Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2004-9094 G/CN
-HER . C! V T_'T "24 - - - - - - - - - - - a z 17 7 PARCEL NO T. UJOB SITE ADDRESS : 124 L A I-OSTA AVE . 7 E7.v 04 APPLICANT NAME HEISER , JAMES MAILING ADDRESS : 124 LA COSTA AVE. PHONE N r�. CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP 920- 23' MIKE SCOTT GRADING P H ON E 1 0. LICENSE NO . : 353045 1-1 C EN S E TYPE ; ENGINEER CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING, INC T PERMIT ISSUE A Hw' ' \6' PERMIT EXP= r5 PERMIT T q S E U D B!NSPECTOR MI KE VT A L L E S ------------- -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS --------------------------- - 1 . PERMIT FEE . 00 2) . PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: 3 . INSPECTION FEE -1 , 902 . 00 4 . T 5 . PLAN CHECK FEE INSPECTION DEPOSIT: . 010 6 . SECURITY DEPO-T- 7 . FLOOD CONTROL FEE 712 7 . 0 0 8 . TRAFFIC FEE ----------------- -------- DEE--.R-TPT TO n- --------- PERMIT ISSUED TO VERIFY PERFORMANCE OF GRADING AND DRAT NAGE I E R A P P R Ov E'D PLAN 9094-%- , CONTRACTOR TrO MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROi-I PER W TaC. H . STANDARDS OR -T TY APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL APPLIES . PLAN. LETTER DATED 12/02/04 f-l"T !NSPE'__ �ON ---------------- DATE -------- T NSPEECTOR' s SIGNATURE ----- INITIAL INSPECTION 0 Z_ COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED ENGINEER CERT . RECEIVED ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALT, - CITY ORDINANCES AND STITITE LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDIT T ONS OF ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION . ell U/1111ATURE "ATE SIGNED PRINT NAME -777 -__EPHONE_ NUMBER N Al";G 24 2,1`04 Recording Requested by: )ON[Y RL City Engineer When Recorded Mail To: E PM City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue E11�initaR CA 024 S PE_ COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY Assessor's Parcel WAIVER OF PROTEST TO ASSESSMENTS Number: 216-030-57 - Proj ectNo. 03-175 V/DR/CDp/ A. I ("OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is legally described as follows: See Attachment "A" which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of 03-175 V/DR/CDp/ covenants and agrees for OWNER hereby following: the benefit of CITY, to do the NO protest shall be made by the owners to Proceedings for the installation or any includin street improvements, acquisition of g of Utility lines, under any special ass esundersmentgroun,191d ing 1 or the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, any applicable state Or local law, and whether or processed other by the City of Encinitas or any other go having jurisdiction in the matter aid ern me ld fu.L Lhe ntal entity 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 e Opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the Property tart ic bi and ll of the PROPERTY any past due financial obligation way of this Covenant . owing to CITY by E. If either party is required to incurs costs the Provisions of this Covenant to enforce entitled to full reimbursement of athe prevailing party shall be all costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, from the other party. G: \Tamara\Word\Covenants\WaiverAss\03-175 H 9094-G 124 La Costa eiser.doc D PA 1171 PARCEL IPSO 0<o- I TT 70B S T E ADDRESS : 124 LA COSTA AVE . 3 APPLICANT NAME HEISER , JAMES MAILING ADDRESS : 124 LA COSTA AVE. PHONE NO . �_- ,'CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP : 92C23- CONTRACTOR : MIKE SCOT"' GRADING PHONE ,,Tn . LICENSE NO . : 353045 LTCENSE TYPE ! z P nID-1 E NO. -7 6 D -722- ENGINEER INC_ ?_ CORNERSTONE ENGT PERMIT ISSUE PERMIT EXP emu . 5/05 PERMIT -I T SSUED B INSPECTOR MIKE VALLES ------------- ----- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ----------------------------- 1 . PERMIT FEE . 00 2 . PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: Qr 3 . INSPECTION FEE 1 , 902 . 00 4 . INSPECTION DEPOSIT : 5 . PLAN --HECK FEE . 00 6 . SECURITY DEPO ST IT 7 -FLOOD CONTROL FEE -727 . C)C) I I S . TRAFFIC FEE - ---------------- -------- DEc::_--RjPmTr%T' 'T WnFK -------- ----------------------- PERMIT ISSUED TO VERIFY PERFORMANCE OF GRADING AND PER DRAIIN' GE AFPFI 0 ED tl�� PER . - �' _ w'— PLAN 9tr_)94--7 . CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL PER W.A. T. 17 .li . ' STANDARDS OR CITY APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN . LETTER DATED L 2/02/04 APPLIES . ---- iNSPECTT ON ---------------- D A -------- T`JSP7r-TOR' S ,I RE INSPECTION Z_ A. " COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVE D ENGINEER CERT . RECEIVED ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION 6 0 � -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALT, CITY ORDINANCES AND Sm",--'E LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING , AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION . 2- s U.MATURE 7ATE SIGNED t-7— 7" - d PRINT NAME TE7FPHONE N T, T— I T- 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, Vista, CA 92083 Geotechnical (760) 599-0509 FAX (760) 599-0593 F 3i 3, Environmental W K9 INC Materials Tuly 1, 2003 Project No. 2392-SD3 Jim Heiser 3021 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 Subject: Clarification of Bluff 124 La Costa Avenue Encinitas, California Reference: Geotechnical Evaluation for Proposed Residence, 124 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California, prepared by GeoTek, Inc., dated April 24, 2003. Dear Mr. Heiser: In accordance with your request, this letter has been prepared to address the `bluff as it pertains to the subject site. As described in our referenced geotechnical report, the `bluff is not situated along the shoreline and adjacent to the coastal beach area. Therefore, the subject site `bluff is not subject to the marine erosion processes (i.e. active wave attack at the toe of the bluff) typically experienced by a bluff situated along the beach shoreline area. Based on this, it is our opinion that the subject site `bluff can be considered to be a steep hillside or `inland bluff. We look forward to continue working with you on this project. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Respectfully submitted, ER GeoTek, Inc. �® <<4��� P.& ���� No.EG 2248 -w Exp.10131/03 Je f ey P. lake, G 2248, Exp. 10/31/03 OFGA1.�� Project Geologist Distribution: (3) Addressee GADATA\D300\2392SD3 124 La Costa Ave\Bluffdefnition'geo'7'03.doc ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA UTAH i r C( '4 1 I R I -(; )l i LZ C N A 24, 2iiO4 h L P 2004- C6419 C)HN I Y RF �`,JHDEH 1 Y OFF),- ( Recording Requested by: ,�, )I - City Engineer 1 E 4 Pm When Recorded Mail TO: City Clerk City of Encinitas 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY WAIVER OF PROTEST TO ASSESSMENTS Assessor's Parcel Number: 216-030-57 Proj ectNo. 03-175 V/DR/CDP/ A. ("OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property ("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is legally described as follows: . See Attachment "A" which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. In consideration of 03-175 V/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 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 fur Lhe 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. G: \Tamara\Word\Covenants\WaiverAss\03-175 9094-G 124 La Costa Heiser.doc 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 J- Zd - dY --,� J s Heiser, a Single Man (Notarization of OWNER signature is attached) CI Dated /Z- � by , (Notarization not required) Peter Cota-Robles, Director of Engineering Services G: \Tamara\Word\Covenants\WaiverAss\03-175 9094-G 124 La Costa Heiser.doc EXHIBIT 'A' THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THE SAID RIGHT OF WAY OF THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD COMPANY, FORMERLY THE CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, ACCORDING TO THE PROFILE OF ITS ROAD APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, MAY 12, 1881 UNDER THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF MARCH 3, 1875, WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED QUARTER QUARTER SECTION; THENCE NORTH 89° 55' 10" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, 269.57 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE EAST 65.00 FEET OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO GEORGE FRY, ET. US, RECORDED JANUARY 10, 1947 IN BOOK 2322, PAGE 155 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 01' 33'00" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE THEREOF, 230.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 1970 AS FILE NO. 155147 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS BEING A POINT ON THE ARC OF A 730.00 FEET RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, BEING ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LAND DESCRIBED IN SAID CONDEMNATION TO INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD COMPANY; THENCE NORTH 15° 43' 30" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY, 320.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. (CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT I. kI State of California ss. County of ' C On F gob z&4before me, J. S` Date Narge and Title of Officer(e.g.,"Jane Doe,Notary Public") (�} personally appeared (it/4Sj(, i1/ f.`.� Name(s)of Si neds) i {( ersonally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the pers on s) whose name s) is/are r� subscribed to the within instrument and ' acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed � KAREN J. McKEAN the same in his/her/their authorized >> t' Commission#1346394< capacity(es), and that by his/her/their �* cc Notary Pubiic-Caiifornia signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or > San Diego County the entity upon behalf of which the er (s) my Commission Exp. April 11,2006 acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. �, C r Sig atur of Notary Public I OPTIONAL > Though the information below is not required by law,it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document a Title or Type of Document: Document Date: t S�Number of Pages: Signer(s)Other Than Named Above:�A s ' I Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: 46nea rj— Individual Top of thumb here ❑ Corporate Officer—Title(s): ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑General Attorney-in-Fact ❑ TrusteeI ❑ Guardian or Conservator 7 Other: Signer Is Representing: {_ (A A 5< —� ©1999 National Notary Association•9350 De Soto Ave.,PO,Box 2402•Chatsworth,CA 91313-2402 www.natiionalnotary.org Prod.No.5907 Reorder.Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 Recording Requested By: ) City of Encinitas ) When Recorded Mail to: _I_"E=�-�RIGINAL aF THIS DOCUMENT WAS RECORDED ON DEC 07 2004 City Clerk ) DOCUMENT NUMBER 2004-1152182 City of Encinitas ) Gd A'EGORY J SMITH COUNTY"RECORDER 505 South Vulcan Avenue AN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE ) TIME Encinitas, 53 PM Encinitas, CA 92024 ) FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY SPACE AF GRANT DEED OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PLBLIU ROAD FURFOSIES Assessor's Parcel No. 216-030-57 Project No.: 03-175 W.O. No.: 9094-G James A. Heiser hereinafter called GRANTOR(S), do(es) hereby grant, convey and dedicate an easement to the City of Encinitas, hereinafter called GRANTEE, the right of way and incidents thereto for a public highway upon, over and across that certain real property in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, described as follows: SEE EXHIBITS "A" and `B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF BY THIS REFERENCE, The Grantor, for himself, his successors and assigns, hereby waives any claim for any and all damages to Grantor's remaining property contiguous to the right-of-way hereby conveyed by reason of the location, construction, landscaping or maintenance of said easement. 