Loading...
2005-9343 G/I/CN ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932 • EI.CAJON •CALIFORNIA 92022-1932 TELEPHONE: (619)447-4747 • (858) 541-0225 FAX: (858)541-0254 ROBERT CHAN, P.E. FINAL SOIL REPORT PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SITE 2351 CAMBRIDGE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA FOR MR. SCOTT LONGBALLA PROJECT NO. 05-1167E3 MARCH, 2006 ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932 • El.CAJON •CALIFORNIA 92022-1932 TELEPHONE: (619)447-4747 • (858) 541-0225 FAX: (858) 541-0254 ROBERT CHAN, P.E. March 1, 2006 Mr. Scott Longballa 1726 Machado Street Oceanside, Ca. 92007 Subject : Project No. 05-1167E3 Final Soil Report Proposed Residential Building Site 2351 Cambridge Avenue Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Longballa : The grading for subject property has been accomplished in accordance with the approved grading plans prepared by Schwerin & Associates, and the recommendations as presented in the project soil investigation report prepared by our firm. Subject property is more specifically referred to as being Lot Nos. 33 and 44, in Block 12 of Cardiff, according to Map thereof No. 1298, in the City of Encinitas, State of California. Copies of reports covering the geotechnical engineering work performed had been prepared and attached hereto. The work performed included observation of rough grading and testing of fill soils; inspection of foundation trench excavations for the structure; and backfill behind basement retaining wall.""--" Respectfully submitted, 717 �s \ ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY w i i F Robert Chan, ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932 • EL CAJON •CALIFORNIA 92022-1932 �T EPHO .�}}��9 447-4747 • (858) 541-0225 e ' >># 858)541-0254 ROBERT CHAN, P.E. Mr. Scott Longballa 1726 Machado Street Oceanside, Ca..92007 Subject : Project No. 05-1167E3 Report of Compacted Filled Ground Backfill Behind Basement Retaining Wall Proposed Residential Building Site 2351 Cambridge Avenue Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Longballa : In accordance with your request, we have observed the placement and tested the backfill soils placed behind the basement retaining wall of the residence on subject property, more specifically referred to as being Lot Nos. 33 and 34, in Block 12 of Cardiff, in Block 12 of Cardiff, according to Map thereof No. 1298 (APN 261-094-40-00), in the City of Encinitas, State of California. The backfill operation was conducted during the period from January 25 to February 23, 2006, inclusive. After the basement retaining wall was constructed and the subdrains installed, backfill soils generated on site were properly moistened, and uniformly compacted in lifts on the order of 6 inches until finished grade is achieved. The depths of backfill at which the tests were taken, and the final test results are presented on page T-1, under, "Table of Test Results". The laboratory determinations of the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the backfill soils are set forth on page L-1 under, "Laboratory Test Results". The approximate location of the compacted filled ground and field density tests are shown on Figure No. 1, entitled, "Approximate Location of Compacted Filled Ground". Pages L-1, T-1 and Figure No. 1 are parts of this report. Respectfully submitted, ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY 7 r Robert Chan, t'°J °,J�' a °!? y 71 � Project No. 05-1167E3 Scott Longballa. 02/28/06 Page T-1 2351 Cambridge Avenue TABLE OF TEST RESULTS Depth Plus of Fill Field Dry 3/4" Maximum Date Test Soil at Test Moisture Density Rock Dry Density Percent of No. Type (Ft.) (%Dry Wt.)(lbs./cu.ft.) (%) (lbs./cu.ft.)Compaction Test Remarks BF-1 1 +2.0 12.1 115.9 0 126.5 91.6 01/25/06 BF-2 1 +2.0 11.2 114.9 0 126.5 90.8 01/25/06 BF-3 1 +2.0 10.4 114.7 0 126.5 90.7 01/25/06 BF-4 1 +4.0 10.2 113.9 0 126.5 90.0 01/26/06 BF-5 1 +4.0 9.1 114.7 0 126.5 90.7 01/26/06 BF-6 1 +4.0 9.5 114.0 0 126.5 90.1 01/26/06 BF-7 1 +4.0 10.7 114.5 0 126.5 90.5 01/26/06 BF-8 1 +6.0 10.9 115.2 0 126.5 91.1 01/27/06 BF-9 1 + 6.0 10.2 1 15.2 0 126.5 91.1 01/27/06 BF-10 1 + 6.0 10.4 116.0 0 126.5 91.7 01/27/06 BF-11 1 +6.0 11.0 115.2 0 126.5 91.1 01/27/06 BF-12 1 + 8.0 11.0 116.6 0 126.5 92.2 01/28/06 Finished grade BF-13 1 +8.0 11.1 116.4 0 126.5 92.0 01/28/06 " BF-14 1 +8.0 10.8 115.7 0 126.5 91.5 01/28/06 " BF-15 l + 6.0 11.4 115.2 0 126.5 91.1 02/22/06 " BF-16 1 +8.0 10.9 115.6 0 126.5 91.4 02/23/06 " BF-17 1 +2.0 9.1 115.8 0 126.5 91.5 02/23/06 " BF-18 1 +4.0 9.1 114.6 0 126.5 90.6 02/23/06 " Project No. 05-1167E3 Scott Longballa. 02/28/06 Page L-1 2351 Cambridge Avenue LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 1. The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the fill soils encountered were determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. D1557, Method A. The results of the tests are presented as follows : Maximum Optimum Soil Dry Density Moisture Content Description (lbs./cu.ft.) (% Dry Wt.) Trench#1 Light grayish brown silty sands 126.5 10.0 Sample#1 (SM) Depth 4.0' 1y CJ cp �I 03 03 ®Sp ® ; a d ®Im D3 RZ t�j y i .. ALLEY o � ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932 - EL CAJON -CALIFORNIA 92022-1932 TELEPHONE: (619)447-4747 - (858) 541-0225 FAX: (858)541-0254 ROBERT CHAN, P.E. February 28, 2006 Mr. Scott Longballa 1726 Machado Street Oceanside, CA 92007 Subject: Project No. 05-1167H3 Report of Foundation Trench Inspection Proposed Residential Building Site 2351 Cambridge Avenue Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Longballa: In accordance with your request, we have inspected the foundation trench excavations for the proposed residential building on subject property, more specifically referred to as being Lot Nos. 33 and 34, in the Block 12 of Cardiff, according to Map thereof No. 1298 (Assessor's Parcel No. 261-094-40-00), in the City of Encinitas, State of California. The results of the inspection indicated that these foundation excavations are extended to the proper depth and bearing strata, and are founded in competent natural or compacted fill soils. It is recommended that these foundation trench excavations be cleared of all debris and loose soils immediately prior to the placement of concrete. Respectfully submitted, /.4-i �w U ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY f Robert Chan, Pt. , 9 1 j Izo `� y ti's_ ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY RO.BOX 1932 • EL CAJON •CALIFORNIA 92022-1932 TELEPHONE: (619)447-4747 • (858)541-0225 FAX: (858)541-0254 ROBERT CHAN, P.E. September 26, 2005 Mr. Scott Longballa 1726 Machado Street Oceanside, CA. 92007 Subject : Project No. 05-1167E3 Report of Compacted Filled Ground Proposed Residential Building Site 2351 Cambridge Avenue Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Longballa : This report records our observations of the grading and the results of tests performed in connection with our inspection of the compaction of fill soils placed on certain areas of the proposed residential building site on subject property, more specifically referred to as being Lot Nos. 33 and 34, in Block 12 of Cardiff, according to Map thereof No. 1298 (APN 261-094-40-00), in the City of Encinitas, State of California. The grading reported herein was accomplished during the period from August 26 to September 13, 2005, inclusive. Prior to commencement of grading, the existing structures and other improvements on the site were demolished, and the debris hauled away and disposed of offsite. Loose upper soils to depths varying from 3 to 5 feet in the proposed garage area were removed, extending to property line along the north and south sides, and up to the alley along the rear, east side. An abandoned vertical seepage pit was discovered in the northeast corner of the proposed garage. This pit was 4 feet in diameter, and on the order of 24 feet in depth. This pit excavation was cleaned out with a truck mounted continuous flight auger, backfilled with a cement slurry and capped at 4 feet below finished grade. The removed soils were then properly moistened, and uniformly compacted until finished grade is achieved. Project No. 05-1167E3 Scott Longballa 09/26/05 Page 2 2351 