The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-7604 G/I CZty OfENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep lenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering July 7, 2008 Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company 1081 Camino Del Rio South Suite 107 "3 Ya"'# P. San Diego, California 92108 Ifi,ti RE: FORD-DWO CARDIFF, L.P. 123&125 Chesterfield Drive APN 261-041-17 Grading Permit 7604-G Final release of security Permit 7604-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, single driveway, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, a release in the remaining security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 191269, (in the original amount of$53,995.00), reduced by 75% to $13,498.75, is hereby released in entirety. 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, ? Debra Geishart y Le ach Engineering Technician inance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Ford-DWO Cardiff,L.P. Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 �� recycled paper City O(ENGINEERING SER VICES DEPAR TMENT Eminitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering July 7, 2008 Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company 1081 Camino Del Rio South Suite 107 San Diego, California 92108 RE: FORD-DWO CARDIFF, L.P. 123&125 Chesterfield Drive DR 00-227 APN 261-041-17 Improvement Permit 7604-I Partial release of security Permit 7604-1 authorized construction of sewer, drainage, and street improvements, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the installation of the improvements. Therefore, a reduction in the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 191270, (in the original amount of$14,388.00), may be reduced by 75% to $3,597.00. The document original will be kept until such time it is fully exonerated. The retention and a separate assignment guarantee completion of work and the one-year warranty period has been met and inspected. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at(760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Debra Geishart ay Lembach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Ford-DWO Cardiff,L.P. Debra Geishart File TEL 760-633-2600 1 FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 eN recycled paper Y) NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT City o� Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering February 8, 2007 Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company 1081 Camino Del Rio South Suite 107 San Diego, California 92108 RE: FORD-DWO CARDIFF, L.P. 123&125 Chesterfield Drive APN 261-041-17 Grading Permit 7604-G Partial release of security Permit 7604-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, single driveway, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the rough grading. Therefore, a reduction in the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 191269, in the amount of$53,995.00, may be reduced by 75% to $13,498.75. The document original will be kept until such time it is fully exonerated. The retention and a separate assignment guarantee completion of finish grading. Should you have any questions or concerns,please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Debra Geishart J Lem ach Engineering Technician finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Ford-DWO Cardiff,L.P. Debra Geishart File TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper Sep 24 03 07: 42a Robert Mance 760 436 1771 p• 1 THE ORIGIN OF THIS DOCUMENT WS RECORDED ON JUN 17, 2003 DOCUMENT HUM 2003-0714050 GREGORY J. SMITH., COUNTY RECORDER RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND, ) SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: j TIME: 4:13 PM CITY CLERK ) CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 SOUTH VULCAN AVENUE ENCINITAS, CA 92024 SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ENCROACHMENT MAINTENANCE NO.929AP COVENANT ENCROACHME NT PERMIT A.P.N. 261-041-17 An encroachment permit is hereby granted to the Permittee designated in paragraph one,Attachment"A," as the owner of the Benefited Prroe cnt'bed i described in paragraph two, Attachment'A,"to encroach upon City Property three, Attachment"A," as detailed in the diagram, Attachment"B."Attachments"A" and "B" are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth at length. In consideration of the issuance of i encroachment Pem Permit hereby covenants and agrees, for the benefit 1. This covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs., personal representatives, transferees, and assigns of the respective parties. 2. Permittee shall use and occupy the City Property only in the manner and for the purpose described in paragraph four, Attachment A. 3. By accepting the benefits herein, Permittee acknowledges title to the City waives Property to be in the City and all right to contest that title. 4. The term of the encroachment ttee at indefinite and time. The city Sha be revoked ll mail written notice of City and abandoned by Pe y which shall set forth revocation to Permittee, addressed to the Benefited Property the date upon which the benefits of encroachment permit are to cease. 5. City is entitled to removes II replace,�o instalepublicimprovements.constructed ity shall Permittee in order to rep have no obligation to pay for or restore Permittee's improvements. 6. permittee agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against all claims, demands, costs, losses, damages, injuries, litigation, and liability arising out of or related to the use, construction, encroachment or maintenance to be done by the Permittee or Permittee's agents, employees or contractors on City Property. Sep 24 03 07: 43a Robert Mance 760 436 1771 p• 2 7. Upon abandonment, revocation or completion, Permittee shall, at no n the the notice it ,of return City Property to its pre-permit condition within the time spec revocation or prior to the date of abandonment. g. If Permittee fails to restore the City Property, the City shall have the right to enter upon the City Property, after notice to the Permittee, delivered at the Benefited Property, and restore the City Property to its pre-permit condition to include the removal and destruction of any improvements and Permittee agrees to reimburse the city for the costs incurred. g. If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement for all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Permittee shall agree that Permittee's duties and obligations under this covenant r ond a lien upon the Benefited Property. Upon 30-day notice, and an opportunity ue finncial obligation the City may add to the tax bill of the Benefited Property y past owing to city by way of this covenant. 11. Permittee waives the right to assert any claim or action against the City or any of or resulting from the revocation of this permit or the removal of any impro other action by the City, its officers, agents, or employees taken in a non-negligent manner, in accordance with the terms of the permit. 12 Permittee recognizes and understands that the permit may create a possessory interest subject to property taxation and that the permittee may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest. 13. Asa condition precedent to Permittee's right to go upon the City Property, the agreement must first be signed of thPermittee,ounty of San Diego.The�recording fee shall recorded with the County Recorder be oaid by Permittee. Approved and issued by the City of Encinitas, California, this, day of 14. APP , 2003. AGREED AND ACCEPTED PERMITTEE Dated: — 4" Robert Mance, President Ford Mance Corporation,A Delaware Corporation (Notarization of PERMITTEE signature is attached) City of Encinitas NOTARIZATION NOT REQUIRED Sep 24 03 07: 43a Robert Mance 760 436 1771 p. 3 ATTACHMENT "A" TO COVENANT REGARDING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 7929-PE PARAGRAPH 1: Permutes Ford Mance Corporation, a Delaware corporation. PARAGRAPH 2: Benefited Proaerty 20 and County A portion of Lots 18 and 19, Block 20 of amended �Stalte of California, 32-112 of Cardiff, in the City of Encinitas, of San Diego according to Map thereof No. 1662 excepting adjoining of 19 block 20,t onithe 18; and the northeasterly half of Newport A venue 1 o southwest, vacated by City of Encinitas Resolution No. 97-80 (APN 261-041-17). PARAGRAPH 3: City Pro per�Cl Encroachment#1 - Reference Exhibit"B" Sheet 1 of 2: roximately 240 feet A portion of the southerly right of way of Chesterfield Drive, app easterly of the intersection of the centerlines of San Elijo Avenue and Chesterfield Drive. Encroachment#2 - Reference Exhibit"B", Drive along the frontage of said A portion of the right of way of Chesterfield Benefited Property, from approximately 155 feet to 256 feet easterly of the intersection of the centerlines of San Elijo Avenue and Chesterfield Drive. PARAGRAPH 4: PAP-0-se Encroachment#1 - Reference Exhibit"B" Sheet 1 of 2: For a private access stairway to the benefited property. Encroachment#2 - Reference Exhibit"B" Sheet 2 of 2: For private retaining wall elements (horizontal wall ties and vertical soldier piles). Sep 24 03 07: 43a Robert Mance 760 436 1771 p. 4 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT r r State of r County of ,� �, aC7 �_ before me. On Name and Title of Officer(e.g., Jane Doe,Notary Public) personally appeared _ ��`X� Q �� Names)of Signers) personally known to me -OR- ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their JANET CpRWON signatures) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon COMM.313792e0 m behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. o Notary Pubiic•Calitomla (A W SAN DIEGO COUNTY My Comm.E*Oct a,sees W ITNES y and and o cial 1. sign otary ubric OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law,it may orovve of this form another l a relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal a Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: cJc� Document Date: Number of Pages: .� Signer(s)Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Titles(s): ❑ Part s): ❑ Partner-❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner- Limited ❑ General ❑ Attomey-in-Fact ❑ Attomey-in-Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Guardian or Conservator Top or Thumb here ❑ Other: Tap of Thumb here ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: Sep 24 03 07: 43a Robert Mance 760 436 1771 p• 5 A i CMU SIDE WALL 42' TALL ABOVE FG' `v (EACH SIDE) j i 62`3 60•S f s i. I °p ENCROACHMENT ,f1: PRIVATE ACCESS STAIRS\ TO SUBJECT SITE PCC STAIRS PER ' \ CITY DWG 7604-I , I IMPRO ER CITY Q DWG 7604--1 SUBJECT SITE i APN 261-041-17\ ca 1� Cam+ � ; . •• . . • IL Q LL.0 10 5 0 SCALE: V=10' 17.7' 28s 30, ATTACHMENT "B" i c�c�= �� :`. '• DETAIL OF ENCROACHMENT 11 IN CHESTERFIELD DRI VE SHEET 1 OF 2 Sep 24 03 07: 44a Robert Mance 760 436 1771 p• 6 'OiiiAA ;: i W co co W Ad -ja Lu uj r GL W o 3 or 4 UJ E co a_ N 3 �Lai �� 1 Z ^ .� • E �~ cc f _ LO a! N 2 W- 0 = co Duane Thompson - 7406-G & I Pa e 1 From: "MikePasko" <mikepasko @sbcglobal.net> To: <dthompso @ci.encinitas.ca.us> Date: 6/11/2003 12:23:08 PM Subject: 7406-G & I Conway&Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers/Surveyors/General-Engineering Contractors AB412412 2525 Pio Pico Drive • Suite 102 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone (760) 753-1453 • Fax (760)635-0839 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Duane Thompson - City of Encinitas RE: Your RFI PROJECT: 7406-G & I: Chesterfield Mixed Use Building JOB NO. 00-006 Mance Duane - Attached is a replacement copy of the improvement agreement/easement agreement between Ford-Mance&7-11 as requested. As also requested, I computed the on-site impervious areas (outside the building envelope)to be 3,030 s.f. Michael K. Pasko, P.E. Conway&Associates, Inc. 2525 Pio Pico Drive, Suite 102 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 753-1453 Phone (760)635-0839 Fax mikepasko @sbcglobal.net CC: 'Robert Mance" <rmance @mstk.com> Duane Thompson - 7406 G & I Page 1 From: "MikePasko" <mikepasko @sbcglobal.net> To: <dthompso @ci.encinitas.ca.us> Date: 6/11/2003 12:23:08 PM Subject: 7406-G & I Conway&Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers/Surveyors/General-Engineering Contractors AB412412 2525 Pio Pico Drive • Suite 102 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone (760)753-1453 - Fax (760)635-0839 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE: June 11, 2003 TO: Duane Thompson - City of Encinitas RE: Your RFI PROJECT: 7406-G & I: Chesterfield Mixed Use Building JOB NO. 00-006 Mance Duane - Attached is a replacement copy of the improvement agreement/easement agreement between Ford-Mance& 7-11 as requested. As also requested, I computed the on-site impervious areas (outside the building envelope)to be 3,030 s.f. Michael K. Pasko, P.E. Conway&Associates, Inc. 2525 Pio Pico Drive, Suite 102 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 753-1453 Phone (760)635-0839 Fax mikepasko @sbcglobal.net CC: 'Robert Mance" <rmance @mstk.com> Duane 0501031mprovement Aoreement.doc Page 1 IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT This Improvement Agreement(hereinafter referred to as this"Agreement") is entered into by and between Ford Mance Company, a Delaware corporation, also known as Ford Mance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "FoMaCo") and 7-Eleven, Inc., a Texas corporation (hereinafter referred to as "7-Eleven"), effective , 2003 with reference to the following facts: WHEREAS, FoMaCo is the owner of 123-125 Chesterfield Drive, Cardiff, California legally described on Exhibit H attached hereto (hereinafter referred to as "FoMaCo Property") and FoMaCo is in the process of improving the FoMaCo Property(see Exhibit A attached hereto for elevations of the building to be constructed on the FoMaCo Property); I WHEREAS, 7-Eleven is the owner of 2211 San Elijo Avenue, Cardiff, California, legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto(hereinafter referred to as"7-Eleven Property"), improved with a retail building,parking lot and gas pumps; WHEREAS, the 7-Eleven Property and the FoMaCo Property are adjoining properties at the eastern boundary of the 7-Eleven Property and western boundary of the FoMaCo Property (hereinafter referred to as "Boundary") (see Exhibit C attached hereto for a diagram of the 7- Eleven Property and the FoMaCo Property and photographs of the boundary area as viewed from the 7-Eleven Property); and WHEREAS, the improvement of the FoMaCo Property requires alterations to and improvements of approximately thirty feet of the eastern portion of the 7-Eleven Property primarily consisting of a landscaped area and strip of parking spaces which FoMaCo has agreed ? to construct at FoMaCo's sole cost and expense and will result in improving the appearance of the eastern portion of the 7-Eleven Property. NOW THEREFORE, FoMaCo and 7-Eleven agree as follows: I {{ 1. 7-Eleven hereby grants FoMaCo permission to enter upon such portion of the 7-Eleven f' Property as is reasonably necessary to grade and construct the improvements (the "Improvements") set forth on page four(4) of the grading plan attached hereto as Exhibit D (the "Grading Plan") and the landscaping plan attached hereto as Exhibit E (the "Landscaping Plan"). The grading and construction of the Improvements will include, but is not limited to, slope reduction, the removal and replacement of fencing, the relocation of utilities (electricity and water)and the air/water vending machine. 7-Eleven agrees to execute a permission for the construction of improvements in the form of Exhibit G attached hereto. 7-Eleven agrees to execute a recordable easement in form reasonably acceptable to FoMaCo for the installation of a storm drain inlet and its maintenance and repair by FoMaCo. In the event that 7-Eleven changes the location of the improvements located on the 7-Eleven Property so as to alter the character, quantity, quality of storm water runoff from the 7-Eleven Property that will be directed to the storm _ _ .. Duane Thompson 0501031m rovement Agreement doc �.3 yv` Page 2J drain inlet on the 7-Eleven Property that drains to the FoMaCo Property, then 7-Eleven will be responsible for providing alternative or additional drainage for that additional or different storm water runoff. However, FoMaCo shall be responsible at its sole cost and expense to provide proper drainage from portions of 7-Eleven Property onto the FoMaCo Property until such time as an alteration to the improvements on the 7-Eleven Property subsequent to the installation of the Improvements changes the storm water runoff as provided above. 2. 7-Eleven hereby grants FoMaCo the right to encroach on portions of the 7-Eleven Property as necessary to construct and maintain a shoring wall along Boundary with "I" beams, shown as "I" within a hash marked circle on the Grading Plan, (the "Shoring Wall") and as necessary to construct and maintain a retaining wall as set forth on item 19 on the Grading Plan (the "Retaining Wall"). 7-Eleven agrees to execute a recordable easement in form acceptable to the City of Encinitas of approximately one foot west of E Boundary for the permanent encroachment of structural elements including soldier piles F. for the Retaining Wall and to allow access for repair and maintenance of the Retaining Wall. Following the installation of the Retaining Wall, 7-Eleven may cut or remove the "I" beams of the Shoring Wall only in the event such removal is required for the development of the 7-Eleven Property. 3. 7-Eleven hereby grants FoMaCo permission to remove and replace landscaping on the 7- F' Eleven Property in accordance with the Landscaping Plans. 4. 7-Eleven agrees to grant to FoMaCo and/or San Diego Gas & Electric (hereinafter r referred to as "SDG&E")an easement over a portion of the 7-Eleven Property for access, maintenance and transmission of utilities from the existing SDG&E transformer on the 7- Eleven Property to FoMaCo Property. The easement will be prepared and recorded by SDG&E. 5. 7-Eleven agrees that FoMaCo shall, at FoMaCo's sole expense, place a roof on top of the canopy over the gas pumps on the 7-Eleven Property in a similar design of the roof of the 7-Eleven retail building (see Exhibit F attached hereto) and shall at FoMaCo's sole expense, remove, replace and alter the parking lot lights by adding shutters or blinders to direct lighting downward. The work described in this paragraph 5 will be deemed part of the"Improvements". 6. FoMaCo shall be solely responsible for all costs of constructing the Improvements on the 7-Eleven Property as set forth in Exhibits D and E and otherwise described herein. t FoMaCo shall provide 7-Eleven with a letter from FoMaCo's construction lender that funds are available for construction costs of the Improvements. FoMaCo shall be responsible for obtaining all required approvals from the City of Encinitas and any other governmental authorities or third parties for the Improvements and 7-Eleven agrees to execute such documents as are required by the City of Encinitas for the Improvements. FoMaCo shall construct the Improvements in accordance with the timeline attached hereto as Exhibit H(the"Construction Timeline"). Upon the submission of red lined"as built" plans to the City of Encinitas and 7-Eleven and the completion of the City of F. 4 j Duane Thompson -0501031mprovement Agreement doc Page 3 y Encinitas and 7-Eleven "punchlists", if any (hereinafter referred to as "Completion of Work"), 7-Eleven agrees to accept all Improvements on the 7-Eleven Property and to be responsible for their maintenance and repair, except as provided herein with respect to the Shoring Wall, the Retaining Wall, the storm drain inlet and the utility lines. 7-Eleven hereby grants FoMaCo permission to enter the 7-Eleven Property for purpose of effecting any repairs or maintenance set forth in this Agreement. 7. FoMaCo covenants and agrees with 7-Eleven, on behalf of itself or its successors and assigns, as the case may be, to indemnify and to hold harmless 7-Eleven, its successors and assigns, from any and all claims, liabilities, and expenses which may be claimed or asserted against 7-Eleven, its successors or assigns, or the 7-Eleven Property, on account of the exercise by FoMaCo of the rights and easements herein granted and conveyed, including, but without limitation, any mechanics' or materialmen's liens or claims of lien e which may be asserted against 7-Eleven, its successors or assigns, or the 7-Eleven Property, on account of the performance of the work required for the installation and construction of the Improvements. In addition, FoMaCo shall procure and maintain throughout the installation of the Improvements a policy of commercial general public liability insurance covering the 7-Eleven Property with combined single limit coverage of $1,000,000.00 and a deductible of$10,000.00 or less; such policy shall name 7-Eleven as a additional insured and FoMaCo shall provide 7-Eleven with a certificate evidencing such insurance prior to FoMaCo's entry onto the 7-Eleven Property pursuant to this Agreement. 8. FoMaCo will provide 7-Eleven written notice at least one week in advance of the commencement of activities requiring a grading permit and one week in advance of the commencement of activities requiring a building permit. Such written notices will be sent to the store operator Vinh Dang, 2211 San Elijo Avenue, Cardiff, CA 92007, market manager John Dyer, 9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite G, San Diego, CA 92124, real estate representative Mark Haines at 9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite G, San Diego, California 92124, and to 7-Eleven, Inc., Attn: Corporate Real Estate, P. O. Box 711, ' Dallas,TX 75221-0711. 9. FoMaCo will take reasonable action to schedule and conduct grading and construction activities to minimize the disruption of business conducted on 7-Eleven Property. In the event that the construction of the Improvements on 7-Eleven Property results in a loss of revenue of at least fifty percent(50%) of sales as compared to the prior year for the same day(s) under similar circumstances except for the construction activities by FoMaCo on 7- Eleven Property, then FoMaCo shall pay for 50% of the lost net profits for that day(s) resulting from the construction activities of FoMaCo on 7-Eleven Property. 10. Should FoMaCo fail to construct or maintain the Improvements on the 7-Eleven Property as provided in this Agreement after thirty (30) days' written notice to correct such f condition having been served upon FoMaCo by 7-Eleven, then 7-Eleven may, at its r election, take such action as may be reasonably necessary to correct the construction or F maintenance failures of FoMaCo. However, if such correction reasonably requires more F than thirty (30) days to cure, FoMaCo shall not be in default if such cure is commenced i - Duane Thompson -0501031mprovement Agreement doc _ __ Page 4 Ji E: within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently pursued to completion. If FoMaCo cannot perform any of its obligations due to events beyond FoMaCo's control, the time for performing such obligations shall be extended by a period of time equal to the duration of such events. Events beyond FoMaCo's control include,but are not limited to, acts of God, war, civil commotion, labor disputes, strikes, fire, flood, shortages of labor or material, government regulation or restriction, weather conditions, other casualties or other matters beyond FoMaCo's reasonable control. All costs associated with correcting the failure to construct or maintain, including a reasonable overhead charge and reasonable attorneys' fees to effect the recovery of such costs, shall be recoverable by 7-Eleven. 