The URL can be used to link to this page

2003-7879 G no`E- COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS June 18, 2003 Richard Lavacot _ 2027 Bruceala Court Cardiff, CA 92007 Subject: GRADING PLAN REVIEW — Proposed Single-Family Residence and Detached Garage 1989 Crest Drive Encinitas, California — Reference: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single-Family Residence and Detached Garage 1989 Crest Drive Encinitas, California Prepared by Coast Geotechnical Dated January 28, 2003 Dear Mr. Lavacot: As requested, we have reviewed the project grading plans prepared by Sowards and Brown Engineering, dated June 12, 2003, and observed that they have, in general, included the recommendations presented in our Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. COMMENTS 1) Existing fills on the site should be removed and replaced as properly compacted — fill. 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSUIXING ENGINEEIRS AND GI?OLOGIS'I S January 28, 2003 Richard Lavacot 2027 Bruceala Court Cardiff, CA 92007 RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single-Family Residence and Detached Garage 1989 Crest Drive Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Lavacot: In response to your request and in accordance with our Proposal and Agreement dated May 13, 1999 and amendment dated November 19, 2002, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation on the subject site for the proposed residence. 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 submit COAST GEOTEC r { rc Ex� "r yO1-o,, Mark Burwell, C. I F1! GEOLOGIST i Vithaya Singhanet� y�. �� 11 -u Engineering Engineering G ��? ✓ ffr Geotechnical Engine . -' 779 ACADEMY DRIVE Sol-ANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755-8622 - FAX (858) 755-9126 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single Family Residence and Detached Garage 1989 Crest Drive Encinitas, California Prepared For: Richard Lavacot 2027 Bruceala Court Cardiff, CA 92007 -- January 28, 2003 W.O. P-298059 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 6 LABORATORY TESTING 6 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 7 CONCLUSIONS 8 RECOMMENDATIONS 11 12 A. BUILDING PAD-REMOVALS/RECOMPACTION 12 B. TEMPORARY SLOPES/F,XCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS 13 C. FOUNDATIONS 13 D. SLABS ON GRADE (INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR) 14 E. RETAINING WALLS 15 - F. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS 15 G. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 15 H. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 16 I. UTILITY TRENCH 17 J. DRAINAGE K. GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS 17 L. PLAN REVIEW 18 18 LIMITATIONS REFERENCES 18 21 APPENDICES APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS -- EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS PLATE A PLATE B '- SITE PLAN APPENDIX B REGIONAL FAULT MAP SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM -- APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES t} . '� k:;�,f:.••� -�� V�r 4<y'nww°J ass'`:-k;R � ��.� g�` rzr.,' t 4 F.� A:: is$�•. �' � ,.� �.. ..,,,°''"��'°"' ,�, �� „�„ .:•:; y{:tom st;}' �{::: r. ir t S .t: f ... •,t+$ ,•tF^}4 tom'. � ��' ��''\� KA� � �� 9 } try: �•+r�y; _t ::•C• FX3 x � �•'fix'' � f"""`"` �(#' :,$ ' • SUBJECT PROPERTY : SwWt,apg3ti .:$$F .. $:�,�.>..x:t ,�..'.Li.: i..4:.glpk• }-.w,: x Fm Y . . .......... tie r }� NX N3 01 q y t 31' '�i - i! •rte �„ `�. ey dr Copyright®2000 DcLorme.TopoToolw Advanced print Kit TE. Srnlc:1:6,400 Zoom Leval:15-0 Dwtum:WGS84 500 ft ' 1 Coast Geotechnical January 28, 2003 W.O. P-298059 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 residence and detached garage. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located south of Birmingham Drive, along the east side of Crest Drive, in the Cardiff district, city of Encinitas. The central portion of the rectangular lot includes two (2) residential structures situated along a relatively level graded pad which is part of a north trending ridge. The western portion of the lot descends gently to Crest Drive at a grade of approximately 11 percent. The eastern edge of the building pad is bounded by a 4.0 to 5.0 foot high 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) fill slope. From the base of the fill slope, the site descends at a gentle grade of about 10 to 12 percent to the property line and the