The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-9360 G City of NGINEE"NG SER VICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering March 30, 2007 Traffic Engineering' Attn: Union Bank of California Encinitas #21 200 D Street Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Allen, William and Evelyn 754 Hymettus Avenue APN 256-253-32 Grading Permit 9360-GI Final release of security Permit 9360-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, release of the remainder of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor: Account# 0219105939 in the amount of$ 19,022.41. 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. Sincer ly, Debra Geishart ay Lembach Engineering Te ician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Allen, William and Evelyn Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / PAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 �� recycled paper / � J City of SER VICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep]eni shm ent/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering March 2, 2006 Attn: Union Bank of California Encinitas #21 200 D Street Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Allen, William and Evelyn 754 Hymettus Avenue APN 256-253-32 Grading Permit 9360-GI Partial release of security Permit 9360-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved rough grade. Therefore, release of the remainder of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account# 0219105921 in the amount of$ 76,089.64. 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. Sinc rely, ' Debra Geishart L Bach Engineering Technician finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Allen, William and Evelyn Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-63 -2627 505 J. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 � recycled paper HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. - g SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY HYDROGEOLOGY March 7, 2007 Project No. 5314.1 Mr. William Allen Log No. 10669 766 Hymettus Avenue Leucadia, CA 92024 Subject-, FINAL AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Proposed Single-Family Residence Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 18152 754 Hymettus Avenue Leucadia, California References: Attached Dear Mr. Allen: In accordance with your request, we have performed geotechnical services in conjunction with grading at the subject site. Our services have consisted of observation and testing during grading, laboratory testing and the preparation of this report which presents the results of our testing and observations, and our conclusions and recommendations. GRADING OPERATIONS Original grading was performed during the period May 26 through June 15, 1999 and is reported in Reference 3. Grading during this time period consisted generally of removing existing fill and topsoil to expose dense terrace deposits and replacing the soils as compacted fill. The entire building pad on Parcel 3 was overexcavated to a depth of 3- feet below final pad grade to eliminate the cut/fill transition (see Reference 3). Subsequent grading consisted of removal, moisture conditioning and recompaction of the upper 1-foot of compacted fill and/or terrace deposits within the building pad and driveway areas, placement of aggregate base within the driveway and placement of trench backfill. This grading was performed during the period September 27, 2005 through December 26, 2006. SITE PREPARATION Prior to grading, the site was cleared of surface obstructions, vegetation and debris. Within the limits of the grading (see Plot Plan, Figure 1), existing fill/terrace depostis were removed to expose suitable previously placed fill or terrace deposits. Following removals, the exposed soils were scarified to a depth of 6 to 8-inches, brought to near 5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008-4369 • (760) 931-1917 • Fax (760) 931-0545 32242 Paseo Adelanto, Suite C • San Juan Capistrano. CA 92675-3610 • (949) 487-9060 • Fax (949) 487-9116 www.hetheringtonengineering.com FINAL AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Project No. 5314.1 Log No. 10669 March 7, 2007 Page 2 Optimum moisture conditions and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction in the building pad area and 95 percent relative compaction in the driveway area as determined by ASTM: D 1557-02. SOIL TYPES The soils utilized as fill consisted of on-site materials composed of red brown silty fine to medium sand and imported recycled aggregate base. FILL PLACEMENT Fill soils were placed in 6 to 8-inch thick, near horizontal lifts, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted by mechanical means to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction in the building pad area and 95 percent relative compaction in the driveway area as determined by ASTM: D 1557-02. Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM: D 1556 (Sand-Cone Method) and ASTM: D 2922 (Nuclear Method). The results of the field density tests are presented in the attached Summary of Field Density Tests, Table 1. The approximate locations of the field density tests are indicated on the accompanying Plot Plan, Figure 1. Maximum dry density/optimum moisture content determinations are presented in the attached Summary of Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Determinations, Table II. TRENCH BACKFILL Joint utility trench backfill was tested by this office during January 2006. Trench backfill soils were placed in approximately 6 to 8-inch thick, near horizontal lifts, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted by mechanical means to a minimum of 90-percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM: D 1557-02. Density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM: D 2922 (Nuclear Method). The results of the density tests are presented on the attached Summary of Field Density Tests, Table I. The approximate locations of the field density tests are shown on the accompanying Plot Plan, Figure 1. Maximum dry density/optimum moisture content determinations are presented on the attached Summary of Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Determinations, Table 11. HETHERINGTGN ENGINEERING, INC. FINAL AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Project No. 5314.1 Log No. 10669 March 7, 2007 Page 3 AGGREGATE BASE Recycled aggregate base was placed in a 6-inch thick, near horizontal lift, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted by mechanical means to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM: D 1557-02. Density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM: D 1556 (Sand-Cone Method). The results of the density tests are presented on the attached Summary of Field Density Tests, Table 1. The approximate locations of the field density tests are indicated on the attached Plot Plan, Figure 1. Maximum dry density/optimum moisture content determinations are presented on the attached Summary of Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Determinations, Table II. CONCLUSIONS Based on our observations and the results of our testing, it is our opinion that the subject grading has been performed in general conformance with the recommendations contained in the referenced reports and the requirements of the City of Encinitas, California. LIMITATIONS Our work was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please call our Carlsbad office. Very truly yours, HETHERINGTON ENG , INC. anny Cohen oQpoFESS/0N Civil Engineer 41937 c�Q'a�NY coyer�'lG, Geotechnical Engineer 2346 =� R+ (expires 3/31/08) UJ NO.2348 Exp.Oft- � DC/dkw qT OF AI�F HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. FINAL AS-GRADED GEOTEC14NICAL REPORT Project No. 5314.1 Log No. 10669 March 7, 2007 Page 4 Attachments: Plot Plan Figure 1 Summary of Field Density Tests Table I Summary of Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Determinations Table II Distribution: 4-Addressee HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. REFERENCES 1. Catlin Engineering Assoc., Inc., "Report of Preliminary Soils Investigation, Three Proposed Single-Family Residences, 776 and 778 Hymettus Avenue, Encinitas, California," dated April 9, 1998. 2. Catlin Engineering Assoc., Inc., "Report of Compacted Filled Ground, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 766 Hymettus Avenue, Encinitas, California," dated December 24, 1998. 3. Hetherington Engineering, Inc., "As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Proposed Single-Family Residences, Parcels 1 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 18152, 778 Hymettus Avenue, Encinitas, California," dated June 24, 1999. 4. Hetherington Engineering, Inc., "Geotechnical Update, Proposed Single-Family Residence, Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 18152, 754 Hymettus Avenue, Leucadia, California," dated August 23, 2004. 5. Rick Hill Engineering, Inc., "Grading Plans for: APN 256-253-03, 04, Single Family Residence, TPM 98-061, Parcel Map No. 18152," dated January 15, 1999. 6. Sampo Engineering, Inc., "Grading and Erosion Control Plans For: Allen Residence, 754 Hymettus Residence, Parcel 3, Parcel Map No. 18152, APN 256- 253-32,"dated August 25, 2005. Project No.5314.1 HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Log No. 10669 TABLE I SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS (ASTM: D 1556 and D 2922) Test No. Test Date Soil Type Test Dry Moisture Relative Elevation Density Content Compaction (feet) ( C (%) (%) 1 12/28/05 1 F.G. 108.6 9.3 86 2 12/28/05 1 F.G. 109.7 5.6 87 3 12/28/05 1 F.G. 109.2 9.8 87 4 (JT) 1/30/06 1 -1.0 115.0 9.8 92 5 (JT) 1/30/06 1 -1.0 121.9 9.9 97 6 (JT) 1/30/06 1 -1.0 115.2 11.3 91 7(RT 3) 11/29/06 1 F.G. 115.9 4.0 92 8 11/29/06 1 F.G. 121.4 6.0 96 9 11/29/06 1 F.G. 119.9 9.0 95 10(RT 2) 11/29/06 1 F.G. 118.9 5.9 94 l l (RT 1) 11/29/06 1 F.G. 112.0 9.1 89 12 (RT 7) 11/29/06 1 F.G. 119.7 5.4 95 13 11/29/06 1 F.G. 119.2 9.0 95 14 11/29/06 1 F.G. 119.2 5.1 95 15 11/29/06 1 F.G. 117.8 7.3 94 16 (RT 10) 11/29/06 1 F.G. 114.1 6.1 91 17(RT 11) 11/29/06 1 F.G. 118.3 6.3 94 *18 (RT 11) 12/15/06 1 F.G. 124.0 7.8 98 *19 (RT 16) 12/15/06 1 F.G. 126 10.2 100 *20(RT 17) 12/15/06 1 F.G. 126 10.5 100 21(AB) 12/26/06 2 Base 123.5 13.0 100 22 (AB) 12/26/06 2 Base 121.9 12.5 98 23 (AB) 12/26/06 2 Base 123.6 13.5 100 *ASTM: 1556, all others ASTM: D 2922 (JT): Joint Utility Trench (AB): Aggregate Base Project No.5314.1 Log No. 10669 TABLE II SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATIONS (ASTM 1557-02) Soil Type Description Maximum Dry Optimum Density(pcf) Moisture Content(%) 1 Red brown silty sand 126 9.5 2 Recycled Aggregate Base 124 11.0 Project No.5314.1 Log No. 10669 ' � Tel 14 CN PROW 146;r flip Z. 7" PVT PAD s FIS Dam Al 52 9ROW APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF GRADING I ROCK bW[D 5 WA E PIP Ot nA pp Hp LL PAD 735-3 rN TV LIMITS OF PAR 1-HE OTY OF ENCINITAS PEI? PARCEL [0, WALL MAP NU 78152 CON, ttr cp WI la, ttr �VA C-71 ....... ...... SID CS- "'Oo Fl C,) jo 0 21— :bb. 0000 A` 00-0 wo 0.