11. If a party commences or is made a party to a lawsuit, arbitration or other legal proceeding (hereinafter "proceeding") to enforce or interpret this Agreement, or to obtain a declaration of rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party in such proceeding shall be entitled to recover from the other party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred with such proceeding, including without limitation any appeal or enforcement of any judgment or order rendered in such proceeding. 12. This Agreement may be amended only by a written agreement signed by all parties to this Agreement. Waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed or constitute a waiver of any other provisions,nor shall such waiver constitute a continuing waiver. 13. Any notices hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given if delivered by hand, or sent by prepaid certified United States mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses; provided, however, that a party shall have the right to change its address for notice hereunder by the giving of written notice to the other parties in the manner set forth in this section: If to FoMaCo: Ford Mance Company P.O. Box 910 Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007 Attn: Robert F. Mance It to 7-Eleven: 7-Eleven, Inc. 2711 North Haskell Avenue Dallas,Texas 75204-2906 Attn: General Counsel E With copy to: 7-Eleven, Inc. 2711 North Haskell Avenue e. Dallas, Texas 75204-2906 Attn: Corporate Real Estate i 1, I i w f .. _. _. ... Duane Thompson 0501031mprovement Agreement.doc _ Page 5 With copy to: 7-Eleven, Inc. 9771 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard Suite G San Diego, California 92124 Attn: Real Estate Representative 14. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, beneficiaries, legal representatives, successors and assigns. Neither party may assign this Agreement to any person or entity without the other party's prior written consent. i' 15. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which together shall constitute a binding agreement, and each such counterpart shall be deemed an original instrument. 16. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California, without regard to its conflicts of law principles. If any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall (i) be modified to the i minimum extent necessary to render it valid and enforceable, or (ii) if it cannot be so modified, be deemed not to be a part of this Agreement and shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions. 17. This Agreement has been negotiated at arm's length and each party has been, or has had the opportunity to be, represented by legal counsel. Accordingly, any rule of law (including California Civil Code Section 1654) or legal decision that would require interpretation of any ambiguities in this Agreement against the party drafting it is not U applicable and is waived. The provisions of this Agreement shall be interpreted in a reasonable manner to effect the purpose of the parties and this Agreement. 18. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter set forth herein and supersedes all previous oral and written agreements, communications,representations or commitments. 19. The parties agree that they will execute such other and further documents that are or may become necessary or convenient to carry out and consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. 20. Each person signing this Agreement hereby represents and warrants that they have the authority to do so and that this Agreement binds the corporation for whom they are signing this Agreement. 21. In consideration of 7-Eleven's agreements set forth herein, FoMaCo agrees to pay all of 7- Eleven's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the negotiation and administration of this Agreement within thirty(30)days of receiving from time to time an _.m _. Duane Thomson -0501031mprovement_AQreement.doc W 1 __. _ _ Page 6 I invoice of such attorneys' fees and costs from 7-Eleven. In the event 7-Eleven and FoMaCo are opposing parties in a proceeding, the provisions of paragraph 11 of the Agreement shall control; other circumstances causing 7-Eleven to incur attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement shall be governed by this paragraph 21. i I I I I a i I I I z R i \§un/h/po 2Omq$mpoeme(A«e/\ndc \\/ Pg/} ; � ( FORD MAar£COMPANY aDeG»2c 7-ELEVEN,INC.,a Texas co m7alo ( corporation . ) � | By Sy: [ Roe R Uanm Vice President or&ttme-in {k! . Paget [ � [ Attest: ( By: ) Assistant Secret ary ; i ( (e) � [ � ( � ; � � . I � , \. . . . _ ( . .. . ��_.._._�____�,_,�_,.__��.��:.=3 �-� T!,- AIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT A RECORDED ON SEP 16, 2003 DOCUMENT NUMBER 2003-1134203 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND CKGCRY j. SMITH' COUNTY ivECORDER WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: SAN DIES COUNTY REWRDEF`'S OFFICE TIME: 9:54 AM David R. Moore, Esq. Moore& Skiljan 7700 El Camino Real, Suite 207 Carlsbad, CA 92009 7-Eleven Location No. 25766 THIS MEMORANDUM OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into on July ___, 2003 by and between Ford Mance Company, a Delaware corporation ("FoMaCo") and 7-Eleven, Inc., a Texas corporation ("7-11"). 7-11 is the owner of real property commonly known as 2211 San Elijo Avenue, Cardiff,California and legally described as Lots 1 through 6 inclusive, in Block 22 '/2 and Lots 7 and 8, in Block 31 '/2, all being in Cardiff, City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1662, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 1, 1915 ("7-11 Property"). FoMaCo is the owner of real property commonly known as 123-125 Chesterfield Drive, Cardiff, California and legally described as Lots 18 and 19, Block 20 of Amended Subdivision of Blocks 19, 20 and 32- 1/2 of Cardiff, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to May thereof No. 1662, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 1, 1915, excepting therefrom the easterly 10 feet of Lot 18 and the Northeasterly one half of Newport Avenue adjoining Lot 19, Block 20, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof no. 1662, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County March 1, 1915on the southwest which was vacated and closed to public use by resolution no. 97-80 issued by the City Council of the City of Encinitas, a certified copy of which recorded October 28, 1997 as file no. 1997-0539812 of Official Records ("FoMaCo Property"). 7-11 hereby grants FoMaCo the right to enter upon portions of 7-11 Property to grade and construct improvements for the benefit of FoMaCo Property according to the City of Encinitas Plan File Number 7604-G upon such terms and conditions set forth in the Improvement Agreement by and between the parties hereto dated July _, 2003, all terms and conditions of which are made a part of this Memorandum of Improvement Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 7-Eleven, Inc. Ford Mance Company By:\--- ' By:z4� Y iee Preside f—o Attorney-in-Fact Robert F. Mance, President Attest: 1 r ssistant Sect tary y City OtNGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep lenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering July 8, 2009 Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company 1081 Camino Del Rio South Suite 107 San Diego, California 92108 RE: FORD-DWO CARDIFF, L.P. 123&125 Chesterfield Drive DR 00-227 APN 261-041-17 Improvement Permit 7604-1 Final release of security Permit 7604-1 authorized construction of sewer, drainage, and street improvements, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the installation of the improvements and approved the one-year warranty inspection. Therefore, a full release in the security deposit is merited Performance Bond 191270, (in the original amount of$14,388.00), reduced by 75% to $3,597.00, is hereby released in entirety. 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, 12o, ebra Geish Ainance ch Engineering Technician anag er Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Ford-DWO Cardiff,L.P. Debra Geishart File TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 �� recycled paper 1384 Poinsettia Ave.,Suite A,Vista, CA 92083 Geotechnical (760) 599-0509 FAX (760) 599-0393 Environmental K) INC. Materials March 5,2003 Project No,:2071SD3 Ford Mance Construction,Inc. P.O.Box 910 Cardiff by the Sea,California 92007 Attention: Mr. Robert Mance Subject: Geotechnical Compliance Proposed Mixed Use Building 225 Chesterfield Drive Cardiff,California 92007 Reference: Geotechnical Evaluation Report, Proposed Mixed Use Building, 125 Chesterfield Drive, Cardiff,California, by GeoTek Insite, Inc,dated January 31,2002. Dear Mr.Mance: In accordance with your request and based on our recent evaluation of the subject site, we confirm hereby that our geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed building included in the above-referenced soils report remain applicable. 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 the undersigned. Respectfully Submitted, GeoTek Insite,Inc. --- w No.62375 ? r' fig 2 Sim I. S id, - �' ffrey P. Blake RCE 62375,Exp. 9/30105 ! CEG 2248, Exp. 10/31 Senior Engineer Geotechnical Departme gerA ,- n Distribution: (3)Addressee !+! F:\Data�0300\0 FWSHEr)JOBS\207I Ford MsnceNupdWx'rprttr.doc G T�' 1E E-; ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA UTAH T •d T/ , r or., nay aauQU o.,aaom d/.F : rn nn Tn jJH 3 AUG 2 81� i 1 E!1 1'IE_RING SERVICES 1,;TY OF ENCINITAS E W E FLILUvJ ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED MIXED USE BUILDING 125 CHESTERFIELD DRIVE CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR FORD MANCE CONSTRUCTION, INC. P.O. BOX 910 CARDIFF-BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 PREPARED BY GEOTEK INSITE, INC. 1384 POINSETTIA AVENUE VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92083 PROJECT NO.: 2071SD3 JANUARY 31, 2002 `� �K 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, Vista, CA 92083 Geotechnical (760) 599-0509 FAX (760) 599-0593 Environmental ` INSITE�9 N�C Materials . January 31, 2002 Project No.: 2071SD3 Ford Mance Construction,Inc. P.O. Box 910 Cardiff-by the Sea, California 92007 Attention: Mr. Robert Mance Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Mixed Use Building 125 Chesterfield Drive Cardiff, California 92007 Dear Mr. Mance: As requested and authorized, GeoTek Insite, Inc. (GeoTek) has performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed mixed used building at 125 Chesterfield Drive, Cardiff, California. This report presents the results of our investigation, discussion of our findings, and provides geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and construction. In our opinion, the proposed development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations included herein are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Respectfully submitted EERIN P Y � ��Q�OFESS/pY,9 �O��Y GeoTek Insite, Inc. Q oN I. CM Z No.EG 2248 N0.62375 M Up.,10/31/03 * x.09/30/05 /V l l `P / OF CAL�F� 4in I. S iid., CALW effrey P. Blake, RCE 62375, Exp. 9/30/05 CEG 2248, Exp. 10/31/03 Project Engineer Project Geologist (4) Addressee F.-Data1D3001207/Ford MancelCard,,,f0/.doc ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA UTAH Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page i TABLE OF CONTENT 1. INTENT................................................................................................................................................................1 2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES..........................................................................................................1 3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.........................................................................2 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................................2 3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................................................2 4. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING...........................................................................2 4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION......................................................................................................................................2 4.2 LABORATORY TESTING...................................................................................................................................3 5. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS........................................................................................................3 5.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................................................................3 5.1.1 Undocumented Fill..............................................................................................................................3 5.1.2 Del Mar Formation.............................................................................................................................3 5.2 SURFACE AND GROUND WATER....................................................................................................................4 5.3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY...........................................................................................................................4 5.4 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS...............................................................................................................................5 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................5 6.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................................................................5 6.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS.....................................................................................................................5 6.2.1 Site Protection..................................................................................................................................... 5 6.2.2 Site Excavation.................................................................................................................................... 6 6.2.3 Fills..................................................................................................................................................... 6 6.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................................6 6.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria................................................................................................................ 6 6 3.2 Foundation Set Backs.............................................................................................................. ..... ..... 7 6.4 CONCRETE 8 CONSTRUCTION . ........................................................................................................ .. .... ....�.� 6.4.1 Cement Type............ .. ... 6.4.2 Concrete Flatwork.............................................................................................................................. 8 6.4.3 Concrete Cracking......................................................................................................................... .... 8 6.5 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION...........................................................................................8 6.5.1 General Design Criteria.............................................................................................--..................... 8 6.5.2 Wall Backfill and Drainage........................................................................................................... .... 9 6.5.3 Restrained Retaining Walls............................................................................................................... 10 6.6 SHORING...................................................................................................................................................... 10 6.7 SITE DRAINAGE..............................................................................................................I............................ 11 6.7.1 Temporary Measures......................................................................................................................... 11 67.2 Permanent Measures......................................................................................................................... 11 6.8 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS................................................................................... 12 7. LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................................................................12 8. SELECTED REFERENCES............................................................................................................................13 ENCLOSURES Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 —Boring Location Plan FiQUre 3 —Earth Pressure Diagram for Shoring Appendix A—Logs of Exploratory Borings/Trenches Appendix B —Results of Laboratory Testing mil{ Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071 SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31, 2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 1 1. INTENT It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and completion of the proposed development. Implementation of the advice presented in the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of this report is intended to reduce risk associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of the project or guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after construction. The scope of our evaluation is limited to the area explored, which is shown on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 2). This evaluation does not and should in no way be construed to encompass any areas beyond the specific area of the proposed construction as indicated to us by the client. Further, no evaluation of any existing site improvements is included. The scope is based on our understanding of the project and the client's needs, and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this region. 2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our study was to evaluate the general overall geotechnical conditions on the site as they relate to the proposed development. Services provided for this study consist of the following: ➢ Research and review of available geologic data and general information pertinent to the site. ➢ Field reconnaissance of the site to evaluate the general surface conditions. Site exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of 4 small-diameter borings ➢ Laboratory testing on representative samples collected during the field investigation. ➢ Review and evaluation of site seismicity. ➢ Compilation of this geotechnical report, which summarizes our findings and foundation recommendations for the proposed development and associated site improvements. *R5 K Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071 SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31, 2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 2 3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is located at 125 Chesterfield Drive, in the Cardiff-by-the-Sea area, City of Encinitas, California (see Figure 1). The site is a rectangular shape lot measuring approximately 8,600 square feet (86-foot by 100-foot). An existing one-story residential building with a detached garage and two separate storage structures currently occupies the property. The site is bordered to the north by Chesterfield Drive, to the east by a residential/commercial building, to the south by condominiums, and to the west by a `7-1 F mini mart/gasoline station. The existing site topography consists of gently sloping terrain in a southwesterly direction. Site elevations range from approximately 62 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) near the northeast portion of the site to approximately 54 feet above MSL in the southwest corner of the site. Further information regarding existing structures and site layout is shown on Figure 2. 3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT According to plans provided by Schultz Architecture, dated 04/17/2001 (last revision), the proposed development will consist of the construction of a 2-story mixed-use building with a subterranean parking garage. The proposed building is to be founded on isolated spread footings with a retaining wall foundation system along the perimeter. The site will be excavated to a depth of approximately 20 to 22 feet below existing site grades to accommodate the subterranean parking garage. 4. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 4.1 ' FIELD EXPLORATION . Our subsurface investigation consisted of the excavation of 4 small diameter exploratory borings utilizing a truck mounted drill rig equipped with hollow stem auger. The borings were drilled toward the comers of the proposed construction in landscaped areas; with one boring drilled in the gravel drive area. The borings were drilled to a maximum depth of approximately 50.5 feet below existing site grades. The borings were logged and sampled by a geologist from our firm. Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed samples of the B 4�K Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 3 materials encountered were collected and transported to our laboratory for possible testing. p ry p The logs of borings and additional information regarding field sampling and testing procedures are presented in Appendix A. 4.2 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on selected disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples collected during the field investigation. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confirm the field classification of the soil materials encountered and to evaluate their physical properties for use in the engineering design and analysis. The results of the laboratory-testing program along with a brief description and relevant information regarding testing procedures are included in Appendix B. 5. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS 5.1 GENERAL A brief description of the earth materials encountered is presented in the following sections. A more detailed description of these materials is provided on the logs of exploratory borings included in Appendix A. The results of our investigation and a review of pertinent geologic maps indicate that undocumented fill soils and dense formational materials known as the Del Mar Formation underlie the site. 5.1.1 Undocumented Fill Undocumented fill soils.mantle the entire site and varies in depth from 5 to 9 feet. The fill materials generally consist of brown, moist, loose, silty fine-to medium-grained sand. Actual thickness in some areas may vary. These materials are considered unsuitable for support of foundations in their present condition. 5.1.2 Del Mar Formation The Del Mar Formation underlies the fill materials on the site. These sedimentary materials primarily consist of siltstone and minor sandstone units that are described as light olive, to olive gray and blue-gray, medium dense to very dense, sandy silt, clayey fine sand and silty fine sand with minor clayey silt. Based on' our experience and review of published geologic maps, regional bedding within the bedrock units of the Del Mar Formation is generally gently inclined to the north-northwest at 4 to 5 degrees. MK Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31, 2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 4 The upper few feet have noticeably ifferent texture and are classified as loose to dense fine- to , to medium-grained sand with little or no fines. These sandier materials are likely the mapped Bay Point Formation or Quaternary Terrace Deposits. 