The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-9250 G city 0) ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering September 21, 2006 Attn: Lincoln General Insurance Company C/o G.S. Levine 3377 Carmel Mountain Road San Diego, California 92121 RE: Robert and Beverly Rochelle 2136 Montgomery Avenue APN 260-402-07 Grading Permit 9250-G Partial release of security Permit 9250-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 661112676, in the original amount of$87,019.00, (reduced by 75% to $21,754.75) 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. Sincere y, 7 Debra Geishart y L back Engineering Technician inance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Rochelle,Robert and Beverly Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 ?J,� recycled paper �--` city p NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT EY initas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replemshment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering March 13, 2006 Attn: Lincoln General Insurance Company C/o G.S. Levine 3377 Carmel Mountain Road San Diego, California 92121 RE: Robert and Beverly Rochelle 2136 Montgomery Avenue APN 260-402-07 Grading Permit 9250-G Partial release of security Permit 9250-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 661112676, in the amount of$87,019.00, may be reduced by 75% to $21,754.75. 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 Geish Le ach Engineering Technician inance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services cc Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Rochelle,Robert and Beverly 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 'ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL d STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS FOR RESIDENTIAL 6 COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069• (760) 839-7302• Fax: (760) 480-7477• E-mail: ENGDG @aol.com Date: June 14, 2005 To: City of Encinitas Attn: Mike Valles Engineering Division Re: Proposed Residences to be Located at 2136 Montgomery Avenue, Encinitas, California Grading Plan No. 9250-G Subject: Soils Certification Grading operations, conducted during January 2005, at the above referenced site included the placement of shoring along the south and north property lines and western bluff setback and the excavation to pad subgrade. Pad subgrade consisted of formational sandstone material. In our opinion, based upon our visual observation, onsite soils contain expansion potentials in the low range. No compacted fill was placed as part of the above described grading operations, yet a compaction test was taken at pad subgrade for the purposes of this report. We anticipate compaction testing operations will be conducted during the backfill of the basement retaining walls. If you have any estions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, ENGIN RING DESIGN GROUP Q?pFESS�°N teve Norris �� vEN Np q� California GE#2590 �GO 2 2590 z C9 m LU d EV.12"31-05 `�qcF°TECHN�o�P OF CpL\F F:\LETTER\LETTER 1\2004\043413-1,ROCHELLE PROJ,2136 MONTGOMERY,CARDIFF-SOILS CERT LTR.wpd rye� E N-7 Recording Requested by: -0197053 City Engineer When Recorded Mail To: !-IN F'r R,,,s OF+ !CE City Clerk TIME Flo City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 S COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY WAIVER OF PROTEST TO ASSESSMENTS Assessor' s Parcel Work Order-_-9257-- Number: 160-402-07 ProjeK� 04-OR, CDP A. Robert D. Rochelle and Beverly G. Rochelle, husband and wife, as to an undivided 66% interest, and Theodore D. Kowalski as to an undivided 34-. interest, ( "OWNER" hereinafter) are the owners of real property ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is legally described as follows : See Attachment "All which is attached hereto and made a part hereof . B. In consideration of 04-009 DR, CDP, OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the benefit of CITY, to do the following: No protest shall be made by the owners to any proceedings for the installation or acquisition of street improve.ments,, including undergrounding of utility lines, under any special assessment 1911 or the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 , or any other applicable state or local law, and whether processed by the City of Encinitas or any other governmental entity having jurisdiction in the matter and for the purposes of determining property owners support for same . C. 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 . D. OWNER agrees that OWNER' s duties and obligations under this Covenant are a lien upon the PROPERTY. Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the property tax bill of the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of this Covenant . E. If either party is required to incurs costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, including reasonable attorney' s fees, from the other party. F. Failure of the OWNER to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute consent to the filing by CITY of a Notice of Violation of Covenant . G. Upon OWNER' s satisfaction of OWNER' s duties and obligations contained herein, OWNER may request and CITY shall execute a "Satisfaction of Covenant" . H. By action of the City Council, CITY may assign to a person or persons impacted by the performance of this Covenant, the right to enforce this Covenant against OWNER. ACCEPTED AND AGREED: OWNER RoV.ert Rochelle Date Beverly Rod'jielle Date Theodore Kowalski Date (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached) ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of San Diego SS. On ty before me, Ash Nickle (DATE) f --ll ),, J G,, L(NO R personally appeared ✓t°"� Vic r I AND �cbo 7 �6'jjr SIGNER(S) ❑ personally known to me - OR - 3'proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) 4&/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that-hef�he/they executed the same in h /their authorized �. �•;�• � OFFICIAL SEAL capacity(ies), and that by �/their ASH NICKLE a signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), m NOTARY PUBLIC•CALIFORNIA' COMM.No.1538900 or the entity upon behalf of which the SAN DIEGO COUNTY Wf COMM.EXP.DEC.26,2008 person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTARY'S SIGNATURE OPTIONAL INFORMATION The information below is not required by law. However, it could prevent fraudulent'attachment of this acknowl- edgment to an unauthorized document. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER (PRINCIPAL) DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT ❑ INDIVIDUAL ❑ CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT TITLE(S) ❑ PARTNER(S) ❑ ATTORNEY-IN-FACT NUMBER OF PAGES ❑ TRUSTEE(S) ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR — DATE OF DOCUMENT ❑ OTIIER: OTHER SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: RIGHT THUMBPRINT NAV1E 01:PFRSON(S)OR EN-1 TITY(IES i OF -- SIGNI-.R L 0 0 APA V)O FY SIERRA. 8(X)-363-3369 City of Encinitas Dated 3�7` By (Notarization not required) Attachment `A' Legal Description of Real Property APN 260-402-07 Lots 9 and 10 in Block 59 of Cardiff, `A' in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1334 , filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 12, 1911 . CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California _ ss. County of h On 7� J , before me, I� Date Name and Title of Officer(e.g., Jane Doe,Notary Public r' personally appeared Name(s)of Signer(s) r.VILLEGAS � � personally known to me _ am10" � � Z improved to me on the basis of satisfactory , Nowry Public-Catdnm� evidence LOS Angeles County my C��E�Aug 73,26 to be the person;( ' whose name( ism subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shp6ey-executed the same in his/lief/tt�ir authorized capacity(ie and that by his/f2er/t4 signature(��}on the instrument the person(s}; or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s� acted, executed the instrument. 