-0 0000 .Oki -14 INA Co 14,- r—I c Zx� L Q ttr LA �Ibt LAI Qw� ,�a (AL:S .00 00-0 JD, cp C-Q Zak cn te "kt c-- 10 4�1 00 wo Ip- 5j, 14 cn sz, Ezo J,11 t,:D -,r3 r O z co W H W � 1� U Lo N g z N o z U- 0 Z w O 0 z F- CJ-z W 6 � a .oz :31eos W o F— o J ~ 0 Z X OTC Z Z W w J Z fn ® 0 Z U W Q Z U Oz � U Z w Zw � ..� W �r7 2 Rw zi Via, is . 46 Q - lye' C.a4.J�ZrJ�c`.1 Z Ca LJ 1 c ZS :—f,� �r lyJl O �3)_ W �� 4 � tip- IN Lo �` K � y ✓' � a- 3t HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY August 23, 2004 Project No. 3381.1 Log No. 8596 Mr. William Allen 766 Hymettus Avenue Leucadia, California 92024 i l5 J V Subject: GEOTECHMCAL UPDATE SEP 1 9 2005 Proposed Single-Family Residence Parcel ') of Parcel Map No. 18152 754 Hymettus Avenue ENGINEERING 1NITASEs ym CITY ,,r ENCIPdITAS Leucadia, California References: Attached Dear Mr. Allen: In accordance with your request, Hetherington Engineering, Inc. has performed a geoteclumical update for the proposed single-family residence. Previous geotechnical work perforned by this office at the site is summarized in the "As-Graded Geotechnical Report..." (Reference 6). Our recent services have included review of the referenced reports and plans, site reconnaissance, engineering and geologic analyses, and the preparation of this report. SITE DESCRIPTION The site, located at 754 Hymettus Avenue, Leucadia, California (see Location Map, Figure 1), is also identified as Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 18152. The site consists of a relatively level previously graded building pad and adjacent 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) cut and fill slopes 5-feet or less in height. The site is currently undeveloped. Vegetation consists of grass and ornamental shrubs. The rear portion of the driveway, which provides access from Hymettus Avenue, is unimproved. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Proposed development consists of asingle-family residence and detached garage/accessory unit building. We understand that relatively light wood-fraine construction will be utilized for the buildings and that the buildings will be supported by conventional continuous/spread footings with slab-on-grade floors. Grading is expected to be minor. 5205 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008-4369 • (760) 931-1917 • Fax (760) 931-0545 32242 Paseo Adelanto, Suite C • San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675-3610 • (949) 487-9060 • Fax (949) 487-9116 www,hetheringtonengineering.com GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE Project No. 3381.1 Log No. 8596 August 2'), 2004 Page 2 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Geologic conditions consist generally of approximately 3-feet of compacted fill over terrace deposits. The fill soils have a very low expansion potential and negligible soluble sulfates. SEISMICITY The site is located within the seismically active southern California region. There are, however, no known active or potentially active faults that pass through the site. Active and potentially active fault zones presently mapped within the site region include the offshore extension of the Rose Canyon/Newport-Inglewood and the Elsinore faults, which are located approximately 7.5-kilometeres southwest and 42.5-kilometeres northeast from the site, respectively. Strong ground motion could also be expected from earthquakes occurring along the San Diego Trough, San Jacinto, and San Andreas fault zones which lie at greater distances from the site. The following table lists the known active faults that would have the most significant impact on the site: Maximum Probable Fault Earthquake(Moment Slip Rate Fault Type Magnitude Rose Canyon/ Newport-Inglewood 6.9 1.5 mm/year B 7.5-kilometers (4.6-miles SW Elsinore (Julian Segment) 42.5-kilometers 6.8 5 mm/year B (26-miles NE) SEISMIC EFFECTS 1:. Ground Accelerations The most significant probable earthquake to affect the property would be a 6.9 magnitude earthquake on the Rose Canyon/Newport-Inglewood fault. Depiction of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis utilizing a consensus of historical seismic data and the respective regional geologic conditions that are shown an the Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California, California Division of Mines and Geology Map, Sheet 48 HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE Project No. 3381.1 Log No. 8596 August 2'3, 2004 Page 3 (Reference 5), indicates that peak ground accelerations of about 0.20 to 0.308 are possible with a 10-percent probability of being exceeded in 50-years. 2. Ground Cracks Fault surface rupture due to active faulting is considered unlikely due to the absence of an active fault on site. Ground cracks due to shaking from seismic events on active faults in the region are possible, as with all of southern California. 3. Landslidina The risk of seismically induced landsliding affecting the site is considered to be low given the favorable geologic conditions and relatively level nature of the site. 4. Liquefaction Liquefaction is not considered a potential site hazard due to lack of groundwater and the dense underlying fill and terrace deposits. 5. Tsunamis Due to the elevation of the property above sea level, the potential for seismically generated ocean waves to affect the site is considered low. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. General The geotechnical conclusions and recommendations presented in the "As-Graded Geotechnical Report..." (Reference 4) remain applicable for the currently proposed single-family residence with the following additions and/or clarifications. 2. Seismic Parameters for Structural Design Seismic considerations that should be used for structural design at the site include the following: a. Ground Motion — The proposed structures should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in Chapter 16, Division IV of the 2001 California Building Code. The basis for the design is dependent on and considers seismic zoning, site characteristics, occupancy, configuration, structural system and building height. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. a, *bk\1.I y M of ' 00'� ,�1�� \ r� �' 'te cL�itj�s i', �a°►''r 1 Mwcmqk MINIMS 1 INIT I1YT,. RANCH ' WLF o \ COURSE AV NOWAMY =.R cV .. LEUC401A Vomit \ \ 5 a LEU(,ADIA! x BLVD 4' 3►��' ° < I 8 c W� nauoa ' PASEO 't uvvu N: BEAM ` o Rtyrrwt', ors PuEau �4 ..._st .l7PRscxr �a. � yy if ; Z �SCITIA—(O natlifL R- '�. . �( If 7 \ R f t 8~ 9�tmD y EME 51 \g'rr f H1L15', w Z ,- MON UNION t`- ' L- Qtr �� SITE 'S1� s n a Y StaM��''Y � x. sue. xvt50-2 t� MMr;M� � ro a Sa�'cc�rr j ,-a rcww Ste`' t ,ru wa - t'e P Vp',fi�51 \ '� r�•. �' a CEia _ � FOXGLOVE �- .E� OWL i �� ST. $Pam SAM IX moat+�, < - t 3 a ! \4\4 s+ ",t� �a I 4 is at rmiwi+ac 4t. 11 i¢tu,;<a, .a ` ,,� �„t - 51►1fIWEk-Sf g ni \ ''MriA nti'•] ��, �:SfACIES(i� � 4�t � guvauuoa n;`,A (Kr!= '�� K s Oft cc j OCEAN \ N .f. BLY MAWF Nr ADAPTED FROM: The Thomas Guide,San Diego County.2004 Edition N SCALE: l'-2000' (1 Grid=0.5 x 0.5 miles) LOCATION MAP 754 Hymettus Avenue HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Encinitas, California GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS I PROJECT NO. 3381.1 1 FIGURE NO. 1 GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE Project No. 3381.1 Log No. 8596 August 23, 2004 Page 4 b. Soil Profile Type — In accordance with Section 1636.2, Table 16-J, and the underlying geologic conditions, a site Soil Profile of Type SD is considered appropriate for the subject property. c. Seismic Zone — In accordance with Section 1629.2 and Figure 16-2, the subject site is situated within Seismic Zone 4. d. Seismic Zone Factor (z) — A Seismic Zone Factor of 0.40 is assigned based on Table 16-I. Since the site is within Seismic Zone 4, Section 1629.4.2 requires a Seismic Source Type and Near Source Factor. e. Near-Source Factor (Na and Nv) — Based on the known active faults in the region and distance of the faults from the site, a Seismic Source Type of B per Table 16- U, and Near Source Factors of Na = 1.0 per Table 16-S and Nv = 1.1 per Table 16-T are provided. f. Seismic Coefficients (Ca and Cv) —Using the Soil Profile Type and Seismic Zone Factor along with Tables 16-Q and 16-R, the Seismic Coefficients Ca= 0.44 (Na) and Cv= 0.64 (Nv) are provided, or Ca= 0.44 and Cv = 0.70. 3. Site Grading Prior to grading, the area of the proposed structures and improvements should be cleared of surface obstructions and debris, and stripped of vegetation. Materials generated during clearing should be properly disposed of at an approved location off- site. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions should be bacicfilled with compacted fill. Within the limits of the proposed strictures and hardscape improvements and to 3-feet beyond, any existing loose/disturbed fill soils should be removed down to approved compacted fill soils and replaced with compacted fill in order to achieve design finish grades. Removal depths are anticipated to extend to approximately 1-foot below the existing grade. The Geotechnical Consultant should determine final removal depths during site grading. Following removals the exposed subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90-percent relative compaction based upon ASTM: D 1557-00. Fill should be compacted by mechanical means in uniform horizontal lifts of 6 to fl- inches in thickness. All fill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90-percent based upon ASTM: D 1557-00. The on-site materials are suitable for use as compacted fill. Rock fragments over 6-inches in dimension and other perishable or unsuitable materials should be excluded from the fill. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE Project No. 3381.1 Log No. 8596 August 23, 2004 Page 5 All grading and compaction should be observed and tested, as necessary, by the Geotechnical Consultant. 4. Site Drainaie Site drainage and choice of landscaping is important. The following recommendations are intended to minimize the potential adverse effects of water on the strictures and appurtenances. a. Consideration should be given to providing the structures with roof gutters and downspouts that discharge to an area drain system or other designed outlet device. b. All site drainage should be directed to the street and not to flow over slopes. This may be accomplished through area yard drains or through sheet drainage towards the street. c. No landscaping should be allowed against the structures. Moisture accumulation or watering adjacent to foundations can result in deterioration of wood/stucco and may affect footings. d. Irrigated areas should not be over-watered. Irrigation- should be limited to that required to maintain the vegetation. Additionally, automatic systems should be seasonally adjusted to minimize over-saturation potential particularly in the winter (rainy) season. 