1 Dated this /mil — day of 2004 OWNER: J &s A. Heiser ISignature of Owners to be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgments . I I This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by deed or grant to the City of Encinitas, a Municipal Corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned agent on behalf of the City Council of the City of Encinitas pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution of the City Council of the City of Encinitas adopted on November 9, 1994 and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated: By: Peter Cota-Robles (Notarization not required) Director of Engineering Services City of Encinitas 2 ATTACHMENT `A' Dedication of Real Property for Right-of-Way Purposes Legal Description 124 La Costa Avenue All that portion of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to official plat thereof and described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the centerline of the Vulcan Connector Road and the centerline of La Costa Avenue as shown on Attachment 'B' hereon; thence departing perpendicular to the centerline of said La Costa Avenue North 16°53'12" West, 30.00 feet to the northerly Right-of-Way of said La Costa Avenue; thence along said northwesterly Right-of-Way South 73 006'48" West, 13.00 feet to the easterly boundary line of the real property described per deed of James A. Heiser, recorded in the office of the County of San Diego recorder on May 19, 2003 as Document No. 2003-0583568, said point also being the True Point of Beginning for this Legal Description, 1) Thence South 73 006'48" West along said northwesterly Right-of-Way, 15.79 feet to the beginning of a curve concave southeasterly, having a radius of 730.00 feet; 2) Thence southwesterly along said curve and said northwesterly Right-of—Way through a central angle of 15°06'41" an arc length of 192.53 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent line, said non-tangent line being the westerly boundary line of the land describes in said deed of James A. Heiser and being the easterly Right-of Way of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company, formerly the California Southern Railroad Company, as approved by the Department of Interior, May 12, 1881 under the act of congress of March 3, 1875; 3) Thence along said non-tangent line North 15 002'09"West, 17.75 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve concave southeasterly, having a radius of 747.00 feet; 4) Thence northeasterly along said curve parallel with and being 17.00 feet northerly of the above mentioned northwesterly Right-of-Way of La Costa Avenue, through a central angle of 14 042'51" an arc length of 191.84; 5) Thence continuing along a line parallel with and being a17.00 feet northerly of said northwesterly Right-of-Way, North 73°06'48" East, 20.67 feet to the easterly boundary of said land per deed of James A. Heiser; 6) Thence South 00 051'39" East, 17.69 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Contains 3,577 Sq.Ft. (0.082 acres) �%;�\,AND S(i L =► J. AL S/o5 � cPjgT�D FGA ATTACHMENT 'B' Dedication of Real Property for Right-of-Way Purposes Plat 124 La Costa Avenue, Encinitas, CA Sip LAND J. cql LF�o GRAPHIC SCALE * No. 5556 o z � ¢ f�g21c' - (N88, Reg. E p cA�c) ( IN FEET ) 0¢ 28?3 F f ' e.STrt 9 1 inch = 50 ft. w F�9sr 1 C'L\F rye U- 0 ir Z T 1?s S�'1jNE0.� QD O >- S 5 o ee'�M r9 O Uj Z I r 281 C1 co}} I U U11 CAC Uj co; _2 N it I J �� Z 4. I FLY 8g A.P.N. 216-030-57 AREA OF OF DEDICATION �$ 2 3,577 SQ.FT.(0.082 ACRES) 200.00' RAW $� a z 3I ca o L,3I a� FUTURE RIGHT-0 - Y 20.6T y�I as .17.69' 'C0 T=96.45' L=191.84' S00°51'39"E m' -&nag 00' ❑=14°42'51" Z r, R=747. 17.00' i 13.00' I o(0 T=9 8 g 3,) T.P.O.B. S73°06148"W 0 0 4 I N15 02'09"W lR= .g a-7 . 8 15.79' (S73 06'48"W) EXISTING g 7 = �4 30.00, RIGHT-0F-WAY P.O.B. T=117.34' L=232.51') N16'53'12"VN �Op.00' =19°01'52' 28.30' (R-� C AVE. g END CURVE O STA.5+86 06W TA.5+57.27W O� R.S.1796= PER(A21-1)R.S. 1796 BEGIN CURVE _ ^/V CONNECTOR RD. PER(A21-1)R.S.1796 $/22 { } INDICATES DATA PER DEED OF JAMES A.HEISER U� RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY OF 2 OF SAN DIEGO RECORDER ON MAY 19,2003,AS Cj DOCUMENT No.2003-0583568. ( )CENTERLINE AND BOUNDARY OF RIGHT-0F-WAY DATA AS SHOWN ON SHEET 5 OF 9 ON COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DRAWING FOR LA COSTA AVENUE(A-21-1) RIGHT-0F-WAY MAP FOR R.S.1796. SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT WHEREAS, those parties concerned, desire to have the Deed of Trust recorded IY'wr'ref,irxv3 ., subordinated to Easement for City Highway for PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ("DOCUMENT" hereinafter). Now, therefore, for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned BENEFICIARY or TRUSTEE hereby waives the priority of said Deed of Trust in favor of said DOCUMENT to the same extent as if said DOCUMENT had been executed prior to said Deed of Trust. BENEFICIARY or TRUSTEE BENEFICIARY or TRUSTEE BY: BY: Title: Cc�; - �c'�i�� � Title: C�D DATED �� - �����,/ DATED < 2-0 O�- 3 SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT WHEREAS, those parties concerned, desire to have the Deed of Trust recorded,�Y1,l I`?,1rt;>3 7-V&3-0158354,1 , subordinated to Easement for City Highway for PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ("DOCUMENT"hereinafter). Now, therefore, for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned BENEFICIARY or TRUSTEE hereby waives the priority of said Deed of Trust in favor of said DOCUMENT to the same extent as if said DOCUMENT had been executed prior to said Deed of Trust. BENEFICIARY or TRUSTEE BENEFICIARY or TRUSTEE BY: 13'�<AA,, BY: Title: Title: DATED J cq-�y�'w"o c E Z C �i DATED l 1 - Z l - OL�- 3 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT r State of California ss. 5 County of 5- ^ On JOV4 before me, �. Date Name and Title of Officer ;( (egg.,"Jane Doe,Notary Pubhc') �. t personally appeared C Names)of Signers) ersonally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name s) is/are s subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executedI the same in his/herltheir authorized ?� KAREN I McKEAN capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their Commission#1346394< signature(s)on the instrument the person(s), or ¢ Notary PuW+c Califofniau) the entity upon behalf of which tfie person(s) , >1W San Diego County acted, executed the instrument. r' 111, 2006 MY Commission Exp. Apri WITNESS my hand and official seal. Sigf(atur of ota Public i OPTIONAL y Though the information below is not required by law,it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent (S fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. c Description of Attached Document s Title or Type of Document: _ " " Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: A t- Individual Top of th here ❑ Corporate Officer—Title(s): ; ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑General „S ❑ Attorney-in-Fact , ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator �I ❑ Other: 1 Signer Is Representing: ©1999 National Notary Association•9350 De Soto Ave.,PO.Box 2402•Chatsworth,CA 91313-2402•www.nationalnotary.org Prod.No.5907 Reorder:Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT rState of California s" County of 13 l D ss. On V l// L%� " ' before me, ��c ✓. ��/�dl/�_ Date N me and Title of Officer(e.g..'Jane Doe,Notary Public") personally appeared M�✓fi/� BJ,(/' P{v�I n�l�IISGW, f' t <'- ame(s)of Signer(s) /7L -1 personally known to me 7 ( ( T .proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence ' to be the persons) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/tom executed the same in his/her/their authorized t KAREN J. McKEAN ca acit ies Commission#1346394< p Y( ), and that by his/her/their Notary Public CaliforniaN signatures on the instrument the personn�, or San Diego County the entity upon behalf of which the person acted,ace , executed the instrument. �h My Commission Exp. April 11, 2006 �f WITNESS my hand and official seal. c � c' t>14 of Notary Public ' OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law,it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent (S fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. << Description of Attached Document yy Title or Type of Document: � �i L i P Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s)Other Than Named Above: N�. Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: 1:1 Individual Top of thumb here ❑ Corporate Officer—Title(s): ❑ Partner—❑ Limited ❑General ❑ Attorney-in-Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: ©1999 National Notary Association•9350 De Soto Ave.,P.O.Box 2402•Chatsworth,CA 91313-2402•www.nationalnotary.org Prod.No.5907 Reorder:Call Toll-Free 1.800-876-6827 I certify on behalf of the City Council of the City of Encinitas, pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution of said Council adopted on November 9, 1994 that the City of Encinitas consents to the making of the foregoing Subordination Agreement and consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. DATE: U BY: Peter Cota-Robles Director of Engineering Services City of Encinitas 4 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, Vista, CA 92083 GeotechnlCal { x (760) 599-0509 FAX (760) 599-0593 Environmental r"p d Materials K, INC. ` y S tEc July 1, 2003 b.. :RIN ;S Project No. 2392-SD3 Jim Heiser 3021 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 Subject: Clarification of Bluff 124 La Costa Avenue Encinitas, California Reference: Geotechnical Evaluation for Proposed Residence, 124 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California, prepared by GeoTek, Inc., dated April 24, 2003. Dear Mr. Heiser: In accordance with your request, this letter has been prepared to address the `bluff as it pertains to the subject site. As described in our referenced geotechnical report, the `bluff is not situated along the shoreline and adjacent to the coastal beach area. Therefore, the subject site `bluff is not subject to the marine erosion processes (i.e. active wave attack at the toe of the bluff) typically experienced by a bluff situated along the beach shoreline area. Based on this, it is our opinion that the subject site `bluff can be considered to be a steep hillside or `inland bluff . We look forward to continue working with you on this project. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Respectfully submitted, ����NEERJ��� GeoTek, Inc. , � ��� Y 8, F�l� .� r.J No.EG 2248 r Exp.i0/31/43 � Je ey P. lake, G 2248, Exp. 10/31/03 � a7FCAl�4t Project Geologist Distribution: (3) Addressee G:\DATA\D300\2392SD3 124 La Costa Ave\Bluffdefnition'geo'7'03.doc ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA UTAH Geotechniccl <ry ® 1384 Poinsetta Ave., Suite A Vista, CA 92081-8505 Environmental (760) 599-0509 FAX (760) 599-0593 EK, IN C o Materials January 25, 2005 Project No. 2392SD3 Mr. James Heiser PO BOX 232368 Encinitas, California 92023 Subject: Report of Testing and Observation Services During Earthwork Construction—Building Pad Proposed Single Family Residence 124 La Costa Avenue Encinitas, California References: (1) Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Residence, 124 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California, by GeoTek,Inc., dated April 24,2003. (2) Grading and Erosion Control Plan, Heiser Residence, 124 La Costa Avenue, by Cornerstone Engineering, dated 6/28/04. Dear Mr. Heiser: As requested, we are providing this letter to confirm that GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek) has provided compaction testing and observation services during earthwork construction for building pad associated with the subject residence. Our services were performed on an on-call basis during the months of December 2004 and January 2005. The scope of our services included performing laboratory tests to aid in evaluating the compaction characteristics of the soil conditions encountered and/or used for fill. In our opinion, the building pad has been prepared in general conformance with the approved grading plan and soils engineering report. FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Based on our field observations and testing we note the following: • In general, the upper 2.5 to 4.0 feet of earth materials below the existing building pad grades were removed and recompacted. Removals generally extended into relatively dense formational materials and to a minimum of 5 feet outside the perimeter of the building footprint. • Onsite and import soils were utilized as compacted fill to achieve finish grade elevations for the subject residence. Based on our field density and laboratory test results, fill materials ARIZONA CALIFORNIA IDAHO NEVADA MR.JAMES HEISER January 25,2005 Report of Testing and Observation Services Project No.2392SD3 Residence at 124 La Costa Avenue Page 2 of 3 were compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557). The field density test results are included in Table 1 attached. • Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and random locations to check the compaction efforts by the contractor. Based on our observations, the test results presented herein should be considered representative of the level of compaction achieved during overall subgrade preparation. • Visual classification of the soil in the field, compared to soil descriptions from laboratory testing was the basis for determining the maximum dry density value and optimum moisture content applied to each density test. LABORATORY TESTING Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for representative on-site soil types were determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557-00. Test results for the soils used in the filling operations are presented in the table below. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TESTS RESULTS ASTM D 1557 Soil Type Description Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture Densi CF Content A Brown silty fine to medium grained 127.0 SAND 9.0 B Brown silty medium grained SAND 129.5 9.0 C Yellow-brown silty fine grained SAND (Import) 115.0 5.5 D Brown silty fine to medium grained SAND 127.5 9.0 Expansion Index Testing Expansion Index (EI) testing was performed on a representative sample collected from the subject building pad and tested in the laboratory in general conformance with ASTM D4829. The soils tested were classified as possessing a very low expansion potential as per Table 184-B of the 2001 CBC. WEK, INC. MR.JAMES HEISER January 25,2005 Report of Testing and Observation Services Project No.2392SD3 Residence at 124 La Costa Avenue Page 3 of 3 Sulfate Testing Sulfate testing was performed on samples collected from the subject building pads in general accordance with California Test No. 417. Results of the testing indicated a sulfate content of less than 0.1 percent by weight, which is considered negligible as per Table 19-A-4 of the 2001 CBC. Type II cement or an equivalent may be used. CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS It is our opinion that the test results presented herein should be considered representative of the level of compaction achieved during overall subgrade preparation. The foundation recommendations included in the soils report remain applicable. Our services were performed in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practices for this locality. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. GeoTek accepts neither responsibility nor liability for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions. oQ NVESS�ON' Respectfully submitted, �GINEEAI/yG GeoTek, Inc. ��o���,EV e e��K, No.2641 z J Exp.09/03 55 a No.EG 2248 � * cFp GPI' s * Exp.10/31/05 lfC0 J►� ��? �Of CAL OF CA1.�F�� J frey P. Blake, Simon 1. Saiid, CEG 2248, Exp. 10/31/05 GE 2641, Exp. 9/30/05 Project Manager Senior Engineer Enclosures: Figure 1 —Density Test Locations Table 1 -Summary of Field Density Tests for Building Pad Grading Distribution: (3)Addressee GAProjectsTrojects 2000 to 2999\Projects 2000 thru 2449 FoldersTrojects 2350 to 2399\2392—Heiser Residence\T&O rpt.doc MR WEK, INC. \ \\ \\ O cc r�w C O cG O cn ca > :, �a a \\ i� � \\ ate' �r °"�• CAS.. m ca tn 1 - � '�guyc le vnrar \�, ., ' �. . * t, � �(J ''oz•ss k � � -�, C � ••� Li ¢y 91•U �,yp'IN 1W5 '77,�1' :. ao 1 \ �\"`\ co ~ ^ olt LLI ELL • V1 2S. 11.. °'fib 1 tr IF IC C7• '^ t9 od�y,SZ.to. -. C lu Ul co 1 0 UWA ' e `\ �.'... co to w •9. y:' d Q L ` 8 Qi: c e� N Lu < G.7 b O 3 �N.'' O y LU 3 oz is c cz rw OGZ a 3 cn C,4 LA 124 La Costa Avenue GeoTek, Inc. 112512005 Proposed Heiser Residence Project No..2392SD3 Carlsbad, California Page 1 of 1 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Moisture D Maximum Relative N No. No. No. DATE Test Location Lot o. Elevh Content Density Soil Density Test Compaction Depth (%) (Pcf) Type (Pcf) Type (%) 12/23/04 1 Pad Area 53.0 7.6 118.6 B 129.5 N 91.6 2 Pad Area 54.0 6.7 121.0 B 129.5 N 93.4 3 Pad Area 54.0 8.4 118.9 B 129.5 N 91.8 4 Pad Area 55.0 10.2 117.7 B 129.5 N 90.9 5 Pad Area 55.0 9.1 125.0 B 129.5 N 96.5 12/27/04 6 Pad Area 52.0 8.4 122.5 A 129.5 N 94.6 7 Pad Area 52.0 9.0 121.6 A 129.5 N 93.9 8 Pad Area 53.0 9.1 121.9 A 129.5 N 94.1 9 Pad Area 54.0 7.8 117.3 A 129.5 N 90.6 37 Pad Area 55.0 11.0 122.3 D 127.5 N 96.0 38 Pad Area 55.0 9.0 125.1 D 127.5 N 98.0 39 Pad Area 55.0 8.6 126.2 D 127.5 N 99.0 40 Pad Area 55.0 9.8 119.3 D 127.5 N 94.0 45 Pad Area 53.5 10.7 123.8 D 127.5 N 97.0 46 Pad Area 55.0 10.6 124.4 D 127.5 N 98.0 47 Pad Area 55.0 9.9 121.5 D 127.5 N 95.0 48 Pad Area 54.0 9.8 123.4 D 127.5 N 97.0 49 Pad Area 55.0 8.6 126.4 D 127.5 N 99.0 50 Pad Area 55.0 10.4 125.1 D 127.5 1 N 98.0 1/20/05 51 Pad Area 56.0 8.6 122.9 D 127.5 N 96.0 52 Pad Area 56.0 9.0 125.0 D 127.5 N 98.0 53 Pad Area 56.0 10.1 124.2 D 127.5 N 97.0 54 Pad Area 56.0 9.4 123.4 D 127.5 N 97.0 55 Pad Area 56.0 8.8 121.3 D 127.5 N 95.0 56 Pad Area 55.5 6.9 126.6 D 127.5 N 99.0 57 Pad Area 55.5 7.0 125.7 D 127.5 N 99.0 58 Pad Area 55.0 8.5 122.9 D 127.5 N 96.0 59 Pad Area 55.0 9.1 121.0 D 127.5 N 95.0 60 Pad Area 55.0 9.4 123.5 D 127.5 N 97.0 61 Pad Area 56.0 9.8 125.1 D 127.5 N 98.0 Note: N = Nuclear Gauge Test FG= Finished Grade Test All elevations are approximate C01KW 1E 1K S '7C' 0W ]E ]E1q(Gr1[141E1E1K1[1q(Gt IWC, CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEY RS � '� L� v ^� February 3, 2005 25 J11 FEB 2 M Mr. Mike Valles _ City Engineering Inspector E::'-7;L--(!vG SHVICES CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY OF EIZIh!T AS 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024-2818 civil Engineering RE: 124 LA COSTA AVENUE, GRADING PLAN#9094, HEISER Surveying Services Sewer&Water Dear Mr. Valles: Engineering The Finish Pad elevation for the above stated plan has been revised due to a design change in the Storm Water foundation cross section on the architectural plan. The original difference from all of the Finish Engineering Floor elevations and the Finish Pad elevations was 0.50', currently the revised difference is 0.67'. Storm Water This change is not reflected on Grading Plan #9094, since it was made after the grading plan was Quality approved by the City of Encinitas. We have reviewed the pad elevation check performed by Dave SWPPP Jolly, LS 7672, on February 02, 2005 and the pad elevations are in substantial conformance with Road And the previously stated revision. Street Engineering If you have any questions regarding this matter or need additional information, please do not School hesitate to contact me at 760.722.3495. Site Engineering Site Respectfully, Development, Planning And Surveying Construction CORNERSTONE ENGINEERING Staking Services � �� QEtO ES I DN FS Redevelopment O N J. B 4 Area �" OJE .4 p- c^ Enhancement Steven J. Barger Engineering Senior Engineer No. 34318 Z R.C.E. 34318, Exp. 9/31/05 EXPIRES 9-30-06 *�fqy Cl V o. ��\Q F of, CA0% 2505"M"Street 2191 El Camino Real, Suite 208 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Oceanside, CA 92054-6224 Tel 661.325-9474- Fax 661.322012`1 Tel.760.722.3495- Fax 760.722.3490 www.cornerstoneeng.com GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR PROPOSED RESIDENCE 124 LA COSTA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR MELODY MANUFACTURED HOME SALES 1313 E. MAIN STREET EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY GEOTEK, INC. 1384 POINSETTIA AVENUE VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92083 PROJECT No.: 2392SD3 APRIL 24, 2003 �K 3. 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, Vista, CA 92083 Geotechnical (760) 599-0509 FAX (760) 599-0593 x Environmental Materials A. K9 INC. April 24, 2003 Project No.: 2392SD3 Melody Manufactured Home Sales 1313 E. Main Street El Cajon, California 92021 Attention: Mr. Jim Heiser Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residence 124 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Heiser: As requested and authorized, GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek) has performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed single-family residence located at 124 La Costa Avenue, in Carlsbad, California. This report presents the results of our investigation, discussion of our findings, and provides geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and construction. In our opinion, the proposed development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations included herein are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Respectfully submitted, p t�N�tNEF�/N� E GeoTek, Inc. ;'' oi r _ y UJ No EG 2248 P-10/31/03 yt Cl Ole r;C J Sirnah I. S id �, N J ey P. Blake, RCE 6237 , Exp. 9/3010 ``°° CEG 2248, Exp. 10/31/03 Senior Engineer Geotechnical Department Manager (5)Addressee F:IDataD30012392SD3 124 La Costa A_ve12392geoFI_A4_1.doc ARIZONA CALIFORNIA NEVADA UTAH Melody Manufactured Home Sales Project No.: 2392SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation April 24,2003 Proposed Residence Page TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTENT................................................................................................................................................................1 2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES..........................................................................................................1 3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.........................................................................2 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................................2 3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................................................2 4. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING...........................................................................2 4.1 FIELD EXPL.ORATION......................................................................................................................................2 4.2 LABORATORY TESTING...................................................................................................................................3 5. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS........................................................................................................3 5.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................................................................3 5.1.1 Topsoil.................................................................................................................................................3 5.1.2 Terrace Deposits.................................................................................................................................3 5.1.3 Santiago Formation............................................................................................................................4 5.1.4 Overall Geologic Structure.................................................................................................................5 5.2 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER.....................................................................................................................5 5.3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY...........................................................................................................................5 5.4 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS...............................................................................................................................5 5.5 SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION......................................................................................................................6 5.5.1 Selection of Soil Parameters...............................................................................................................6 5.5.2 Results of Slope Stability Analysis.......................................................................................................6 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................8 6.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................................................................8 6.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS.....................................................................................................................8 6.2.1 Site Protection.....................................................................................................................................8 6.2.2 Remedial Grading...............................................................................................................................8 6.2.3 Excavation Characteristics.................................................................................................................9 6.2.4 Fill.......................................................................................................................................................9 6.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................................10 6.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria.............................................................................................................. 10 6.3.2 Settlement Characteristics.................................................................................................................10 6.3.3 Foundation Set Backs........................................................................................................................ 10 6.3.4 Seismic Design Parameters............................................................................................................... 11 6.4 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION.........................................................................................................................11 6.4.1 Cement Type......................................................................................................................................11 6.4.2 Concrete Slabs..................................................................................................................................12 6.4.3 Concrete Cracking............................................................................................................................ 