Cambridge Avenue In-situ density tests were also taken in the natural soils along the floor of proposed basement. The depths of fill at which the tests were taken and the final test results are presented on page T-1, under, "Table of Test Results". The laboratory determinations of the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the fill soils are set forth on page L-1 under, "Laboratory Test Results". The approximate location of the compacted filled ground and field density tests are shown on Figure No. 1, entitled, "Approximate Location of Compacted Filled Ground". The results of the tests and observations indicate that the fill soils placed on the site have been compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density at near optimum moisture content. Test results indicate that the building pad is adequate for its intended use as support to the proposed residential building. The soils encountered on the site possess low expansion potential (Expansion Index = 48), and are subject to negligible sulfate exposure (sulfate content of 38 and 55 ppm). It is recommended that the appropriate requirements of concrete exposed to sulfate as presented in Table 19-A-4 of the Uniform Building Code be followed. It is recommended that a safe allowable soil bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot be used in the design and checking of continuous footings that are a minimum of 12 inches in minimum horizontal dimension, and interior spread footings that are a minimum of 24 inches in minimum horizontal dimension, and are embedded at least 12 inches (for single story) or 18 inches (for two stories) below the surface of the competent natural or compacted fill ground. It is recommended that all continuous footings be reinforced with 2 #5 rebars; one rebar located near the top, and the other rebar near the bottom of the footings. Isolated pier footings should be reinforced with a minimum of 2 45 rebars in each direction, placed near the bottom of the footing. The concrete slab-on-grade should be 4 inches net in thickness, and be reinforced with #3 rebrs @ 18 inches on center, placed at mid-height of concrete slab. The concrete slab should be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand. In areas to be tiled or carpeted, a]0-mil moisture barrier should be placed at grade and be overlain by one-inch of protective sand cover. This moisture barrier should be heavily overlapped or sealed at splices. Please note that the above foundation and slab reinforcement recommendations are based on soil characteristics, and should be superceded by the requirements of the project architect or structural engineer. Project No. 05-1167E3 Scott Longballa 09/26/05 Page 3 2351 Cambridge Avenue It is recommended that the foundation for the proposed residence be setback at least 7 feet from the top of the fill slope. Foundations placed closer to the top of fill slope than 7 feet should be deepened such that the outer edge along the bottom is at least 7 feet back from the face of slope at that level. For foundation of structural elements subject to lateral forces, such as retaining walls, the above setback requirements should be increased to 10 feet. Proper control of the site drainage and regular maintenance of all drainage facilities are important factors related to the overall stability of the soil mass. Surface water around the perimeter of the proposed structure should flow away from the structure at a gradient of 2 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet, and drain into the street or into on-site drainage structures without intermediate ponding. This report discusses the fill placement observed by personnel from our firm during the periods specified. It is recommended that any additional grading and/or fill soils placed, like backfill soils behind retaining walls, as well as backfill placed in utility trenches within 5 feet of any improvements and deeper than 12 inches, or backfill placed in any trench located 5 feet or more from a building and deeper than 5 feet, be compacted under our observation and tested to verify compliance with earthwork specifications of the proj ect. The soil conditions encountered during grading did not differ substantially from those presented in our soil investigation report for subject property, same project number as above, dated June 10, 2005, and the grading recommendations presented therein have been substantially complied with. Pages L-1, T-1 and Figure No. 1 are parts of this rep-cal.— Respectfully submitted, ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY /0'U i t ROBERT CHAN, Project No. 05-1167E3 Scott Longballa 09/26/05 Page L-1 2351 Cambridge Avenue LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 1. The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the fill soils encountered were determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. D1557, Method A. The results of the tests are presented as follows Maximum Optimum Soil Soil Dry Density Moisture Content Type Description (lbs./cu.ft.) (% Dry Wt.) I Light grayish brown silty sands 126.5 10.0 (SM) 2. The Expansion Index of the most clayey soils was determined in accordance with UBC Test No. 18-2. The results of the test are presented as follows : Soil Soil Expansion Type Description Index I Light grayish brown silty sands 48* *Considered to possess LOW expansion potential 3. The sulfate content of the soils were determined in accordance with California Test No. 417. The results are presented below : Soil Soil Sulfate Type Description Content (ppm) I Light grayish brown silty sands 38 Negligible (SM) 2 Brown silty sands (SM) 55 Project No. 05-1167E3 Scott Longballa 09/26/05 Page T-1 2351 Cambridge Avenue TABLE OF TEST RESULTS Depth Plus of Fill Field Dry '/a" Maximum Date Test Soil at Test Moisture Density Rock Dry Density Percent of No. Type (Ft.) (%Dry Wt.)(lbs./cu.ft.) (%) (lbs./cu.ft.)Compaction Test Remarks 1 1 +2.0 11.0 115.2 0 126.5 91.1 08/31/05 2 1 +2.0 11.6 118.7 0 126.5 93.8 09/01/05 3 1 +2.0 13.7 118.6 0 126.5 93.8 09/01/05 4 1 +4.0 12.0 114.8 0 126.5 90.7 09/01/05 5 1 +5.0 11.9 115.8 0 126.5 91.5 09/07/05 Finished grade 6 1 +4.0 12.1 113.4 0 126.5 99.6 09/07/05 7 1 +4.0 12.2 116.0 0 126.5 91.7 09/07/05 Finished grade 8 1 +2.0 12.6 113.8 0 126.5 90.0 09/08/05 9 1 +2.0 13.0 116.0 0 126.5 91.7 09/08/05 10 1 +3.0 11.3 113.9 0 126.5 90.0 09/13/05 Finished grade Driveway 1 1 1 +3.0 11.9 116.6 0 126.5 92.1 09/13/05 12 ] - 10.1 117.4 0 126.5 92.8 09/13/05 Basement/natural 13 1 - 9.8 118.5 0 126.5 93.7 09/13/05 14 1 - 10.6 116.6 0 126.5 92.2 09/13/05 " MMaR/DGf o o v 3 r y � � N zi rill C d � N �l d d C O ALLEY o F C- Recording Requested by: F'- ')N A 6 '0''`' City of Encinitas V r 1144, ,J H,-, When Recorded Mail To : T I Vlli- i PM City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 SPACE i--ux COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY WAIVER OF PROTEST TO ASSESSMENTS Assessor' s Parcel Number: 261-094-40 Proj ect No.03-268 CDP (9343-G) A. Scott Longballa, a married man, as his sole and separate property, ( "OWNER" hereinafter) are the owners of real property which is commonly known as 2351 Cambridge Avenue, ("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 Coastal Development Permit approval for the above referenced project by the City of Encinitas ( "CITY" hereinafter) , 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 improvements, 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 . Cov6133 .doc jlr 07/18/05 (01-11-93) 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 incur 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 Dated Scott Longballa Dated (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached) ATTACH NOTARY HERE CITY CCI ITAS Dated / by (Notarization not required) PETER COTA-ROBLES, Director of Engineering Services Cov6133 .doc jlr 07/18/05 (01-11-93) ATTACHMENT "A" TO COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY PROJECT NO. CDP 03-268 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LO TS 33 I ND 311 of l3L OC k /Z OF MOP 1.299 Cov6133 .doc jlr 07/18/05 (01-11-93) CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ss. County of j:� f ^, On ? r U U _before me, �.' % ' T:' �%. /.