5.2 SURFACE AND GROUND WATER No surface water or ponding was observed at the time of the field exploration. Site drainage should be reviewed and designed by the project civil engineer. Perched groundwater conditions were encountered at depths ranging from four to nine feet below ground surface, and these conditions were observed to persist down to the transition to the less permeable bedrock of the Del Mar Formation. The actual ground water table was not encountered, and is likely in excess of 50.5 feet below the ground surface. The level of perched groundwater may fluctuate due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time of the field investigation. However, the potential does exist for continued perched water conditions at this site. 5.3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY The site is in a seismically active region. No active or potentially active fault is known to exist at this site nor situated within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault 'Zone (Special Studies Zone). The Rose Canyon Fault (offshore) is the nearest known active fault located approximately 2.9 miles west of the site. The computer program EQFAULT, version 3.00 (Blake 1989, updated 2000) was used to determine the distance to known faults and estimate peak ground accelerations. The Rose Canyon Fault is considered to represent the highest risk to generate ground shaking. A maximum seismic event of magnitude 6.9 is postulated based on a deterministic analysis. The estimated peak site acceleration is 0.56g. For the purpose of seismic design a Type B seismic source 4.7 km from the site may be used. Shown in Table 5.3 below are seismic design factors in keeping with the criteria presented in the 1997 Unified Building Code (UBC), Division IV & V, Chapter 16. tt MK Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071 SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 5 TABLE 5.3—SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameters N Soil Profile Seismic Type N. N" Source Type Source Table 16J 16Q 16R 16S 16T 16U Value Sc 0.40 0.67 1.0 1.2 B 5.4 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS Based on the proposed foundation level the liquefaction potential on the site is considered to be very low due to the dense and cohesive nature of the subsurface soils and lack of a shallow water table. According to our geologic reconnaissance and a review of published geologic maps there are no known or suspected ancient landslides that exist at this site. The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as seiche and tsunami are considered to be negligible due site elevation and distance from an open body of water. 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 GENERAL The proposed development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction phases of development. 6.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS Grading and earthwork should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Encinitas, applicable provisions of the UBC, and our recommendations presented herein. 6.2.1 Site Protection The earthwork contractor should take all precautions deemed necessary during site grading to maintain adequate safety measures and working conditions. The excavated area should be �4iE� K Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 6 barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads within 10 feet of to of excavation slope or g P P side. Underground utilities located within the proposed limits of construction should be removed, capped off or relocated. All applicable safety requirements of CAL-OSHA should be met during construction. 6.2.2 Site Excavation Based on available information, the entire site will be excavated on the order of 20 to 22 feet to allow for the construction of the subterranean parking garage. Excavations in site materials should generally be accomplished with heavy-duty earthmoving equipment. Hard, well- cemented zones should be anticipated. Temporary excavations within the onsite formational materials should be stable at 1.5H:1V inclinations for short durations during construction, and where cuts do not exceed 15 feet in height. Some sloughing of surface soils should be anticipated. Where space for the slopes is not available, shoring will be required which is most likely the case at this site. Soil parameters for the design of a shoring system are discussed in Section 6.6. 6.2.3 Fills It is anticipated that the majority of the excavated materials will be exported from the site to allow for the construction of the subterranean parking garage. The on-site sandy materials are considered suitable for.reuse as compacted fill provided they are free from vegetation, debris or cobbles greater than 6 inches and other deleterious materials. The earthwork contractor should ensure that all proposed excavated materials to be used for backfilling at this project are approved by the soils engineer. Where applicable, the undercut areas should be brought to final grade elevations with fill compacted in layers no thicker than 8 inches.compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density at near optimum moisture content, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557-00. 6.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 6.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria As previously stated, the site will be excavated on the order of 20 to 22 feet below existing grade to allow for the construction of the subterranean parking garage. Based on the prevailing soil conditions, conventional spread and/or continuous footings founded at this depth are considered a suitable foundation system for the proposed structure. As such, we recommend the following criteria for design of foundations: Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Pace 7 6.3.1.1' A net allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf), or a modulus of subgrade reaction of 350 pci may be used for design of footings founded at a depth of 20 to 22 feet below existing ground level. A minimum base width of 24 inches for continuous footings and a minimum bearing area of 4 square feet (2 ft by 2 ft) for pad foundations should be used. The bearing capacity value may be increased by 300 psf for each additional foot of width or depth to a maximum of 4,500 psf. Additionally; an increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). 6.3.1.2 Shallow foundations for ancillary structures embedded a minimum of 12 inches into compacted fill should be designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000. The bearing capacity value may be increased by 200 psf for each additional foot of depth to a maximum of 3,500 psf. An increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). 6.3.1.3 The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 200 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,000 psf for footings founded on compacted fill. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 6.3.2 Foundation Set Backs Where applicable, the following foundation setbacks should apply to all foundations. Any improvements not conforming to these setbacks may be subject to lateral movements and/or differential settlements: 6.3.2.1 The outside bottom edge of all footings should be set back a minimum of H/3 (where H is the slope height) from the face of any descending slope. The setback should be at least 7 feet and need not exceed 20 feet. 6.3.2.2 The bottom of all footings for structures near retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom inside edge of the wall stem. 6.3.2.3 The bottom of any existing foundations for structures should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom of the nearest excavation, otherwise any additional loads induced by the existing foundations should be considered in the design of the shoring system or the underground retaining structures. Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 8 6.4 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION Concrete construction should follow the UBC and ACI guidelines regarding design, mix placement and curing of the concrete. The following is a minimum design criterion and should not supersede the design requirements by the structural engineer. 6.4.1 Cement Type Laboratory testing on two selected soils samples indicates that the water-soluble sulfate in soil range from 0.018 to 0.028, which is considered to be negligible exposure to sulfate in accordance with Table 19-A-4 of the UBC. 6.4.2 Concrete Flatwork Exterior concrete flatwork (patios, walkways, driveways, etc.) should be given the same standards of care being applied to these features as to the structure itself. Subgrade should be moisture conditioned prior to placing concrete. 6.4.3 Concrete Cracking One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened joints for cracking to occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the stresses that develop. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced. We would suggest that control joints be placed in two directions spaced the numeric equivalent of two times thickness of the slab in inches changed to feet (e.g. a 4 inch slab would have control joints at 8 feet centers). As a practical matter, this is not always possible nor is it a widely applied standard. 6.5 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 6.5.1 General Design Criteria Recommendations below may be applied to typical masonry or concrete vertical retaining walls to a maximum height of 15 feet. Additional review and recommendations should be requested for higher walls. Q Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071 SD') Geotechnical Investigation January 31, 2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 9 6.5.1.1 Wall backfill placed within a 1 to 1 ro'ection behind p ) n any wall should be comprised of onsite soils with a low expansion potential. The backfill materials should be placed in lifts no greater than 8-inches in thickness and compacted at 90% relative compaction at optimum moisture content or higher. 6.5.1.2 Retaining walls embedded a minimum of 18 inches into compacted fill or formational materials should be designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf. An increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). 6.5.1.3 The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 4,000 psf. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 6.5.1.4 An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal active pressure against the wall. The appropriate fluid unit weights are given in Table 6.5 below for specific slope gradients of retained material. TABLE 6.5.1 —ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES Surface Slope of Retained Materials Equivalent Fluid Pressure (H:V) (PCF) Level 35 2:1 50 These equivalent fluid weights do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as expansive soil, vehicular traffic, structures, seismic conditions or adverse geologic conditions. 6.5.2 Wall Backfill and Drainage The onsite very low to low expansive soils are suitable for backfill provided they are screened of greater than 3-inch size gravels. Presence of other materials might necessitate revision to the parameters provided and modification of wall designs. The surface of the backfill soil should be sealed by pavement or the upper 24 inches be comprised of compacted native soils. Proper surface drainage needs to be provided and maintained. Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to prevent build up of hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated collector pipe embedded in a minimum of one cubic foot per lineal foot of 3/8 to c) � -�K Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 10 one inch clean crushed rock or equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric. The drain system should be connected to a suitable outlet. Walls from 2 to 4 feet in height may be drained using localized gravel packs behind weep holes at 10 feet maximum spacing (e.g. approximately 1.5 cubic feet of gravel in a woven plastic bag). Weep holes should be provided or the head joints omitted in the first course of block extended above the ground surface. However, nuisance water may still collect in front of wall. 6.5.3 Restrained Retaining Walls Any retaining wall that will be restrained prior to placing backfill or walls that have male or reentrant corners should be designed for at-rest soil conditions using an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas having male or reentrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance equal to twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner 6.6 SHORING It is understood that a temporary or permanent shoring system will be used on all sides of the proposed excavation where space is not available for backcuts. For shoring design, we recommend the use of the distribution of earth pressure shown on Figure 3. In addition to the recommended earth pressures, the upper 10 feet of shoring adjacent to streets should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf that results from an assumed 300-psf surcharge behind the shoring due to normal street traffic. For traffic that remains more than 10-feet away from shoring, surcharge loading may be neglected. The shoring contractor should coordinate with the earthmoving contractor regarding sequence and requirements of installing the shoring system. The shoring contractor should also consider the presence of perched groundwater in the design and installation procedures of the shoring system. It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored excavation. It should be realized, however, that some deflection would occur regardless of the shoring system used. We estimate that this deflection could be on the order of 1 to 3 inches at the top of the shored parking structure excavation. If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary to keep settlement of the adjacent structures and of the utilities in the adjacent properties within a tolerable range. If desired to reduce the deflection of the shoring, a greater active pressure could be used in the shoring design. Once selected, additional information regarding the design and construction requirements of the shoring system may be provided. Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071 SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31, 2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 11 6.7 SITE DRAINAGE Perched groundwater conditions were encountered at depths ranging from 4 to 9 feet below ground surface, and these conditions were observed to persist down to the transition to the less permeable bedrock of the Del Mar Formation. The potential for continued perched groundwater exists and long-term moisture-related problems for the proposed subterranean structures are likely. Thus, we recommend that appropriate preventive measures be implemented to protect against water seepage during and after construction. 6.7.1 Temporary Measures 6.7.1.1 Precautions should be taken by the contractor during construction to protect the worksite and/or the open excavation from flooding, ponding, or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Thus, temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the worksite. 6.7.1.2 Pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water from the open excavation during a rainfall event or due to groundwater seepage. Following periods of rainfall or due to uncontrolled groundwater seepage, the contractor should contact the soils engineer and arrange for a walkover of the building area in order to visually assess water-related damage in the subgrade. Soils adversely affected should be classified as unsuitable subgrade materials and be subject to over-excavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading and , as recommended by the soils engineer. 6.7.2 Permanent Measures 6.7.2.1 Due to the potential for continued perched water conditions, proper waterproofing measures of the subterranean structure is recommended. Such long-term measures may include.bottom-of-wall subdrains and free-draining backwall material such as a continuous gravel layer or geocomposite (Miradrain 6000 or equivalent) installed behind all retaining walls on the subject project. Subdrains system should be also placed below the bottom-of-slab to collect potential groundwater. GeoTek Insite, Inc. will assume no liability for damage to structures that is attributable to poor waterproofing or subdrain installation. 6.7.2.2 Surface runoff should be collected and directed away from the project site. The civil engineer should evaluate the on-site drainage and make necessary provisions to keep surface runoff from infiltrating the subgrade for the subterranean structure. Such measures may include closed planter boxes constructed with a sealed bottom and all landscape areas be provided with functional, adequately spaced area drains to collect surface flow away from the building foundations to an adequate drainage facility. Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31, 2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 12 6.8 PLAN REVIE W AND CONSTRUCT I ON OBSERVATIONS We recommend that site grading, specifications, and foundation plans be reviewed by this office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. We also recommend that GeoTek representatives be present during site grading and foundation construction to check for proper implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. These representatives should perform at least the following duties: Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of all unsuitable materials. • Observe installation and monitoring of tiebacks if applicable. • Observe bottom of removals prior to fill placement. • Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement, and collect soil samples for laboratory testing where necessary. • Observe the fill for uniformity during placement including utility trenches. Also, test the fill for field density and relative compaction. • Observe and probe foundation materials to confirm suitability of bearing materials and proper footing dimensions. If.requested, GeoTek will provide a construction observation and compaction report to comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project. We recommend that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained. 7. LIMITATIONS The materials observed on the project site appear to be representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during site construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GeoTek Insite, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others. Since our recommendations are based the site conditions observed and encountered, and laboratory testing, our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been - �I{ Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071 SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 13 derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. 8. SELECTED REFERENCES ASTM, 200, "Soil and Rock: American Society for Testing and Materials," vol. 4.08 for ASTM test methods D-420 to D-4914, 153 standards, 1,026 pages; and vol. 4.09 for ASTM test method D-4943 to highest number. Blake, T., 1989 (Updated 2000), "EQFAULT', Version 3.0, A Computer Program for Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources." California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 1998 "California Building Code," 3 volumes. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," Special Publication 117. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: International Conference of Building Officials. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc., Report of Preliminary Soil Investigation and Geologic Reconnaissance, Proposed Commercial/Residential Development, 125 Chesterfield, Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California, Dated January 21, 1998. GeoTek, Insite, Inc., In-house proprietary information. Kennedy, M.P. and Peterson, G.L., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200. Seed, H.B., and Tokimatsu, K, Harder, L.F., and Chung, R.M., 1985, "Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 111, no. GT12, pp.1425- 1445. Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-02. Youd, T. Leslie and Idriss, Izzmat M., 1997, Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022. E -..t _ �.• Imo. ` t r 1 • Ilk C S y r • !a •. L i �+ �� _. a, t. -f '• 1s"' rat •�•� ��. �• �-•..j �, � � �i 'N\, Sea Cli • "� ?,•_,' �.��' Ott ' County Park owl ate!' 1 5S .,r j. - • y• ,� '' �' •... 5 r•f • 1 itit,� ,: ±j • n 1 Ml OR• l SITE r mom as dlf f bYCthe Seams fin' �' a� . (Cardiff) Ewa � 1 1 5, • 'S ` - .,�, 5• it r.. i tr, Z -- _ `'• i te, 4 Dlsposat `5 i `>s7 _ IQ' yt w /Zr Z. Park f it f•�1 r1 ��7 `5 ��:-- Ford Mance FiQure 1 �-�---- ; to 125 Chesterfield Drive Site 7, 1 Cardiff, California Location ( _EK, INC. USGS 7.5-Minute 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A GeoTek Project Number: 2071-SD3 Topographic Map Map Vista, California 92083 c 0 0 _ m cis CL � UU, a N y u cs 2 �. E 4° Ar o «= r a i U CL a Ln Cr • –86 feet C- z m M AL W ^ L7 W • J N • m r m � C C7 to � � U O C O � r z U C G a to c3 G; ° cs o C 0 U • m m Gravel Driveway —► Storage 0 N � E U too u > 40 O C/) ee U x ILI' U E� VI v G. � U C7 PRESSURE DIAGRAM FOR DESIGN OF SHORING SYSTEM EXISTING GRADE H(feet) NOTES: BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION • The pressure diagram is developed based on a method 33 H(psf) by Peck(1969)for braced and tieback walls. • An additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf should be applied to upper 10 feet if traffic is allowed within 10 feet of face shoring. !� • If used,the capacity of a drilled friction anchor can be estimated based on an internal friction angle of 32 degrees for the top 9 feet of soil below existing grade and 22 degrees for the soil below. Ford Mance Figure 3 125 Chesterfield Drive *�K'Cardiff, California Earth Pressure II�TC,Diagram for Shoring 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A GeoTek Project Number:2071-SD3 Vista, California 92083 APPENDIX A LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Proposed Mixed Use Building Cardiff, California Project No.: 2071SD3 EO � �K FORD MANCE CONSTRUCTION,INC. APPENDIX A Geotechnical Investigation January 31, 2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Pase A-1 A- FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES The Standard Penetration Test(SPT) The SPT is performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1586-99. The SPT sampler is typically driving into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The split-barrel sampler has an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 1-3/8 inches. The samples of earth materials collected in the sampler are typically classified in the field, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for further testing. The Modified Split-Barrel Sampler(Ring) The Ring sampler is driven into the ground in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3550-8-1. The sampler,with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The samples are removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. Bulk Samples Bulk samples are normally bags of representative earth materials over 20 pounds in weight collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. Plastic Bag Samples Plastic bags samples are normally airtight and contain less than 5 pounds in weight of representative earth materials collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. These samples are primarily used for determining natural moisture content and classification indices. B -BORLNG LOG LEGEND The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and rock on the logs of borings: SOILS USCS Unified Soil Classification System f-c Fine to coarse f-m Fine to medium GEOLOGIC B:Attitudes Bedding: strike/dip J:Attitudes Joint: strike/dip C: Contact line ........... Dashed line denotes USCS material change Solid Line denotes unit/formational change Thick solid line denotes end of boring (Additional denotations and symbols are provided on the logs of borings) ` ' EO GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 1 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2071-SD3 DRILLER: Scotrs Drilling LOGGED BY: LM PROJECT NAME 125 Chesterfield DrJFord Mance DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem OPERATOR: Roy LOCATION: See Site Plan HAMMER: 140 Ibstiin RIG TYPE: CME 55 ELEVATION: -61.5 MSL DATE: 3/26/01 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing d g c L BORING NO.: 8-7 0 y E a E E c d O .