top of an inland bluff. The east- , facing inland bluff descends for approximately 225 feet at steep gradients up to 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) to near vertical and is incised by several ravines. The property is bounded along the north and south by developed residential lots. Vegetation includes grass, ice plant, shrubs and trees. Drainage is generally by sheet flow _. to the west and east of the terrace surface. Coast Geotechnical January 28, 2003 W-O. P-298059 Page 6 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Preliminary plans for development of the site were prepared by Jackson/Cole Associates. The project includes demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new residence partially over a proposed basement in the central portion of the site. A detached garage is planned along the northwestern portion of the lot. The garage pad will include minor cuts and fills (up to 3.0 feet) and the construction of a retaining wall along the rear of the pad. SITE INVESTIGATION Site exploration included three (3) exploratory borings drilled to a maximum depth of 10 feet in 1999. However, due to changes in the proposed development, two (2) additional exploration borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 18 feet in December, 2002. Earth materials encountered were visually classified and logged by our field engineering geologist. Undisturbed, representative samples of earth materials were obtained at selected intervals. Samples were obtained by driving a thin walled steel sampler into the desired strata. The samples are retained in brass rings of 2.5 inches outside diameter and 1.0 inches in height. The central portion of the sample is retained in close fitting, waterproof containers and transported to our laboratory for testing and analysis. Coast Geotechnical January 28, 2003 W.O. P-298059 Page 7 LABORATORY TESTING Classification The field classification was verified through laboratory examination, in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The final classification is shown on the enclosed Exploratory Logs. Moisture/Density The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each of the undisturbed soil samples. This information is useful in providing a gross picture of the soil consistency or variation among exploratory excavations. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot. The field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Both are shown on the enclosed Laboratory Tests Results and Exploratory Logs. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of earth materials taken from the site. The laboratory standard tests were in _ accordance with ASTM D-1557-91. The results of the tests are presented in the Laboratory Test Results. Coast Geotechnical January 28, 2003 - W.O. P-298059 Page 8 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS _ The subject property is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego. The property is underlain at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The terrace deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rocks which have commonly been designated as the Torrey Sandstone 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. Artificial Fill The eastern edge of the building pad is bounded by a 4.0 to 5.0 foot high 2:1 fill slope. In the vicinity of Boring Nos. 1 and 2 along the rear of the building pad, approximately 4.0 feet of fill was encountered. The fill is composed of grey brown to reddish brown silty and fine-grained sand in a dry and loose condition. Additional minor fill deposits, approximately 1.0 foot, are present in the vicinity of Boring Nos. 3 and 5. Residual Soil Site exploration suggests the underlying terrace deposits are blanketed by approximately 6 to 12 inches of brown silty sand. Approximately 10 to 12 inches of soil underlie the fill deposits along the rear of the pad. The soil is generally dry and loose. The contact with the underlying terrace deposits is gradational and may vary across the site. Coast Geotechnical January 28, 2003 W.O. P-298059 Page 9 Terrace Deposits Underlying the surficial materials, poorly consolidated Pleistocene terrace deposits are present. The sediments are composed of tan to reddish brown slightly clayey, fine and medium-grained sand. 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. 