✓?;?r) /1� D to Name and Title of Officer leg ne Doe,Notary Publi ) rf personally appeared _L ,ZLA, �F, 11 1 Name(s)of Slgner(s) / personally known to me improved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence (� r., to be the personal whose name(s) ish"e r} OFFICIAL SEAL subscribed to the within instrument and DAVID P. WOOD acknowledged to me that he/sbe�tl�ey executed ,• • NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA , the same in his/tterlttTSfr authorized s COMM.NO. 1459397 SAN DIEGO COUNTY capacity(}e*, and that by his/her,44ek MY COMM.EXP.DEC 30.2007• signaturefe3 on the instrument the person(*, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons) r' acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my ha and official seI. Signature of Notary Public A OPTIONAL y 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. t Description of Attached Document r� Title or Type of Document: A Document Date: Number of Pages: t Signer(s)Other Than Named Above: c Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ❑ Individual Top or thumb here f� ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑General ( `} z� ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: , �C.`�Ci�i;`c`.t,'�..,4;'CE.`Z`_c�- `t` :��v��<�,�:'�c;�.`z`C>�<;C�.✓.� r`<, .;,;C{,r,�,`;�.i,Y J`,:;C<, �� ,'�;,C,�� ti t,:" :'.ty :c 1999 National Notary Association-9350 De Soto Ave..P0.Box 2402•Chatsworth,CA 91313-2402-www nationalnotary.org Prod.No 5907 Reorder:Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 'dAL I i F O� 'L)E[) RECORDING REQUESTED 13Y AND, -i E k' WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: 4 N T JMLL 1266 J "'Nil 1 f-1 (V) 0-MN r.,,HEC,-)�UF R—S)OF-Fl( TIME 334 CITY CLERK CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 SOUTH VULCAN AVENUE ENCINITAS, CA 92024 SPACE A—B-0—V FE FOR—RECORDER'S USE ENCROACHMENT MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL COVENANT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. A.P.N. 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, 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. Pdrmittee shall use and occupy the CRY Property only in the manner and for the Puose described in paragraph four, Attachment 4Ab, rp 3. By accepting the benefits herein. Permittee acknowledges title to the in the City and waives all right to contest that title. City Property to be 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 ments-zonstructed-by-P `0111c` imPc'rOverrients, hi snal, 'c; �rrSv�--- M Provernenis. "'771 defen,67, anc' i mn,, nue in'- at demand.<;, casis, iOsses, damages, injuries. lifigatior, n rr' 2, C' a, 6 liabifitif I "of o-rela to the use, construction, encroachment or maintenance to be do.n P, OUL Permittee's agents,-employees or contractors on City Property. bY'tft! Permiftee or bp6603/7 0/20J04/qsabine i 7. Upon abandonment, revocation, completion, or termination, 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. Notice may be given by first class mail sent to the last known address of the Permittee, which shall be-deemed effective three calendar days after mailing, or by any other reasonable method likely to give actual notice. 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. Permittee shall agree that Permittee's duties and obligations under this covenant are a lien upon the Benefited Property. Upon 30-day notice, and an opportunity to respond, 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 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 perrnittee may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest. 13. Asp 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 ,20i. AGREED AND ACCEPTED PERMITTEE Dated:_2 `sir L WMALzA 0,''iota7i~aiiOr 0i P°&WF,1 �E- siegnatum is attaccbed, t f - � Lip✓ "� ' r ,,,` ; � ,f bp6603/02122/05/gsabine ATTACHMENT "A" TO COVENANT REGARDING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT N0. 9343 RE PARAGRAPH ONE: PERM ITTEE SCOTT LONGBALLA PARAGRAPH TWO: BENEFITTED PROPERTY LOTS 33 *- 34 OF BLOCK 12 OF MAP 1298. PARAGRAPH THREE: CITY PROPERTY PORTION OF THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF CAMBRIDGE AVENUE �=y c . t ':::OF-, 81G1-s DLVlCE ATTACHMENT g f, DETAIL OF ENCROACHMENT T IN PUBLIC RAW Vr r ` A S30 50'3 'E c % I 9.9 EX. O/W ENCROACHMENT �" ^� `� �, STEPS NO. 2 � :� ENCROAC ! �— S HMENT NO,, I -�- -�AC. BERM i ENCROACHMENT NO.'3 '-' S��-T CONCRETE\WALK C M � OP:PR o TO R_MO SEWER LC) \ i 50 CAMBRIDG —`t= —1 P. 4 °VC WA TER 0 0 40 GRAPHIC SCALE CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of .��/ `,� `�� ss. On I`f — '71'_ before me, �0` Date . 6&,,4 ✓"f` �n.�lj Name and Thle _J e Doe,Notary Publi )of•Olflcer(e.g., personally appeared ��� � �,y�q � �!� Name(s)of Sig -—- y vijaj ❑personally known to me LCproved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence - pF 1.to L to be the persons whose nameW is/&e t3AVl P• WWD j subscribed to the within instrument and NOTA14YPE1BI'IDCALIFORNIA acknowledged to me that he/ 1C M.NO. }459397 fey executed SAN DIEGOCOONTY the same in hisAieMfIwif authorized lit MY COMM.EXP,DEC.,30:2007 capacity(, and that by his/hh�T/Mir signatures)on the instrument the person(s�_or the entity upon behalf of which the person#) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public I Though the information below is not required by law,it mOPT OPTIONAL may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent ) fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another documenf. Description of Attached Document 1 Title or Type of Document:' Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s)Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: Corporate Officer — Title(s): Top of thumb here ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑General Ci Attorney-in-Fact Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator D Other: f Signer Is Representing: ©1999 National Notary Association•9350 De Soto Ave PO.•Box 2402•Chatswonh,CA 91313-2402 y www nahonalnotar.orr Y J Prod. 5907 Reorder. Toll-Free Call 1-800 876-6827 OALIF°OnNIA ALL-p � � UR-POSE bC �{ State of California � �rsxs� �� K _ Co unty of S :c;•t.'. � Ql U ss. On A171 q `\ before rpQ'j i� Personally appeared � Name aid TIN,? (J� er ia.B 'arz oe ° JLI� loan,'Puca,; -- f f:a-ne1s1 of Sigr,erlg, �ersonall i y known to me --- Proved to me on the of evidence basis s } I' atisfactory � �. 13'is to be the . ( V13B920S subscribed torson(s) whose name f POo Nfonw acknowledged to the withi (s) fs/ re r' the m=erltheir instrument and s r' P• .8. 2007 same in e/they executed . capacity(ies), and 61sul hor ized signature(s on that by er/their the instrument the the entity upon behalf of Person acted, executed the i which the (s), or nstrument. Aerson(s) ^, WITNESS my hand and Place Nota official seal. ry Seal Above (, nature of Notary p ` r Though the infor S� ( oration below is OPTIONAL L . f and could not required by law,it m ; prevent fraudulent re l Description moval an aY prove 7volth�s ble to persons r ption Of Attached d reattachment form to elYin Title or Type of Do document another c on the document Document: document. n r: �. Document Date: I 1' li Signer(s) Other Than Named Number of s Above: pages: Capacity(, Signer's ) Claimed by Signer Name: 1 ❑ Individ at - , J Corporate Officer_ ❑ Partner_`, Title(s). � t] Limited ❑Genera! ' ❑ Attorney in Fact Top of thumb here E Trustee J Guardian or Other: Conservator 1` is Signer Is Representing: ®7997 National Not a — — ry AssoGa,on•9350 De 010 C4 — 6�,Av Lj P.O.Box 2402•Chatsworth,CA 91313.2402 Protl.No.590 - t't.�,��.-,�—'fit, Reortler:Ca117 z� o11-F f ree 1.800-876-6827 f f !ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932-EL CAJON-CALIFORNIA 92022-1932 TELEPHONE: (619)447-4747 • (858)541-0225 FAX: (858)541-0254 - ROBERT CH AN,P.E. 1-= -- J AUG 8 2W5 ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS SOIL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SITE 2351 CAMBRIDGE AVENUE ENCINITAS,CALIFORNIA FOR MR. SCOTT LONGBALLA PROJECT NO. 05-1167E3 JUNE 10,2005 ALLIED► EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932-EL CAJON •CALIFORNIA 92022-1932 TELEPHONE: (619)447-4747 • (858)541-0225 FAX: (858)541-0254 ROBERT CHAN,P.E. June 10, 2005 Mr. Scott Longballa. 