7. Recommended Observation and Testing During Construction All grading and backfill should be tested/observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. The following tests and/or observations by the Geotechnical Consultant are recommended: a. Site grading. b. Foundation excavations prior to placement of forms and reinforcing steel. c. Interior (underslab) and exterior utility trench backfill. S. Grading and Foundation Plan Review Grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant to confirm conformance with the geoteclmical recommendations provided in the project geotechrucal reports or to revise the recommendations, if considered necessary. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE Project No. 3381.1 Log No. 8596 August 2'), 2004 Page 6 LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of the issuance of the "As-Graded Geotechnical Report..." (Reference 4). If different subsurface conditions are observed to exist, the Geotechnical Consultant should be promptly notified for review and reconsideration of recommendations. Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please call our San Juan Capistrano office. Sincerely, HETNERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Jason S. Geldert Paul A. Bogseth Civil Engineer 63912 Registered Geologist 3772 (expires 9/30/06) Certified Engineering Geologist 1153 (expires 3/31/06) Mike Vasconcellos Staff Geologist JSG/MV/ Distribution: 3-Addressee Attachments: Location Map Figure 1 HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. REFERENCES 1. Catlin Engineering Assoc., "Report of Preliminary Soils Investigation, Three Proposed Single-Family Residences, 776 and 778 Hymettus Avenue, Encinitas, California", dated April 9, 1998. 2. Catlin Engineering Assoc., "Report of Compacted Fill Ground, Proposed Single- Family Residence, 766 Hymettus Avenue, Encinitas, California", dated December 24, 1998. 3. Jennings, Charles W., "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas," California Data Map Series, Map No. 6, 1994. 4. Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, DMG Open-File Report 96-02, dated 1996. 5. ICBO, "Maps of Known Active Faults Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada,"dated February 1998. 6. Hetherington Engineering, Inc., "As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Proposed Single- Family Residences, Parcels 1 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 18152, 778 Hymettus Avenue, Encinitas, California,"dated June 24, 1999. 7. Rick Hill Engineering, Inc., Grading Plans for: APN 256-253-03, 04, Single-Family Residence, TPM 98-061, Parcel Map No. 18152, dated January 15, 1999. 8. Peterson, M., Beeby, W., Biyant, W., et al., "Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California," California Division of Mines and Geology,Map Sheet 48, dated 1999. 9. ICBO, "California Building Code," 2001 Edition. 10. Cao, Tianqing, et al "The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps,"June 2003. 11. Allen, Bill, "Site Plan," dated August 4, 2004 HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY June 24, 1999 Project No. 3381.1 Log No. 4967 Mr. William Allen 687 Hygeia Ave. D —" Leucadia, CA 92024 SEP 19 2005 Subject: AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT I Proposed Single-Family Residences ENGINEERING SERVICES Parcels 1 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 18152 CITY Of ENCINITAS 778 Hymettus Avenue Encinitas, California References: 1) "Report of Preliminary Soils Investigation, Three Proposed Single- Family Residences, 776 and 778 Hymettus Avenue, Encinitas, California," by Catlin Engineering Assoc., Inc., dated April 9, 1998. 2) "Report of Compacted Filled Ground, Proposed Single Family Residence, 766 Hymettus Avenue, Encinitas, California," by Catlin Engineering Assoc., Inc., dated December 24, 1998. 3) Grading Plans for: APN 256-253-03, 04, Single Family Residence, TPM 98-061, Parcel Map No. 18.1.52,by Rick Hill Engineering, Inc., dated January 15, 1999 Dear Mr. Allen: In accordance with your request, we have performed geotechnical services in conjunction with grading at the subject sites. Our services have consisted of observation and testing during grading, laboratory testing and the preparation of this report which presents the results of our testing and observations, and our conclusions and recommendations. GRADING OPERATIONS Grading was performed during the period May 26 through June 15, 1999. Grading consisted generally of removing existing fill and topsoil to expose dense terrace deposits and replacing the soils as compacted fill. The building pad on Parcel 1 was overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet below final pad grade to at least 5 feet outside the building footprint to eliminate the cut/fill transition. Most of Parcel 3 was overexcavated to at least 3 feet below final pad grade to eliminate the cut/fill transition. 