The URL can be used to link to this page

1998-5520 GI J Y o �N�dw� D ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY APN 264- 231 -03 AND 04, LONE HILL LANE, COMMUNITY OF OLIVENHAIN, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA FOR MR. WALLACE L. RNUTE 5955 PACIFIC CENTER BOULEVARD SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 W.O. 1004 -SD MARCH 17, 1989 GeoSoils, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PROPOSED DEVEIAPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 EARTH MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Topsoil /Slopewash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Alluvium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Bedrock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FILL SUITABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Subsurface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 SEISMICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 LABORATORY TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Compaction Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Expansion Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Natural Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Cut Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Fill Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Removals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Excavation Difficulties and Fill Quality . . . . . . . 10 Lot Capping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Highly Expansive Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Critically Expansive Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Post Tensioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Earthwork Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Grading Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 PlanReview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 GeoSoils, Inc. nom: w Geotechnical Engineering • Engineering Geology 5751 Palmer Way, Suite D • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (619) 438 -3155 • FAX (619) 931 -0915 March 17, 1989 W.O. 1004 -SD MR. WALLACE L. KNUTE 5955 Pacific Center Boulevard San Diego, California 92121 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Study APN 264 - 231 -03 and 04, Lone Hill Lane, Community of Olivenhain, Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Knute: As requested, GeoSoils, Inc. has performed a geotechnical study of the subject parcel, (APN,264- 231 -03 and 04) on Lone Hill Lane in the Community of Olivenhain within the City of Encinitas. The purpose of this review was to evaluate geologic and soil engineering conditions of the property and their effect on proposed development. A 111=100' scale grading plan, prepared by CM Engineering was used as a base map for this Preliminary Study. Our study consisted of researching available literature; and excavating and logging backhoe trenches (see Test Pit Logs, Table 1) . It is our understanding that the proposed development will consist of 3 building sites for single family residences and necessary access roads. Los Angeles Co. (818) 785 -2158 • Orange Co. (714) 647 -0277 • Riverside Co. (714) 677 -9651 FA MR. WALLACE L. KNUTTE K.O. 1004 -SD SITE DESCRIPTION MARCH 17, 1989 PAGE 2 The site is 10.2± acre irregularly shaped area consisting of two parcels, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 7656. The site is located on Lone Hill Lane in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, California. Site topography is rather gentle to moderately steep. Natural slopes within the parcels are approximately 5:1± in gradient. Natural gradients do steepen to approximately 2:1 ± at some locations on the southern portions of the site where the slopes descend into a natural drainage course. A less prominent natural drainage course intersects the northwest corner of the site. Onsite elevation ranges from 210( ±) feet to 355( ±) feet, with total relief being 145( ±) feet. Natural vegetation on site consists of scattered brush, occasional cacti, cereal grasses, and weeds. PROPOSED DEVEWPMENT It is proposed to develop the site for three single family residential lots from two parcels. No specific grading plans were provided for these structures at the time of this report. Grading plans should be submitted to GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. RNUTE MARCH 17, 1989 W. 0. 1004 -SD PAGE 3 this office as they become available, to minimize any misunderstandings between the plans and recommendations presented herein. EARTH MATERIALS Earth materials on site consist of topsoil /slopewash, alluvium and bedrock of the Santiago Peak Volcanics. Topsoil /Slonewash Topsoil /slopewash soils on site consist of generally dark brown to dark reddish brown sandy clays with common rock fragments. These materials are visibly porous and considered unsuitable for structural support. These soils should be removed in graded areas. Test trenches indicate that these soils generally range from 0.5± to 4.5± feet in thickness. Thicker deposits may be present on site. Alluvium Alluvial soils on site consist of medium to dark brown sandy clay. These soils are medium stiff, porous, moist and considered unsuitable for structural support. Bedrock Metavolcanic and andesitic rocks of the Santiago Peak Volcanics underlie the entire site. These rocks are typically gray with GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. RNUTE MARCH 17, 1989 W.O. 1004 -SD PAGE 4 rust colored staining near the surface, becoming less stained with depth. Density typically increases with depth. Hardness and rippability are related both to the density and degree of fracturing. In low lying areas, where bedrock is overlain by deposits of alluvium, the volcanics are highly decomposed, consisting of predominantly gravel sized friable rock fragments in a clayey matrix. Partial removal of this irregularly decomposed bedrock is recommended within building pads. FILL SUITABILITY Based on our experience in the area, topsoil and alluvial soils should produce moderate to good quality fill material. Special processing (spreading and mixing) may be needed for rocky materials, wet and /or "heavy" clays. Santiago Peak Volcanics should produce poor to good quality fill material; depending on the degree of fracturing, weathering and general rippability. Areas of difficult excavation and where blasting may be required, are anticipated to produce poor to moderate quality fill due to oversized materials. Methods to dispose of oversize rock are discussed in the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of this report. GeoSoils, Inc. J MR. WALLACE L. KNUTE W.O. 1004 -SD DRAINAGE MARCH 17, 1989 PAGE 5 Precipitation falling directly on the site accounts for the majority of surface water on the parcels. Natural drainage patterns intersect the northwest corner and southern boundary of the site channeling run off from uphill properties during periods of heavy rainfall. Provisions should be made during development to address surface water run off. Subsurface At the time of our study, no subsurface water was noted in the exploratory trenches. Groundwater is not anticipated to adversely affect site development. The site, as all of Southern California is in a seismically active area. Although there are no known active or potentially active faults on the property, there are several faults in close enough proximity to affect the site. Specifically, the northwest trending Rose Canyon Fault Zone is located seven( ±) miles southwest of the site. Various authors believe the Rose Canyon Fault to range from potentially active to active. GeoSoiis, Inc. MR. WALIACE L. RNOTE MARCH 17, 1989 W.O. 1004 -SD PAGE 6 The Elsinore Fault Zone, situated approximately 27 ± miles to the northeast, could also affect the site. This zone is considered to be active. These and other faults may be expected to provide moderate to intense ground shaking on -site within the next 50 to 100 years. However, ground rupture, as a result of direct fault movement, is not anticipated. Seismically resistant structural design is recommended. LABORATORY TESTING Compaction Tests To determine compaction characters, tests were performed on representative samples of both the topsoil /alluvium and highly weathered volcanic materials in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D- 1557 -78. A laboratory maximum dry density of 113.0 pounds per cubic foot and an optimum moisture content of 18.5 percent were determined for the topsoil /alluvial material (TP -3 at 1'), and a maximum dry density of 96.5 pounds per cubic foot and an optimum moisture content of 27.5 percent were determined for the highly weathered volcanic material. Expansion Tests Expansion tests were performed on remolded samples of topsoil /alluvial and highly weathered volcanic materials, GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. RNUTE MARCH 17, 1989 W.O. 1004 -SD PAGE 7 prepared at 80 percent of optimum moisture and 90 percent of maximum density (see compaction test section above). A sample from TP -3 at 1 foot and TP -1 at 5 foot were placed under 60 pound per square foot surcharges and submerged in water. The percent swells were then recorded as the amount of vertical rise compared to the original one -inch sample height. Swells of 16.8 and 10.9 percent, which are considered critical and highly expansive were recorded for these earth materials. An expansion index test was also performed with a sample of the highly weathered volcanic material. Testing was performed in accordance with Standard 29 -2 of the Uniform Building Code. The test result was an expansion index of 62 which is classified as medium expansion according to Table 29 -C of the Uniform Building Code. CONCLUSIONS Based on the geotechnical data presented herein, it is our opinion that the site is suited for the proposed development from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided that recommendations presented below are incorporated into the design, grading and construction phases of development. The site is underlain by topsoil /alluvium, and bedrock of the Santiago Peak Volcanics. Groundwater seepage was not encountered GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. RMUTE W.O. 1004 -SD MARCH 17, 1989 PAGE 8 within our exploratory trenches and should not adversely affect the development. Based on the available geotechnical data, the following items should be of primary consideration during the design and construction phases of development: 1. Rock Hardness & Fill quality 2. Expansive Soils 3. Lot Capping (i.e. cut /fill transition) Grading should be in conformance with the City of Encinitas Grading Code, Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code, as well as conforming with the grading guidelines as presented in this text. Graded slopes (cut and /or fill slopes) within the property limits should be designed at a gradient of 2:1 or less. Lot drainage should flow away from pad areas. Roof gutters and connecting drainage devices or other approved drainage system should be used on all structures for the purpose of carrying surface water away from foundations. Building and landscape contractors should be notified that they should not modify the graded drainage patterns unless designed and approved drainage systems are utilized in lieu of above. GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. ENUTE MARCH 17, 1989 W.O. 1004 -SD PAGE 9 Earth materials exposed in any proposed graded slopes may be subject to erosion and may become loose upon weathering. Landscaping of these slopes should consist of low moisture, deep- rooted types of vegetation. Natural Slopes Generally, existing natural slopes on the project range from 2:1± to 5:1± gradient. We anticipate that the natural slopes remaining will be predominantly southerly and northerly facing descending below the proposed developments. Cut Slopes Proposed cut slopes should be designed at 2:1 or shallower gradients. Fill Slopes Proposed fill slopes should be constructed at 2:1 or shallower gradients. Fill slopes should be constructed in a workman -like manner. Incorrect slope configurations should not be corrected by "spilling" soils over the slope face. Recommendation for proper construction of fill slopes are included in the Grading Guidelines (Appendix I). GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. RN= W.O. 1004 -SD Removals MARCH 17, 1989 PAGE 10 Removals should include all surficial soil (topsoil /alluvium) in areas to receive fill or where exposed at grades in cut areas considered as structural. Removal depths can be estimated from the logs of exploratory trenches (Table I). Removal depths within the ridge areas (i.e. pads) are anticipated to be on the order of 2.5( ±) feet. Excavation Difficulties and Fill Quality It is anticipated that topsoil /alluvium and the upper portions of the Santiago Peak Volcanics should excavate with conventional heavy duty equipment. Moderate to good quality fill material should be produced from these. Some difficulty of excavation and special processing (e.g. spreading and mixing) may be required where surficial soils are dry /wet and /or blocky. Difficult excavation and possible blasting should be expected in cuts deeper than four to six( ±) feet along ridge areas. Poor quality fill materials would be produced. Due to the quantity of oversize rock and rock material that may be generated, we advise that locations be found to bury these on site. The most suitable locations are thought to be within the open space area below the proposed pad(s). Surficial soils could be "mined" to create "suitable" fill materials, and replaced with GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. ENOTE MARCH 17, 1989 W.O. 1004 -SD PAGE 11 rock. Rock disposal areas, if utilized, should be accurately located and designated as non - structural. Alternately, oversized rock may also be used for landscaping purposes or exported. Care should be taken in blasting hard rock in proximity to proposed cut slopes. Over - blasting of volcanic rock would result in weakened rock conditions which could require remedial grading to stabilize the affected cut slopes. Decreasing shot -hole spacings should result in better quality fill materials which may otherwise require specialized burial techniques. It is important that blasting procedures be used that would produce minus 2 foot sized materials and that sufficient fines (sands and gravels), to fill all void spaces are present. Driveway and pad areas underlain by hard rock should be over - excavated to the depth of proposed excavations and rebuilt to grade with properly compacted fill. This is intended to minimize difficulty in excavating for footings and utility lines. Lot Capping Cut portions of the pad should be over excavated within building areas, and five foot outside, to a minimum depth of three feet to provide more uniform foundation support conditions. GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. RNUTE MARCH 17, 1989 W.O. 1004 -SD PAGE 12 Overexcavation of cut areas exposing hard rock should also be considered to facilitate trenching. The upper weathered portion of the bedrock may produce the least expansive material without oversized material, making it suitable for placement at finish pad grade. PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS Design 1. An allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot may be used for the design of continuous footings with a minimum width of 12 inches and depth of 12 inches. Bearing pressure may be increased by one -third for seismic or other temporary loads. 2. An allowable coefficient of friction between concrete and compacted fill or bedrock of 0.4 may be used with the deadload forces. Construction Based on our observation and test results, onsite materials at finish grade will likely vary from high to very highly expansive in nature. Preliminary recommendations for foundation construction are presented below assuming these conditions. Specific criteria to be used for the building pad should be based on expansion testing performed after grading is complete. GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. KNUTE W.O. 1004 -SD MARCH 17, 1989 PAGE 13 Consideration should be given to burying critically expansive materials at least three( ±) feet below finish grade. Highly Expansive Soils 1. Exterior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface. Interior footings should have a minimum embedment of 18 inches below the top of the lowest adjacent concrete slab surface, however, a minimum penetration of 12 inches into the soil is required. All footings should be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 reinforcing bars, two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom of the footing. 