1726 Machado Street Oceanside, CA. 92007 Subject : Project No. 05-1167E3 Soil Investigation _ Proposed Residential Building Site 2351 Cambridge Avenue Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Longballa In accordance with your request, we have completed the soil investigation for the proposed single-family residential building site on subject property, more specifically referred to as being Lot Nos. 33 and 34, in Block 12 of Cardiff, according to Map thereof No. 1298 (APN 261-094-40-00), in the City of Encinitas, State of California. We are pleased to submit the accompanying soil investigation report to present our findings, conclusions and recommendations relative to the proposed development of the site. The soil investigation was conducted under the supervision of the undersigned. The scope of our investigation included field exploration, laboratory testing and soil engineering analysis. No major adverse geotechnical conditions were encountered which would prohibit the currently proposed development of the site. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our Office. -'✓..� �pF ES SlpN RLLIED tfi `lly s TH TECHNOLOGY �`Q���°6yRT CN��(F�ca ��`��eo�'�T �ti49 Fti No C-24613 Exp. 12131/05 No. G-00198 m Exp. 12131/05 ROBERT C AN, P.E. 9TFOF CAOF�� OF CA0V TABLE OF CONTENS Page No. INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT' ................................ 1 _ SCOPE OF WORK ............................................. 1 FIELD INVESTIGATION .................................... 2 LABORATORY TESTS ....................................... 3 SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................... 3 - GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS Regional Geology .................................... 4 Site Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions ... 4 Tectonic Setting ....................................... 5 - GROUNDWATER ............................................ 5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Ground Shaking ...................................... 6 Liquefaction Potential .............................. 6 Landslides ............................................ 7 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General ............................................... 7 Expansion Index of On-Site Soils ................ 7 - Sulfate Content of On-Site Soils .................. 8 Grading .............................................. Foundation and Slab Design ...................... 9 TABLE OF- CONTENTS (Cont'nd) Page No. Retaining Wall Design ............................. 10 LateralLoading ..................................... 12 Temporary Excavation ............................ 12 UBC Seismic Coefficients ........................ 13 Surface Drainage and Maintenance ............... 13 Grading and Foundation Plans Review ......... 14 LIMITATION AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 14 Figure No. 1 - Site Location Map Figure No. 2—Approximate Location of Exploratory Trench and Boring Figure Nos. 3 to 4, inclusive—Trench or Boring Log Sheet Figure No. 5—Retaining Wall Subdrain — Appendix I—General Grading and Earthwork Specifications Appendix II—Laboratory Test Results ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY P.O.BOX 1932 •EL CAJON •CALIFORNIA 92022-1932 TELEPHONE: (619)447-4747 • (858)541-0225 FAX:(858)541-0254 — ROBERT CHAN,P.E. June 10, 2005 _ SOIL INVESTIGATON INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings and conclusions of a soil investigation conducted at the site of a proposed residence on subject property, located at 2351 Cambridge Avenue, i n the City of Encinitas, State of California. Subject property is more specifically referred to as being Lot Nos. 33 and 34, in — Block 12 of Cardiff, according to Map thereof No. 1298 (APN 261-09440-00). The location of the property is shown on Figure No. 1, entitled,"Site Location Map". DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT It is our understanding that the existing residence on the site will be demolished to accommodate a new residence, which will consist of two levels above a basement. The proposed structure will be of woodframe/stucco and slab-on-grade construction. SCOPE OF WORK T'.ie objectives of the investigation were to inspect and determine the subsurface soil conditions and certain physical engineering properties of the soils beneath the site, Project No. 05-1167E3 Mr. Scott Lonl balla 06/10/05 Page 2 2351 Cambridge Avenue and to evaluate any potential adverse geotechnical conditions that could affect the proposed project, in order that engineering recommendations could be presented relative to the safe and economical development of the site; and checking and design of foundation for the proposed structure. In order to accomplish these objectives, a total of one exploratory trench and one exploratory boring were excavated and inspected, and representative samples of the subsurface soils were collected for laboratory testing and analysis. — The data derived from the field observations and laboratory test results were reviewed and analyzed, and a summary of our preliminary findings,opinions and recommendations is presented in this report. FIELD INVESTIGATION The field exploratory phase of our investigation was performed on June 1, 2005, and involved a reconnaissance of the site, and the excavation of one exploratory trenches with a Case 580B backhoe equipped with a 24-inch bucket, and one exploratory boring with a portable hand auger. The exploratory trench and boring were excavated at various locations on the site accessible to excavating equipment where the most useful information relative to subsurface soil conditions may be obtained. The exploratory trench was excavated to a depth of 11.0 feet; while the exploratory boring was excavated to a depth of 5.0 feet Project No. 05-1167133 Mr. Scott Longballa 06/10/05 Page 3 2351 Cambridge Avenue below existing ground surface. The location of the exploratory trench and boring was recorded at the time of excavation, and is shown on Figure Nos. 3 and 4, inclusive,each entitled,"Trench Log Sheet"or"Boring Log Sheet". The soils were visually and texturally classified by the field identification procedures set forth on the Unified Soil Classification Chart. Representative samples and in-situ density tests were obtained at various depths in the exploratory trench; while the densities of the in-situ soils encountered in the exploratory boring were determined with a Triggs penetrometer. . LABORATORY TESTS The samples collected during our field investigation were subjected to various tests in the laboratory to evaluate their engineering characteristics. The tests were performed in accordance with current A.S.T.M. testing standards or other regulatory agency testing procedures. A summary of the tests that were performed and the final test results are presented in Appendix II hereto. The tests that were performed included determinations of the maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents; the sulfate contents and Expandion Indices of -- the soils encountered. SITE DESCRIPTION Subject property is a rectangular-shaped property of 5,000 square feet, situated Project No. 05-1167E3 Mr. Scott Longballa 06/10/05 Page 4 2351 Cambridge Avenue on the east side of Cambridge Avenue,between Norfolk Drive and Dublin Drive. A single family residence currently occupies the front portion of the property. All improvements on the property will be demolished to accommodate the new construction. The area is fully improved; with the property bounded on the north and south by existing residences; on the west by Cambridge Avenue,and on the east by an alley. The terrain in the backyard and alley may be described as sloping gently in a -- southerly direction at a gradient on the order of 5 percent. GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS Rezional Geoloay The subject property is located within the southern coastal strip region of the Peninsular Range Geomorphic trovince of California. This geomorphic province is characterized by mountainous terrain to the east composed mostly of Mesozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks and relatively low-lying coastal terraces to the west underlain by late Cretaceous,Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary rocks. The City of Encinitas, including the site, occurs within the westerly region and is underlain by sedimentary rocks. Site Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions A review of geologic maps as well as observations made during our subsurface exploration indicated that the general area is underlain by Quaternary-age terrace deposits. Project No. 05-1167E3 Mr. Scott Longballa 06/10/05 Page 5 2351 Cambridge Avenue On subject property,the terrace deposits were encountered in the form of light brown/light gray silty sands with clay binder. These terrace deposits were generally medium dense to very dense in consistency; except for a stratum between 6 to 7 %2 feet below existing ground surface, which was found to be moist and loose. Tectonic Settine _ No evidence of faulting was noted during our surface reconnaissance or in our exploratory trenches. A review of available geologic literature did not reveal any major faulting in the area. It should be noted that much of southern California, including the City of Encinitas area, is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones which typically strike in a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zone)are classified as active while others are - classified as only potentially active according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. A review of available geologic maps indicate that the subject property is approximately 3.2 km(2.0 miles)east of the Rose Canyon Fault zone(Type B Fault), and 47.0 km (29.4 miles) southwest of the Elsinore-Julian Fault zone(Type A Fault). GROUNDWATER - No groundwater was encountered in the exploratory trenches to the maximum depth of exploration at 11.0 feet, and no major groundwater related problems, either Project No. 05-1167E3 Mr. Scott Longballa 06/10/05 Page 6 2351 Cambridge Avenue during or after construction, are anticipated. However, it should be recognized that minor seepage problems may occur after development of a site even where none were present before development. These are usually minor phenomena and are often the results of an alteration of the permeability characteristics of the soils;an alteration in drainage patterns due to grading; and an increase in the use of irrigation water. Based on the permeability characteristics of the sols and anticipated usage of the development, it is our opinion that any seepage problems which may occur will be minor in extent. It is further our opinion that these problems can be most effectively corrected on an individual basis if and when they develop. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Ground shaking—The most likely geologic hazard to affect the site is ground shaking as - a result of movement along one of the active fault zones mentioned above. — For seismic design purposes, soil parameters in accordance with the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code were determined using the UBCSEIS Program, and presented hereinafter. Liquefaction Potential - In consideration of the competent formational soils underlying the site, and the lack of a permanent water table near the ground surface, it is our opinion that soil liquefaction does not present a significant geotechnical hazard to the proposed site development. i Project No. 05-1167E3 Mr. Scott Longballa 06/10/05 Page 7 2351 Cambridge Avenue y- Landslides— A review of available geologic maps did not reveal the presence of any ancient landslides on subject or adjacent properties. The potential for landslides on subject and adjacent properties is considered minimal. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General 1. Based on the results of the investigation, it is our opinion that the currently proposed site development is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpont, provided that the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design plan(s)and are properly implemented during the construction phase. 2. It is noted that some of the recommendations may have to be modified and supplementation recommendations may have to be presented,depending on the actual subsurface conditions encountered during construction. 3. The 1 '/2-foot stratum of silty sands below a depth of 6 feet(elev. 160) similar to that encountered in Trench No. 1 are loose and compressible,and are not - considered to be capable of providing safe and reliable support to the proposed structure. Furthermore,this stratum will beat or just below the foundation depth of the proposed basement. This adverse soil condition should be mitigated as recommended hereinafter. Expansion Index of On-Site Soils 4. The soils encountered on the site possess low expansion potential (Expansion Index=48). Project No. 05-1167E3 Mr. Scott Longballa 06/10/05 Page 8 2351 Cambridge Avenue Sulfate Content of On-Site Soils 5. The soils encountered on the site are subject to negligible sulfate exposure(sulfate content of 38 and 55 ppm). It is recommended that the requirements for concrete exposed to sulfate-containing solutions as presented in Table 19-A-4 of the Uniform Building Code be followed. Gradine 6. It is recommended that all earthwork be accomplished in accordance with the Grading Ordinance of the City of Encinitas, UBC Chapter A33,Appendix I attached hereto,entitled,"General Grading and Earthwork Specifications",and recommendations as presented in this Section. 7. Where the recommendations of this Section of the report conflict with those of - - Appendix I,this Section of the report takes precedence. - 8. The existing residence and other improvements will be demolished, and all debris will be hauled away and disposed of offsite at an approved dump site. 9. Grading operation will commence with excavation for the proposed basement. The excavated soils should be exported to an approved dump site. 10. It is recommended that any of the stratum of loose soils that remain below finished grade of the proposed structure be removed and uniformly recompacted. In the basement area, the area of removal should extend to the Project No. 05-1167E3 Mr. Scott Longballa 06/10/05 Page 9 2351 Cambridge Avenue foundation line of the proposed structure;while in the proposed garage level the - area of removal should extend at least 5 feet outside the foundation line. 11. The removed soils should then be properly moistened,and uniformly recompacted in layers not to exceed 8 inches until finished grade is achived. . 12. All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density at approximately optimum moisture content, in accordance with A.S.T.M. D1557. Foundation and Slab Design 13. It is recommended that a safe allowable soil bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot be used for the design and checking of continuous footings that are 12 inches in minimum horizontal dimension, and isolated pier footings that are 15 _ inches in minimum horizontal dimension; and are embedded at least 12 inches (for single story)or 18 inches(for two stories) below the lowest adjacent ground surface. For the basement level, the lowest adjacent ground surface would be the - subgrade of the basement level. 14. The above safe allowable sol bearing value may be increased 300 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of depth and width(below the lowest adjacent ground surface), to a maximum of 3,000 pounds per square foot. 15. The above safe allowable sol bearing value may be increased by one-third when considering wind and/or seismic forces. Project No. 05-1167E3 Mr. Scott Longballa 06/10/05 Page 10 2351 Cambridge Avenue 16. The settlement of foundations,when designed and loaded as outlined above, is within acceptable tolerance limits for light residential buildings of this type. 17. It is recommended that all continuous footings be reinforced with a minimum of 2 #4 rebars; one rebar located near the top,and the other rebar near the bottom of the footings. All isolated pier footings should be reinforced with a minimum of 2 95 rebars in both directions,pleased near the bottom of the footings. 18. The concrete slab-on-grade garage should be 4 inches in thickness,and be reinforced with#3 rebars @ 18 inches on center in both directions,placed at mid- height of concrete slab. The concrete slab should be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand. The above foundation and slab reinforcement requirements are based on soil characteristics, and should be superceded by the requirements of the project architect. 