7SS my han ,,and offic)al seal. 5 ;u � h Place Notary Seal Above Signa ure of u is t zh 6 �5 OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document t h and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. 5 Description of Attached Document �, Title or Type of Documentf t %fit h6' Document Date: ( ;f Fi t� 1� Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above r5 �� fi Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: _ AChalsvcrth Individual Top of thumb here Corporate Officer—Titl e(s):Partner—C Limited General Attorney in Fact Trustee Guardian or Conservator Other: - Si ner Is Re resentin '%C;`GC.-._.� -; ;1997 National votary Assnclaucn•9350 De Soto Ave..P.O.B313-240 Prod No.5907 Reorder.Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 6 DATE PROJECT NO. PROJECT - FIELD REPO LOCATION CONTRACTOR OWNER WEATHER TEMP. TO PRESENT AT SITE i SUMMARY OF INSPECTION: r s r RECf3R11W—Nf AT INS: rc �, r f t GEOPACFICA SIGNATURE GEOTECEINICAL CONSULTANTS TEL: (760) 721-5488 COPIES TO: FAX: (760) 721-5539 3060 INDUSTRY ST„ SUITE 105 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 DATE PROJECT NO. PROJECT i FIELD RLOCATION p CONTRACTOR OWNER WEATHER TEMPT TO PRESENT AT SITE r J I SUMMARY OF INSPECTION: � •.�f,t-as--��.j _ J . � r GEOPACIFICA SIGNATURE GEOTECEMCAL CONSULTANTS TEL: (760) 721-5488 (7�OPIES TO: FAX: (760) 721-5539 3060 INDUSTRY ST,, SUITE 105 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL&STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS FOR RESIDENTIAL&COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069• (760) 839-7302• Fax: (760) 480-7477 • E-mail: ENGDG@aol.com Date: June 14, 2005 To: City of Encinitas Attn: Mike Valles Engineering Division Re: Proposed Residences to be Located at 2136 Montgomery Avenue, Encinitas, California Grading Plan No. 9250-G Subject: Soils Certification Grading operations, conducted during January 2005, at the above referenced site included the placement of shoring along the south and north property lines and western bluff setback and the excavation to pad subgrade. Pad subgrade consisted of formational sandstone material. In our opinion, based upon our visual observation, onsite soils contain expansion potentials in the low range. No compacted fill was placed as part of the above described grading operations, yet a compaction test was taken at pad subgrade for the purposes of this report. We anticipate compaction testing operations will be conducted during the backfill of the basement retaining walls. If you have any q stions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, ENGIN ING DESIGN GROUP Q�OFESS/pN eve Norris �O vFN Np q� California GE#25910 QCO �•QiJ,�y !2 2590 CD z w m d E P.12�1-05 Zo CHN\��P of CAS\F� F:\LETTER\LETTER 1\2004\043413-1,ROCHELLE PROJ,2136 MONTGOMERY,CARDIFF-SOILS CERT LTR.wpd ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL B STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS FOR RESIDENTIAL 6 COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069• (760) 839-7302• Fax: (760) 480-7477• E-mail: ENGDG@aol.com Date: June 14, 2005 To: City of Encinitas Engineering Division Re: Proposed Residences to be Located at 2136 Montgomery Avenue, California Grading Plan No. 9250-G Subject: Pad Certification I hereby certify that the pad configuration is in general compliance with plans and specifications. Pad grades at the lower basement pad were surveyed on June 10, 2005 by Chris Ciremele, Land Surveyor. Finish pad elevations per plan consist of the following: Upper basement pad = 83.5; Lower basement pad = 83.5. Finish pad elevations shot in the field at the above noted date are as follows: Uaaer Basement Pad 84.47 84.47 84.49 84.51 84.50 84.53 84.54 84.54 Lower Basement Pad 83.48 83.50 83.54 83.52 _7 If you have any gyrestions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, QypF ES s/ ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP ko q�N Np4,q� F `2 C47672 xli Steve Norris s IXP 12-31-05 In California RICE#47672 C f vI,%,, F OF CA1� E:\LETTER\LETTER 1\2004\043413-1,ROCHELLE PROJ,2136 MONTGOMERY,CARDIFF-UPPER-LOWER PAD CERT LTR.wpd DATE [PROJECT�NO- PROJECT LOCATION F IE LD RIEPOR. T 0 0 CONTRACTOR OWNER WEATHER TEMP. TO-, PRESENT AT SITE SUMMARY OF INSPECTION: f t.� RECOMMENDATIONS: GEOPACIRCA SIGNATURE GEOTECBMCAL CONSULTANTS TEL: (760) 721-5488 FAX: (760) 721-5539 OOPIES TO: 3060 INDUSTRY ST., SUITE 105 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 DATE PROJECT NO. PROJECT FIELD LOCATION , 0 CONTRACTOR OWNER WEATHER TEMP. TO PRESENT AT SITE r J • SUMMARY OF INSPECTION: � !1 1 fL� � f � .�fj�y,,; � �}"1r�/ ��l,Gi., f � �C 1'. t •' � i• �f GCS RECOMMENDATIONS: GEOPACFICA SIGNATURE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS TEL: (760) 721-5488 OOPIES TO: FAX: (760) 721-5539 3060 INDUSTRY ST., SUITE 105 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 ♦ 4 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONS ULTAN S FOR RESIDENTIAL&COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 ♦www.designgroupca.com LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION NEW ROCHELLE CONDOMNIUM PROJECT TO BE LOCATED ON 2136 MONTGOMERY AVENUE, CARDIFF COMMUNITY OF CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA EDG Project No. 043413-1 October 20, 2004 PREPARED FOR: Rob Rochelle �' L---J- 921 Marisa Lane ; ll Encinitas, CA 92027 rn4 ""�! }r � ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL CIVIL STRUC I URAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS FOR RESIDENTIAL&COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477 •www.designgroupca.com Date: October 20, 2004 To: Mr. Rob Rochelle 921 Marisa Lane Encinitas, CA 92027 Re: Proposed New Rochelle Duplex to be located on 2136 Montgomery Avenue in the Cardiff Community of the City of Encinitas, California Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Report In accordance with the request of Don Grover, Project Architect,we have prepared this preliminary getotechnical report for the proposed residential development. The findings of the investigation, earthwork recommendations and foundation design parameters are presented in this report. In general, it is our opinion that the proposed construction, as described herein,is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint,provided the recommendations of this report and gen y accepted construction practices are followed. If you hav any estions regarding the following report please do not hesitate to contact our office. Since ly, EN I ERING DESIGN GROUP Steven Erin E.tit s California Geotechnical Engineer: RGE#2590 California Civil Engineer: RICE#65122 Califo ineer: RICE#47672 C N ineering Geolo ' G#2263 �pFESSf\, (3w, �O vEN �vEFN EO� A R1 C-0 j, < ci 2590 z 5 65122 p d.. LU rm "2 C47672 z W m d D(P 12-01-05 ;; m d EXP 0 05 \G * * EXP. 12-31-05 * *� tQ �FOFCAI\FOQ`�\P sT Clvi%- �Q 1g7F01v1�\��. ED GEDgTFOF CAL\F�Q`� F CA J Ca STEVEN B.NORRIS W No. 2263 - CERTIFIED • ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST j C o�..F Cl�\ I 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SUBSOILCONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 LIQUEFACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 EARTHWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 RETAININGWALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 SURFACE DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 MISCELLANEOUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 FIGURES Site Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 1 Site Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure No. 2 APPENDICES References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A General Earthwork and Grading Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B Testing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C Retaining Wall Drainage Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix D ROCHELLE DUPLEX Page No.3 2136 Montgomery,Cardiffs,California Job No.043413-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CML,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS SCOPE This report gives our recommendations for the proposed development to be located at 2136 Montgomery Avenue,Cardiff Communityof the Cityof Encinitas,California. (See Figure No. 1,"Site Vicinity Map", and Figure No. 2, "Site Location Map"). The scope of our work, conducted on-site to date, has included a visual reconnaissance of the property and surrounding areas, a limited subsurface investigation of nearby properties,and preparation of this report presenting ourfindings, conclusions, and recommendations. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION For the purposes of this report the front of the property is assumed to face east. The subject property appears to be a roughly rectangular shaped lot located at 2136 Montgomery Avenue in the Cardiff area of the City of Encinitas, California. The property is bordered to the south and north by single family residential homes, to the west by an alley, and to the east by Montgomery Avenue. The general topography of the site area consists of coastal hillside and foothill terrain. The general topography of the site itself consists of a slope that descends from Montgomery Avenue approximately 7-8 feet to a generally flat building pad and yard area. Retaining walls are in place at both the south and north property lines. Along the south property line retaining wall heights vary from approximately 6 feet at the eastern half of the lot to 2 feet at the western portion of the lot. Along the northern property line an approximate 3 foot retaining wall runs the length of the property line. Presently the site is developed with a single story residence. Based upon our conversations with the project architect, we understand that development will consist of the following: • Design and construction of a new duplex residence with full basement. • Demolition of the existing residence. SUBSOIL CONDITIONS Based upon our subsurface investigation on nearby properties and general experience in the local area the site soil profiles and soil types are described as follows: ToRsoil/Fill• Topsoil and weathered fill consisting of silty to slightly silty sands with small roots. These profiles extend to depths of approximately 45 feet below adjacent grade. Topsoil and fill materials consist of dark to light brown, slightly moist to moist, medium dense,siltysands. Topsoil and fill materials are not considered suitable for the support of structures in their present. Slightly Silty sands classify as SW- SM according to the Unified Classification System,and based on visual observation generally possess potentials for expansion in the low to medium range. ROCHELLE DUPLEX Page No. 1 2136 Montgomery,Cardiffs,California Job No.043413-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 6 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 5 i Sandstone Sandstone material underlie the topsoil/fill material at the subject site. Sandstone materials consisted of rust brown to grey, moist to very moist,dense, slightly silty to silty sandstone. Sandstone materials are considered suitable for the support of structures and structural improvements,provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Sandstone materials classify as SW-SM according to the Unified Classification System,and based on visual observation and our experience possess potentials for expansion in the low to medium range. GROUND WATER Ground water is not anticipated to be a significant concern to the project provided the recommendations of this report are followed. LIQUEFACTION It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake along any of the faults in the Southern California region. However, the seismic risk at this site is not significantly greater than that of the surrounding developed area. Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose, granular soils underlain by a near-surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction,while the stability of most silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Because of the dense nature of the soil materials underlying the site and the lack of near surface water, the potential for liquefaction or seismically-induced dynamic settlement at the site is considered low. The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. ROCHELLE DUPLEX Page No.2 2136 Montgomery,Cardiffs,California Job No.043413-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP OEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS s CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL In general, it is our opinion that the proposed construction, as described herein, is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report and generally accepted construction practices are followed. In general,we anticipate earthwork will be limited to excavations for the basement foundations. We anticipate all new retaining wall foundations will be founded on competent formational sandstone profiles. Where new shallow foundations are located in the backfill wedge of a retaining wall, the design should be detailed on a case by case basis. In general cut-fill transitions between competent formational sandstone and compacted fill/backfill should be avoided to minimize associated transition related cracking. Based upon our site reconnaissance, shoring may be required. In general, a minimum 1:1 temporary backcut should be allowed between the bottom of the footing and the bottom of the proposed excavation. The project contractor shall ensure all adjacent foundations are secured from undermining prior to the start of excavations. EARTHWORK We anticipate all new foundations will be founded on competent formational soil. Upon initial review of the project site plan and sections we anticipate earthwork will be limited to backfill operations of the proposed basement retaining walls. 1. Fills Areas to receive fill and/or structural improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and re-compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction(based on ASTM D1557-91). Compacted fills should be cleaned of loose debris,oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter, brought to near optimum moisture content,and re-compacted to at least 90%relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-91). Surficial, loose or soft soils exposed or encountered during grading(such as any undocumented or loose fill materials)should be removed to competent formational material and properly compacted prior to additional fill placement. Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. If the import of soil is planned,soils should have very low potential for expansion(E.I. <50) and free of debris and organic matter. Prior to importing, soils should be visually observed,sampled and tested at the borrow pit area to evaluate soil suitability as fill. ROCHELLE DUPLEX Page No.3 2136 Montgomery,Cardiffs,California Job No.043413-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNCAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS r FOUNDATIONS The following design parameters may be utilized for new foundations extended to formational sandstone. 1. Footings bearing in competent formational or compacted fill material may be designed utilizing maximum allowable soils pressure of 2,000 psf. 2. Seismic Design Parameters: A .1 1 ESL 4 dl ;€ y, Y ➢Sy F U6, d, g S; �d 'a i 3 ' b ✓° d'� , '_ � `'�f � � trek '. e°d Y N f as ue E d �-.i ," ��✓bs ��,.f�,,�= &. -a. red�� . s�; � . Bearing values may be increased by 33% when considering wind, seismic, or other short duration loadings. 3. The following parameters should be used as a minimum for designing new footing width and depth below lowest adjacent grade: HS tll tilt .. Y F, * . !, "Footing depths to be confirmed in the field by a representative of Engineering Design Group prior to the placement of steel. 