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. Slope Std — No evidence of deep-seated instability was observed on the site. The terrace deposits Coast Geotechnical January 28, 2003 W.O. P-298059 Page 10 along the rear slope are underlain by arkosic sandstone which has been designated as Torrey Sandstone on published geologic maps. Locally, the sandstone strikes northeastward and dips back into the slope at 4 to 5 degrees. This orientation is geologically favorable in regards to deep-seated instability. Tectonic Setting The site is located within the seismically active southern California region which is generally characterized by northwest trending Quaternary-age fault zones. Several of these fault zones and fault segments are classified as active by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act). Based on a review of published geologic maps, no known faults transverse the site. The nearest active fault is the offshore Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 2_7 miles west of the site. It should be noted that the Rose Canyon Fault is not a continuous, well-defined feature but rather a zone of right stepping en echelon faults. The complex series of faults has been referred to as the Offshore Zone of Deformation (Woodward- Clyde, 1979) and is not fully understood. Several studies suggest that the Newport- Inglewood and the Rose Canyon faults are a continuous zone of en echelon faults (Treiman, 1984). Further studies along the complex offshore zone of faulting may indicate a potentially greater seismic risk than current data suggests. Other faults which could affect the site include the Coronado Bank, Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas Coast Geotechnical January 28, 2003 W.O. P-298059 Page 11 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 and soil deposits are not suitable for the 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. Coast Geotechnical January 28, 2003 W.O. P-298059 Page 12 3) 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 Buildine Pad-Removals/Recompaction 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. Deeper removals may be necessary along the eastern and northern portions of the existing pad where fill deposits occur. Cut/fill transitions in the residential and garage building 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 Coast Geotechnical January 28, 2003 W.O. P-298059 Page 13 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. T- emporary Slopes/Excavation Characteristics Temporary excavations should be trimmed to a gradient of 3/4:1 (horizontal to vertical) or less depending upon conditions encountered during grading. The Pleistocene terrace 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 residence and garage 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 Coast Geotechnical January 28, 2003 W.O. P-298059 Page 14 should be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 bars, two along the top of the footing and two along the base. Footing recommendations provided herein are based upon underlying soil conditions and are not intended to be in lieu of the project structural engineer's design. For design purposes, an allowable bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used for foundations at the recommended footing depths. The bearing value 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. 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 Coast Geotechnical January 28, 2003 W.O. P-298059 Page 15 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 - active-equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained walls (nonyielding) should be designed for an "at-rest" equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations. All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate backdrainage system (Miradrain 6000 or equivalent is suggested). The soil parameters assume a level granular backfill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Settlement Characteristics Estimated total and differential settlement is expected to be on the order of 3/4 inch and 1/2 inch, respectively. It should also be noted that long term secondary settlement due to irrigation and loads imposed by structures is anticipated to be 1/4 inch. Coast Geotechnical January 28, 2003 W.O. P-298059 Page 16 Seismic Considerations _ Although the likelihood of ground rupture on the site is remote, the property will be exposed to moderate to high levels of ground motion resulting from the release of energy should an earthquake occur along the numerous known and unknown faults in the region. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 3.4 miles west of the property is the nearest known active fault and is considered the design earthquake for the site. A maximum probable event along the offshore segment of the Rose Canyon Fault is - expected to produce a peak bedrock horizontal acceleration of 0.42g and a repeatable ground acceleration of 0.27g. Seismic Design Parameters (1997 Uniform Building Code) Soil Profile Type - S, Seismic Zone - 4 Seismic Source - Type B Near Source Factor (N j - 1.2 Near source Acceleration Factor (NJ - 1.0 Seismic Coefficients Ca = 0.40 C, = 0.66 ~ Design Response Spectrum TS = 0.663 To = 0.133 Coast Geotechnical January 28, 2003 W.O. P-298059 Page 17 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 a the zone of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing away from one another. Drainage Specific drainage patterns should be designed by the project architect. However, in general, pad water should be directed away from foundations and around the structure to the street. Roof water should be collected and conducted to hardscape or the street, via non-erodible devices. Pad water should not be allowed to pond. Vegetation adjacent _ to foundations should be avoided. If vegetation in these areas is desired, sealed planter boxes or drought resistant plants should be considered. Other alternatives may be _ available, however, the intent is to reduce moisture from migrating into foundation subsoils. Irrigation should be limited to that amount necessary to sustain plant life. All drainage systems should be inspected and cleaned annually, prior to winter rains. Coast Geotechnical January 28, 2003 W.O. P-298059 Page 18 Geotechnical Observations Structural footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm, prior to the placement of steel and forms. All fill should be placed while a representative of the geotechnical engineer is present to observe and test. Plan Review A copy of the final plans should be submitted to this office for review prior to the initiation of construction. Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time. LIMITATIONS This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the _ owner's representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to the attention of the project's architects and/or engineers so that they may be incorporated into plans. If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those described in this report, our office should be notified so that we may consider whether modifications _ are needed. No responsibility for construction compliance with design concepts, specifications or recommendations given in this report is assumed unless on-site review is performed during the course of construction. -- The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure described herein are based on individual exploratory excavations made on the subject property. Coast Geotechnical January 28, 2003 W.O. P-298059 Page 19 The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure discussed - should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur among the exploratory excavations. Please note that fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported herein. Coast Geotechnical assumes no responsibility for variations which may occur across the site. 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 parry. This study is not Coast Geotechnical January 28, 2003 W.O. P-298059 Page 20 to be used on other projects or extensions to this pro±ect except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical. Coast Geotechnical January 28, 2003 W.O. P-298059 Page 21 REFERENCES 1. Hays, Walter W., 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions, h 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, 1989 Crest Drive, Encinitas, California, Scale 1"=20'. 4. San Diego County Topographic/Orthophoto Survey, 1960 and 1985, Map No. 314- 1689, Scale 1"=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 Location atn io Optimum ... Density (Ipcf) Moisture Content B-1 @ 1 . 0 ' -4 . 0 ' 125 . 0 - 10 . 9 - TABLE I Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Sample Field Dr ' Location � Field Moisture Density Content c f 0 B-1 @ 1 . 5 ' 98 . 2 B-1 @ 2 . 5 ' 100 . 3 6 . 0 B-1 @ 5 . 0 ' 122 . 3 5 . 2 B-1 @ 6 . 0 ' 111 . 3 10 . 1 8 . 6 B-2 @ 1 . 7 ' 100 . 1 B-2 @ 3 . 0 ' 100 . 7 5 . 7 B-2 @ 5 . 5 ' 112 . 1 4 . 0 B-2 @ 6 . 