12 6.5 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS................................................................................... 12 7. LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................................................................14 8. SELECTED REFERENCES............................................................................................................................15 ENCLOSURES Fi ure 1 —Site Location Map Figure 2—Boring Location Plan Plate GS-1 —Geologic Section AA' Plate GS-2—Geologic Section BB' Appendix A—Logs of Exploratory Boring Appendix B—Results of Laboratory Testing Appendix C—Results Slope Stability Analysis JhK Melody Manufactured Home Sales Project No.: 2392SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation April 24,2003 Proposed Residence Page 1 1. INTENT It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and completion of the proposed development. Implementation of the advice presented in Section 6 of this report is intended to reduce risk associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of the project or guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after construction. The scope of our evaluation is limited to the area explored, which is shown on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 2). This evaluation does not and should in no way be construed to encompass any areas beyond the specific area of the proposed construction as indicated to us by the client. Further, no evaluation of any existing site improvements is included. The scope is based on our understanding of the project and the client's needs, and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this region. 2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our study was to evaluate the general overall geotechnical conditions on the site as they relate to the proposed development. Services provided for this study consist of the following: ➢ Research and review of available geologic data and general information pertinent to the site. ➢ Field reconnaissance of the site to evaluate the general surface conditions. ➢ Site exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of 6 exploratory borings within the area proposed for development. ➢ Laboratory testing on representative samples collected during the field investigation. ➢ Review and evaluation of site seismicity. ➢ Compilation of this geotechnical report, which summarizes our findings and foundation recommendations for the proposed development and associated site improvements. ��K Melody Manufactured Home Sales Project No.: 2392SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation April 24,2003 Proposed Residence Page 2 3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site (APN 216-030-57) is identified as 124 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, California. The 1.25-acre parcel is currently vacant land situated above the Batiquitos Lagoon. A relatively flat portion of the property encompasses approximately 0.5 acres. The northern portion of the site, approximately 0.75 acre, is a sloping terrain that constitutes an approximately 50-foot high 'bluff. Site vegetation is generally sparse to moderate on the flatter portion and sparse to heavy on the descending slopes. Vegetation consists generally of low grasses, brush, and scattered trees. Various abandoned utility lines are located on the site, which apparently are associated with past residential structures. The site is bounded to the north by the Batiquitos lagoon, to the south by La Costa Avenue, to the west by the SDNR Coaster right of away and to the east by an existing residential development. Further information regarding existing site features and layout is included on Figure 2. The site is accessible from La Coast Avenue. 3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT We understand that the relatively `flat' portion of the subject parcel is proposed for a residential development consisting primarily of a one- or two-story wooden structure with associated site improvements. Although no specific site development plans are available at the time of this study, site grading is expected to be minimal. 4. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION Our subsurface investigation consisted of the excavation of six exploratory borings utilizing a truck mounted CME 75 drill rig. The borings were excavated to a maximum depth of 51.5 feet below existing site grades. The borings were logged and sampled by a geologist from our firm. Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed samples of the materials encountered Melody Manufactured Home Sales Project No.: 2392SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation April 24,2003 Proposed Residence Page 3 were collected and transported to our laboratory for further testing. The logs of borings and additional information regarding field sampling and testing procedures are presented in Appendix A. 4.2 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on selected disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples collected during the field investigation. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confirm the field classification of the soil materials encountered and to evaluate their physical properties for use in the engineering design and analysis. The results of the laboratory-testing program along with a brief description and relevant information regarding testing procedures are included in Appendix B. 5. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS 5.1 GENERAL • brief description of the earth materials encountered is presented in the following sections. • more detailed description of these materials is provided on the logs of exploratory borings included in Appendix A. The soil profile at this site consists of a relatively thin layer of topsoil underlain by formational material. 5.1.1 Topsoil A thin layer of topsoil, varying in thickness from one (1) to two (2) feet, mantles the site. The topsoil is generally described as brown, moist, silty fine-to medium-grained sand with scattered gravel and roots. 5.1.2 Terrace Deposits Our field observations indicate that Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits underlies the site, These sedimentary materials were encountered to a maximum depth of 15 feet and generally form the upper steeper sloping portion of the bluff top. As encountered, the terrace deposits generally consist of interbedded orange—brown, fine-grained sand and red-brown silty to clayey fine sand. These soils are the primary materials underlying the topsoil at this site. Weakly cemented with iron oxide, the Terrace Deposits are generally dense and possess a low expansion potential. Melody Manufactured Home Sales Project No.: 2392SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation April 24,2003 Proposed Residence Page 4 The shear strength characteristics of the these soils for use in the slope stability analysis were estimated in accordance with the results of the laboratory direct shear testing on representative samples collected during the field investigation. The results of the testing are presented in Section 5.5.1 of this report. The bluff's upper 10 to 12 feet is comprised of the sandy Terrace Deposits, forming near vertical slopes with some localized erosional features. Some indications of minor sloughing and erosional gullies were evident along the bluff edge. The remainder of the bluff varies in gradients and descends approximately 50 feet to the Batiquitos Lagoon. At the location of geologic section AA (see Plate GS-1), there is a cavity associated with a localized gully that extends horizontally into the slope to a distance of approximately 5 feet. This cavity is likely associated with existing near surface pipes that discharge directly onto the slope at this location resulting in piping and undermining. Because of this cavity feature, the top of bluff (bluff edge) at this locality, or any other locality, should be defined as the most inward point of the cavity projected to the surface. Unless treated or stabilized, the 25-foot building/structural setback in this particular area should be measured from this projected bluff edge or effectively at 30 feet from the existing top of bluff(see Plate GS-1). It should also be noted that a relatively prominent erosion gulley is located along the existing slope associated with the SDNR Coaster rail alignment (within a designated Right of Way), west of the property. Two existing pipelines are exposed at this locality as a result of the erosion. This gulley is situated outside of the property limits and beyond the 25-foot setback criteria. 5.1.3 Santiago Formation The Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation underlies the Terrace Deposit at the site. This sedimentary formation unit consists of two general lithologic units: sandstone and claystone- siltstone and forms the majority of the descending slope area along the north side of the property. These sedimentary materials were encountered to the maximum depth explored of 51.5 feet. The Santiago Formation encountered consists of interbedded layers of yellow to gray fine sand, and dark gray to clay below a depth 35 feet. The shear strength characteristics of the these soils for use in the slope stability analysis were estimated in accordance with the results of the laboratory direct shear testing on representative samples collected during the field investigation. The results of the testing are presented in Section 5.5.1 of this report. Melody Manufactured Home Sales Project No.: 2392SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation April 24,2003 Proposed Residence Page 5 5.1.4 Overall Geologic Structure Based on our experience, review of published geologic maps, the Terrace Deposits are generally massive to thickly-bedded and are generally flat lying to gently inclined. Regional bedding within the bedrock units of the Santiago Formation are generally flat lying to gently inclined to the northwest at 4 to 5 degrees. Steeply inclined jointing is typical for the Santiago Formation, dipping steeply to the north and south (CDMG map, 1996). No visible jointing was noted in either of the units during our mapping at the site. 5.2 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER No surface water or ponding was observed at time of the field investigation. All site drainage should be reviewed and designed by the project civil engineer. The static groundwater table is expected at a depth greater than 50 feet (msl) below the level portion of the site. However, minor water seepage was encountered in Boring B-2 at a depth of 35 feet at the contact with the clayey portion of the Santiago Formation. No natural groundwater condition is known to be present which would impact site development as proposed. However, groundwater or localized seepage can occur at shallower depth due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time of this investigation. 5.3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY The site is in a seismically active region of southern California, Seismic Zone 4. No active or potentially active fault is known to exist at this site. The computer program EQFAULT, version 3.00 (Blake, 2000a) was used to determine the distance to known faults and estimate peak ground accelerations based on a deterministic analysis using attenuation relations by Campell & Bozorgnia (1997 rev). The Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 3.8 miles of the site is considered to represent the highest risk to generate ground shaking. A maximum earthquake event of magnitude 6.8 and an estimated peak site acceleration of 0.51g are postulated based on the analysis. 5.4 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS Potential secondary seismic related hazards such as ground rupture due to faulting, liquefaction, dynamic settlement, seiche and tsunami are often associated with a seismic event. Since no active faults are known to cross the site, the potential for ground rupture is Melody Manufactured Home Sales Project No.:2392SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation April 24,2003 Proposed Residence Page 6 considered low. The liquefaction potential on the site is considered to be low due to the dense and cohesive nature of the subsurface soils and a lack of a shallow water table. The potential for dynamic settlement appears to be low. The potential for seiche and tsunami are considered low due to the elevation of the site relative to sea level. Although considered as a relatively low risk, the possibility of inundation due to a Tsunami event cannot be ruled out due to the proximity of the site to the coastal shoreline. However, many contributing factors influence the formation of a Tsunami, including offshore topography, fault systems, and shoreline configuration. 