2. A grade beam, reinforced as above, and at least 12 inches square, should be utilized across the garage entrances. The base of this reinforcement grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjoining footings. 3. Concrete slabs should be underlain by a four inch sand base. Where moisture condensation is undesirable, a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of six mil polyvinyl chloride membrane with all laps sealed should be provided, one inch of moist sand should be placed over the membrane to aide in uniform curing of the concrete. 4. Concrete slabs, including garages, should be reinforced with six inch by six inch, No. 6 by No. 6, welded wire mesh or GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALIACE L. RNUTE K.O. 1004 -SD MARCH 17, 1989 PAGE 14 its equivalent. All slab reinforcement should be properly supported to ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the slab. 5. Garage slabs should be poured separately from the residence footings and be quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings should be maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement. 6. Presaturation is recommended for these soil conditions. The moisture condition of the garage and residence slab areas should be at least 120 percent of optimum moisture or greater to a depth of 18 inches below slab grade and verified by this office within 48 hours to pouring concrete. Very Highly Expansive Soils 1. Exterior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface. Interior footings should have a minimum embedment of 18 inches below the top of the lowest adjacent concrete slab surface, however, a minimum penetration of 12 inches into the soil is required. Interior isolated piers are not recommended. All footings should be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 reinforcing bars, two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom of the footing. Exterior post supports GeoSoils, Inc. KR. WALLACE L. KNOTS W.O. 1004 -SD MARCH 17, 1989 PAGE 15 should be founded at a depth of 30 inches below the lowest adjacent grade and tied to the main foundation. 2. A grade beam, a minimum of 12 inches wide should be utilized across the garage entrances. The base of this reinforced grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjoining footings. 3. Concrete slabs should be underlain with a four inch moist sand base. Where moisture condensation is undesirable, a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of six mil polyvinyl chloride membrane with all laps sealed should be provided. one inch of moist sand should be placed over the membrane to aid in uniform curing of the concrete. 4. Concrete slabs should be reinforced with six inch by six inch, No. 6 by No. 6, welded wire mesh or its equivalent. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the slab. 5. Presaturation is recommended for these soil conditions. The moisture condition of each slab area should be 120 percent of optimum moisture or greater to a depth of 24 inches below subgrade and verified by this office within 48 hours prior to pouring slabs. GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. RNUTE MARCH 17, 1989 W.O. 1004 -SD PAGE 16 Post Tensioning As an alternative to the above designs, a post tensioned foundation system may be utilized. If used, we recommend that perimeter cut -off walls consistent with the above footing depths, be provided and presaturation to the above recommended moisture contents be obtained. Retaining Walls Retaining walls may be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure as shown on the following table, provided highly expansive soils are not used as backfill. Surface Slope of Equivalent Retained Material Fluid Weight Horizontal to Vertical P.c.f. Level 30 5 to 1 32 4 to 1 35 3 to 1 38 2 to 1 43 Retaining walls should be provided with a pipe and gravel backdrain or weepholes covered with a minimum of 12 inches of gravel, a compacted fill blanket at the surface, and proper surface drainage devices. Footings may be designed as per the "Foundation Recommendations" section of this report. If the passive earth pressure is added to the friction, then the passive pressure should be reduced by one third. GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. IMM ?LARCH 17, 1989 W.O. 1004 -SD PAGE 17 Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition. Earthwork Factors Based upon our test results and experience with similar materials, we believe that the following factors may be applied to bulking and shrinkage of materials on the site for preliminary purposes: Topsoil and Slopewash Bedrock 8 to 10% Shrinkage 8 to 15% Bulking Grading Guidelines Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of the City of Encinitas, Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code and the Grading Guidelines presented in Appendix I, included with this report. The recommendations in the text of this report supersede those in the Grading Guidelines. Plan Review specific grading plans should be submitted to this office for review and comment to minimize any misunderstandings between the plans and recommendations presented herein. In addition, foundation excavations and earthwork performed on the site should be observed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. GeoSoiis, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. RNDTE W.O. 1004 -SD LIMITATIONS MARCH 17, 1989 PAGE 18 The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory study are believed to be representative of the total area. However, soil and bedrock materials may vary in character between excavat based on the testing and recommendations been derived in and no warranty ions and natural outcrops. site materials observed, engineering analyses, t are professional opinions. accordance with the current is expressed or implied. Since our study is selective laboratory he conclusions and These opinions have standards of practice If you should have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate Very truly yours, GeoSoils Inc. Edward P. Lump C i c RCE 3500 Staff Geologies Principal Enqineer 2 Princi'fal Geologist EPL /CEL /TEM /mlc Enclosures: Plate 1 - Preliminary Geotechnical Map Table 1 - Test Pit Logs Appendix I - Grading Guidelines GeoSoils, Inc. LEGEND ._ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP rQa �. TEST PIT LOCATION MAP 56 O 50 - 100 �Y� i ARTIFICIAL FILL LEGAL PE9CRiPT1ON' PARCEL 4AND PARCEL 2 OF P.M.. NO.7Co5lor P,�EING A SCALE �- I" =100' ALLUVIUM P ORTIOKI OF SANTIAGO PEAR VOLCANICs A55E�i FORS PARCEL NO. 2ro4 03t 03 04 TAX AREA 19073 GEOLOGIC CONTACT 7 \,I ,All locations are approximate.. N PROPOeeO 8 °SEWEf� --i \ \ _ (erl o7NERS) ro 14 =28 220p R �O 07 I -0- — 74% 40 PROP05ED8 ? O _.Lr9gp4 OOp;.ti�e`'� ", 9a P 1 � � 2 �r / / I Nay Ge ae e- Jsp` TP-7 -I� T \ Jsp �, PARCEL 1� /\ P1�EtGEt 3° _ ' A -PA%CEL cl AREA 2,587 AC ( �OO\� \ CROSS AREA 458 AC NET AREA 423 R�/ `,` rye °SP ^8 i CROSS AREA AO \N AREA 3 AC: \ y n �\� P_ 19 NET\AREA 5 C. Nb8 3420 ❑ resoi TP_ \ 1n, 90 NSe. 1 .q,•�,.$'':„ _ _. �. __ 6i � 3 \.: l " ,m" . A2EA 5UF3./ECT TO /NUNDAT /ON -- / - 3, ��''t� Thr'E /00 YeAR FLOOD i a OZ, / � J V ro / , � r(Ni. .... k W 29 4 y s,vT e __� HILL LANE WAS TYPICAL SECTION LONE HILL LANE PRIVATE ROAD OWNER /SU2 D1VIC7ER� \ r f l I WALLACE L. KNUTE' 1955 PAC {FIG GENT£2 pjOULEVA(ZD 5AN DIEGO, CALIF09_M;- 92121 (619) 455 -1115 JOSEPH J MANNO AND NAh1C/Y' A. MANNO GIZ05E,k,rZEA1 I0.I7 ACRES THREE IZESIDENTIAL LOTS MINIMUM NET A.IZEA EACH LOT= 2 4,CQE5 PKE =SEhIT AND PROPOSED ZONING I5 RR .5 WATER °iERV10E' OL\VEt-llAA.IN WATER. D\15TR\CT 5E\NER 9EI2VIGE; CARDIFF '3ANlTARY p15TRlCT FIRE` PROTECTION: ENCINITAS FIRE" DEPARTMENT 9Ci -{OOL 015TRICTCa: ENCINITAS ELEMENTARY 6.17 5AN PtEGU1T0 HIGH rO.R FIZl=5PIJ•T USE VACANT PROPOSIED USE; SINGLL PAM. PIES °CONCEPTUNC ARFA TO B1= GRADED 7FCR BUILDING PAD AND DRIVEWAY PROPO> -D OPEN SPACE- ° EASDMENT PREPARED 6Y� CM EMGINEERiWG Aci50CIATIES INC. 550 WFIIT VI11TAWAYI 2UITE 308 MIEL2O5E PLAZA PO Ploy, 2108 VISTA�CAL.IFORNIA 92085 (619)7118 -3m8C) p(Z.EPA42Ep' '- �I°i89 Dg�}IE �'UPERV1510N OF�I G, 1.03 A R . ERWOE 00. RANGE B BAN DIEGO CO.' PROJECT PARQrnL W.O.11 -$D DATE 3 -89 SCALE ,x_ /_89 PLATE GIZ05E,k,rZEA1 I0.I7 ACRES THREE IZESIDENTIAL LOTS MINIMUM NET A.IZEA EACH LOT= 2 4,CQE5 PKE =SEhIT AND PROPOSED ZONING I5 RR .5 WATER °iERV10E' OL\VEt-llAA.IN WATER. D\15TR\CT 5E\NER 9EI2VIGE; CARDIFF '3ANlTARY p15TRlCT FIRE` PROTECTION: ENCINITAS FIRE" DEPARTMENT 9Ci -{OOL 015TRICTCa: ENCINITAS ELEMENTARY 6.17 5AN PtEGU1T0 HIGH rO.R FIZl=5PIJ•T USE VACANT PROPOSIED USE; SINGLL PAM. PIES °CONCEPTUNC ARFA TO B1= GRADED 7FCR BUILDING PAD AND DRIVEWAY PROPO> -D OPEN SPACE- ° EASDMENT PREPARED 6Y� CM EMGINEERiWG Aci50CIATIES INC. 550 WFIIT VI11TAWAYI 2UITE 308 MIEL2O5E PLAZA PO Ploy, 2108 VISTA�CAL.IFORNIA 92085 (619)7118 -3m8C) p(Z.EPA42Ep' '- �I°i89 Dg�}IE �'UPERV1510N OF�I Ik THE SUBDIVIDER AGREES TO DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF ENCINITAS AND LS ,x_ /_89 AGENTS, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES .ROM ANY CLAIM, ACTION OR PROCEEDING AGAINST THE* CITY OF RGO. DPTE ENCINITAS OR ITS AGENTS, OFFICERS DR EMPLOYEES TO ATTACK, SET ASIDE, VOID OR ANNUVAN APPROVAL FRO'' THE CITY OF ENCINITAS CONCERNING THIS SUBDIVISION WHEN SUCH ACTION IS EROUGHT WITHIN THE . VICINITY MAP TIME PERIOD SPECIFIED IN GOV. CODE SECTION 66499.37. THIS CERTIFICATE IS - CONDITIONED UPONTHE � NOT TO 0Cl�.LE CITY OF ENCINITAS PROVIDING PROMPT NOTICE TO THE SUBDIVIDER AS PROVIDED BY THE ACT. l,�(jtA_=L, "��, TABLE I Test Pit Location Depth (ft.) Material Description TP -1 0 -4.5 TOPSOIL /ALIUVIIIM - medium to dark brown sandy CLAY, loose, soft to medium stiff, porous, occasional rootlets, moist. 4.5 -6 HIGHLY WEATHERED BEDROCK (SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS) - Mottled highly decomposed VOLCANIC ROCK, predominately sandy clay with volcanic clasts up to 4" in diameter, soft to moderate stiff, locally porous, locally moist. Total Depth= 6 Feet Hole Backfilled TP -2 0 -2.5 TOPSOIL /SLOPEWASH - Dark brown sandy CLAY, loose, soft, porous, occasional rootlets, moist. 2.5-6 HIGHLY WEATHERED BEDROCK (SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS) - Multi- colored to brown highly decomposed VOLCANIC ROCK, sandy clay with volcanic clasts up to 3" in diameter, loose, soft to moderate stiff, blocky, locally friable, slightly moist. Total Depth= 6 Feet Hole Backfilled GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE KNUTE K.O. 1004 -SD Location TP -3 TABLE I Test Pit Loa Depth (ft.I Material Description 0 -1 TOPSOIL /SLDPEWASH - Dark brown, sandy CLAY, loose, soft, porous, occasional rootlets, moist. 1-4 HIGHLY WEATHERED BEDROCK (SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICSI - Multi- colored yellow /brown, highly decomposed VOLCANIC PEAK, sandy clay with volcanic clasts, loose, soft to moderately stiff, blocky, locally friable, locally moist. 4 -5 WEATHERED BEDROCK - Orange - brown, weathered VOLCANIC ROCK, random fractures, blocky, dense, hard, dry. Localized practical refusal @5'. GeoSoils, Inc. Total Depth= 5 Feet Hole Backfilled MR. WALLACE IaroTE W.O. 1004 -SD Location TP -4 MARCH 1989 f T-T�W Test Pit Log Depth (ft.1 Material Description 0 -1 TOPSOIUSLOPEWASH - Dark brown, sandy CLAY, loose, soft, porous, occasional rootlets, moist. 1 -2 HIGHLY WEATHERED BEDROCK (SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS) - Orange to light brown, highly decomposed VOLCANIC ROCK, sandy clay with volcanic clasts up to 8" diameter, locally loose and friable to dense, blocky, locally moist. 2 -2.5 WEATHERED BEDROCK - Orange brown, weathered VOLCANIC ROCK, random fractures, blocky, dense, hard, dry. Practical Refusal @ 2.5 Feet Hole Backfilled GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE KNOTE W.O. 1004 -SD Location TP -5 �ti W715 =-, TABLE I Test Pit Log Depth (ft.) Material Description 0-2 TOPSOIL /SIAPEWASH - Dark brown, sandy CLAY, loose, soft, porous, occasional rootlets and worm borings, moist. 2-3 HIGHLY WEATHERED BEDROCK (SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS) - Orange- yellow- brown, highly WEATHERED VOLCANICS, sandy clay with volcanic clasts up to 3" in diameter, locally loose and friable to dense, porous, locally dry to moist. 3 -3.5 WEATHERED BEDROCK - Orange - brown, weathered VOLCANIC ROCK, random fractures, blocky, dense, hard, dry. Practical Refusal @ 3.5 Feet Hole Backfilled GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE KNOTE W.O. 1004 -SD Location TP -6 mrvc- TABLE I Test Pit Loa Depth (ft.)_ Material Description 0-2 TOPSOIL /SLOPEWASH - Dark brown, sandy CLAY, loose, soft, porous, occasional rootlets, moist. 2 -3.5 HIGHLY WEATHERED VOLCANICS (SANTIAGO PEAR VOLCANICS) - Mottled to grayish - brown, highly decomposed VOLCANIC ROCKS, weathered to sandy clay with volcanic clasts up to 3" in diameter, blocky, locally loose to dense, locally porous, moist. 3.5 -4 WEATHERED BEDROCK - Orange brown, weathered VOLCANICS random fractures, blocky, dense, hard, dry. Practical Refusal @ 4 Feet Hole Backfilled GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE KNDTE N.O. 1004 -SD Location TP -7 I.M*101.iLFI7 TABLE I Test Pit Loa Depth (ft.) Material Description 0 -1 TOPSOIL /SLOPEWASH - Dark brown, sandy CLAY, loose, soft, porous, occasional rootlets and worm borings, moist. 1 -2 HIGHLY WEATHERED VOLCANICS (SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS) - orange- brown, highly decomposed VOLCANIC ROCKS, decomposes to sandy clay, locally loose and friable to dense, dry. 2-2.5 WEATHERED BEDROCK - Orange - brown, weathered VOLCANIC ROCK, random fractures, blocky, dense and hard, dry. Practical Refusal @ 2.5 Feet Hole Backfilled GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE KNUTE W.O. 1004 -SD TABLE I i''f - iiWE Test Pit Loy Location Depth (ft.)- Material Descrintion TP -8 0-1 TOPSOIL /SLOPEWASH - Dark brown, sandy CLAY, loose, soft, porous, rootlets, moist. 1 -2.5 HIGHLY WEATHERED VOLCANICS (SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS) - Orange- brown, highly decomposed VOLCANIC ROCK, decomposes to sandy clay with volcanic clasts up to 4" in diameter, locally loose and friable to dense, slightly moist. 2.5 -3 WEATHERED BEDROCK - Orange - brown, weathered VOLCANIC ROCK random fractures, blocky, dense, hard, dry. Practical Refusal @ 3 Feet Hole Backfilled GeoSolls, Inc. APPENDIX I GRADING GUIDELINES GeoSoils, Inc. GRADING GUIDELINES Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of the governing agencies, Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code and the guidelines presented below: 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 Soil Engineer. Light, dry grasses may be thinly scattered and incorporated into the fill under direction of the Soils Engineer, provided concentrations of organics are not developed. Subdrainage 1. Subdrainage systems should be provided in all canyon bottoms and within buttress and stabilization fills prior to placing fill. Subdrains should conform to schematic diagrams GS -1, GS -3, and GS -4, approved by the Soils Engineer. For canyon subdrains, runs less than 500 feet may use six inch pipe. Runs in excess of 500 feet should have the lower end as eight inch minimum. 2. Filter material should be Class 2 permeable filter material per California Department of Transportation Standards tested by the Soil Engineer to verify its suitability. A sample of the material should be provided GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. RNUTE W.O. 1004 -SD GRADING GUIDELINES PAGE 2 MARCH 17, 1989 to the Soil Engineer by the contractor at least two working days before it is delivered to the site. The filter should be clean with a wide range of sizes. As an alternative to the Class 2 filter, the material may be a 50/50 mix of pea gravel and clean concrete sand which is well mixed, or clean gravel wrapped in a suitable filter fabric. 