excessive moisture may cause mildewed carpets,lifting or discoloration of floor tile,or similar problems. The amount of moisture transmitted through the slab can be controlled by the use of various moisture barriers. Geotechnics Incorporated BRUCE D. WIEGAND. INC. PROJECT NO.0007-009-00 MARCH 23.2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 17 To decrease the likelihood of problems related to damp slabs, suitable moisture protection measures should be used where moisture sensitive floor coverings or other factors warrant. The most commonly used moisture protection in southern California consists of about two inches of clean sand covered by'visqueen'plastic sheeting. In addition, two inches of sand are placed over the plastic to decrease concrete curing problems associated with placing concrete directly on an impermeable membrane. It has been our experience that such systems will transmit from approximately 6 to 12 pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day. The project architect should review these estimated transmission rates, since these values may be excessive for some applications, including most wood and vinyl floors. If more protection is needed, Geotechnics should be contacted for additional recommendations. 7.6.2 Exterior Slabs: Exterior slabs should be constructed over at least 2 feet of ~- nonexpansive fill,prepared as recommended in Section 7.3.3a. Exterior slabs should be at least 5 inches thick, and should be reinforced with at least 6x6 W2.9/W2.9 welded wire fabric (WWF) placed securely at mid height. Crack control joints should be placed on a maximum of 10 foot centers, each way, for slabs, and 5 foot centers for sidewalks. 7.7 Expansive Soils The soils observed during our investigation included both silty sands (SM) of the Delmar Formation and Terrace Deposits,as well as fat clays(CH)from the colluvium and claystone. In general, the terrace deposits and sandstone of the Delmar Formation have a low to medium expansion potential, whereas the colluvium and formational claystone are highly to very highly expansive. Recommendations are provided in this report for mitigation of the potential for expansive soil heave. Figure C-4 in the appendix summarizes the expansion test results, and presents the UBC criteria for evaluating expansion. Geotechnics Incorporated BRUCE D. WIEGAND.INC. PROJECT NO.0007-009-00 MARCH 23.2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 18 7.8 Reactive Soils In order to assess the reactivity of the site soils with metal pipe, the pH and resistivity of a selected soil sample was determined. The test results are shown in Figure C-3. The tests suggest that the site soils may be very corrosive to ferrous metals. A corrosion consultant should be contacted to provide corrosion control recommendations. The site soils were also found to be acidic (pH of 5.0). A selected sample was also tested for water soluble sulfate to estimate the potential for sulfate attack of concrete. These test results are reported in Figure C-3 in terms of the percentage by weight of the water soluble sulfate in the soil. The clayey soils tested for this investigation were found to have a "negligible" sulfate content based on UBC criteria. However, previous investigation of the site soils indicated a "moderate" sulfate exposure (Geotechnics, 1997a). The project design engineer may choose to use this information in conjunction with Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 UBC in order to specify a suitable cement type, water cement ratio,and minimum compressive strength for concrete used on site which will be in direct contact with soil,including all foundations and slabs. It should be noted that the presence of soluble sulfate in the irrigation water supply or the use of fertilizer may cause the sulfate content in the surficial soils to increase with time. This may result in a higher sulfate exposure than that indicated herein. 