2007-494 SG C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
505 S. VULCAN AVE.
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO. : 494GI
PARCEL NO. 258-274-2500 PLAN NO. : 0494SG
JOB SITE ADDRESS : 1025 ARCADIA RD. CASE NO. :
APPLICANT NAME JEAN & SAIKA RADAKOVICH
MAILING ADDRESS : 1035 ARCADIA RD. PHONE NO. : 760-632-4953
CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP: 92024—
CONTRACTOR : OWNER/BUILDER PHONE NO. : 760-632-4953
LICENSE NO. : LICENSE TYPE:
ENGINEER : PASCO ENGINEERING PHONE O. : 858-259-8212
PERMIT ISSUE
PERMIT EXP E: 11/07/0 PERMIT ISSUED BY
INSPECTO : TODD BAUMBACH
---------- -- --- — ---- -- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ----------------------------
1 . PERMIT FEE 1, 800 . 00 2 . GIS MAP FEE . 00
3 . INSPECTION FEE . 00 4 . INSPECTION DEPOSIT: . 00
S . NPDES INSPT FEE . 00 6 . SECURITY DEPOSIT . 00
7 . FLOOD CONTROL FEE . 00 8 . TRAFFIC FEE . 00
9 . IN—LIEU UNDERGRND . 00 10 . IN—LIEU IMPROVMT . 00
ll . PLAN CHECK FEE . 00 12 . PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: . 00
------- ----- - ----- — — — — -- - DESCRIPTION OF WORK - --------- — — — ------------------
SIMPLIFIED GRADING PERMIT ISSUED TO VERIFY PERFORMANCE OF GRADING AND
DRAINAGE FOR SLOPE RESTORATION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. OWNER TO MAINTAIN
TRAFFIC CONTROL PER W.A.T. C.H. STANDARDS OR CITY APPROVED TRAFFIC
CONTROL PLAN. WORK TO BE PERFORMED PER APPROVED PLAN 494—SG.
RA
---- INSPECTION --------- ------- DATE -------- INSPECTOR' S SIGNATURE ----
INITIAL INSPECTION /2- 3-07 / 6"k,
COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED Z -41 --05
ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED _ Z-9—
ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION '4/JA
FINAL INSPECTION Z 'Z — to� _/' 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE
INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE
LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF
ANY PERMIT ISSUED P UANT TO THIS APPLICATION.
i
"/-/a) ' /V- 07 - 07
SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED
3
PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER
CIRCLE ONE: OWNER 2 . AGENT 3 . OTHER
S9
Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental
5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92010 (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915
February 4, 2008
W.O. 5575-B-SC
Ms. Saika Radakovich
1035 Arcadia Road
Encinitas, California
Subject: Geotechnical Report of Grading, 1025 Arcadia Road, City of Encinitas, San
Diego County, California
Reference: "Simplified Grading Plan for: 1025 Arcadia Road, APN #258-274-25,"
2 sheets, DWG No. 494-SG, No job No., undated, by Pasco Engineering.
Dear Ms. Radakovich:
This report presents a summary of the geotechnical testing and observation services
provided by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) during grading. Earthwork commenced
January 17, 2008, and was generally completed for the subject site on January 23, 2008.
Survey of line and grade was performed by others and not performed by GSI. GSI was
onsite part-time during rough grading operations, as solely determined by the
client/contractor.
Based on the observations and testing performed by GSI, it is our opinion that the removal
of soil stockpile was generally performed to the former,underlying ground surface,and fills
placed in former"cut"areas are adequately compacted and suitable for their intended use
to "restore" the area to a former configuration in a "non-structural" area of the site, as
shown on the above Reference.
PURPOSE OF EARTHWORK
The purpose of grading was to restore a previously graded area at the subject site to its
"pre-graded"configuration. This included the removal of stockpiled fill soils from a former
slope area and the placement of compacted fill within areas of former "cut," or
"excavation."
