Loading...
2001-7060 G/I/PE - - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT City Of Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Encinitas Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering July 3, 2002 Attn: Insurance Company of the West P.O. Box 85563 San Diego, California 92186-5563 RE: Frank Zaidle 138 Grandview Street Improvement Permit 7060-I Final release of security-labor and materials Permit 7060-I authorized the installation of improvements as shown on approved plan, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the project. Therefore, release of the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 184 03 80, in the amount of$5,773.00, is hereby fully exonerated. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at(760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Masih Maher eslie Suelter Senior Civil Engineer Financial Services Manager Financial Services Cc: Leslie Suelter,Financial Manager Frank Zaidle file enc. TF:I.-6n-() 3-2r;p0 F:vS-(,n_F ;.,r>?- ,n, 9%(nuc, Enciniti,. C.ihfomia ')2()2 recycled paper _---- ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT t� City Of Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Encinitas Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering July 3, 2002 Attn: Insurance Company of the West P.O. Box 85563 San Diego, California 92186-5563 RE: Frank Zaidle 138 Grandview Street Grading Permit 7060-G Final release of security-labor and materials Permit 7060-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the rough grading. Therefore, release of the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 184 03 79, in the amount of$6,195.00, is hereby fully exonerated. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, / V ' ML Masih Maher Vqsli� Suelter Senior Civil Engineer Financial Services Manager Financial Services Cc: Leslie Suelter,Financial Manager Frank Zaidle file enc. TEI,7(U-6�3-3(U1 P.AV-(�u-hi?-?( ��1; ti A"ulc,in ���nur_. F.nciniti>. Califxnia 92n?1-3633 TIM 76ii-6 3-2)-p() recycled paper FIELD 1 C'STING REPORT W.O. 31®z- - c DATE G- /Z OZZ NAME , HOURS_ ,p CLIENT TRACT/ AND y Si- LOCATION SUPT. CONTRACTOR �gN®Scft�E EQUIPMENT TEST LE MOISTURE DRY % TEST SOIL NO. LOCATION OR CONTENT DENSITY RELATIVE TYPE TYPE DEPTH % P.C.F. COMPACTION 410. z T ` '" e, [f c cT5 - 10 sFS 3' jr- COMMENTS: GeoSo 7 Inc. �j BY. PAGE *' OF E:/wp/forms/fi eIdtst.wpd I //RA4,04 Gc6-- -5 MO Y Aft 13 011 G—►L��uu tr�E' W Sr: i I j i m � 7y3 o 2 760 - 4YZ -11,5 I i T ofESS/O* M. W rn 'JGINEERIN SSERL�Ir No. 058703 ?YIFFNf;lnj+.--,— * res * i t9l CIVIL E �F CAS\E� I i j I i I ' i i i i DRAINAGE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY Design Storm: 100-year Land Use: Natural (Current) Residential (Future) Soil Type: Soil type based on SCS Soil Survey for San Diego County. Hydrologic Soil "D"was used for this analysis. Runoff Coefficirnts: "C" value based on San Diego County Hydrology manual. Rainfall intensity: Based on criteria presented in the San Diego County Hydrology Manual. RATIONAL METHOD THE RATIONAL METHOD WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED TO ESTIMATE RUNOFF FROM SMALL URBAN AND DEVELOPED AREAS , AND ITS USE SHOULD GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THESE CONDITIONS . BASICALLY, THE RATIONAL-METHOD EQUATION RELATES RAINFALL INTENSITY, A RUNOFF COEFFICIENT, AND DRAINAGE-AREA SIZE TO THE DIRECT PEAK RUNOFF FROM THE DRAINAGE AREA. THE RELATIONSHIP IS EXPRESSED BY THE EQUATION: Q = CIA WHERE: Q = THE RUNOFF IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND (CFS) FROM A GIVEN AREA. C = A RUNOFF COEFFICIENT REPRESENTING THE RATIO OF RUNOFF TO RAINFALL. I = THE TIME-AVERAGED RAINFALL INTENSITY IN INCHES PER HOUR CORRESPONDING TO THE TIME OF CONCENTRATION. A = DRAINAGE AREA, (ACRES) . THE VALUES OF THE RAINFALL COEFFICIENT (C) AND THE RAINFALL INTENSITY (I ) ARE BASED ON A STUDY OF DRAINAGE-AREA CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS TYPE AND CONDITION OF THE RUNOFF SURFACES AND THE TIME OF CONCENTRATION. DATA REQUIRED FOR THE COMPUTATION OF PEAK DISCHARGE BY THE RATIONAL METHOD ARE: (i) RAINFALL INTENSITY, (I) FOR A STORM OF SPECIFIED DURATION AND SELECTED DESIGN FREQUENCY, (ii) DRAINAGE- AREA CHARACTERISTICS OF SIZE (A) , SHAPE, SLOPE, AND (iii) A RAINFALL RUNOFF COEFFICIENT (C) . RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD) DEVELOPED AREAS (URBAN) Coefficient. C Soil Group "' Land Use A B C D Residential: Single Family .40 .45 .50 .55 Multi-Units .45 .50 .60 .70 Mobile Homes .45 .50 .55 .65 Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre) .30 .35 .40 .45 Commercial f21 80% Impervious .70 .75 .80 .85 Industrial '2' 90% Impervious .80 .85 .90 .95 NOTES: Soil Group maps are available at the offices of the Department of Public Works. 12' Where actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated imperviousness values of 80% or 90%, 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 group. Actual imperviousness = 50% Tabulated imperviousness = 80% Revised C = 50 x 0.85 = 0.53 80 IV-A-9 APPENDIX IX Updated 4/93 c 55 Ln o V C) C:) C.0 C=;\ LLB L&J C- 05 Lill Lr> z Ln ou Cf Lo cm Cpl C14 w 1UL—i r Q, w Q o < PW < w z 2 Lr% < C> C) Is cm V) M t.(1 CL a o LL- J z , < U < < O c C, < 0 LL- C) Lij C) coi C) u 7. < < 0 CA- C) 0 CD Lu -j p W L3 m Lu < z N Ad II-A-7 A/ EOZZAT/ON 9L 31 3B5 FG of Tc - y J 5000 Tc = Tine 0/ c'017cen11,allo17 4000 L ° L engfh of wale,-shed H = Difi°erence in --h-V1211,017 a/01g 3000 eP/ccfive s/o oe 1117e (See 9,0Pe17d1X X-B)T L c iL1i/rs Fce� f/041rs Minufes 2000 4 2�0 3 /BD /000 /O \ 900 800 7,0,0 6,0,0 SOD \ S 90 \ BO 4 70 / 6O \ 10 2019 \ 2 \ QO \\ 30 /DD / SDOD ��QDO 20 3000 \ /6 40 2000 \ \ /2 /B00 \ 30 NOTE /600 /D /4'010 9 FOR NATURAL WATERSFM-DS 12010 B 20 ADD TEN MINUTES TO I� /DOD y COMPUTED TIME OF CON- � CENTRATION_ BDO 6 700 600 5 /O 51910 4 ¢DO 300 5 200 A/ z 7c- SAN DIEGO COUNTY NOMOGRAPH FOR DETERMINATION DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES OF TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Tc) DESIGN MANUAL FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS APPROVED '5 /y/ /�L-1� .� DATE APPENDIX X-A FV-A10 Rev. 5/81 • �, J I I Ln 2 ^ i p cm C14 ° `— �• 'moo O fa cm cm co Lrj co CZC J ^ N Q fz.- - (_ti P \ m m - • Z r 0 0 < _° � z < cd • N < z z p v > O U x i- �- - o O '-' X - I I I 1 f c,J z — r. Q Cl N a o o z ti J < u H O CD - - - < v u1 O to r n Lt o tt- o w o u U fn 00 M < t � d O M' oy O w J r W U O LL < O Z r N < U u a i ���•�2�E 100 I i Al Ll ) a m i _ 0-33 GF S Az I i Ll S G F S i i I I � I I I CAf,GJ i- 4-ri r-O 12 SZC-rl ON i I I a i m I 2 Ilk ii i I i I i I f i I i ! I , i i i i 138 grandview 16' private access drive Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File d:%aestadlfmw\138.fm2 Worksheet 1 Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.015000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 50.000000 H :V Right Side Slope 50.000000 H :V Discharge 0.41 cfs Results Depth 0.07 ft Flow Area 0.27 ftz Wetted Perimeter 7.30 ft Top Width 7.30 ft Critical Depth 0.08 ft Critical Slope 0.007087 ft/ft Velocity 1.54 fus Velocity Head 0.04 ft Specific Energy 0.11 ft Froude Number 1.42 Flow is supercritical. 05521)01 FlowMaster v5.13 09:24:44 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)75151666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File untided.fm2 Worksheet 1 Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.015000 ft(ft Depth 0.07 ft Left Side Slope 50.000000 H :V Right Side Slope 50.000000 H :V Discharge 0.41 cfs 0.07 ft 1 VD H 1 NTS 06121)01 FlowMaster v5.13 09:21:21 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 ,COI PROX. LOCATION OF 5' SDGE EASEMENT 5 9 06 EX. TREE (TYP ti \,PR D \ `f3UILDI G PAD i \ \I PAD 170.3 LOT CA �Rq CT 201,8 PROPOSED PL 0 (TYP) �\ _ Q ` p-AD 1 PROPOSED GARAGE PAD 144/2 — , �. 2 '•,� \ � � \\ � AYLIGHT LINE (TYP) !y \ EXISTING , PAR � \ \ HOUSE 2 "° o \ Co' r \ PROPOSED 8' RO D ROW DEDICAITON PA R PROPOSED ND � PRIV TE UTILITY A \ ACC SS EASEMENT I I I � 1 ROPSED CURBS R I AND 5' IDEWALK r ul) \ w STING Cu 20' I S� . GU AND 0 SIDEWALK GR PND S 20' w GRAPHIC SCALE 30 0 15 30 60 120 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 30' ft. i I DRA4Na k-6-- S7vO`{ Apt l 3°v G-►t�t�v u Vim W ST: i i , k �� �A,1 t*01. 7y3 j Ito - Dhiv 1 Zz 1 Zoo \ i JUM 0 6 so ' r r�lGINEERINGSERViCIF t_._... _ITYOFENC(N17A` .._.._ I i i i I , i DRAINAGE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY Design Storm: 100-year Land Use: Natural (Current) Residential (Future) Soil Type: Soil type based on SCS Soil Survey for San Diego County. Hydrologic Soil "D"was used for this analysis. Runoff Coefficirnts: "C"value based on San Diego County Hydrology manual. Rainfall intensity: Based on criteria presented in the San Diego County Hydrology Manual. RATIONAL METHOD THE RATIONAL METHOD WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED TO ESTIMATE RUNOFF FROM SMALL URBAN AND DEVELOPED AREAS , AND ITS USE SHOULD GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THESE CONDITIONS . BASICALLY, THE RATIONAL-METHOD EQUATION RELATES RAINFALL INTENSITY, A RUNOFF COEFFICIENT, AND DRAINAGE-AREA SIZE TO THE DIRECT PEAK RUNOFF FROM THE DRAINAGE AREA. THE RELATIONSHIP IS EXPRESSED BY THE EQUATION: Q = CIA WHERE: Q = THE RUNOFF IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND (CFS) FROM A GIVEN AREA. C = A RUNOFF COEFFICIENT REPRESENTING THE RATIO OF RUNOFF TO RAINFALL. I = THE TIME-AVERAGED RAINFALL INTENSITY IN INCHES PER HOUR CORRESPONDING TO THE TIME OF CONCENTRATION. A = DRAINAGE AREA, (ACRES) . THE VALUES OF THE RAINFALL COEFFICIENT (C) AND THE RAINFALL INTENSITY (I) ARE BASED ON A STUDY OF DRAINAGE-AREA CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS TYPE AND CONDITION OF THE RUNOFF SURFACES AND THE TIME OF CONCENTRATION. DATA REQUIRED FOR THE COMPUTATION OF PEAK DISCHARGE BY THE RATIONAL METHOD ARE: (i) RAINFALL INTENSITY, (I) FOR A STORM OF SPECIFIED DURATION AND SELECTED DESIGN FREQUENCY, (ii) DRAINAGE- AREA CHARACTERISTICS OF SIZE (A) , SHAPE, SLOPE, AND (iii) A RAINFALL RUNOFF COEFFICIENT (C) . RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD) DEVELOPED AREAS (URBANI Coefficient. C Soil Group 11) Land Use A B C D Residential: Single Family .40 .45 .50 .55 Multi-Units .45 .50 .60 .70 Mobile Homes .45 .50 .55 .65 Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre) .30 .35 .40 .45 Comme-rcial 121 80% Impervious .70 .75 .80 .85 Industrial (Z' 90% Impervious .80 .85 .90 .95 NOTES: (1) Soil Group maps are available at the offices of the Department of Public Works. 