5245 Avenida Encinas, Suite G • Carlsbad, CA 92008-4369 • (760) 931-1917 • Fax (760) 931-0545 32242 Paseo Adelanto, Suite C • San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675-3610 • (949) 487-9060 • Fax (949) 487-9116 AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Project No. 3381.1 June 24, 1999 Page 2 SITE PREPARATION Prior to grading, the sites was cleared of surface obstructions, vegetation and debris. Within the limits of the grading (see Plot Plan, Figure 1), existing fill and topsoil were removed to expose dense terrace deposits. Additional removals were made to result in at least 3-feet of fill in the anticipated building pad areas (see Plot Plan, Figure 1). The driveway for Parcel 3 has not yet been graded. Following removals, the exposed soils were scarified to a depth of 6 to 8-inches, brought to near optimum moisture conditions and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM: D 1557-91A. A vertical seepage pit was encountered on Parcel 1 (see Plot Plan, Figure 1). The seepage pit was entirely drilled out exposing terrace deposits and the excavation was backfilled with concrete. SOIL TYPE The soils utilized as fill consisted of on-site materials composed of orange brown silty fine to medium sand. The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the soils used as compacted fill are presented on the attached Summary of Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content Determinations, Table IL The soils have a very low expansion potential (see Table III). FILL PLACEMENT Fill soils were placed in 6 to 8-inch thick, near horizontal lifts, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted by mechanical means to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM: D 1557-91A. Fill was placed in general accordance with the geotechnical guidelines presented in the referenced "Report of Preliminary Soils Investigation..." (Reference 1). The approximate limits of grading are shown on the attached Plot Plan,Figure 1. Density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM: D 1556 (Sandcone Method) and ASTM: D 2922 (Nuclear Method). The results of the density tests are presented on the attached Summary of Field Density Tests, Table I. The approximate locations of the field density tests are indicated on the attached Plot Plan,Figure 1. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Project No. 3381.1 June 24, 1999 Page 3 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Geologic conditions encountered during grading were similar to the conditions described in the "Report of Preliminary Soils Investigation..." (Reference 1). No adverse geotechnical conditions were encountered which would adversely effect site development. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. General Based on our observations and the results of our testing, it is our opinion that the subject grading has been performed in general conformance with the recommendations contained in the "Report of Preliminary Soils Investigation..." (Reference 1), and the requirements of the City of Encinitas, California. The sites are considered suitable for construction as intended. Additional grading will be necessary for the Parcel 3 driveway 2. Foundation and Slab Recommendations The proposed structures may be supported on conventional continuous footings bearing entirely in compacted fill soils. Footings for one and two-story structures should extend to a minimum depth of 12 and 18-inches respectively below the lowest adjacent grade and should have a minimum width of 12 inches. Footings located on or adjacent to slopes should be extended to sufficient depth to provide at least 10 feet of horizontal distance between the footing and face of slope. Footings located adjacent to utility trenches should extend below a 1:1 plane projected upward from the inside bottom corner of the trench. Continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two#4 bars, one top and one bottom. Footings bearing as recommended may be designed for a dead plus live load bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one-third for loads including wind or seismic forces. A lateral bearing value of 275 pounds per square foot per foot of depth and a coefficient of friction between foundation soil and concrete of 0.35 may be assumed. These values assume that footings will be poured neat against the foundation soils. Footing excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of steel to ensure that they are founded in suitable bearing materials. Floor slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches (actual) and should be reinforced with at least #3 bars spaced at 24 inches, center to center, in two directions, and supported on chairs so that the reinforcement is at mid-height in the HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Project No. 3381.1 June 24, 1999 Page 4 slab. Floor slabs should be underlain by a 4 inch layer of clean sand and a 6-mil plastic vapor barrier sealed at all joints placed in the middle of the sand layer. Prior to placing concrete,the slab subgrade soils should be thoroughly moistened. These foundation and slab recommendations are geotechnical minimums and do not replace or reduce the requirements of the Structural Engineer. 3. Retaining Walls Retaining walls free to rotate (cantilevered walls) should be designed for an active pressure of 36 pounds per cubic foot, equivalent fluid pressure, assuming level backfill consisting of on-site soils with a very low expansion potential. Walls restrained from movement at the top should be designed for an additional uniform soils pressure of 8xH pounds per square foot where H is the height of the wall in feet. Any additional surcharge pressures behind the wall should be added to these values. Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the previously described building foundation recommendations. Retaining walls should be provided with adequate drainage to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure and should be adequately waterproofed. 