3. An exact delineation of anticipated subdrain locations may be determined at 40 scale plan review stage. During grading,the Engineering Geologist should evaluate the necessity of placing additional drains. 4. All subdrainage systems should be observed by the Engineering Geologist and Soils Engineer during construction and prior to covering with compacted fill. 5. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project surveyors. Outlets should be located and protected. Treatment of Existing Ground I. All heavy vegetation, rubbish and other deleterious materials should be disposed of off site. GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. RNUTE W.O. 1004 -SD GRADING GUIDELINES PAGE 3 MARCH 17, 1989 2. All surficial deposits of alluvium and colluvium should be removed (see Plate GS -1) 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. All site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see report). 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 Soil Engineer. GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. KNUTE W.O. 1004 -SD GRADING GUIDELINES PAGE 4 MARCH 17, 1989 3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that acceptable to the Soil 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 -78. 4. Side -hill fills should have an equipment -width key at their toe excavated through all surficial soil and into competent material and tilted back into the hill (GS -2, GS -6). As the fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial soil and slopewash, and into competent bedrock or other material deemed suitable by the Soil Engineer. GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. ROUTE MARCH 17, 1989 N.O. 1004 -SD GRADING GUIDELINES PAGE 5 5. Rock fragments less than eight 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 Soil Engineer. 6. Rocks greater than eight inches in diameter should be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soil Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal (See GS -5). 7. In clay soil large chunks or blocks are common; if in excess of eight (8) inches minimum dimension then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break the up blocks. 8. The Contractor should be required relative compaction of 90 percent slope face of fill slopes. This either overbuilding the slope and compacted core, or by direct compact with suitable equipment. GeoSoils, Inc. to obtain a minimum out to the finished may be achieved by cutting back to the ion of the slope face MR. WALLACE L. RNUTE W.O. 1004 -SD GRADING GUIDELINES PAGE 6 MARCH 17, 1989 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 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 Soil 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 GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. RNUTE W.O. 1004 -SD GRADING GUIDELINES PAGE 7 manner: MARCH 17, 1969 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 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 three foot thick compacted fill blanket. 11. Cut pads should be observed by the Engineering 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 GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. RNUTE MARCH 17, 1989 W.O. 1004 -SD GRADING GUIDELINES PAGE S overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation may be recommended in some cases. 12. Exploratory backhoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. Grading Observation and Testing 1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by the Soil 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 Soil Engineer. 4. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdra ins and rock disposal should be observed by the Soil Engineer prior to placing any fill. It will be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. RNUTE MARCH 17, 1989 W.O. 1004 -SD GRADING GUIDELINES PAGE 9 Soil Engineer when such areas are ready for observation. 5. An Engineering Geologist should observe subdrain construction. 6. An Engineering 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 GeoSoils, Inc. MR. WALLACE L. RNUTE W.O. 1004 -SD GRADING GUIDELINES PAGE 10 MARCH 17, 1989 laboratory standard. Sand backfill, until 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. GeoSoils, Inc. Final Grade iginol ground Loose Surface Deposits Suitable _ Material Bench where slope exceeds 5:1 GeoSo rs�,. Inc. L; 1 . ' 1 1 Suitable Material Subdrain (See Plate GS -3) TYPICAL TREATMENT OF NATURAL GROUND TE 3/89 W0. N0. 1004 -SD 113y GSI Soil Mechanics • Geology • Foundation Engineering PLATE GS -1 TOE SHOWN ON _ GRADING PLAN r �� q' G e / PROJECTED �� as gyp CC �� ` Go xx ./_ / / / / I, N NATURAL / �aps0%� SLOPE / 2 /" i Minimum 15 Minimum t!10' Typical BEDROCK OR FIRM FORMATION MATERIAL Note: Where natural slope gradient is 531 or less, benching is not necessary unless stripping did not remove all compressible material. C- > . GeoSo „�s Inc. TYPICAL FILL OVER NATURAL SLOPE DATE 3/89 W.O. NO. 1004 -SD BY CSI Soil Mechanics • Geology • Foundation Engineering DI ATC r4 -5) ALTERNATE I SOIL- SLOPEWASH y ALLUVIUM REMOVED TO BEDROCK BEDROCK ALTERNATE 2 Canyon subdrain = 6" perforated pipe wi th 9 cu. ft. gravel *per ft. of drain. 3 �; 6" perforated pipe with 9 cu. ft. gravel* per ft. of drain A gravel to conform to State of Calif. Dept. of Public Works standard specifications for Class 2 permeable material. GeoSols, I »c. CANYON SUBDRAIN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DATE 3/89 IW.O.NO 1004-SD IBY GS, ' Soil Mechanics " Geology • Foundation Engineering PLATE GS -3 36' THICK FILL CAP FINISHED 2%--. SURFACE V. SURFA �;�'��` ND ORIGINAL. . • I _,_' .— COMPACTED A _ FILL. D (See drain detail) , , /;,� CC 4 "perforated pipe A. Buttress slope to have a bench (or approved equivalent) placed in I cu. ft. per at every 20 to 30 feet. linear ft. of graded B. Buttress key depth varies. (see filter material." preliminary reports) Pipe to extend • full length of , �•. buttress. C. Buttress key width varies. (see . •' preliminary reports) 4" nonperforated J 0. Backdrains and lateral drains " locoted at elevation of every pipe toteral to ;,Pipe I — slope face at - above bench drain. First drain at 100' intervals bench elevation just above lower lot �•_ grade. Additional drains may be required at discretion of *Graded filter material to GeoSoils, Inc. conform to State of Calif. Dept., Public Works standard specifications for Class 2 Permeable material TYPICAL BUTTRESS SECTION GeoSo1 s, Inc• DATE 3/89 W.O. Na 1004 -SD BY GSI Soil Mechanics • Geology • Foundation Engineering PLATF (;S -4 W I FILL I SLOPE CLEAR ZONE tEQUIPMENT WIDTH Stack boulders end to end. Do not pile upon each other. Soil shall be pushed over rocks and flooded into voids. Compact around and over each windrow. — �- 10' Typical -� — - -� -- —0 — FILL FILL SLOPE Stagger rows IN —O o C) `�._ 15• 3� minimum Minimum ° o o a� o� _ �-15' Min. -+I ` FIRM `GROUND GeoSor Inc. ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL DATE 3/89 W0. NQ 1004 -SD jBy GSI Soil Mechanics • Geology • Foundation Engineering PLATE G3 -S REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM AND CREEP MATERIAL FROM TRANSZTION OVER CUT FILL DATE IlR9 W.O. NQ BY GSI Typica l / {� 10• Typical CUT SLOPE ! • M 15 n mum GeoSok2r 7 l ac. _ VIA s BEDROCK OR FIRM FORMATION MATERIAL TYPICAL FILL OVER CUT SLOPE DATE IlR9 W.O. NQ BY GSI Soil Mechanics • Geology • Foundation Engineering July 8, 1998 City of Encinitas Engineering Department JUL - 9 • Civil Engineering • Land Planning • Structural • Surveying RE- HYDROLOGY EVALUATION - KNUTE /MANNO PARCEL MAP CITY OF ENCINITAS TPM 92 -038 — DRAWING NO. 5520 -G Gentlemen: Please allow this letter to serve as a hydrology evaluation for the subject grading plan/project. Based on our direct experience with this parcel map, it is obvious that the drainage basin for this site and each individual parcel is basically the site itself. Assuming rural drainage design, it is conservatively estimated that the 100 -year storm over each parcel would be approximately 2.0 CFS. The grading plan proposes that each individual lot be graded on it's own as "custom" in nature. The existing street, Lone Hill Lane, is intercepting all drainage to the north. Basically, the entire project is located at the top of its own drainage basin and has no other significant drainage entering onto the site. Sheet flow, swales, berms and brow ditches, should adequately handle each lot and the entire site in general. Ultimately, about a quarter of the drainage will be routed onto Lone Hill Lane, with the remainder being directed towards the "creek ", which is directly south of this parcel map. As Engineer of Work for this project/grading plan, we respectively request your acceptance of this hydrology evaluation. Should you have any questions or comments, please feetfiree to contact this office or respond, as such, with plan check comments. L. v v �I ¢ *I C 39726 Douglas E. Logan, R.C.E. 39726 l\ ` \Exp. 12.31 -01 Principal C1V�a�r OF CAUF� 132 N. El Camino Real, Suite N • Encinitas, CA 92024 Fax /Phone 760 - 942 -8474 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT City p Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Encinitas Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Complaints Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering November 30, 1999 attn: Sharon Levy, Loan Processor San Diego National Bank 1420 Kettner Boulevard San Diego, CA 92101 Re: Tract 92 -038 tTPMI "Custom Series @ Knights Bridge Country Estates" Grading Permit 5520GI (3251, 3277, 3311 Lone Hill Ln /Olivenhain Colony VI) A.P.N. 264- 231 -03,04 Final release of security Permit 5520GI authorized earthwork, drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to construct three single family dwellings within the named subdivision. Final inspection has been completed to the satisfaction of the Field Operations Division, effective October 29, 1999. Therefore, release of any remaining security obligation is merited. Letter of Credit 1569, in the initial amount of $56,830.00, since reduced to $14,207.50, and subsequently matured, is hereby released in its entirety. The original document is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Jeff Garami at (760) 633 -2780 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Greg hields Senior Civil Engineer Field Operations cc Leslie Suelter, Financial Services Manager Venture Pacific Development, General Partner (point of delivery) enc PGS /jsg/92- 038f.doc l TEL 760 - 633 -2600 1 FAX 760 - 633 - 2627 505 S. Vulcan Avcnue, Encinitas. California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 - 6332700 � recycled paper G /- 'A City of Encinitas November 16, 1998 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT attn: Sharon Levy, Loan Processor San Diego National Bank 1420 Kenner Boulevard San Diego, CA 92101 Re: .k , :. Grading Permit 5520GI (3251, 3277, 3311 Lone Hill Ln/Olivenhain Colony VI) A.P.N. 264-231-03,04 Partial release of security Dear Ms. Levy, Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering Permit 5520G1 authorized the earthwork, drainage improvements, and erosion control necessary to construct a single family dwelling on each of three residential lots within the named subdivision. Rough grading approval has been granted by the Field Operations Division. Therefore, a reduction in the posted security deposit is merited. Letter of Credit 1569, in the amount of $56,830.00, may be reduced by 75% to $14,207.50. The original document shall be retained by the City. Satisfactory completion of final grading inspection is a prerequisite for release of the remainder. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Jeff Garami at (760) 633 -2780 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Zl Blair A. Knoll Acting Senior Civil Engineer Subdivision Engineering cc Leslie Sucher, Financial Services Manager Venture Pacific Development, General Partner (point of delivery) BAK/jsg/92- 038.doc 1 TEL 760 - 633 -2600 / FAX 760 - 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Enciniras. California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 -633 -2700 1� recycled paper JUL - 9 1998 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY RIPPABILITY INVESTIGATION Lone Hill Lane Parcels 1, 2 and 3 Tentative Map 92 -038 Encinitas, California JOB NO. 98 -7300 22 June 1998 Prepared for: VENTURE PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT Mr. Robert Booker 4�G � °o 4 rEANDD GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 22 June 1998 Mr. Robert Booker VENTURE PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT P.O. Box 231639 Encinitas, CA 92023 Job No. 98 -7300 Subject: Report of GeoteQbnical Review and Preliminary Rippability Investigation Lone Hill Lane Parcels 1, 2 and 3; Tentative Map 92 -038 Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Booker: In accordance with your request, we have performed a review of existing geotechnical documents for the three -lot project, and performed a preliminary rippability investigation of the on -site bedrock materials. Based on our site visit and document review, we are providing updated recommendations for some aspects of site development as well as an updated seismicity evaluation. We have clearly identified recommendation changes and additions to the March 17, 1989, report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. All remaining portions of their report were found to be valid and acceptable. In addition to our geotechnical review, we have conducted three seismic refraction survey lines near the deepest proposed cut locations or at locations of the most obvious rock outcrop. The rock velocities obtained from the survey were utilized in conjunction with the GeoSoils, Inc. backhoe trench refusal depths to evaluate the potential need for blasting during mass grading and the need for over - excavation to facilitate footing and utility trenching. In general, our geotechnical recommendation changes and additions are relatively minor and the site grading should require minimal blasting. Large rock or "floaters" to several feet in diameter may, however, be encountered. Although we expect this rock will be movable with D -8 or larger -sized grading equipment, some larger rocks may require blasting to smaller sized rock depending upon your intended use of the rock materials. Consideration may be given to using some of the largest rock for landscape purposes. 7420 TRADE STREET • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 • (619) 549 -7222 • FAX (619) 549 -1604 Page 2 Although it appears the pads can be graded to rough pad grade with minimal blasting, most of the bedrock is too dense for conventional backhoe trenching. Over - excavation to footing or utility line depths will, therefore, be required. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned. Reference to our Job No. 98 -7300 will help to expedite a response to your iaR"iri. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. Leslie D. Reed, President C.E.G. 999/R.G. 3391 Jaime A. Cerros,'E_ R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 Senior Geotechnical Engineer LDR /JAC /pj LESLIE Q. D- REED No 999 CERTIFIED ENGINEERIMG GEOLOGIST r�Q �' "OF CA�I�� o�:\)rLssro;yf \, Q �O\ w No.002C07 m Exn 7,1309 ., 4�i� 10 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY RIPPABILITY INVESTIGATION Lone Hill Lane Parcels 1, 2 and 3; Tentative Map 92 -038 Encinitas, California JOB NO. 98 -7300 L /NTRODUCT /ON In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the "Preliminary Geotechnical Study, APN 264 - 231 -03 and -04, Lone Hill Lane, Community of Olivenhain, Encinitas, California," prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., and dated March 17, 1989. In general, the report provides appropriate site descriptions and geotechnical infor- mation concerning site development. Technical advances and changes in methods of addressing problematic soil issues do occur over time. We have, therefore, updated certain recommendations. Recommendation changes are referenced by page number and recommendation number in the GeoSoils, Inc. report. Our understanding of regional seismicity has advanced substantially since 1989. An entire new seismicity section is, therefore, provided. Our discussion of site rippability is based on both the trench logs and noted trench refusal depths provided in the GeoSoils, Inc. report, as well as on three seismic refraction survey lines placed on the property. In addition to our discussions, we have provided Figure No. I, which includes test trench locations from the GeoSoils, Inc., Plate I, to illustrate bedrock depth and hardness information as well as the location of our three seismic refraction lines. CARD Lone Hill Lane Encinitas. California Job No. 98 -7300 Page 3 3. The polyvinyl chloride membrane thickness should be increased from 6 -mil to 10 -mil thickness and the sand on top of the visqueen should be increased to 2 inches. 