2003-7864 G a
® R
City of NGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT
--- Encinitas
Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Field Oper
Sand Rep]enishment/StormW ter Coomplian es
Subdivision Engineering
Tune 23, 2004 Traffic Engineering
Attn: Union Bank of California
247 North El Camino Real
Encinitas, CA 92024
RE: John Dewald
520 Liverpool Drive
APN 260-393-12
Grading Permit 7864-GI
Final release of security
Permit 7864-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improveme
control, all as necessary to build described project. Final, acceptance a
inspections have all been completed to r the satisfaction nts, and erosion
Therefore, release of the remainder of the security deposit and warranty
of the Field Operations Division.
p t is merited.
The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancell
Services Manager and is hereby released for a
Account#2889020976 in the amount of$ 2,956. ed by the Financial
P yment to the depositor.
enclosed. 80. The document original is
The document originals are enclosed. Should you have an
contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing attention the
y questions or concerns, please
Department.
Engineering
Sincerely,
(;7
Masih Maher
Senior Civil Engineer J e ach
Subdivision Engineering F ance Manager
Financial Service
CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager
Sheridan Homes LLC
Debra Geishart
File
TEL 760-633-2600 / PAX 760-633-2677 5N S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas. C:aliFornia 92024-
.3633 TDD 760-633-2700
recycled
Paper
^ ENGINEERING
C ty o f SERVICES DEPARTMENT
- hncinitds
Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Field
Sand Rep lenishment/Stormw ter Coomplian es
Subdivision Engineering
October 29, 2004 Traffic Engineering
Attn: Union Bank of California
247 North El Camino Real
Encinitas, CA 92024
RE: John Dewald
520 Liverpool Drive
APN 260-393-12
Grading Permit 7864-GI
Final release of security
Permit 7864-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements a
control, all as necessary to build described project. Final, acceptance, and warranty
Inspections have all been completed to the satisfaction o and erosion
Therefore, release of the remainder of the security deposit t semeritted.Operations Division.
d.
The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by
Services Manager and is hereby released for payment
Account#2889020968 in the amount of$8,g 0.40. to the depositors Financial
enclosed. he document original is
The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions o
contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering
r concerns,please
Department.
g rmg
Sincerely, -
%f
Masih Maher
i'
Senior Civil Engineer Jayeembach
Subdivision Engineering Finance Manager
Financial Service
CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager
John Dewald
Debra Geishart
File
41- recycled paper
Recording Requested By: THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DMK01
UAS RECORDED ON JUL Oi, 2003 City Engineer ) DOCKNT R 2003_
GTGORY J. SMITH, t y RE R
City Clerk
When Recorded Mail to: ) SM DIEGO f y RECORDERS OFFICE
) .
City of Encinitas ) TIME: 4'23 PW
505 South Vulcan Avenue )
Encinitas CA 92024 )
SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY
PRIVATE STORM WATER TREATMENT
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Assessor's Parcel No. 260-393-12
ProjectNo.:02-226 BA/CDP
W.O.No.: —__7864-G
THIS AGREEMENT for the periodic maintenance and repair of that certain
facilities, the legal description and/or plat of which is set forth in Exhibit "B"
part hereof, is entered into b private storm water treatment
Y John Dewald (hereinafter referred to as "Devteloper") for tthe nb net of
future owners who will use the private storm water treatment facilities
owners"), which shall include the Developer to the extent the Developer retains a
any land covered by this agreement. (hereinafter referred to as 1,ny ownership interest in
WHEREAS, this Agreement is required as a condition of Grading Permit 7864-G; and approval by the City of Encinitas of
use and
WHEREAS. Developer is the owner of certain real property described in Exhibit
enjoy the benefit of said storm water treatment facilities(s)the "property"); and ( ) (Said real Property is herreinafterareerred to as
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Developer that said private storm wa ter treatment system be
maintained in a safe and usable condition by the owners, and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Developer to establish a method for t
he of said private storm water treatment facilities and for the a pportionment of the expense of such
,maintenance and repair among existing and future owners; and the periodic maintenance and
WHEREAS, there exists a benefit to the public the private storm wate r facilities be adequately
maintained on a regular and periodic basis; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Developer that this Agreement constitute
With the land, binding upon each successive owner of all or any portion of the property,a covenant running
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1• The property is benefited by this Agreement, and present and successive
any portion of the property are expressly bound hereby for the benefit of the land. owners of all or
2. The cost and expense of maintaining the private storm water tre atment facilities shall be
paid by the owner of the heirs, assigns and successors in interest of each suc h owner.
3• In the event any of the herein described parcels of land
are subdivided further, the
owners, heirs, assigns and successors in interest of each such newly created
parcel shall be liable under
this Agreement for their then pro rata share of expenses and such pro rata shares of
expenses shall be
computed to reflect such newly created parcels.
4. The repairs and maintenance to be performed under this Agreement shall
the following: reasonable and improvements and maintenance work to adequate) maintain
storm water treatment facilities to permit access to said facilities. Repairs and maintenance limited to
Agreement shall include, but are not limited to, repairing access roadbeds, repairing and said private
drainage structures, removing debris, if any and other work reasonably necessary nd proper to repair
Hance under this
and preserve the private storm water treatment facilities for their intended purposes.ry g and maintaining
5. If there is a covenant, agreement, or other obligation imposed as a condition
development, the obligation to repair and maintain the private storm water treatment facilities
forth shall commence when improvements have been completed and a as herein set
dition of the
approved by the City.
6. Any extraordinary repair required to correct damage to said storm water
facilities that results from action taken or contracted for by the owners or their successors
be paid for by the party taking action or party contracting for work which caused t treatment
extraordinary repair. The repair shall be such as to restore the storm water treatment in interest shall
condition existing e necessity for the
g prior to said damage, t facilities to the
7. Any liability of the owners for personal injury
employed to make repairs or provide maintenance under this Agreement, or to third persons,
any liability of the owners for damage to the property J ry to an agent hereunder, or to any worker
as a result of or arising out of repairs and maintenance under this Agreement, shall be borne,as well e
of agent, or any such worker, or of any third persons,
owners as they bear the costs and expenses of such repairs and maintenance.
responsible for and maintain their own insurance, if any. orne, by the
intend to provide for the sharing of liability with respect to personal injury Owners shall be
that attributable to the repairs and maintenance undertaken under this Agreement.
8. Owners shall jointly and severally defend and indemnify and hold harmless
engineer and its consultants and each of its officials, directors, officers, agents and employees
against all liability, claims, damages, losses, expenses, personal injury and other costs including City's of
defense and attorney's fees, to the agent hereunder or to any owner, any contractor, any subcontractor,
from and
any user of the storm water treatment facilities, or to any other third persons arising ut o lading costs y
related nt the use of, repair or maintenance of, or the failure to repair or maintain the any subcontractor,
treatment facilities. g for in any way
private storm water
Nothing in the Agreement, the specifications or other contract documents or City's a
Plans and specifications or inspection of the work is intended to include a
acknowledgement of a responsibility for any such matter, and City, approval of the
each of its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents, shall have no responsibility review, inspection
therefore. tY City s engineer and its consultants, and
p nsibility or liability
11. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land and shall be deemed to be f
of the land of the owners and each and every person who shall at anytime own all
Property referred to herein. or the benefit
or any portion of the
12. It is understood and agreed that the covenants herein contained shall be binding on the
heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assignees of each of the owners.