4. Trench and Retaining_Wall Backfill All trench and retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer. 5. Concrete Flatwork Concrete flatwork supported by compacted fill soils with a very low expansion potential should be at least 4-inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 bars placed at 24-inches on center(two directions) and placed on chairs so that the reinforcement is in the center of the slab. Slab subgrade should be thoroughly moistened prior to placement of concrete. Contraction joints should be provided at 8 feet spacings (maximum). 6. Site Drainaee The following recommendations are intended to minimize the potential adverse effects of water on the structures and appurtenances. a) Consideration should be given to providing the structures with roof gutters and down-spouts. b) All site drainage should be directed away from structures. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Project No. 3381.1 June 24, 1999 Page 5 C) No landscaping should' be allowed against foundations. Moisture accumulation or watering adjacent to foundations can result in deterioration of wood/stucco and may effect footing performance. d) Irrigated areas should not be over-watered. Irrigation should be limited to that required to maintain the vegetation. Additionally, automatic systems should be seasonally adjusted to minimize over-saturation potential particularly in the winter(rainy) season. e) All slope, yard, and roof drains should be periodically checked to verify they are not blocked and flow properly. This may be accomplished either visually or, in the case of subsurface drains, placing a hose at the inlet and checking the outlet for flow. 7. Type Cement for Construction Based on the results of sulfate tests, sulfate resistant concrete is not required for concrete in contact with on-site soils (see Table IV). . 8. Recommended Observations/Testing During Construction The following testing and/or observations by the Geotechnical Consultant are recommended during construction: a. Footing excavations prior to placement of forms and reinforcing steel. b. Interior(underslab) and exterior utility trench backfill. C. Retaining wall backfill. d. Remaining driveway area grading. LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our investigation and further assume the excavations to be representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site. If different subsurface conditions from those encountered during our exploration are observed or appear to be present in excavations, the Geotechnical Engineer should be promptly notified for review and reconsideration of recommendations. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Project No. 3381.1 June 24, 1999 Page 6 This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please call our Carlsbad office. Very truly yours, HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. CO/yF Y ' ' pfES �F Danny Mark ethenn on � � Cohen � a � Civil Engineer 3 88 � ivil Engineer 41937 �O' h10 Geotechnical Engineer O. 3J eotechnical Engineer 2346 Exp.C8 L='-I—� (expire 3/31/00) 9' v * expires 3/31/00) F�t�GNa�GO�� q OF CA��F�� NIDH/CD/sk Attachments: Plot Plan, Figure 1 Summary of Field Density Tests, Table I Content Determinations,Table II Expansion Index,Table III Sulfate Content, Table IV HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE I MDHSUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS (ASTM: D 1556 and D2922) Note: Test locations are shown on accompanying Plot Plan, Figure 1 Test No. Test Date Soil Type Comments Dry Moisture Relative and Test Density Content Compac- Elevation (pcf) (%) tion(%) feet 1* 5/26 1 144 117 11.1 92 2* 5/28 1 145 125 9.2 99 3* 5/28 1 146 120 9.8 94 4* 5/28 1 147 F.G. 127 9.4 100 5* 6/3 1 147 F.G. 119 10.0 94 6* 6/3 1 134 125 12.4 98 7 6/4 1 133 121 9.9 95 8 6/7 1 134 121 10.7 95 9 6/15 1 135 F.G. 126 6.8 90 10 6/15 1 135 F.G. 125 5.4 1 99 * ASTM: 1556, all others ASTM: D 2922 TABLE II SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATIONS ASTM 1557-9 A) Soil Type Description Maximum Dry Optimum Density (pcf) Moisture Content 1 Orange brown silty sand 127 10.5 HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. TABLE III EXPANSION (ASTM: D 4829) Soil Type Initial Compacted Final Volu- Expansion Expansion Moisture Dry Moisture metric Index Potential N Density N Swell (%) c Com acted Fill 8.8 119 13.7 0 0 Ve low TABLE IV SULFATE CONTENT EPA 9038 Soil Type Sulfate Content m Compacted Fill 141 HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. ADAPTED FROM: Grading Plans For: APN 256-253-03, 04, Singel Family Residence, TPM 98-061 Parcel Map No. 18152, Sheet 1 of 1,by Richard B. Hill,dated 01/15/99 N �\1 0 0 O 0,O D U) �r-D rm-v zv v D � °� X r- < D—{� OO mO O wo \\2 _�CnX �� \\ ZOD D KD D r C? G)-n� m D m m f, m 0 G) cn m zT 0> M _ rn ��._. -n 0 O N rrwr' .rn I ',• , DW Z O -n .. ' O Cu Aj \ \\ o X \ 0 n \ \ °z J1 Oft. C1') ZOK - --� - M m y� I ;0 - M z cn + e a• O _ Z I• n - rte • . :•i-'� �-- � I � d rgwp�' - z � r : Co co Cn r- a J K" .. "NOW - r W 24'+ E hilt ,,•. +y.'a +wwisMi. r A - -. i --,.. '•-rte 0 Ego CD Al _• . J T r _ FILL OVER NATURAL SLOPE SURFACE OF FIRM FORMATION FINISH FILL SLOPE 4'TYPICAL NATURAL SLOPE 10'TYPICAL 15'MINIMUM (INCLINED 2% MINIMUM INTO SLOPE) FILL OVER CUT SLOPE SURFACE OF FIRM _ FORMATION _ FINISH FILL SLOPE 4'TYPICAL FINISH CUT SLOPE O ' 10'TYPICAL 15'MINIMUM (INCLINED 2% _ MINIMUM INTO SLOPE) G e o t e c h n i c s Project No. 0864-001-01 SLOPE CONSTRUCTION Document No. 05-0262 l�-�lnc o rp o rated DETAILS FIGURE 2 \Drafting\CorelDraw\Slope Construction Rev.5/03 APPENDIX A REFERENCES Geopacifica Inc. (March 1, 2005). Third Party Geotechnical Review, Sunshine Gardens Nursery, 155 Quail Gardens Drive, Encinitas, California, APN: 258-130-32, -46, -51, Case No: 04-159 MIN/DR/CDP. Geopacifica Inc. (2004). Updated Review Memorandum, Third Party Geotechnical Review, Sunshine Gardens Nursery, 155 Quail Gardens Drive, Encinitas, California, APN.