Typical cut and fill grading operations were performed to restore the area to near its
previous configuration. The general limits of site earthwork are shown on the 10-scale
grading plan, prepared by Pasco Engineering (see the Reference).
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
Preparation of Existing Ground
1. Prior to grading, the major surficial vegetation was stripped and hauled offsite.
2. Removals consisted of existing fills located within the eastern portion of the
"proposed limits of grading" (see the Reference). Removals were completed to the
former ground surface, as identified by a layer of buried vegetation and topsoil.
2. Areas to receive fill were observed to expose suitable formational soil (sandstone)
and were scarified to a depth of about 6 to 12 inches, brought to at least optimum
moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent
of the laboratory standard.
3. Deleterious trash and other unsuitable debris encountered during grading were
exported from the site.
Fill Placement
Within non-structural areas, fill, consisting of onsite and import soils, was placed in 6- to
8-inch lifts,moisture conditioned,mixed to achieve near optimum moisture conditions,and
compacted using earth moving equipment to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent
of the laboratory standard (see attached Field Testing Reports). The approximate range
in fill thickness ranged from approximately 1 to 2 feet. Oversize material, greater than
12 inches in diameter, was generally not encountered nor placed onsite.
Slopes
The buried natural slope, exposed during the removal of the overlying fill stockpile, is on
the order of ±10 feet in height, and at approximate gradients ranging from 2:1 (horizontal
to vertical [h:v]) to 1.5:1 (h:v). An analysis of slope stability was not provided, nor
requested, by this office. Relatively loose and granular soils were observed on the slope
face, and the slope is considered susceptible to surficial erosion and/or shallow slope
failure (i.e., slumps, pop-outs, etc.). The slope should be treated in accordance with the
City of Encinitas guidelines for erosion control and landscaping, and as recommended in
a later section of this report.
FIELD TESTING
1. Field density tests were performed using nuclear (densometer) ASTM test
methods D-2922 and D-3017. The test results taken during grading operations are
presented in the attached field testing reports.
Ms.Saika Radakovich W.O. 5575-B-SC
1025 Arcadia Road, Encinitas February 4, 2008
File:e:\wp9\5500\5575b.gro Page 2
GeoSoiils, Inc.
2. Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and random locations to check
the compactive effort provided by the contractor. Based upon the grading
operations observed, the test results presented herein are considered
representative of the fill.
3. Visual classification of the soils in the field was the basis for determining which
maximum density value to use for a given density test.
4. Testing was provided on a part-time basis during grading, as solely determined by
the contractor/client.
LABORATORY TESTING
Maximum Density Testing
The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type
within this construction phase were determined according to test method ASTM D-1557.
The following table presents the results:
MAXIMUM MOISTURE
DENSITY CONTENT
SOIL TYPE PC (PERCENT)
A-SILTY SAND, Dark Yellowish Brown (Native) 126.0 11.0
B-SILTY SAND, Gray Brown (Import) 121.5 12.0
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Drainage
Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of
adverse performance of foundations, hardscape,and slopes. Surface drainage should be
sufficient to prevent ponding of water anywhere on a lot,and especially near structures and
tops of slopes. Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during
fine grading,landscaping,and building construction. Therefore,care should be taken that
future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions.
Positive site drainage within lots and common areas should be provided and maintained
at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water
should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the
ground. In general, the area within 5 feet around a structure should slope away from the
structure. We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum
gradient of 1 percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be
Ms.Saika Radakovich W.O. 5575-13-SC
1025 Arcadia Road, Encinitas February 4, 2008
Fi1e:e:\wp9\5500\5575b.gro Page 3
GeoSoiils, Inc.
above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of
planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Pad drainage should be
directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical
requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized to
control roof drainage. Down spouts,or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet
from structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due
to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen
this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect
could be provided upon request.
Erosion Control
Exposed graded surfaces will be subject to surficial erosion during and after grading.
Onsite earth materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Consideration should
be given to providing hay bales and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water,
from a geotechnical viewpoint.
Landscape Maintenance
Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided.
Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site improvements. We
would recommend that any proposed open-bottom planters adjacent to proposed
structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative,
closed-bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the
planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete
flatwork. If planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the
planter should be provided with a moisture barrier to prevent penetration of irrigation water
into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the
planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters.
Graded slope areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration
should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface
improvements (i.e., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive
root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for
establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding
amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction.
Subsurface and Surface Water
Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that
the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and
construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated
into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting
permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor
Ms. Saika Radakovich W.O. 5575-B-SC
1025 Arcadia Road, Encinitas February 4, 2008
Fi1e:e:\wp9\5500\5575b.gro Page 4
GeoSoils, Inc.
drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should perched
groundwater conditions develop,this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide
the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions.
Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other
factors.
Site Improvements
If in the future, any additional improvements (e.g., pools, spas, etc.) are planned for the
site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and
construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. Pools and/or spas
should not be constructed without specific design and construction recommendations from
GSI. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or
trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading,
utility trench and retaining wall backfilis, flatwork, etc.
Additional Grading
This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of
the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes
completion of grading in the street, driveway approaches, driveways, parking areas, and
utility trench and retaining wall backfills.
LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed
representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between
excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site
conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors.
Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory
data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions
have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty,
either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time.
GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their
inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our
recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an
agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding
any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to
review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of
services for this portion of the project. All samples will be disposed of after 30 days, unless
specifically requested by the client, in writing.
Ms.Saika Radakovich W.O. 5575-B-SC
1025 Arcadia Road, Encinitas February 4, 2008
Fi1e:e:\wp9\5500\5575b.gro Page 5
GeoSoiiis, Inc.
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Respectfully submitt �55\ONA c4Fo` oQ�,oFESSloNf
GeoSoils, Inc. o 9ioc ���w W std` Fyn
o
No. 1934 � '
Certified
Engineering o. RCE 4.7857 0
Geologist vV EXp, �� k
2 ((///mow•
Robert G. Crisman 9TFOF cA��F°Q David W. Skelly crv%%_
Engineering Geologist, 34 Civil Engineer, RCE 4 r OF CAS-CFO
RCG/DWS/JPF/jk
Attachment: Field Testing Reports
Distribution: (4) Addressee
Ms. Saika Radakovich W.O. 5575-B-SC
1025 Arcadia Road, Encinitas February 4, 2008
File:e:\wp9\5500\5575b.gro Page 1
GeoSoils, Inc.
y
FIELD TESTING REPORT
w.o. 5's-7s--/7
DATE
NAME
HOURS
CLIENT A;4L4A'�"IC-14 -TRACTA1LCA814 LOCATION �s,�` ✓` ! C
SUPT. CONTRACTOR
EQUIPMENT
TEST ELEV. MOISTURE DRY % TEST SOIL
NO. LOCATION OR CONTENT DENSITY RELATIVE TYPE TYPE
DEPTH % P.C.F. COMPACTION
i-7r G;
o �
Jv el^
—l✓•-" 1 f' aye-•-•�.._ �;,KS _. a!-r G'-„/ r � P ` t�> r .7
Z t`•rr' ---• �-. ` ev'°I - c' -• �/`L !iti.�'�'.. G / _i.. t �..1(T
�''"i? A•`Ci�1��Lr•S!° -'1.-..._.� "7"'-�� U {fin.P r `,./t.� -.• �Gt�i"�,t"C..-• � ����.2.. 71/"t r
COMMENTS:
Geosolls, lnc.
BY:
PAGE OF
E:/wp/forms/fieldtst.wpd
FIELD TESTING REPORT
W.O.
DATE s-- f - Ef
NAME_ {�t•�d "
HOURS .