-. N U L p E Z (n V ❑ g w � m N Z ? w Z, O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ° Topsoil Grass&Landscaping materials Fill SM Brown,moist,silty f-m SAND,trace clay;easy drilling 5 6 12 Uel Mar Formation 18 B1-1 SM Olive gray,moist,medium dense,silty fine SAND;iron oxide staining, 11.5 119.0 Phi=340 cemented C=0.4 tsf @9':seepage " 10 17 26 B1-2 Olive gray,wet, medium dense,f-m SAND,trace silt 16.2 117.0 22 @14':becomes light tan,wet,very dense, f-m SAND with silt 15 37 No Recovery 36..... .............. ._.............. ...................Uti................. .................. ...................................................................... 35 61-3 ML SIL75Tt7NE:'Higfily Wea�ti'e're'd;ligfif olive and retl-brown, motfled, molsi, dense,sandy SILT with clay;well indurated 20 - 29 BI-4 same- Phi=25° 1 50/4" C=0.25tsf 25 33 61-5 -same- EI=78 50/5" PI= 16 Legend E—Ring , —SPT ® —Large Bag D-No Recovery —Perched Water GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 2 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2071-SD3 DRILLER: Scotrs Drilling LOGGED BY: LM PROJECT NAME 125 Chesterfield Dr./Ford Mance DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem OPERATOR: Roy LOCATION: See Site Plan HAMMER: 140 Ibs/iin RIG TYPE: CME 55 ELEVATION: –81.5 MSL DATE: 3/26101 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing v a $ BORING NO.: 8-1 (continued) t 1 CL y N E d (� O C c N p n 3 m E U U o °p U t E m U, z z o y MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ° 30. D_eJ__Mar Formation icantlnu2d) 38 B1-6 SM-ML Laminations .25"thick of light tan and light olive,moist,sandy SILT 16.2 116.1 50/4" and fine SAND @31':becomes light olive with irregular patches of red, moist,very dense,f-m SAND and sandy SILT;well indurated N 35 @35':becomes olive,damp to moist,very dense sandy SILT and silty f-c SAND;well indurated;iron oxide staining 40 50/4.5" B1-7 @40':same,decrease in moisture 14.3 111.9 45 50 50/5" 61-8 SM SAIVl'95'I'ONE':'Cigfif6Tue-gray;'ilamp.very dense';siffyf-m'S7S;ND............................ .............. .............. ....................... a -HOLE TERMINATED AT 50.5 FEET— Hole backfilled with soil cuttings No groundwater encountered;perched water at 9 feet 55 Legend: ®—Ring ® —SPT ®—Large Bag —No Recovery > --Perched Water GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 1 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2071-SD3 DRILLER: Scott's Drilling LOGGED BY: LM PROJECT NAME 125 Chesterfield DrJFord Manes DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem OPERATOR: Roy LOCATION: See Site Plan HAMMER: 140 Ibsfin RIG TYPE: CME 55 ELEVATION: -60.5 MSL DATE: 3/26/01 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing t ;, $ BORING NO.: 8-2 y cmE o c c a o E o � z N � = o o z m = MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ° Topsoil/Grass&Landscaping materials Fill SM @3":Yellowish brown,moist,silty f-m SAND 6 @4':seepage -r- 5 6 62-1 5 Del Mar Formation Olive,wet, loose,silty f-m SAND;with scattered coarse sand grains @8':becomes yellowish-brown,wet, loose,silty f-m SAND;iron oxide staining 6 10 ..... . ...... ... ............... .............. ............................. 14 82-2 SM-ML'SArMSTUNFISIL7STONE`."fiigFily wea'fh'e'fed;'IigTif"o iive'with"i'rreguiar'pafch'e's 16.2 117.0 of red,very moist,medium dense,silty f-m SAND and sandy SILT 24 B2-3 @14':becomes very dense phi=320 15 5/5.5" C=0.3 tsf .............................. ............................................................................................................................................................... ........................................ .............. . ....................... MUSC SILTSTONE:highly weathered, light olive, moist,dense,clayey to sandy SILT 25 B2-4 20 50/3.5" -same- @22': iron oxide laminations 25 132-5 17.4 114.3 Phi=310 25 50/4" -same- C=0.3 tsf Legend: ®—Ring ® _SPT —Small Bag ❑ —No Recovery 4 —Perched Water GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 2 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2071-SD3 DRILLER: Scott's Drilling LOGGED BY: LM PROJECT NAME 125 Chesterfield DUFord Mance DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem OPERATOR: Roy LOCATION: See Site Plan HAMMER: 140 Ibsfin RIG TYPE: CME 55 ELEVATION: —60.5 MSL DATE: 3126101 SAMPLES _ Laboratory Testing ?. E BORING NO.: 8-2 (continued) CL T o m 'a E E rn cr o o t E U) Z (n C? v Q O m = MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 3 30 Del Mar Formation(continueg) 33 82-6 ML/SC Light olive with some irregular red patches,damp to moist,very dense,sandy 35 50/4" SILT and silty,clayey,fine SAND 40 50/3" B2-7 SM SAfJ15'S'�'0'rJE:"[5a�k=gr•ay ilamp,very die nse,'silty'f='m�SANI�..........................................12.9....119.8.............................. 45 50/5" B2-8 50 -HOLE TERMINATED AT 49.5 FEET- Hole backfilled with soil cuttings No groundwater encountered;perched water at 4 feet 55 Legend: ■—Ring , —$PT N —Small Bag FI—No Recovery 4 —Perched Water GeoTek insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2071-SD3 DRILLER: Scott's Drilling LOGGED BY: Lht PROJECT NAME 125 Chesterfield Dr./Ford Mance DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem OPERATOR: Roy LOCATION: See Site Plan HAMMER: 140 Ibsen RIG TYPE: CME 55 ELEVATION: -55 MSL DATE: 3/26101 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing a° N BORING NO.: 8-3 E O E c in Z y `m Z n O y m MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ° Topsoil Grass&Landscaping materials SM Red-brown to yellow-brown,moist,loose,silty f-m SAND 5 @4'Becomes very loose 5 4 83-1 1 @6.5'seepage �— 10 Del Mar FormatiqU 10 14 B3-2 ML/SM SILTSTONE:Highly weathered,light olive,mottled, moist,medium dense, 20.6 116.0 20 sandy SILT with clay;well indurated @12': Becomes light olive and red,mottled,silty fine SAND; iron oxide staining 20 B3-3 15 50/5" ' 50/5" B3-4 @19'becomes olive-gray sandy SILT 13.7 El=78 20 44 B3-5 -same- 25 50/4.5" -HOLE TERMINATED AT 25 FEET- Hole backfilled with soil cuttings No groundwater encountered;perched water at 6 feet Legend: ■—Ring —SPT —Small Bag El —No Recovery > —Perched Water GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 1 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2071-SD3 DRILLER: Scotts Drilling LOGGED BY: LM PROJECT NAME 125 Chesterfield DrJFord Manca DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem OPERATOR: Roy ' LOCATION: See Site Plan HAMMER: 140 Ibsen RIG TYPE: CME 55 ELEVATION: –56 MSL DATE: 3/26/01 SAMPLES _ Laboratory Testing y E c CL v ;, BORING NO.: 8-4 0 C. CL y E E � ar a O E in z' C n m MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS Crushed grave EW SC Reddish-brown to yellowish brown,moist,loose to medium dense,sity f-m SAND,trace clay 5 Del Mar FormatFon 17 B4-1 SP Gray-brown,moist,medium dense,f-m SAND;iron oxide staining, 15.9 34 50/5" @6':seepage .............................. ....... .. ............................................................................................................................... ....................... ....... .S(LTS7C5NE751�NDSTL7'NE............ SM/ML @ 8':Light olive with irregular red patches,moist,dense,sandy SILT and silty, f-m SAND; iron oxide staining 10 29 40 B4-2 -same- 16.0 Phi=20° 50 C=0.5 tsf 15 50/6" 64-3 -same- 16.5 20 28 B4-4 -same- 5015" 25 45 B4-5 50/4" SILTSTONE:highly weathered,light olive,moist,very dense,sandy SILT and Phi=220 silty fine SAND; iron oxide staining;moderately indurated C=0.6 tsf Legend: ®—Ring , —SPT —Small Bag F] —No Recovery Y —Perched Water GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 2 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2071-SD3 DRILLER: Scott's Drilling LOGGED BY: LM PROJECT NAME 125 Chesterfield DrJFord Mance DRILLING METHOD: B"Hollow Stem OPERATOR: Roy LOCATION: See Site Plan HAMMER: 140 Ibs/in RIG TYPE: CME 55 ELEVATION: -56 MSL DATE: 3/26/01 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing a° r F to d ti BORING NO.: B-4 (continued) H y T �, CL CL E E U V O ° E to Z = � O M ca MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ° 30 12 Del Mar Formation(continued) 40 84-6 same- 50/4.5" 35 4 40 50/3" 64-7 ML 40': ��lue-gray,moist,very dense,clayey saridy�S1L'C weft ind'u�ated................... Phi=27° lip C=0.1 tsf 45 50 50/6" 64-8 -same- . —HOLE TERMINATED AT 50.5 FEET— Hole backfilled with soil cuttings 55 No groundwater encountered Legend: —Ring ® —SPT N —Small Bag F-1 --No Recovery 4 —Perched Water APPENDIX B RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING Proposed Mixed Use Building Cardiff, California Project No.: 2071SD3 L ECG 1K y FORD MANCE CONSTRUCTION,INC. APPENDIX B Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Pase B-1 Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System(ASTM Test Method D2487). The soil classifications are shown on the logs of exploratory borings in Appendix A. Liquid limit, plastic Iimit and plasticity index were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4318. Results are included herein (Plate 1) and also shown on the logs of exploratory borings in Appendix A Grain size distribution (particle size analysis) was performed on selected samples in accordance with ASTM D422. Results of grain size analysis are shown on Plates 2 and 3. Moisture-Density—(In Situ Moisture and Unit Weight) The field moisture content and dry unit weight were taken on ring samples (ASTiVl Test Method D2216). The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot. The field moisture content is determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Results of these tests are presented on the logs of exploratory borings in Appendix A. Expansion Index Expansion Index testing was performed on representative soil samples. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829. The Expansion Index (EI) test results are presented on the logs of exploratory borings in Appendix A. Direct Shear Shear testing was performed in a direct shear machine of the strain-control type in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D3080. The rate of deformation is approximately 0.03 inches per minute. The sample was sheared under varying confining loads in order to determine the coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. The tests were performed on ring samples collected during our subsurface exploration. The shear test results are presented on Plates SH-1 and 7. �� LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60 Dashed line indicates the approximate ' upper limit boundary-for natural soils / 50 � / O 40 X / w Z ' � v 30 / OF / 20 OW / 10 4 - / ML or OL MH or OH 10 30 50 70 90 110 LIQUID LIMIT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS s • Gray silty clay 37 21 16 Project No. 2071-SD3 Client: Ford Mance Remarks: Project: Cardiff • •Source: B-1@25 Sample No.:B-1 Elev./Depth:25 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT GeoTe k, Inc. Plate 1 Particle Size Distribution Report m - c S 09 8 S 8 100 I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I II I I 1 1 I I t I I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I i I I I I I I 90 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I UH 80 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I 70 I t I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I t I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I I W 60 I I I I 1 I Z I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I LL I 1 I I 1 1 I I I i I I I I 1_- 1 I I I I i I I I I I 1 1 I r I i I I I I I i I I 1 I I Z 50 W I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I W 40 CL 1 1 i I I I I I I I I I i 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I i I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 30 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 20 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 10 I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I II 1 II I II I 1 II I 1 1 I 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm %+3" %GRAVEL %SAND %FINES CRS. I FINE I CRS. MEDIUM I FINE SILT CLAY 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.3 2.4 1 29.9 1 67.4 SIEVE I PERCENT SPEC' PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Gray sandy silt #4 100.0 #16 99.4 #100 84.5 Atterberg Limits #200 67.4 PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 0.169 D60= D50= D30= D15= DSO= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks * (no specification provided) Sample No.: B-4 Source of Sample: B-4 @20 Date: 4/18/01 Location: Elev./Depth: 20' Client: Ford Mance [=OGeoTek, ' n C. Project: Cardiff Project No: 2071-SD3 Plate 2 Particle Size Distribution Report 0 100 S C C 8 ' I 1 I I 1 II z I I 1 I t I I 1 1 I i I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I 80 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I t I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I i I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 70 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I t W 60 Z I I I 1 I I I I I ! 1 I LL I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I i I 1 i 50 Z U.] I I I 1 I I I I 1 U I f I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 W 40 CL I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 20 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I F",II I I I I I I 0 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm %+3" %GRAVEL %SAND % FINES CRS. I FINE CRS. MEDIUM FINg SILT CLAY 0.0 0.0 0.0__L 0.7 1 19.8 1 36.8 1 42.7 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.' PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Gray silty sand #4 100.0 #16 97 .8 #30 89.0 #50 69.5 Atterbern Limits #200 42 .7 PL= LL= PI= Coefficients D85= 0.512 D60= 0.192 D50= 0.110 D30= D15= D10= Cu= CC= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks (no specification provided) Sample No.: B-2 Source of Sample: B-2 @34 Date: 4/18/01 Location: Elev./Depth: 34' Client: Ford Mance GeoTek, Inc. Project: Cardiff Project No: 2071-SD3 Plate 3 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM SAMPLE PROJECT 2071-SD3 IN SITU RING SAMPLE DATE 5/27/2001 B-4 @ 10' C= 0.45 ksf 19 DEGREES 4 3.75 3.5 i 3.25 3 2.75 25 2.25 Y 2 W Q H Vl 1.75 . 1.5 1.25 LEGEND 1 0.75 ♦ SHEAR STRENGTH 0.5 -Linear(SHEAR STRENGTH) 0.25 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 CONFINING PRESSURE(ksf) LOAD(ksf 0 1.0 2.0 4.0 SHEAR STRENGTH 0.66 1.23 1.67 PLATE SH-1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM SAMPLE PROJECT 2071-SD3 IN SITU RING SAMPLE DATE 5/27/2001 B-4 @ 25' C= 0.58 ksf (= 22 DEGREES 4 3.75 3.5 3.25 3 2.75 2.5 2.25 n flf 2 y Lu Vf 1.75 1.5 1.25 LEGEND 1 0.75 I SHEAR STRENGTH 0.5 -Linear(SHEAR STRENGTH) 0.25 0 . 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 CONFINING PRESSURE(ksf) LOAD(kso 0 1.0 2.0 4.0 SHEAR STRENGTH 0.93 1.34 2.01 PLATE SH-2 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM SAMPLE PROJECT 2071-SD3 IN SITU RING SAMPLE DATE 5/4/2001 B-3 @ 24' C= 0.26 ksf (= 31 DEGREES _4 3.75 3.5 3.25 I 3 2.75 2.5 2.25 n .- y2 to W i C F V1 1.75 1.5 1.25 LEGEND 1 0.75 SHEAR STRENGTH _Linear(SHEAR STRENGTH) 0.5 0.25 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 CONFINING PRESSURE(ksf) LOAD(ksf) 0 1.0 2.0 4.0 SHEAR STRENGTH 0.82 1.32 2.41 PLATE SH-3 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM SAMPLE PROJECT 2071-SD3 IN SITU RING SAMPLE DATE 5/2/2001 B-2 @ 14' C= 0.28 ksf (= 32 DEGREES 4 3.75 3.5 3.25 3 2.75 2.5 2.25 n uj F 1.7 5 1.5 1.25 LEGEND 1 I 0.75 SHEAR STRENGTH -Unear(SHEAR STRENGTH) 0.5 0.25 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 CONFINING PRESSURE(ksf) LOAD(ksf 0 1.0 2.0 4.0 SHEAR STRENGTH 0.84 1.30 2.41 PLATE SH-4 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM SAMPLE PROJECT 2071-SD3 IN SITU RING SAMPLE DATE 5/4/2001 B-1 @ 20' C= 0.25 ksf (= 25 DEGREES 4 3.75 3.5 3.25 3 2.75 I 2.5 2.25 CA 2 ¢ r y 1.75 1.5 1.25 LEGEND 1 0.75 • SHEAR STRENGTH � 0.5 Linear(SHEAR STRENGTH) 0.25 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 CONFINING PRESSURE(ksf) LOAD(kso 0 1.0 2.0 4.0 SHEAR STRENGTH 0.84 0.90 2.10 PLATE SH-5 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM SAMPLE PROJECT 2071-SD3 IN SITU RING SAMPLE DATE 5/16/2001 B-1 @ 5' C= 0.4 ksf c= 34 DEGREES 4 3.75 3.5 3.25 3 2.75 2.5 2.25 cn V N2 uj N 1.7$ 1.5 1.25 LEGEND 1 0.75 • SHEAR STRENGTH 0.5 -Linear(SHEAR STRENGTH) 0.25 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 CONFINING PRESSURE(ksf) LOAD(ksf) 0 1.0 2.0 4.0 SHEAR STRENGTH 0.88 1.40 2.45 PLATE SH-6 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM SAMPLE PROJECT 2071-SD3 IN SITU RING SAMPLE DATE 5/16/2001 B-3 @ 9- C= 0.35 ksf = 22 DEGREES 4 3.75 3.5 i 3.25 3 i 2.75 2.5 2.25 n y2 2 F y 1.75 � i 1.5 � 1.25 i LEGEND 1 1 0.75 JAL • SHEAR STRENGTH l000< -Unear(SHEAR STRENGTH) 0.5 0.25 \ 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 CONFINING PRESSURE(ksf) LOAD(ksf 0 1.0 2.0 4.0 SHEAR STRENGTH 0.74 0.88 1.69 PLATE SH-7 - Conway & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers/Surveyors/Geneial-Engineering Contractors AB412412 2525 Pio Pico Drive•Suite 102•Carlsbad,CA 92008•Telephone(760)753-1453•Fax(760)635-0839 HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS and HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS for CHESTERFIELD DRIVE MIXED-USE BUILDING ENCINITAS, CA 00-227 DR APN 261-041-17 GRADING PLAN 7406-G Q'WOf ESS/V� �p At L X. T No.41022 m EXPIRE 3-31-2007 a 4 �� '3 'rrtgl c i v i l E OF CALF :5 i Prepared: August 23, 2002 Revised: April 2, 2003 44- /=M- ...........____. ��O r __...._ ....._.___._-._ to =7' r Gait' /,a;wry`` ....... _1-._----------... ........ Conway & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers`Surveyors/General-Engineering Contractors AB412412 14 X616 S 2 2 Zs D/ e,,e Op ,7 Conway & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers/Surveyors/General-Engineering Contractors AB412412 A A /V/CI 67CE dv -ooh 2 _ 25 ',, OUTLET, • >F) fs 1� u 3n HYDROLOG CHESTERFIELD M BUILDING..". :_ -- . REVISIONS APPROVED DATE I REFERENCES I DATE BE?CITy OF ENCINITAS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DRAWING NO. DESCRIPTION. 112'I.P. 00-227 DR osy SX FOXE r LOC 7604-G a SOW DJJ0 AVE E�CHESTERFIELD MIXED—USE BUILDING ew LOruiY 04123 & 125 CHESTERFIELD DRIVE, CARDIFF uvnon neV ►AAP a rxrT + n Cm 1 ? LL at = C..9 r� N r Y o a ..... O .. , ;� ch CD fw v f�J A 1 / , ` \ \D Cr LLA "� C� �� /`- i �/ ~ x-1'1 in •R�� r W A CD •-� -, es ILn It _ g LLO n C _ �' / r C:j cc . . r �q� ti `• • , h 1J" CL. , ti-r j r. '2 `A _ �� C4 uj cm t -\ w �CD If a M== 03 A i r O V► c• V du CD C 'x < - u h O Z V a0 (y .. ii 1 i a i 0 Y u co M Q s W <O G M6 m ou u �- X " < Q:Q■ � aa. o 'C w t°j Q6 s � h r a u Y a r Conway & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers/Surveyors/General-Engineering Contractors AB412412 C417 "r cm cc N 'm Q r~i • , � _� ! _ o Cm ap in CDQ ! _'� J,• i CEO �N cx t _y Nom.. e J/ i, .� r�:�•—•� • r.. Oct Cm �' . fj ae a •�� isaY —�1 ®i'�r+ 0 IC e N1 • ," - v CD cc N '- _\ �_ j, Cz / ^ m J < g �N V a x a, r � z• �• • O u a: U • C J ►Oi d d x e ; ., Lai ; � 00 C N t V Y O Val F OO�C u1O cc i O 0. 40 z GJ O U. ti w i u r d a Conway & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers/Surveyors/General-Engineering Contractors AB412412 - 1 s� .... v_ ," •�_._.rsv ate.:,----�_....A..� �>•orrcwr��a� r^� re.Mr.tAerur�e�a.sar-a aa��.�...r xLorA mueir+rrr�sa-ssr�r=�� - �� AWWWARf AW tq Z�W f�tfQlSair� J a�RisAfnnr trAr3lA�tbwv1= lviwfm AM"Off _ wRA , mnfflI � a�AMi ��ll�I0R�7�Hil �<f■iti�i 1�l�fNliti'I' Nunn LJ�1 �i1/JwfU1A�Q111lIII1fl■■�l��ii [TtAt FJ� Jil Z�i�3 11�81I2Yti;i1111113t!!■t■��ii iitn�t � ty �� e ��atlnn��■l�� mum_ nluv �J�� /nJ�q►IN�BJJ.�i31110i1i311i��f��s■ �®it�//:1�/J�' f I�/�tI�iAL78A1�Ii11lllllillfii��! �. r. ��ar►w•r ��••�. arara sw+�..rt�aa.s—r�t_w�a- AW8i �vl/ ��5=�-r.��el�rtill Cfttl lMlY irRt><1.11f� �7t/.r'==�.M��'�rwl�y#�ras"SAM rasa aa`ia WVW� -.W r �l.ai'I - efW.d� wsv vwr A"WAMmwar r�n�.iu ;,.:9�� VA IIlf �J� NEW mmnswuVEfurif• RaRr.�RriRaRW. sR�woa�aRo►aunaaiuresesaagass�SW4 J!1�! �� Lai!!lr�n■s sa MffMr.YJIAV IIAAMVA~Sii>� ii i�t8>)f21flI1Ri7!!■■�>af•>ti AIVJ6+Y�AWAW Jalid ii�ii■fi 1 111!!li!■UIt:>•ii 21W ]rATAFOWA F,F~ SWAM fe/0¢ r. FLO-GUARDCatch Basin Insert �J FLOW RATE CHART Grated Inlets Flow Rate Model No. Inlet ID GPM/CFS FF-16D 16"X16" 340/.757 FF-18D 18"X18" 340/.757 FF-24D 24"X24" 530/.1 .18 FF-2436D 24"X36" 680/1 .52 Curb Opening Inlets Flow Rate Model No. Inlet Width GPM/CFS FF-24DC1/FF-30DC1 W= 3.50' 190/.42 W= 4.00' 314/.70 W= 5.00' 380/.85 W= 7.00' 537/1 .20 1N=14.00' 1075/2.39 W=21 .00' 1646/3.66 W=28.00' 2150/4.79 NOTES: 1 . Above flow rates are "calculated clean flow rates" based on geotextile manufacturer published flow rate of 70 gpm/ft2 (Mifafi Filterweave 400). Factors ranging from .25 to .50 should be applied to above flow rates depending on anticipated levels of sediment and/or debris. 2. Flo-Guard catch basin inserts are designed to collect sediment, trash, and debris during low flows (first flush) while not impeding peak flows. FILTER BODY ATTACHMENT SNAPS STAINLESS STEEL SUPPORT FRAME Q CORNEA Q ' g REPLACEABLE ED UPPORT .,RACKETS POUCHES 8 B 9 o 0 MODULAR DESIGN FOR EASY REPLACEMENT OF FILTER COMPONENTS NEOPRENE GASKET (TWO SIDES) DURABLE WOVEN MESH FILTER BODY NOTES: REPLACEABLE 1, Ro4srdwFilter body is prefabricated from polypropylene woven ADSORBENT-FILLED monofgement geotextile. POUCHES 2.All metal components shell be stainless steel(Type 304). 3. Refer to application Chan for catch basin and fitter sizing. 4.Filter medium shall be Fosai Roce" installed and maintained in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. 6. Refer to Manufacturer's recommendations for maintenance program. B. f o-fila iminsarts may be installed(without adsorbent pouches) during course of construction as a sedimentation control device.After construction,remove sediment and Instal adsorbent pouches. HIGH FLOW FOR APPLICATION CHART BYPASS SEE SHEET 2 OF 2 ff TOP VIEW SILT AND DEBRIS CONTAINMENT AREAS *'Flo-Gard"' Filter inserts are designed to fit catch basins with approidmste dimensions shown. Q 8 e FOSSIL FILTER"" FLO-GARCff CATCH BASIN INSERT REPLACEABLE (SHEET 1 OF 2) ADSORBENT-FILLED POUCHES KriStar Enterprises,Inc.,Santa Rosa,CA(800)578-8818 SECTION VIEW PATENT PENDING NOTES: INLET GRATE 1.Ro-Gard"Filter body is prefabricated from polypropylene woven monofilament gsotsxtile. 2.All metal components shall be stainless steal(Type 304). Q 3.Refer to application chart for catch basin and filter sizing. QQ 4.Filter medium shall be Food Rocket installed and maintained in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. QQQQQ QOOO 5. Manufacturer's recommendations for maintenance program. QD QD QO Q� S.Fhp-Gr inserts may be Installed without adsorbent pouches Q QQQQ QQQO QO during course of construction as a sedimentation control device. QQ Q� After construction,remove the sediment and install the Q QQQ� adsorbent pouches. 