13. It is the purpose of the signatories hereto that this instrument be recorded to
intent that the obligation hereby created shall be and constitute a covenant running w'
subsequent purchaser of all or an the end and
regardless of form, shall be deemed to have consented to and become bound ith the land and any
y portion thereof, by acceptance of delivery of a deed and/or conveyance
including without limitation, the right of any person entitled to enforce the terms of
nd by these presents,
this Agreement to
2
institute legal action as provided in Paragraph 8 hereof, such remedy to be cumulati ve and in addition to
other remedies provided in this Agreement and to all other remedies at law or in equity.
14. The terms of this Agreement may be amended in writing upon ma on
owners and consent of the City.
1 ty approval of the
15. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. In th
any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by an court
jurisdiction, the validity, and enforceability of the remaining event that
g provisions shall not be affected thereby.
mpetent
16. If the Property constitutes a "Common Interest Development"as defined in California
Code Section 1351(c) which will include membership in or ownership of an "Associ
California Civil Code Section 1351 a fn Civil
following provisions shall apply ( )� dthin in this Agreement to the contra"Association" st defined in
pp y at and during g
"Declaration" (as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(h), ry notwithstanding the
g such time as (i) the Property is encumbered by a
Property (including the private storm water treatment facilities) is managed and con
Association: and (ii) the Common Area y the
(a) The Association, through its Board of Directors, shall repair and maintain rolled ri an
storm water treatment facilities and shall be deemed the"agent"as referred to in Paragraph
Association, which shall not be replaced except by amendment to the Declaration, the private
compensation for performing such duties. The costs of such maintenance and repair h 7 above. The
against each owner and his subdivision interest in the Property n shall receive no
assessments shall be deposited in the Association's corporate account. all be assessed
p rty pursuant to the Declaration. The
(b) The provisions in the Declaration which provide for assessment liens in
favor of the
Association and enforcement thereof shall supersede Paragraph 8 of the A reeme
individual owners shall have the right to alter, maintain or repair any of the Common
California Civil Code Section 1351(b) in the Pro e g nt in its entirety. No
p rty except as may be allowed by the Declarat onefined in
(c) This Agreement shall not be interpreted in any manner, which
Association's rights and duties pursuant to its Bylaws and Declaration duces or limits the
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
This_ a„� day of
2 3.
Develop
John Dewal
6
(Print name:)
Signature of DEVELOPER must be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgement.
g ment.
3
Exhibit A: Legal Description of Property
APN 260-393-12
LEGAL DE-56R1PT/pN SEX/STJ
Lots 21, 22, 23, and
vp
A in the 24 in Block 44 of Cardiff
Die o City of Encinitas, Count
go,, State of California y of San
thereof No. 1334 filed in' according to Map
County Recorder the Office of the
1922 order of Son Diego County, May 1
Assessor's Parcel 2'
arcel No: 260-393_12
Exhibit B: Legal Description or Plat
Private Storm Water Treatment Facilities
APN 260-393-12
N so se ze-w 34100, �'-- —
3 CRASS LMED WALE
( rte aravNN��rn_un^wr
AjM•S 3V 6f NC U
glrl nl0v,A fKlfyll/1fQy nfe Ory:
n
2
I
I I
M
�J
O
O I
ci-
I
�. 7 ••...� .•`� .,�
APN i
•-.t >+;.� 1;� .; 250-393-12
I ,r�•
PMVAIE lfORNM:1 fOf 7RG
JNANA�CNr-,A CnCDI r •..': ..i.,: w
/M 9/AP NOr AF \ .f•. I
A�QIMI fRfW*wary •.7�.. .. •' 6
CRASS LINE SWALE RIP-RAP ,!! 17.5' .,•
N'�' Y/0801 �LL. •'. i
--
07 � IO
6YJ NO
MACKINNON AVE.
T/ris certificate is attached to a_ Wage document/leaded or regarding P� 4rE
TM E7V f- t �� g STDem 'j
PA+2cC 1, 2t0-393- "
lend dated Whe�1 s,n
Acknowled meat Certi tcate
State of Indiana
County of Allen SS:
On this-2-2 of M Aq
personall y a ppeared
the basis of �k�t 4 �� t before me, whose identity I have proved on
i tumor s Lk r_ej-,jSL
be the signer of the attached instrument, a to
he he/they acknowledged that0e he/they
signed the ii rument.
Patricia L. Quintano, Notary Public
Allen County resident
My commission expires March 8, 2008
—
COAST GEOTECHNICAL,
CONSUI;I'ING ENCINEI:RSANI) GEOLOGIS'T'S
µ- September 12, 2003
John DeWald
1855 Freda Lane
Cardiff CA 92007
Subject: ROUGH GRADING
_ G p
D REPORT
Two (2)Prod eSna Structures
520 Liverpool Drive
Cardiff California
_ Reference: PRELIMINARY GEOTEC
Two (2)Proposed ResidentiaStructures
VESTIGATION
520 Liverpool Drive
Cardiff, California
Prepared by Coast Geotechnical
Dated April 1, 2003
Dear Mr. DeWald:
— In response to your request, we have performed field observations
grading phase on the above referenced ro ert . and testing during the rough
testing are presented in this report. p property. The results of our density tests and laboratory
Based on the results of our testing, it is our opinion that the fill was la
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry in an adequate manner and
If you have any questions, Y density.
ns please do not hesitate to contact us at(858) 755.8622 This o pportunity
to be of service is greatly a � d
_ _
pp
Respectfully submitted;`
COAST GEOTEC
��� � �t-04 •-� � �r,� q 2
Mark Burwell, C � " a �'�' 782 2� m
M
Engineering XP• 12-31-05
g Geologist Geotechniinghanet, , . t
cal Enginee�F5> 7
779 ACADEMY DMI, . \` `�-- c,.
SOIANA Bh:
ROUGH GRADING REPORT
Two (2) Proposed Residential Structures
520 Liverpool Drive
Cardiff, California
Prepared for:
John DeWald
1855 Freda Lane
Cardiff, CA 92007
September 12, 2003
W.O. G-378023
Prepared by:
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
779 Academy Drive
Solana Beach, California 92075
Coast Geotechnical
September 12, 2003
WO• G-378023
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our observations and field density testing on the subject property
during rough grading. The project included backflling the swimming pool excavation wi
compacted fill and contour grading the project f Plan th
or erosion control. The
field density tests are shown on the enclosed Erosion Control approximate locations of
, prepared by Jackson/Cole
_ Associates.
LABORATORY TEST DATA
_ The laboratory standard for determining the maximum dry density
ASTM D 1557-91. Field density tests were perform was Performed in accordance with
Performed m accordance with ASTM D 1556. The
results of the laboratory maximum dry density, for the soil type used as compacted fill on the site, is
— summarized below:
Maximum
Descri tion Dry Density Optimum
c-.f. Moisture (%)
Mixture of on-site soils,
brown silty and fine-grained 129.0
9.8
sand
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
The property is underlain at shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace de
underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedi P°sits. The terrace deposits are
sedimentary rocks which
have commonly been designated as Torrey
Coast Geotechnical
September 12, 2003
W.O. G-378023
Page 4
Sandstone and Del Mar Formation on published geologic maps. The terrace deposits are covered by
residual soil deposits.
DISCUSSION
The grading contractor on this project was Mike Lloyd Excavating.
of the general grading operations, as they were erf The following is a discussion
p ormed on the project.
1) Existing structures and the swimming pool were demolished.
— All surface deleterious material
was removed on the building site, Prior to grading.
2) The loose and weathered terrace deposits in the swimmin
'— The base of the excavation was scarified to a g pool excavation were removed.
compacted.
depth of 6.0 inches, moistened as required and
3) On-site materials were used for swimming Pool backfill. T
placed in loose lifts of approximate) he soils were generally mixed and
y 6.0 inches, moistened to about optimum moisture
_ content and compacted. Compaction was accomplished by track rolling
Caterpillar tractor. with a D-6
4) The remainder of the site was generally contour graded in
accordance with the erosion
control plan.