'Z' Where actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated imperviousness values of 80% or 90%, 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 group. Actual imperviousness = 50% Tabulated imperviousness = 80% Revised C = 50 x 0.85 = 0.53 80 IV-A-9 APPENDIX IX Updated 4/93 C3 r Ult ell -5 Ln ca M C�z CL LIJ cn z 0 0 C14 :=b C--- 25 < C:D CN Lr\ z CN C=) CN ce U110 CN U-1 CN u 14 ca < 0 < w < < z < < Z C) So LPI ............ Lu cn o o C> F-LL. <z CW% < c) C) LL < 0 0 Lij w IV; 0 z < < C 94 CA- C) ca C) LL) -j LL. < z ki 0. I-A-7 f/ EQLIAT/ON C//.9L.�\ •3BS Fees` SODD Tc = Time 0/ concentration 4000 L Lenyth o/ watershed H r Dift'erenC& in &%Vahan along 3000 e��cctive s/o oe 1117e (See �9PPend/z X-BV T L iYli/rs Feet flours Minutes 2000 4 240 3 /BD /DOD /D \ 900 BDD .2 /20 7,00 600 \ /DD 90 \ BD 400 ����_ ¢ 70 \\ So 2oD \ z \ QD \\ 3D 1190 / SDOD �40D0 20 \\ /B 3000 \ /6 4D 2000 \ \ /2 .�D NOTE /600 00 /O /4 y IIFOR NATURAL WATERS I -DS /2DD g 20 ADD TEN MINUTES TO I� /DOD 7 COMPUTED TIME OF CON- — 900 CENTRATION_ BDO 6 700 600 5 /O 500 400 300 `T 200 H � r SAN DIEGO COUNTY NOMOGRAPH FOR DETERMINATION DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES OF TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Tc) FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS DESIGN MANUAL APPROVED '5 lyl lly �c .� DATE A E APPENDIX X-A LA-in Rair o Rs _ CM uj oe NZZ ED _ ^ u l y N cm O J\ r� o � < - < W C i c. C < U C Z • Z U � < tb N C) < Z O U z r LLJ •- pcn s 00 Z [t J < u Q00 N tJ1 O t t� LP1 J. o < o r°, C) w 0 u = vi 0 U J < z C 0 rM Z9 a. 0 " 0 W -i f- W U OlL < o Z F- N V u d �too Xz i l ke- Q - G =' A, Q, _ (.H = Q, • d 23 3 CF S A z O(P-7 A<- Q.z= G:t7 A Z- , . I5q +- .0IS 3 Ljs CFS i I i i I i 'D R�V�w.� �.t'�C-n ON i i i i i i I I ; I i I i I i i I I 138 grandview 16' private access drive Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File d:lhaestad\fmw\138.fm2 Worksheet 1 Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.015000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 50.000000 H :V Right Side Slope 50.000000 H :V Discharge 0.41 cfs Results Depth 0.07 ft Flow Area 0.27 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 7.30 ft Top Width 7.30 ft Critical Depth 0.08 ft Critical Slope 0.007087 ft/ft Velocity 1.54 ft/s Velocity Head 0.04 ft Specific Energy 0.11 ft Froude Number 1.42 Flow is supercritical. 05/21/01 FlowMaster v5.13 09:24:44 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File untitled.fm2 Worksheet 1 Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.015000 ft/ft Depth 0.07 ft Left Side Slope 50.000000 H :V Right Side Slope 50.000000 H :V Discharge 0.41 cfs 0.07 ft 1 VD H 1 NTS 05/21111 FlowMaster v5.13 09:21:21 PM Haestad Methods,Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 APPROX. `� \ �� `1 0A-� LOCATION OF 5' SDGE EASEMENT---- I � J 60� r EX. TREE (TYP \ 'L \pUILDI G PAD \ PAD 170.3 LOT 6 PR, �RACT � 1 � 20 78 PROPOSED PL �`' G� . �1 (TYP) P-AD PROPOSED PM \\ GARAGE PAD \ \ AYLIGHT LINE 1 \ . EXISTING �� PA R. r \ HOUSE PROPOSED 8 RO D ROW DEDICAITON © 1 PAR PROPOSED 16 �, N 7 PRIV TE UTILITY AND \ ACC SS EASEMENT , I �,ROPSED CURBS R AND 5 IDEWALK •4 TING CU 20' S� ' GU AND Q 0 SIDEWALK G?,P, 4 S 20' w GRAPHIC SCALE 30 0 15 30 60 120 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 30' ft. fi #f 4 FIELD TESTING REPORT W.O. DATE /Z G- /Z -OZ NAME HOURS , CLIENT TRACT��NC-1✓WA/Si- LOCATION �,JCINZT.�lS SUPT. AZ4,✓X CONTRACTOR 26cs,,e L.A.vL�Scs EQUIPMENT Ai� 2So r--s TEST LE MOISTURE DRY % TEST SOIL NO. LOCATION OR CONTENT DENSITY RELATIVE TYPE TYPE DEPTH % P.C.F. COMPACTION Z Ij T L ^°^ r 9 77c 7 fLdi s.'G b0 .✓n..s .SAC ,AO ! Gr 1 /t?r�a- ro o S' � 4616 , .4S-r cc_095 COMMENTS: Geosoil Inc. BY: PAGE OF' E:/wp/forms/fief dtst.wpd r,r+" c �{��1tVtktiNVLSEFIVI`vE� FINAL COMPACTION REPORT OF GRADING 138 GRANDVIEW STREET CITY OF ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR MR. FRANK ZAIDLE 7434 TH STREET ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 W.O. 3102-B-SC NOVEMBER 21, 2001 S9 Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 -- November 21, 2001 W.O. 3102-B-SC Mr. Frank Zaidle 7434 th Street Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Final Compaction Report of Grading, 138 Grandview Street, City of Encinitas, San Diego County, California References: 1. "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 138 Grandview Street, City of Encinitas, San Diego County, California,"W.O. 3102-A-SC, dated June 6, 2001, by GeoSoils, Inc. 2. "Uniform Building Code," Whittier, California, vol. 1, 2, and 3, dated 1997, by International Conference of Building Officials. INTRODUCTION This report presents a summary of the geotechnical testing and observation services provided by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) during the rough earthwork phase of development of the -- new residence at the subject site. Earthwork commenced October 26, 2001, and was completed on November 30, 2001. Survey of line and grade and locating of the building footprint was performed by others and not performed by GSI. The purpose of grading was to prepare a relatively level pad for the construction of a single family residence. Based on the observations and testing performed by GSI, it is our opinion that the building pad area appears suitable for its intended use. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY The geologic conditions exposed during the process of grading were regularly observed by a representative from our firm. The geologic conditions encountered generally were as anticipated and-presented in our referenced report (GSI, 2001). GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Preparation of Existing Ground 1. Prior to grading, the major surficial vegetation was stripped and hauled offsite. 2. Removals consisted of topsoil/colluvium and weathered terrace deposits within the building area to at least 5 feet outside the building footprint. Removals depths within the building footprint were on the order of ±2 to ±2'/2 feet below pre- construction grades. Once removals were completed, the exposed bottom was reprocessed prior to fill placement. Overexcavation Where removals were less than a recommended fill blanket thickness of 3 feet, overexcavation to a depth of 3 feet below pad grade was performed within the building — footprint. Overexcavation was completed to at least 5 feet beyond the building footprint in accordance with the recommendations presented in our referenced report (GSI, 2001). The actual location of the proposed footprint of the building was provided by others. Fill Placement -~ 1. Fill consisting of native soils were placed in 6-to 8-inch lifts, watered, and mixed to achieve at least optimum moisture conditions. The material was then compacted, using earth moving equipment to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. FIELD TESTING 1. Field density tests were performed using nuclear densometer ASTM test methods D-2922 and D-3017 and sand-cone ASTM test method ASTM D-1556. The test results taken during grading are presented in the attached Table 1, and the locations of the tests taken during grading are presented on Plate 1. 2. Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and random locations to check the compactive effort provided by the contractor. Based upon the grading operations observed, the test results presented herein are considered representative of the compacted fill. 3. Visual classification of the soils in the field was the basis for determining which maximum density value to use for a given density test. Mr. Frank Zaidle W.O.3102-6-SC 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas November 21, 2001 °- File:e:\wp7\3100\3102b.fcr Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. LABORATORY TESTING Maximum Density Testing _ The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined according to test method ASTM D-1557. The following table presents the-results: MAXIMUM DENSITY MOISTURE CONTENT SOIL TYPE PC PERCEN A- Reddish Brown Silty Sand 129.0 9.0 Expansion Index Expansive soil conditions have been evaluated for the site. A representative sample of the soils near pad grade was recovered for expansion index testing. Expansion index testing was performed in general accordance with Standard 18-2 of the Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials, 1997). The test results indicate an expansion index of 5, and the corresponding expansion classification of very low. Corrosion/Sulfate -- A soil sample from the property was analyzed for corrosion/soluble sulfate content. Sulfate testing indicates that site soils have a negligible exposure to concrete per Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 UBC (sample = 0.0213 percent by weight). Corrosion testing (i.e., pH, resistivity) indicates that the soils are essentially neutral (pH = 6.9) and corrosive to ferrous metals (saturated resistivity = 1,300 ohms-cm). Alternative methods and additional comments should be obtained by a qualified corrosion engineer. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Unless superseded by recommendations presented herein, the conclusions and recommendations contained in the referenced report (GSI, 2001) remain pertinent and applicable. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Processing of original/existing ground and placement of compacted fills under the purview of this report have been completed under the observation of and with selective testing Mr. Frank Zaidle W.O. 3102-B-SC 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas November 21, 2001 -- File:eAwpM100\3102b.fcr Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. provided by representatives of GSI and are found to be in general compliance with the requirements of the County of San Diego, California. Our findings were made in conformance with generally accepted professional engineering — practices, and no further warranty is implied or made. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work,testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. — We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please call us at (760) 438-3155. — Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. � k" ;. ��� Reviewed by: f �/ tri Exp. A7857 T Robert G. Crisman David W. Skelly Project Geologist, CEG 1 "`� �� ,i/ Civil Engineer, RCEL47857cp ~\ BV/RGC/JPF/DWS/cb y- Attachments: Table 1 - Field Density Test Results Plate 1 - Field Density Test Location Map Distribution: (4) Addressee Mr. Frank Zaidle 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas W.O. 3102-B-SC Fi1e:eAwp7+310013102b.fcr November 21, 2001 Page 4 GeoSoils, I>ne. Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST DATE TEST.LOCATION ELEV MOISTURE DRY REL TEST SOIL NO; OR CONTENT DENSITY COMP METHOD TYPE DEPTH (ft): c °6 1 10/26/01 N.E. OF PAD -2.0 10.5 118.6 92.0 ND A 2 10/26/01 S.E. OF PAD -2.0 9.6 117.4 91.0 ND A 3* 10/29/01 NE. FILL SLOPE 69.5 75 116.9 90.6 ND A 3A 10/29/01 SE. FILL SLOPE 69.5 8.1 116.6 90.4 SC A 4* 10/29/01 NE. FILL SLOPE 69.5 10.7 117.3 90.9 ND A 4A 10/29/01 SE. FILL SLOPE 69.5 9.9 116.9 90.6 ND A 5 10/30/01 NW. PAD 69.0 9.6 117.5 91.1 ND A 6 10/30/01 SW.PAD 69.0 9.2 116.5 90.3 ND A 7-FG 10/30/01 NW. PAD FG 9.8 118.2 91.6 ND A 8-FG 10/30/01 SW.PAD FG 9.5 117.1 90.8 ND q LEGEND * = INDICATES FAILED TEST A= INDICATES RETEST ND = NUCLEAR DENSOMETER SC = SAND CONE FG = FINISH GRADE Zaidel W.O.3102-B-SC 138 Grandview, Encinitas November 21,2001 File:C:Iexcelltables�310o13102-B-SC Page 1 S9 Geotechnical * Geologic * Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 June 6, 2001 W.O. 3102-A-SC Mr. Frank Zaidle 7434 1h Street Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 138 Grandview Street, City of Encinitas, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Zaidle: In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a geotechnical evaluation of the subject site. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the onsite soils and geologic conditions and their effects on the proposed site development -- from a geotechnical viewpoint. -' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our review of the available data (Appendix A), as well as field exploration, laboratory testing, and geologic and engineering analysis, development of the property appears to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the text of this report are properly incorporated into design and construction of the project. The most significant elements of this study are summarized below: _ All existing topsoil/colluvium (on the order of 2 to 2'/2 feet thick) is generally loose and potentially compressible, and is not suitable for the support of fill or settlement sensitive improvements. These materials will require removal and recompaction if settlement sensitive improvements are proposed within their influence. Depth of removals are outlined in the conclusions and recommendations section of this report. • Laboratory testing indicates the expansion potential of the onsite soils is very low. At the present time, soluble sulfate and corrosion testing results indicate that soils -' have a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete and relatively corrosive to ferrous metals when saturated. • Groundwater was not encountered onsite and is generally not anticipated to affect site development, providing that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. — Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities should not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. • Conventional foundation systems utilizing slab-on-grade may be used onsite. • The seismic design parameters presented herein should be considered during project planning and design. • The geotechnical design parameters presented herein should be incorporated into project planning, design, and construction by the project structural engineer and architect. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, — GeoSoils, Inc. �,(*aE �� Revie ed by: — R 4 Ewe 3 1 a2 �xp.l� l 113 — Robert G. Crisman �� ��®� ��°��� David W. Skell cIVI� Project Geologist, C ��� Civil Engineer, RCE 4" 7 -- RGC/JPF/DWS/jh Distribution: (2) Addressee — (2) City of Encinitas Frank Zaidle W.O. 3102-A-SC File:eAwp7\3100\3102a.pge Page Two GeoSoils, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 _ SITE CONDITIONS/PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 FIELD STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 EARTH MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Topsoil/Colluvium (not Mapped) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Faulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 _ Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Seismic Shaking Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Seismic Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 LABORATORY TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Moisture-Density Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Shear Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Expansion Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Corrosion/Sulfate Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Site Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Demolition/Grubbing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 _ Removals (Unsuitable Surficial Materials) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Fill Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Overexcavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Preliminary Foundation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Bearing Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Lateral Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 GeoSoils, Inc. Footing Setbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Very Low Expansive Soils (Expansion Index 0 to 20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Restrained Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Cantilevered Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 .— Wall Backfill and Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Retaining Wall Footing Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Footing Excavation Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Landscape Maintenance and Planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Additional Site Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Trenching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 _ Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Utility Trench Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 PLAN REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 FIGURES: Figure 1 - Site Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 2 - California Fault Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ATTACHMENTS: -- Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rear of Text Appendix A- References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rear of Text Appendix B -Test Pit Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rear of Text — Mr. Frank Zaidle Table of Contents File:e:\wp7\3100\3102a.pge Page ii GeoSoiis, Inc. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 138 GRANDVIEW STREET CITY OF ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: 1. Review of readily available soils and geologic data (Appendix A), including the previous geologic report for the site. 2. Subsurface exploration consisting of 3 hand auger excavations to determine the soil/bedrock profiles, obtain relatively undisturbed and bulk samples of representative materials, and delineate earth material parameters for the proposed development (Appendix B). — 3. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface exploration program. — 4. General areal seismicity evaluation. 5. Appropriate engineering and geologic analysis of data collected and preparation of this report. SITE CONDITIONS/PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The site consists of a rectangular shaped parcel located on the north side of Grandview Street in Encinitas, California. The gentle east sloping site is situated east of Neptune Street and west of Highway 101 in the City of Encinitas (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). The property is bordered on the west, east and north by residential property, and on the south by Grandview Street. The site drainage is generally via sheet flow to the east. — According to a 1968 (photorevised 1975) Encinitas, California topographic map, the subject site is approximately 70 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Vegetation onsite consists of grasses and scattered trees. — It is our understanding that the proposed development would consist of site preparation for the construction of a single family residential structure with driveway access to Grandview Street. Cut and fill grading techniques are anticipated to create design grades for the proposed single-family residential structure. It is anticipated that the residential development would consist of a one- or two-story structure with slab-on-grade floors and — continuous footings, utilizing wood-frame construction. Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light construction. The need for import soils is unknown. It is anticipated that sewage disposal will be tied into the regional system. GeoSoils, Inc. 1 Apr A CO TA I 4 c ` '0 rn V O AV m v v 1 TATTENHAM RD 1 � RW 9 o -4 MOOR n ° DEER ROCKPORT GATE PTH PP IFZC NANTU K9 7K °o y S G� �y o �C 1-TAT'I i W RD 1 o oP5' Ng� ! 