19. It is recommended that our firm inspect the foundation trench excavations for the proposed residence to ensure proper embedment into competent natural or compacted fill soils. Retaining Wall Design 20. It is recommended that retaining walls be designed to withstand the pressure exerted by equivalent fluid weights given below on the following page: _ Project No. 05-1167E3 Mr. Scott Longballa 06/10/05 Page 11 2351 Cambridge Avenue Equivalent _ Backfill Fluid Surface Pressure (horizontal : vertical) (pcf) Level 35 2 : 1 50 1 'h : 1 58 The above values assume that the retaining walls are unrestrained from movement, and have a granular Backfill. For retaining walls restrained from movement at the top, such as basement retaining walls,an uniform horizontal pressure of 7H (where H is the height of the retaining wall in feet) should be applied in addition to the active pressures recommended above. 21. All retaining walls should be supplied with a backfill drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure. The subdrain should consist of one- - inch gravel and a perforated pipe near the bottom of the retaining wall. The width of this subdrain should be at least 12 inches,and extend at least 2/3 height of the retaining wall. The subdrain should be enclosed in a geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equal. Details of typical subdrains are shown on Figure No. 5. 22. The on-site soil conditions are such that cantilever-type retaining walls similar to those presented in the Regional Standard Drawings or those issued by the City of Encinitas Building Department may be used, where appropriate. Project No. 05-1167E3 Mr. Scott Longballa 06/10/05 Page 12 2351 Cambridge Avenue Lateral Loading 23. To resist lateral loads, it is recommended that the pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pef be used for footings or shear keys poured neat against competent natural or compacted fill soils. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavements should not be included in the design for passive resistance. This value assumes that the horizontal distance of the soil mass extends at least 10 feet or three times the height of the surface generating the passive pressure,whichever is greater. _ 24. A coefficient of sliding friction of 0.32 may be used for cast-in-place concrete on competent natural or compacted fill soils. Footings can be designed to resist lateral loads by using a combination of sliding friction and passive resistance. The coefficient of friction should be applied to dead load forces only. 25. All backfill soils behind the retaining wall should consist of soils having low expansion potential (Expansion Index <50), and be compacted at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Temporary Excavation 26. Temporary excavations on the order of 8 feet in maximum height will be required for the proposed basement retaining walls. It is our conclusion that these temporary excavations may be safely excavated at near vertical up to a maximum height of 5 feet. Above a height of 5 feet,the temporary excavations should be Project No. 05-1167E3 Mr. Scott Longballa 06/10/05 Page 13 2351 Cambridge Avenue flattened to a slope ratio of 1 : 1 (horizontal : vertical)or flatter. 27. The above conclusion assumes that no surface water is permitted to flow over the top of the temporary excavations; and that the proposed basement retaining walls will be completed within a period of 6 months. UBC Seismic Coefficients 28. The seismic coefficients in accordance with the current Uniform Building Code were determined in accordance with the UBCSEIS Program. The results are presented as follows : — Seismic Zone Factor 0.40 Table 16-1 Soil Profile Type Sc Table 16-J Seismic Source Type B Table 16-U Near Source Factor Na = 1.2 Table 16-S Nv = 1.4 Table 16-T Seismic Coefficient Ca = 0.47 Table 16-Q - Cv = 0.80 Table 16-R Surface Drainage and Maintenance 29. Adequate drainage control and proper maintenance of all drainage facilities are imperative to minimize infiltration of surface water into the underlying soil mass in order to reduce settlement potential and to minimize erosion. The building pad should have drainage swales which direct storm and excess irrigation water away from the structures and into the street gutters or other drainage facilities. No surface runoff should be allowed to pond adjacent to the foundation of structures. Project No. 05-1167E3 Mr. Scot Longballa 06/10/05 Page 14 2351 Cambridge Avenue Grading and Foundation Plans Review 30. It is recommended that our fine review the final grading and foundation plans for the proposed site development to verify their compliance with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter A33, as required by the State of California. LIMITATION AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The preliminary findings and recommendations contained in this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based on the assumption that the soil — conditions beneath the entire site do not deviate substantially from those disclosed in the exploratory trench and boring. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during grading,or if the scope of the project differs from that -- planned at the present time, our firm should be notified in order that supplemental recommendations can be presented, if necessary. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the Owner,or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations presented herein are brought to the attention of the Project Architect and Engineer and are incorporated into the plans and specifications for the project. Furthermore,the Owner, or his representative,will also be responsible for taking the necessary measures to ensure that the Contractor and subcontractors properly carry out the recommendations in the field. 3. Professional opinions and recommendations presented in this report are based Project No. 05-1167E3 Mr. Scott Longballa 06/10/05 Page 15 2351 Cambridge Avenue partly on our evaluation and analysis of the technical information gather during the study,partly on the currently available information regarding the proposed project, and partly on our previous experience with similar soil conditions and projects of similar scope. Our study has been performed in accordance with the minimum standards of car exercised by other professional geotechnical consultants currently practicing in the same locality. We do not,however, guarantee the performance of the proposed project in any respect, and no warranties of any kind, expressed or implied, are made or intended in connection with the study performed by our firm. 4. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of the property could occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or due to man- - made actions on the subject and/or adjacent properties. In addition,changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur,whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly,the findings of this report may be invalidated, wholly or partially, by changes outside of our control. Therefore,this report is subject to review by our firm and should not be relied upon after a period of two years. Figure Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, and Appendices I and II are parts of this report. Ho 1 t r 1_. Sea unty Pars `'� �i +'• \• C "`� r: ' w y4 r 1 tP�` it s r 1 1 '? diff-b Car y-the-Sea:_ 1�(Cardiff)', Goo i SITE LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE PROJECT NO.: 05-1167 D3- r FIGURE NO.:i E5 CAMBRIDGE AV EtJUE b� z� 4 z Z l o $ ........... ..., O : X rn 0 0 0 ° z h -o 0 O � y tll m ... i z JI 40009 L Jl3-Tid TRENCH LOG SHEET TRENCH NO. 1 ELEV. 167 FT. DESCRIPTION SOIL TYPE 0 Brown/light brown, dry SILTY SANDS (SM) loose(topsoils) r O Light gray/light olive green, moist, dense Fd. %" I.P. @ 2 ''/2' 3 Fd. Leachline @ 3 '/z' terrace deposits) 4 10.2*117.0*92.5%* 5 f 6 7 Brown,very moist, loose SILTY SANDS (SM) — O 8 Light brown/gray,moist, SILTY SANDS (SM) dense Some seashells 10 ' 11 Very dense, cemented Bottom of Trench (Refusal in dense formational soil) LEGEND — Indicates representative sample * — Indicates in-situ density test Project loo. 05-1167E3 Figure No. 3 BORING LOG SHEET BORING NO. 1 ELEV. 170 FT. DESCRIPTION SOIL TYPE 0 Brown/light brown, dry SILTY SANDS (SM) loose(topsoils) 1 9* _ 2 Light gray/light olive green 28* _ moist,medium dense 3 dense 66* o 4 very dense 70* 5 Bottom of Trench(No Refusal) LEGEND 0 - Indicates representative sample A - Indicates blowcount/10 cm/Triggs penetrometer Granular Cohesive 0 Very loose 0 Very soft _ 5 Loose 2 Soft 11 Medium dense 5 Medium stiff 31 Dense 9 Stiff 51 Very dense 16 Very stiff 31 Hard Project No. 05-1167E3 Figure No. 4 -- GROUND SURFACE CONCRETE 1 BROWDITCH 1 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL — PROPERLY r----_- : COMPACTED WKFILLED — i OPEN GRADED 1 MAX. AGGREGATE _ .1. PROPOSED 12" T ` GRADE i<I .