Coast Geotechnical
September 12, 2003
W.O. G-378023
Page 5
5) Based on our experience and laboratory testing, the fill deposits have a potential expansion
in the low range.
_ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Based on selective testing, the fill was placed to a minimum of
90 percent of the laboratory
_ maximum dry density as suggested by our test results.
2) Temporary excavations greater than 3.0 feet
should be trimmed to a gradient of 1:1
(horizontal to vertical)or less, depending upon conditions encountered during
temporary slope should be shored. All excavat
Cal-OSHA requirements. should be grading or the
constructed in accordance with
3) Additional grading should be observed and tested by a representative P ative of the geotechrucal
engineer. Additional recommendations may be necessary, during the construction phase.
4) All the recommendations in the referenced Preliminary Geotechni
cal Investigation which are
not superseded by this report remain valid and should be implemented
grading/construction phase. during the
Coast Geotechnical
September 12, 2003
W.O. G-378023
Page 6
LIMITATIONS
This office assumes no responsibility for any alterations made without
our knowledge and written
approval, subsequent to the issuance of this report. All areas of disturbance
placement of compacted fill to restore them to the original con which require the
— backfilling operations are performed under our observation condition will not be reviewed unless such
servation and tested for required compaction. It
_ should be noted that density(compaction)testing is conducted on a very
intent is to provide an opinion, based on selective testing and observation during fill placement.
This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in
or extend any right or interest to any third art no way intended to benefit
party. This study is not to be used on other projects or
extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geote
chrucal.
Enclosures:
Table I
Grading Plan
NC OsURES
FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE
Field Dry Density and Moisture Content
(Swimming pool Backfill)
Test A r Moisture Dry Relative
- Date No. Location *Height Content Density
Hecht -0. Comoaction
-- 8/13/03 1 See Map 2 . 0 '
12 . 4 122 . 7 95
8/14/03 2 See Map 4 . 0 '
_. 11 . 2 119 . 6
8/14/03 3 93
See Map 6 . 0 '
11 . 0 118 . 1
91
* Approximate height of fill tested
G-378023
U
M
O
M
J �
/ 0
3
£ g L
i r
I w o ^^
L
� Irl a
h
03
8
s
a
Un
asi
o
COAST GrEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTING ENGINLI:RS ANI) GEOLOGIST'S
June 30, 2003
John DeWald
1855 Freda Lane 4 "^ 4 2003
Cardiff, CA 92007 IBI
tui: N"t�RING SERVICES
CITY Of ENCINITAS
Subject: GRADING PLAN REVIEW
Two (2) Proposed Residential Structures
520 Liverpool Drive
Cardiff, California
Reference: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNI
... Two (2) Proposed Residential Stru�resIGATION
520 Liverpool Drive
Cardiff, California
Prepared by Coast Geotechnical
Dated April 1, 2003
Dear Mr. DeWald:
As requested, we have reviewed the project grading plans ar
re
Associates and observed that they have in general p p ed by Jackson/Cole
, included the recommendations
Presented in our Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation.
COMMENTS
1) All fill should be observed and tested by a representative
Of the geotechnical
engineer during placement.
779 ACAL)EMY 1)RIVI • SOI.ANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075
(858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126
Coast Geotechnical
June 30, 2003
W.O. P-378023
Page 2
2) All structural footings should be founded into approved compacted fill or
competent terrace deposits.
LIMITATIONS
The findings and opinions presented herein have been made in accordance with enerall
g y
accepted professional principals in the fields of engineering geology and geotechnical
engineering. No warranty is expressed or implied.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact our office. Reference to
our Job No. P-378023 will help expedite a response to your inquiry.
Respectfully submitt
COAST GEOTECH 1I
< a4t ,} anti
Mark Burwell, . p�x.�f,�° • �e�t�e`'r'. ''
� n �x ' `
M
yVithaa ingha 31-0om
Engineering Geolo ,
Geotechnical En i
Y
17
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND QEOLOGISI S
April 1, 2003
John DeWald
1855 Freda Lane '
Cardiff, CA 92007
RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Two (2) Proposed Residential Structures -'
520 Liverpool Drive
Cardiff, California
Dear Mr. DeWald:
In response to your request and in accordance with our Proposal and Agreement dated
February 7, 2003, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation on the
subject site for the proposed residences. The findings of the investigation, laboratory test
results and recommendations for foundation design are presented in this report.
From a geologic and soils engineering point of view, it is our opinion that the site is
suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are
implemented during the design and construction phases.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (858) 755-8622. This
opportunity to be of service is appreciated.
Respectfully submitte ', '
COAST GEOTECHN \
Mark B , C.E.�,� �- � � g
urwell o=„= , Vithaya Sin hanet O. �
Engineering Geolog' t '`
Geotechnical Engir��r,
'- 779 ACADEMY DRIVE SOI,ANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075
(858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Two (2) Proposed Residential Structures
520 Liverpool Drive
Cardiff, California
Prepared For:
John DeWald
P_ 1855 Freda Lane
Cardiff, CA 92007
April 1, 2003
W.O. P-378023
'- Prepared By:
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
779 Academy Drive
Solana Beach, California 92075
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VICINITY MAP
INTRODUCTION
SITE CONDITIONS 5
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 5
SITE INVESTIGATION 5
LABORATORY TESTING 6
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 6
CONCLUSIONS 7
RECOMMENDATIONS 10
11
A. BUILDING PAD-REMOVALS/RECOMPACTION
B. SWIMMING POOL BACKFILL 11
C. TEMPORARY SLOPES/EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS 12
D. FOUNDATIONS 12
E. SLABS ON GRADE (INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR) 14
F. RETAINING WALLS
G. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS 14
H. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 15
I. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 15
J. UTILITY TRENCH 16
K. DRAINAGE 16
r L. GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS 17
M. PLAN REVIEW 17
.r
18
LIMITATIONS
REFERENCES 18
20
-- APPENDICES
APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS
SITE PLAN
APPENDIX B REGIONAL FAULT MAP
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES
CARETTA DR �•o
Q9 SA�CASiLE DR
�qC P
W NOLBEY ST
3 ,p NOLBEY ST
« p A
CO L
0
ED INA WAY
O O
� m
O
X
Bd IRE AVE
O
p LPG
�f S
y
TAFFO AVE O
6j
• 1y D ip,�"M1i
f
00 SUBJECT PROPERTY
NCB y� �8 a
R \p NIE
7 �G
O
v BRISAS y T E
� v
O
Y
�Ef�E HO 4YN
4
w�
7� PFO S VIL GE DR
O
5� N ASTLE AVE .p
7
Olen
�\ Park
RFOLKO� H�
T1O
4
495 ft Topo USA 2.0 Copyright®1999 DeLorme Yarmouth,ME 04096 Scale: 1 : 6,400 Detail: 15-0
Coast Geotechnical
April 1, 2003
W.O. P-378023
Page 5
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation on the subject property.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature and characteristics of the earth
materials underlying the property, the engineering properties of the surficial deposits and
their influence on the proposed residences.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is located south of Birmingham Drive, at the northwest corner of
Mackinnon Avenue and Liverpool Drive, in the Cardiff district, city of Encinitas.
The site is a residential lot approximately 100 feet by 100 feet, situated on gently sloping
terrain. The site generally slopes gently to the east and south. Relief on the site is
approximately 11 vertical feet. The lot includes a single story residence constructed over
a basement, fronting on Liverpool Drive. A swimming pool is located in the southeastern
portion of the site. Other exterior improvements include retaining walls and concrete
flatwork along the rear of the residence.