0 FLO-GARD INSERT (SEE APPLIVATION CHART) APPLICATION CHART* MODEL inlet I.D. Grate O.D. COMMENTS NO. FF-12D 12'x 12' 14' x 14' GRATED INLET FF-V84D 14'x 14' 18'x 16' GRATED INLET ° - FF-18D 16'z 18' IS'x 18' GRATED INLET ° FF-1624D 16'x 24' 16'x 26' GRATED INLET FF-1 BD 18'x 18' 20'x 20' GRATED INLET ° FF-1830SD 18'x 36' 18'x 40' GRATED INLET ° FF-1836DGO 18'x 36' 18'x 40' COMBINATION INLET FF-24D 24'x 24' 26'x 26' GRATED INLET I FF-2430D 24'x 30' 26'x 30' GRATED INLET FF-RF24D 24'x 24' 25'dia CIRCULAR INLET FF-24DGO 24'x 24' 18'x 36' COMBINATION INLET CATCH BASIN FF-2436D 24'x-36' 24' x 40' COMBINATION INLET FF-2436DGO 24'x 36' 24'x 40' GRATED INLET FF-300 30'z 30' 30'x 34' GRATED INLET FF-36D12pc) 36'x 36' 36'x 40' GRATED INLET FF-2448D(2pc) 24'z 48' 26'x 48' GRATED INLET FF-480 48'x 48' 48'x 52' GRATED INLET x Flo-Gard Filter' inserts are designed to fit catch basins with approximate dimensions shown. FOSSIL FILTER TM FLO-GARD TM CATCH BASIN INSERT INSTALLATION DETAIL (SHEET 2 OF 2) KriStar Enterprises, Inc.,Santa Rose,CA 1800)579-8819 PATENT PENDING 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, vista, CA 92083 Geotechnical (760) 599-0509 FAX (760)599-0593 Environmental Materials K, INC. March 5,2403 Project No,:2071SD3 Ford Mance Construction,Inc. P.O.BOX 910 Cardiff by the Sea, California 92007 Attention: Mr. Robert Mance Subject: Geotechnical Compliance Proposed Mixed Use Building 125 Chesterfield Drive Cardiff, California 92007 Reference: Geotechnical Evaluation Report, Proposed Mixed Use Building, 125 Chesterfield Drive, Cardiff,California,by GeoTek Insite, Inc,dated January 31,2002. Dear Mr.Mance: rm In accordance with your request and based on our recent evaluation of the subject site, we confi. hereby that our geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed building included in the above-referenced soils report remain applicable. 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 the undersigned. Respectfully Submitted, GeoTek Insite, Ina � EItlpe� u No.82376 1 no.E6 2218 -4 . tros � Sim I. S id, fft P Blake RCE 62375. Exp. 9130/05 CEG 2248. Exp. 1 O/3Vp3 - Senior Engineer Geotechnical Departrnfnt Imager ' T i Distribution: (3)Addressee I F:0&%a:D300\0 T-NISHED JOBS\2071 Ford Mence\update'Mt'Itr.doc ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA UTAH T -d ILLI 9Bir 09L aouQW -4uagoa dLg : To co to -add THE ORIGIML OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS RECORDED ON JUN 17, 2003 DOCIKNT NIX0 2003-07140150 GREGORY J. SMITH. COUNTY RECORDER RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND, SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: ) TIME: 4:13 PM CITY CLERK ) CITY OF ENCINITAS ) 505 SOUTH VULCAN AVENUE ) ENCINITAS, CA 92024 ) SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ENCROACHMENT MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL COVENANT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 7929-PE A.P.N. 261-041-17 An encroachment permit is hereby granted to the Permittee designated in paragraph one, Attachment"A," as the owner of the Benefited Property described in paragraph two, Attachment"A," to encroach upon City Property described in paragraph three, Attachment 'A" as detailed in the diagram, Attachment "B." Attachments "A" and "B" are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth at length. In consideration of the issuance of this encroachment permit, Permittee hereby covenants and agrees, for the benefit of the City, as follows: 1. This covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs., personal representatives, transferees, and assigns of the respective parties. 2. Permittee shall use and occupy the City Property only in the manner and for the purpose described in paragraph four, Attachment "A." 3. By accepting the benefits herein, Permittee acknowledges title to the City Property to be in the City and waives all right to contest that title. 4. The term of the encroachment permit is indefinite and may be revoked by the City and abandoned by Permittee at any time. The city shall mail written notice of revocation to Permittee, addressed to the Benefited Property which shall set forth the date upon which the benefits of encroachment permit are to cease. 5. City is entitled to remove all or a portion of the improvements constructed by Permittee in order to repair, replace, or install public improvements. City shall have no obligation to pay for or restore Permittee's improvements. 6. Permittee agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against all claims, demands, costs, losses, damages, injuries, litigation, and liability arising out of or related to the use, construction, encroachment or maintenance to be done by the Permittee or Permittee's agents, employees or contractors on City Property. 7. Upon abandonment, revocation or completion, Permittee shall, at no cost to the city, return City Property to its pre-permit condition within the time specified in the notice of revocation or prior to the date of abandonment. 8. If Permittee fails to restore the City Property, the City shall have the right to enter upon the City Property, after notice to the Permittee, delivered at the Benefited Property, and restore the City Property to its pre-permit condition to include the removal and destruction of any improvements and Permittee agrees to reimburse the city for the costs incurred. 9. If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement for all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Pennittee shall agree that Permittee's duties and obligations under this covenant are a Hen upon the Benefited Property. Upon 30-day notice, and an opportunity the City may add to the tax bill of the Benefited Property any past due financial obligation owing to city by way of this covenant. 11. Permittee waives the right to assert any claim or action against the City arising out of or resulting from the revocation of this permit or the removal of any improvements or any other action by the City, its officers, agents, or employees taken in a non-negligent manner, in accordance with the terms of the permit. 12. Permittee recognizes and understands that the permit may create a possessory interest subject to property taxation and that the permittee may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest. 13. As a condition precedent to Permittee's right to go upon the City Property, the agreement must first be signed by the Permittee, notarized, executed by the City and recorded with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego. The recording fee shall be paid by Permittee. 14. Approved and issued by the City of Encinitas, California, this day of , 2003. AGREED AND ACCEPTED PERMITTEE Dated: - 4" Robert Mance, President Ford Mance Corporation, A Delaware Corporation (Notarization of PERMITTEE signature is attached) City of Encinitas NOTARIZATION NOT REQUIRED ATTACHMENT "A" TO COVENANT REGARDING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 7929-PE PARAGRAPH 1: Permittee Ford Mance Corporation, a Delaware corporation. PARAGRAPH 2: Benefited Property A portion of Lots 18 and 19, Block 20 of amended subdivision of Blocks 19, 20 and 32-1/2 of Cardiff, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1662 excepting therefrom the easterly 10 feet of lot 18; and the northeasterly half of Newport Avenue adjoining lot 19, block 20, on the southwest, vacated by City of Encinitas Resolution No. 97-80 (APN 261-041-17). PARAGRAPH 3: City Property Encroachment#1 - Reference Exhibit "B", Sheet 1 of 2: A portion of the southerly right of way of Chesterfield Drive, approximately 240 feet easterly of the intersection of the centerlines of San Elijo Avenue and Chesterfield Drive. Encroachment#2 - Reference Exhibit "B", Sheet 2 of 2: A portion of the right of way of Chesterfield Drive along the frontage of said Benefited Property, from approximately 155 feet to 256 feet easterly of the intersection of the centerlines of San Elijo Avenue and Chesterfield Drive. PARAGRAPH 4: Purpose Encroachment#1 - Reference Exhibit "B", Sheet 1 of 2: For a private access stairway to the benefited property. Encroachment#2 - Reference Exhibit "B", Sheet 2_of 2: For private retaining wall elements (horizontal wall ties and vertical soldier piles). CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of r County of before me, ��,�-��C�/ Name and Title of Officer(e.g.,"Jane Doe,Notary Public") personally appeared L�&l kla ,4 e-l--Names)of Signers) -personally known to me -OR- ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the. within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their ~• JANET CARLSON signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon COMM.#1379280 rn behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. ty s Notary Public-California N SAN DIEGO COUNTY =• My Comm.Exp.Oct 8,2006 W ITN ES y and and o cial I. Signat o otary ublic _M ______ ---------OPTIONAL------____M_�______________�_� Though the information below is not required by law,it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document)I Title or Type of Document: � ��c [�/f i ( �0.rvt C,t-►'t 2 � 0�-f' �,`'i/ rte' Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s)Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Titles(s): ❑ Title(s): ❑ Partner-❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner- ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Trustee El Trustee E] Guardian or Conservator fi .0- ❑ Guardian or Conservator • -- ❑ Other: Top of Thumb here ❑ Other: Top of Thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: CMU SIDE WALL 42" TALL ABOVE FG (EACH SIDE) . . 62`3 FS : 64 FS �. °p ENCROACHMENT #1: PRIVATE ACCESS STAIRS\ PCC STAIRS PER `. TO SUBJECT SITE CITY DWG 7604-1 \ 7 8' 4.5' tom,, ( IMPROVEMENTS PER CITY 0 DWG 7604-1 W SUBJECT SITE: APN 261-041-17\ cr � W ( O W LQi. Q 0 10' 5' 0 10 20 17.7' SCALE: 1"=10' - 28' -i-- 30' s� ATTACHMENT DETAIL OF ENCROACHMENT jfi IN CHESTERFIELD DRIVE SHEET 1 OF 2 IL W ^ o. z co �ca Z 4 �- p W OW ° o Q � W � sof W ® N 7 N� m J CN 0— Q ui Z!A-j o W :c o:: ° O U r 'A �,1 V 3 ' - W LL. O � ° 10 ci 4� ' IER a tri 0 I JS = 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, Vista, CA 92083 Geotechnical (760) 599-0509 FAX (760) 599-0593 Environmental Materials K9 INC. March 5, 2003 Project No.: 2071 SD3 Ford Mance Construction,Inc. P.O. Box 910 Cardiff by the Sea, California 92007 _ Attention: Mr. Robert Mance Subj ect: Geotechnical Compliance Proposed Mixed Use Building E 125 Chesterfield Drive Cardiff, California 92007 Reference: Geotechnical Evaluation Report, Proposed Mixed Use Building, 125 Chesterfield Drive, Cardiff, California, by GeoTek Insite, Inc, dated January 31, 2002. Dear Mr.Mance: In accordance with your request and based on our recent evaluation of the subject site, we confirm hereby that our geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed building included in the above-referenced soils report remain applicable. 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 the undersigned. Respectfully Submitted, GeoTek Insite, Inc. I-"`; � v •�c�q P �O�o a No.6'375 Exp.01j;3c)/05 No.EG 2248 -� to/31ro3 � Simo I. Sail d, J rey P. lake c�u� RCE 62375, Exp. 9/30/05 CEG 2248, Exp. 10/31/03 Senior Engineer ` Geotechnical Department Manager Distribution: (3)Addressee F:\Data\D300\0 FINISHED JOBS\2071 Ford Mance\update'rpt'Itr.doc ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA UTAH /le, Conway & Associates, Inc. f/ Civil Engineers/Surveyors/General-Engineering Contractors AB412412 2525 Pio Pico Drive•Carlsbad,CA 92008•Telephone(760)753-1453•Fax(760)434-5831 Date: July 3, 2008 City of Encinitas Engineering Services - Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Project No.00-227 DR and Grading Permit Number 7604-G The grading under permit number 7604-G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached'As Graded' plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of I%to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing, and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part 11 and as shown on the approved drawing, were constructed and are operational,together with the required maintenance covenant(s). 11,0 ESS/e� p E L K. p e Engineer of Record o to y � No.41022 Dated EVIRES3-31-2009 lE OF CAI, Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Inspector Dated pA00-006-1\7604-g_as_graded.doc Conway & Associates, Inc. Civil 2ngineers/Surveyors/General-Engineering Contractors AB412412 2525 Pio Pico Drive•Carlsbad,CA 92008•Telephone(760)753-1453•Fax(760)434-5831 Date: July 3, 2008 City of Encinitas Engineering Services - Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Project No.00-227 DR and Grading Permit Number 7604-G The grading under permit number 7604-G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached 'As Graded' plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1%to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing, and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part 11 and as shown on the approved drawing, were constructed and are operational,together with the required maintenance covenant(s). Q,WpfESSIO� O E t K• p 4e Engineer of Record �� /4� ,� : ept y y � No.41022 Dated - �'' j EXPIRES 3-31-2009 a OF CA01 Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Inspector Dated p:\00-006-1\7604-g_as_graded.doc NTT T R' 17 71 ' - 9 .112 1 ZVI j71- ,m-� -�771 T T T ii -1 T C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT t 505 S . VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO.,: 7929PE PARCEL NO. 261-041-1700 PLAN NO. : JOB SITE ADDRESS : 111 CHESTERFIELD DR CASE NO. : 00227 / CDP APPLICANT NAME FORD MANGE INC MAILING ADDRESS : P.O. BOX 910 PHONE NO. : 760-436-8088 CITY: CARDIFF STATE: CA ZIP: 92007- CONTRACTOR : CALIFORNIA DRILLING & ENG GROUP PHONE NO. : LICENSE NO. : 496386 LICENSE TYPE: A INSURANCE COMPANY NAME: POLICY EXP. DATE: 0/00/00 POLICY NO. ENGINEER : CONWAY & ASSOC. PHON NO. : PERMIT ISSUE DA M PERMIT PERMIT ISSUED BY: INSPECTO Tdd RMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------------- PERMIT FEE 290 . 00 2 . GIS MAP FEE . 00 3 . INSPECTION FEE . 00 4 . INSPECTION DEPOSIT: . 00 5 . NPDES INSPT FEE . 00 6 . SECURITY DEPOSIT . 00 7 . FLOOD CONTROL FEE . 00 8 . TRAFFIC FEE 00 9 . IN-LIEU UNDERGRND . 00 10 . IN-LIEU IMPROVMNT . 00 ll . PLAN CHECK FEE . 00 12 . PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: . 00 -- -------- - ----- -- - - - - --- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------- ------- - --- ------------- PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT OF TIE-BACKS INTO STREET FROM 111 CHESTERFIELD, ALSO PRIVATE ACCESS STAIRWAY. PER DOCUMENT RECORDED JUNE 17 , 2003 . INSPECTION DATE -- ------ INSPECTOR' S SIGNATURE ---- ---- ------------ ---- INITIAL INSPECTION �2- o FINAL INSPECTION 7 ----------------------------------------------------------- I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COMPLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. SIGNATURE DATE SIG ED _(-76Q_) PRINT NAME T EPHONE NUMBER CIRCLE ONE: 1 . OWNER 2 . AGENT 3 . OTHER C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S . VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 IMPROVEMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO'. : 7604II PARCEL NO. 261-041-1700 PLAN NO. : 7604-I JOB SITE ADDRESS : 123-125 CHESTERFIELD CASE NO. : 00227 / DR APPLICANT NAME FORD MANCE CO. MAILING ADDRESS : P.O. BOX 910 PHONE NO. : 760-436-8088 CITY: CARDIFF STATE: CA ZIP: 92007- CONTRACTOR : FRANK WRIGHT PHONE NO. : 760-754-8707 LICENSE NO. : 280401 LICENSE TYPE: A INSURANCE COMPANY NAME: NAVIGATOR' S INSURANCE CO. POLICY NO. GAN06920 POLICY EXP. DATE: 10/01/04 ENGINEER CONWAY & ASSOCIATES PHON_ O. : 760-753-1453 PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 10/29/03 PERMIT EX . D ,(—(�4 PERMIT ISSUED BY: INSPECTOR; _ - --__ �Q---- LitJrr�` RL - EIS & DEPOSITS -- -------------------------- PERMIT FEE 719 . 40 2 . GIS MAP FEE . 00 3 . INSPECTION FEE . 00 4 . INSPECTION DEPOSIT: . 00 5 . NPDES INSPT FEE . 00 6 . SECURITY DEPOSIT . 00 7 . FLOOD CONTROL FEE . 00 8 . TRAFFIC FEE 00 9 . IN-LIEU UNDERGRND . 00 10 . IN-LIEU IMPROVMNT . 00 ll . PLAN CHECK FEE . 00 12 . PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: . 00 ------- ------- -- - --- ---- - DESCRIPTION OF WORK - ------- ----------------------- PERMIT ISSUED TO CONSTRUCT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN PUBLIC R.O.W. PER APPROVED PLAN 7604-I . CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN CITY APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. LETTER DATED 6/12/03 APPLIES . REVISIONS TO ISSUED PERMIT AMERICAN CONCRETE NEW CONTRACTOR 760-497-7701 . INSURANCE LIBERTY MUTUAL EX. 07-24-08 POLICY # TB2161035528097 . INSPECTION DATE -------- INSPECTOR' S SIGNATURE ---- ---- ------ - --------- ` C� �,� ,('�, INITIAL INSPECTION /2/ �� " � Po, Uc 1, 4, FINAL INSPECTION ------------------------------------------------------------ AS-BUILTS AND ONE YEAR WARRANTY RETENTION REQUIRED. I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COMPLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY O ERJURY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE. Att �o y dZ SIGNATURE i DATE SIGNED tow— cp, hw PRINT NAME ONE NUMBER CIRCLE ONE: 1 . OWNER 2 . AGENT 3 . OTHER 04/15/2004 15: 11 FAX 7605990593 GeoTek, Inc. 001 1/001 ;; , 1384 Poinsettia Ave.,Shiite A,Vista, CA 92081-8505 GeoteChnlcQi (760) 599-0509 FAX(760) 599-0593 Environmental • N 9 INC Materials April 15, 2004 Project No.: 2449SD 1 Ford Mance Construction,Inc. P.O.BOX 910 Cardiff, CA 92007 Attention: Mr. Robert Mance Subject: Localized Soil Collapse Repair Chesterfield Mixed Used Building 125 Chesterfield Drive Cardiff, California Dear Mr. Mance: We are in receipt of your fax transmittal dated 4/15/04 regarding the subject matter_ We have no objection from a Geotechnical viewpoint regarding the proposed remedial measure provided that the grout is injected properly into the voids/cavities resulted from the localized soil collapse behind the existing lagging. Once stabilized, we recommend that the shoring procedures should proceed in a maximum of 2 feet increments to prevent reoccurrence of such conditions. 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 the undersigned. Respectfully Submitted, GeoTek,Inc. P �POtJR Ho Shawn Sharareh, � � Dave Wo J' 40' RCE 60118,Exp. 6/30/04 Branch Manager Project Engineer Distribution; (1)via fax,(3)mail to Addressee %Zeotekvism e\-F51 WSTA_wORKDISK.VISTAIDATA1D100�2449-5D1 Chceterfield Buildinglmemo.dw ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA IDAHO C O N S U L T A N T S Civil Engineering • Surveying March 9, 2005 J.N. 031066 Mr. Robert Mance Ford Mance Company 2187 San Elijo Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007 RE: Precise Grade Certification Chesterfield Mixed-Use Building Dear Mr. Mance: Based on our field survey on March 4, 2005, the grading of the area shown on the attached exhibit has been substantially completed within standard tolerance (0.1 feet)with the approved precise grading plans and the soils engineer's recommendation enclosed. Very truly yours, O'DAY NS ANTS, INC. Patrick N. O'Day President �OQ�pFESS/0, PNO/pm d No.21214 0 * Exp.3/31/05 C10. Q OF Cpl. N:\031066\050309 Mance.ltndoc O'Day Consultants Inc. oday,,iodayconsultants.com 2710 Loker Avenue:West.Suite 100 Websito www-odayconsulta its.con) skad. i'ornlc' (P"'6663 Irl 60`3'31.7700 Fax.760.931 8680 Geotechnical et*&opIV 0 1384 Poinsetta Ave., Suite A Environmental V1st2, CA 92081-8505 (760) 599-0509 FAX(760) 599-0593 Materials EK2 INCo November 19, 2004 Project No.: 2449SD3 Ford Mance Construction, Inc. P.O.BOX 910 Cardiff, CA 92007 Attention: Mr. Robert Fiance Subject: Addendum to Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Mixed Used Building 125 Chesterfield Drive Cardiff, California Reference: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed Use Building, 123 Chesterfield Avenue, Cardiff, California,by GeoTek Insite,Inc.,dated January 31, 2002. Dear Mr. Mance: In accordance with your request, GeoTek, Inc. has prepared this addendum to the referenced Geotechnical investigation report. The purpose for our addendum is to provide recommendations for underlayments to be placed beneath slabs-on-grade. Slabs should be underlain by a 4-inch thick capillary break layer consisting of clean sand or rounded fine gravel (pea gravel). ��'here moisture condensation is undesirable, all slabs should be gh underlain A ith a minimum 10-mil polyvinyl chloride membrane,e] l aplaced l seams anden ttpuncture or capillary break material. Care should be taken to adequately seal tear the membrane. r= 11 A ine un NEVADA NOLL0nWSNOJ SOJ 1ON — NF" -10 ASYNIWIl38d .,.,M «w•""•°••'" •'�"•!" �ni'�a�eioos�y v ewruo3 N !! I II II � I � , r I I I � i I ' I fill! Jj I f I _-fib — __._ ��L. 1I• � a -41 LJ I 1 � I I 111 �f t 1 o r. Ld It AD t�l �H5 33S O'Day Consultants 2710 Loker Ave. W. #100 Carlsbad, Ca 92008 (760)931-7700 Chesterfield Dr. Mixed Use Building Pad Certification Point# Surveyed Elevation* 11" Below Design Finish Floor _Difference 41.84 41.76 2090 42.95 -1.18 2091 41.77 2092 41.65 41.74 -0.09 2093 41.68 41.73 -0.05 0.24 2094 41.54 41.30 0.14 40.56 40.42 2095 0.17 41.57 41.40 2096 2097 41.59 41.58 0.01 40.55 40.44 0.11 2098 2099 39.61 39.58 0.03 0.11 2100 39.70 39.59 0.08 2101 39.75 39.67 2102 39.75 39.66 0.09 2103 39.79 39.68 0.11 *Based on field suvey by O'Day, March 4, 2005 z+00 z+10 0+90 1+00 O/-J;e may, T 1 I I Sys S9Gb 'pT st 9> srj 1 I I I I I 1 I I / I I 1 1 0' 20' I 10 I SCALE: 1" = 20' I z+00 z+10 0+90 1+00 r�y �O 1 II ' I sJ I 1 I - - I 1 I I I I I I I 1 i 1 0 20 I 10 I SCALE. 1" = 20' I O'Day Consultants 2710 Loker Ave. W. #100 Carlsbad, Ca 92008 (760)931-7700 Chesterfield Dr. Mixed Use Building Pad Certification Point# Surveyed Elevation* 11" Below Design Finish Floor Difference 2090 41.76 41.84 -0.09 2092 41.65 41.74 41.73 -0.05 2093 41.68 2095 40.56 40.42 0.14 2096 41.57 41.40 0.17 2097 41.59 41.58 0.01 2098 40.55 40.44 0.11 2099 39.61 39.58 0.03 39.70 39.59 0.11 2100 2101 39.75 39.67 0.08 2102 39.75 39.66 0.09 2103 39.79 39.68 0.11 *Based on field suvey by O'Day, March 4, 2005 Geotechnical ® 1384 Poinsetta Ave., Suite A ORIGINAL Environmental Vista, CA 92081-8505 (760) 599-0509 FAX(760) 599-0593 Materials EK, INC* March 9, 2005 Project No. 2449 SDI Ford Mance Construction,Inc. . P.O. Box 910 Cardiff, CA 92007 Attention: Mr. Robert Mance Subject: As-graded Soils Report Proposed Mixed Use Building 125 Chesterfield Drive Cardiff, California References: 1) Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed Use Building, 125 Chesterfield Avenue, Cardiff,California, by GeoTek Insite,Inc.,dated January 31,2002. 2) Observation of Subgrade within Area to Receive Perimeter Foundation, Proposed Mixed Used Building, 125 Chesterfield Avenue,Cardiff,California,by GeoTek,Inc.,dated January 7,2005. 