1 GATE SEA LLUF 9 K O0DJ�.N T+ rF.IC OCEAN ' o o C vltiw 51 o y ;g o E G_LA CUs 1400 ST , so JU 51 a ; H 51 _ z w oN '3 c> �1 PO c> o 2 5 ■ 5� �.- ©2000 Thomas Br Base Map: The Thomas Guide, San Diego County 2001 Digital Edition, by Thomas Bros. Maps 1'_792' "- O 792 1584 46 W.O. � • 3102-A-SC Scale Feet -� SITE LOCATION MAP Reproduced with permission granted by Thomas Bros. Maps. This map is copyrighted by Thomas Bros. Maps. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for Figure 1 P01`801`1111 use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved. FIELD STUDIES Field work conducted during our evaluation of the property consisted of excavating 3 hand auger excavations within the lot to evaluate near surface soil and geologic conditions. The borings were logged by a geologist from our firm. Representative bulk and in-place samples were taken for appropriate laboratory testing. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Plate 1. Plate 1 utilizes a reproduction of a 30-scale plot plan, provided by the client as a base map. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep, elongated mountain ranges and valleys that trend northwesterly. The mountain ranges are underlain by basement rocks consisting of pre-Cretaceous metasedimentary rocks, Jurassic metavolcanic rocks, and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the southern California batholith. In the San Diego region, deposition occurred during the Cretaceous period and Cenozoic era in the continental margin of a forearc basin. Sediments, derived from Cretaceous-age plutonic rocks and Jurassic-age volcanic rocks, were deposited into the narrow, steep, coastal plain and continental margin of the basin. These rocks have been uplifted, eroded and deeply incised. During early Pleistocene time, a broad coastal plain was developed from the deposition of marine terrace deposits. During mid to late Pleistocene time, this plain was uplifted, eroded and incised. Alluvial deposits have since filled the lower valleys, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited/eroded within coastal and beach areas. EARTH MATERIALS Earth materials encountered onsite consist of topsoil/colluvium and Quaternary age terrace _ deposits. A description of each material type is provided below. Topsoil/Colluvium (Not Mapped) Topsoil/colluvium mantles the entire site and was found to generally consist of a light brown, dry, loose, silty sand. Thickness of the material is on the order of 2 to 2'/2 feet thick. Topsoil/colluvium at the subject site is considered potentially compressible in its present state. Accordingly, these soils are considered unsuitable for support of additional fill and/or settlement sensitive improvements and will require removal and recompaction. Mr. Frank Zaidle W.O. 3102-A-SC 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas June 6, 2001 Fi1e:e:\wp7\3100\3102a.pge Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) The Quaternary-age terrace deposits underlie the entire site at depth. As encountered,the terrace deposits generally consist of brown, moist, silty sand, and is medium dense. Terrace deposits are relatively massive with no distinct structure visible. This material is considered to be suitable for the support of engineered fills and structures. GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered onsite and is generally not anticipated to significantly -- affect site development, providing that recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction, and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities should not be precluded from occurring in the future (i.e. post grading) due to site irrigation, rainfall, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY Faulting The site is situated in a region of active as well as potentially-active faults. Our review indicates that there are no known active faults crossing the site within the areas proposed for development (Jennings, 1994), and the site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart and Bryant, 1997). There are a number of faults in the southern California area that are considered active and would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the source of an earthquake (Figure 2). These faults include--but are not limited to--the San Andreas fault, the San Jacinto fault, the Elsinore fault, the Coronado Bank fault zone, and the Newport-Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone. The possibility of ground acceleration or shaking at the site may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole. The following table lists the major faults and fault zones in southern California that could have a significant effect on the site should they experience significant activity. Mr. Frank Zaidle W.O. 3102-A-SC 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas June 6, 2001 Filew\wp7\3100\3102a.pge Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. 0 50 100 SCALE (Miles) SAN FRANCISCO \\ \ L G ES r SITE LOCATION (+): Latitude — 33.0761 N Longitude — 117.3082 W Zaidle W.O. 3102-A-SC CALIFORNIA FAU L P GeoSoiis, Inc. Figure 2 ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME APPROXIMATE DISTANCE MILES KM _ Coronado Bank-A ua Blanca 19 30 Elsinore 27 44 La Naci6n 19 30 New ort-I ng lewood-Offsh ore 9 15 _ Rose Canyon 3 5 San Diego Trough-Bahia Sol. 29 46 Seismicity The acceleration-attenuation relations of Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1987) have been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 1997). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were determined based on the random mean and mean plus 1 sigma attenuation curves _ developed by Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1989). These acceleration-attenuation relations have been incorporated in EQFAULT, a computer program by Thomas F. Blake (1997), which performs deterministic -- seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources. The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a user-specified file. If a fault is found to be within a user-selected radius,the program estimates peak horizontal — ground acceleration that may occur at the site from the upper bound ("maximum credible") and "maximum probable" earthquakes on that fault. Site acceleration, as a percentage of the acceleration of gravity (g), is computed by any of the 14 user-selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT. Based on the above, peak horizontal ground accelerations from an upper bound _ (maximum credible) earthquake may be on the order of 0.45 g to 0.57 g, and maximum probable event may be on the order of 0.25 g to 0.42 g, assuming upper bound (maximum credible) and maximum probable event of a magnitude about 6.9, on the Rose Canyon fault zone, located approximately 3 miles from the subject site. Repeatable ground accelerations generated from either upper bound or probable events may be approximated at 65 percent of the values listed above. Seismic Shaking Parameters Based on the site conditions, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials, 1997), the following seismic parameters are provided. _ Mr. Frank Zaidle W.O. 3102-A-SC 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas June 6, 2001 Fi1e:e:\wp7\3100\3102a.pge Page 6 GeoSoils, Inc. Seismic zone (per Figure 16-2*) 4 Seismic Zone Factor (per Table 16-1*) 0.40 Soil Profile Type (per Table 16-J*) Sp** _ Seismic Coefficient Ca (per Table 16-Q*) 0.44 N. Seismic Coefficient C„ (per Table 16-R*) 0.64 N„ Near Source Factor Ne (per Table 16-S*) 1.02 Near Source Factor N„(per Table 16-T*) 1.22 Seismic Source Type (per Table 16-U*) B Distance to Seismic Source 3.0 mi. (4.8 km) Upper Bound Earthquake M,,6.9 * Figure and table references from Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (1997). ** In the absence of site specific seismic refraction data, or drilling blow counts, the default value is So. _ Seismic Hazards The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered during our evaluation of the site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics and typical site development procedures: • Liquefaction • Tsunami • Dynamic Settlement • Surface Fault Rupture • Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of a maximum probable or credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass,than from those induced by the hazards considered above. This potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Frank Zaidle W.O. 3102-A-SC 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas June 6, 2001 _ Fi1e:eAwp7\3100\3102a.pge Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc. _ LABORATORY TESTING General Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the onsite earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. The test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. Moisture-Density Relations The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for representative site soils was determined according to test method ASTM D-1557. A modified proctor of 129.0 pounds per cubic foot (pco, with an optimum moisture content of 9.0 percent was determined for a composite sample of terrace and existing fill materials. Shear Testing Shear testing was performed on a representative, undisturbed and remolded sample of site soil in general accordance with ASTM test method D-3080 in a Direct Shear Machine of the strain control type. Shear test results are presented in the following table: Primary Residual Sample Location Friction Angle Friction Angle Cohesion (psfl Cohesion (psfl De rees (Degrees) TB-3 (composite) 250 28 275 29 Expansion Potential Expansion testing was performed on a representative samples of site soil in accordance with UBC Standard 18-2. The results of expansion testing are presented in the following table. LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL TB-3, Silty Sand 15 F--Very Low Mr. Frank Zaidle W.O. 3102-A-SC 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas June 6, 2001 F11e:eAwp7\3100\3102a.pge Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. Corrosion/Sulfate Testing A typical sample of the site material was analyzed for corrosion/soluble sulfate potential. The testing included determination of pH, soluble sulfates, and saturated resistivity. Sulfate exposure to concrete was determined to be negligible in accordance with Table 19- A-4 of the UBC (1997). Soil pH was determined to be neutral (pH=6.9) and saturated resistivity was determined to be 1900 ohm-cm (corrosive). CONCLUSIONS Based upon our site reconnaissance, test results, it is our opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed residential development. The following recommendations should be incorporated into the construction details. EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS General All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the Uniform Building Code, the requirements of the City of Encinitas, and the Grading Guidelines presented in Appendix C, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule. During earthwork construction all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field,they should be reviewed by this office and if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. Site Preparation Debris, vegetation and other deleterious material should be removed from the building area prior to the start of grading. Sloping areas to receive fill should be properly benched in accordance with current industry standards of practice and guidelines specified in the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Frank Zaidle W.O. 3102-A-SC 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas June 6, 2001 Fi1e:eAwp7\3100\3102a.pge Page 9 GeoSoiis, Inc. -' Demolition/Grubbing 1. Any existing subsurface structures and any miscellaneous debris should be — removed from the areas of proposed grading. _ 2. The project soils engineer should be notified of any previous foundation, irrigation lines, cesspools, or other subsurface structures that are uncovered during the recommended removals, so that appropriate remedial recommendations can be provided. Removals (Unsuitable Surficial Materials) Due to the relatively loose condition of topsoil/colluvium and weathered terrace deposits, these materials should be removed and recompacted in areas proposed for settlement sensitive structures, or areas to receive compacted fill. At this time, removal depths on the order of ±2 to ±2'/z feet should be anticipated; however, locally deeper removals may be necessary, especially in the vicinity of existing trees (root balls). Removals should be completed below a 1:1 projection down and away from the edge of any settlement sensitive structure and/or limit of proposed fill. Once removals are completed,the exposed — bottom should be reprocessed and compacted. The thickness of fill should not vary from a maximum ration of 3:1(maximum), across the lot. Fill Placement Subsequent to ground preparation, onsite soils may be placed in thin (6±inch) lifts, cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to a least optimum moisture content, and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. If soil importation is planned, a sample of the soil import should be evaluated by this office prior to importing, — in order to assure compatibility with the onsite site soils and the recommendations presented in this report. Import soils (if any) for a fill cap should be low expansive (E.I. less than 50). The use of subdrains at the bottom of the fill cap may be necessary, and subsequently recommended based on compatibility with onsite soils. Overexcavation In order to provide for the uniform support of the planned structure, a minimum 3-foot thick fill blanket is recommended. Any cut portion of the pad for the residence should be overexcavated a minimum 3 feet below finish pad grade then brought to grade with compacted fill. Areas with planned fills less than 3 feet should be overexcavated in order to provide the minimum fill thickness. Mr. Frank Zaidle W.O. 3102-A-SC 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas June 6, 2001 Fi1e:e:\wp7\3100\3102a.pge Page 10 GeoSoils, Inc. _ FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS General In the event that the information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct, -- or any changes in the design, location or loading conditions of the proposed structure are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are -- modified or approved in writing by this office. It is our understanding that slab-on-grade construction is desired for the proposed development. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by the project structural engineer. Upon request, GSI could provide _ additional input/consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. Preliminary Foundation Design Our review, field work, and laboratory testing indicates that onsite soils have a low to possibly medium expansion potential. Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented below. Final foundation recommendations should be provided at the conclusion of grading, and based on laboratory testing of fill materials exposed at finish grade. Bearing Value 1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code. _ 2. An allowable bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used for the design of continuous footings at least 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep, and _ column footings at least 24 inches square and 18 inches deep, connected by a grade beam in at least one direction. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum of 2500 pounds per square foot. No increase in bearing value is recommended for increased footing width. Lateral Pressure 1. For lateral sliding resistance, a coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load. 2. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot with a maximum earth pressure of 2500 pounds per square foot. Mr. Frank Zaidle W.O. 3102-A-SC 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas June 6, 2001 ._ Fi1e:e:\wp7\3100\3102a.pge Page 11 GeoSoils, Inc. 3. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. Footing Setbacks All footings should maintain a minimum 7-foot horizontal setback from the base of the footing to any descending slope. This distance is measured from the footing face at the bearing elevation. Footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3 _ (H=slope height) from the base of the footing to the descending slope face and no less than 7 feet, nor need to be greater than 40 feet. Footings adjacent to unlined drainage swales should be deepened to a minimum of 6 inches below the invert of the adjacent unlined swale. Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be designed to accommodate structural loads from buildings or appurtenances as described -' in the retaining wall section of this report. Construction The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum criteria from a soils engineering standpoint. The onsite soils expansion potential is generally in the very low (expansion index 0 to 20) range. During grading of the site, we recommend that any import material should be very low expansive. Recommendations by the project's design-structural engineer or architect, which may exceed the soils engineer's recommendations, should take precedence over the following -- minimum requirements. Final foundation design will be provided based on the expansion potential of the near surface soils encountered during grading. Very Low Expansive Soils (Expansion Index 0 to 20) 1. Exterior and interior footings should be founded at minimum depths of 12 and 18 inches for one or two-story floor loads, respectively, below the lowest adjacent surface. Isolated column and panel pads or wall footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches and connected to the main foundation in at least one direction with a grade beam. All footings should be reinforced with a minimum of _ two No. 4 reinforcing bars, one placed near the top and one placed near the bottom of the footing, and in accordance with the recommendations width per UBC. 2. A grade beam, reinforced as above, and at least 12 inches wide should be provided across large (e.g., garage or parking area) entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of adjoining footings. Mr. Frank Zaidle W.O. 3102-A-SC 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas June 6, 2001 F11e:eAwp7\3100\3102a.pge Page 12 GeoSoils, Ine. 3. Concrete slabs should be underlain by a minimum of 2 inches of washed sand. Where moisture condensation is undesirable, concrete slabs should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum 10 mil, polyvinyl-chloride or equivalent membrane, with all laps sealed. This membrane should be placed on acceptable pad grade materials with a minimum 2-inch thickness of sand placed over the visqueen to aid in uniform concrete curing. If proven by testing (i.e., sand equivalent greater than 30 and less than '/4 inch in any size dimension), native earth materials could be utilized. 4. Concrete slabs, including garage areas, should be minimally reinforced with No. 3 reinforcement bars placed on 18-inch centers, each way. All slab reinforcement should be supported and positioned near the vertical midpoint of the slab. "Hooking" of reinforcement is not an acceptable method of positioning the reinforcement. 5. Garage slabs should be poured separately from adjacent footings and be quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings should be maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement. _ 6. A minimum slab thickness of 4 inches is recommended. The design engineer should determine the actual thickness of the slabs based on loadings and use. 7. Premoistening is recommended for these soils conditions,with the moisture content of the subgrade soils equal to or greater than the optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches prior to pouring slabs and prior to placing visqueen or -- reinforcement. 