Residential landscaping incudes grass, shrubs and trees. Drainage is generally by sheet
flow to the east and south.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Preliminary plans for development of the site were prepared by Jackson/Cole Associates.
Coast Geotechnical
April 1, 2003
W.O. P-378023
Page 6
The lot will be split into two (2) separate lots for residential development. The project
Y includes demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new residence over
M a proposed basement on each of the new lots. Exterior improvements include concrete
flatwork and retaining walls, up to 6.0 feet.
SITE INVESTIGATION
Site exploration included four (4) exploratory borings drilled to a maximum depth of 15
feet. Earth materials encountered were visually classified and logged by our field
engineering geologist. Undisturbed, representative samples of earth materials were
obtained at selected intervals. Samples were obtained by driving a thin walled steel
-- sampler into the desired strata. The samples are retained in brass rings of 2.5 inches
outside diameter and 1.0 inches in height. The central portion of the sample is retained
in close fitting, waterproof containers and transported to our laboratory for testing and
analysis.
LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
The field classification was verified through laboratory examination, in accordance with
the Unified Soil Classification System. The final classification is shown on the enclosed
Exploratory Logs.
Coast Geotechnical
April 1, 2003
W.O. P-378023
Page 7
M Moisture/Density
The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each of the
undisturbed soil samples. This information is useful in providing a gross picture of the
soil consistency or variation among exploratory excavations. The dry unit weight was
determined in pounds per cubic foot. The field moisture content was determined as a
percentage of the dry unit weight. Both are shown on the enclosed Laboratory Tests
Results and Exploratory Logs.
Maximum D Densi and O timum Moisture Content
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected
-- samples of earth materials taken from the site. The laboratory standard tests were in
accordance with ASTM D-1557-91. The results of the tests are presented in the
Laboratory Test Results.
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The subject property is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego.
The property is underlain at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits.
The terrace deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rocks which have
commonly been designated as the Torrey Sandstone and Del Mar Formation on published
geologic maps. The terrace deposits are covered by thin soil deposits and, in part, by fill
deposits. A brief description of the earth materials encountered on the site follows.
Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2003
�- W.O. P-378023
Page 8
Artificial Fill
_ No evidence of significant fill deposits were observed on the site. Isolated fill deposits
appear to be located along the outside edge of small graded pads and behind retaining
walls.
Residual Soil
Site exploration suggests the underlying terrace deposits are blanketed by approximately
- 12 to 18 inches of brown silty sand. The soil is generally moist and loose. The contact
with the underlying terrace deposits is gradational and may vary across the site.
°- Terrace Deposits
Underlying the surficial materials, poorly consolidated Pleistocene terrace deposits are
present. The sediments are composed of tan to reddish brown slightly clayey, fine and
medium-grained sand. Regionally, the Pleistocene sands are considered flat-lying and are
underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rock units.
._ Expansive Soil
Based on our experience in the area and previous laboratory testing of selected samples,
the fill deposits, residual soil and Pleistocene sands reflect an expansion potential in the
low range.
Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2003
�- W-O. P-378023
Page 9
Groundwater
No evidence of perched or high groundwater tables were encountered to the depth
explored. However, it should be noted that seepage problems can develop after
completion of construction. These seepage problems most often result from drainage
alterations, landscaping and over-irrigation. In the event that seepage or saturated
ground does occur, it has been our experience that they are most effectively handled on
an individual basis.
Tectonic Settine
The site is located within the seismically active southern California region which is
generally characterized by northwest trending Quaternary-age fault zones. Several of
these fault zones and fault segments are classified as active by the California Division of
Mines and Geology (Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act).
Based on a review of published geologic maps, no known faults transverse the site. The
nearest active fault is the offshore Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 2.6
miles west of the site. It should be noted that the Rose Canyon Fault is not a continuous,
well-defined feature but rather a zone of right stepping en echelon faults. The complex
series of faults has been referred to as the Offshore Zone of Deformation (Woodward-
_ Clyde, 1979) and is not fully understood. Several studies suggest that the Newport-
Inglewood and the Rose Canyon faults are a continuous zone of en echelon faults
Coast Geotechnical
April 1, 2003
W.O. P-378023
Page 10
(Treiman, 1984). Further studies along the complex offshore zone of faulting may
indicate a potentially greater seismic risk than current data suggests. Other faults which
could affect the site include the Coronado Bank, Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas
Faults. The proximity of major faults to the site and site parameters are shown on the
enclosed Seismic Design Parameters.
Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction is a process by which a sand mass loses its shearing strength completely and
flows. The temporary transformation of the material into a fluid mass is often associated
with ground motion resulting from an earthquake.
Owing to the moderately dense nature of the Pleistocene terrace deposits and the
anticipated depth to groundwater, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction and
soil instability is considered low.
CONCLUSIONS
1) The subject property is located in an area that is relatively free of potential
geologic hazards such as landsliding, liquefaction, high groundwater conditions
and seismically induced subsidence.
2) The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits are not suitable for the
Coast Geotechnical
April 1, 2003
W.O. P-378023
Page 11
support of proposed footings and concrete flatwork. These surficial deposits
should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill deposits in areas
outside the proposed basement walls.
3) Disturbed soils resulting from the demolition of structures and the swimming pool
should be compacted.
4) It is anticipated that the basement excavation will extend through the surficial
deposits encountered on the site. However, if loose materials are encountered in
the area of the proposed basement slab they should be compacted. All retaining
°- wall footings should penetrate fill and weathered materials and founded the design
_ depth into competent terrace deposits.
~ RECOMMENDATIONS
Building Pad-Removals/Recom action
In the building pad areas outside the proposed basement walls, the existing fill, soil and
weathered terrace deposits should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill.
All fill should be keyed and benched into the underlying terrace deposits. Removals
should include the entire building pad, extending a minimum of 5.0 feet beyond the
building footprint, where applicable. The depth of removals are anticipated to be on the
order of 3.0 feet. However, deeper removals may be necessary due to demolition of
Coast Geotechnical
April 1, 2003
W.O. P-378023
Page 12
structures and removal of existing fill deposits. Cut/fill transition pads should be
undercut a minimum of 3.0 feet and replaced as properly compacted fill. Most of the
existing earth deposits are generally suitable for reuse, provided they are cleared of all
vegetation, debris and thoroughly mixed. Prior to placement of fill, the base of the
removal should be observed by a representative of this firm. Additional overexcavation
_ and recommendations may be necessary at that time. The exposed bottom should be
scarified to a minimum depth of 6.0 inches, moistened as required and compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Fill should be placed
in 6.0 to 8.0 inch lifts, moistened to approximately 1.0 - 2.0 percent above optimum
moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum
dry density. Fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits in areas of proposed concrete
flatwork and driveways should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill.
Imported fill, if necessary, should consist of non-expansive granular deposits approved
by the geotechnical engineer.
Swimming Pool Backfill
Prior to placement of fill, the pool excavation should be observed by a representative of
this firm. Fill placement should be as indicated above and as per our standard Grading
Guidelines (Appendix C).
Temporary Slopes/Excavation Characteristics
Temporary excavations should be trimmed to a gradient of 3/4:1 (horizontal to vertical)
Coast Geotechnical
April 1, 2003
W.O. P-378023
Page 13
or less depending upon conditions encountered during grading. The Pleistocene terrace
a deposits may contain hard concretion layers. However, based on our experience in the
area, the sandstone is rippable with conventional heavy earth moving equipment in good
working order.
Foundations
The following design parameters are based on footings founded into non-expansive
approved compacted fill deposits or competent terrace deposits. Footings for the
proposed residences should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and founded a minimum
of 12 inches and 18 inches below the lower most adjacent subgrade at the time of
foundation construction for single-story and two-story structures, respectively. A 12 inch
by 12 inch grade beam should be placed across the garage opening. Footings should be
reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 bars, two along the top of the footing and two
along the base. Footing recommendations provided herein are based upon underlying
soil conditions and are not intended to be in lieu of the project structural engineer's
design.