5 ' 115 . 1 7 . 5 B-2 @ 9 . 5 ' Sample Disturbed 7 . 1 7 . 1 B-3 @ 1 . 2 ' Sample Disturbed B-3 @ 2 . 5 ' Sample Disturbed 3 . 7 4 . 6 B-4 @ 2 . 5 ' 112 . 2 B-4 @ 5 . 0 ' 115 . 1 5 . 8 B-4 @ 7 . 5 ' 114 . 2 6 . 7 B-4 @ 9 . 5 ' 7 . 2 B-4 @ 12 . 0 ' 112 . 4 7 . 0 S '- B-4 @ 15 . 0 ' 115 . 6 8 7 Sample Disturbed 9 . 9 B-4 @ 17 . 5 ' Sample Disturbed 9 . 6 -- B-5 @ 2 . 0 ' 100 . 7 B-5 @ 4 . 0 ' 110 . 2 4 . 2 B-5 @ 5 . 5 ' 13 .4 111 . 4 8 . 3 P-298059 F OG OF EXPLORATORY BORI NG NO.LL RIG:PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P-298059 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" SURFACE ELEV.: 370' (Approximate) DATE DRILLED: 06-10-99 LOGGED BY: MB ,o H x Z ¢ O U 3 U w U CIO Q C7 O 370.00 GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 0.00 -�: SM FILL Grey-Brown fine and med.-grained sand,silty,D' 'J, ^'n• ,loose 369.00 -}a: 1.00 98.2 6.0 368.00 100 j18118 SM FILL @: Reddish brn.fine and medium-grained sand,slightly clayey, 100.3 5.2 slightly moist 367.00 ll 3.00 tlYYY HIM lal� b 366.00 N 4.00 �lYHIM i; ��-�- SM SOIL N A c„i: (Qs):Brown fine and med.-grained slightly silty sand,slightly moist, ;;:A:: loose O 365.00 :m'-' 122.3 10.1 �'Xi: s.00 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt):Reddish brn.,fine and med.-grained sand, moist,weathered in upper 1.0' Slightly Clayey 0 364.00 r 1 From 6',Dense 111.3 8.6 6.00 0 z StM :n - 363.00 rtr?x 7.00 Miss t.7�Mi _ 362.00 1 8.00 :Y.■1 361.00 9.00 at "rprvwr {xar x End of Boring @ 10' PAGE I OF 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL LO771 F EXPLORATORY BORING N0. 2 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P-298059 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" 0 -10 99 SURFACE ELEV.: 370' (Approximate) DATE DRILLED: 6 - LOGGED BY: MB 0 0 H � Z ¢ i CIO 3 o w U0 C-0 Q o 370.00 GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 0.00 11:rr: SM FILL ey_ (a1):Gr Brown fine and med.-grained sand,silty,�•n: ty,dry,loose 369.00 }14� 1.00 •' : 1 . 100.1 5.7 368.00 2.00 II ii8 SM FILL (al): Reddish brn.fine and medium-grained sand,slightly clayey, rrNr ri slightly moist nxnx 100.7 4.0 11:1 3.00 (�g11q 3.00 O'c 366.00 IIYIIY IIYIIY 4.00 SM SOIL loose (Qs):Brown fine and med.-grained ghtly moist, slightly silty sand,sli 365.00 0 5.00 11 ;.Y SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt):Reddish brn.,fine and med.-grained sand, 112.1 7.5 moist,weathered in upper 1.0' Slightly Clayey 0 6 0000 1 From 6',Dense 115.1 7.1 .1 363.00 7.00 I�:Y tsati5r IIYIIM _ 362.00 8.00 u J 1 :i 361.00 . 9.00 a1 �t :51LYlVy. 11�1.1� End of Boring @ 10' PAGE 1 OF 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 3 F LL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P-298059 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 06-10-99 SURFACE ELEV.: 370' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB x 8 z ¢ H u 3 ¢ r VO W > a ..a a u Q C-0 o 370.00 GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 0.00 SM FILL/SOIL(af/Qs):Grey-Brown fine and med.-grained sand,A t dry, L.L. loose J 369.00 1.00 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS NO.Reddish brn.,fine and med.-grained sand,dry, --- 3.7 a� dense a l l IIMIIN 368.00 cu cu 2.00 N O 11•p N. ti --- 4.6 cu , 3 ' SS5'�VN�y. 367.00 .� 3.00 O ua II5(ItN1 111T1� i Ir1� 366.00 4.00 ..N..N n t1 , t 365.00 +•+•K I R. End of Boring @ 5' PAGE 1 OF 1 5.00 COAST GEOTECHNICAL FLOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO.DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P-298059 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 12-13-02 SURFACE ELEV.: 370' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB o x 1� Q R U O Z Q a Ca U0 U v� cn Q C7 On 370.00 GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 0.00 SM SOIL NO:Brown fine and med.-grained slightly silty sand,dry,loose .L.L. SM TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt):Reddish brn.,fine and coed.-grained sand, - moist,weathered in upper 1.0' 368.00 From 2'-6',dry 2.00 ttN.tN fill 5.8 ..N..N a 366.00 4.00 115.1 6.7 K. 364.00 t Wes' From 6',slightly moist,dense 6.00 it7irJri 'L3 114.2 7.2 362.00 a 8.00 0 .... cu - .- 112.4 7.0 -d 360.00 -- A 10.00 j V NNIN O itMltN z 358.00 115.6 8.7 12.00 ix ?� • x ttis . 