7.9 Earth-Retaining Structures Backfilling retaining walls with highly expansive soil can increase lateral pressures well beyond normal active or at-rest pressures. We recommend that retaining walls be backfilled with soil having and expansive index of 20 or less. The backfill area should include the zone defined by a 1:1 sloping plane, extending back from the base of the wall. Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, based on ASTM D1557. Backfill should not be placed until walls have achieved adequate structural strength. Heavy compaction equipment which could cause distress to the walls should not be used. Geotechnics Incorporated BRUCE D. WIEGAND. INC. PROJECT NO.0007-009-00 MARCH 23.2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 19 For general retaining wall design,an allowable bearing capacity of 2,0001bs/ft3,a coefficient of friction of 0.25, and a passive pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth is recommended. Cantilever retaining walls with level granular backfill may be designed using an active earth pressure approximated by an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 lbs/ft'. Cantilever retaining walls with 2:1 sloping backfill should be designed for an active earth pressure approximated by an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 lbs/ft'. The active pressures should be used for walls free to yield at the top at least one percent of the wall height. Walls with level backfill which are restrained so that such movement is not permitted should be designed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 lbs/ft'. The above pressures do not consider surcharge loads or hydrostatic pressures. Any surcharge loading within the area defined by a 1:1 sloping plane, extending back and up from the base of the wall, should be accounted for in the structural design. Potential surcharge loads include foundation and vehicle loads. Walls should contain an adequate subdrain to eliminate any hydrostatic forces. The recommended drain details are presented in Figure 4. 8.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION This investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances,by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional opinions included in this report. The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative of the project site. However, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between borings. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative,to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the necessary design consultants for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractors carry out such recommendations in the field. Geotechnics Incorporated DAMP—PROOFING OR WATER- PROOFING AS REQUIRED ROCK AND FABRIC ALTERNATIVE .COMPACTED .BACKFILL- , •12" 12—INCH MINIMUM MINUS 3/4—INCH CRUSHED ROCK ENVELOPED IN FILTER FABRIC (MIFAFI 140NL, SUPAC 4NP, OR APPROVED SIMILAR) DAMP—PROOFING OR WATER- PROOFING AS REQUIRED 4—INCH DIAM.ADS OR PVC ' PERFORATED PIPE ^ GEOCOMPOSITE PANEL DRAIN ► ' i COMPACTED• s BACKFILL' 1 CU. FT. PER LINEAL FOOT OF PANEL DRAIN MINUS 3/4—INCH CRUSHED ALTERNATIVE ROCK ENVELOPED IN FILTER FABRIC. 4—INCH DIAM.ADS OR PVC PERFORATED PIPE NOTES 1) Perforated pipe should outlet through a solid pipe to a free gravity outfall. Perforated pipe and outlet pipe should have a fall of at least 11%. 2) As an alternative to the perforated pipe and outlet, weep holes may be included in the bottom of the wall. Weepholes should be at least 2 inches in diameter, and be spaced no greater than 8 feet. 3) Filter fabric should consist of Mirafi 140N, Supac 5NP, Amoco 4599, or similar approved fabric. Filter fabric should be overlapped at least 6-inches. 4) Geocomposite panel drain should consist of Miradrain 6000, J-DRain 400, Supac DS-15, or approved similar product. 