For design purposes, an allowable bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot may be
r used for foundations at the recommended footing depths. The bearing value may be
increased to 2000 pounds per square foot for subterranean retaining wall footings.
The bearing value indicated above is for the total dead and frequently applied live loads.
Coast Geotechnical
April 1, 2003
W.O. P-378023
Page 14
This value may be increased by 33 percent for short durations of loading, including the
effects of wind and seismic forces.
_ Resistance to lateral load may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations
and by passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead-
load forces. A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth
of fill penetrated to a maximum of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used.
Slabs on Grade (Interior and Exterior)
- Slabs on grade should be a minimum of 4.0 inches thick and reinforced in both
directions with No. 3 bars placed 18 inches on center in both directions. The slab should
be underlain by a minimum 2.0-inch sand blanket. Where moisture sensitive floors are
` used, a minimum 6.0-mil Visqueen or equivalent moisture barrier should be placed over
the sand blanket and covered by an additional two inches of sand. Utility trenches
underlying the slab may be backfilled with on-site materials, compacted to a minimum
"- of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Slabs including exterior concrete
flatwork should be reinforced as indicated above and provided with saw cuts/expansion
joints, as recommended by the project structural engineer. All slabs should be cast over
dense compacted subgrades.
Retaining Walls
Cantilever walls (yielding) retaining nonexpansive granular soils may be designed for an
Coast Geotechnical
April 1, 2003
W.O. P-378023
Page 15
-' active-equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained walls
(nonyielding) should be designed for an "at-rest" equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pounds
per cubic foot. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation
design recommendations. All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate
w_ backdrainage system (Miradrain 6000 or equivalent is suggested). The soil parameters
assume a level granular backfill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory
maximum dry density.
Settlement Characteristics
Estimated total and differential settlement is expected to be on the order of 3/4 inch and
1/2 inch, respectively. It should also be noted that long term secondary settlement due
to irrigation and loads imposed by structures is anticipated to be 1/4 inch.
Seismic Considerations
Although the likelihood of ground rupture on the site is remote, the property will be
exposed to moderate to high levels of ground motion resulting from the release of energy
should an earthquake occur along the numerous known and unknown faults in the
region.
The Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 2.6 miles west of the property is the
nearest known active fault and is considered the design earthquake for the site. A
Coast Geotechnical
April 1, 2003
W.O. P-378023
Page 16
- maximum probable event along the offshore segment of the Rose Canyon Fault is
_ expected to produce a peak bedrock horizontal acceleration of 0.47g and a repeatable
ground acceleration of 0.318.
Seismic Design Parameters (1997 Uniform Building Code)
Soil Profile Type - S,
Seismic Zone - 4
Seismic Source - Type B
Near Source Factor (NJ - 1.3
Near source Acceleration Factor (Na)
Seismic Coefficients
Ca = 0.43
C, = 0.73
-- Design Response Spectrum
TS = 0.676
To = 0.135
Utility Trench
We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand to at least one foot above the
top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids around
the conduit. Imported or on-site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding.
The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above
the zone of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the
Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2003
-- W.O. P-378023
Page 17
area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an
adjacent footing. This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the
invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing away from one another.
Drainage
Specific drainage patterns should be designed by the project architect or engineer.
However, in general, pad water should be directed away from foundations and around
the structure to the street. Roof water should be collected and conducted to the street,
via non-erodible devices. Pad water should not be allowed to pond. Vegetation adjacent
to foundations should be avoided. If vegetation in these areas is desired, sealed planter
boxes or drought resistant plants should be considered. Other alternatives may be
available, however, the intent is to reduce moisture from migrating into foundation
subsoils. Irrigation should be limited to that amount necessary to sustain plant life. All
drainage systems should be inspected and cleaned annually, prior to winter rains.
Geotechnical Observations
Structural footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm, prior
to the placement of steel and forms. All fill should be placed while a representative of
the geotechnical engineer is present to observe and test.
Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2003
W.O. P-378023
Page 18
Plan Review
A copy of the final plans should be submitted to this office for review prior to the
initiation of construction. Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time.
LIMITATIONS
This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the
owner's representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to
-- the attention of the project's architects and/or engineers so that they may be incorporated
into plans.
If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those described in
this report, our office should be notified so that we may consider whether modifications
are needed. No responsibility for construction compliance with design concepts,
r specifications or recommendations given in this report is assumed unless on-site review
is performed during the course of construction.
The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure described
herein are based on individual exploratory excavations made on the subject property.
The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure discussed
should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur among the
exploratory excavations.
Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2003
- W.O. P-378023
Page 19
- Please note that fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in
rainfall, temperature and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made
and reported herein. Coast Geotechnical assumes no responsibility for variations which
may occur across the site.
The conclusions and recommendations of this report apply as of the current date. In
_. time, however, changes can occur on a property whether caused by acts of man or nature
on this or adjoining properties. Additionally, changes in professional standards may be
brought about by legislation or the expansion of knowledge. Consequently, the
- conclusions and recommendations of this report may be rendered wholly or partially
invalid by events beyond our control. This report is therefore subject to review and
should not be relied upon after the passage of two years.
The professional judgments presented herein are founded partly on our assessment of
the technical data gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction
and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. However, in no respect
do we guarantee the outcome of the project.
This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way
^- intended to benefit or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not
to be used on other projects or extensions to this project except by agreement in writing
with Coast Geotechnical.
Coast Geotechnical April 1, 2003
W.O. P-378023
Page 20
REFERENCES
1. Hays, Walter W., 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions,
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1114, 77 pages.
2. Petersen, Mark D. and others (DMG), Frankel, Arthur D. and others (USGS), 1996,
_ Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California,
California Division of Mines and Geology OFR 96-08, United States
Geological Survey OFR 96-706.
3. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1970, A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil
Liquefaction Potential: Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
4. Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the
San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Plate 35D, Open-File
Report 95-04, Map Scale 1:24,000.
5. Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, A Review and Analysis,
California Division of Mines and Geology.
MAPS/AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
1. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California,
Scale 1"=750,000'.
2. Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, 1996, DMG
Open File Report 96-02.
3. Jackson/Cole Associates, 2002, Site Plan, 520 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas, California,
Scale 1"=10'.
4. San Diego County Topographic/Orthophoto Survey, 1973,Map No. 310-1683, Scale
I"=200'.