356.00 14.00 at --- 9.9 N. N �nsr.. 354.00 -- ; 16.00 Y tr --- 9.6 352.00 +i End of Boring @ 18' '- PAGE 1 OF 1 18.00 COAST GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 5 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P-298059 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 12-13-02 SURFACE ELEV.: 363' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB 0 o- H � z 3 u Q a u U 363.00 GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 0.00 xixi. SM FILL SOIL(af/Qs): Tan to Brown fine and med.-grained slightly silty sand, dry,loose :L.J: 362.00 1.00 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt):Reddish brn.,fine and med.-grained sand,dry, slightly clayey �.1WJWY 361.00 100.7 4.2 2.00 b aD � st a� 0 360.00 3.00 arr'r „� �YYlri v O 1 O z 359.00 110.2 13.4 4.00 iwxrtvr 358.00 5.00 !t d+i�.viCv n . 111.4 8.3 End of Boring @ 6' 357.00 PAGE 1 OF 1 6.00 COAST GEOTECHNICAL FILL SLOPE PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPE ' TO COMPETENT MATERIAL ==i=___ f-1 -'_'-r EXISTING ---------- `---- `�- GROUND SURFACE �y� 1 REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL I - N____ BENCH 2' MIN. 15" MIN:-+� KEY LOWEST I DEPTH BENCH (KEY). 60 MIN. OVERLAP 3140-1-112' Lu CLEAN GRAVEL g• MIN. (If"lift. MIN.) �' • •.I 1% COVER 4• ' . . 4• NONPERFORATED NON-PERFORATEO .�•� PERFORATED PIPE PIPE, PIPE SLOPE LATERAL A AT 100' INTERVALS FILTER FABRIC 61614I117 ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 4' MIN: 140N OR APPROVED BEDDING EOUIVALENT)* SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL KEY, BENCHING AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL PLATE A - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ TRANSITION LOT DETAILS CUT-FILL LOT EXISTING GROUND SURFACE -A& -------;21-4,0- REXCAVATE (OVE AND RECOMPACT COMPETENT BEDROCK ,,,�OR MATERIAL EVALUATE D BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT CUT LOT EXISTING GROUND SURFACE REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL MIN. 38' MWV OVEREXCAVATE AND RECQMPACT COMPETENT BEDROCK ,01��CR MATERIAL EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT Deeper or laterally more extensive overexcaivation and recompaction may be recommended by the gootechnical consultant based on actual field conditions encountered and locations of proposed Improvements '- PLATE B _ N:Irl / ! CID Rs O a , oo 90 it) I �• � ofl 1 I N�� I _ ' __._.__-•---- � �, � rn to 1 ° u 1 I I N\ I ! ell cn CC C) cc fto uj I I • N I I /,�,i � i j "1 i 111-, i/j z [A* v� oo C - 114 .0 I ! W gip, o I + I I + I . I I I w C I N i I I I I j L-- ---- 1 ' I F ----------- ---------------------- - r ION i I I CRES DR/VE- APPENDIX B % �4 �//may 3�• i y�� % Y�� ,*��',,+/.�� _,��t�\�:S� fN',��. yy�� y.d/'///r� '�•y�'r/7/•/, , � n� '' y�� /�'��['/� fl�f.��"Y'�',�-. -�� ry �/ `" ;/// �f��'_/Z' I ' �f//'/ � r / Q^+�i/ 'f ( Ate," .TM•.Q;'�2TiJ (�s.f-f �'�-f~� � , ` j\`�•t rl Qty yg� eP _� //_ •ae+••'%,� i a '�*,,. � i ✓/ rte,+#. r�,# +gay, ' �Q �. • r o �``}) i'_�I�' r� /y/+a/ay{Iy-i ��a �/� �.i / ./ >l ��. - .ir\ ��f•• ;1 ..._ � ~ /' �,..i.''. ✓�/ / for •s-+- '�"=�<t�-Y � • -:�.�� J , ��l ®[ t 7 i >�.�!�� :F r � , � � _�w�Y�'w°'2'� :/.,�%T.rte`:, 1 ,'�•4 1��- � -. tG.. -. � •.-yam-t _ -� .�-`M •7 _ _ ___ �� /t __ r�=-� _ �d:,�� a/'r;,, �. 1 �i/ - % '1f•�� CA. _ f / ;�✓ `� � �'1� � is I /� r ,, O 70 g 9 z lit im • �d 3� 5 � y i !s xIISLFjp`�x Z 3 � R � �Z a t : H 2 C-z S� §gp Z r) gFP p i *********************** * U B C S E I S * * * Version 1.03 * * *********************** COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: P-298059 DATE: 01-29-2003 JOB NAME: LAVACOT FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0223 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2620 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SC NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN DISTANCE: 45.5 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ROSE CANYON DISTANCE: 5.4 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: DISTANCE: 99999.0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1.0 Nv: 1.2 Ca: 0.40 Cv: 0.66 Ts: 0.663 To: 0. 