3) Grading Plan For: Chesterfield Mixed-Use Building, 123 & 125 Chesterfield Drive, Cardiff, APN 261- 041-17. Dear Mr. Mance: In accordance with your request, we are pleased to provide herewith the results of our compaction testing and observation services during subgrade preparation for the subject building. The scope of our services included performing laboratory testing to aid in evaluating the compaction characteristics of the soil conditions encountered and/or used for fill. This report also provides a brief summary of site conditions observed, results of field density tests, and provides finalized foundation design recommendations. GENERAL FIELD OBSERVATIONS This report presents the results of our testing and observation services during earthwork construction associated with the excavation for the subject site located in Cardiff, California. In our opinion, the building pad has been prepared in general conformance with the recommendations of the soils report (Reference 1). Based on our field observations during excavation and subgrade preparation, we note the following: ARIZONA CALIFORNIA IDAHO NEVADA Ford Mance Construction,Inc. March 9,2005 As-graded Soils Report Project No. 2449SD1 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 2 of 4 • Site grading was completed by Ford Mance Construction, Inc. during the period of December 4, 2003 through March 1, 2005. • The depth of the excavation generally extended to an approximate elevation of approximately 37 to 39 feet MSL. Perched groundwater was encountered during the excavation of the site. • Onsite soils were utilized as compacted fill to achieve finish subgrade levels. Approximately 2 feet of compacted fill was placed until finish subgrade was reached. • Relatively soft, saturated soils were exposed along the perimeter of the base of the excavation. In order to provide a relatively firm bearing surface for the perimeter foundations for the proposed structure, the soft, saturated materials were excavated and removed until relatively competent materials comprising the Del Mar Formation were encountered. The excavations that resulted from this removal were backfilled with 3-sack slurry until foundation grade was reached. These operations were performed under the observation of GeoTek. Our referenced letter dated January 7, 2005 presents a summary of our observations conducted during these operations. FIELD DENSITY TESTING Our field density testing was performed in accordance with the following criteria: • Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and random locations to check the compaction efforts by the contractor. Based on the results of our field density tests, the fill materials were compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-00). The field density test results are included in Table 1 attached. The test results presented therein should be considered representative of the level of compaction achieved during overall subgrade preparation. • Visual classification of the soil in the field, compared to soil descriptions from laboratory testing was the basis for determining the maximum dry density value and optimum moisture content applied to each field density test. J-- T � *-K Ford Mance Construction,Inc. March 9, 2005 As-graded Soils Report Project No.2449SD 1 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 3 of 4 LABORATORY TESTING Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for representative on-site soil types were determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557-00. Test results for the soils used in the filling operations are presented in the table below. Soil Type Description Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture Density CF Content A Light brown silty clayey SAND 119.5 13.5 B Light brown silty clayey fine SAND 119.5 13.0 C Olive grey clayey SILT 118.5 11.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed slab-on-grade and conventional spread and/or continuous footings are considered a suitable foundation system for the proposed structure. A net allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for footings embedded within the compacted fill materials discussed herein. A minimum base width of 24 inches for continuous footings and a minimum bearing area of 4 square feet (2 ft by 2 ft) for spread footings should be considered. An increase of 300 psf may be applied for every additional foot of width or depth to a maximum of 4,500 psf. Additionally, an increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind). Based on the above design criteria, the total settlement is expected to be less than 1 inch based on the proposed loading conditions. Differential settlement is expected to be less than one-half of the total settlement and should not exceed one-half inch across a 30-foot span. The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 200 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,000 psf for footings founded on compacted fill. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. TK Ford Mance Construction,Inc. March 9, 2005 As-graded Soils Report Project No. 2449SD1 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 4 of 4 LIMITATIONS Cuts, fills, and processing of original ground under the purview of this report, have been completed under the observation of, and with selective testing by GeoTek, Inc. and are found to be in compliance with the approved soils engineering report and applicable provisions of the current California Building Code (CBC). Our compaction testing and observation services during subgrade preparation followed generally accepted professional engineering practices and no further warranty is implied nor made. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. GeoTek, Inc. accepts neither responsibility nor liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions. QRpFESS/pN Respectfully submitted, �NGtNEEH/ GeoTek,Inc. �, RE I r � ) W No.2468 v No.EG 2248 y Exp.12/3A /' * P. O O��P /��'�'" TF 0 C rEHN��O��' F CAl1F OF C AttF Dave W/niak, Jeffrey P. Blake, William R. Morrison, Project Manager CEG 2248, Exp. 10/31/05 GE 2468, Exp. 12/31/06 Geotechnical Department Manager Senior Engineer Distribution: (4)Addressee Enclosures: Figure 1 -Density Test Location Plan Table 1 - Summary of Field Density Tests GAProjects\Projects 2000 to 2999\Projects 2000 thru 2449 Folders\Projects 2400 to 2449\2449 Ford-Mance\2449_Fina1_t&o.doc `-"i�K Il s 8'-0.O/G•88'-0' EA Era. u O CO O 0 II i Ws ...,- - [38.5] �.39.0 �❑ 37.0 /-le ,Ie 3 29''29 P 27 26 24 O ❑ /. TYR 38.5 514- b5 3 t, r 25 3739 38 - �' A QED ANT 39.51 -- b3 i ' EXCAVATION 1:- .c:' X28 lit !. 3 Of { I (U _.. r $ ( 31 r 3. 3 p 40.0 3 33 55 43 0 s TYP. 42 0 } 5$ O❑ ❑ 00 ❑ ❑ 00 ❑�❑ 56 55 O 53 51 9 46 45 4d 49 41 4I d® 35 38 4g u- r-m• era. so. tREF. `8_m• LEGEND North 22 Approximate Location of Density Test Approximate Elevation 37.0 of Excavation Bottom Source:FLC Flores Lund Consultants Ford Mance Figure 1 Chesterfield Mixed-Use Building 125 Chesterfield Drive EK, INC. Cardiff, California Density Test Location Plan 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A GeoTekNumber: 2449SD1 Vista, California 92081-8505 FORD-MANCE CONSTRUCTION,ING GeoTek, Inc. 3/8/2005 Chesterfield Mixed Used Bldg Project No.:2449-SD1 Cardiff, Califomia Page 1 of 1 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Building Pad Test Lot Sta I Elev/ Moisture Dry Soil Maximum Test Relative DATE No Location No. No. Depth Content Dencsi y Type Den Type Compaction 10/4/04 1 As Illustrated on Figure 1 j 39.0 17.4 109.5 A 119.5 N 92 2 As Illustrated on Figure 1 39.5 15.8 112.8 A 119.5 N 94 3 As Illustrated on Figure 1 40.5 15.6 1 107.7 A 119.5 N 90 4 As Illustrated on Figure 1 41.0 16.4 113 A 119.5 N 95 5 As Illustrated on Figure 1 41.5 15.2 108.7 A 119.5 N 91 6 As Illustrated on Figure 1 42.0 18.1 110.6 B 119.5 N 93 7 As Illustrated on Figure 1 43.0 15.3 112.2 B 119.5 N 94 1016/04 8 As Illustrated on Figure 1 43.0 13.6 108.3 B 119.5 N 91 9 As Illustrated on Figure 1 43.5 12.8 1 110.4 B 1 119.5 N 92 10 As Illustrated on Figure 1 36.0 18.8 104.7 B 119.5 N 88 11 As Illustrated on Figure 1 36.5 21.4 105.3 B 119.5 N 88 10/7/05 12 Retest#10 36.5 11.6 109.5 A 119.5 N 92 13 As Illustrated on Figure 1 38.0 14.8 110.9 A 119.5 N 93 14 As Illustrated on Figure 1 40.5 14.6 110.1 A 119.5 N 92 10/8/04 15 As Illustrated on Figure 1 36.0 13.9 108.5 B 119.5 N 91 16 Restest#11 37.0 15.2 111.9 B 119.5 N 94 17 As Illustrated on Figure 1 38.0 14.6 111.5 B 119.5 N 93 10/11/04 18 As Illustrated on Figure 1 34.5 14.6 113.3 B 119.5 N 95 19 lAs Illustrated on Figure 1 35.5 13.8 109.5 B 119.5 N 92 20 JAs Illustrated on Figure 1 37.0 14.1 112.0 B 119.5 N 94 10/12/04 21 1 As Illustrated on Figure 1 38.0 14.1 109.7 B 119.5 N 92 22 JAs Illustrated on Figure 1 39.0 13.6 114.8 B 119.5 N 96 23 JAs Illustrated on Figure 1 40.0 13.0 111.5 B 119.5 N 93 10/13/04 24 As Illustrated on Figure 1 36.0 12.7 109.5 B 119.5 N 92 2/15/05 25 As Illustrated on Figure 1 39.0 13.2 110.8 C 118.5 N 94 26 As Illustrated on Figure 1 39.0 12.8 106.7 1 C 118.5 N 90 27 As Illustrated on Figure 1 40.0 13.6 107.1 C 118.5 N 90 2/16/05 28 As Illustrated on Figure 1 40.0 13.4 106.7 C 118.5 N 90 29 As Illustrated on Figure 1 40.0 14.6 102.3 C 118.5 N 86 29a Retest#29 40.0 13.1 107.4 C 118.5 N 91 30 As Illustrated on Figure 1 40.0 13.1 107.8 C 118.5 N 91 31 As Illustrated on Figure 1 41.0 13.4 107.7 1 C 118.5 N 91 32 As Illustrated on Figure 1 42.0 13.9 106.9 C 118.5 N 90 2/17/05 33 As Illustrated on Figure 1 43.0 13.9 107.3 C 118.5 N 91 34 As Illustrated on Figure 1 42.0 13.5 107.4 C 118.5 N 91 35 As Illustrated on Figure 1 42.5 13.1 107.1 C 118.5 N 90 36 As Illustrated on Figure 1 42.0 12.9 107.6 C 118.5 N 91 37 As Illustrated on Figure 1 41.5 13.7 112.7 1 C 118.5 N 95 3/1/05 38 As Illustrated on Figure 1 FG 14.2 109.1 C 118.5 N 92 39 As Illustrated on Figure 1 FG 13.5 108.5 1 C 118.5 N 92 40 JAs Illustrated on Figure 1 FG 13.9 107.1 C 118.5 N 90 Note: N=Nuclear Gauge Test FG=Finished Grade Test All elevations are approximate 10/14/20o4 09:26 FAQ 605990593 GeOTeK Inc Geotechnical 0 1384 Poinsetta Ave., Suite A Environmental Vista, CA 92081-8505 '"'�jl� ,•v (760) 599-0509 FAX(760) 599-0593 Materials ti E NC ��Y11 K�� October 14, 2004 Project No.: 2449SD1 Ford Mance Construction, Inc. P.O.BOX 910 Cardiff, CA 92007 Attention: Mr. Robert Mance Subject: Proposed Backfill of Lagging Chesterfield Mixed Used Building 125 Chesterfield Drive Cardiff, California Dear Mr, Mance: It is our understanding that lower portions of the lagging supporting the east and north walls cf the excavation at the site Nvere not properly backfilled with soils compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557). Due to the relative difficulty in placing and compacting soil behind the lagging in its current con figuration, w° understand that it is ur proposed to place a 3-sack slurry behind the lagging at these locations until the voids behind the lagging are filled. It is our opinion that the placement of slurry backfill behind the lagging is acceptable from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. if you should have any questions. please do not hesitate to call ou Q�,pFESS/p �1NEER/ Respectfully submitted, 9 `t ��,a. MoR� Fy�f GeoTek,Inc. ' No,EG 2248 No. 246a * W.10/31/05 �t ExP. 1213I/f� � OR sl,S,T J fr y P. Blake, �� William R. Morriso F OF CA1.1F0 CEG 2248, Exp. 10/31/05 GE 2468, Exp. 12/31;0 Geotech.ni.cal Department Manager Senior Engineer Distribution-. (3)Addressee G:`DATA`•D 1 0 012 44 1-slurry hackfill.doc ARIZONA CALIFORNIA IDAHO NEVADA 10/14/2004 03 24 FAX X607330593 i e�T a k, Inc... X02/n)3 , Geotechnical 1384 Poinsetta Ave., Suite A Environmental Vista, CA 92081-8505 (760) 599-0509 FAX(760) 599-0593 Materials EK, INC3, October 12, 2004 Project No.: 2449SD1 Ford Mance Construction, Inc. P.O.Box 910 Cardiff, CA 92007 Attention: Mr. Robert Mance Subject: Geotechnical Review of Waterproofing/Drainage Detail at Building Foundations Chesterfield Mixed Used Building 125 Chesterfield Drive Cardiff, California Dear Mr. Mance: In accordance with your request_ GeoTek. Inc. has reviewed the detail that you have submitted to us (via e-mail); which shows the planned waterproofing!subsurface drainage design in the vicinity of the building footings at tree project site. It is our understanding that the waterproofing and subsurface drainage design is intended to intercept groundwater adjacent to the subterranean building walls and to inhibit the migration of subsurface moisture from the retained soils and subgrade materials into the building interior. The detail shows drainage composite panels that are placed directly upon lagging with the permeable side facing the lagging and tied into a solid pipe along the base of the lagging. We understand that flow within the solid pipe will be directed toward a sump system or other suitable outlet. As shown on the detail, we understand that the subgrade materials at the locations of the proposed foundations will be overexcavated at least 9 inches below the proposed footing grade. We also understand that a minimum 3-sack slurry having a thickness of at least 6 inches will be placed within the overexcavated area, The detail shows waterproofing material placed upon the slurry and extending up the interior side of the drainage composite. It is also our understanding that the vwaterproofing material will extend beneath the floor slab within the interior of the building. According to the detail, a"protection slab" consisting of a 3-inch thickness of Portland cement concrete will be placed upon the waterproofing material within the overexcavated area until design footing grade is reached. ARIZONA CALIFORNIA IDAHO NEVADA t0i14/2004 09:24 FAX 7605391059111 GeoTek, Inc l l j%( 1.):j FORD MANCE CONSTRUCTION,Inc. October 12,2004 125 Chesterfield Avenue Project No.: 2449SD Based on our review of the detail, it is our opinion that the proposed subsurface drainage/waterproofing system adjacent to the subterranean walls at the project site is acceptable from a geotechnical standpoint and consistent with the recommendations contained in the project geotechnical report. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our QROFESSJpNAt GINFE% ��4� ,ft- MO -e' Q , " Respectfully submitted, GREY P, GeoTek,Inc. Ui No.2 ff 468 No.EG 2298 .', ` /C J ILL � up. A s o F �G� r9 lql 0� Jef lake, �OF�I�,a�. William R. Morrison FaP C 6 AttF 4 G 2248, EXP. l0i31105 GE 2468, Exp. 12;31/0 eotechnical Department Manager Senior Engineer Distribution: (3)Addressee (1)Flores Lund Consultants,Attention: Mr.Michael N4c`eff G:'DATA`U100`,7.44;•druinage detail.doc 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, Vista,CA 92083 Geotechnical (760) 599-0509 FAX (760) 599-0593 Environmental Materials March 5, 2003 Project No.: 2071 SD3 Ford Mance Construction,Inc. P.O. Box 910 Cardiff by the Sea,California 92007 r ST ' i Attention: Mr. Robert Mance i ,Q Subject: Geotechnical Compliance Proposed Mixed Use Building En UTvO NCi^ 'AS 125 Chesterfield Drive Cardiff, California 92007 Reference: Geotechnical Evaluation Report, Proposed Mixed Use Building, 125 Chesterfield Drive, Cardiff, California, by GeoTek Insite, Inc, dated January 31, 2002. Dear Mr. Mance: In accordance with your request and based on our recent evaluation of the subject site, we confirm hereby that our geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed building included in the above-referenced soils report remain applicable. 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 the undersigned. Respectfully Submitted, GeoTek Insite, Inc. `,2 10 N 1 J~��O P n�L UJ No.62375 j t Exp.o„solos � No.EG 2248 —+ Exp.I om/03 Q. w of Ca Simo I. Sa id, ffrey P. Blake RCE 62375, Exp. 9/30/05 CEG 2248, Exp. 10/31/03 Senior Engineer Geotechnical Department Manager Distribution. (3)Addressee FAData\D300\0 FINISHED JOBS\2071 Ford Man ce\update'rpt'Itr.doc ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA UTAH w_ TDEUG 2 8 130t ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS ENGIN� SFI;v: CES - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATI M'Y of EN,'i"d':TAS FOR PROPOSED MIXED USE BUILDING 125 CHESTERFIELD DRIVE CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR FORD MANGE CONSTRUCTION,INC. P.O. Box 910 CARDIFF-BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007 PREPARED BY GEOTEK INSITE, INC. 1384 POINSETTIA AVENUE VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92083 PROJECT NO.: 2071SD3 JANUARY 31, 2002 . � Y 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A,Vista, CA 92083 Geotechnical (760) 599-0509 FAX (760) 599-0593 ' Environmental NSITE Materials �9 INC. January 31, 2002 Project No.: 2071SD3 Ford Mance Construction,Inc. P.O. Box 910 Cardiff-by the Sea, California 92007 Attention: Mr. Robert Mance Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Mixed Use Building 125 Chesterfield Drive Cardiff, California 92007 Dear Mr. Mance: As requested and authorized, GeoTek Insite, Inc. (GeoTek) has performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed mixed used building at 125 Chesterfield Drive, Cardiff, California. This report presents the results of our investigation, discussion of our findings, and provides geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and construction. In our opinion, the proposed development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations included herein are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Respectfully submitted, �oQ�OFESS/p,�,9 GeoTek Insite, Inc. Z No.EG 2248 cr No .62375 m Exp.10/31/03 Exp.09/30/05 �t C/VIA �P � oFCAL1F Si n I. S lid. or effrey P. Blake, RCE 62375, Exp. 9/30/05 CEG 2248, Exp. 10/31/03 Project Engineer Project Geologist (4)Addressee F.-DataIWOOU071 Ford MancelCard j0l.doc ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA UTAH Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page i TABLE OF CONTENT 1. INTENT................................................................................................................................................................1 2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES..........................................................................................................1 3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.........................................................................2 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................................2 3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................................................2 4. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING...........................................................................2 4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION......................................................................................................................................2 4.2 LABORATORY TESTING...................................................................................................................................3 — 5. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS........................................................................................................3 5.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................................................................3 5.1.1 Undocumented Fill..............................................................................................................................3 5.1.2 Del Mar Formation.............................................................................................................................3 5.2 SURFACE AND GROUND WATER....................................................................................................................4 5.3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY...........................................................................................................................4 5.4. OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS...............................................................................................................................5 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................5 6.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................................................................5 n 6.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS.....................................................................................................................5 62.1 Site Protection.....................................................................................................................................5 62.2 Site Excavation.................................................................................................................................... 6 6.2.3 Fills.....................................................................................................................................................6 6.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................................... 6.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria................................................................................................................ 6 63.2 Foundation Set Backs.......................................................................................................................... 7 6.4 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION...........................................................................................................................8 6 4.1 Cement Type........................................................................................................................................8 6.4.2 Concrete Flatwork..............................................................................................................................8 64.3 Concrete Cracking..............................................................................................................................8 _. 6.5 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.............. ............................................................................. 6.5.1 General Design Criteria......................................................................................................................8 6.5.2 Wall Backfill and Drainage.................................................................................................................9 _. 6.5.3 Restrained Retaining'Walls............................................................................................................... 10 6.6 SHORING...................................................................................................................................................... 10 6.7 SITE DRAINAGE...........................................................................................................................................11 6 7.1 Temporary Measures......................................................................................................................... 11 6.7.2 Permanent Measures......................................................................................................................... 11 6.8 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS................................................................................... 12 7. LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................................................................12 8. SELECTED REFERENCES............................................................................................................................13 ENCLOSURES Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2—Boring Location Plan Figure 3 —Earth Pressure Diagram for Shoring µ Appendix A—Logs of Exploratory Borings/Trenches Appendix B—Results of Laboratory Testing -EK Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 - Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 1 1. INTENT It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and completion of the proposed development. Implementation of the advice presented in the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of this report is intended to reduce risk associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of the project or guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after construction. The scope of our evaluation is limited to the area explored, which is shown on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 2). This evaluation does not and should in no way be construed to encompass any areas beyond the specific area of the proposed construction as indicated to us by the client. Further, no evaluation of any existing site improvements is included. The scope is based on our understanding of the project and the client's needs, and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this region. 