5. U.S.G.S., 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Topographic Map, Digitized, Variable Scale.
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE I
Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content
(Laboratory Standard ASTM D-1557-91)
Sample Max. Dry Optimum
Location Density Moisture Content
cf
B-2 @ 0 . 5 ' -3 . 0 ' 128 . 3 9 . 8
TABLE II
Field Dry Density and Moisture Content
Sample Field Dry Field Moisture
Location Density Content
c f
0
B-1 @ 1 . 0 ' 102 . 1 9 . 1
B-1 @ 2 . 0 ' 109 . 2 6 . 7
B-1 @ 3 . 0 ' 112 . 1 8 . 5
B-1 @ 5 . 0 ' 111 . 7 6 . 7
B-1 @ 8 . 0 ' Sample Disturbed 5 . 9
B-1 @ 14 . 0 ' Sample Disturbed 7 . 1
B-2 @ 2 . 0 ' 109 . 6 7 . 2
B-2 @ 4 . 0 ' 112 . 1 5 . 5
B-2 @ 7 . 0 ' 113 . 8 6 . 8
B-2 @ 9 . 0 ' Sample Disturbed 11 .4
B-2 @ 11 . 5 ' Sample Disturbed 11 . 9
B-3 @ 1 . 0 ' 103 . 5 6 .4
B-3 @ 2 . 0 ' 113 . 3 5 . 8
_ B-3 @ 3 . 5 ' 114 . 2 7 . 8
B-3 @ 6 . 0 ' 111 . 7 4 . 5
B-3 @ 9 . 0 ' Sample Disturbed 6 . 7
B-4 @ 1 . 0 ' 105 . 6 7 . 5
B-4 @ 2 . 0 ' 109 . 9 4 . 1
B-4 @ 5 . 0 ' 111 . 5 3 . 5
_ B-4 @ 8 . 0 ' 112 . 8 4 .4
P-378023
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 1
DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P-378023
.BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 03-03-03
SURFACE ELEV.: 106' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB
H x
a a ° U
H Oz w
U U �
d W a V)
U
Q a x U
106.0 GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
0.00 SM SOIL(Qs):Brown fine and med.-grained slightly silty sand,moist,loose,roots
102.1 9.1 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS
(Qt): Tan Reddish brn.,fine and med.-grained sand,moist
104.0 weathered in upper 1.0'
109.2 6.7 2.00
112.1 8.5 Dry to slightly moist,dense
a 102.0
4.00
111.7 6.7
a�
3 100.0
'b 6.00
6
O
Z 98.00
--- 5.9 8.00
96.00
10.00
94.00
12.00
92.00
--- 7.1 14.00
End of Boring @ 15'
PAGE 1 OF 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 2
DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P-378023
BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 03-03-03
SURFACE ELEV.: 103' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB
T� _
_ >
U
U
W
W U� W
U
A w d
W o
103.0 GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
0.00 SM SOIL(Qs):Brown fine and med.-grained slightly silty sand,moist,loose,roots
101.0 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt):Tan Reddish bm.,fine and med.-grained sand,moist
109.6 7.2 2.00 weathered in upper 1.0'
Dry to slightly moist,dense
99.00
112.1 5.5 e: 4.00
(U
O -
97.00
b 6.00
1a
0
113.8 6.8 6
0
z
95.00
8.00
--- 11.4
93.00
10.00
--- 11.9
91.00 .
•� 12.00
s
89.00 -
14.00
End of Boring @ 15'
PAGE 1 OF 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 3
DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P-378023
BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 03-06-03
SURFACE ELEV.: 104' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB
r.
U
U U a O
vi
z w w
U
w U
Ca F U
Q W p
A v, rA Q C7 v,
104.0 GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
0.00 SM SOIL(Qs):Brown fine and med.-grained slightly silty sand,moist,loose,roots
103.0 : c
103.5 6.4 1.00 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt): Tan Reddish brn.,fine and med.-grained sand,moist
weathered in upper 1.0'
102.0
113.3 5.8 2.00
Dry to slightly moist,dense
1 1.0
3.00
114.2 7.8
100.0
.b
4.00
i~
99.00
5.00
0
N
cad 98.00
111.7 4.5 6.00
-b
0
C7 97.00
7.00
0
z
96.00
8.00
95.00
--- 6.7 9.00
94.00
10.00
93.00
11.00
End of Boring @ 12'
PAGE 1 OF 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 4
DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P-378023
BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 03-06-03
SURFACE ELEV.: 111' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB
e
a H Q rUn
H w w 0
z ¢ W U
a
w � a
a w d
Un
Q w
111.0
GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
0.00 SM SOIL(Qs):Brown fine and med.-grained slightly silty sand,moist,loose,roots
110.0 : : :
105.6 7.5 1.00 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt):Tan Reddish brn.,fine and med.-grained sand,moist
weathered in upper 1.0'
109.0 Dry to slightly moist,dense
109.9 4.1 2.00
108.0
3.00
O
a 107.0 "
3 4.00
v
_ a
0
0
106.0
111.5 3.5 z 5.00
105.0
6.00
ru
104.0
7.00
103.0
112.8 4.4 8.00
102.0
9.00
End of Boring @ 10'
PAGE 1 OF 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL
EZ08LE-d
'TVD1NHD9.LOflO.I.SdOJ
S,LISOdUG aDVxxas 16
'JIOS 'Tvn(jrsax Sa
S.LINfl �)I9O'I0:4!)
( xoldd�)NOILVDO l ONWOg -
QNJOT1
,oz=,,[ :g'IVDS
Nvrld a.LIS
/ INvyd0/,1071 0&ow
/ -9YA1'Y6V•MOU I33S6
r 77YM 3!'T 011'X7
60w&,'7
1S3A Mad 4-717�1ID•7L ON r yy� Ol 'No I!''YO gwrl3d
39VNIVaO 5w1SIx3 TN's A&US OL 3dW
WAOM11 Nl 2 (SOI1Vd'+^MY�70 ONV•qy Ad'�17Y/kAY
"o-9 7 smuaws SNLLSIX3 _ ..,- .' SdYX11AOJ
9AC1S[r3
W'(7 k 18-11S/X-7 Sal VWAN -90N20 9NLLSOt3
Om,ol#g 0ZOd dd Sal VJOCA#--�_
n(�•� 5N0 Z y6lggggy—ON-7977
•oo cv/ -W&ox 7J
�•3tY Z-111111/9.Y/NlMI Jd.{y Atld1.,//-!
:N,l/IVMCLr.(31dYdf
_—_ n! 0 Y l aS147PO7SV Y
NIYW GQ101S.QI
�llydae/NB
A
Y '3nb NONNI>IDVW
> I
_ IZ \
I =I
all
A�'y I
�I
f
\ y \�
'Al
h..