133 --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED 1DISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME (km) I (A,B,C) 1 (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) -----------------___________1========I-------1======1=========1====------ ROSE CANYON 1 5.4 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.50 1 SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1 21.5 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.50 1 SS CORONADO BANK 1 28.9 1 B 1 7.4 1 3.00 1 SS ELSINORE-JULIAN 1 45.5 1 A 1 7.1 1 5.00 1 SS ELSINORE-TEMECULA 45.8 I B 1 6.8 1 5.00 1 SS EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 65.9 B 1 6.5 I 2.00 I SS PALOS VERDES 1 69.3 B 1 7.1 1 3.00 1 SS ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 1 69.5 1 B 1 6.8 1 5.00 1 SS SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1 82.0 1 A 1 7.2 1 12.00 1 SS ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1 84.2 1 B 1 6.8 1 4.00 1 SS SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 1 85.3 1 B 1 6.8 1 4.00 1 SS SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 86.0 I B 1 6.9 1 12.00 1 SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1 89.5 1 B I 6.9 1.00 SS CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 1 92.6 I B I 6.7 i 1.00 1 DS ELSINORE-WHITTIER 1 98.9 1 B 1 6.8 1 2.50 1 SS SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 1 101.5 1 B 1 6.6 1 4.00 1 SS SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 1 110.6 1 B 1 6.7 1 12.00 1 SS SAN ANDREAS - Southern 1 115.2 1 A 1 7.4 1 24.00 1 SS SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 1 125.0 1 B 1 6.6 1 5.00 1 SS PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 125.7 1 B 1 7.0 1 2.50 1 SS SAN JOSE 1 125.9 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS CUCAMONGA 1 130.1 1 A 1 7.0 1 5.00 1 DS SIERRA MADRE (Central) 1 130.3 1 B 1 7.0 1 3.00 1 DS ELMORE RANCH 1 131.2 1 B 1 6.6 1 1.00 1 SS BURNT MTN. 1 131.7 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.60 1 SS SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 1 132.8 1 B 1 6.6 1 4.00 1 SS ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA 132.8 1 B 1 7.0 1 3.50 1 SS EUREKA PEAK 1 136.1 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.60 1 SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 136.8 1 B 1 7.0 1 1.00 1 DS CLEGHORN I 139.2 1 B 1 6.5 1 3.00 1 SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I 142.6 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.50 1 DS RAYMOND 1 144.9 1 B I 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 1 145.4 1 A 1 7.8 1 34.00 1 SS CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 1 145.5 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 DS VERDUGO 1 148.7 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.50 1 DS LANDERS 1 149.3 1 B 1 7.3 1 0.60 I SS BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 149.4 1 B I 6.5 1 25.00 SS HOLLYWOOD 1 151.7 1 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 DS HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 1 154.3 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.60 1 SS IMPERIAL 1 158.3 1 A 1 7.0 1 20.00 1 SS SANTA MONICA 1 159.0 1 B 1 6.6 1 1.00 1 DS LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 1 159.2 1 B 1 7.3 1 0.60 1 SS EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 1 161.3 1 B 1 6.9 1 0.60 1 SS JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 1 162.9 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.60 1 SS MALIBU COAST 1 163.1 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.30 1 DS SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) 1 169.6 1 B 1 6.7 1 2.00 1 DS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------------- Page 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I APPROX. ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED DISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME (Im) I (A,B,C) 1 (Mw) I (mm/yr) 1 (SS,DS,BT) -------___-=-----------------=====1========1=======1======1=========1=====_____ PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK 1 170.4 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.60 1 SS ANACAPA-DUME 1 171.2 1 B 1 7.3 1 3.00 DS SAN GABRIEL 1 172.5 1 B 1 7.0 1 1.00 SS CALICO - HIDALGO 1 175.3 1 B 1 7.1 0.60 SS SANTA SUSANA 1 184.9 1 B I 6.6 5.00 DS HOLSER 1 193.7 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.40 1 DS SIMI-SANTA ROSA 1 201.0 1 B 1 6.7 1 1.00 I DS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) 1 201.9 1 B 1 6.9 1 4.00 I DS GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE 1 208.2 I B 1 6.9 1 0.60 I SS SAN CAYETANO 1 210.4 I B 1 6.8 1 6.00 1 DS BLACKWATER I 223.8 I B 1 6.9 I 0.60 1 SS VENTURA - PITAS POINT I 228.8 I B I 6.8 I 1.00 1 DS SANTA YNEZ (East) I 230.2 I B 1 7.0 1 2.00 1 SS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND I 236.0 B I 6.8 1.00 DS M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA 1 239.6 I B I 6.7 1 0.40 1 DS RED MOUNTAIN 1 242.5 