5) Drain installation should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to backfilling. G e o t e c h n i c s Project No. 0007-009-00 - Incorporated WALL DRAIN DETAIL Document No. 1-0302 FIGURE 4 BRUCE D. WIEGAND. INC. PROJECT NO.0007-009-00 MARCH 23.2001 DOCUMENT NO. 1-0302 PAGE 20 The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition,changes in applicable or appropriate standards of practice may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly,the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED Chad W. Warren _. Staff Geologist Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333 Matthew A. Fagan, P.E. 2Y7 48 Principal Engineer Project Engineer O QPpF ESS/pN F. aF�' �y� ����`� A.',c� C040333 7- w Q UJ* Exp:3 * * 7248 z .J C I V 1%. P� 'P CIVIX. , F OF CAL1F� �TF OF CPltF4c:", Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX A REFERENCES American Society for Testing and Materials (1998). Annual Book ofASTM Standards, Section 4, Construction, Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock; ASTM, Philadelphia, PA. Anderson,J. G. , Rockwell, T. K.,Agnew,D. C. (1989). Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego Region, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5,No. 2. pp 299-335. Blake, T.F. (1998). EQFAULT,EQRISK, and FRISKSP: Computer Programs for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Southern California Historical Earthquakes. Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed.:New York, McGraw Hill, 1175 p. California Division of Mines and Geology (1975). Recommended Guidelines for Determining the Maximum Credible and the Maximum Probable Earthquakes, CDMG Note Number 43. Geotechnics Incorporated(1997a). Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence, Wishbone Way, 2.35 Acres, Encinitas, CA, Document 7-0278, August 15. Geotechnics Incorporated (1997b). Report of Geotechnical Observation and Testing, Wheeler Residence, Wishbone Way, Olivenhain, CA, Document 7-0605, October 14. Geotechnics Incorporated(2000). Proposal for Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, Corte La Bella, Olivenhain, CA, Proposal No. 0-270, Document No. 0-1163, dated December 19. International Conference of Building Officials (1997). Uniform Building Code, Title 23. Jennings, C. W. (1994). Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Eruptions, CDMG Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6. San Diego Association of Geologists(1985). On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County, San Diego State University, April 13. USDA (1953). Aerial Photographs: Flight No. AXN-4M-71, 72, 73, Scale 1:20,000. Wesnousky, S. G. (1986). Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazard in California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 91, no. B12,p. 12587-12631. Youngs, R.R. and Coopersmith, K.J. (1985). Implications of Fault Slip Rates and Earthquake µ Recurrence Models to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates,Bulletinofthe Seismological Society of America, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 939-964. Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION Field exploration consisted of a visual reconnaissance of the site,and the excavation of 7 exploratory test pits using a rubber tired backhoe and a tracked excavator on March 1 and March 7, 2001. The test pits were 24 inches wide,and were excavated to a maximum depth of 7 feet. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on the Geotechnical Map. Logs describing the subsurface -° conditions encountered are presented in the following Figures B-1 through B-7. Bulk samples collected during the exploration are indicated on the test pit logs with shading. Test pit locations were established in the field by pacing and by estimation using the plans provided. The locations shown should not be considered more accurate than is implied by the method of measurement used. The lines designating the interface between soil units on the test pit logs are determined by interpolation and are therefore approximations. The transition between the materials may be abrupt or gradual. Further, soil conditions at locations between the excavations may be substantially different from those at the specific locations explored. It should be noted that the passage of time can result in changes in the soil conditions reported in our logs. Geotechnics Incorporated LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT NO. 1 Logged by: CW Date Excavated: 3/1/01 Equipment Used: John Deere 710 Backhoe with 24-inch Bucket Elevation: 337' msl 2 °- E a W DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS y Y_ 0 � m 1 COLLUVIUM:Silty sand(SM)with clay, reddish brown to brownish orange,fine, moist, medium dense,few metavolcanic gravels and cobbles. _ 2 3 DELMAR FORMATION:Silty sandstone(SM), light yellowish gray with orange staining,fine Gradation, 4 grained, moist,dense,weak cementation. Maximum Density, 5 Consolidated Shear 6 Total Depth=5 1/2 Feet. 7 No groundwater or caving. Backfilled 3/1/01. 9 10 Y LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT NO. 2 Logged by: CW Date Excavated: 3/7/01 w Equipment Used: Komatsu PC 100 Excavator with 24-inch Bucket Elevation: 334' msl m LL o. E Un DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS _Y O 7 m 1 COLLUVIUM:Silty sand(SM), light orangish brown,fine, moist, medium dense. 2 DELMAR FORMATION:Silty sandstone(SM), light yellowish gray with orange staining,fine grained,moist,dense,weak cementation. 3 Total Depth=2 1/2 Feet. 4 No groundwater or caving. Backfilled 3/7/01. 5 6 7 8 9 10 LPROJECT NO. 0007-009-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE B-1 LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT NO. 3 Logged by: CW Date Excavated: 3/7/01 Equipment Used: Komatsu PC 100 Excavator with 24-inch Bucket Elevation: 344' msl _d LL a E a Un DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS y Y_ O 7 m 1 COLLUVIUM:Clayey sand(SC),dark orangish brown,fine, low plasticity,moist,medium dense. SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS: etavo camc rock,gray on fresh surface,orange on weat ere 2 surface,moderately weathered, moderately fractured. 3 Total Depth=1 1/2 Feet, refusal on metavolcanic rock. No groundwater of caving. 4 Backfilled 3/7/01. 5 6 7 ._. 8 9 10 LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT NO. 4 Logged by: CW Date Excavated: 3/7/01 Equipment Used: Komatsu PC 100 Excavator with 24-inch Bucket Elevation: 346' msl d E a n DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS � 7 m 1 COLLUVIUM:Sandy clay to sandy fat clay(CL-CH),orange to dark orangish brown,fine to Expansion medium sand,medium to high plasticity,moist,soft to firm,angular metavolcanic gravels and Index 2 cobbles. Refusal on SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS. 3 Total Depth=2 1/2 Feet, refusal on metavolcanic rock. 4 No groundwater or caving. Backfilled 3/7/01. mom 5 6 ._ 7 8 9 10 PROJECT NO. 0007-009-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE B-2 LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT NO. 5 Logged by: CW Date Excavated: 3/7101 Equipment Used: Komatsu PC 100 Excavator with 24-inch Bucket Elevation: 339' msl d v E E a in DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS N Y � 7 m 1 COLLUVIUM:Sandy fat clay(CH),dark brown to dark gray,fine to medium sand, high plasticity, Gradation, moist,soft. Hydrometer, 2 Atterberg Limits, Sulfate Content, 3 pH&Resistivity, Expansion Index DELMAR FORMATION:Clayey sandstone(SC)with sandy caystone(CL), orangish gray 4 to orange and olive gray,fine grained, low plasticity,moist, medium dense/firm. 5 6 Total Depth=5 Feet. No groundwater or caving. 7 Backfilled 3/7/01. .� 8 9 10 LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT NO. 6 Logged by: CW Date Excavated: 3/7/01 Equipment Used: Komatsu PC 100 Excavator with 24-inch Bucket Elevation: 336' msl _d LL a E CL rn DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS O 7 m 1 COLLUVIUM:Sandy fat clay(CH),dark brown to dark gray,fine to medium sand, high plasticity,moist, soft,few gravels and coarse sand,metavolcanic boulder. 2 3 4 Gradation, DELMAR FORMATION:Claystone(CL),olive gray with orange staining and red inclusions, Hydrometer, 5 few fine sand, low plasticity,moist,firm. Atterberg Limits, Maximum 6 Density, Consolidated 7 Shear, Expansion Index 8 Total Depth=7 Feet. No groundwater or caving. 9 Backfilled 3/7/01. 