8. In design of any additional concrete, flatwork, pools or walls, the potential for differential settlement of the soils should be considered. CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALLS General The design parameters provided below assume that very low to low expansive soils (native soil, Class 2 permeable filter material or Class 3 aggregate base) are used to backfill any retaining walls. If high to very highly expansive soils are used to backfill the proposed walls, increased active and at-rest earth pressures will need to be utilized for retaining wall design, and may be provided upon request. Building walls, below grade, should be water- proofed or damp-proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. The foundation system for the proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the preceding sections of this report, as appropriate. Mr. Frank Zaidle W.O. 3102-A-SC 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas June 6, 2001 F11e:e:\wp7\3100\3102a.pge Page 13 GeoSoiils, Inc. Footings should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches below adjacent grade (excluding landscape layer, 6 inches). There should be no increase in bearing for footing width. Restrained Walls -- Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) of 65pounds per cubic foot (pcf), plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner. Cantilevered Walls The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet high. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, hydrostatic pressures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are finalized,the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon request. SURFACE SLOPE OF EQUIVALENT SELECT RETAINED MATERIAL FLUID WEIGHT MATERIAL HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL P.C.F. Native soil P.C.F. Gravel Level 42 35 2 to 1 1 60 1 45 -- The equivalent fluid density should be increased to 65 pounds per cubic foot for level backfill at the angle point of the wall (corner or male re-entrant) and extended a minimum lateral distance of 2H (two times the wall height) on either side of the corner. Wall Backfill and Drainage The above criteria assumes that very low expansive soils are used as backfill, and that hydrostatic pressures are not allowed to build up behind the wall. Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of perforated pipe placed within gravel wrapped in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls that are 2 feet or greater in height. Backdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or 1/2-to 3/4-inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). The filter material should extend a minimum of one horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and Mr. Frank Zaidle W.O. 3102-A-SC 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas June 6, 2001 Fi1e:e:\wpM100\3102a.pge Page 14 GeoSoils, Inc. upward at least one foot. Outlets should consist of a 4-inch diameter solid PVC or ABS pipe spaced no more greater than 100± feet apart. The use of weep holes in walls higher than 2 feet should not be considered. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by "- pavement or the top 18 inches compacted with relatively impermeable soil. Proper surface drainage should also be provided. Consideration should be given to applying a water- proof membrane to all retaining structures. The use of a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry joints. _ Retaining Wall Footing Transitions Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the -- recommendations in this report. Wall footings may transition from competent terrace deposits to fill. If this condition is present the civil designer may specify either: -- a) If transitions from terrace to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should perform a minimum 2-foot overexcavation for a distance of two times the height of the wall and increase overexcavation until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment. _ b) Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that an angular distortion of 1/360 for a distance of 2H (where H=wall height in feet) on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible, non-shrink grout. c) Embed the footings entirely into a homogeneous fill. Footing Excavation Observation All footing excavations for walls and appurtenant structures should be observed by the geotechnical consultant to evaluate the anticipated near surface conditions prior to the placement of steel or concrete. Based on the conditions encountered during the observations of the footing excavation, supplemental recommendations may be offered, as appropriate. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Landscape Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil and slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded Mr. Frank Zaidle W.O. 3102-A-SC 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas June 6, 2001 Fi1e:e:\wp7\3100\3102a.pge Page 15 GeoSoils, Inc. slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Overwatering should be avoided. Graded slopes constructed within and utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types which require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend to minimize short term erosion until vegetation is established. In order to minimize erosion on a slope face, an erosion control fabric (i.e. jute matting) may be considered. From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils area processed for the purpose of adding amendments they should be recompacted to 90 percent relative compaction. Additional Site Improvements Recommendations for additional grading, exterior concrete flatwork design and construction, including driveways, can be provided upon request. If in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. Trenching All footing trench excavations for structures and walls should be observed and approved by a representative of this office prior to placing reinforcement. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent if not removed from the site. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. GSI does not consult in the area of safety engineers. In addition, the potential for encountering hard spots during footing and utility trench excavations should be anticipated. If these concretions are encountered within the proposed footing trench, they should be removed, which could produce larger excavated areas within the footing or utility trenches. Drainage — Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area. Roof gutters and down spouts should be considered to control roof drainage. Down spouts should outlet a minimum of Mr. Frank Zaidle W.O. 3102-A-SC 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas June 6, 2001 Fi1e:e:\wp7\3100\3102a.pge Page 16 GeoSoiils, Inc. — 5 feet from the proposed structure or into a subsurface drainage system. We would recommend that any proposed open bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. Utility Trench Backfill 1. All utility trench backfill in structural areas, slopes, and beneath hardscape features should be brought to near optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. ® Flooding/jetting is not recommended for the site soil materials. As an alternative, imported sandy material with an S.E. of 30 or greater, may be flooded/jetted in shallow (12± inch or less) under-slab interior trenches, only. 2. Sand backfill, unless trench excavation material, should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing. 3. All trench excavations should minimally conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. 4. Soils generated from utility trench excavations to be used onsite should be compacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. This material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural area and — towards the street. -- PLAN REVIEW Final site development and foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review and comment, as the plans become available, for the purpose of minimizing any misunderstandings between the plans and recommendations presented herein. In addition, foundation excavations and any additional earthwork construction performed on the site should be observed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. — LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our study are believed -- representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site Mr. Frank Zaidle W.O. 3102-A-SC 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas June 6, 2001 Fi1e:eAwp7\3100\3102a.pge Page 17 GeoSoils, Inc. conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others. The scope of work was performed within the limits of a budget. Inasmuch as our study is based upon the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analysis, the conclusion and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. Mr. Frank Zaidle W.O. 3102-A-SC 138 Grandview Street, Encinitas June 6, 2001 Fi1e:e:\wp7\3100\3102a.pge Page 18 GeoSoils, Inc. APPROX. -- LOCATION OF 5' 50GE EASEMENT 5 ,g LEGEND i TB-3 Approximate location of test boring EX. TREE (TYP) TB-2 PROP SED PUILDI G PAD I PAp 70.3 ` PL B-3I tor � (z p,R. R Rq 6 _ I Lo "Cr 20� PROPOSED PL 1 8 (nom) I 00 LO r 4 pNj 7 c AYLIGHT LINE 1 (TYP) 16 EXISTING P4 R 2�, 2 0 1 1 HOUSE TB-1`1 PROPOSED 8' RO D _- �R• � PROPOSED 16' ROW DEDICAITON I � PRIV TE UTILITY AND \ N AC SS EASEMENT 1 ROPSED CURDSGUTTER A D 5' IDEWALK • W�� TING C G AND 20' SIDEWALK S 20' ` } ` LOS ANGELES CO. GRAPHIC SCALE Geooills;Inc. ORANGE CO. 0 1S 30 e0 SAN DIEGO CO. 120 GEOTECHNICAL MAP ( IN FEET ) 4, Plate 1 3 inch = 30' ft. w.0. 