2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our study was to evaluate the.general overall geotechnical conditions on the site as they relate to the proposed development. Services provided for this study consist of the following: - ➢ Research and review of available geologic data and general information pertinent to the site. ➢ Field reconnaissance of the site to evaluate the general surface conditions. ➢ Site exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of 4 small-diameter - borings ➢ Laboratory testing on representative samples collected during the field investigation. ➢ Review and evaluation of site seismicity. ➢ Compilation of this geotechnical report, which summarizes our findings and foundation recommendations for the proposed development and associated site improvements. ` VO `` 4EK Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 2 3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is located at 125 Chesterfield Drive, in the Cardiff-by-the-Sea area, City of Encinitas, California (see Figure 1). The site is a rectangular shape lot measuring approximately 8,600 square feet (86-foot by 100-foot). An existing one-story residential building with a detached garage and two separate storage structures currently occupies the property. The site is bordered to the north by Chesterfield Drive, to the east by a residential/commercial building, to the south by condominiums, and to the west by a `7-11' mini mart/ gasoline station. The existing site topography consists of gently sloping terrain in a southwesterly direction. Site elevations range from approximately 62 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) near the northeast portion of the site to approximately 54 feet above MSL in the southwest corner of the site. Further information regarding existing structures and site layout is shown on Figure 2. 3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT According to plans provided by Schultz Architecture, dated 04/17/2001 (last revision), the proposed development will consist of the construction of a 2-story mixed-use building with a subterranean parking garage. The proposed building is to be founded on isolated spread footings with a retaining wall foundation system along the perimeter. The site will be excavated to a depth of approximately 20 to 22 feet below existing site grades to accommodate the subterranean parking garage. 4. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 4.1 ' FIELD EXPLORATION Our subsurface investigation consisted of the excavation of 4 small diameter exploratory borings utilizing a truck mounted drill rig equipped with hollow stem auger. The borings were drilled toward the corners of the proposed construction in landscaped areas; with one boring drilled in the gravel drive area. The borings were drilled to a maximum depth of approximately 50.5 feet below existing site grades. The borings were logged and sampled by a geologist from our firm. Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed samples of the --S-� E' RK Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 - Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 3 materials encountered were collected and transported to our laboratory for possible testing. The logs of borings and additional information regarding field sampling and testing procedures are presented in Appendix A. 4.2 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on selected disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples collected during the field investigation. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confirm the field classification of the soil materials encountered and to evaluate their physical -_ properties for use in the engineering design and analysis. The results of the laboratory-testing program along with a brief description and relevant information regarding testing procedures are included in Appendix B. 5. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS 5.1 GENERAL A brief description of the earth materials encountered is presented in the following sections. A more detailed description of these materials is provided on the logs of exploratory borings included in Appendix A. The results of our investigation and a review of pertinent geologic maps indicate that undocumented fill soils and dense formational materials known as the Del Mar Formation underlie the site. a 5.1.1 Undocumented Fill Undocumented fill soils.mantle the entire site and varies in depth from 5 to 9 feet. The fill _. materials generally consist of brown, moist, loose, silty fine-to medium-grained sand. Actual thickness in some areas may vary. These materials are considered unsuitable for support of foundations in their present condition. 5.1.2 Del Mar Formation _ The Del Mar Formation underlies the fill materials on the site. These sedimentary materials primarily consist of siltstone and minor sandstone units that are described as light olive, to olive gray and blue-gray, medium dense to very dense, sandy silt, clayey fine sand and silty fine sand with minor clayey silt. Based on our experience and review of published geologic maps, regional bedding within the bedrock units of the Del Mar Formation is generally gently inclined to the north-northwest at 4 to 5 degrees. `RK Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 4 The upper few feet have noticeably different texture and are classified as loose to dense, fine- to medium-grained sand with little or no fines. These sandier materials are likely the mapped Bay Point Formation or Quaternary Terrace Deposits. 5.2 SURFACE AND GROUND WATER No surface water or ponding was observed at the time of the field exploration. Site drainage should be reviewed and designed by the project civil engineer. -- Perched groundwater conditions were encountered at depths ranging from four to nine feet below ground surface, and these conditions were observed to persist down to the transition to the less permeable bedrock of the Del Mar.Formation. The actual ground water table was not encountered, and is likely in excess of 50.5 feet below the ground surface. The level of perched groundwater may fluctuate due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time of the field investigation. However, the potential does exist for continued perched water conditions at this site. 5.3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY The site is in a seismically active region. No active or potentially active fault is known to exist at this site nor situated within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault 'Zone (Special Studies Zone). The Rose Canyon Fault (offshore) is the nearest known active fault located approximately 2.9 miles west of the site. The computer program EQFAULT, version 3.00 (Blake 1989, updated 2000) was used to determine the distance to known faults and estimate peak ground accelerations. The Rose Canyon Fault is considered to represent the highest risk to generate ground shaking. A -- maximum seismic event of magnitude 6.9 is postulated based on a deterministic analysis. The estimated peak site acceleration is 0.56g. For the purpose of seismic design a Type B seismic source 4.7 km from the site may be used. Shown in Table 5.3 below are seismic design factors in keeping with the criteria presented in the 1997 Unified Building Code (UBC), Division IV &V, Chapter 16. _. ,_.ITEtc, Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071 SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 5 TABLE 5.3—SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Soil Profile N Seismic Parameters Type C, C" Na Source Type Source Table 16J 16Q 16R 16S 16T 16U Value Sc 0.40 0.67 1.0 1.2 B 5.4 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS Based on the proposed foundation level the liquefaction potential on the site is considered to be very low due to the dense and cohesive nature of the subsurface soils and lack of a shallow water table. According to our geologic reconnaissance and a review of published geologic maps there are no known or suspected ancient landslides that exist at this site. The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as seiche and tsunami are considered to be negligible due site elevation and distance from an open body of water. 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 GENERAL The proposed development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction phases of development. 6.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS Grading and earthwork should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Encinitas, applicable provisions of the UBC, and our recommendations presented herein. 6.2.1 Site Protection The earthwork contractor should take all precautions deemed necessary during site grading to maintain adequate safety measures and working conditions. The excavated area should be �+1�IC Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 6 barricaded to prevent vehicles and storage loads within 10 feet of top of excavation slope or - side. Underground utilities located within the proposed limits of construction should be removed, capped off or relocated. All applicable safety requirements of CAL-OSHA should be met during construction. 6.2.2 Site Excavation - Based on available information, the entire site will be excavated on the order of 20 to 22 feet to allow for the construction of the subterranean parking garage. Excavations in site materials should generally be accomplished with heavy-duty earthmoving equipment. Hard, well- cemented zones should be anticipated. Temporary excavations within the onsite formational materials should be stable at 1.5H:1 V inclinations for short durations during construction, and where cuts do not exceed 15 feet in height. Some sloughing of surface soils should be anticipated. Where space for the slopes is not available, shoring will be required which is most likely the case at this site. Soil parameters for the design of a shoring system are discussed in Section 6.6. 6.2.3 Fills It is anticipated that the majority of the excavated materials will be exported from the site to allow for the construction of the subterranean parking garage. The on-site sandy materials are considered suitable for-reuse as compacted fill provided they are free from vegetation, debris or cobbles greater than 6 inches and other deleterious materials. The earthwork contractor should ensure that all proposed excavated materials to be used for backfilling at this project are approved by the soils engineer. 4 Where applicable, the undercut areas should be brought to final grade elevations with fill compacted in layers no thicker than 8 inches.compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density at near optimum moisture content, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557-00. 6.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 6.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria As previously stated, the site will be excavated on the order of 20 to 22 feet below existing grade to allow for the construction of the subterranean. parking garage. Based on the prevailing soil conditions, conventional spread and/or continuous footings founded at this J depth are considered a suitable foundation system for the proposed structure. As such, we recommend the following criteria for design of foundations: ;--77-L, E0 X Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 7 6.3.1.1' A net allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf), or a modulus of subgrade reaction of 350 pci may be used for design of footings founded at a depth of 20 to 22 feet below existing ground level. A minimum base width of 24 inches for continuous footings and a minimum bearing area of 4 square feet (2 ft by 2 ft) for pad foundations should be used. The bearing capacity value may be increased by 300 psf for each additional foot of width or depth to a maximum of -- 4,500 psf. Additionally; an increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). 6.3.1.2 Shallow foundations for ancillary structures embedded a minimum of 12 inches into compacted fill should be designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000. The bearing capacity value may be increased by 200 psf for each additional foot of depth to a maximum of 3,500 psf. An increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). 6.3.1.3 The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 200 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,000 psf for footings founded on compacted fill. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 6.3.2 Foundation Set Backs Where applicable, the following foundation setbacks should apply to all foundations. Any improvements not conforming to these setbacks may be subject to lateral movements and/or differential settlements: 6.3.2.1 The outside bottom edge of all footings should be set back a minimum of H/3 (where H is the slope height) from the face of any descending slope. The setback should be at least 7 feet and need not exceed 20 feet. 6.3.2.2 The bottom of all footings for structures near retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom inside edge of the wall stem. 6.3.2.3 The bottom of any existing foundations for structures should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom of the nearest excavation, otherwise any additional loads induced by the existing foundations should be considered in the design of the shoring system or the underground retaining structures. E� r iK Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 8 6.4 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION Concrete construction should follow the UBC and ACI guidelines regarding design, mix placement and curing of the concrete. The following is a minimum design criterion and should not supersede the design requirements by the structural engineer. 6.4.1 Cement Type Laboratory testing on two selected soils samples indicates that the water-soluble sulfate in soil range from 0.018 to 0.028, which is considered to be negligible exposure to sulfate in accordance with Table 19-A-4 of the UBC. 6.4.2 Concrete Flatwork Exterior concrete flatwork (patios, walkways, driveways, etc.) should be given the same standards of care being applied to these features as to the structure itself. Subgrade should be moisture conditioned prior to placing concrete. 6.4.3 Concrete Cracking One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened joints for cracking to occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the stresses that develop. These joints are. a widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced. We would suggest that control joints be placed in two directions spaced the numeric equivalent of two times thickness of the slab in inches changed to feet (e.g. a 4 inch slab.would have control joints at 8 feet centers). As a practical matter, this is not always possible nor is it a widely applied standard. 6.5 RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 6.5.1 General Design Criteria Recommendations below may be applied to typical masonry or concrete vertical retaining walls to a maximum height of 15 feet. Additional review and recommendations should be requested for higher walls. TE �I: Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071 SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31, 2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 9 6.5.1.1 Wall backfill placed within a 1 to 1 projection behind any wall should be comprised of onsite soils with a low expansion potential. The backfill materials should be placed in lifts no greater than 8-inches in thickness and compacted at 90% relative compaction at optimum moisture content or higher. 6.5.1.2 Retaining walls embedded a minimum of 18 inches into compacted fill or formational materials should be designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf. An increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads). - 6.5.1.3 The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 4,000 psf. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. -- When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. - 6.5.1.4 An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal active pressure against the wall. The appropriate fluid unit weights are given in Table 6.5 below for specific slope gradients of retained material. TABLE 6.5.1—ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES _- Surface Slope of Retained Materials Equivalent Fluid Pressure (H:V) (PCF) Level 35 2:1 50 These equivalent fluid weights do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as expansive soil, vehicular traffic, structures, seismic conditions or adverse geologic conditions. 6.5.2 Wall Backfill and Drainage The onsite very low to low expansive soils are suitable for backfill provided they are screened of greater than 3-inch size gravels. Presence of other materials might necessitate revision to the parameters provided and modification of wall designs. The surface of the backfill soil should be sealed by pavement or the upper 24 inches be comprised of compacted native soils. Proper surface drainage needs to be provided and maintained. Retaining walls should be provided with an adequate pipe and gravel back drain system to prevent build up of hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter - perforated collector pipe embedded in a minimum of one cubic foot per lineal foot of 3/8 to LrSt C9 ►LSK Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 10 one inch clean crushed rock or equivalent, wrapped in filter fabric. The drain system should be contlected to a suitable outlet. Walls from 2 to 4 feet in height may be drained using localized gravel packs behind weep holes at 10 feet maximum spacing (e.g. approximately 1.5 cubic feet of gravel in a woven plastic bag). Weep holes should be provided or the head joints omitted in the first course of block extended above the ground surface. However, nuisance water may still collect in front of wall. - 6.5.3 Restrained Retaining Walls Any retaining wall that will be restrained prior to placing backfill or walls that have male or _ reentrant corners should be designed for at-rest soil conditions using an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas having male or reentrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance equal to twice the M height of the wall laterally from the corner 6.6 SHORING It is understood that a temporary or permanent shoring system will be used on all sides of the - proposed excavation where space is not available for backcuts. For shoring design, we recommend the use of the distribution of earth pressure shown on Figure 3. In addition to the recommended earth pressures, the upper 10 feet of shoring adjacent to streets should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf that results from an assumed 300-psf surcharge behind the shoring due to normal street traffic. For traffic that remains more than - 10-feet away from shoring, surcharge loading may be neglected. The shoring contractor should coordinate with the earthmoving contractor regarding sequence and requirements of installing the shoring system. The shoring contractor should also consider the presence of perched groundwater in the design and installation procedures of the shoring system. It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored excavation. It should be realized, however, that some deflection would occur regardless of the shoring system used. We estimate that this deflection could be on the order of 1 to 3 inches at the top of the shored parking structure excavation. If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary to keep settlement of the adjacent structures and of the utilities in the adjacent properties within a tolerable range. If desired to reduce the deflection of the shoring, a greater active pressure could be used in the shoring design. Once selected, additional information regarding the design and construction requirements of the shoring system may be provided. D �1� Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071 SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 11 6.7 SITE DRAINAGE Perched groundwater conditions were encountered at depths ranging from 4 to 9 feet below ground surface, and these conditions were observed to persist down to the transition to the less permeable bedrock of the Del Mar Formation. The potential for continued perched groundwater exists and long-term moisture-related problems for the proposed subterranean structures are likely. Thus, we recommend that appropriate preventive measures be implemented to protect against water seepage during and after construction. 6.7.1 Temporary Measures 6.7.1.1 Precautions should be taken by the contractor during construction to protect the worksite and/or the open excavation from flooding, ponding, or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Thus, temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the worksite. 6.7.1.2 Pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water from the open excavation during a rainfall event or due to groundwater seepage. Following periods of rainfall or due to uncontrolled groundwater seepage, the contractor should contact the soils - engineer and arrange for a walkover of the building area in order to visually assess water-related damage in the subgrade. Soils adversely affected should be classified as unsuitable subgrade materials and be subject to over-excavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading and , as recommended by the soils engineer. 6.7.2 Permanent Measures 6.7.2.1 Due to the potential for continued perched water conditions, proper waterproofing measures of the subterranean structure is recommended. Such long-term measures may include.bottom-of-wall subdrains and free-draining backwall material such as a continuous gravel layer or geocomposite (Miradrain 6000 or equivalent) installed behind all retaining walls on the subject project. Subdrains system should be also placed below the bottom-of-slab to collect potential groundwater. GeoTek Insite, hic. will assume no liability for damage to structures that is attributable to poor waterproofing or subdrain installation. 6.7.2.2 Surface runoff should be collected and directed away from the project site. The civil engineer should evaluate the on-site drainage and make necessary provisions to keep surface runoff from infiltrating the subgrade for the subterranean structure. Such measures may include closed planter boxes constructed with a sealed bottom and all landscape areas be provided with functional, adequately spaced area drains to collect surface flow away from the building foundations to an adequate drainage facility. UUK Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 12 6.8 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS We recommend that site grading, specifications, and foundation plans be reviewed by this office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. We also recommend that GeoTek representatives be present during site grading and foundation construction to check for proper implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. These representatives should perform at least the following duties: • Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of all unsuitable materials. • Observe installation and monitoring of tiebacks if applicable. _. • Observe bottom of removals prior to fill placement. • Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement, and collect soil samples for laboratory testing where necessary. • Observe the fill for uniformity during placement including utility trenches. Also, test the fill for field density and relative compaction. • Observe and probe foundation materials to confirm suitability of bearing materials and proper footing dimensions. If.requested, GeoTek will provide a construction observation and compaction report to comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project. We recommend that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of - construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained. 