5.5 SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION The slope stability evaluation was performed using a computer program called GSTABL7 with STEDwin, Version 2.0 (Gregory, 2001). The program uses the Modified Bishop and the Simplified Janbu method of slices for calculating the factor of safety against failure. Selected computer printouts and cross-sectional models of the analyses are included in Appendix C. 5.5.1 Selection of Soil Parameters The soil parameters used in the analysis are based on the results of our laboratory testing and our past experience with similar soil types in nearby areas. A summary of the soil parameters used in the analyses is presented in table below. TABLE 5.1.1 - SOIL PARAMETERS FOR SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Shear Strength Unit Soil Description Friction Cohesion Weight Source/Reference (Degrees) (psf) (pcf) Terrace Deposits 23.0 690 115.0 See Plate SH-2, Appendix B Santiago Formation: 28.0 500 110.0 Past Experience Siltstone/Sandstone Santiago Formation: 0.0 1930 112.3 See Plate SH-1, Appendix B Claystone 5.5.2 Results of Slope Stability Analysis A cross-sectional model (Geologic Section AA') was selected to represent a critical case condition. A setback of 25 feet from the top of the bluff is considered in the analysis. The results of the slope stability evaluation indicate that the existing slope will have minimum factors of safety of 2.2 under static conditions and 1.5 under seismic conditions. The analysis �K Melody Manufactured Home Sales Project No.: 2392SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation April 24,2003 Proposed Residence Page 7 represents a deep-seated failure through the claystone portion of the Santiago Formation based on the proposed 25-foot setback. The surficial stability of the top 10 to 12-foot portion of the bluff was not evaluated in this analysis since it is considered surficial and of an erosional nature within the specified setback. The minimum factor of safety under seismic conditions was based on a horizontal ground acceleration of 0.15g. These factors of safety are considered adequate as per the guidelines of DMG Special Publication 117. Selected computer printouts of the analyses along with the soil parameters used are included in the Appendix C. Melody Manufactured Home Sales Project No.:2392SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation April 24, 2003 Proposed Residence Page 8 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 GENERAL The proposed development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction phases of development. The primary geotechnical concern on this site is related to the proposed structural setback and the existing top of bluff. Although, the overall slope stability of the site is considered adequate as indicated in Section 5.5 of this report, the upper 10 to 12 feet of the bluff will likely continue to experience some degree of erosion and surficial sloughing which may accelerate during severe storm events, or strong ground shaking as a result of a seismic event. However, we believe that such occurrences will be limited to the outer portion of the specified setback and should not undermine the proposed residence. 6.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS Grading and earthwork should be performed in accordance with the local grading ordinances, applicable provisions of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC), and our recommendations presented herein. 6.2.1 Site Protection The earthwork contractor should take all precautions deemed necessary during site grading to maintain adequate safety measures and working conditions. All applicable safety requirements of CAL-OSHA should be met during construction. Appropriate erosion control measures should be implemented to prevent further erosion or surficial instability of the top 10 to 12 feet of the bluff. 6.2.2 Remedial Grading If not removed by the proposed grading, the onsite topsoil materials (1 to 2 feet) should be completely removed and recompacted within the building and paved areas and/or under settlement-sensitive structures. Depending on actual field conditions encountered during grading, locally deeper areas of removal may be necessary. Filling and recompaction should Melody Manufactured Home Sales Project No.: 2392SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation April 24,2003 Proposed Residence Page 9 be completed in accordance with Section 6.2.4 below. The lateral extent of removal beyond the outside edge of all settlement-sensitive structures/foundations should be equivalent to that vertically removed. Similarly, all compacted fill should extend laterally from the outside edge of all settlement-sensitive structures or foundations to a distance equal to the depth of filling. 6.2.3 Excavation Characteristics Excavations in the site materials within the depth explored should be generally accomplished with heavy-duty earthmoving or excavating equipment. Temporary excavations within the onsite formational materials should be stable at IH:1V inclinations for short durations during construction, and where cuts do not exceed 10 feet in height. 6.2.4 Fill The onsite materials are considered suitable for reuse as compacted fill provided they are free from vegetation, roots, and cobbles and boulders greater than 6 inches in diameter. The earthwork contractor should ensure that all proposed excavated materials to be used for backfilling at this project are approved by the soils engineer. Where applicable, the undercut areas should be brought to final grade elevations with fill compacted in layers no thicker than 8 inches compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density at near optimum moisture content, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557-00. The bottom of excavation should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches; moisture conditioned, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Where fill is being placed on slopes steeper than 5:1, the fill should be property benched into the existing slopes and a sufficient size keyway shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the soils engineer. If the proposed building is to be located in a transition cut-fill situation as a result of planned grading; the cut portion of the building pad should be overexcavated a minimum of three (3) feet below finish grade and replaced with low expansive soils, to provide a more uniform fill cap and decrease the potential for differential settlement. Melody Manufactured Home Sales Project No.: 2392SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation April 24,2003 Proposed Residence Page 10 6.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 6.3.1 Foundation Design Criteria Based on the prevailing soil conditions, conventional slab on grade and/or continuous wall footings are considered a suitable foundation system for the proposed structure. As such, we recommend the following criteria for the design of foundations: 6.3.1.1 A net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf), or a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci may be used for design of footings founded entirely into compacted fill. The footings should extend a minimum of 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade. A minimum base width of 15 inches for continuous footings and a minimum bearing area of 3 square feet (1.75 ft by 1.75 ft) for pad foundations should be used. Additionally; an increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind). 6.3.1.2 The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 150 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,000 psf for footings founded on compacted fill. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 6.3.2 Settlement Characteristics Based on the above design criteria, the total settlement is expected to be less than 1 inch based on the proposed loading conditions. It is anticipated that the majority of the settlement will occur during construction. Differential settlement is expected to be less than one-half of the total settlement based on known conditions. 6.3.3 Foundation Set Backs Where applicable, the following foundation setbacks should apply to all foundations. Any improvements not conforming to these setbacks may be subject to lateral movements and/or differential settlements: 6.3.3.1 The outside bottom edge of all building foundations should be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the face of bluff. The effective bluff edge will determine the 25-foot setback along a portion of the bluff as discussed previously. Melody Manufactured Home Sales Project No.: 2392SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation April 24,2003 Proposed Residence Page 11 6.3.3.2 The bottom of all footings for structures near retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom inside edge of the wall stem. 6.3.3.3 The bottom of any existing foundations for structures should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom of the nearest excavation, otherwise any additional loads induced by the existing foundations should be considered in the design of the shoring system or the underground retaining structure. 6.3.4 Seismic Design Parameters Seismically resistant structural design in accordance with local building ordinances should be followed during the design of all structures. Building Codes have been developed to minimize structural damage. However, some level of damage as the result of ground shaking generated by nearby earthquakes is considered likely in this general area. For the purpose of seismic design a Type B seismic source 6.1 km from the site may be used. Shown in Table 6.3.1 below are seismic design factors in keeping with the criteria presented in the 2001 CBC, Division IV & V, Chapter 16. TABLE 6.3.1 —SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Soil Profile Seismic Parameters Type C. C" N. N" Source Type Source Table 16-3 16-Q 16-R 16-S 16-T 16-U Value Sc 0.40 0.67 1.0 1.2 B 6.4 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION Concrete construction should follow the CBC and ACI guidelines regarding design, mix placement and curing of the concrete. The following is a minimum design criterion and should not supersede the design requirements by the structural engineer. 6.4.1 Cement Type Laboratory testing on a representative soil sample collected during the field investigation indicates that the water-soluble sulfate in soil is 0.014, which is considered to be negligible exposure to sulfate in accordance with Table 19-A-4 of the CBC. Based upon the test results, type H cement or an equivalent may be used. Melody Manufactured Home Sales Project No.:2392SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation April 24,2003 Proposed Residence Page 12 6.4.2 Concrete Slabs Concrete slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 steel bars placed at 18 inches on center, both ways. The slab reinforcement should be positioned at mid-height within the concrete slab. Where moisture condensation is undesirable, all slabs should be underlain with a minimum 6-mil polyvinyl chloride membrane, sandwiched between two layers of clean sand each being at least two inches thick (native soil may be acceptable). Care should be taken to adequately seal all seams and not puncture or tear the membrane. The sand should be proof rolled. Where applicable, soils should be wetted prior to placing concrete. It should be noted that the above recommendation is based on soil support characteristics only. The structural engineer should design the actual slab thickness and reinforcement based on actual loading conditions and possible concrete shrinkage. Exterior concrete flatwork (patios, walkways, driveways, etc.) should be given the same standards of care being applied to potential cracking as to the structure itself. 6.4.3 Concrete Cracking One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened joints for cracking to occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the stresses that develop. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced. We would suggest that control joints be placed in two directions spaced the numeric equivalent of two times the thickness of the slab in inches changed to feet (e.g. a 4 inch slab would have control joints at 8 feet centers). As a practical matter, this is not always possible nor is it a widely applied standard. 