10 PROJECT NO. 0007-009-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE B-3 LOG OF EXPLORATION TEST PIT NO. 7 - Logged by: CW Date Excavated: 3/7/01 Equipment Used: Komatsu PC 100 Excavator with 24-inch Bucket Elevation: 337' msl d E CL in DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS d _Y � 7 m 1 COLLUVIUM:6 inches of dark orangish brown clayey sand(SC)over sandy fat clay(CH),dark gray to brownish gray,fine to medium sand,medium to high plasticity, moist,firm. 2 3 4 DELMAR FORMATION:Silty sandstone(SM), light yellowish gray with orange staining,fine 5 grained,moist,medium dense to dense,weak cementation. 6 Total Depth=5 Feet. No groundwater or caving. 7 Backfilled 3/7/01. 9 10 PROJECT NO. 0007-009-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE B-4 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING Selected representative samples of soils encountered were tested using test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials, or other generally accepted standards. Laboratory testing was conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the correctness or serviceability of the test results or the conclusions derived from these tests. Where a specific laboratory test method has been referenced, such as ASTM, Caltrans, or AASHTO, the reference applies only to the specified laboratory test method and not to associated referenced test method(s) or practices, and the test method referenced has been used only as a guidance document for the general performance of the test and not as a"Test Standard." A brief description of the tests performed follows. Classification: Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classification was supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples and classification in accordance with ASTM D2487. The classifications are shown on the Boring Logs. Particle Size Anal,: Particle size analyses were performed in accordance with ASTM D422. The grain size distribution was used to determine presumptive strength parameters and foundation design criteria. The results are given in Figures C-1.1 through C-1.3. Atterberg Limits: ASTM D4318-84 was used to determine the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of selected samples. The results are given in Figures C-1.2 and C-1.3. Maximum Density Optimum Moisture: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture contents were estimated in general accordance with the laboratory procedures outlined in ASTM test "- method D1557, modified Proctor. The test results are summarized in Figure C-2. Sulfate Content: To assess the potential for reactivity with below grade concrete, selected soil samples were tested for water soluble sulfate content. The sulfate was extracted under vacuum from the soil, and the extracted solution was then tested for water soluble sulfate in general accordance with ASTM D516. The results are presented in Figure C-3. pH and Resistivity: To assess the potential for reactivity with buried metal pipe and below grade -- ferrous materials,a selected soil sample was tested for pH and resistivity in general accordance with the laboratory procedures outlined in Caltrans test method 643.The results are shown on Figure C-3. Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected soils was characterized by using the test method ASTM D4829. Figure C-4 provides the results of the tests. Direct Shear Test: The shear strength of the site soils was estimated using direct shear tests on samples remolded to approximate fill conditions. The shear tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM 133080. The results are shown in Figure C-5.1 through C-5.3. Geotechnics Incorporated 0 0 0 o N 0 0 C') ' o Q U o w J i- F- X C7 o ~o z D zi W U Z O C �_ W _a � Z E LL U Q J d U U � 0 g 'o CL a O Z } Q g U) Z 0 o F" o Q O LPL o° a`s (n d Cl) Q = W J ID z V � N O N (n Z N C ^ (� ik Z Q Z p N LL < (0 `O a Cn W U U O N 7j 00� H ' W W w U In CL U) Q G O M � � O W �"1 LL U U C N M J LU o > Q O Z o N W d d M O Q M < Q O y O 00 C)0 O 0 O LD O O o O 0 I46iaM Aq jauid ;ua:)aad 0 p O N N O O U') m v O O o U J H H X O T W Zoo z w o U _ o U It