CLIENT LA k� '� '� � TRACT A q (A -4 LOCATION f ,12C'nJ t t it
SUPT. CONTRACTOR
EQUIPMENT lPe;
TEST ELEV. MOISTURE DRY % TEST SOIL
NO. LOCATION OR CONTENT DENSITY RELATIVE TYPE TYPE
DEPTH % P.C.F. COMPACTION
01"• PFA
COMMENTS:
GeOSoils, Iita
PAGE ;� OF
This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc.personnel.Our work does not include
supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor,his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed
that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way
for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project.
FIELD TESTING REPORT
r
W.O. ; = -
DATE i— 1 �-0
NAME 3-V v�l
HOURS 2 -(
CLIENT AAA 2-� ICIL TRACT IS -A \,6 LOCATION ""�
SUPT. / CONTRACTOR
EQUIPMENT
TEST ELEV. MOISTURE DRY % TEST SOIL
NO. LOCATION OR CONTENT DENSITY RELATIVE TYPE TYPE
DEPTH % P.C.F. COMPACTION
Ord t�St�
f
r f
�`.f � 9'�� �` �'`�� �'t ,�..:��;C;1:�3 •j f yam:� .�� h�¢y.�`:�" �-. F'�
F—A . - W _ t 6-AJ i P,,h,v c t c= °.,f'�4
iN
it o
COMMENTS:
GeosoHs, Inc.
BY:
PAGE OF
This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel.Our work does not include
supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed
that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way
for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project.
FIELD TESTING REPORT
W.0.
DATE 1-'73 -
NAME : V r4
HOURS 1 Z)
4 ,'��..0��:1�•,A 1 f I•^.� 3 t
CLIENT try. TRACT LOCATION f- "� F�.
-�
SUPT. r CONTRACTOR
EQUIPMENT
TEST ELEV. MOISTURE DRY % TEST SOIL
NO. LOCATION OR CONTENT DENSITY RELATIVE TYPE TYPE
DEPTH % P.C.F. COMPACTION
-4-
l A
r'J t
_ p r
t i! '� L 1 F�, ',`".�;,;��, ./.r �'f-. .Ems-( "s �, '/r r� �•,..�'•,:'`� --
COMMENTS:
Geosorls, Inc.
PAGE OF
This field report presents a summary of observations and testing by Geosoils, Inc. personnel.Our work does not include
supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees, or agents. The Contractor should be informed
that neither the presence of our field representative, nor the observation and testing by our firm, shall excuse him in any way
for defects discovered in his work.It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project.
CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ACTIVITY REPORT
DATE:
PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER:
STREET LOCATION• PERMIT NUMBER:
CONTRACTOR: 'TELEPHONE:
/z .� o�¢- �Co,J � ��'��,►-�_ .4 T ��.s r �1,e J;c� 5��t,�r� .S i�r�if
,l T
r'L,vie c(,a t �i �c t-f! -5-f T� /�'��4C-�
AS F7cL xa
-- _7aN t��C� L�lY�7L Ste(f,2C E G° lil►/.d�2 T C! ''��
<:r SI7CC_ /1lF 7 S (�clS 4-1— G�U i `7✓
y /M c_7Q-�J•nrn� -
c en It eaeS- :5q23 c g dec/ n s r i ^-jic u T" Lol�lSf�Sc t&,
st l e" '7TH G.q-ncS $`f-Cc ,i AJ(� "-p3 rLoc-a a
/13 .
m14429
PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. WAYNE A. PASCO
R.C.E.29577
535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A JOSEPH YUHAS
1z SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 P.L.S.5211
(858) 259-8212
FAX (858) 259-4812 W.JUSTIN SUITER
R.C.E.68964
January 29, 2008 PE 923
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 S. Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
RE: ENGINEER'S PAD CERTIFICATION FOR (494-SG)
To Whom It May Concern:
As the surveyor for the subject project, I hereby state that the grading under permit no.
494-SG has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan
according to the requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. Certification
was performed on January 29, 2008.
If you have any questions in regards to the above, please do not hesitate to contact this
office.
Very Truly Yours,
PASCO ENGINEERING,INC.
Joseph Yuhas L.S. 5211