6.5 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS We recommend that site grading, specifications, and foundation plans be reviewed by this office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. We also recommend that geotechnical representatives be present during site grading and foundation construction to check for proper implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. These representatives should perform at least the following duties: • Observe bottom of removals prior to fill placement. • Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement, and collect soil samples for laboratory testing where necessary. Melody Manufactured Home Sales Project No.: 2392SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation April 24,2003 Proposed Residence Page 13 • Observe the fill for uniformity during placement including utility trenches. Also, test the fill for field density and relative compaction. • Observe and probe foundation materials to confirm suitability of bearing materials and proper footing dimensions. If requested, GeoTek will provide a construction observation and compaction report to comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project. We recommend that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained. Y Melody Manufactured Home Sales Project No.:2392SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation April 24,2003 Proposed Residence Page 14 7. LIMITATIONS The materials observed on the project site appear to be representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during site construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GeoTek, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others. Since our recommendations are based upon the site conditions observed and encountered, and laboratory testing, our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. A?UK Melody Manufactured Home Sales Project No.: 2392SD3 Geotechnical Evaluation April 24,2003 Proposed Residence Page 15 8. SELECTED REFERENCES Afrouz, A., 1992, "Practical Handbook of Rock Mass Classifications Systems and Modes of Ground Failure", CRC Press, January 1992. ASTM, 200, "Soil and Rock: American Society for Testing and Materials," vol. 4.08 for ASTM test methods D-420 to D-4914, 153 standards, 1,026 pages; and vol. 4.09 for ASTM test method D- 4943 to highest number. Blake, T., 2000a, "BQFAULT, version 3.00", a Computer Program for Deterministic Estimation of Maximum Earthquake Event and Peak Ground Acceleration. Bowels, J., 1982, "Foundation Analysis and Design",McGraw-Hill,Third Edition. California Code of Regulations,Title 24,2001 "California Building Code(CBC)," 3 volumes. California Division of Mines and Geology(CDMG), 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," Special Publication 117. California Division of Mines and Geology(CDMG), 1998,Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: International Conference of Building Officials. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California. Open File Report 46-02,Plate 2, Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles. GeoTek, Inc.,In-house proprietary information. Ishihara, K., 1985, "Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes", Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, CA, Volume 1. San Diego County Department of Cartographic Services,Reviewed Aerial Photos: 1928, 30A-2, 30A- 3;1960-70, SDT2-T25, 3-94, 95, 96; 1967, GSV BTA,174, 141; 1978-9, 2101 SB, SDCO, 1983,246, 541. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982, "Ground Motions And Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes," Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Seed, H.B., and Tokimatsu, K, Harder,L.F., and Chung, R.M., 1985, "Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 111,no. GT12,pp.1425-1445. Youd, T. Leslie and Idriss, Izzmat M., 1997, Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022. 117,316670 W WGS84 117.300000 W 0 � .�, ,x � � i 1 '�.f �Vii•°�.�:� �r� tt"4�� 0 Y ' *.� ti r yi r_ i t rty , 7.7. $yy 2 } Approximate ' r . Location of 7, SITE iier r L) i,.efr i Y ,"�4vv-- ter• ° .j. O a �} R i O i �i 4 c • � ,�. t I e r ` t� ' Y y# ' 5,r• �, _ _iw 4' ,• 117.31667° W WGS84 117.300000 W TN MN o 5 t MILE 13° 1004 FEET 0 500 t0iMf1 METERS Printed from TOPO! @2000 Wildflower Productions(www.topo.com) MELODY MANUFACTURED N —F— HOME SALES Figure 1 Proposed Residence Site 124 La Costa Avenue -F,K, INC. Encinitas,California Location uses 7.5-Minute Map 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A GeoTek Project Number:2392SD3 Topographic Map Vista, California 92083 �. �ALCA ow PROPOnD IQ� SIpE SETB to m`D m • PR0F0SF-D.2,!'5lTB14C.lc.. FROM F.FFEC TIvE TDP DF BtoF F ZA opfKox1aa� Co4►joN •� `, � EFFI;c"vE 'COP OF &Lb F'F cr rn 0 IA �o G �N II II M O z � o N w y O U.) C tz� Ma uj 0 r n x N 0 O h7 W � cn C7 n © � m I� p rn �On n N ly 00 o C p no O N Ln r `O °a 0 u �. fD ryp y 00 A f`) �� ° B ° W , fy Avg Nu 6 r � •V [I I f r �• 74 s 1 r ll- r r l i rmrn ` ?� gPPr4 \�"► I gpProx+f)aft rlotq 1.I1. OF �pl�IIVM �-3 w r3 oG "I o I � r � o --- '� fD o �. N IJ r . w o w � (� o• C n x N O O O C" m C ` CD CA GP oo O b O � O � N I � � o ' Cs �- 00 ;co w p cD , ir c� APPENDIX A LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS (BORINGS Bl THROUGH B6) MELODY MANUFACTURED HOME SALES PROPOSED RESIDENCE 124 LA COSTA AVENUE PROJECT No.:2392SD3 Melody Manufactured Home Sales APPENDIX A Geotechnical Evaluation April 24,2003 Proposed Residence Page A-1 LEGEND FOR FIELD SAMPLING AND TESTING PROCEDURES A-FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES The Standard Penetration Test(SPT) The SPT is performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1586-99. The SPT sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The split-barrel sampler has an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 1-3/8 inches. The samples of earth materials collected in the sampler are typically classified in the field, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for further testing. The Modified Split-Barrel Sampler(Ring The Ring sampler is driven into the ground in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3550-84. The sampler,with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The samples are removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. Bulk 'Large' Samples Bulk samples are normally bags of representative earth materials over 20 pounds in weight collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. Bulk `Small Plastic Ba ' Samples Plastic bags samples are normally airtight and contain less than 5 pounds in weight of representative earth materials collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. These samples are primarily used for determining natural moisture content and classification indices. B/T—BORING/TRENCH LOG LEGEND The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and rock on the logs of borings: SOILS USCS Unified Soil Classification System f-c Fine to coarse f-m Fine to medium GEOLOGIC B:Attitudes Bedding: strike/dip J:Attitudes Joint: strike/dip C: Contact line Dashed line denotes USCS material change Solid Line denotes unit/formational change Thick solid line denotes end of boring/trenches (Additional denotations and symbols are provided on the logs of borings/trenches) M GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Page 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2392SD3 DRILLER: West Hazmat LOGGED BY: LG PROJECT NAME: 124 La Costa Ave DRILLING METHOD: 6"Hollow Stem Auger OPERATOR: Robert LOCATION: Encinitas,California HAMMER: 140 Ibs/30in RIG TYPE: CME 75 ELEVATION: ±55 msl DATE: 4/7/03 SAMPLES Laborato Testin a a E BORING NO.: 8-9 a a ri m (D °—' a E E °3 a) p a o M � U ca ? oa t u) m �z D 3ci o 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 61-1 o�so� SM r6 own,dry,loose,silty f-m SAND,trace root hairs Terrace Deposits 50/4" 61-2 SM Dark brown,moist,dense,silty f-m SAND .................................................................................................................. 5 21 SC Orange-brown,moist,dense,clayey f-m SAND 20 B1-3 15 40 50/5" 61-4 -same 10 .. .... .....30........................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................... 50 B1-5 SW Orange-brown,moist,dense,f-m SAND 40 50/3" B1-6 -same 15 20 61-7A antis o ormatton 40 B1-7 SID gray,mots,dense,fine SAND 45 20 35 4 -same -HOLE TERMINATED AT 21 FEET- No groundwater encountered Hole backfilled with bentonite chips 25 Legend: --Ring ® --SPT ® —Large Bag � --Small Bag � --No Recovery !Z- —Water Table GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Page i of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2392SD3 DRILLER: West Hazmat LOGGED BY: LG PROJECT NAME: 124 La Costa Ave DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem Auger OPERATOR: Robert LOCATION: Encinitas,California HAMMER: 140 Ibs/30in RIG TYPE: CME 75 ELEVATION: t52 msl DATE: 4/7/03 SAMPLES ° Laboratory Tea sting E w BORING NO.: � � a �s 8-2 a CL N F a �'c y rn Z j t MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS o opsoll _x 82-1 SM L3rown,moist,loose,silty,f-m SAND,trace roots Terrace Deposits 50/6" 62-2 SC Dark brown,moist,dense,clayey f-m SAND 7.5 105 5 50.... ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ..... ............... ............ ............................................... 62-3 SP Red-brown,moist,dense,fine SAND trace clay;slightly cemented 50 62-4 @ 7.5':becomes slightly cemented 10 25 c@10':becomes yellow brown,moist,dense,fine SAND 25 62-5 30 15 an sago orma on 35 62-6•, ••.SW Yellow,moist,•dense f-c SAND 50 SP L'"igfif gray.moist;'i3erise;'firie S�IND'""""""""""" ............................................................................. ............ ............................................... 20 28 62-7 SP @20':becomes yellow,moist,dense,fine SAND;scattered fine gravel 30/3" 25 g . 50° '82-8 SM 1rite�be'ifded'yellow'&'g'ray;'m'oisf;'d"erise;'silty'iirie"SAN6;'scafte�ed.g.ravel"""'.................•"°°"••••.......................................... contluned Legend: –Ring ® --SPT ® —Large Hag —Small Bag 0—No Recovery Z —Water Table GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Page 2 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2392SD3 DRILLER: West Hazmat LOGGED BY: LG PROJECT NAME: 124 La Costa Ave DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem Auger OPERATOR: Robert LOCATION: Encinitas,California HAMMER: 140 lbs/30in RIG TYPE: CME 75 ELEVATION: t52msl DATE: 4/7/03 SAMPLES Lab atory Testing CL C m E BORING NO.: o & N E E (n C E o in z' ai mm oa r M m D U O O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS an is o FoFr at on cont Lai 30 30 62-9A SM -same 30 B2-9 30 35 25 @35':becomes gray,moist,wet to saturated,dense,silty fine SAND 30 62-10A . ................................................................ ............................................................................ 40 62-10 CL'-CH t;•ray;°moist;'ha'ril;•CL',4�Y;•��ace'shell'frag"menu • Pocket Penetrometer (PP)=1.5 to 2.5 tsf 40 10 15 62-11 Q 40':becomes gray,moist,hard,CLAY with thin layers of gray sand;trace PP=1.5 to 2 tsf 20 shell fragments and root hairs 45 20 35 B2-12 -same-with brown sand seams Shear Test,See Plate SH-1, Appendix B . ... 4.......................... ................... ......................................................................................................................................... .................... ............................................................................. ML Gray,moist,dense,clayey SILT;trace shell fragments and root hairs 50 15 25 B2-13 same -HOLE TERMINATED AT 51.5 FEET- No groundwater encountered;seepage at 35 feet Hole backfilled with bentonite grout 55 Legend: ---Ring ® —SPT ®—Large Bag z—Small Bag No Recovery N Y --Water seepage GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Page 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2392SD3 DRILLER: West Hazmat LOGGED BY: LG PROJECT NAME: 124 La Costa Ave DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem Auger OPERATOR: Robert LOCATION: Encinitas,Califomia HAMMER: 140 Ibs/30in RIG TYPE: CME 75 ELEVATION: t52 msl DATE: 417/03 SAMPLES ° Laboratory Testing a � E w as BORING NO.: 8-3 (0Z rn o a r m � 0 0 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS Topsol SM brown,moist,loose,silty f-m SAND Terrace epos 35 50 133-1 SC Red-brown,moist,dense,clayey f-m SAND Shear Test,See Plate SH-2, Appendix B 5 25 30 133-2 -same 30 .... ..... ...................SP Y ;'m" ; ...................................................................................................................................0 oistdense "fire'SANC . 35 63-3 40 -same-slightly cemented 10 15 50/6" B3 4 same slightly cemented San tra o Formation 15 SW-SP lg ye ow 15 ,moist,dense,f-c SAND,no cementation 20 B3-5 25 20 30 50/6" B3-6 -same-with gravel 30 25 -same-with gravel -HOLE TERMINATED AT 31 FEET- No groundwater encountered Hole backfilled with bentonite grout Legend: --Ring ,--SPT ® —Large Pag --Small Bag —No Recovery tY = Water Table GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING PROJECT NO.: 2392SD3 Page 1 of 1 DRILLER: West Hazmat LOGGED BY: LG PROJECT NAME: 124 La Costa Ave DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem Auger OPERATOR: Robert LOCATION: Encinitas,Califomia HAMMER: 140 Ibs/30in RIG TYPE: CME 75 ELEVATION: ±55 DATE: 4n/03 SAMPLES T9 E- r" E L aborato Testin as rn BORING NO.: 8-4 C/)to Z ? o L CL O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 13� SM rown,moist,loose,silty fine SAND;porous 12 errace a os is 24 B4-1 SC e - rown,moist,dense,clayey f-m SAND .36 S...........................M....... Fted=tirowri;°riioist;'cterisia;'si("'f=rri'SAT�Tf7;"trace'ot"a"°"sli'TitT...cemeritei3........................................................................................... 