w d U) - Z E U. U Q d Cn U U O o 0 CL a I O Z } Q g m E 0 o � N Q U o = C) LL.O � O y ddc C W Z S LL U Ln _ N •4 J _N } O N Z a>i c N O U cn in °z Q F- -2_ Q U co U. LL w U C6 J Z O � � H w w v N U LL 0 Q D o 0 U � O w Ln O ._ z CL o U U N � W o 4-j ~ it_ > . a O z o rN Q J d J =TV O y O 00 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O LO ;y6iaM Aq iauid ;ua3Jad 0 o O O O v a) o U O W Ix ::i ::i ❑ O Z LuJ ❑_ U z O C C7 } O LL ❑ O } z E i Q J a cn U U N QO < O a IL O O ❑ Z Q Q � J - v J U oil E � 0 v` S Z 0 o o Q N U o = U L L N O_ y C Q w J 0 LL Z U Ln _. N Q cn N U O a� Q U f0 U) LL Q � J N cA W V U- U0 w Z O w uw v U. ca LU < = G Q O U � ^O ro r4 O W � � u M A J W O 4-4 ~ > Q O Z o w c7 w J `J U) W J W d' d J ¢O Ja 2 a U) N 2 O y O 00 00 O 0 O O O O O 0 ;y6iaM Aq jaui j ;ua:)Jad MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D1557) Sample Description Maximum Optimum - Density Moisture [PCF] [%] - TP-1 @ 3' - 5'/z' DELMAR FORMATION (Td): Yellow 114''/z 16 brown silty sand (SM). - TP-6 @ 3'/2' - T DELMAR FORMATION (Td): Olive gray 113 17 fat clay with sand (CH). Project No. 0007-009-00 '_G e o t e c h n i c s Laboratory Test Results Document No. 1-0302 Incorporated Figure C-2 CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS Sample Description Soluble pH Resistivity Sulfate [%] [OHM-CM] TP-5 @ 0' - 3' COLLUVIUM (Ocol): Dark brown 0.04 5.0 330 sandy fat clay (CH). CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL CORROSIVITY RESISTIVITY [OHM-CM] CORROSIVITY TO FERROUS METAL 0 to 1,000 Very Corrosive 1,000 to 2,000 Corrosive 2,000 to 5,000 Moderately Corrosive w 5,000 to 10,000 Mildly Corrosive Greater than 10,000 Slightly Corrosive UBC TABLE NO. 19-A-4, CLASSIFICATION OF SULFATE EXPOSURE SOLUBLE SULFATE [%] REACTIVITY WITH CONCRETE over 2.00 % Very Severely Reactive 2.00 %to 0.2 % Severely Reactive 0.20 % to 0.10 % Moderately Reactive 0.10 % to 0.00% Negligible Project No. 0007-009-00 G e o t e c h n i c s Laboratory Test Results Document No. 1-0302 Incorporated Figure C-3 EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS (ASTM D4829) Sample Description Expansion Index TP-4 @ 0' - 2'/2' COLLUVIUM (()col): Orange brown sandy fat clay (CH). 115 TP-5 @ 0' - 3' COLLUVIUM (Ocol): Dark brown sandy fat clay (CH). 148 TP-6 @ 3`'/z' -7' DELMAR FORMATION(Td�:Olive fat clay w/sand (CH). 138 UBC TABLE NO. 29-C, CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION 0-20 Very low 21-50 Low 51-90 Medium 91-130 High Above 130 Very high Project No. 0007-009-00 G e o t e c h n i c s Laboratory Test Results Document No. 1-0302 Incorporated Figure C-4 N4000 -- a T , N 3000 ---f - - - - w ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■, ■■■■ ■■ ■■ r■■ ■ ■ t■■ ■.r■7■■�■■�■ w. 2000 �- - Cn 1000 - ■ 00 o®E0ao- 00 � �o �I3OOOQEt a©0 -13oo m-I�}013 a O` ■■ ■■■■■■ ■ ■E© ■■®■ ■■ ■ ■■■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■�M■■■ w ■ x 0 ■-■-■® 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 STRAIN [%] 4500 - - - -- - - 4000 •ULTIMATE SHEAR: _ o PEAK SHEAR: 3500 ---- - - 3000 ---- - - - W a N 2500 -- - - ------- w Cn Cn 2000 - -- -- - --- a w x 1500 1000 - ------ - - 500 --- - --- - -- - — — - 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: TP-1 @ 3' -5% PEAK ULTIMATE FILL: Yellow brown silty sand, 360 290 remolded to 90% maximum at optimum. C. 100 PSF 0 PSF IN-SITU AS-TESTED STRAIN RATE: 1 0.0100 IN/MIN 7d 103.1 PCF 103.1 PCF (Sample was consolidated and drained) w, 16.0 % 25.9 % =G e o t e c h n i c s Project No. 0007-003-09 I n c o r p o rat e d DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Document No. 1-0302 FIGURE C-5.1 LL 1000 - - -- - 0. w ... J. .... .... 0 ..