4. All footings founded into competent formational sandstone should be reinforced with a minimum of two #4 bars at the top and two #4 bars at the bottom (3 inches above the ground). For footings over 30 inches in depth, additional reinforcement, and possibly a stemwall system will be necessary, and should be reviewed by project structural engineer prior to construction. 5. All isolated spread footings should be designed utilizing the above given bearing values and footing depths, and be reinforced with a minimum of #4 bars at 12 inches o.c. in each direction (3 inches above the ground). Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width and depth of 24 inches. ROCHELLE DUPLEX Page No.4 2136 Montgomery, Cardiffs, California Job No.043413-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHMCAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS r 6. For footings adjacent to slopes, a minimum of 12 feet horizontal setback in formational material or properly compacted fill should be maintained. A setback measurement should be taken at the horizontal distance from the bottom of the footing to slope daylight. Where this condition can not be met it should be brought to the attention of the Engineering Design Group for review. 7. All excavations should be performed in general accordance with the contents of this report, applicable codes, OSHA requirements and applicable city and/or county standards. 8. All foundation subgrade soils and footings shall be pre-moistened to 2% over optimum to a minimum of 18 inches in depth prior to the pouring of concrete. CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE The following design parameters should be utilized as minimums where new slabs are founded on competent formational sandstone. 1. Concrete slabs on grade of the building should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches (5 inches at garage and driveway locations)and should be reinforced with#4 bars at 18 inches o.c. placed at the midpoint of the slab. • Slump: Between 3 and 4 inches maximum • Aggregate Size: 3/4 - 1 inch • Air Content: 5 to 8 percent • Moisture retarding additive in concrete at moisture sensitive areas. • Non Moisture Sensitive Areas: Compressive Strength = 2500 psi minimum. • Moisture Sensitive Areas: Water to cement Ratio - 0.5 maximum Compressive Strength = 4,000 psi minimum 2. All required fills used to support slabs, should be placed in accordance with the grading section of this report and the attached Appendix B, and compacted to 90 percent Modified Proctor Density, ASTM D-1557. 3. A uniform layer of 4 inches of coarse sand is recommended under the slab in order to more uniformly support the slab, help distribute loads to the soils beneath the slab, and act as a capillary break. Coarse sand material should have a Sand Equivalent(S.E.)greater than 50,and be washed clean of fine materials. In moisture sensitive areas,a visqueen layer(10 mil)should be placed mid-height in the sand bed to act as a vapor retarder. Sand should be rounded to avoid puncture of visqueen vapor retarder. 4. Adequate control joints should be installed to control the unavoidable cracking of concrete that takes place when undergoing its natural shrinkage during curing. The control joints should be well located to direct unavoidable slab cracking to areas that are desirable by the designer. ROCHELLE DUPLEX Page No.5 2136 Montgomery,Cardiffs,California Job No.043413-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CML,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS v i 5. All subgrade soils to receive concrete flatwork are to be pre-soaked to 2 percent over optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches. 6 Brittle floor finishes placed directly on slab on grade floors may crack if concrete is not adequately cured prior to installing the finish or if there is minor slab movement. To minimize potential damage to movement sensitive flooring, we recommend the use of slip sheeting techniques(linoleum type)which allows forfoundation and slab movementwithout transmitting this movement to the floor finishes. 7. Exterior concrete flatwork and driveway slabs, due to the nature of concrete hydration and minor subgrade soil movement,are subject to normal minor concrete cracking. To minimize expected concrete cracking, the following may be implemented: • Concrete slump should not exceed 4 inches. • Concrete should be poured during "cool" (40 - 65 degrees)weather if possible. If concrete is poured in hotter weather, a set retarding additive should be included in the mix, and the slump kept to a minimum. • Concrete subgrade should be pre-soaked prior to the pouring of concrete. The level of pre-soaking should be a minimum of 2%over optimum moisture to a depth of 18 inches. • Concrete may be poured with a 10 inch deep thickened edge. Where concrete flatwork is poured along the top of a slope, a footing should be excavated along the outside edge to achieve a minimum of 7 feet distance to daylight. • Concrete should be constructed with tooled joints or sawcuts(1 inch deep)creating concrete sections no larger than 225 square feet. For sidewalks,the maximum run between joints should not exceed 5 feet. For rectangular shapes of concrete, the ratio of length to width should generally not exceed 0.6(i.e., 5 ft. long by 3 ft.wide). Joints should be cut at expected points of concrete shrinkage (such as male comers),with diagonal reinforcement placed in accordance with industry standards. • Drainage adjacent to concrete flatwork should direct water away from the improvement. Concrete subgrade should be sloped and directed to the collective drainage system, such that water is not trapped below the flatwork. • The recommendations set forth herein are intended to reduce cosmetic nuisance cracking. The project concrete contractor is ultimately responsible for concrete quality and performance, and should pursue a cost-benefit analysis of these recommendations,and other options available in the industry,prior to the pouring of concrete. RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls up to 12 feet may be designed and constructed in accordance with the following recommendations and minimum design parameters: 1. Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the allowable bearing criteria given in the "Foundations" section of this report, and should maintain minimum footing depths outlined in"Foundations"section of this report. It is anticipated that all retaining wall ROCHELLE DUPLEX Page No.6 2136 Montgomery, Cardiffs,California Job No.043413-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CML.STRUCTURAL&ARCMTECTURAL CONSULTANTS f footings will be placed on competent formational material. Where cut-fill transitions may occur footings may be deepened to formational material or alternative detailing may be provided by the Engineering Design Group on a case by case basis. 2. Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. This assumes that granular,free draining material with low potential for expansion (E.I.<50)will be used for backfill, and that the backfill surface will be level. Where soil with potential for expansion is not very low(E.1. >50)a new active fluid pressure will be provided by the project soils engineer. Backfill materials should be considered prior to the design of the retaining walls to ensure accurate detailing. We anticipate onsite material will be utilized as retaining wall backfill. For sloping backfill, the following parameters may be utilized: Backfill Sloping Condition 2:1 Slope 1.5:1 Slope Active Fluid Pressure 50 pcf 65 pcf Any other surcharge loadings shall be analyzed in addition to the above values. 3. If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement,they should be designed for an additional uniform at-rest soil pressure of 65 psf. 4. Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pcf.This value assumes that the soil being utilized to resist passive pressures, extends horizontally 2.5 times the height of the passive pressure wedge of the soil. Where the horizontal distance of the available passive pressure wedge is less than 2.5 times the height of the soil, the passive pressure value must be reduced by the percent reduction in available horizontal length. 5. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 between the soil and concrete footings may be utilized to resist lateral loads in addition to the passive earth pressures above. 6. Retaining walls should be braced and monitored during compaction. If this cannot be accomplished,the compactive effort should be included as a surcharge load when designing the wall. 7. All walls shall be provided with adequate back drainage to relieve hydrostatic pressure,and be designed in accordance with the minimum standards contained in the 'Retaining Wall Drainage Detail", Appendix D. 8. Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the"Earthwork" section of this report. Backfill shall consist of soil with a very low expansion potential, granular, free draining material. ROCHELLE DUPLEX Page No.7 2136 Montgomery,Cardiffs,California Job No.043413-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL Q ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS SURFACE DRAINAGE Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and will play a critical role on the future performance of the dwelling and improvements. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond against or adjacent to foundation walls,or tops of slopes. The ground surface surrounding proposed improvements should be relatively impervious in nature,and slope to drain away from the structure in all directions, with a minimum slope of 2% for a horizontal distance of 7 feet (where possible). Area drains or surface swales should then be provided to accommodate runoff and avoid any ponding of water. Roof gutters and downspouts shall be installed on the new and existing structures and tightlined to the area drain system. All drains should be kept clean and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Area drains should be kept free of debris to allow for proper drainage. During periods of heavy rain, the performance of all drainage systems should be inspected. Problems such as gullying or ponding should be corrected as soon as possible. Any leakage from sources such as water lines should also be repaired as soon as possible. In addition, irrigation of planter areas, lawns, or other vegetation, located adjacent to the foundation or exterior flat work improvements, should be strictly controlled or avoided. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by our investigation of the project area. Interpolated subsurface conditions should be verified in the field during construction. The following items shall be conducted prior/during construction by a representative of Engineering Design Group in order to verify compliance with the geotechnical and civil engineering recommendations provided herein, as applicable. The project structural and geotechnical engineers may upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during the development of the proposed improvement(s). 1. Review of final approved structural plans prior to the start of work, for compliance with geotechnical recommendations. 2. Attendance of a pre-grade/construction meeting prior to the start of work. 3. Testing of any fill placed, including retaining wall backfill and utility trenches. 4. Observation of footing excavations prior to steel placement. 5. Field observation of any"field change" condition involving soils. 6. Walk through of final drainage detailing prior to final approval. The project soils engineer may at their discretion deepen footings or locally recommend additional steel reinforcement to upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during site observations. Engineering Design Group shall,prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy,issue in writing that the above inspections have been conducted by a representative of their firm, and the design considerations of the project soils report have been met. The field inspection protocol specified herein is considered the minimum necessary for Engineering Design Group to have exercised"due diligence" in the soils engineering design aspect of this building. Engineering Design Group assumes no liability for structures constructed utilizing this report not meeting this protocol. ROCHELLE DUPLEX Page No.8 2136 Montgomery,Cardiffs, California Job No.043413-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHMCAL,CML,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS r � Before commencement of grading the Engineering Design Group will require a separate contract for quality control observation and testing. Engineering Design Group requires a minimum of 48 hours notice to mobili2e onsite for field observation and testing. MISCELLANEOUS It must be noted that no structure or slab should be expected to remain totally free of cracks and minor signs of cosmetic distress. The flexible nature of wood and steel structures allows them to respond to movements resulting from minor unavoidable settlement of fill or natural soils, the swelling of clay soils, or the motions induced from seismic activity. All of the above can induce movement that frequently results in cosmetic cracking of brittle wall surfaces, such as stucco or interior plaster or interior brittle slab finishes. Data for this report was derived from surface observations at the site,knowledge of local conditions, and a visual observation of the soils exposed in the exploratory test pits. The recommendations in this report are based on our experience in conjunction with the limited soils exposed at this site and neighboring sites. We believe that this information gives an acceptable degree of reliability for anticipating the behavior of the proposed structure;however,our recommendations are professional opinions and cannot control nature, nor can they assure the soils profiles beneath or adjacent to those observed. Therefore, no warranties of the accuracy of these recommendations,beyond the limits of the obtained data,is herein expressed or implied. This report is based on the investigation at the described site and on the specific anticipated construction as stated herein. If either of these conditions is changed, the results would also most likely change. Man-made or natural changes in the conditions of a property can occur over a period of time. In addition, changes in requirements due to state of the art knowledge and/or legislation, are rapidly occurring. As a result, the findings of this report may become invalid due to these changes. Therefore,this report for the specific site,is subject to review and not considered valid after a period of one year, or if conditions as stated above are altered. It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information in this report be incorporated into the plans and/or specifications and construction of the project. It is advisable that a contractor familiar with construction details typically used to deal with the local subsoil and seismic conditions, be retained to build the structure. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. We hope the report provides you with necessary information to continue with the development of the project. ROCHELLE DUPLEX Page No.9 2136 Montgomery,Cardiffs,California Job No.043413-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHMCAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS S ' 1 /� f; T135 .et DE 10 1 1 /4E IA I ? 