5 .....15....94_f* SP Red-brown;moist;'dense;firie'SANYS brace cfay;'sligfitfy cemented.."""""""""""""""""""' ........................................................... 20 25 35 30 64-3 -same-becomes orange-brown 10 30 50 B4-4 -same becomes yellow-brown,moist,dense fine SAND 15 55 taco orma wn 20 35 ,B4-5 .SC....Yellow,moist,dense,claye f-c SAND,slightly cemented ..... S .. .. . ........................................................ 50 SW-SP Gray,moist;°devise;f:"m"' ;4 D' 20 30 @20':becomes orange-brown,dense,f-c SAND with scattered gravel 45 50 B4-6 -HOLE TERMINATED AT 21.5 FEET- No groundwater encountered 25 Hole backfilled with bentonite grout Legend: —Ring ® —SPT ® —Large Bag —Small Bag ---No Recovery Z_Z---Water Table GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING Page 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2392SD3 DRILLER: West Hazmat LOGGED BY: LG PROJECT NAME: 124 La Costa Ave DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem Auger OPERATOR: Robert LOCATION: Encinitas,California HAMMER: 140lbs/30in RIG TYPE: CME 75 ELEVATION: *55 msl DATE: 4/7/03 SAMPLES B Labo tory Testing d E v BORING NO.: T d, a m _i4 a a 8'S p E m U c a�ii M m Z c D o L MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS U Topsoil SM Brown,damp to moist,loose,silty fine SAND El=3 Terrace Deposits 22 SM Red-brown,moist,dense,silty f-c SAND trace clay;slightly cemented 50 B5-2 5 ....40..................................................................................................................................................................................... ............ ............................ ............................................... 60 135-3 SP Red-brown,moist,dense,fine SAND;slightly cemented 40 20 45 65-4 -same-trace clay 50 10 40 65-5 -same 50 15 an a o orma on 20 SP Light gray,moist,dense,fine SAND 50 65-6 20 15 -same 45 65-7 -HOLE TERMINATED AT 21.5 FEET- No groundwater encountered Hole backfilled with bentonite grout 25 Le end: --Ring —SPT ® —Large Bag --Small Bag —No Recovery --Water Table GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING PROJECT NO.: 2392SD3 DR Page 1 of 1 DRILLER: West Hazmat LOGGED BY: LG PROJECT NAME: 124 La Costa Ave DRILLING METHOD: 8"Hollow Stem Auger OPERATOR: LOCATION: Encinitas,Cal'rfornia Robert ELEVATION: t 55ms1 HAMMER: 140 Ibs/30in RIG TYPE: CME 75 DATE: 4/7/03 SAMPLES ° 4Teest n E io (n BORING NO.: 8-6 0 03 CL "' m Z = MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 0�o B6-1 SM r6 own moist,loose to medium dense,silty fine SAND , 35 errace a os is Appendix B 50 136-2 SC a orange- rown,moist,dense,clayey f-m SAND 5 45....186-Y'6;3A ..............:same ' 0 SP C3'ra'n'ge;°moist;'dense';'firie'SAND';'§ligfifly"cemerifeif................................................................................ ....................................... ........ 10 25 30 136-4 -same-with scattered gravel;slightly cemented 15 40.... .............. No recovery .................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........ ............................................... 30 50 SW-SP Red-brown,moist,dense,f-c SAND;trace clay 50 R6_5 HOLE TERMINATED AT 17 FEET- No groundwater encountered 20 Hole backfilled with bentonite grout 25 Legend: --Ring ® --Large pag —Small Bag --No Recovery ZZ --WattTable APPENDIX B RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING MELODY MANUFACTURED HOME SALES PROPOSED RESIDENCE 124 LA COSTA AVENUE PROJECT No.: 2392SD3 Melody Manufactured Home Sales APPENDIX B Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residence April 24,2003 Page B-1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM Test Method D2487). The soil classifications are shown on the logs of exploratory borings in Appendix A. Moisture Density—(In Situ Moisture and Unit Weight) The field moisture content and dry unit weight were taken on ring samples (ASTM Test Method D2216). The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot. The field moisture content is determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Results of these tests are presented on the logs of exploratory borings in Appendix A. Sulfate Content Analysis to determine the water-soluble sulfate content was performed in accordance with California Test No. 417. Results of the testing indicated 0.014% sulfate which is considered negligible as per Table 19-A-4 of the CBC. The results of the testing are included herein (see Plate SR-1). Resistivity Representative surficial soil samples were tested in accordance with California Test 643. The results of the testing are included herein (see Plate SR-1). Expansion Index Expansion Index testing was performed on representative soil samples. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829. The Expansion Index (EI) test results are included herein. Direct Shear Shear testing was performed in a direct shear machine of the strain-control type in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D3080. The rate of deformation is approximately 0.03 inches per minute. The sample was sheared under varying confining loads in order to determine the coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. The tests were performed on ring samples collected during our subsurface exploration. The shear test results are presented on Plates SH-1 and 2 Cl) m OD f w LLJ o G \ � \ / � Z & a 7 a IL ca _ � / E $ a a F- e 7 § 2 2 f � c c c LU / f / u - ® w Ix U) CD 0 CL Mc M / d a d a d / / E f z 2 � / u ° � � a 2 z 2 2 \ G 2 § - � / m m m Q w a a w W S S S S g = O i W / 2 _\ g \ / 2 Z o ` m = 2 « 0 / W o4 Cl) ❑ � 27 Z CL ¢ Z LLI 2) � a cn Z a. Q e R ® Cl) ® � U) / \ § � ® ® Cl / / a) z k / \ 0 C-) q G z a & Q w z ■ ( \ 5 _ w E w w 2 u o Q z ƒ % [ z k c \ E2 E 3 @ « _ = a = m o 2 J 7 ° = r n / 3 a .. ) 2 f f { 5 # 7 E _ � £ f \ k \ \ S 7 } ƒ = S % 0 p c � n c 2 2 » 3 E (D / u / 7 2 \ ) } I c \ � \ } e -03 4 « z c 2 E_ G_ / o w LL CD _ - i �_` 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, Vista, CA 92083 T ' (760) 599-0509 FAX (760) 599-0593 SOIL RESISTIVITY (California Test 643) Project Name: 124 La Costa Ave Tested/Checked By. DC Lab No 833 Project Number. 0.014 Date Tested. 4/15/2003 Project Location: Sample Source: 136-1 @ 0-2° Sample Description: Brown fine silty sand A. pH Test in accordance with AASHTO Designation T289-91: Soil pH = 7.3 B. Soil Resistivity Test(California Test 643): Measured Res Water Added from Nil.400 mL (ohms-cm) 100 5200 50 3200 20 2700 20 2600 20 2700 Minimum Resistivity= 2600 33.1 years to perforation for a 18 gauge metal culvert. 43.0 years to perforation for a 16 gauge metal culvert. 53.0 years to perforation for a 14 gauge metal culvert. 72.8 years to perforation for a 12 gauge metal culvert. 92.7 years to perforation for a 10 gauge metal culvert. 112.6 years to perforation for a 8 gauge metal culvert. Water Soluble Sulfate (California Test 417)= 0.014% SR-1 Ky INC. DIRECT SHEAR TEST Project Name: 124 La Costa Ave Sample Source: 82.12 @ 45' Project Number: 2392-SD3 Date Tested: 4/16/03 Soil Description: Grey clay 5.5 5 4.5 4 Y N 3.5 to W N 3 CCa 2 y 2.5 .. .. .. . .. _ 2 A 1.5 1 0.5 Y=0.05x+1.93 0 I 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 L NORMAL STRESS(ksf) 4 .5 5 5.5 Shear Strength: (D= 2.9 ° C = 1.93 ksf Water ContW84.6 [Test Load (ton) ( o)0.7 42.3 1.4 428 2.8 37.7 Notes: I-The soil specimen used in the shear box were"ring"samples collected during the field investigation. 2-Shear strength calculated at maximum load. 3-The tests were ran at a shear rate of 0.02 in/min. PLATE SH-1 K INC. DIRECT SHEAR TEST Project Name: 124 La Costa Ave Sample Source: B3-2 @ 5' Project Number: 2392-SD3 Date Tested: 4/16/2003 Soil Description: Yellow-brown silty fine sand 5.5 --------------------- —— ----------,-------------------,---— -—----------- --------------- - -- ------------------ 5 ------- --------- ------------------- ---------- --------,---------, — ----- --------- --------------- 4.5 ------- ------- --- ------—- -------- — — — 4 --- ------- ___-_____ __ ------____ _______________ _______________.____ Y U) 3.5 ------------------- --—--- --- - ---- y W — j 3 -------- — — — — -------- ------- ------- --------- -- K 2.5 — ---- ------------------ ------------------ ---------r------- --- -- ------ ------ ------- 2 -- --- -- ------------ - ----- —, — — — ---- ---- -- - 1 ------- 1.5 - — ------! --------------------- 1 ---------- ---- ---- ---------,-------- ------ ---- - ---- --- 0.5 --------------------------------------- — — — - — r 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 NORMAL STRESS(ksf) Shear Strength: (D = 23.3 ° C = 0.69 ksf Water Content Dry Density Test No. Load(ton) (% Apo 1 0.7 6.9 114 2 1.4 6.7 112 3 2.8 6.2 113 Notes: 1-The soil specimen used in the shear box were"ring"samples collected during the field investigation. 2-Shear strength calculated at maximum load. 3-The tests were ran at a shear rate of 0.03 in/min. PLATE SH-2 APPENDIX C RESULTS OF SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION MELODY MANUFACTURED HOME SALES PROPOSED RESIDENCE 124 LA COSTA AVENUE PROJECT No.:2392SD3 AiK 0 N L0 a N\ \ \ �\ N o d N Cl) \' p p Q. N Y N LU H C L M O d c N t LL N 00 >+ C) c I ', N m N r• Ca- J 0- ✓ !Q cli O m a N a� U 0000 /'••�i��i ' �mpO LU 0coN0 LL Q Z N N p �`; �� LL U ,F, ywOOp 0) 2 U5660 0 CDLO 0) O i U� _oocn O ULO 0C , O �0 r N Cl) v�NZ u� oc U O c0 m Ul) � CO•C�• i N M el LO CD OD N V LL NN-C.C'>M't-t NNNN CJNNNN I L — �— O r! 000 O O O O ccl r 04 O O M 0 Q 0 � L � � O N U \ O \\ \ N .D a CI) m O a f1 m T I M O v LO _ w _�a 0 III r •� t N N CO N m > ! LL O� ° c N m N Q m r` a_w +.• J 0--�.N �� .• ;� p J lC N 0 i o N !a r CO N N CA N �� X000 I,,- ! Q z ac�nz J L _0— w .0 Q co O �!/ j'/ R lL aNN° / V- U o y.,0°° w a s co rn°O o / G� °ern R O O M O_U')Or r CO CD O C'6 r N c'M fA F z N a1 C U V w M 'p CA C`9.@ fn N T U)0 �U) I M LM CD CD C10 G;O N'ct L LQ Lq LO 0 L^CD CD CD co I r O p O O J p r N co M O Q r � Q) C:\stedwin\2392sd3.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.002, December 2001 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static Earthquake, and Applied Force Options. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 4/17/03 Time of Run: 2:22PM Run By: GEOTEK, INC. Input Data Filename: C:2392sd3. Output Filename: C:2392sd3.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:2392sd3.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: 2392SD3 BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 Top Boundaries 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 22.00 68.00 28.00 3 2 68.00 28.00 96.00 40.00 3 3 96.00 40.00 102.00 43.00 2 4 102.00 43.00 130.00 46.00 2 5 130.00 46.00 151.00 59.00 2 6 151.00 59.00 162.00 66.00 1 7 162.00 66.00 165.00 72.00 1 8 165.00 72.00 180.00 74.00 1 9 180.00 74.00 260.00 74.00 1 10 151.00 59.00 260.00 59.00 2 11 96.00 40.00 260.00 40.00 3 Default Y-Origin = 0.00(ft) ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 115.0 0.0 690.0 23.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 110.0 0.0 500.0 28.0 0.00 0.0 3 112.3 0.0 1930.0 0.0 0.00 0 BOUNDARY LOAD(S) 0.0 0 D 1 Load(s) Specified Load X-Left X-Right Intensity Deflection No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 190.00 235.00 750.0 NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed 0 Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface. A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0.0(psf) A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 225 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 15 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 15 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 30.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Betweend X = 170.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed,60 ( The Minimum Elevation C:\stedwin\2392sd3.OUT Page 2 At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 10.00(ft) 5.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated = 225 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max = 7.256 FS Min = 1.531 FS Ave = 2.211 Standard Deviation = 0.576 Coefficient of Variation = 26.07 $ Failure Surface Specified By 45 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 58.57 27.17 2 63.19 25.24 3 67.85 23.45 4 72.57 21.80 5 77.34 20.29 6 82.15 18.92 7 87.00 17.70 8 91.88 16.62 9 96.79 15.69 10 101.73 14.90 11 106.69 14.26 12 111.66 13.77 13 116.65 13.42 14 121.65 13.22 15 126.65 13.18 16 131.65 13.28 17 136.64 13.52 18 141.63 13.92 19 146.60 14.47 20 151.55 15.16 21 156.48 16.00 22 161.38 16.98 23 166.25 18.11 24 171.08 19.38 25 175.88 20.80 26 180.63 22.36 27 185.33 24.06 28 189.98 25.90 29 194.58 27.87 30 199.11 29.98 31 203.58 32.22 32 207.98 34.60 33 212.30 37.11 34 216.56 39.74 35 220.73 42.50 36 224.81 45.38 37 228.81 48.38 38 232.72 51.50 39 236.54 54.73 40 240.25 58.07 41 243.87 61.53 42 247.38 65.08 43 250.78 68.75 44 254.08 72.51 45 255.31 74.00 Circle Center At X = 125.78 ; Y = 181.55 and Radius = 168.38 Factor of Safety *** 1.531 *** Individual data on the 56 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Slice Width Weight Force Force Norme Force HorFOrceVerSurc Load e No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 4.6 604.