4. Concrete slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick and be reinforced with No. 3 steel bars placed on 18 -inch centers. Page 14: 6. Soil moisture contents below all slabs should be a minimum of 4 percent above optimum moisture. In addition, soil compaction levels should be maintained between 88 and 92 percent of ASTM D 1557-91 for material smaller than 3/4 -inch. Preliminary Foundation Recommendation -- Very Hiahly —Expansive Soil Page 14: 1 . Minimum footing embedment should be increased from 24 to 30 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface. Footing reinforcement should be increased to four No. 5 reinforcing bars; two placed near the top of the footing and two near the bottom. Page 15: 3. The PVC membrane should be increased from 6- to 10 -mil thickness. 4. The concrete slabs of minimum 5 -inch thickness should be reinforced with No. 3 steel bars placed on 18 -inch centers. All construction joints (including the driveway, patio, pool deck, and sidewalk areas) must be properly dowelled to reduce the potential for differential offsets at joints. 5. Soil moisture contents below all slabs should be a minimum of 5 percent over optimum moisture. Lone Hill Lane Job No. 98 -7300 Encinitas, California Page 6 An estimation of the peak ground acceleration and the repeatable high ground acceleration (RHGA) likely to occur at the project site by the known significant local and regional faults within 100 miles of the site, is included in Tables 1 and 2 (see Appendix A). Also, a listing of the known historic seismic events that have occurred within 100 miles of the site at a magnitude of 5.0 or greater since the year 1800, and the probability of exceeding the experienced ground accelerations in the future based upon the historical record, is provided in Table 3 of Appendix A. The Modified Mercalli Scale of 1931 is provided as Table 4 of Appendix A. It is our opinion that a known "active" fault presents the greatest seismic risk to the subject site during the lifetime of the proposed residence. To date, the nearest known "active" faults to the subject site are the northwest - trending Rose Canyon Fault, the Offshore Zone of Deformation, the Coronado Bank Fault and the Elsinore Fault (see Figure No. II Regional Fault Map). Rose Canyon Fault: The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located approximately 8.2 miles west of the subject site, is mapped trending north -south from Oceanside to downtown San Diego, from where it appears to head southward into San Diego Bay, through Coronado and offshore. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered to be a complex zone of onshore and offshore, en echelon strike slip, oblique reverse, and oblique normal faults. The Rose Canyon Fault is considered to be capable of causing a 7.0- magnitude earthquake and considered microseismically active, although no significant recent earthquake is known to have occurred on the fault. Investigative work on faults (part of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone) at the Police Administration and Technical Center in downtown San Diego and at the SDG &E facility in Rose Canyon, has encountered offsets of Holocene (geologically recent) CAN Lone Hill Lane Job No. 98 -7300 Encinitas, California Page 8 Like the other faults in the San Andreas system, the Elsinore Fault is a transverse fault showing predominantly right - lateral movement. According to Hart, et al. (1979), this movement averages less than 1 centimeter per year. Along most of its length, the Elsinore Fault Zone is marked by a bold topographic expression consisting of linearly aligned ridges, swales and hallows. Faulted Holocene alluvial deposits (believed to be less than 11,000 years old) found along several segments of the fault zone suggest that at least part of the zone is currently active. Although the Elsinore Fault Zone belongs to the San Andreas set of active, northwest - trending, right -slip faults in the southern California area (Crowell, 1962), it has not been the site of a major earthquake (7.0 or greater) in historic time. A 6.0- magnitude quake did occur near the town of Elsinore in 1910 (Richter, 1958; Toppozada and Parke, 1982). However, based on length and evidence of late - Pleistocene or Holocene displacement, Greensfelder (1974) has estimated that the Elsinore Fault Zone is reasonably capable of generating an earthquake with a magnitude as large as 7.5. Recent study and logging of exposures in trenches in Glen Ivy Marsh across the Glen Ivy North Fault (a strand of the Elsinore Fault Zone between Corona and Lake Elsinore), suggest a maximum earthquake recurrence interval of 300 years, and when combined with previous estimates of the long -term horizontal slip rate of 0.8 to 7.0 mm /year, suggest typical earthquake magnitudes of 6 to 7 (Rockwell, 1985). B. Seismic Hazards Ground Rupture: Ground rupture is characterized by bedrock slippage along an established fault and may result in displacement of the ground surface. For ground 4f�rMo Lone Hill Lane Job No, 98 -7300 Encinitas, California Page 9 rupture to occur along a fault, an earthquake usually exceeds magnitude 5.0. If a 5.0- magnitude earthquake were to take place on a local fault, an estimated surface - rupture length 1 mile long could be expected (Greensfelder, 1974). In our opinion, the risk of ground rupture at the site is remote. Ground Shaking: Structural damage caused by seismically induced ground shaking is a detrimental effect directly related to faulting and earthquake activity. Ground shaking is considered to be the greatest seismic hazard in San Diego County. The intensity of ground shaking is dependent on the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the earthquake, and local seismic condition. Earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 Richter scale or greater are generally associated with significant damage. It is our opinion that the most serious damage to the site would be caused by a large earthquake originating on a nearby strand of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Although the chance of such an event is remote, it could occur within the useful life of the structure. The anticipated ground accelerations at the site from earthquakes on faults within 100 miles of the site are provided in Tables 1 and 2, Appendix A. Liquefaction: The liquefaction of saturated sands during earthquakes can be a major cause of damage to buildings. Liquefaction is the process in which soils are transformed into a dense fluid which will flow as a liquid when unconfined. It occurs principally in loose, saturated sands and silts when they are shaking by an earthquake. a� [ANo Lone Hill Lane Job No. 98 -7300 Encinitas, California Page 10 On this site, the risk of liquefaction of foundation material due to seismic shaking is considered to be remote due to the dense nature of the natural - ground material and the lack of a shallow water table under the site. Summary: It is our opinion, based upon a review of the available information and our site investigation, that the site is underlain by dense bedrock materials and no significant seismic hazard is known to exist on the site. The owner should understand that there is some risk associated with any construction in western San Diego County due to the proximity of the existing Rose Canyon Fault, which is considered "active ". A structural engineer should be asked to review the ground acceleration possible at the site from the Rose Canyon Fault (see Appendix A, Table 1). The maximum probable repeatable high ground acceleration (RHGA) anticipated is 0.105g. Based upon the owner's level of risk acceptance and cost concerns, the structural engineer can provide a number of structural alternatives to help improve the stability of the structure against seismic - related damage. We have utilized a Huntec FS -3 seismograph to obtain bedrock velocity information where the most significant cuts are proposed on the site and where obvious bedrock exposures exist. It is our understanding that cut depths may range from 8 to 16 feet during the grading of the three pads. The deepest cuts will be on the central and eastern parcels, i.e., Parcels 2 and 3. In addition, we have reviewed 4(T'� °a Lone Hill Lane Job No. 98 -7300 Encinitas, California Page 11 the trench logs by GeoSoils, Inc., which often indicated the depth to bedrock materials giving refusal to backhoe trenching equipment The purpose of obtaining seismic velocity information and reviewing trench logs was to aid in evaluation of rock rippability and the potential need for blasting the rock prior to earthmoving operations or over - excavating rock during grading operations. Based on our visual observation of bedrock outcrop characteristics and review of the test trenches, as well as bedrock velocities ranging from approximately 2,900 to 5,500 feet per second, it is our opinion that bedrock materials to a depth of 20 to 25 feet below existing ground surface can be moved utilizing conventional D -8 size grading equipment. Single shank ripping may, however, be required. As with most crystalline bedrock grading operations, some harder rock (up to several feet in diameter) could be encountered. In addition, bedrock surface irregularities may result in shallower hard rock depths between the locations of actual seismic lines. These rock masses may require blasting on an individual basis to allow their removal by dozer equipment. It should be expected that grading of the on -site bedrock materials will produce a certain quantity of oversized rock, i.e., rock too large to be used in the relatively shallow thickness fill pads. Such larger rock can be individually shot down to smaller size if desired, or retained for large -rock landscape purposes. Although the seismic velocities suggest the mass grading to rough pad grade can be conducted with conventional D -8 size grade equipment, the velocities and exploratory trenching both indicate footing and utility trenching of in -place rock materials may not be possible. We, therefore, must recommend over - excavation to 4�G1[ o Lone Hill Lane Job No. 98 -7300 Encinitas, California Page 12 1 foot deeper than the maximum utility trench depths, and at least 4 feet in the building area. For your records, we have attached a portion of the topographic site map prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. showing the approximate trench locations and seismic line locations. V. LIMITATIONS In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the building or improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. Professional opinions presented herein have been made based on our site observations, geological reconnaissance, and soil information obtained by others at the site, and they have been made in accordance with generally accepted current geotechnical engineering principles and practices within the County of San Diego. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or intended. Our conclusions and recommendations have been based on all available data obtained from our field investigation and laboratory analysis, as well as our experience with the soils and formational materials located in this area of the County of San Diego. Of necessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and /or natural exposures. It is, therefore, necessary that all observations, conclusions, and recommendations be verified at MOi. WORK TO BE DONE _ pJSTR1aGT ZO' WIOE pR1VEW Y �E REA� "6T. GU6RD RAIL e l"2MOFEFII! -� POR vPA�Et_ Z GGN' TR4GT Gc_G eW — —R D -� TF✓V K�TON CiT:N 1 +' BEST Gqlc. FGL -lEp cURa /6uTTeR 5i- „cbT4�Y -.. - MAYLITt�- LINE /LAMIT5 I �0 SP aE DED CATEDI 0 E N ARCEL P ' —T / I I � :uT. EASEmEN T. (l z &u C ONF P_= R_ \\ H,44 / sT T � ELNEp �NPi `..I..IPLE @ TDP CUT NMERE f SnINA”- E s MINI— FUR TPM 9Z-038 TF7F>rTpP- -RJ CgSptjlN6TF,. AJ NTH C -M -W p ♦=oR !NSTALtA nnl GRAPHIC :SCALE 40 20 60 (IN FEED) OCT - C FEET LEGEND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PG PAD GRADE ELEVATION FF FINISH FLOOR ELEVATON iIF GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION TG AREA DRAIN GRATE TOP ELEVATION i FL ORNN /GUTTER FLOWLINE ELEVATION 830 SPOT ELEVATION C)- - AREA OR PVC /ABS DRAIN PIPE �SEWES LATERAL (EXIST_) - -5C WATER SERVICE & OF £— (EXIST.) i � PCG 9.ROW Oi -CY, DIRECTfON OFpRtVNAGE — 'RAINAGE SWALE (2,, MiN) t CONCRETE PADS & DRIVEWAYS \`UHF / \ J \ Y 3 S89*02='E 6' PC i / ` +e B:R 011 PARCEL 3� 3 # °31 Fes° S RS S. -- ` R�ci CBEs - �`� TP �Y N SH'2�5 J4 aE= zc,=u rJCr 41C✓SN h -`T`� °ol \' ftisal r F`FTA''H N S +� 4V - - ------ Kqq T A P S.�J e^ S II AIDES 232 ) / _ BH-3.5' I -_ e. T Tefu 1 - _ 11 '.CF. TARED _J� A =E D AD 3 - FI I � )o IN2f OR GN FBI, f M C-- 'FIN 1 /4 S'r' V4 SE T4 I l . F PARCEL 1 \I PARCEL ? -LEGEND r'JYi. -12D=2 (D ROCATION VALCE eox - t SLOG . \ M1 E IO E NO 4. C ABOVE GR.— l W 1 r. F_ r NOTES i_ TORO GRAPHC FEED SURVEY PERFORMED NAI ' >. 1998_ 2. CONTOUR NTERVAL EOUALS 2.0 FEET LAKE - 0 NTE A_ 3. BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY 15 'HE NvER - E TIOti OF -£R MANHOLE N0.13 PER PRIVATE CONTRACT SEW' PLAN FOR E �ILi LANE, TRACT N04400 CS084 LE 24l is 4. FINAL ASPHALT LIFT NOT CONSTROCTED ON 4CDWA". (I REvISIGNS APPROVED DIE I REFERENCES I SATE ( B "INCH MARK j .SCALE COMMUNITY CONLR E RO O 3 O,—,R y v TAR SEWER a� CATCH Cv CONCRETE WATER eC itLIT1' RISER BO E "CAL?) li TE- EPHONE J .SCR BOX (f) EL -CTR,C IRA SF R ER ON CONCRETE PAD SGJ &E VAU' -T y E ECTRFC D111 B " "_IS,) GN CRETE BROW D[TCH .,I_ NEW EM1,.c OrvV_D t ..a_,AL l .T WOOD OST9R: - PROPERTY IiNE 0 CON TO 3 LEC \ NEWLY PLANTER FREES 'i -ER, .. AIFS SPECS Seismic Refraction Lines TP -3 I BH -5' Refusal Test Pit 3, Backhoe Refusal at 5 / StENL F S< m COR N- OF N„4 F'NEF'AYEU UNDER SUET R VISION OF RECOUN- LACED AP E" 0 DE RTE AND RANC AC _—I HORIZONTAL I 4 D E BY: ROAD 23 WEST R G SANTA O FA D 60 SO TI O EL CAR O DEL BY_ _ vERPtAL N/A EN'G.'aEER E CEt NS RC_ DA-. DATE E DF:UM: VSC s G -S. APPROVE➢ BY GATE N.— � LOVAN Ex, � 0� �I I� OF EN FIGURE NUMBER I JOB NUMBER 98 -7300 ENNNEERING SER-O DEPARTMEN= DRAWIN( JUNE 1998 1 u '� f Z- Q d � I � O I J D /PARCEL - I z5o�GROSS I ACRES 289' NET .ACRES 2 42 u ) I d a! T _g Jh f,a sef sal err - MAYLITt�- LINE /LAMIT5 I �0 SP aE DED CATEDI 0 E N ARCEL P ' —T / I I � :uT. EASEmEN T. (l z &u C ONF P_= R_ \\ H,44 / sT T � ELNEp �NPi `..I..IPLE @ TDP CUT NMERE f SnINA”- E s MINI— FUR TPM 9Z-038 TF7F>rTpP- -RJ CgSptjlN6TF,. AJ NTH C -M -W p ♦=oR !NSTALtA nnl GRAPHIC :SCALE 40 20 60 (IN FEED) OCT - C FEET LEGEND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PG PAD GRADE ELEVATION FF FINISH FLOOR ELEVATON iIF GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION TG AREA DRAIN GRATE TOP ELEVATION i FL ORNN /GUTTER FLOWLINE ELEVATION 830 SPOT ELEVATION C)- - AREA OR PVC /ABS DRAIN PIPE �SEWES LATERAL (EXIST_) - -5C WATER SERVICE & OF £— (EXIST.) i � PCG 9.ROW Oi -CY, DIRECTfON OFpRtVNAGE — 'RAINAGE SWALE (2,, MiN) t CONCRETE PADS & DRIVEWAYS \`UHF / \ J \ Y 3 S89*02='E 6' PC i / ` +e B:R 011 PARCEL 3� 3 # °31 Fes° S RS S. -- ` R�ci CBEs - �`� TP �Y N SH'2�5 J4 aE= zc,=u rJCr 41C✓SN h -`T`� °ol \' ftisal r F`FTA''H N S +� 4V - - ------ Kqq T A P S.�J e^ S II AIDES 232 ) / _ BH-3.5' I -_ e. T Tefu 1 - _ 11 '.CF. TARED _J� A =E D AD 3 - FI I � )o IN2f OR GN FBI, f M C-- 'FIN 1 /4 S'r' V4 SE T4 I l . F PARCEL 1 \I PARCEL ? -LEGEND r'JYi. -12D=2 (D ROCATION VALCE eox - t SLOG . \ M1 E IO E NO 4. C ABOVE GR.— l W 1 r. F_ r NOTES i_ TORO GRAPHC FEED SURVEY PERFORMED NAI ' >. 