4 o ESC L.F 'm� lb LAKE HODGES ENCINI AS` " r,q � 0 xp avmw ENLI Tx5 q DEL 05 RANCHO BERNARDO mW RANCHO s a a SITE CARDIFF-BY- SA gEaN�"flo E-SEB, F plop o a i ex� PAW S SA A MWOL�.n tmr �b avrm tt„ 1T SO NA SxEACH � om 6 JorFArIReANs ''-`' RANCHO RANCH 0 E EN GARDENS ° tisO o wrou ns o c pt �:xixsanms i. or^ a p Y � NEI DEL MAR T ° RD m ' �OWAY• CARMEL F' VALL S F TORREY PINES «n F,� anurfxc STATE RESERVE 120 F� f �° ° NE ,as[mi SORRENTO ° r`Qr ME S EIPTO I I RAA�R I° SITE VICINITY MAP PROJECT NAME ROCHELLE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ADDRESS 2136 MONTGOMERY AVENUE,CARDIFF,CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 043413 Mono::(7ieo�9.7302 (760)480-7477 1 E:\FORWI FRMf20001MASTER-SITE VICINITY-FIG 1.wpd X51 w M£8A RO - - neww l I e s o i 9d MELBA a 1,,, 900 W I Im ca nLw u+ Z 1 SAN I STREET L a cw w VIEWPOINT' 3 FAT �. o i '. y < $ DIEGUITO �I WH PARK ■,�� a' o u�i o rxtxnAS _ `� c� $¢ NS i °m J 5IREET\ �. c. � au - <-11 T00 9111, - PARK su 5IX) CKIN-S ° SWAHIS r''M SIIMIT RUB EIN AITH AV ..._ c BEACH '' ST PL A 500 gF CT MUNEVAR , SW IS N OWE IT Z T - N$ CATHY LN Imo_ PARK S•( , I $ q&EAN CREST RD= GRANG �/+ ✓ i 9 < y1NCL5 CROSS OR 900 CROSS Kiwis CT WINDS( A- AIOGE ,o EEK C L < 'e- 00 CARESTA WY r$�Cy < SANDCASTLE rr a � NOIBEY_ FALCON HILL p A ^� Of \ 40 \ SAN ELIJO 10 STATE SITE BEACH . 'A 12 IL 'a A 9L ,t v� NNEST y _ SITE LOCATION MAP PROJECT NAME ROCHELLE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ADDRESS 2136 MONTGOMERY AVENUE, CARDIFF,CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL,CNIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 043413 2121.(760)839-7302" 7 o)4 a"" 2 E:\FORMS\1 FRLUDO0\MASTER-SITE LOCATION-FIG 2.wpd APPENDIX -A- APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Fault-Rupture Zones in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 1990. 2. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. 3. Hart, Michael, June 17, 1994, Gelogic Investigation, 7505 Hillside Drive, La Jolla,CA, File N0: 153- 94. 4. Engineering Design Group, Un-published In-House Data. 5. Ploessel, M.R. and Slossan, J.E., 1974 Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes: California Geololgy, Vol. 27, No. 9, P.195-199. 6. State of California, Fault Map of California, Map No:1, Dated 1975. 7. State of California, Geologic Map of California, Map No:2, Dated 1977. ti APPENDIX -B- GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1.0 General Intent These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations for grading and earthwork to be utilized in conjunction with the approved grading plans. These general earthwork and grading specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and shall be superseded by the recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to read and understand these specifications, as well as the geotechnical report and approved grading plans. 2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testinct Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24 hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No grading operations should be performed without the knowledge of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical consultant is aware of all grading operations. It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, recommendations in the geotechnical report, and the approved grading plans not withstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant. If, in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical report and the specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction should be performed in general accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing and Materials test method ASTM D1557. -1- 3.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 3.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots and all other deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, design engineer, governing agencies and the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. In general, no more than 1 percent (by volume)of the fill material should consist of these materials and nesting of these materials should not be allowed. 3.2 Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. 3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic-rich, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining quantities of materials overexcavated, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. 3.4 Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 3.5 Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed, screened of deleterious material, and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. -2- 3.6 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Other benches should be excavated into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe-of-fill benches, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement. 4.0 Fill Material 4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended by the geotechnical consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade, within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction, or within 15 feet horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the attached detail. -3- 4.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material should meet the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be given to allow the geotechnical consultant to observe(and test, if necessary) the proposed import materials. 5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas prepared and previously evaluated to receive fill, in near-horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 5.2 Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 5.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture- conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (unless otherwise specified). Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree and uniformity of,compaction. 5.4 Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the fill out to the slope face would be at least 90 percent. -4- 5.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of compaction of the fill soils should be performed at the consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. In general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils. In addition, on slope faces, as a guideline approximately one test should be taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. 6.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be installed in areas previously evaluated for suitability by the geotechnical consultant, to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend changes in subdrain line or grade depending on conditions encountered. All subdrains should be surveyed by a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficient time shall be allowed for the survey, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains. 7.0 Excavation Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant (as necessary) during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation, overexcavation, and refilling of cut areas and/or remedial grading of cut slopes (i.e., stability fills or slope buttresses) may be recommended. 8.0 Quanta Determination For purposes of determining quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or determining the limits of overexcavation, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. -5- MINIMUM RETAINING WALL WATERPROOFING & DRAINAGE DETAIL FINAL WATERPROOFING SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS TO BE. PROVIDED BY PROJECT ARCHITECT MASTIC TO BE APPLIED TO TOP OF WALL MASTIC TYPE WATER PROOFING (HLM 5000 OR EQUIV) INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS & PROTECTED WITH TOP OF RETAINING WALL BACKER BOARD (ABOVE MIRADRAIN) MASTIC NOT TO BE EXPOSED TO SUNLIGHT SOOIILABACKFILL. COMPACTED TO 90% 7o PER REFERENCE p1� a 2X _ —I I P ROPOSED SLOPE BACKCUT PER OSHA STANDARDS OR PER ND MIRADRAIN (top) y6:-:rAP;';—: - OR PER ALTERNATIVE SLOPING s I- AREA DRAIN SHP ORINGG PLAN APPROVED RETAINING WALL `..":>.:. SYSTEM MIRADRAIN MEMBRANE �. I l FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES "'` :':;; (MIRAFI 14ON OR SPECWlCATIONS OVER MASTIC :`{ .611 I APPROVED EQUIVALENT) WATERPROOFING - HLM 3000 12- MIN. LAP OR EQUIVALENT ( II7 3/4- - 1 1/2- CLEAN ry~~} 4(X4' (4U) CONCRETE CANT I-111-1111-11 I I I I — o FOOTING/WALL CONNECTION 11—III III 111 1 I- I _ j I l (UNDER WATER PROOFING) =1 11-1 I I-1 I I I;I I 1-1 I I- t.'' - 4- (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFOR"TED PVC PIPE (SCH WIT-1 40 OR EQ.) TH PERFORATIONS ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED MIN. 2% C !' GRADIENT TO SUITABLE X. OUTLET. .".OMPACTED FILL WALL FOOTING OR BEDROCK ENO MIRADRAIN (bottom) COMPETENT BEDROCK OR FILL MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SCALE: 1" = l' -O" PROJECT NAME PROJECT ADDRESS JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL 8 ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 2121 Mon9el Road,San Marcos,CA 92089 Phone:(760)839-7302 Fax:(780)480-7477 \\lain\file on main\FORMS\1 FRM\2000\MASTER-FIG.wpd SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL EXISTING GROUND SURFACE FINISHED SLOPE FACE / / FINISHED CUT PAD PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE / FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY -_ - -=O STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL OUTLET PIPES 4' 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE, _ 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY BACK CUT 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY _ - ---------- CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS EXISTING GROUND SURFACE _ ___C_OIiAPACTBD_R_ILL BENCHING _- -'___ = __ REMOVE -= UNSUITABLE 7\7 1_1 N\ MATERIAL SUBDRAIN TRENCH SEE BELOW SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAILS FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE �a" MIN. OVERLAP e' MIN. OVERLAP (MIRAFI 14ON OR APPROVED EOUIV ALENT)* �' g• MIN. MIN tN. • C CO}VER CO}ER tl, 3/4'-1-1/2' CLEAN �� =I• , • GRAVEL (9ft3/ft. MIN.) 4' MIN. BEDDING ' 3/40-1.112' CLEAN GRAVEL (9101tt. MIN.) g• d MIN. *IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE PERFORATED MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF PIPE 3144-1-1120 GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL FNo ICATIONS FOR CALTRANS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL DESIGN FINISH andard GRADE ______ SUBDRAIN Size : Passing TRENCH ___--- SEE ABOVE 100 90-100 =:FiL _=_=_= 40-100 25_3 18 o 0 5-15 50 0-3 PERFORATED o. 00 15' M IN. a' jf MIN. PIPE Sand Equivalent>75 NONPERFORATED e' O MIN. Subdrain should be constructed only on competent material as evaluated by the geotechnlcal consultant. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrain pipe should be installed with perforations down as depicted. At locations recommended by the geotechnical consultant. nonperforated pipe should be Installed. SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdrain type should be Acrylonitrlie Butadiene Styrene (A.B.S.). Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125,SDR 32.5 should be used for maximum fill depths of 33 feet. Class 200,SOR 21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 feet, KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS FILL SLOPE PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE - PROM TOE OF SLOPE s=- TO COMPETENT MATERIALi�ci EXISTING GROUND SURFACE — r REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL BENCH 'r 2' MIN. 15' MIN ` KEY LOWEST DEPTH BENCH (KEY) _ IMPACTED=Y ' FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE EXISTING — ----- --- GROUND SURFACE BENCH REMOVE UNSUITABLE - - /�� 2 LOWEST MATERIAL MIN. BENCH KEY (KEY) DEPTH CUT SLOPE (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) Zj' EXISTING GROUND / n%ni i SURFACE�� f CUT SLOPE CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE / // (TO BE EXCAVATED / PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) REMOVE UNSUITABLE PROJECT 1 TO 1 'MATERIAL LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO p�APACT COMPETENT —FI =-- MATERIAL BENCH r = M, = ,J 16' MIN F 2' MIN. LOWEST KEY, OEPTH BENCH (KEY) NOTE: Back drain may be recommended by the geotechnicai consultant based on actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may also be altered based on field conditions encountered. ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL FINISH GRADE SLOPE FACE ='e i+�' _T --:••------ _1 V iiAlt�. ?_ ------------ -----a-, ------ --------- -===_=== -: -`_z_= _-_=_3'_MIN_ ' ts, MIN. -_ _ _ _- _ -------------------------------- ----==_8' MAX_ OVERSIZE WINDROW — -- — GRANULAR SOIL (S.L2:30) TO BE _ — DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY FLOODING DETAIL �r TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW 1) Rock with maximum dimensions greater than 6 inches should not be used within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility whichever is greater), and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces. 2) Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet should not be utilized in fills. 3) Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by the geotechnical consultant. 4) Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above details Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered vertically (as depicted). 5) Rock should be placed in excavated trenches. Granular soil (S.E. greater than or equal to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill voids around and beneath rocks. r APPENDIX -C- LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES Direct Shear Test Direct shear tests are performed on remolded and/or relatively undisturbed samples which are soaked for a minimum of 24 hours prior to testing. After transferring the sample to the shearbox, and reloading, pore pressures are allowed to dissipated for a period of approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples are sheared in a motor- driven, strain controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus. After a travel of approximately 1/4 inch, the motor is stopped and the sample is allowed to "relax" for approximately 15 minutes. Where applicable,the"relaxed"and "peak"shear values are recorded. It is anticipated that, in a majority of samples tested, the 15 minutes relaxing of the sample is sufficient to allow dissipation of pore pressures set up due to application of the shearing force. The relaxed values are therefore judged to be good estimations of effective strength parameters. Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of representative samples is evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 29-2. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water for 24 hours or until volumetric equilibrium is reached. Classification Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain-size analysis by wet sieving from U.S. Standard brass screens (ASTM D422-65). Hydrometer analyses were performed where appreciable quantities of fines were encountered. The data was evaluated in determining the classification of the materials. The grain-size distribution curves are presented in the test data and the Unified Soil Classification is presented in both the test data and the boring logs. APPENDDC -D- ` J RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL SOIL SACKFILL. COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION* RETAINING WALL O A'°MIN. e I ==== WALL WATERPROOFING I OVERLAP FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE PER ARCHITECT'S (MIRAF1 140N OR APPROVED SPECIFICATIONS EQUIVALENT)'** 1' MIN. ==- 314'-1-112' CLEAN .GRAVEL FINISH GRADE ° z-= I O 4' (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED ' o - PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR -== EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS ------ - ----- ---- ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED --------_--- _------- ° -- - MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT _--- -- ------------------__- TO SUITABLE OUTLET =_= �.OMPACTED WALL FOOTING f 1i MIN. NOT TO SCALE COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL U.S. Standard *BASED ON ASTM 01557 Sieve Size % Passing 1" 100 **IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL 3/4" 90-100 (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/8" 40-100 3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVEL. FILTER FABRIC MAY BE No. 4 25-40 DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90 No. 8 18-33 PERCENT RELATIV$ COMPACTION* No. 30 5-15 NOTF-COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS WRADRAIN No. 50 0-7 OR J—DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR No. 200 0-3 Sand Equivalent>75 CLASS 2 INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL.CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS FOR RESIDENTIAL&COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477•www.designgroupca.com D E C E a E JAN 2 5 2005 ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS STUDY ROCHELLE DEVELOPMENT 2136 MONTGOMERY ROAD CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA EDG Project No. 043413-5 DWG: 9250-G Dated: Revised January 20, 2005 Q?,oFESS/oti p NE. R� q� CID 65122 CD ^' Uy m d EXP. srq civ►� �,��' OF CA�� PROJECT NAME: ROCHELLE DEVELOPMENT GRADING PLAN NUMBER: DATE: December 10, 2004 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed new Rochelle Residence, 2136 Montgomery Road, Encinitas, California PROJECT SCOPE The work proposed will consist of the construction of two new residential units located at 2136 Montgomery Street. The total lot area is approximately 0.11 acres. Existing impervious surfaces consist of approximately 0.031 acres. Presently the lot is developed with a single family residence and generally surface runoff flows from east to west. New improvements will consist of the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of two new units with attached garages, basements and second stories. The new structures will only add approximately 0.07 acres of additional impervious surfaces. Surface runoff will be captured by local area drain system and conveyed to a pump system. The area drain and basement wall backdrains will be pumped to a surge chamber and allowed to gravity flow across the proposed turf block driveway for dissipation. CALCULATIONS PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT -- Watershed less than 0.5 Square Mile Soil Group D, Runoff Coefficient for Residential, 10.9 DU/A or less, single story residence; C=0.60 Table 3-1 of County of San Diego Hydrology Manual, June 2003 Offsite Tributary Area: None Onsite Tributary Area: See attached calculations table Pervious Surface C= 0.60 (Prior to Development), per City of Encinitas minimum allowable, 0.60 based upon soil typeD and Table 3-1 of County of San Diego Hydrology Manual, June 2003 1100 = 6.59where P6= 2.5 Q = CIA Impervious Surface r' C (Post Development Composite Coefficient): Variable C=0.90 x % impervious surfaces + Cp x (1-%impervious) a Q PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT = 0.45 cfs (from attached table) Page H1 PROJECT NAME: ROCHELLE DEVELOPMENT GRADING PLAN NUMBER: DATE: December 10, 2004 POST DEVELOPMENT Offsite Tributary Area: None Onsite Tributary Area: See attached calculations table Q POST TO DEVELOPMENT = 0.61 cfs (from attached table) Difference in Q due to development = 0.16 cfs (from attached table) say 0.50 cfs (negligible) CONCLUSIONS: Dissipation of Runoff: Attached are sizing and velocity calculations for the proposed new 6 inch SDR 35 private area drain system. In general runoff will be captured by the proposed pumped to a 18" x 18" brooks box C131818, and allowed to gravity flow across the proposed turfblock driveway for biofiltration and dissipation. Page H2 ' II I I I I II II I I � I Ij I III I j ' I I II I I I li I j I I , I I I I !I I -- -- �- 1 I II I II j I I I I I I I I j I I I _ I I I I Ili I � I I I I I � I LO o' � r o ch v �n o � o boo H Io boo 0 ° o •L '� a ' 'L � � I I a al j C3 d Ild � j �f--� o (.0 - f o I I of �� o _ o (D o (D!I IN', G. y p� 00 V Vl fA �+ O O O V v a a H I i I� II z ' a � w E E E ' W -� H o w X N d u v, a Z v v F'I LL ~ W � o " U C) (J l o 1 C) C)I + III I I I U W o d li o j o I N W CY Cl I CY L I 0 v o 41 �', w to o N O H cv ca v of of p F- Z o_ a d m N 1 cv Z' O a W o a z a. E Z a>I E I � j IQ _ I , a j '�QI I � i•o 67 XI LO (fl rn 0 I Q s I c I � I I I I I — _ I I I I I _ O I I Z Z O ZI 0 � ' — W I � I c"� C</) n � > I Q Q L V li I N 0 m m - - - V - - - HYDROLOGY s � . i �""��'—'i�9.7C'�1"R S:'�.Z'��" C.5.'C'..7'a'll•7LaCr"G.: '9r'17irai' -r'FUii HE is FJCCsi 31111SL� — —�_�■—��i—�w�w'evlvawa��a rs��w'rwu.u.r.isr�a-- r r r . I ■ . ■ w rai =�� w■■w�II■■ww■�■.w■®r■■wr ■■r ■.■I r■w�■■■�■■wwww■■■■.■■■■!/.Biwl iw■■. lm�� ®ai r'r"VAM—AN—w-rAw M ■ww■�Wrr MWA MWA �■ err. r�e� Mr i l —MM wMsAMINVA rnaneeeeer.aon r� • �rrrl/ice///�f/r��l"reel/rreee..I/r enrreeleeelC �MMN�Fw" iAWAW �r�s��►n.mneeee®eFi.. �� • s�®tiss�srAris■ �W�WAS PINION ss�wstn 02 ' ® ' "' inns=ss�Hill as . . 'i'i'ri�' ,� '�'3es1 "■�i'=Q - SIC Mc CL 0 _2- — ISM wilwwi ®r•ilY■1■i•■■Mw—r.�w,�isle■,I�r ■..Ar.�Vw•—wl!'�iy.■■•w�IJI aiiii■IwriwlwlfV•�—C w�.—wow—■wwwe �� ■ . ■ . �� - - w�Y�A�G�ai� '��r'.w iii•—�C'wiw��.3'ii'�wiCir'in�IIis��r'u ■i w■�o— wwsai� r.wor■i ®■�wo• •►�■■■■�o■■■■—■■■�■■...au a..■—wry — • �a--■��I�"!/—r��a lid'�wl�wl��►�—®I�i•ii—�i.e■uiwwi wlii��CC �.--.ww�sw■�w■rarr— s. a.■■.aw®rw� w•— s■■i■w■■i .■ ■■u■■i�w� ■•a w� •ii w�wws■��w�—wrsw.w ww.�wwww��wwl1��ws wi• wwww www�wo■uooiawww—p ww—w� �a�� I,i1a'wI�®�I a>•�lw�alw��I��■��iiu■■..i•—a�� _sa rarurM i■wr�is�Cirlw—aC'a1i.iii_.iw�D�=C;3C:..—�CiCC•Tiiii�wiiaiGi°—TiC—� — --- w�� w—► —�- r� ��,��.�—��/r�■�rr�rrr�■■w■■rrr�u�rrrfm��\■r•■■rt� aa= W9aa=�� aa�aa�a �3:�a::�aaa=a As MR A •• ,Joie � 'gill a 4-4 •r H I a f is r•T••{ � ai �\✓n t t•1 r � o o Imperial County - M M ' T— 510911 ' •• ` - r - - 3 .M.M1 �4S 0 7 •, : y .: - ,54,91 L ' L !, •SbsGP cc: ° '- • In, •00.L L L - •00.L 1 L \I •SL.LLL — .SL.LLL �a .... . s — o� • '' ,w � O c e a r ._ OE.L Lt �S' .06.L L L a� lc c O U r _ N O V M M M � c1d ; N uG r� 5 a r^ fi0...4-1 Igo M i s A .rte! A. c� z ° U ° 0 Imperial County p � •1 .. _ I _ Lb : i • _ '•,;.• of°see o ••::_ O SS, N , .• �° 1 •4 ri _ �, y •U U pceV OE°LLL 0 _ O U U' O R th t7 t7 O v / C cd O, O, N � t- 00 00 00 00 M N O O O O O O {�O O O O O O O O O a0 ^ W O a U (U > S+ 0 bA 4- O �p N t, 00 7 [�, O O� o0 00 ,—� d• V l� 00 00 00 C H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O cd N C CO ^ r C N cd U H E V) N ` Pr C O .. U _ M 3 v-� N oo v'i •-• r1' oo t- l� [� O �t � [� N M M V �1 ul 00 00 00 00 O m p O O O O O O O. O O O O O O O O •�,, U a�i cn 0 o c d� [ O l� 00 .--� a0 N Vl \O - O M M to W' �O I ". o0 00 00 00 > O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N w U C O O O kn O O kn U U 'o 00 00 00 T ON O, t4 W O y o � a — 0--4 [ tj h y N 0 0 0 0 � �•• O V 4r 4. Ir F. p O p p 0 0 O d d d d 0 d d d Q Q U Pr C Q Q Q A Q Q Q Q p C c� cd O C O C o 0 o U o g W E 0 N O O O� M M O � � M .0 E 'rn '� b •b E U O N tV 4 n N "t O E 0 a� p o W .0 -0 U O . U a .n E ai ai ai ai ai ai a"i ai 0 'ai aai a[i E ms- j a a: Z C7 O C7 v, b o CU LO 0 U O CL C U o O Q A ro x U U a ID Y ° 0 cd cd cd N R0' 0 c0 72 72 -o -"v i _ ycd cd cd -M y M b .N y rn O y v o a CG U Mo Z z a 0- om N c c c c c R a S a S a a a o w U > en a 0 ON 0 3 .� cd m cd y a aCi aai aai Q CJ Q Q '� II C1 Q Q a a a a Q Q E E E E E w- o d cn 0 0 0 0 0 Ems- o CA Q �, x x U U U U U U ._ QZ HYDRAULICS 6" Full Force Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\fmw\rochelle.fm2 Worksheet 6" Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Full Flow Capacity Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Diameter 6.00 in Results Depth 0.50 ft Discharge 1.15 cfs Flow Area 0.20 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 1.57 ft Top Width 0.00 ft Critical Depth 0.48 ft Percent Full 100.00 Critical Slope 0.017534 ft/ft Velocity 5.84 ft/s Velocity Head 0.53 ft -- Specific Energy FULL ft Froude Number FULL Maximum Discharge 1.23 cfs Full Flow Capacity 1.15 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.020000 ft/ft 01/21/05 FlowMaster v5.15 06:54:28 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1