3102-A-SC DATE 5/01 SCALE r=30' APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A REFERENCES Benton Engineering, Inc.,1970, Final Compaction Report, La Costa South Unit 7, August -- 10, 1970, Project # 69-12-8D. Blake, Thomas F., 1997, EQFAULT computer program for the deterministic prediction of horizontal accelerations from digitized California faults. Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 1994, Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration from worldwide accelrograms recorded from 1957 to 1993; Proceedings, Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, volume III, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp 292-293. Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A. 1997, Fault-rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning act with Index to Earthquake Fault Maps; California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. — International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California, vol. 1, 2, and 3. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No. 6, scale 1:750,000. Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1982, Estimation of response-spectral values as functions of magnitude, distance and site conditions, in eds., Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, T.F., AEG short course, seismic hazard analysis, dated June 18, 1994. Petersen, Mark D., Bryant, W.A., and Cramer, C.H., 1996, Interim table of fault parameters used by the California Division of Mines and Geology to compile the probabilistic seismic hazard maps of California. Sadigh, K., Egan, J., and Youngs, R., 1987, Predictive ground motion equations reported in Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1988, "Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground motion", in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II, Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, Von Thun, J.L., ed.: American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43-102. -- Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, Michael P., 1996, Geologic maps of the northwestern part of San Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-02. GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX B TEST PIT LOG V (D o E O m CV N m 00 c W j W c° c °O E ° � v E g c`a o c a � O o o 0 0 E Y 2 E �. v -o �a O 3� 3 p -v F- 13 Z .0 ca Z ca Q 0 p Y fA V Z 'o 'a Z v N Q c N ` W Cl) ca _J L Q � J +. N U) c D ' c 0 c � (n c v J F- C O U) c T U N J -0 LL O ` O J N O IL LL w O \ LL W CD v W `+ �a. V U) QE (D CAN aE � o W ci OC R D o LLB oC � o �.. 00 W O O O co 0 W O O O a - f- E F- z m a L— E �- Z m Q "-' oZ 0- LL W O x W LL 0 N O C7 � O ui a a ui � W m J ao y D m � m cn C Min O to Ln co o �' M Ui W ... O WaZ N F- U CD T ° fQ E o N p N m C FW M N C6 c 0 3 p g � o a 0 o 3 3 N O o E z o s o O = z _tm z t= U) ai p �- *. z a. o. z T < 0 < 0 ]7(D � V) _ N U C ) O +)U f 13 -j - O o n HE F- C U c J N a (D tO N o v 0 u. W E � �.. Co u. y W E ��' :o II 3 O. Q O W 3 �-c Q o W aD a.-a � 0 ap Uo UE cL W E W ._ rn � HE � 3 � rn I- a � cil P E F°- z° m a � � � F°- z° 0 0 ,' N F- W M z 0 L� E: G 0 a W_ . W LL N O p 0 � 0 W au, W C CC U) (n U) � � ON _ Ln W u) O r N 1 O Cl) FW„ az '`r U m o c� E O T Q 0 N m = O C W M c cd ,`p 70 `0 0 p d 0 O E a 0 O m 3 -Q a C O vi vi E ca CL`+ o a -° a? -0 a m Z L O Q L L O 0 = O Z 3 m O z Q U Z O C z 2 CO Cl) } m W . � 0 c V+• C U} c Q J V N O J N J 0 0 -0 N .- _j N N J -0 a L p\ J 0 O 'Q � LL m W 5 �A ao w W E m CD�-- -� Q 'o ,_� 3 � J e Q ,-2 II a Q U 11I a c Q 0 W m * v Uv� aE NON V _0 UE a � � � 0 0 u. � o0 �- a 2 P � I—° z° m a -o � E I° z° cz ac Q cc Q woZ oc �- o O IL uw W U. U) O p 0 O J W J = IL f- --: W CL co U CD N �.. .► to lQ Ln W T' Ln Q O r O r W ui c. z qw ii! pigiiii Ii! 01 wil iiiii l l I I l iij I ll I i R, Klik lo, 7v, $ 7 r ip f fill Ali im Ill 11161" 1 1 11 1 1 STANDARD SID EaFICATIONS SEWCR NO 11"Bo W I" TO BE DONE IRK TMIRPROVEMtIl C SIST WORK TO BE DONE, ACCORDING T0 THIS PLAN ON , OFTHE FOLLOWING AIll $PECffI6ATt0N!S-4 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION i EDITION) INCLUDING THE 1994 ND THE REGIONAL. �O*AIRD-DRAWNGS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN I. LCIAO APPROVAL .OF THE$ REGIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDMENTS, WE' �Alil LEUCADIA COUNItY WATER DIST r E PLANS 00i NOT RELIEVE THIE RIC EXIST. POWER POLE APPLICANT PRIVATE ENGINEER OF 'W01l OR CONTRACTOR FROM ------- fu e - 1�� �­ I I � I Illl i RESOONS UTY FOR THI,�'CDRRECTION Or ERRORS AND STANDARD DRAMNG LOCATION OF 5 'SDGE-� GENERAL NOTES OMISSIONS DISCOVERED DUR, [1401 OR',Afl CONSTRUCTION. EASEMENT PER REC12/26/47 SK 25,93 SAN WEGO Rr"AL STANDARD DRAWINGS DATED MARCH 1995� 2. ALC DESICIN, MATE-li AND. 0014ttRUCITON VOI SHALL LCWD STANDARD DRAWINGS PC 5 CONFORM *TO, THE LELICADIA COWTY WATER DISM'01ICT LCWD 0 9ARL2 I 1, ALL " WORKS THE STANDARG'SPECIFICATION$ FOR PUBLIC AREA THE CITY OF ENCINITAS.AND THE SAN DIEGO SMER -STAWARDS AND TO THE, REWIREMENT OF THE , LEGEND �S TD D Wl SYMBOL RE S THEREFRO STANDARD SIPEdFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION CITY r M SHALL ,81i APPP VED,BY THE 0 PROPERTY LINE N )OK) AND THE rtEfl Rf-GONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS,. MOST X-7 URRENT' EDITIONS. IN THE EVENT'OE CONFUCT THE LOWD X4 FINISH SURFACE ELEVATION THE SOILS REPORT TITLED PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BY GEOSOILS. INC,:-,GATE JUNE 6. 2001 SEWER STANDARDS GOVERN, SHALL OBTAIN CONST. SHALL-GE, CONSIDERED AS X PART, OF THIS.GRADING PLAN. ALL GRADING SHALL-WL-DONE�W `ODA P"OSED R ACC P NCE H T `E'RECOMMENDATIONS AND SPtCF1 "L)" N, WNEP FROM THE ENGINEERING WIT 4 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A COPY OF THE SEWER -3 ill JER T EXISTING CONTOUR cWridtiii CONTAINED IN SAID REPORT, _71 EPT. AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR 2. & 3. DOCUMENTS ON THE JOBSITE AT ALL TIMES. NOTES ------ X E PM PROPOSEC CONTOUR 0 COMMENCING WORK IN THE PAD__ G FEN 3_:�,�,ApPROVAL OF THIS, PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF SIZES, LOCATION AND TYPE OF DRAINA 1:7 CE UBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. GRADING LIMIT$ APPROVALS AND PERMITS FOR !FACILITIES, NOR OF IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN STREET RIGHT—OF—WAYS, SEPARATE 4. PRIOR TO BEGINNING SEWER WORK, CONTRACTOR SHA" FILL 1 '04 THEU,SHALL BE REQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION 'NTH IMPROVEMENT PLANS, SECURE A LEWD PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCITON AND ISHALL'PROVIDE If A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURSNOTICE To LCWD PRIOR TO TRENCH RESURFACING PER CITY OF ENO. SID DWG CONSTRUCITON, 4 TTEN PERMISSION SHALL BE OBTAINED FOR ANY OFF-SITE GRADING. X 12- X_# SILT FENCE PER Ott SHT 2 ---- 5� CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ANY NECE SSAlNUTIONS REQUIRED 5. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN By LCWD DOES NOT CONS11ITUTE A TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES REPRESENTATION OF THE ACCURACY QF` THE LOCATION OF OR GRAVEL BAG CHECK DAM PER GET. SHT 2 DURING,GRADING OPERATIONS. ANYTHING DAMAGED OR DESTROYED SHALL BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED To CDC- T10, -1 RIOR C-E Q040f EXIS; NO P 10 C CE OR NON-EXISTtN �Ol ANY UNDERGROUND ;RAGING. THE EXISTEN UTILITY, PIPE OR STRUCTURE WITHINi LIMITS OF INS 6, 1 jHt DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE THAT I ANY MONUMENT OR BENCH MARK WHICH IS DISTRIBUTED OR PROJECT. LEGAL DESCRIP11ON DESTROYED SHALL BE RE-l-ESTABLISHED AND REPLACED BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER OR A LICENSED LAND THE WESTERLY HALP OF LOT 6 IN BLOCK H OF SOU TH COAST PARK NO, 5� IN THE CITY OF ALL �REVISIONS TO DRAMIll SHALL BE APPROMED By THE GRAVEL BAG S PER ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF - LCWD DISTRIC-T ENGINEER IN WRITING PRIOR 'TO CONSTRUCTION. DETAIL SHT 2, 7� THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN ALL SAFETY DEVICES, INCLUDING SHORING, AND 'r_� 'fill, NO. 2078, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, NOV. SHALL 13E RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFORMING TO ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS, 7. ALL SERVICE t ATERALS SHALL BE LOCATED AT RIGHT AN13LES 9 21,1927, LAWS AND REGULATIONS, TO THE SEWER MAIN UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN AS APPROVED Zo " if vl� BY LCWD ON THE PLANS. z i I APN #., 254-.021-11 S. GRADING- AND EQUIPMENT OPERATING' WITHIN ONE-HALF (112.) MILE OF A STRUCTURE FOR HUMAN PANIC Or 00OU SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED BETWEEN a. A ?-INCH HIGH -S- SHALL BE INSCRIBED ON THE CURS'FACE I , THE HOURS OF 5:30 P.M. AND 7:30 A.M, NOR ON AT EACH L,ATERAL LOCATION BY THE 0 1 Ill OWNER'S CERTIFICATE SA­fUROAY!Y SUNDAYS W CITY RECOGNIZED H"AYS. CONTRACTOR, -HIELIGED COPPER. WIRIE SHALL BE BURIED OVER ��EXISTINC TELE POLE 9l. A 10 GAGE S I (WE) HERESY CERTIFY THAT A REGISTERED SOILS ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST I PROPOSE[) MASONRY HAS BEEN OR WILL BE RETAINED TO SUPERVISE OVER ALL GRADING EACH LATERAL.. THE WIRE SHALL EXTENOUP TO A 2* COPPER RET. WALL TO BE PAR\� l ACTIVITY AND ADVISE ON THE COMPACTION AND STABILITY OF THE SITE. 9, NO GRADING OPERATIONS SHALL COMMENCE UNTIL A PREGRADING MEETING HAS,BEEN WELD 0 TAG TIED AND SOLDERED TO THE WIRE, THE TAG OVER THE Ill NTH CONSTRUCTED AT PL SCALE 1 =20' THE FOLLOW40 PEOPLE -PRESENT: CITY NSPECTOR, CIVIL ENGINEER, SOILS ENGINEER, GRADING CONTRACTOR, 2.8' MAX FROM IF C? SEWER, MAIN SHALL TERMINATE i ABOVE PAVING SUBGRADE I BY: AND,-PERMITTEE. PREGRADE MEETING SHALL BE SCHEDULED Wi THE 'CITY AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE TH FINAL, LOCATION JUST SELOW,PAVING, THE TAG OVER THE TO Tw, SEE PRIV DATE: :8Y1CALi (760) 631�2770. CUSTOMER END OF THE LATERAL SHALL EXTEND ABOVE GRADE RD, FOR DETAIL A GRAPHIC SCALE UNTIL CONNECTED AND SHALL THEREAFTER BE BURIED AT THE 17' IQ PRIOR TO HAULING DiRT OR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TO ANY PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SITE MTHIN THIS PONT OF CONNECTION. 