8 ,y�zo�,
i I
/r hot
/ raw
Gro
I
1 II I i 30rdIWJ \ I I I S"101 !!
i rya I 0
-
�
� '.-4(11•.,. - 1� (`� •• sA II I�
".,yip �' n'I
AW I I
I or I I
8'101
I a I I �N '111NlirM' I I—— I I .. '• � II I
—Tt I I
� I �I � /►�rr�ir I I I II /� I I
I ; �� f r�"r�\,1SIY7 i I I I 3,7N30x31ll�ryw II I
It
(66710S Xq p I I I I
S.LISUdaa HZ) . SOl
1�?I?I�L I I
1 ti i I
D'OU S3 I I 9funvd 3907
N
i011 rd
1 8011 Sl
O11 vd
`• _ / 1 t
�.� . ..... -1 \ MO�J 13.1 UOS
.10'0941.6cor.Or
OOO. 'S-�M.4L,4COf N 1' 1 II I
au O
-1d3�1-dNdIYI�N-.7 .—�� I
(601 131TI I �`iFYDO
Oi4 �L b✓d r ION -77Y41 L N3-a'rp✓J
I O 11
�n
I
APPENDIX B
_
_
_
_
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
LLJ
72 7
cq
is 3
IC
If
Fh
AW
zt
_
***********************
* *
* U B C S E I S
* *
* Version 1.03
* *
***********************
COMPUTATION OF 1997
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
_ SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
JOB NUMBER: P-378023 DATE: 01-11-2003
JOB NAME: DeWALD
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.0242
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2766
UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4
UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SC
NEAREST TYPE A FAULT:
NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN
DISTANCE: 46.1 km
NEAREST TYPE B FAULT:
NAME: ROSE CANYON
DISTANCE: 4.2 km
NEAREST TYPE C FAULT:
NAME:
DISTANCE: 99999.0 km
_ SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS:
Na: 1.1
Nv: 1.3
Ca: 0.43
Cv: 0.73
Ts: 0. 676
To: 0. 135
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT
ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE
FAULT NAME I (km) 1 (A,B,C) 1 (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT)
ROSE CANYON 1 4.2 I B ( 6.9 1 1.50 I SS
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I 20.4 I B I 6.9 1 1.50 I SS
CORONADO BANK I 27.9 I B I 7.4 I 3.00 I SS
ELSINORE-JULIAN I 46.1 I A I 7.1 I 5.00 I SS
ELSINORE-TEMECULA I 46.3 I B I 6.8 I 5.00 I SS
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 67.1 I B 1 6.5 1 2.00 1 SS
PALOS VERDES 1 68.0 1 B i 7.1 I 3.00 i SS
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY I 69.1 I B 1 6.8 I 5.00 1 SS
SAN JACINTO-ANZA I 82.7 I A I 7.2 I 12.00 I SS
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN I 85.5 I B I 6.8 I 4.00 I SS
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK I 86.3 I B I 6.8 I 4.00 ( SS
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY I 86.4 I B I 6.9 I 12.00 I SS
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I 88.4 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I SS
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I 92.0 I B I 6.7 1 1.00 I DS
ELSINORE-WHITTIER I 98.2 I B 1 6.8 i 2.50 I SS
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO I 102.8 I B I 6.6 i 4.00 1 SS
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO I 110.4 I B I 6.7 1 12.00 1 SS
_ SAN ANDREAS - Southern 1 115.5 1 A I 7.4 I 24.00 I SS
SAN JOSE I 125.3 I B I 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS
PINTO MOUNTAIN I 126.0 I B I 7.0 I 2.50 I SS
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) I 126.3 I B I 6.6 I 5.00 I SS
CUCAMONGA 1 129.5 1 A I 7.0 I 5.00 I DS
SIERRA MADRE (Central) 1 129.6 I B I 7.0 I 3.00 1 DS
BURNT MTN. i 132.4 I B 1 6.5 1 0.60 1 SS
ELMORE RANCH I 132.6 I B I 6.6 I 1.00 1 SS
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 1 134.1 I B i 6.6 I 4.00 1 SS
ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA I 134.2 I B I 7.0 1 3.50 1 SS
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I 136.7 1 B 1 7.0 ( 1.00 1 DS
EUREKA PEAK 1 136.8 1 B I 6.5 I 0.60 I SS
CLEGHORN 1 139.0 I B I 6.5 1 3.00 1 SS
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I 142.8 I B I 6.7 I 0.50 I DS
RAYMOND 1 144.1 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 1 144.7 I B 1 6.5 I 0.50 1 DS
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture I 145.0 I A I 7.8 1 34.00 1 SS
VERDUGO I 147.8 I B I 6.7 I 0.50 1 DS
LANDERS I 149.9 I B I 7.3 I 0.60 I SS
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 150.7 I B I 6.5 I 25.00 I SS
HOLLYWOOD I 150.8 i B I 6.5 1 1.00 I DS
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 1 154.5 1 B I 7.1 I 0.60 I SS
SANTA MONICA I 158.0 I B I 6.6 1 1.00 I DS
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS I 159.5 I B I 7.3 I 0.60 I SS
IMPERIAL 1 159.7 1 A 1 7.0 I 20.00 I SS
MALIBU COAST I 162.0 I B ( 6.7 1 0.30 1 DS
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 1 162.0 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 I SS
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 1 163.3 I B I 6.7 I 0.60 I SS
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) i 168.6 I B I 6.7 i 2.00 I DS
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT
ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE
FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT)
ANACAPA-DUME I 170.0 I B I 7.3 I 3.00 I DS
PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK I 171.2 I B I 7.1 I 0.60 I SS
SAN GABRIEL I 171.6 I B I 7.0 I 1.00 I SS
CALICO - HIDALGO I 175.9 I B I 7.1 I 0.60 I SS
SANTA SUSANA I 183.8 I B I 6.6 I 5.00 i DS
HOLSER I 192.7 I B I 6.5 I 0.40 I DS
SIMI-SANTA ROSA I 199.8 I B I 6.7 I 1.00 I DS
OAK RIDGE (Onshore) I 200.9 I B I 6.9 I 4.00 I DS
GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE I 208.2 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 I SS
SAN CAYETANO I 209.4 I B I 6.8 I 6.00 I DS
BLACKWATER I 223.7 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 I SS
VENTURA - PITAS POINT I 227.6 I B I 6.8 i 1.00 I DS
SANTA YNEZ (East) ( 229.1 I B I 7.0 I 2.00 I SS
SANTA CRUZ ISLAND I 234.7 I B I 6.8 I 1.00 I DS
M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA I 238.5 I B I 6.7 I 0.40 I DS
RED MOUNTAIN I 241.3 I B I 6.8 I 2.00 I DS
GARLOCK (West) I 246.1 I A I 7.1 I 6.00 I SS
PLEITO THRUST I 251.1 I B I 6.8 I 2.00 I DS
BIG PINE I 256.7 I B I 6.7 I 0.80 I SS
GARLOCK (East) I 260.8 I A I 7.3 I 7.00 I SS
SANTA ROSA ISLAND I 269.2 I B ( 6.9 I 1.00 I DS
WHITE WOLF I 272.0 I B I 7.2 1 2.00 I DS
SANTA YNEZ (West) I 273.1 I B I 6.9 I 2.00 I SS
So. SIERRA NEVADA I 285.2 I B I 7.1 I 0.10 I DS
OWL LAKE I 289.5 I B I 6.5 I 2.00 I SS
LITTLE LAKE I 289.6 I B I 6.7 I 0.70 I SS
PANAMINT VALLEY I 289.8 I B I 7.2 I 2.50 I SS
TANK CANYON i 291.1 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I DS
DEATH VALLEY (South) I 297.7 I B I 6.9 I 4.00 I SS
LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE I 314.9 I B I 6.8 I 0.70 I DS
LIONS HEAD I 332.7 I B I 6.6 I 0.02 I DS
DEATH VALLEY (Graben) I 339.9 I B I 6.9 I 4.00 I DS
SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) I 342.6 I B I 7.0 I 0.20 I DS
SAN JUAN I 344.0 I B i 7.0 I 1.00 I SS
CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) I 350.9 I B I 6.5 1 0.25 I DS
OWENS VALLEY I 358.2 I B I 7.6 I 1.50 I SS
LOS OSOS I 372.8 I B I 6.8 I 0.50 I DS
HOSGRI I 378.3 I B I 7.3 I 2.50 I SS
HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY I 384.2 I B I 7.0 I 2.50 I SS
DEATH VALLEY (Northern) I 393.4 I A I 7.2 I 5.00 I SS
INDEPENDENCE i 394.1 I B I 6.9 I 0.20 I DS
RINCONADA I 394.1 I B I 7.3 I 1.00 I SS
BIRCH CREEK I 450.4 I B I 6.5 I 0.70 I DS
SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) I 451.0 I B I 5.0 1 34.00 I SS
WHITE MOUNTAINS I 454.9 I B I 7.1 I 1.00 I SS
DEEP SPRINGS I 473.4 I B I 6.6 I 0.80 I DS
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT
ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE
FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT)
- DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) 1 478.3 I A I 7.0 1 5.00 1 SS
ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.) 1 485.5 I B I 6.8 I 1.00 I DS
FISH SLOUGH I 493.3 I B I 6.6 1 0.20 1 DS
HILTON CREEK I 511.7 I B I 6.7 1 2.50 1 DS
ORTIGALITA I 535.6 I B 1 6.9 I 1.00 I SS
HARTLEY SPRINGS I 536.0 I B I 6.6 I 0.50 I DS
CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) 1 541.0 1 B I 6.2 I 15.00 I SS
MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS I 543.3 I B I 7.1 1 0.50 I DS
_ PALO COLORADO - SUR I 544.0 1 B I 7.0 1 3.00 I SS
QUIEN SABE I 554.3 1 B 1 6.5 I 1.00 I SS
MONO LAKE I 572.0 I B 1 6.6 I 2.50 I DS
ZAYANTE-VERGELES 1 572.7 I B 1 6.8 1 0.10 I SS
SAN ANDREAS (1906) I 577.9 I A I 7.9 I 24.00 ( SS
SARGENT I 578.1 1 B 1 6.8 I 3.00 1 SS
ROBINSON CREEK I 603.3 I B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS
SAN GREGORIO I 618.7 I A I 7.3 1 5.00 I SS
GREENVILLE I 628.0 1 B 1 6.9 I 2.00 I SS
MONTE VISTA - SHANNON I 628.2 1 B I 6.5 1 0.40 I DS
HAYWARD (SE Extension) I 628.4 1 B I 6.5 1 3.00 1 SS
ANTELOPE VALLEY I 643.6 1 B I 6.7 I 0.80 I DS
HAYWARD (Total Length) I 648.1 1 A I 7.1 1 9.00 I SS
CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) I 648.1 1 B I 6.8 I 6.00 I SS
GENOA I 669.0 1 B I 6.9 1 1.00 I DS
CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY I 696.0 I B I 6.9 I 6.00 I SS
RODGERS CREEK I 734.7 I A 1 7.0 1 9.00 I SS
WEST NAPA I 735.7 I B 1 6.5 1 1.00 I SS
POINT REYES I 753.4 I B I 6.8 I 0.30 I DS
HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA I 758.2 1 B 1 6.9 I 6.00 I SS
MAACAMA (South) I 797.5 I B 1 6.9 1 9.00 I SS
COLLAYOMI I 814.5 I B I 6.5 1 0.60 I SS