- 258- 130-32, -46, -51, Case No: 04-159 MINIDR/CDP, November 16. Geopacifica Inc. (2004). Review Memorandum, Third Party Geotechnical Review, Sunshine Gardens Nursery, 155 Quail Gardens Drive, Encinitas, California, APN. 258-130-32, - 46, -51, Case No: 04-159 MINIDRICDP, October 9. + Geotechnics Incorporated (2004). Updated Geotechnical Recommendations, Plan Review Comments & Storm Drain, Quail Gardens Property, Encinitas, California, Project No. 0864-001-01, Document No. 05-0027, February 11. Geotechnics Incorporated (2004). Geotechnical Plan Review Response & Updated Foundation _ Recommendations, Quail Gardens Property, Encinitas, California, Project No. 0864- 001-01, Document No. 04-1116, October 29. Geotechnics Incorporated (2003). Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Quail Gardens Property, Encinitas, California, Project No. 0864-001-00, Document No. 03-0664, September 17. Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E. (1997). Cyclic Liquefaction and its Evaluation based on SPT and CPT, Proceedings of the Third Seismic Short Course on Evaluation and Mitigation of -- Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazards, San Francisco. Seed, H. B., and ldriss, 1. M. (1982). Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes: Berkeley, California, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Southern California Earthquake Center(1999). Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California,University of Southern California, 60 p. Youd, T.L. et al. (2001). Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127,No. 4, April. Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX B CALCULATIONS Our settlement analyses were performed using the CPT data, the proposed storm drain alignments, proposed grading, and seismic loads. Settlement was estimated in areas with additional loading from the proposed fill using a linear stress-strain analysis. The stress-strain analysis states that the increased stress is equal to increased strain multiplied by Young's module. Published literature indicates that Young's modulus of the in-situ soils can be estimated as twice the cone tip resistance from CPT data. Therefore, our settlement analysis used the CPT tip resistance data for estimation of Young's modulus per incremental depth. The total settlement included summation of the incremental settlement throughout the CPT. Figures B-1.1 thru B-7.1, Cone Penetrometer Data, shows the skin friction, tip resistance and friction ratio for each CPT sounding. Please note that CPT-6 is not included in this report because CPT-6 is in the area of the proposed nursery building and not along the proposed storm drain alignments. The Elastic Settlement Summary follows each Cone Penetrometer Data figure (i.e. Figures B-1.2 thru B-1.22 for CPT-1). Our settlement analyses takes into account the additional fill loading at each CPT location and assumes that remedial grading is performed to a minimum depth of 3 feet below the bottom of the storm drains. The second portion of our settlement analyses looks at the potential dynamic settlement which would occur during the Design Basis Earthquake (10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50 year period). Our dynamic settlement analysis was performed on the data gathered from the CPT soundings. The liquefaction/settlement analysis was based on the simplified techniques originally presented by Seed and Idriss (1982), with recent improvements from the 1996 and 1998 NCEER workshop as summarized by Youd et al (2001). The liquefaction analysis was conducted in general accordance with the recommended procedures for implementation of DMG special publication 117 (SCEC, 1999). The CPT data was normalized for overburden pressure, and corrected for fines content and thin layers using the methods described in the referenced document (Youd et al, 2001). The CPT fines correction was based on the soil behavior type index (Ic). Note that the CPT data gathered above the groundwater table and in clayey soils was not included in the analysis, because these materials are not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction; however, the dynamic settle of these materials was included in our analysis. The results of the liquefaction analyses for each CPT location are presented following the Elastic Settlement Summary (i.e. Figures B-1.23 thru B-1.48 for CPT-1). The Settlement Analysis chart follows the liquefaction analysis sheets (i.e. Figure B-1.49 for CPT-1). Total settlement is taken from the existing grade of the CPT sounding location and beneath the area of the re-worked zone beneath the proposed storm drain pipe bottoms. Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX B (continued) CALCULATIONS The following chart presents a summary of the elastic and dynamic settlement analyses for the areas below the re-worked zone beneath the proposed storm drain pipe: Elastic Settlement Seismic Settlement inch (inch) _._ CPT-1 No additional loading 0.6 CPT-2 2.2 2.0 CPT-3 No additional loading 0.2 CPT-4 0.2 0.0 CPT-5 0.9 0.8 CPT-6 Building CPT CPT-7 0.7 0.4 Geotechnics Incorporated