20 10 20 40 EXIS-, 2' RET WALL PR04ECT THE DEVELOPER SHALL SUBMIT TO AND RECEIVE APPROVAL FROM THE OITY.E41GINEER FOR THE TO BE R6,10VED -WERS AND LATERAL PROPOSED HAUL ROUTE, SOILS ENGINEER'S CER`17IFICATE r, - THE DEVELOPER SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS THE CITY 10, ALL. SF S SHALL BE WAYNE BALLED, LOW EMSTINO ENGINEER MAY IMPOSE Wi REGARDS TO THE HAULING OPERATION. PRESSURE AIR TESTED, AND TELEMSED AT THE HOUSE glo IN FEET APPUCANT/CONTRACTORS EXPENSE PRIOR TO -CONSIDERATION 1, DAVID W. SKELLY, A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER IN THE �GPON FINAL COMPLETION OF THE WORK UNDER T14E GRADING PERMIT, BUT PRIOR TO FINALGRADING FOR FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY LCWD_ AIR TEST SHALL BE DONE Ci I inch 20 STATE OF if CALIFORNIA, PRINCIPALLY DOING BUSINESS IN THE FIELD OF APPLIED SOIL 9"OVAL AND/l FINAL RELEASE OF SEC-URITY, AN AS-ORAOED CERTIFICATION SHALL BE PROVIDED STAIINQ AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF ALL OTHER UTILITIES AND UTILITY PROPOSED 16, PCC MECHANICS, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A SAMPLING AND STUDY OD THE SOIL LATERALS. PRIVATE, UTfUTY AND -EXISTING SEWER SERVICE 4'*'GRADING UNDER Kli NO. 7060C HAS SEEN PERFORMED 44 SIJBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS PREVALENT WITHIN THIS SITE WAS MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY ACCESS EASEMENT PER APPROVED GRADING PLl OR AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED AS-GRADFD PLAN". THIS STATEOE14T SHALL BE r—EXISTING WATER DIRECTION BETWEEN THE DATES aill 4ocil IT. ALL SEWER AND LATERALS SHALL BE PLACE AND SHALL SECTION SERVICE, ONE COMPLETE -FOLLOWED By THE GATE AND SIGNATURE OF THE CIVIL ENGINEER WHO CERTIFIES SUCH GRADING OPERATION, I 4OCATE BEHIND HAVE FINAL APPROVAL BY THE LCWD INSPECTOR PRIOR TO I S/W IF NE COPY OFTHE SOILS REPORT COMPILED FROM THIS STUDY, WITH MY PAVING, EXISTING C i Gl,l 10--EXIST, VRET. WALL E RECOMMENDATIONS, HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE CITY N01FICATIONS' ENGINEER. FURTHERMORE, I HAVE REVIEWED THESE GRADING PLANS AND PROPOSED R W_ PER C-0� OF S,D� CERTIFY THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED IN THE SOILS REPORT FCR��,,_ DWG NO, TOM 18521 Al EXIS*nNC R/w I. : INE EXISTENCE AND"LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY PIPES AND STRUCTURES- SHOWN ON THESE PL NS THIS PROJECT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE GRADING PLANS AND XI ST. DRIVEWAY SPECIFICATIONS, WERE OBTAINED BY A %ARCH OF AVAILAOLE14tCORDS. TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE THERE ARE NO ONSTRUCT) LF� OF tl/F- EXIS040 UTILITIES EXCEPT AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, HOWEVER. "A" 6 GEOSOILS, INC YPE WORK ORDER # 5741 PALMER WAY, 3102-A-SC N" ACE THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE DUE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO PROTECT ANY EXISTING UTILITIES OR 1:�AVEMENT CARLSBAD, CA 920D8 \E EXIST, 8" VCP SEWER MAIN 760-43il STRUCTURES LOCATED AT THE WORK SITE, IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIRLITYTO CONTACT THE FOLLOWING PER LCWD DWG 147-8 ­1 2 -=EXISTING EDGE OWNERS Of SAID UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION, FOR VERIFICATION AND LOCATION OF OF PAVEMENT UTILITIES AND NOTIFICATION CIF COMMENCEMENT OF Wi BY. DATE: COfil A/C PVMT & BASE PER CTQN,_SAWLLi SEWER: LEUCADIA COUNTY WA I TER DISTRICT __'E�LSTiNG ABANDONED GRANDVI 57*+- EXIS' T, PVMT 1' FOR SMOOTH 760-633-2770 WATER: SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT 760-6,33-2650 WATER LINE TRANSITION N74*55'46 E DECLARA11ON OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE AS & ELECTRIC, SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 1-800-422-4133 TELEPHONE: PACIFIC BELL 1-800-422-4-133 CABLE TV: COX CABLE 1-800-422-4131 0 CN 2, CONTRACTOR SHALL Ill THE CITY ENGINEEWS OFFICE, 48.-HOURS PRIOR TO, 8EQNNiNG -Ahi WORK ON THIS z I HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM THE ENGINEER OF WORK FOR THIS PROJECT, < CD PROJECT PHONE: (760) 633-2770, 3:: M THAT I HAVE EXERCISED RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OVER iHE DESIGN OF THE -AS DEFINED IN SE"TION 6703 OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS M WATE OVERLAY �S NEEDED TO ei-WA700110.0100,0 LINE E�IST. 8 R 0 P CODE, Aqr) rHE DESICN IS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GIVE 24 HOURS NOTCE ON CALLS FOR INSPECTION. PHONE: (760) 6,33-2770, ALL r CONSIS7ENTI WITH I- I if uo PROVIDE SMOOTH TRANSITION CURRENT STANDARDS WORK PERFORMED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF INSPECTION WILL BE SUBJECT TO REJECTION AND REMOVAL, C�i ui a- _j .16 1 STAND THAT THE CHECK OF PRO ECT DRAWINGS AND z I UNDERS < SPECIFICATIONS BY THE CITY OF ENCINITA'S IS CONFINED TO A REVIEW ONLY _j 0 < 3. 0 fl 3: 0 't _j 0 AND DOES NOT RELIEVE ME OF RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PROJECT DESIGN, LO z < Ld BY: DATE: M zi Lolui GRADING NOTES 0� Li Q, ES 10 ALL GRADING SHALL BE OBSERVED AND TESTED BY A QUALIFIED SOILS ENGINEER OR UNDER HISfil DIRECTION. HE/SHE SHALL OBSERVE AND TEST THE EXCAVATION 4" PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF FILLS AND BACKFILLS AND COMPACTION OF TRENCHES. HE/SHE SHALL SUBMIT SOILS REPORTS AS REQUIRED AND WILL DETERMINE THE _UON OF GRADING OPERATIONS HE/SHE SHALL STATE THAT OBSERVATIONS AND TESTS WERE MADE BY HIM/l OR UNDER k� SUITABILITY OF ANY FILL MATERIAL. UPON COMPL 58703 ,k1S/HER SUPERVISION AND THAT IN HIS/HER OPINION, ALL EMBANKMENTS AND EXCAVATIONS WERE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE NTH THE APPROVED GRADING PLANS AND THAT MASONRY RET, WAI Evilim ALL EMBANKMENTS AND EXCAVATIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE FOR THEIR INTEN��DED USE. ILL TO PROPOSED EXIST 12/31/02 BUILT AT PROP. LINE R/W 2, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROPERLY GRADE ALL EXCAVATED SURFACES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AND PREVENT PONDING OF WATER. HE/SHE SHALL CONTROL SURFACE NOT TO EXCEED 2,8' R/W C/L GE T MAX HEIGHT (TW TO IF% WATER AND AVOID DAMA 10 ADJOINING PROPERTIES OR TO FINISHED WORK ON THE SITE AND SHALL TAKE REMEDIAL MEASURES TO PREVENT EROSION OF FRESHLY GRADED AREAS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS PERMANENT DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL MEA I SURES AVE BEEN INSTALLED. 1 16' MIN 20' I - - ALL AREAS TO BE FILLED SHALL BE PREPARED TO BE FILLED AND FILL SHALL BE PLACED IN ACCORDANCE NTH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. ALL VEGETABLE MATTER AND LEGEND OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE CONTRACTOR FROM THE SURFACE UPON WHICH THE FILL IS, TO BE PLACED, LOOSE FILL AND. ALLUVIAL SOILS SHALL BE H 8' STREET EXIST, REMOVED TO SUITABLE FIRM NATURAL GROUND, THE EXPOSED SOILS SHALL BE SCARIFIED TO A DEPTH OF 6" AND THEN COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF PERCENT. IT SHALL DEDIC ATION EP BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PLACE, SPREAD, WATER AND COMPACT THE FILL IN STRICT ACbORDANCE, WITH SPECIFICATIONS. 2% X- 8 Approximate location of field density tests A li CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE CUT AND TRIMMED TO FINISH GRADE TO PRODUCE SMOOTH SURFACES AND UNIFORM CROSS SECTIONS. THE SLOPES EXCAVATIONS AND EMBANKMENTS SHALL BE SHAPED, PLANTED AND TRIMMED AS DIRECTED BY THE ENOINEER OF WORK AND LEFT IN A NEAT AND ORDERLY CONDITION. ALL SIONES, ROOTS AND 4� PCC OVER VARIES VARIES Approximate location of limits of fill Ql�,O WASTE MATTER EXPOSED OR EXCAVATION OR, EMBANKMENT SLOPES WHICH ARE LIABLE TO BECOME LOOSENED SHALL BE SLOPES MICH ARE LIABLE BECOME LOOSENED SHALL BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED i THE TOE AND TOP OF ALL SLOPES SHALL BE ROUNDED, IN,ACCCIRDANCE WITH THE GRADING ORDINANCE. APPROVED BASE NEW PVMT EXISTING PVMT SEE PLAN '2% 5, ALL TREES, BRUSH, GRASS, AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE COLLECTED, PILED OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED Or OFF THE SITE BY THE CONTli SO AS TO TYP SECTION — PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT 1 4 LEAVE THE AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN CLEARED WITH A NEAT AND FINISHED APPEARANCE FREE FROM UNSIGHTLY DEBRIS, millillillillilli�ilillill�illillillillill �lowo", APPROVAL OF LOCATION OF DEBRIS fli SHALL Of GRIND EX. PVMT SECURED FROM THE SOILS ENGINEER AND CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE DISPOSAL OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL NOT 10' SCALE AS LOS ANGELES CO.,%, PROPOSED 4" \EX. A/C DAVEM0404ii IVERSIDE CQ/ ENGINEER*S, ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES PCO SIDEWALK \PROPOSED 6" Coll 4" AC ANGE 06. PER G-7 OVER 6" AS MIN S EGO Co. TYPE 'Gl CUT: 1 /0-5 CY (RAW.) FILU 125 C'Y (RAW) SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DIST, C&G U ,,NCINITAS FIRE DEPT. COUMIUNITY DEVELOPMENT FIELD DE SlTf�,TEST TYPICAL SECTION GRANDVIEW STR T L0CA ON MAP REVIE'lill BY FATE NOT TO SCAL� VICINITY MAP plate I SIGNATI)Rt EXPIRE'S 2 YEAR,�'FRGM DATE REVIf1,WED. �Y DATE TCV1F\-1 By DATF REVIEWED BY DATE wci_�.102-8-sq DATE 11/01 NOT -E WA REVISIONS APPROVED DATE REFERENCES DATE SCA'LE SE,,E STRICT CITY OF ENCIN Mail" fil DI, BY APPROVALS SANI Dltoo, COUNTY ST1 BRASS DISO BM STAMPED ITAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT _PRAWING NO, 'PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISIGN Or RECOMMENDED APPROVED HURIZQll 1"�20' LOCATION:' MALKWAY 0 SW CORNER OF ORIM DAT& Byi BY: OVER AT&SF RR APPROX 100` VILY OF INT, LA COSTA AVE. & HWY 101� VERTICAL R,CE. Ill A7Ej ENGINEER ­�' 60 - G DATE� D 113* 8 GRAND VIEW STREET MSL EL�V, %"3811 DATUM" TPM �1 -050 EXP, CT NO %fl PROJE u T rn:- :P� SHEE ­X 3