- BARTLETT SPRINGS I 818.1 1 A I 7.1 I 6.00 I SS
MAACAMA (Central) 1 839.2 I A I 7.1 I 9.00 I SS
MAACAMA (North) I 898.8 I A I 7.1 I 9.00 1 SS
ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) I 905.0 1 B I 6.8 1 6.00 I SS
_ BATTLE CREEK 1 928.8 I B I 6.5 1 0.50 I DS
LAKE MOUNTAIN I 963.5 I B 1 6.7 I 6.00 I SS
GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND I 980.6 1 B I 6.9 I 9.00 I SS
MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1 1036.8 I A 1 7.4 I 35.00 I DS
.- LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1 1043.6 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 I DS
MAD RIVER 1 1046.5 I B I 7.1 I 0.70 I DS
CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1 1050.4 I A I 8.3 I 35.00 1 DS
McKINLEYVILLE 1 1056.9 I B I 7.0 1 0.60 I DS
TRINIDAD 1 1058.4 I B I 7.3 I 2.50 I DS
FICKLE HILL 1 1058.8 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 I DS
TABLE BLUFF 1 1064.2 I B I 7.0 1 0.60 I DS
LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) 1 1077.5 1 B I 7.1 1 1.00 I DS
0
- v
LO
oCl)
M c
w o
LO
N
O
O O O 'i
V1 NLO
f� •.w
O
0001Z
- H �
L O
W O
LO_ Q o
o U') o LO o
_ N N � O O
(6) uoileja19ooy jeajoads
APPENDIX C
GRADING GUIDELINES
-' Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of the governing
agencies, Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, the geotechnical report and the
guidelines presented below. All of the guidelines may not apply to a specific site and
additional recommendations may be necessary during the grading phase.
— Site Clearing
Trees, dense vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the
site. Non-organic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas under direction
of the Soils engineer.
Subdrainage
1. During grading, the Geologist and Soils Engineer should evaluate the necessity
of placing additional drains (see Plate A).
2. All subdrainage systems should be observed by the Geologist and Soils Engineer
during construction and prior to covering with compacted fill.
3. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project
surveyors. Outlets should be located and protected.
Treatment of Existing Ground
1. All heavy vegetation, rubbish and other deleterious materials should be disposed
of off site.
2. All surficial deposits including alluvium and colluvium should be removed unless
_ otherwise indicated in the text of this report. Groundwater existing in the alluvial
areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text
of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months.
3. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of
six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill
standards.
Fill Placement
1. Most site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some
special processing or handling may be required (see report). Highly organic or
contaminated soil should not be used for compacted fill.
._ (1)
2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture
conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in
thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and
compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by the Soils
Engineer.
3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that acceptable to the Soils
engineer, the Contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the
following:
a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture.
Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-
watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to
watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils.
b) Each six inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
- maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the
controlling governmental agency. In this case, the testing method is ASTM
Test Designation D-1557-91.
4. Side-hill fills should have a minimum equipment-width key at their toe excavated
through all surficial soil and into competent material (see report) and tilted back
- into the hill (Plate A). As the fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial
deposits and into competent bedrock or other material deemed suitable by the
Soils Engineer.
5. Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill,
provided:
a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets;
b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the
rocks;
_ c) The distribution of the rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer.
6. Rocks greater than six inches in diameter should be taken off site, or placed in
accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated
as suitable for rock disposal.
7. In clay soil large chunks or blocks are common; if in excess of six (6) inches
minimum dimension then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot
�. compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break the up blocks.
(2)
8. The Contractor should be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90
percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by
either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct
compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment.
If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods then the slope
construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained
throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor
should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should
compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back
rolled approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. Density tests
should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill three to
five feet horizontally from the face of the slope.
In addition, if a method other than over building and cutting back to the
compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction
should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to
determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Finish grade testing of
the slope should be performed after construction is complete. Each day the
- Contractor should receive a copy of the Soils Engineer's "Daily Field Engineering
Report" which would indicate the results of field density tests that day.
-- 9. Fill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner:
a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the
cut-fill interface.
b) A key at least 1 equipment width wide (see report) and tipped at least 1
foot into slope should be excavated into competent materials and observed
by the Soils Engineer or his representative.
C) The cut portion of the slope should be constructed prior to fill placement
to evaluate if stabilization is necessary, the contractor should be
responsible for any additional earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut
excavation.
10. Transition lots (cut and fill) and lots above stabilization fills should be capped with
a four foot thick compacted fill blanket (or as indicated in the report).
11. Cut pads should be observed by the Geologist to evaluate the need for
overexcavation and replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water
infiltration into highly fractured bedrock or other permeable zones,and/or due to
differing expansive potential of materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation
should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation may be recommended in
some cases.
(3)
12. Exploratory backhoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be
excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located.
Grading Observation and Testing
' 1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by the Soils Engineer during
the progress of grading.
2. In general, density tests would be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill
height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending
on soil conditions and the size of the fill. In any event, an adequate number of
field density tests should be made to evaluate if the required compaction and
moisture content is generally being obtained.
3. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as required by
the Soils Engineer.
4. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations,subdrains and rock
disposal should be observed by the Soils Engineer prior to placing any fill. It will
be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are
ready for observation.
— 5. A Geologist should observe subdrain construction.
6. A Geologist should observe benching prior to and during placement of fill.
Utility Trench Backfill
Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards:
1. Ninety percent of the laboratory standard if native material is used as backfill.
2. As an alternative, clean sand may be utilized and flooded into place. No specific
relative compaction would be required; however, observation, probing, and if
deemed necessary, testing may be required.
3. Exterior trenches, paralleling a footing and extending below a 1:1 plane projected
from the outside bottom edge of the footing, should be compacted to 90 percent
of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless it is similar to the inplace fill,
should not be allowed in these trench backfill areas.
Density testing along with probing should be accomplished to verify the desired
results.
(4)