1998_ 2. CONTOUR NTERVAL EOUALS 2.0 FEET LAKE - 0 NTE A_ 3. BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY 15 'HE NvER - E TIOti OF -£R MANHOLE N0.13 PER PRIVATE CONTRACT SEW' PLAN FOR E �ILi LANE, TRACT N04400 CS084 LE 24l is 4. FINAL ASPHALT LIFT NOT CONSTROCTED ON 4CDWA". (I REvISIGNS APPROVED DIE I REFERENCES I SATE ( B "INCH MARK j .SCALE COMMUNITY CONLR E RO O 3 O,—,R y v TAR SEWER a� CATCH Cv CONCRETE WATER eC itLIT1' RISER BO E "CAL?) li TE- EPHONE J .SCR BOX (f) EL -CTR,C IRA SF R ER ON CONCRETE PAD SGJ &E VAU' -T y E ECTRFC D111 B " "_IS,) GN CRETE BROW D[TCH .,I_ NEW EM1,.c OrvV_D t ..a_,AL l .T WOOD OST9R: - PROPERTY IiNE 0 CON TO 3 LEC \ NEWLY PLANTER FREES 'i -ER, .. AIFS SPECS Seismic Refraction Lines TP -3 I BH -5' Refusal Test Pit 3, Backhoe Refusal at 5 / StENL F S< m COR N- OF N„4 F'NEF'AYEU UNDER SUET R VISION OF RECOUN- LACED AP E" 0 DE RTE AND RANC AC _—I HORIZONTAL I 4 D E BY: ROAD 23 WEST R G SANTA O FA D 60 SO TI O EL CAR O DEL BY_ _ vERPtAL N/A EN'G.'aEER E CEt NS RC_ DA-. DATE E DF:UM: VSC s G -S. APPROVE➢ BY GATE N.— � LOVAN Ex, � 0� �I I� OF EN FIGURE NUMBER I JOB NUMBER 98 -7300 ENNNEERING SER-O DEPARTMEN= DRAWIN( JUNE 1998 1 Lone Hill Lane Job No. 98 -7300 Encinitas, California Page 13 the time grading operations begin or when footing excavations are placed. In the event discrepancies are noted, additional recommendations may be issued, if required. The work performed and recommendations presented herein are the result of an investigation and analysis which meet the contemporary standard of care in our profession within the County of San Diego. No warranty is provided. This report should be considered valid for a period of two (2) years, and is subject to review by our firm following that time. If significant modifications are made to the building plans, especially with respect to the height and location of any proposed structures, this report must be presented to us for immediate review and possible revision. The firm of Geotechnrcal Exploration, Inc, shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage patterns, which occur subsequent to issuance of this report and the changes are made without our observations, testing, and approval. Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please feel free to contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 98 -7300 will expedite a reply to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. `ate Leslie D. Reed, C.E.G. 999/ .Z 1 LESLIE O6'�� / � D sy REED * No 999 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING sl GEOLOGIST \P 9TFOF CAOI -o h %OF ESS /p , / �O A. 9� — I No. 002007 J Exp. 9/30/99 /f Jaime A. Cerros, P.E. R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 0f Senior Geotechnical Engineer (1[BAN REFERENCES JOB NO. 98 -7300 19 June 1998 Association of Engineering Geologists, 1973, Geology and Earthquake Hazards, Planners Guide to the Seismic Safety Element, Southern California Section, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication, Published July 1973, p. 44. California Division of Mines and Geology - Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Map, November 1, 1991. Crowell, J.C., 1962, Displacement along the San Andreas Fault, California; Geologic Society of America Special Paper 71, 61p. Greene, H.G., 1979, Implication of Fault Patterns in the Inner California Continental Borderland between San Pedro and San Diego, in "Earthquakes and Other Perils, San Diego Region," P.L. Abbott and W.J. Elliott, editors. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California; California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. Hart, E.W., D.P. Smith and R.B. Saul, 1979, Summary Report: Fault Evaluation Program, 1978 Area (Peninsular Ranges - Salton Trough Region), Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, OFR 79 -10 SF, 10. Hart E.W., 1980, Fault- Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, Rev. March 1980, p. 25. Hileman, J.A., C.R. Allen and J.M. Nordquist, 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California Region, January 1, 1932 to December 31, 1972; Seismological Laboratory, Cal -Tech, Pasadena, Calif. Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, 1977, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area (National City Quadrangle), California; Bulletin 200, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology. McEuen, R.B. and C.J. Pinckney, 1972, Seismic Risk in San Diego; Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History, Vol. 17, No. 4, 19 July 1972. Richter, C.G., 1958, Elementary Seismology, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, Calif. Rockwell, T.K., D.E. Millman, R.S. McElwain, and D.L. Lamar, 1985, Study of Seismic Activity by Trenching Along the Glen Ivy North Fault, Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern California: Lamar - Merifield Technical Report 85 -1, U.S.G.S. Contract 14 -08- 0001 - 21376, 19p. Toppozada, T.R. and D.L. Parke, 1982, Areas Damaged by California Earthquakes, 1900 -1949; Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, Open -file Report 82 -17, Sacramento, Calif. N REGIONAL FAULT MAP . \y y - - 8'h7n: Ce7MJNA A Q�C 4WJM0 �. C NCIFWC \r OCEW \ COMPILED FROM CDMC AND LCSD MAPS Foult Hop of southern CohYomio. MtN F�2T .7111 SPAWiS r r= l 1 i 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 miles 0 3�0— 60 km �lf�cX�'o FIGURE NUMBER I1 JOB NUMBER 98 -7300 164" G,OT,CHNICAL EXPLORATION INC. APPENDIX( A TABLE 1 DATE: Thursday, June 18, 1998 f f * E Q F A U L T s s f * Ver. 2.00 # s f * (Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Digitized California Faults) SEARCH PERFORMED FOR: VENTURE PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT JOB NUMBER: 98 -7300 JOB NAME: LONE HILL LANE PROPERTY SITE COORDINATES: LATITUDE: 33.07 N LONGITUDE: 117.21 W SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 1) Campbell (1991) Horiz. - Deep Soil & Soft Rock UNCERTAINTY (M =Mean, S= Mean +1 - Sigma): M SCOND: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT -DATA FILE USED: CALIFLT.DAT SOURCE OF DEPTH VALUES (A= Attenuation File, F =Fault Data File): A '-------------------------- '----- ---- '---- -'------ '- -- - - -" -----' ------ ' ------ ' ;SAN ANDREAS (Southern) ; 71 (114); 8.00; 0.029; V ;; 7.25; 0.017; IV '-------------------------- '--------- '----- '------ ' ------ " ----- '------ '- - - - - -' ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----- ------------ --- -- - -- - - -- Page 2 ;MAX. CREDIBLE EVENT;;MAX. PROBABLE EVENT; APPROX. '------------- - - - - -- " --- ------- ---- - - - - -' ABBREVIATED :DISTANCE ; MAX.1 PEAK ; SITE ;; MAX.; PEAK i SITE ; FAULT NAME ; mi (km) ;CRED.; SITE ;INTENS;;PROB.; SITE ;INTENS i MAG.:ACC. gi MM ii MAG.IACC. gi MM i ------------------ --------1---------i-- ---1---- -- i------ ii ----- : ------ :--- --- ;SAND HILLS ; 89 (144); 8.00; 0.019; IV ;; 7.00; 0.009; III '-------------------------- '--------- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------ " ----- ' ------ ' ------ ' ;SAN CLEMENTE ; 55 ( 88); 7.50; 0.032; V ;; 6.25; 0.013; III ' -------------------------- '--------- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------ " --- - - ' - -- '- - - - - -' ;SAN GABRIEL ; 92 (148); 7.50; 0.012; III ;; 6.25; 0.005; II -------------------------- ' --------- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------ " ----- ' ------ ' ------ ' ;SAN GORGONIO - BANNING ; 64 (103); 8.00; 0.035; V ;; 7.00; 0.017; IV '------------------- ------- '--------- '----- '- - - - - -1 I ;SANTA MONICA - HOLLYWOOD ; 93 (150); 7.50 0.014 IV ;; 6.00; 0.005; I '-------------------------- '--------- ' ----- '------ ' ------ " ----- ' ------ ' ------ ' ;SIERRA MADRE -SAN FERNANDO ; 82 (131); 7.50 0.018 IV ;; 6.50 0.009 III ; i-------- -- --- ------- ------ --------- i ----- i--- --- i-- -- -- i�- ---- i------ i-- ---- ;SUPERSTITION HLS.(S.Jacin); 79 (127); 7.00 0.011 III ;; 5.75 0.005 II ; -------------------------- '--------- '----- '------ ' ------ " ----- ' ------ ' ------ ' ;SUPERSTITION MTN.(S.Jacin); 74 (118); 7.00 0.013 III ;; 6.00 0.006 II -------------------------- '--------- '----- ' ------ ' ------ " ----- ' ------ ' ------ ' :VERDUGO i 90 (145) 7.00 0.010 III ; 4.50 0.002; - ' -------------------------- '--------- ' ----- '------ ' ------ " ----- ' ------ ' ------ ' WHITTIER - NORTH ELSINORE ; 52 ( 84); 7.50 0.034 V ;; 6.25 0.015 IV {-------------------------- i--------- ----- i------ : ------ ii-----i------ i ------ � ** ss** ssss* ss*** sss* ssss** s** sss* s*** sss* sss* s * * *sssssss *s * * *s * *sssss *s *s *s ** -END OF SEARCH- 35 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. CHE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. CT IS ABOUT 8.2 MILES AWAY. '.ARGEST MAXIMUM- CREDIBLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.308 g LARGEST MAXIMUM- PROBABLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.162 g ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ---- ------------------- - - - - -- Page 1 ----------------------------------------------- ------------ -------- ---- - - - - -- ;MAX. CREDIBLE EVENT; APPROX. '------- - - - - -- ABBREVIATED ;DISTANCE ; MAX.; PEAK ; SITE FAULT NAME ; mi (km) ;CRED.; SITE ;INTENS MAG.;ACC. g; MM i-------------------------- i- ---- ---- j --- -- i ------ j - --- - - j ;BLUE CUT ; 80 (129); 7.00; 0.011; III i-------------------------- i- ---- ---- i ----- i ------ i - - - - - -( BORREGO MTN. (San Jacinto); 60 ( 97); 6.50; 0.014; III ; i-------------------- - - - - -- i--------- i----- i --- --- i - - - - -- ( ;CAMP ROCK - EMERSON ;100 (160); 7.50; 0.010; III i-------------------------- i --------- i ----- i ------ ; ------ CASA LOMA -CLARK (S.Jacin.); 47 ( 76); 7.50; 0.040; V i------ -------- -- - - -- ----- i- ------ --i---- -i------i-- - - - -� ;CHINO ; 54 ( 86); 7.00; 0.028; V ; '-------------------------- '- --- - - - - -' ' ------ ' ------ ' CLEGHORN ; 83 (134); 6.50; 0.007; II ; -------------------------- i--------- i ----- i --- --- i - - - - --i CORONADO BANK ; 23 ( 37); 7.00; 0.079; VII -------------------------- --------- i----- i------ i- - - - - -; ;COYOTE CREEK (San Jacinto); 48 ( 77); 7.50; 0.039; V -------------------------- ;--------- ; ----- i ------ ; ------ CUCAMONGA ; 77 (125); 7.00; 0.014; IV -------------------------- i-- ------- i --- -- i ------ i - - - - - - i !ELSINORE 24 ( 38); 7.50; 0.104; VII -------------------------- '--------- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------ ' ;GLN.HELEN -LYTLE CR- CLREMNT; 53 ( 85); 7.50; 0.034; V '-------------------------- '--------- '----- '- - - - - -1 I HELENDALE ; 86 (139); 7.50; 0.014; III ; '-------------------------- 1 --------- i ----- i ------ i ------ HOT S -BUCK RDG.(S.Jacinto); 49 ( 79); 7.50; 0.038; V -------------------------- i--------- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------ ' ;IMPERIAL ; 96 (155); 7.50; 0.011; III -------------------------- --------- i ----- i ------ i ----- - � LENWOOD ; 96 (154); 7.25; 0.009; III ; i-------------------------- ---- --- -- i ----- i ---- -- i - ----- i 'MOJAVE RIVER (Ord Mtn.) ; 85 (137); 7.00; 0.012; III --------------------------{--------- i ----- i ------ i ------ ;NEWPORT - INGLEWOOD ; 48 ( 78); 7.50; 0.039; V -------------------------- 1 --------- 1 ----- 1 ------ i ------ � OFFSHORE ZONE OF DEFORM. ; 15 ( 24); 7.50; 0.177; VIII ; -------------------------- _ i--------- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------ ' ;OLD WOMAN SPRINGS ; 93 (150); 7.00; 0.008; III --------------------------;--------- i ----- i ------ ; ------ PALOS VERDES HILLS ; 48 ( 77); 7.00; 0.028; V --------------------- - - - - -' - -- - - - - -' - - - -' - - - - -' - - - - -' PINTO MOUNTAIN - MORONGO ; 75 (120); 7.50; 0.018; IV ; --------------------------i--------- i ----- ; ------i------ ;RAYMOND ; 88 (141); 7.50; 0.016; IV ; !-------------------------- i--------- ; ----- 1 ------ ; ------ i ROSE CANYON ; 8 ( 13); 7.50; 0.308; IX -------------------------- '--------- '----- '------ '------ ' IC \Al ,\AfT1D L'. \C iu..f -_...I I n ..n'.. n ten• .. ..nn. .. ;MAX. PROBABLE EVENT; ------------------- MAX.; PEAK ; SITE PROB.; SITE ;INTENS MAG.;ACC. g; MM 6.25; 0.006; II 6.25; 0.011; III ; ' ----- ' ------ ' ------ ' 6.00; 0.003; I ; 7.00; 0.029; V ; 4.75; 0.006; II 6.25; 0.006; II j----- i ------ j ------ 6.50; 0.058; VI 6.00; 0.014; IV 6.75; 0.012; III { 6.75; 0.065; VI 7.00; 0.024; V 6.25; 0.005; II 6.25; 0.016; IV 7.00; 0.008; II ; 6.00; 0.004; I 6.25; 0.007; II 6.50; 0.020; IV 6.00; 0.073; VII 5.75; 0.003; I ; 5.50; 0.010; III 6.00; 0.006; II 5.50; 0.004; I 6.25; 0.162; VIII TABLE 3 DATE: Thursday, June 18, 1998 Y### xY** #Y * # #x #xYYYYi #YYi #Y # #YY#Y# * * *YY # # Y E Q S E A R C H s s # s Ver. 2.00 # s *, s � (Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From California Earthquake Catalogs) SEARCH PERFORMED FOR: VENTURE PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT JOB NUMBER: 98 -7300 JOB NAME: LONE HILL LANE PROPERTY SITE COORDINATES: LATITUDE: 33.07 N LONGITUDE: 117.21 W TYPE OF SEARCH: RADIUS SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi SEARCH MAGNITUDES: 5.0 TO 9.0 SEARCH DATES: 1800 TO 1997 ATTENUATION RELATION: 1) Campbell (1991) Horiz. - Deep Soil & Soft Rock UNCERTAINTY (M =Mean, S= Mean +1 - Sigma): M SCOND: 0 FAULT TYPE ASSUMED (DS= Reverse, SS= Strike - Slip): DS COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION EARTHQUAKE -DATA FILE USED: ALLQUAKE.DAT LIME PERIOD OF EXPOSURE FOR STATISTICAL COMPARISON: 25 years SOURCE OF DEPTH VALUES (A= Attenuation File, E= Earthquake Catalog): A Page FILE; LAT. ; LONG. : CODE :NORTH ; WEST DMG 133.0001117.300: MGI :32.8001117.100; DMG :34.370 :117.650: T -A :34.000 :118.250: MGI :34.100;118.100; T -A :34.000 :118.250: MGI :33.000 :117.000: T -A :32.670 :117.170: MGI :34.000 :117.500: T -A :34.000 :118.250: DMG :32.700 :117.200: T -A :32.670 :117.170: T -A :32.670 :117.170: T -A :33.500 :115.820: T -A :32.250 :117.500: DMG :33.900 :117.200: DMG :34.100 :116.700: DMG :34.200 :117.900: DMG :33.400 :116.300: DMG :32.700 :116.300: DMG :33.200 :116.200: 3MG :34.300 :117.600: DMG :32.800 :116.800: )MG :34.200 :117.400: DMG :34.300 :117.500: DMG :33.800 :117.000: MGI :34.000 :118.000: 4GI :34.100 :117.300: MGI :34.000 :118.300: DMG :34.200 :117.100: )MG :33.700 :117.400: JMG :33.700 :117.400: DMG :33.700 :117.400: )MG :33.500 :116.500: )MG :33.750 :117.000: MGI :33.800 :117.600: 1MG :33.750 :117.000: IGI :34.000 :118.500: DMG :33.200 :116.700: MGI :34.080 :118.260: IGI :33.200 :116.600: JMG :34.000 :117.250: DMG :34.000 :116.000: )MG :34.000 :118.500: )MG :34.000 :116.000: DMG :32.900 :115.700: -)MG :34.180 :116.920: )MG :34.180 :116.920: DMG :33.000 :115.500: nMG :33.617 :117.967: )MG :33.750 :118.083: OMG :33.750 :118.083: nui inn i..n nnI. DATE 11/22/1800 5/25/1803 12/ 8/1812 9/23/1827 7/11/1855 1/10/1856 9/21/1856 12/ 0/1856 12/16/1858 3/26/1860 5/27/1862 10/21/1862 5/24/1865 5/ 0/1868 1/13/1877 12/19/1880 2/ 7/1889 8/28/1889 2/ 9/1890 2/24/1892 5/28/1892 7/30/1894 10/23/1894 7/22/1899 7/22/1899 12/25/1899 12/25/1903 7/15/1905 9/ 3/1905 9/20/1907 4/11/1910 5/13/1910 5/15/1910 9/30/1916 4/21/1918 4/22/1918 6/ 6/1918 11/19/1918 1/ 1/1920 7/16/1920 10/12/1920 7/23/1923 4/ 3/1926 8/ 4/1927 9/ 5/1928 10/ 2/1928 1/16/1930 1/16/1930 2/26/1930 3/11/1933 3/11/1933 3/11/1933 : TIME (GMT) ;DEPTH; H M Sec; (km): :2130 0.0; 3.0 : 0 0 0.0; 3.0 :15 0 0.0; 3.0 : 0 0 0.0; 3.0: : 415 0.0: 3.0 : 0 0 0.0: 3.0: : 730 0.0: 3.0: : 0 0 0.0: 3.0: :10 0 0.0: 3.0: : 0 0 0.0: 3.0: :20 0 0.0: 3.0: : 0 0 0.0: 3.0: : 0 0 0.0: 3.0: : 0 0 0.0: 3.0: :20 0 0.0: 3.0: : 0 0 0.0: 3.0: : 520 0.0: 3.0: : 215 0.0: 3.0: :12 6 0.0: 3.0: : 720 0.0: 3.0: :1115 0.0: 3.0: : 512 0.0: 3.0: :23 3 0.0: 3.0: : 046 0.0: 3.0: :2032 0.0: 3.0: :1225 0.0: 3.0: :1745 0.0: 3.0: :2041 0.0: 3.0: : 540 0.0: 3.0: : 154 0.0: 3.0: : 757 0.0: 3.0: : 620 0.0: 3.0: :1547 0.0: 3.0: : 211 0.0: 3.0: :223225.0: 3.0: :2115 0.0: 3.0: :2232 0.0: 3.0: :2018 0.0: 3.0: : 235 0.0: 3.0: :18 8 0.0: 3.0: :1748 0.0: 3.0: : 73026.0: 3.0: :20 8 0.0: 3.0: :1224 0.0: 3.0: :1442 0.0: 3.0: :19 1 0.0: 3.0: : 02433.9: 3.0: : 034 3.6: 3.0: : 230 0.0: 3.0: : 154 7.8: 3.0: : 2 9 0.0: 3.0: : 230 0.0: 3.0: SITE QUAKE ; ACC. RAG. g 6.50 ; 0.253 5.00 ; 0.033 7.00 ; 0.010 