I B 1 6.8 I 2.00 I DS GARLOCK (West) I 246.9 I A 1 7.1 I 6.00 I SS PLEITO THRUST I 252.1 I B I 6.8 I 2.00 I DS BIG PINE I 257.7 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.80 I SS GARLOCK (East) 1 261.4 1 A 1 7.3 1 7.00 1 SS SANTA ROSA ISLAND I 270.5 I B I 6.9 1 1.00 1 DS WHITE WOLF I 272.8 I B 1 7.2 2.00 1 DS SANTA YNEZ (West) 1 274.4 1 B 1 6.9 1 2.00 I SS So. SIERRA NEVADA 1 285.7 I B I 7.1 I 0.10 1 DS OWL LAKE i 289.6 B I 6.5 I 2.00 1 SS PANAMINT VALLEY I 289.8 B 1 7.2 1 2.50 1 SS LITTLE LAKE 1 290.0 1 B I 6.7 1 0.70 I SS TANK CANYON 1 291.3 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I DS DEATH VALLEY (South) I 297.5 I B 1 6.9 I 4.00 I SS LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE I 316.2 I B 1 6.8 I 0.70 I DS LIONS HEAD 1 334.0 I B I 6.6 I 0.02 1 DS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) I 339.9 I B 1 6.9 I 4.00 1 DS SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) I 343.9 I B 1 7.0 I 0.20 DS _ SAN JUAN I 345.2 B 1 7.0 1 1.00 SS CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) 352.1 B I 6.5 1 0.25 I DS OWENS VALLEY 1 358.7 i B I 7.6 1 1.50 I SS LOS OSOS 1 374.0 I B 1 6.8 I 0.50 I DS HOSGRI 1 379.6 1 B 1 7.3 I 2.50 I SS HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY I 384.5 1 B 1 7.0 I 2.50 I SS DEATH VALLEY (Northern) I 393.5 1 A 1 7.2 I 5.00 1 SS INDEPENDENCE I 394.5 I B 1 6.9 1 0.20 1 DS RINCONADA I 395.2 I B 1 7.3 I 1.00 1 SS BIRCH CREEK 1 450.9 I B 1 6.5 0.70 I DS SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) 1 452.0 I B 1 5.0 34.00 I SS WHITE MOUNTAINS I 455.4 I B I 7.1 I 1.00 1 SS DEEP SPRINGS 1 473.8 B I 6.6 0.80 1 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) 1 (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) I 478.6 1 A 1 7.0 1 5.00 1 SS ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.) I 486.1 I B 6.8 I 1.00 I DS FISH SLOUGH 493.8 I B I 6.6 0.20 I DS -- HILTON CREEK I 512.2 1 B I 6.7 I 2.50 DS HARTLEY SPRINGS I 536.6 I B 6.6 1 0.50 I DS ORTIGALITA 536.7 1 B I 6.9 1.00 1 SS CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) 1 542.0 1 B I 6.2 I 15.00 1 SS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS 1 544.4 I B 1 7.1 0.50 1 DS - PALO COLORADO - SUR I 545.2 1 B 1 7.0 1 3.00 1 SS QUIEN SABE I 555.3 1 B 1 6.5 I 1.00 1 SS MONO LAKE 572.6 1 B 1 6.6 2.50 I DS ZAYANTE-VERGELES I 573.8 1 B 1 6.8 1 0.10 SS SAN ANDREAS (1906) I 579.0 I A 1 7.9 1 24.00 I SS SARGENT 1 579.1 I B 1 6.8 1 3.00 I SS ROBINSON CREEK I 603.9 B 1 6.5 0.50 1 DS SAN GREGORIO I 619.8 I A 1 7.3 1 5.00 1 SS GREENVILLE I 629.1 1 B I 6.9 2.00 1 SS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON I 629.3 B 6.5 I 0.40 I DS HAYWARD (SE Extension) 629.4 1 B 6.5 I 3.00 I SS ANTELOPE VALLEY I 644.2 I B I 6.7 I 0.80 DS HAYWARD (Total Length) I 649.2 I A 1 7.1 1 9.00 I SS CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) 1 649.2 I B 6.8 I 6.00 I SS GENOA 669.6 B I 6.9 1.00 1 DS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY 1 697.0 I B I 6.9 I 6.00 1 SS RODGERS CREEK I 735.8 I A 1 7.0 1 9.00 SS WEST NAPA I 736.7 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 I SS POINT REYES 754.5 I B 1 6.8 1 0.30 I DS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA I 759.2 B I 6.9 6.00 I SS MAACAMA (South) I 798.6 I B I 6.9 I 9.00 I SS COLLAYOMI 815.5 I B 1 6.5 1 0.60 I SS BARTLETT SPRINGS I 819.1 1 A 1 7.1 1 6.00 1 SS MAACAMA (Central) 840.2 I A 1 7.1 1 9.00 1 SS MAACAMA (North) I 899.8 I A 1 7.1 1 9.00 1 SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) I 906.0 1 B 1 6.8 1 6.00 1 SS BATTLE CREEK I 929.6 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS LAKE MOUNTAIN I 964.5 B 1 6.7 1 6.00 I SS GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND I 981.6 I B I 6.9 I 9.00 SS MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1 1037.8 I A 7.4 I 35.00 1 DS LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1044.6 I A I 7.0 5.00 1 DS MAD RIVER 1 1047.4 B I 7.1 I 0.70 1 DS CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1051.5 I A 1 8.3 I 35.00 1 DS McKINLEYVILLE 1 1057.8 I B 1 7.0 1 0.60 1 DS TRINIDAD 1 1059.4 B 1 7.3 1 2.50 1 DS FICKLE HILL 1 1059.8 I B 1 6.9 1 0.60 1 DS TABLE BLUFF 1065.2 B 1 7.0 1 0.60 I DS LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) 1 1078.5 B I 7.1 1.00 DS 0 LO - aJ o LO U � M 0 0 - - w LO d' N L �w N u? o H LO CA o w o - Q o LO o LO o LO o - N N - O O _ (6) uoileaa1a00y lea}oadS 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)