The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-1463 G CI o NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT t Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering July 10, 2007 Attn: Union Bank of California 200 W. D Street Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Blane Adessa 2118 Edinburg APN 260- 411 -43 Grading Permit 1463 -GI Final release of security Permit 1463 -GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved rough grade and finaled the project.. Therefore, release of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Accounts have been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and are hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account # 0219105368 and 0219105376 in the amounts of $6,102.75 and $18,308.25. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633 -2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. 4ay Sinc rely, P Debra Geis rt Lembach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Blane Adessa Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760 - 633 -2600 !FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760-633-2700 C recycled paper COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSUI,'FING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS December 3, 2003 Blane Adessa 1027 Emma Drive Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007 _ RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Twin Homes 2118 Edinburg Cardiff by the Sea, California Dear Mr. Adessa: In response to your request and in accordance with our Proposal and Agreement dated October 14, 2003, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation on the subject site for the proposed residences. The findings of the investigation, laboratory test results and recommendations for — foundation design are presented in this report. From a geologic and soils engineering point of view, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are implemented during the design and construction phases. — If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (858) 755 -8622. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. — Respectfully submitted, COAST GEOTECHNICAL jAq& Mark Burwell, C.E. " Vithaya Singhanet PE Engineering Geologis \ , .. ` Geotechnical Engineer 779 ACADEMY DRIVE SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755 -8622 • FAX (858) 755 -9126 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Twin Homes 2118 Edinburg Cardiff by the Sea, California Prepared For: Blane Adessa 1027 Emma Drive Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007 December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Prepared By: COAST GEOTECHNICAL 779 Academy Drive Solana Beach, California 92075 TABLE OF CONTENTS VICINITY MAP INTRODUCTION 5 SITE CONDITIONS 5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 5 SITE INVESTIGATION 6 LABORATORY TESTING 6 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 7 CONCLUSIONS 10 RECOMMENDATIONS I 1 A. GRADING - SUBTERRANEAN EXCAVATION 11 B. GRADING - REMOVALS RECOMPACTION 1 I C. FOUNDATIONS 12 D. SLABS ON GRADE (INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR) 13 E. RETAINING WALLS 13 F. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS 14 G. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 14 H. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 15 I. UTILITY TRENCH 15 J. DRAINAGE 16 K. GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS 16 L. PLAN REVIEW 16 LIMITATIONS 17 REFERENCES 19 APPENDICES APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS SITE PLAN APPENDIX B REGIONAL FAULT MAP SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 SANDCA STLE DR 7 �11 L ST COO BUR4Yj LIREAVE �I R6 AVF JECT PROPERTY sE CASTLE lop ! Soo ft Topo USA 2.0 Copyright V) 1999 DeLorme Yarmouth, ME 04096 Scale: 1 6,400 Detail: 15-0 _ Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 5 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation on the subject property. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature and characteristics of the earth materials underlying the property, the engineering properties of the surficial deposits and their influence on the proposed residences. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located south of Liverpool Drive, along the west side of Edinburg Avenue, in the Cardiff district, city of Encinitas. Prior to development, the rectangular lot descended from the street to the west, at a grade of about 10 percent for approximately 10 vertical feet. A single story residence and attached garage was constructed in the east - central portion of the lot. Grading has created a relatively level rear yard area with a 3.0 to 4.0 foot high, 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope, that descends to an alley. The property is bounded along the north and south by developed residential lots. Residential landscaping includes grass, plants and trees. Drainage is generally directed to the west. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Preliminary plans for development of the site were prepared by Stephen Shackelton, Architect. The project includes demolition ofthe existing structures and construction of twin homes over a proposed Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 6 basement. Exterior improvements include concrete flatwork and driveways, entering from the alley. Grading is anticipated to include cuts ranging from 3.0 feet to 9.0 feet for subterranean construction. SITE INVESTIGATION Site exploration included three (3) exploratory borings drilled to a maximum depth of 16 feet. Earth materials encountered were visually classified and logged by our field engineering geologist. Undisturbed, representative samples of earth materials were obtained at selected intervals. Samples were obtained by driving a thin walled steel sampler into the desired strata. The samples are retained in brass rings of 2.5 inches outside diameter and 1.0 inches in height. The central portion of the sample is retained in close fitting, waterproof containers and transported to our laboratory for testing and analysis. LABORATORY TESTING Classification The field classification was verified through laboratory examination, in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The final classification is shown on the enclosed Exploratory Logs. Moisture/Density The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each of the undisturbed soil samples. This information is useful in providing a gross picture of the soil consistency or variation Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 7 _ among exploratory excavations. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot. The field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Both are shown on the enclosed Laboratory Tests Results and Exploratory Logs. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of earth materials taken from the site. The laboratory standard tests were in accordance with ASTM — D- 1557 -91. The results of the tests are presented in the Laboratory Test Results. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The subject property is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego. The property is underlain at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The terrace deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene -age sedimentary rocks which have commonly been designated as the Torrey Sandstone and Del Mar Formation on published geologic maps. The terrace deposits are covered by soil deposits and, in part, by fill deposits. A brief description of the earth materials encountered on the site follows. Artificial Fill No evidence of significant fill deposits were observed on the site. Minor fill deposits appear to be located along the outside edge of the rear yard graded pad and behind retaining walls. The maximum Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 8 depth of fill along the rear yard pad is approximately 2.0 feet. The fill is composed of tan to brown fine and medium - grained sand in a very moist and loose condition. Residual Soil Site exploration suggests the underlying terrace deposits are blanketed by approximately 12 inches of brown silty sand. The soil is generally wet and loose. The contact with the underlying terrace deposits is gradational and may vary across the site. Terrace Deposits Underlying the surficial materials, poorly consolidated Pleistocene terrace deposits are present. The sediments are composed of tan to reddish brown slightly clayey, fine and medium - grained sand. Regionally, the Pleistocene sands are considered flat -lying and are underlain at depth by Eocene -age sedimentary rock units. Expansive Soil Based on our experience in the area and previous laboratory testing of selected samples, the fill deposits, residual soil and Pleistocene sands reflect an expansion potential in the low range. Groundwater No evidence of perched or high groundwater tables were encountered to the depth explored. Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 9 However, over - irrigation has resulted in a very moist to wet condition in the surficial deposits. It should be noted that seepage problems can develop after completion of construction. These seepage problems most often result from drainage alterations, landscaping and over - irrigation. In the event that seepage or saturated ground does occur, it has been our experience that they are most effectively handled on an individual basis. Tectonic Setting The site is located within the seismically active southern California region which is generally characterized by northwest trending Quaternary -age fault zones. Several of these fault zones and fault segments are classified as active by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act). Based on a review of published geologic maps, no known faults transverse the site. The nearest active fault is the offshore Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 2.5 miles west of the site. It should be noted that the Rose Canyon Fault is not a continuous, well- defined feature but rather a zone of right stepping en echelon faults. The complex series of faults has been referred to as the Offshore Zone ofDeformation (Woodward - Clyde, 1979) and is not fully understood. Several studies suggest that the Newport- Inglewood and the Rose Canyon faults are a continuous zone of en echelon faults (Treiman, 1984). Further studies along the complex offshore zone of faulting may indicate a potentially greater seismic risk than current data suggests. Other faults which could affect the site include the Coronado Bank, Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas Faults. The proximity of major faults to the site and site parameters are shown on the enclosed Seismic Design Parameters. Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 _ W.O. P- 397103 Page 10 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a process by which a sand mass loses its shearing strength completely and flows. The temporary transformation of the material into a fluid mass is often associated with ground motion resulting from an earthquake. Owing to the moderately dense nature of the Pleistocene terrace deposits and the anticipated depth to groundwater, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction and soil instability is considered low. CONCLUSIONS I) The subject property is located in an area that is relatively free of potential geologic hazards such as landsliding, liquefaction, high groundwater conditions and seismically induced subsidence. 2) It is anticipated that the subterranean excavation will penetrate surficial materials and expose Pleistocene terrace deposits. Plans suggest that residences will be supported on footings excavated at the lower subterranean grade and into terrace deposits. 3) Any additional footings, outside the subterranean footprint, should penetrate surficial materials and should be founded into competent terrace deposits. Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 11 4) The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits are not suitable for the support of _. concrete flatwork and driveway sections. The surficial deposits should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill in areas of exterior improvements. RECOMMENDATIONS Grading- Subterranean Excavation Cuts ranging from 3.0 feet to 9.0 feet are anticipated for site development. Site exploration suggests that the proposed excavation will penetrate surficial deposits and expose Pleistocene terrace deposits. Temporary slopes should be excavated at a gradient of 3/4:1 (horizontal to vertical), or less, depending upon conditions encountered during grading. The Pleistocene terrace deposits may contain hard concretion layers. However, based on our experience in the area, the sandstone is _ rippable with conventional heavy earth moving equipment in good working order. Grading- Removals/Recompaction In areas outside the proposed subterranean walls, the existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill for concrete flatwork, driveway and exterior improvements. The depth of removals are anticipated to be on the order of 1.0 to 3.0 feet. However, deeper removals may be necessary due to demolition of structures and existing fill deposits. _ Most of the existing earth deposits are generally suitable for reuse, provided they are cleared of all vegetation, debris and thoroughly mixed. Prior to placement of fill, the base of the removal should Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 12 be observed by a representative of this firm. Additional overexcavation and recommendations may be necessary at that time. The exposed bottom should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6.0 inches, moistened as required and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Fill should be placed in 6.0 to 8.0 inch lifts, moistened to approximately 1.0 - 2.0 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Imported fill, if necessary, should consist of non - expansive granular deposits approved by the geotechnical engineer. Foundations The following design parameters are based on footings founded into competent terrace deposits. Footings for the proposed residences should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and founded a minimum _ of 12 inches and 18 inches into competent terrace deposits at the time of foundation construction for single -story and two -story structures, respectively. A 12 inch by 12 inch grade beam should be placed across the garage opening. Footings should be reinforced as recommended by the project — structural engineer. — For design purposes, an allowable bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot may be used for foundations at the recommended footing depths. The bearing value indicated above is for the total dead and frequently applied live loads. This value may be increased by 33 percent for short durations of loading, including the effects of wind and seismic forces. Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 13 Resistance to lateral load may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive _ earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead -load forces. A passive earth pressure of 300 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth of terrace deposits penetrated to a maximum of 2000 pounds per square foot may be used. Slabs on Grade (Interior and Exterior) Slabs on grade should be a minimum of 4.0 inches thick and reinforced in both directions with No. _ 3 bars placed 18 inches on center in both directions. The slab should be underlain by a minimum 2.0- inch sand blanket. Where moisture sensitive floors are used, a minimum 6.0 -mil Visqueen or equivalent moisture barrier should be placed over the sand blanket and covered by an additional two inches of sand. Utility trenches underlying the slab may be backfilled with on -site materials, compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Slabs including exterior concrete flatwork should be reinforced as indicated above and provided with saw cuts /expansion joints, as recommended by the project structural engineer. All slabs should be cast over dense compacted subgrades. Retaining Walls Cantilever walls (yielding) retaining nonexpansive granular soils may be designed for an active - equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained walls (nonyielding) should be designed for an "at- rest" equivalent fluid pressure of 58 pounds per cubic foot. Wall footings should Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 14 be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations. All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate backdrainage system (Miradrain 6000 or equivalent is suggested). The soil parameters assume a level granular backfill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Settlement Characteristics Estimated total and differential settlement is expected to be on the order of 3/4 inch and '/z inch, respectively. It should also be noted that long term secondary settlement due to irrigation and loads imposed by structures is anticipated to be 1/4 inch. Seismic Considerations Although the likelihood of ground rupture on the site is remote, the property will be exposed to moderate to high levels of ground motion resulting from the release of energy should an earthquake occur along the numerous known and unknown faults in the region. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 2.5 miles west of the property is the nearest — known active fault and is considered the design earthquake for the site. A maximum probable event along the offshore segment of the Rose Canyon Fault is expected to produce a peak bedrock horizontal acceleration of 0.48g and a repeatable ground acceleration of 0.31g. Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 - Page 15 Seismic Design Parameters (1997 Uniform Building Code) Soil Profile Type - S, Seismic Zone - 4 Seismic Source - Type B — Near Source Factor (NJ - 1.3 Near source Acceleration Factor (N - 1.1 Seismic Coefficients C = 0.44 C„ = 0.74 Design Response Spectrum T, = 0.677 T = 0.135 Utility Trench We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand to at least one foot above the top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids around the conduit. Imported or on -site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding. The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing away from one another. Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 - Page 16 Drainage Specific drainage patterns should be designed by the project architect or engineer. However, in general, pad water should be directed away from foundations and around the structure to the street. Roof water should be collected and conducted to the street, via non - erodible devices. Pad water should not be allowed to pond. Vegetation adjacent to foundations should be avoided. If vegetation in these areas is desired, sealed planter boxes or drought resistant plants should be considered. Other alternatives may be available, however, the intent is to reduce moisture from migrating into foundation subsoils. Irrigation should be limited to that amount necessary to sustain plant life. All drainage systems should be inspected and cleaned annually, prior to winter rains. Geotechnical Observations Structural footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm, prior to the placement of steel and forms. All cut slopes should be observed by an Engineering Geologist. Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time. All fill should be placed while a representative of the geotechnical engineer is present to observe and test. Plan Review A copy of the grading and foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review prior to the initiation of construction. Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time. Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 17 LIMITATIONS This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the owner's representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to the attention of the project's architects and /or engineers so that they may be incorporated into plans. If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those described in this report, our — office should be notified so that we may consider whether modifications are needed. No responsibility for construction compliance with design concepts, specifications or recommendations given in this report is assumed unless on -site review is performed during the course of construction. The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure described herein are — based on individual exploratory excavations made on the subject property. The subsurface _ conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure discussed should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur among the exploratory excavations. Please note that fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported herein. Coast Geotechnical assumes no responsibility for variations which may occur across the site. — The conclusions and recommendations of this report apply as of the current date. In time, however, changes can occur on a property whether caused by acts of man or nature on this or adjoining properties. Additionally, changes in professional standards may be brought about by legislation or Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 18 _ the expansion of knowledge. Consequently, the conclusions and recommendations of this report may _ be rendered wholly or partially invalid by events beyond our control. This report is therefore subject to review and should not be relied upon after the passage of two years. The professional judgments presented herein are founded partly on our assessment of the technical data gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. However, in no respect do we guarantee the outcome of the project. This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical. Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 19 REFERENCES 1. Hays, Walter W., 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1114, 77 pages. 2. Petersen, Mark D. and others (DMG), Frankel, Arthur D. and others (USGS), 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology OFR 96 -08, United States Geological Survey OFR 96 -706. -' 3. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1970, A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential: Earthquake Engineering Research Center. 4. Tan, S. S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Plate 35D, Open -File Report 95 -04, Map Scale 1:24,000. 5. Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, A Review and Analysis, California Division of Mines and Geology. MAPS /AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 1. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California, Scale 1 "= 750,000'. 2. Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, 1996, DMG Open File Report 96 -02. 3. San Diego County Topographic /Orthophoto Survey, 1973, Map No. 310 -1683, Scale 1 " =200'. 4. Shackelton, Stephen, 2003, Site Plan, 2118 Edinburg Avenue, Cardiff, California, Scale 1 11 =10 1 . 5. U.S.G.S., 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Topographic Map, Digitized, Variable Scale. - APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS _ TABLE I Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (Laboratory Standard ASTM D- 1557 -91) Sample Max. Dry Optimum Location Density Moisture Content cf B -1 @ 1.0' -3.0' 128.2 10.2 TABLE II Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Sample Field Dry Field Moisture Location Density Content cf ° B -1 @ 2.0' 111.4 12.7 B -1 @ 4.0' 112.3 13.0 B -1 @ 5.0' 117.7 12.1 3-1 @ 7.0' 106.9 12.7 B -1 @ 9.0' 114.2 11.2 B -1 @ 12.5' 109.0 12.9 B -2 @ 1.5' 80.9 25.4 3-2 @ 4.0' 115.3 9.3 B -2 @ 7.0' 109.2 10.0 _ B -3 @ 2.0' 109.4 18.6 B -3 @ 4.0' 116.1 10.2 B -3 @ 6.0' 110.5 9.8 P- 397103 LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 1 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P- 397103 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 11 -07 -03 SURFACE ELEV.: 98' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB z >1 a w V� W U a GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 98.00 0.00: SM SOIL (Qs): Brown fine and med.- grained slightly silty sand, wet, loose 97.0 1.00 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan Reddish brn., fine and med.