5.00 ; 0.002 6.30 : 0.007 5.00 : 0.002 5.00 : 0.055 5.00 : 0.021 7.00 : 0.019 5.00 : 0.002 5.90 : 0.041 5.00 : 0.021 5.00 : 0.021 6.30 : 0.007 5.00 : 0.006 6.00 : 0.012 5.30 : 0.004 5.50 : 0.004 6.30 : 0.015 6.70 : 0.019 6.30 : 0.014 6.00 : 0.005 5.70 : 0.029 5.50 : 0.005 6.50 : 0.008 6.40 : 0.019 5.00 : 0.003 5.30 : 0.005 5.30 : 0.003 6.00 : 0.007 5.00 : 0.010 5.00 : 0.010 6.00 : 0.019 5.00 : 0.008 6.80 : 0.029 5.00 : 0.007 5.00 : 0.008 5.00 : 0.002 5.00 : 0.018 5.00 : 0.002 5.30 : 0.017 6.25 : 0.012 5.50 : 0.003 5.00 : 0.002 5.00 : 0.002 5.00 : 0.002 5.20 : 0.004 5.10 : 0.003 : 5.00 : 0.002 6.30 : 0.015 : 5.00 : 0.004 5.10 : 0.005 : ;SITE: APP: MM [ DIS' :INT.: mi IX ; 7 V ; 20 I11: 93 88 : II : 88 88 : VI : 13 : IV : 28 : IV : 66 : - : 88 : V : 26 : IV : 28 : IV : 28 : II : 86 : II : 59 : III: 57 : I : 77 : I : 88 : IV : 57 : IV : 59 : IV : 59 : II : 88 : V : 30 : II : 79 : II : 87 IV : 52 I : 79 II : 71 1 i 90 II : 78 III: 45 III: 45 IV : 45 II : 51 V : 48 II : 55 : III: 48 - : 98 : IV : 31 : 92 [ IV : 36: III: 64 [ I : 95 : - : 98 [ - : 95 [ : 88 [ I : 78 [ I : 78 [ - : 99 [ IV : 58 [ I : 69 [ II : 69 [ lox. DANCE [km] [ 111 32] [ 150] 141J 141] 141] 21] 45] 107] 141] 41] 45] 4s] 138] 95] 921 124] 141] 9 2 ] 94] 95] 141] 49] 127] 139] 83] 127] 115] 144] 126] 72] 72] 72] 81] 78] 89] 78] 158] 50] 148] 59] 103] 152] 158] 152] 142] 126] 126] 159] 93] 111] 111] :----= --------------------- i--------- : ----- i ------ i------ i: ----- : ------ : ------ ' ;'SAN ANDREAS (Southern) ; 71 (114); 8.00; 0.029; V :: 7.25; 0.017: IV '-------------------------- '--------- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------ " ----- '------ ' ------ ' ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Page 2 ;MAX. CREDIBLE EVENT: :MAX. PROBABLE EVENT: APPROX. '------------- - - - - -- " - -- - - - - -- ABBREVIATED :DISTANCE ; MAX.; RHGA : SITE ;; MAX.: RHGA : SITE ; FAULT NAME ; mi (km) :CRED.' SITE 'INTENS " PROB.' SITE 'INTENS' i : MAG. :ACC. gi MM 1: MAG. :ACC. g: MM -------------------------- --------- i i ;SAND HILLS ; 89 (144); 8.00; 0.019: IV ;; 7.00; 0.009; III -------------------------- :--------- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------ " ----- ' ------ ' ------ ' :SAN CLEMENTE 55 ( 88): 7.50; 0.032: V 6.25; 0.013; III 1 ; ' -------------------------- '--------- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------ " ----- ' ------ ' ------ ' :SAN GABRIEL 92 (148); 7.50: 0.012: III ;; 6.25: 0.005: II ----- --------------------- i--------- i ----- : ------ : ------ " ----- ' ------ ' ------ � ;SAN GORGONIO - BANNING ; 64 (103); 8.00: 0.035: V ;; 7.00; 0.017: IV ' -------------------------- '--------- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------ " ----- ' ------ ' ------ ' :SANTA MONICA - HOLLYWOOD ; 93 (150); 7.50; 0.014: IV ;; 6.00; 0.005; I i-------------------------- i--------- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------ " ----- ' ------ ' ------ ' ;SIERRA MADRE -SAN FERNANDO ; 82 (131): 7.50; 0.018 IV „ 6.50: 0.009: III -------------------------- --------- i ---- - ' ------ ' ------ " ----- ' ------ ' ------ ' :SUPERSTITION HLS.(S.Jacin): 79 (127): 7.00: 0.011 III :: 5.75: 0.005: II : -------------------------- ' --------- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------ " ----- ' ------ ' ------ ' :SUPERSTITION MTN.(S.Jacin): 74 (118): 7.00: 0.013 III :: 6.00: 0.006: II : :-------------------------- :--------- ' ----- ' ------ '------ " -- - - -' '- - - - - -' :VERDUGO : 90 (145): 7.00: 0.010 III :: 4.50: 0.002: :------------------------- -i----- ----i-----'------ '- --- -- " ----- '------ '- ---- -' :WHITTIER - NORTH ELSINORE : 52 ( 84): 7.50: 0.034 V :: 6.25 0.015; IV : :-------- ----------- -------i----- ----'-- — -'---- --'------'�-----'---- -- '------' s### s# s* s*** xs## sssssx## ss**** ssxss** ssssx# x# sssss * * *ssssx #ss * * * *ssssx #s #sss# -END OF SEARCH- 35 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. 'HE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. T IS ABOUT 8.2 MILES AWAY. '.ARGEST MAXIMUM- CREDIBLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.200 g LARGEST MAXIMUM- PROBABLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.105 g MG ;33.7101116.925; 9/23/1963 1144152.61 3.01 5.00 ; 0.009 [ III; I 47 1 87 1 761 1401 _MG 131.8111117.1311 12/22/1964 :205433.21 3.0; 3.01 5.60 6.40 ; ; 0.004 0.014 ; ; ; III; 63 [ 1011 DMG -MG 133.1901116.1291 4/ 9/1968 4/ 9/1968 ; 22859.11 ; 3 353.51 3.01 5.20 ; 0.005 ; II 1 68 [ 1091 ,MG 133.1131116.0371 :33.3431116.346: 4/28/1969 :232042.91 3.0; 5.80 ; 0.012 ; III; 53 [ 861 DMG 134.2701117.5401 9/12/1970 1143053.01 3.0; 5.40 ; 0.004 ; I 1 I ; 85 [ 80 [ 1371 1291 CMG :33.033 :115.8211 9/30/1971 1224611.31 3.0; 3.01 5.10 5.20 ; : 0.003 0.002 ; 1 - 1 97 1 1571 'AS 134.3271116.4451 3/15/1979 121 716.51 'age 3 i ' TIME SITE (SITE; APPROX. -ILE: LAT. 1 LONG. 1 DATE 1 (GMT) IDEPTHIQUAKE I ACC. 1 MM I DISTANCE 'ODEINORTH 1 WEST I I H M Sec: (km)I MAG. 1 g IINT.1 mi [km] ----'------'-------'------------:--------:-----I------:-------:----:----------- PAS 132.9271115.5401 10/16/1979 1 54910.2: 3.01 5.10 1 0.002 ; - : 97 [ 1561 'AS 32.928 1115.5391 10/16/1979 1 61948.71 3.01 5.10 1 0.002 : - 1 97 [ 1571 PAS 133.0141115.555; 10/16/1979 1 65842.81 3.0; 5.50 : 0.003 : I : 96 [ 1541 PAS 133.5011116.5131 2/25/1980 1104738.51 3.01 5.50 1 0.011 : III: 50 [ 811 'AS 133.098 1115.632; 4/26/1981 112 928.41 3.01 5.70 : 0.004 1 I ; 91 1 1471 'AS 133.9981116.6061 7/ 8/1986 1 92044.51 3.01 5.60 1 0.006 1 II ; 73 [ 1171 PAS 132.9711117.8701 7/13/1986 11347 8.21 3.01 5.30 1 0.015 ; IV 1 39 [ 621 -'AS 134.0611118.0791 10/ 1/1987 1144220.01 3.01 5.90 1 0.005 : II : 85 [ 1361 'AS 134.0731118.0981 10/ 4/1987 1105938.21 3.0; 5.30 ; 0.003 I I ; 86 1 1381 PAS 33.0821115.7751 11/24/1987 1 15414.5: 3.01 5.80 1 0.005 : II : 83 [ 1341 PAS 33.013 1115.8391 11/24/1987 1131556.51 3.0: 6.00 : 0.006 I II 1 79 [ 1281 :SP 134.1401117.7001 2/28/1990 1234336.61 3.01 5.20 1 0.004 1 I : 79 [ 1271 GSP 134.2621118.0021 6/28/1991 1144354.51 3.01 5.40 : 0.003 1 I 1 94 [ 1511 GSP 33.9611116.3181 4/23/1992 1045023.01 3.01 6.10 : 0.007 1 II I 80 [ 1291 ASN 134.2011116.4361 6/28/1992 1115734.11 3.01 7.60 ; 0.016 1 IV I 90 [ 1451 ASP 34.1391116.431: 6/28/1992 1123640.61 3.01 5.10 1 0.003 : I : 86 [ 1391 GSP 134.341 1116.5291 6/28/1992 1124053.51 3.01 5.20 1 0.002 1 - I 96 [ 1551 ;SP 134.163 :116.8551 6/28/1992 1144321.01 3.01 5.30 1 0.004 I I 1 78 [ 1261 ASN 134.2031116.8271 6/28/1992 1150530.71 3.0; 6.70 : 0.010 1 III: 81 [ 1311 GSP 134.1081116.4041 6/29/1992 1141338.81 3.01 5.40 ; 0.004 I I 1 85 [ 1371 ;SP 133.8761116.2671 6/29/1992 1160142.81 3.01 5.20 : 0.004 ; I I 78 [ 1251 ASP 134.332 :116.4621 7/ 1/1992 1074029.91 3.01 5.40 1 0.003 - 1 97 [ 1561 GSP 134.239 :116.8371 7/ 9/1992 1014357.61 3.0; 5.30 1 0.003 1 I : 84 [ 1341 GSP 133.9021116.2841 7/24/1992 1181436.21 3.01 5.00 ; 0.003 1 I I 78 [ 1261 ASP :34.1951116.8621 8/17/1992 1204152.11 3.01 5.30 1 0.004 ; I ; 80 [ 1291 3SP 134.0641116.3611 9/15/1992 1084711.31 3.0: 5.20 1 0.003 ; I I 84 [ 1361 GSP 134.340 :116.9001 11/27/1992 1160057.51 3.0; 5.30 1 0.003 1 I 1 89 [ 1441 ASP 134.3691116.8971 12/ 4/1992 1020857.51 3.01 5.30 : 0.003 : I : 91 [ 147] ASP :34.029:116.3211 8/21/1993 1014638.41 3.0: 5.00 1 0.003 1 I I 84 [ 1351 GSP 134.2681116.4021 6/16/1994 1162427.51 3.01 5.00 1 0.002 1 - 1 95 [ 1531 -END OF SEARCH- 146 RECORDS FOUND COMPUTER TIME REQUIRED FOR EARTHQUAKE SEARCH: 0.4 minutes .4AXIMUM SITE ACCELERATION DURING TIME PERIOD 1800 TO 1997: 0.2538 4AXIMUM SITE INTENSITY (MM) DURING TIME PERIOD 1800 TO 1997: IX MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE ENCOUNTERED IN SEARCH: 7.60 VEAREST HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKE WAS ABOUT 7 MILES AWAY FROM SITE. NUMBER OF YEARS REPRESENTED BY SEARCH: 198 years TABLE 4 MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931 (Excerpted from the California Division of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology DMG Note 32) The first scale to reflect earthquake intensities was developed by deRossi of Italy, and Forel of Switzerland, in the 1880s, and is known as the Rossi -Forel Scale. This scale, with values from I to X, was used for about two decades. A need for a more refined scale increased with the advancement of the science of seismology, and in 1902, the Italian seismologist Mercalli devised a new scale on a I to XII range. The Mercalli Scale was modified in 1931 by American seismologists Harry O. Wood and Frank Neumann to take into account modern structural features. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale measures the intensity of an earthquake's effects in a given locality, and is perhaps much more meaningful to the layman because it is based on actual observations of earthquake effects at specific places. It should be noted that because the damage used for assigning intensities can be obtained only from direct firsthand reports, considerable time - - weeks or months -- is sometimes needed before an intensity map can be assembled for a particular earthquake. On the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, values range from I to XII. The most commonly used adaptation covers the range of intensity from the conditions of '7 -- not felt except by very few, favorably situated," to "Xll -- damage total, lines of sight disturbed, objects thrown into the air." While an earthquake has only one magnitude, it can have many intensities, which decrease with distance from the epicenter. It is difficult to compare magnitude and intensity because intensity is linked with the particular ground and structural conditions of a given area, as well as distance from the earthquake epicenter, while magnitude depends on the energy released at the focus of the earthquake. Appendix A /Page 2 I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances. II Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately Suspended objects may swing. III Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor can may rock slightly. Vibration like passing of truck. Duration estimated. IV During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. V Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes, windows, etc., broken; a few instances of cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees, poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop. VI Felt by all, many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys. Damage slight. VII Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in building of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well -built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving motor cars. VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings, with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in well water. Persons driving motor cars disturbed. IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well- designed frame structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial buildings with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes broken. X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations; ground badly cracked. Rails bent. Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed (slopped) over banks. XI Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. Underground pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ound. Rails bent greatly. XII Damage total. Practically all works of construction are damaged greatly or destroyed. Waves seen on ground surface. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown upward into the air. RESULTS OF PROBABILITY ANALYSES ---------------- --------- - -- - -- 'IME PERIOD OF SEARCH: 1800 TO 1997 LENGTH OF SEARCH TIME: 198 years ATTENUATION RELATION: 1) Campbell (1991) Horiz. - Deep Soil & Soft Rock ** TIME PERIOD OF EXPOSURE FOR PROBABILITY: 25 years PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE FOR ACCELERATION ---------------- ------ ------------- - -- - -- INO.OFI AVE. 1RECURR.1 COMPUTED PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCEI "ICC.ITIMESIOCCUR.IINTERV.1 in ; in 1 in 1 in 1 in 1 in 1 in g 1EXCEDI 9 /yr 1 years ;0.5 yr; 1 yr; 10 yr; 50 yr; 75 yr1100 yr; * ** yr ---- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------- ' ------ ' ------ ' ------ ' ------ ' ------ ' ------ ' ------ 0.011 32; 0.162; 6.188;0. 0776;0. 1492;0. 8013 ;0.9997;1.0000;1.0000;0.9824 1.02; 91 0.045; 22.000;0. 0225;0. 044410. 3653 10.897010.966910.9894;0.6790 J.031 41 0.0201 49.500;0. 0101;0. 0200;0. 1829 ;0.6358;0.7802;0.8674;0.3965 0.04; 31 0.0151 66. 000;0. 0075;0.0150;0. 1406 ;0.5312;0.6790;0.7802;0.3153 ).051 2; 0.010; 99. 000;0. 0050;0. 0101;0. 0961 ;0.3965;0.5312;0.6358;0.2232 1.061 11 0. 005;198. 000;0. 0025;0.0050;0. 0493 ;0.2232;0.3153;0.3965;0.1186 0.07; 11 0. 005;198. 000;0. 0025;0. 0050;0. 0493 ;0.2232;0.3153;0.3965;0.1186 1.08; 11 0. 005; 198. 000;0. 0025;0. 0050;0. 0493 ;0.2232;0.3153;0.3965;0.1186 ).091 1; 0. 005; 198. 000;0. 0025;0. 0050;0. 0493 ;0.2232;0.3153;0.3965;0.1186 0.10; 11 0. 005; 198. 000;0. 0025;0. 0050;0. 0493 ;0.2232;0.3153;0.3965;0.1186 0.11; 1; 0.005; 198. 000;0. 0025;0. 0050;0. 0493 ;0.2232;0.315310.3965;0.1186 ).121 1; 0.005;198. 000;0. 0025;0. 0050;0. 0493 ;0.2232;0.3153;0.3965;0.1186 J.13; 11 0. 005; 198. 000;0. 0025;0. 0050;0. 0493 ;0.2232;0.3153;0.3965;0.1186 0.141 11 0. 005; 198. 000;0.0025;0. 0050;0. 0493 ;0.2232;0.3153;0.3965;0.1186 ).15; 11 0. 005; 198. 000;0. 0025;0. 0050;0. 0493 ;0.2232;0.3153;0.3965;0.1186 ).16; 11 0. 005; 198. 000;0. 0025;0. 0050;0. 0493 ;0.2232;0.3153;0.3965;0.1186 0.171 11 0. 0051 198. 000;0. 0025;0. 005010. 0493 ;0.223210.315310.3965;0.1186 ').181 11 0. 0051198. 00010. 0025;0. 005010. 0493 ;0.223210.315310.396510.1186 ).19; 11 0.005;198.00010.002510.005010. 049310 .223210.315310.396510.1186 0.20; 11 0. 0051 198. 00010.002510. 005010. 049310 .223210.315310.396510.1186 0.21; 1; 0. 005; 198. 00010. 002510. 0050;0. 049310 .223210.315310.3965;0.1186 ).221 11 0.0051198.00010.002510. 005010. 049310 .223210.315310.3965;0.1186 J.231 11 0. 0051198. 00010. 002510. 0050;0. 0493 ;0.2232;0.315310.396510.1186 0.241 11 0.0051 198. 00010. 002510. 005010. 049310 .223210.315310.396510.1186 ).25; •------------------------------------------------------------------ 11 0. 0051198. 000;0.002510. 005010. 049310 .223210.3153;0.396510.1186 - - - ---- DMG 1.33.700;118.067; 3/11/1933 ; 51022.0; 3.0; 5.10 ; 0.005 ; II ; 66 [ 1061 DMG ;33.5751117.983; 3/11/1933 ; 518 4.0; 3.0; 5.20 ; 0.007 ; II ; 57 [ 911 DMG ;33.6831118.050; 3/11/1933 ; 658 3.0; 3.0; 5.50 ; 0.007 ; II ; 64 [ 1041 DMG ;33.700;118.067; 3/11/1933 ; 85457.0; 3.0; 5.10 ; 0.005 ; II ; 66 [ 1061 DMG ;33.7501118.083; 3/11/1933 ; 910 0.0; 3.0; 5.10 ; 0.005 ; II ; 69 [ 1111 Page ;SITE; ' ' 1 MM I ; TIME ; ; IINT.1 1 SITE FILE! LAT. 1 LONG. 1 DATE ; (GMT) 1DEPTHIQUAKE 81 1 ACC. CODEINORTH I WEST 1 [ 111] ; H M Sec! (km)1 HAG. ; g ---- 1 ------ i------- ; ------------ '-------- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------- DMG 133.8501118.267; 3/11/1933 11425 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.003 DMG ;33.7501118.0831 3/13/1933 1131828.0; 3.01 5.30 1 0.005 DMG ;33.6171118.0171 3/14/1933 119 150.0; 3.01 5.10 1 0.006 DMG ;33.7831118.1331 10/ 2/1933 ; 91017.6; 3.01 5.40 1 0.005 DMG 132.0831116.6671 11/25/1934 1 818 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.004 DMG 134.100;116.8001 10/24/1935 11448 7.61 3.0; 5.10 ; 0.004 DMG 133.1671115.500; 12/20/1935 ! 745 0.01 3.01 5.00 ; 0.002 DMG !31.8671116.571! 2/27/1937 1 12918.4; 3.0; 5.00 ; 0.002 DMG 133.408;116.2611 3/25/1937 11649 1.81 3.0; 6.00 ; 0.012 DMG 133.699;117.5111 5/31/1938 1 83455.41 3.01 5.50 1 0.013 DMG ;32.0001117.500; 5/ 1/1939 12353 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.003 DMG ;32.0001117.5001 6/24/1939 11627 0.01 3.0; 5.00 1 0.003 DMG ;34.0831116.3001 5/18/1940 15 358.5; 3.01 5.40 ! 0.003 DMG 134.0671116.333; 5/18/1940 ; 55120.21 3.0; 5.20 ! 0.003 DMG 134.0671116.333! 5/18/1940 1 72132.71 3.0; 5.00 ! 0.003 DMG 133.0001116.4331 6/ 4/1940 !1035 8.3; 3.01 5.10 ; 0.010 DMG 133.783;118.2501 11/14/1941 1 84136.31 3.01 5.40 1 0.004 DMG 132.983;115.9831 5/23/1942 1154729.01 3.0; 5.00 ; 0.004 DMG 132.9671116.0001 10/21/1942 1162213.01 3.01 6.50 1 0.012 DMG ;32.967;116.0001 10/21/1942 1162519.01 3.0; 5.00 1 0.004 DMG 132.967;116.0001 10/21/1942 1162654.01 3.0; 5.00 1 0.004 DMG ;33.2331115.717; 10/22/1942 1 15038.01 3.01 5.50 1 0.004 DMG 132.967;116.0001 10/22/1942 1181326.01 3.01 5.00 ; 0.004 DMG 134.2671116.9671 8/29/1943 ; 34513.01 3.0; 5.50 ! 