�v�o _000000 �.ee� eel s �s�ee�13 e- ®eeimIt0- 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 - STRAIN [%] 4500 - - - ----- -- — 4000 •ULTIMATE SH EAR: Ei PEAK SHEAR: 3500 - --- - 3000 -- -- - - - a N 2500 -- - -- w o: '- W 2000 a w y 1500 ---- --- - - ---- - - — 1000 — ------ -- -- - 500 --- -- --- --... --- -- — 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: TP-6 @ 3W -7' PEAK ULTIMATE ELLL: Olive gray fat clay with sand, 3 ° 3 ° remolded to 90% maximum at optimum. C. 0 PSF 0 PSF IN-SITU AS-TESTED - STRAIN RATE: 1 0.0050 IN/MIN yd 101.8 PCF 101.8 PCF (Sample was consolidated and drained) wc 17.5 % 39.9 % =G e o t e c h n i c s Project No. 0007-003-09 n c o r p o r a t e d DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Document No. 1-0302 FIGURE C-5.2 N 1000 - a. N __ cn w LU � ■ ■ 0 .. 004€� 000 x N 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 STRAIN [%] 4500 - - - ---- - 4000 •ULTIMATE SHEAR: o PEAK SHEAR: 3500 -- - - --- -- -- ----- - - --- U. 3000 - ---- ---- - - - -- -- - - a V N 2500 - - - --- - --- -- -- - - - - - - --- -- w Cn 2000 Q w x N 1500 1000 -- - --- ---- - -- --- --- -- 500 - - -- ---- -- ------- - ----- -- . -- 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: TP-6 @ 3%. -7' PEAK ULTIMATE FILL(Retest): Olive gray fat clay with sand, 7 ° 5 ° remolded to 90% maximum at optimum. C. 0 PSF 0 PSF IN-SITU AS-TESTED STRAIN RATE: 1 0.0010 IN/MIN yd 103.0 PCF 103.0 PCF (Sample was consolidated and drained) w, 16.2 % 36.9 % =G e o t e c h n i c s Project No. 0007-003-09 I n c o r p o rated DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Document No. 1-0302 FIGURE C-5.3 I 5 e i ,�.,;� .e ` ...�....�- .�.. .a\'"".�.'�. .. may„ '' ,i 1 ! � ! �` � ✓ �"° ... � �... -.. ,�. M1 �_ ° _° a `'- " �` �. � {i i!` i ; `+ �i 1 �" w. s' ^'w .....• e+" ..._ m. "'• .... ,.ar .,.r. _ / V .k �. �' ) `r �. '+u ✓' e } i { i} \t 1 { ! ) ~ `.'✓ 11 m _ ti m_ - 32b i i v� \ : J if 1 i 1� "�320_ , � � — 1 f �, ii 1 I it _ � f { y.,,, 1 ✓ r •"" ..� ..,. ''� ,+' '° ,, J y y, :- ✓ � •,„, ... F s ,�, .w. .,. .„^ „„ I� �.. ��.... ...- d.- .... .f*°��,�:�}��y�('•,�`�y� / ( (} ', � � .o' r ��� � � !���y y � ,•,. ..- �� -,.. ,�. ,.,,, ,,,, � `�,, �,. `� " � I � � ,�a,�..-.._., `"°"`--n ".z..Y.�3� f i 1 / i,�' /'! ,,.. "e ,? '".+ {�✓'��, r r 1, i1%Mh 1 � IN 310 N, •" A#' �" "'.^ ~j�'"^4 i ;;"� '°..s .....3,30 » _•• ,,, ,/ •-i;�-�afl B.8IT8Oe'2 4'$7 E R POS ED OP PACE PROXI E Slil Td ENV p� 1 z l TP PAD= 336,0 {{ -7 5 1 A 1 J 511 t \ 1 filly out TP IN \4a FIEN � ', \ � �.8 �'\~' --,.cam.. � / ����'�B � _...,.-=+^-,w.'""" •�+ld.,,...,•..� / r•,,. yf ' ''\ \t `'�`��le' \�i "i� � •„ _r!�� i .» �Q ' .�3 4 IVA_`.,•.�`� �jM%��. �/ ...° �`'w � �,� "t � q r! _ `\ 1 / 's� j / r ttfallNGfl PRIVATE s r ROAD ANA UTILITY l gASEyFIVT PER PARCEL 340,0 MAP IM 16199 ILI \ `. { j f (?STRIA \ �'A"FA \ PE -P#�Xh ' q \ h# r` ti \ \ t: T -2 PARCaL 3, PM 981 tat r r 2 A ! \ ! OFFSITE GRAD190 BY LETTER OF PERU ISSION SIGNED B Y MARK WHEELER �p c ' TP-1 `°• DATED __.__w--_ ' EA����I���. �� �t j r I i � `` i ` ��^,., i � �''*1 7 ,`'^.. � � r'� i. � t' � t" '� ! •,... •� r` 1 r '` ..�.�. � - i _ ± Sil,1�� \ �T / Fill ��r ...•"�-.. � - / I���� ,��� / J / / !` � Fill `� f 3 w�,�. 1 i { a \4`: :�" `• T!Y ,. l 1 j _,.,°'' /��'t`K',',� . I% ; I / rj 1 r,, / r; `/.� ,`'•w l•�,.i Qt Terrace Deposits }S } ' r 1 1\ l '` t� 4 4 J r f '>!/r rl r f` t If`�.' Td Delmar Formation +� Santiago Peak Volcanil 11 t, I1 I3ESTRIAT I ANN S p 3 SI T 16199 1P-1 test pt indicating dep th to f01n8tlnaF 1 JI �i i i soils(3y), and total depth (5) l � \ `°� �, \ ---t---'�---..... -~~-�...,�. �\ � �� °"`_`.°.`.`^w.c-•- —�°-., � ,�•-m�^° . 0 ,,�':..._ r= "7 ` ~.�`°"L`t i •^� r t I f i { �" \ � --w--•-'�--•mss' \ \ l�� _ .� -- -�'�,..: �• ,, ,, ,• �, �= ,,% � 1 i � Approxilmille location of geologic - \ _ 't1. . ..rr ...."f ,n# ct,queried where un�`ertin t I , — 1 Approximate It>cation of proposed } \ L \ \ ` r ,,,.. ..�... tttiii contact GE©7ECHNICAL MAP +cute Approximate location of existing Ueotech»ics Corte La Bella nu cutiliii contact ncorporated Bruce D. Wiegand Approximate location of existing Document t nt o . Munn 2001 " current Pic. 1-0302 1 PLATE. '""'" Ir"il` ".' fill daylight x , _ t mow,° } n [g p } ' awxc ,:, mast, _ _ , ekar .mom x x ,r mu mrearaaz areas a a PRIVATE, ROAD, .r , t I- - � IS INS �6 Z N � 3 " fi N 7TI.. T ` EASEliENT g;1p �{i` t,€ g I OD M)NN AS AFTSWON_F NAY SLAS INS TA 1, 'NO PARkUffi-FIRE LANE� -. •, 1 "�$ - t _ C3 E per: yy �T"d- p,l i yy _ 33 f RETAINING _- AEI < — << i ® 4 — z 4 i , Fx LU 1 4 Y{ $C SCALE p q��gg99,�,�°�-,�ypp p gq q i � �� {'•y is #"S P.P"!UC L.b ,F^F.. " ,'F 'Y' `Y > "s `z" J, !3 �ti 'w �t, s S,T00 "�t_p•Xx%a::,'€"'� s LS d.AN s2f1:3-:dP d�,E of f._.. b�}o���.. Ld�'ave ifr'4. NTT � - '° } `d _.. !