- grained sand, v. mo upper 4.0' 96.0 111.4 12.7 2.00 95.0 3.00 112.3 13.0 4 .0 Wet in upper 2', moist below 93.0 Dense 117.7 12.1 5.00 "O 92.0 6.00 a> 0 91.0 106.9 12.7 7.00 a� 90.0 8.00 0 89.0 114.2 11.2 6 9.00 ° 88.0 z 10.0 87.0 11.0 86.0 12.0 109.0 12.9 85.0 13.0 84.0 14.0 83.0 15.0 on End Of Boring @ 16' PAGE I of l COAST GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO.2 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P- 397103 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 11 -07 -03 SURFACE ELEV.: 92' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB z Q c U d W v� W U a W x a a H GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 92.00 0.00 SM FILL (af): Tan to Brn. fine and med.- grained sand, w /rock fragments, loose, wet 91.0 1.00 Saturated 80.9 25.4 90.0 2.00 - SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan Reddish brn., fine and med.- grained sand, moi. clayey a� 89.0 1 0 N O w. 115.3 9.3 b 400 0 C7 ° 87.0 z 5.00 86.0 6.00 85.0 109.2 10.0 7 � Dry and v. dense @ 8' - End Of Boring @ 8' 84.0 PAGE. 1 OF 1 8.00 COAST GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO.3 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P- 397103 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 11 -07 -03 SURFACE ELEV.: 92' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB 0 .. z o u w W u w a d GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 92.00 0.00: SM SOIL (Qs): Brown fine and med.- grained slightly silty sand, v.moist, loose 91.0 1.00 .. SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan Reddish brn., fine and med.- grained sand, v. mo 90.0 109.4 18.6 2.00 'C7 8.0 a> 9 3.00 0 116.1 10.2 b 4.00 0 C7 ° 87.0 z 5.00 From 5', Terrace Deposits are dry and dense 86.0 110.5 9.8 6.00 85.0 7.00 End Of Boring @ 8' 84.0 PAGF, 1 OF 1 8.00 COAST GEOTECHNICAL EDINBURG AVENUE S 0 ASPHALT SWALE O V a. F .o o ' 99 . . o. a S 30 °39'54" E °D. w p �e 50.03 FT 98 n oc 3 5 o m Z w CL Z ►°- p l oC a —.�'— --- �r - - - - -- 97 v 4.'4 v p I w S6 I w p M — v �- m I z I pis g_ vp NCI �� z i z� I— 0 I p v N LLI LL H 00 co z a 9 3 — � N � I ^ •. � �V o " � w 0 W A CD w I �"� °Z� V�au w LL I w OW ` a a W i a , l o w C7 O C7 I S M I N N 0 � I LO I I w Z IL l a I I I I �� I g o I LO o. N vp o. o 90 0 69 a D v D' e 50.02 FT .I'.7' "fir _z 4v ,!j• �� Y • r � }' .�,� i F •/i ir:7'�j r �{ � �'� � � ' �p • �r.• "/�� •j t[' � �je 4+' .I�� • .'t•.. , ;r � � � 7 � � +i Y' 2 , �.•t�I F''+%jG 4:'v,�; �// ��.3'•�y � ^�"' ��; _r'> i. y t;i'' :r;'L�{J 77�wCt cvr�� « ,�,�r � � � [ K • " r :�".• �/'� fi'�•a i �• .•�L`� i• ��• 5� tI,•/�' a�kY J�,� � t 1 =�'"� ; rj v � t''rr! ! Z • ��+ y lr a �.:3 ��• ,j d' 1 % i i t ? '[ J i � +is��Jt /. t..• .L.s r t a� �'t C N i� ��;rr # 2! j r„.�• , J,' •• �r,•f. lr ' !' r4 S '•� lI ,{, t ��.; y t % .i rt O „� .' !f• r� . , s: +, C•' : �' k,�^1, . {+ !�!. 4 - ; 1 '+.t' ? + b r ' `�/f is t' j'" y �G J'A.Jr'j �! �•. • `� " ii„v v C • i � 1, t1" � l � ^^TTY«.. � !• � �f ltl:I'�t1►+t• r tMW ,l ; ! „ J'rr; :%'�" �. •!ir .• •'Y "Ylfr•!!;r j,.X �� {r; r, $;I / ',F% • } t4 /" j '` fit' S, !!? :J'i• Y L•/ 'rrt �/ �• /�J�• i ..r •t i r�t"� i�: /.' �.!'v�. ��'. C j; f'i t' ;:•1!•r+a '�' x�� v •�61r }' ..l •�+a� P ��. •w ., N,} � J'• � r �� .f 1/'.! !• /. 4 l�• /lt • ��'f, + • . �I. � �:1�' � +.� � L.� 6 " r' r � 1" S �. " + � 'A''�'i.. i.� :11' : � �'?' �n`• i t �l'y. �• f :•J •� �•!�'� '� 'r ~'�;• • p, ! •t i . ,iry iC v .R ,j��; #`1,.), ;1... i. ♦s'ry..J'y <<�.f . '•�`/ ! . . N l + r s '! a, f .,/ %•• {.!,.I`; 1 '•.�.. / J. '' f- " r::; • -�,.. �J�'. f �1• ��. c / e' S ..l .S. � .�s.tiJ <� J�% � x r t. .. .fr � -- •, �; �� Z z � � il, � v y F�1 W t' ��j Il ., Rk lit All V 7b. ad NJ Q �� r�• �„ d ��.� # � H � � ; � r _ a 0 '� � � ,� � � � "�••I•�- � i f ''� �'` � /'fir` � �\ �` _��/ � �\l T�� Y v i i�= , ' y n� f.! ( {: Y �' ('♦• � i°�� it � � .i� ��` %�• � 1 :: t ��' x i• . ,� ` w f�.� J � �.j �� )� a Y/ •.� (� : � — I �� ♦ •, + � �/ ,e •.: � �:. -,�� _ _ �:� y , a �. � , i G _ se's / ppyy / ,�� - - �sl �� • � ":•, � � � � / /G �� o ` �� rte/ i i� i � : �� * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * U B C S E I S * Version 1.03 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: P- 397103 DATE: 10 -20 -2003 JOB NAME: ADESSA FAULT - DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0231 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2779 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SC NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE- JULIAN DISTANCE: 46.3 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ROSE CANYON DISTANCE: 4.1 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: DISTANCE: 99999.0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na. 1.1 Nv: 1.3 Ca: 0.44 Cv: 0.74 Ts: 0.677 To: 0.135 --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. RATE j TYPE FAULT NAME -- --- - - - - - j (km) I(A,B,C)I (Mw) j (mm/yr) I(SS,DS,BT) ANACAPA -DUME I 169.9 I B 7.3 I 3.00 I DS PISGAH- BULLION MTN. MESQUITE LK I 171.4 1 B I 7.1 0.60 SS SAN GABRIEL I 171.6 1 B 1 7.0 1 1.00 I SS CALICO - HIDALGO I 176.1 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.60 I SS SANTA SUSANA I 183.9 1 B 1 6.6 1 5.00 I DS HOLSER 192.7 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.40 1 DS SIMI -SANTA ROSA 1 199.8 1 B 1 6.7 1 1.00 I DS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) 1 200.9 I B 1 6.9 1 4.00 DS GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE 1 208.3 B 1 6.9 1 0.60 I SS _ SAN CAYETANO I 209.4 1 B 1 6.8 1 6.00 DS BLACKWATER I 223.8 1 B 1 6.9 1 0.60 I SS VENTURA - PITAS POINT j 227.6 1 B 1 6.8 1 1.00 1 DS SANTA YNEZ (East) 1 229.1 1 B 1 7.0 1 2.00 I SS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 1 234.7 1 B 1 6.8 1 1.00 DS M.RIDGE- ARROYO PARIDA -SANTA ANA 1 238.5 B 1 6.7 1 0.40 I DS RED MOUNTAIN 1 241.3 I B 1 6.8 1 2.00 DS GARLOCK (West) 1 246.2 A 1 7.1 1 6.00 SS PLEITO THRUST 1 251.2 B 1 6.8 j 2.00 1 DS BIG PINE 1 256.7 I B 1 6.7 0.80 SS GARLOCK (East) 260.9 A 7.3 1 7.00 I SS SANTA ROSA ISLAND I 269.1 I B 1 6.9 1 1.00 DS WHITE WOLF 272.0 B 1 7.2 1 2.00 I DS - SANTA YNEZ (West) I 273.1 I B 1 6.9 1 2.00 I SS So. SIERRA NEVADA 285.3 I B 7.1 1 0.10 I DS LITTLE LAKE 1 289.7 I B 1 6.7 j 0.70 I SS OWL LAKE I 289.7 I B 6.5 1 2.00 I SS PANAMINT VALLEY I 289.9 B 1 7.2 1 2.50 SS TANK CANYON I 291.2 1 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 DS DEATH VALLEY (South) I 297.9 B 1 6.9 1 4.00 I SS LOS ALAMOS -W. BASELINE I 314.9 I B 1 6.8 1 0.70 I DS LIONS HEAD j 332.7 1 B 1 6.6 1 0.02 I DS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) 1 340.0 B 1 6.9 1 4.00 I DS SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) I 342.6 I B 7.0 1 0.20 I DS SAN JUAN 344.0 I B 7.0 1 1.00 I SS CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) 1 350.8 I B 6.5 1 0.25 I DS OWENS VALLEY I 358.3 I B 7.6 j 1.50 I SS LOS OSOS I 372.8 B 1 6.8 1 0.50 I DS HOSGRI I 378.3 1 B 1 7.3 1 2.50 I SS HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY 384.3 1 B 7.0 1 2.50 I SS DEATH VALLEY (Northern) 1 393.6 1 A 7.2 5.00 I SS RINCONADA I 394.1 1 B 7.3 I 1.00 1 SS INDEPENDENCE 394.2 I B 1 6.9 0.20 I DS BIRCH CREEK I 450.5 I B 1 6.5 1 0.70 I DS SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) I 451.0 I B 1 5.0 1 34.00 SS WHITE MOUNTAINS I 455.0 j B 1 7.1 1 1.00 I SS DEEP SPRINGS I 473.5 I B 1 6.6 I 0.80 I DS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page 3 ------------------------------------------------------------- I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED DISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) 1(A,B,C) (Mw) I (mm /yr) (SS, DS, BT) DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) 1 478.4 A 1 7.0 I 5.00 SS ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.) 1 485.6 1 B 1 6.8 1.00 DS FISH SLOUGH 1 493.4 I B 1 6.6 I 0.20 I DS HILTON CREEK 1 511.7 I B I 6.7 2.50 DS ORTIGALITA 1 535.6 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 SS HARTLEY SPRINGS 1 536.1 I B I 6.6 0.50 I DS CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) 1 541.0 I B I 6.2 I 15.00 SS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS 543.3 I B 7.1 0.50 I DS PALO COLORADO - SUR 544.0 B I 7.0 I 3.00 SS QUIEN SABE I 554.3 B 6.5 1.00 SS MONO LAKE 572.0 I B I 6.6 2.50 DS ZAYANTE - VERGELES I 572.7 B I 6.8 I 0.10 SS SAN ANDREAS (1906) 577.9 I A 7.9 24.00 SS SARGENT 578.1 I B 6.8 I 3.00 I SS ROBINSON CREEK I 603.3 1 B 6.5 0.50 DS SAN GREGORIO 618.7 I A I 7.3 5.00 SS GREENVILLE I 628.1 I B 6.9 I 2.00 1 SS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON 628.2 I B I 6.5 0.40 DS HAYWARD (SE Extension) I 628.4 I B 6.5 I 3.00 i SS ANTELOPE VALLEY 1 643.7 I B I 6.7 0.80 DS HAYWARD (Total Length) I 648.1 A 7.1 1 9.00 SS CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) 1 648.1 I B 6.8 1 6.00 I SS GENOA 669.0 B I 6.9 1.00 DS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY 696.0 I B 6.9 I 6.00 I SS RODGERS CREEK 734.8 A I 7.0 1 9.00 SS WEST NAPA I 735.7 B 6.5 1 1.00 SS POINT REYES I 753.4 I B 6.8 I 0.30 I DS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA 1 758.3 B I 6.9 6.00 SS MAACAMA (South) I 797.6 I B 6.9 1 9.00 I SS COLLAYOMI I 814.5 I B I 6.5 1 0.60 SS BARTLETT SPRINGS I 818.1 I A I 7.1 6.00 SS MAACAMA (Central) I 839.2 I A 7.1 9.00 I SS MAACAMA (North) 898.8 A I 7.1 1 9.00 SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) I 905.1 I B 6.8 1 6.00 I SS BATTLE CREEK I 928.9 I B I 6.5 1 0.50 DS LAKE MOUNTAIN 963.5 1 B 1 6.7 1 6.00 SS GARBERVILLE- BRICELAND I 980.6 I B 6.9 1 9.00 I SS MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1 1036.8 I A 7.4 1 35.00 DS LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1043.6 I A I 7.0 1 5.00 I DS MAD RIVER 1 1046.5 I B 7.1 0.70 DS CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1 1050.5 I A 8.3 I 35.00 I DS McKINLEYVILLE 1 1056.9 B I 7.0 0.60 I DS TRINIDAD 1 1058.4 I B 7.3 I 2.50 I DS FICKLE HILL 1 1058.9 B I 6.9 I 0.60 DS TABLE BLUFF 1 1064.2 I B I 7.0 0.60 DS LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) 1 1077.5 I B 7.1 I 1.00 I DS 0 Sri LO o cyi V � a o cn � M � L9 CO w ' U O O O ^ O L F� a) - � p N a LID U � LO N r CI1 O _ w _ Q o 0 LO o LO o LO o - N _ (15) u01lea91900y leiloadg GRADING GUIDELINES Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of the governing agencies, Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, the geotechnical report and the _ guidelines presented below. All of the guidelines may not apply to a specific site and additional recommendations may be necessary during the grading phase. Site Clearing Trees, dense vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the site. Non - organic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas under direction of the Soils engineer. Subdraina�e 1. During grading, the Geologist and Soils Engineer should evaluate the necessity of placing additional drains (see Plate A). 2. All subdrainage systems should be observed by the Geologist and Soils Engineer during construction and prior to covering with compacted fill. 3. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project surveyors. Outlets should be located and protected. Treatment of Existing Ground 1. All heavy vegetation, rubbish and other deleterious materials should be disposed of off site. 2. All surficial deposits including alluvium and colluvium should be removed unless otherwise indicated in the text of this report. Groundwater existing in the alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months. 3. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards. rill Placement l . Most site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see report). Highly organic or contaminated soil should not be used for compacted fill. __ (1) 2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by the _ Soils Engineer. 3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that acceptable to the - Soils engineer, the Contractor should rework the fill until It is in accordance with the following: a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre- , watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. b) Each six inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In this case, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D- 1557 -91. 4. Side-hill fills should have a minimum equipment -width key at their toe excavated through all surficial soil and into competent material (see report) and tilted back into the hill (Plate A). As the fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial deposits and into competent bedrock or other material deemed suitable by the Soils Engineer. 5. Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets; b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine- grained material to surround the rocks; c) The distribution of the rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer. 6. Rocks greater than six inches in diameter should be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. 