0.004 DMG 133.9761116.721; 6/12/1944 ;104534.71 3.0! 5.10 ; 0.005 DMG 133.9941116.7121 6/12/1944 ;111636.01 3.0; 5.30 ; 0.005 DMG !33.2171116.1331 8/15/1945 ;175624.01 3.01 5.70 1 0.008 DMG 133.0001115.8331 1/ 8/1946 ;185418.01 3.01 5.40 1 0.004 DMG 133.9501116.8501 9/28/1946 1 719 9.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.005 DMG 134.017;116.5001 7/24/1947 1221046.0; 3.0! 5.50 1 0.005 DMG 134.0171116.5001 7/25/1947 1 04631.01 3.01 5.00 ; 0.003 DMG 134.017;116.500; 7/25/1947 1 61949.01 3.0; 5.20 1 0.004 DMG ;34.017;116.5001 7/26/1947 1 24941.01 3.01 5.10 1 0.004 DMG ;32.500;118.5501 2/24/1948 ! 81510.01 3.01 5.30 1 0.003 )MG 133.9331116.383; 12/ 4/1948 1234317.0; 3.01 6.50 1 0.010 ,)MG ;32.2001116.5501 11/ 4/1949 1204238.0; 3.0; 5.70 ; 0.007 DMG 132.2001116.550; 11/ 5/1949 1 43524.01 3.01 5.10 1 0.004 )MG 133.1171115.567; 7/28/1950 1175048.01 3.0; 5.40 1 0.003 )MG 133.117;115.5671 7/29/1950 1143632.01 3.01 5.50 ; 0.003 DMG ;32.983;115.733; 1/24/1951 ; 717 2.61 3.01 5.60 1 0.004 )MG 132.8171118.3501 12/26/1951 1 04654.01 3.0; 5.90 ; 0.008 ; )MG 132.950;115.717; 6/14/1953 ; 41729.9; 3.0; 5.50 ; 0.004 DMG 133.2831116.1831 3/19/1954 1 95429.0; 3.01 6.20 1 0.013 DMG ;33.283;116.1831 3/19/1954 ; 95556.0; 3.0; 5.00 1 0.005 1 )MG 133.283;116.183; 3/19/1954 1102117.01 3.0; 5.50 1 0.008 1 JMG ;33.283;116.183; 3/23/1954 ; 41450.01 3.01 5.10 0.006 DMG 133.000;115.500; 12/17/1955 16 729.0; 3.0; 5.40 ; 0.002 )MG ;33.2161115.808; 4/25/1957 ;215738.71 3.0; 5.20 ; 0.003 )MG ;33.1831115.850; 4/25/1957 ;222412.0; 3.0; 5.10 1 0.003 DMG !33.231!116.On4! 5/?R/1Q�,7 11cgo1O ai a ni c nn i n , ;SITE; APPROX. 1 MM I DISTANCE IINT.1 mi [km] ----'----------- I ; 81 [ 1311 II ; 69 [ 111] II ; 60 [ 961 II ; 72 [ 1171 I ; 75 [ 1211 I ; 75 [ 1211 - 99 [ 1601 - i 91 [ 1461 III; 60 [ 961 III; 47 [ 75] I ; 76 [ 1221 I ; 76 [ 1221 I ; 87 [ 1411 I ; 85 [ 137] I ; 85 [ 1371 III; 45 [ 731 I 1 78 [ 1251 I I 71 [ 1151 III; 70 [ 1131 I 1 70 [ 1131 I ; 70 [ 1131 I ; 87 [ 140] I ; 70 [ 1131 I ; 84 [ 1351 II ; 69 [ 1101 II ; 70 [ 1131 III; 63 [ 1021 I ; 80 [ 1291 II ; 64 [ 1031 II ; 77 [ 1241 I ; 77 [ 1241 I 1 77 [ 1241 I 1 77 [ 1241 I 1 87 [ 1401 III; 76 [ 1231 II ; 71 [ 115] I ; 71 [ 1151 I ; 95 [ 1531 I ; 95 [ 1531 I ; 86 [ 1381 III; 68 [ 110] I ; 87 [ 1401 III; 61 [ 98] II ; 61 ( 98] II ; 61 [ 981 II ; 61 [ 981 - ; 99 [ 1591 I 1 82 [ 1311 I 79 [ 127] REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING OBSERVATION, SOIL TESTING AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Lone Hill Lane Project Parcels 1, 2 and 3; Tentative Map 92 -038 Encinitas, California JOB NO. 98 -7300 09 October 1998 Prepared for: Mr. Bob Booker VENTURE PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT ( EAR NO D GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. 4 SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 09 October 1998 Mr. Bob Booker Job No. 98 -7300 VENTURE PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT P.O. Box 231639 Encinitas, CA 92023 Subject: Report of Rough Grading Observation Soil Testing and Geotechnical Engineering Proposed Lone Hill Lane Project Parcels 1, 2 and 3; Tentative Map 92 -038 Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Booker: In accordance with your request, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc., hereby submits the following report summarizing our work and test results, as well as our conclusions and recommendations concerning the subject project. A representative of our firm observed the recent grading operation and tested the fill soils that were removed and recompacted during the preparation of the three building pads at the subject address. The grading described herein consisted of cutting and filling on -site soils to produce the three pads. The grading was observed and /or tested between September 2, 1998, and October 2, 1998. The scope of work of our services included: 7420 TRADE STREET • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 • (619) 549 -7222 • FAX (619) 549 -1604 Lone Hill Lane Project Encinitas, California 1 . Observations during rough grading of the site. Job No. 98 -7300 Page 2 2. Performing field density tests in the placed and compacted fill. 3. Performing laboratory tests on representative samples of the fill material. 4. Providing professional opinions, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the observed grading and the pending work. The property is known as Parcels 1 through 3 of Tentative Map 92 -038, in the City of Encinitas, California. The property is bordered on the north by Lone Hill Lane, on the south by an east -west trending natural drainage canyon, on the east by developed properties, and on the west by undeveloped Parcel 2 of P.M. 6585. Prior to grading, the property sloped gently to moderately steeply to the south and west, with elevations ranging from approximately 355 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 235 feet above MSL. Mapped as -built survey information concerning actual elevations after grading was not available at the time of this report preparation. Field elevations shown on our plot plan are based on surveyor stake information extrapolated with hand levels. There were no existing structures on the site prior to grading. Existing vegetation prior to grading consisted mostly of wild grass that was removed before our observations started. CAR Lone Hill Lane Project Job No. 98 -7300 Encinitas, California Page 3 The site has been prepared to receive the proposed homes, which will be a maximum of two stories in height. It is our understanding that the homes will be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code, utilizing post - tensioned slabs and footings. A Plot Plan illustrating the approximate location of all our tests taken throughout the grading operation is enclosed as Figure No. I. Work that remains to be completed at the site and that will require our observations and /or testing include any retaining wall backfill, trench backfill, R -value testing for areas to be paved, and final subgrade and base preparation of areas to receive pavement. i is •� Periodic tests and observations were provided by a representative of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. to check the grading contractor's (Melville Excavation) compliance with the drawings and job specifications. The presence of our field representative at the site was to provide to the client a continuing source of professional advice, opinions, and recommendations based upon the field representative's observations of the contractor's work, and did not include any superintending, supervision, or direction of the actual work of the contractor or the contractor's workers. Our visits were made on request of the contractor's representative (Mr. Bob Booker or a representative of Melville Excavation). The grading operation was observed to be performed in the following general manner: Lone Hill Lane Project Job No. 98 -7300 Encinitas, California Page 4 1. Prior to placing any compacted fill, the areas to be graded were cleared of surface trash, miscellaneous debris, and /or vegetation, and hauled off -site. 2. Uncompacted fills, soft or disturbed materials, and /or unsuitable soils were removed to expose competent ground. The removed material in the building pad areas was extended to a depth of at least 4 feet below finish grade on Pad 1, 5 to 6 feet on Pad 2, up to 4 feet on Pad 3, and to at least the perimeter of the pads shown on the plot plan (see Figure No. 1). In slope fill areas, the slope toe was provided with a key excavation into competent bearing soil. The key had a width of at least 12 feet and a thickness of at least 2 feet. 3. The exposed ground surface was scarified at least 6 inches and uniformly recompacted prior to placement of compacted soil. Scarification or recompaction was not required on sound bedrock. The bottom of the overexcavation was graded to drain toward the driveway area. 4. Areas to receive compacted fill were, in general, observed and evaluated by our field representative prior to placing compacted fill. In slope fill areas, adequate benching was provided by keying into competent natural ground or approved compacted fill as the compacted fill was placed above the toe area. 5. Soils approved for use in the compacted fill were placed in horizontal layers not exceeding approximately 10 inches in loose thickness. IriA NO Lone Hill Lane Project Encinitas, California Job No. 98 -7300 Page 5 6. Fill material was watered or dried at or near optimum moisture content, and mixed prior to compaction. Potentially expansive fill soils were compacted at a moisture content of at least 3 percent above the optimum. 7. The soils utilized in the grading operation were from on -site and consisted primarily of clayey sands, silty clays, silty sands, and a mixture of these soils with rocks and gravels and cobbles. 8. Fill materials were tested at specific test locations and found to be compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density at the tested locations. Areas with failing test results were pointed out to the contractor for corrective work. Those areas were approved after corrective work was performed and satisfactory test results were obtained. 9. Compaction was achieved by drying or wetting the soil, mixing it and rolling it with heavy construction equipment such as a D9H and D9L Cat Dozer. Water was provided by a water hose. 10. The method used to compact the slope fill surface consisted of tracking the slope surface with the track - mounted dozers. 11. Field density tests were taken at the approximate locations shown on the plot plan (Figure No. 1). or Lone Hill Lane Project Encinitas, California Job No. 98 -7300 Page 6 Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1556 and ASTM D2922. Maximum density determinations were performed in accordance with ASTM D1557 on material smaller than 3/4 -inch. The relative compaction results, as summarized on Figure No. II, are the ratios of the field densities to the laboratory Maximum Dry Densities, expressed as percentages. Several expansion index tests were performed on the on -site soils per UBC Standard 29 -2. The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon our analysis of all data available from the testing of the soils compacted on this site. Our observations of the grading operation (while in progress), our field and laboratory testing of the typical bearing soils, and our general knowledge and experience with the natural - ground soils and recompacted fill soils on this site were utilized in conducting our services. 1 . The soils utilized in the grading operation were from existing on -site soils that were removed and recompacted. The soils consisted primarily of clayey sands, silty clays, silty sands, and a mixture of these soils with gravels, rocks and cobbles. Clayey soils of this type range from low expansive to highly expansive (soil types I and V), as measured by the UBC Expansion Index Test (29 -2). See Figure No. Ild for soil types. 4� rACa Lone Hill Lane Project Job No. 98 -7300 Encinitas, California Page 7 2. During the grading operation, the natural - ground soils were exposed (where necessary) and properly prepared to receive the fill soils. The fill soils were placed, watered, compacted, and then tested at specific test locations, and were found to be compacted at the tested locations to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density, in accordance with the requirements of the City of Encinitas. The maximum depth of fill soils placed on this site at the time of the grading operation monitored by this firm was not in excess of 19 feet in vertical thickness. 3. Any surplus, loose, stockpiled soils remaining at the property should be removed and hauled off the site. 4. Grading work that needs to be completed and performed under our observations and testing include any retaining wall backfill, trench backfill, and finish subgrade and base preparation in areas to receive pavement. KCIM 5. The continuous foundations and spread footings shall extend a minimum depth of 18 inches into the firm natural ground or properly compacted fill for Pads 2 and 3 (Foundation Category 2) and 24 inches for Pad 1 (Foundation Category 3). The reinforcing of the post- tensioned slabs shall be done per the structural plans, with the foundation categories indicated above. 6. Prior to pouring footings and foundations, and prior to placement of floor slab base sections, any clayey soils shall be kept moist such that they approach their maximum potential for expansion. It is recommended that the clayey V si Lone Hill Lane Project Encinitas, California Job No. 98 -7300 Page 8 subgrade soil be pre- moistened daily to achieve a moisture content at least 4 to 5 percent above optimum to a depth of at least 1 foot below the bottom of slab and footings. The subgrade moisture content and penetration should be verified by our field representative 24 hours prior to concrete pouring. The bottom of the foundation excavation should be firm, not muddy, and have the acceptable moisture content. 7. Concrete floor slabs shall be founded on at least 2 inches of sand overlying a 10 -mil visqueen on 2 inches of sand. The slabs shall be reinforced per the post- tension slab design for Foundation Categories 2 and 3. Proper supports should be used to keep the steel reinforcement separated from the base or soil subgrade. 8. It is recommended that all nonstructural concrete slabs (such as patios, sidewalks, etc.), and all parking areas, be founded on 12 inches of nonexpansive soils or that the design include the expansion potential of the soil. (The driveway area of Lot 1 has highly expansive soils.) Proper shrinkage joints (sawcuts) should be provided and spaced no farther than 15 feet or the width of the slab (whichever is less) and at reentrant corners. The sawcuts should be performed no later than 24 hours after pouring, or as soon as the concrete is set. Sawcuts should be deepened to at least one - quarter of the thickness of the slab. 9. All concrete (flatwork) slabs or rigid improvements should be built on properly compacted and approved subgrade and /or base material. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will accept no liability for damage to flatwork Lone Hill Lane Project Encinitas, California C 10 11 12 Job No. 98 -7300 Page 9 or rigid improvements built on untested or unapproved subgrade or base material. I• •��• .�- r-- The recommended allowable bearing value of the properly compacted fill soils placed on the site is 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf). This soil- bearing value may be increased one -third for design loads that include wind or seismic analysis. Additionally, these bearing values may be utilized in the design of foundations and footings of the proposed structure when founded a minimum of 18 or 24 inches into the properly compacted fill (if soils are medium or highly expansive, respectively). For on -site conditions, it is expected that the maximum settlement will not exceed 1 inch, and the maximum differential angular rotation will not exceed 1/240. The passive earth pressure of the encountered natural - ground soils and well- compacted fill soils (to be used for design of building foundations and footings to resist the lateral forces) shall be based on an Equivalent Fluid Weight of 275 pounds per cubic foot. This passive earth pressure shall only be considered valid for design if the ground adjacent to the foundation structure is essentially level for a distance of at least three times the total depth of the foundation, the soil is properly compacted fill or natural dense material, and the concrete is poured tight against the walls of the excavation. A Coefficient of Friction of 0.40 times the dead load may be used to calculate the total friction force between the bearing soils and the bottom of concrete wall foundations, or structure foundations, or floor slabs. If the VAR Lone Hill Lane Project Encinitas, California Job No. 98 -7300 Page 10 coefficient of friction is to be used in conjunction with passive earth pressures, the coefficient shall be reduced to 0.30. 