�DdAt,ITIT -`�.,zt. ��'� &PF°"�.:,°.p�� '"- p,{+y-' 840 e'.-, � -_...._. +#rV y,.,.g p�pq'. ., ,3.., r' .... , £,.43S`�@, C & `p�pg wd rtJ Cdr. THICK j, RIP-MP f 5- s .. u•dd�,..?"# f'8 A a ,q�ypaL�-p'g n y@HIC (•�`{I MY';• a'.i(j,. v \1"'3.&£tl J. L Ff' ?:' d _ i � a ,,.. ._... ,..,..r` 1 - t;3t t 1rF .,, ILL OA"<t[n ! mb`b. i ;1T,+� � .a.» tF '«"'fi ".»•`-0,9 \, j,\ 1 sra p}�aggpp pq \ , .. 1 �\tot8,.:3 ':fit. 3+'1'T63C'8E :F j TLL- . Td� - �:. ....u._�,'d."` t _ dt'., ,� Or'k "$�a° P� z7%� .. e *a"4 X" �tip�{'AJggG�<�[N �ag.3g rg�..OPE SP. ��5��'..- p 4 �n. i�Uvi?ARTES b X�ds tes T?1€ f j5 t \ \ `\ 4Ab4d99V£8?'8 , s�...AC4A!"'6IMP €,�:�49 TtYGICT €IN \ ..-.... ,. - ,k`?��:"'.a ' � � 'x., °\, " i �, fix t _ MEN i i i . •. _ - ?' .\. ^-m< ,,,w... � ,—. }� t.L R �qg� a' _' «,'"..... - ».»<, -,..,,...,"•,ry 1 .r _... : ; Lb - -> v�,.. -. OPEN SPACE EASEMENT _ Am ^w".. ,`°"•w,°. __..._.. PER DOC * `�A La Ny g T e C G_A w, \ y.. ¢°, -'. -•- :. f {n e / J .,� - _ ., .__. ._. . . 14 A ' Wj 13>, -15 --- �. � k 1 22 1 16 28 \ . t A F. 4 12J 6 / �3rj �..._ 40r f.' � T - c o` ,. . Y / 23, 4 -' a � ' , ' 134 . 339 pp , 9 r e - 33 39 Td Fes- 13 \, •,;•. �< 74• 119 % 6 j rY� _ LIMIT �JS � �� . �# ,�`�f , ter. �'� t - _ c _ i6 45 OF Ai 5 �� t 5 j _v ° -- - f �� f :\ w , v p��ry t `. f - 09 ��,x�x�XTSSSTTT��—i 67 OF OnADI#vt� # EXIST mo rynou D ` , \ 343,6 ` _ 'i r ;•5 \ < To/ xRR w t� ,437 �• \ _.._, _,. ....,-. �s,�„°" ` .,.,. '-. ' i. `-,i ,.. - � � -_ �: • \. 4"> x'`r _ _ :.� tea'_.. '0' ._ . x s ° 7 7th pp $A ys�9 g @y yam• d t W p ;ire ,_, fT ,.-..^� '� p""' ,a.,,,„,...,.�..,,>-.,e. ':, �\ � sJr.4Cat'61¢FYC3 3P;`rP{ � t,„f�ti�'.Fia§ !'dIFa. `a' 1:.hY i F• 1 F {.Jj/ FY �_� i €EFa�&S`kfW c ai• FINISH GRADE Ygigi N — y ✓ , " CUT I X38 �- t a_; �F- - 7Y XA _.y*-*+u:Y I o��B$°p t4 • 342 ,d 9 ` E S> _ INSTALL iVAD � Secton Y ` y(�L.W 8f6 (TYPICAL 2148"0 �. 6 )0%x v THICK RIP-RAP tjo, y -"..... . , t 60PROW AREA 95 II ELE Not to sM Vq T aa° :4o- Ate �{ 6 / 139 �.✓.'- hi4 @°dkEs-0S R- teF'8 ARM'y 22 < EXPLANATI®N \ - � 14 I ' �� . ° AM A 3 ! . 1 m , q93 a r .� 1 '' i+w :, 332 8i / - _ g : , _ ` Jsp Santiago Peak Volcamcs, circled where buried - � ' .\ \ i, g.. £'"� r. t J fi � x p � , f SP-: �,: 1 �� -'�� ,.• � ��q 6;g''t g fi ��,.,,..._ s� ��P � - 'daxiwxx.1 1� 0 � � } d Delmar F � ormation, circled where burred °�7° t , /' � , ': ._ � , Lr`t " F�Z�, 1 T Y g ` W $ WWW BY HAW FP ,76 Approximate location of geologic contact t ; a 8� ; g . a s .Y. 346. dotted where buried ~_ i g � � � , , , ` ,. � T08/ + - - _e µ r �,` , ;' w F 9H907 - - ' - . 6 - ' � ._ ;345. IE �� .< 9 x N � cut V1 �$ a v —1 th Approximate location of cut/fill transition - ; KiS^" � � `PHi NO. J fll S„ + i HAt� FILTER location of-keyway \ 151 A - - pproximate location of field density test ,. v,, ° ;, -.' � a�;FS-�s.� - - - - ---- -- ---- --- �., f / 34 3 - _ ' T Approximate elevation of excavation bottom / `w t ry(} gpy dp (��V r }y;q S FY./.'?.9i9i rlL� _ ,.` \ \ ✓' �y\ '.� rl" µ ,; -F L t�dl .STi 3:,r'so- F `�"'w.. 11-�� 4v t' i \ A R 3 . r r ry "In �^ oe N _ 4 r J F i r .�„ E mas. - r ram area wa GEOTECHNICAL MAP . „ Corte La Bella, Lots 1, 2 & 4 Bruce D. Wiegand Inc. r .t Ditman _ ®► Geotechnics Project No. 0007-009-01 m Incorporated Document No. 02-0696 PLATE 1 REVISIONS -_ gyRPUVED � DATE ++aroma:m.wexxw',m,<a .. rvwsw.sce,aava w :G^CE6 ( 4 4 ¢tl ° BENCHMARK SCALE : � m � . � , �' ANAezu � �, � tR 61 uYt� � - Y �WAP 4 S� P ; & ~ �� , PLANS n aPAP UNDER k" ._NONLiKENT OPE OPg 1"�47 �� „„ aw _.,,v.�LA �t LOCATTON' RA I TS ? g72 P PtN6 .{ ' SAI&ff FE QUAD NEAR FENCE LAST 570E EAT[s x _ _ -- _ DATE: OF Ai. RS 454 ° " 10AL �R;-ICQRG 6RON: Cfl> OErGtft302 ___._-__ ___ DA , x P e DATE: DATE: s CXP ca.. ,y n 4P PM 1610 69"0 • WORK PROJECT NO, 4 as �A. .� ° .,