7. LIMITATIONS The materials observed on the project site appear to be representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during site construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GeoTek Insite, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others. Since our recommendations are based the site conditions observed and encountered, and laboratory testing, our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been TK Ford Mance Construction,Inc. Project No.: 2071SD3 Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page 13 derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or w. implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. 8. SELECTED REFERENCES ASTM, 200, "Soil and Rock: American Society for Testing and Materials," vol. 4.08 for ASTM test methods D-420 to D-4914, 153 standards, 1,026 pages; and vol. 4.09 for ASTM test method D-4943 to highest number. Blake, T., 1989 (Updated 2000), "BQFAULT', Version 3.0, A Computer Program for Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources." California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 1998 "California Building Code," 3 volumes. - California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," Special Publication 117. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: International Conference of Building Officials. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc., Report of Preliminary Soil Investigation and Geologic Reconnaissance, Proposed Commercial/Residential Development, 125 Chesterfield, Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California,Dated January 21, 1998. GeoTek, Insite, Inc., In-house proprietary information. Kennedy, M.P. and Peterson, G.L., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200. Seed, H.B., and Tokimatsu, K, Harder, L.F., and Chung, R.M., 1985, "Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering,Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 111, no. GT12, pp.1425- 1445. Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-02. Youd, T. Leslie and Idriss, Izzmat M., 1997, Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022. L{ iK AL m 327, ll .. D 40 �i ,. . s• a� ,�Counly Par{ O ti ' 7 _ \r , 10 t Ir t SITE a - Cardiff-by41ke-8ea`s , (Cardiff) Y ; pWd kl OF �u 1 �� ./,t Z.d+_ • -. -�1_~fir '>•' �t sewage DisposaR - I , 1 'tea , f� of rail Park &, I i � 'Z d It • l i' N Ford Mance Figure 1 f--,-----' 125 Chesterfield Drive �, Cardiff, California Site `--j _EKE INC. Location USGS 7.5-Minute 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A CeoTek Project Number: 2071-SD3 Topographic Map Map Vista, California 92083 m a 0 g G1 > Fri X CIS ..r Ar o ai a U 4 —86 feet W m r, a W AL J N m � m rn � G Ca cd O ti Un N o z CJ — a P61 bn c O -� � U r E.. x as W ° `� o 0 U m Gravel Driveway —► Storage Q 0 0O Q � z U O 4 N .--� Cd i-i •--� U v� y Pro U C7 PRESSURE DIAGRAM FOR DESIGN OF SHORING SYSTEM EXISTING GRADE H(feet) NOTES: BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION • The pressure diagram is developed based on a method 33 H(psi) by Peck(1969)for braced and tieback walls. • An additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf should be applied to upper 10 feet if traffic is allowed within 10 feet of face shoring. • If used,the capacity of a drilled friction anchor can be estimated based on an internal friction angle of 32 degrees for the top 9 feet of soil below existing grade and 22 degrees for the soil below. Ford Mance Figure 3 125 Chesterfield Drive Cardiff, California Earth Pressure Diagram for , � � Shoring 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A GeoTek Project Number:2071-SD3 Vista, California 92083 APPENDIX A LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Proposed Mixed Use Building Cardiff, California Project No.: 2071SD3 �; BC) FORD MANCE CONSTRUCTION,INC. APPENDIX A Geotechnical Investigation January 31, 2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page A-1 A- FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES The Standard Penetration Test(SPT) The SPT is performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1586-99. The SPT sampler is typically driving into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The split-barrel sampler has an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter - of 1-3/8 inches. The samples of earth materials collected in the sampler are typically classified in the field,bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for further testing. - The Modified Split-Barrel Sampler(Ring) The Ring sampler is driven into the ground in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3550-84. The sampler,with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1-inch long,thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The samples are removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. Bulk Samples Bulk samples are normally bags of.representative earth materials over 20 pounds in weight collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. Plastic Bag Samples Plastic bags samples are normally airtight and contain less than 5 pounds in weight of representative earth materials collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. These samples are primarily used for determining natural moisture content and classification indices. B-BORING LOG LEGEND The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and rock on the logs of borings: SOILS USCS Unified Soil Classification System f-c Fine to coarse f-m Fine to medium GEOLOGIC B:Attitudes Bedding:strike/dip J:Attitudes Joint: strike/dip C: Contact line ........... Dashed line denotes USCS material change -- Solid Line denotes unit/formational change Thick solid line denotes end of boring _ (Additional denotations and symbols are provided on the logs of borings) E0 EK GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 1 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2071-SD3 DRILLER: Scott's Drilling LOGGED BY: LM PROJECT NAME 125 Chesterfield Dr./Ford Mance DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem OPERATOR: Roy LOCATION: See Site Plan HAMMER: 140 Ibs/in RIG TYPE: CME 55 ELEVATION: –61.5 MSL DATE: 3/26101 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing 0 r W „ �, BORING NO.: B-7 2 N LA d U, Z Co D MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ° F76-p—soffl Grass&Landscaping materials Fill SM Brown,moist,silty f-m SAND,trace clay;easy drilling 5 6 12 Del Mar Formation 18 B1-1 SM Olive gray,moist,medium dense,silty fine SAND;iron oxide staining, 11.5 119.0 Phi=340 cemented C=0.4 tsf @9':seepage - 10 17 26 B1-2 Olive gray,wet,medium dense,f-m SAND,trace silt 16.2 117.0 22 @14':becomes light tan,wet,very dense, f-m SAND with silt 15 37 No Recovery 36...... ...... ................. 35 -61-3 ML SILTSTONE-Frig Fily-Wea'ffie'fFd',' IigTif*oTive'and't6d'''rown;moKlecl;" moist;"""".... dense,sandy SILT with clay;well indurated 20 29 131-4 -same- Phi=25° 5014" C=0.25 tsf 25 33 61-5 -same- EI=78 5015" PI= 16 Legend: W–Ring ® --SPT ® —Large Bag D–No Recovery > --Perched Water GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 2 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2071-SD3 DRILLER: Scott's Drilling LOGGED BY: LM PROJECT NAME 125 Chesterfield Dr./Ford Mance DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem OPERATOR: Roy LOCATION: See Site Plan HAMMER: 140 Ibshn RIG TYPE: CME 55 ELEVATION: —61.5 MSL DATE: 3/26/01 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing iF CL >. BORING NO.: 8-1 (continued) y as Lo o _ 4) E3 m = d o Z O o rn z 0° MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ° 30 Del Mar Formation{�ontlnuedl 38 61-6 SM-ML @ 30':Laminations 0.25"thick of light tan and light olive,moist,sandy SILT 16.2 116.1 50/4" and fine SAND @31':becomes light olive with irregular patches of red,moist,very dense,f-m SAND and sandy SILT;well indurated 35 @35':becomes olive,damp to moist,very dense sandy SILT and silty f-c SAND;well indurated;iron oxide staining 40 5014.5" 61-7 @40':same,decrease in moisture 14.3 111.9 45 50 ............ 50/5" B1-8 SM SAIVDS'1"ONE':-E@Tit'6T5-&-gray;°d'a'mp";v6iydevise;silty f-m'SAN CS...................... - —HOLE TERMINATED AT 50.5 FEET— Hole backfilled with soil cuttings No groundwater encountered;perched water at 9 feet 55 Legend: ---Ring ® --SPT ®--Large Bag FT-No Recovery > ---Perched Water GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 1 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2071-SD3 DRILLER: Scott's Drilling LOGGED BY: LM PROJECT NAME 125 Chestefield Dr./Ford Mance DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem OPERATOR: Roy LOCATION: See Site Plan HAMMER: 140 Ibstiin RIG TYPE: CME 55 ELEVATION: –60.5 MSL DATE: 3/26/01 SAMPLES _ Laboratory Testing BORING NO.: B-2 y a d ?� E E ° n 3 m 7 m y O o v0 z U) Z ) m = MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 3 ° Topsoil Grass&Landscaping materials Fill SM @3":Yellowish brown,moist,silty f-m SAND 6 @4':seepage 4- 5 6 B2-1 5 Del Ma Formation Olive,wet,loose,silty f-m SAND;with scattered coarse sand grains @8':becomes yellowish-brown,wet,loose,silty f-m SAND;iron oxide staining 6 10 SAIVIISTONE/SIL-iST01NE'`'fii"Til'weaffi'i'red;'li"T1t olive'witfi"i'rre uiar""atcfi'es"''""'" """'• ".............................. 14 B2-2 SM-ML 9•Y......... 9• ••� •�� 9•• ••• P 16.2 117.0 of red,very moist,medium dense,silty f-m SAND and sandy SILT 24 132-3 @14':becomes very dense Phi=320 -, 15 5/5.5" C=0.3 tsf ......... .............................. . ........................................................................................................................................................ ............................................ .............. ............................. N1USC SILTSTONE:highly weathered,light olive,moist,dense,clayey to sandy SILT 25 B2-4 20 50/3.5" -same- @22': iron oxide laminations 25 132-5 17.4 114.3 Phi=310 25 50/4" -same- C=0.3 tsf Legend: —Ring ® ---SPT N --Small Bag ❑ —No Recovery 4 --Perched Water GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 2 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2071-SD3 DRILLER: Scott's Drilling LOGGED BY: LM PROJECT NAME 125 ChesterTield DrJFord Mance DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem OPERATOR: Roy LOCATION: See Site Plan HAMMER: 140 Ibstin RIG TYPE: CME 55 ELEVATION: –60.5 MSL DATE: 3/26/01 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing o r E BORING NO.: B-2 (continued) c N o _ ) d d in EE rn Uo D a t p n co D U _a`; `� O co m Z = F MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ° 30 Del Mar Formation(continued) 33 B2-6 ML/SC Light olive with some irregular red patches,damp to moist,very dense,sandy 35 50/4" SILT and silty,clayey,fine SAND 40 .... .................... . 50%3" 62-7 SM SKNC55�t7NE:LSa�k gray,-ilamp,very devise,silty f-m-SANI� 12.9 119.8 45 50/5" B2-8 50 —HOLE TERMINATED AT 49.5 FEET— Hole backfilled with soil cuttings No groundwater encountered;perched water at 4 feet 55 Legend: W–Ring ® —SPT ---Small Bag —No Recovery —Perched Water GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2071-SD3 DRILLER: Scott's Drilling LOGGED BY: LM PROJECT NAME 125 Chesterfield Dr./Ford Mance DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem OPERATOR: Roy LOCATION: See Site Plan HAMMER: 140 Ibs/in RIG TYPE: CME 55 ELEVATION: -55 MSL DATE: 3126101 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing 0 t F BORING NO.: 8-3 a ^ CL m g 3 m E y ° o N v Z O Z N CO MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 3 ° Topsoil Grass&Lanascaping materials Fill SM Red-brown to yellow-brown,moist,loose,silty f-m SAND 5 @4'Becomes very loose 5 4 B3-1 1 @6.5'seepage 10 Del Mar Formation 10 14 63-2 ML/SM SILTSTONE:Highly weathered,light olive,mottled, moist,medium dense, 20.6 116.0 — 20 sandy SILT with clay;well indurated @12':Becomes light olive and red,mottled,silty fine SAND;iron oxide staining 20 B3-3 15 50/5" 50/5" B34 @19'becomes olive-gray sandy SILT 13.7 El=78 20 44 133-5 -same- 25 50/4.5" —HOLE TERMINATED AT 25 FEET— Hole backfilled with soil cuttings No groundwater encountered;perched water at 6 feet Legend: W-Ring ® ---SPT —Small Bag —No Recovery > —Perched Water GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet f of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2071-SD3 DRILLER: Scott's Drilling LOGGED BY: LM PROJECT NAME 125 Chesterfield Dr./Ford Mance DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem OPERATOR: Roy LOCATION: See Site Plan HAMMER: 140 Ibs/in RIG TYPE: CME 55 ELEVATION: -56 MSL DATE: 3/26101 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing 'o 0 E BORING NO.: 8-4 a E CL.0 o ru °' E E U e a L p n 3 m 7 V 4/ v E o rn z rn Z O N m = MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ° Crushed grave F11 SC Reddish-brown to yellowish brown,moist, loose to medium dense,sity f-m SAND,trace clay 5 r Formatign 17 64-1 SP Gray-brown,moist,medium dense,f-m SAND;iron oxide staining, 15.9 34 _ 50/5" @6':seepage _ .............................. ..................SILTS7'CSNE%SAN17STi7'NE.......................................................................................................................... ................. ....................... SM/ML @ 8':Light olive with irregular red patches,moist,dense,sandy SILT and silty, f-m SAND;iron oxide staining 10 29 40 B4-2 -same- 16.0 Phi=200 50 C=0.5tsf 15 5016" 134-3 -same- 16.5 20 28 B4-4 50/5" -same- 25 45 B4-5 50/4" SILTSTONE: highly weathered,light olive,moist,very dense,sandy SILT and Phi=220 silty fine SAND;iron oxide staining;moderately indurated C=0.6 tsf Legend: --Ring ® --SPT N --Small Bag ❑ --No Recovery 4 ---Perched Water GeoTek Insite, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Sheet 2 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2071-SD3 DRILLER: Scott's Drilling LOGGED BY: LM PROJECT NAME 125 Chesterteld Dr1Ford Mance DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem OPERATOR: Roy LOCATION: See Site Plan HAMMER: 140 Ibs/in RIG TYPE: CME 55 ELEVATION: -56 MSL DATE: 3/26/01 SAMPLES Laboratory Testing 0 y In c BORING NO.: 8-4 (continued) o ^ y E E E U U o p n t ° v) z rn � v Z O N m = MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS ° 30 Del Mar Formation(continued) 12 40 B4-6 -same- 50/4.5' 35 40 ...............o.... 50/3" 64-7 ML at'S4d�`:�i�Tue-gray,moist,very dense,clayey sandy�SPL'C �welCind"urated � Phi-27 C=0.1 tsf 45 50 50/6" B4-8 -same- -HOLE TERMINATED AT 50.5 FEET- Hole backfilled with soil cuttings 55 No groundwater encountered — Legend: ®—Ring ® --SPT —Small Bag ---No Recovery > --Perched Water APPENDIX B RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING Proposed Mixed Use Building Cardiff, California Project No.: 2071SD3 .1K FORD MANCE CONSTRUCTION, INC. APPENDIX B Geotechnical Investigation January 31,2002 Proposed Mixed Use Building Page B-1 Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System(ASTM Test Method D2487). The soil classifications are shown on the logs of exploratory borings in Appendix A. Liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4318. Results are included herein (Plate 1) and also shown on the logs of exploratory borings in Appendix A Grain size distribution (particle size analysis) was performed on selected samples in accordance with ASTM D422. Results of grain size analysis are shown on Plates 2 and 3. Moisture-Density—(In Sitit Moisture and Unit Weight) The field moisture content and dry unit weight were taken on ring samples (ASTM Test Method - D2216). The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot. The field moisture content is determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Results of these tests are presented on the logs of exploratory borings in Appendix A. Expansion Index Expansion Index testing was performed on representative soil samples. Testing was performed in - general accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829. The Expansion Index (En test results are presented on the logs of exploratory borings in Appendix A. Direct Shear Shear testing was performed in a direct shear machine of the strain-control type in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D3080. The rate of deformation is approximately 0.03 inches per minute. The sample was sheared under varying confining loads in order to determine the coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. The tests were performed on ring samples collected during our subsurface exploration. The shear test results are presented on Plates SH-1 and 7. �EK LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60 Dashed line indicates the approximate / upper limit boundary-for natural soils / 50 / 0 / O{ / G� 40 X w Z / 30 ' or U F- 20 — / •O� / 10 7 — 4 ML or OL MH or OH 10 30 50 70 90 110 LIQUID LIMIT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS • Gray silty clay 37 21 16 Project No. 2071-SD3 Client: Ford Mance Remarks: Project: Cardiff • •Source: B-1 @25 Sample No.:B-1 Elev./Depth:25 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT GeoTek, Inc. Plate 1 Particle Size Distribution Report 0 100 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I 80 I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 70 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I 1 I W 60 Z I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I LL I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I t I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z 50 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 LL 1 U I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I U.1 40 CL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 i I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 --- I I I I I I I t I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I --4-4 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 20 I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 10 I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 t I I I I I I I t I I I I I i I I I I I I I 1 I I 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm %+3" %GRAVEL %SAND %FINES CRS. I FINE CRS. I MEDIUM I FINE SILT I CLAY 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.3 1 2.4 1 29.9 67.4 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Gray sandy silt #8 199.8 Atterberg Limits #100 94.7.5 PL= LL= PI= #200 67.4 Coefficients _. D85= 0.169 D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= - Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks (no specification provided) Sample No.: B-4 Source of Sample: B-4 @20 Date: 4/18/01 Location: Elev./Depth: 20' Client: Ford Mance GeoTek, ' Project: Cardiff Project No: 2071-SD3 Plate 2 Particle Size Distribution Report 100 0 1 I �Kl I I I 1 I I I 9 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I 70 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I W 60 LL I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 Z 50 W 1 I W 40 -- 1 1 I I d 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I `y 30 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm %+3" %GRAVEL %SAND %FINES CRS. I FINE CRS. I MEDIUM I FINE I SILT CLAY 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.7 1 19.8 1 36.8 1 42.7 SIEVE PERCENT SPEC." PASS? Soil Description SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Gray silty sand #8 199 5 #30 89.0 #50 69.5 Atterberg Limits #100 55.6 PL= LL= PI= #200 42.7 Coefficients D85= 0.512 D60= 0.192 D50= 0.110 D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= AASHTO= Remarks (no specification provided) Sample No.: B-2 Source of Sample: B-2 @34 Date: 4/18/01 Location: Elev./Depth: 34' - Client: Ford Mance GeoTek, ' Project: Cardiff Project No: 2071-SD3 Plate 3 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM SAMPLE PROJECT 2071-SD3 IN SITU RING SAMPLE DATE 5/27/2001 B-4 @ 10' C= 0.45 ksf (D= 19 DEGREES a 3.75 3.5 3.25 3 2.75 2.5 2.25------�T a Y N 2 V1 W G H U) 1.75 1.5 1.25 LEGEND 1 0.75 ♦ SHEARSTRENGTH Linear(SHEAR STRENGTH) 0.5 0.25 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 CONFINING PRESSURE(ksf) LOAD(ksf) 0 1.0 2.0 4.0 SHEAR STRENGTH 0.66 1.23 1.67 PLATE SH-1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM SAMPLE PROJECT 2071-SD3 IN SITU RING SAMPLE DATE 5/27/2001 B-4 @ 25' C= 0.58 ksf (= 22 DEGREES 4 3.75 3.5 3.251 3 2.75 2.5 2.25 (42 U) LLI C N 1.75 1.5 1.2 LEGEND 0.75. ♦ SHEARSTRENGTH -Linear(SHEAR STRENGTH) 0. 0.25 -7 0- 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 CONFINING PRESSURE(ksf) LOAD(ksf) 0 1.0 2.0 4.0 SHEAR STRENGTH 0.93 1.34 2.01 PLATE SH-2 ' DIRECT SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM oAmpLs PROJECT 2071'So3 — /w SITU RING SAMPLE DATE 5*4/2001 a'n @ u^' — C= 0i26 ksf m~ 31 osonEEs 3- ----------FT CA Lu 0,0000000, LEGEND Unear(SHEAR STRENGTH) 0.5 jo-o� CONFINING PRESSURE(ksf) _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ LOAD(kaf) O 1/0 2.0 4.0 SHEAR STRENGTH 0.82 1.32 2.41 _ _ PLAT 8H-3 _ _ DIRECT SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM SAMPLE PROJECT 2071'oo3 � |m SITU RING SAMPLE DATE 5/2/2001 a'u @a 14' — C= 0.28 ksf uo 32 oaanssu uj A SHEAR STRENGTH -Unear(SHEAR STRENGTH) 0.5 ok 0 F-- I I I I I I I CONFINING PRESSURE(ksf) � _ _ _ _ _ � _ _ _ _ LOAD(ksq U 1.0 2.0 4.0 - GHEARGTRENGTH 0.84 1.30 2*1 _ _ PLAT SH~4 _ DIRECT SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM SAMPLE PROJECT 2071-Sc3 — |m SITU RING SAMPLE DATE 5/4/2001 B-1 @ oo' — C= 0.25ksf (o 25 osmn*s 4 __TT 2. cn Lu 1.2 00 E LEGEND a SHEAR STRENGTH -Linear(SHEAR STRENGTH) 0. CONFINING PRESSURE(ksf) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ LOAD(kof) O 1.0 2.0 4.0 _ SHEAR STRENGTH 0.84 0.90 2.10 _ _ PLATEGH'5 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM SAMPLE PROJECT 2071-SD3 IN SITU RING SAMPLE DATE 5/16/2001 B-1 @ 5' C= 0.4 ksf (= 34 DEGREES 4 3.75 3.5 3.25 3 2.75 2.5 2.25 N Y_ y 2 W F- N 1.75 el0000,10001, 1.5 1.25 LEGEND 1 0.75 ],.,OO� • SHEAR STRENGTH - (SHEAR STRENGTH) 0.5 0.25 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 CONFINING PRESSURE(ksf) LOAD(ksf) 0 1.0 2.0 4.0 SHEAR STRENGTH 0.88 1.40 2.45 PLATE SH-6 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM SAMPLE PROJECT 2071-SD3 IN SITU RING SAMPLE DATE 5/16/2001 B-3 @ 9' T C= 0.35 ksf (= 22 DEGREES 4 3.75 3.5 3.25 3 2.75 2.5 2.25 `n y2 y W Q r Vl 1.75 1.5 1.25 LEGEND r.. 1 0.75 ♦ SHEAR STRENGTH -Dnear(SHEAR STRENGTH) 0.5 0.25 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 CONFINING PRESSURE(ksf) LOAD(ksq 0 1.0 2.0 4.0 SHEAR STRENGTH 0.74 0.88 1.69 PLATE SH-7 Conway & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers/Surveyors/General-Engineering Contractors AB412412 2525 Pio Pico Drive•Carlsbad,CA 92008•Telephone(760)753-1453•Fax(760)434-5831 Date: July 3, 2008 City of Encinitas Engineering Services - Permits 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Project No.00-227 DR and Grading Permit Number 7604-G The grading under permit number 7604-G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached 'As Graded'plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of I%to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing, and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part II and as shown on the approved drawing, were constructed and are operational, together with the required maintenance covenant(s). Qtpf ESSIO� Engineer of Record 't` ` 4 E► � S Ce o c Me.41022 z Dated 7 - 03 - c oWC EXPIRES 3-31-2009 * �F �r4rE C OF CAL0 Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Inspector Dated 7— — 000-006-117604-g_as_graded.doc