13. The active earth pressure (to be utilized in design of cantilever walls, etc.) shall be based on a Equivalent Fluid Weight of 38 pounds per cubic foot (for level backfill only and imported nonexpansive or low- expansive, soils). In the event that the cantilever retaining wall is surcharged by sloping backfill, the design active earth pressure shall be based on the appropriate Equivalent Fluid Weight presented in the following table: "To determine design active earth pressures for ratios intermediate to those presented, interpolate between the stated values. In the event that a retaining wall is to be designed for a restrained condition, a uniform pressure equal to 9xH (nine times the total height of retained soil, considered in pounds per square foot) shall be considered as acting everywhere on the back of the wall, in addition to the design Equivalent Fluid Weight. 4BGff�o Lone Hill Lane Project Encinitas, California Job No. 98 -7300 Page 11 The design pressures presented above are based on utilization of an imported low- expansive soil used in backfill operations. Additional surcharge pressures to be considered in the wall design include any loads applied within the failure block retained by the wall. 14. Natural - ground cut slopes of maximum inclinations of 2.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical, and compacted fill slopes of maximum inclinations of 2.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical, shall be stable and free from deep- seated failures for materials native to the site and utilized in compacted fills. 15. Although the compacted fill soils have been verified at the tested locations to a relative compaction of 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density or better, the compacted fill soils that occur within 8 feet of the face of the fill slope may posses poor lateral stability. If not properly founded, the proposed structures and associated improvements (such as walls, fences, patios, sidewalks, swimming pools, driveways, asphalt paving, etc.) that are located within 8 feet of the face of compacted fill slopes could suffer differential movement as a result of the poor lateral stability of these soils. The foundations and footings of the proposed structures, fence posts, walls, etc., when founded 8 feet and farther away from the top of compacted fill slopes, may be of standard design in conformance with the recommended soil value. If proposed foundations and footings are located closer than 8 feet inside the top of compacted fill slopes, they shall be deepened to at least VAR Lone Hill Lane Project Encinitas, California Job No. 98 -7300 Page 12 1.5 feet below a line beginning at a point 8 feet horizontally inside the fill slopes, and projected outward and downward, parallel to the face of the fill slopes (see Figure No. III). 16. It is recommended that all compacted fill slopes and natural cut slopes be planted with an erosion - resistant plant, in conformance with the requirements of the City of Encinitas. F. Drainage 17. Adequate measures shall be taken to properly finish -grade the site after the structures and other improvements are in place. Drainage waters from this site and adjacent properties are to be directed away from foundations, floor slabs, footings, and slopes, onto the natural drainage direction for this area or into properly designed and approved drainage facilities. Roof gutters and downspouts should be installed on all structures, and the runoff directed away from the foundations via closed drainage lines. Proper subsurface and surface drainage will help minimize the potential for waters to seek the level of the bearing soils under the foundations, footings, and floor slabs. Failure to observe this recommendation could result in uplift or undermining and differential settlement of the structures or other improvements on the site. The contractor shall enforce proper finish grading and install all necessary surface drainage lines or swales to control ponding and /or flooding. 18. Proper subdrains shall be installed behind any retaining and restrained retaining walls, in addition to proper waterproofing of the back of the walls. RAN Lone Hill Lane Project Encinitas, California Job No. 98 -7300 Page 13 The drainage of said subdrains shall be directed to the designed drainage for the project or the natural drainage for the area. 19. It should be noted that changes of surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus irrigation of landscaping or significant increases in rainfall over the "accepted average - annual" rainfall for San Diego County in past years, may result in the appearance of minor amounts of surface or near - surface water at locations where none existed previously. The damage from such water is expected to be minor and cosmetic in nature, if corrected immediately. Corrective action should be taken on a site- specific basis if, and when, it becomes necessary. 20. Planter areas, flower beds, and planter boxes shall be sloped to drain away from the foundations, footings, and floor slabs. Planter boxes shall be constructed with a sealed bottom, and be provided a subsurface drain installed in gravel, with the direction of subsurface and surface flow away from the foundations, footings, and floor slabs, to an adequate drainage facility. 21. Any backfill soils placed adjacent to or close to foundations, in utility trenches, or behind retaining walls, that support structures and other improvements (such as patios, sidewalks, driveways, pavements, etc.), other than landscaping in level ground, shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. It is recommended that Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. observe and test the backfill during placement. a� EAR Lone Hill Lane Project Encinitas, California Job No. 98 -7300 Page 14 Geotechnica/ Exploration, inc. will accept no liability for damage to structures that occurs as a result of improperly backfilled trenches or walls, or as a result of fill soils placed without our observations and testing. 22. Following placement of concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish -floor materials. 23. Swimming pools and /or subsurface structures that are founded in any potentially expansive clay soils shall be properly designed by a structural engineer and /or soils engineer. 24. The remaining soil work to be completed at the site (such as retaining wall and trench backfill, footing excavations, improvement exterior areas, etc.) should be performed under our observations and testing. 25. It is also recommended that all footing excavations be observed by a representative of this firm prior to placing concrete, to verify that footings are founded on satisfactory soils for which the recommendations expressed in the soil investigation report remain applicable. 4��Na Lone Hill Lane Project Encinitas, California Job No. 98 -7300 Page 15 Based on our field testing and grading observation, it is our opinion that the grading operation described herein, in general, was performed in conformance with the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance. It is to be understood that our test results and opinion of general acceptance do not guarantee that every cubic yard of compacted fill has been compacted to specification since not every cubic yard has been observed or tested. Our test results indicate the measured compaction degree obtained at the specific test location. We can only attest that our tests and observations have been made in accordance with the care and current professional standards in our field. All observed or tested work done during the grading operation appears, in general, to have been performed in accordance with the soil investigation report for this site, issued by our firm and dated June 22, 1998 (Job No. 98 -7300) and other addenda. The grading described herein was observed and /or tested between September 2, 1998, and October 2, 1998. All statements in the report are applicable only for the grading operation observed by our firm, and are representative of the site at the time of our final site visit before the report was prepared. The firm of Geotechnica/ Exp /oration, inc. shall not be held responsible for fill soils placed without our observations and testing at any other time, or for subsequent changes to the site by others, which directly or indirectly cause poor surface or subsurface drainage, water erosion, and /or alteration of the strength of the compacted fill soils. 4��1C °a Lone Hill Lane Project Encinitas, California Job No. 98 -7300 Page 16 In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the building or improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. Professional opinions presented herein have been made based on our tests, observations, and experience, and they have been made in accordance with generally accepted current geotechnical engineering principles and practices within the County of San Diego. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or intended. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Should any questions arise concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Reference to our Job No. 98 -7300 will help to expedite a reply to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. Jaime A. Cerros, P.E. R.C.E. 34422/G. E. 2007 Senior Geotechnical Engineer JAC /pj cc: Addressee (4) �QRpF ESSI pN9� A. CF9 F2� �Q L Z W No. 002007 m °C Exp.9 /30/9 CAMID \ REFERENCE: This Plot Plan was prepared from on existing Grading and Erosion Control Plan by 2 �� ` . , site field reconnaissance m on issance perform d by GEI. 43 40 39 • 44 L L • 2 .0 50 47 • 46q 9 1 5.0 N510 52 • 53 � 1 `\ 306.0 54. 4 301 \ • 33 :• -'�'� 0 i • • �.� 1 21 25�. 46 -� '' • 59 PAD 01 B 24 30l � \ • PAD r • 16 • 1 I 056 5 • 1 • • 36 , 41 • 5 70 20 •22 \'., 3.2 26.61 • 60 90 •14 37 1 55 • • 42 13 97.0 g • \ \ 57 32 `• 26 • • • 62 12 •29 1 31 .0 • • 23 PAD F1EV ?g0_ SB 2W 280_ j PARC - _ // X76- 2� — — 60� 240 I ASSUMED PROPERTY BOUNDARY • 82 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FIELD DENSITY TEST — — APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF REMOVAL - --------- _ APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF UNDERCUT _ _ (of at least 4') TOPOGRAPHY (FEET) — — — — GRADING PLAN DAYLIGHT LINE 7300 -P w1 B' x 8' Rip -Rap 4= EARTH SWALE 275.D BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION (Feet) NOTE: This Plot Plan is not to be used for legal purposes. Locations and dimensions are approxi- mate. Actual property dimensions and locations of utilities may be obtained from the Approved Building Plans or the "As- Built" Grading Plans. � I - N j 320 I \ 3 \ J SCALE: 1 '" = 80' I OCTOBER 1998 PLOT PLAN PARCELS 1,2 and 3 TENTATIVE MAP LONE HILL LANE ENCINITAS, CA. FIGURE NUMBER I JOB NUMBER 98 -7300 Ir.4 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION INC. COMPACTION TEST RESULTS TEST DATE LOCATION ELEVATION OF FILL MOISTURE 1 %) FIELD DENSITY SOIL TYPE RELATIVE COMPACTION 1 9/2/98 Lot 2 259.5' 23.0 102 pcf II 93% 2 9/2/98 Lot 2 262' 24.2 99 pcf II 90% 3 9/3/98 Lot 2 264' 24.5 101 pcf II 91% 4 9/3/98 Lot 2 265.5' 24.0 94 pcf II 85% (see # 1 5 9/3198 Retest #4 265.5' 25.5 100 pcf II 90% 6 9/3/98 Lot 2 266' 23.5 99 pcf II 90% 7 9/3/98 Lot 2 268' 23.0 97 pcf V 84% (see # ) 8 93/98 Lot 2 268' 25.0 95 pcf V 82% (see #1 1 9 9/4/98 Retest #7 268' 22.1 104 pcf V 90% 10 9/4/98 Retest #8 268' 22.7 106 pcf V 91% 11 9/4/98 Lot 3 301' 22.6 106 pcf V 91% 12 9/4/98 Lot 2 270' 23.1 105 pcf V 91% 13 9/4/98 Lot 3 303' 21.0 107 pcf V 923% 14 9/5/98 Lot 2 272' 22.0 104 pcf V 90% 15 9/8/98 Lot 3 304' 19.2 108 pcf V 93% 16 9/8/98 Lot 3 305.5' 15.8 105 pcf 1 84% (see #17) 17 9/8/98 Retest #16 305.5' 16.0 113 pcf 1 91% 18 9/8/98 Lot 3 307' 15.7 112 pcf I 90% 19 9/8/98 Lot 3 308.5' 15.6 112 pcf 1 90% 20 9/8/98 Lot 3 309' 14.3 110 pcf 1 89% Isee #21) 21 9/9/98 Retest #20 309' 15.6 113 pcf 1 91% 22 9/9/98 Lot 3 308' 14.7 113 pcf 1 91% CONTINUED Job ND. 98 -7300 Figure No. Ila aj�EANDD COMPACTION TEST RESULTS TEST DATE LOCATION ELEVATION OF FILL MOISTURE 1 %1 FIELD DENSITY S OIL TYPE RELATIVE COMPACTION 23 9/9/98 Lot 2 274' 22.7 104 pcf V 90% 24 9/9/98 Lot 2 275' 14.8 120 pcf VII 92% 25 9/11/98 Lot 3 310' 18.1 114 pcf VI 91% 26 9/11/98 Lot 3 312' 15.9 115 pcf VI 92% 27 9/14/98 Lot 3 310' 17.3 113 pcf VI 90% 28 9/14/98 Lot 3 312' 16.4 115 pcf VI 92% 29 9/14/98 Lot 2 277' 15.1 119 pcf VII 91% 30 9114/98 Lot 2 278' 22.1 106 pcf V 91% 31 9/15/98 Lot 2 278' 12.2 117 pcf VII 90% 32 9/16/98 Lot 2 280' 18.3 116 pcf VI 92% 33 9/16/98 Lot 3 311' 17.6 114 pcf VI 91% 34 9/16/98 Lot 3 313' 13.1 117 pcf VII 90% 35 9/16/97 Lot 2 279' 12.2 117 pcf VII 90% 36 9/17/98 Lot 2 280' 11.9 121 pcf VIII 91% 37 9/17/98 Lot 2 281' 12.3 121 pcf VIII 91% 38 9/18/98 Lot 1 236' 23.1 107 pcf V 92% 39 9/18/98 Lot 1 237' 23.0 107 pcf V 92% 40 9/18/98 Lot 1 239' 24.2 99 pcf III 90% 41 9/21/98 Lot 2 280' 13.4 116 pcf VIII 87 %' /see #4 1 42 9/21/98 Retest #41 280' 12.6 122 pcf VIII 92% 43 9/21/98 Lot 1 241' 21.6 104 pcf V 90% 44 9/21/98 Lot 1 244' 22.0 105 pcf V 91% CONTINUED Job No. 98 -7300 Figure No. Ilb a(��17110 COMPACTION TEST RESULTS ELEVATION I MOISTURE I FIELD SOIL RELATIVE TEST DATE LOCATION OF 1 %1 DENSITY TYPE COMPACTION FILL 45 9/22/98 Lot 1 243' 26.2 102 pcf III 92% 46 9/22/98 Lot 3 315'/FG 13.3 124 pcf VIII 93% 47 9/22/98 Lot 1 246' 21.6 104 pcf V 90% 48 9/22/98 Lot 1 248' 22.4 99 pcf V 85% (see 49 9/25/98 Retest #48 248' 21.8 107 pcf V 92% 50 9/25/98 Lot 1 247' 17.9 110 pcf X 91% 51 9/26/98 Lot 1 250' 22.6 97 pcf V 84% (see 52 9/26/98 Retest #51 250' 21.7 104 pcf V 90% 53 9/26/98 Lot 1 251' 22.1 105 pcf V 91% 54 9/28/98 Lot 1 252' 21.3 108 pcf XI 91% 55 9/28/98 Lot 2 282'/FG 12.1 124 pcf VIII 93% 56 9/29198 Lot 1 253' 19.6 107 pcf XI 90% 57 9/29/98 Lot 1 254' 20.7 108 pcf XI 91% 58 9/30/98 Lot 1 254' 19.8 102 pcf XI 86% (see 59 9/30/98 Retest #58 254' 20.3 108 pcf XI 91% 60 10/1/98 Lot 1 253' 19.2 107 pcf XI 90% 61 10/1/98 Lot 1 255' 21.6 109 pcf XI 92% 62 10/1/98 Lot 1 257' 20.4 109 pcf XI 92% CONTINUED Job No. 98 -7300 Figure No. Ilc WD COMPACTION TEST RESULTS FIELD SOIL TEST I DATE I LOCATION ELEVOAF ION IMO 1%) I DENSITY I TYPE SOIL CLASSIFICATION RELATIVE COMPACTION TYPE DESCRIPTION O.M.C. ITY MAX DRY DENSITY I Red - brown, silty clayey sand Pads 1, 2, 3 VII 10 (topsoil). 12.2% 124.5 pcf II Olive -green silty sand with 0 Pads 2, 3 X gravel to 3/4 ". 13.8% 130 pcf III Gray - green, clayey, silty 109 Pads 1, 3 & driveway sand /clay. 22.0% 108.5 pcf V Red - brown, clayey silty sand. 18.0% 116 pcf VI Dark olive- brown, silty, fine to coarse sand. 13.2% 125.5 pcf VII Gray - green, clayey, silty sand with rock to 3/4 ". 10.5% 130.5 pcf VIII Brown, silty, medium to coarse sand with rock to 3/4 ". 10.5% 133 pcf X Gray - green, clayey, silty sand with cobble. 13.5% 121 pcf XI Gray- green, clayey, silty sand with cobble 16.8% 119 pcf So# Tyne III EYnansion Index Place on Pad # Pad 2 60 V 115 Pads 1, 2, 3 VII 10 Pads 2, 3 IX 15 Pad 3 VIII 0 Pads 2, 3 X 88 Pad 1 XI 59 Pad 1 109 Pads 1, 3 & driveway Job No. 98 -7300 CAN Figure No. lid FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS NEAR SLOPES PROPOSED STRUCTURE CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB SETBACK - 8. - \\ a.•; REINFORCEMENT OF \ FOUNDATIONS AND FLOOR \ • • , SLABS FOLLOWING THE \ •••'•' RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ARCHITECT OR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CONCRETE FOUNDATION . ,• . �,1 18' MINIMUM OR AS DEEP AS REQUIRED FOR LATERAL STABILITY TOP OF COMPACTED FILL SLOPE (Any loose soils on the slope surface shall not be considered to provide lateral or vertical strength for the footing or for slope stability. Needed depth of imbedment shall be measured from competent soil.) ", %, COMPACTED FILL V \ OUTER MOST FACES OF FOOTING TYPICAL SECTION COMPACTED FILL SLOPE WITH MAXIMUM INCLINATION AS PER SOILS REPORT TOTAL DEPTH OF FOOTING MEASURED FROM FINISH SOIL SUB -GRADE (SHOWING PROPOSED FOUNDATION LOCATED WITHIN 8 FEET OF TOP OF SLOPE) i w O a C O LL � w tA U AL Z O a a V' O V, F- 0 18" FOOTING / 8' SETBACK TOTAL DEPTH OF FOOTING 1.51.0 SLOPE # 2.0:1.0 SLOPE 0' 82" 66" 2' 66" 54" 4' 51" 42" 6' 34" 30" 8' 18" 18" when applicable FIGURE NUMBER =I- JOB NUMBER 91l. - 73 06