7. In clay soil large chunks or blocks are common; If in excess of six (6) Inches minimum dimension then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break the up blocks. -- (2) 8. The Contractor should be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is - maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. In addition, if a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should Include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Finish grade testing of the slope should be performed after construction is complete. Each day the Contractor should receive a copy of the Soils Engineer's "Daily rield Engineering Report" which would indicate the results of field densitytests that day. 9. rill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner: a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the cut -fill Interface. b) A key at least 1 equipment width wide (see report) and tipped at least 1 foot into slope should be excavated into competent materials and observed by the Soils Engineer or his representative. _ c) The cut portion of the slope should be constructed prior to fill placement to evaluate if stabilization is necessary, the contractor should be responsible for any additional earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut excavation. 10. Transition lots (cut and fill) and lots above stabilization fills should be capped with a four foot thick compacted fill blanket (or as Indicated in the report). 11. Cut pads should be observed by the Geologist to evaluate the need for overexcavation and replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water infiltration into highly fractured bedrock or other permeable zones,and /or due to differing expansive potential of materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation may be recommended In some cases. _ (3) 12. Exploratory backhoe or dozertrenches still remaining aftersite removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. Grading Observation and Testing 1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. 2. In general, density tests would be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the fill. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate if the required _ compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained. 3. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as required _ by the Solis Engineer. 4. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations,subdraIns and rock disposal should be observed by the Solis Engineer prior to placing any fill. It will be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for observation. 5. A Geologist should observe subdrain construction. 6. A Geologist should observe benching prior to and during placement of fill. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards: _ 1. Ninety percent of the laboratory standard if native material Is used as backfill. 2. As an alternative, clean sand may be utilized and flooded into place. No specific relative compaction would be required; however, observation, probing, and if deemed necessary, testing may be required. 3. Exterior trenches, paralleling a footing and extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless it is similar to the inplace fill, should not be allowed in these trench backfill areas. Density testing along with probing should be accomplished to verify the desired results. (4) N I Sampo Engineering, Inc. w'� E Land Planning, Civil Engineering, Surveying, Mapping L S DRAINAGE STUDY FOR EDINBURG AVENUE TWIN HOMES 2118 EDINBURG AVENUE CARDIFF, CA APN: 260- 411 -43 4 �o��ss� aN ti� D NS L. S q! �� o'L� November 15, 2003 0 No. 44173 m j.n.03 -139 Uj Ex : 6 - 30 - v qTF OF CAL\F ti 682 Second Street, Suite B ♦ Encinitas, CA 92024 ♦ phone:760- 436 -0660 ♦ fax:760- 436 -0659 sampoengineering @ sbcglobal.net N I W _ E SamUO Engineering, Inc. ' Land Planning, Civil Engineering, Surveying, Mapping j.n.03 -139 S DRAINAGE STUDY FOR: Edinburg Avenue Twin Homes, 2118 Edinburg Avenue, Cardiff, CA, APN: 260411 -43 Criteria: 1. Use the County of San Diego current Hydrology Manual "Rational Method ". 2. Design for a 100 -year frequency storm using the County of San Diego 6 hour and 24 hour precipitation isopluvials. 3. Runoff coefficients are based on soil type "D ". "C" factors have been weighted based on the individual "C" factors for different surfaces (i.e. concrete= 0.95), and the areas of the individual surfaces. 4. Times of concentration (Tc) are determined from the urban overland flow formula. 5. Refer to the attached drainage map for basin areas and locations. Introduction: 1. The subject property is located at 2118 Edinburg Avenue in Cardiff. The property is currently developed with a single - family residence and garage, hardscape, retaining walls and planters. The existing driveway is located on the Edinburg Avenue side of the property. The property descends in an east to west direction at an average lot slope of approximately ten percent. The entire site drains to the public alley adjacent to and west of the property. This project proposes to maintain the historical drainage pattern to the west, and storm water will not be allowed to cross property lines onto private properties north and south of the subject property. A small area of approximately 400 square feet of Edinburg Avenue parkway drains onto the property from the east. All other Edinburg storm water is directed on the surface in an asphalt swale and drains northerly to the Liverpool Drive right -of -way. 2. This project proposes to demolish the existing residence and improvements and to construct twin homes for single - family residential use. Surface water will be contained on each of the two lots and conveyed in grass and/or landscaped surface swales to on -site private catch basins. The storm water will then be piped by gravity to a planter and catch basin "bubbler" located approximately 20 feet west of the westerly property lines of the subject properties. At this location the flow will be forced to zero velocity prior to flowing on the surface through a grass swale, one along the northerly property line and one along the southerly property line. The grass swales at the west end of the property will be reinforced with geofabric and will be designated as a storm water cleansing area not to modified without the city's permission. 3. Proposed erosion control measures and Best Management Practices (BMP's) -n include the use of grass and landscaped surface swales, catch basin "bubblers ", temporary silt fences, stabilized construction entrance, and gravel bag inlet protection and velocity check dams. Refer to the grading and erosion control plan. 682 Second Street, Suite B ♦ Encinitas, CA 92024 ♦ phone:760436 -0660 ♦ fax:760436 -0659 ACJ55fi 2-16 Q S X 27 PA .....__. -.... i =� A U- OF 5 / 1 1 LL I - - - ... -- fiiut�J r .a_. _ _ -- A Z� l U S�..r D.o AG r^ , i' i , ii _.. -_._ MAX �i� � ._ C��f(t� N�L� an- ��:`� C l _...ii .......__ _..- l p - .36 � ft -t5 —03 , TPI G1'Gti 3s rnl 2 r - l,. �t- ttJ�t�AC.cnt t - crLr vv��- -f - y X7.2 yr.1 - OT qI00 t _ _ .____ ._ _ ��i - - - - ""4 �_p = _ � �0� 2.2 '�� 2 �a °�'� �• ° oho �s � � p ��j CFs _o.A,�) ij II 11 f7 i t� I 1 I I E .�i �i ern+ '` • ^) 1f L.'� �. ri �' O' /�c� �) ,/ / � •� a ww , ,/ / �` - i j ` = ✓ .M yam ,', / Ln in. q � /I ga � � �•�'' !1 �'� gaga � �'.` � .i /. � COQ. >U �• I, ` � •< �J , ��'��„` u� CD oe fez Mal � M LL. M Q r.mom CC uj CL. rT Uj I-j trr7�t7' N N W . LEV •raga✓ N � : , � r �r ' + �� ^'. / � 5 VOW O 0: M w Q W W Q z �O z tLV' z o in 0 16 0 wo • gaga_ — -- _...._ av M 6 O O O Z IL J w M cc w °a Lj h o J -� Sao <a vo cJi cm t o J t u W • 6 N • _ - -gaga.. �•. ••� n Y J fAM r V) -• N cm cj N > 1 O CZ b .. cm J of �,J 1 �� ` ? ��- 1 ` J .•� � �, �C�� zi r eea- M �y CC r . L&J V7 N C3 �= • Z < O W 0 p pu} U v G4 •• J W _ -- O o. 00 N O CC a< U a. U s cc CWQZ ? M �• D � M V V — N O V M, C p � O ti N V W 06 } Intensity , nc s$ ar Ve • • ii .A• Ve • • '•''�•t.•rw• •r M • , = N...•. w _...w w..•L.w ••.•y •.N_wrr O •r w .F• .� • r ~ • w 9 L • •w wr. „Z• �• • �� in t A•...•. •..•f. • A •wY ••N•M• w •• •• • •N. .•..•. 'rwi w2•,w• • w, •w i. w • i iiw�r••.•••r�w• '..'+ `� ' • w.1 N • w •�� V1i/101 O in O V1 O 666 666 ••{ • ' • ' sa Pu u e d aa.r Jn t 4 �) �3 �l � d a!i-9 , •' • �� V V V V C3 an V V V N ` CS 0 CA p •+ M ..r �fi .+. O N O W o wn •+ ".: MOM N p �.' » A f t N t'1' N .•!• Oa A' i1 D 0 • O * O •.1 not aft N �► '�1 ! O n 0i • ter• N �' R O N .'f • • , ' ' b ' O M '�� .• is M ~fe 7y := a 1= � 3 } -As oft Mao 44 oft 0-ft 33 • A • O it ��,t g n°�k� OD ts 4+ ITO SAD m It g • 0. 7 R BA N OVE RLA ND " . . AREAS •�� TIM .E .. .OF ow • Uae' Fo►mulo F or r Emil �Ul' i� • t i � r T ..I. r 'fi OnCes in Exceae 800 Feet. ' ' : i +. ' ; ,:`r •+ ! •# 7 .i , , T —r ' 94M 4 70 46M i Y_ ° �� 1 � " .� ' • j � ;• •mi l' o ..: �� • 1.;.{• %� 300 � Ij + • +} ..a. ! �`` 71 50 + r J: L: 't.,M * � +fi r ; J;>T' �•I; on v 44 1 111 �'• 'T ' ••.it •j •�� •��• i..-t. - tt i. •• i .J �F. •., .... ... , �iJ•t r• •'' .... •• ■ 90 ... 0 flrrfe. f1w Cwv.s< EXAM?Loe_ Go „ Cat VEfy.=.�E— EN•C �.. , OF .- ..FLOW . _ .' .. •jSLoPE,;.1 1 ° I.O qo 400. F,T,,. .�:... •,..:.....• .:-.' � ' � of RuNo�� C RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD) DEVELOPED AREAS (URBAN) Land Use Coefficient C Soil Type 1 ResIdentlal: rpD Single Family .55 Multi -UnIts .70 Mobile Homes .65 Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre) .45 Commercial (2) 80% Impervious .85 Industrial (2) 90% Impervious .95 NOTES: (1) Type D soil to be used for all areas. (2) Where actual conditions deviate sIgnificantly from the tabulated Imperviousness values of 80% or 9096, the values given for coefficient C, may- be revised by multiplying 80% or 90% by the ratio of actual Imperviousness to the tabulated Imperviousness. However, in no case shall the final coefficient be less than 0.50. For example: Consider commercial property on D soil. Actual imperviousness = 50% Tabulated.Impervlousness = 8096 r Revised C = x 0.85 = 0.53 82 COAST GrEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING INGINEE?RS AND GEOLOGISTS December 3, 2003 Blane Adessa 1027 Emma Drive Cardiff by the Sea CA 92007 _ RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Twin Homes 2118 Edinburg Cardiff by the Sea, California Dear Mr. Adessa: In response to your request and in accordance with our Proposal and Agreement dated October 14, 2003, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation on the subject site for the proposed residences. The findings of the investigation, laboratory test results and recommendations for — foundation design are presented in this report. From a geologic and soils engineering point of view, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the — proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are implemented during the design and construction phases. — If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (858) 755 -8622. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. — Respectfully submitted, COAST GEOTECHNICAL LJ Mark Burwell, C.E.C. �,t:., Vithaya Singhanet, g Engineering Geologic Geotechnical En in ' 779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOEANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 (858) 755 -8622 • FAX (858) 755-9126 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Twin Homes 2118 Edinburg Cardiff by the Sea, California Prepared For: Blane Adessa 1027 Emma Drive Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007 December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Prepared By: COAST GEOTECHNICAL 779 Academy Drive Solana Beach, California 92075 TABLE OF CONTENTS VICINITY MAP INTRODUCTION 5 SITE CONDITIONS 5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 5 SITE INVESTIGATION 6 LABORATORY TESTING 6 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 7 CONCLUSIONS 10 RECOMMENDATIONS 11 A. GRADING - SUBTERRANEAN EXCAVATION 11 B. GRADING - REMOVALS RECOMPACTION 11 C. FOUNDATIONS 12 D. SLABS ON GRADE (INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR) 13 E. RETAINING WALLS 13 F. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS 14 G. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 14 H. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 15 1. UTILITY TRENCH 15 J. DRAINAGE 16 K. GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS 16 L. PLAN REVIEW 16 LIMITATIONS 17 REFERENCES 19 APPENDICES APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS SITE PLAN APPENDIX B REGIONAL FAULT MAP SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM APPENDIX C GRADING GUIDELINES _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ IN CO 7 \ JEDWI EDWINA WAY NA cl SE Glen Park - 1k -- dSOO ft Topo USA 2.0 Copyright V) 1999 De]LorMe Yarmouth, ME 04096 Scale: 1 6,400 Detail: 15-0 �� Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 5 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation on the subject property. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature and characteristics of the earth materials underlying the property, the engineering properties of the surficial deposits and their influence on the proposed residences. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located south of Liverpool Drive, along the west side of Edinburg Avenue, in the Cardiff district, city of Encinitas. Prior to development, the rectangular lot descended from the street to the west, at a grade of about 10 percent for approximately 10 vertical feet. A single story residence and attached garage was constructed in the east - central portion of the lot. Grading has created a relatively level rear yard area with a 3.0 to 4.0 foot high, 3: 1 (horizontal to vertical) slope, that descends to an alley. The property is bounded along the north and south by developed residential lots. Residential landscaping includes grass, plants and trees. Drainage is generally directed to the west. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Preliminary plans for development of the site were prepared by Stephen Shackelton, Architect. The project includes demolition of the existing structures and construction of twin homes over a proposed Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 6 basement. Exterior improvements include concrete flatwork and driveways, entering from the alley. -- Grading is anticipated to include cuts ranging from 3.0 feet to 9.0 feet for subterranean construction. SITE INVESTIGATION Site exploration included three (3) exploratory borings drilled to a maximum depth of 16 feet. Earth materials encountered were visually classified and logged by our field engineering geologist. Undisturbed, representative samples of earth materials were obtained at selected intervals. Samples were obtained by driving a thin walled steel sampler into the desired strata. The samples are retained in brass rings of 2.5 inches outside diameter and 1.0 inches in height. The central portion of the sample is retained in close fitting, waterproof containers and transported to our laboratory for testing and analysis. LABORATORY TESTING Classification The field classification was verified through laboratory examination, in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The final classification is shown on the enclosed Exploratory Logs. — Moisture/Density The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each of the undisturbed soil samples. This information is useful in providing a gross picture of the soil consistency or variation Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 7 among exploratory excavations. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot. The field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Both are shown on the enclosed Laboratory Tests Results and Exploratory Logs. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected samples of earth materials taken from the site. The laboratory standard tests were in accordance with ASTM D- 1557 -91. The results of the tests are presented in the Laboratory Test Results. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The subject property is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego. The property is underlain at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The terrace deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene -age sedimentary rocks which have commonly been designated as the Torrey Sandstone and Del Mar Formation on published geologic maps. The terrace deposits are — covered by soil deposits and, in part, by fill deposits. A brief description of the earth materials encountered on the site follows. Artificial Fill No evidence of significant fill deposits were observed on the site. Minor fill deposits appear to be located along the outside edge of the rear yard graded pad and behind retaining walls. The maximum Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 8 depth of fill along the rear yard pad is approximately 2.0 feet. The fill is composed of tan to brown fine and medium - grained sand in a very moist and loose condition. Residual Soil Site exploration suggests the underlying terrace deposits are blanketed by approximately 12 inches of brown silty sand. The soil is generally wet and loose. The contact with the underlying terrace deposits is gradational and may vary across the site. Terrace Deposits Underlying the surficial materials, poorly consolidated Pleistocene terrace deposits are present. The sediments are composed of tan to reddish brown slightly clayey, fine and medium - grained sand. Regionally, the Pleistocene sands are considered flat -lying and are underlain at depth by Eocene -age sedimentary rock units. Expansive Soil Based on our experience in the area and previous laboratory testing of selected samples, the fill deposits, residual soil and Pleistocene sands reflect an expansion potential in the low range. Groundwater No evidence of perched or high groundwater tables were encountered to the depth explored. Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 9 However, over - irrigation has resulted in a very moist to wet condition in the surficial deposits. It should be noted that seepage problems can develop after completion of construction. These seepage problems most often result from drainage alterations, landscaping and over - irrigation. In the event that seepage or saturated ground does occur, it has been our experience that they are most effectively handled on an individual basis. Tectonic Setting _ The site is located within the seismically active southern California region which is generally characterized by northwest trending Quaternary -age fault zones. Several of these fault zones and fault segments are classified as active by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act). Based on a review of published geologic maps, no known faults transverse the site. The nearest active fault is the offshore Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 2.5 miles west of the site. It should be noted that the Rose Canyon Fault is not a continuous, well - defined feature but rather a zone of right stepping en echelon faults. The complex series of faults has been referred to as the Offshore Zone of Deformation (Woodward - Clyde, 1979) and is not fully understood. Several studies suggest that the Newport- Inglewood and the Rose Canyon faults are a continuous zone of en echelon faults (Treiman, 1984). Further studies along the complex offshore zone of faulting may indicate a potentially greater seismic risk than current data suggests. Other faults which could affect the site include the Coronado Bank, Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas Faults. The proximity of major faults to the site and site parameters are shown on the enclosed Seismic Design Parameters. Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 10 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a process by which a sand mass loses its shearing strength completely and flows. The temporary transformation of the material into a fluid mass is often associated with ground motion resulting from an earthquake. Owing to the moderately dense nature of the Pleistocene terrace deposits and the anticipated depth to groundwater, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction and soil instability is considered low. CONCLUSIONS 1) The subject property is located in an area that is relatively free of potential geologic hazards such as landsliding, liquefaction, high groundwater conditions and seismically induced subsidence. 2) It is anticipated that the subterranean excavation will penetrate surficial materials and expose Pleistocene terrace deposits. Plans suggest that residences will be supported on footings excavated at the lower subterranean grade and into terrace deposits. 3) Any additional footings, outside the subterranean footprint, should penetrate surficial materials and should be founded into competent terrace deposits. Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 11 4) The existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits are not suitable for the support of concrete flatwork and driveway sections. The surficial deposits should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill in areas of exterior improvements. RECOMMENDATIONS Grading- Subterranean Excavation Cuts ranging from 3.0 feet to 9.0 feet are anticipated for site development. Site exploration suggests that the proposed excavation will penetrate surficial deposits and expose Pleistocene terrace deposits. Temporary slopes should be excavated at a gradient of 3/4:1 (horizontal to vertical), or less, depending upon conditions encountered during grading. The Pleistocene terrace deposits may contain hard concretion layers. However, based on our experience in the area, the sandstone is rippable with conventional heavy earth moving equipment in good working order. Grading- Removals/Recompaction In areas outside the proposed subterranean walls, the existing fill, soil and weathered terrace deposits should be removed and replaced as properly compacted fill for concrete flatwork, driveway and exterior improvements. The depth of removals are anticipated to be on the order of 1.0 to 3.0 feet. However, deeper removals may be necessary due to demolition of structures and existing fill deposits. Most of the existing earth deposits are generally suitable for reuse, provided they are cleared of all _ vegetation, debris and thoroughly mixed. Prior to placement of fill, the base of the removal should Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 -- W.O. P- 397103 Page 12 be observed by a representative of this firm. Additional overexcavation and recommendations may _ be necessary at that time. The exposed bottom should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6.0 inches, moistened as required and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Fill should be placed in 6.0 to 8.0 inch lifts, moistened to approximately 1.0 - 2.0 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Imported fill, if necessary, should consist of non - expansive granular deposits approved by the geotechnical engineer. Foundations The following design parameters are based on footings founded into competent terrace deposits. Footings for the proposed residences should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and founded a minimum of 12 inches and 18 inches into competent terrace deposits at the time of foundation construction for single -story and two -story structures, respectively. A 12 inch by 12 inch grade beam should be placed across the garage opening. Footings should be reinforced as recommended by the project structural engineer. For design purposes, an allowable bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot may be used for foundations at the recommended footing depths. The bearing value indicated above is for the total dead and frequently applied live loads. This value may be increased by 33 percent for short durations of loading, including the effects of wind and seismic forces. Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 13 Resistance to lateral load may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead -load forces. A passive earth pressure of 300 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth of terrace deposits penetrated to a maximum of 2000 pounds per square foot may be used. Slabs on Grade (Interior and Exterior) Slabs on grade should be a minimum of 4.0 inches thick and reinforced in both directions with No. 3 bars placed 18 inches on center in both directions. The slab should be underlain by a minimum 2.0- inch sand blanket. Where moisture sensitive floors are used, a minimum 6.0 -mil Visqueen or equivalent moisture barrier should be placed over the sand blanket and covered by an additional two inches of sand. Utility trenches underlying the slab may be backfilled with on -site materials, compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Slabs including exterior concrete flatwork should be reinforced as indicated above and provided with saw cuts /expansion joints, as recommended by the project structural engineer. All slabs should be cast over dense compacted subgrades. Retaining Walls Cantilever walls (yielding) retaining nonexpansive granular soils may be designed for an active- _ equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained walls (nonyielding) should be designed for an "at- rest" equivalent fluid pressure of 58 pounds per cubic foot. Wall footings should Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 14 be designed in accordance with the foundation design recommendations. All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate backdrainage system (Miradrain 6000 or equivalent is suggested). The soil parameters assume a level granular backfill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Settlement Characteristics Estimated total and differential settlement is expected to be on the order of 3/4 inch and '/2 inch, respectively. It should also be noted that long term secondary settlement due to irrigation and loads imposed by structures is anticipated to be 1/4 inch. Seismic Considerations Although the likelihood of ground rupture on the site is remote, the property will be exposed to moderate to high levels of ground motion resulting from the release of energy should an earthquake occur along the numerous known and unknown faults in the region. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 2.5 miles west of the property is the nearest known active fault and is considered the design earthquake for the site. A maximum probable event along the offshore segment of the Rose Canyon Fault is expected to produce a peak bedrock horizontal acceleration of 0.48g and a repeatable ground acceleration of 0.31 g. Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 15 Seismic Design Parameters (1997 Uniform Building Code) - Soil Profile Type - S, Seismic Zone - 4 Seismic Source - Type B Near Source Factor (NJ - 1.3 Near source Acceleration Factor (N - 1.1 Seismic Coefficients C =0.44 C„ = 0.74 Design Response Spectrum T = 0.677 T = 0.13 5 Utility Trench We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand to at least one foot above the top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids around the conduit. Imported or on -site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding. The invert of subsurface utility excavations paralleling footings should be located above the zone of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an adjacent footing. This can be accomplished by either deepening the footing, raising the invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing away from one another. Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 16 Drainage - Specific drainage patterns should be designed by the project architect or engineer. However, in general, pad water should be directed away from foundations and around the structure to the street. Roof water should be collected and conducted to the street, via non - erodible devices. Pad water should not be allowed to pond. Vegetation adjacent to foundations should be avoided. If vegetation in these areas is desired, sealed planter boxes or drought resistant plants should be considered. Other alternatives may be available, however, the intent is to reduce moisture from migrating into foundation subsoils. Irrigation should be limited to that amount necessary to sustain plant life. All drainage systems should be inspected and cleaned annually, prior to winter rains. Geotechnical Observations Structural footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm, prior to the placement of steel and forms. All cut slopes should be observed by an Engineering Geologist. Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time. All fill should be placed while a representative of the geotechnical engineer is present to observe and test. Plan Review A copy of the grading and foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review prior to the initiation of construction. Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time. Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 17 LIMITATIONS This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the owner's representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to the attention of the project's architects and /or engineers so that they may be incorporated into plans. If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those described in this report, our office should be notified so that we may consider whether modifications are needed. No responsibility for construction compliance with design concepts, specifications or recommendations given in this report is assumed unless on -site review is performed during the course of construction. The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure described herein are _ based on individual exploratory excavations made on the subject property. The subsurface _ conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure discussed should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur among the exploratory excavations. Please note that fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported herein. Coast Geotechnical assumes no responsibility for variations which may occur across the site. The conclusions and recommendations of this report apply as of the current date. In time, however, changes can occur on a property whether caused by acts of man or nature on this or adjoining properties. Additionally, changes in professional standards may be brought about by legislation or Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 18 y the expansion of knowledge. Consequently, the conclusions and recommendations of this report may be rendered wholly or partially invalid by events beyond our control. This report is therefore subject to review and should not be relied upon after the passage of two years. The professional judgments presented herein are founded partly on our assessment of the technical data gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. However, in no respect do we guarantee the outcome of the project. This study has been provided solely for the benefit of the client and is in no way intended to benefit or extend any right or interest to any third party. This study is not to be used on other projects or extensions to this project except by agreement in writing with Coast Geotechnical. Coast Geotechnical December 3, 2003 W.O. P- 397103 Page 19 REFERENCES 1. Hays, Walter W., 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions, Geological Survey Professional Paper 1114, 77 pages. 2. Petersen, Mark D. and others (DMG), Frankel, Arthur D. and others (USGS), 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology OFR 96 -08, United States Geological Survey OFR 96 -706. 3. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1970, A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential: Earthquake Engineering Research Center. 4. Tan, S. S., and Giffen, D. G., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Plate 35D, Open -File Report 95 -04, Map Scale 1:24,000. 5. Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, A Review and Analysis, California Division of Mines and Geology. MAPS /AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 1. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California, Scale 1 "= 750,000'. 2. Geologic Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, 1996, DMG Open File Report 96 -02. 3. San Diego County Topographic /Orthophoto Survey, 1973, Map No. 310 -1683, Scale 1 " =200'. _ 4. Shackelton, Stephen, 2003, Site Plan, 2118 Edinburg Avenue, Cardiff, California, Scale 1 " =10'. 5. U.S. G.S., 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Topographic Map, Digitized, Variable Scale. APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE I Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (Laboratory Standard ASTM D- 1557 -91) Sample Max. Dry Optimum Location Density Moisture Content cf B -1 @ 1.0' -3.0' 128.2 10.2 TABLE II Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Sample Field Dry Field Moisture Location Density Content cf 0 B -1 @ 2.0' 111.4 12.7 B -1 @ 4.0' 112.3 13.0 B -1 @ 5.0' 117.7 12.1 B -1 @ 7.0' 106.9 12.7 - B -1 @ 9.0' 114.2 11.2 B -1 @ 12.5' 109.0 12.9 B -2 @ 1.5' 80.9 25.4 2-2 @ 4.0' 115.3 9.3 B -2 @ 7.0' 109.2 10.0 B -3 @ 2.0' 109.4 18.6 B -3 @ 4.0' 116.1 10.2 B -3 @ 6.0' 110.5 9 P- 397103 LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 1 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P- 397103 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 11-07-03 SURFACE ELEV.: 98' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB _ o f� -r7r' x U ^ F H U v� U U a a0 z w w U Q H a a a Q Q o _ 98.00 GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 0.00 SM SOIL (Qs): Brown fine and med.- grained slightly silty sand, wet, loose 97.0 1.00 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan Reddish brn., fine and med.- grained sand, v. mo 96.0 upper 4.0' 111.4 12.7 2.00 95.0 3.00 112.3 13.0 4.00 Wet in upper 2', moist below 93.0 117.7 12.1 5.00 Dense 92.0 6.00 a� - 91.0 106.9 12.7 7.00 (D 90.0 .b 8.00 89.0 ' 114.2 11.2 9.00 0 z 88.0 10.0 87.0 11.0 86.0 ' 12.0 109.0 12.9 85.0 13.0 84.0 14.00 83.0 15.0 ._ End Of Boring @ 16' PAGE 1 OF 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO.2 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P- 397103 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 11 -07 -03 SURFACE ELEV.: 92' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB w W U w > w w Q p� F U P < a Q Q c7 0 92.00 GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 0.00 ir SM FILL (af): Tan to Bm. fine and med.-grained sand, w /rock fragments, loose, wet 91.00: " 1.00 80.9 25.4 Saturated 90.0 2.00 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan Reddish brn., fine and med.- grained sand, moi,, clayey N 89.0 3.00 N .O c. _N 88.0 115.3 9.3 b 4.00 0 0 z 87.0 5.00 86.00 6.00 85.0 , 109.2 10.0 7.00 Dry and v. dense @ 8' 84.0 End Of Boring @ 8' PAGE 1 OF 1 8.00 COAST GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO.3 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER PROJECT NO. P- 397103 BORING DIAMETER: 3.5" DATE DRILLED: 11 -07 -03 SURFACE ELEV.: 92' (Approximate) LOGGED BY: MB z W z 0 3 F U V W vi Q a W U Q a H U 92.00 GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION - 0.00: SM SOIL (Qs): Brown fine and med.- grained slightly silty sand, v.moist, loose 91.0 1.00 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan Reddish bm., fine and coed.- grained sand, v. me 90.0 109.4 18.6 2.00 y 89.0 3.00 N 0 iu 88.0 116.1 10.2 b 4.00 0 6 ° 87.0 z 5.00 From 5', Terrace Deposits are dry and dense 86.00 110.5 9.8 6.00 85.0 7.00 8a.00 End Of Boring @ 8' PAGE 1 OF 1 8.00 COAST GEOTECHNICAL EDIN AVENUE S _U ASPHALT SWALE urn O a O • U S 30 °39'54" E °°. [� ' w 50.03 FT D 98 C) �- 2 W C 94 70.0. MEW 4.4' � I 3• ' I W I z �� > m 9 r ° I < R LL � O I w t7� 93 ^ j N Qj � ui i =moo Za�o o f- 7: V v U uJ t (cm a aC7o �wA¢ w W I I C H o ,� ¢ aI w W I oi o W` as O C9 I o N w C7 N I $ M $ 0 I 1 3 N LO i of I m i Z I I a I W w m I I I —z �3 I 91 ps ° 50.02 FT a � � �'r�� ; y, {� �.,' , :I, r ; r �+� �:7� • �' �t.! �i::�i 'd"i�' �; .fir v f '•i, ! , D i� i;,Ci .• y• �_:,,�+v ,�i�, jl » �•j t : 1''•L. . ?J j i �••�� t' _ ' r :/; t �' r " r � - a' ` S F ��^ r �.` : %i ` r.r ` ' � � ' tiN"'w•+. \7'�'' ,� �'' Q•: J� r �.r +�`.�rti �.nt 3 � ' '.i .a,J�"�.i , {� . F-- �`,�x � t �r �'aa •��'> tr, YtJ„y�,"�!''"`�/ • f'' 4�� ": r s'�.. = t J Y�� ,ry;,,.L'��• . - �y•- �,;�.�,• 'c., %,�. 1�i + ,�:1. `< t '�. \ ! t �',�' y - �•�i / . µ •E C K. �'1".r' ,` �'- r •��J ; � �;/ ) � , �fr'l { f'/,� �• r� L�.=��1. y{``'j• I�'t• SM r' ,1I r� JJ', l� P � �' l �' • 'Ji �' �'} �i ��•j�r/!y." r /G�:J 71••r:/ tf!•;y' i� 'r� , ti ��•r + �' • jrf '�'/ Jv �• y'•S• ff � � � . �irrl// `Jt � Y•F,i '�• +. '�• �• 11�rTT1 •J` ,�'�! „i ' L.l, .rri� � .•r • f�• ''r �• r �'J J t,7yf 1�•� �1 �� %•'f�f j it "�.