•'(� .. L APPROVED C r 7L j::;j FILTER FABRIC ..l:i. .,.j.....- r„:µ ? 141dIN. 4'DIA.PERFORATED PIPE MIN. 'h%FALL TO APPROVED OUTLET NO SCALE PROPOSED RETAINING 2%MIN. GROUND SURF/10E WALL 1 PROPERLY COMPACTED .���..i BNCKFILIED i OPEN GRADED 1»MAX. _.AGGREGATE APPROVED F.F. 12» i FILTER FABRIC E T'min. DIA.PERFORATED PIPE MIN. /�� %FALL TO APPROVED OURET �^I/G �O• -11( FIaVRE NO � � No scale ALLIED EARTT-1 TECHNOLOGY P0.BOX 1932 EL CA10�1 CA 92022 RETAINING WALL DRAINDETAIL 447 4747 APPENDIX I GENERAL, GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS 1.0 General 1.1 These recommended grading and earthwork specifications are intended to - be a part of and to supplement the Geotechnical Report(s). In the event of a conflict, the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report(s) will supersede these specifications. Observations during the course of earthwork operations may result in additional, new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications and/or the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report(s). 1.2 The Owner or his authorized representative shall procure the services of a qualified Geotechnical Consulting Firm, hereinafter to be referred to as the "Geotechnical Consultant" (often the same entity that produced the Geotechnical Report(s)). 1.3 The Geotechnical Consultant shall be given a.schedule of work by the Earthwork Contractor for the subject project, so as to be able to perform required observations; testing and mapping of work in progress in a timely manner. 1.4 The work herein includes all activities from clearing and grubbing through fine grading. Included are trenching, excavating, backfilling, compacting and grading. All work shall be as shown on the approved project drawings. 1.5 The Geotechnical Consultant or a qualified representative shall be present on site as required, to observe, map and document the subsurface exposures so as to verify the geotechnical design suppositions. In the event that observed conditions are found to be significantly different from - the interpreted conditions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall notify the Owner, recommend appropriate changes in the design to suite the observed conditions and notify the agencies) having jurisdiction, where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, record elevations or tested include cleared natural ground for receiving fill or structures, "remedial removal" areas, key bottoms and benches. APPENDIX I Page 2 1.6 The guidelines contained herein and any standard details attached _ herewith represent this firm's recommendations for the grading and all associated operations on the subject project. These guidelines shall be considered to be a part of these Specifications. 1.7 If interpretation of these guidelines or standard details result in a dispute(s), the Geotechnical Consultant shall conclude the appropriate interpretation. 1.8 The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the processing of subgrade and - fill materials and perform the required compaction testing. The test results shall be provided to the Owner and the Contractor and if so required, to the agenc(ies) having jurisdiction. 1.9 The Geotechnical Consultant shall not provide "supervision" or any "direction" of work in progress to the Earthwork Contractor, or to any of the Contractor's employees or to any of the Contractor's agents. _ 1.10 The Earthwork Contractor : The Earthwork Contractor (contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plants and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the Owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the Owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of -- all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading APPENDIX I Page 3 plaii(s}• If, in the opinion of the reotechnical Consultant, unsatisfetrtory conditions, such as unsuitable soils, iniptoper tiioisture eor►clition"', inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key siv.c, advease weather, _ etc. are resulting in a qualify of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 2.1 Clearing and grubbing :vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of -- in a method acceptable to the Owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lifts shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. - If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these ` materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Article 9 and 10; 40CRF; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, A-PPFNTr)T'V T rage 4 the OVfnf-r Shall --:A- tij),c Ocd inateriak are flAt ha-7-%r j.).Y dMicabie laws ,R)d regulations. Any asphaltic pavement material removed during *clearing operations should he nroneriv ,r,�1+ �z_ ------ i -ilil— - -- -- wimil are tree of rPinf4%r-,;no, �+--i -T in 1111s, provided that they ire placed in. accordance with Section 3.2 of this 2.3 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than fhnn- n, -! !�CUCAI may PnPfNyv�t--4 L-- t-_Ut UY tur, Contractor i iv be. i-1011LICU immeaiately to ev,-flIq1te the significanec; of tht; unanticipated condition. i imcssing Existing protm(f that ��Ainport of fill U,-cl4leu satisfactory for by the Geoteclin�nnl -, -,, ?, - I .- —.— —M', U�� Rlinim"m depth of 6 inches, ExiRtin" tyreNtme? 0—+ a<.. -".- overexcavated as specified in the follOWilIg SCU101-1. Scarificatior, ,,- ; --l'inue until soils are broken down and free of large clay jij(� and the working surface is reasonably ay iunipS or clods uniform, flai, mij, r t features that would inhibit uniform, t-l111 nnt-t;^" Over-excavation In 'addition to removals and over-excavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading Plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich- highly fractu,ed c otherwise unsuitable ground shall be over-excavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.6 Benching Where fills are to be placed on ground with slope's steeper than 5 : I (horizontal : vertical), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5 : I (horizontal - vertical) shall also be benched or otherwise over-excavated to provide a' flat subgrade for the fill. 2.7 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, APPENDIX I Page 5 mapped, elevations recorded,and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill - placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas,keys, and benches. I n TL 3.1 General : Materials to be user' ,,Q t;tt ..L.,1: -r. i� --,_._..... v.iiet Y.. -.♦ < V 1tY..:t e..f. s...H .... v �-OiwLitat►i riot to r P placement. Soils q such as those o�,:± urac�r�nrat,te t ii of poor a-9lity ... ., Cn shaii i)t- pinearf tnnr� wtt6, riti►er sniic to ac hieve satisfactory fill material. i )Vrrce71s ki n!nr- ' _ n r!r"'niP material with a maximum dimension greater than 8i c s TE not 1.e buried or nianc.,4 :.. t-ii t r�,he, lFixt: tilt ullicss tocation. mate_.ri}lc .� t,..._._. ii?t.tn!.)r_1. S,TP r`nnnr+a..,i}.. ✓::2:-.k..:'a'i.. Placement o } .. C it. �ufeci,ni�°� - Operations shall be such that nesting of oversized materitrT,_ not occur and such that oversize material is completely sur►o't,[�It-'i i,,, compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities n underground construction. _ 3.3 Import : If importing of fill material is required for grading Proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction -- 4.1 Fill Layer Approved fill material shall be placed in are receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near horizontal layers generally prepared t t exceeding 8 inches in thickness when compacted. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates that the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. APPENDIX I PaoP � _ 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning : Fill soils choir hA Vii' r-;s n.rta_na,._. f ,,;..,• •= i%,iii vi:iy U111lorm moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimulrt soil moisture content tests shall hP fS 1�.i r1.� S-SE i {1 t.TknM1 .....J •!.- .- -. ..--.. .. 1 Ubl IV1CInOa !J - V - •_ tllt lSl llrlt.'F 1(kTi f{T k•k�f %t+t__., - 7 k w .•�� OPA uu, it shall oe unitOrmiy compacted to trot less tllz y 90 percent of ma-cimt�m .tnf an. �•+.. f c.-rx r i-, iinik`)ac ie eEi c..- ��" ::u1-P-„i1U11 or of proven reliability to effi level of ciently achieve the specified rnm ,µrt; , t.' +t. r._ �+ Compaction of'Fill Slopes : In addition o -..a. t U normal ti.�fl�E��l�EEt,., --. cs SE:CCEiif�'.il -11—nvsue• ,_n-* {�_>:1 a - '• V Ft) \.-1 F[ Ft in fill elevation, orb t'! to � tee y other methods prodeicin� v:titi.y t: i,:f➢213i1r4 is 3f11. +{�- 7hP t:Et _ - - , ce"i of maximum dry density per ACT ��� feast JO P I!�Test k4f .-.nr# D15�7. ---• l/iR e:E(•t 7/112 t C*• ( � _ ,,►t,�►ct2on of the fill soils shall be performed by- the Geotec11111cal Consultant T nrnt;nt, ,-,a r.� .•__.. . � , ft <•n pf 1,.. t-.r-, .t .r .. - " tat t:i'v 1.7 ieE?ift[Cif t�• .•..a_L=�•:= uascu .E- --._ -.... ..inn^ n:,�; ........ -• = aildnS will not necessarily be selected on a random oasts_ Test S ccu ti{t7Qi Y Of C'ornyt;�r•7knn Fn•rafr ' areas that are ludRed to be nn + : i- ;sties and at the fill/bedrock benched , Frequency of Compaction Testing : Tests shall be exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1 OQ� R, ' "` "`�' ^t; iC u iii i.vtt!()ctc:CCZa i;i soils embankment. In addition as a guideline, at least one test taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/6"r each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met. 4.7 Compaction Test Locations : The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that APPENDIX I 13• - '7 cGlaDiisi-Jud NU jjl;lj the (7Y(*Otechnic-,41 can U-1cittilime die test iocations with ..f1f%V-V r, two grade stakes within a hori-7ontil --r Inn "a �l.LAII I.kit"All, FK)ientlai test locations "JLAI ;x1m,aiiation -"uivance wilk, the apyrro-C-d grading plan, and the Rtnnr1nr,,i n-*1111 �-onsuitant may recommend additic'n"I OF maleriai oenendiney ,N . - I n cc rE' t -and nftpr ;nvf, %' V Y--juivii engineer lor line ,-)y ilic t-oniractor for tf-r-cc ")nsuiiant during* fYmr1;nr7, 1 Pians are estimates only'. The actiml ,leiermined by the Geotechnical. --Vuse U conditions during grading. Whe re fill-overcut —Vjp�a al t, LU ut.; glaucu, the cut portion of the slopes shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials f6r construction of the fill Portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.0 Trench Backfill 7-1 The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. 7.2 All bedding and backfill Of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE > 30). The bedding shall be placed to I foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densi ied to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density f f rom I foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. APPENDIX I — Page 8 7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed b the Geotechnical Consultant. Y -- 7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. 7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method. :rdl 2F KG%Jt=k-P HLANtTO1 MINIMUM FROM TOE OF C1 / I"AP' TI►. -. -yJiJ'11L•T!•i^"'•d` _..1' I � .�_ _—_—,:•=�='��. c� ..�.� �f:?FF4f��f�- f tttt�t tt�"h t-,r r. _ ( NATURAL-,- .�.,� =r � � ►>s` r.irt+ Want rttn t�r uts,i H qt`t�trt.e %tlr ,,e -1 OFIF —. vajrttr <sPQeiil _ ,G '—►_ UV,- l a j�_� �-H i�. g�i _�--� t,-►ti'MlN.-•! MATERIAf �- Z MIN.KEY DEPTH CONSTRUCTED a CT QED PRIOk TO r t ►,- r.-R HutL4UA1 L GEOLOGIC 4UMt5EP{i.�C`.� t`t) Fl:l4r�; jul—OVER N SLOW # \ rte. 1 r : } TO� \ _� � _ _"« fiOJECT PLAN .. 7 . — ..,: MaM BENCH BENCH BENCHINICC SPA! t- - HEIGHT -SLOPES ANGLE= iS XrMIN.__ THAN 5:1 MAXIMUM BEIt-i t ? �== SHALL BE 4 FEET MAXIMUM FILL 2' MIN �--15'MIN-- WIDTH SHALL BE 8 FEET. KEY DEPTH LOWEST BENCH(KEY) KEYING AND BENCHING ALLIED EARTH DETAIL - A TECHNOLOGY rtNISN GRADE aa=_ MIN. COMPACILD VILA-- q1 me CAhc ---------------- ------ _ ==OVERSIZE, z _ _ Y JE► f — — —__.--WtAtPllantr � �_._.. .,.___, _ .. .,._ _.. _ f-f► ,►.r.6F��`}`t`E'`� �F.�1C'-�� UV LKSiGE. ROCK IS LARGER THAN 8 INCHES IN LARGEST DIMENSION — EXCAVATE A TRENCH IN THE COM PACIEL) I . 1 FILL DEEP ENOUGH TO BURY At i T14;7 anrtt LC"�='.c `� t?n. •;f BACKFILL WITH GRANULAR 9IL i OR FLOODED IN PI AOF Tn Pit t at i ruc m,%i %e- 1 DO NOT-BURY ROCK WITHIN 10 PrT nr i FINISH GRADE X % r F- R-Al I r=i -.M- THE FINIRF-II=R ct nDr ml : Iw w.i R - -': ":ir'i,...:1tT'r'( ,.e rrl�Jt7]t."f-�•:!\�T�ltrtFyie►y .,�, • ' 5 r ,.-:-'Cc ti}i `• _ •.�`lJbd�::r .'.' . �.. -mil ! h -sj � D t JETTED OR FLOOED GRANULAR MATERIAL OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL ALLIED.EARTH .TECHNQLOGY DETAIL _ B NATURAL GROUND ' ENCHiNG-- =' �' - ( 12"MIN.OVERLAP FROM THE 1'W\ HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET IfT �niri�r►aL.G tfK*t KW11 �°' � �c�4•":`� ` (3 Cu.FT I FT:)WRAPPr r) � c tLiC..i1 fPi�� �IIR��T�1t't F _ ! 140 OR APPF?OVF F-j • .: ._ViLiSS CANYON .SUE�ORAlE.[ Oi 1 fT r-t- c��_ i �,�i Mfli(kit ff.r;� p. �.--20'MIN.--- - ON PERFORATED #2 ROCK WRAPPED IN FILTER 6" MIN 5' MIN. FABRIC OR CALTRANS CLASS II PERMEABLE. CANYON SUBDRAINS ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY DETAIL —C 1 ` 1 152MIN• : _ _ --r 4 �� iSN•PERFORATED i 100 MAX•O•C.NOR17_ONrni Lvt 30'M AV n r \ipoTir Al i v Ly _ �t .—�-- nEpTH _��`". — � _ '•ri`�I' �� ffl't �f �YGtI ^ .'CL.f �,ftc t IVilf\I I —. - ...•.e• _ .-1 !.]✓tfZl'I'It/t"' rY-Ao' 1f/• ,.��""""'-".\ t fY ti 104 r-rlrr KEY ihiiul h SHOULD BE E PR 1.V • ` ` VCI/Lt/ f'i't �•_�rjJV• °' -" ��r4 `�1--' '-. _ ' f (YOMPERFORAT ,t ! r'ar I-LJAAIC' r l Ar-^ •L Y \ 1 er '"im rdr,-rl'UAY i PE E48LE OR it 2 ,T -r 1 Y!►!'1!!nn�� r t _ I- i rrt«cntr`t..t/ tv +� p0k TO OOt//7 7 .x W I A _.:. e::.-.•.a.i v.� JOWN np I INN •r.r,.. U ` VI !r1 1�1 14J It f w..♦ 1 a.u . .. e . ...r-..-..... ....-.-.. ._ _.�... �.... t_rr ryc:.lrv►v_rGK pl-RFORATIONS UNIFOPNO:Y �, R _ -Al- SUBDRAIN PIPE AS�D Alto PIPE.SHALL ^HEDULE 407OR - ! ,, -' 3034,SDR23.5,sc.�EI^���.�J.� ���� •,_it . , PVC)PIPE• A; L OUTLET PIPE SHALL BE PLACED IN A TRENCH NO WIDER THAN TWICE THE SUBDRAIN PIPE, PIPE SHALL BE IN SOIL OF SE>30 JETTED OR FLOODED IN PLACE EXCEPT FOR THE OUTSIDE 5 FEET WHICH SHALL BE NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL BL"4'7RESS OR REPLACEMENT FILL SU3DRAINS• ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGY. DETAIL _ D Project No. 05-1167E3 Mr. Scott Longbella 06/10/05 2351 Cambridge Avenue APPENDIX Il LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 1. The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the fill soils encountered were determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. D1557, Method A. The results of the tests are presented as follows Maximum Optimum - Soil Dry Density Moisture Content Description (lbs./cu.ft.) (%Dry Wt.) Trench#1 Light gray/light olive green 126.5 9.0 Sample#1 silty sands(SM) Depth 4.0' 2. The Expansion Index of the most clayey soils was determined in accordance with UBC Test No. 18-2. The results of the test are presented as follows Soil Expansion Description Index Trench #1 Light gray/light olive green 48* Sample#1 silty sands(SM) Depth 4.0' *Considered to possess LOW expansion potential Project No. 05-1167E3 M. Scott Longbella 06/10/05 2351 Cambridge Avenue APPENDIX II (Cont'nd) LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 3. The sulfate content of the soils were determined in accordance with California Test No. 417. The results are presented below : Sulfate Soil Content Description (ppm) Trench#1 Light gray/light olive green 38 Negligible Sample#1 silty sands(SM) Depth 4.0' Trench#1 Brown silty sands(SM) 55 Negligible Sample#2 Depth 7.0'