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 90.7 0.0 0.0 C:\stedwin\2392sd3.OUT Page 3 2 4.7 1801.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 270.2 0.0 0.0 3 0.1 74.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 11.2 0.0 0.0 4 4.6 3277.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 491.6 0.0 0.0 5 4.8 5318.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 797.8 0.0 0.0 6 4.8 7251.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 1087.7 0.0 0.0 7 4.8 9141.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 1371.2 0.0 0.0 8 4.9 10980.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 1647.0 0.0 0.0 9 4.1 10588.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 1588.2 0.0 10 0.8 2174.2 0.0 0.0 0, 0.0 11 4.9 14584.9 0.0 0.0 p 0• 326. 0.0 0.0 12 0.3 848.5 0.0 0.0 0 0. 2187.7 7 0.0 p p 13 4.7 15071.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 2260.7 0.0 0.0 14 5.0 16583.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 2487.5 0.0 0.0 15 5.0 17152.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 2572.9 0.0 0.0 16 5.0 17626.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 2643.9 0.0 0.0 17 5.0 18002.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 2700.3 0.0 0.0 18 3.4 12229.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 1834.4 0.0 0.0 19 1.6 6126.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 919.0 0.0 0.0 20 5.0 19622.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 2943.4 0•0 21 5.0 21097.5 0.0 0.0 0, 0.0 22 5.0 22460.3 0.0 0.0 0. 3164.6 0.0 0.0 23 4.4 21021.2 0.0 0.0 00. 0• 3369.0 0.0 0.0 24 0.5 2686.1 0.0 0.0 0 0. 3153.2 0.0 0.0 25 4.9 24908.1 0.0 0.0 0 0. 402.9 0.0 0.0 26 4.9 26033.0 0.0 0.0 0. 3736.2 0.0 0.0 27 0.6 3383.8 0.0 0.0 00. 0. 3905. 0.0 0.0 28 3.0 17309.6 0.0 0.0 0 0. 507.6 6 0.0 0.0 29 1.2 7585.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 2596.4 0.0 0.0 30 4.8 29145.5 0.0 0.0 0 0• 1137.8 0.0 0.0 31 4 .8 28534.3 0.0 0.0 0. 4371.8 0.0 0.0 0• 0. 4280.2 0.0 0.0 32 4.1 24158.5 0.0 0.0 33 0.6 3663.9 0.0 0.0 00. 0. 3623. 0.0 0.0 34 4.7 26807.9 0,0 0.0 0 0. 549.6 6 0.0 0.0 35 4.7 25585.1 0.0 0.0 0 0. 4021.2 0.0 0.0 36 0.0 89.3 0.0 0.0 0 0. 3837.8 0.0 0.0 37 4.6 24201.0 0.0 0.0 0 0. 13.4 0.0 0.0 38 4.5 22929.7 0.0 0.0 0 0. 3630.2 0.0 3432.7 39 4.5 21510.1 0.0 0.0 0 0. 3439.5 0.0 3399.6 40 4.4 20038.6 0.0 0.0 0 0. 3226.5 0.0 3351.1 41 4.3 18522.5 0.0 0.0 0• 3005.8 0.0 3299.6 42 4.3 16969.6 0.0 0.0 0 0. 2778.4 0.0 3245.3 0 43 0.4 1512.6 0.0 0.0 . 0. 2545.4 0.0 3188.0 0 44 3.8 13885.9 0.0 0.0 0 0 226.9 0.0 296.2 45 4 .1 13821.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 20873 .3 0.0 3065.2 46 4.0 12232.9 0.0 0.0 47 3 .9 10639.7 0.0 0.0 0' 0. 1834.9 0.0 2999.7 48 2.3 55703 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 1595.9 0.0 2931.6 . 49 1.5 3480.3 0.0 0.0 0. 835.5 0.0 1709.2 0. 0. 522.1 0.0 0.0 50 3 .7 7474.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 1121.2 0.0 51 1.0 1724.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 52 2.6 4178.0 0.0 0,0 0• 0. 258.7 0.0 0.0 0• 0. 626.7 0.0 0.0 53 3 .5 4319.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 647.9 0.0 54 3 .4 2773 .6 0.0 0.0 0.0 55 3.3 1277.7 0.0 0.0 0• 0. 416. 0.0 0.0 56 1.2 105.5 0.0 0.0 0• 0. 191.6 6 0.0 0.0 0• 0. 15.8 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 40 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 80.00 33.14 2 83.99 30.12 3 88.11 27.30 4 92.37 24.68 5 96.75 22.26 6 101.23 20.06 7 105.82 18.07 8 110.50 16.31 9 115.26 14.78 C:\stedwin\2392sd3.0UT Page 4 10 120.09 13.47 11 124.97 12.40 12 129.90 11.56 13 134.87 10.96 14 139.85 10.61 15 144.85 10.49 16 149.85 10.61 17 154.84 10.97 18 159.80 11.57 19 164.73 12.41 20 169.61 13.48 21 174.44 14.79 22 179.20 16.32 23 183.88 18.09 24 188.47 20.07 25 192.95 22.28 26 197.33 24.69 27 201.59 27.32 28 205.71 30.14 29 209.70 33.16 30 213.53 36.37 31 217.21 39.76 32 220.72 43.32 33 224.05 47.05 34 227.20 50.93 35 230.16 54.96 36 232.93 59.13 37 235.49 63.42 38 237.84 67.83 39 239.98 72.35 40 240.66 74.00 Circle Center At X = 144.83 ; Y = 114.54 and Radius = 104.06 Factor of Safety *** 1.533 *** Failure Surface Specified By 41 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.43 26.54 2 55.94 24.39 3 60.53 22.41 4 65.19 20.59 5 69.92 18.95 6 74.70 17.49 7 79.53 16.20 8 84.40 15.09 9 89.32 14.16 10 94.26 13.41 11 99.23 12.85 12 104.21 12.46 13 109.21 12.26 14 114.21 12.25 15 119.21 12.41 16 124.19 12.76 17 129.17 13.30 18 134.11 14.01 19 139.03 14.91 20 143.92 15.99 21 148.76 17.25 22 153.55 18.68 23 158.28 20.29 24 162.95 22.07 25 167.55 24.02 26 172.08 26.14 27 176.53 28.43 28 180.89 30.87 29 185.16 33.48 30 189.33 36.24 C:\stedwin\2392sd3.OUT Page 5 31 193.39 39.15 32 197.35 42.21 33 201.19 45.41 34 204.91 48.75 35 208.50 52.23 36 211.97 55.83 37 215.30 59.56 38 218.49 63.41 39 221.53 67.38 40 224.43 71.45 41 226.11 74.00 Circle Center At X = 112.16 ; Y = 148.27 and Radius = 136.04 Factor of Safety *** 1.587 *** Failure Surface Specified By 40 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 72.86 30.08 2 77.46 28.14 3 82.13 26.35 4 86.86 24.73 5 91.65 23.27 6 96.48 21.98 7 101.35 20.86 8 106.26 19.91 9 111.20 19.12 10 116.16 18.51 11 121.14 18.07 12 126.13 17.80 13 131.13 17.71 14 136.13 17.79 15 141.12 18.04 16 146.11 18.46 17 151.07 19.06 18 156.01 19.83 19 160.92 20.76 20 165.80 21.87 21 170.63 23.14 22 175.42 24.59 23 180.16 26.19 24 184.83 27.96 25 189.45 29.89 26 193.99 31.98 27 198.46 34.22 28 202.85 36.62 29 207.15 39.17 30 211.36 41.86 31 215.48 44.70 32 219.49 47.68 33 223.40 50.80 34 227.20 54.05 35 230.88 57.43 36 234.45 60.93 37 237.89 64.56 38 241.21 68.30 39 244.39 72.16 40 245.81 74.00 Circle Center At X = 131.36 ; Y = 162.19 and Radius = 144.48 Factor of Safety *** 1.604 *** Failure Surface Specified By 40 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 87.14 36.20 2 91.12 33.17 3 95.23 30.32 4 99.46 27.66 C:\stedwin\2392sd3.OUT Page 6 5 103.82 25.21 6 108.28 22.96 7 112.85 20.92 8 117.50 19.09 9 122.23 17.48 10 127.04 16.09 11 131.90 14.93 12 136.81 13.99 13 141.76 13.28 14 146.74 12.80 15 151.73 12.56 16 156.73 12.54 17 161.73 12.76 18 166.71 13.21 19 171.66 13.89 20 176.58 14.80 21 181.45 15.93 22 186.26 17.29 23 191.00 18.87 24 195.67 20.67 25 200.24 22.69 26 204.72 24.91 27 209.09 27.34 28 213.34 29.97 29 217.47 32.79 30 221.46 35.81 31 225.31 39.00 32 229.00 42.37 33 232.54 45.91 34 235.90 49.60 35 239.09 53.45 36 242.10 57.45 37 244.92 61.58 38 247.55 65.83 39 249.97 70.20 40 251.86 74.00 Circle Center At X = 154.55 ; Y = 120.27 and Radius = 107.75 Factor of Safety *** 1.606 *** Failure Surface Specified By 40 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 87.14 36.20 2 91.17 33.25 3 95.34 30.47 4 99.62 27.90 5 104.02 25.52 6 108.52 23.35 7 113.12 21.39 8 117.81 19.64 9 122.57 18.10 10 127.39 16.79 11 132.27 15.71 12 137.20 14.84 13 142.15 14.21 14 147.14 13.80 15 152.14 13.62 16 157.13 13.68 17 162.13 13.96 18 167.10 14.47 19 172.05 15.21 20 176.95 16.18 21 181.81 17.37 22 186.60 18.78 23 191.33 20.41 24 195.98 22.26 25 200.53 24.32 C:\stedwin\2392sd3.0UT Page 7 26 204.99 26.59 27 209.34 29.06 28 213.57 31.72 29 217.67 34.58 30 221.64 37.63 31 225.46 40.85 32 229.13 44.24 33 232.64 47.80 34 235.98 51.52 35 239.15 55.39 36 242.14 59.40 37 244.94 63.54 38 247.54 67.81 39 249.95 72.19 40 250.84 74.00 Circle Center At X = 153.48 ; Y = 122.29 and Radius = 108.68 Factor of Safety *** 1.613 *** Failure Surface Specified By 48 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 37.14 25.28 2 41.85 23.60 3 46.60 22.04 4 51.39 20.59 5 56.21 19.26 6 61.06 18.05 7 65.94 16.96 8 70.85 16.00 9 75.77 15.15 10 80.72 14.42 11 85.68 13.81 12 90.66 13.33 13 95.65 12.97 14 100.64 12.73 15 105.64 12.61 16 110.64 12.62 17 115.64 12.75 18 120.63 13.00 19 125.62 13.38 20 130.59 13.87 21 135.56 14.49 22 140.50 15.23 23 145.43 16.10 24 150.33 17.08 25 155.20 18.18 26 160.05 19.40 27 164.87 20.74 28 169.65 22.20 29 174.40 23.78 30 179.10 25.47 31 183.76 27.28 32 188.38 29.20 33 192.95 31.23 34 197.47 33.37 35 201.93 35.63 36 206.33 37.99 37 210.68 40.46 38 214.97 43.04 39 219.19 45.72 40 223.34 48.51 41 227.42 51.39 42 231.43 54.38 43 235.37 57.46 44 239.23 60.64 45 243.01 63.91 46 246.71 67.28 C:\stedwin\2392sd3.OUT Page 8 47 250.32 70.73 48 253.58 74.00 Circle center At X = 107.86 ; Y = 216.23 ; and Radius = 203.62 Factor of Safety *** 1.621 *** Failure Surface Specified By 36 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 72.86 30.08 2 76.89 27.13 3 81.09 24.41 4 85.43 21.93 5 89.91 19.71 6 94.51 17.74 7 99.21 16.04 8 104.00 14.61 9 108.86 13.45 10 113.79 12.57 11 118.75 11.97 12 123.74 11.66 13 128.74 11.63 14 133.73 11.88 15 138.70 12.42 16 143.64 13.24 17 148.51 14.33 18 153.32 15.71 19 158.04 17.35 20 162.67 19.26 21 167.17 21.43 22 171.54 23.85 23 175.77 26.52 24 179.84 29.42 25 183.74 32.55 26 187.46 35.90 27 190.98 39.45 28 194.29 43.20 29 197.38 47.13 30 200.25 51.22 31 202.87 55.48 32 205.26 59.88 33 207.38 64.40 34 209.25 69.04 35 210.85 73.78 36 210.91 74.00 Circle Center At X = 126.78 ; Y = 99.53 and Radius = 87.92 Factor of Safety *** 1.650 *** Failure Surface Specified By 36 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 80.00 33.14 2 83.82 29.92 3 87.83 26.93 4 92.01 24.18 5 96.34 21.69 6 100.82 19.46 7 105.42 17.50 8 110.13 15.82 9 114.93 14.43 10 119.81 13.32 11 124.74 12.51 12 129.71 11.99 13 134.71 11.77 14 139.71 11.85 15 144.69 12.23 16 149.65 12.91 17 154.55 13.87 C:\stedwin\2392sd3.0UT Page 9 18 159.39 15.13 19 164.15 16.68 20 168.80 18.51 21 173.34 20.61 22 177.74 22.98 23 181.99 25.61 24 186.08 28.49 25 189.99 31.60 26 193.71 34.95 27 197.22 38.51 28 200.51 42.27 29 203.57 46.22 30 206.39 50.35 31 208.96 54.64 32 211.27 59.08 33 213.31 63.64 34 215.07 68.32 35 216.55 73.10 36 216.78 74.00 Circle Center At X = 135.88 ; Y = 95.46 and Radius = 83.70 Factor of Safety *** 1.651 *** Failure Surface Specified By 43 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 65.71 27.80 2 70.52 26.41 3 75.35 25.13 4 80.22 23.99 5 85.11 22.96 6 90.03 22.06 7 94.97 21.29 8 99.93 20.64 9 104.90 20.11 10 109.88 19.71 11 114.88 19.44 12 119.88 19.30 13 124.88 19.28 14 129.87 19.38 15 134.87 19.62 16 139.86 19.98 17 144.83 20.47 18 149.79 21.08 19 154.74 21.81 20 159.66 22.68 21 164.57 23.66 22 169.44 24.78 23 174.29 26.01 24 179.10 27.36 25 183.88 28.84 26 188.61 30.44 27 193.31 32.16 28 197.96 33.99 29 202.56 35.95 30 207.12 38.01 31 211.61 40.20 32 216.06 42.49 33 220.44 44.90 34 224.76 47.42 35 229.01 50.05 36 233.20 52.78 37 237.31 55.62 38 241.36 58.56 39 245.32 61.60 40 249.21 64.75 41 253.02 67.99 42 256.75 71.32 C:\stedwin\2392sd3.OUT Page 10 43 259.59 74.00 Circle Center At X = 123.13 ; Y = 216.79 ; and Radius = Factor of Safety 197.52 *** 1.676 *** **** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT **** DATE PROJECT NO. FIELD PROJECT PREORT LOCATION CONTRACTOR OWNER TO _y c WEATHER TEMP. PRESENT AT SITE l 1 SUMMARY OF INSPECTION: J RECOMMENDATIONS: SIGNATURE GEOPACIRCA GEOTECBMCAL CONSULTANTS , oPIES TO: TEL: (760) 721-5488 FAX: (760) 721-5539 3060 INDUSTRY ST„ SUITE 105 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 DATE PROJECT NO, FIELD PROJECT ' q .. P LOCATION CONTRACTOR OWNER TO k FIB b �I. WEATHER TEMP. PRESENT AT SITE SUMMARY OF INSPECTION: 1 r' RECD Nom: i r i f ✓ SIGNATURE GEOPACMCA GEOTECBMCAL CONSULTANTS COPIES TO: TEL: (760) 721-5488 FAX: (760) 721-5539 3060 INDUSTRY ST., SUITE 105 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 DATE PROJECT NO. F PROJECT LOCATION CONTRACTOR OWNER TO WEATHER TEMP. PRESENT AT SITE ar; SUMMARY OF INSPECTION: /r J� k e' d' SIGNATURE GEOPACMCA GEOTECBMCAL CONSULTANTS PIES TO: TEL: (760) 721-5488 FAX: (760) 721-5539 3060 INDUSTRY ST., SUITE 105 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 DATE PROJECT NO PROJECT F IELD REPORT LOCATION CONTRACTOR OWNER TO ' 4� WEATHER TEMP. PRESENT AT SITE SUMMARY OF INSPECTION- SIGNATURE GEOPACIRCA tiBLYFECHNICAL CONSULTANTS ONSULTAANTS 'OPIES TO: TEL: (760) 721-5488 FAX: (760) 721-5539 3060 INDUSTRY ST,, SUITE 105 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 DATE PROJECT NO. PROJECT F REPORT f. LOCATION - CONTRACTOR OWNER WEATHER THER .! oL j` .' TEMP. PRESENT AT SITE K j ^fi SUMMARY OF INSPECTION: r RECOMMENDATIONS: SIGNATURE GEOPACHUCA GEOTECBMCAL CONSULTAN'T'S I-,,,at-OPIES TO: TEL: (760) 721-5488 FAX: (760) 721-5539 3060 INDUSTRY ST., SUITE 105 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 DATE PROJECT NO. PROJECT FIELD REPORT LOCATION CONTRACTOR OWNER WEATHER TEIVIR TO PRESENT AT SITE SUMMARY OF INSPECTION: -Ice- 10 X, A/ll GEOPACMCA SIGNATURE GEOTECBMCAL CONSULTANTS TEL: (760) 721-5488 PIES TO: FAX: (760) 721-5539 3060 INDUSTRY ST., SUITE 105 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 DATE PROJECT NO, -,. <§h, PROJECT :�� r FIELD REPORT LOCATION CONTRACTOR OWNER WEATHER TEMP. TO PRESENT AT SITE 4 SUMMARY OF INSPECTION: RFCX)�� 4 GEOPACMCA SIGNATURE GEOTECBMCAL CONSULTANTS TEL: (760) 721-5488 PIES TO:_ FAX: (760) 721-5539 ",)O 3060 INDUSTRY ST., SUITE 105 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054