�' j" �l` � tai" t �:� }� I'.r• i�!' - +. ' r�}1 (� �� yvlr'j.,�.J'! jT j.X i Sli'l,4 %%� �j � } `{��j r�> ,iv w J .f J � � t �' rr"i . r J.N,y r J (. y j I J •' %' s.h 7 - f . %��' S• R • t"�'! h �7 �:f , ' ir�i. • J' S J, .• „i , ,j•.� ., y { � • ^ ,r..� I �; ' •. �.}: n%J/� •{ j' t�.4 f •xi• „>� , a. 7,� ��rt'. �. >% ♦w' ,`f ✓:j• 'i ..•�''j r` r �•//� t r 1 t• / -2 vJ ,,^^ ;.o Sy ,,:•:f. ; >1 ,.i f V. t "s jif D•!• .'�',.,f/! f;y!' i.`.� ..i , :; i •.b. r !t'.i "�' ^a; f ° ..f'., i 1 J 41r' f r /. .d ; f.•1Ji'~% ., rr.; - tf 1Y I�1 i \ � O a� ,{ � .1• i I 4 .1 I N ' XV CY rq _ i � �, � � i y � ,(r �•- : / � 1 �� .. � , \ :� �' � I , .-I S j i a 3.' i •�� t I ,: 1 ' ^•; ; .1 w. MS-4 - '`.�•�.t- t�1' N i _ �'i.: �y 3 !f r p oi• I o•`o�if , � f r, ' V s I IT i/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * U B C S E I S * * * 'version 1.03 * * COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: P 397103 DATE: 10 - 20 -2003 JOB NAME: ADESSA FAULT - DATA -FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0231 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2779 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: Sc NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: -- NAME: ELSINORE- JULIAN DISTANCE: 46.3 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: '- NAME: ROSE CANYON DISTANCE: 4.1 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: DISTANCE: 99999.0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1.1 Nv: 1.3 Ca: 0.44 CV: 0.74 Ts: 0.677 To: 0.135 --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------- - - - - -- Page 2 --------------------------------------- -- I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME - I (km) 1�A,B,C)1 (Mw) I (mm/yr) I(SS,DS,BT) ANACAPA -DUNE 169. PISGAH- BULLION MTN. MESQUITE LK I B I 7.3 1 3.0 I DS I 171.4 4 I B I 7.1 I 0.6 I SS SAN GABRIEL I 171.6 I B I 7.0 1 1.00 I SS CALICO - HIDALGO I 176.1 I B 1 7.1 I 0.60 I SANTA SUSANA 1 183.9 B I 6.6 1 5.00 SS I DS HOLSER 1 192.7 I B I 6.5 I 0.40 I DS SIMI -SANTA ROSA 1 199.8 I B I 6.7 1 1.00 I DS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) 1 200.9 I B I 6.9 4.00 I DS GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE 208.3 B I 6.9 I 0.60 SS SAN CAYETANO 209.4 I B I 6.8 I 6.00 I DS BLACKWATER I 223.8 I B I 6.9 0.60 I SS VENTURA - PITAS POINT 227.6 I B 6.8 I 1.00 I DS SANTA YNEZ (East) 1 229.1 I B 1 7.0 I 2.00 I SS SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 1 234.7 I B i 6.8 I 1.00 I DS M.RIDGE- ARROYO PARIDA -SANTA ANA 238.5 B I 6.7 I 0.40 I RED MOUNTAIN 1 241.3 I B I 6.8 I 2.00 I DS GARLOCK (West) 1 246.2 A I 7.1 I 6.00 I PLEITO THRUST 251.2 B I 6.8 1 2.00 SS I BIG PINE DS 1 256.7 B I 6.7 I 0.80 I SS GARLOCK (East) 1 260.9 I A 7.3 7.00 I SS SANTA ROSA ISLAND 1 269.1 I B I 6.9 1.00 I DS WHITE WOLF 1 272.0 B 7.2 2.00 I DS SANTA YNEZ (West) 1 273.1 I B I 6.9 2.00 I SS So. SIERRA NEVADA 1 285.3 1 B 7.1 I 0.10 I DS LITTLE LAKE 1 289.7 I B 6.7 0.70 I OWL LAKE 1 289.7 i B I 6.5 I 2.00 I SS - PANAMINT VALLEY 1 289.9 1 B I 7.2 1 2.50 I TANK CANYON SS 1 291.2 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I DS DEATH VALLEY (South) 1 297.9 1 B I 6.9 1 4.00 I SS LOS ALAMOS -W. BASELINE 1 314.9 B I 6.8 1 0.70 I DS LIONS HEAD 1 332.7 B I 6.6 1 0.02 I DS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) 1 340.0 I B I 6.9 I 4.00 I DS SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) 1 342.6 I B I 7.0 I 0.20 SAN JUAN DS 344.0 B I 7.0 I 1.00 I SS CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) I 350.8 1 B I 6.5 I 0.25 DS OWENS VALLEY 358.3 B I 7.6 I 1.50 I SS LOS OSOS 1 372.8 B I 6.8 0.50 I DS HOSGRI I 378.3 I B I 7.3 I 2.50 SS I HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY 384.3 I B I 7.0 I 2.50 I SS '- DEATH VALLEY (Northern) 393.6 I A I 7.2 1 5.00 I RINCONADA 1 394.1 I B I 7.3 I 1.00 I SS INDEPENDENCE 1 394.2 B 6.9 I 0.20 I BIRCH CREEK DS 1 450.5 I B I 6.5 I 0.70 I DS SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) 1 451.0 B I 5.0 I 34.00 I WHITE MOUNTAINS 455.0 B I 7.1 I 1.00 SS I DEEP SPRINGS SS 1 473.5 I B I 6.6 I 0.80 I DS --------------------------- SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS --------------------- - - - - -- Page 3 ---------------------------------------- I APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE _FAULT NAME I (km) I(A,B,C)I (Mw) I (mm/yr) I(SS,DS,BT) DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) I 478.4 1 A 1 7.0 1 5.00 I SS ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.) I 485.6 I B 6.8 I 1.00 I DS FISH SLOUGH I 493.4 I B I 6.6 1 0.20 I DS HILTON CREEK I 511.7 I B I 6.7 2.50 I DS ORTIGALITA 535.6 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I SS HARTLEY SPRINGS I 536.1 B I 6.6 I 0.50 I DS CALAVERAS (So-of Calaveras Res) 541.0 B 6.2 I 15.00 I SS MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS I 543.3 I B I 7.1 I 0.50 I DS PALO COLORADO - SUR I 544.0 I B I 7.0 I 3.00 I QUIEN SABE I 554.3 I B 6.5 I 1.00 SS I MONO LAKE SS I 572.0 I B I 6.6 I 2.50 I DS ZAYANTE- VERGELES I 572.7 I B 6.8 0.10 I SS SAN ANDREAS (1906) I 577.9 I A I 7.9 I 24.00 I SS SARGENT I 578.1 I B I 6.8 3.00 I ROBINSON CREEK SS 603.3 B 6.5 I 0.50 I DS SAN GREGORIO I 618.7 A I 7.3 I 5.00 I GREENVILLE SS 628.1 1 B 6.9 I 2.00 SS I MONTE VISTA - SHANNON I 628.2 B 6.5 I 0.40 I DS HAYWARD (SE Extension) 628.4 B 6.5 3.00 I ANTELOPE VALLEY SS B 6.7 1 0.80 I DS HAYWARD (Total Length) I 648.1 I A I 7.1 1 9.00 1 SS CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) I 648.1 I B 6.8 I 6.00 I SS GENOA 1 669.0 I B 6.9 I 1.00 I DS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY I 696.0 I B 1 6.9 6.00 I RODGERS CREEK 734.8 I A 1 7.0 I 9.00 I SS WEST NAPA I 735.7 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I POINT REYES SS 1 753.4 I B I 6.8 I 0.30 I DS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA 758.3 B 6.9 I 6.00 I SS MAACAMA (South) I 797.6 B I 6.9 I 9.00 I COLLAYOMI SS I 814.5 1 B I 6.5 I 0.60 I SS BARTLETT SPRINGS 818.1 A 7.1 I 6.00 I SS MAACAMA (Central) 839.2 A 1 7.1 I 9.00 I SS MAACAMA (North) 898.8 A 7.1 1 9.00 I SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) 905.1 B I 6.8 I 6.00 I BATTLE CREEK SS 928.9 B 6.5 0.50 I DS LAKE MOUNTAIN 963.5 B 6.7 1 6.00 SS GARBERVILLE - BRICELAND I 980.6 B I 6.9 1 9.00 I SS MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1036.8 A 7.4 1 35.00 I DS LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1 1043.6 A I 7.0 5.00 I DS "- MAD RIVER 1 1046.5 B I 7.1 I 0.70 I DS CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1050.5 I A 8.3 35.00 I McKINLEYVILLE 1 1056.9 I B I 7.0 I 0.60 I DS TRINIDAD 1 1058.4 I B I 7.3 2.50 I DS FICKLE HILL 1 1058.9 I B I 6.9 0.60 I TABLE BLUFF DS 1064.2 B I 7.0 I 0.60 I DS LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) 1 1077.5 I B I 7.1 1.00 I DS 0 _ Lci LO �i o CY5 U; 0 - CY5 c L CO - � N _ O O O N LO LO U � - � O - Q O � O 0 0 - (6) uo.4eaa1a00y lealoadg r r r APPENDIX C r� GRADING GUIDEILINES Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of the governing agencies, Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, the geotechnical report and the guidelines presented below. All of the guidelines may not apply to a specific site and additional recommendations may be necessary during the grading phase. Site Clearing Trees, dense vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the site. Non - organic debris or concrete may be placed In deeper fill areas under direction of the Soils engineer. Subdrainaee 1 • During grading, the Geologist and Soils Engineer should evaluate the necessit Of placing additional drains (see Plate A). y 2. All subdrainage systems should be observed by the Geologist and Soils Engineer during construction and prior to covering with compacted fill. 3. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project -_ surveyors. Outlets should be located and protected. Treatment of rxisting Ground 1 • All heavy vegetation, rubbish and other deleterious materials should be disposed of off site. 2. All surficial deposits including alluvium and colluvium should be removed unless otherwise Indicated In the text of this report. Groundwater existing in the alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated In the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months. 3. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six Inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards. Fill Placement 1 • Most site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see report). Highly organic or contaminated soil should not be used for compacted fill. (1) 2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by the Solis Engineer. 3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that acceptable to the Soils engineer, the Contractor should rework the fill until it is In accordance with the following: a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre- _ watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. b) Each six inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In this case, the testing method - is ASTM Test Designation D-155 7 -91. 4. Side -hill fills should have a minimum equipment -width key at their toe excavated through all surficial soil and into competent material (see report) and tilted back into the hill (Plate A). As the fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial deposits and Into competent bedrock or other material deemed suitable by the Soils Engineer. 5. Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: a) They are not placed In concentrated pockets; b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine - grained material to surround the rocks; c) The distribution of the rocks Is supervised by the Solis Engineer. 6. Rocks greater than six inches In diameter should be taken off site, or placed In accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas ' designated as suitable for rock disposal. 7. In clay soil large chunks or blocks are common; if in excess of six (6) inches minimum dimension then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break the up blocks. "' (2) $. The Contractor should be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" ov the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes Should be back rolled approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. In addition, if a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should Include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction Is being achieved. Finish - grade testing of the slope should be performed after construction is complete. Each day the Contractor should receive a copy of the Soils Engineer's "Daily field Englneering Report" which would indicate the results of field density tests — that day. — 9. rill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner: a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the cut -fill interface. b) A key at least 1 equipment width wide (see report) and tipped at least 1 foot into slope should be excavated Into competent materials and observed by the Soils Engineer or his representative. c) The cut portion of the slope should be constructed prior to nil placement to evaluate if stabilization is necessary, the contractor hould be responsible for any additional earthwork created by placing fill prior -- to cut excavation. 10. Transition lots (cut and fill) and lots above stabilization fills should be capped With a four foot thick compacted fill blanket (or as indicated in the report). 11. Cut pads should be observed by the Geologist to evaluate the need for overexcavation and replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water infiltration Into highly fractured bedrock or other permeable zones,and /or due to differing expansive potential of materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation may be recommended in some cases. (3) 12. Ex plorator y bac khoeordozertrenche s still remalning after site remo val should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. Grading Observation and Testin 1 • Observation of the fill placement should be provided by the Solis during the progress of grading. Engineer 2. In general, density tests would be made at intervals not exceeding w fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria i ll v of depending on soil conditions and the size of the fill. In an eve i vary number of field density tests should be made to evaluate if the re uI ed quate compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained. q 3. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill as by the Solis Engineer. required 4. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations,subdrain and disposal should be observed by the Soils Engineer prior to placing an rock Will be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Solis Engineer when 11. It areas are ready for observation. such 5. A Geologist should observe subdraln construction. — s• A Geologist should observe benching prior to and during Placement of fill. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards: 1 • Ninety percent of the laboratory standard if native material Is used as backfill. -- 2. As an alternative, clean sand may be utilized and flooded Into Place. specific relative compaction would be required; however, observation, robi g, and if deemed necessary, testing may be required. P ng 3. Exterior trenches, paralleling a footing and extending below a — projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, should be com a cted lane to 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless it is similar to the Inplace fill, should not be allowed In these trench backrill areas. a to Density testing along with probing should y the desired be accomplished to verify red (4) ORlr'l"A! . WAS REUPUF'ing N -1 N 0' U 11 NT �1 1 4 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND, D Wlif - y X L S u� zfffiP ��i' 'o r, WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: .: ffy 0AN DTFG0 '_ �1. i-unld' J ; 1 CITY CLERK CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 ENCROACHMENT MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL COVENANT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. q)31 -PE A.P.N.: 2-to 0 di I I - Li 3 As encroachment permit is hereby granted to the Permittee designated in paragraph one, Attachment "A," as the owner of the Benefited Property described in paragraph two, Attachment "A," to encroach upon City Property described in paragraph three, Attachment "A," as detailed in the diagram, Attachment "B." Attachments "A" and "B" are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth at length. In consideration of the issuance of this encroachment permit, Permittee hereby covenants and agrees, for the benefit of the City, as follo 1. This covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumberancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees, and assigns of the respective parties. 2. Permittee shall use and occupy the City Property only in the manner and for the purposes described in paragraph four, Attachment "A." 3. By accepting the benefits herein, Permittee acknowledges title to the City Property to be in the City and waives all right to contest that title. 4. The term of the encroachment permit is indefinite and may be revoked by the City and abandoned by Permittee at any time. The city shall mail written notice of revocation to Permittee, addressed to the Benefitted Property which shall set forth the date upon which the benefits of encroachment permit are to cease. S. City is entitled to remove all or a portion of the improvements constructed by Permittee in order to repair, replace, or install public improvements. City shall have no obligatio to pay for or restore Permittee's improvements. 6. Permittee agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against all claims, demands, costs, losses, damages, injuries, litigation, and liability arising out of or related to the use, construction, encroachment or maintenance to be done by the Permittee or Permitee's agents, employees or contractors on City Property. 7. Upon abandonment, revocation or completion, Permittee shall, at no cost to the city, return -City Property to its pre-permit condition within the time specified in the notice of revocation or prior to the date of abandonment. Encroachment Maintenance Pen-nit.doc 8. If Permittee fails to restore the City Property, the City shall have the right to enter upon the City Property, after notice to the Permittee, delivered at the Benefitted Property, and restore the City Property to its pre - permit condition to include the removal and destruction of any improvements and Permittee agrees to reimburse the incurred. city for the costs 9. If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this convenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement for all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Permittee shall agree that Permittee's duties and obligations under this convenant are a lien upon the Benefitted Property. Upon 30 -day notice, and an opportunity to respond, the City may add to the tax bill of the Benefitted Property any past due financial obligation owing to city by way of this convenant. 11. Permittee waives the right to assert any claim or action against the City arising out of or resulting from the revocation of this permit or the removal of any improvements or any other action by the City, employees taken in a non - negligent manner, its officers, agents, or the permit. in accordance with the terms of 12. Permittee recognizes and understands that the permit may create a Possessory interest subject to property taxation and that the permitee may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest. 13. As a condition precedent to Permittee's right to go upon the City Property, the agreement must first be singed by the Permittee, notarized, executed by the City and recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego. The recordin2 fee shall be paid 1 Permittee. Approved and issued by the City of Encinitas, California, this r' , � y �� M , Califo , 2004. 2 J fl ay of AGREED AND ACCEPTED: PERMITTEE Dated H.'N Z.rj - ZWLj Dated /mot 1 4- ZZrj ? fy►4 �. � ` r �' (Notarization of PtERMIT,;'E signature is attach ed) City f i aia NOTA R ZNOT REQUIRED- - Encroachment Maindenance Permit.doc CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of County of _ ,•y (. _ U On M A 2013 LA before me, D�f 6. �(/I,r,(�,Tj�}J,F' Iflcfi – jam �/ 1vUt3 i C Date Name and Title of officer e- ( 9•. 'Jane Doe, Notary Public ") personally appeared 4AIL) e +� "` S , �jVpe,C�- A0��5� Nam(s) of Signer(s) ❑ personally known to me – OR – ved to me on the basis of sa! tort' evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) i ar ' ubscribed to the instrument and acknowled me that he /sh( hh ecuted the same in IN 9 ®r/the*c4uthorized capacity(ies), and that by RSA Q. JR his/h eir gnature(s) on the instrument the person(s), I�M0138"05 or the en Ity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Not Pudic Though the information below is not required by /ate if m OPTIONAL y prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal an reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Corporate Officer Title(s): Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator - 7 Signer ❑ Guardian or Conservator El Other: Top of th❑ Other: Top of thumb here Signer Is Representing: Is Representing: ® 1994 National Notary Association • 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184-Canoga Park, CA 91 309 -71 84 Prod. No. 5907 Reortler. Call Toll -Free 1 -800- 876 -6827 ATTACHMENT A TO COVENANT REGARDING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 9_ p,�� _ P E PARAGRAPH ONE: Pe rmittee Blane Adessa and Sandra Adessa, husband and wife PARAGRAPH TWO: Benefited Prop Lots 5 and 6 in Block `E' of Cardiff `A', in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Map thereof No. 1334, Filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 12, 1911, APN 260 - 411 -43 PARAGRAPH THREE: City P� ro o erty A portion of the westerly right -of -way of Edinburg Avenue adjacent to Assessor's Parcel Number 260-411-43. PARAGRAPH FOUR: P9Mose For the construction of private walkway, stairs, and wall A TTACHMENT 13 DETAIL OF ENCROACHMENT INTO THE RIGHT -OF -WAY OF CAMBRIDGE AVENUE ADJACENT TO APN 260-411-43 � N 0 FOR PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WA Y SEE ENCROACHMENT COVENANT 0 5 10 20 a n o IE 867 a o G \ \ 6- 96.95 1 S °- 98.0 10\ �► �w 97.55 ` `• 1 e , i Z ` 96.95 , 9 �mo a � � e [99.40] 0 10 0 LIG 9T WL END WALL 90 f Y 99.0 90 -;o C 99.0 r' FOR SIDEWALK STAIRS AND WALL IN THE PUBDe RIGHT OF WAY SEE ENCROACHMENT COVENANT l� - --- - - � 11 I " .... : .. - .1 ... .. , '. : :.... . - .. .1 ... .. , .. . .... .. �... 1. . - .. � .. . .. - . . , .. .: i . . , . -... .. .1 ' . ... . - .. - - ... . ... I.- �.. ... . . - � . � . . . .11.. . . .... . . . .. I � '..... ... . . t I � , . . . .. I . . . : . . � . . . . I . � . , . . . . . . . M I . .. --- 1 � � � .1 . . . .: . I � , I : I ' - : I I - I 6. CA . � : � � P , . , I ' . I. . . . . , I . . . � , I I I '. � . : I . .� � , , , 1, : . . '! . .. I I I : ... . . I . ::""� . � .. .1 , : V . , . .. , I ' . . � . ., . I I � . . , . * * ... . ,- , . ,,, � " ". �' . . I . . . ::: .:. ... � . � � . . . . , - . .. I ... . . ,.. d; - I, ' I . . ' .. . ." ' " . I � . . . . . I . ' . . . .. .11 . ...... I '. . - ... .. . I.... 11 , . ... � ... * 1: 16 . - . . . . . . . ... � I : �' - . ... ---- ..... . ---"..'- � . '. �� : I ............ I . .� .��: ". � , '..' I - - : I I I'- ..%.3 . .. '.. : . 4Z� : :: .. , . . , . . ..:. . - I I I ., .. ... : . ' I j� I ., : � :� . I \ . ... ,: ..... �*�'��' . , , .1 . - .. . I . I . . . , I .. . . . ��' .. , " , - .. � .1 . . � .11 � % , � . : . : I . '..' . -,, . . . -, - , ,. .. . � , , d � . . . . . : : . .: I ;' ..",.: : . . : 1., 1. : ,f, : ,� , .1 : i . . " , � . ... ' ,-. � .- . ... .. -, 0 . I I -, , d F ..' v!d::..::b. I ., .1 ... , - . . , I , . [ .- : ... �' � � , 1 .1 .'. . ." � : . . ' : , ' . I I . . � I . - . , �' : ", . � , .1 . � - ::, .- � . . :,:. �: ,� ., - , . . ,: . . e - ? 1.��.. ...::. � , , .. . .zz�z: . , . . ., . - . . . � - , . - , , . , . I I - I .: ..! ...... � . � :. , I , . . - I.. � . .. . I : ..- ` . I '*. ... I ' - . � :: c s��!:�.".: ....... - '�' b .. . . : \ , .%. I . . ..... '. . - I .. 1 ..:�'�.i� 1:::� * 1 � . .. - .� .� � . . . . . . �. '.�' .. '. ---_.,:.. * -� . - I 'I" . .. . I.. I . . .... ......... ... III � .1 ` ....... - ...I - " - " - � .. . . .. . . '- . .. .. 1. .. .. ... I � - � I I �% .. . , � , .,. : � � , , , .,::.. � . ...' I . � I II I .. I I .1 ... . ... . ( ... -.1 . ,� c5!!1i". . I � z ... . ... :. 1, .. � <zx `�:--:�' : � ; ... .� , . . . .. 6� ' �p :- Pi ' - ��': I � - . . - ... I. ....: f" UO . , ..'. - . . , . ... . - .. .. %-- . . .. . ... 0 . � �. (5' �' . ... ....�. ul ".. � ..... . . .. �� " " ...., ... .... � � - - :�' 1. .::: . � " """"' ,. .�. . I .... I ... .. ... � ...... .. . �:: : ,.' z . .: . .:.. I .... . .... . :: , ::. . ... ...' lz .. , . . . , 1 1 , I . .::..: .... .. , ...: ... ' * .. I . - , , �� I :-., : " '. - . : ':.�. :: ... - "' " I :�i.. . .. �::* .:,. - - - ., �' . � ::�:�� , ..", -'. .. .... ' . � ,.. . � �� ... , ..; .:.. .1 : � .1 .... , ; .. . .:: �. ��' � �'�... ,� !�: . . .. , ." � : ::.:.�:�:��i � --P-- .1 , ::':::'� - . . . . , --: � . " .. , . . . ' . . ' . ::::: � ----�' , ,> : :. �! �� :'.' .,.,.* '. %... , "I I : " "", :. ".'� .. . . " . , : . : , . ... ' ' 1 . . I . � 6. .1 ...-:'. .." - V�- : ... 7 I li .. �� *:.;: 0 .- . � , - ... ..... 1. . � I 01; � . - .......... I .1 I . . "�IIII '� :. '. , .. �.. .. . .. . .1 I ..... :�i . I .. I � - - ,.. .. . 1. I .. ,� I . � . . . . . � . I I , . �v �- - ., .1 1. . .1 ,. . - ::��:. I : I.. I " �� .. : .. I "I .. - . � I � ... . . . , ... I 1. :r :. '. .. - .. .. .... . .. .. , .. 1 . ... . . � I . . . �;: �: .'. ' . .. . . ... . .1 ., ... . --� - . I , . . , ..... . .. '. �... �!... . ... . .. . , I . �. ." ... .': .: . �. '. .. , .. ..... . . . . I ��'��: I . , - � i ... : i I ... ,. I I , . . . . . . .. I - . a '... . "..' I , .. , ,. a 0 - � - � '. I R -- q � E -< 0 -'r Q5 0 r- . -9 Q) cl Cr m R r"3 z O") - rri 0 � - Do ;Z) QD Q - �; - - z C z - cyi t a , To . r'l ,D nn ' No <�) a C') ( or) - fl oa w �h- c Ri !�i C , 'i S,). Z t �� :- - lt� m - O z �z 2p E Z a z m Q) . m � �u (14 ZTZ Z Q) O (::) m C-11 a > � �u - .11--' I - � o -p= ---i Q) : 7r=I:=-- K: VkEG/s , "*\ � M \ z cl) I., ". --� N. If 'O % -- x 2: N . M - I C) O I - 0 0 --A -TI K3 1 -n �Q, . . 1I 0 �P- - Nt w . .. cf) QD r 1 p . = ;;o 0 p W -i ' � m > ; pl 06 m * . -i z . . -" O 0 I 71 n 0 ---L c') -1- SAMPO ENGINEERING, INC. ol I I O -bl 5ECOND SIHLL I LNGINIIA�, M 720T IEL.: (760) 436-0660 FAX (760) 436-0659 I Al 03 -139 12110103 -- - ------- -